HomeMy Public PortalAbout2017-04-13_Council_Public_Agenda Package_Part 1Page 1 of 2
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
AGENDA
Thursday,April 13, 2017
Chester Municipal Council Chambers
151 King Street, Chester, NS
1.MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS.
3.PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (to follow Public Hearings)
Area.
4.5 Public Hearing –March 30, 2017 –Architectural Controls -Development Permit
4.6 Public Hearing –March 30, 2017 -Architectural Controls -Mobile Homes
through Development Permits.
minutes only)
5.3 Recreation and Parks Committee –April 4, 2017 –Councillor Church (motion for
6.MATTERS ARISING:
6.1 Presentation by Steve Mader regarding Solid Waste Recycling Initiative
(appointment at 9:00 a.m.)
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
4.1 Council – March 30, 2017
4.2 Public Hearing – March 30, 2017 – Dog Kennels in Rural Zone
4.3 Public Hearing – March 30, 2017 – Replace General Zone with Kaizer Meadow
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
5.1 Committee of the Whole – April 6, 2017 – Warden Webber
5.2 Recreation and Parks Committee – March 20, 2017 – Councillor Church (receive
approval)
5.4 Nominating Committee - April 6, 2017 - Councillor Barkhouse ( pg 57 -motion only)
5.5 Any other Committees.
and Amend Map Labels.
4.4 Public Hearing – March 30, 2017 – Site Design Guidelines - Highway 3 Site Plan
Page 2 of 2
7.CORRESPONDENCE:
7.1 Letter from Office of the Minister of NS Municipal Affairs dated March 23, 2017
regarding 12-Months’ Notice Under the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
8.NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 Request for Decision prepared by Engineering and Public Works Department
dated March 31, 2017 regarding Tender Award T-2017-002 Mill Cove Waste
Water Treatment Plant Replacement.
8.2 Request for Decision prepared by Engineering and Public Works Department
dated April 6, 2017 regarding Mill Cove Fire Protection System Building
Upgrades.
8.3 Request for Decision prepared by Engineering and Public Works Department
dated April 6, 2017 regarding Tender Award T-2017-005 Landfill Cell 4A
Construction.
ARRANGED APPOINTMENTS
6.2 Presentation by Gord Tate regarding Economic Impacts Study of the Rum
Runners Trail(appointment at 9:20 a.m.)
10. ADJOURNMENT.
8.4 Request for Decision prepared by Senior Planner dated April 6, 2017 regarding
Plan Review - Update/Check-in.
8.5 Letter of Support - Bell's Connect to Innovate Program Application.
9:00 a.m. Steve Mader regarding Solid Waste Recycling Initiative.
9:20 a.m. Gordon Tate regarding Economic Impacts Study of the Rum Runners Trail.
9. IN CAMERA: 8.6 PCAP Funding Application - Motion required
9.1 Legal Advice - Ten Beaches
9.2 Contract Negotiations - Card Lake Wind Project
MOTION FOR COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION FROMTUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017CHESTER MUNICIPAL RECREATION AND PARKS COMMITTEE
2017-168 MOVED by Christine Rafuse, SECONDED by Leslie Taylor,that the RecreationCommittee recommend to Council that we give Tiara & Corrinne White of Chester Basin$540 to help cover the costs for attending the 2017 Atlantic Bantam Female AAAHockey Championships from April 6-9 in Moncton, New Brunswick. MOTION CARRIED.
Evolving Chester’s Recycling and
Waste Resource Processing Regime
A Job Creation and Economic Development Opportunity for
Chester Nova Scotia
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Waste Industry Transformation
•1990s regulatory changes transformed waste
management in NS with the objective of dramatically
reducing waste destined for landfill to reduce their
environmental impacts
•20 years of a banned materials management program
through recycling, composting and stewardship has
achieved:
–55-60% diversion
–Ongoing landfill dependency
–Escalating unsustainable municipal service program
costs
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 2
Evolving Solid Waste Regulations
•2016 -Department of Environment outlined new
perspectives regarding Advanced Waste Conversion (AWC)
technology systems for Waste to Energy:
–Separate and distinct from incineration
–Environmental Assessment level one review for
industrial permit
–Materials permitted: only those destined for landfill.
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 3
World’s largest landfill site in
Mumbai, India.
NASA’s view from space of landfill fire in January 2016
2016
Slide 4
Kentville C&D
Landfill Fire
Slide 5
Frequency of Landfill Fires
•“Landfill fires occur frequently. In the USA there are around 8300 fires per year, and in the UK around 300. With the potential for serious loss of life and dire environmental consequences,…”
Patrick Foss-Smith, 01.08.2010, https://waste-management-world.com/a/understanding-landfill-fires
•Recent landfill fires in NS & Canada:
–Kentville, Otter Lake, Colchester, Chester, Fredericton, Duncan BC, Delta Vancouver, Medicine Hat, Katepwa Regina, Kindersley Sask. etc….
Slide 6 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Landfill Fires & SWM Regulations
•“In attempting to reduce the volume of solid waste going into municipal landfills, many jurisdictions require that construction and demolition waste be separated from the municipal solid waste stream and be landfilled separately. What these policies did not anticipate, however, was the resulting increase in the number of landfill fires. In fact, 90 per cent of landfill fires occur in demolition, landfill and construction (DLC) waste sites.”
Tonia Jurbin, P.Eng, August 1, 2003
http://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/features/landfill-fires/
Slide 7 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Statistical Risk of a Landfill Fire
•“With the average landfill site having a
60% statistical risk of fire each year, it's
critical that operators have an emergency
plan in place. Immediate and decisive
action can be the difference between a
minor incident and a multi-million dollar
environmental disaster.”
Patrick Foss-Smith, 14.08.2013,https://waste-management-
world.com/a/cutting-the-risk-of-landfill-fires
Slide 8 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Climate Impact of Landfills
•Methane is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of its global warming potential.
•Emissions from Canadian landfills account for 20% of national methane emissions.
•Estimates have shown that approximately 27 Mega-tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (eCO2) are generated annually from Canadian landfills, of which 20 Mt eCO2 are being emitted annually.
Environment Canada -http://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 7
Landfill Methane GHG
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 10
NS Aligned with National Emissions
Waste represents
3-4% equivalent
CO2 but its
methane, the
most harmful
GHG!
Slide 11 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
NWSI turns these
Slide 12
Into This: Plasma Gasification Plant
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 13
Nova Scotia Waste Realm
Is it fiscally sustainable?
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
National Per Capita Cost Comparison
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Stats Canada 2013
Slide 15
NS Regulated MSW Report Card
•1990s regulatory changes transformed SWM in NS with the
objective of reducing environmental impacts of landfills.
•20 years later:
–$387.00 -Highest average per tonne operating cost in the
country (Stats Canada)
–$82.39 -Highest per capita cost in Canada (Avg. $58.18)
–$11.22 -Highest per capita cost for organics (5X Avg. of
$2.18)
–55-60% diversion -ongoing landfill dependency & legacy
environmental impacts of methane GHG and leachate
–Escalating unsustainable municipal service program costs
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 12
What drives the costs?
•Regulated program policy of “banning materials from landfill” created materials management requirements without established market demand
•Absence of market demand did not support private investment in processing facilities resulting in public sector assuming responsibility for banned materials from both public and private/commercial sectors
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 17
A Case for Change
The MSW system transformation opportunity:
•Advanced WTE is recognized as separate and distinct
from incineration.
•Advanced WTE is recognized as an alternative to landfill
and incineration.
