HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin 91-84CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
40 TEMPERANCE STREET
BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO
LIC3A6 TELEPHONE 623-3379
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
HELD DECEMBER 17 1984
ADMIN. 91 - 84
SUBJECT: IMPROVEMENT TO PRIVATE WATER SYSTEMS
IN THE HAMLET OF NEWTONVILLE, TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
j It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. That Administrator's report 91 - 84 be received;
2. That the Town of Newcastle forward the consultant's report together
with this staff report to the Region of Durham with a request that
the Region undertake the necessary process and construction of a
communal water system in the hamlet of Newtonville to serve the long
term needs for a reliable water supply;
tq,,z p o, 3. That the Region of Durham be requested to work closely with citizens
of the area in developing the communal water system ensuring ample
public input;
4. That the Ministry of Environment be requested to support the
installation of a communal water system in the hamlet of Newtonville
by providing maximum available funding to the project;
5. That a copy of the consultant's report and this report be forwarded
to the Ministry of Transportation and Communication with a request
that the Ministry review the report and advise Council on any means
that might be employed by the Ministry to reduce the amount of salt
used on Highway #2;
6. That notice of Council's decision be given to residents of the study
area and;
7. That the technical parties who contributed to the study be advised of
Council's actions.
-2 -
ADMIN. 91 - 84
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
In accordance with Council resolution #C-677-84 staff organized a
public meeting on the evening of November 6th 1984 for the presentation
of the consultant's technical report.
The meeting which was held in the Newtonville community hall was attended by
approximately 80 residents of the study area. After a lengthy technical
presentation, a number of questions were asked of the consultant and technical
representatives from both the Region of Durham and the Ministry of
Environment.
The consultant in his report outlined three possible solutions: the
repair and replacement of existing wells; the development of a communal
water supply without fire protection; and a communal water supply with
fire protection. The costs of each alternative were presented in the
report. Residents of the hamlet voiced their concern about the cost
of any of the solutions and questioned the guarantee, if any, that could
be given to the upgrading of existing, or the replacement of old wells.
At the end of the meeting a questionnaire was distributed to citizens
who were present at the meeting. Copies of the questionnaire were
also placed in the Post Office. The last day for the completion and,
return of the questionnaires was scheduled for November 20th. Of the
approximately 130 properties surveyed by the consultant, approximately
60 people responded to the survey.
For the benefit of Council I have attached a numerical breakdown of
the results of the survey.
Based on the costs outlined by the Region of Durham at the time of
the public meeting (see attached for details), 34 people felt that the
communal system solution more appropriate, a�d 22 felt that Council should
adopt the individual well solution. At the same time 3 people indicated
that no action was required.
3 F
ADMIN. 91 - 84
There was a strong preference for a communal water system if
the costs between a communal system and individual well improvements
were equal. However a significant number (16) wished to maintain private
wells.
As part of the review process I asked both the Planning Director and
the Director of Public Works to provide written comments on the recommendations
contained in the consultant's report.
Mr. Edwards' comments were directed towards the impact that the choices
would have on the growth potential of the village. The installation
of a piped water system would provide a more secure source of water
supply, one which would provide greater opportunity for growth and
development.
Mr. Dupuis' comments suggested that there is reason to doubt that the
individual well improvements would lead to an assured supply of water.
Mr. Dupuis also indicated the importance of procedures and monitoring
if the Town is to become involved in the administration of the individual
well solutions.
As part of staff's examination of this issue contact was made with
a number of other communities that have utilized the Ministry of Environment
program for individual well improvement. In one case outside the Region
municipal staff were very pleased with the assistance in administration
and supervision provided by the Ministry. However, participation
levels in the program were very low. ($300,000 spent, $2.6 million
allocated). Given the low participation rate it can be concluded that
the problems leading to the study have not been solved. A second example
within the Region yielded different results. In the second example
there was high participation rates but the municipality was left to
provide on-site supervision. Costs per well exceeded Ministry estimates
and as such costs to the individual were more than anticipated. Generally
speaking, however, the 75% subsidy offered by the Ministry of Environment
for private well improvement is underutilized as it is a voluntary program.
ADMIN. 91 - 84
Staff have reservations about the advisability of the private well
improvement program as the risk of further groundwater pollution is
significant.
If Council does pursue a private well improvement program, it is imperative
to provide a clear administrative process. Secondly, and perhaps even
more important, it is essential to have qualified engineers on site
during drilling and grouting procedures to ensure that the wells are
constructed and grouted as specified. Without such arrangements the
chances of contamination are very high.
