VOLUME 1: GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
VOLUME2: MUNICIPAL SERVICING ASSESSMENT
VOLUME 3: TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
VOLUME 4: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
VOLUME 5: CONSULTATION REPORT
February 2012
Urban & Environmental Management Inc. 4701 St. Clair Avenue, Suite 301 Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 3S9
Table 4-2: Summary of ‘Net-Effects’ Evaluation and Selection of Preferred Alternative Solution for Water Treatment Plants (WTP).......................
Table 4-3: Summary of ‘Net-Effects’ Evaluation and Selection of Preferred Alternative Solution for the Water Distribution Systems (WDS)........................................................................................................36
Table 4-4: Summary of ‘Net-Effects’ Evaluation and Selection of Preferred Alternative Solutions for Water Pollution Control Plants (WPCP)......................................................................................................36
Table 4-5: Summary of ‘Net-Effects’ Evaluation and Selection of Preferred Alternative Solution for the Wastewater Collection System (WCS)....................................................................................................37
List of Appendices
Appendix A – List of Documents Reviewed
Appendix B – Municipal Servicing Infrastructure Analysis Tables
B.1.1 – Summary of Water & Wastewater Treatment Capacity & Costs for Growth in Urban Areas
B.1.2 – Details of Water & Wastewater Treatment Capacity & Costs for Growth in Urban Areas
B.1.3 – Summary of Estimated Water & Wastewater Upgrade & Expansion Costs
B.1.4 – Population Analysis to Buildout of Urban Areas
B.1.5 – 2009 Budget Requirement & Future Estimates
B.2.1 – Projected Water Treatment Plant Flows & Population in Urban Areas
B.2.2 – Summary of Watermains Not Currently Serviced in Urban Areas
B.2.3 – Water Storage Requirements for the Year 2031 Population of Urban Areas
B.2.4 – Breakdown of Water Usage by Area for the Year 2009
B.3.1 – Projected Water Pollution Control Plant Flows & Population in Urban Areas
B.3.2 – Summary of Sanitary Sewers Not Currently Serviced in Urban Areas
B.3.3 – Sanitary Pumping Stations Inventory & Capacity Check in Urban Areas
B.4.1 – Lindsay Water Pollution Control Plant
B.4.2 – Lindsay Sanitary Pumping Stations Inventory & Capacity Check
B.5.1 – Summary of Water & Wastewater Infrastructure in Hamlet Settlement Areas
Appendix C - Maps & Drawings
Appendix D - ‘Net-Effects’ Evaluation Tables
Appendix E - Technical Memoranda on Lindsay Water & Wastewater Systems
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Acronym
February 2012
Meaning
C of A (MOE provisional) Certificate of Approval
DC Development Charge
EAA Environmental Assessment Act
EA Environmental Assessment
ESR Environmental Study Report
GMS Growth Management Strategy
GTA Greater Toronto Area
GUDI Groundwater Under Direct Influence
IC&I Industrial, Commercial and Institutional
MEA Municipal Engineers Association
MOE Ministry of the Environment
OCWA Ontario Clean Water Act/Agency
O&M Operation & Maintenance
PPS Provincial Policy Statement
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SPS Sewage Pumping Station
ToR Terms of Reference
WCS Wastewater Collection System
WDS Water Distribution System
WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
WTP Water Treatment Plant
The City of Kawartha Lakes has completed a Growth Management Strategy and Municipal Master Plan to address the requirements of the Province of Ontario’s Places to Grow legislation and to establish a plan for major municipal infrastructure to accommodate growth. Urban & Environmental Management Inc. (UEM), in association with MHBC Planning Consultants Ltd., was retained by the City to undertake this project. Four (4) major components to this Growth Management Strategy and Municipal Master Plan were completed:
Volume 1 Growth Management Strategy
Volume 2 Municipal Servicing Assessment
Volume 3 Transportation Master Plan
Volume 4 Solid Waste Management Master Plan Update
An executive summary was also prepared and a comprehensive public, stakeholder and agency consultation program was undertaken during the project. The results of the consultation program are documented in Volume 5 - Consultation Report which includes meeting notes, background information, and the terms of reference for this project. This Municipal Servicing Assessment was undertaken based on the Master Plan process for municipal servicing as defined by the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (October 2000, as amended 2007):
“Master Plans are long-range plans which integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and future land use with environmental assessment planning principles. These plans examine an infrastructure system(s) or group of related projects in order to outline a framework for planning for subsequent projects and/or developments. At a minimum, Master Plans address Phase 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process”
Phase 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA planning process are simplified and summarized as follows:
• Identify problem or opportunity;
• Identify & evaluate alternative solutions to the problem or opportunity;
• Consult review agencies and the public on the problem or opportunity and alternative solutions;
• Select (recommend) the preferred alternative solution(s).
The completion of the Growth Management Strategy (GMS) was the first component of the City’s Municipal Master Plan. The primary conclusions of the GMS are:
• The City’s population is projected to grow to 100,000 by the year 2031.
• The growth projections are consistent with the Ontario Places to Grow legislation.
• Of the three (3) land capacity scenarios considered for the GMS, the preferred scenario was ‘Growth Achieving an Adjusted Density Target.’ This scenario assumes:
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes February 2012
o Intensification will meet an adjusted target of at least 30% of all new residential units locating within the built-up area after the year 2015; and
o Greenfield development will meet an adjusted density target of 40 people and jobs per hectare.
• There is enough land within the current urban boundaries to meet projected growth needs to the year 2031 and beyond.
These conclusions of the GMS provided the basis for the identification and evaluation of alternatives in this Municipal Servicing Assessment.
1.3 Municipal Class EA Planning Process
The Municipal Class EA planning process applies to municipal infrastructure projects including roads, water, and wastewater projects. For the City of Kawartha Lake’s Growth Management Strategy and Municipal Master Plan project, the water and wastewater infrastructure systems as well as the City’s transportation system have been evaluated under the MEA Class EA planning process. An update of the Solid Waste Management Master Plan has also been completed as part of this Municipal Master Plan process. Solid waste management does not fall under the Municipal Class EA planning process so the Solid Waste Management Master Plan Update was undertaken based on relevant waste management legislation. There are five (5) phases to the MEA Class EA planning process. At a minimum, Master Plans must address Phases 1 and 2:
Phase 1 Identification of the problem or opportunity
Phase 2 Identification and evaluation of alternative solutions to address the problem or opportunity
Phase 3 Identification and evaluation of alternative design concepts for the preferred solution
Phase 4 Completion of an Environmental Study Report (ESR)
Phase 5 Implementation
This report identifies the municipal water and wastewater servicing problems and opportunities (Phase 1) and it evaluates alternative solutions to establish the preferred solution taking into account public and agency review input (Phase 2). The City of Kawartha Lakes Municipal Master Plan project is being undertaken using ‘Approach #1’ as defined in Appendix 4 – Master Plans of the MEA Class EA document:
“This approach involves the preparation of a Master Plan document at the conclusion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process. The Master Plan document would be made available for public comment prior to being approved by the municipality.
Typically, the Master Plan would be done at a broad level of assessment thereby requiring more detailed investigations at the project-specific level in order to fulfill the Municipal Class EA documentation requirements for the specific Schedule B and C projects identified within the Master Plan. The Master Plan would therefore become the basis for, and be used in support of, future investigations for the Specific Schedule B and C projects identified within it. Schedule B projects would require the filing of the project file for public review while Schedule C projects would have to fulfill Phases 3 and 4 prior to filing an Environmental Study Report (ESR) for public review.”
Master Plans are subject to approval at the Municipal Council level. A Master Plan does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) unless conducted as an individual EA. The City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy and Municipal Master Plan Project is not an individual EA. However, any specific projects within a Master Plan must subsequently fulfill all appropriate Class EA requirements and individual EA requirements (where appropriate). Master Plans simply provide the framework for future decisions.
Master Plans prepared under Approach #1, as outlined above, are not subject to Part 2 order (“bump-up” to individual EA) requests. Requests for an order to comply with Part 2 of the EAA are possible only for those projects identified in the Master Plan which are subject to the Municipal Class EA planning and approval process. Under this approach, the Master Plan and the Notice of Study Completion are not required to include a statement about Part 2 order mechanisms.
The completion of Phases 1 and 2 for the water treatment systems, water distribution systems, wastewater collection systems, and wastewater treatment systems for the City of Kawartha Lakes is the overall purpose of this Municipal Servicing Assessment. This Municipal Servicing Assessment was completed based on a review of available information, including internal reports by the Public Works Department as well as a number of reports completed by others on the City’s water and wastewater systems. The review was supported by field reconnaissance, meetings and discussions with City staff, and project-related analysis work completed by UEM.
The purpose of this assessment was to provide conclusions and recommendations to assist the City over the coming years to plan successfully for growth servicing while taking into account current infrastructure needs. This includes the anticipation and management of growth within the existing urban boundaries as well as other settlement areas in consideration of municipal and provincial development planning policies, servicing standards, and financing.
The completion of this Municipal Servicing Assessment involved three- interrelated components:
1. The detailed inventory and analysis of the existing municipal water and wastewater servicing infrastructure in the City of Kawartha Lakes including a forecast of future need based on population and employment growth potential.
2. The Master Plan-level identification and evaluation of servicing alternatives to provide sufficient capacity for existing development and identified growth, taking into consideration the needs for future servicing independent of growth.
3. The identification of considerations for implementation of the preferred alternative solution(s) as well as general assessment-related conclusions and recommendations.
The primary deliverable of this Municipal Servicing Assessment was to provide the City of Kawartha Lakes with a Municipal Servicing Master Plan (Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process). A detailed inventory and analysis of existing municipal servicing infrastructure was required in order to generate the necessary inputs for the completion of the Master Plan process.
The City will eventually move to Phases 3 and 4 of the MEA Class EA planning process for some of the projects identified in this assessment and previous related reports. Therefore, the identification and evaluation of alternative design concepts for the preferred solution(s) for infrastructure renewal and growth servicing are included in this submission. This will assist the initiation of Phase 3 of the Class EA process by providing guidance and a tool to bridge the Master Plan-level evaluation with the completion of Class EA’s for specific individual projects.
The City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy and Municipal Master Plan project was completed to satisfy the requirements of the Places to Grow Act, 2005. The purpose of the Act is to enable decisions about growth to be made in ways that:
• Sustain a robust economy, build strong communities and promote a healthy environment and a culture of conservation;
• Promote a rational and balanced approach to decisions about growth that builds on community priorities, strengths, and opportunities, and makes efficient use of infrastructure;
• Enable planning for growth in a manner that reflects a broad geographical perspective and is integrated across natural and municipal boundaries; and
• Ensure that long-term vision and long-term goals guide decision-making about growth and provide for the co-ordination of growth policies among all levels of government.
The primary guidance of Places to Grow is to govern the growth rate and densities surrounding the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and in the surrounding Greenbelt area to realize a population increase estimated by the Province. The Act essentially requires that a number of municipalities in Ontario review and amend their Official Plans to update their vacant land inventories, population projections, municipal servicing plans, and development charge (DC) calculations where necessary.
The Places to Grow Act identified four (4) urban settlement areas and 30 Hamlet settlement areas in the City of Kawartha Lakes to be examined for population, servicing, and infrastructure financing. The four (4) urban settlement areas are Lindsay, Omemee, Fenelon Falls, and Bobcaygeon. The Province is directing that the City’s growth be primarily focused in these settlement areas and some of the conclusions and recommendations resulting from this Master Plan are currently awaiting or will require approval from the Province. The objectives and policies of the Provincial Growth Plan are reflected in the Growth Management Strategy and the City’s Council approved Official Plan.
Population and employment growth projections have been estimated as part of the Growth Management Strategy and Municipal Master Plan project. That work was completed by MHBC Planning in association with UEM using population, household and employment forecasts from Watson & Associates (December 2009).
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
February 2012
In accordance with the terms of reference for this assignment, the year 2031 was used as the planning horizon year for analyzing population and employment growth for municipal servicing requirements. Therefore, this Municipal Servicing Assessment was completed for the planning period ending in the year 2031. To enhance and clarify the water and wastewater system capacity analysis, in some cases, a longer time period to “build out” was used to complete the growth-related cost estimates for infrastructure upgrading and expansion.
Under the Growth Management Strategy component of the Municipal Master Plan project, the Provincial population projection for the cities outside the Greenbelt was reviewed for the City of Kawartha Lakes by municipal staff, Watson, MHBC and UEM. A detailed vacant land inventory analysis was completed for all the urban areas as well as the hamlets. Drawings were prepared for each growth area to show the vacant land inventory, development potential, and servicing requirements for the City's long-term planning, financing, and development charge analysis purposes. The vacant land inventory, municipal boundary, and population growth analysis was completed by MHBC. The vacant land inventory, municipal boundary, and population growth analysis are documented in the Growth Management Strategy (Volume 1 - GMS) component of the Municipal Master Plan. That work provided the population growth and demographic data required for the inventory and analysis of the existing and future required municipal servicing infrastructure.
The GMS was endorsed by Municipal Council on September 14, 2010. It was decided during the course of the study that the Municipal Servicing Assessment could not be finalized until the City accepted the final population growth projections for each of the four (4) urban growth areas as well as the hamlet areas. At the September 14, 2010 Council meeting, Council adopted a balanced growth approach reflective of Population Growth Scenario One described in Section 6.4 of the GMS. In March 2011, the Ministry of Infrastructure approved the City of Kawartha Lakes request for an alternative intensification and alternative designated Greenfield density target. The Ministry of Infrastructure approved:
• By 2015, a minimum of 30% of all residential development occurring annually will be within the built-up area.
• A designated Greenfield Area Density Target of 40 people and jobs combined per hectare.
An extensive public consultation process was undertaken as part of the Growth Management Strategy and Municipal Master Plan project. This included specific consultation on the Municipal Servicing Assessment. A record of the consultation process is provided in a separate volume for the overall project submission.
The approach to this Municipal Servicing Assessment was guided by the City's terms of reference for this assignment. The following summarizes the study and documentation work completed for this study to meet the project requirements:
1. Background information review
2. Field confirmation & reconnaissance
3. Vacant land inventory & population growth estimates
4. Infrastructure & servicing analysis
5. Meetings
6. Master Plan-level evaluation of alternative solutions and considerations for implementation
7. Consult review agencies, stakeholders and the public on problems or opportunities and alternative solutions
8. Select (recommend) the preferred alternative solution.
The City of Kawartha Lake’s Public Works and Development Services Departments maintain a technical library of study reports, design, construction, and operations documents. The Engineering and Water and Wastewater Divisions also maintain extensive files of drawings, regulatory compliance and correspondence on infrastructure installation, monitoring, payment, maintenance, and replacement. At the outset of this project, UEM completed a review of available consulting engineering reports that have been prepared over recent years on infrastructure renewal, expansion and operations. Directly relevant and detailed report text, tables, maps, and drawings were reviewed and assembled for reference during the remainder of the study work and beyond.
Based on that review, UEM identified other studies and documents referenced in these reports and subsequently requested these documents for review as well. City staff also provided other documents relevant to this Municipal Servicing Assessment as they were identified or became available to support this review. This included copies of other studies that were underway by City staff and other consultants such as the Lindsay-Mary Street sewage pumping station drainage area diversion and equipment upgrade and the Jennings Creek trunk sewer Class EA.