•Advanced WTE enables envisioned stewardship and
reduced or eliminated landfill dependency. This is fact in
Northern Europe.
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 18
Environmental Benefits
•Reduction/elimination of landfill dependency
•Immediate impact on reducing methane GHG/Carbon emissions
•Immediate impact on legacy landfill environmental issues
•Reduce transportation/hauling emissions
•Safe, clean processing alternative for special and hazardous waste such as asbestos and contaminated sludge {Boat Harbour}
•Reduce health authority waste system costs by processing special waste travelling out of Province for incineration
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 19
SWM Jobs in NS
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Costly system components
{organics, C&D, and
landfills} employ least
number of people. New
WTE processing facilities
would offset the transfer
of some jobs.
Slide 20
Economic Benefits
•Reduce Municipal/Business SWM Service Program Costs by:
–Consolidating 3, 4 or 5 waste streams to 2 or 3 (blue
recycling & green re-use for clean renewable energy and
leaf and yard waste)
–Streamline collection systems using split trucks significantly
reducing program costs & emissions
–Eliminate costly processing of materials with no market
value
–Reduce business costs with fewer receptacles, less
infrastructure, space and mess!
–Make the system easier & less costly for residents and
businesses
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 21
Traditional Waste Pyramid
Slide 22 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Environmental Resource Pyramid
Slide 23 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
No Landfill GHG or Leachate
Where is the concern for WTE?
•Public would see it as a negative?
–2013 Survey data > 80% support WTE as a landfill
alternative (August,2013 by CRA, 526 metro residents over
18 were polled )
•Not environmental stewardship?
–Empirical data shows improved environmental
outcomes, climate impact and increased recycling
•Does not respect hierarchy of resource management
–Zero waste is (re) using resources completely without
creating a negative. Over 55% of waste resources still
ends up in landfills, isn’t WTE a better option?
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 24
So What is Zero Waste?
ZeroWasteAmerica.org defines zero-waste:
“zero-waste is the recycling of all materials
back into nature or the marketplace in a
manner that protects human health and the
environment.”
Slide 25 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Who is Nova Waste Solutions Inc.?
A Nova Scotia Company Reducing Waste Costs and Creating Jobs and Clean Renewable Energy
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Nova Waste Solutions Inc. Partners
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 27
NWSI Technology Partner
C.H.O-Power
•Patented Enhanced Multi-Phased Plasma Gasification
•Proven, Operational & Cost Effective
•25 years in development through parent company
Europlasma
•Global footprint of projects
•11 Additional Facilities Programmed
•Facility currently processing:
–Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
–Bio-Mass
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 28
The CHO Patented Process
Slide 29 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
CHO Power Process Phases
Slide 30 Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Patented Multi-Phased Process
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 31
Overhead View of Morcenx Facility
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 32
Operational Plant in Morcenx, France
•Facility 1 of 12 {$40 Million Euro Plant}
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 33
A New Waste Resource Solution for
Chester
Capitalizing on existing partnerships and proximity to Halifax
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
Chester & Sustane
•Sustane project ongoing partnership to
extract bio-genic materials from waste
stream for 98% pure bio-fuel pellets for
incineration.
•Sited at Kaiser Meadows
•Residue to be landfilled or recycled
•Project Status & Viability -Unknown
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 35
Potential Chester WRP Facility Service Area
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 36
MSW Service Program Costs
•Reducing Service Program Costs by:
–Consolidating waste streams to 2 (recycling & re-use)
–Program cost mitigations through revenue generated
by marketable recyclables, tip fees, and energy
production
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 37
Job Creation In Chester
•65 plus jobs at the waste recycling, processing and conversion facility {Landfill would still need to be maintained/monitored}
•Additional jobs for consolidating/storage and transferring to market recyclables for maximizing profit and minimizing transportation costs.
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 38
Project Development Timeline
•Feasibility Study-Spring/Summer 2017 > Fall 2017
•Environmental Impact Assessment –6 -10 months
concurrent to project plan development and registration
for additional funding programs
•Facility Development and Commissioning –20-24 months
•Facility commissioning –Winter 2020
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 39
Waste Conversion Facility Economics
•New Build 50,000 tonnes/year Facility = ~$65M USD
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 40
Funding Opportunities
New Federal focus on Environment and Climate Change
•New environmental funding programs
•Existing environmental brown field funding programs
•Economic development funding programs
There are over 50 funding support programs related to
environmental, climate change, brown field and economic
development projects
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 41
Feasibility Study Scope of Work
•Feasibility study will confirm and or develop:
–Waste catchment area supporters and potential
partners (Waste Regions 4, 5, 6 & 7)
–Strategic logistics model for load consolidation,
existing landfill capacity utilization, facility
development timeline implications to partners
–Per/tonne costs for stakeholders
–Waste stream(s) tonnages for system sizing
–Preliminary engineering design of facility based on
siting location {does not have to be at Kaiser
Meadows} and logistics
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 42
Feasibility Study Scope of Work
Continued:
•Feasibility study will confirm and or develop:
–Regulatory regime changes and implications
–Environmental Impact Assessment Category 1
Industrial Permit requirements
–Requirements for Project Registration Package for
Federal/Provincial funding program options
–Draft framework for education and communications
plan for waste program changes
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 43
What We Are Asking For?
•Council approval to engage Nova Waste Solutions Inc. for
completion of the project feasibility study
•Sign LOI to validate the feasibility of developing a waste
conversion processing facility in Chester
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 44
Questions?
Plasma Gasification Technology
Overview
Waste Conversion Technologies are not all the same
Incineration Plants
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 1
Incineration = Landfill Dependency
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
This all
must go to
Hazardous
Waste
Landfills
Slide 2
Plasma Gasification Plants
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 3
Plasma Gasification = Zero Waste
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.
NO LANDFILL REQUIRED
Slide 4
Waste
resources
processed,
recyclables
removed,
prior to
being sent to
gasifier.
There is a small quantity of bottom ash
which is recyclable as a civil construction
aggregate.
Global Gasification Plants
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 5
Established, Proven, Growing
•The Gasification Industry:
–272 operating gasification plants worldwide with 686 gasifiers.
–74 plants under construction worldwide that will have a total of 238
gasifiers and produce 83 MWth.
–33 gasification plants in the US
–China has the largest number of gasification plants.
{WWW, Gasification Technologies Council, The Gasification Industry, http://www.gasification.org/what-is-gasification/the-
gasification-industry/, 1 MARCH, 2015.}
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 6
Why isn’t it more in use for MSW?
•“Recovered Energy, Inc. (2010) addresses this question directly with the
following statement:
If plasma gasification is the best solution, the obvious question is WHY there
aren’t more plants processing MSW using plasma? There are 100 plants operating
on numerous different types of waste –why not MSW? The answer is simple. The
capital cost is very high. MSW has very low tipping fees and no one has ever worked
out the economics in the past.”
•“USST (2010) says much the same thing, pointing out that a large scale
plasma gasification facility is expensive, and it takes the right combination of
tipping fees, electric power rates, and other higher-valued products to pay
for the facility.”
PLASMA GASIFICATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS OF ESTABLISHED FACILITIES; PREPARED BY DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC.; PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PALISADE, MINNESOTA, JUNE 7, 2010
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 7
Plasma Gasification Emissions
•Contrary to some claims, there are emissions from
plasma gasification systems:
–Syngas to power generation emits CO2
–Fuel to gas exhaust contains some chemicals which are
captured in bag filter systems for recycling
–Fuel to gas process creates heat exhaust which is
recycled for steam to power and moisture reduction in
waste resource fuel feedstock
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 8
Hierarchy of WTE Technology Efficiency
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 9
Plasma Arc
Gasification
is the most
efficient
thermal
waste
conversion
process.
