Appendix G – Council Delegations and Minutes · Appendix G – Council Delegations and Minutes....

Town of South Bruce Peninsula Wiarton Wastewater Treatment Plant Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

BRM-605257-A0 April 24, 2015

Appendix G – Council Delegations and Minutes

This page intentionally left blank.

Tlie C®rp©raion of the Town ©f South Bruce Peninsula Meeting Numbar Three

February 3, 2015

The Council of the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula met on Tuesday February 3, 2015 in the Municipal Council Chambers.

1. Call f© Qrcfer

2. Prohibition on Recording and Electronic Dewiees

The Clerk/CEMC explained that members of the public are not permitted to make recordings of Council proceedings. The use of electronic devices is not permitted during" proceedings unless permitted by Council.

3. Attendance and R@grets

It was noted that all members of Council were present.

4. Declaration of Pecuniary interest and G®rt©rai Nature Thereof

Mayor Jackson asked Council to declare any pecuniary interest at this point in the meeting or when required and state the general nature of the pecuniary interest.

Deputy Mayor Kirkland declared a conflict of interest in agenda item 4.3 upon the advice of his solicitor. The position of Deputy Mayor is named.

Councillor Vukovic declared a conflict of interest in agenda item 4.3 as she is the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. Administrator Farrow-Lawrence explained that it is not a -conflict because you are a Councillor and the business of the Town needs to be proceeded with. As Council, you are the governing body and are the entity who is expected to defend. Deputy Mayor Kirkland indicated that if his position was not listed, he would sit in on the discussion to defend the Town position. Councillor Vukovic withdrew her declaration of a conflict of interest in this item.

Councillor Gammie declared a conflict of interest in agenda items 4.2 and 4.3 as he is currently in litigation with the Town.

5. Authorize Closed Session

Mayor Jackson called the meeting to order. Tim® 1:03 put

R-79-2015

1

It was Mowed by M. Jackson, Seconded by J. Jackson and Carried

That the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula be authorized to proceed into "Closed Session on February 3, 2015 in order to address a matter pertaining to:

• Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose (Litigation Update - Prohibition of Entry)

• Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose (Litigation Update - Invalidation of the 2014 Municipal Elections for the Office of Deputy Mayor)

• Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose (Litigation Update - Sauble Land Claim History)

• Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose (Litigation Update - Sauble Land Claim)

• Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose (Litigation Update - Land Claim re: Chippewas of Saugeen and Nawash)

8. Proceed into Closed Session

R-80-2015

It was Mowed by A. Vukovic, Seconded by M. Jackson and Carried

That Council proceeds into closed session. Tim© 1:11 pm

During Closed Session and prior to the discussion with respect to agenda Item 4.3, Deputy Mayor Kirkland declared a conflict and left the Council Chambers.Time 1:13 pm

During Closed Session and prior to the discussion with respect to agenda Item 4.3, Councillor Gammie declared a conflict and left the Council Chambers. Tim© 1:13 pm

7. Reeonwene into Op@n Session

R-81-2015


2

That the Council reconvenes to open session. Time 133 pm

Councillor Gammie and Deputy Mayor Kirkland returned to the table. Time 1:33 pm

Break 1:33 pm ft@e©nw@n@ 1 -.40 pm

8. Direction from Closed - Liigatien Updat©-lfi¥alidati©ii of the 2014 Municipal Elections for the Office of Depyty Mayor

Mayor Jackson reported that general discussion took place in Closed Session.

9. Direction from Cl@sed - Continuation of Closed Session

Mayor Jackson explained that Council would proceed into Closed Session later in the meeting.

10. Public Notica/General Announcement-Prohibition on Recording and Electronic Dewices

The Clerk/CEMC explained that members of the public are not permitted to make recordings of Council proceedings. The use of electronic devices is not permitted during proceedings unless permitted by Council.

11. Public Noic©l6en©rai Announcements-Special Council Meeting, Updates t© the Town Official Plan

The Clerk/CEMC read the public notice regarding the Official Plan meeting. It was noted that a special Council meeting will be held on February 11, 2015 at 7:00 pm to consider updates to the local Official Plan.

12. Public Notice/General Announcements-2015 Budget Deliberations

The Clerk/CEMC read the public notice regarding budget meeting. It was noted that a meeting will be held on February 5, 2015 from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm in the Municipal Council Chambers.

13. Adoption of ilinutes-Bpeeial Council

RM12-2015

It was il©¥@cl by C. Gammie, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried

That the minutes of the January 20, 2015 special meeting of Council be adopted as received.

3

14. Adoption of Minutes-Regular Council

Councillor Gammie suggested a change to the minutes including changes on Page 7 Paragraph 22 Line 2 and Page 12 Paragraph 30 Line 14. Mayor Jackson indicated that Council will be discussing the Procedural By-Law and will be discussing minute taking. The Deputy Mayor agreed with the Mayor.

NMI3-2015

It was Mowed by J. Kirkland, Seconded by C. Gammie and Carried

That the minutes of the January 20, 2015 regular meeting of Council be adopted as received.

15. Adoption of Minutes-Committees of Council

ft-84-2015

It was How©d by C. Gammie, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried

That the minutes of Committees of Council as listed, be adopted as circulated:

Airport Joint Municipal Service Board - December 18, 2014 Physician Recruitment and Retention Committee - November 19, 2014

16. FS03-201i Agreement for the Prowision of Polic© Services Under Section 10 of the Police Serwiees Aet

Manager of Financial Services Humble explained that the only option available under one year is for six months. Council discussed how it may take us a year to get any alternatives up and running.

R-3S-2015

It was Mowed by J. Kirkland, Seconded by M. Jackson

That Finance report number FS03-2015 dated 3rd February 2015 regarding the new agreement for the provision of police services under Section 10 of the Police Services Act be received;

And further that the necessary by-law to permit the Mayor and Clerk to sign the agreement for the provision of services under Section 10 of the Police Services Act with Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services be considered for readings at the 3rd February 2015 meeting.

4

The Cierk/CEMC explained that a recorded vote with 2/3 majority support was required to permit readings of the by-law at the current meeting. She indicated that members should vote yes in support and no if opposed.

Gammie Yes Jackson M Yes Kirkland Yes Vukovic Yes Jackson J Yes Mayor Jackson declared the resolution to be Carried.

1V. CLK18-2015 Appointment By-Law Update, Emergency Management Committee and Wiartori BIA

The Olork/CEMC explained that the BIA held a ballot election for the new Board members. Holly Morrow has now withdrawn her nomination. Council discussed appointing another member but commented on permitting the BIA to suggest their appointment.

RWSS-2015

It was Mowed by J. Kirkland, Seconded by M. Jackson and Carried

That Council acknowledges the resignation of Mel Rinehart, Pam Davis and Wendy Wilford from the Wiarton BIA;

And that Council thanks Mr. Rinehart, Ms Davis and Ms. Wilford for their commitment to the business community and the Town of Wiarton;

And further that the necessary by-law to appoint persons to committees, boards and other be placed on the agenda of an upcoming meeting for consideration.

Break 1:6S pm Reconvene 2:04 pm

18. Delegation - Josh Clark, CM Aquatics management Group Ltd-Wastewater Tmatment Options

Mayor Jackson welcomed Josh Clark. Josh Clark explained that he has been in the industry for 14 years. He has run his own company since 2006. Their focus is on the Blue Frog system, floating treatment wetlands and sonar sludge mapping. He explained that his system is MOE approved and is being used by Grey Highlands. He is wondering how his system is not being recommended for the Wiarton upgrades. The Blue Frog system is not an aeration system. It is an anaerobic system. It digests sludge. This is a modular, low horsepower system that gives you performance without

5

having to build the infrastructure. The base unit is about 8 feet across and weighs 600 lbs. Mr. Clark explained the 3 hp motor and explained how much water it can move every day. It is very efficient. Other pieces of equipment can be added to the base unit. Mr. Clark explained the Markdale system and how it is affected by Chapmans. He explained how the system is a continuous circulation of water. The raw water is not being allowed to leave the tank. They are inducing the water in the bottom of the lagoon to move without adding any oxygen. As you pump water into the tank, water must leave. It leaves through the bottom of the tank. Everything is focused on performing the treatment at the bottom of the lagoon. This acts as a cap for odour suppression. Mr. Clark explained the Yellow Frog which is a surface aerator. This is for nitrification through a fixed filter bioreactor. You can pick this system up and move it around in the lagoon. There is always some nuances on the site which require tweaking and this system is easy to move. Mr. Clark explained the Gold Frog which is used at the end of the process and is a clarifier. It is set up over the effluent pipe to keep the suspended solids out of the discharge, it provides disinfection and polishing. Mr. Clark explained the system in PE1 which was recommended by Exp. They (Stratford PEI) were having chronic problems with sludge management. The system is flexible and forgiving. The technology is being used in 26 sites across the US. It is not a new technology. It has been MOE approved for Markdale.

Council questioned if the PEI system has increased their treatment. Mr. Clark indicated that they want to increase to 4,000 m3/day and his system has rejuvenated their system.

Council indicated that we have a 2500 m area and wondered if we wouldn't need to enlarge. Mr. Clark indicated that we wouldn't need to enlarge. They haven't put together a proposal but they used 22 units in Stratford. He explained the different Frog units and the hp of their motors.

Council questioned the electricity and maintenance. Mr. Clark explained that they are run by hydro and there is a plug which you remove and change the oil every 12 to 14 months. The blower has a stainless steel screen which needs to be cleaned once or twice per year. The Gold Frog has a grease unit which is changed once per year. Compared to a traditional system, they deal with things anaerobically and there are electrical savings. You would still need the UV but wouldn't need to increase the infrastructure. The sludge is turned into gas and leaves the system that way. It would use less hydro to a comparable aeration system. It would be $75,000 per year for hydro costs in Wiarton but this is rough without a detail being performed.

Council wondered about running them off a renewable power supply at the site. Mr. Clark indicated that you can't afford for the system to go down so it is not reliable. They are looking into this technology.

Council wondered if this technology was desirable, would it have to be presented to the engineer for them to look at the positives and negatives. Council wondered if Mr. Clark is looking for the opportunity to put this system forward as a proposal. Mr. Clark

6

explained that when he approached them with the technology, he was not taken up on the offer.

Council wondered what the timeline would be to implement the system. Mr. Clark explained that the largest step would be the MOE approval as you are not changing the system. What slows them down are the changes to the electrical system. They were approved in Stratford PEI in April and completely installed by August.

Council discussed the smell and wondered if there was any increased smell. Mr. Clark explained that there is no sulfur odor at all.

Mr. Clark explained that the system performs well when the temperature goes down. The system looks like "splashers" but because of the water movement pattern it is a subtle movement pattern and there are no movement problems in the winter, even at below -30. He explained that this is a unique system which can be expanded and shrunk very quickly. Mr. Clark explained the floating treatment wetlands which are platforms which are put in a lagoon. There is very little need for infrastructure. The plants put their root systems into the water and this provides higher number and quality of bacteria. In the Wiarton system, this could control algae. Mr. Clark explained his remote operated vehicle which takes pictures of the bottom of the lagoon. He explained the PEI system and explained that once the Frog runs, the sludge which has accumulated along the sides of the lagoon will slide into the middle to be treated. Mr. Clark explained the criteria he used for comparison was found on the Town website. He explained that the capital costs are 50% of the forecast. The maintenance and operation can be run from a cell phone or could be a visual look each day. PEI operates their system with one full time operator. Mr. Clark explained that his system comes with a money back guarantee. There is no sludge production which would save $40,000-$50,000 per year. There is before and after sludge mapping which is included in the project price. They provide ongoing technical support as they are only 35 minutes away from Wiarton. He has made efforts to have Exp. contact references. The favouritism in Ontario is to favour the status quo. Mr. Clark explained that Canadian references can be provided upon request. He wondered why his product wasn't and can't be looked at as an alternative.

Council questioned the required MOE approval. Mr. Clark explained that the MOE approval can be obtained but it takes time. Every project requires an MOE approval specific to the project.

Council questioned the costs and the lower capital costs and questioned the understanding of the Town requirements. Mr. Clark explained that he has received preliminary information from the Manager of Public Works and that the costs are ball-parked as no proposal has been put together. Mr. Clark explained that the digestion rate is smaller than the solid rate otherwise you accumulate sludge. Council questioned the rate of input plus the rate of generation and wondered about the calculations. Mr. Clark explained that the system adjusts by what you feed it. It digests sludge at the same time it is treating the incoming water. He can show Council data sets. Council

7

and Mr. Clark discussed normal circumstances versus extraordinary circumstances for treatment with the Blue Frog system. Our chemistry is typical wastewater. His system has the opportunity for ongoing support because it's not a "put it in and forget about if system.

