HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-07-22_Council_Website Agenda Package_Updated July 20, 2021
Page 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s)
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
AGENDA
Thursday, July 22, 2021
Via Facebook Live
Office Location: 151 King Street, Chester, NS
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS
3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (15 minutes)
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
4.1 Council – July 15, 2021.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
6. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
7. MATTERS ARISING:
7.1 Request for Decision prepared July 13, 2021 – Financial and Information Services –
Department of Municipal Affairs Municipal Innovation Program Grant for an IT Partnership.
7.2 Request for Decision prepared July 5, 2021 – Community Development and Recreation –
Borgels/Borgalds Placename Spelling.
7.3 Request for Decision prepared July 6, 3032 – Community Development and Recreation –
New Road Name Assignment – Fox Hill Lane (Marriott’s Cove).
7.4 Request for Decision prepared June 28, 2021 – Community Development and Recreation –
Uniform Signage.
7.5 Request for Decision prepared July 13, 2021 – Community Development and Recreation –
By-Law Enforcement Staffing.
8. CORRESPONDENCE
8.1 Correspondence dated July 13, 2021, from Chester Golf Club regarding discussion of
membership and boundaries.
Page 2 of 2
8.2 Email from Kerry Dorey requesting the Municipality waive the tipping fees for debris
resulting in the house fire of her parents’ property at Shingle Mill Road (in MODL).
9. NEW BUSINESS
9.1 District Council Grant Requests:
a. New Ross Community Care - $1,000.
10. IN CAMERA
11. ADJOURNMENT
249
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Minutes of
COUNCIL MEETING
151 King Street, Chester / Facebook Live, NS
On Thursday, July 15, 2021
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Warden Webber called the virtual meeting to order at 8:46 a.m.
Present: District 1 – Councillor Veinotte District 2 – Deputy Warden Shatford
District 3 – Councillor Barkhouse District 4 – Warden Webber
District 5 – Councillor Assaff District 6 – Councillor Connors
District 7 – Councillor Church
Staff: Dan McDougall, CAO Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO
Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Jennifer Webber, Communications Officer
Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development and Recreation
Tim Topping, Director of Financial and Information Services
Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor
APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS
Addition:
Item 7.4 is being deferred to a later meeting.
Letter and Petition regarding signage along Highway 3 – Councillor Barkhouse.
2021-287 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the agenda and
order of business for the July 15, 2021, Council meeting be approved as amended.
ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
Warden Webber introduced the new Director of Financial and Information Services, Tim
Topping. Tim previously worked for the City of Calgary but is originally from Nova Scotia. He
brings with him his wife and two children.
Council (continued) July 15, 2021 250
PUBLIC INPUT SESSION
There was no public input.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
4.1 Council – July 8, 2021.
2021-288 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the minutes of the
July 8, 2021, Council meeting be approved as circulated. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION
CARRIED.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no Committee Reports.
MATTERS ARISING
7.1 Staff Report #3 – Community Development & Recreation Department – Amendment to
Chester Village Land Use By-Law to permit and regulate Drive-through Menu Board Signs
in the Chester Village Land Use By-Law.
Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner reviewed the Staff Report outlining the request received from a
signage consultant hired by Tim Hortons. The franchise wishes to replace the current signage
with a digital sign which is currently prohibited in the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use
By-Law. He outlined the process of the Chester Village Planning Advisory Committee which, in
the end, made a recommendation to Council to proceed with the amendment for drive-thru
signage but they did not address the same signage for other businesses that could have
illuminated signs seen from the travelled road.
The Senior Planner outlined how the amendment was changed to allow the illuminated signage
in drive-thrus only, setbacks from property lines, to be illuminated only when the business is
open. Currently Tim Hortons is the only drive-thru so the amendment could be considered
specific to this property, and it is recommended that the notification follow that for a site
specific amendment with letters sent to neighboring properties providing notice of the
amendment and public hearing details.
Council (continued) July 15, 2021 251
The timeline was also reviewed; if First Notice is given today, then the public hearing could be
held on August 12th.
Several Councillors expressed concerns that other businesses may not have the same
accommodation for this type of signage which has become more common.
The Senior Planner indicated that this is the first piece of the puzzle. Councillor Barkhouse will
address the other issue from the businesses. It is a bigger issue. One of the issues raised were
signs that would be visible from the road, but the Tim Horton sign is not. The concern was that
digital signage along the road would be changing constantly and could become a distraction to
drivers.
2021-289 MOVED by Councillor Barkhouse, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council give
First Reading to the amendments attached to Staff Report #3 dated July 15, 2021, to
permit and regulate drive-through Menu Board Signs in the Chester Village Land Use
By-Law. And further, set a date for a Public Hearing on August 12, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
in Municipal Council Chambers. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
6.1 Dr. Ian Spooner presentation (9:30 a.m.)
a. April 28, 2021, Report – NS Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture – Investigating
Concerns of Marine Finfish Aquaculture Impacts at Bayswater Provincial Park.
b. Correspondence dated December 29, 2020, from Minister of Environment to Councillor
Veinotte.
Dr. Spooner thanked Council for the opportunity to speak and commented on the sad loss of
the Chester Playhouse. He also noted that he has had a boat here on the back harbour for the
past 20 years and is familiar with, and loves, the area. He also provided an overview of his
background and experience on the subject matter.
He took a look at the site, and he was asked to do a bit of work to address some concerns. He
was given a little information that primarily centered around an individual – if 20 different
people have a concern it is important to address that concern; if one person has a concern 20
times, it is important to meet with that person. It was suggested he look at the potential
connectivity to the offshore fish farm. He was aware of the beach closures due to e-coli and
noted that e-coli does not develop in salt water – it is a freshwater problem.
Council (continued) July 15, 2021 252
He outlined the makeup of the beach which is a thin veneer of sand over cobbles and bedrock.
He noted that the beach is an important recreational resource. He felt it was important to learn
more about the condition of the pond and its potential impact on the beach He suggested
further testing to determine if the pond is the source of any e-coli or the material found in the
sand.
He reviewed the data and samples taken, as well as connectivity, and isotope work. He had a
hard time finding anything but dug pits all over the beach until he found a discoloured layer 50
cm down. He stated that there was no connectivity but that does not mean at some time there
was not some connectivity that may have taken place.
Warden Webber asked what contamination there was and if it was coming from the land, or the
pond and Dr. Spooner said he would not call it contamination, but it is a land source. He
suggested taking samples from the pond. He felt there was nothing to suggest anything
dangerous; the discoloured sediment seems to be consistent with the terrestrial source
(land/pond). He noted that he would be happy to meet with the gentleman when he is
experiencing the issue – he would like to see what he sees and discuss it. He also indicated that
he would be happy to speak with any community group.
Deputy Warden Shatford thanked Dr. Spooner for the report. He indicated that he lives there
and has used the beach most of his life and has never seen evidence of a problem. He did not
know if the salmon farm had an effect or not but was glad to know that it has not. He hopes
there can be some further investigation. He thanked Dr. Spooner for the clarification.
Dr. Spooner indicated that he is working with Coastal Action, and they have a strong
relationship, noting that Coastal Action can be a resource and they will think and act
independently of any political or public pressure. He is happy to help.
Deputy Warden Shatford asked if Dr. Spooner had seen sign of anything on the ocean bottom
that could have came from the salmon farm and Dr. Spooner outlined the improbability of that
with use of the mapping.
Councillor Veinotte thanked Dr. Spooner for helping him understand the report. He asked
about the organic layer identified in the report, assuming it was a layer of kelp. Dr. Spooner said
that storms will “reorganize” the location of material on the beach as well as the dynamic of the
beach. The main thing was that he did not see any evidence of impact from the aquaculture
farm to the beach. It looked as if any impact “died off” further away from the salmon farm.
Council (continued) July 15, 2021 253
Dr. Spooner indicated that he was confident they have addressed the problem from an
aquaculture point of view, but he would like to be there if someone sees something happening.
Councillor Veinotte suggested that maybe the answer is that the back pond is changing and if
we do not like what is happening then the possibility could be to redirect the flow from the
pond.
Councillor Barkhouse asked if the time of year the samples were taken might make a difference
(November and December) and Dr. Spooner agreed that it was a quiet time and not a time
when you might expect e-coli. He could not confirm if the samples now would be different, but
now would be a good time to test again.
Dr. Spooner noted that sometimes the more passionate a community group is, the more right
they think they are. He loves the passion but that does not mean they are right. He indicated
that groups like Coastal Action are the boots on the ground and he offered his equipment for
their use.
Shanna Fredericks from Coastal Action indicated to Council that they have a program in place
this summer for Bayswater Beach and a budget of $9,200. A lot of that money was earmarked
for the sampling that Dr. Spooner has already done so they will review the plan and give an
update.
Dr. Spooner indicated that he would love to see the public there at Bayswater Beach so that they
can see what he and Coastal Action do. They can get involved and that gets people talking.
Warden Webber thanked Dr. Spooner and representatives from Coastal Action for their input.
Break from 10:02 a.m. to 10:14
7.2 Request for Direction prepared July 7, 2021 – Infrastructure and Operations – Wastewater
Service Study – Addition of Mill Cove/Hubbards and Simms Settlement.
Kavita Khanna, Assistant Director of Infrastructure and Operations outlined the RFD prepared
July 7, 2021, outlining the change of scope to add Mill Cove, Hubbards, and Simms Settlement
to the project. She also outlined the amended timeline, adjusted due to COVID-19.
Councillor Connors voiced concerns regarding the turnaround of the reports, noting that her
community is also interested in adding capacity.
Council (continued) July 15, 2021 254
2021-290 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse that Council
accept the Change in Scope for the Wastewater Service Study awarded to EXP to
include Mill Cove, Hubbards, and Simms Settlement for future growth evaluation
and provide recommendations on wastewater collection and treatment system(s),
for $56,099.61 net HST. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
7.3 Request for Decision prepared June 24, 2021 – Infrastructure and Operations – Excavator
Replacement for Kaizer Meadow.
Christa Rafuse, Director of Infrastructure and Operations reviewed the Request for Decision
prepared June 24, 2021, regarding the excavator replacement for Kaizer Meadow. She reported
that the Request for Quote MODC-T-2021-007 came in under budget and the Valley Liaison
Committee has reviewed and are in agreement with the purchase.
2021-291 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse that
Council authorize the purchase of a new 2021 Komatsu PC170LC-11 (43,115 lbs.)
excavator from Wilson Equipment at $213,500 plus HST (RFQ MODC-T-2021-007)
which includes the $35,000 trade-in amount offered for the current excavator. ALL
IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE
8.1 Correspondence dated June 30, 2021, from Brent Hubley requesting a Development
Agreement for 20 Venture Avenue, Mill Cove.
Councillor Veinotte declared “CONFLICT OF INTEREST” and left the meeting room.
Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner outlined the project and request which is a Development
Agreement for a 36-unit apartment building at 20 Venture Avenue (old barracks
building/apartment building). It is in the mixed use zone and across the street but not part of
the Aspotogan Ridge Development. The zone supports 12 units plus through a development
agreement. It is reasonable to direct staff to pursue the Development Agreement process with
the developer if Council so chooses.
Deputy Warden Shatford asked about the sewer system and the Senior Planner indicated that
he has spoken with Mr. Hubley and advised this would be the first step – a letter to Council.
from his preliminary review the sewer line goes through the property and would be part of the
Development Agreement negotiations if they wish to connect. He also noted that it appears
Council (continued) July 15, 2021 255
that the sewer line still goes through, and the lateral closed off as the building is not being lived
in at the moment.
It was noted that this is timely with the Mill Cove Wastewater Project and staff was directed to
move forward with the application.
Councillor Veinotte returned to the meeting room.
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS (CONTINUED)
6.2 Sue LeBlanc, Chester Art Centre (10:30 a.m.) re: Sculpture and Motion Festival from July
24th to September 12th.
Sue LeBlanc of the Chester Art Centre was present to outline the upcoming Sculpture and
Motion Festival. There are various events leading up to September 12th and, on that day, they
plan a festival which includes closing a street to allow artists to demonstrate for the attendees.
She noted that artists are shipping art from here as well as other provinces. Everything is free.
The bios of the artists are on the website. There will be booths, aerial equipment, a mini circus
workshop, artisan workshops and presentations, and many other things taking place. She
indicated that she is not looking for money, just support.
A letter will be provided to support the request for a street closure for that day as well as
collaboration with tourism to market it as a staycation.
She noted that during July and August they will be having other events to support artists and
artisans – group shows, solos shows, as well as some pop-up single events.
Warden Webber thanked Ms. LeBlanc for her presentation.
7.4 Request for Direction prepared June 9, 2021 – Infrastructure and Operations – Leachate
Treatment Plant Upgrade at Kaizer Meadow Landfill – Phase 2 Equalization Lagoon.
This was postponed to another meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
9.1 Request for Decision prepared June 28, 2021 – Community Development and Recreation
Department – New Road Name Assignment – Copperhead Rd, Harriston.
Council (continued) July 15, 2021 256
Sylvia Dixon, Planning Technician outlined the new road name assignment Request for Decision.
2021-292 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Barkhouse that Council
approve the new road name of Copperhead Rd, Harriston and direct staff to advise
the appropriate departments/organizations. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED.
8.2 Email of July 9, 2021, and poster from Kelly Cove Salmon Ltd. regarding open houses on
proposed boundary amendments at salmon farming sites in Nova Scotia.
This was received as information and Councillor Veinotte asked that the open house information
be posted on our website.
8.3 Correspondence dated May 18, 2021, from Kelly Cove Salmon Ltd to Councillor Veinotte.
This was received as information.
8.4 Copy of email forwarded to Councillor Veinotte regarding request to add Mi’kmaq names
to municipal signage.
It was agreed to direct staff to determine what signage we own that could be considered. As
well, when the Diversity and Inclusion Committee is organized, that Committee can provide
some scope to ensure it is being done in an appropriate manner considering all aspects.
The Deputy CAO indicated that the Request for Decision on the Committee will be coming
sometime soon.
8.5 Letter and Petition regarding Signage – Councillor Barkhouse.
Councillor Barkhouse read a letter from Bruce Elliott, owner of Chester Home Hardware. The
letter requested a change to allow it to be easier to make changes on the signage which
currently requires a ladder, which he feels is unsafe for staff.