CHO-Power
system
exceeds
industry
standards at
~40% energy
rate.
An Environmental Solution
“While some still confuse modern waste-to-energy
plants with incinerators of the past, the environmental
performance of the industry is beyond reproach.
Studies have shown:
•communities that employ waste-to-energy
technology have higher recycling rates than
communities that do not utilize waste-to-energy. ”
Salman Zafar, Renewable Energy Expert
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 10
Landfills –Legacy Environmental Impact &
Costs
•“State-of-the-art landfill operations pose few environmental risks
compared to those established prior to design for control of leakage,
although greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the form of methane
continue to be significant. … Moreover, there is evidence that even
sealed landfill systems tend to leak eventually. …subsequent studies
(…Christenson and Cozzarell 2003) have found that although liners and
leachate collection systems minimize leakage, such systems may not
collect all the leachate that escapes from a landfill. Plasma gasification
poses none of these risks.”
PLASMA GASIFICATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS OF ESTABLISHED FACILITIES;
PREPARED BY DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC.; PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PALISADE, MINNESOTA, JUNE 7, 2010
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 11
Health and Safety of Facilities
•“The most in-depth independent examination of the performance of these
plants {processing MSW} is chronicled in a 2008 report by Juniper
Consultancy Services, Ltd, in which safety, environmental, maintenance, and
economic issues are addressed. For the large (300 ton per day) Utashinai
plant there have been no health/safety issues with the plasma arc system
through eight years of operation, and the only reported environmental
problem occurred in 2007 when one or more specially coated bags used to
absorb dioxins from flue gases failed; in that instance dioxin limits
reportedly marginally exceeded emissions limits (but would not have
exceeded US, EU, or Canadian standards).”
PLASMA GASIFICATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS OF ESTABLISHED FACILITIES;
PREPARED BY DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC.; PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PALISADE, MINNESOTA, JUNE 7, 2010
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 12
The Renewable Energy Solution to Waste
Resource Management
According to the Georgia Institute of Technology:
“Plasma gasification can create more renewable energy than the projected
energy from solar, wind, landfill gas, and geothermal energies combined.”
WWW; Plasma Gasification Turns Waste-to-Energy; (ENERGYdigital); Green Tech -Jun 30, 2011;
http://www.energydigital.com/greentech/1798/Plasma-Gasification-Turns-WastetoEnergy; 1 March,
2015.
Nova Waste Solutions Inc.Slide 13
Economic Impacts of the
Rum Runners Trail
MARCH 2017
Participants
Five Trail Organizations -
Funding provided by Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency -
Independent research by
Gardner Pinfold Consultants Inc. -
March 2017
Outline
The Rum Runners Trail
Why this study?
How did we do it?
What are the results?
What does this mean?
What’s next?
Questions
March 2017
The Rum Runners Trail
The Rum Runners Trail (RRT) connects two of Nova Scotia’s most visited locations –
Halifax and Lunenburg.
The 119 km trail combines seven segments maintained in collaboration by six trail
associations since 2012.
Support for trail development comes from:
March 2017
•Many volunteers,
•Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency,
•Tourism Nova Scotia,
•Municipality of Chester,
•Municipality of the District of Lunenburg
•Halifax Regional Municipality,
•Town of Lunenburg,
•Province of Nova Scotia,
•NS Trails Federation, and
•Atlantic Canada Trails Association.
Why this study?
Trails typically require public funds for construction, maintenance, and development.
These funds must align with public support and revenues associated with trails.
Determining trail-related revenue is not straight-forward since fees are not charged to users and
trail-related spending cuts across many different businesses.
This study collected information about trail users, trip information, trail use, motivations, and
trail-related spending.
The spending information was used to estimate the
contributions made to the Nova Scotia economy.
March 2017
How did we do it?
March 2017
Infrared and metal detector counters were installed at multiple trail locations to
count trail users from July to October, 2016.
There were 185,241 trail trips counted, representing 98,435 trail users.
Survey design was based on Statistics Canada, Parks Canada, and other standard
tourism surveys.
399 surveys representing 901 trail users were completed.
Economic indicators such as GDP, jobs, income, and tax revenues are calculated
using Statistics Canada’s economic model and spending reported in the surveys.
What are the results?
Seasonal beam counts
Trail users by mode and survey location
Origin of trail users
Out-of-province visitor main purpose of visit
NS resident main purpose of trail visit
Out-of-province trail use planning
Trail-related expenditures
Spending near trail
Hidden value -willingness to pay
Expenditures by category
Economic impact indicators
March 2017
Seasonal beam counts
Source: TrafX infra-red beam counters installed at trail locations.
March 2017
Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
BLT 28,674 23,228 24,843 22,689 99,433
SMB 16,235 11,881 12,814 10,999 52,929
CCT 4,333 4,145 4,006 3,893 16,378
Dynamite 1,481 947 1,481 2,171 6,080
B2B 3,871 2,754 2,255 1,541 10,421
Total 54,595 42,955 45,399 42,292 185,241
Trail users by mode and location
March 2017
Walk Run Cycle ATV Total
BLT 7,906 8,697 33,997 -50,600
SMB 7,284 2,775 17,517 -27,576
CCT 1,761 1,761 7,044 -10,566
Dynamite 617 274 2,195 412 3,498
B2B 1,391 632 4,172 -6,194
Total 18,959 14,139 64,924 412 98,435
Source: TrafX infra-red beam counter, magnetic counters, and survey observations
Origin of trail users
March 2017
Surveys Trail users % user share
NS local (<5km)171 374 42%
NS distant (>5km)196 453 50%
NB --0%
PE --0%
NL --0%
QC --0%
ON 8 23 3%
Other Provinces 12 25 3%
USA 3 7 1%
Other Countries 9 19 2%
Total 399 901 100%
Source: Gardner Pinfold survey, 2016.
Out-of-province visitor purpose
March 2017
59
32
3 5Column1
Pleasure VFR Business Other
NS resident trail visit purpose
March 2017
73
7
9
11%
Health Commute Social Scenic view
Out-of-province trail use planning
March 2017
41
32
10
17%
Before After Tour Chance
Trail-related expenditures
March 2017
Trail user $ / person-visit Expenditures % share
Resident cyclists $10.82 $599,149 14%
Resident pedestrians $6.60 $164,380 4%
Visitor cyclists $780.45 $2,999,511 71%
Visitor pedestrians $179.50 $480,849 11%
Total $43.25 $4,243,890 100%
Source: Gardner Pinfold survey, 2016.
Spending near trail
March 2017
Trail user Expenditures % share
Resident cyclists 182,343 45%
Resident pedestrians 69,272 17%
Visitor cyclists 86,219 21%
Visitor pedestrians 71,262 17%
Total $409,095 100%
Source: Gardner Pinfold survey, 2016.
Hidden value –willingness to pay
March 2017
Average WTP Total WTP
Residents $16.52 $1,506,444
Visitors $7.96 $26,746
Total $1,533,191
Source: Gardner Pinfold survey, 2016.
“The $1.5 million total WTP per year speaks to the value Nova Scotia trail users place on local
trail networks and their level of support for further development. Although not captured in this
survey, there is additional WTP by non-trail users that benefit in other ways.”
