HomeMy Public PortalAbout2018-09-20_COW_Public Agenda Package (Updated - Added 8.6)Page 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s)
Committee of the W hole
AGENDA
Thursday,September 20, 2018
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 (8:45 A.M.–9:00 A.M.)
4.MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
4.1.Committee of the Whole –August 23, 2018
5.MATTERS ARISING.
6.POLICY DEVELOPMENT/REVIEW.
7.CORRESPONDENCE:
7.1 Email from Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities (NSFM) dated September 7,
2018 regarding Interim Report on 2018 Resolutions –Deadline for written
feedback requested by September 30, 2018.
7.2 Email from Brad Armstrong dated September 10, 2018 regard ing Plebiscite for
water supply??
8.NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 Directional Road Name Signage Discussion –Councillor Connors.
8.2 Information Report prepared by Community Development Department dated
August 28, 2018 regarding Community Boundary –New Ross/Forties. (Origin –
Council Meeting –March 29, 2018)
8.3 Request for Decision prepared by Administration dated September 12, 2018
regarding Affordable Housing Project in New Ross -Conditional Grant Criteria.
8.4 Request for Decision prepared by Engineering and Public Works dated
September 5, 2018 regarding Sludge Removal.
Page 2 of 2
9.IN CAMERA.
10.ADJOURNMENT.
8.5 Request for Decision prepared by Engineering and Public Works dated
September 5, 2018 Dewatering Truck – Repurposing.
1
Cindy Hannaford
Subject:FW: INTERIM REPORT ON 2018 RESOLUTIONS--Action Required: Feedback RequestedAttachments:INTERIM RESOLUTIONS REPORT 2018--Final.pdf
From:NSFM Info <Info@nsfm.ca>
Sent:Friday, September 7, 2018 3:38 PM
To:Tracy Verbeke <TVerbeke@nsfm.ca>
Subject:INTERIM REPORT ON 2018 RESOLUTIONS--Action Required: Feedback Requested
TO:Mayors/Wardens, Councillors, All Units
CC:Chief Administrative Officers/Clerk-Treasurers, All Units
FR:Betty MacDonald, Executive Director
RE:INTERIM REPORT ON 2018 RESOLUTIONS—FEEDBACK REQUESTED
As many of you will recall, Councils were asked to provide feedback on top priorities last spring. These, along with
the issues raised at regional and caucus meetings, led to a list of topics to be considered for possible resolutions in
2018.Over the summer, work was undertaken to explore these issues and to identify possible actions.As well,the
NSFM Board has reviewed the status of the 2017 resolutions, and identified further actions. The result is a
proposed list of 10 resolutions dealing with: municipal funding; roads; CAP; municipal modernization; cannabis;
extended producer responsibility (EPR), municipal responsibilities; policing; surplus schools and sustainability and
Infrastructure funding support.The Board also has identified Code of Conduct as a top priority for NSFM to lead
now, rather than wait for resolutions.Information on the remaining issues is also contained in the report.
Next Steps:
Members are asked to review the Interim Resolution Report and provide feedback, either written or
through attendance at one of the three meetings planned for discussion.These meetings are
scheduled as follows:
o September 21, 2018, 9:30 –12:00, Holiday Inn, Truro
o September 24, 2018, 9:30 –12:00, Old Orchard Inn, Kings County
o October 1, 2018, Conference Room, Civic Centre, Port Hawkesbury, 1:00 –3:30
Feedback will be summarized and presented to the NSFM Executive.NSFM Executive will
incorporate as appropriate.
Final draft of resolutions will be sent to members in advance of the Fall Conference.
If there are more than five resolutions proposed, the membership will be asked to vote on their top
resolutions during the caucus meetings being held Wednesday, November 7 th, from 1:45 –4:15.
The top five resolutions will be presented to the membership for consideration and vote on
Thursday, November 8, at 9:30.