Councillor Barkhouse also read a Petition that was in support of allowing internally illuminated
and digital signs – signed by most business owners within the area, other than Castle Building
supplies and the Independent. She would like to send the letter and petition to the Village
Planning Advisory for discussion. She indicated that likely Council would see other requests for
Council (continued) July 15, 2021 257
signage; businesses are investing money in their businesses but are not able to adjust their
signs.
There was discussion regarding the letter and petition, and it was noted that a survey was
undertaken but there was a low response. The Senior Planner indicated that he hesitated to
make strong policies on the information taken in. Basically, the Municipality is back to where it
started with two issues - illumination and size. Currently signs in place are over the size
permitted.
The Senior Planner suggested getting public input. The Village Planning Advisory Committee
has already sent this back to Council as it was getting out of hand. We have dealt with the
drive-thru menu board portion. Now we can deal with the signs that will be visible from the
road, i.e., size, illumination, etc.
Deputy Warden Shatford commented that sending the matter back to the Committee without
direction from Council could be a mistake. He felt that the Municipality needs to accommodate
businesses and if Council feels strongly then some direction should be provided.
Councillor Veinotte suggested that the businesses be canvassed and determine what they are
trying to overcome. Once we understand their pain, we can address it in a by-law. At this point
sending it back to the same people who sent it to Council will not accomplish anything.
It was agreed to have staff meet with the businesses who signed the petition as well as those
that did not to determine what they want for signage and bring a report back to Council.
IN CAMERA
There were no In Camera items for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
2021-293 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the meeting adjourn.
(10:42 a.m.)
___________________________ ___________________________
Allen Webber Pamela Myra
Warden Municipal Clerk
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Cliff Gall, Director of Information
Services
Date: July 13, 2021
Reviewed By: Tim Topping, Director of Finance
and Information Services
Date: July 13, 2021
Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date: July 13, 2021
CURRENT SITUATION
The Municipality’s organizational review in December 2019 identified service delivery pressures
in several operational areas, including Information Technology (IT) management and support.
During the 2020-21 budget deliberations, staff identified that a potential IT position, cost-shared
with the Town of Lunenburg, was being explored. As a result, Council agreed to allocate a
funding contingency for an IT support position in the Municipality of Chester’s 2020-21 budget,
and staff from both municipalities are submitting an application to the Department of Municipal
Affairs (DMA) Municipal Innovation Program grant for external funding support.
RECOMMENDATION
The complete application to the DMA Municipal Innovation Program must include motions from
the Councils of both municipalities partnering in the proposed project in support of the grant
submission. For that purpose, staff respectfully recommend that Council approve the Motion as
follows:
“That the Municipality of the District of Chester approves the submission of a co-application,
with the Town of Lunenburg, to the Department of Municipal Affairs Municipal Innovation
Program (MIP). The MIP submission is for an Information Technology Service Project for a total
project cost of $67,000, $33,500 requested from the MIP and the remaining $33,500 cost-
shared between the two municipalities as 60% for the Municipality of Chester (or $20,100) and
40% for the Town of Lunenburg (or $13,400).”
BACKGROUND
Over the past 15 years, the Municipality of Chester’s workforce has increased 27%, with
municipal service delivery that relies on Information Technology also increasing year over year.
The result is that management and support of IT assets and information management for the
Municipality has grown over 15 years to include:
Approximately 200 IT assets which reside in 10 buildings/structures.
Implementation of various tools and software due to service level increase or demand,
including project management, SCADA, and Weigh Scale in 2020/21 alone.
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Cliff Gall, Director of Information Services
DATE: 2021-07-22
SUBJECT: DMA Municipal Innovation Program Grant
for an IT Partnership
ORIGIN: 2020/21 Operating Budget
2 Request for Decision-Direction
Extensive growth and demand for database support across all Municipal Departments
that support core services related to Financial Management, GIS, Permitting, and
Infrastructure.
DISCUSSION
The Municipality was contacted at the end of 2019 by the Town of Lunenburg about becoming a
lead agency for a shared IT position which would be cost shared using a 60% MOC / 40% TOL
salary split. The 2020/21 budget included MOC’s share. The application submitted to the DMA
Municipal Innovation Program was for the following project costs:
50% funding for the shared IT position’s salary & benefits for the first year of the inter-
municipal agreement
Intermunicipal agreement development fees
If successful, the MIP funding will reduce year one expenses for the partnership by $33,500.
OPTIONS
Council can consider the following options:
1. Approve the Motion in support of the Municipal Innovation Program application as
outlined in the recommendation.
2. Do not approve the Motion in support of the Municipal Innovation Program application as
outlined in the recommendation, which will result in an incomplete application.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
n/a
Financial/Budgetary
$33,500 ($20,100 MOC / $13,400 TOL)
DMA Innovation fund Contribution of $33,500 to the partnership
Strategic Priorities
A cost-shared Information Technology support position will assist the Municipality in advancing
the following Priority Areas of the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework:
Governance & Engagement
Priority Outcome 1: Ensure municipal service delivery is efficient and effective,
communicated and accessible.
3 Request for Decision-Direction
Infrastructure & Service Delivery
Priority Outcome 1 Develop and implement evidence-based plans for future
infrastructure and service needs, along with related funding models, to accommodate
sustainable growth and levels of service.
Priority Outcome 2: Create efficiencies through innovative service delivery, and proactive
maintenance and operations of existing infrastructure.
Work Program
Accommodated within existing work plan.
Attachments
TOL MODC IT grant application 2021-06-24.
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Sylvia Dixon, Development & Planning Technician Date 2021-07-05
Reviewed By: Chad Haughn, Director of CDRD Date 2021-07-09
Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date 2021-07-12
CURRENT SITUATION
The Nova Scotia Geographic Names Program survey results for the proposed spelling change for several
features from Borgels to Borgald's have been received and are available for Council to review.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Municipal Council support the proposed spelling change for several features from
Borgels to Borgald's in the form of motion.
BACKGROUND
In 2014, Borgels Point Road resident, Barrett Corkum, initiated a petition of support for changing the road
name of “Borgels Point Road” back to its historic spelling of “Borgald’s Point Road”. A majority of
residents supported the name change and signed the petition. The road name petition was presented to
the Municipal Council on October 30, 2014. The minutes of that Council meeting saw Council approve the
proposed road name, Borgalds Point Road, and recommended the process of renaming the remaining
“Borgels” to continue.
Since Borgald’s Point Road is a provincially owned road, a letter outlining Mr. Corkum’s road name
petition and Council’s approval of the road name change was sent to the Nova Scotia Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (NSTIR). It is of note, that the NSTIR response to this letter was
that the other geographic features containing “Borgels” need to be corrected as well. Unfortunately,
Barrett Corkum passed away shortly after this, and Rick Perkins has since taken over where Barrett Corkum
left off. In late 2018, a request to change the spelling from Borgels to Borgald's for several features was
made to the Nova Scotia Geographic Names Program. Early in 2021, a survey with the proposed spelling
change from Borgels to Borgald's was completed by the Nova Scotia Geographic Names Program and its
results are available for review.
DISCUSSION
Of the received surveys, approximately 75% of the area residents support the spelling change while 25%
do not support the spelling change. This represents 15% support for the spelling change of the total
surveys mailed, while 5% of the total surveys mailed do not support the spelling change. The Nova Scotia
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development & Recreation
Department
DATE: July 22, 2021
SUBJECT: Borgels Placename Spelling
ORIGIN: Request to Nova Scotia Geographic
Names Program
2 Request For Decision /Direction
Geographic Names Program considers nonresponses as supporting the proposed name, with 95%
support for the spelling change.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
N/A
Financial/Budgetary
N/A
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Priorities
N/A
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Municipal Council can support the proposed spelling change for several features from Borgels to
Borgald's.
2. Municipal Council can decide not to support the proposed spelling change for several features
from Borgels to Borgald's.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Survey Summary, Received from the Nova Scotia Geographic Names Program
2. Location Maps
3. Historical References, Submitted by Rick Perkins
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
3 Request For Decision /Direction
SURVEY SUMMARY, RECEIEVED FROM THE NOVA SCOTIA GEOG RAPHIC NAMES PROGRAM
Survey Responses for Road Names
Borgald's Point Rd Borgald's Dr Borgald's Shore Dr
46/313 45/313 44/313 In-support for Name Change
% of YES 14.70% 14.38% 14.06%
254/313 254/313 255/3131 Total unresponsive
% Nonresponse 81.15% 81.15% 81.47%
13/313 14/313 14/313 Mon-support for Name Change
% of NO 4.15% 4.47% 4.47%
4 Request For Decision /Direction
LOCATION MAPS
5 Request For Decision /Direction
6 Request For Decision /Direction
HISTORICAL REFERENCES, SUBMITTED BY RICK PERKINS
Road Sign (1979)
7 Request For Decision /Direction
Chester Basin War Monument (1976)
8 Request For Decision /Direction
A Brief History of the Borgald’s and Borgald’s Point in Nova Scotia, by Richard Perkins
BAARGELD
other spellings:
Baargelt, Baergeld, BARGALD, BARGELD, Bargelo, BARGELT, Bargell, BARGOLD,
BAUGALD, BAUGIL, BAUGILD, BAUGILT, BORGAL, BORGALD, BORGALT,
BORGEL, BORGELD,BORGELDT, BORGELT, BORGILD, BORGOLD, BORGULL
https://seawhy.foreignprotestant.net/ffbaarge.html
My mother Rosemarie Borgald and myself, Richard Perkins, are direct descendants of Johannes
Baaergelt and his wife Catherina Eilsabeth Webber. They and their two daughters were from
Hemmental, Germany, joined the immigration of the “foreign Protestants” recruited to begin the British
colonization of Nova Scotia under its new governor Edward Cornwallis. Johannes, a famer, and his family
were attracted to emigrate with the promise of free farmland and a new life. They travelled with friends
by wagon from Germany to Rotterdam with two head of cattle and personal possessions. They sold the
cattle and wagon to have some cash when they arrived in the new world.
The migration of Foreign Protestants from 1750 to 1752 brought 2,700 immigrants to Nova Scotia
aboard twelve ships. The Baaergelt’s boarded the Ship Murdoch from Rotterdam on June 22, 1751
under the command of Captain Robert Hamilton with 298 passengers aboard. They arrived in Halifax,
Nova Scotia in September 1751 with 269 passengers aboard.
Beginning in June 1753 the foreign protestants sailed with Cornwallis’ Reverend Jean-Bapitiste Moreau
to establish the British presence on Nova Scotia’s South Shore in Lunenburg. Johannes Baaergelt and his
family were amongst the 1,400 Foreign Protestants that made this journey founding Lunenburg.
Johannes received the following land grants done by draw in Halifax four weeks before they left for
Lunenburg (source: https://seawhy.foreignprotestant.net/landgb.html ):
1. Town Lots: Steinfort's Division E-10 Fox Street); Zuberbuhler's Division G-9 (Lawrence Street).
These lots were 40 feet by 60 feet (https://seawhy.foreignprotestant.net/lglndx.html );
2. Garden Lot: 5 Division C-3 70 feet by 160 feet
(https://seawhy.foreignprotestant.net/lg30aa.html );
3. Farm Lot: Centre A-4 30 acres in 1760
Once settlers had proved they could improve the lots initially granted they were granted larger crown
land grants. Johannes was granted:
4. Second Division C-9 300 acres 1763 (https://seawhy.foreignprotestant.net/landgb.html )
Johannes sold the “garden lot” in Lunenburg December 4, 1762 (see attached JB Item 1). He sold the
Lunenburg Township “House Lot” at Stenfort’s Division Letter “E” number 10 on April 25, 1765 (see
attached Johannes B Deed 2). In addition, Johannes sold Lunenburg Farm Lot Centre Letter A, number 4
(30 acres) April 1, 1772 (See attached Johannes Deed 3). He then borrowed forty pounds from Sebastien
Zouberbuhler and combined with the funds from the sale of his Lunenburg properties he acquired two
lots in the North West Range outside the town of Lunenburg totaling 30 acres. On May 14, 1772 he paid
George Biset 82 pounds for these properties (See attached Johannes Northwest Deed 1). This mortgage
was registered March 8, 1772 (see attached JB Mortgage). By this time Johannes had anglicised his
name to John Baargeld. Here they cleared the land and established their farm. In 1784 the land grants
were legalized recognizing Johannes Bargelt with 360 acres total.
9 Request For Decision /Direction
John Baargelt for one hundred- and thirty-pounds acquired on July 2, 1783 several houses and a quarter
of a saw mill and on one hundred acres of land on Middle River, Lunenburg County, from John
Besanson(Middle River Deed 1).
On September 19, 1788 John Baargeld sold to his only son Casper Baargelt 50 acres at Middle River
number 3 joining to number 4 and another 50 acres on Middle River Number Eight joining to number
Nine in Chester County of Lunenburg (see attached Middle River Deed 2) for 30 pounds. Casper had
been born while they still lived in Lunenburg on May 10, 1762.
Johannes gave half (15 acres) of the North West Range property (Lot Letter A, Number 13) to his son
Casper Baargelt on September 4, 1775 (see attached Casper NW Deed 1). John Baargeld sold the other
half (15 acres) of the North West Range property (Lot A, Number 13) to Casper Baargeld October 9, 1782
for 50 pounds (see attached Casper NW Deed 2). Johannes gave Lot #12 and the other half of Lot 13 in
the Northwest range to Casper on April 18, 1785 (see attached Casper NW Deed 3).
On July 25, 1789 Casper acquires 200 acres on Gold River (First Division Letter A No. 9) from John
Seeburger for forty pounds.
Johannes died in March of 1790 and he and his wife are buried on the Northwest Range property under
an old lilac try brought from Germany.
On January 5, 1797 Casper Bargeld acquires another 15 acres of farmland in the North West Range
(Letter A, Number 18), Lunenburg County, from George Robart for 50 pounds (see attached Casper NW
Deed 4).
On September 22, 1789 Casper Bargelt acquires 200 acres of land in the North West Range, First Dvision
Letter A Number 9 for 40 pounds (Casper Deed 1 NW First Division).
For ninety pounds on September 10, 1817, Casper Bargelt purchases 100 acres of farmland on the
westside of Gold River, Luneburg County, Lot 5 Letter E from David W. Crandell (see attached Casper
Gold River Deed 2) in the Hawbolt Grant.