Expenditures by category
March 2017
Categories Spending % Shares
Accommodation $931,455 22%
Transportation $1,477,816 35%
Food & Beverage $909,954 21%
Recreation & Entertainment $657,976 16%
Other $266,689 6%
Total $4,243,890 100%
Source: Gardner Pinfold survey, 2016.
Economic impact indicators
March 2017
Direct Indirect Induced Total NS Total Canada
Output $4,243,890 $1,469,959 $1,110,157 $6,824,005 $8,948,636
GDP $2,401,225 $808,436 $694,501 $3,904,161 $4,950,302
Income $1,446,628 $454,669 $289,446 $2,190,744 $2,779,841
Employment*49 11 8 68 80
Federal tax $140,524 $47,311 $172,945 $360,780 $437,138
Provincial tax $224,855 $70,671 $149,489 $445,016 $534,653
Municipal tax $25,343 $5,587 $12,947 $43,878 $71,930
Source: Statistics Canada 2009 interprovincial open input-output model. *Full-time equivalents
What does this mean?
Keep in mind…
This is a baseline study before further development and promotion.
This did not include the busiest section of the RRT where there is
another 39% of trail users.
This is only summer and early Fall trail use, not total year-round.
Tourism context…
International visitor overnight trips to Nova Scotia have declined since
2008 financial crisis, although visitor spending has remained strong.
International visitors spend the most per trip and Canadian exchange
rates have improved greatly for attracting U.S. and overseas tourists.
March 2017
What does this mean?
Other trail benefits…
OHV users enjoyment not part of the study focus.
Non-trail users benefits including improvements made to scenic areas.
Health care savings to the Province due to healthier lifestyles.
Workforce productivity increases also from healthier lifestyles.
Attraction for businesses locating near green space amenities.
Higher property values associated with trail developments.
Marketing and development insights…
Increase the 41% of visitors that plan to use trail before coming.
Cyclists are key trail users for their high spending rates.
Easy gains should be possible with promotion in Atlantic Canada.
Facilitate one-way trips and longer trips with shuttle service.
March 2017
What does this mean?
Regional benefits…
Just like each trail segment is stronger as part of the RRT, the RRT is stronger
as part of the network of trails in NS and Atlantic Canada.
This is especially true for attracting tourists that want a variety of (trail)
experiences to extend their stay or motivate them to return.
This is building a regional tourism product that can be marketed as such.
Comparatively speaking…
This type of study was first conducted in Atlantic Canada on the
Confederation Trail in PEI.
Numbers of trail users are higher on the RRT, but the proportion of visitors
and time spent on trail is higher for PEI.
PEI is a leading example of “destination trail” development in the region.
March 2017
Next steps?
Sharing this information with regional tourism.
Sharing with incoming MODC economic
development officer.
Sharing with provincial government representatives
and relevant departments.
Ensuring that local businesses understand the
opportunity the trail affords to build their own
adventure tourism products.
March 2017
Questions?
rumrunnerstrail.ca
March 2017
REQUEST FOR DECISION/DIRECTION
Prepared By:Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng Date March 31, 2017
Reviewed By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date April 3, 2017
Authorized By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date April 3, 2017
CURRENT SITUATION
On April 28th, 2016,Municipal Council approved the 2016-17 Capital and Operating Budget. The
Capital Budget included the replacement of the aging Mill Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP). The budget for this project was estimated at $1,455,000, Net HST.The work was not
completed as scheduled. Therefore, the proposed 2017-2018 budget for this project is $
1,400,000 Net HST, which has not been approved to date.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Municipal Council:
Give pre-budget (2017-18)approval for the Mill Cove Wastewater Treatment plant in the
amount of $1,441,800; and
Award the Mill Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement to Mid-Valley
Construction Ltd,Kingston, Nova Scotia in the amount of $1,245,774.69 plus HST;
BACKGROUND
During the Fiscal Year 2015-2016, Staff with the aid of our previous Engineering Consultant, SNC
Lavalin Inc, worked on the design for the replacement of the aging Mill Cove WWTP.On June 26,
2016, Staff made application for Clean Water & Wastewater Funding (CWWF) based on the
design and cost estimate completed last fiscal year. On August 29, 2016,Staff were informed that
the Mill Cove WWTP Replacement Project was an approved project and would receive 75%
funding of the actual eligible costs incurred to a maximum of $1,089,444 net HST.
As per motion 2016-457, Council awarded the Mill Cove Engineering Services (i.e.design review,
preparation of specifications and construction management services) to Hiltz and Seamone for
$88,557.75 net HST ($84,918 plus HST).The construction tender was prepared and issued at the
end of February; closing on March 17th, 2017.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Engineering & Public Works Department
DATE:March 31, 2017
SUBJECT:Mill Cove WWTP Replacement
ORIGIN:2016-2017 Capital Work Program
2 Request For Decision
DISCUSSION
Four (4) tender packages were received and reviewed for conformity to the specification,
completeness and mathematical accuracy. The lowest compliant bidder is Mid Valley
Construction (1997) Limited,who has the demonstrated experience and can complete the work
required as specified in the Tender.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Tender T-2017-002 followed Policy P-04,Procurement Policy.
Financial/Budgetary
This project is currently funded through the Clean Water & Wastewater Fund (CWWF), receiving
75%($1,089,444, net HST)funding from the Provincial and Federal Governments.The remaining
funds necessary to complete this project will be sourced from the operating sewer reserves and
long term borrowing.
Project Budget, Net HST $1,400,000.00 Proposed Budget FY 2017-2018Tender Award,net HST $ 1,245,774.69 Mid Valley Construction Ltd –recommendedProject Management, net HST $65,000.00 Unbilled services, Engineering estimateTotal, net HST $1,310,774.69Variance with Project Budget $ 89,225.31 Under-budget, Contingency Funds (<10 %)Recommended Contingency $ 131,100.00 10% of Total Estimated Cost
Additional Funding Required $ 41,775.00
Revised Budget $1,441,800.00
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses;
3 Request For Decision
Work Program Implications
This project is incorporated in the current work program.
OPTIONS
1.Proceed with award of Tender, as recommended;
2.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information
as identified by Council.,
ATTACHMENTS
Hiltz & Seamone Tender Award Recommendation
T-2017-002 Summary of Submissions
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
I
T
Y
O
F
T
H
E
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
O
F
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
MI
L
L
C
O
V
E
S
T
P
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
Mi
d
V
a
l
l
e
y
T
e
n
d
e
r
Tr
i
-
E
x
T
e
n
d
e
r
De
x
t
e
r
T
e
n
d
e
r
Blunden Tender Cost Estimate
TE
N
D
E
R
:
T
-
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
2
4.
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
O
F
Q
U
A
N
T
I
T
I
E
S
A
N
D
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
S
IT
E
M
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
U
N
I
T
O
F
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
NO
.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
Y AR
D
P
I
P
I
N
G
A
N
D
S
I
T
E
W
O
R
K
S
20
.
G
r
a
v
i
t
y
P
i
p
e
Su
p
p
l
y
&
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
t
e
m
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
l
l
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
,
g
r
u
b
b
i
n
g
,
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
e
d
d
i
n
g
,
pi
p
e
l
a
y
i
n
g
,
b
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
&
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
A
l
l
mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
f
i
t
t
i
n
g
s
,
m
a
r
k
e
r
s
,
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
,
le
a
k
a
g
e
&
p
i
l
l
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
l ea
k ag
e
& p
il
l
t
e
s
t
i ng
,
a
ll
s
u
r
f ac
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i on
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
e
l
s
e
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
as
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
a
n
d
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
.