Betty MacDonald
Executive Director
Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities
(formerly UNSM)
1809 Barrington St., Suite 1304
Halifax, NS B3J 3K8
(902) 423-3423
2
www.nsfm.ca
Phone: (902) 423-8331
Fax: (902) 425-5592
www.nsfm.ca
Better government.Stronger communities.
PLEASE NOTE:If you do not want to receive communications from NSFM, please e -mail Tracy
Verbeke at tverbeke@nsfm.ca,and you will be removed from the mailing list.
1
Cindy Hannaford
Subject:FW: Plebiscite for water supply ??
From:Brad Armstrong
Date:September 10, 2018 at 2:57:19 PM ADT
To:dbarkhouse@chester.ca
Cc:awebber@chester.ca,schurch@chester.ca,fshatford@chester.ca,mhector@chester.ca,aassaff@chester.ca,
tconnors@chester.ca
Subject:Plebiscite for water supply ??
Hello Danielle,
I hope all is well and you are enjoying your job as our councillor. I am sure that you have lots of issues
to deal with some good and some bad. I am writing you today to inform you that I believe that all the
Chester resident ratepayers need to have their say on the water supply issue,and that needs to be done
through a "plebiscite" as at the end of the day ,if this happens it will be Chester residents who pay.
I recently visited Pugwash,3 times this summer and the place seems to be in a recession, lots of closed
businesses and houses for sale. It appears that their water supply has not done much for businesses or
the residents,however that is only my observations.
There is only one reason that we don't have a water in supply in Chester and that is the enormous cost
to the residents and from what info I have gained from MODC staff, the cost per household will be high.
Most of my neighbours on Central st. and myself have drilled wells and have not have had any issues
with having water for over 20 years now,and it costs me less than a dollar a day to maintain,far less than
I was informed that the cost would be of the water supply if developed.
Just last week a new well was drilled off Main st., the drillers were there for about 4 -5 hrs and hit water
and were on there way to their next job,problem solved for that new resident.
Let's have the plebiscite and settle this matter in the sometime near future.
Thank you for your time,
Brad Armstrong
INFORMATION REPORT
Prepared By:Sylvia Dixon Date August 28, 2018
Reviewed By:Tara Maguire Date August 28, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder)Wilson Date August 28, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
Council has requested that staff prepare a report on the New Ross and Forties community boundary
identifying how it came to be,along with the process and implications of changing it.
RECOMMENDATION
For discussion and direction.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Nova Scotia Civic Address File (NSCAF)Overview
In 1997, the need for a standard, provincial-wide, digital, and georeferenced civic address database was
identified by the GeoNova Advisory Committee. This database is now referred to as the Nova Scotia Civic
Address File (NSCAF). In 1997/98, the then Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs retained a
consultant to develop a technical concept and strategy for the creation of the NSCAF that would support
the delivery of emergency services as well as other applications. This concept and resulting strategy were
based on principles of maximizing the use of existing provincial and municipal data, so that the NSCAF
would be developed and maintained as cost effectively as possible. 1998/99, a pilot project was
completed that included a data model along with a data maintenance proce ss and a set of policies,
procedures, and guidelines. The province -wide version of NSCAF was launched in 2000/2001. The NSCAF
infrastructure is currently maintained at the Nova Scotia Geomatics Centre (NSGC) in Amherst. The
municipalities, First Nations communities, and TIR update the NSCAF directly using web-based
applications or through batch updates with NSGC staff.1
Community Names and NSCAF General Service Areas (GSAs)
General Service Areas (GSAs)were developed for the administration of civic addressing. They are medium
scale geographic areas that encompass developed or administrative areas. GSAs are comparable to
traditional communities, but there are distinct differences. GSAs encompass all areas of the province.