Council questioned the number of full time operators at the lagoon now. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that we don't have a full time operator now. There is a sludge removal program.

Council congratulated Mr. Clark for his presentation and for pitching renewable solutions. Council does not know if his is a solution which can help the Town but it is nice to hear about a local person with options. Council wondered if the system would allow expansion to 6,000 m3/day if required. Mr. Clark explained that it can be ramped up if required. If maintained, the system lasts quite a long time and if they wear out, they are replaced. There is less hp required for this system because it is anaerobic.

Council questioned the guarantee and wondered if the system didn't work after a year what would happen. Mr. Clark explained that they would buy back the system; there would be shipping costs. We wouldn't get back the MOE approval time and studies required but we would get the capital back. He encouraged Council to discuss this with Jeremy Crosby in Stratford PEL If the system doesn't do what it should, you get your money back.

EM37-2015

It was Moved by C. Gammie, Seconded by A. Vukovic

That Council permits their engineer to ask questions of the presenter Josh Clark.

The Clerk/CEMC explained that 2/3 majority support is required. She indicated that members should vote yes in support of the motion and no if opposed.

Gammie Yes Jackson M Yes Kirkland Yes Vukovic Yes Jackson J Yes Mayor Jackson declared the resolution to be Carried.

The engineer (Exp.) stated that there is a place in the market. The challenges in Wiarton are somewhat different due to the de-sludging every other year. Sludge digestion is some type of value. He explained that the requirement here may be the Yellow Frog. The challenges in PEI and Wiarton are somewhat different. The engineer indicated that with a combination of aerobic and anaerobic systems this is a challenge. Mr. Clark and the engineer discussed the system with Mr. Clark explaining that the two of them could have a conversation.

8

Mayor Jackson thanked Mr. Clark for his presentation.

Break 3:04 pm Reconvene 3:08 pm

19. Delegation - Martin Hildebrand and Andre Osborne, Nelson Environmental Inc.-Wiarton Lagoon SAGR System

Mayor Jackson welcomed Martin Hildebrand. Mr. Hildebrand explained that they have a good track record in Ontario. He explained that they only do lagoons and have completed more than 250 lagoons in small population areas. He has his P.Eng. in Ontario. He explained starting a project with the most simple thing to meet the effluent quality. The MOE cares about the effluent quality. We have an aerated lagoon. They have done a pre-design and have specific information on the projects. We already have filters. SAGR is a process designed for cold process treatment which removes ammonia through nitrification. This is ideally suited to follow secondary lagoons where water temperatures can be near freezing. They want to keep the lagoons and"add a unit process at the end which can target the flow capacity. SAGR had a clean stone bed with aeration. The SAGR is constructed with wooden walls; the plastic liner is draped over the walls. Water passes through the chambers and they operate a blower and turn two valves twice per year. The operation and maintenance is about simplicity. The only moving parts in the SAGR are the blowers supplying oxygen to the process. Typically operators spend about 30 minutes per day for maintenance. Mr. Hildebrand explained that they didn't have trouble getting MOE approval because they have cold water data. He explained the projects his company has completed in the past.

Council questioned if the small systems could be built to support a small subdivision. Mr. Hildebrand explained that initially all of the systems were for small subdivisions. The homes would be on septic systems with a two stage SAGR system. They expanded to lagoon projects in 2006.

Mr. Hildebrand explained his company's upcoming projects in 2015. He explained that the asterisks on the slide refer to the same process as the Wiarton lagoons. He explained that he is a fan of the MBBR. He explained the comparison between the MBBR and his SAGR system. They would add additional polishing. He indicated that the track record for wetlands is not good and he encourages Council to really evaluate the wetland component. In Ontario, the MOE has not required his SAGR projects to have disinfection. There are no guarantees on disinfection as there is no control over it. That is the risk that is up to the consultant and the MOE. We already have this in place. Mr. Hildebrand explained the existing infrastructure and the addition of the SAGR system. He explained that there is a layer of wood chips on the bed to keep it from freezing. The wood chips are one foot and the bed is six feet deep. The bacteria grows on the rocks. Every ten years a layer of wood chips would be added. Some municipalities add chips from their landfill or compost sites. This is so that the pipes don't freeze in the bed. The oldest systems are from 1997 without any gravel

9

replacement. The sizing is critical; you need void space for the bugs to grow. Nitrifying bacteria doesn't swim well in the cold. The bacteria affixes itself to the stones and now all of the bacteria is in contact with the water. Mr. Hildebrand explained that the SAGR process stretches the life of the system. He explained to Council how the SAGR process would be implemented at Wiarton. The system would be gravity run; the set up is nice. It will be cheaper for us to build outside of the lagoon. Mr. Hildebrand explained that in Manitoba the water temperature drops in the water coming out of the lagoon over the span of a week. Having temperature sensors in the rocks, it took a long time before the rock temperature would equalize with the water temperature. If you used a plastic media, the media temperature would be the same as the water temperature when you hit it with cold water whereas the rock has some mass to hold heat. If the bacteria leaves the system in winter, they will not come back until spring when it is warm. The SAGR doesn't knock the bugs off the rocks and there is no requirement to re-grow the bugs. Mr. Hildebrand explained that they are approved and classified in Quebec. He explained the Perth Ontario system which doesn't have aeration in the lagoon.

Council questioned the requirement for hydro. Mr. Hildebrand explained that you need 40kw (150 amps) of hydro. This is based on the pre-design information received.

Mr. Hildebrand explained the project in Glencoe Ontario. One of the lagoons is no longer in use and they have doubled their capacity with the SAGR using 34 the infrastructure. He doesn't know if our current aeration would need to be upgraded. He explained that the blowers can be inside or outside. In the Glencoe system, the SAGR will remove 99% of the unionized ammonia. Mr. Hildebrand explained other systems including a system in Shellbrook Saskatchewan which would be the same process as the Wiarton lagoon. They are getting 95% ammonia removal. In Lamar Missouri, they had an existing wetland. Their ammonia levels are similar to Ontario. The SAGR beds are built inside the existing wetland. In summary, they have numerous systems approved by the MOE. They have had quick MOE approval because they see the data on their system. He believes that our approvals come out of the London MOE office. The system meets the requirements for effluent. He doesn't throw a ball-park number out because they need to do a proper analysis.

Council discussed what a ball-park savings number could be because Council needs to be careful of their money. Mr. Hildebrand explained that based on other comparisons done, they will be substantially different than the MBBR proposed. If there is a lot of rock available locally, that will reduce the costs. This needs to be assessed from the civil works. If he had a number, he would be guessing and that would be a disservice to Council.

Council indicated that we would still be on the 15 year sludge system with the SAGR system and our operating costs would be the same plus the SAGR system and our municipal capital in the beginning would be less than a mechanical system. We could use what we have and increase our flow to 4,000 m3/day. Mr. Hildebrand agreed with all statements made. He explained that sludge digestion is done and organic sludge

10

can be reduced. Inorganic sludge has a limit and there will always be some sludge left. An improvement in aeration will reduce sludge but that is a short term thing.

Council questioned the costs. Mr. Hildebrand explained that he can't make any representations on costs and analysis must be done to come up with costs.

Council questioned the rough information. Mr. Hildebrand explained that they received information from consultants who were not successful in getting the RFP.

Council questioned the savings. Mr. Hildebrand explained that he doesn't want to make assumptions that he doesn't know. Aeration is the biggest cost from an energy standpoint. They are looking at oxygen transfer energy. The actual energy should be similar based on the kg for loading coming in. We are looking at the stability of the lagoons without a shock to the system.

"Manager of Public Works Gray questioned the footprint. Mr. Hildebrand explained that he has a scale drawing. From a land area standpoint he explained that we have room.

Manager of Public Works Gray asked how sensitive this is to BOD loading. Mr. Hildebrand explained in one facility, influent BOD in summer time it was around 10 coming in to the SAGAR and in the winter it was 50 to 60. This site was the worst they have ever done due to radical changes in BOD effluent coming out of the system. This system is running at 100% loaded flow. They can show data at the design level of loading. There is no problem to run at less flow than design. Once the loads increase, you need more surface area and bugs to handle the ammonia and more of the rocks are used.

Mayor Jackson thanked Mr. Hildebrand for his presentation.

Break 4:04 pm Reconvert® 4:1S pm

20. AIR01 -2015 Request for Pre-Budget Approval, Airport Management and Operatiens Contract

Council discussed their budget deliberations where they asked for the operations to be scaled back. Manager of Financial Services Humble explained that under his staff comments, he indicated that this is not consistent with the revised Airport budget. Councillor Vukovic indicated that we have lost the purchaser because he has waited long enough to get any response and has respectfully walked away. He spoke to her in this regard. Council discussed approving this and changing the budget which they have already discussed. Manager of Financial Services Humble explained that he prepared a budget to move money to reserves. It doesn't increase our contribution to the Airport but it would change how our money is directed this year. We cut specific budget lines in some areas. For six months, the difference would be $30,000 (jointly shared with Georgian Bluffs). That would be $30,000 less into the operating reserve. Council

11

discussed scaling back the operating costs and the fact that we did budget for some operating costs. Manager of Financial Services Humble explained that we scaled back to 50% of operations. This was sent to Georgian Bluffs. Deputy Mayor Kirkland (Airport Board Rep.) explained that the Board wanted to ask for a six month extension while we look at what is happening with the Airport. They would need to look at an RFP for decreased operations. Councillor Vukovic (Airport Board Rep.) explained that the manager was willing to do whatever the Board wanted. Council discussed not approving six months because Council planned to scale back operations. They discussed how Georgian Bluffs has agreed to pay for full services when we are not. Council discussed the history of the Airport. They discussed going month by month with clear direction to the Airport Board to decrease the operations and expenses. They discussed the budget discussions where they decreased the costs. They discussed the newspaper comments where Georgian Bluffs indicated that that South Bruce Peninsula cannot make those decisions without them. Manager of Financial Services Humble explained that we reduced the budget and Council will need to approve something for the Board and expect the Board to adhere to the budget. Deputy Mayor Kirkland indicated that there has been no clear discussion at the Board on how to scale back operations. The next Board meeting is in February. The Board needs to prove that they can scale back. It may be a matter of losing the certification but they need to show the consequences. Council discussed how they have already dealt with the reduction in budget and that Georgian Bluffs has decided something differently. Councillor Vukovic indicated that this needs to be placed on the Airport agenda. Council discussed having Georgian Bluffs pay the difference if they want the current level of operations. Manager of Financial Services Humble explained that Council had accepted the revised budget. The Board can resubmit a budget that lives within the contributions from the municipalities.

It was Moved by J. Kirkland, Seconded by M. Jackson

That the Airport Board is given 2015 pre-budget approval to extend the operations and management contract for a period of six months under the same term and conditions of the current contract at a monthly cost of $11,600 plus HST.

Councillor Vukovic requested a recorded vote. The Clerk/CEMC indicated that members should vote yes in support and no if opposed.

Gammie No Jackson M No Kirkland No Vukovic No Jackson J No Mayor Jackson declared the resolution to be Defeated.

21. Items Referred - JJACKSON11 -2014 Saubfe Beach Land Claim Lawyer

12

On a show of hands with the majority being received, this item will be discussed after Closed Session discussions.

22. Items Referred - CLKli»201i Procedural By-Law Update

It was mowed by C. Gammie, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Deferred

That Council directs the Clerk to advertise a public meeting with respect to proposed changes to the Procedural By-Law, with notice of consideration of the by-law as prescribed in the Notice By-Law;

And further that the necessary by-law to provide for rules of order and procedure be placed on the agenda of a future Council meeting for Council consideration.

23. By-Laws - First and Second Reading

R-88-2015

It was Moved by J. Kirkland, Seconded by C. Gammie and Carried

That the following by-laws be read a first and second time:

By-Law 13-2015 Being a By-Law to Set Fees for the Services Performed by the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula

By-Law 14-2015 Being a By-Law to Amend By-Law Number 44-2009 Being a By-Law to Adopt the Manual Governing the Policies and Procedures for the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (Professional Conduct Policy)

24. By-Laws - Third Reading

Councillor Gammie requested that By-Law 14-2015 be pulled for separate discussion.

rMSS-2015


That By-Law 13-2015 be read a third time and finally passed.