The consolidation of the Engineering and Water and Wastewater staff into one building in September 2007 provided an opportunity for City staff to consolidate the engineering report library and inventory for all of Kawartha Lakes into one Excel workbook which is now sortable by topic, date, location, subject, etc. Additional information is available in City staff environmental infrastructure project and regulatory files which were also reviewed.
The list of reports reviewed by UEM for this Municipal Servicing Assessment is included in Appendix A. This list was updated with other reports produced during this study and the database now includes over 100 documents, which will continue to be used as reference material for future projects and Master Plan updates.
During and following UEM’s review of available background information, a number of field-related tasks were completed, which are summarized as follows.
1. The four (4) urban settlement areas of Lindsay, Omemee, Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon were visited to review existing development and the layout of the primary infrastructure facilities such as water and sewage treatment plants, pumping stations, reservoirs, etc.
2. Hamlet settlement areas were also visited, particularly those with public water and wastewater treatment facilities and remaining development potential. Some of those facilities were visited with Water and Wastewater operations staff present.
3. The Lindsay WTP and WPCP facilities were toured with Operations Staff who provided additional technical information, comments on present operations, and notes on deficiencies.
4. The water & wastewater facilities in Omemee were visited. A number of reports have been prepared over the last five (5) years by City staff and their consultants (see Appendix A) to support continued upgrading and operation of the existing facilities as well as a plan for expansion to support the continued growth of Omemee
5. The water & wastewater facilities in Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon were visited with OCWA Operations Staff who provided comments on present operations and deficiencies, if any.
6. Photographs were taken and meeting notes were prepared from all major infrastructure site visits. That information is available in UEM’s project file, and select items from those files are included in this report where specifically relevant and important to this Municipal Servicing Assessment and final report.
During the review of background information and field reconnaissance of the existing municipal servicing infrastructure, work began on the GMS. Drawings were collected from the City showing settlement boundaries, potential development areas, zoning, and land parcel mapping/lot fabric information including roads and streets.
This vacant land inventory and development potential analysis was completed to ensure that each settlement/growth/urban area could accommodate their proportionate share of the total estimated City population growth. This was done using an estimated percentage increase of the existing population in each urban area relative to the development potential of the vacant land inventory. Population growth in the hamlet areas was estimated based on the vacant land inventory as well as development potential considering servicing availability.
Tables showing vacant land parcels with residential "greenfield" and "intensification" development potential in type and number of dwelling units are shown on the Master Plan drawings provided in Appendix C. Population growth potential was calculated using estimated population per unit (ppu) rates of 2.62 for single detached dwellings declining to 1.2 ppu for senior’s apartments. These population and development unit estimates were used to calculate the engineering and cost information provided on the tables in Appendix B.
An average value of 2.3 ppu is currently used in the CKL engineering standards for estimating water consumption and sewage flows for residential developments. Future water distribution and sewage collection system modelling work should consider the use of more accurate population, water consumption, and peaking factor criteria as recommended for sanitary sewer infiltration factors for Lindsay and continued flow monitoring work throughout the City. The cost of this work will be covered indirectly through savings in system construction and operation costs.
From the overall Provincially-directed City population growth rate, a total population growth of 22,500 people was estimated as the growth for the entire City of Kawartha Lakes from 2006 to the year 2031. From this total, approximately 5% of the population growth was estimated to take place in the hamlet areas based on infilling and another 27% on existing cottage conversions. The remaining population growth of 15,248 was allocated to each of the four (4) urban settlement areas based in part on the population forecasts in the 2009 City of Kawartha Lakes development charge background study and in part based on the historical distribution of population among the four (4) areas. For example, Lindsay's 2006 population was approximately 74% of the total urban population of the City of Kawartha Lakes. Lindsay is expected to experience 76% of the total estimated urban population growth from 2006 to 2031 (i.e. 0.76 x 15,984 = 11,641). This growth is reflective of the Council endorsed “Scenario 1 - Population Growth Allocations” detailed in Section 6.4 of the GMS.
The vacant land inventory and development potential evaluation completed for the GMS were reviewed relative to legislated and anticipated development densities. Development population growth was estimated for each urban area and a total was calculated for the City to match the Provincial forecast. The conclusion of this work is that pro-rating of the City-wide Provincial growth projections across the existing urban areas based on present population can be accommodated in each settlement area within the current growth boundary provided that servicing requirements can be met. This can be accomplished even without allocating growth to Omemee (presently only partially serviced). Existing and estimated future required servicing capacity was calculated and costed based on the GMS.
This servicing assessment included the following for the water supply and distribution system as well as the wastewater (sewage) collection and treatment system.
1. Available City of Kawartha Lakes’ maps, statistics, Public Works Department internal and consultant reports were reviewed, assembled, updated and converted to electronic inventory. That work was completed respecting many inventory factors including existing capacity, upgrade & expansion plans, capital budget considerations and regulatory requirements.
2. Review of known significant capacity, lifecycle condition, and infrastructural renewal issues (e.g. Lindsay WTP and WPCP deficiencies, upgrade requirements, estimated costs, etc.).
3. Review of existing water treatment plant capacity, required upgrades, and potential future expansion work to service the forecasted population growth, including estimated capital costs, where appropriate.
4. Review of existing water pollution control plant capacity, required upgrades, and possible expansion requirements to meet regulatory requirements as well as growth to 2031; including estimated capital costs, where expansion is feasible.
5. Review of existing water distribution and wastewater collection system linear infrastructure modeling results by other consultants and City staff to confirm identified deficiencies and upgrade & expansion requirements to service growth.
6. Inventory and review of water and wastewater treatment facility capacities to understand upgrade & expansion requirements to meet regulatory requirements and growth.
7. Review of existing stormwater management policies and design standards for possible future municipal requirements to manage existing development as well as to provide for growth. This includes new financing policies and corresponding GIS capabilities discussed with staff to achieve drainage servicing and other Master Servicing Plan objectives; similar to other Ontario municipalities.
Water consumption is the primary criteria for determining water and wastewater infrastructure capacity requirements and costs to service existing development as well as growth. Water flowing to customers determines treatment plant and watermain capacity and sewage flows are based on a water consumption plus inflow and infiltration.
This Municipal Servicing Assessment was completed based on previous consultant reports and their estimated sewage and water rates resulting from historical information and experience, flow monitoring results, etc. At the outset of this project, senior City engineering staff specifically requested UEM to be careful in their use of previous water rate estimates in going forward to estimate capacity requirements and servicing costs for growth. Therefore, UEM studied the water and sewage flow rate information available to estimate design criteria for future servicing requirements including peak hour flow rates for water supply and daily peaks for water distribution and sewage collection and treatment.
The dominant land use for water and wastewater infrastructure capacity is residential where accurate metering information is available to calculate per capita water consumption and therefore sewage discharge. Typically, as for other municipalities; industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) water consumption and wastewater flows were not accounted for separately in the estimated water or wastewater capacities for the overall system.
Rather, those land uses were converted to equivalent residential population and peaking factors across the entire urban area. IC&I flows are generally low compared to residential water consumption and sewage discharge based on lower land use unless there is a heavy industrial water user such as a food processing plant.
In most Ontario municipalities, even higher water consumption and sewage discharge properties such as for a school, college, or hospital are converted to a residential equivalent. Typical values on the order of 150 people per hectare plus a peaking factor are used which are about the same as for high density residential areas. Peak flow times can be different for IC&I uses, however they can occur in the morning; coincident with one of the residential diurnal peaks
A breakdown and comparison of existing water and sewage flow rate information for each urban settlement area, along with recommended design criteria for existing development and future growth servicing requirements, is provided in Appendix B. Those Excel tables were prepared to summarize the results of this servicing assessment.
The tables were also used to document the Master Plan recommendations for water consumption and sewage discharge rates for future water treatment and distribution, and wastewater collection and treatment system design, construction, and operational purposes. The rates presented are based on UEM's experience, the water and sewage data collected and reviewed for the City of Kawartha Lakes, and the RMSi water consumption figures included in Appendix B.
The drawings prepared for the vacant land inventory were updated with recent planning application information for completion of the GMS and this servicing assessment. The 19 settlement area drawings now show existing and future linear infrastructure as well as existing treatment plants, pumping stations, and reservoirs where appropriate. The drawings were designed for these reporting purposes as well as to help to meet emerging electronic file, data management, and GIS requirements; as provided in Appendix C and on the project website.
The Excel tables and the project management website set up for this project were intended to optimize reporting, analysis, readership, and data retention rather than report text. This inventory should be complete and reliable for future infrastructure review, analysis and study purposes including assistance with development charge (DC) calculations.
A number of meetings were arranged and held with City staff, the public and Project Team members to ensure accuracy and reliability of the Master Plan project information, interpretation and results. All of those meetings are documented in the Consultation Report (Volume 5). Key Municipal Servicing Assessment documentation was imported from available electronic text, drawings, and tables to the draft and final reports to summarize and interpret available information and to support the conclusions and recommendations of this report.
The detailed information generated from the analysis of existing conditions was used as the primary input for the identification and evaluation of alternative servicing solutions. The identification and evaluation process, detailed in Section 4.0 of this report, utilized a ‘net-effects’ evaluation to evaluate and compare alternative solutions to the identified problem/opportunity. A series of alternative solutions were identified for each water & wastewater servicing system in each of the four (4) urban areas including the ‘Do Nothing’ alternative.
The evaluation criteria were established to consider impacts on public health & safety, the natural environment, the social/cultural environment, and economic/financial as well as technical considerations. The tables used for the completion of the ‘net-effects’ evaluations are provided in Appendix D. The evaluation resulted in the identification of the preferred alternative solution(s) for servicing each of the urban settlement areas.
The Master Plan-level identification and evaluation of servicing alternatives to provide sufficient capacity for growth was completed based on the extensive supporting documentation available as well as the experience of the UEM Project Team. A number of considerations for implementation were identified. Although these considerations provide guidance on the selection of alternative design concepts for the preferred alternative solution(s), the considerations are not intended to, nor are they required to, satisfy Phase 3 of the MEA Class EA planning process. These considerations are intended only to provide further guidance resulting from the work completed by UEM. The considerations include general information on each municipal servicing system along with the next required upgrade, expansion, and/or study. Implementation considerations are discussed in Section 5.0 of this report.
Phase 1 of the MEA Municipal Class EA process (October 2000, as amended in 2007) requires the proponent of an undertaking to first document factors leading to the conclusion that improvement is needed, and ultimately, develop a clear statement of the identified problem to be investigated. As such, the problem/opportunity statement is the principal starting point in the undertaking of a Class EA and becomes the central theme and integrating element of the project. The statement also assists in setting the scope of the project. The problem/opportunity statement for the City of Kawartha Lakes Municipal Servicing Assessment is defined as follows:
“As a result of the Growth Management Strategy developed by MHBC it has been determined that the City of Kawartha Lakes has sufficient land capacity within existing urban boundaries to meet its population and employment growth needs to the year 2031. However, there is a need to provide infrastructure to some areas within the existing urban boundary in order to provide the necessary municipal services to allow that growth to occur. An assessment is needed to determine deficiencies in the existing servicing system and determine the most appropriate manner to address identified deficiencies and potential system expansion requirements. This assessment would also provide an opportunity to address existing deficiencies within the current system.”
Since 2001, the City of Kawartha Lakes has operated as a single-tier municipality with a centralized municipal government. However, for the land use and municipal servicing planning purposes, four (4) urban areas and thirty (30) hamlet areas were defined by the 2010 GMS endorsed by Municipal Council in September 2010. The urban areas, with the exception of Omemee, are generally on full municipal services while the hamlet areas rely heavily on partial municipal and/or private servicing for water supply and/or sewage disposal services.
The City has 21 Water Treatment Plants (WTP) and six (6) Water Pollution Control Plants (WPCP). The four (4) urban areas each have a water treatment plant and a pollution control plant. It is noted that Omemee’s water supply only services approximately 20% of the existing urban area’s population whereas the water pollution control plant and the water and wastewater treatment plants in the other urban areas serve a majority of the existing development land.
Of the 30 hamlets, nine (9) have a WTP and one (1) has a WPCP, and none of the hamlets has both. This means that none of the hamlet areas are on full services as recommended by the Province. In addition, there are seven (7) rural cluster areas that are serviced for water only and one (1) rural cluster area that is serviced for wastewater. One small rural subdivision is fully serviced. The City discourages partial municipal servicing in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and the City prefers not to assume operation of any new privately developed communal systems. In accordance with the Places to Grow legislation, future growth will be directed to areas with full municipal services. Therefore, the focus of this Municipal Servicing Assessment is on the four (4) urban areas within the City, Lindsay, Omemee, Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon.
The following sections of this report describe the water and wastewater infrastructure in each of the four (4) urban areas and the hamlets along with comments on existing deficiencies and growth servicing limitations. Details supporting these comments such as population growth to be serviced, the timing of treatment plant upgrades and estimated costs are provided on the tables in Appendix B. Schematic diagrams, references, and information regarding servicing work required to support growth is also provided in the tables along with the identification of the need for further study or engineering analysis where necessary.
Lindsay is located within the central part of the City of Kawartha Lakes approximately 140 km northeast of Toronto and 40 km northwest of Peterborough. Lindsay is serviced by Highways 35 and 7, and CKL Road 36. The Scugog River flows northward through Lindsay providing water to the Lindsay WTP. Downstream of the WTP is the effluent receiving stream for the Lindsay WPCP. Provincial and Federal environmental management issues along the Scugog River, including water quality criteria and the careful control of water levels, represent significant water and wastewater treatment costs and monitoring requirements to the City.
The Lindsay water supply, treatment, and distribution system as well as the wastewater collection, sewage pumping stations and water pollution control plant are operated and maintained by City of Kawartha Lakes Public Works staff. Of the City’s twenty (20) water and five (5) wastewater systems located outside of the Lindsay system, seventeen (17) water and five (5) wastewater systems are currently operated and maintained under contract with the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA). As the Owner of the systems is the City, the Municipal Corporation is ultimately responsible for compliance with Ministry of the Environment (MOE) regulations. Therefore, the City works closely with OCWA and MOE to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and conformance with the terms, details and conditions of the water and wastewater contract operations agreement with OCWA.
The Lindsay WTP is located in southeast Lindsay on the Scugog River. Property maps and servicing drawings for each of the urban areas and the hamlets are provided in Appendix C. The Lindsay WTP has been upgraded in with a new intake, oversized clearwell, low-lift pumping equipment, SCADA, and high-lift pumping equipment along with corresponding major building renovations.
During the completion of this master plan, it was learned from Water and Wastewater operations staff that a review of the WTP intake and low lift system design and operation should be completed. This review should be completed along with a detailed examination of the plant treatment system capacity and downstream water distribution system capacity and reservoir storage issues. The Federally controlled fluctuations in the Scugog River water level are affecting the Lindsay WTP intake. Sufficient water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution capacity is necessary to ensure the successful future servicing of the northwest Lindsay area and other developable land on the east side of CKL Road 36.
Although the WTP is currently operating below its rated capacity, there are operational concerns as to whether the existing WTP can produce the same water quality at significantly higher flows. These deficiencies should be addressed in 2012. Additional technical information on the Lindsay WTP is provided in Appendix E.