Even remote, uninhabited areas are assigned to GSAs to provide a consistent means of identifying these
areas. In developed areas, the boundaries of GSAs generally follow community boundaries, although no
legal connotation is implied regarding the boundary definition.The names of the GSAs are the same
name of the local community where possible, but it does not indicate that the name has any official status
REPORT TO:Committee of the Whole
SUBMITTED BY:Sylvia Dixon
DATE:September 20, 2018
SUBJECT:Community Boundary -New Ross /Forties
ORIGIN:Council Direction
2 Information Report
outside the context of civic addressing. The intent is to use a name that people are most likely to report as
the community name when they call for 911 services.1 The GSA boundaries were based on the boundaries
that originated in 1990-91 when the province initiated an E911 civic addressing project. The Province
hired “Oldham Engineering” to civic address the whole province.The boundaries were not confirmed by
any municipal employee or official in the 1990s.Oldham Engineering laid the foundation down for all civic
addressing in Nova Scotia. Maps were drawn up with the boundaries and Civic Address Verification Sheets
(CAVs) were completed at this time. These forms included a civic number, a road name, and a community
name. The same process was used across the province. The Municipality has helped to maintain the Civic
Addressing System since the 1990s.
During the time when the province updated the 911 system with implementation of the Nova Scotia Civic
Addressing File (NSCAF)between the years 1997 and 2001, the province of Nova Scotia reviewed and
adjusted the General Service Areas (GSA) boundaries.Many factors were considered in this review
including, but not limited to:community name signs, property boundaries,physical features such as rivers,
shorelines, and bridges,road access into the community,fire protection boundaries, town boundaries,
traditional village boundaries, electoral boundaries and the provincial place names.GSA boundaries were
then further refined in consultation with municipal staff, councillors,Emergency Health Services (EHS),
local fire and police.1 Please see Appendix A for the scanned working maps for the Forties GSA boundary
delineation from the Nova Scotia Geomatics Centre, along with These maps show the existing GSA
boundaries along with the proposed new GSA boundaries in 2003.
The Forties and New Ross GSA Boundary
In the opinion of municipal staff, the Forties GSA boundary follows the original 40 land grant properties
along eastern edge. It then spreads out into the surrounding rural landscape to take into account the road
access in the area.Images of the land grant maps can be found in Appendix B.The current NSCAF GSA
boundary for the Forties can be found in Appendix C. Current community name signage aligns with this
boundary.Please see Appendix D for site visit photos of the community name signage at the GSA
boundary of New Ross and Forties, along with a map of the Forties/New Ross road sign location.In 2009
Province of Nova Scotia requested each municipality to officially sign off on their approved community
boundaries for the NSCAF. The signed letter by the then council along with mapping can be found in
Appendix E.In 2009 the Civic Address Coordinator worked with Municipal Councillors for the about a year
to make sure these boundaries were correct. The GSA Boundaries were approved by Council in 2010
based on the signoff from the Councillors at that time.Several existing civic addresses were updated at
this time from the old “Oldham”GSA boundary to the newly approved NSCAF GSA boundary between
Forties and New Ross.These included addresses between 398 Forties Rd and 623 Forties Rd.Please refer
to Appendix F for a sample letter and map that was sent to each of these property owners in this area.
IMPLICATIONS
The civic addressing system is a province-wide civic address system database that is used primarily to
support emergency response services within the Emergency Management Office (EMO), Emergency
Health Services (EHS), RCMP departments, and local fire and police departments . Additionally, many
provincial and municipal department s and organizations use the NSCAF community boundaries,such as
3 Information Report
municipal tax offices,municipal building departments, and Property Valuation Services Corporation
(PVSC).Any change to the system that affects the public must be done cautiously. The public associate
strongly with their street and community names and changes often can be met with resistance. There is
also a direct impact from the requirement to change mailing address, and personal identification.
Small adjustments, such as those that result from development along the margin of a community
boundary, can be made by the municipality by sending a request to the NSGC.These requests from the
municipality can be sent to NSCAFMaintenance@novascotia.ca.2 The municipal policy,P-61 Civic
Numbering Policies –Community Boundaries, outlines the procedure the municipality uses to review
changes to the NSCAF GSA or community boundaries. The policy can be found in Appendix G.