25. By-Law 14-201S - Third Reading

Councillor Gammie indicated that he feels that this by-law gives too much power and is ultra vires. Council discussed the provisions of the by-law and bans of individuals. Administrator Farrow-Lawrence explained that staff looked at ways to address behaviour which was not representing a significant amount of time for people not to

13

attend a meeting. Other considerations could be challenged. Council discussed the deterrent for people to act up other than being asked to leave. Administrator Farrow-Lawrence explained that the policy states that the ban would be for one week if attendance was at a meeting. The Town could look at filing criminal trespassing charges if the person could not be found to follow the conduct policy and the courts could decide the ban. Council discussed how someone creating a constant disturbance could be asked to leave for a week. If they are disruptive when they come back, they could be asked to leave for another week. Council discussed the Municipal Act and how the Chair can evict someone for improper conduct at a meeting. The member of Council feels that this is because if it was stronger, it would be an abuse of power and against the law. Council discussed other avenues which don't depend on someone's judgement of improper conduct.

R°90-2015

It was Moved by A. Vukovic, Seconded by M. Jackson


Councillor Gammie requested a recorded vote. Councillor Vukovic requested that the vote be taken in reverse order. The Clerk/CEMC indicated that members should vote yes in support and no if opposed.

Vukovic Yes Kirkland Yes Jackson M Yes Gammie No Jackson J Yes Mayor Jackson declared the resolution to be Carried.

Break 4:55 pm Reconvene 5:00 pin

26. Bf-haw 17-2015 - First and Second Reading

R-91-2015

It was Mowed by M. Jackson, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried

That the following by-law be read a first and second time:

By-Law 17-2015 Being a By-Law to Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to Sign an Agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for the Provision of Police Services

14

27. By-Law 17-2015 - Third Reading

R-92-2015



28. Matters of Urgency - Wiarton Lagoon Presentations

On a show of hands with the majority being received, Council will discuss the presentations received during Council today.

Council wondered why the other systems were not considered in the process. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that the consultant has looked at the systems. The Blue Frog system has technical concerns that it works under anaerobic systems completely and creates different wastes. Our consultant doesn't feel that this would stand up to our system. The other system is at the end of our treatment and the bugs don't work well in the cold and the influent is cold. There are concerns with this system being at the end of the chain and there aren't different costs for this system. Council questioned how the consultant was chosen. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that staff and a consultant chose the engineer. We bring the projects forward with the budget. Council asked if staff have to look at the presentations under the Purchasing Policy. Manager of Public Works Gray indicated that in the EA process, the consultant makes evaluations. They look at the science and how the science works. There are many MBBR systems out there. They will tender on the system. Council discussed how historically contracts came forward to Council for their recommendation. Manager of Financial Services Humble explained that he has discussed this with the Mayor and he is sure that Council isn't wanting to get into the role of staff. Staff purchase within their budget. He has discussed with the Mayor a small change to the Purchasing Policy to have expenditures of over $50,000 come forward to Council for approval. Council discussed how staff have been doing their jobs based on the direction of Council. They discussed the fair process but not getting involved in engineering. The hope is that the best and most economical system will be chosen based on the science. Council discussed the difference between the EA and choosing technology. They discussed the reaction of the engineer who had not returned phone calls from the presenters. Council wondered how this could be remedied so that the technology could be discussed without it coming to Council. Mayor Jackson indicated that the companies have been calling her relentlessly because the Manager of Public Works and the engineer haven't returned phone calls. She indicated that perhaps infrastructure investment and impact should be discussed by Council and Council should have more insight. A member of Council discussed their past history with respect to engineering and how some people did not make the top of the list and went over the members head. The member knows the position the engineer was in and he had contact with the individuals and we don't understand the processes. A member of Council indicated-that they received an email from the Mayor which stated that the process can be provided for half the costs. Mayor

15

Jackson indicated that the presenter's counterpart made the cost savings statement. Council discussed comments from the public who feel that they elect Council and not staff. They questioned the purchasing process. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that through the EA process, they look at the maintenance costs, capital costs, the ease of operating the system, the replacement of media and the science. Based upon the questions, the engineer has looked into the two systems and knows the shortcomings. They have talked to their counterpart at Exp. The engineer says that both of the systems will work in other applications but it doesn't fit in our system. Council asked if they could have the engineering firm show what he has chosen. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that this information is being provided at the Public Information Centres. We could ask for a separate meeting but that is not within the scope of work. We could ask for a report on why the MBBR is being chosen over the Blue Frog and SAGR systems. Council discussed the Environmental Study Report. They wondered if Council could change the direction of the project. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that he did not ask the consultant who to choose because he would be taking on all of the liability. We can challenge the engineer. Council asked if there would be any increase in monthly costs to the people. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that we can't process any increase without an increase in costs. The cost details won't be realized until the system is designed and finalized. Council discussed how MBBR isn't a specific company, this is a process the same as Blue Frog and SAGR. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that the build will be a tender and the engineer will review the tender but the Town chooses. Council discussed the presentations which were received today and asked for proof that the MBBR system is being installed and that they work in other community applications. Council discussed the alternative systems. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that we have funding and we can't afford to miss out on our funding opportunity. Council discussed the need for absolute confidence in the project.

R-93-2015

It was Moved by A. Vukovic, Seconded by M. Jackson and Carried

That Council invites Exp. to attend Council and go through the decision process including a full range of alternatives and discuss the MBBR system and why this system was chosen over other alternatives.

29. Notice of Motion

No notices of motion were presented.

30. Public Meetings

No public meetings were scheduled or conducted.

31. Reports from Council Members

18

No reports were made.

32. Upcoming Meetings

Council noted the upcoming meetings. The budget meeting will be held at 9:00 am and not 9:30 am as included on the agenda.

33. CLK17-2015 Unfinished Business

R-94-2015

It was Mowed by J. Kirkland, Seeoncfed by C. Gammie and Carried

That Council notes the contents of report CLK17-2015 Unfinished Business presented on February 3, 2015.

Break 5:44 pm Reconvene pm

34. Proceed into Closed Session

R-95-2015

It was Moved by M. Jackson, Seconded by A. Vukovic and Carried

That Council proceeds into closed session. Time 5:55 pm

Prior to discussion with respect to agenda items 4.1 and 4.2, Councillor Gammie declared a conflict and left the Council Chambers. Time 5:56 pm

Councillor Gammie returned to the Council Chambers. Time 6:06 pm

35. Reconvene into Open Session

R-96-2015

It was Hewed by A. Vukovic, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried

That the Council reconvenes to open session. Time 7:1 § pm

36. Directien from Closed - Litigation Update-Prohibition of Entry

Mayor Jackson indicated that the update was received by Council.

37. Direction from Closed - Litigation Upiate-Saubie Land Claim History

17

Mayor Jackson indicated that this was received and review by Council.

38. Direefi©6i from Closed - Litigation Update-Saubl© Land Claim

Mayor Jackson indicated that this was received and reviewed by Council.

39. Direction from Closed - Litigation Update-Land Claim re: Chippewas of Saugeen and Nawash

Mayor Jackson indicated that the update was received by Council.

40. Items Referred - JJACtCSONl i -2014 Saubie Beaefrt Land Claim Lawyer

Council asked if the Mayor will be involved in this process. Administrator Farrow-Lawrence indicated that she would welcome input from the Mayor.

R-97-2015


That Council directs staff and the Mayor to investigate a qualified and experienced law firm to represent the Town in the matter of the Saubie Beach land claim and report to Council on the findings.

41. Confirmatory By-Law

R-98-2015

It was Moved by C. Gammie, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried

That By-Law 15-2015 Being a By-Law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula be read a first, second, third time and finally passed.

42. Adjourn

R-99-2015


That the meeting adjourn. Time 7:22 pm

I 18

:

1

Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

Upgrade of the

Wiarton Wastewater Treatment Plant

Council Update

February 17, 2015

http://www.southbrucepeninsula.com/en/index.asp

2

Presentation Overview

• Study Purpose and Problem Statement

• Introduction to Wastewater Treatment

• Wiarton’s Existing Wastewater Plant

• Finding the Appropriate System

• Wastewater Treatment Process Considerations

• Integrated Fixed-film System Processes

• Proposed Solution

• Proposed Concept Design

• Conclusion

An appendix of additional information has

been appended to this presentation for

Council’s information

About this Study

• Study purpose: To expand the existing

lagoon/wastewater treatment plant’s

capacity from the current average daily

flow of 2,500 cubic metres per day to

4,000 cubic metres per day.

• Schedule C Municipal Class EA.

• Project Timeline:

• Project initiation: Aug 2014

• PIC 1: Nov 2014

• PIC 2: Mar 2015

• Review of ESR: Apr 2015

• Design: Spring 2015

• Construction: Summer/Fall 2015

• Funding requirement: project

substantially completed by Dec 31, 2015

3

Problem Statement

• Project has three key issues to address:

• Plant capacity - the current capacity of plant is not adequate to

service the projected 2029 population

• New federal standards for ammonia – new federal standards for

ammonia limits have come into force, which the current facility

does not meet

• Septage – the facility will be required to manage increased

amounts of septage

4

5

Municipal Class EA Process

• A Class EA is a study to plan for a proposed project,

which includes background and technical studies, a

review and assessment of potential environmental,

social and economic impacts and how they can be

avoided, and an evaluation of possible alternatives.

• The result is an Environmental Study Report

(ESR), which documents the process and lists the

commitments made by the proponent.

• The Class EA process is completed in accordance

with the Environmental Assessment Act.

Phase 1: Problem or Opportunity Statement

• Definition of Problem or Opportunity

• Identify Problem Statement

Phase 2: Alternative Solutions

• Identify, assess and evaluate alternative solutions

• Consult with public, government agencies, stakeholders

• Select a preferred solution

Phase 3: Alternative Design

• Alternative Design Concepts

• Identify, assess and evaluate alternative designs

• Consult with public, government agencies, stakeholders

• Select the preferred alternative design

Phase 4: Environmental Study Report

• Complete Environmental Study Report (ESR)

• Submit for 30-day public and agency review period

• Submit to Ministry for approval

Phase 5: Implementation

• Detailed design

• Construction

• Monitoring

we

are

here

6

Municipal Class EA Process

Planning

Natural Environment

Consultation

Agency/Public/ First Nations

Technical

7

Consultation Process

Proceed to

Design

Conduct

Public

Open

House #1

Consultation

Planning

Develop plan

Prepare contact list

of agencies, First

Nations, and other

stakeholders

Issue

Notice of

Commencement

Sep 2014

Dialogue/Meetings with Review Agencies and other Stakeholders

• Ontario Ministry of Environment – meetings/correspondence to resolve key concerns, including upcoming

changes to wastewater effluent standards (i.e., ammonia)

• Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) – meeting and correspondence with SON on project, including review of

technical reports and potential for impacts on archaeological resources

Nov 2014

Class EA

Phase 1

Class EA

Phase 2

Respond

to

Comments

Open House #1Topics

• Problem/Opportunity Statement

• Summary of Background

Information

• Overview of Alternative Solutions

• Evaluation Criteria & Evaluation of

Alternative Solutions

• Proposed Preferred Alternative

Solution

On-going Consultation Activities

• Responding to questions & comments from the general public, agencies and other interested stakeholders

• Tracking of questions, comments and project team responses

Conduct

Public

Open

House #2

Prepare/

Finalize

ESR

30 Day

Public/

Agency

Review

of ESR

Review and

Coordinate all

Comments

Received,

Respond to

Part II Order

Requests

Spring 2015

Notice

of

Completion

Respond

to

Comments

Project

Start

Aug 2014

Aug 2014

Mar 2015 Mar / Apr

2015 Apr 2015 Apr 2015

Open House #2 Topics

• Summary of Work Completed to Date

• Review of Alternative Designs

• Evaluation Criteria & Evaluation of

Design Alternatives

• Potential Impacts of Alternatives &

Mitigation Measures

• Proposed Preferred Design

Alternative

Notice of Completion

• Notice of Completion to be

published in local

newspapers, distributed to

stakeholder contact list

• Copies of ESR to be

forwarded to applicable

review agencies, made

available in public locations

Class EA

Phase 3

Class EA

Phase 4

Class EA

Phase 5

8

Evaluation Process

Alternative Solutions • Pre-screening of alternative solution categories conducted, based on problem statement

• Treatment approaches for primary, secondary and tertiary treatment considered

• Long list of three alternative solutions considered for improving the Wiarton WWTP,

including:

1. Add an Integrated fixed-film system (IFS)1, with nitrification.

2. Deepen one of the lagoon cells, with nitrification.

3. Convert to an activated sludge system.

• Three alternatives screened to determine if they would be carried forward to short list.

