3. PETITIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE
AS LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR HILLSIDE GARDENS AND CORE AREA IN THE VILLAGE OF MANOTICK

PÉTITIONS POUR L’INSTALLATION D’UNE INFRASTRUCTURE D’ÉGOUTs
ÉPARATIFS EN TANT QU’AMÉLIORATIONS LOCALES POUR HILLSIDE GARDENS
ET LE secteur CENTRAL DU VILLAGE DE MANOTICK

Committee RecommendationS as amended

That Council approve:

1. The construction of sanitary sewer infrastructure to and within Hillside Gardens on Long Island in the Village of Manotick, subject to approval of a By-Law to undertake the work as a Local Improvement in accordance with the Municipal Act;

2. A By-Law to undertake the construction of sanitary sewer infrastructure to the Core Area on the mainland of the Village of Manotick, subject to approval of a By-Law to undertake the work as a Local Improvement in accordance with the Municipal Act;

3. That staff proceed, to acquire the land required for the main pumping station and related pipe works, including expropriation if required, and;

4. That City staff be directed to submit a request for funding under the Building Canada Fund to both the Provincial and Federal governments immediately so that an application by the City could be considered as soon as the funding becomes available and that this application should focus on water and wastewater projects Citywide in areas that are not currently served with water or sewer infrastructure; and that the funding, if provided, should be used to offset both the resident's portion required through the local improvement charge and the City's portion of costs for future servicing areas, at the same percentage.

RecommandationS modifiées du comité

Que le Conseil approuve :

1. La construction d’une infrastructure d’égouts séparatifs desservant et raccordant aux services municipaux Hillside Gardens sur l’île de Long Island, village de Manotick, sous réserve de l’approbation d’un règlement permettant d’entreprendre les travaux en tant qu’amélioration locale aux termes de la Loi sur les municipalités;

2. Un règlement pour la construction de l’infrastructure d’égouts séparatifs du secteur central du village de Manotick, sous réserve de l’approbation d’un règlement permettant d’entreprendre les travaux en tant qu’amélioration locale aux termes de la Loi sur les municipalités;

3. Que le personnel procède à l’acquisition, y compris, le cas échéant, à l’expropriation des terrains requis pour la station de pompage principale et les travaux de canalisation connexes, and;

4. Que le personnel de la Ville reçoive instruction de soumettre immédiatement une demande aux gouvernements fédéral et provincial dans le cadre du Fonds Chantiers Canada, de façon que la demande de la Ville d’Ottawa puisse être étudiée dès que les crédits seront disponibles; cette demande devra mettre l’accent sur des projets d’aqueduc et d’égouts devant être réalisés à la grandeur de la ville dans les secteurs ne possédant pas d’infrastructure d’aqueduc et d’égouts; les éventuels fonds devront servir à compenser, dans des pourcentages égaux, la contribution actuellement exigée des résidents par le biais des redevances d’aménagement local et la contribution de la Ville aux coûts de viabilisation futurs.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report (Public Works and Services) dated 12 March 2008 (ACS2008-PWS-INF-0001).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 31 March 2008.

Report to/Rapport au :

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

12 March 2008 / le 12 mars 2008

Submitted by/Soumis par: R.G. Hewitt,

Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint,

Public Works and Services / Services et Travaux publics

Contact Person / Personne ressource : Wayne Newell, Director / Directeur

Infrastructure Services / Services d’infrastructure

(613) 580-2424 x16002, Wayne.Newell@ottawa.ca

Rideau-Goulbourn (21)

Ref N°: ACS2008-PWS-INF-0001

SUBJECT:	PETITIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE AS LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR HILLSIDE GARDENS AND CORE AREA IN THE VILLAGE OF MANOTICK

OBJET :	PÉTITIONS POUR L’INSTALLATION D’UNE INFRASTRUCTURE D’ÉGOUTs SÉPARATIFS EN TANT QU’AMÉLIORATIONS LOCALES POUR HILLSIDE GARDENS ET LE secteur CENTRAL DU VILLAGE DE MANOTICK

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve:

3. That staff proceed, to acquire the land required for the main pumping station and related pipe works, including expropriation if required.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales recommande au Conseil d’approuver :

3. Que le personnel procède à l’acquisition, y compris, le cas échéant, à l’expropriation des terrains requis pour la station de pompage principale et les travaux de canalisation connexes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Analysis

There is significant background and history regarding the extension of central sewer and water servicing to the Village of Manotick through previous reports to Committee and Council. Council supported a gradual transition from private individual services to central services, front-ending the costs by the City with recovery over time from existing and future development areas as Local Improvement works upon approval by Council.

As a result of significant community effort, two separate petitions for the installation of sanitary sewer infrastructure as Local Improvement works for Hillside Gardens and the Core Area have been submitted and certified by the City Clerk as sufficiently signed pursuant to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 586/06 of Municipal Act 2001. Subject to Council approval, the project will proceed to construction.

Construction is tentatively scheduled to start late in 2008. Three (3) separate tenders will be issued to undertake the sanitary servicing in Hillside Gardens, in the Core Area, and for the force mains, pumping station and trunk servicing external to the priority areas. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 18 months to complete. Preparation of the special assessment roll, the Committee of Revision process and the levy of final charges are expected to occur approximately 6 months after completion of construction.

Consultation

Extensive consultation was undertaken in 2002 and 2003 during the Village of Manotick Servicing Master Plan and Trunk Services Concept Study (2003) (Ref. No: ACS2003-DEV-POL-0031). From 2005 to 2007, consultation focused on Council’s 2005 direction to complete the detailed design for the priority areas of Hillside Gardens and the Core Area and facilitate the Local Improvement petition process.

The Notices of Intent regarding passage of Local Improvement By-Laws and the presentation of a report to the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee was mailed to all affected property owners. Notices also appeared in the Manotick Messenger, The Citizen and Le Droit.

Financial Implications

The Draft 2008 Water and Wastewater Capital Budget identifies funding to implement the Local Improvement works in Hillside Gardens and the Core Area. The project budget includes funding for the coordinated rehabilitation of existing roads, sidewalks and localized improvements to existing surface drainage systems in both priority areas as well as replacement of the existing water mains in Hillside Gardens.

The total estimated cost for the Local Improvement works is $26.96M with $12.06M applicable to the petition areas and the balance of $14.90M to be recovered from future servicing areas. Based on the $12.06M applicable to the petition areas, the City and non-City share is $6.165M and $5.895M, respectively.

Once commissioned, the cost to operate and maintain the new sewer works associated with the petitioned areas is approximately $300,000 annually. When the new system is in service, the existing local treatment facility serving Village Walk will be decommissioned. The net annual costs of approximately $250,000 to operate and maintain the on-site treatment facility will no longer be incurred. Therefore, once the new system is operational (approx. 2010) the total net additional annual cost to operate and maintain the sewer works for the petitioned areas will be approximately $50,000.