On Monday, November 19th the Honourable Andy Brandt, Minister of Environment
announced certain changes with respect to grants that would be applicable
to all hamlets and villages requiring financial assistance for the
installation of water systems. Previous grant programs allotted 15%
for the installation of certain capital features of communal water
supply systems. It is staff's understanding that the new
program allows for the payment of up to 60% of the project costs from
provincial sources. Such a program may have changed the recommendations
contained in the consultant's report. By the consultant's own admission
the private well system was recommended in part owing to the existence
of provincial assistance of 75% for private well improvements.
With the changes in the grant structure announced by the Ministry (copy
attached) and the added security provided for in a communal piped water
system that is being municipally maintained it is felt that the communal
system will more appropriately meet the needs of both current and future
residents of the hamlet.
If Council adopts the recommendations in this report the Region can
consider the installation of the system as part of the budget process.
It would be the Region's responsibility to examine the situation
and recommend the best mechanism to fund the project. Regional officials
have indicated that from their rough estimate approximately $470,000
would be generated from frontage and connection charges. If a 60% grant
from the Province ($851,400) on the total project cost of communal
water with fire protection ($1,419,000) were necessary, there would be shortfall
in funding for the project in the order of approximately $100,000
-5 -
ADMIN. 91 - 84
However, it should be noted from the Minister's announcement that
the Region would be responsible for a 25% minimum contribution.
The Region no doubt will clarify with the province what constitutes
a Regional contribution.
It should be noted that the attached information from the Region
was based on the grant structure prior to the Minister's November 19th
announcement. It should also be noted that the Minister's announcement
included an enrichment of the 75% grant for the private well improvements
to 85%. In speaking to Ministry officials it was my impression that
local municipalities interested in the new grant program should act
quickly as it is likely that the demand for funds will exceed program
funding.
In recommending a communal system staff is mindful that there are
a number of citizens that wil likely strongly resist a communal system.
Even if such numbers are small, the actual construction of the system
could be delayed for 2 to 3 years. In addition, it should be noted that
the reconstruction of Highway #2 may well be delayed if it is decided
to instal a communal water system.
However, staff's recommendations are based on the principle of providing
an assured water supply to the residents, a supply whose quality is not
likely to be impaired in the foreseeable future. As a final point, it
should be noted that the existence of a communal water supply should
reduce fire insurance within the service area. The reduction in
insurance rates would probably offset the annual operating costs of
the communal system which were estimated to be approximately
$95 per household per annum.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
David Johnston, M.C.I.P.,
DSJ:nof Chief dministrative Officer
QUESTIONS FOR NEWTONVILLE PUBLIC MEETING ON WATER SUPPLY
NOVEMBER 6 1984, NEWTONVILLE COMMUNITY HALL
1. BASED UPON THE PRESENTATION MADE THIS EVENING
WHAT ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO MEET YOUR NEEDS:
I
a) NO ACTION REQUIRED 3
b) COUNCIL SHOULD ENDORSE THE INDIVIDUAL
WELL SOLUTION 22
c) COUNCIL SHOULD PURSUE THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A PIPED, MUNICIPALLY MAINTAINED 34
WATER SUPPLY
TOTAL RESPONSES: 59
2. ASSUMING THE COSTS TO YOU AS A HOMEOWNER WERE
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL, WHICH TYPE OF SYSTEM
WOULD YOU PREFER:
a) COMMUNAL WATER 43
b) NEW PRIVATE WELLS 16
TOTAL RESPONSES 59
3. OTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE WATER SUPPLY PROBLEM:
u - 2(9
AGENDA ITEM 17
THE HONOURABLE ANDY BRANDT
MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
A STATEMENT TO THE LEGISLATURE
ON
INCREASED FUNDING FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES
IN SMALL MUNICIPALITIES AND RURAL AREAS
NOVEMBER 19, 1984
MR• SPEAKER .
AS THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS ARE AWARE, I TAKE
CONSIDERABLE PRIDE IN THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THIS
GOVERNMENT AND ONTARIO'S MUNICIPALITIES IN
PRO-VIDING ESSENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO OUR
CITIZENS•
COMMUNAL SEWAGE SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR 93
PER CENT OF ONTARIO'S URBAN POPULATION AND THE
BENEFITS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WATER
QUALITY IN OUR RIVERS AND LAKES ARE SELF-EVIDENT•
CONTRAST THIS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS IN QUEBEC WHERE
ONLY NINE PER CENT OF THE URBAN POPULATION BENEFIT
FROM THESE SERVICES•
EVEN MORE IMPRESSIVE, 98 PER CENT OF OUR URBAN
POPULATION ENJOY COMMUNAL WATER SERVICES•
SINCE 1956, SOME 86 BILLION HAS BEEN INVESTED IN
ONTARIO IN WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS,
WATERMAINS AND SEWERS AND THE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
HARDWARE ESSENTIAL TO THESE SERVICES•
THE REPLACEMENT COST FOR ALL THESE FACILITIES WOULD
BE $30 BILLION IN TODAY'S DOLLARS•
-z -
ALTHOUGH THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT DOES PROVIDE
SOME SERVICES DIRECTLY, OPERATING 380 WATER AND
SEWAGE SYSTEMS ACROSS THE PROVINCE, OUR MAIN THRUST
HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
MUNICIPALITIES AND ASSIST THEIR EFFORTS.