• A short list of alternatives (2) were carried forward and evaluated.

• Alternative 1 (IFS) was selected as the preferred solution.

Alternative Designs • Three design alternatives were prepared that considered different configurations of the

preferred solution.

• These design alternatives were evaluated and a preliminary preferred design alternative

was selected.

1. IFS is also commonly referred to as Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR).

The term MBBR was used in the previous public open house.

9

Alternatives Pre-screening

Category Will solution allow facility to

increase its capacity?

Will solution allow for

an increased intake of

septage?

Will solution allow

facility to meet new

federal ammonia

standards?

Conclusion

Do Nothing No. WWTP would exceed

approved & design capacity with

increased population growth.

No. Will not allow for

better handling of the

septage and will have

limited capacity to handle

additional septage.

No. WWTP currently

does not comply with

new ammonia standard.

“Do nothing” would not

allow WWTP to address

problem statement.

Control

Infiltration/Inflow

Infiltration/inflow control

measures may reduce wet

weather inflow improving

hydraulic load handling at the

plant. However, it will not

provide additional treatment

capacity.

No. Will not impact

septage handling and

treatment in any way.

No. Controlling inflow

and infiltration would

not have any impact on

WWTP’s ability to meet

ammonia standards.

While “Infiltration and

inflow control” measures

would likely be beneficial

and may improve the

WWTP hydraulic loadings,

it would only partially

address the problem

statement.

Additional

Treatment

Capacity

Yes. Providing additional

capacity through upgrades or

replacement would allow

WWTP to meet capacity

requirements and adequately

manage increased loads in

wastewater contaminants.

Yes. The new treatment

scheme can be designed

to handle additional

septage.

Yes. Additional

treatment would

address new ammonia

requirements.

Providing community with

additional wastewater

treatment capacity (either

by upgrading the plant or

replacing it) would

address problem

statement.

Conclusion: Additional treatment capacity is required to address the problem statement, as neither

“do nothing” nor infiltration/inflow control will adequately do so.

10

“Wastewater Treatment 101”

Introduction to WWT (WHO*)

• Wastewater treatment:

• Closely related to standards and/or expectations set for the

effluent quality

• Processes are designed to achieve improvements in the quality of

the wastewater

• The various treatment processes may reduce:

• Suspended solids

• Biodegradable organics

• Pathogenic bacteria

• Nutrients

High effluent quality

standards/expectations

Higher levels of

treatment

requires

* World Health Organization

11

Important Concepts

Introduction to WWT (WHO)

• Suspended solids

• Physical particles suspended in wastewater

• Can clog rivers or channels as they settle

• Biodegradable organics (e.g. BOD)

• Can serve as “food” for microorganisms in the receiving body

(e.g., Colpoys Bay)

• Microorganisms combine this matter with oxygen from water for

energy to grow and multiply

• Problem - oxygen also needed by fish and other organisms

• Heavy organic pollution can cause “dead zones” where fish are

unable to survive can be found

• Sudden releases of heavy organic loads can lead to dramatic

“fishkills”

* World Health Organization

12

Important Concepts


• Pathogenic bacteria and other disease-causing organisms

• Are most relevant where receiving water is used for drinking or

recreation

• Nutrients, including nitrates and phosphates

• Nutrients can lead to high concentrations of unwanted algae

• Algae can then become significant source of BOD

13

Important Concepts


• Three main levels

• Primary (or mechanical) treatment

• Secondary (or biological) treatment

• Tertiary treatment

• A community may opt for one, two or all three levels of

treatment

Levels of Wastewater Treatment

Primary Secondary Tertiary

14

Wiarton’s Existing WWT System

No Primary

Facultative Lagoon

(aerated)

Filtration + UV+Cl

Facultative lagoon 3 x 2 ha Dynasand Sand Filter

UV Disinfection

outfall

Wiarton’s Existing WWT System

15

Selecting Options – Many Approaches to Consider

Finding the Appropriate System

Primary

• Screening devices

• Comminutors and

grinders

• Grit removal

facilities

• Pre-aeration

• Flow equalization

• Primary

sedimentation

Secondary

Biological Treatment

1. Suspended growth processes

• Conventional activated sludge (various

processes)

• Membrane bioreactor (MBR)

• Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)

• Lagoon (facultative and/or aerated) *

2. Fixed film processes

• Rotating biological contactor (RBC)

• Trickling filter (TF)

3. Hybrid processes

• Integrated fixed-film (IFS) 1

• Trickling filter/solids contact (TF/SC)

• Rotating biological contactor/solids contactor

• Biological aerated filter (BAF)

4. Anaerobic process

Physical-chemical Treatment

1. Chemical clarification

2. Filtration

3. Carbon absorption

4. High gradient magnetic separation

Physical Treatment

1. Sedimentation

2. Dissolved air flotation

Tertiary

Advance Treatment

• Phosphorus removal by

chemical *

• High rate effluent

filtration *

• Micro-screening

• Membranes

• High rate clarification

• Ammonia removal by

phys/chem

• Persistent organics

removal

• Natural systems

(wetlands)

Disinfection

• Chlorination *

• Dechlorination

• Ultraviolet Irradiation *

• Ozonation

Based on MOE Design

Guidelines for Sewage

Works (2008)

1. IFS is also commonly

referred to as Moving Bed

Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)

* Indicates features

currently in place at the

Wiarton WWTP

16

Selecting Options


• Different solutions for each

problem:

• Too much BOD5? (Oxygen

will be depleted)

• Too much suspended

solids?

• Too many nutrients?

• Too much flow?

• Low concentrations?

• High levels of coliforms?

Addressing Problems

17

Selecting Options


• Class EA Process requires that “all reasonable and feasible

solutions” shall be identified, described and evaluated

• Solutions need to address problem statement:

• Will solution allow facility to increase its capacity?

• Will solution allow for an increased intake of septage?

• Will solution allow facility to meet new federal ammonia standards?

18

Selecting Options


• From problem statement:

• Increasing capacity of Plant from 2,500 m3/day to 4,000 m3/day

• Compliance with new federal ammonia regulation

• Proper management and handling of increased septage

• Other Constraints

• MOE position on Colpoys Bay: • MOE ammonia limit may be more strict than federal

• Regarding effluent objectives & limits, MOE’s main concern is loading

• If plant upgrade ≠ increased loading, then no additional study required from

MOE’s perspective

• Therefore, maintain existing effluent loading

• Existing variable flow (1,500 m3/day to 11,000 m3/day)

• Depth of existing lagoons (1.5 m deep)

• Control total ammonia

Many constraints to consider…

19

Approach to Proprietary Technologies


• Numerous technology providers available – is neither

“reasonable” nor “feasible” to consider them all, nor is it

appropriate

• Evaluation process consider systems, not vendors

• Evaluation process must be systematic and impartial in order to

ensure most appropriate solution and design is selected for

municipality

• There is a place for vendors and technology providers – detailed

design and the tendering process

20

Current Plant Performance • Overall, the WWTP performs well and meets all applicable standards.

• Currently, there are no applicable standards for ammonia. However, as of

January 2015, the federal government has introduced a new federal

standard of 1.25 mg/l of un-ionized ammonia.

• The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) is

currently reviewing its ammonia discharge requirements for WWTPs.

Average Daily

Flow

Maximum

Annual Peak

Flow

Effluent BOD Effluent

S.S.

Effluent Total

Phosphorus

Effluent

Ammonia

Septage

Volume

Current Approved

Limits for WWTP

2.500 cubic

m/d N/A 20 mg/l 24 mg/l 0.5 mg/l N/A N/A

Range for

2011 to 2013

1,430 to 1,992

cubic m/d

5,851 to 11,158

cubic m/d 2.6 to 5 mg/l

4.6 to 13

mg/l

0.17 to 0.18

mg/l

2.3 to 4.4

mg/l

Approx. 4 to

5 cubic m/d

Standard Met? N/A N/A N/A

• Average Day Flow – the average flow of incoming sewage/wastewater per day

• Effluent BOD – The Biological Oxygen Demand of the treated outgoing effluent

• Effluent S.S. – The amount of suspended solids in the treated outgoing effluent

• Effluent Total Phosphorous – The amount of total phosphorous in the treated outgoing effluent

• Effluent Ammonia – the concentration of ammonia in the treated outgoing effluent

• Septage Volume – the amount of tanked-in sewage per day (e.g., sewage from portable toilets, RV’s, septic tanks, etc.)

21

Process Design Considerations

Critical

component

Standard

component

Addressed

component

◙

◘

22

Selecting Options – Many Approaches to Consider


Primary

• Screening devices

• Comminutors and

grinders

• Grit removal

facilities

• Pre-aeration

• Flow equalization

• Primary

sedimentation

Secondary

Biological Treatment

1. Suspended growth processes

• Conventional activated sludge (various

processes)

• Membrane bioreactor (MBR)

• Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)

• Lagoon (facultative and/or aerated)

2. Fixed film processes

• Rotating biological contactor (RBC)

• Trickling filter (TF)

3. Hybrid processes

• Integrated fixed-film system (IFS) 1

• Trickling filter/solids contact (TF/SC)

• Rotating biological contactor/solids contactor

• Biological aerated filter (BAF)

4. Anaerobic process

Physical-chemical Treatment

1. Chemical clarification

2. Filtration

3. Carbon absorption

4. High gradient magnetic separation

Physical Treatment

1. Sedimentation

2. Dissolved air flotation

Tertiary

Advance Treatment

• Phosphorus removal by

chemical

• High rate effluent

filtration

• Micro-screening

• Membranes

• High rate clarification

• Ammonia removal by

phys/chem

• Persistent organics

removal

• Natural systems

(wetlands)

Disinfection

• Chlorination

• Dechlorination

• Ultraviolet Irradiation

• Ozonation

Based on MOE Design

Guidelines for Sewage

Works (2008)

1. IFS is also commonly

referred to as Moving Bed

Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)

23


Approach/Alternative Allow facility to meet

projected capacity

needs?

Allow facility to meet

new ammonia

standard?

Allow facility to

adequately/properly

manage increased

septage?

Technically

compatible with

Wiarton’s existing

system?

Do nothing No No No -

Integrated Fixed-film

System (IFS) 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Deep Lagoon/

Nitrification Yes Yes Yes Yes

Activated Sludge Yes Yes Yes No

1. Also commonly referred to as Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)

24

Screening of Alternatives Screening Criteria

• Hydraulic Loading: the flexibility of the alternative to

accommodate variable flow rates.

• Pre-treatment: the amount of pre-treatment required for the

effluent before entering the treatment process

• Sludge Production: the amount of sludge produced by the

process, which would require further treatment/management.

• Sludge Recirculation: whether recirculation of

sludge is required for the treatment process (a

portion of the sludge would be put back into cell 1 in

order to inoculate the system with the beneficial bacteria).

• Resistance to Temperature Fluctuations: the

ability of the technology to function in a range of temperatures.

• Capital Cost: The cost to build/install the system.

• Operating cost: The annual cost to operate the system.

Screening Results

Alternative Hydraulic

Loading

Flexibility

Pre-

Treatment

Sludge

Production

Sludge

Recirculation

Temperature

Resistance

Operating

Cost

Capital

Cost

Carried

Forward to

Short List?

1. Integrated

Fixed-film

System (IFS)

High

Alternative is

flexible

Moderate

Fine

screening, grit

chamber

Low

Relatively

low volumes

generated

Not required Moderate

Has good

resistance to

temperature

variations

Low

Relatively less

operating cost

Medium

$4M to $5M

2. Deep

Lagoon/

Nitrification

High

Alternative is

flexible

None required Low

Relatively

low volumes

generated

Not required Low

Protection

required

Low

Relatively less

operating cost

Medium

$3.5M to

$4.5M

3. Activated

Sludge

Low

Alternative is

not very

flexible

Moderate

Optional

screens, grit

chamber

High

Relatively

high

volumes

generated

Required High

High

resistance,

protection not

required

High

Relatively

more

operating cost

High

$5M to $6M

25

Wiarton Improvement

Proposed Wiarton Preferred Solution

Primary

Screening and Grit Chamber

Secondary

IFS with 2 cells

Tertiary

Lagoon +

Wetland

Filtration UV+Cl

Primary •Reduce SS

•Receive Septage

Secondary

• Add O2

• Improve air transfer efficiency

• Biomass+nitrification

• Control temperature

Tertiary

•Add Settling

•Reduce risk

•Denitrification

Design Objectives:

• Reliability

• Resistance to hydraulic shocks

• Resistance to organic loading shocks

• Coordination with local climate

• Coordination with local facilities

• Flexibility in operation

• Simple operation and maintenance

26

Integrated Fixed-film Systems

IFS Bio-process

• IFS Bio-processes are hybrid dual

systems with suspended biomass

and fixed-film growth processes

• Can be with or without activated

sludge process

• Main operating principle - to provide

a system in continuous operation,

without recirculation of sludge, with

a medium that provides a high

contact surface without clogging

• Wastewater fed continuously into

the IFS where biomass regenerates

within media and gradually moved

away to next unit

Suspended biomass

Fixed-film growth media

27

Integrated Fixed-film Systems

IFS Bio-process

• Treated effluent is directed through grids of retaining medium (sieve) to be

supplied to a settling system, where suspended solids are decanted (not

recirculated)

• Two cells will be needed in IFS: one for BOD removal, another for

nitrification.