On August 28, 1806 Casper Bargelt acquires from John Pulsifer what has become known as Borgald’s
Point in Chester Basin, Lunenburg County for 175 pounds (Casper Borgald’s Point Deed 1806). This deed
references the land as known as “Gold River or Smith’s Point”. It was sold to John Pulsifer by Elijah
Crocker on October 16, 1795 including half of Marvin’s Island for 120 pounds (See Pulsifer Borgald’s
Point Deed 1795). Mr. Crocker acquired the property from the Crown Land Grant holder Mary Neale for
60 pounds on August 25, 1784 (See Crocker Borgald’s Point Deed 1784). Mary Neale’s Crown Land Grant
in 1779 of 60 acres for the “Gold River Point” lists the property as purchased from a Joseph Smith (hence
the occasional reference to “Smith’s Point” who had neglected to take out a grant) (see Borgald’s Point
Crown Grant 1779). (https://novascotia.ca/archives/landpapers/archives.asp?ID=54&Doc=memorial).
Casper’s son John is willed this land in his probated Last Will and Testament contained in the Lunenburg
County Will’s Book 2, in 1834.
Based on the style of writing of deeds at this time, this land contained no buildings or farm when
acquired by Casper Bargelt (the deed attached - Casper Borgald’s Point Deed 1806-does not mention
buildings as was the traditions) indicating that this had yet to be developed. This is important since the
casual references to “Gold River and Smith’s Point” in these land transfers reflects the fact that the
10 Request For Decision /Direction
name of the feature changed with ownership until settled first by the “Borgald’s” which then changed
the name to “Borgald’s Point” to reflect the family that settled the land and created the first farm on the
site.
The historic maps of the province spell the Borgald’s Point phonetically and differently. Those done by
C.F. Smith spell the point spell it “Borgel Point”. and those done I believe by the Province of Nova Scotia
in the 1940’s which are updated periodically also incorrectly spell it “Borgal Point”. I suspect that in the
absence of knowing either the land ownership history or the local knowledge of how the feature was
spelt (see the book published for Canada’s 100 birthday in 1967 titled “A History of Chester” published
in 1967 by Progress Enterprises and written by the Women’s Institute of Nova Scotia beginning on pages
42 and 43 for the common local understanding of how this land feature was spelt. In addition please see
roadside signage from the 1970’s with my mother Rosemarie Borgald standing under it that existed until
about five years ago (See attached Borgald’s Point sign).
Casper Bargelt on June 13, 1823 buys Lot number 4, Letter A Third Division; letter A second division; and
letter F third division-a sixth share (50 Acres) of Marvin’s Island (see attached CB Marvin’s Deed 1823)
for 62 pounds.
Casper Bargelt had one son named John Borgald who was born October 12, 1797 at the residence
located at the North West Range of Lunenburg County. He first appears in a Nova Scotia Census in 1838
as living in West Chester, Lunenburg County
(https://novascotia.ca/archives/census/returns1838.asp?ID=22503). John Borgald is living at the farm at
Borgald’s Point that he has established with his wife, Mary Elisabeth, 5 children- 2 boys Nathan and
Maynard, and three girls. Records so far are not robust about many aspects of John’s life, but it appears
that John inherited all the property of his father in 1834 based on Casper Borgelt’s Last Will and
Testament. We also learn a few things about the later part of his life and the development of Borgald’s
Point from two land deed transfers made by John Borgald (as spelled in these deeds) to his two sons
Nathan and Maynard basically splitting his properties in half.
On October 4, 1844 John Borgald sells 100 acres of the Hawbolt Grant Gold River property for 10 pounds
(see John Borgald sells 100 Gold River Deed 1844). On this Deed transfer he is listed as living in Chester
(likely Chester Basin at Borgald’s Point).
On December 1, 1864, and registered November 23, 1865 John Borgald transferred ownership for two
hundred dollars from each son his properties listed below.
To Maynard Borgald (see attached Maynard B Deed 1) about 490 acres made up of 38 acres at Borgald’s
Point including the main farm house, barn farm equipment and all live stock; Lots 95,96 & 97 of the 23
acres of Marvin’s Island; Half of the 35 acre Interval lands known as Long Island in the gold River; Half of
the 400 acres at the Westside of Gold River (the Hawbolt’s Grant); the south half of the 100 acre First
Division property west of the Gold River. In addition to the two hundred dollars Maynard is to care for
John and his wife and all their needs until death living in the main farm house, and including food,
clothing and medical care at a level to which they have been accustomed.
To Nathan, John Borgald transferred for $200 38 acres at Borgald’s Point; one fourth of the 23 acres on
Marvin’s island; half of the 35 acres of the interval lands in Gold River known as Long Island; half of the
11 Request For Decision /Direction
400 acres of the Hawbolt Grant; the north half of the 100 acre First Division west of the Gold River( see
attached deed Nathan B Deed 1).
The 1871 Census shows John Borgald at 73 years of age and his wife Elizabeth at 71 years of age living in
the House at Borgald’s Point with his son Maynard (48 years of age) as per the land transfer agreement
noted above (entry 189) (see attached 1871 Census). In the same Census just above at entry 188 find
again spelt Borgald the household of John Borgald’s other son Nathan and his wife Eliza also at Borgald’s
Point Nova Scotia. In the 1881Census (see attached 1881 census) you will see entry 189 that John
Borgald is now living with his other son Nathan, but his wife Elizabeth is no longer listed and assumed
deceased in 1877. They are still at the same location of Borgald’s Point.
On June 11, 1892 Nathan and Eliza Borgald transferred to their son Colin Borgald all the land outlined
the same as the land description in the paragraph outlined above. In exchange for this land Colin was
required to keep and maintain Nathan and Eliza for the rest of their natural lives as well as Nathan and
Eliza’s grandson William Stanley Anderson if he resides at the homestead and until her turns 21. Colin
paid $1 for this land according to the deed registered January 14, 1895 (see attached Nathan to Colin B
Deed 1).
Maynard Borgald appears to have kept all the land and willed it to his son Austin upon Maynard’s death
in 1905.
Nathan Borgald and his wife Eliza both die in 1902.
Austin Borgald, Maynard’s son, on October 5, 1911 sells a large part of his portion of Borglad’s Point
(called this in the deed) to Edward Pace for $10 (see attached Deed Austin B sells Borgald’s Point 1).
October 24, 1911 Colin Borgald & Austin Borgald sell one and nine tenths acres of the Gold River
Properties to William Rafuse for $145 (see attached Colin sells Gold River Deed 1).
1911 Austin Borgald and his wife Hattie, and Susanna Borgald sells their part of Borgald’s Point to
Edward A. Pace of Washington DC for $10(See attached Austin B sells Borgald’s Point Deed 1).
On October 2, 1916 Austin Borgald and Colin Borgald give rights to Robert Stewart to make and improve
a right of way road in the Hawbolt Grant. The interesting piece is that the document written and
witnessed by the Justice of the Piece acknowledges the common name and spelling of Borgald’s Point as
the address of Austin and Colin Borgald (see attached Gold River Right of Way).
July 2, 1920 Austin Borgald and his wife Hattie sell 2 x50 acre lots of their holdings of the Hawbolt Grant
at Gold River to Clarence Vienotte for $5 (see attached Austin B sells Gold River Deed 2).
Colin Borgald died in Chester Basin on July 3, 1927 and is buried in the Lakeview Baptist cemetery in
Chester Basin. On December 17, 1927 and registered on January 3, 1928, all of Colin Borgald’s remaining
land is inherited by His sons Robie Borgald and Hiram Borgald, his daughter Carrie Borgald as well as his
cousin Austin Borgald (see attached Hiram B Deed 1).
On September 16, 1929 at 10:10 am Hiram Borgald and his wife Kathleen (nee Boylan) and at 11:11 am
Robie Borgald and his wife Gladys, transfer their land back to Colin Borgald widow Eliza their land for $1
(see attached Hiram Deed 2 and Robie Deed 2). At 11:12 am Eliza takes out a mortgage for $700 with
Frank Freda of Chester on all the lands (see attached Eliza Mortgage).
12 Request For Decision /Direction
At 11:13 am on the same day Eliza Borgald assigns back to Robie Borgald all the lands on Borgald’s Point,
Marvin’s Island and the Hawbolt Grant (see attached Robie Deed 3) for $1 including all of Hiram’s land
transfer. In exchange for this Robie Borgald must take care of Eliza Borgald in the station to which she
has been accustomed for the rest of her life. Robie Borgald agrees to pay the mortgage on the
properties and entitled to the income from the properties as well as paying the bills.
July 29, 1935 Burnell S. Corkum receives a Sheriff’s Deed against Robie Borgald for recovery of a
judgment received in Bridgewater Court September 26, 1931 amounting to $142.60 debt was executed
on real estate held by Robie Borgald, and Burnell Corkum having paid the court $100 (see attached
Sheriff’s Deed). On February 29, 1936 the courts granted E.A. Ernst of Mahone Bay the responsibility to
auction off the lands of the Estate of Colin Borgald as held by Robie Borgald including all five properties
and the homestead of the late Colin Borgald. On March 2, 1936 Burnell S. Corkum submitted the highest
bid for all five parcels of land for $600 (see attached Auction 1936).
April 26, 1936 Burnell Corkum and Austin Borgald sell to Ward Mosher 100 acres of the Hawbolt Grant
that were part of the late Colin Borgald’s estate for $1(see attached Austin sells Gold River Deed 3).
On August 4, 1937 Austin Borgald and his wife Hattie, now a resident of Massachusetts, sold his home
and lot on Borgald’s Point to Blanche Baker for $1 (Austin sells house). Again, the deed registration
notes the location “Borgald’s Point”.
Eliza Borgald (Colin’s Widow) sells 50 acres of the Gold River property on June 3, 1940 to Levi Hatt for
$50 (see attached Colin sells Gold River Deed 2).
LeRoy Borgald sells his portion of Marvin’s Island which he inherited from his father Austin Borgald, for
$1 in `1957 (see Leroy sells Marivn’s Island Deed).
In 1968 LeRoy Borgald grants Burnell Corkhum a right of way between the land on Borgald’s Point that
he owns, and the land formerly owned by Robie Borgald but now by Burnell Corkum. The interesting
element is this registered deed refers to the land as “Borgald’s Point.”
LeRoy Borgald, as the last major family land owner in Borgald’s Point, references his residence and his
land holdings as “Borgald’s Point” in his last will and Testament recorded in 1971 (see attached LeRoy
Borgald’s Will).
Many Borgald’s remain living on the Point for the next two decades as renters including Hiram and
Kathleen Borgald and their two daughters Gloria and Rosemarie. The last Borgald to leave the Point was
Lynda Borgald about 10 years ago to be closer to her children in Alberta.
Robie’ daughter Linda lived on Borgald’s Point into the 2000’s before moving out to Alberta to be with
her children.
13 Request For Decision /Direction
Census (1871)
14 Request For Decision /Direction
CB Deed 1 Gold River
15 Request For Decision /Direction
Pulsifer Borgald's Point Deed 1795
16 Request For Decision /Direction
Casper Borgald's Point Deed 1806
17 Request For Decision /Direction
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Sylvia Dixon, Development & Planning Technician Date 2021-07-06
Reviewed By: Chad Haughn, Director of CDRD Date 2021-07-09
Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date 2021-07-12
CURRENT SITUATION
A private right-of-way off Marriott’s Cove Road East in Marriott’s Cove (map attached), that services three
residential homes, requires a private road name. The landowners have proposed the road name Fox Hill
Lane.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Municipal Council approve the road name Fox Hill Lane.
BACKGROUND
When there are three or more addressable properties using an unnamed shared right-of-way/driveway,
the Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide states that this point of access must be named. According to P-
44, the road name is suggested following a majority agreement (66.6%) from the landowners that are
served by the shared private right-of-way. In this instance, all of the four (4) property owner groups have
proposed a road name of Fox Hill Lane as their first choice. Alternative names proposed are Fox Hill Road
and Covecrest Lane.
DISCUSSION
Fox Hill Lane would be a unique road name in the Municipality of Chester and in Nova Scotia. The closest
names in Nova Scotia are Fox Hill Drive in Bible Hill, Colchester County and Fox Hill Ave in North Kentville,
Kings County. The closest sounding names in the Municipality of Chester are Fox Point Front Rd in the
community of Fox Point and Fox Point Lake Rd in the community of Mill Cove.
Comments received for Fox Hill Lane.
- District 7 Councillor – Councillor Sharon Church: no objection with the proposed name
- Municipal Engineer – Christa Rafuse: no objection with the proposed name
- Chester Area Fire Dept. – Chief Everett Hiltz: no objection with the proposed name
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Policy P-44 – New Road Names and Road Name Changes
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development & Recreation
Department
DATE: July 22, 2021
SUBJECT: New Road Name Assignment
ORIGIN: New Private Road Name Request with
Property Owners
2 Request For Decision /Direction
Financial/Budgetary
A new road sign (with accessory materials) will be purchased and posted by the Infrastructure &
Operations Department.
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
N/A
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Municipal Council can approve the road name Fox Hill Lane.
2. Municipal Council can decide not to approve the name and direct staff to assign a name of
Council’s choosing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Petitions Received
2. Location Map
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
3 Request For Decision /Direction
PETITIONS RECEIVED
Requested Road Name of Fox Hill Lane (1st), Fox Hill Rd (2nd)
Signed Petition from Property Owners, Lisa Gallivan & Dan Stuart
4 Request For Decision /Direction
Requested Road Name of Fox Hill Lane
Email from Property Owners, Lisa Macintyre-Smith & Raymond Smith
5 Request For Decision /Direction
Requested Road Name of Fox Hill Lane or Covecrest lane
Email from Property Owner, Maurice & Theresa Nateleen Zinck
6 Request For Decision /Direction
Requested Road Name of Fox Hill Lane
Email from Property Owner, Philip & Ann Stewart
^_
227
215
217
235
237
267
253
201
243Ma
r
r
i
ot
t
sCoveRdEHalf Moon Cove Rd
Rev.:Date:Description:
0
MUNICIPALITY OF THEDISTRICT OF CHESTER
From Date: N /ATo Da te : N/ADate Printed: 21/07/06
®
Legend
^_New Civic Address
Civic Address
New Private Road Name
Road
Driveway/Trail
Building Footprint
Property Boundary
Affected Properties
Waterbody
40 0 4020
Metres
21/07/06
Digital Folders Entry ID:1114185
Status: Ex istsProject ID: N/AClassification #: N/A
Representation of Municipality of Chester within Nova ScotiaScale: 1:12 ,500 ,0 00
Scale: 1:2,000
New Private Road Name Request:Fox Hill Lane
New Private Road Naming
Sources:Digital Base Map Data from Service N ova Scotia andMunicipal Relations
Prepared by the Municipality of the District of Chester
Coordinate System/Datum: UTM NAD83 CSRS ZONE20N
Map Disclaim er:Information shown on these drawings is compiledfrom numerous sources and may not be complete oraccurate. The Municipality of the District of Chester isnot responsible for any erro rs, omissions ordeficiencies in these drawings. Date printed do es notreflect date ofdata.