OUR ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN PROPORTION TO
THE NEEDS AND RESOURCES OF A MUNICIPALITY. WE HAVE
MADE DIRECT GRANTS OF 15 PER CENT FOR MAJOR WATER
AND SEWER WORKS, AND UP -FRONT GRANTS SCALED TO A
MAXIMUM OF 75 PER CENT FOR SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES.
FOR THESE SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES, IN SOME CASES,
EVEN 75 PER CENT PROVINCIAL ASSISTANCE HAS NOT BEEN
ENOUGH FOR THEM TO AFFORD THE WATER AND SEWAGE
SYSTEMS THEY NEED.
MR. SPEAKER, I AM PLEASED TODAY TO ANNOUNCE A MAJOR
REVISION TO OUR FUNDING PROGRAM. EFFECTIVE
APRIL 1, 1985:
o PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS IN
.COMMUNITIES OF FEWER THAN 1000 PEOPLE WILL BE
INCREASED TO A MAXIMUM 85 PER CENT.
o PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS IN
COMMUNITIES WITHIN REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS WILL
BE EXPANDED•
o PROVINCIAL GRANTS FOR THE EXTENSION OF WATER
LINES IN RURAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE
FIRST TIME•
$34 MILLION IN ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES WILL BE
COMMITTED FOR THESE INITIATIVES.
I TRUST THAT WITH THIS INCREASED PROVINCIAL
SUPPORT, MANY OF OUR SMALLER COMMUNITIES WITH
LIMITED RESOURCES WILL NOW FIND THEY CAN AFFORD TOP
QUALITY MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER AND FIRST-RATE
SEWAGE TREATMENT•
WE ALSO HAVE RECOGNIZED THE PLIGHT OF SOME SMALL
COMMUNITIES WITHIN REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES WHERE
EITHER SEWER OR WATER SYSTEMS ARE INADEQUATE•
PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THESE INSTANCES FOR
GRANTS OF UP TO 60 PER CENT FOR LOCAL SERVICES.
THIS IS CONTINGENT UPON THE 25 PER CENT
PARTICIPATION OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY•
THERE IS ONE OTHER ELEMENT IN OUR NEW PROGRAM.
IN A NUMBER OF RURAL AREAS, PEOPLE HAVE DIFFICULTY
OBTAINING ENOUGH GOOD QUALITY DRINKING WATER
BECAUSE OF LOCAL GROUNDWATER PROBLEMS.
IN LAMBTON, KENT AND ESSEX COUNTIES, FOR EXAMPLE,
WELL WATER IS OFTEN SHORT IN SUPPLY AND BRACKISH IN
FLAVOUR. TO DATE THERE HAS BEEN NO ALTERNATIVE TO
A PRIVATE WELL OR TRUCKED -IN WATER FOR RURAL HOMES
IN THESE AREAS.
WE ARE NOW PREPARED TO PROVIDE GRANT FUNDING OF 25
PER CENT TO THESE MUNICIPALITIES SO THEY CAN SUPPLY
WATER TO THESE RURAL AREAS USING PLASTIC PIPE FROM
EXISTING SERVICED COMMUNITIES•
MR. SPEAKER, ALL OF THESE CHANGES IN THE GRANT
PROGRAM ARE DESIGNED TO GIVE SMALLER COMMUNITIES IN
ALL AREAS OF THE PROVINCE ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY
MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER SERVICES•
w
DURHAM
November 29, 1984
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Works Department
Please quote our ref: Re: Water System, Newtonville
As requested, I have enclosed a copy of information on the
financing of watermain construction in the Region. Please be
GEN -N-1-1 advised that the rates quoted are those in effect for 1984.
Also enclosed is a summary of the proposed cost and a possible
financing scheme. This scheme utilizes the "known" 15% grant as
the funding available from the Province. While an announcement
has been made concerning a 60% grant, the details of this grant
are as yet unavailable.
/Jw
cc: W.A. Evans, P. Eng.