.1
2
5
0
m
m
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
I
n
l
e
t
P
i
p
e
s
m
2
2
$
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
4
4
.
7
5
$
3
,
1
8
4
.
5
0
$
6
3
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
,
8
6
0
.
0
0
$
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
3
,
8
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
5
.
0
0
$
2
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
.2
2
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t
P
i
p
e
m
1
0
$
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
1
.
0
0
$
1
,
3
1
0
.
0
0
$
3
7
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
7
.
0
0
$
1
,
1
7
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
1
5
0
.
0
0
.3
1
5
0
m
m
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
R
e
c
i
r
c
&
l
i
n
e
t
o
U
V
m
6
0
$
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
0
.
7
5
$
7
,
2
4
5
.
0
0
$
2
4
0
.
0
0
$
1
4
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
7
.
0
0
$
6
,
4
2
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
5
.
0
0
$
6
,
3
00.00
.4
5
0
m
m
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
R
2
6
P
V
C
F
o
r
c
e
l
i
n
e
t
o
M
o
d
u
l
e
s
m
1
8
5
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
6
6
.
0
0
$
1
2
,
2
1
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
8
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
8
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
7
3
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
2
5
0
.00
.5
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
m
1
0
$
7
5
.
0
0
$7
5
0
.
0
0
$1
1
3
.
5
0
$1
,
1
3
5
.
0
0
$3
0
0
.
0
0
$3,000.00 $76.00 $760.00
22
.
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
.1
1
2
0
0
m
m
m
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
e
a
2
$
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
$
5
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
6
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
23
.
F
e
n
c
i
n
g
.1
N
e
w
1
.
8
m
c
h
a
i
n
l
i
n
k
m
1
4
0
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
6
.
5
0
$
1
7
,
7
1
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
0
.
0
0
$
1
8
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
5
.
0
0
$
4
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
.2
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
e
n
c
e
m
9
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
6
.
0
0
$
4
,
1
4
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
6
.
0
0
$
4
,
1
4
0
.
0
0
$
3
5
.
0
0
$
3
,
1
5
0
.
0
0
24
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
W
a
l
l
.1
2
.
4
m
w
a
l
l
m
2
0
$1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$7
2
6
.
5
0
$1
4
,
5
3
0
.
0
0
$1
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$22,000.00 $1,430.0 0 $28,600.00 $450.0 0 $9,000.00
.2
1
.
0
m
w
a
l
l
m
8
$1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
1
1
5
.
0
0
$8
,
9
2
0
.
0
0
$1
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$11,200.00 $1,485.0 0 $11,880.00 $250.0 0 $2,000.00
.3
R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
f
e
n
c
e
m
2
0
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
8
7
.
5
0
$
5
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
25
.
G
r
a
v
e
l
P
a
d
f
o
r
M
o
d
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
.1
T
y
p
e
I
I
2
0
0
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
(
M
o
d
u
l
e
P
a
d
)
m
²
2
6
0
$
9
.
0
0
$
2
,
3
4
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
.
7
5
$
3
,
3
1
5
.
0
0
$
2
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
.
0
0
$
3
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
.2
T
y
p
e
I
1
0
0
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
(
M
o
d
u
a
l
P
a
d
)
m
²
2
6
0
$
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
.
7
5
$
1
,
7
5
5
.
0
0
$
8
.
0
0
$
2
,
0
8
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
.3
T
y
p
e
I
I
2
0
0
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
(
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
)
m
²
4
5
0
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
.
5
0
$
5
,
6
2
5
.
0
0
$
2
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
.
0
0
$
6
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
.4
T
y
p
e
I
1
0
0
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
(
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
)
m
²
5
0
0
$
5
.
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
.
4
0
$
3
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
.
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
26
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
l
a
r
i
f
i
e
r
an
d
S
T
P
.1
R
e
m
o
v
e
a
f
t
e
r
n
e
w
p
l
a
n
t
i
s
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
L
S
1
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
9
5
0
$
1
5
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.2
B
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
a
b
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
S
1
$
6
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
2
5
0
$
2
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
1
0
0
$
5
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
2
0
0
$
9
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
27
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
27
.
L an
d sc
a
p
i ng
.1
T
o
p
s
o
i
l
1
0
0
m
m
t
h
i
c
k
m
²
1
2
0
0
$
5
.
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
.
1
0
$
1
0
,
9
2
0
.
0
0
$
8
.
0
0
$
9
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
.
0
0
$
9
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
.
0
0
$
1
4
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
.2
H
y
d
r
o
-
s
e
e
d
i
n
g
m
²
1
5
0
0
$
2
.
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
.
1
5
$
1
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
$
1
.
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
.
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
.
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.3
I
n
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
o
r
/
D
r
a
i
a
n
g
e
d
i
t
c
h
m
1
1
0
$
3
5
.
0
0
$
3
,
8
5
0
.
0
0
$
3
2
.
6
0
$
3
,
5
8
6
.
0
0
$
2
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
8
.
0
0
$
4
,
1
8
0
.
0
0
$
6
0
.
0
0
$
6
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
.4
S
u
p
p
l
y
a
n
d
P
l
a
c
e
9
0
0
m
m
w
e
l
l
c
r
o
c
k
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
L
S
1
0
0
%
$
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
0
2
5
.
0
0
$1
,
0
2
5
.
0
0
$9
0
0
.
0
0
$900.00 $580.00 $580.00
co
v
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
e
l
l
.
TO
T
A
L
$13
9
,
0
9
0
.
0
0
T
O
T
A
L
$13
0
,
9
3
5
.
5
0
T
O
T
A
L
$198,740.00
T
O
T
A
L
$156,910.00
T
O
T
A
L
$135,750.00
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
O
F
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
MI
L
L
C
O
V
E
S
T
P
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
Mi
d
V
a
l
l
e
y
T
e
n
d
e
r
Tr
i
-
E
x
T
e
n
d
e
r
De
x
t
e
r
T
e
n
d
e
r
Blunden Tender Cost Estimate
TE
N
D
E
R
:
T
-
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
2
4.
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
O
F
Q
U
A
N
T
I
T
I
E
S
A
N
D
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
S
IT
E
M
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
U
N
I
T
O
F
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
NO
.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
A
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
40
.
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
l
l
cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
,
g
r
u
b
b
i
n
g
,
c
o
m
m
o
n
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
,
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
,
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
wa
t
e
r
s
t
o
p
,
e
p
o
x
y
p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
,
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
,
r
o
o
f
i
n
g
si
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
l
l
e
l
s
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s i te
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i on
a
n
d a
ll
e
l se
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
c
o
m
p
l et
e
th
e
w
o
r
k
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
a
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
.1
N
e
w
H
i
p
R
o
o
f
o
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
h
l
o
r
i
n
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
l
u
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
$2
0
,
3
5
5
.
0
0
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
$11,800.00
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
(p
r
e
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
e
d
t
r
u
s
s
e
s
,
5
/
8
T
&
G
O
S
B
,
N
o
v
a
S
e
a
l
a
n
d
3
5
y
e
a
r
s
h
i
n
g
l
e
s
)
.2
U
l
t
r
a
v
i
o
l
e
t
d
o
s
i
n
g
t
a
n
k
a
g
e
l
u
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
1
,
2
7
5
$
2
1
,
2
7
5
.