When the new system is commissioned, and as individual site and property connections are confirmed through the permitting process, sewer surcharge levies will be applied to customers as part of the City’s standard billing practices to provide for the ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the City-owned infrastructure.

RÉSUMÉ

Analyse

Des rapports présentés antérieurement au Comité et au Conseil ont très bien documenté le contexte et l’historique du prolongement des services centraux d'eau et d'égouts jusqu'au village de Manotick. Le Conseil a appuyé une transition graduelle des services privés individuels à des services centraux, la Ville assumant les coûts au départ pour les recouvrer par la suite dans les zones déjà aménagées et celles qui le seront dans le futur, au titre des travaux d’amélioration locale, sous réserve de l’approbation du Conseil.

À la suite d’importants efforts communautaires, deux pétitions distinctes pour l’installation d’une infrastructure d’égouts séparatifs en tant qu’amélioration locale pour Hillside Gardens et le secteur central ont été soumises et certifiées par le greffier municipal comme portant un nombre suffisant de signatures en vertu des dispositions du Règlement de l’Ontario 586/06 pris en application de la Loi sur les municipalités de 2001. Sous réserve de l’approbation de Conseil, les travaux de construction iront de l’avant.

Le début du projet est prévu pour la fin de 2008. Trois appels d’offres distincts seront émis pour la viabilisation de services sanitaires à Hillside Garden, dans le secteur central ainsi que pour les conduites de refoulement, la station de pompage et le réseau d’égouts collecteurs à l’extérieur des zones prioritaires. La construction devrait durer environ 18 mois. La préparation du rôle d’évaluation spécial, le processus du Comité de révision et le recouvrement des dernières redevances devraient avoir lieu environ six mois après la fin de la construction.

Consultation

Une vaste consultation a été réalisée en 2002 et 2003 au titre du Plan directeur sur le raccordement de Manotick aux services municipaux et étude de concept sur le réseau d'égouts collecteurs (2003) (Réf. n^o ACS2003-DEV-POL-0031). De 2005 à 2007, la consultation a mis l’accent sur la directive de 2005 du Conseil de concevoir de façon détaillée des services pour les secteurs prioritaires de Hillside Gardens et du secteur central et de faciliter le processus de pétition en vue d’une amélioration locale.

Les avis d’intention concernant l’adoption d’un règlement sur l’amélioration locale et la présentation d’un rapport au Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales ont été envoyés à tous les propriétaires concernés et publiés dans le Manotick Messenger, The Citizen et Le Droit.

Répercussions financières

Le Projet de budget de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations 2008 financés par les tarifs d’eau et d’eaux usées indique le financement des travaux d’amélioration locale dans Hillside Gardens et le secteur central. Le budget du projet prévoit le financement de l’amélioration coordonnée de la chaussée et des trottoirs existants ainsi que des améliorations locales des systèmes d’écoulement des eaux de surface dans les deux secteurs prioritaires et le remplacement de la conduite maîtresse dans Hillside Gardens.

Le coût total des travaux au titre de l’amélioration locale est évalué à 26 960 000 $ dont 12 060 000 $ pour les secteurs visés par les pétitions; les 14 900 000 $ restant devant être recouvrés auprès de secteurs viabilisés dans le futur. Sur les 12 060 000 $ applicables aux secteurs visés par la pétition, la part de la Ville est de 6 165 000 $, le reste représentant 5 895 000 $.

Une fois en service, l’exploitation et l’entretien du nouveau réseau d’égouts des secteurs visés par les pétitions coûteront environ 300 000 $ par année. Une fois le nouveau système en service, l’installation de traitement qui dessert actuellement Village Walk sera mise hors service. Le coût annuel net, d’environ 250 000 $, pour l’exploitation et l’entretien de l’installation de traitement sur place n’aura plus à être assumé. Par conséquent, une fois le nouveau système opérationnel (en 2010 à peu près), le coût net total additionnel de l’exploitation et de l’entretien de l’égout des secteurs visés sera d’environ 50 000 $.

Une fois le nouveau système en fonction et les branchements individuels des sites et des propriétés confirmés, par l’intermédiaire du processus de délivrance des permis, les redevances supplémentaires d’égout seront prélevées auprès des clients selon les pratiques de facturation standard de la Ville pour assurer l’exploitation, l’entretien, la réparation et le remplacement de l’infrastructure lui appartenant.

BACKGROUND

The Village of Manotick is currently serviced through a combination of central water servicing in Hillside Gardens and the Core Area, private individual wells in the balance of the Village and private septic systems throughout the Village. There is significant background and history regarding the extension of central sewer and water servicing to the Village of Manotick through previous reports to Committee and Council. The following summary of the most recent approved directions is intended to provide context to the purpose of this report:

· In 2001, the new City of Ottawa readopted the Official Plan Amendments (Local Amendment No. 3 and Regional Amendment No. 22) that established policy for the gradual transition to central water and sanitary sewer servicing for the Village of Manotick.

· In 2002, the Village of Manotick Servicing Master Plan and Trunk Services Concept Study was undertaken to develop phasing and cost estimates for the extension of central services for the Village of Manotick. This was completed in accordance with the objectives and the preferred servicing concept that evolved over the previous thirteen years. In June 2003, Council approved the Village of Manotick Servicing Master Plan and Trunk Services Concept Study recommendations (Ref No: ACS2003-DEV-POL-0031). The report addressed planning approvals, evaluation of alternative servicing technologies, servicing planning, design basis and recommended central sanitary sewer and water servicing for the Village of Manotick. This approval resulted in an action plan directing staff to work with the Manotick Master Plan Working Group, established by the community, to address outstanding issues coming out of the study before undertaking any substantive work on design.

· In 2005, staff submitted a report on the Extension of Central Wastewater Collection System to the Village of Manotick (Ref. No: ACS2005-PGM-POL-0037). The report addressed community consultation, review of alternative technologies and proceeding with the design in advance of a Local Improvement Petition. In July 2005, the following staff recommendations were approved by Council:

1. To proceed with detailed design for trunk wastewater services to service the Village and local sanitary sewers for the priority areas of Hillside Gardens and the Core Area; and,

2. That staff facilitate community preparation of a Local Improvement petition.

Previous reports considered by Committee and Council supported a gradual transition from private individual services to central services, the City front-ending the costs with recovery over time, from both existing properties and future development, and implementation as Local Improvement works upon approval by Council.

Since the July 2005 Council approval, the detailed design has been substantially completed for the force main and pumping station, trunk wastewater services to the Village and the local sanitary sewers for the priority areas of Hillside Gardens and the Core Area. Petitions meeting the minimum sufficiency requirements have also been filed for both areas. This report is intended to seek approval from Committee and Council to proceed with the construction and cost recovery for the sanitary sewer works necessary to service the priority areas.