Yours truly,
J. B er
Manager
Administrative Services
;Z(6)
Mr. D. Johnston
Box 623
Chief Administration Officer
105 Consumers Dr.
Town of Newcastle
Whitby, Ontario
40 Temperance Street
Canada. L1N6A3
(416)668-7721
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3A6
W.A. TWELVETREES, P. Eng.
Commissioner of Works
Dear Sir:
Please quote our ref: Re: Water System, Newtonville
As requested, I have enclosed a copy of information on the
financing of watermain construction in the Region. Please be
GEN -N-1-1 advised that the rates quoted are those in effect for 1984.
Also enclosed is a summary of the proposed cost and a possible
financing scheme. This scheme utilizes the "known" 15% grant as
the funding available from the Province. While an announcement
has been made concerning a 60% grant, the details of this grant
are as yet unavailable.
/Jw
cc: W.A. Evans, P. Eng.
Yours truly,
J. B er
Manager
Administrative Services
;Z(6)
FINANCING OF CONSTRUCTION OF A WATERMAIN
Should the construction of these services be approved by Regional Council,
the Region will require the abutting residents/owners to contribute toward
the cost of the work in the following manner:
1. Frontage Charges
This proposed construction will proceed under the legislation provided
by Section 218 of The Municipal Act. The approval of the project on
this basis will involve the passage of Construction By-laws and By-laws
to impose frontage charges on the abutting owners. These by-laws
require the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board.
The frontage charges are based on the frontage of the property and the
Regional rates for water. The frontage charge rate is an average cost
of constructing a 6" diameter watermain. These rates are revised
annually to reflect the most recent cost of construction and are used
in all instances involving the application of frontage charges
throughout the Region.
This charge will be imposed on ea
watermain construction and will b
water/sewer bill. The terms for
or over a period of twenty years.
ch owner following completion of the
P paid on a quarterly basis on the
payment of these charges are, in cash
2. Connection Charges
The Region will require each owner to pay a connection charge at the
time application is made to connect to the watermain. This charge is
payable in cash.
The rate for the connection charge is revised each year in accordance
with the costs incurred by the Region for the previous year's
installations. The rate payable will be that in effect in the year in
which application is made to connect to the water.
The connection charge covers the cost of the water connection between
the main and the property line. The portion of the connection between
the property line and the house or building is the owner's
responsibility to construct and finance.
Page 2
3. User Charges
Once a property is connected to the water system, the owner or occupant
is required tocontribute to the maintenance and operation costs of the
system through user charges. These charges, which are billed via the
Regional Water/Sewer bill on a quarterly basis, are dependent upon the
volume of water used.
It should be stressed that the Region does not raise any portion of the
water costs through property taxes. All charges which are imposed are
normally collected "at the time" or collected on the water/sewer hill.
The following is an example of the cost implications relative to a lot
having a frontage of one hundred (100') feet. The rates used in the example
are those in effect for 1984.
1. Frontage Charges
Cash Cost - 100 feet frontage @ $26.07/ft. = $2,607.00
or
Annual Payment - 100 feet frontage @ $ 3.60/ft. = $360.00 per year for
a period of 20 years
PLEASE NOTE OWNERS PAY EITHER OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS - NOT BOTH
2. Connection Charges
Standard 3/4" water connection
3. User Char
$1,250.00
Based on water consumption of 50,000 gallons $93.52
per year
NEWTONVILLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
ESTIMATED COSTS - Includina Fire Protection
TOTAL
STORAGE
WATER
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
& WELL
SYSTEM
CONNECTIONS
Wells & Ancillary Equipment
$ 157,000
$157,000
$ -
$ -
Feedermain
143,000
-
143,000
-
Distribution Mains
425,000
-
425,000
-
Hydrants
54,000
54,000
-
Connections
69,000
-
-
69,000
Standpipe
225,000
225,000
-
Sub -total
$1,073,000
$382,000
$622,000
$69,000
Estimated Allowance
161,000
57,000
94,000
10,000
$1,234,000
$439,000
$716,000
$79,000
Engineering 12%
148,000
53,000
86,000
9,000
Contingency 3%
37,000
13,000
22,000
2,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$1,419,000
$505,000
$824,000
$90,000
FINANCING
MOE 15% Grant
$ 199,300
$ 75,700
$123,600
$ -
(does not apply to
connections)
Frontage Charges
474,400
-
474,400
-
Region share
745,300
429,300
226,000
90,000
$1,419,000
$505,000
$824,000
$90,000
Utilizing past practice:
1. It is assumed the construction
cost of
the connections would be
funded from
our Current Operating Budget
($90,000).