0
0
$
2
7
,
1
0
0
$
2
7
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.3
H
e
a
d
w
o
r
k
s
T
a
n
k
a
g
e
c
/
w
h
a
t
c
h
e
s
&
e
f
f
l
u
e
n
t
f
i
l
t
e
r
s
l
u
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$4
4
9
,
7
3
3
$4
4
9
,
7
3
3
.
0
0
$7
7
7
,
6
9
0
$7
7
7
,
6
9
0
.
0
0
$9
1
6
,
8
0
0
$916,800.00 $750,00 0 $750,000.00 $315,00 0 $315,000.00
.4
R
o
c
k
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
m
³
5
0
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
4
.
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
0
.
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
5
.
0
0
$
6
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
.5
R
a
i
l
-
3
8
m
m
a
l
u
m
i
n
i
u
m
p
i
p
e
1
.
1
m
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
e
v
e
r
y
3
m
m
5
5
$
5
0
.
0
0
$2
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$2
8
6
.
5
0
$1
5
,
7
5
7
.
5
0
$0
.
0
0
$0.00 $310.00 $17,050.00
.6
D
e
c
k
i
n
g
-
3
8
m
m
s
e
r
a
t
e
d
a
l
u
m
i
n
i
u
m
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
m
2
8
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$4
5
6
.
5
0
$3
6
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
$0.00 $220.00 $17,600.00
*
42
.
S
e
w
a
g
e
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
t
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
t
e
m
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
l
l
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
e
d
d
i
n
g
,
b
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
,
co
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
w
o
r
k
p
i
p
i
n
g
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
co
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
wo
r
k
,
pi
p
i
n
g
,
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
,
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
e
l
s
e
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
a
s
sh
o
w
n
o
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
a
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
.
.1
Bi
o
f
i
l
t
e
r
s
c
/
w
p
u
m
p
s
(
4
u
n
i
t
s
)
lu
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
4
7
,
2
0
0
$
4
4
7
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
2
1
,
8
0
0
$
4
2
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
5
1
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.2
UV
(5
U
n
i
t
s
)
lu
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
7
,
5
0
0
$
3
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
1
,
5
0
0
$
5
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.3
Fl
o
w
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(
2
U
n
i
t
s
)
lu
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
9
,
4
0
0
$
1
9
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
8
,
7
0
0
$
1
8
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.4
Su
r
g
e
T
a
n
k
P
u
m
p
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
Y
2
0
1
6
-
1
0
0
-
0
3
(2
U
n
i
t
s
)
lu
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
3
,
8
0
0
$
4
3
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
6
,
9
0
0
$
7
6
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.5
A er
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
(3
U
n
i
t
s
)
lu
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
6
,
4
0
5
$
3
6
,
4
0
5
.
0
0
$
5
0
,
2
0
0
$
5
0
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.6
Od
o
r
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
f
i
l
t
e
r
(
A
i
r
S
c
r
u
b
b
e
r
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
(1
U
n
i
t
)
lu
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
,
8
2
0
$
6
,
8
2
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
9
0
0
$
9
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
.7
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
-
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
(1
U
n
i
t
)
lu
m
p
s
u
m
1
0
0
%
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$4
9
,
0
7
5
$4
9
,
0
7
5
.
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$50,000.00 $46,00 0 $46,000.00 $75,00 0 $75,000.00
TO
T
A
L
$
1
,
0
5
5
,
4
8
3
.
0
0
T
O
T
A
L
$
1
,
5
3
3
,
7
9
7
.
5
0
T
O
T
A
L
$
1
,
6
6
9
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
T
O
T
A
L
$
1
,
8
3
6
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
T
O
T
A
L
$
1
,
0
7
8
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
O
F
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
MI
L
L
C
O
V
E
S
T
P
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
Mi
d
V
a
l
l
e
y
T
e
n
d
e
r
Tr
i
-
E
x
T
e
n
d
e
r
De
x
t
e
r
T
e
n
d
e
r
Blunden Tender Cost Estimate
TE
N
D
E
R
:
T
-
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
2
4.
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
O
F
Q
U
A
N
T
I
T
I
E
S
A
N
D
U
N
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
S
IT
E
M
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
U
N
I
T
O
F
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
U
N
I
T
T
O
T
A
L
NO
.
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
P
R
I
C
E
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
.1
Y
A
R
D
P
I
P
I
N
G
A
N
D
S
I
T
E
W
O
R
K
S
$
1
3
9
,
0
9
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
0
,
9
3
5
.
5
0
$
1
9
8
,
7
4
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
6
,
9
1
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
5
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
.2
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
A
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$
1
,
0
5
5
,
4
8
3
.
0
0
$
1
,
5
3
3
,
7
9
7
.
5
0
$
1
,
6
6
9
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
3
6
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
0
7
8
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
$1
,
1
9
4
,
5
7
3
.
0
0
$
1
,
6
6
4
,
7
3
3
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
6
8
,
4
4
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
9
9
3
,
5
6
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
1
4
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
HS
T
(
1
5
%
o
f
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
)
$1
7
9
,
1
8
5
.
9
5
$
2
4
9
,
7
0
9
.
9
5
$
2
8
0
,
2
6
6
.
0
0
$
2
9
9
,
0
3
4
.
0
0
$
1
8
2
,
1
3
7
.
5
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
r
i
c
e
$
1
,
3
7
3
,
7
5
8
.
9
5
$
1
,
9
1
4
,
4
4
2
.
9
5
$
2
,
1
4
8
,
7
0
6
.
0
0
$
2
,
2
9
2
,
5
9
4
.
0
0
$
1
,
3
9
6
,
3
8
7
.
5
0
REQUEST FOR DECISION/DIRECTION
Prepared By:Christa Rafuse, P.Eng Date April 6,2017
Reviewed By:Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng Date April 7,2017
Authorized By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date April 7,2017
CURRENT SITUATION
On April 28th, 2016, Municipal Council approved the 2016-17 Capital and Operating Budget.
Included in the Capital Budget were improvements to the Mill Cove Fire Protection System, which
can be generally described as the design of a selected improvement option, which includes the
installation of a new fire pump and controller. The budget for this project was estimated at
$150,000, Net HST.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended for the fiscal year 2017/18 for the Mill Cove FPS to be budgeted at $165,700.
BACKGROUND
On February 23,2017 Council accepted the recommendation by Staff that Council proceed with
the purchase and installation of a new diesel fired fire pump for the Mill Cove Fire Protection
System (Motion 2017-104).
DISCUSSION
For the health and safety of the Mill Cove community serviced by the existing FPS we are moving
forward to replace the fire pump and controller as approved by Council on February 23, 2017.
Furthermore,we are required to upgrade the fire pump at a minimum due to pending Order from
Department of Labour by July 2017.
Additional issues, such as ventilation and diesel return line,were noted on-site by Stantec. These
issues as well as other miscellaneous issues would need to be addressed to ensure NFPA code
compliance as well as for the correct operation of a new diesel skid.Previously, it was thought
that there was sufficient budget to complete the work as scoped. However, after completing the
detailed design, there is not sufficient budget and staff are requesting additional funds. It should
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Engineering & Public Works Department
DATE:April 13,2017
SUBJECT:Mill Cove Fire Protection System
ORIGIN:2016-2017 Capital Budget
2 Request For Decision
be noted that, based on staff’s review and advice from the consultant, the diesel option is still
the most economical solution.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Procurement would follow P-04, Procurement Policy.
Financial/Budgetary
The purchase and installation of a new fire pump and generator is approximately $165,700 and
is required no later than the summer of 2017.