DISCUSSION

Basis of Design for Proposed Works

The design of the sanitary sewer works to service the Hillside Gardens and Core priority areas includes:

· A main sewage pumping station and force mains along Rideau Valley Drive and Jockvale Road, which will be connected to the central sewage system.

· Trunk and local sanitary sewers within the Hillside Gardens and Core Areas.

The sanitary sewer system has been designed to accommodate the servicing of existing developed and undeveloped lands within the Village of Manotick, as shown on Attachment 1. Capacity of the sanitary sewer system is based on the expected wastewater flow rate from the entire Village within the public service area at build-out.

The preliminary design was presented to the community in December of 2006. As part of the final design process, the Rideau River crossing and pump station locations have been moved further south, with the pumping station being located south of Mud Creek. This was done to mitigate challenging soil conditions in portions of the project limits that were unknown at the preliminary design stage. Land acquisition for the new pump station site is underway and will be finalized subject to Council approval. Affected residents are being notified of the changes.

As part of the construction of the new local sanitary sewers, the intent is to coordinate the rehabilitation of existing roads and undertake drainage improvements in both priority areas as well as water main replacements in Hillside Gardens. Once the new system is in service, the existing local treatment facility serving Village Walk will be decommissioned and the collection system will be connected to central servicing. The City will fund the costs associated with these works.

Local Improvement Petitions

Further to Council direction in 2005, staff facilitated community petitions in conjunction with the design process for the two priority areas of Hillside Gardens and the Core Area. The petition process was undertaken in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City’s Local Improvement Policy, approved by Council in 2005 (Ref. No: ACS2006-PWS-INF-0001). This was a community driven process. Staff facilitated the process by defining the serviceable area and petition limits, preparing cost estimates for the work, defining City and owner share of costs, attending information sessions and ultimately preparing the petition documents and individual property owner information packages once lead petitioners confirmed a desire to proceed.

To be successful a petition requires support of two thirds of the property owners representing 50% of the value of all lands in the petition area. To proceed to implementation, a By-Law approved by Council is required confirming the works are to proceed with cost recovery from the benefiting property owners in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001.

The petition limits for the two priority areas were defined to generally coincide with the limits of the areas currently serviced or serviceable with municipal water, where densities are higher and where interest for sanitary sewers has been most prevalent.

As a result of significant community effort, two separate petitions for the installation of sanitary sewer infrastructure as Local Improvements in Hillside Gardens and the Core Area have been submitted and certified by the City Clerk as sufficiently signed pursuant to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 586/06 of Municipal Act 2001. The works petitioned meet the objective of the recommended servicing alternative approved by Council as part of the Village of Manotick Servicing Master Plan and Trunk Services Concept Study (Ref. No: ACS2003-DEV-POL-0031) that identified connecting the Village to the central system, providing capacity for the entire Village, allowing for gradual extension and initially servicing both or either of the priority areas.

1. Hillside Gardens Petition

The development of the petition limits for the Hillside Gardens Area generally took into account those properties within the Public Service Area, properties that currently abut or have access to existing public water mains and properties that could be served by gravity sewer mains without the need for a secondary public pumping station. The limits were modified in consultation with the community leads, representatives from the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board and City staff to allow servicing of the St. Leonard Catholic School. The adjusted limits reflect the final boundary of the Local Improvement petition.

The petition documents were certified by the City Clerk on 16 October 2007 as having been sufficiently signed by 72% of property owners representing 73% of the assessed value of all properties in the petition area.

2. Core Area Petition

The development of the petition limits for the Core Area generally took into account those properties within the Public Service Area, properties that currently abut or have access to existing public water mains and properties that could be served by gravity sewer mains without the need for a secondary pumping station. Slight modifications to the fringe of the service area were requested by various sections of the community and defined by the lead community petitioner through consultation and written documentation of support from those affected by the change. Staff accepted these modifications and the adjusted limits reflect the final boundary of the Local Improvement petition. The existing Village Walk development has already been serviced and benefiting owners previously assessed the costs of the work. As such, it is excluded from the petition area.

The City Clerk certified the petition documents on 12 October 2007 as having been sufficiently signed by 67% of property owners representing 75% of the assessed value of all properties in the petition area.

Next Steps

Subject to Committee and Council approval, the project will proceed to construction. Construction is tentatively scheduled to start late in 2008. Three (3) separate tenders will be issued to undertake the sanitary servicing in Hillside Gardens, in the Core Area, and for the force mains, pumping station and trunk servicing external to the priority areas. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 18 months to complete.

Preparation of the special assessment roll, the Committee of Revision process and the levy of final charges are expected to occur approximately 6 months after the end of construction.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Previous reports to Committee and Council addressed overall environmental issues. The report on Extension of Central Wastewater Collection System to the Village of Manotick (Ref. No: ACS2005-PGM-POL-0037) approved by Council in 2005, identified that eventual servicing of the Village of Manotick will improve local groundwater and surface waters, including water quality in the Rideau River.

CONSULTATION

Manotick Servicing Master Plan and Trunk Services Concepts Study

Extensive consultation took place between January of 2002 and March of 2003 during the preparation of the Village of Manotick Servicing Master Plan and Trunk Services Concept Study (Ref. No: ACS2003-DEV-POL-0031). The process included a Public Liaison Committee (PLC) representing Manotick stakeholders to help ensure that information provided was timely and easily understood, a general public information meeting and three public open houses. In response to concerns expressed by the community, Council further directed staff to work with the Manotick Master Plan Working Group, established by the community, to address outstanding issues coming out of the 2002 study before undertaking any substantive work on detailed design. A second round of meetings and discussions with the Manotick Community Associations and the Manotick Central Servicing Committee between April 2003 and April 2005 formed the basis of the report on Extension of Central Wastewater Collection System to the Village of Manotick (Ref. No: ACS2005-PGM-POL-0037) approved by Council in 2005. Information and document access were provided throughout the process on the City’s website.

Detailed Design and Local Improvement Petition Processes

Between August of 2005 and June 2007, consultation was focused on Council’s 2005 direction to complete the detailed design for the priority areas of Hillside Gardens and the Core Area and to facilitate preparation of Local Improvement petitions. The process included additional meetings with the community leads and open house information sessions for the petition areas. Presentation material and information specific to the petition areas were made available on the City’s website.

The legislation governing the Local Improvement process requires that notice be provided to both the affected property owners and the general public in advance of the meeting to consider the petitions. Copies of the Notice of Intent were mailed to all affected property owners and also appeared in the February 2008 editions of the Manotick Messenger, The Citizen and Le Droit.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

Servicing of the priority areas of Hillside Gardens and the Core Area is consistent with the Secondary Plan approved by the former Township of Rideau and subsequently adopted into the City’s Official Plan following amalgamation.