Actual Map Size: w 11" x h 8.5"
)
Address:New Private Road Name RequestCommunity:Marriotts CoveFire Dept:Chester Area Fire Dept.Description:New private road name required foraccess to three or more residential dwellings.
Proposed Road Name:Fox Hill Lane
REQUEST FOR DECISION/DIRECTION
Prepared By: Chad Haughn, Director
Community Development &
Recreation
Date July 14, 2021
Authorized By: Dan McDougall, CAO Date July 15, 2021
CURRENT SITUATION
Following the resignation of Erin Schurman-Kolb in June 2021, staff have taken the opportunity
to review the existing position for inspection services and bylaw enforcement. This report is
intended to provide information about suggested staffing changes related to bylaw enforcement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the creation of a new part-time Bylaw Enforcement
position as outlined in this report.
BACKGROUND
In the past, several different approaches have been used to try and find an efficient and
effective way to enforce Municipal bylaws. These approaches have ranged from a full-time
bylaw enforcement officer, use of Commissionaires, splitting bylaw enforcement duties
between various municipal departments and adding bylaw enforcement to an existing and
complimentary position. There have been pros and cons to each of these approaches.
It is anticipated that the Municipality would not be successful if we attempted to recruit for a
single position as it is currently structured with the inclusion of fire inspection, building
inspection and bylaw enforcement. Therefore, it is suggested that a new part-time position be
created solely for bylaw enforcement.
DISCUSSION
Based on experience and estimated time required to adequately respond to bylaw issues, it is
proposed that the bylaw enforcement position be part-time, 21 hours or 3 days per week. The
staff member will work from the Community Development & Recreation Department and will
report directly to the Director. The position will be responsible to enforce the following bylaws:
Dangerous & Unsightly Bylaw
Noise Bylaw
Burning Bylaw
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Haughn, Community Development &
Recreation
Meeting DATE: July 22, 2021
SUBJECT: Bylaw Enforcement Staffing
ORIGIN: Staffing Vacancy
2 Information Report
Solid Waste Bylaw / Illegal Dumps
Wharves, Slipways & Berthage Policy
Land Use Bylaws
Note - It is expected that there will be two new Municipal bylaws (Uniform Signage
Bylaw and Sidewalk Café Bylaw) created over the next year where enforcement maybe
required.
Currently, Land Use Bylaws are being enforced by the Development Officer. This field work is
very different from the other duties of that position and can be somewhat time consuming
depending on the file content and willingness of the property owner to comply. Moving land
use enforcement to the responsibility of Bylaw Enforcement would free up some time allowing
the Development Officer to focus on applications and permits. This is also a logical fit with the
Bylaw Enforcement position.
The intention is for Bylaw Enforcement to continue to operate primarily under a response-
based model (complaint driven); with, a role in education initiatives when time permits and
specific topics come up that would benefit from increased public awareness. Some of the
bylaws mentioned above have more activity in the summer months (i.e. Wharves, Slipways &
Berthage Policy). This position can also be used for other more proactive education initiatives.
The Enforcement staff could share information with the public on topics that Councilors and
staff hear about such as people not adhering to trail rules, skate park rules not being followed
or other key issues that arise.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
NA
Financial/Budgetary
Funding for this position was included in the 2021-22 operating budget in the amount of
$29,000 (Individual Contributor on the salary scale). Prior to the current staff member
resigning, there was a plan to separate bylaw enforcement in this fiscal year.
Since this is a part-time position, we will not provide a municipal fleet vehicle, rather the
individual will be required to provide their own vehicle and be compensated through the
payment of mileage.
Environmental
NA
Strategic Plan
Goal #4: Will strengthen and support, environmental, cultural, and social resources.
3 Information Report
Work Program Implications
The creation of this position will create a more focused effort on bylaw enforcement. It is hoped that
there will be a positive work program impact on both building & fire inspection as well as development.
Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _X__ No ___ N/A
OPTIONS
1. Approve the creation of a new part-time Bylaw Enforcement position as presented.
2. Request staff make changes to the Bylaw Enforcement position.
3. Do not support the creation of a new Bylaw Enforcement position and provide alternate
direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
None
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Prepared By: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Date June 9, 2021
Reviewed By:
Dan Pittman
Kavita Khanna
Tim Topping
Date
June 17, 2021
July 16, 2021
Authorized By: Dan McDougall Date July 16, 2021
CURRENT SITUATION
A Kaizer Meadow Landfill leachate treatment system assessment was prepared by CBCL Ltd.in
2019. To meet the future needs for leachate treatment proposed upgrades identified by CBCL
included:
A second equalization lagoon.
Remove media filters (sand & textile filters) from the treatment process and only operate
under periods of low flow.
Upgraded aeration for the existing equalization and retention lagoons.
An additional dispersal area for a second EnVapoCrystallization unit (EVC).
The proposed upgrades were broken into two phases.
Phase 1, was approved by the council in fall 2020, and has since been completed. The scope of
this phase included:
Continued use of the EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) for dispersal of the leachate on the
land.
Addition of piping and equipment to operate a second EVC tower simultaneously.
Phase 2 is primarily the addition of an equalization lagoon and aeration equipment to meet the
existing capacity required and future needs for leachate treatment.
The estimated cost of Phase 1- Effluent Dispersal was awarded to Western Plumbing and
Heating. The final cost is expected to be approximately $475,000, plus tax.
The estimated cost of Phase 2- Equalization Lagoon is $1,650,000 (opinion of probable costs,
includes construction contingency and allowances, contractor overhead and fees) class D
estimate (contingency not added).
REPORT TO: CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng
DATE: June 2021
SUBJECT: Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at
Kaizer Meadow Landfill, Phase 2 –
Equalization Lagoon
2 Request for Direction
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the design of Phase II leachate treatment system
upgrades to CBCL at an estimated cost of $40,000.
BACKGROUND
The Kaizer Meadow Landfill is a second-generation landfill with a leachate treatment system
consisting of pumping stations, equalization lagoon, recirculating media filters (sand and textile
filters), aerated effluent equalization (EQ) lagoon and EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) system for
land discharge.
An advanced oxidation process was included in the system but is no longer operational as it had
created a bottleneck. The Advantex system (recirculating media filters) was later added to assist
with nitrogen loading and BOD/TSS removal/polishing of the leachate.
It should also be noted that effluent from the septage lagoons also enters the equalization lagoon
for additional polishing.
Generally, the design parameters for the leachate treatment system include a system able to
handle the volume of leachate generated; and a system able to handle the “strength” of the
leachate.
Volume of Leachate
The average annual volume of leachate treated over the past five years was 27,028 cubic meters
(m3). This equates to an average of 74 m3 per day.
Summary of Leachate Volumes Treated
Year Volume Treated (m3)
2016 28,256
2017 26,890
2018 27,048
2019 27,695
2020 25,252
Average 27,028
Precipitation largely contributes to leachate production. Not all precipitation that falls on the
landfill turns into leachate. Some of the precipitation runs off the landfill, evaporates or is lost
during the formation of gas, and some gets absorbed into the waste.
Additional leachate volumes are expected as additional landfill cells are opened. CBCL has
estimated that with the additional cells planned the landfill is expected to generate 43,875 m3 per
year. Cell 4A opened in the Spring of 2019 and CBCL has noted that it appears that the additional
footprint has not resulted in additional leachate being produced or treated (volume generated
3 Request for Direction
roughly correlates with the volume treated). For the current calendar year 15,719 m3 of leachate
was treated as of July 8, 2021, for an average daily volume of 83.7 m3.
Climate change was considered by referring to existing projections. Nova Scotia Environment
(NSE) records climate data for Nova Scotia and regions within Nova Scotia. In addition, future
weather projections are produced for a number of parameters including precipitation. Annual
precipitation is projected to increase by approximately one percent (1%) from the 2020s to the
2050s. As such, the proposed Phase II expansion should be able to accommodate this projected
average increase.
It should also be noted that leachate in cell 3A has only been removed intermittently due to a
closed isolation valve. Leachate from cell 3A is removed by release into cell 4A. However, cell
3A’s elevation is lower than cell 4A so some leachate will always be held in 3A.
Additional volume can be processed through the leachate treatment system. Starting with the
equalization lagoon additional volumes can be handled but will result in a lower hydraulic retention
time (HRT), which results in a lower level of treatment. Based on 26,890 m3 of leachate production
in 2017 the HRT of the leachate was estimated to be 40 days.
The next step in the process is the media filters. CBCL has noted that the media filters
(recirculating sand filter, and recirculating textile filter) have a capacity of 82 m3 per day; and that
in 2017 the average daily flow was 74 m3 per day. As such, the filters can handle the current
volume from the equalization lagoon but do not have excess capacity for a large increase in flows
and will be a “bottleneck’ in the system. Leachate can be discharged from the equalization lagoon
directly into the retention lagoon through the use of pumping and temporary hose/piping.
Bypassing the media filters results in a lower level of treatment. Bypassing has been used to
address higher volumes in the short term generated by significant precipitation events, etc.
The next step is the retention lagoon. CBCL has noted that this lagoon was not designed to
provide treatment but does provide some additional effluent natural treatment prior to dispersal
through the EVC system. Similar to the equalization lagoon, additional volumes processed will
result in a lower HRT in the retention lagoon.
The final step in the process is the EVC system which disperses the leachate onto the land. This
system provides additional treatment the second EVC tower is commissioned the estimated
discharge capacity of this system will be 45 m3 per hour, or 40,500 m3 annually based on 120
operating days per year.
Strength of Leachate
In the 2019 system assessment CBCL compared 2012 leachate characteristics from Kaizer
Meadow; and, predicted future leachate characteristics using data from typical new and mature
landfills (Table 9). Staff will conduct additional tests in the summer of 2021 to confirm the existing
leachate characteristics.
4 Request for Direction
CBCL indicated that “at current operations, the equalization lagoon has a hydraulic retention time
of 40 days and is capable of providing adequate BOD and TSS removal. Table 10 outlines the
capacity of the existing equalization lagoon to handle the increased future hydraulic and organic
loading. The table shows that the existing equalization lagoon at future loadings would have a
hydraulic retention time of 26 days and would be able to achieve 80% removal of influent BOD,
for an effluent BOD concentration of 150 mg/L.”
CBCL also noted that “while the facility currently does not have BOD effluent requirements, it is
likely that in the future any discharge regulations would be below 150 mg/L and the equalization
lagoon would not be compliant.” I &O Staff are not aware of any imminent plans by NSE to
establish BOD effluent requirements suggested in this statement; and I & O staff will engage NSE
in the review and approval of the proposed upgrades as required.
DISCUSSION
Leachate management is an ongoing requirement for the facility both during operation and during
the post closure period.
The Municipality’s operating permit approval requires the Municipality to operate the leachate
treatment plant as per the existing design approved by NSE but does not define discharge
parameters. Changes in the leachate treatment system will require NSE review and approval.
Treatment options were evaluated to ensure that the Municipality’s future investment decisions
are guided by both operating and capital cost implications.
5 Request for Direction
CBCL identified the following treatment options for consideration:
1. Complete Phase 2 LTP Upgrades
An additional equalization lagoon added in parallel to the existing equalization lagoon to handle
increased hydraulic and organic loadings and provide additional retention time (see Table 10).
Table 10: Existing Lagoon and Upgrade Options Hydraulic Capacity
Option Total Lagoon
Volume (m3)
HRT (days) Predicted BOD
effluent (mg/L)
Aeration
Requirement
(SCFM)
Existing
Equalization
Lagoon
2900 26 150 690
Addition of
Second
Equalization
Lagoon (same
size as existing)
2900 + 2900 =
5800
52 20 690
In addition, upgrades to the existing aeration systems for the equalization and retention lagoons.
The existing recirculating sand filters (RSF) and recirculating textile filters (RTF) filters could be
left in place and operational, but they are overloaded in terms of nitrogen and could bottleneck
the system. Therefore, they would only be used in summer during low flow for effluent polishing
or just simply removed.
CBCL has based its recommendations based on the available data and operating conditions
(memo report – Leachate Treatment Assessment, 2019).
The use of the second EVC dispersal unit will prevent bottlenecks and provide backup to the
existing EVC unit. The newest EVC unit purchased last year also works very well and staff are
pleased with its performance. The mobile units allow placement in a larger new location away
from our neighbors and an already nitrate saturated site. The environmental consultants have
advised on sampling areas (MW are installed) and frequency of moving the mobile EVC units to
prevent any issues within the dispersal areas.
Other options considered are trucking leachate daily to treatment facilities and an alternative type
of leachate treatment on site.
2. Off-site Trucking and Disposal
Leachate produced from the landfill can be trucked off-site for treatment and disposal (not
Municipally owned and operated). Based on our existing volumes the transportation and
disposal costs would be in the range of $1,159,000 and $2,318,000 per year for off-site
6 Request for Direction
disposal. This option does not appear to be an economically viable alternative for treatment of
the leachate.
3. Other treatment options
CBCL was requested to investigate other option for treatment as per Valley Wastes request and
as per the memo report dated June 1, 2021, a summary of the options and costs are in the table
below.
A. Co-treatment with Domestic Wastewater
This option is typically used if larger wastewater systems are within proximity to the leachate
generator, due to the large transportation costs to transport. Our existing wastewater treatment
plants are generally small and spread out and required transport therefore not economical.
B. Constructed Wetlands
A constructed wetland is a biological treatment method that uses vegetation, soil, and other
organisms to treat wastewater. Under this option, the additional equalization lagoon would still
be required, a large land area requirement, and discharged to a nearby watercourse. Removing
the EVC towers (land application) would require additional permitting and testing requirements.
C. Sequencing Batch Reactor
A suitable treatment process that provides greater process flexibility compared to other
biological treatment methods but are also more complex and will required more attention than
the existing LTP. Overall power consumption, more operator attention and ongoing
monitoring/permitting costs would be expected.
D. Reverse Osmosis
A treatment process that removes contaminants from water by using pressure to force water
through a semipermeable membrane. Although effective at removing contaminants it requires
extensive pre-treatment and frequent membrane cleaning, requiring storage, treatment, and
disposal. This is not a realistic option and not explored further.