• Heart of the process is IFS biofilm carriers (media): • Made of high density polyethylene, with a specific gravity of 0.96 (meaning they “semi-float”)

• Designed to provide large protected area for biofilm to ensure optimal conditions for bacterial

growth

• Air diffusion system facilitates media flow in the IFS to ensure the transfer of

oxygen to the liquid phase and ensure complete mixing in the reactor

• The IFS process offers the following advantages: • Compact reactor from the high surface area of media

• Flexibility of the reactor, or additional processing capacity by simply adding the media into the

reactors (up to 60% for the filling media)

• Good resistance to temperature variations and toxicity

• System stability through the biofilm media (low risk of loss of biomass)

• No clogging of the media and no sludge recirculation

28

Preferred Alternative Solution

• System could be reinforced

by adding IFS Reactor

with nitrification.

• IFS reactor (or tank) filled

with small plastic carriers that

increase microbial action in

tank by maximizing surface area where

beneficial bacteria grow.

• Nitrification - biological process where bacteria

convert ammonia in wastewater to nitrate.

• An existing lagoon cell could be used as

settling tank and for sludge storage.

• Remaining cells could be converted to

engineered wetlands to further treat wastewater

effluent.

• Optional denitrification ditch could remove nitrate

from wastewater effluent. The denitrification

ditch uses a carbon source (e.g., woodchips) to

convert nitrate to nitrogen gas.

• Treated wastewater would continue through the

UV/Filtration building before being discharged.

Add IFS with Nitrification

Plastic Carriers

(examples)

IFS Settling Tank Wetland Wetland Wetland

2 ha 2 ha 2ha 2 ha

BOD Removal Nitrification

Woodchip Bioreactor Dynasand UV Disinfection

outfall

29

Future Pre-Treatment Building and IFS Tanks Located by UV/Filtration

Building; flow orientation remains same

Preliminary Concept Design

1

2

3

4

5

6

• UV/filtration structure

expanded to house the

pretreatment screens,

degritter and IFS tanks

• Single structure would

assist with operations

• Direction of flow of wastewater through lagoon system

not reversed

• Construction costs reduced by maintaining existing

aerated lagoon, allows continued use of existing piping

2 1

• Septage receiving station built

on or near pre-treatment

building

3

• Current Cell 2 divided

• Half becomes settling lagoon,

where solids settle out of treated

water

• Other half becomes engineered

wetland, for further treatment of

effluent

4 • The blower building would

remain and continue to pump

air required for aeration lagoon

• Existing piping would continue

to connect the blowers to

aerated lagoon

5

• Optional denitrification ditch

could be installed to assist with

the reduction of nitrogen in

treated effluent

• Treated wastewater would flow

by gravity from the wetland

through the denitrification ditch

to the filtration/UV building

6

30

Sustainable Development

Conclusion

Critical

component

Standard

component

Addressed

component

◙

◘

31

Thank you!

##

ANNEX

Slides added for Council’s additional information

A1

Important Concepts


• Designed to remove gross, suspended and floating solids

from raw sewage

• Includes screening to trap solid objects and sedimentation by

gravity to remove suspended solids

• Sometimes referred to as “mechanical treatment”, although

chemicals often used to accelerate sedimentation process

• Can reduce BOD of incoming wastewater by 20-30%,

total suspended solids by 50-60%

• Primary treatment usually first stage of wastewater treatment

• Many advanced wastewater treatment plants in industrialized

countries have started with primary treatment, but then added

other treatment stages as wastewater load has grown, as the

need for treatment has increased, and as resources have

become available.

Primary (mechanical) treatment

A2

Important Concepts


• Removes dissolved organic matter that escapes primary treatment

• Achieved using microbes to consume organic matter as food

• Microbes convert organics to CO2, water, and energy for their own

growth and reproduction

• Biological process followed by additional settling tanks to remove

more suspended solids

• About 85% of suspended solids and BOD can be removed by a well

running plant with secondary treatment

• Secondary treatment technologies can include:

• Basic activated sludge process

• Variants of pond and constructed wetland systems

• Trickling filters

• Other forms of treatment that use biological activity to break down organic

matter

Secondary (biological) treatment

A3

Important Concepts


• Simply additional treatment beyond secondary!

• Can remove more than 99 percent of all impurities from

sewage, producing an effluent of almost drinking-water

quality

• Related technology can be very expensive, requiring:

• High level of technical know-how

• Well trained treatment plant operators

• A steady energy supply

• Chemicals

• Specific equipment that may not be readily available

Tertiary treatment

A4

Important Concepts


• Example of a typical tertiary treatment process:

• Modification of a conventional secondary treatment plant to

remove additional phosphorus and nitrogen

• Disinfection

• Typically done with chlorine

• Can be final step before discharge of the effluent

• Some environmental authorities concerned that chlorine residuals

in effluent can be a problem, have moved away from this process

• Disinfection frequently built into treatment plant design but not

always effectively practiced due to:

• High cost of chlorine

• Reduced effectiveness of ultraviolet radiation where water is

not sufficiently clear or free of particles

Tertiary treatment (continued)

A5

Nitrogen

• Increasing numbers of cyanobacteria plumes in lakes and rivers made

nitrogen pollution to become a more prominent wastewater concern.

• Nitrogen in domestic wastewater is made up of approximately 60% to

70% ammonia‐nitrogen and 30% to 40% organic nitrogen

(Tchobanoglous et al., 2003).

• Most of the ammonia‐nitrogen is derived from urea, which breaks

down rapidly to ammonia in wastewater influent (USEPA 2009).

• Total Nitrogen in domestic wastewater typically ranges from 20 to 70

mg/L for low to high strength wastewater (Tchobanoglous et al., 2003).

• The most common forms of nitrogen in wastewater are ammonia

(NH3), ammonium ion (NH4+), nitrite (NO2‐), nitrate (NO3‐), and

organic nitrogen (USEPA 2009).

##

A6

Removal of Nitrogen

A7

Un-ionized amonia is recognized nitrogeous compound

responsible for toxicity of aquatic life (USEPA)

Scientific Principle

While traveling through sewer pipes, the

majority of the nitrogen contained in raw

sewage (urea and fecal material) is

converted from organic-nitrogen to

ammonia through a process called

hydrolysis.

NH2COHN2 + H2O + 7H+ → 3NH4+ + CO2

Hydrolysis

##

A8

USEPA 1993

Temperature and pH effect on un-

ionized amonia

A9

Municipal wastewater contains ammonium and ammonia (NH4+/NH3).

Nitrogen Removal

• Bacteria play an important role in converting ammonium and ammonia to

nitrite and nitrate.

• Best way to eliminate nitrogen is biological nitrification and then de-

nitrification to remove nitrite and nitrate (USEPA 2009).

• Principal effect of nitrification process is to transform ammonia-nitrogen

into nitrate by the use of nitrifying bacteria under aerobic conditions

• Denitrification converts nitrate to nitrogen gas by use of denitrifying

bacteria under anoxic conditions (Halling-Sarensen and Jargensen 1993).

• Nitrification is an autotrophic process, which means that the energy for

bacterial growth is derived from the oxidation of nitrogen compounds,

primarily ammonia; in contrast to heterotrophs, nitrifiers use carbon

dioxide as a carbon source rather than organic carbon for the synthesis of

new cells (Halling-Sarensen and Jargensen 1993).

Bacteria play a role

A10

In their review, Schmidt et al (2003), presented three ammonium removal

processes

Nitrogen Removal

• It makes use of three groups of chemo-litho-autotrophic bacteria,

aerobic ammonia and nitrite oxidizers (Eqs.1,2 and 3) and anaerobic

ammonium oxidizers (Eq.4 ).They all derive energy for microbial

growth (CO2 fixation) from the oxidation of inorganic nitrogen

compounds (Schmidt et al 2003):

• NH4+ + 1.5O2 → 2H+ + H2O + NO2

- (Equ 1)

• NO2- + 0.5O2 → NO3

- (Equ 2)

• 15CO2 + 13NH4+ → 23H+ + 4H2O + 10NO2

- + 3C5H7NO2 (Equ 3)

• 5CO2 + NH4+ + 10NO2

- + 2H2O → 10NO3- + H+ + C5H7NO2 (Equ 4)

TSi@ Corporation of the T©wn of South Bruce Peninsula

February 17, 201S

The Council of the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula met on Tuesday February 17, 2015 in the Municipal Council Chambers.

1. Call to Order

2. Prohibition on Recording and Electronic Pewices


3. Attendance and Regrets

It was noted that all members of Council were present.

4. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

Mayor Jackson asked Council to declare any pecuniary interest at this point in the meeting or when required and state the general nature of the pecuniary interest.

Councillor Gammie indicated a conflict on the February 3, 2015 minutes in Closed Session as it may refer to litigation that he has open with the Town.

Councillor Kirkland indicated that he has a conflict with the minutes of February 3, 2015.

5. Authorize Closed Session

R-111-2015


That the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula be authorized to proceed into "Closed Session on February 17, 2015 in order to address a matter pertaining to:

• Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice which is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose AND

Mayor Jackson called the meeting to order. Tim® 1:01 pm

1

Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees AND Labour relations or employee negotiations (Administrator)

i. Proceed into Closed Session

R-112-2015

It was Mowed by M. Jackson, Seconded by A, Vukovic and Carried

That Council proceeds into closed session. Time 1:04 pm

During Closed Session, Councillor Gammie and Deputy Mayor Kirkland left the Chambers due to their individual confirmed conflicts of interest with the adoption of the February 3, 2015 minutes. Tim© 1:06 pm

Councillor Gammie and Deputy Mayor Kirkland returned to the Council Chambers. Time 1:08 pm

7. Reconvene into Open Session

R-113-2016

It was Mowed by A. Vukovic, Seeoncfecl by M. Jackson and Carried

That the Council reconvenes to open session. Time 1:30 pm

Break 1:30 pm Reconvene 1 :M pm

8. Direction from Closed - Administrator

Mayor Jackson reported that direction was given in Closed Session.

9. Public Notice/General Announcement-Prohibition on Recording and Eleetrenle Dewic©s


10. Public N©ticel6eneral Announcement- Removal of Holding Symbol

The Clerk/CEMC read the public notice regarding the public meeting to consider the removal of a holding symbol for 445 Berford Street, 416 Claude Street and 420 Claude Street to permit the development of a grocery store. It was noted that the public meeting will be held on March 3, 2015 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers.

2

11. Adoption of Minutes-Speeial Council

Councillor Gammie indicated that he has concerns with respect to the accuracy of the minutes which he will hold until the discussion of the Procedural By-Law.

R-114-2013



12. Adoption of Minutes-Special Council

IVi 15-2015

It was ifowecl by J. Kirkland, Seconded by C. Gammie and Carried



R-116-2015



14. Ai@pti®n of Minutes-Regular Council

Councillor Gammie indicated that his previous concerns (with respect to the accuracy of the minutes which would be discussed during the Procedural By-Law review) apply to this item.

IM17-2015


That the minutes of the February 3, 2015 regular meeting of Council be adopted as received.


3

R-118-2015

It was Mowed by C. Gamrnie, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried

That the minutes of the February 5, 2015 special meeting of Council be adopted as received.