While some residents believe that central servicing could lead to unmanaged growth and that a treatment solution in the Village could avoid this situation, this is not the case. The sanitary sewer system to service the Village of Manotick is being designed to accommodate expected growth over the long term, which will be limited based on policies within the Official Plan and more specifically, the Secondary Plan for the Village of Manotick.

The majority of property owners in the priority areas have supported the implementation of municipal servicing through the Local Improvement process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Capital Costs

Funding has previously been approved in the 2002, 2003 and 2006 Capital Budgets to undertake various planning studies and the detailed design of the sanitary sewer system to service the priority areas of Hillside Gardens and the Core Area (Order No. 901152). The estimated cost to undertake the detailed design is approximately $3.25M.

The Draft 2008 Water and Wastewater Capital Budget identifies additional funding in the amount of $29.81M to implement the works as Local Improvements. Included in the amount is funding for the coordinated rehabilitation of existing roads, sidewalks and localized improvements to existing surface drainage systems in both priority areas as well as replacement of the existing water mains in Hillside Gardens. The estimated cost of coordinated rehabilitation work is $6.1M and will be funded 100% by the City.

The total estimated cost for the Local Improvement works is $26.96M and is broken down as follows:

	Total costs ($‘000)	Current Petition Areas			Future Areas
	Total costs ($‘000)	Hillside	Core	Total	Future Areas
Pump Station, force mains, trunk pipes and shared collectors through petition areas	$20,770	$1,800	$4,065	$5,865	$14,905
Collection pipes and service connections exclusively for petition areas	$6,195	$2,690	$3,505	$6,195
	$26,965	$4,490	$7,570	$12,060	$14,905

The amount related to the “Future Areas” will be recovered over time as additional areas with the Public Service Area request to be connected to central services. The City and non-City (or owners) shares of the $12.06M related to the “Current Petition Areas” is as follows:

	Non-City/ Owner*	City	Total ($’000)
Hillside Gardens	$2,520	$1,970	$4,490
Core Area	$3,375	$4,195	7,570
	$5,895	$6,165	$12,060

* Based on the capped amount provided as part of the petition processes.

In Hillside Gardens, over 95% of the properties will be assessed costs under $15,000 with the majority in the $10,000 to $12,500 range. In the Core Area, given the commercial nature of the area, there is more variability in the assessed costs with over 80% of the properties in the $10,000 to $30,000 range.

Once finalized, all the charges are set by By-Law and levied on the tax bill. The City allows the full charge for a property to be paid without carrying charges in a lump sum amount before the charge against the property comes into effect. Otherwise the property owner will be required to pay the charge, with carrying charges, in equal annual instalments through the tax bill over a period of 20 years.

The City’s share of the “Current Petition Areas” is defined based on the following factors:

· Cost certainty provisions at the time of petitioning;

· Cost of the work incurred at street intersections;

· City-owned parcels within the petition areas;

· Reductions to specific properties that are anticipated to be delivered a reduced level of service relative to others (subject to review if conditions change);

· Costs related to the decommissioning of the Village Walk on-site treatment facility;

· Reductions to specific properties that are currently considered non-buildable (subject to review if conditions change).

Property owners require certainty with respect to the financial commitment to formulate a decision on the petitioned work. The Local Improvement Policy assists in this regard by allowing staff to set the owner’s share at a capped amount based on estimates in advance of petitioned works. This allows the amounts to be clearly identified in petition documents circulated to private property owners for their consideration.

Since the time the estimates were prepared for the petitions, the final design has been substantially completed. The most recent estimates for the work include provisions necessary to mitigate challenging soil conditions in portions of the project limits that were unknown at the preliminary design stage. Adjustments have been made to account for anticipated price escalation since 2006 through to project completion. This represents approximately $3.7M of the City’s share of the cost for the “Current Petition Areas” based on updated estimates. This amount will be refined once contract prices are better defined.

Operating Budget Implications

Once commissioned, the cost to operate and maintain the new sewer works associated with the petitioned areas is estimated at $300,000 annually. This amount includes $140,000 for costs related to the sewers, pumping station and force mains and $160,000 for treatment costs at the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC).

When the existing local treatment facility serving Village Walk is decommissioned and its collection system connected to central servicing, the net annual costs of approximately $250,000 to operate and maintain the on-site treatment facility will no longer be incurred.

When the new system is commissioned, and as individual connections are confirmed through the permitting process, sewer surcharge levies will be applied to customers as part of the City’s standard billing practices to provide for the ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the City-owned infrastructure.

In summary, once the system is operational (approx. 2010) and the Village Walk on-site treatment facility is decommissioned, the total net additional annual operating cost to operate and maintain the central servicing for the petitioned areas will be approximately $50,000.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Attachment 1 – Reference Sketch

DISPOSITION

Legal Services will finalize the By-Laws for the petition areas for approval by Council.

Infrastructure Services will undertake the construction of sanitary sewer infrastructure to service Hillside Gardens and the Core Area as Local Improvements.

Attachment 1

Reference Sketch

PETITIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE AS LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR HILLSIDE GARDENS AND CORE AREA IN THE VILLAGE OF MANOTICK

PÉTITIONS POUR L’INSTALLATION D’UNE INFRASTRUCTURE D’ÉGOUTs SÉPARATIFS EN TANT QU’AMÉLIORATIONS LOCALES POUR HILLSIDE GARDENS ET LE secteur CENTRAL DU VILLAGE
DE MANOTICK

ACS2008-PWS-INF-0001 RIDEAU-GOULBOURN (21)

The Committee heard from the following list of delegations. A brief summary of their presentation is listed within the minutes. The verbal presentation of those delegations that provided written submissions has been briefly summarized as their documentation is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.

Delegations:

Sue McCulloch

Robert Henderson

Bruce Webster, President, The Rural Council of Ottawa Carleton

Jeff Turner

John Harrison

Noel Norenius, Manotick Community Association

Brian Grover

Doug Hardwick

Glen McCurdie

Brian Tansley, West Manotick Community Association

Richmond Wilson

Christopher Hawes

Brian Earl

Mr. Wayne Newell, Director, Infrastructure Services Branch, Public Works and Services Department (PWS) provided a PowerPoint presentation in which he reviewed the details of the above-noted report and the staff recommendations. He went into detail on the history of the area, the chronology of events and the petition process that took place over the many months preceding this meeting. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s question on research of alternative delivery, Mr. Newell stated that all options were examined and that the studies undertaken and analysis showed that the path forward was the conventional sanitary sewer system.

Councillor Hunter inquired what the City’s options were once presented with local improvement petition and certified by the clerk as valid. Mr. Tim Mark, Senior Legal Counsel stated that the Committee and Council has discretion to say “no” since it does have an impact on the capital budget. However, they may also say “yes” if see fit to proceed.

