Loading...
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