The options evaluation showed clearly that the Phase 2 upgrade proposed is the most
economical option (full report available on request).
The following table outlines the Class D estimated costs for all the options investigated:
7 Request for Direction
Note: This is based on full build out (cells 1 to 4 complete)
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
P-04 Procurement Policy
Financial/Budgetary
The estimated cost for the leachate treatment plant upgrade project – Phase 2. An investment of $1.65
million dollars will be required and funded by borrowing. Budget approval and borrowing term to be
established in consultation with the Valley Waste Landfill Liaison Committee.
Environmental
Work to be completed to maintain Nova Scotia Environment Approvals for the Kaizer Meadow Landfill.
Strategic Plan
1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility.
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services.
3. Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Status Quo: Monitor the performance of the Leachate Treatment System including
volumes and strength of leachate produced.
8 Request for Direction
2. Approve the design of Phase II for the Leachate Treatment System.
3. Council can provide alternate direction and/or request additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Prepared By: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Date June 9, 2021
Reviewed By:
Dan Pittman
Kavita Khanna
Tim Topping
Date
June 17, 2021
July 16, 2021
Authorized By: Dan McDougall Date July 16, 2021
CURRENT SITUATION
A Kaizer Meadow Landfill leachate treatment system assessment was prepared by CBCL Ltd.in
2019. To meet the future needs for leachate treatment proposed upgrades identified by CBCL
included:
A second equalization lagoon.
Remove media filters (sand & textile filters) from the treatment process and only operate
under periods of low flow.
Upgraded aeration for the existing equalization and retention lagoons.
An additional dispersal area for a second EnVapoCrystallization unit (EVC).
The proposed upgrades were broken into two phases.
Phase 1, was approved by the council in fall 2020, and has since been completed. The scope of
this phase included:
Continued use of the EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) for dispersal of the leachate on the
land.
Addition of piping and equipment to operate a second EVC tower simultaneously.
Phase 2 is primarily the addition of an equalization lagoon and aeration equipment to meet the
existing capacity required and future needs for leachate treatment.
The estimated cost of Phase 1- Effluent Dispersal was awarded to Western Plumbing and
Heating. The final cost is expected to be approximately $475,000, plus tax.
The estimated cost of Phase 2- Equalization Lagoon is $1,650,000 (opinion of probable costs,
includes construction contingency and allowances, contractor overhead and fees) class D
estimate (contingency not added).
REPORT TO: CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng
DATE: June 2021
SUBJECT: Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at
Kaizer Meadow Landfill, Phase 2 –
Equalization Lagoon
2 Request for Direction
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the design of Phase II leachate treatment system
upgrades to CBCL at an estimated cost of $40,000.
BACKGROUND
The Kaizer Meadow Landfill is a second-generation landfill with a leachate treatment system
consisting of pumping stations, equalization lagoon, recirculating media filters (sand and textile
filters), aerated effluent equalization (EQ) lagoon and EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) system for
land discharge.
An advanced oxidation process was included in the system but is no longer operational as it had
created a bottleneck. The Advantex system (recirculating media filters) was later added to assist
with nitrogen loading and BOD/TSS removal/polishing of the leachate.
It should also be noted that effluent from the septage lagoons also enters the equalization lagoon
for additional polishing.
Generally, the design parameters for the leachate treatment system include a system able to
handle the volume of leachate generated; and a system able to handle the “strength” of the
leachate.
Volume of Leachate
The average annual volume of leachate treated over the past five years was 27,028 cubic meters
(m3). This equates to an average of 74 m3 per day.
Summary of Leachate Volumes Treated
Year Volume Treated (m3)
2016 28,256
2017 26,890
2018 27,048
2019 27,695
2020 25,252
Average 27,028
Precipitation largely contributes to leachate production. Not all precipitation that falls on the
landfill turns into leachate. Some of the precipitation runs off the landfill, evaporates or is lost
during the formation of gas, and some gets absorbed into the waste.
Additional leachate volumes are expected as additional landfill cells are opened. CBCL has
estimated that with the additional cells planned the landfill is expected to generate 43,875 m3 per
year. Cell 4A opened in the Spring of 2019 and CBCL has noted that it appears that the additional
footprint has not resulted in additional leachate being produced or treated (volume generated
3 Request for Direction
roughly correlates with the volume treated). For the current calendar year 15,719 m3 of leachate
was treated as of July 8, 2021, for an average daily volume of 83.7 m3.
Climate change was considered by referring to existing projections. Nova Scotia Environment
(NSE) records climate data for Nova Scotia and regions within Nova Scotia. In addition, future
weather projections are produced for a number of parameters including precipitation. Annual
precipitation is projected to increase by approximately one percent (1%) from the 2020s to the
2050s. As such, the proposed Phase II expansion should be able to accommodate this projected
average increase.
It should also be noted that leachate in cell 3A has only been removed intermittently due to a
closed isolation valve. Leachate from cell 3A is removed by release into cell 4A. However, cell
3A’s elevation is lower than cell 4A so some leachate will always be held in 3A.
Additional volume can be processed through the leachate treatment system. Starting with the
equalization lagoon additional volumes can be handled but will result in a lower hydraulic retention
time (HRT), which results in a lower level of treatment. Based on 26,890 m3 of leachate production
in 2017 the HRT of the leachate was estimated to be 40 days.
The next step in the process is the media filters. CBCL has noted that the media filters
(recirculating sand filter, and recirculating textile filter) have a capacity of 82 m3 per day; and that
in 2017 the average daily flow was 74 m3 per day. As such, the filters can handle the current
volume from the equalization lagoon but do not have excess capacity for a large increase in flows
and will be a “bottleneck’ in the system. Leachate can be discharged from the equalization lagoon
directly into the retention lagoon through the use of pumping and temporary hose/piping.
Bypassing the media filters results in a lower level of treatment. Bypassing has been used to
address higher volumes in the short term generated by significant precipitation events, etc.
The next step is the retention lagoon. CBCL has noted that this lagoon was not designed to
provide treatment but does provide some additional effluent natural treatment prior to dispersal
through the EVC system. Similar to the equalization lagoon, additional volumes processed will
result in a lower HRT in the retention lagoon.
The final step in the process is the EVC system which disperses the leachate onto the land. This
system provides additional treatment the second EVC tower is commissioned the estimated
discharge capacity of this system will be 45 m3 per hour, or 40,500 m3 annually based on 120
operating days per year.
Strength of Leachate
In the 2019 system assessment CBCL compared 2012 leachate characteristics from Kaizer
Meadow; and, predicted future leachate characteristics using data from typical new and mature
landfills (Table 9). Staff will conduct additional tests in the summer of 2021 to confirm the existing
leachate characteristics.
4 Request for Direction
CBCL indicated that “at current operations, the equalization lagoon has a hydraulic retention time
of 40 days and is capable of providing adequate BOD and TSS removal. Table 10 outlines the
capacity of the existing equalization lagoon to handle the increased future hydraulic and organic
loading. The table shows that the existing equalization lagoon at future loadings would have a
hydraulic retention time of 26 days and would be able to achieve 80% removal of influent BOD,
for an effluent BOD concentration of 150 mg/L.”
CBCL also noted that “while the facility currently does not have BOD effluent requirements, it is
likely that in the future any discharge regulations would be below 150 mg/L and the equalization
lagoon would not be compliant.” I &O Staff are not aware of any imminent plans by NSE to
establish BOD effluent requirements suggested in this statement; and I & O staff will engage NSE
in the review and approval of the proposed upgrades as required.
DISCUSSION
Leachate management is an ongoing requirement for the facility both during operation and during
the post closure period.
The Municipality’s operating permit approval requires the Municipality to operate the leachate
treatment plant as per the existing design approved by NSE but does not define discharge
parameters. Changes in the leachate treatment system will require NSE review and approval.
Treatment options were evaluated to ensure that the Municipality’s future investment decisions
are guided by both operating and capital cost implications.
5 Request for Direction
CBCL identified the following treatment options for consideration:
1. Complete Phase 2 LTP Upgrades
An additional equalization lagoon added in parallel to the existing equalization lagoon to handle
increased hydraulic and organic loadings and provide additional retention time (see Table 10).
Table 10: Existing Lagoon and Upgrade Options Hydraulic Capacity
Option Total Lagoon
Volume (m3)
HRT (days) Predicted BOD
effluent (mg/L)
Aeration
Requirement
(SCFM)
Existing
Equalization
Lagoon
2900 26 150 690
Addition of
Second
Equalization
Lagoon (same
size as existing)
2900 + 2900 =
5800
52 20 690
In addition, upgrades to the existing aeration systems for the equalization and retention lagoons.
The existing recirculating sand filters (RSF) and recirculating textile filters (RTF) filters could be
left in place and operational, but they are overloaded in terms of nitrogen and could bottleneck
the system. Therefore, they would only be used in summer during low flow for effluent polishing
or just simply removed.
CBCL has based its recommendations based on the available data and operating conditions
(memo report – Leachate Treatment Assessment, 2019).
The use of the second EVC dispersal unit will prevent bottlenecks and provide backup to the
existing EVC unit. The newest EVC unit purchased last year also works very well and staff are
pleased with its performance. The mobile units allow placement in a larger new location away
from our neighbors and an already nitrate saturated site. The environmental consultants have
advised on sampling areas (MW are installed) and frequency of moving the mobile EVC units to
prevent any issues within the dispersal areas.
Other options considered are trucking leachate daily to treatment facilities and an alternative type
of leachate treatment on site.
2. Off-site Trucking and Disposal
Leachate produced from the landfill can be trucked off-site for treatment and disposal (not
Municipally owned and operated). Based on our existing volumes the transportation and
disposal costs would be in the range of $1,159,000 and $2,318,000 per year for off-site
6 Request for Direction
disposal. This option does not appear to be an economically viable alternative for treatment of
the leachate.
3. Other treatment options
CBCL was requested to investigate other option for treatment as per Valley Wastes request and
as per the memo report dated June 1, 2021, a summary of the options and costs are in the table
below.
A. Co-treatment with Domestic Wastewater
This option is typically used if larger wastewater systems are within proximity to the leachate
generator, due to the large transportation costs to transport. Our existing wastewater treatment
plants are generally small and spread out and required transport therefore not economical.
B. Constructed Wetlands
A constructed wetland is a biological treatment method that uses vegetation, soil, and other
organisms to treat wastewater. Under this option, the additional equalization lagoon would still
be required, a large land area requirement, and discharged to a nearby watercourse. Removing
the EVC towers (land application) would require additional permitting and testing requirements.
C. Sequencing Batch Reactor
A suitable treatment process that provides greater process flexibility compared to other
biological treatment methods but are also more complex and will required more attention than
the existing LTP. Overall power consumption, more operator attention and ongoing
monitoring/permitting costs would be expected.
D. Reverse Osmosis
A treatment process that removes contaminants from water by using pressure to force water
through a semipermeable membrane. Although effective at removing contaminants it requires
extensive pre-treatment and frequent membrane cleaning, requiring storage, treatment, and
disposal. This is not a realistic option and not explored further.
The options evaluation showed clearly that the Phase 2 upgrade proposed is the most
economical option (full report available on request).
The following table outlines the Class D estimated costs for all the options investigated:
7 Request for Direction
Note: This is based on full build out (cells 1 to 4 complete)
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
P-04 Procurement Policy
Financial/Budgetary
The estimated cost for the leachate treatment plant upgrade project – Phase 2. An investment of $1.65
million dollars will be required and funded by borrowing. Budget approval and borrowing term to be
established in consultation with the Valley Waste Landfill Liaison Committee.
Environmental
Work to be completed to maintain Nova Scotia Environment Approvals for the Kaizer Meadow Landfill.
Strategic Plan
1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility.
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services.
3. Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Status Quo: Monitor the performance of the Leachate Treatment System including
volumes and strength of leachate produced.
8 Request for Direction
2. Approve the design of Phase II for the Leachate Treatment System.
3. Council can provide alternate direction and/or request additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Prepared By: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Date June 9, 2021
Reviewed By:
Dan Pittman
Kavita Khanna
Tim Topping
Date
June 17, 2021
July 16, 2021
Authorized By: Dan McDougall Date July 16, 2021
CURRENT SITUATION
A Kaizer Meadow Landfill leachate treatment system assessment was prepared by CBCL Ltd.in
2019. To meet the future needs for leachate treatment proposed upgrades identified by CBCL
included:
A second equalization lagoon.
Remove media filters (sand & textile filters) from the treatment process and only operate
under periods of low flow.
Upgraded aeration for the existing equalization and retention lagoons.
An additional dispersal area for a second EnVapoCrystallization unit (EVC).
The proposed upgrades were broken into two phases.
Phase 1, was approved by the council in fall 2020, and has since been completed. The scope of
this phase included:
Continued use of the EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) for dispersal of the leachate on the
land.
Addition of piping and equipment to operate a second EVC tower simultaneously.
Phase 2 is primarily the addition of an equalization lagoon and aeration equipment to meet the
existing capacity required and future needs for leachate treatment.
The estimated cost of Phase 1- Effluent Dispersal was awarded to Western Plumbing and
Heating. The final cost is expected to be approximately $475,000, plus tax.
The estimated cost of Phase 2- Equalization Lagoon is $1,650,000 (opinion of probable costs,
includes construction contingency and allowances, contractor overhead and fees) class D
estimate (contingency not added).
REPORT TO: CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng
DATE: June 2021
SUBJECT: Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at
Kaizer Meadow Landfill, Phase 2 –
Equalization Lagoon
2 Request for Direction
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the design of Phase II leachate treatment system
upgrades to CBCL at an estimated cost of $40,000.
BACKGROUND
The Kaizer Meadow Landfill is a second-generation landfill with a leachate treatment system
consisting of pumping stations, equalization lagoon, recirculating media filters (sand and textile
filters), aerated effluent equalization (EQ) lagoon and EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) system for
land discharge.
An advanced oxidation process was included in the system but is no longer operational as it had
created a bottleneck. The Advantex system (recirculating media filters) was later added to assist
with nitrogen loading and BOD/TSS removal/polishing of the leachate.
It should also be noted that effluent from the septage lagoons also enters the equalization lagoon
for additional polishing.
Generally, the design parameters for the leachate treatment system include a system able to
handle the volume of leachate generated; and a system able to handle the “strength” of the
leachate.
Volume of Leachate
The average annual volume of leachate treated over the past five years was 27,028 cubic meters
(m3). This equates to an average of 74 m3 per day.