Councillor Hunter stated that in his 28 years on council he hasn’t dealt with many improvement petitions since most communities come on-line with servicing and when they did come up, they usually came with no costs to the City. However he found the funding for this one convoluted and wished more breakdown of costs. Mr. Newell agreed that local improvements have not come to Committee and Council often. The petition area represents 20% of overall area and when the petition began, the City gave a cost to the landowners. Since the start of that process, City costs increased due to tactical areas such as soil conditions. This resulted in the City picking up a higher share.

Councillor Brooks asked if staff have looked at the unsolicited proposal and done an analysis and “apples to apples” comparison? Mr. Newell confirmed they had. There had been recent extensive analysis done between conventional and small-bore systems. He stated that staff looked at two opportunities to being to comparable level and had done substantial work in the evaluation.

In response to Councillor Brooks’ question on if professional engineers and planners had done the work, Mr. Newell stated that yes, in-house staff of professional engineers and analysts and that staff sat down with the proponent and gone through details.

Councillor Thompson wondered if the decision on this project would be best done after the Minto appeal on the Mahogany Community. Mr. Newell stated that in their planning process and when designing a central system, they have to account for ultimate build out of area; combination of existing community and proposed development. They have allowed for full build out of future area in the design to service the whole area and future residents will have to fund their full share.

The Committee heard from the following public delegations:

Ms. Sue McCulloch, a resident whose property abuts the Hillside Gardens community, spoke to prepared statement and referred to map contained therein. A copy of her written submission is held on file with the City Clerk. The gist of her concern was why her property and the school were included in this petition area.

Chair Jellett inquired of staff why it was extended to include this property? He stated he could see the benefit for the school, but not necessarily for this one house. Mr. Newell stated that limits of the petition area are determined through close consultation with community and staff. The school was included in petition area itself and since the property in question’s sewer will abut property, in accordance with local regulations, if you abut to sewer, you do not have the option to opt out. Mr. Mark stated the school had signed the petition and if the Committee excludes this property then the school does not get the service.

Mr. Robert Henderson, a resident of Hillside Gardens stated that he was in favour of this project and staff’s recommendations. He stated that the lot sizes are quite small there is urban density with rural infrastructure that was approved 40 years ago. He stated that the rural infrastructure can’t handle water being processed in Hillside Gardens hence sewage contamination documented by numerous studies. He mentioned that it is the only area in Ottawa that has in Official Plan that there is sewage contamination. He said that the City has already invested upwards of $5 million in studies and now to determine whether to invest wisely or throw money out the door. The popular opinion in the community is that this is a zoning problem created by City 40 years ago and the City should pay. However, 72% of residents are willing to pay. He is asking the Committee to vote in favour to remove hazards.

Mr. Bruce Webster, President, Rural Council of Ottawa Carleton, spoke to prepared statement. A copy of his written submission is held on file with the City Clerk. His concern is not necessarily that this area needs servicing since it does but what type of service and for how much. He believes a treatment system can be put in cheaper an a better alternative is to delay decision on this until OMB hearing. City is too far in debt; believe new technology can save city significant money.

Councillor Brooks asked Mr. Webster if he had any engineering numbers to support what he had stated regarding the collector system and treatment. He wanted to know what numbers he had for piped system vs. collector system. Mr Webster gave the following numbers: pipe $12,500 plus pipe connection; $5,000 estimated digging, connection, etc…looking at least $4,800 (1974 numbers; likely tripled today); ends up costing $25-30 thousand prior to decommissioning septic system.

In response to Councillor Brooks’ question on the numbers for alternative delivery, Mr. Webster stated that he did not have the numbers for the unsolicited alternative. He said he has spoken with providers for alternate treatment systems such as an on-site treatment for 10,000 persons costing about $1 million. It is a small system that fits onto the back of a truck.

Councillor Brooks then asked for more information on the Village Walk system and if it’s only at 20% capacity why can’t it handle more. Mr. Dixon Weir, Director, Water and Wastewater Services stated that with the 36 months it’s been in operation, it has been out of compliance 7 out of 12 months in 2007 and all months in 2008. He said that from a hydraulic point of view there is capacity, but it cannot meet effluent criteria. This is what makes staff question its viability. Not near design capacity and is struggling to be in compliance with criteria as specified by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

Councillor El-Chantiry cited the example of alternate servicing strategies and technologies such as the proposal for Carp airport. If it works for Carp airport, why can’t we have a comparison for this project? Mr. Newell stated again that staff had done their analysis and undertaken assessments dealing with the proponents’ submission. When staff compare the two systems, which is also based on future growth, they have to design a system to allow for servicing of the entire area, realizing it is subject to future petitions. He stated that based on detailed analysis, they were confident there would be no cost savings to look at alternatives. They have undertaken analysis and stand by their recommendations. He went on to say that this project and Carp are different in surface areas; Carp is much smaller with space limitations. He stated that you cannot move unilaterally solutions that work in one area quickly into another as there are different demands, settings and geography.

Chair Jellett requested more information on the Village Walk and what would it take to bring it back to compliance? Mr. Weir stated that they were working with the operator and the MOE to help bring it back into compliance and no one has been able to identify what is required to bring into regular compliance.

Chair Jellett inquired that if could be brought into compliance, could it take the capacity of the village? Mr. Weir cautioned that if it’s not in compliance at 20% what would happen at 100%? This might be problematic.

Mr. Jeff Turner moved into Hillside Gardens 12 years ago. He stated that this problem goes back to the 1990’s and they have been involved in meetings with staff, councillors, etc. to find solutions to this problem. He said that you could smell septic at any time of year. They have people in community who can’t do laundry; septic systems won’t support the extra capacity; can’t flush toilets. He said that this is an area of clay and therefore poor drainage. They have waited a long time; they can’t landscape, can’t do laundry, and can’t do driveways. He said that this is not the time to test unproven technologies on their homes given the fragile environment; not fair. He asked the Committee to give this good consideration and that others with outside interests not be allowed to hinder something that they have to live with. Think it’s time to put this aside and move on. He said that digging could start as early as May 2008 but that going into further debate with further studies would be a waste of time and money; adding to peril of living in that neighbourhood. Consider yourselves living under those circumstances.

In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s question with regards to costs and if they outlined in letters Mr. Turner stated that a number of community members spent time on the petition, talked to a number of contractors and costs could go from $3,500 - $30,000 depending on individual needs.

Councillor Brooks wanted to be clear on his understanding of decommissioning of a septic tank; is it that you pull the lid off, fill with sand and put lid back on? Mr. Weir stated that he was not familiar with it and could only suggest that you puncture the bottom of tank so it drains. Mr. Newell stated that that work would not be city’s responsibility and varies with each site and depends on what you want to do with the property; has to be determined on case-by-case basis.