16. Adoption of Minutes-Committees of Council

R-119-2015

It was Moved by J. Kirkland, S©e©nd©d by C. Gamrnie and Carried

That the minutes of Committees of Council as listed, be adopted as circulated:

Committee of Adjustment-November 12, 2014 Planning Advisory Committee-November 12, 2014 Municipal Heritage Committee-November 21, 2014

17. WUlCOViCOt -2015 West Road Reconstruction

Council discussed the road and what could happen to the road including a corridor to link us to the Bruce Peninsula. The road is currently a gravel surface. They discussed what regular maintenance would mean on the road and how this could include hard top. Councillor Vukovic indicated that regular maintenance could mean tar and chip. She indicated that people at Red Bay and Howdenvale went to the OMB. Bruce County wanted to widen the road for a bicycle lane. They applied for funding but it surpassed the requirement. The people in Red Bay and Howdenvale spent thousands of dollars at an OMB hearing. They want the road the way it is. The people won. The OMB said there is no reason for the road that way. The people are afraid of wind turbines. Councillor Vukovic showed a map of potential engagements for turbines on the Bruce Peninsula. The Green Energy Act has taken away the Council's authority. They need a corridor for the turbines and they will go two kms off the shore. That is exactly Bryant Street. She wondered why three major arteries are needed for the Bruce Peninsula. When lobbying, they publicly stated that they would use the West Road for a corridor. Councillor Vukovic read a passage from the Church of St. Michael to MMAH regarding the Bruce Peninsula being a heritage gift to the Province. Councillor Vukovic indicated that we don't need the road widened and we don't need an environmental assessment. Council discussed the takeover of the road by Bruce County. They discussed how this Council has no standing at Bruce County Council and the motion is ultra vires. Council discussed how the road is bumpy and could be flattened without making the road wider. They discussed how this road was a trade off for the Purple Valley Road. The County resurfaced Purple Valley Road at their expense. Council wondered if it would go back to the Town and have the Town be responsible for this. They discussed how the Municipal Act states that the road can be given back to the Town if that is what the

4

County wants. Council discussed having Mayor Jackson ask for the road to be returned to the Town at County Council.

R-120-2015


That the Town of South Bruce Peninsula does not support any reconstruction of the West Road beyond regular maintenance, that is maintenance that would not require an environmental assessment;

And that no environmental assessment be undertaken along the West Road since no need for the reconstruction has been shown;

And further that Council's position be forwarded to the County of Bruce, North Bruce Peninsula and to the Ministry of Environment.

18. FS08-2015 Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund-Formula Based Funding Contribution

R-121-2015

It was Hftawed by A. Vukovic, Seconded by C. Gammie and Carried

That Finance report number FS05-2015 dated 17th February 2015 regarding the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund-Formula Based Funding Contribution be received;

And further that the Treasurer be directed to establish a new reserve fund OCIF-Formula and deposit all funds received by transfer payment from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs as their formula based funding contribution under the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund.

19. FC02-201 § Fir© Statistics

R-122-2015

It was Iio¥©d by A. Vukovic, Seeonefei by C. Gammie and Carried

That Council receives and files report FC02-2015 of February 17, 2015

20. PW01 -201 § Update on the Upgrades to the Otiphant Water Treatnent Plant

Council questioned taking the Oliphant Water Treatment Plant offline. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that he is trying to get a hold of the MOE in Owen Sound. He believes that we did receive something from the MOE in this regard but is awaiting a response from them. Council discussed the information received many years ago as a

5

result of the Walkerton inquiry. At the time, it was cheaper to have two wells at Oliphant and test them. They did not put in a three phase hydrant at the time and had to open it and do that. There are 17-20 users of this system. A member of Council discussed drilled wells at Oliphant on private property. The member indicated that cottagers have installed all kinds of equipment (iron removers, etc.). The member of Council showed Council a discoloured towel to prove what happens to white things when they are washed in the well water. Oliphant is a swamp which used to be a lake years and years ago. The history shows that nothing has happened and we are still trucking water. People are paying on average $110 per month for water. Council discussed how people may be willing to have the system decommissioned and Council would drill them a new well. We could show this to the Ministry to see if they would allow us to decommission. We are throwing good money after bad. Council discussed the historical way the Town received the water system (subdivision agreements). They discussed exhausting every avenue to make this workable. Council discussed the last line in the Manager of Public Works' report and how the member of Council interprets this to mean that this is "messed up". Council discussed making changes and to continue trucking water until a resolve is found. A member of Council indicated that decommissioning is not up to Ministry staff; it's up to the law and the member of Council felt that the law permits this. Council discussed resolving to separate the Amabel Water Systems financially and that this would be a support for decommissioning. Council discussed the Chesley Lake system and how this could be considered as well as it is an expensive system to run. They discussed potential legal obligations. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that the consultant (AE) can have the plant on line today with water which meets criteria but they want to maximize things. It is hard to test and tweak with the plant being online. There is not enough water going through the clear wells because of the low number of users. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that if we had more people on the system, it would work much better. He explained mandatory connections but felt that this is not what Council favours. Council discussed mandatory connections. They discussed grants and money from the taxpayers which have paid for the upgrades. Council questioned the treatability issues noted in the report and how AE have purchased their own equipment to speed things up. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that AE have purchased their own equipment. They don't feel that the plant is running as efficiently as it can. If it takes more effort to run the plant, they are trying to clean up the issue. Council discussed how a future operation contract may be increased because of the requirements for operations at this time. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that this is to optimize the plant. We are still trucking the water. All of the construction is completed; the consultant must adjust the plant. Council discussed the historical tweaks which have been required to this plant and how we are still spending money and tweaking. Council discussed obtaining a legal opinion. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that there is no money for a legal opinion. The current tweaks to the plant are not costing anything additional because the contract was a lump sum. Ministry approval could be obtained today for the plan to be operational but the consultation is trying to fix the system before it is turned over to OCWA to operate.

R-123-2015

0

It was Mowed by A. Vukovic, Seconded by C. Gammie arid Carried

That Council receives report PW01-2015 regarding the Upgrades to the Oliphant Water Treatment Plant as information.

Council discussed the separation of operations of the systems.

R-124-2015

It was ifow®i by C. Gammie, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried

That staff are directed for information to segregate operating costs for all four Amabel systems;

And that a legal opinion is sought regarding whether any or all Amabel systems can be fragmented/shut down;

And that in the interim we truck water for a tweaking period.


21. Delegation - Michael ¥arfy and Kristy Gibson, ¥¥SP - 2014 Septic R©-lnsp©cti@n Program

Mayor Jackson welcomed Michael Varty from WSP.

Mr. Varty explained that he is the senior project manager on this project. Kristy Gibson sent her regrets. The program objective is to inspect all on-site septic systems for overall compliance with Section 8.9 of the Building Code and not the design section of the Building Code. The program also provides education and learning opportunities for system owners. He explained that there are varying levels of awareness of septic system operation. Mr. Varty explained the scope of work for the 2014 program. He explained the zones which were inspected. The inspection is completed in the presence of anyone over the age of 18 who can take responsibility for the inspection. Mr. Varty explained that the soil is a fairly sandy zone. There were islands which were part of the program this year. Mr. Varty explained that public notification was completed in March. From March until June, they fielded phone calls and scheduled residents. The intent of the questionnaire is to provide information on what exists on the property prior to the inspection and to have the homeowner think about their septic system prior to the inspection. Property owners who did not contact WSP were sent a letter issuing an inspection date. WSP doesn't do anything detailed with respect to a metal tank; it is a direct remedial action. Property owners who were not present at their inspection time received a letter directly from the Town. 69% of all of the properties responded within the time requested initially. 93% of all residents were present for their scheduled

7

inspections. The level of participation increased 8% over the past year. Mr. Varty explained the inspections including the visual inspection of the tank, the measurement of scum and sludge levels and a visual inspection of the leaching bed and holding tanks. He explained the proper design of a discharge pit; this is what a lot of composting toilets have. The MMAH guideline has 29 tasks in Phase I and Phase 11 inspections. The ten which are not being done are intrusive and require entry into physical residences. There were 1500 properties evaluated in 2014. Deferred properties were those less than 5 years old at the time of the inspection to be scheduled. 86 properties were not completed. Those properties have been passed on to the Town as not having participated in the program to date. Some people have contacted WSP to make arrangements for inspection in the spring. Mr. Varty explained the types of septic systems in the 2014 program. There were more Class 1 and Class 2 systems in 2014 due in part to the island properties and the inability to build a Class 4 system. There were 270 remedial action letters issued with the majority being attributed to maintenance. There were approximately 100 systems that were at 33% of the scum and sludge level; they worn not issued a remedial action but it was recommended to them to pump their tanks soon. Mr. Varty explained the remedial actions by percentage for the four classes inspected. He explained how this compared to the 2013 program.

Council questioned Class 4 deficiencies and the distribution boxes. Mr. Varty explained that the largest overall deficiency with the Class 4 system is people not pumping their tanks. He explained that where they can identify a distribution box, they would take a look at them. If homeowners didn't know where they were or if they had one, it was difficult for WSP to look at them. They try to bring this back to the septic system. There can be a back up in the septic tank which would be noted as a bed deficiency. A portion of the remedial actions were due to water not being free flowing into the system and people needed to address the deficiency.

Council asked why a distribution box would crumble. Mr. Varty explained that concrete is susceptible to acids. It could be chemicals introduced into the system or a bad concrete mix. It is difficult to diagnose the cause and effect. Certain pre-casters have gone to CSA certified standards. Council discussed how bacteria are contained in the sludge and they can form strong acids and that will eat away concrete. Mr. Varty explained that they look for signs of deterioration in the septic tank and warn homeowners.

Council questioned the Class 4 and how the majority is to have the tank pumped. They questioned the Class 1 and Class 2 and what would the remedial action be. Mr. Varty explained that a lot of it is the illegal discharge and some weren't vermin proofed well enough. They were not looking for in depth construction but looking for health and safety. There were about 10 metal tanks this year. Some other items could be trees in the leaching bed, tank back-ups and access issues with the tank itself. There were probably between 15 and 20 who needed to do something fairly substantial.

Council questioned "hot areas" in Oliphant. Mr. Varty explained that he doesn't believe that there were "hot areas" in Oliphant. Oliphant has a density and you would tend to

8

see more issues in a dense area. The area of larger concern this year was Red Bay due to the clustering of the risk analysis. Density has something to do with that. He doesn't want to classify any area as overtly risky.

Mr. Varty explained that there are other factors that if you added up the factors, the systems may be considered risky including a septic system beside a well or an undersized system. WSP analyzed the data collected based on 8 risk factors. They did this because it was a more technical analysis than required in the RFP. The RFP was stating than the risk factor would be associated with age. Mr. Varty explained that it would not be appropriate to say that a system of a certain age would be high risk. He explained how the overall risk score for the system is established. Leaching bed size is difficult to assess. They don't do a test on a lot by lot basis to see how the soil percolates. They are trying to be accurate in what they are doing. Mr. Varty is not surprised by the 75% number realized for issues with leaching bed size. This number should not be taken out of context as it is just one of many factors for performance.

Council explained how people plant shrubs and flowers and if that is recommended. Mr. Varty explained that leaching bed condition includes things like shrubs and vegetable gardens which will inhibit the leaching bed to work. You should allow the sun and atmosphere to work over the system so that it evapotranspirates. If there were trees which would directly affect the leaching bed, a remedial action letter would be issued. They provided advice to people on root infiltration.

Mr. Varty explained that overall 72% were lower risk. There were 2% which were higher risk. This is not intended to say that the higher risk systems would fail. Based on the analysis, they are more risky than those who were lower risk. Context needs to be kept with what the results are. 2% is a lower number than if we went by the age of the system alone.

Council indicated that there are farms and wondered how those are inspected. Mr. Varty explained that the farm systems are inspected similar to the residential systems. Manure storage is outside of the scope of their program and was not a focus. The leaching bed needs to function in the same manner as a residential system.

Council asked about the program being completed in the time allotted. Mr. Varty explained that within the four year mandate, everything should be completed.

Council questioned what should happen at the end of the fourth year and how often the program should be continued. Mr. Varty explained that there are a couple of factors; there are a lot of deferred systems which are less than five years old now. A plan for those will need to be addressed. There are about 500 systems that this will affect. They have collected and analyzed a lot of data. The Town can start to scale back to source water protection areas or look at the data set and choose areas where re-inspection programs could be run. Running a program every five years of this magnitude may not be warranted. Every ten years could be warranted.

9

Council indicated that in the past, there were few records. This program will make the Building Division's job easier because we would know where the tanks and sometimes the beds are located. Mr. Varty explained that there will be a photograph of every tank and leaching bed in the Town as a legacy of the program. There is a significant data set.