Summary of Leachate Volumes Treated
Year Volume Treated (m3)
2016 28,256
2017 26,890
2018 27,048
2019 27,695
2020 25,252
Average 27,028
Precipitation largely contributes to leachate production. Not all precipitation that falls on the
landfill turns into leachate. Some of the precipitation runs off the landfill, evaporates or is lost
during the formation of gas, and some gets absorbed into the waste.
Additional leachate volumes are expected as additional landfill cells are opened. CBCL has
estimated that with the additional cells planned the landfill is expected to generate 43,875 m3 per
year. Cell 4A opened in the Spring of 2019 and CBCL has noted that it appears that the additional
footprint has not resulted in additional leachate being produced or treated (volume generated
3 Request for Direction
roughly correlates with the volume treated). For the current calendar year 15,719 m3 of leachate
was treated as of July 8, 2021, for an average daily volume of 83.7 m3.
Climate change was considered by referring to existing projections. Nova Scotia Environment
(NSE) records climate data for Nova Scotia and regions within Nova Scotia. In addition, future
weather projections are produced for a number of parameters including precipitation. Annual
precipitation is projected to increase by approximately one percent (1%) from the 2020s to the
2050s. As such, the proposed Phase II expansion should be able to accommodate this projected
average increase.
It should also be noted that leachate in cell 3A has only been removed intermittently due to a
closed isolation valve. Leachate from cell 3A is removed by release into cell 4A. However, cell
3A’s elevation is lower than cell 4A so some leachate will always be held in 3A.
Additional volume can be processed through the leachate treatment system. Starting with the
equalization lagoon additional volumes can be handled but will result in a lower hydraulic retention
time (HRT), which results in a lower level of treatment. Based on 26,890 m3 of leachate production
in 2017 the HRT of the leachate was estimated to be 40 days.
The next step in the process is the media filters. CBCL has noted that the media filters
(recirculating sand filter, and recirculating textile filter) have a capacity of 82 m3 per day; and that
in 2017 the average daily flow was 74 m3 per day. As such, the filters can handle the current
volume from the equalization lagoon but do not have excess capacity for a large increase in flows
and will be a “bottleneck’ in the system. Leachate can be discharged from the equalization lagoon
directly into the retention lagoon through the use of pumping and temporary hose/piping.
Bypassing the media filters results in a lower level of treatment. Bypassing has been used to
address higher volumes in the short term generated by significant precipitation events, etc.
The next step is the retention lagoon. CBCL has noted that this lagoon was not designed to
provide treatment but does provide some additional effluent natural treatment prior to dispersal
through the EVC system. Similar to the equalization lagoon, additional volumes processed will
result in a lower HRT in the retention lagoon.
The final step in the process is the EVC system which disperses the leachate onto the land. This
system provides additional treatment the second EVC tower is commissioned the estimated
discharge capacity of this system will be 45 m3 per hour, or 40,500 m3 annually based on 120
operating days per year.
Strength of Leachate
In the 2019 system assessment CBCL compared 2012 leachate characteristics from Kaizer
Meadow; and, predicted future leachate characteristics using data from typical new and mature
landfills (Table 9). Staff will conduct additional tests in the summer of 2021 to confirm the existing
leachate characteristics.
4 Request for Direction
CBCL indicated that “at current operations, the equalization lagoon has a hydraulic retention time
of 40 days and is capable of providing adequate BOD and TSS removal. Table 10 outlines the
capacity of the existing equalization lagoon to handle the increased future hydraulic and organic
loading. The table shows that the existing equalization lagoon at future loadings would have a
hydraulic retention time of 26 days and would be able to achieve 80% removal of influent BOD,
for an effluent BOD concentration of 150 mg/L.”
CBCL also noted that “while the facility currently does not have BOD effluent requirements, it is
likely that in the future any discharge regulations would be below 150 mg/L and the equalization
lagoon would not be compliant.” I &O Staff are not aware of any imminent plans by NSE to
establish BOD effluent requirements suggested in this statement; and I & O staff will engage NSE
in the review and approval of the proposed upgrades as required.
DISCUSSION
Leachate management is an ongoing requirement for the facility both during operation and during
the post closure period.
The Municipality’s operating permit approval requires the Municipality to operate the leachate
treatment plant as per the existing design approved by NSE but does not define discharge
parameters. Changes in the leachate treatment system will require NSE review and approval.
Treatment options were evaluated to ensure that the Municipality’s future investment decisions
are guided by both operating and capital cost implications.
5 Request for Direction
CBCL identified the following treatment options for consideration:
1. Complete Phase 2 LTP Upgrades
An additional equalization lagoon added in parallel to the existing equalization lagoon to handle
increased hydraulic and organic loadings and provide additional retention time (see Table 10).
Table 10: Existing Lagoon and Upgrade Options Hydraulic Capacity
Option Total Lagoon
Volume (m3)
HRT (days) Predicted BOD
effluent (mg/L)
Aeration
Requirement
(SCFM)
Existing
Equalization
Lagoon
2900 26 150 690
Addition of
Second
Equalization
Lagoon (same
size as existing)
2900 + 2900 =
5800
52 20 690
In addition, upgrades to the existing aeration systems for the equalization and retention lagoons.
The existing recirculating sand filters (RSF) and recirculating textile filters (RTF) filters could be
left in place and operational, but they are overloaded in terms of nitrogen and could bottleneck
the system. Therefore, they would only be used in summer during low flow for effluent polishing
or just simply removed.
CBCL has based its recommendations based on the available data and operating conditions
(memo report – Leachate Treatment Assessment, 2019).
The use of the second EVC dispersal unit will prevent bottlenecks and provide backup to the
existing EVC unit. The newest EVC unit purchased last year also works very well and staff are
pleased with its performance. The mobile units allow placement in a larger new location away
from our neighbors and an already nitrate saturated site. The environmental consultants have
advised on sampling areas (MW are installed) and frequency of moving the mobile EVC units to
prevent any issues within the dispersal areas.
Other options considered are trucking leachate daily to treatment facilities and an alternative type
of leachate treatment on site.
2. Off-site Trucking and Disposal
Leachate produced from the landfill can be trucked off-site for treatment and disposal (not
Municipally owned and operated). Based on our existing volumes the transportation and
disposal costs would be in the range of $1,159,000 and $2,318,000 per year for off-site
6 Request for Direction
disposal. This option does not appear to be an economically viable alternative for treatment of
the leachate.
3. Other treatment options
CBCL was requested to investigate other option for treatment as per Valley Wastes request and
as per the memo report dated June 1, 2021, a summary of the options and costs are in the table
below.
A. Co-treatment with Domestic Wastewater
This option is typically used if larger wastewater systems are within proximity to the leachate
generator, due to the large transportation costs to transport. Our existing wastewater treatment
plants are generally small and spread out and required transport therefore not economical.
B. Constructed Wetlands
A constructed wetland is a biological treatment method that uses vegetation, soil, and other
organisms to treat wastewater. Under this option, the additional equalization lagoon would still
be required, a large land area requirement, and discharged to a nearby watercourse. Removing
the EVC towers (land application) would require additional permitting and testing requirements.
C. Sequencing Batch Reactor
A suitable treatment process that provides greater process flexibility compared to other
biological treatment methods but are also more complex and will required more attention than
the existing LTP. Overall power consumption, more operator attention and ongoing
monitoring/permitting costs would be expected.
D. Reverse Osmosis
A treatment process that removes contaminants from water by using pressure to force water
through a semipermeable membrane. Although effective at removing contaminants it requires
extensive pre-treatment and frequent membrane cleaning, requiring storage, treatment, and
disposal. This is not a realistic option and not explored further.
The options evaluation showed clearly that the Phase 2 upgrade proposed is the most
economical option (full report available on request).
The following table outlines the Class D estimated costs for all the options investigated:
7 Request for Direction
Note: This is based on full build out (cells 1 to 4 complete)
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
P-04 Procurement Policy
Financial/Budgetary
The estimated cost for the leachate treatment plant upgrade project – Phase 2. An investment of $1.65
million dollars will be required and funded by borrowing. Budget approval and borrowing term to be
established in consultation with the Valley Waste Landfill Liaison Committee.
Environmental
Work to be completed to maintain Nova Scotia Environment Approvals for the Kaizer Meadow Landfill.
Strategic Plan
1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility.
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services.
3. Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Status Quo: Monitor the performance of the Leachate Treatment System including
volumes and strength of leachate produced.
8 Request for Direction
2. Approve the design of Phase II for the Leachate Treatment System.
3. Council can provide alternate direction and/or request additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Prepared By: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Date June 9, 2021
Reviewed By:
Dan Pittman
Kavita Khanna
Tim Topping
Date
June 17, 2021
July 16, 2021
Authorized By: Dan McDougall Date July 16, 2021
CURRENT SITUATION
A Kaizer Meadow Landfill leachate treatment system assessment was prepared by CBCL Ltd.in
2019. To meet the future needs for leachate treatment proposed upgrades identified by CBCL
included:
A second equalization lagoon.
Remove media filters (sand & textile filters) from the treatment process and only operate
under periods of low flow.
Upgraded aeration for the existing equalization and retention lagoons.
An additional dispersal area for a second EnVapoCrystallization unit (EVC).
The proposed upgrades were broken into two phases.
Phase 1, was approved by the council in fall 2020, and has since been completed. The scope of
this phase included:
Continued use of the EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) for dispersal of the leachate on the
land.
Addition of piping and equipment to operate a second EVC tower simultaneously.
Phase 2 is primarily the addition of an equalization lagoon and aeration equipment to meet the
existing capacity required and future needs for leachate treatment.
The estimated cost of Phase 1- Effluent Dispersal was awarded to Western Plumbing and
Heating. The final cost is expected to be approximately $475,000, plus tax.
The estimated cost of Phase 2- Equalization Lagoon is $1,650,000 (opinion of probable costs,
includes construction contingency and allowances, contractor overhead and fees) class D
estimate (contingency not added).
REPORT TO: CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng
DATE: June 2021
SUBJECT: Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at
Kaizer Meadow Landfill, Phase 2 –
Equalization Lagoon
2 Request for Direction
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the design of Phase II leachate treatment system
upgrades to CBCL at an estimated cost of $40,000.
BACKGROUND
The Kaizer Meadow Landfill is a second-generation landfill with a leachate treatment system
consisting of pumping stations, equalization lagoon, recirculating media filters (sand and textile
filters), aerated effluent equalization (EQ) lagoon and EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) system for
land discharge.
An advanced oxidation process was included in the system but is no longer operational as it had
created a bottleneck. The Advantex system (recirculating media filters) was later added to assist
with nitrogen loading and BOD/TSS removal/polishing of the leachate.
It should also be noted that effluent from the septage lagoons also enters the equalization lagoon
for additional polishing.
Generally, the design parameters for the leachate treatment system include a system able to
handle the volume of leachate generated; and a system able to handle the “strength” of the
leachate.
Volume of Leachate
The average annual volume of leachate treated over the past five years was 27,028 cubic meters
(m3). This equates to an average of 74 m3 per day.
Summary of Leachate Volumes Treated
Year Volume Treated (m3)
2016 28,256
2017 26,890
2018 27,048
2019 27,695
2020 25,252
Average 27,028
Precipitation largely contributes to leachate production. Not all precipitation that falls on the
landfill turns into leachate. Some of the precipitation runs off the landfill, evaporates or is lost
during the formation of gas, and some gets absorbed into the waste.
Additional leachate volumes are expected as additional landfill cells are opened. CBCL has
estimated that with the additional cells planned the landfill is expected to generate 43,875 m3 per
year. Cell 4A opened in the Spring of 2019 and CBCL has noted that it appears that the additional
footprint has not resulted in additional leachate being produced or treated (volume generated
3 Request for Direction
roughly correlates with the volume treated). For the current calendar year 15,719 m3 of leachate
was treated as of July 8, 2021, for an average daily volume of 83.7 m3.
Climate change was considered by referring to existing projections. Nova Scotia Environment
(NSE) records climate data for Nova Scotia and regions within Nova Scotia. In addition, future
weather projections are produced for a number of parameters including precipitation. Annual
precipitation is projected to increase by approximately one percent (1%) from the 2020s to the
2050s. As such, the proposed Phase II expansion should be able to accommodate this projected
average increase.
It should also be noted that leachate in cell 3A has only been removed intermittently due to a
closed isolation valve. Leachate from cell 3A is removed by release into cell 4A. However, cell
3A’s elevation is lower than cell 4A so some leachate will always be held in 3A.
Additional volume can be processed through the leachate treatment system. Starting with the
equalization lagoon additional volumes can be handled but will result in a lower hydraulic retention
time (HRT), which results in a lower level of treatment. Based on 26,890 m3 of leachate production
in 2017 the HRT of the leachate was estimated to be 40 days.
The next step in the process is the media filters. CBCL has noted that the media filters
(recirculating sand filter, and recirculating textile filter) have a capacity of 82 m3 per day; and that
in 2017 the average daily flow was 74 m3 per day. As such, the filters can handle the current
volume from the equalization lagoon but do not have excess capacity for a large increase in flows
and will be a “bottleneck’ in the system. Leachate can be discharged from the equalization lagoon
directly into the retention lagoon through the use of pumping and temporary hose/piping.
Bypassing the media filters results in a lower level of treatment. Bypassing has been used to
address higher volumes in the short term generated by significant precipitation events, etc.
The next step is the retention lagoon. CBCL has noted that this lagoon was not designed to
provide treatment but does provide some additional effluent natural treatment prior to dispersal
through the EVC system. Similar to the equalization lagoon, additional volumes processed will
result in a lower HRT in the retention lagoon.
The final step in the process is the EVC system which disperses the leachate onto the land. This
system provides additional treatment the second EVC tower is commissioned the estimated
discharge capacity of this system will be 45 m3 per hour, or 40,500 m3 annually based on 120
operating days per year.
Strength of Leachate
In the 2019 system assessment CBCL compared 2012 leachate characteristics from Kaizer
Meadow; and, predicted future leachate characteristics using data from typical new and mature
landfills (Table 9). Staff will conduct additional tests in the summer of 2021 to confirm the existing
leachate characteristics.
4 Request for Direction
CBCL indicated that “at current operations, the equalization lagoon has a hydraulic retention time
of 40 days and is capable of providing adequate BOD and TSS removal. Table 10 outlines the
capacity of the existing equalization lagoon to handle the increased future hydraulic and organic
loading. The table shows that the existing equalization lagoon at future loadings would have a
hydraulic retention time of 26 days and would be able to achieve 80% removal of influent BOD,
for an effluent BOD concentration of 150 mg/L.”