Mr. John Harrison, a resident of the core of Manotick, focused on the validity of the petition. He strongly feels that the petition was carefully calculated to win. He feels the BIA drove it and the local homeowner in the core did not have a real say. He states that the costs have skyrocketed and that the City has not planned for this. He commented that it did not make sense to run a pipe from Manotick to the Ottawa River. There are other issues and it is way too early to make a decision.

Councillor Brooks asked what his solution was since there were real problems that needed to be addressed immediately. Mr. Harrison said that the City should have proposals from staff for alternate proposals for sewage and then the citizens and the Councillors can see the comparisons and determine the environmental impacts.

Once again Councillor Brooks asked staff if real comparisons on costs were done. Mr. Newell once again reiterated that proper comparisons and analysis were done and staff stands by their recommendations.

Mr. Noel Norenius, a resident of Hillside Gardens since 1968, felt the problem faced by residents required immediate attention and resolution, and not deferral for future study. He felt the staff-proposed solution was the right one for the residents of Hillside Gardens, adding that this issue had been ongoing for the past five years, with all related public meetings, engineering studies, etc. concluding with the preferred solution of using regular piping to a regular treatment facility. He felt it would be unfair to residents to now entertain the possibility of exploring alternative technologies, and added that had the adverse weather during today’s meeting not been a factor, many more residents would have been in attendance to share similar feelings with the Committee. He disputed Mr. Webster’s views of using alternative technology serviced by the Manotick (Village Walk) plant, stating the plant in question was incapable of processing phosphate discharges, and which would be in contravention of Ministry of the Environment (MOE) directives were it to discharge phosphates into the Rideau River. In conclusion, Mr. Norenius emphasized that the community had fulfilled its part of the deal by having petitioned and voted for a sewer connection. He asked that the City now do its part by building it.

Mr. Brian Grover, a resident of the Manotick Core Area and supporter of the sewer petition, referred to a prepared statement which had previously been distributed to the Committee by e-mail, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. The following summarizes the main points raised at the meeting:

· The speaker is a strong proponent of improved sanitation in Manotick’s priority areas, noting continuing local growth will likely lead to further expansion of sewered areas;

· Alternative systems are available; i.e., Field (near North Bay), Wardsville (near London), designed by progressive Ottawa-based engineering consultants offering more choice, i.e., small-bore systems;

· Local treatment plants should serve local populations; pumping Manotick waste 50+ km to ROPEC is not a good idea; instead, a separate local system would be preferable, i.e., Village Walk plant in Manotick or elsewhere in the village;

· City engineering staff have not demonstrated to residents that realistic, lower cost options for local sewage collection and treatment have been properly considered and evaluated;

In conclusion, Mr. Grover advised the Committee to take the time needed to make the right choice, as he felt other rural communities would be forced to connect to the Ottawa sewer system if Manotick were made to do so. He also suggested that the City solicit help from the local community, and that the City owed its residents the right to examine the data, as he felt they had been kept in the dark because cost comparisons of alternative systems had not been made public.

Councillor El-Chantiry felt many believed that if a community decided on a particular course of action that only it would benefit from; it should bear the full costs incurred. He said it was unfair to pass on local improvement costs to other Ottawa taxpayers.

Clarifying for Councillor Brooks on the issue of the unsolicited proposal for a small-bore system, Mr. Newell affirmed that staff had indeed engaged in a desktop comparison with the proponent to answer some of the questions that had been raised. He emphasized the recent evaluation was more in the nature of a re-evaluation to verify decisions previously rendered. Mr. Newell explained the analyses undertaken as part of previous studies and environmental assessments had earlier concluded that, based on those earlier assessments of alternatives, the best way to move forward was with central servicing and local conventional sewers for these areas. He stated the recent analysis had been undertaken through discussions with the proponent to check to make sure staff’s previous decisions were still appropriate, and confirmed that he believed the appropriate recommendations had been encapsulated in the present report.

Mr. Doug Hardwick, a resident of the Manotick core for 37 years, said he had been involved with the issue of sewage and related technology for 20 years. He expressed frustration with a process he believed was problematic and full of misunderstandings, which he largely attributed to City staff. He felt that despite staff assertions that alternate systems were not feasible, reasons and empirical data to back up this view had never been made available to the public. He stated that viable alternative systems were currently working in Europe, Ontario and parts of the United States. Noting the City was involved with a Sepratech membrane system at the Village Walk plant, he stated the technology involved was old, and was not the same as currently available membrane technology systems. Mr. Hardwick also felt the process was not transparent, noting that when speaking to an on-site engineer at the Village Walk plant, he had been directed to communicate with engineers at ROPEC (the R.O. Pickard Environmental Centre) for further information.

While the speaker agreed with the residents of Hillside Gardens that a critical situation existed, he felt Manotick residents had been backed into agreeing to the proffered solution. He requested to be shown actual figures, questioning the notion that two different systems could come out with equal costs. As to the question of the proponent’s anonymity, Mr. Hardwick believed that it would be hard for the proponent to generate business outside of the Ottawa area should the proposal be turned down by Committee. In conclusion, the speaker encouraged Committee not to delay the process further, but to critically examine a system, which he felt, could perform equally well, and for less money.

Councillor Brooks questioned whether the proponent of the unsolicited proposal had made any request to come before the City to openly make a presentation in support of it. Mr. D. Moodie, Rural Affairs Officer, explained that although the company’s representatives had spoken to ARAC and various Committees in the past, there had been no recent request to do so. In light of the company’s reluctance to appear before Committee to defend itself, and also because of its request for anonymity, the Councillor questioned the proposal’s authenticity.

Councillor Brooks asked if staff had openly conferred with the proponent in comparing the two systems in terms of cost and construction. Mr. Newell explained staff had looked at the two alternatives and tried to bring them to a level playing field to allow for an appropriate assessment, but emphasized that there were differences between the two systems. He detailed that the proponent’s small-bore system, unlike the staff-proposed system (which would connect to residents’ houses at their front yards), would run piping into residents’ back yards and join with a pipe from the residence that would normally connect to a septic bed. Mr. Newell said such systems would not permit below-grade facilities in basements, whereas the staff-proposed system would, because it would provide a conventional lateral connection at a grade below the elevation of the basement footings. He stated that allowances had been in both assumptions when comparing common levels of service and costs, further explaining that some of the incremental costs involved went beyond the cost of the services alone, i.e., trunk systems and external works to remove wastewater, including allowances in the designs of the systems should future petitioners come forth to apply for a conventional vs. a small-bore system.