Council questioned the risk analysis and the publication of the numbers. There are caveats which have been put in place. There is a good remedial action system. A member of Council felt that the risk analysis will be abused. It was abused in the past by a member of Council going to the radio system. The member of Council felt that the tabulation of the results not be provided to Council or that the caveats be stronger in the reports. The member worries that the risk analysis will be used as a justification for Sauble Sewers. Mr. Varty explained that there is no reporting of individual properties being high or low risk in favour of clustering risks in geographic areas of the community. This was to provide a future vision for the data set.

Council indicated that there is value in the program. A member explained their private system and experiences. The member wondered how we ensure quality assurances. Mr. Varty explained that one of the improvements in the program itself was how to assess the impact of trees. There was improvement which could be made with respect to trees and that was implemented moving forward. WSP works with the Building Division for improvement each year. If the tank was nearly empty and not having been the inspector, they must rely on the homeowner to make a proper assessment of what was happening. This could be the WSP interpretation of the data. The photos of the sites and inspection reports are reviewed by one qualified engineer to ensure that all properties are analyzed in the same manner.

Council wondered about adding something so that people don't pump out their system. Mr. Varty explained that they were caught off guard because they didn't expect people to pump their tanks. In 2014, they discussed with the homeowners that unless they were otherwise going to pump their tank out, they should not pump it out right before the inspection. There is a question of liability for recommending not to pump a tank. Education is one of the strong components. Because the homeowners are present and if they need to mask something, there is the opportunity to mask something.

Council discussed lifting the lid on a specific tank. Mr. Varty indicated that he cannot make a certain determination in this file without looking at the file directly.

Council discussed giving a timeline when a system is passed to let people know that the systems are aging.

Mayor Jackson thanked Mr. Varty for the presentation.


10

22. Delegation - Arun Jain and Pierre Beauehamp, ©xp - Wiartobi Lagoon Upgrades arid MBBR

Mayor Jackson welcomed Arun Jain and Pierre Beauchamp from exp.

Mr, Jain explained that the study purpose was to expand the flow from 2500 cubic meters per day to 4000 cubic meters per day. He explained the project timeline. The ESR will be completed in the later part of March with construction taking place over summer and fall. Substantial completion must be by the end of 2015. Mr. Jain explained the new standard for ammonia in the system. We must meet the Ontario and Federal standard. The reporting of septic volumes is on the honour system. We must manage what is being received. The Class EA system has five phases. Mr. Jain explained the phases and how Phase II is looking at alternative solutions. We are currently in Phase 111 of the process. Mr. Jain explained that the site is in Georgian Bluffs and the modifications could not be made due to zoning. A public utility was not permitted on the site. A building permit would not be approved. This was addressed. They consulted with the NEC and the GSCA. There are drainage issues on the site. We will likely have to create a storm water management plan. They are tracking all issues and checking off boxes. A meeting was held with MOE and the processes are being discussed. An archaeological assessment was conducted on the site and results shared with SON. Mr. Jain explained the evaluation process for alternative solutions. They pre-screened the high level alternative solutions based on the problem statement. They looked at primary, secondary and tertiary options. Mr. Jain explained the alternatives for pre-screening including do nothing, control infiltration/inflow and additional treatment capacity. He explained the solutions which could be adding an IFS with nitrification, deepen one of the lagoon cells with nitrification and converting to an activated sludge system.

Council asked if the solutions were all mechanical. Mr. Jain explained that they all had some mechanical component. They looked at the existing system and the process in generic terms and not specific processes.

Mr. Beauchamp explained that improving the quality of the wastewater involves four points: suspended solids, BOD, pathogenic bacteria and nutrients (mainly phosphorus and nitrogen). He explained the levels of wastewater treatment: primary, secondary and tertiary. The Wiarton lagoon has no primary and is a facultative lagoon. This is why it is only 1.5 meters deep. We have a tertiary system to remove phosphorus. Mr. Beauchamp explained the MOE guidelines and how you can make some selections based on your system. He explained how you select the options by looking at the problems. We have a combination of issues to face. We have to address capacity, handle the septage and meet the ammonia standards. The MOE has stated that on Colpoy's Bay, the ammonia limit may be more strict than Federal standards. The MOE is concerned about loading. Mr. Beauchamp explained the peak flow of 11,000 m3/day. This is a climate change issue and there is so much water coming into the system from storm sewers and water in the streets going into the sanitary system. He explained that

11

it is important to keep the biomass in the system for it to work. Mr, Beauchamp explained how loading is calculated.

Council asked if an additional study would be required from the MOE perspective. Mr. Jain explained that the current capacity is 2500 and with the new 4000 m3/day if the loading stays the same, it can be achieved. The ammonia standard will hold and for loading of everything else, we can tell the MOE that the loading would stay the same. This makes the MOE happy. If we increase the loading, studies will be required by the MOE. Concentration goes down if you want to keep the loading the same.

Mr. Beauchamp explained that at this point we don't consider the vendor's point of view. We look at that at the design stage. At this stage, we have a framework. Mr. Beauchamp explained the Wiarton issues - phosphorus is already fixed and the nutrients are already fixed by the UV. The present system is very effective. Adding BOD will require the addition of oxygen. Mr. Beauchamp explained the treatment options and the actions required. We have to look at a system that solves all the issues. He explained good systems but how we want to use the existing facility due to our investment into the current system. There was a very long list which began and some solutions were discarded. They discarded the anaerobic process because the lagoons would need to be deepened and the sludge may need to be removed quite often. They have not solved the problem with nitrogen without aeration. Mr. Beauchamp explained that without the removal of nitrogen, you will face the problem of blue and green algae. He explained that from the long list, they kept do nothing, the integrated fixed-film system (IFS), deep lagoon with nitrification and active sludge. There was an issue of temperature with the deep lagoon system. In our case, concentration is low and the bacteria need to eat something to work. The way to keep the biomass is to put something in it (plastic, clay, stone). The less costly is plastic. This is referred to as the MBBR. The best method is to place a box or two in the system with a medium. You cannot remove the BOD and nitrogen at the same time. Mr. Beauchamp explained that the IFS would be the secondary system and we would add the wetlands as tertiary.

Council asked if it is standard to look at three alternatives. Mr. Beauchamp explained that it depends what needs to be solved. The activated sludge system is costly.

Mr. Beauchamp explained that we will be introducing a primary system. We don't have an answer at this time about the grit chamber. Mr. Beauchamp explained that we have an issue of peak flow. The lagoon can take the impact and keep the aeration system in the first lagoon and keeping it working when this happens to take the shot. We will be able to face that kind of problem. The wetland is for the denitrification. Mr. Beauchamp explained the water temperature in winter. We have 1.5 meters and there would be more ice. That is not something you can control. The MOE has a program following ten wetlands trying to see what the issues are. On the secondary, the top would be concrete and closed on the top and there would be no contact with the area. We would not mechanically heat the water. In some systems, a lagoon is activated sludge and there may not be enough concentration in the lagoon. You can expect to put something

12

after to remove the nitrogen if it is working properly. That would require a 4.5 meter deep lagoon. In our case, we are not sure of this so we want to put the nitrification in the secondary lagoons.

Council questioned if the proposal would add one more cell. Mr. Beauchamp explained that there is already a natural wetland. It has been deepened to do banking. They want to use what exists. The soil has been excavated to create the bank. Mr. Beauchamp explained what the proposed process would be in our system. The system is gravity and not pumped. From the tanks to the wetland and back to the filter will be gravity. There is already a pumping station pumping it. Mr. Beauchamp explained the IFS with nitrification system which is preferred and is a gravity system. He explained that a woodchip trench is a best way to do denitrification.

Council asked how many MBBR systems they have operating in Ontario. Mr. Beauchamp explained that he doesn't have any in Ontario. Other companies have designed in Ontario. Council asked about getting a list of MBBR systems. Mr. Jain explained that Peterborough has MBBR. Toronto has looked at it. The IFS is approved by MOE. Council questioned the MBBR systems in Quebec and indicated that they are industrial and not municipal.

Mayor Jackson asked Manager of Public Works Gray to get a list of MBBR systems by next week.

Council asked if they didn't want to go with a mechanical plant, what would the options be. Mr. Jain explained that this isn't a mechanical system. Council indicated that they looked at the other systems which were not mechanical. Mr. Beauchamp explained that the two systems are very good but you have to look at the conditions. We don't have steady state conditions in the existing process. If we had steady state, he may recommend SAGR. The other system is not a process, it is an IFS. They have used it in PEI to increase the life of the anaerobic system and it is good for four years. They have to provide a solution for the coming years.

Council explained that they are hearing that one system is to be placed before the lagoons due to the fluctuation in our system. Mr. Beauchamp explained that we have to fact the actual system and the future system. We want to increase the number of people who send their sewage to the system. The first part of the SAGR is to remove the BOD and the second part is to remove the nitrogen. The literature review of the system shows BOD is 40 mg/l and you have to get this down to 10 or 5 for the bacteria to work for nitrification. We are going to improve our system and new people will be coming in. Mr. Beauchamp explained that if we have industry, things can change from domestic treatment. He indicated that the system could be completed by next March.

Council explained that we have a lot of dilution and this puts the BOD level below the 40 mg. Once we get rid of the dilution problem, we will have a problem. We need the process at the beginning and not at the end.

13

Mr. Beauchamp explained that there are a lot of things with respect to the Blue Frog. The plastic fins go down into the water. This is good in an aerobic system.

Council asked if they have decided on the design phase. Mr. Beauchamp explained that they could divide the wetland instead of doing banking. They have to do some calculations and look at the costs. They must be sure that there is competition to do the plant so that it won't cost more than the Town is expecting. The problem with the SAGR system is that we don't have fixed conditions. The Blue Frog could be considered in the wetland part. This is interesting. We still have to have a treatment plant; we need a certain quantity of air to reduce the BOD. Our system is presently on the line to do the job. It is working at 15 hp to do the aeration. With the design they are coming to between 30 and 50 hp. Designing for the SAGR would be 100 hp.

Council wondered about the Blue Frog system and how we would not have to deal with sludge. Mr. Beauchamp indicated that we would still need to deal with sludge. Because it is organic, it is going to become mineral. You cannot go further than that. When you reach that point, you would have to remove the sludge. There is no system on the earth where there would be no sludge. Council discussed the Blue Frog system and how it could lengthen the time to remove sludge. Mr. Beauchamp explained that with a standard lagoon 4.5 meters deep, it takes 20 years before you remove the sludge. He has done the design for hundreds of projects and all kinds of systems. He sees the results over the years.

Council asked how much power would be required for the plant. Mr. Beauchamp explained it is 15 hp and we will design for double, up to 50 hp. This is when we are bringing in the 4000 m3/day. The sewage will be more concentrated when the storm water is removed. Mr. Jain explained that Blue Frog was put in place for an interim solution in another application. This could be something we could look at for a long term solution in our wetlands. Mr. Beauchamp explained that he respects the vendors but they don't want to be caught with one of the vendors, exp is with nobody. He would be pleased to use the SAGR system in good conditions but he doesn't feel confident with it in our system. Mr. Beauchamp explained that we need to fix our conditions. He explained that Blue Frog is not a process; it is an equipment which can be used.

Council questioned the Blue Frog as a process and how to remove some of our aeration and implement Blue Frog. A member of Council wondered what is wrong with that process. Mr. Beauchamp explained that there is no way to do nitrification. The bacteria need air. Mr. Jain explained that Blue Frog uses blowers to create an anaerobic zone and you cannot do nitrification in an anaerobic zone. Mr. Beauchamp explained that we can do an aerobic system but you need to cover the lagoons; he explained what would be required and that it is costly. It is not compatible with what is being done now.

Council asked about BOD removal with Blue Frog. Mr. Beauchamp explained that if we go that way, we go with an aerobic system. We are talking about another group of bacteria. You can do a wastewater treatment system with an aerobic system. You can't do nitrification.

14

Mr. Jain explained that he did return phone calls to Josh at Blue Frog in December and he has emails.

Mayor Jackson thanked Mr. Beauchamp and Mr. Jain for attending.


23, PW02-2015 Significant Event Designation Request - St Patrick's Day Celebrations in Wiarton

Council questioned the significant municipal event and a member felt that it was meant to be for significant community events. It is not felt that beer halls are for tourist events and may be an abuse of the process. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that this is brand new and it has never happened before. They want to have a parade on Berford Street and make it an event for St. Patrick's Day. The designation would allow them to do all of that. They are not asking for money. It really is a community event and may bring in tourism. They need this before they can get a liquor license outside of their facility. Once it is designated, they won't have to come back with the same approval. Council discussed knowing when the street is closed. Manager of Public Works Gray gave Council a map of the proposal with no road closure for the day; just for the parade. We would lose parking spots but it would not impede traffic. The liquor license would be for the 13x13 tent area it is believed. There would be vendors on the sidewalk with no alcohol on the sidewalk. This would be held by the new Irish Pub downtown on Berford Street. Council understands that the organizer is aligning with a charitable organization. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that they need to have insurance which meets the Town criteria.