If municipal council would like to make significant changes to a GSA boundary or create a new GSA,
it is recommended that the community members, municipal council, emergency services, local police and
fire departments are consulted.2 Additionally, it is recommended that the road network is contained
within a single GSA and that boundaries cross the road network at intersection s. It is also recommended
that the community name is listed in the Nova Scotia and Canadian Gazetteer or Geographic Names
Database as an official place name.2 The gazetteer provides a consolidated database of place name and
features names. The content of the gazetteer is reviewed in consultation with municipalities and First
Nations communities and as a result, names may be added, modified, or rescinded.3 The gazetteer should
be updated before NSCAF GSA boundaries are updated, since the GSA boundaries were based on
community place names when they were formed. The forms for updating the geographic names database
can be found in Appendix H.In summary, the following should be completed when changing or adding a
community name:
1. Check the Canadian Geographic Names Database. The name should be official and classified as
a place name.
2. Petition property owners to ensure community support.
3. Receive approval from the Municipal Council.
4. Inform property owners of the change and the effective date.
5. Send a letter to the NSCAF Maintenance Group at NSCAFMaintenance@novascotia.ca or
160 Willow St, Amherst NS B4H 3W5, stating all property owners were informed of the
change and the effective date so that the NSCAF can be updated.2
It is of note that in addition to community names, the Canadian Geographic Names Database also
includes localities which can be located within a community. For example,New Harbour is a locality within
the community of Blandford and Glengarry is a locality within the community of New Ross.The
community name of Forties Settlement was formerly approved on December 12, 1939 and rescinded or
changed to Forties on August 29, 1974 within the Canadian Geographic Names Database.3
Policy
Policy P-61 Civic Numbering Policies –Community Boundaries
Financial/Budgetary
4 Information Report
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
N/A
Work Program Implications
N/A
Q UESTIONS
-Is it desirable to create additional and smaller community boundaries within NSCAF or torecognize the place name as a locality within the community (for example –a Forties Lots orForties Settlement locality within the Forties NSCAF community)
-Should petitioners come before council first to request a change? How many petitioners areneeded?What percentage of property owners would be required on a petition?
-We do not have a procedure for a ‘major’ change in community boundaries. Do we gothrough a process of changing a community boundary as we do a new street name petition?What part of the process does the Civic Address Coordinator complete and what part of theprocess would community members complete? How much help is given?(MailingAddresses cannot be given out to the public)
OPTIONS
ATTACHMENTS
-Appendix A: Scanned Working Maps for the GSA Boundary Delineation (source: Nova ScotiaGeomatics Centre)
-Appendix B: Images of the Crown Land Grant Maps 37 and 45
-Appendix C: Current NSCAF GSA Boundary for the Forties (2018)
-Appendix D: Site Visit Photos (July 2018) and Map for Forties Road Signage (2018)
-Appendix E: Signed Council Letter and Attached Maps (2009)
-Appendix F:Sample Letter and Map for Civic Address Update (2009)
-Appendix G:Policy P-61 Civic Numbering Policies –Community Boundaries
-Appendix H:Nova Scotia Geographic Names Change Request Application
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
5 Information Report
REFERENCE LINKS
1 Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide Version 4.3 August 16, 2016
http://nscaf1.nsgc.gov.ns.ca/civic_help/V5/pdf/CivicAddressUsersGuide.pdf
2 Best Practice for the Maintenance of Spatial Civic Address Data Version 1.2
October 7, 2015
http://nscaf1.nsgc.gov.ns.ca/civic_help/V5/pdf/BestPracticefortheMaintenanceofSpatialCivicAddressData.p
df
3 Canadian Geographical Names Database