Following recent reviews and discussion, it has been decided that it is necessary to do a detailed review of Lindsay’s water treatment plant and distribution system capabilities including the possible requirements for additional trunk mains and water storage in northwest Lindsay. These technical matters as well as water consumption factors and growth considerations could affect the timing and cost of future upgrades and expansions of the Lindsay WTP.
As shown in Appendix B, an upgrade and maintenance to the filters for the Lindsay WTP might be necessary in 2011/2012; also to address a structural deficiency at an estimated cost of $1.1 million. Based on the population projections of the GMS, an expansion of the Lindsay WTP will be required in approximately 2026 at an estimated cost of $9.0 million. This cost estimate is based on historical costs, existing and approximate future required capacities, and information from the City of Kawartha Lakes environmental infrastructure costing data from the work completed for the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) Federal asset management requirements.
This estimated cost is expected to be revised/updated with the recommended 2012 study work on the entire Lindsay water system, which should also be used to estimate the growth/non-growth split on the DC for the required WTP upgrades, new trunk mains, and potential storage requirements. This study should also examine the need for additional land to accommodate the next WTP expansion.
The City has its own WDS analysis model that assesses existing capacities and gives an indication of watermain replacement requirements. It is now necessary for the City to assess capacities based on the GMS population projections. Some of Lindsay’s watermains are near end-of life, older and/or smaller than the MOE’s recommended minimum diameter and/or are constructed of unlined cast iron and/or have a best available flow less than 38 L/s (fire flow requirement); which does not conform to MOE guidelines. Ongoing replacement and upgrading of existing watermains should allow some additional distribution capacity for growth and intensification, and this WDS modeling and assessment work should be completed in conjunction with the recommended WTP 2012 study work to ensure an updated review of lifecycle needs
Extension of the existing watermain system will provide servicing for new Greenfield development. That infrastructure work will be cost shared with development and/or be included in the development charge (DC) rate.
The Lindsay WPCP site is located in the northeast industrial area of the Town immediately adjacent to the west side of the Lindsay-Ops Landfill. The existing WPCP includes recent upgrades to the headworks, screening, grinding, and grit removal systems. The facility includes outdoor earthen lagoon aeration, and concrete clarification tanks, and downstream indoor tertiary treatment including an Actiflow system similar to the WTP, followed by UV disinfection.
The WPCP site includes the former six (6) cell open sewage lagoons. The use of the lagoon area provides the WPCP and the landfill with a number of options and flexibility in stormwater management, flow equalization, and temporary storage of wet weather surplus sewage flows with return pumping, biosolids storage and site space for capacity expansion if required.
The WPCP’s design capacity of 21,500m3/day is operating at approximately 75% capacity (2008 calculation). AECOM is currently assessing the plant treatment capacity and will soon be making recommendations with respect to planning for future growth. The existing WPCP also has a number of operational deficiencies including reliability and maintenance issues associated with a one-train lagoon aeration system with aging equipment and seasonal process difficulties. Existing water quality compliance will improve as a result of the proposed aeration system upgrades. There is also a lack of proper sludge digestion among a number of other deficiencies listed in the draft Environmental Study Report (ESR)1 for upgrading the facility, and these deficiencies are currently being examined by AECOM. The upgrades are expected to be designed to allow for some growth based on the cost/benefit analysis to be completed at the design stage. Therefore, some of the upgrade costs should be included in the DC calculation.
The required upgrades to the Lindsay WPCP are under review by the City and AECOM. It is recommended that the draft ESR for the upgrades be finalized and that the City take steps to implement the upgrades in a phased approach starting with the highest priority. This Municipal Servicing Assessment has concluded that some of the recommended upgrade work will be required to accommodate some of the projected growth build-out. The need and timing of some of the other recommended work should be reviewed carefully at the design stage along with long term growth servicing requirements and estimated costs.
Similar to the WDS, there are some servicing constraints independent of growth associated with the existing Lindsay WCS (i.e. older small diameter/undersized sanitary sewers and inflow/infiltration (I&I)). These issues are being assessed through the additional modeling work that is now underway by City staff that was begun in consultation with UEM during the completion of this Municipal Servicing Assessment. This new modeling work will consider updated infiltration allowances for different areas of the City. A map showing the existing Lindsay WCS is provided in Appendix C.
Wastewater collection in the Lindsay urban area is served by nine (9) sewage pumping stations (SPS) which vary in terms of existing condition, robustness, wet weather capacity and overflows, standby power, SCADA, recent and required upgrades, etc. Flow monitoring of all sewersheds as well as a study to assess the committed capacity and infiltration of all SPS’s are needed to plan for growth. This includes the east side of CKL Road 36 where there are growth servicing constraints. Flow monitoring of the Colborne St sewershed has identified significant I&I which should be addressed. Additional information on this growth servicing constraint is provided in Appendix E (Mary St. SPS diversion). The City’s 2012 capital budget should include allowance for additional flow monitoring,
modelling, and a full review of the dry and wet weather flows and capacities of all of the SPS facilities in Lindsay. This work will allow for the servicing of developable lands/intensification opportunities and for initiating a plan for the future.
The new Jennings Creek NW trunk sanitary sewer will service the largest growth areas in Lindsay and the City of Kawartha Lakes. A number of alternatives were considered and compared by other consulting engineers for the City to facilitate growth in Lindsay as well as provide for the improved servicing of existing development in the area. At the completion of the new Jennings Creek sewage pumping station (SPS), the Uniroyal SPS will be decommissioned. The Jennings Creek SPS will be constructed about 450 m east of Hwy 35, discharging to the proposed Jennings Creek NW trunk sewer and forcemain to the existing WPCP2. This system was designed by Stantec based on their Class EA, and construction began in 2011.
Existing WCS, pumping stations, and forcemain system capacity limitations represent development servicing and intensification constraints in certain areas of Lindsay, particularly during wet weather. For example, the existing Colborne SPS facilities have had problems handling peak flows resulting from infiltration during wet weather.
A number of changes to the existing WCS are currently being planned and executed by the City based on the results of flow monitoring being undertaken by staff. One of the changes contemplated is the diversion of the Mary St. SPS to the Colborne St. SPS which will reduce risk of sewage overflows to the Scugog River and allow for growth and intensification in the southwest and southeast areas of Lindsay. This will also free up needed capacity at the Ridout SPS, however, during wet weather, the Colborne SPS would not be able to handle the additional flows. Additional work is therefore required on this part of the Lindsay sewage collection and pumping system as discussed in Tech Memo No. 4 provided in Appendix E.
Generally, the problem is seasonal wet weather flows exceeding the WCS capacity which are expensive to deal with considering the limited frequency of occurrence. At only a few times of the year, significant flow increases to the collection system and more importantly the SPS facilities can cause the capacity of the system to be greatly exceeded resulting in overflows to protect against upstream basement flooding. This is similar to other areas of the City such as Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon as well as many other Ontario municipalities.
The City should continue to monitor dry and wet weather sewage flows to determine pumping station upgrade requirements based on costs and benefits. The City should also continue their recent good study, design, and upgrade work as well as investigate the options of real-time control and on and off-line storage of wet weather flows to improve their cost/benefit performance on the WCS and wastewater treatment.
OCWA has been operating the Omemee WPCP and the Victoria-Glen WTP for the City for several years. There are a number of interrelated water and wastewater servicing issues to be resolved in Omemee to properly service existing development as well as growth which are outlined as follows.
The following WTP assumptions were stated in the Cambium Environmental 2011 Class EA Addendum to upgrade and expand the Omemee WPCP. The Victoria-Glen Water Supply System has a capacity of 664m3/day that should be able to serve approximately 1,475 persons, which is slightly greater than the current estimated Omemee population of 1,359 based on 450L/capita/day.
The WTP was upgraded in 2003 to provide improved disinfection. This groundwater supply system was never intended to serve all of Omemee, and the expansion potential of the raw water supply, treatment plant, and distribution system is uncertain and is dependent upon further studies. Presently, there is little capacity for growth on the existing water system due to the design limitations of the WTP and other existing growth supply infrastructure.
The forecasted growth population of Omemee to the year 2031 is an additional 820 persons plus an additional population of 509 identified through the City’s Planning Division. This includes vacant land development and infill/intensification provided that a number of serving issues can be addressed. City staff agree that an EA to assess the water supply should be undertaken based on the recommendations from this Master Plan and the Cambium Class EA work which is now been completed to address wastewater treatment for existing development and growth.
The Omemee WDS was not designed to service all of Omemee and was not designed for fire protection. The existing WDS only services part of Omemee and has limited capacity for growth. Design of a possible future municipal water system to service all of Omemee will be based on the results of the proposed water supply EA that sufficient and proper servicing capacity can be made available at a reasonable treatment and distribution cost per person compared to growth potential in other parts of the City.
The Omemee WPCP is located north of Omemee, on the north side of Beaver Rd. between Sibly Ave. and County Rd 7. Although the WPCP is located a fair distance from the village which limits forcemain performance, it is a good remote and well screened site that has plenty of land area for upgrading and expansion.
The Omemee WPCP has a rated capacity of 608m3/day; however, the average day sewage flows from 2006 to 2008 were closer to 690 m3/day which exceeds the design capacity of the waste stabilization pond and treatment lagoons. Due to winter storage limitations with no spray irrigation available, historically there has been an annual emergency bypass of partially treated effluent to the Pigeon River. These problems are currently being addressed. City of Kawartha Lakes Municipal Council has long recognized that these issues must be addressed in their adoption of the growth scenario that includes further development in Omemee. Council has received the 2011 ESR
Addendum for upgrading the Omemee WPCP, and the City has endorsed the Class EA conclusions and recommendations that present a large subsurface treated sewage disposal system as the preferred solution. Additionally, the Class EA work for expansion of the Omemee water supply is proposed for 2012 to address the remaining issues to include the growth approved by Council to the year 2031.
MOE previously issued an order to the City to prepare an Action Plan to reduce infiltration into the WCS by January 31st, 2006 which has been addressed. It is known from the operation of the Omemee WPCP that the existing sanitary sewer system in the village collects significant quantities of infiltration/inflow (I&I).
Work has been completed to grout and seal the collection system as well as to assess the sources of infiltration. Additional work is ongoing to quantify the infiltration to the collection system and the SPSs. There is also a significant portion of the Omemee WCS that does not have sufficient theoretical design velocity to ensure self -cleansing.3 Growth in some areas of Omemee will increase the sewage flows to alleviate this problem on some trunk sewer sections, but other more local sections have a small permanent drainage area and therefore periodic inspection and flushing should continue.
The long term water consumption/sewage discharge goal of the City of Kawartha Lakes, according to the City Design Criteria for Sanitary Sewers, is 450L/c/d or lower plus an allowance for infiltration from developed and undeveloped land. The present City-wide average is approximately 500L/c/d and the WCS in Omemee receives an average of over 600L/c/d.
The Fenelon Falls WTP and WPCP are currently operated for the City by OCWA. These systems are currently operating below their rated capacity as shown on Table B.1.2 in Appendix B. The WPCP treatment capacity as well as the sewage collection and pumping system, is about semiannually exceeded by wet weather influence. These I&I issues should be addressed; similar to the recommendations for Lindsay.
Both treatment facilities should be able to provide sufficient capacity for growth to 2031 and possibly beyond. Routine maintenance and periodic lifecycle renewal, along with minor upgrades with emerging technology, will be required for both treatment plants to continue to service existing development and growth.
The Fenelon Falls WTP is located on the east side of Cameron Lake (source water) north of the dam flowing south to Sturgeon Lake. This WTP is relatively new (major upgrade in 2000) and utilizes modern GE (formerly Zenon) membrane treatment. The WTP appears to be well designed, maintained, and capable of expansion.
The Fenelon Falls WTP and WPCP facilities are operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) under contract to the City of Kawartha Lakes. Discussions with OCWA operations staff indicate that there is a limitation in flows from the flocculation tanks to the membrane filtration that will need to be addressed to allow for growth.
It is expected that the WTP can provide sufficient treatment capacity to 2031 and beyond with minor upgrades and lifecycle renewal as might be periodically required. However, the existing WDS might not have sufficient storage to support growth, and there are other minor horizontal infrastructure deficiencies that will need to be addressed to service existing development as well as growth.
The Fenelon Falls Municipal Servicing Study Report (TSH 2004) proposed extending the WDS to presently unserviced areas in the southeast and southwest areas of the village to service existing properties as well as growth. Although the length of new watermain would be significant, the existing WTP should be able to supply the additional treated water demand.
A third river crossing has been also discussed for the south end of Fenelon Falls to connect the water system on both sides of the Otonabee River which would be valuable for supply security, improved service pressure, and better fire flow protection. However, currently there are no firm plans for a third river crossing or to extend the WDS to areas that are not currently serviced.
These issues should be reviewed in conjunction with any significant development interest or application that might be received for properties that might be affected as these works will add robustness and reliability to the existing system. The cost of this work could also be in the development charge calculations or otherwise directly attributed to future development as noted.
The Fenelon Falls WPCP is located just within the southern settlement boundary on Ellice St. and treated effluent from the plant discharges to the Otonabee River. The existing sewage treatment plant is an expanded and retrofitted facility with sand filtration tertiary treatment designed to meet stringent Sturgeon Lake discharge criteria.
The Fenelon Falls WPCP is operating below its rated capacity and should be able to support growth to approximately the year 2030 based on the hydraulic capacity of the treatment plant. However, existing sewage collection and treatment system deficiencies, primarily operational in nature, will have to be addressed to service existing development and growth. Parts of the WPCP require considerable attention and maintenance work to maintain acceptable operations. This includes the WPCP headworks (grit removal and grinding), the downstream rotating aeration equipment, and the tertiary treatment filtration system. The old and newer primary and secondary treatment sections involve different designs and different equipment with variable maintenance requirements.
These maintenance issues along with site size/property constraints and considerable wet weather loading of the upstream sewage collection and pumping system represent concerns for continued cost-effective operations, meeting regulatory requirements, and therefore growth servicing. Therefore, options to redesign and upgrade and/or relocate the WPCP should be considered in a cost/benefit analysis.
Accordingly, as shown on Table B.1.1 in Appendix C, this Master Plan recommends a significant upgrade to the existing treatment plant sometime within the next 10 years at a preliminary estimated cost of $3.0 million. Also as shown on the table, expansion of the plant might be required as soon as the year 2030 at a preliminary estimated cost of $8.0 million.
These recommended future expenditures should be compared to an alternate site if additional property cannot be acquired adjacent to the existing treatment facility for future plant expansion work and/or wet weather equalization storage. Sludge management facilities are also recommended for improved cost effective operations of the Fenelon Falls WPCP regardless of its location.
3.4.3.4 Wastewater Collection System (WCS)
Fenelon Falls has three (3) sewage pumping stations (SPS). The Francis St. SPS pumps to the Colborne St. SPS which pumps to the Ellice St. SPS. The largest SPS is the Ellice St. facility which is the main lift station for the sewage treatment facility located immediately north of the WPCP on the west side of Sturgeon Lake at the south end of Fenelon Falls.
The Ellice St. SPS currently experiences significant wet weather flows which can overtake the lift station, creating the need for routine as well as emergency attention and inspection. The upstream collection system is undersized in some areas to deliver sewage flows to the treatment plant during wet weather.