FY 2017-2018 -Proposed Budget, net HST $125,000
March 31, 2017 -Engineer Estimate, net HST $153,000
April 1, 2017 –Project Mang.Fees, net HST $12,700
FY 2017-2018 –Revised Budget, net HST $165,700
Additional Requested Funds $ 40,700
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses;
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
1.Proceed with the Mill Cove FPS fire pump replacement and increase the budget by
$40,700.
2.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as
identified by Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Opinion of Probable Cost
St
a
n
t
e
c
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
L
t
d
Op
i
n
i
o
n
o
f
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
C
o
s
t
Cl
i
e
n
t
:
MO
D
C
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
:
CJ
E
File:133431015
Ch
e
c
k
e
d
:
JP
S
Date:31-Mar-17
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Mi
l
l
C
o
v
e
F
P
S
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
La
b
o
u
r
R
a
t
e
:
$
7
5
/
h
r
Cu
r
r
e
n
c
y
:
Cd
n
$
Revision:
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
a
b
o
u
r
Unit
T
o
t
a
l
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p ti
o
n
Q
t
y .
U
n
i
t
U
n
i
t
$
T
o
t
a
l
$
H
r
/
U
n
i
t
T
o
t
a
l
H
r
.
U
n
i
t
$
T
o
t
a
l
$
C
o
s
t
C
o
s
t
00
1
F
i
r
e
P
u
m
p
S
k
i
d
,
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
,
P
a
d
,
B
a
t
t
e
r
i
e
s
,
M
u
f
f
l
e
r
1
l
o
t
5
0
,
0
0
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
9
,
0
0
0
9
,
0
0
0
5
9
,
0
0
0
5
9
,
0
0
0
00
2
C
h
e
c
k
V
a
l
v
e
1
e
a
3
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
8
8
6
0
0
6
0
0
3
,
6
0
0
3
,
6
0
0
00
3
T
e
s
t
H
e
a
d
e
r
V
a
l
v
e
1
e
a
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
2
4
2
4
1
,
8
0
0
1
,
8
0
0
2
,
8
0
0
2
,
8
0
0
00
4
V
a
l
v
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
L
o
c
k
s
4
e
a
1
0
0
4
0
0
1
4
7
5
3
0
0
1
7
5
7
0
0
00
5
P
i
p
i
n
g
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
f
i
r
e
w
a
t
e
r
,
e
x
h
a
u
s
t
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
)
1
l
o
t
1
2
,
0
0
0
1
2
,
0
0
0
1
2
,
0
0
0
1
2
,
0
0
0
00
6
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
S
e
n
s
i
n
g
L
i
n
e
1
l
o
t
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
00
7
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
W
i
r
i
n
g
t
o
F
u
e
l
T
a
n
k
1
l
o
t
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
00
8
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
1
l
o
t
2
,
5
0
0
2
,
5
0
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
9
,
0
0
0
9
,
0
0
0
1
1
,
5
0
0
1
1
,
5
0
0
00
9
D
o
u
b
l
e
-
w
a
l
l
S
t
e
e
l
T
a
n
k
s
2
e
a
1
,
7
0
0
3
,
4
0
0
1
,
7
0
0
3
,
4
0
0
01
0
P
i
p
i
n
g
,
V
a
l
v
e
s
,
G
u
a
r
d
s
,
A
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
i
e
s
1
l
o
t
4
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
01
1
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
l
o
t
4
0
4
0
3
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
01
2
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
1
l
o
t
5
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
,
5
0
0
1
,
5
0
0
2
,
0
0
0
2
,
0
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
103,000
OH
&
P
@
1
5
%
15,450
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
@
1
5
%
15,450
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
133,900
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
@
1
0
%
13,390
To
t
a
l
147,290
Fi
r
e
P
u
m
p
S
y
s
t
e
m
Fu
e
l
T
a
n
k
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
3/3
1
/
2
0
1
7
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
Sheet: OPC File: 133431015 - Opinion of Cost_IFT.xls
REQUEST FOR DECISION/DIRECTION
Prepared By:Christa Rafuse, P.Eng Date April 5, 2017
Reviewed By:Matthew S. Davidson,P.Eng.Date April 6, 2017
Authorized By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date April 6, 2017
CURRENT SITUATION
On April 28th, 2016,Municipal Council approved the 2016-17 Capital and Operating Budget. The
Capital Budget included the construction of the Kaizer Meadow Landfill Cell 4A. The budget for
this project was estimated $3,200,000 Net HST.The work was not completed as scheduled.
Therefore, the proposed 2017-2018 budget for this project is $3,130,000 Net HST, which has not
been approved to date.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Municipality of the District of Chester Council:1.Give pre-budget approval for the construction of the Kaizer Meadow Landfill Cell 4A inthe amount of $ 3, 130,000; and2.Award the Tender T-2017-005 for the construction of Landfill Cell 4A at Kaizer MeadowtoBrycon Construction Limited,Dartmouth, Nova Scotia in the amount of $2,398,000 plusHST.
BACKGROUND
During the Fiscal Year 2016-2017, Staff with the aid of our Engineering Consultant,CBCL Limited
Inc, worked on the design for the construction of Cell 4A.
As per motion 2016-370, Council awarded the Landfill Cell 4A Engineering Services (i.e.design
review, preparation of specifications and construction management services) to CBCL Limited for
$124,880 plus HST
The construction tender was prepared and issued at the end of February; closing on March 10th,
2017.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Engineering & Public Works Department
DATE:April 13, 2017
SUBJECT:Landfill Cell 4A Construction
ORIGIN:2016-2017 Capital Work Program
2 Request For Decision
DISCUSSION
Six (6) tender packages were received and reviewed for conformity to the specification,
completeness and mathematical accuracy. The lowest compliant bidder is Brycon Construction
Limited,who has the demonstrated experience and can complete the work required as specified
in the Tender.
The lowest bidder ARCP (Atlantic Road Construction and Paving Ltd.)was non-compliant and
understand the tender they submitted was incomplete and with that they are being disqualified.
Their tender did not acknowledge Addendum 1 which contained pertinent information that
effected their tender pricing. They were not able to proceed with the originally tendered price.
All correspondence has been discussed with ARCP and reviewed by staff, our solicitor and CBCL
Ltd.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Tender T-2017-005 followed Policy P-04,Procurement Policy.
Financial/Budgetary
Project Budget,net HST $3,130,000 Proposed Budget FY 2017-2018Tender Award, net HST $2,500,783 Brycon Construction Ltd.–recommendedProject Management, net HST $46,720 Unbilled services, Engineering estimateTotal, net HST $2,547,503Variance with Project Budget $582,497 Under-budget, Contingency Funds (<10 %)
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
2.Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses;
3 Request For Decision
Work Program Implications
This project is incorporated in the current work program.
OPTIONS
1.Proceed with award of Tender, as recommended;
2.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information
as identified by Council.,
ATTACHMENTS
Tender Award Recommendation
T-2017-005 Summary of Submissions
160838.01 LE001 - TENDER RESULTS (DAVIDSON MDC) 20032017.DOCX/TD ED: 3/20/2017 11:40:00 AM/PD: 3/20/2017 11:40:00 AM
March 20, 2017
Mr. Matthew Davidson, P.Eng.