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/place-names/10786
https://geonova.novascotia.ca/place-names
6 Information ReportAPPENDIX A :SCANNED WORKING MAPS FOR THE FORTIES GSA BOUNDARY DELINEA TION
7 Information Report
8 Information Report
9 Information Report
APPENDIX B : IMAGES OF THE CROWN LAND GRANTS FOR THE FORTIES
Map of land grants made by Charles Morris Dated:22 December 1819 (Land Papers Nova Scotia
Archives Map 2015-038)
10 Information Report
Nova Scotia Crown Land Grant Maps 37 & 45 (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources)
11 Information Report
Crown Land Grant Map 37 Clipping of Forties
12 Information Report
13 Information Report
Crown Land Grant Map 45 Clipping of Forties
14 Information ReportAPPENDIX C :CURRENT NSCAF GSA BO UNDARY FOR THE FORTI ES MAP (2018)
15 Information Report
16 Information ReportAPPENDIX D :SITE VISIT PHOTOS AND MAP FOR FORTIES ROAD SIGNAGE (2018)
17 Information Report
18 Information Report
19 Information Report
APPENDIX E :SIGNED COUNCIL LETTE R AND ATTACHED MAPS (2009)
20 Information Report
21 Information Report
22 Information Report
23 Information Report
APPENDIX F: SAMPLE L ETTER AND M AP FOR CIVIC ADDRESS U PDATE IN 2009
24 Information Report
25 Information Report
APPENDIX G :POLICY P -61 CIVIC NU MBERING POLICIES –C OMMUNITY BOUNDARIES
26 Information Report
27 Information Report
28 Information Report
APPENDIX H :NOVA SCOTIA GEOGRAPH IC NAMES CHANGE REQU EST APPLICATION
29 Information Report
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Tammy (Crowder) Wilson, CAO Date September 12,2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Date
CURRENT SITUATION
At the August 30, 2018 In-Camera Session of the meeting of Council, Council received a presentation from
the New Ross Community Care Centre Society,in which Council was being asked to partner in an
Affordable Housing Project in New Ross.After discussion on options for partnering t he Committee
determined a grant would be the preferred option. However, Council had concerns about providing an
unconditional grant, as the project is just at the conceptual stage. Staff were directed to prepare a report
outlining possible conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
If Council wishes to provide funding for this project in the form of a conditional grant the following
conditions are recommended.
1.Feasibility Study completed that demonstrates
a.Need / Demand
b.Community support
c.Financial viability and stability
d.Estimated costs of construction
e.#of Units and proposed rent / term of rent, satisfactory to Council.
2.Demonstration of funding / financing being secured for project .
3.Signed Agreement with Housing Nova Scotia for Affordable Housing Units to provide assura nce
of affordable housing units and term.
4.Planning Approval is obtained, if applicable.
5.Ongoing annual reporting on progress of project.
BACKGROUND
The South Shore Housing Coalition completed an Affordable Housing Needs assessment in 2017 . The
report concluded that there was a gap between affordable housing need and supply.The Needs
Assessment noted that 30 percent of MODC’s population could not afford the median rental shelter costs,
and 36 percent spent more than 30% of their taxable income before ta x on shelter costs.The Assessment
further demonstrated that 54 percent are paying more than $850 on rent, one of the highest rental costs
in Lunenburg County.Survey feedback noted that in addition to Affordable Housing a significant
REPORT TO:Committee of the Whole
SUBMITTED BY:Administration
DATE:September 12, 2018
SUBJECT:Affordable Housing Project-Conditional Grant
ORIGIN:COUNCIL -August 30, 2018
2 REQUEST FOR DECISION
challenge faced by residents is obtaining housing that enables them to age in place: Housing suited to the
needs of seniors.
The needs assessment complemented the Age Friendly Plan developed in 2016 which outlined some
recommendations with respects to moving forward with an Age Friendly plan, which included:
1.Establishing an Age Friendly Community Action Team to explore opportunity projects;and
2)Aligning the municipalities Community Development Department to provide management
support to the Action Team.