The 2004 TSH report proposed extending the WCS to presently unserviced areas in the southeast and southwest areas of Fenelon Falls. Prior to undertaking that work, the City should further characterize the extent of wet weather influence on the WCS by flow monitoring. There are no current plans by the City to extend the WCS to presently unserviced areas.
This flow monitoring work should be completed prior to taking a closer look at the existing treatment plant for upgrade costs and redesign/relocation alternatives. The City should also investigate the use of real-time control and upstream storage of wet weather flows to improve the performance of the WCS and to ensure sufficient additional capacity is available to service growth. Sludge management facilities should also be added.
Similar to Lindsay, the City should undertake a scoped technical study of the current dry and wet weather performance of the WCS and SPS facilities, including flow monitoring. Recent modeling has shown the system to be operating at capacity during wet weather. This work will assist in developing the required plans and infrastructure to accommodate future growth and estimate the DC cost-sharing component of the required work to service development.
As for Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon WTP and WPCP are operated by OCWA under contract with the City. The Bobcaygeon water consumption and sewage flow increases significantly during the summer months as a result of the influx of seasonal residents, and there are known servicing constraints with several of the SPS facilities.
As recommended for Lindsay and Fenelon Falls, the City should undertake a study of the dry and wet weather flows in the WCS and to the SPS facilities, including flow monitoring. Recent modeling has shown various parts of these systems system to be operating at capacity during wet weather. This work will assist in developing the required plans and infrastructure to accommodate future growth and estimate the DC cost-sharing component of the required work to service development.
The Bobcaygeon WTP is located on the west side of Bobcaygeon on the south side of the Big Bob River. The intake is located near the dam at the east end of Sturgeon Lake. The low lift pumps are located in the new part of the WTP and the high lift equipment is in the older part of the plant. The water treatment plant is equipped with alum injection that is flow paced. The WTP was approximately tripled in size through expansions in the 1980’s.
Some existing watermains cannot carry the minimum 38L/s residential fire flow, and the existing WDS has a few dead ends. These issues should be addressed for existing development as well as for growth. The Bobcaygeon Water System Servicing Study (TSH 2004) proposed that a second north/south connecting watermain should be installed across the watercourse to increase reliability of the system. A preliminary cost estimate and support for this project is included in this Master Plan.
The Bobcaygeon WPCP is located on the east side of Bobcaygeon on the west shore of Pigeon Lake. The treatment plant is operating within current C. of A. requirements and it has sufficient capacity to support the estimated population growth to at least 2031 and possibly beyond. The present site is physically constrained by the limited site size and surrounding residential land uses such that it may be difficult to expand the existing WPCP. Neighbours located in close proximity to the WPCP have complained in the past about periodic intermittent odours.
The Bobcaygeon WPCP is a unique design and configuration due to the small site and the bedrock immediately underlying the plant; same as the WTP. The sewers and lift station located at the WPCP site also constrain any future expansions. The City is working with MOE to address the odour concerns and is implementing a pilot project for an innovative odour removal technology in 2012.
At the WPCP, incoming sewage is lifted to the elevated headworks screening and grit removal treatment components where the flow splits and falls into two (2) parallel combined circular aeration clarifiers. These tanks overflow to the outdoor trench UV disinfection equipment prior to discharge. Sludge management is by digestion on the site and land application by a private contractor.
A series of 11 SPS facilities are used to pump sewage to downstream points on the collection system, to a downstream SPS, or directly to the WPCP. A detailed evaluation of the sewage collection and pumping system in Bobcaygeon was not completed for this Master Plan study. However, discussions with staff have indicated that there are infiltration and wet weather capacity as well as growth servicing concerns with some of the SPS facilities. Therefore, flow monitoring, modeling, and an assessment of the existing SPS capacities in Bobcaygeon should be in the City's operation plans and budget. Pumping station operation and maintenance costs should continue to be allocated to existing development through water and sewer rates, and capital costs required for upgrade and capacity expansion of the WCS and/or any SPS facilities should be cost shared with growth under the development charge bylaw.
The City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan (Section 4.1) provides the general guidance for development in the hamlets. The following summarizes the key text of this section of the Official Plan as it relates servicing:
"Directing a significant portion of new growth to the built up areas of the community through intensification. Directing major growth to settlement areas that offer municipal water and wastewater systems and limiting growth in settlement areas that are serviced by other forms of water and wastewater services.”
The conclusions resulting from the GMS are generally that upon approval from the Province, growth and development will occur largely in the four (4) urban areas of Lindsay, Omemee, Fenelon Falls, and Bobcaygeon. Accordingly, and because of municipal servicing limitations, only limited development should be permitted to occur in the hamlet areas.
This is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) which encourages development only on full municipal services. New private communal development should be discouraged unless there are agreements between the City and developers that cover operational costs and other liabilities of these smaller systems. This will require significant funds to be set aside in favour of the City, and these systems are much more expensive to build and operate on a total present value and annual cost per person basis.
Where development has been identified and/or is proposed to occur in the Hamlet areas, the approvals process should examine the site-specific suitability of individual private services. Connection to existing municipal systems is preferred where capacity is available or it can be added at a reasonable cost per person; paid for by the developer and/or covered under the development charges (DC) bylaw.
There are however vacant lands within most of the hamlet areas. Those vacant lands are included in the detailed land inventory completed for the City ’s Growth Management Strategy (GMS) – Volume 1 of the Municipal Master Plan project. The specific policy for servicing within the ‘Hamlet’ designation section of the Kawartha Lakes Official Plan is as follows.
"It is not anticipated that the level of servicing within the areas designated as Hamlet will change over the planning horizon for this Plan. Partial services may already exist and these systems may be expanded to accommodate additional lots for infilling and rounding out within the area already designated as Hamlets. The City is not looking at assuming any new communal systems. The Hamlet designation shall not be extended beyond what is shown in this Plan unless the land will be serviced by both municipal water and sewer collection systems.”
It is also noted that the MOE also has similar policies and guidelines for new development in rural areas (i.e. a strong preference for full municipal services). As well, new private or public communal systems are generally not preferred without meeting stringent environmental and technical performance, regulatory, and financial assurance requirements.
Therefore, growth, development and servicing potential in the hamlet areas are generally very limited. Where infill and development might be permitted as described above, it will be evaluated by the applicant and reviewed by the City as appropriate on ‘case-by-case’ basis, with input from MOE and the Conservation Authority as might be required.
Development is not required in the hamlet areas of the City to meet the population growth expectations of the Places to Grow legislation. Where there is feasible development potential in the hamlet areas, the planning preference should be for modern individual private water and sanitary services or connection to the public municipal systems where capacity is available.
The GMS provided mapping and a listing of the vacant land within each hamlet area for possible development. Those maps are included in Appendix C and they include an estimate of the additional lots that could be serviced on private systems based on the GMS as well as the additional information available from the development and servicing study reports previously completed by other consultants for various developers and the City.
4.1 Introduction
Phase 2 of the Municipal Class EA planning process involves the following four (4) main steps:
• Development of evaluation methodology
• Development of evaluation criteria
• Identification of alternative solutions; and
• Comparative evaluation of alternative solutions.
The result of Phase 2 is the selection of the preferred alternative solution(s) to the identified problem/opportunity.
The evaluation of alternatives was undertaken based on a ‘net-effects’ evaluation. A ‘net-effects’ evaluation considers the potential effects of the alternative (both positive and negative) relative to the evaluation criteria. When a potential effect is identified, reasonable means of mitigating the potential effect (i.e. reducing or eliminating the effect) or enhancing the positive potential effect are identified. The resulting effect is termed the ‘net-effect’. ‘Net-effects’ for each alternative are then compared to identify which, if any, alternative or alternatives can best address the identified problem.
Criteria used in the ‘net-effects’ evaluation are as follows: Table 4-1: Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Description
Public Health & Safety Effects of the alternative on public health and safety including both short and long-term considerations.
Natural Environment Effects of the alternative on the natural environment including the sustainable use of natural resources.
Social/Cultural Effects of the alternative on the social/cultural environment including land use and the ability to meet the needs of current development as well as projected growth. Legal/Jurisdictional considerations are also included.
Economic/Financial Effects of the alternative on the economic/financial environment including the capital cost of the alternative.
Technical Considerations
Technical feasibility considerations of the alternative including the ability to meet the needs of growth, to maintain the current system, and the ability to meet regulatory requirements.
Under Phase 2 of the Class EA process, all reasonable solutions to the identified problem or opportunity must be identified and evaluated, including the “Do Nothing” alternative. For the City of Kawartha Lakes Municipal Servicing Assessment, a unique set of alternatives were identified and evaluated for each of the municipal infrastructure systems including water treatment facilities, water distribution systems, wastewater treatment facilities and wastewater collection systems. Alternatives for servicing growth were identified based on a review of the GMS results. The following are the alternative solutions for each of the municipal infrastructure systems including a generalized description. A detailed description of the alternative solutions as they apply to each of the individual systems evaluated is included in the ‘net-effects’ evaluation tables in Appendix D.
1. Do Nothing – continued use of existing WTP with ongoing scheduled and other as required maintenance and repairs, but no increased capacity for growth
2. Upgrade – improve existing WTP components with some additional capacity for growth
3. Expand – provide capacity for growth by adding new components and upgrading
4. New – construct new WTP
5. Redirect Growth to another settlement area within the City.
1. Do Nothing – continued use of existing WDS with routine and special repairs and maintenance without expansion of the system
2. Upgrade – replace existing deficient watermains and improve capacity
3. Expand – increase size of watermains and expand WDS including reservoirs and pumping
4. Water Conservation – public education, increased water rates, more stringent building codes, seasonal by-laws, and system leak reduction.
1. Do Nothing – continued use of existing WPCP with ongoing scheduled and other as required maintenance and repairs, but no increased capacity for growth
2. Upgrade – improve existing WPCP components with some additional capacity for growth
3. Expand – provide capacity for growth by adding new components and upgrading
4. New – construct new WPCP
5. Redirect Growth to another settlement area within the City.
1. Do Nothing – continued use of existing WCS with routine and special repairs and maintenance without expansion of the system
2. Upgrade – replace existing deficient sewers, improve capacity, and upgrade pumping stations
3. Expand – increase size of sewers and expand WCS including pumping stations.
Based on the ‘net-effects’ evaluation process, alternative solutions were reviewed and compared under each evaluation criterion. The details of the application of each criterion to each individual municipal infrastructure system are included in the ‘net-effects’ evaluation tables in Appendix D.
The information presented in the ‘net-effects’ evaluation tables includes relevant mitigative measures where appropriate. Given that the scope of this Municipal Master Plan project is to service growth to the year 2031, the identification of ‘possibly beyond’ or ‘likely to build out’ is considered an ‘enhancement’ to any potential effect identified by the evaluation.
Summary tables, including the identification of the preferred alternative solution(s) are presented in tables 4.2 to 4.5. For each infrastructure system in each urban settlement area, both reasonable solutions and preferred alternatives are presented. ‘Reasonable solutions’ are those solutions which are able to address the identified problem/opportunity whereas the ‘preferred alternative’ is the solution recommended for implementation based on the result of the ‘net-effects’ evaluation. For some systems multiple ‘preferred alternatives’ are recommended. This reflects the fact that over the planning period multiple solutions may need to be implemented to address the identified problem/opportunity. A summary of the ‘net-effects’ evaluation is as follow.
Of the five (5) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that four (4) of the alternatives are reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” alternative is able to provide sufficient capacity to approximately 2018 and is therefore the preferred alternative in the short term
The “Upgrade” alternative, which is primarily increasing the low lift pump sizes, should provide sufficient capacity to approximately the year 2026 and is therefore the preferred alternative in the medium term. The “Expand” alternative, through measures designed to increase treatment capacity and pumping, will provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out and is therefore the preferred alternative in the long-term. The City should confirm these estimated years and corresponding service populations with additional technical analysis work at the Lindsay WTP.
It was determined that “Upgrade” and “Expand” alternatives would create no significant ‘net-effects’ to the natural environment, and that ‘net-effects’ to the social/cultural environment would exist only if additional land is required to expand the WTP. This alternative would involve rebuilding the older part of the WTP and/or an expansion of the existing facility.
The fourth alternative evaluated, the construction of a “new” plant would also address the identified problem. Although it is a reasonable solution, it is more expensive and would require new land with potential additional natural environment and social/cultural effects.
Therefore, a new plant was not identified as a preferred alternative. The fifth alternative evaluated was “Redirect Growth to other Settlement Areas”. This alternative is not preferred because of higher net servicing costs in other settlement areas. The detailed ‘net-effects’ evaluation tables are provided in Appendix D.
Of the four (4) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that three (3) of the alternatives were reasonable solutions to the identified problem. Under the “Do Nothing” alternative, without upgrading or expanding the existing WDS, growth would be limited to some Greenfield and sites and infilling areas. Additional modeling would also be required to confirm that any significant new development populations or densities could be serviced on the existing system. There would also continue to be service pressure and fire flow deficiencies (Appendix B, Table B.2.3 - list of deficient watermains), and on drawing in Appendix C). “Do Nothing” is therefore not a reasonable solution and is therefore not a preferred alternative, even in the short term.
An “Upgrade” of the existing WDS by replacing deficient watermains will remove growth restrictions within the existing built boundary area, and will provide some additional capacity to about 2018. However, replacement of existing deficient watermains will not adequately address the needs of Greenfield areas where expansion of the system is required. “Upgrade” is therefore the preferred alternative in the short to medium-term only, and again, additional modeling would be required to confirm available capacity for Greenfield and/or infill developments.
The “Expand” alternative includes new trunks and increasing the size of old watermains where necessary; to be determined with additional modeling. Expansion of the WDS will be paid for largely by the adjacent growth to be serviced under development agreement and/or the DC. This will allow for growth to 2031 and possibly to build out, and is therefore the preferred alternative in the short and long-term.
The primary area for the future expansion of the WDS will be in northwest Lindsay, to be facilitated by the new sanitary trunk sewer. Additional reservoir storage might also be required in this area, and the corresponding cost allowance has been included in this Master Plan for the next DC calculation. This area of Lindsay should be studied in more detail for the required trunk watermain servicing, flow and pressure requirements, and additional costs potentially beyond the capability of individual developments for inclusion in the DC.
There are potential ‘net-effects’ associated with “Expand” including effects on the natural environment from potential watermain crossings of watercourses. The fourth alternative evaluated was ‘Water Conservation” and it was determined that this alternative alone cannot address the identified problem, but will serve to enhance the other alternatives. This alternative is also preferred, and will result in positive ‘net-effects’ with implementation.
Of the five (5) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that four (4) of the alternatives were reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” alternative is not acceptable as projects, primarily operational in nature, are already planned for the facility to correct identified deficiencies and meet regulatory requirements.
An “Upgrade” of the WPCP, is currently planned as necessary to provide additional capacity for existing development and growth. AECOM is currently working on the needs study for the existing WPCP which will determine the work required for plant capacity expansion to service growth to be covered under the DC.
This WPCP needs study will determine if expansion is necessary to provide capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out, and is therefore the preferred alternative in both the short and long-term. The study has confirmed that the plant is presently operating at approximately 74% of capacity which indicates that the necessary engineering work should continue on an upgrade and possibly expansion.