R-125-2015


That Council designates the St. Patrick's Day Celebrations in Wiarton taking place on Berford Street between William Street and George Street on March 15 (Sunday before St. Patrick's Day) as a Significant Municipal Event.

24, P¥¥§3-2®1 i Updates to Waste Management By-Law

Council questioned hazardous waste. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that we do not allow the types of waste which can be taken to the Household Hazardous Waste Day. If we see a fluorescent bulb, we don't allow them to come in. This is a stepping stone to get people educated; we can't always know what is in a garbage bag. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that we need to get an education program going.

15

R-126-2016


That the Waste Management By-Law be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration.

25. HH€it-2©15 Municipal Heritage Committee Rewlsed Budget

R-127-201 §

it was moved by A. Vukovic, Seconded by M. Jackson and Carried

That Council approves of the revised budget for the Municipal Heritage Committee as presented on February 17, 2015.

26. I-201S Zoning By-Law Amendment, 57 Adelaide Start, 1 amming

R-128-2015

It was itewecl by A. Vukovic, Seconded by M. Jackson and Carried

That the necessary by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law to approve an amendment to the zoning provisions as they relate to 57 Adelaide Street Albemarle be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration.

27. PACU2-201S Zoning By-Law Am®ndm©nt5 272 B@rford Street, Whitcroft

Councillor Gammie (PAC representative) explained that this is only for embalming and is not for cremations. There will be no embalming fluid which will be discharged to our infrastructure

R-129-2015

It was ifow©d by A. Vukovic, Seconded by M. Jackson and Carried

That the necessary by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law to approve an amendment to the zoning provisions as they relate to 272 Berford Street Wiarton be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration.

28. PAC03-2015 Zoning By-Law and Official Plan Amendments, 331 and 337 Park Head Road, Cressiey

Councillor Gammie (PAC representative) explained that the current policy permits one severance from a farm lot. The first request was to make one severance but there

16

would be a problem with the minimum distance separation. As the buildings are already there, this would not be a problem.

R-130-2015

It was Howed by A. Vukovic, Seconded by M. Jackson and Carried

That the necessary by-law to amend the Official Plan to approve an amendment to the designations as they relate to 331 and 337 Park Head Road, Amabel be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration;

And further that the necessary by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law to approve an amendment to the zoning provisions as they relate to 331 and 337 Park Head Road, Amabel be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration.

29. P/\C04-2Ot S Zoning By-Law artel Official Plan Amendments, 7779 Highway 21, Nielcasori do Dawenport f€u©sta|

Councillor Vutovic (PAC representative) explained that this is to create jobs. Councillor Gammie (PAC representative) explained that this is moving from residential to industrial and the neighbours do not seem to have an issue.

R-131-2015

It was itaweci by A. Vukovic, Seconded by M. Jackson and Carried

That the necessary by-law to amend the Official Plan to approve an amendment to the designation as it relates to 7779 Highway 21, Amabel be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration;

And further that the necessary by-law to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law to approve an amendment to the zoning provisions as they relate to 7779 Highway 21, Amabel be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration.

30. CLK18-2015 Sale of 55 Fedy Drive

R-132-2015


That the necessary by-law to permit the Mayor and Clerk to sign the closing documents for 55 Fedy Drive be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration.

31. CLK1 9-2015 Commercial Market Values for Rent

17

Council discussed how it is not known if maintenance is included in the rental numbers given. Council indicated that they did not feel that the issue is resolved for the library. The Clerk/CEMC explained that the Town does not dictate to the County with respect to what they pay for the library. They give us an amount. Council discussed the hangar rentals at the Airport.

R-133-201 i


That Council receives report CLK19-2015 Commercial Market Values for Rent for information as presented on February 17, 2015.

32. CLK2©-2i18 Department Head Responsibility-Reorganization

Council discussed not having staff look into reorganization and instead hiring a consultant who would look at restructuring and performance. The Clerk/CEMC explained that we don't necessarily have money in the budget at this time for a consultant and we need to redistribute the duties at this time. Council discussed waiting for staff to look into what they can do with respect to reorganization and decide on a consultant in the future.

R-134-2015


That the Manager of Financial Services is recognized as the managing Department Head with overall responsibility for Department Head performance;

And that Council acknowledges that Department Heads have come to consensus with respect to a re-division of duties to their respective Departments;

And further that staff will bring more information to Council in the coming months with respect to reorganization.

The Clerk/CEMC explained the pay grids and how remuneration could take place for the managing Department Head.

R-135-2015


That the necessary by-law to appoint a CEMC and confirm the appointment of a CEMCA be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for consideration.

33. CLK21 -2018 Report Template, Policy Manual Update

18

When asked by Council, the Clerk/CEMC explained that the approval of Manager of Financial Services is what used to be included in the report format. With that position being responsible for budgeting an approval is appropriate.

R-136-201 §


That the necessary by-law to amend the Municipal Policy Manual with respect to policy D.111 Reports-Format be placed on the agenda of an upcoming Council meeting for consideration.

34. CLK22-2018 Dewetaper Meeting Regarding OPA3§

Council commented on the progress which was made and how information will be brought forward in March. When asked for more information about the outcome of the meeting, the Clerk/CEMC explained that she cannot further comment at this time because she needs to be sure that what the developer agreed to does not change and comes to the meeting.

R-137-2015


That Council acknowledges that a meeting has taken place between the developer of the lands south of Town and staff;

And further that Council acknowledges that staff will be bringing forward information with respect to OPA3Q in March.

35. CLK24-2015 Proposed De-Designation ©f 513 Bruce Street, Hepworth, Speneer House

The Clerk/CEMC discussed with Council the repeal process and how we must either register the current by-law or repeal it. A member of Council felt that we could just repeal the by-law and read from the Ontario Heritage Act. The Clerk/CEMC explained that she has discussed the process with the Ontario Heritage Trust. The Heritage Committee recommends repeal and the owner has not made contact. She explained that there is a process which she must follow.

R-138-2015


19

That the Clerk be directed to follow the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act to de-designate the property municipally known as 513 Bruce Street in Hepworth;

And further that the costs associated with the de-designation be funded from the general legal account 10-02-406.

36. CLK25-2015 Joint Committees with Georgian Bluffs

Council discussed who would want to sit on the individual committees with Council discussing their past experiences in strategic planning. They discussed having the Mayor on the Committees.

R-139-201S


That Council chooses representatives to serve on the South Bruce Peninsula and Georgian Bluffs Joint Committee for airport issues and on the Committee for other common issues;

And further that the appointments be added to the Appointment By-Law which is being considered for readings at the current meeting.

Council contemplated taking a vote by secret ballot.

Break S:3§ pm ftucoiwerse 6:38 pm

The Clerk/CEMC read from the Municipal Act and indicated that a secret ballot has no effect. She directed Council to vote by placing names on a resolution.

R-140-2015

It was Moved by A. Vukovic, Seconded by C. Gammie and Carried

That Mayor Jackson and Councillor Jackson will serve on the South Bruce Peninsula and Georgian Bluffs Joint Airport Ad Hoc Committee;

And further that Deputy Mayor Kirkland and Councillor Vukovic will serve on the South Bruce Peninsula and Georgian Bluffs Common Municipal Issue Committee.

The Clerk/CEMC explained that at the joint meeting, the Councils had decided that the Terms of Reference would be provided to the Committees prior to being presented to Council. She asked if that was what Council had intended. Council discussed having Council approval prior to being given to the Committees. The Clerk/CEMC explained

20

that she felt that staff would work on the Terms of Reference and come to consensus prior to submitting to both Councils.

Si»141~2015

It was Moved by M. Jackson, Seconded by A. Vukovic and Carried

That Council instructs staff to bring Terms of Reference for the South Bruce Peninsula and Georgian Bluffs joint committees to Council for approval and comment prior to them being presented to the Committees in order to save time in directing the Committees,

37» Items Referred - CLK10-201S PmuMuml By-Law Update

It was Moved by M. Jackson, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Deferred

That Council directs the Clerk to advertise a public meeting with respect to proposed changes to the Procedural By-Law, with notice of consideration of the by-law as prescribed in the Notice By-Law;

And further that the necessary by-law to provide for rules of order and procedure be placed on the agenda of a future Council meeting for Council consideration.

38. By-Laws - First and Second Reading

R-142-2015


That the following by-laws be read a first and second time:

By-Law 20-2015 Being a By-Law to Appoint Persons to Committees, Boards and Other

By-Law 21-2015 Being a By-Law to Adopt the Budget (Estimates of Revenues and Expenditures) for Tax Supported Purposes for the Year

By-Law 22-2015 Being a By-Law to Adopt the Budget (Estimates of Revenues and Expenditures) for User Pay Purposes for the Year

39, By-Laws - Third Reading

The Clerk/CEMC asked Council if her name could be removed from the Appointment By-Law under the Emergency Management Committee in light of reorganization. Council agreed to this change.

R-143-2015

21


That By-Law 20-2015, By-Law 21-2015 and By-Law 22-2015 be read a third time and finally passed.

40. Matters of Urgency

No matters of urgency were considered.

41. Notice of Motion

No notices of motion were presented.

42. Public Meetings

No public meetings were scheduled or conducted.

43. Reports from Council Members

Deputy Mayor Kirkland indicated that the Heritage Committee will move forward in 2015 in preparation for Doors Open 2016. This is a very good program. Council volunteer time will be requested.

Councillor Vukovic explained that there is an Airport Board meeting on Thursday. Members of Council will be in attendance in the audience. Council discussed the budget reduction and what should be explained to the Board with respect to budget and how the Airport will continue to operate. Councillor Vukovic explained that the Town representative on the Board is not a municipal resident but owns a hangar at the Airport. Council discussed the knowledge base of the Town appointment.

Councillor Gammie attended the GSCA meeting. The intent was to pass a motion to bring the budget to the communities. They started with a 3% increase and some wanted to get to zero or below. They found 1.5% to reduce at the meeting and sent staff to find another 1.5%. The budget will come in March. The Town budgeted for an increase. In the GSCA budget there is an allocation process and it is allocated to municipalities on the same basis that we allocate our budgets to residents. It is based on MPAC market values. We could get all of the benefits but pay only our share. That is contrary to the law. He would like to talk to Council in more detail in this regard.

Mayor Jackson indicated that she did not attend the last meeting of County Council but will attend the next meeting.

44. Upcoming Meetings

Council noted the upcoming meetings. They discussed the Source Water Protection Committee seminars on Thursday in Chesley and February 24 in Owen Sound.

22

45. CLK27-2015 Unfinished Business

Council wondered about the Hepworth Community Centre item and how it could be an information centre. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that the Town needs to look at the building as it is sitting empty now.

Council wondered about the cross walk in Hepworth and whether there was anything from County Council. They discussed whether or not this should be on unfinished business. The residents wanted a crossing guard and we forwarded this to the County to see if they would implement a cross walk.

Council discussed negotiations from last year with the School Board. Council instructed staff to negotiate a new five year agreement with the Board.

Council asked about the by-law not to clean the Beach within 30 feet of the waterline. This is on unfinished business. The shells on the Beach are sharp. This by-law should come forward before summer.

Council discussed bringing water in-house. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that he has to pull everything together. He has new numbers. We have given OCWA a one year extension. Council discussed running an ad for employees to see if there are qualified individuals who would work. They discussed costs and staffing requirements. Manager of Public Works Gray explained that we need to look at whether or not we will be operating all systems in-house.

R-144-2015

It was Moved by J. Kirkland, Seconded by C. Garnmie and Carried

That Council notes the contents of report CLK27-2015 Unfinished Business presented on February 17, 2015.

46. Confirmatory By-Law

R-145-2015

It was by C. Gammie, Seconded by J. Kirkland and Carried

That By-Law 23-2015 Being a By-Law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula be read a first, second, third time and finally passed.

47. Adjourn

R-146-2015

23

It was Mowed by M. Jackson, Seconded by C, Gammie and Carried

That the meeting adjourn. Time 7:24 pin

x L-tf x^k/ Mayor /

Clerk

24

Appendix G – Council Delegations and Minutes · Appendix G – Council Delegations and Minutes....

Documents

Transcript of Appendix G – Council Delegations and Minutes · Appendix G – Council Delegations and Minutes....