CBCL also noted that “while the facility currently does not have BOD effluent requirements, it is
likely that in the future any discharge regulations would be below 150 mg/L and the equalization
lagoon would not be compliant.” I &O Staff are not aware of any imminent plans by NSE to
establish BOD effluent requirements suggested in this statement; and I & O staff will engage NSE
in the review and approval of the proposed upgrades as required.
DISCUSSION
Leachate management is an ongoing requirement for the facility both during operation and during
the post closure period.
The Municipality’s operating permit approval requires the Municipality to operate the leachate
treatment plant as per the existing design approved by NSE but does not define discharge
parameters. Changes in the leachate treatment system will require NSE review and approval.
Treatment options were evaluated to ensure that the Municipality’s future investment decisions
are guided by both operating and capital cost implications.
5 Request for Direction
CBCL identified the following treatment options for consideration:
1. Complete Phase 2 LTP Upgrades
An additional equalization lagoon added in parallel to the existing equalization lagoon to handle
increased hydraulic and organic loadings and provide additional retention time (see Table 10).
Table 10: Existing Lagoon and Upgrade Options Hydraulic Capacity
Option Total Lagoon
Volume (m3)
HRT (days) Predicted BOD
effluent (mg/L)
Aeration
Requirement
(SCFM)
Existing
Equalization
Lagoon
2900 26 150 690
Addition of
Second
Equalization
Lagoon (same
size as existing)
2900 + 2900 =
5800
52 20 690
In addition, upgrades to the existing aeration systems for the equalization and retention lagoons.
The existing recirculating sand filters (RSF) and recirculating textile filters (RTF) filters could be
left in place and operational, but they are overloaded in terms of nitrogen and could bottleneck
the system. Therefore, they would only be used in summer during low flow for effluent polishing
or just simply removed.
CBCL has based its recommendations based on the available data and operating conditions
(memo report – Leachate Treatment Assessment, 2019).
The use of the second EVC dispersal unit will prevent bottlenecks and provide backup to the
existing EVC unit. The newest EVC unit purchased last year also works very well and staff are
pleased with its performance. The mobile units allow placement in a larger new location away
from our neighbors and an already nitrate saturated site. The environmental consultants have
advised on sampling areas (MW are installed) and frequency of moving the mobile EVC units to
prevent any issues within the dispersal areas.
Other options considered are trucking leachate daily to treatment facilities and an alternative type
of leachate treatment on site.
2. Off-site Trucking and Disposal
Leachate produced from the landfill can be trucked off-site for treatment and disposal (not
Municipally owned and operated). Based on our existing volumes the transportation and
disposal costs would be in the range of $1,159,000 and $2,318,000 per year for off-site
6 Request for Direction
disposal. This option does not appear to be an economically viable alternative for treatment of
the leachate.
3. Other treatment options
CBCL was requested to investigate other option for treatment as per Valley Wastes request and
as per the memo report dated June 1, 2021, a summary of the options and costs are in the table
below.
A. Co-treatment with Domestic Wastewater
This option is typically used if larger wastewater systems are within proximity to the leachate
generator, due to the large transportation costs to transport. Our existing wastewater treatment
plants are generally small and spread out and required transport therefore not economical.
B. Constructed Wetlands
A constructed wetland is a biological treatment method that uses vegetation, soil, and other
organisms to treat wastewater. Under this option, the additional equalization lagoon would still
be required, a large land area requirement, and discharged to a nearby watercourse. Removing
the EVC towers (land application) would require additional permitting and testing requirements.
C. Sequencing Batch Reactor
A suitable treatment process that provides greater process flexibility compared to other
biological treatment methods but are also more complex and will required more attention than
the existing LTP. Overall power consumption, more operator attention and ongoing
monitoring/permitting costs would be expected.
D. Reverse Osmosis
A treatment process that removes contaminants from water by using pressure to force water
through a semipermeable membrane. Although effective at removing contaminants it requires
extensive pre-treatment and frequent membrane cleaning, requiring storage, treatment, and
disposal. This is not a realistic option and not explored further.
The options evaluation showed clearly that the Phase 2 upgrade proposed is the most
economical option (full report available on request).
The following table outlines the Class D estimated costs for all the options investigated:
7 Request for Direction
Note: This is based on full build out (cells 1 to 4 complete)
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
P-04 Procurement Policy
Financial/Budgetary
The estimated cost for the leachate treatment plant upgrade project – Phase 2. An investment of $1.65
million dollars will be required and funded by borrowing. Budget approval and borrowing term to be
established in consultation with the Valley Waste Landfill Liaison Committee.
Environmental
Work to be completed to maintain Nova Scotia Environment Approvals for the Kaizer Meadow Landfill.
Strategic Plan
1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility.
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services.
3. Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Status Quo: Monitor the performance of the Leachate Treatment System including
volumes and strength of leachate produced.
8 Request for Direction
2. Approve the design of Phase II for the Leachate Treatment System.
3. Council can provide alternate direction and/or request additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Prepared By: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Date June 9, 2021
Reviewed By:
Dan Pittman
Kavita Khanna
Tim Topping
Date
June 17, 2021
July 16, 2021
Authorized By: Dan McDougall Date July 16, 2021
CURRENT SITUATION
A Kaizer Meadow Landfill leachate treatment system assessment was prepared by CBCL Ltd.in
2019. To meet the future needs for leachate treatment proposed upgrades identified by CBCL
included:
A second equalization lagoon.
Remove media filters (sand & textile filters) from the treatment process and only operate
under periods of low flow.
Upgraded aeration for the existing equalization and retention lagoons.
An additional dispersal area for a second EnVapoCrystallization unit (EVC).
The proposed upgrades were broken into two phases.
Phase 1, was approved by the council in fall 2020, and has since been completed. The scope of
this phase included:
Continued use of the EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) for dispersal of the leachate on the
land.
Addition of piping and equipment to operate a second EVC tower simultaneously.
Phase 2 is primarily the addition of an equalization lagoon and aeration equipment to meet the
existing capacity required and future needs for leachate treatment.
The estimated cost of Phase 1- Effluent Dispersal was awarded to Western Plumbing and
Heating. The final cost is expected to be approximately $475,000, plus tax.
The estimated cost of Phase 2- Equalization Lagoon is $1,650,000 (opinion of probable costs,
includes construction contingency and allowances, contractor overhead and fees) class D
estimate (contingency not added).
REPORT TO: CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng
DATE: June 2021
SUBJECT: Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at
Kaizer Meadow Landfill, Phase 2 –
Equalization Lagoon
2 Request for Direction
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the design of Phase II leachate treatment system
upgrades to CBCL at an estimated cost of $40,000.
BACKGROUND
The Kaizer Meadow Landfill is a second-generation landfill with a leachate treatment system
consisting of pumping stations, equalization lagoon, recirculating media filters (sand and textile
filters), aerated effluent equalization (EQ) lagoon and EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) system for
land discharge.
An advanced oxidation process was included in the system but is no longer operational as it had
created a bottleneck. The Advantex system (recirculating media filters) was later added to assist
with nitrogen loading and BOD/TSS removal/polishing of the leachate.
It should also be noted that effluent from the septage lagoons also enters the equalization lagoon
for additional polishing.
Generally, the design parameters for the leachate treatment system include a system able to
handle the volume of leachate generated; and a system able to handle the “strength” of the
leachate.
Volume of Leachate
The average annual volume of leachate treated over the past five years was 27,028 cubic meters
(m3). This equates to an average of 74 m3 per day.
Summary of Leachate Volumes Treated
Year Volume Treated (m3)
2016 28,256
2017 26,890
2018 27,048
2019 27,695
2020 25,252
Average 27,028
Precipitation largely contributes to leachate production. Not all precipitation that falls on the
landfill turns into leachate. Some of the precipitation runs off the landfill, evaporates or is lost
during the formation of gas, and some gets absorbed into the waste.
Additional leachate volumes are expected as additional landfill cells are opened. CBCL has
estimated that with the additional cells planned the landfill is expected to generate 43,875 m3 per
year. Cell 4A opened in the Spring of 2019 and CBCL has noted that it appears that the additional
footprint has not resulted in additional leachate being produced or treated (volume generated
3 Request for Direction
roughly correlates with the volume treated). For the current calendar year 15,719 m3 of leachate
was treated as of July 8, 2021, for an average daily volume of 83.7 m3.
Climate change was considered by referring to existing projections. Nova Scotia Environment
(NSE) records climate data for Nova Scotia and regions within Nova Scotia. In addition, future
weather projections are produced for a number of parameters including precipitation. Annual
precipitation is projected to increase by approximately one percent (1%) from the 2020s to the
2050s. As such, the proposed Phase II expansion should be able to accommodate this projected
average increase.
It should also be noted that leachate in cell 3A has only been removed intermittently due to a
closed isolation valve. Leachate from cell 3A is removed by release into cell 4A. However, cell
3A’s elevation is lower than cell 4A so some leachate will always be held in 3A.
Additional volume can be processed through the leachate treatment system. Starting with the
equalization lagoon additional volumes can be handled but will result in a lower hydraulic retention
time (HRT), which results in a lower level of treatment. Based on 26,890 m3 of leachate production
in 2017 the HRT of the leachate was estimated to be 40 days.
The next step in the process is the media filters. CBCL has noted that the media filters
(recirculating sand filter, and recirculating textile filter) have a capacity of 82 m3 per day; and that
in 2017 the average daily flow was 74 m3 per day. As such, the filters can handle the current
volume from the equalization lagoon but do not have excess capacity for a large increase in flows
and will be a “bottleneck’ in the system. Leachate can be discharged from the equalization lagoon
directly into the retention lagoon through the use of pumping and temporary hose/piping.
Bypassing the media filters results in a lower level of treatment. Bypassing has been used to
address higher volumes in the short term generated by significant precipitation events, etc.
The next step is the retention lagoon. CBCL has noted that this lagoon was not designed to
provide treatment but does provide some additional effluent natural treatment prior to dispersal
through the EVC system. Similar to the equalization lagoon, additional volumes processed will
result in a lower HRT in the retention lagoon.
The final step in the process is the EVC system which disperses the leachate onto the land. This
system provides additional treatment the second EVC tower is commissioned the estimated
discharge capacity of this system will be 45 m3 per hour, or 40,500 m3 annually based on 120
operating days per year.
Strength of Leachate
In the 2019 system assessment CBCL compared 2012 leachate characteristics from Kaizer
Meadow; and, predicted future leachate characteristics using data from typical new and mature
landfills (Table 9). Staff will conduct additional tests in the summer of 2021 to confirm the existing
leachate characteristics.
4 Request for Direction
CBCL indicated that “at current operations, the equalization lagoon has a hydraulic retention time
of 40 days and is capable of providing adequate BOD and TSS removal. Table 10 outlines the
capacity of the existing equalization lagoon to handle the increased future hydraulic and organic
loading. The table shows that the existing equalization lagoon at future loadings would have a
hydraulic retention time of 26 days and would be able to achieve 80% removal of influent BOD,
for an effluent BOD concentration of 150 mg/L.”
CBCL also noted that “while the facility currently does not have BOD effluent requirements, it is
likely that in the future any discharge regulations would be below 150 mg/L and the equalization
lagoon would not be compliant.” I &O Staff are not aware of any imminent plans by NSE to
establish BOD effluent requirements suggested in this statement; and I & O staff will engage NSE
in the review and approval of the proposed upgrades as required.
DISCUSSION
Leachate management is an ongoing requirement for the facility both during operation and during
the post closure period.
The Municipality’s operating permit approval requires the Municipality to operate the leachate
treatment plant as per the existing design approved by NSE but does not define discharge
parameters. Changes in the leachate treatment system will require NSE review and approval.
Treatment options were evaluated to ensure that the Municipality’s future investment decisions
are guided by both operating and capital cost implications.
5 Request for Direction
CBCL identified the following treatment options for consideration:
1. Complete Phase 2 LTP Upgrades
An additional equalization lagoon added in parallel to the existing equalization lagoon to handle
increased hydraulic and organic loadings and provide additional retention time (see Table 10).
Table 10: Existing Lagoon and Upgrade Options Hydraulic Capacity
Option Total Lagoon
Volume (m3)
HRT (days) Predicted BOD
effluent (mg/L)
Aeration
Requirement
(SCFM)
Existing
Equalization
Lagoon
2900 26 150 690
Addition of
Second
Equalization
Lagoon (same
size as existing)
2900 + 2900 =
5800
52 20 690
In addition, upgrades to the existing aeration systems for the equalization and retention lagoons.
The existing recirculating sand filters (RSF) and recirculating textile filters (RTF) filters could be
left in place and operational, but they are overloaded in terms of nitrogen and could bottleneck
the system. Therefore, they would only be used in summer during low flow for effluent polishing
or just simply removed.
CBCL has based its recommendations based on the available data and operating conditions
(memo report – Leachate Treatment Assessment, 2019).
The use of the second EVC dispersal unit will prevent bottlenecks and provide backup to the
existing EVC unit. The newest EVC unit purchased last year also works very well and staff are
pleased with its performance. The mobile units allow placement in a larger new location away
from our neighbors and an already nitrate saturated site. The environmental consultants have
advised on sampling areas (MW are installed) and frequency of moving the mobile EVC units to
prevent any issues within the dispersal areas.
Other options considered are trucking leachate daily to treatment facilities and an alternative type
of leachate treatment on site.
2. Off-site Trucking and Disposal
Leachate produced from the landfill can be trucked off-site for treatment and disposal (not
Municipally owned and operated). Based on our existing volumes the transportation and
disposal costs would be in the range of $1,159,000 and $2,318,000 per year for off-site
6 Request for Direction
disposal. This option does not appear to be an economically viable alternative for treatment of
the leachate.
3. Other treatment options
CBCL was requested to investigate other option for treatment as per Valley Wastes request and
as per the memo report dated June 1, 2021, a summary of the options and costs are in the table
below.
A. Co-treatment with Domestic Wastewater
This option is typically used if larger wastewater systems are within proximity to the leachate
generator, due to the large transportation costs to transport. Our existing wastewater treatment
plants are generally small and spread out and required transport therefore not economical.
B. Constructed Wetlands
A constructed wetland is a biological treatment method that uses vegetation, soil, and other
organisms to treat wastewater. Under this option, the additional equalization lagoon would still
be required, a large land area requirement, and discharged to a nearby watercourse. Removing
the EVC towers (land application) would require additional permitting and testing requirements.