The proposed upgrade will include replacement of the existing aerated lagoon with a 2-train aeration system. This will improve treatment operations, worker safety, plant robustness, and system redundancy. This project and other corresponding upgrade work might enable the WPCP to handle higher flows from wet weather and growth.
Additionally, there are a number of other positive ‘net-effects’ associated with the “Upgrade” alternative including odour reduction, provision of a more reliable and robust aeration system, and improved sludge management. “Upgrade” is the preferred alternative in the short-term and longterm because improvements to the aeration system are needed as soon as possible, and the upgrade projects will also add some capacity for growth i.e. it might delay any significant expansion requirements and associated capital costs. Although the “Expand” and “New Facility” alternatives are also reasonable solutions to the identified problem, it was determined that the “Upgrade” alternative could address the identified problem with limited ‘net-effects’ and therefore is determined to be the preferred alternative.
A fifth alternative was also evaluated: “Redirect Growth to other Settlement Areas”. Although this is a reasonable solution, net servicing costs are higher in the other settlement areas, and the existing plant requires upgrading in any event. The upgrade can also inherently include capacity for growth as noted above. Therefore, "redirect growth" is not a preferred alternative.
Of the three (3) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that all three (3) of the alternatives are reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The Jennings Creek NW trunk sewer is not included in the “Do Nothing” alternative because this sanitary project is underway, but it will not be able to provide sufficient wet weather relief and/or capacity for growth in other areas.
Under the “Do Nothing” alternative, growth would be very limited to some Greenfield and intensification areas where servicing capacity is available as there would continue to be surcharging of sanitary sewers and other deficiencies in some developing areas. “Do Nothing” is not a preferred alternative in the short-term as work is required to assess the WCS capacity.
An “Upgrade” of the existing WCS by replacing deficient sewers and upgrading pumping stations will remove growth restrictions in some existing built and developing areas, but will not adequately address the needs of all Greenfield and infill areas. Accordingly, “Upgrade” is a preferred alternative in the short to medium-term, and it should be preceded by the recommended flow monitoring and system capacity analysis work. It should also include the required pumping station upgrades along with real-time control and/or storage in some areas to manage wet weather flows for improved servicing of existing development as well as growth.
The “Expand” alternative, including increasing the size of trunk sanitary sewers, controlling or storing of wet weather flows, and expanding the sanitary sewer system will allow for growth to 2031 and possibly to build out. “Expand” is therefore the preferred alternative in the long-term.
There are limited potential negative ‘net-effects’ associated with “Expand” where watercourse crossings are required. These impacts will be offset by reducing potential wet weather overflows which will be possible with expansion of the WCS and upgrading of the existing SPS facilities.
Of the five (5) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that three (3) of the alternatives were reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” alternative would include the continued use of the existing Victoria-Glen WTP with ongoing maintenance and repair.
There are a number of significant potential ‘net-effects’ associated with the “Do Nothing” alternative such as existing private wells going bad or dry without an alternate water supply. Fire protection is not available off private wells, and the existing Victoria Glen piped water, which is capable of fire protection, only covers part of the existing urban area.
This problem has been addressed in the short-term with Council approval of a plan to use pumper trucks, however the “Do Nothing” alternative is still the preferred alternative in the short-term only
The “Expand” alternative would include increasing the size of the WTP by adding a number of new groundwater supply wells. This alternative is dependent on future hydrogeological/water supply studies and corresponding availability of a suitable water supply. If studies determine that there is adequate groundwater at an acceptable quality, the “Expand” alternative should provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out.
The recent Class EA addendum/update completed for the Omemee WPCP has recommended an EA for water supply and distribution for this urban growth area which is now proposed. If sufficient groundwater quantity and treatable quality is not an issue, then “Expand” is the preferred alternative in the long-term.
If studies determine that there is not adequate groundwater or it is not of an acceptable quality, the preferred alternative in the long-term might be to “Redirect all future growth to the Lindsay urban area”. In any case, cost-effective solutions for wastewater treatment and water supply should continue to be pursued to address existing servicing deficiencies, and when solutions are determined, they will provide cost-effective capacity for growth as well.
It was determined that an “Upgrade” to the Omemee WTP is not a reasonable solution because the existing treatment plant would have to be expanded to provide piped water services to growth and/or existing development on wells. Construction of a “New Facility” was also evaluated, however, it was determined that the “Expand” alternative was preferred over a “New Facility” if adequate water supply quantity and reliable quality can be confirmed.
The primary ‘net-effects’ of the “Expand” alternative are associated with an expanded facility, site, and construction of new groundwater wells. Because of source water protection legislation, there could be land use restrictions associated with new well heads; all of which would be examined by the proposed Class EA.
Of the four (4) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that three (3) of the alternatives were reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” alternative is not able to meet the needs of servicing standards or the projected population growth outlined in the GMS. Therefore, “Do Nothing” is not a preferred alternative, even in the short-term.
The “Upgrade” alternative involves minor improvements to the existing WDS to address current deficiencies respecting MOE guidelines and water servicing standards regarding dead end watermains, looping for supply security, and assurance of required water quality and pressure. There are no significant ‘net-effects’ associated with this alternative, and is therefore the preferred alternative in the short-term.
The “Expand” alternative, including new watermains, reservoirs and pumping stations, will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out if an adequate treatable water supply can be confirmed under the Class EA proposed by staff and recommended in this Master Plan. “Expand” is therefore the preferred alternative in the long-term.
The fourth alternative evaluated was “Water Conservation”. It was determined that this alternative alone cannot address the identified problem due to the limited number of homes connected to the existing piped water system. However, City-wide water conservation programs should be considered, and are presently being reviewed by staff to enhance all of the other water and wastewater servicing alternatives. Loss of revenue has been identified as a potential concern, however, long-term environmental benefits and system costs should cover the resulting net cost/revenue analysis.
Of the five (5) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that four (4) of the alternatives were reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” alternative is not a reasonable solution because the plant is currently out of compliance respecting specific regulatory requirements including rated capacity.
An ESR addendum has been completed for cost-effective upgrading of the existing Omemee WPCP which will address regulatory requirements as well as provide servicing for growth which has been endorsed by Municipal Council. ‘Upgrade’ is therefore the preferred alternative solution in the short and long-term. Although ‘Expand’, a ‘New Facility’, and ‘Redirect Growth’ are considered reasonable solutions, these are not considered preferred alternatives because the ‘Upgrade’ alternative is able to provide sufficient capacity to 2031.
All three (3) alternatives evaluated were determined to be reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” alternative is able to provide sufficient capacity to meet current requirements and provide capacity for growth in most areas, however growth would be limited to a few Greenfield and infill areas. There would also continue to be wet weather overloading of some sanitary sewers and other system capacity deficiencies in certain areas. The “Do Nothing” is a preferred alternative only in the short term.
An “Upgrade” of the existing WCS has recently been completed by grouting and sealing of some sewers to reduce infiltration. Two (2) SPS facilities are being upgraded in 2012 along with replacement of the associated forcemain.
Servicing options are also being assessed for those areas not currently serviced. “Upgrade” of the existing sewers and pumping stations, where required, will provide some additional capacity for growth to approximately the year 2031. However, this will not address all of the servicing needs of growth, and the City is planning to incorporate the remaining developable lands in their proposed and recommended flow monitoring, capacity, infrastructure upgrade, and DC cost sharing studies.
Therefore, “Upgrade” of the existing WCS is the preferred alternative in the short to medium-term. The scope of work for this alternative will be determined by the recommended flow monitoring and WCS modeling work to address wet weather capacity and sewer surcharging issues. The “Expand” alternative includes increasing the size of specific trunk sewers and expansion of the collection system where required to allow for growth to 2031 and beyond.
These projects are the preferred alternatives in the short and long-term, now that a cost-effective sewage treatment solution has been found, recommended, and endorsed by Municipal Council. There are no significant negative ‘net-effects’ associated with these preferred alternatives; rather only positive benefits.
Of the five (5) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that all five (5) of the alternatives were reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” alternative, which includes routine maintenance work to meet current needs, will provide sufficient water treatment capacity in the short-term without any significant capital requirements for existing development or growth. Therefore, “Do Nothing” is the preferred alternative in the short term.
The “Upgrade” alternative could involve improvements to the intake, clear-wells and low-lift pumps. There is also a minor WTP internal service and possible capacity issue on the movement of water from one plant process to another, and OCWA and the City are aware of this issue. The “Upgrade” alternative should provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out with limited or no ‘net effects’.
It was determined that although the “Expand” and “New” alternatives could address the identified problem, they were not considered preferred alternatives because the “Upgrade” alternative could address the problem to the end of the 2031 planning period and beyond, with limited or no ‘neteffects’ and much lower costs.
The final alternative “Redirect Growth” is considered to be a reasonable solution to the identified problem because redirecting growth to Lindsay is possible under current growth scenarios. However, this is not a preferred alternative because sufficient capacity can be provided through the “Upgrade” alternative with limited or no ‘net-effects’ and redirecting growth to other urban settlement areas of the City is not always achievable based on market preference.
Of the four (4) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that three (3) of the alternatives were reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” is not a reasonable solution because it will limit growth in a number of areas. Also, under the “Do Nothing” alternative, there will continue to be pressure and fire flow deficiencies in some existing serviced areas.
The “Upgrade” alternative will remove limitations on the existing developed areas and will improve system performance for expansion. However, since the “Upgrade” alternative will not adequately address system requirements for growth in most Greenfield areas, it is a preferred alternative in the short-term only.
The “Expand” alternative will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out and is the preferred alternative in the long-term. It is recommended that the City proceed with reviewing the need for a third river crossing. There are however no current plans for expansion or for extension of water services to existing development on private wells. ‘Net-effects’ associated with the “Expand” alternative are associated with potential impacts on the natural environment as a result of a possible new crossing of the Otonabee River in the future and/or other watercourses.
The fourth alternative evaluated was ‘Water Conservation”. It was determined that this alternative cannot alone address the identified problem, but can serve to reduce stress on the existing system. Water conservation measures are currently being reviewed for viability in all areas of the City. This could be done through the water rate structure and other conservation programs that consider potential costs and benefits. “Water Conservation” is considered a preferred alternative only if implemented in conjunction with the other preferred alternatives.
Of the five (5) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that all of the alternatives are reasonable solutions to the identified problem. This includes consideration of the ongoing repairs to the tertiary treatment process.
The “Do Nothing” alternative will provide sufficient capacity to approximately the year 2019, although additional upgrade work may be required in the shorter term. The upgrade of the tertiary treatment system has the benefit of increasing regulatory compliance certainty by improving the quality of treated sewage discharge from the WPCP. The “Do Nothing” alternative is only a preferred alternative in the short term.
The “Upgrade” alternative includes modernization of certain components of the aeration system and implementing improved wet weather flow management which should provide capacity to about the year 2030. The “Upgrade” alternative has the added benefit of providing further certainty in the ability of the WPCP to service future growth. “Upgrade” is the preferred alternative in the mediumterm.
The “Expand” alternative will provide sufficient capacity to build out and therefore is the preferred alternative in the long-term. However, the “Expand” alternative might require additional land for expansion of the plant and possibly wet weather storage/flow equalization. This could result in ‘neteffects’ on the social/cultural environment.
Although the “New WPCP” and “Redirect Growth” alternatives could be considered reasonable solutions to provide capacity to 2031 and beyond, it was determined that the “Expand” alternative is the preferred alternative solution for the long-term because the “Expand” alternative can address the identified problems with limited ‘net-effects’ provided that the required property can be acquired.
Of the three (3) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that all of the alternatives are reasonable solutions to the identified problem of maintaining a reliable level of service to existing development as well as providing for growth. The “Do Nothing” alternative is able to provide sufficient capacity to approximately 2020 for the entire system, but growth would be limited to select Greenfield and intensification areas. “Do Nothing” is the preferred alternative in the short-term only. Recent modeling has indicated that there is no additional capacity available in the existing WCS, as presently configured, beyond that already committed. Work to confirm this is planned to occur in 2012.
As noted above for Lindsay and Bobcaygeon, flow monitoring of the existing WCS and further study of sewage flows to the three (3) existing SPS facilities is required to determine system upgrade requirements to service existing development and growth. This study work will also be used to determine the DC component of the necessary infrastructure work.
The “Upgrade” alternative will provide limited additional capacity beyond 2020. This alternative would involve improving wet weather sewage flow management with online storage and/or real-time control, and is considered a preferred alternative because it will improve system performance for existing development and growth.
The “Expand” alternative is able to provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond and is therefore the preferred alternative for the long-term. The most significant ‘net-effects’ associated with the “Expand” alternative are the potential effects associated with possible watercourse crossings of the expanded WCS. There are, however, no current plans for expanding the WCS to presently unserviced areas within the urban growth boundary or constructing a new river crossing which might be required in the future to service growth.
The inventory and analysis of the existing City of Kawartha Lakes municipal servicing infrastructure determined that there are no significant capacity issues at the Bobcaygeon WTP. Therefore, although all alternatives would be considered reasonable solutions, the “Do Nothing” alternative is able provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and likely beyond, and is therefore the preferred alternative in the short and long-term.
Of the four (4) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that all four (4) of the alternatives can be considered reasonable solutions to the identified problem. The “Do Nothing” alternative does provide some capacity for growth but does not address the identified issues of water loss or future capacity requirements for growth, and is therefore not a preferred alternative.
There are also potential negative ‘net-effects’ associated with the “Do Nothing” alternative such as low pressure in the distribution system which could limit growth in the southeast area of Bobcaygeon which is possibly creating the current pressure and potential fire flow deficiencies. The reason for the low pressure is presently being addressed through the water loss investigation program being conducted in 2011/2012. Depending on the results of that program and other growth servicing requirements, additional work should be completed to assess the potential requirement and estimated cost of a second river crossing.
The “Upgrade” alternative will remove limitations for new “infill” development to be tied to the existing built system. However, the “Upgrade” alternative will not adequately address system requirements for growth in most Greenfield areas. The “Upgrade” alternative is a preferred alternative in the short to medium-term only.
The “Expand” alternative will allow for the servicing of infill and Greenfield areas and will provide servicing capacity to the year 2031 and beyond. This alternative will be paid for largely by growth under specific development agreement and/or the DC. Therefore, the “Expand” alternative is the preferred alternative in the medium to long-term. Possible ‘net-effects’ associated with the “Expand” alternative include potential impacts on the natural environment associated with watermain crossings of the Big Bob River.
The fourth alternative evaluated was ‘Water Conservation” as water loss has been identified as a problem in the WDS. Prevention of this loss through upgrades to the system is a major component of addressing the identified problem. “Water Conservation”, specifically system leak reduction, is a preferred alternative for immediate implementation.
The inventory and analysis of the existing City of Kawartha Lakes municipal servicing infrastructure determined that there are no significant capacity issues for the Bobcaygeon WPCP. However, there are known water level and SPS operational issues related to infiltration and wet weather flows that need to be addressed to ensure that the WPCP does not exceed the MOE certificate of approval.
The “Do Nothing” alternative is able to provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and likely beyond, and is therefore the preferred alternative in the short and long-term. Although all solutions are considered reasonable and would be able to address the problem/opportunity, they are not considered preferred alternatives because the “Do Nothing” alternative is able to provide sufficient capacity. There are no negative ‘net-effects’ associated with the “Do Nothing” alternative.