Director of Engineering & Public Works
Municipality of the District of Chester
PO Box 369
151 King Street
Chester, NS B0J 1J0
Dear Mr. Davidson:
RE: Kaizer Meadow Environmental Management Centre – Landfill Cell #4A –
Tender T-2017-005 – Tender Results
Tenders for the above noted contract were closed at the offices of the Municipality of
District of Chester (Municipality) on March 10, 2017. The public tender opening was
overseen by officials from the Municipality. Following the opening, the Municipality
provided CBCL Limited with electronic copies of the six (6) submitted tenders for the
purposes of completing our review.
In addition to unit prices, bidders were also asked to provide the number of weeks to
complete the contract. A breakdown of the overall results is provided below. For
comparison purposes, the Engineer’s Estimate for the project was $ 2,669,000.00 (excl. of
contingencies & HST).
Contractor Contract Price (excl. HST) Completion Time
ARCP $ 2,039,881.00 17 wks
Brycon $ 2,398,000.00 25 wks
Harbour $ 2,589,075.00 20 wks
Dexter $ 2,747,000.00 22 wks
Mid Valley $ 2,747,915.00 2 wks
JR Eisener $ 2,989,267.00 32 wks
The tenders were reviewed for mathematical correctness, as well as for any irregularities.
The bid from Atlantic Road Construction & Paving Ltd (ARCP) appears to have a number of
irregularities and does not appear to be complete. The ‘Information to Tenderers’ section
included in the tender documents defines the terms and conditions of the tendering process
for the bidders and the owner. Under clause 2.1 it states, that a complete tender is
comprised of seven items including a written description of an environmental protection
plan and addenda. ARCP did not submit a description of their environmental protection plan
nor did they include the addenda with their tender. Under clause 7.2 it states, confirm in the
tender form that all addenda have been received. ARCP did not indicate receipt of the
addendum in the tender form.
Our review of the unit prices identified very low prices in the ARCP bid for the placement of
aggregates and granular materials. Specifically, items 7.1 to 7.5 of the ‘Schedule of
Quantities and Unit Prices’, were significantly lower than the remaining submissions, as well
as the Engineer’s Estimate. It may be worth noting that items 7.1 and 7.2 were discussed at
the mandatory bidders meeting and subsequently addressed via addendum. Though this
may not necessarily constitute an unbalanced bid, ARCP’s aggregate/granular unit pricing
could perhaps indicate a misunderstanding of the scope of work.
Mr. Matthew Davidson, P.Eng.
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 2
160838.01 LE001 - TENDER RESULTS (DAVIDSON MDC) 20032017.DOCX/TD ED: 3/20/2017 11:40:00 AM/PD: 3/20/2017 11:40:00 AM
Based on the above observations, the tender submitted by ARCP appears to have significant
irregularities and does not appear to comply with the definition of a complete tender. It
should also be noted that Clause 2.2 of the ‘Information to Tenderers’ says that the owner
reserves the right to waive any formality or request provided herein. The Municipality may
wish to obtain a legal opinion on this matter before proceeding with award of this tender.
Other than a stated completion time of 2 weeks, submitted by the second highest bidder,
there were no other significant irregularities identified in the remaining five (5) tenders
submitted. Of these remaining tenders, Brycon Construction Ltd. have submitted the lowest
price and have agreed to complete the work within 25 weeks following written notification
of award.
Should the Atlantic Road Construction & Paving Ltd bid be rejected, CBCL Limited sees no
reason why Contract No. 160838.01, Tender T-2017-005 should not be awarded to Brycon
Construction Ltd. for a price of $ 2,398,000.00 (or $ 2,757,700.01 including HST).
Please feel free to contact the undersigned to discuss the above or any issues relating to the
project.
Yours very truly,
CBCL Limited
David Trudel, P.Eng.
Project Manager
Direct: (902) 421-7241, ext. 2270
E-Mail: dtrudel@cbcl.ca
Project No: 160838.01
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Bill DeGrace Date April 6, 2016
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Date
CURRENT SITUATION
Staff is completing draft planning documents as part of a phased process of Plan Review. Staff
is seeking concurrence with the general direction as set out in the draft Municipal Planning
Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that staff be directed to proceed with preparation of planning documents as
proposed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The current process of Plan Review was created in 2014 to furnish Council with five new
planning documents:
Municipal Planning Strategy
Land Use By-law
Village of Chester Secondary Planning Strategy
Village of Chester Land Use By-law
Subdivision By-law
The Plan Review process is overseen by the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee, comprised of
District and Village representatives.A phased approach was implemented that would see the
Municipal and Village documents developed simultaneously, interspersed with periods of public
engagement.This approach continued until fall 2016 when the Committee determined that the
Municipal documents should be completed before proceeding with the Village documents.
Accordingly, staff has completed a draft Municipal Planning Strategy. Other planning
documents are in various stages of preparation.
Staff wishes to know if Council concurs with the general direction of the draft Municipal
Planning Strategy. Concurrence will enable staff to complete the Land Use By-law and
REPORT TO:Tammy Wilson, CAO
SUBMITTED BY:Bill DeGrace, Senior Planner
DATE:April 6, 2017
SUBJECT:Municipal Planning Strategy
ORIGIN:Council request for check-in
2
request for decision
Subdivision By-law in accordance with the MPS as presented. Staff would then continue with
completion of the draft Village Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use-By-law.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Council is acting on [existing]Municipal Planning Strategy Policy 4.0.6:“This Municipal Planning Strategy
and any subsequent amendments shall be reviewed as required by the Municipal Government Act, when
requested by the Minister of Services Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, or when deemed advisable by
Municipal Council, but in any case not later than ten (10) years from the date of its coming into force and
effect.”
Financial/Budgetary
As budgeted in current fiscal year and in fiscal year 2017-18.
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
Goal #3:“The Municipality will ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents
and businesses.”Objective: “Conduct a full review of all planning and development by-laws, policies
and specifications.”
Work Program Implications
As current: one staff member dedicated full-time with support from Community Development and IT.
OPTIONS
1.Direct staff to proceed with preparation of planning documents as proposed.
2.Direct staff to consider an alternate approach or approaches to the MPS before
proceeding with remaining planning documents.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Municipal Planning Strategy
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER151 King Street, PO Box 369, Chester, NS B0J 1J0Telephone: 902-275-3554 Facsimile: 902-275-4771email:awebber@chester.ca
Office of the Warden
April 13, 2017
Connecting Canadians Branch
C.D. Howe Building
235 Queen Street, 1st floor, West Tower
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H5
E-mail : ic.cti-bpi.ic@canada.ca
SUBJECT: Support for Bell’s Connect to Innovate Application
To Whom it May Concern,
We are pleased to express our support for Bell’s Connect to Innovate application to bring High-Speed
Internet to our community. We are convinced that the proposed project will have a meaningful and lasting
impact on our region.
The Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) has several communities that are considered
underserviced and eligible for funding under the Connect to Innovate Program. The Bell’s Connect to
Innovate application, includes three of these communities, being Bayswater, Northwest Cove and Upper
Blandford.
Access to High-Speed Internet is a priority for our communities within the Municipality. As an underserved
rural community, the lack of high-speed Internet access has prevented residents from taking advantage of
the many opportunities afforded by the digital era. By making faster Internet speeds available in our
community, the proposed project will allow households, businesses and community institutions to keep
pace with changing technology and to fully participate in the digital economy.
High-Speed Internet is considered to be essential infrastructure that is necessary to support our residents
and grow our communities. Our economy is dependent upon it and without high speed internet our
communities are at a disadvantage.
For the reasons outlined above, we support Bell’s Connect to Innovate application and hope that they will
be awarded the funding required to make this project a reality.
Sincerely,
Allen Webber
Warden