2. The remaining Regional
share ($655,300)
would probably be debentured. A
twenty year debenture term
at 12 3/4% would
result
in debenture
payments of
$93,300, approximately,
annually.
3. The property owners share
would be debentured.
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
TO:
D.S. Johnston, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM;
R.G. Dupuis, Director of Public Works
DATE,
November 9, 1984
SUBJECT:
NEWTONVILLE WELL PROBLEM
Further to the recent discussions concerning the above, I
wish to offer the following comments for your
consideration.
Firstly, the report prepared by the consultant for M.O.E.
appears biased towards the individual well scenario. I
don't think that there is any doubt that if costs to the
individual property owners were the same, they would opt for
a communal water supply system.
oma
h7� w '
With respect to the report and bias, many pertinent issues
a� ,
have not been addressed. The importance of grouting and
roper supervision and inspection of such grouting has not
NOV 17) 190804
een sufficiently emphasized. The effect of 123 holes
rilled through the substrata, with respect to facilitating
2Y
olluted surface waters to migrate downward or with respect
ADMINIST'OR'S O'FICE
�'�
o the drawdown of the aquifer and the capacity are
inconclusive. Government regulations with respect to
distance between wells and septic systems seem to have been
ignored. All of the above would suggest that the individual
well scenario may not be viable and the fact they have not
been addressed would suggest bias.
In our discussions with the "project team" and at the public
meeting, it was never stated categorically that acceptable
water quantity and quality would continue for any length of
time beyond the initial installation. Are the involved
Government Agencies and the Newtonville residents satisfied
to take such a gamble?
With respect to estimated costs, the matter of supervision
and inspection of grouting must be accounted for as well as
the Town's costs for administering the individual scheme.
An allowance of fifteen percent for this component would be
reasonable and would bring the cost of the well scheme to an
amount equivalent to the communal well alternative.
...2
Page 2
D.S. Johnston - Newtonville Well Problem
The factor which seems to most influence the decision with
respect to a preferred scheme is the amount of Provincial
funding. In this regard, I can only comment that as
Newtonville is on the periphery of the Region of Durham, it
does not seem equitable that the residents be penalized by a
reduced Provincial contribution when just two and one-half
miles to the east, a hamlet with similar circumstances would
receive the higher rate of funding.
Further to the above, Council should take into consideration
the fact of whether the Town is really interested in
administering a well improvement scheme. From all accounts,
where this has been done in other municipalities, it has
been an administrative nightmare. The Province has no
legislation or even guidelines with respect to
administration of the program which would leave the onus on
the Town to "find its way". However, if we do get to this
stage, I would suggest a methodology similar to that
employed for tile drainage applications.
Finally, I would like to suggest a resolution which might
serve the best interests of both the Newtonville residents
and the Town:
"That in view of the fact that the effectiveness
of individual wells as a source of a safe,
adequate water supply for the Hamlet of
Newtonville is questionable, the Ministry of the
Environment be requested to establish funds to
cover at least seventy-five percent of the cost
of constructing a communal water supply system in
Newtonville".
R.G. Dupuis.
RGD:jco
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
TO: Dave Johnston, M.C.I.P., Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P., Director of Planning
DA'T'E: November 1, 1984
SUBJECT: MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT ON IMPROVEMENTS TO
PRIVATE WATER SYSTEMS IN THE HAMLET OF NEWTONVILLE
OUR FILE: OP 3.10
This memorandum shall serve as confirmation of our
discussions of October 30, 1984. In that regard, I would
suggest that any one of the alternatives proposed by the
McLaren Study would be acceptable to the Manning
Department. However, as pointed out by yourself, there may
be some technical difficulties relative to the repair of
existing private wells due to the small lot sizes and the
ability of individual home owners to meet Provincial
Regulations relative to separation distances between wells
and waste disposal systems.
It would seem to me that the simplest and most long term
solution would be the provision of a communal waterwork
system which would substantially enhance the development
potential relative to Newtonville and minimize the potential
for reoccurance of well contamination.
While the costs associated with this alternative are
substantially higher, it may be well worth it for the sake
of a guaranteed safe water supply.
I would note that in some instances, minimal well repairs
are required and those individuals may wish to remain on
private wells given the anticipated connection and frontage
charges associated with a communal system. The
recommendations of Section 9.2 are consistent with the
policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan relative to
limiting growth, however, if a municipal water system is
considered, an amendment to the Regional Plan may be
required to designate Newtonville as a Hamlet for growth.
Otherwise, development will be limited to infilling and
minor extensions to existing development.
I trust tie foregoing comments are of assistance.
T. dwards
+dip