Of the three (3) alternatives evaluated, it was determined that all of the alternatives are reasonable solutions. The “Do Nothing” alternative is only able to provide for current capacity and will limit growth to existing serviced areas and draft approved/committed areas. “Do Nothing” is therefore the preferred alternative in the short-term only. As noted above, the Bobcaygeon WCS system is at capacity in a few areas; hence the recommended flow monitoring and corresponding system capacity analysis study work. This work will also determine DC requirements. The “Upgrade” alternative will provide limited additional capacity but is considered a preferred alternative because it will improve system performance for expansion. This includes upgrades to some of the existing SPS facilities.
The “Expand” alternative is able to provide sufficient capacity for growth servicing to 2031 and possibly beyond. Locations where new sanitary sewers are required to service existing development and growth are shown on drawings included in Appendix C. Therefore, the “Expand” alternative is the preferred alternative for the long-term. Potential negative ‘net-effects’ associated with the “Expand” alternative are those associated with possible watercourse crossings. The recommended water conservation program is also a preferred alternative as discussed above for the other urban areas.
The following Tables 4.2 to 4.5 provide a summary of the detailed ‘net-effects’ evaluation tables which are included in Appendix D, and should be read in conjunction with the detailed written summary provided in Section 4.5. Tables 4.2 to 4.5 identify reasonable solutions and the preferred alternative solution(s) for each municipal servicing system in each urban area. Reasonable Solutions’ are those alternatives which are able to address the identified problem/opportunity whereas the ‘Preferred Alternative’ is the solution recommended for implementation based on the results of the ‘net-effects’ evaluation. In some cases, multiple preferred alternatives are identified. This reflects the need to implement various solutions over the planning period (i.e. to 2031), and where possible, to facilitate and provide for build-out of the designated urban/settlement areas.
Table
Water
A number of considerations have been identified for implementation of the preferred alternative solutions for growth servicing. They are based on the results of the detailed inventory and analysis of the existing municipal servicing infrastructure, upgrade requirements to meet regulatory concerns, and expansion requirements to service growth. This Master Plan-level identification and evaluation of servicing alternatives should provide sufficient technical planning and budget guidance for growth at reasonable if not the lowest possible costs and therefore reliable and affordable development charges (DC).
Although these implementation considerations also provide guidance on the selection of alternative design concepts for the preferred alternative solution(s), the considerations are not intended to, nor are they required to, satisfy Phase 3 of the MEA Class EA process; rather only assist with that future analysis for approval of the required servicing works. These considerations include general information on each of the water and wastewater infrastructure system requirements as well as the projected next required facility upgrade and/or expansion. The details regarding existing system capacities, assumptions for growth servicing, and estimated costs are provided on the tables in Appendix B.
In this section of this report, use of the terms ‘Upgrade’ and ‘Expansion’ differs slightly from the definition used above in the ‘net-effects’ evaluation. The term ‘upgrade’ refers primarily to operational improvement and lifecycle renewal work. Coincident with this work, some capacity ‘expansion’ typically takes place for budget, design, contract, and construction convenience and cost savings reasons.
The term ‘expansion’ is used to categorize plant work that is undertaken mainly to accommodate population and employment growth (i.e. increased flows and other future demands on the system). Expansion projects also usually include operational improvement and lifecycle renewal work which benefits existing users. Expansions are typically larger projects in terms of scale and overall cost compared to upgrades.
Therefore, the majority of the-cost sharing for upgrade work belongs to existing ratepayers whereas expansion cost-sharing belongs more to growth. As these projects are somewhat complicated in terms of cost sharing between growth and non-growth, some additional analysis may be required to calculate a reasonable allocation of upgrade and expansion costs to development charges.
Given the scope and scale of the infrastructure projects reviewed, examined and/or recommended by this assessment, the lead time required for approvals, design, and construction has been confirmed as an important factor to consider for the implementation of the preferred solution(s).
Lead time is the amount of time required to plan for and implement the preferred alternative solution(s) to ensure that the infrastructure required to support growth does not lag behind the population and employment growth that it is intended to service. Facilities and infrastructure need to be planned for and implemented before the existing system reaches capacity, otherwise a development freeze can occur.
Lead time required for infrastructure development can vary based on the scale of the project, the driver of the project (i.e. regulatory requirement or growth capacity) and/or whether the project is a maintenance activity, upgrade, or a larger scale expansion to the facility/infrastructure system. For major work, a minimum project development lead time of 1 to 2 years should be assumed.
In conjunction with the GMS and the overall Master Plan project, the City of Kawartha Lakes is also undertaking a review and update of its DC bylaw. That DC work is being undertaken by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for the City. The recommendations developed in this Municipal Servicing Assessment, including the capital cost estimates provided in Appendix B, will be provided to Watson for updating the DC bylaw.
In this implementation discussion, UEM has provided some commentary as to whether components of the upgrade/expansion capital cost estimates should be DC eligible, and possibly to what extent. This discussion is provided for general information only, and the final decision on DC eligibility of capital cost as well as growth/non-growth cost-sharing will be with the City based on Watson’s review, report, and final recommendations.
The GMS forecasts for the Lindsay urban area can be accommodated to approximately the year 2015 when additional water storage might need to be added. There are a number of design options to resolve this minor growth-related deficiency such as expansion of the existing reservoir. The storage, transmission, and distribution options available for growth in this urban area should be examined as part of the WTP and WCS study recommended above.
A minor upgrade to the WTP is expected to be completed in 2011 for structural repairs. Another larger scale upgrade is expected to be required in approximately the year 2018 for additional flocculation and low lift pumping capacity, and possibly Scugog River water level and/or Trihalomethane (THM) management (Table B.1.1; Appendix B). New development and intensification within the existing growth boundary could then be serviced by the upgraded WTP to approximately the year 2026 and possibly beyond. This will depend on the extent of work to be completed with the larger upgrade and study recommended as well as the actual growth to take place. As with all similar facilities, the plant will require periodic assessment for sufficient water treatment and distribution capacity with other minor upgrades and equipment replacement as might be necessary.
Overall, the existing WTP has sufficient capacity for approximately 15 years and possibly longer depending on regulatory other minor upgrade requirements. The timing of the next major upgrade/expansion beyond the imminent capital work will depend on actual growth rates and potential new regulatory requirements; including financing such as DC. Water conservation programs, including recent updates to the building code, such as for lower water use bathroom fixtures, will mitigate the overall water demand from the Lindsay WTP. Rate revenues will decline, but so should capital and operating expenditures through the additional asset management.
The timing of the WTP upgrade work might also be dependent on potential changes to the Ontario regulations on THM which Public Works operations staff are currently addressing to fine-tune water treatment quality, capacity, and reliability issues. Considerable technical, cost, water quality, and equipment information is available for the Lindsay WTP and WDS.
Notably, this includes the 2004 TSH Water Servicing Study, the 2007 KMK Class EA, and the 2007 TSH Water Distribution System Model. The extensive work completed with these models should be revisited on an asset management basis for improved cost/revenue analysis.
The various criteria used in these reports as well as the actual design information for the most recent WTP upgrade (2006) has led to some inconsistency in the analyses and therefore uncertainty in the estimated timing and cost of the next required plant upgrades and future expansion. Water consumption and sewage discharge design criteria have been reviewed for this Municipal Servicing Assessment as requested by the City. This report has attempted to update the water consumption and sewage flow design criteria for each urban area as shown at the bottom of Table B.1.2 in Appendix B.
The primary uncertainty in the forecast for the next expansion is the historical (previous reports) allowance for unaccounted/unmetered treatment plant water usage/consumption, which is estimated at 20%. The MOE guideline and other Ontario experience is 5% of maximum day flow. Previous study work has used water consumption rates varying from 391 to 417 L/c/d.
These numbers could indicate a plant expansion requirement as early as the year 2018 rather than a simple upgrade. However, discussions with plant operations staff and other factors such as increasing water billing rates, building code requirements, and recommended water conservation/education programs have also been considered for the upgrade/expansion timing schedules and estimates presented in this report. Public Works staff are also planning a water loss investigation program in 2012 based on metered water production versus consumption data which has been found to range significantly in Lindsay as well as other areas serviced in the City.
Based on the water production and consumption rate analysis work completed for this report, UEM is recommending an allowance of 390 L/c/d with a peaking factor of 1.9 for future WTP and WDS design and growth capacity analysis purposes. These parameters, along with the MHBC population projections, suggest water storage expansion will be required in approximately the year 2015.
A study of the future capital needs of the WTP and associated infrastructure is recommended in 2012. The study will determine when the next WTP expansion required and what upgrades will be necessary to accommodate growth. Preliminary estimated cost of $9.0 million is shown on Table B.1.1
As the current design standards differ from the above recommendations for the plant, and metered consumption could continue to be variable in the future, additional water production and metering analysis work should be included in the recommended study to compare consumption and plant pumping rates to confirm the next required upgrade and/or expansion year and corresponding budget.
The City of Kawartha Lakes has its own WDS analysis model. It is recommended that this model be reviewed in detail to assess existing capacities and recommendations made to allow for future growth. A comprehensive plan based on the GMS population projections, condition analyses of older pipes, and local development/intensification servicing requirements is necessary. This includes the northwest Lindsay area where additional WDS planning, analysis, and design work is required; including cost estimates for DC calculations.
A number of lengths of Lindsay’s watermains are near end-of life and/or smaller than the MOE recommended minimum 150mm diameter as summarized on Table B.2.2 in Appendix B. Replacement of existing older 100mm pipes with new 150mm pipes will improve the overall performance of the system for intensification and growth servicing. Replacement of these pipes will also improve system performance and reliability to existing customers.
Deficient watermains will need to be replaced and increased in size to improve the overall performance of the system as well as remove possible growth restrictions within the present urban boundary area. Watermain renewal work and expansion of the WDS, where required, will allow for growth to 2031 and will remove possible growth restrictions on Greenfield and intensification areas.
In particular, a plan to transmit water from the WTP to the future growth areas of Lindsay needs to be implemented. Deficient watermain work will be largely paid for by water rates (i.e. existing development) whereas expansion and/or over sizing of new watermains will be paid for by growth under the DC.
The existing WPCP is aging and has deficiencies rendering the treatment process less reliable with an increasing amount of maintenance requirements and safety concerns. Notably, this includes the existing one-train lagoon aeration system with outdated equipment and seasonal (winter) process operating difficulties.
Other deficiencies include single waste activated sludge pumping, a lack of proper sludge digestion and disposal systems and high wet weather sewage flows due to I&I. Several other deficiencies are listed and addressed in the draft ESR4 prepared in 2008 for the Class EA study required for upgrading the facility. AECOM is presently updating their previous ESR work with a needs study of the existing WPCP.
Much of the recommended upgrade work is required regardless of growth and the upgrade work will be designed to also support the population forecasts of this Master Plan project and therefore be eligible for growth-related funding assistance from DCs. The Class EA planning process should be completed as soon as possible to confirm City budget and DC requirements as well as proceed with the work recommended in the ESR, needs study, and this Master Plan.
As outlined above, the Lindsay WPCP should be upgraded in the near future for operational as well as growth reasons. The estimated costs of updating and addressing the deficiencies outlined in the draft ESR are significant, and some of the work could be staged based on budget as well as technical priority considerations. The recommended upgrades that are needed to ensure treated water quality and worker safety regulations should be the first priority with careful budgeting for the related and remaining work.
The previous draft ESR work for the Lindsay WPCP is being updated with recommendations supported by cost/benefit and cash flow considerations. Completion of the immediate planned upgrade, with possibly growth servicing for +/- 20 years, could result in no significant additional work being required to the year 2031 and probably beyond. Biosolids issues will require ongoing best management practices work and possibly some major capital expenditures associated with digestion.
Similar to the WDS, the existing Lindsay WCS has some existing servicing constraints without consideration of intensification or growth. Review of the wastewater model and pumping rates, notably flows to and from the Mary St. and Colborne St. SPS facilities, has confirmed that additional study work is required to determine the needs of each sewershed and SPS to accommodate growth and wet weather.
Updated system capacity for existing development and growth will be assisted by the ongoing flow monitoring work. Updated infiltration allowances have been recommended by UEM for different areas of the City which will affect the timing and estimated cost of planned and future WCS upgrade and expansion work.
The proposed Jennings Creek northwest Lindsay trunk sanitary sewer system is a very important economic development project which will service the largest growth area in the City. In separate studies by AECOM and Stantec, a number of alternatives have been considered and compared by the City to encourage and facilitate new development in north and west Lindsay. The proposed trunk sewer location, estimated costs, and phasing plan all appear reasonable respecting the objectives of this Master Plan.
The existing west Lindsay trunk sanitary sewer system has no remaining capacity to service additional development. The new Jennings Creek sewage pumping station (SPS) is proposed to be located east of Hwy 35 as planned. Forcemain discharge of this growing system to the existing sewage treatment plant should be considered in the DC calculation.
Lindsay is currently serviced by nine (9) sewage pumping stations which vary in terms of age, existing condition, robustness and reliability, wet weather capacity and overflows, standby power, SCADA, recent and required upgrades, etc. The City is on a long-term program of monitoring and upgrading these facilities and the work recommended in this report will include the infrastructure needs and cost estimates of the work required to service existing development and growth.
The proposed diversion of the Mary St. SPS to the downtown trunk sewer and the Colborne St. SPS should be completed in such a way as to provide sufficient capacity for continued growth and intensification in the southwest and southeast areas of Lindsay. In addition to changing the forcemain discharge location, additional work is likely required on the downtown trunk sanitary sewer as well as at the Colborne Street SPS. This diversion is currently being reviewed, and the recommended flow monitoring, I&I assessment work, and WCS capacity evaluation and corresponding remedial work is necessary to confirm the proper configuration for this part of the Lindsay sanitary sewage collection system.
The ongoing capacity upgrading, I&I reduction, and lifecycle renewal program for the existing WCS in conjunction with a recommended capacity study to be implemented in 2012 will continue to address capacity limitations and potential corresponding growth/intensification restrictions. Expansion of the existing WCS will be required to provide sufficient capacity to 2031.
In addition to the proposed Jennings Creek trunk sewer, other local sewers will be required to service Greenfield and intensification development to be determined in conjunction with expected subdivision and site plan servicing applications. Estimating costs for upgrading and expansion of the WDS and WCS for all of the urban settlement areas is difficult because of the variability in system condition and the particulars of development applications and corresponding servicing requirements. The recommended capacity study work for 2012 and beyond will address expansion needs and cost estimates of DC and public work needed for infrastructure renewal and growth revenues.
The structure and rate calculations for the City of Kawartha Lakes DC bylaw take into account the differentiating between City-wide and local DC rates. Area specific DC studies for linear (water distribution/sewage collection as opposed to treatment) infrastructure are appropriate to ensure fair and reasonable cost sharing between growth (DC eligible costs) and non-growth (water rate system financing).
The recent ESR addendum for the Omemee WPCP concluded that the existing WPCP can be upgraded at a reasonable cost. Accordingly, the City should have capital budget allowance for important related development servicing work for a new Class EA to investigate additional groundwater supply and treatment feasibility for expansion of the existing Victoria-Glen WTP. If this can occur, the Omemee WDS can and should be expanded to service the remainder of the Omemee growth boundary.