Mr. Glen McCurdie, a long-time resident of Rideau Township currently living in the Manotick core for the last seven years, said he fully supported a system as proposed with a view towards improving Manotick’s business community and sustaining its residents. However, he felt that not all residents had been fairly encompassed by the petition and were not all on an equal footing. Mr. McCurdie explained that some core residents lived within a short distance of the village main street, whose connection costs would be significantly different than his own, as his property was situated 200 feet downhill from the street. He noted he had not originally seen the petition, suggesting his property may have been bypassed owing to the distance involved, and further suggested that consultation and communication from the City had been poor. Mr. McCurdie questioned how “core area” had been defined, as he did not believe his property should be included. Acknowledging the City had extended him a rebate in terms of connecting to his property, he offered this would still result in a net sum of $13,800 for him to connect to the pipe at the property line. He noted it would likely cost him an additional $35,000 to run piping another 200 feet to connect to his house, and to cover the cost of closing off his existing septic system and installing a pump to remove wastewater. He expressed a lack of confidence in the ability of such a system to pump wastewater 200 feet uphill without consequence, stating that a sewer backup would affect him more directly than others. While Mr. McCurdie said he backed the project, he asked that there be consideration given for individuals in situations like his.

Chair Jellett asked the speaker if he was asking to be exempted from connecting to the system. Mr. McCurdie explained that he would either prefer to be exempted from it or for the costs to be shared in a better way, as he believed it unfair to have to pay in excess of $50,000 for hook-up costs.

At Chair Jellett’s request to explain, from an engineering perspective, whether the pumping of wastewater 200 feet uphill was feasible, Mr. Newell said staff believed that it was. Further, he commented that because Mr. McCurdie’s particular situation did not allow for servicing on a conventional basis because of gravity, his costs would be reduced by up to 75%, owing to the additional efforts that would be required on his part to make use of the proposed system.

Referring to Document 1 of the staff report, Councillor Hunter asked about two areas on the map along the river excluded from core area servicing. He offered that the areas seemed to have engineering difficulties similar to those of Mr. McCurdie’s property, which had been included in the catchment’s area. Mr. Newell explained that if sites could not allow for construction for whatever reason, such areas would be excluded. He said it was necessary to work with the community to properly define boundary limitations in order to determine a site’s feasibility for connection. Mr. Newell explained that Mr. McCurdie’s property was determined to be feasible for connection, but acknowledged it would be more onerous and would not incorporate the same level of service.

Mr. Brian Tansley, President, West Manotick Community Association, said he supported the concerns of the residents of Hillside Gardens and Manotick’s commercial core. However, he disagreed with the position taken by City engineers that the only viable solution was for central servicing, explaining that four alternatives had originally been voted upon, with the chosen option being the completion of a rural wastewater management study analysis of alternatives and a study for costing including the servicing of 2000 homes. Mr. Tansley explained that a subsequent report to the City’s Planning and Environment Committee outlined that the scope of the survey of alternative wastewater systems focused on the management and sustainability of privately-serviced areas of the City and did not specifically address the use of such systems to service large populations. Further, the evidence of the case studies demonstrated that in Ontario, the application of alternative technologies was limited and had only been used to service small populations. For this reason, staff believed the Committee’s direction had been fulfilled. Mr. Tansley disagreed with this position, noting no reference had made to membrane bioreactor systems, used in Ontario since 2000, and the technology recommended in the unsolicited proposal. He believed such a system could be employed in a timely fashion, at a lower cost than the central servicing option. He too asked that the cost comparisons be made public. He felt that to implement a $70 million project to serve 400 residents served to disenfranchise 80% of the population when only 20% of the area’s population had been given a vote. He asked Committee to give serious consideration to the long-term implications of implementing such a decision.

Responding to Councillor Thompson’s question regarding the fairness of having 20% of the local population affecting, potentially, 80% of local residents as a result of the local improvement petition, Mr. T. Marc explained that the Official Plan (OP) speaks to what should be considered priority areas in terms of servicing. Consistent with this, the Public Works and Services department (PWS) examined the Village of Manotick and established lines based on what were determined to be the logical areas to service. Further, consistent with both the direction of the OP and based on determinations from an engineering perspective, the petitions went ahead in the two subject areas.

Councillor Brooks added that Hillside Gardens and the Manotick core had been identified in both the Manotick Secondary Plan and in the OP. He pointed out the petition to have the village serviced spoke to doing so over time, which could mean 25 to 40 years hence, emphasizing that the issue before Committee at present was only that of a local improvement. The Councillor noted that staff had been asked to design a system for the entire village, as defined in the Secondary Plan and OP, in realizing that the whole area would likely be serviced over time, and when such servicing was deemed to be required, residents could petition. Councillor Brooks explained a two-thirds majority of affected residents would be required, failing which; the subject area would not receive servicing. He noted this requirement would apply to all areas. Mr. Marc confirmed this was correct.

At Councillor Brooks’ request, Mr. Tansley expanded on his earlier reference to alternative technologies, explaining that membrane bioreactor system technology had been commercially viable since 2000 in Ontario and earlier in other parts of the world. He was uncertain as to how many Ontario communities were currently utilizing such technology, but spoke of one in Creemore, Ontario, in Clearview Township, operating continuously under contract with the Collingwood system since 2000.

Noting this type of technology had been available since 2000, Councillor Brooks wondered why many communities still preferred to implement “old” technology. Mr. Tansley suggested it had not initially been adopted more widely due to start-up hesitation, but believed it was being adopted more widely at present, noting there were now many examples in current use all over North America. He believed such technology deserved a serious look as befitted Manotick for cost reasons and for timeliness. He further noted the system approved for operation in Creemore, Ontario issued a relatively clean effluent, which did not increase the level of pollution of the river into which it discharged.

In reply to Councillor Brooks as to whether staff had looked at the Creemore model, Mr. Newell explained that he could not specify what technologies had been examined, but noted that treatment options had been considered as part of the environmental assessment (EA) process, at the conclusion of which, the preferred option had been recommended. He further clarified that the issue at hand was not one of viability, as there were other viable options available, including small-bore systems and treatment facilities. Mr. Newell further explained that through the processes, studies and EA’s undertaken to date, staff had recommended a preferred solution to service both the area at large, and that of Hillside Gardens and Manotick Core subject to the local improvement process in particular. He said staff could continue to look at different options and processes, which could result in alternate solutions, but that the focus had been on moving forward with the implementation of a preferred option.

Responding to a question from Chair Jellett as to whether the preferred option would have been the same had there been no plans for future expansion outside of the subject areas, Mr. Newell explained staff had designed the system on the basis of accommodating the entire area. He suggested that to speculate on what decisions might have been made under different scenarios might prove difficult.

Mr. Rich Wilson spoke in favour of the petition and stated that he has been involved with this issue for long time. For quite some time they were convinced that a piped system was the way to go, particularly for Hillside Gardens and the core. He stated that any change from this piped solution would have to be approved by the MOE and this would cause a delay in the solution. There is a problem in this community that needs to be resolved and resolved now. There are current constructions being allowed to proceed with the understanding that sewers are coming on-line and soon. He also stated that as far as vitality of the core is concerned, not much could be done until they have the pipe. To introduce other elements at the 11^th hour is unwarranted especially sine the petition process was delayed for two months to allow for consideration of alternate systems. There is nothing on the horizon to make anyone comfortable with the idea of reinventing the wheel; have to deal with real and immediate problem.