C. Sequencing Batch Reactor
A suitable treatment process that provides greater process flexibility compared to other
biological treatment methods but are also more complex and will required more attention than
the existing LTP. Overall power consumption, more operator attention and ongoing
monitoring/permitting costs would be expected.
D. Reverse Osmosis
A treatment process that removes contaminants from water by using pressure to force water
through a semipermeable membrane. Although effective at removing contaminants it requires
extensive pre-treatment and frequent membrane cleaning, requiring storage, treatment, and
disposal. This is not a realistic option and not explored further.
The options evaluation showed clearly that the Phase 2 upgrade proposed is the most
economical option (full report available on request).
The following table outlines the Class D estimated costs for all the options investigated:
7 Request for Direction
Note: This is based on full build out (cells 1 to 4 complete)
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
P-04 Procurement Policy
Financial/Budgetary
The estimated cost for the leachate treatment plant upgrade project – Phase 2. An investment of $1.65
million dollars will be required and funded by borrowing. Budget approval and borrowing term to be
established in consultation with the Valley Waste Landfill Liaison Committee.
Environmental
Work to be completed to maintain Nova Scotia Environment Approvals for the Kaizer Meadow Landfill.
Strategic Plan
1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility.
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services.
3. Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Status Quo: Monitor the performance of the Leachate Treatment System including
volumes and strength of leachate produced.
8 Request for Direction
2. Approve the design of Phase II for the Leachate Treatment System.
3. Council can provide alternate direction and/or request additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Prepared By: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Date June 9, 2021
Reviewed By:
Dan Pittman
Kavita Khanna
Tim Topping
Date
June 17, 2021
July 16, 2021
Authorized By: Dan McDougall Date July 16, 2021
CURRENT SITUATION
A Kaizer Meadow Landfill leachate treatment system assessment was prepared by CBCL Ltd.in
2019. To meet the future needs for leachate treatment proposed upgrades identified by CBCL
included:
A second equalization lagoon.
Remove media filters (sand & textile filters) from the treatment process and only operate
under periods of low flow.
Upgraded aeration for the existing equalization and retention lagoons.
An additional dispersal area for a second EnVapoCrystallization unit (EVC).
The proposed upgrades were broken into two phases.
Phase 1, was approved by the council in fall 2020, and has since been completed. The scope of
this phase included:
Continued use of the EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) for dispersal of the leachate on the
land.
Addition of piping and equipment to operate a second EVC tower simultaneously.
Phase 2 is primarily the addition of an equalization lagoon and aeration equipment to meet the
existing capacity required and future needs for leachate treatment.
The estimated cost of Phase 1- Effluent Dispersal was awarded to Western Plumbing and
Heating. The final cost is expected to be approximately $475,000, plus tax.
The estimated cost of Phase 2- Equalization Lagoon is $1,650,000 (opinion of probable costs,
includes construction contingency and allowances, contractor overhead and fees) class D
estimate (contingency not added).
REPORT TO: CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY: Christa Rafuse, P.Eng
DATE: June 2021
SUBJECT: Leachate Treatment Plant Upgrade at
Kaizer Meadow Landfill, Phase 2 –
Equalization Lagoon
2 Request for Direction
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the design of Phase II leachate treatment system
upgrades to CBCL at an estimated cost of $40,000.
BACKGROUND
The Kaizer Meadow Landfill is a second-generation landfill with a leachate treatment system
consisting of pumping stations, equalization lagoon, recirculating media filters (sand and textile
filters), aerated effluent equalization (EQ) lagoon and EnVapoCrystallization (EVC) system for
land discharge.
An advanced oxidation process was included in the system but is no longer operational as it had
created a bottleneck. The Advantex system (recirculating media filters) was later added to assist
with nitrogen loading and BOD/TSS removal/polishing of the leachate.
It should also be noted that effluent from the septage lagoons also enters the equalization lagoon
for additional polishing.
Generally, the design parameters for the leachate treatment system include a system able to
handle the volume of leachate generated; and a system able to handle the “strength” of the
leachate.
Volume of Leachate
The average annual volume of leachate treated over the past five years was 27,028 cubic meters
(m3). This equates to an average of 74 m3 per day.
Summary of Leachate Volumes Treated
Year Volume Treated (m3)
2016 28,256
2017 26,890
2018 27,048
2019 27,695
2020 25,252
Average 27,028
Precipitation largely contributes to leachate production. Not all precipitation that falls on the
landfill turns into leachate. Some of the precipitation runs off the landfill, evaporates or is lost
during the formation of gas, and some gets absorbed into the waste.
Additional leachate volumes are expected as additional landfill cells are opened. CBCL has
estimated that with the additional cells planned the landfill is expected to generate 43,875 m3 per
year. Cell 4A opened in the Spring of 2019 and CBCL has noted that it appears that the additional
footprint has not resulted in additional leachate being produced or treated (volume generated
3 Request for Direction
roughly correlates with the volume treated). For the current calendar year 15,719 m3 of leachate
was treated as of July 8, 2021, for an average daily volume of 83.7 m3.
Climate change was considered by referring to existing projections. Nova Scotia Environment
(NSE) records climate data for Nova Scotia and regions within Nova Scotia. In addition, future
weather projections are produced for a number of parameters including precipitation. Annual
precipitation is projected to increase by approximately one percent (1%) from the 2020s to the
2050s. As such, the proposed Phase II expansion should be able to accommodate this projected
average increase.
It should also be noted that leachate in cell 3A has only been removed intermittently due to a
closed isolation valve. Leachate from cell 3A is removed by release into cell 4A. However, cell
3A’s elevation is lower than cell 4A so some leachate will always be held in 3A.
Additional volume can be processed through the leachate treatment system. Starting with the
equalization lagoon additional volumes can be handled but will result in a lower hydraulic retention
time (HRT), which results in a lower level of treatment. Based on 26,890 m3 of leachate production
in 2017 the HRT of the leachate was estimated to be 40 days.
The next step in the process is the media filters. CBCL has noted that the media filters
(recirculating sand filter, and recirculating textile filter) have a capacity of 82 m3 per day; and that
in 2017 the average daily flow was 74 m3 per day. As such, the filters can handle the current
volume from the equalization lagoon but do not have excess capacity for a large increase in flows
and will be a “bottleneck’ in the system. Leachate can be discharged from the equalization lagoon
directly into the retention lagoon through the use of pumping and temporary hose/piping.
Bypassing the media filters results in a lower level of treatment. Bypassing has been used to
address higher volumes in the short term generated by significant precipitation events, etc.
The next step is the retention lagoon. CBCL has noted that this lagoon was not designed to
provide treatment but does provide some additional effluent natural treatment prior to dispersal
through the EVC system. Similar to the equalization lagoon, additional volumes processed will
result in a lower HRT in the retention lagoon.
The final step in the process is the EVC system which disperses the leachate onto the land. This
system provides additional treatment the second EVC tower is commissioned the estimated
discharge capacity of this system will be 45 m3 per hour, or 40,500 m3 annually based on 120
operating days per year.
Strength of Leachate
In the 2019 system assessment CBCL compared 2012 leachate characteristics from Kaizer
Meadow; and, predicted future leachate characteristics using data from typical new and mature
landfills (Table 9). Staff will conduct additional tests in the summer of 2021 to confirm the existing
leachate characteristics.
4 Request for Direction
CBCL indicated that “at current operations, the equalization lagoon has a hydraulic retention time
of 40 days and is capable of providing adequate BOD and TSS removal. Table 10 outlines the
capacity of the existing equalization lagoon to handle the increased future hydraulic and organic
loading. The table shows that the existing equalization lagoon at future loadings would have a
hydraulic retention time of 26 days and would be able to achieve 80% removal of influent BOD,
for an effluent BOD concentration of 150 mg/L.”
CBCL also noted that “while the facility currently does not have BOD effluent requirements, it is
likely that in the future any discharge regulations would be below 150 mg/L and the equalization
lagoon would not be compliant.” I &O Staff are not aware of any imminent plans by NSE to
establish BOD effluent requirements suggested in this statement; and I & O staff will engage NSE
in the review and approval of the proposed upgrades as required.
DISCUSSION
Leachate management is an ongoing requirement for the facility both during operation and during
the post closure period.
The Municipality’s operating permit approval requires the Municipality to operate the leachate
treatment plant as per the existing design approved by NSE but does not define discharge
parameters. Changes in the leachate treatment system will require NSE review and approval.
Treatment options were evaluated to ensure that the Municipality’s future investment decisions
are guided by both operating and capital cost implications.
5 Request for Direction
CBCL identified the following treatment options for consideration:
1. Complete Phase 2 LTP Upgrades
An additional equalization lagoon added in parallel to the existing equalization lagoon to handle
increased hydraulic and organic loadings and provide additional retention time (see Table 10).
Table 10: Existing Lagoon and Upgrade Options Hydraulic Capacity
Option Total Lagoon
Volume (m3)
HRT (days) Predicted BOD
effluent (mg/L)
Aeration
Requirement
(SCFM)
Existing
Equalization
Lagoon
2900 26 150 690
Addition of
Second
Equalization
Lagoon (same
size as existing)
2900 + 2900 =
5800
52 20 690
In addition, upgrades to the existing aeration systems for the equalization and retention lagoons.
The existing recirculating sand filters (RSF) and recirculating textile filters (RTF) filters could be
left in place and operational, but they are overloaded in terms of nitrogen and could bottleneck
the system. Therefore, they would only be used in summer during low flow for effluent polishing
or just simply removed.
CBCL has based its recommendations based on the available data and operating conditions
(memo report – Leachate Treatment Assessment, 2019).
The use of the second EVC dispersal unit will prevent bottlenecks and provide backup to the
existing EVC unit. The newest EVC unit purchased last year also works very well and staff are
pleased with its performance. The mobile units allow placement in a larger new location away
from our neighbors and an already nitrate saturated site. The environmental consultants have
advised on sampling areas (MW are installed) and frequency of moving the mobile EVC units to
prevent any issues within the dispersal areas.
Other options considered are trucking leachate daily to treatment facilities and an alternative type
of leachate treatment on site.
2. Off-site Trucking and Disposal
Leachate produced from the landfill can be trucked off-site for treatment and disposal (not
Municipally owned and operated). Based on our existing volumes the transportation and
disposal costs would be in the range of $1,159,000 and $2,318,000 per year for off-site
6 Request for Direction
disposal. This option does not appear to be an economically viable alternative for treatment of
the leachate.
3. Other treatment options
CBCL was requested to investigate other option for treatment as per Valley Wastes request and
as per the memo report dated June 1, 2021, a summary of the options and costs are in the table
below.
A. Co-treatment with Domestic Wastewater
This option is typically used if larger wastewater systems are within proximity to the leachate
generator, due to the large transportation costs to transport. Our existing wastewater treatment
plants are generally small and spread out and required transport therefore not economical.
B. Constructed Wetlands
A constructed wetland is a biological treatment method that uses vegetation, soil, and other
organisms to treat wastewater. Under this option, the additional equalization lagoon would still
be required, a large land area requirement, and discharged to a nearby watercourse. Removing
the EVC towers (land application) would require additional permitting and testing requirements.
C. Sequencing Batch Reactor
A suitable treatment process that provides greater process flexibility compared to other
biological treatment methods but are also more complex and will required more attention than
the existing LTP. Overall power consumption, more operator attention and ongoing
monitoring/permitting costs would be expected.
D. Reverse Osmosis
A treatment process that removes contaminants from water by using pressure to force water
through a semipermeable membrane. Although effective at removing contaminants it requires
extensive pre-treatment and frequent membrane cleaning, requiring storage, treatment, and
disposal. This is not a realistic option and not explored further.
The options evaluation showed clearly that the Phase 2 upgrade proposed is the most
economical option (full report available on request).
The following table outlines the Class D estimated costs for all the options investigated:
7 Request for Direction
Note: This is based on full build out (cells 1 to 4 complete)
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
P-04 Procurement Policy
Financial/Budgetary
The estimated cost for the leachate treatment plant upgrade project – Phase 2. An investment of $1.65
million dollars will be required and funded by borrowing. Budget approval and borrowing term to be
established in consultation with the Valley Waste Landfill Liaison Committee.
Environmental
Work to be completed to maintain Nova Scotia Environment Approvals for the Kaizer Meadow Landfill.
Strategic Plan
1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility.
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services.
3. Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Status Quo: Monitor the performance of the Leachate Treatment System including
volumes and strength of leachate produced.
8 Request for Direction
2. Approve the design of Phase II for the Leachate Treatment System.
3. Council can provide alternate direction and/or request additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
District Council Grants 2021 - 2022
Updated July 15, 2021
Requested Approved
*Ocean Swells Community Association: Maintain facility 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
*District 1 Community Centre: Maintain facility 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
District 1 Community Centre: Water Softener 547.50$ 547.50$
District 1 Community Centre: Parking Lot Repairs 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 3,547.50$
*Funds Carried Forward from 2020-2021 2,000.00$
TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 8,452.50$
Chester Brass Band: Summer Band Stand Concerts 600.00$ 600.00$
Hubbards Area Lions Club: Purification System 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
Through the Years Day Care & Comm Centre: Court Surface 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 4,600.00$
TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 5,400.00$
Chester District Soccer Association: Purchase New Jerseys 500.00$ 500.00$
Chester Farmers' and Artisan Market 800.00$ 800.00$
Chester Theatre Council (Playhouse): Summer Programs 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
Chester Yacht Club: Race Week Adaptations (Virtual, PPE, etc.)500.00$ 500.00$
TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 2,800.00$
TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 7,200.00$
TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED -$
TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 10,000.00$
Western Shore & Area Improvement Asso: Flower Baskets 3,248.75$ 3,248.75$
TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 3,248.75$
TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 6,751.25$
Forties Community Centre: Oktoberfest 500.00$ 500.00$
RC Legion, Br 79 New Ross: Canada Day & Remembrance Day 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
New Ross Community Care: Communications Plan 1,000.00$
TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 2,000.00$
TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 8,000.00$
Chester District Soccer Association: Purchase New Jerseys 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
District 7
TOTAL FUNDS APPROVED 1,000.00$
TOTAL FUNDS REMAINING 9,000.00$
Total Funds Approved 17,196.25$
District Grant Budget 2021-2022 70,000.00$
Plus 2020-2021 Carried Forward 2,000.00$
Total District Grant Budget 72,000.00$
Remaining Funds 54,803.75$
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6