Similar to sewage collection and treatment, existing WDS servicing limitations should be addressed and additional capacity provided for growth if a reasonable cost local water supply solution can be found (i.e. without piping treated water from Lindsay). The expected potential to combine these servicing solutions suggests that Omemee could be a valuable regional growth opportunity at a reasonable servicing cost which should be far less than incurred to date.
An upgrade of the existing WTP will not adequately address the identified problems of the existing water supply and distribution system; mostly based on the size of the existing plant relative to the ultimate service area. Expansion of the existing Omemee WTP requires confirmation of sufficient available and good quality water which has been recommended by Cambium Environmental to be investigated under a new Class EA. Subsequent expansion of the WDS system is expected to proceed if adequate water supply and treatment can be provided, which is expected, especially now that a feasible solution to upgrading the existing WPCP has been identified.
The existing Victoria-Glen water treatment and supply system operates well within its rated capacity. However, the existing piped water treatment and supply system has a small service area, and is therefore unable to provide sufficient capacity to meet the needs of growth. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005), regarding development and the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan, recommends full municipal services where piped water service could gradually be provided to existing development on private wells if possible.
An upgrade of the existing WTP and WDS will not address identified servicing requirements for growth. Expansion of the existing WTP and WDS along with water storage will be required to provide capacity to service identified growth areas to the year 2031 and beyond unless private water wells are approved. These projects are conditional that a sufficient treatable water supply quantity can be found.
Sewage flows to the Omemee WPCP intermittently exceed the hydraulic design capacity of the plant which has been periodically out of compliance respecting Pigeon River discharge criteria over the last few years. This occurs when the winter lagoon storage accumulation volume exceeds capacity, which then requires an emergency seasonal discharge.
The original (2007) ESR5 to address these deficiencies was revisited by UEM and Associated Engineering as part of this Municipal Master Plan project. Based on that review, additional confidence was provided to City staff and Council that the existing WPCP could be upgraded at a reasonable cost without pumping sewage back to Lindsay.
In 2010, Cambium Environmental was retained by the City to prepare an addendum to the ESR to upgrade the Omemee WPCP. The ESR addendum, completed in early 2011, and adopted by Municipal Council, identified that the preferred solution is a minor upgrade and reconfiguration of the existing sewage treatment facility along with a new subsurface disposal system. This option was selected as the preferred solution due to low capital costs as well as the low impact on the natural, social, economic, and cultural/heritage environments.
The Cambium solution for the recommended upgrade of the Omemee WPCP is a modular system that can be expanded as growth occurs. The current upgrade/expansion is expected to provide growth capacity to approximately 2018 – 2021 at an estimated cost of $0.92 - $1.5 million with a subsequent upgrade required to provide capacity to 2031 at a similar cost.
This work is a priority and should be completed as soon as possible to meet MOE regulatory requirements and best municipal environmental management practices. As this work will also provide capacity for growth servicing, a portion of the Omemee WPCP upgrade costs should be included in the DC calculation as well as the studies to determine additional servicing requirements for growth.
The rehabilitation work on the Omemee sewer system should continue to reduce I&I which is currently being assessed through flow monitoring. The two (2) existing SPS sites and equipment are scheduled to be upgraded in 2012 to provide additional WCS operating improvements as well as to allow for growth.
According to the Cambium study, the Omemee WPCP can be successfully upgraded at a low cost. The study also recommends a local water supply/treatment system feasibility and Class EA investigation in order that growth can be entirely supported in accordance with the GMS.
The WTP rated capacity should be sufficient to provide for the required growth capacity to the year 2031 and beyond with minor repairs and upgrades. However, the existing water supply and distribution system may not have sufficient storage to support all of the growth estimated in the GMS.
Upgrade work will be required at the Fenelon Falls WTP in approximately 2015 to address some minor plant operating deficiencies at a preliminary estimated cost of $1.0 million as shown in Appendix B. This budget is for upgrading the treatment process to move water more effectively through the plant between flocculation and the membrane filtration process. Following this upgrade, the Fenelon Falls WTP will have no significant anticipated growth servicing requirements through to 2031 and possibly to build out. A long-term capital budget estimate of $5.0 million has been identified in Appendix B for upgrading/expanding the Fenelon Falls WTP to service to build out.
In the past, the City examined plans for extending the WDS to presently unserviced areas in Fenelon Falls. This would connect any remaining water well users to the municipal water system as well as provide for growth servicing of the existing vacant land areas inside the urban boundary.
There are no firm plans or City budget currently identified for this work which is expected to be driven largely by and cost-shared with growth. A third river crossing in the southeast area of Fenelon Falls might be feasible to improve system reliability, watermain pressure for servicing, and fire flow protection for existing development and growth. Expansion of the existing WDS will provide growth servicing capacity to the year 2031 and beyond.
The Fenelon Falls WPCP is operating within its existing capacity and should be able to support growth to approximately the year 2030. There are existing treatment system deficiencies, which will have to be addressed independent of growth. The existing WPCP is site constrained, and additional property or relocation of the plant will be required in the future unless technology enables a smaller treatment plant footprint and I&I issues can be addressed through flow monitoring, wet weather equalization storage, and/or real-time control.
An upgrade of the Fenelon Falls WPCP will improve aeration, and is needed for overall plant and tertiary treatment performance, and wet weather flow management. And, this short term work is not expected to provide the required growth capacity beyond 2031 without a plant expansion or at least another major upgrade. As noted in the report by AECOM (May 2009), expansion of the Fenelon Falls WPCP might be required before the year 2031. It is necessary to assess, and remediate where possible, infiltration into the WCS during wet weather events that impacts the WPCP. Alternately an upgrade is recommended within the next 5 or so years to address mechanical (tertiary treatment & aeration) and possible regulatory concerns on wet weather.
Flow monitoring and leak detection is planned by City staff for 2012. If the existing tertiary treatment, growth capacity, regulatory compliance, and wet weather issues cannot be addressed as part of the recommended upgrade by approximately the year 2015, then some development limitations might have to be implemented in Fenelon Falls related to wet weather flow management and tertiary treatment at the WPCP. Therefore, on the order of $3.0 million should be included in the City's capital budget planning for the recommended upgrade possibly as soon as 2015, and this cost should be reasonably proportioned between existing ratepayers and growth through the DC.
Similar to the WDS, the City has considered the extension of the WCS to presently unserviced areas in the southeast & southwest of the urban area which would also service some of the vacant land inventory and designated growth areas. As for much of the City's other water/wastewater infrastructure, growth will develop new DC, property value assessment, and water/sewer use ratepayer revenues to subsidize otherwise necessary upgrades and lifecycle capital renewal requirements. There are however no current plans by the City to extend the water or sewage collection system to presently unserviced land within the urban area.
The Ellice St SPS is at capacity during significant wet weather events. Flow monitoring for rateserviced flows and wet weather influence is necessary for a capacity check on the WCS and SPS undertaken in 2012 to know what upgrades to the system are needed to accommodate growth.
Expansion of the Fenelon Falls WCS would serve currently unserviced areas as well as growth which might gradually be required prior to 2031 to provide sewers and sufficient capacity for growth. This would contribute DC revenues and/or cost-sharing opportunities to expand the system as well as increased water and sewer rate revenues. As for northwest Lindsay, an area rating study should be completed for the WDS and the WCS to identify DC requirements for new linear infrastructure.
Upgrading of the existing WCS and WPCP is required in the shorter term to address wet weather flows, treated sewage discharge criteria to attend to existing tertiary treatment system reliability and performance concerns, and to service growth. Again, real-time control and/or equalization storage of wet weather flows is probably required to ensure the ability of the system to meet regulatory requirements as well as provide sufficient capacity for growth.
5.2.4.1
The Bobcaygeon WTP can provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and beyond as shown on Table B.1.1. (Appendix B). The WTP site is somewhat property constrained, however additional capacity should be able to be added at a reasonable cost for buildout of the urban area without a new plant being required.
No expansion of the WTP is therefore expected to be required to provide sufficient capacity to 2031 or possibly beyond based on the population growth projections completed for the GMS. Table B.1.1 also shows that approximately $1.0 million should be included in the City's short and mediumterm budgets to address WDS leakage and/or minor upgrades to the existing WTP.
The Bobcaygeon WDS residential per capita demand of 645 L/c/d is high, and some existing watermains cannot carry the minimum 38L/s residential fire flow. The existing WDS also has some dead end connections and reliability issues which should be addressed for existing development as well as growth.
Public works’ staff has compared water production and consumption monitoring results which suggest that a significant amount of water has been lost in recent years from the WDS. Another watermain crossing of the River is needed for supply security, minimum pressure/service requirements, and fire flow depending on growth.
The Bobcaygeon WPCP is presently operating within current C. of A. requirements. The existing treatment plant has sufficient capacity to support the estimated population growth to at least 2031 as shown on Table B.1.1 (Appendix B). Operational upgrades are contemplated for approximately the year 2013 and 2015, and the estimated cost for odour removal technology is $125,000.
Expansion of the plant is not expected to be required to provide capacity to the year 2031 or beyond. The flow monitoring and WCS capacity analysis work recommended above will help to avoid hydraulic overloading of the plant.
Some sewers within the system do not have minimum self-cleansing velocities. However, much of the WCS has capacity for growth with the exception of a number of the sewage pumping stations.
It is recommended that a capacity study of the WCS and all 11 SPS facilities in Bobcaygeon be undertaken in 2012 to determine what upgrades are necessary to allow for growth. Upgrading and expansion of the WCS will gradually be required over a number of years depending on the nature and timing of development applications to service infill and Greenfield areas.
Similar to the other three (3) urban areas, sewer flow monitoring should continue in Bobcaygeon to assess I&I, wet weather flow influence on available capacity, and requirements for upgrading SPS’s. Some of the existing SPS facilities should be upgraded with new flow control and monitoring technology with additional capacity added to accommodate wet weather flows and growth.
The hamlet areas were not inventoried or analyzed to the same degree as the urban areas. However, in most areas where further infill might be expected, there are significant municipal servicing limitations for water supply and distribution, sewage collection and treatment, and drainage/stormwater management. Accordingly, the following provides general guidance and considerations for servicing rural settlement areas.
• Growth and infilling can be permitted in the hamlet areas within the existing designated settlement boundaries based on the mapping and inventory work completed for the GMS, this Municipal Servicing Assessment, and the overall Municipal Master Plan project.
• Development in the hamlet areas is preferred on full municipal services and if it is determined that sufficient capacity is available. Where full services are not available, multiple unit developments should be discouraged. Private individual services are recommended and communal services could be used “where the soil and groundwater conditions will support development”. However, these types of servicing proposals must be evaluated on a case-bycase basis where the responsibility for determination, including financing and environmental performance, will all reside with the developer and/or building permit applicant.
• Therefore, growth, development and servicing potential in the hamlet areas are generally very limited. Where infill and development might be permitted as described above, it will be evaluated by the applicant and reviewed by the City as appropriate on ‘case-by-case’ basis, with input from MOE and the Conservation Authority as might be required.
• Development is not required in the hamlet areas of the City to meet the population growth expectations of the Places to Grow legislation. Where there is feasible development potential in the hamlet areas, the planning preference should be for modern individual private water and sanitary services or connection to the public municipal systems where capacity is available.
• All required technical information for the development and/or building permit application will be the responsibility of the proponent. Development agreements and building permits can be drafted for review and approval based on confirmation of suitable available servicing to be fully evaluated by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the City on a case-by-case basis.
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
February 2012
• In accordance with the Class EA planning process; hamlet area building permit applications and servicing plans would be exempt from Municipal Class EA planning requirements given that the applicant will be required to follow the requirements of the Planning Act and the Building Code to achieve development, servicing, and construction approval.
To update and complete this report, we have reviewed the City capital budget relative to the information and recommendations provided in this Master Plan. The following table summarizes the draft 2012 capital budget for those items discussed in this report that will include some provision for growth capacity and servicing and are therefore eligible for at least partial DC financing.
CKLWater&WastewaterCapitalProjects
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
February 2012
The above table therefore updates and supersedes the 2011 capital budget able and other cost estimates provided in the appendix which were included in previous draft versions of this municipal servicing assessment report. These capital budget items have been reviewed and discussed with the City of Kawartha Lakes Public Works and Engineering staff and the estimated costs have been confirmed. There are also a number of local watermain and sanitary sewer projects in the capital budget which might also be considered for partial DC funding where there are adjacent intensification/growth opportunities. Otherwise, these types of local improvement/servicing expansion projects can be completed by or assessed to potential development properties.
The following are the conclusions resulting from the Municipal Servicing Assessment component of the Growth Management Strategy and Municipal Master Plan project.
The GMS provided the following reliable direction for the Municipal Servicing Assessment:
1. The City of Kawartha Lakes population is projected to grow to about 100,000 by the year 2031.
2. Growth projections are consistent with the Ontario Places to Grow (P2G) legislation.
3. Three (3) land capacity scenarios were considered and the preferred GMS scenario is ‘Growth Achieving an Adjusted Density Target’, which assumes:
• Intensification is estimated to meet an adjusted target of at least 30% of all new residential units locating within the built-up area after the year 2015; and
• Greenfield development is estimated to meet an adjusted density target of 40 people and jobs per hectare.
Provincial and City population & employment growth forecasts for the four (4) urban areas of Lindsay, Omemee, Fenelon Falls, and Bobcaygeon can be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundaries in each location as long as full municipal servicing can be provided. Development is not required in the hamlet areas to meet the Province’s Places to Grow legislation. However, development and intensification in the hamlet areas could generate valuable revenues to, and employment in, the City provided that proper water and wastewater servicing and building code requirements can be met.
1. The prior work completed by City staff and other engineering consultants for the servicing of the urban and hamlet areas was reviewed in the preparation of this report. Only a few updates were made to adjust the timing of development servicing requirements and preliminary estimated costs as presented on the tables in Appendix B.
2. A detailed analysis of existing water & wastewater facilities was completed based on:
a. A comprehensive review of the extensive library available from the Public Works and Engineering departments including reports by other consultants, infrastructure operation and maintenance manuals, maps & drawings, and other file information requested where available and important to understand the system.
b. A sufficient level of inspection of the existing water & wastewater facilities and infrastructure to anticipate growth servicing requirements and estimated costs.
c. A sufficient level of understanding of infrastructure operational needs, upgrade recommendations, and expansion requirements that was gathered from the other consultant reports available from the public works library, UEM experience, and the extensive meetings, discussions, and e-mail correspondence that took place with City staff. This allowed for a reliable estimate of existing system capacities, growth servicing requirements, and estimated costs for this Master Plan and DC recommendations.
3. Inherent with operational improvements that are completed, planned, or underway (i.e. upgrades) is ongoing work associated with implementation of new monitoring and energy savings technologies, regulatory requirements, lifecycle renewal needs and opportunities, etc.., that typically provide additional capacity to service existing development as well as some growth in certain areas.
4. The following conclusions were reached based on the ‘net-effects’ evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the identified problem/opportunity of providing sufficient capacity to 2031 and addressing current deficiencies in the four (4) urban areas of Lindsay, Omemee, Fenelon Falls, and Bobcaygeon.
• WTP – the preferred alternatives are to “Do Nothing” in the short-term, continue monitoring plant performance and regulatory requirements, needs study in 2012/2013, upgrade in approximately 2018 which will provide capacity to 2026, then expansion of the treatment plant which will provide capacity to 2031 and beyond. There are a number of deficiencies and capacity concerns at the existing WTP that need to be addressed beginning in 2012.