In 2017 Council received a Request for Direction from Community Development Staff that identified
possible roles for Council in Affordable Housing.The roles identified included:
1.Research
2.Planning Strategy Policy to encourage and enable the creation of affordable housing
3.Regulatory-Land Use By-law
4.Financial contribution
5.Advocacy and Community Partnerships
Council deferred a decision on its role until competing demands for staff resources diminished, primarily
the Municipal Plan Review (see Appendix A for Staff Report)
At the August 30, 2018 Council meeting, Council was asked to consider a role as a partner in either land
ownership or a financial contribution. Council was advised that this decision would be made in advance of
the larger policy debate/decision deferred in November 2017.
CMHC offers an Affordable Housing Program for the de velopment of Affordable Housing units. Up to
$50,000 per unit is available for new affordable housing developments. In addition,seed funding is
available. The New Ross Community Care Centre is seeking funding through this program and is looking
for municipal financial support as well.
DISCUSSION
As noted the discussion on a municipal role in Affordable Housing had been deferred b y Council until
after the completion of the Plan Review. Nonetheless, the Committee of the Whol e identified that there
is a role that the Municipality should play in this project and has asked directed that staff propose
conditions to a grant contribution to ensure the project proceeds in a manner acceptable to Council, prior
to providing the funds.
The following conditions are offered for consideration by Council:
1.Feasibility Study completed that demonstrates
a.Need /Demand.Research exists that can help demonstrate this.
b.Community support.It will be important to show that the community agrees with the
development.
3 REQUEST FOR DECISION
c.Financial viability and stability.This would include a preliminary capital and operating
budget.
d.Estimated costs of construction.
e.# of Units and proposed rent / term of rent, satisfactory to Council.
2.Demonstration of funding / financing being secured for project .
3.Signed Agreement with Housing Nova Scotia for Affordable Housing Units to provide assurance
of affordable housing units and term.
4.Planning Approval is obtained, if applicable.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Any development will be required to comply with Municipal Planning requirements.
Council has yet to establish a policy direction with respects to its role in affordable housing ,outside of the
planning policy and regulatory mechanisms (Planning Strategy and Land Use By -law).
Financial/Budgetary
Council will determine the amount of the conditional grant to be granted. Funding for the same would be
unbudgeted and be required to co me from the Wind Revenue Reserve, Community Development
component.
Environmental-N/A
Strategic Plan
o This was a strategic initiative of Council,which was deferred until after Plan Review.
Work Program Implications
N/A-No internal resources beyond issuance of grant upon confirmation of conditions being met.
OPTIONS
Council has the following options:
1.Proceed as recommended and determine the amount of the conditional grant to be awarded.
2.Revise the conditions presented and determine the amount of conditional grant to be awarded .
3.Not award a conditional grant.
4.Award a grant without conditions.
5.Defer a decision until further information can be provided.
ATTACHMENTS -
Schedule A-Request for Direction, Municipal Role in Affordable Housing. November 8, 2017.
4 REQUEST FOR DECISION
CMHC Housing Development Resources:https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/developing-and-
renovating/develop-new-affordable-housing/programs-and-information/housing-development-resources
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)
-Council’s decision will be communicated to the New Ross Community Care Group .
-As per the requirements of the Municipal Government Act, public notification of the grant award
will be given along with all other grants awarded.
REQUEST FOR DECISION /DIRECTION
Prepared By:Matthew S. Davidson,P. Eng.Date August 27, 2018
Reviewed By:Matthew S. Davidson,P. Eng.Date August 28, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy S Wilson, CAO.Date September 14, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
The contract with R. Schnare and Son Septic and Excavation for sludge removal and disposal
services at our wastewater facilities is expired (August 2018).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Engineering & Public Works Department:
1)the next tender and subsequent contract for Sludge Removal & Disposal Services be for a
length of three (3) years, and
2)Appendix 3, Schedule of Routine Procurement Activities in Policy P-04,be amended to
include this routine procurement activity and its proposed contract length.