Mr. Christopher Hawes, a resident of Hillside Gardens and the lead petitioner stated that this was an issue of health and safety and that they have been fighting for ten years. He said that there is sewage in the surface water of Hillside Gardens, which is a real danger to children, animals and public health. They have been told too often that there would be solution. They as residents recognized there was a significant problem. He stated that they went down the path of alternate technologies; he was one of the first proponents of small bore. He strongly emphasized that residents in this area have paid taxes for this improvement for year to RMOC and now the City. Years ago they hooked up to city water because of faecal coli form counts. They leach unacceptable levels of effluent into the river. 17% of residents live on annual income of less than $35,000 and 9% live below the poverty line. Looking at other technologies will delay this project for 5 years or more. In 5 years, if someone gets sick from contamination, it will be the City’s fault. He and many others have worked countless hours with volunteers to provide information. They have done everything they could do to legally live up to what the city has told us we have to do.

Mr. Brian Earl has been a Hillside Gardens resident since 1972 and stated that he does not have the full use of his yard; taken up with septic tank and bed. He stated that he has done research on small-bore systems and said it would still require him to keep septic tank. If they connected to small bore, they would not have full use of their lots and would end up paying more than the average citizen of Ottawa.

Councillor Brooks asked staff to further explain the 2 systems investigated. Mr. A. Gonthier, Manager, Infrastructure Management stated that staff took both systems and compared them based on the same level of service, overall servicing strategy and that was based on direction from council and the Official Plan which was to service the overall area. The difference in costs is almost negligible and has been identified in 2008 capital budget. Staff has gone through detailed analysis and they do not have the same degree of confidence in proponent’s unsolicited proposal; have taken information at face value. The difference between two systems was not felt to provide enough justification to entertain as an option.

Councillor Brooks clarified that he was looking for cost comparisons. Mr. Newell stated that to the best of their ability they have done the analysis as stated and the conventional system is still the one recommended.

In response to Councillor Harder’s question on the when the unsolicited proposal was brought forward, Mr. Derrick Moodie, Rural Affairs Officer stated that it was received within the last 2 months. The small bore technology has been tried in other communities and works but the comparison is based on very small populations of about 400 people therefore not really apples to apples.

Councillor Monette inquired as to why this report did not go to RIAC first. Mr. Newell stated that this was a local petition and initiative and therefore staff felt it was more appropriate to come to ARAC directly.

In response to Councillor Monette’s question on whether the petitioners knew the costs involved, Mr. Newell stated that each resident was informed what the costs would be for their individual properties.

In response to Councillors questions on opting in or out, Mr. Newell stated that only if it does not affect an abutting property that wants the service. Chair Jellett stated that in Mr. McCurdie’s case he could opt out because it doesn’t affect anyone else (at end of the pipe) but in the McCulloch’s case, cannot do so without affecting the school.

Councillor El-Chantiry stated that staff have done a great job and doesn’t want to discredit the job they’ve done, but wondered if there are other options that should have been investigated further and should be looked at now especially with the Minto appeal coming. Mr. Newell responded stating that staff had to examine a system to service a large area and part of it is an existing community, and part of it is to service a future community; but that was not drove the process. For any future development such as Minto, they will be responsible for paying their share of costs. He stated that there have been a number of studies, directions, assessments, etc… and what staff has done most recently is re-evaluate a chosen option to assess whether it’s a viable option for Hillside Gardens and the core.

Councillor Brooks acknowledged that sometimes it takes time to make the right decision, however, this has been looked at it in the 90’s (twice), after amalgamation (twice); how many times do we have to look at it? He stated the research has been done and the comparisons have been made. Is there any advantage of re-examining it again? Mr. Newell said he believed not.

Councillor Brooks asked if the costs accurately reflected the costs to the City such as opening and closing roads to replace asbestos pipe? Mr. Newell stated that the $6.1 million was exclusively for infrastructure not including local improvement.

With regards to surcharge monies, Mr. Newell stated on a personal view that we as a City are not spending the right amount of dollars on fixing our infrastructure; if not spending in Manotick, would it be spent elsewhere? Have assumed the funds would not be spent elsewhere, but priorities dictate that we’d be fixing water mains elsewhere.

Chair Jellett stated that the Committee had recommendations from staff and asked if there were any amending motions.

Councillor Brooks urged the Committee to accept the recommendation as outlined in ARAC report to proceed with sanitary sewers.

Councillor El-Chantiry asked if there was any advantage to sending the report to RIAC and the Chair stated that the Committee could do so if they wished but that a small portion of overall cost is attributable to the rural community. Councillor El-Chantiry stated that next time staff should consult with RIAC and Mr. Newell stated that staff would take that direction.

Councillor Thompson commented that there seems to be a divisive feeling in the community with regard to this; have met and listened to proponents of small bore system and have heard from those most directly affected. As much as people say I like to defer things, I’m not going to defer or refer this any longer; I’ve been impacted by what I’ve heard. He said there was enough suffering; time to move ahead.

Councillor Brooks stated that it was unfortunate that the alternate proposal had come in so late at the 11^th hour and 59^th minute and to put it on hold for another 2-5 years would put the community at risk. He does encourage staff to look at alternate technologies however for future developments such as the one in Richmond Village. He encouraged his colleagues to move forward on this. The recommendation in the staff report has been well thought-out, well researched.

Moved by Councillor G. Brooks

Whereas, senior levels of government do not recognize rural Ottawa as rural with respect to infrastructure funding programs;

And whereas, this has disadvantaged both the City and rural residents, such as residents and businesses in Manotick's Hillside Gardens and Core areas, that are engaged in local improvement petitions to improve water and wastewater services in their community;

And whereas other communities have indicated an interest in pursuing a local improvement to access water and wastewater services should there be funding assistance available;

And whereas a new group of infrastructure programs, known as 'Building Canada' are expected to be available in Ontario soon;

Therefore be it resolved that City staff be directed to submit a request for funding under the Building Canada Fund to both the Provincial and Federal governments immediately so that an application by the City could be considered as soon as the funding becomes available;

Be it further resolved, that this application should focus on water and wastewater projects Citywide in areas that are not currently served with water or sewer infrastructure;

And be it further resolved, that the funding, if provided, should be used to offset both the resident's portion required through the local improvement charge and the City's portion of costs for future servicing areas, at the same percentage.

CARRIED

Councillor Harder commented that this was a good motion and the same can be said with rural libraries. She and the chief librarian had met with Minister of Culture; we are at a disadvantage due to issues forced upon us by amalgamation; 90% of our land mass is rural, and less than 10% of the population is rural.

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council approve:

3. That staff proceed, to acquire the land required for the main pumping station and related pipe works, including expropriation if required;

CARRIED as amended