BACKGROUND
As per the Municipal Purchasing Policy (P-04) the Municipality shall review routine contracted
services on a rotating basis. In the case of Sludge Removal & Disposal Services,since 2014,the
services have been procured by retaining one (1) contractor an on annual basis.
The objective of the Tender is to support the Municipality of the District of Chester’s
(Municipality) ongoing operational requirements. The services to be provided are generally
described as the removal of septage or waste sludge from the six (6) wastewater treatment plants
on a routine frequency, as well as provide pumping of raw wastewater in emergency situations
or for schedule projects.The sludge removal and disposal are essential to ensuring that the
receiving waters are protected,and treatment plants meet their operational permits.
When the subject services were last awarded, Council requested that staff prepare report on
lengthening contract prior to issuance of next tender call.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Engineering & Public Works Department
DATE:September 14, 2018
SUBJECT:Sludge Removal & Disposal Services
ORIGIN:P-04, Routine Procurement
2 Request For Decision
DISCUSSION
Currently,an average of 400 loads in total, are removed from the wastewater treatment plants;
with the volume of a single load estimated to be 3000 imp. Gallons. The number of loads has
been steadily increasing due to both the increasing connections and improved operations to
ensure compliance with permits.The wastewater treatment plant upgrades completed this year
will not reduce sludge wasting costs since sludge handling improvements could not be included
in the scope of work, due to lack of funding.While staff are investigating ways to reduce the
number loads, upgrades to do so at the various wastewater plants are not within the next five
(5) years, since the focus is on effluent compliance and not on efficiency.
Furthermore, we have been experiencing increased frequency and length of power outages, as
well as pump station failures due to aged equipment. This has resulted in an increase of vacuum
truck hours onsite;shuttling wastewater to the treatment plants to prevent backups and
overflows in the associated collection systems.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Ensure that P-04 Procurement Policy accurately reflects current procurement activities.
Financial/Budgetary
The next sludge removal and disposal service contract quantities will be based upon operational
practice and historical trends which require the removal 400 loads (1.2 million gallons) of sludge
per year and a vacuum truck onsite for 125 hours per year. It is estimated, based on current unit
prices, that the contract will be valued at over $111,625.00 plus HST per year, thus meeting the
requirement of high value procurement regardless of the number of years the service is
contracted.As a high valve procured service, MODC must follow it s procurement policy, which
cannot guarantee that this service will be provided locally, nor can we apply the local preference
clause (Section 7) of the procurement policy. However, it is expected that the local service
providers will be very competitive. Furthermore, local contractors have advised staff, t hat longer
terms contracts (i.e. 3-5 years), provides the opportunity (i.e. security) to invest in the equipment
necessary to provide efficient services and to be competitive outside the Municipality.
The 2018-19 Sewers Operational Budget included $85,000 for Sludge Removal Services. It should
be noted that while contract includes the disposal of sludges at Kaizer Meadows, the fees for
disposal are waived.Disposal costs are valued at $123,200.00, based on 14 tons per load and
$22.00 per ton. The cost for the disposal and treatment of sludge is absorbed by the septage
service through the Kaizer Meadow Environmental Management Centre operational budgets .
3 Request For Decision
Environmental
This service is integral to the successful operation of the Municipal wastewater systems,ensuring
that the Municipality is meeting its Federal and Provincial effluent requirements
Strategic Plan
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses;
6. Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity.
Work Program Implications
The management of this contract is included in EPW Departments current operational work
program.A longer-term contract of 3-5 years will reduce contract administration work related to
the service and provide a continuity of service.
OPTIONS
1.Contract work as recommended (3 years), and update P-04;
2.Contract work annually, and update P-04;3.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as
identified by Council.
ATTACHMENTS