• WDS – the preferred alternatives are to continue flow and pressure monitoring, system modeling, and replacing deficient pipes on the existing system. Expansion of the distribution system based on development servicing requirements should provide sufficient capacity for existing development and growth to the year 2031 and beyond. Northwest Lindsay should be studied in more detail to identify the preferred solutions for adding storage, determining trunk watermain locations and capacities, transmission of water to the area and reviewing development cost-sharing and infrastructure investment opportunities and DC requirements.
• WPCP – the preferred alternative is to plan for upgrades to the existing sewage treatment plant which should provide capacity to 2031 and beyond. The 2008 draft ESR should be updated and completed as soon as possible to address treatment reliability, sludge management, infiltration and other long-term performance requirements.
• WCS – the preferred alternatives are to continue sewer and SPS flow monitoring and upgrades, modeling with the recommended new I&I criteria, and replacement/renewal of old and/or deficient sewers. This will provide some capacity for growth. Expansion of the WCS to service growth, including the proposed Jennings Creek northwest trunk sewer, represents opportunities to free up capacity on the existing sewer system for infill development and intensification including the existing downtown Colborne St. SPS trunk sewer.
• WTP – the preferred alternative is “Do Nothing” only in the short-term while new feasibility study and ground water investigation work is completed for additional water supply for treatment and delivery to the growth areas within the existing urban boundary. A Class EA should be undertaken for expansion of the Victorian-Glen WTP if sufficient water quantity and quality can be found. This work and the proposed upgrading of the existing WPCP are major projects that are necessary to provide sufficient water and wastewater capacity to service existing development and the GMS growth potential to the year 2031 and possibly beyond. If increased water supply quality/quantity cannot be assured for the growth potential of Omemee, then unless water is supplied by private wells, the preferred alternatives in the long-term are to supply treated water in a pipeline from the Lindsay WTP or redirect Omemee growth potential to the other three (3) urban areas.
• WDS – the preferred alternative is to upgrade and expand the existing water distribution system as soon as possible which would provide capacity to 2031 if an acceptable water supply can be found.
• WPCP – the preferred alternative is to upgrade the existing WPCP to meet regulatory requirements based on the 2011 Cambium ESR Addendum. This alternative can be phased to service existing development and growth to the year 2031 and possibly beyond. The phase(s) and WPCP costs required to service all of the GMS growth potential can be delayed until the expanded municipal water supply solution is finalized.
• WCS – the preferred alternatives are to “Do Nothing” in the short-term, upgrade the existing WCS including pumping stations to improve performance and provide capacity for growth, and proceed with expansion of the sewer system when a final water supply and treatment solution is determined.
• WTP – the preferred alternatives are to “Do Nothing” in the short-term, then undertake a relatively small upgrade which will provide capacity to at least 2031.
• WDS – the preferred alternatives are to upgrade in the short-term to remove limitations on the existing development areas, then undertake a gradual expansion of the WDS to service specific development applications which will allow for capacity to be provided for growth to 2031 and beyond.
• WPCP – the preferred alternatives are to “Do Nothing” in the short term which should provide capacity to about 2019, and then complete an upgrade which should provide capacity to approximately 2030, provided that wet weather flows can be better managed and/or reduced. A subsequent expansion might be needed within the next 20 years, and additional property adjacent to the existing WPCP might be required to provide capacity to 2031 and beyond.
• WCS - the preferred alternatives are to “Do Nothing” in the short-term, then undertake upgrades to improve system performance and provide additional capacity for growth, with possible subsequent expansion of the system to provide growth servicing capacity to 2031 and beyond.
• WTP – there are no capacity issues, therefore the “Do Nothing” alternative was determined to be the preferred solution, along with routine monitoring and upgrades, to provide servicing capacity for growth to the year 2031 and beyond.
• WDS – the preferred alternatives are to upgrade in the short-term, then undertake investigations to address concerns associated with water loss and to remove growth limitations on some infill areas. Expansion of the distribution system will be undertaken over time to service specific development applications which will deliver upgrades and improvements to the existing system and contribute financially through the development agreement cost-sharing and/or the DC. This will provide additional system capacity for growth to 2031 and beyond. A second watermain crossing of the river should be considered for improved system performance, supply security, and growth capacity reasons at the appropriate time based on flow and pressure monitoring which should also continue to address present water loss concerns.
• WPCP - there are presently no capacity or compliance issues, therefore the “Do Nothing” alternative, along with routine monitoring and upgrades, was determined to be the preferred alternative for servicing growth to 2031 and beyond.
• WCS – the preferred alternatives are to undertake flow monitoring and system modeling to assess and determine required SPS capacities and upgrade requirements, then undertake required SPS and sewer system modifications to improve WCS performance for expansion, followed by a gradual expansion of the collection system to service growth to the year 2031 and beyond.
In a number of locations in the City, private wells are used to provide water supply to private landowners and others connected to the existing municipal distribution system such as the Victoria Glen water supply system in Omemee. Threats to these well water systems include fluctuating water levels and overall hydrogeological supply concerns as well as potential water quality problems with issues like nitrates and Coliform; often resulting from GUDI. The City of Kawartha Lakes’ municipal well supply systems are carefully monitored by the City and/or their contract operator, OCWA, in accordance with municipal and Provincial regulations, policies, and guidelines. Opportunities to improve and/or provide new or upgraded water supply capabilities are noted where appropriate in this report and appendices. This includes Omemee where this Master Plan recommends budget for Class EA work for water supply, treatment, and WDS study to expand the existing Victoria-Glen public system to existing private well water users and growth areas.
Most of the hamlet settlement areas and other non-urban settlement areas are serviced by private wells which are not the responsibility of the City of Kawartha Lakes. There is limited overall development potential in the hamlet areas because of water and sewer servicing limitations.
1. A comprehensive City-wide water conservation and education program is recommended in this Master Plan to benefit all stakeholders. Reducing demand (although reducing revenues) will have important secondary benefits such as reducing flows through the WDS and to the wastewater collection and treatment systems which will assist in reducing system capacity requirements and estimated costs for growth as well as infrastructure lifecycle renewal costs.
2. Available pre-design report information, environmental compliance reports, and other infrastructure monitoring data were reviewed to support the results of this Master Plan. In some cases, lower than historically used, measured and/or recent estimated water consumption and sewage flows have been used to calculate remaining capacity allowances for growth based on professional judgment, other Ontario experience, and corresponding anticipated future trends; as shown on Table B.2.1 in Appendix B.
3. The actual expected future design criteria for water supply and wastewater flow are expected to decline based on customer environmental awareness, increasing costs and therefore user rates. System design criteria are also expected to reduce over time from new technology and corresponding building code amendments in water fixture design, installation, and operations as well as the positive impacts expected to result from the recommended water conservation and education program.
4. The implementation of major infrastructure projects requires sufficient lead time for predesign, design, approvals and construction to avoid potential capacity limitations. Those situations should be avoided for a number of reasons such as development constraints and/or freezes which will result in reduced development charges, property assessments, and user rate revenues to finance infrastructure requirements based on the GMS work for the population and employment growth projections.
5. This Municipal Servicing Assessment was completed based on numerous assumptions related to population, growth and employment projections, land availability, existing servicing capacity, estimated capital costs, and a number of other related factors such as water/wastewater facility inspections and reports.
6. Regular review and update of this information will ensure that this Master Plan remains current and useful for guiding infrastructure and development timing, reducing capital expenditure requirements and operating costs, and increasing growth and net revenues from user rates.
The following recommendations are provided based on the results of the Growth Management Strategy (GMS) and the overall Master Plan project completed in conjunction with that report.
1. Population growth Scenario One of the GMS, as endorsed by Municipal Council, should be accepted as the basis for the evaluation of municipal servicing capacity and alternatives for growth in the City of Kawartha Lakes. The conclusions and recommendations of the GMS were adopted by Council resolution in September, 2010. The GMS was reviewed by the Ministry of Infrastructure and an Alternative Residential Intensification and Alternative Designated Greenfield area density target were approved. This will improve the reliability of the required updates to the DC bylaw and rate calculations.
2. The conclusions resulting from the Master Plan-level identification and evaluation of water and wastewater servicing alternatives should be accepted as the City’s preferred infrastructure system plan for the planning horizon period ending 2031. Periodic updates should be completed for this Master Plan; also as recommended. The following additional recommendations are also provided.
3. For Lindsay, these are the primary municipal servicing and growth recommendations:
a) Assessment work should continue on Scugog River water levels and Trihalomethane’s (THM’s) for the next WTP upgrade. That ongoing work should include a condition analysis and detailed inventory of all of the assets of the existing WTP as well as raw water supply and treated water quality, treatment costs, etc.
b) The Draft ESR for the WPCP upgrade should be finalized as soon as possible so that the necessary work can be implemented in the required sequence according to operational priority and estimated costs. The study will determine whether the WPCP upgrade will be capable of supporting growth in Lindsay to beyond the Master Plan study horizon year of 2031 with overall net growth revenues to the City, and some of the recommended work is DC eligible.
c) The Jennings Creek northwest trunk sanitary sewer project is expected to generate new employment and other economic development revenues to Lindsay and the City of Kawartha Lakes by servicing land for future development. During the completion of this Municipal Master Plan, concern was expressed regarding variations in the population and growth density numbers in the GMS for the northwest area of Lindsay to be used for design of the trunk sewer.
(i) The City should continue to proceed with the construction of the Jennings Creek trunk sanitary sewer collection and pumping system based on total estimated population growth in the drainage area rather than individual development densities or yield. Estimated total individual area populations to be serviced will be the main criteria for determining the timing of phases and costs of this major infrastructure investment to accommodate existing development and anticipated population growth as detailed in the GMS.
(ii) Small adjustments to the final numbers in the GMS and/or future measured or experienced growth rates will not substantially change the estimated timing or cost of the anticipated infrastructure upgrade and expansion projects evaluated and presented in this Municipal Servicing Assessment.
(iii) The GMS analysis and discussion of possible variations in land use density will assist in selecting the most appropriate population and sewage flow criteria for design of the trunk sewer. Extra capacity is typically available in the design and operation of new trunk sanitary sewers based on a number of factors such as conservative water consumption and peaking factors, long-term expected declines in water consumption and sewage flow, and the extra capacity available from acceptable standard operating in-system available storage, minor surcharging, etc.
d) For growth and WCS optimization, upon review and acceptance of the Mary St. SPS EA and diversion to the Colborne St. SPS, the upgrade project should proceed as soon as possible. The Colborne St. SPS should also be upgraded to include the best available performance management technology given its importance to Lindsay sanitary servicing. Flow monitoring, I&I reduction, and updated modeling work should continue to examine opportunities for adding vacant land and intensification growth capacity as well as equalization storage and wet weather controls to at least this part of the existing sewage collection system.
e) Additional modeling work should be completed on the Lindsay sanitary sewer system to add the new service areas expected from vacant land development and intensification growth. This modeling work should vary the infiltration rate across three (3) zones in existing and future development areas for the old, postwar, and newer development areas of Lindsay to confirm available capacity and/or system improvement requirements.
f) The City should consider the development and implementation of real-time control for the Lindsay sewage collection and pumping system beginning with the Colborne St. SPS drainage area. Additional SCADA-type work will be required to support this initiative.
g) The City is currently investigating options for the removal of biosolids presently disposed in the existing lagoons. The City should work closely with Sir Sandford Fleming College, existing service providers and consulting engineers, and others interested in providing new solutions for optimum management of sewage biosolids and other wastewater treatment technologies that should be considered in the future.
4. For Omemee, the following water/wastewater servicing activities are recommended:
a) The City should investigate the provision of a full-service municipal water supply system to all existing and future residents and employment locations in Omemee.
b) Design of a water system to service all of Omemee should be based on the completion of the proposed Class EA to assess available water supply and expansion of the WDS. The Class EA should review reasonable estimated water treatment and distribution costs per person compared to growth potential in other parts of the City.
c) The work to upgrade the WPCP should continue to consider future dry and wet weather sewage flows, equalization storage requirements, and winter snowmaking using the existing spray irrigation system to assist the treatment facility meet regulatory and growth servicing requirements. Recent completion of the ESR and plans for upgrading the existing Omemee WPCP facility are supported by and consistent with this Master Plan.
d) The existing Omemee Victoria-Glen WTP should be examined for cost effective expansion potential along with the planned corresponding groundwater investigation and hydrogeological work for sufficient water supply quantity, quality, and supply security and Lindsay WTP should remain open now that the ESR addendum is complete and Municipal Council supports the upgrade of the existing Omemee WPCP as well as the growth potential identified in the GMS.
5. In Fenelon Falls, the following water/wastewater upgrades are recommended for growth:
a) The present minor intermittent treatment and capacity deficiencies at the existing WTP should be addressed. It is recommended that these upgrades be completed within the next five years following which the Fenelon Falls WTP should be capable of supporting growth to 2031 and beyond.
b) Treated water storage, supply security and redundancy, and fire flow upgrading work should continue on the Fenelon Falls WDS including the investigation of a possible additional new watermain crossing of the river.
c) The City should undertake a study of the existing collection system and pumping system to plan for future growth and DC funding assistance requirements. Recent modeling completed by the City and operational data has shown the system to be at capacity at times; particularly during wet weather, which should be addressed by additional flow monitoring and other storage/time control mitigative measures to reduce/preclude overflows to the River.
d) The next upgrade for the Fenelon Falls WPCP should examine wet weather flows, the existing aeration system, and replacement of the tertiary treatment system. This upgrade, at an estimated cost of $3.0 million, is recommended within the next five years, and will better service existing development as well as support growth to the planning horizon year of 2031.
e) Expansion of the Fenelon Falls WPCP might be required as soon as the year 2030 at an estimated cost of $8.0 million with possible additional property requirements. The recommended shorter-term upgrade should anticipate the future costs of growth servicing. The City should also consider site selection for a possible future WPCP at an alternate site to better meet regulatory requirements and support growth.
f) For Bobcaygeon minor upgrades, continued disciplined operations and sewage flow/water leak detection monitoring, and implementation of water conservation and education programs are recommended. This will ensure that the Bobcaygeon WTP and WPCP facilities remain capable of successfully servicing existing development growth beyond 2031. Both facilities, similar to the Lindsay WTP and the WPCP as well as the Fenelon Falls WTP, are in good condition and capable of supporting growth with the recommended work and corresponding DC financial assistance. Also, another watermain river crossing is recommended for supply security and fire flow. Water, sewer, and DC rates should be calculated fairly for proper assessment of system costs from benefiting users and landowners. Similar to Fenelon Falls, the City should undertake a study of the existing collection system and pumping system to plan for future growth and DC funding assistance requirements. Recent modeling completed by the City and operational data has shown parts of the system to be at capacity at times; particularly during wet weather, which should be addressed by additional flow monitoring and other real-time time control and physical storage mitigative measures to reduce/preclude overflows to the River.
6. For the Hamlet areas, development applications and building permits should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis with the full responsibility of the proponent to prove servicing capability and environmental protection at no net cost to the City.
7. City-wide, the following are recommended:
a) The City should advance water conservation and education measures for the entire municipality. This will benefit the water supply and sewage collection and treatment system with measurable environmental benefits as well as reduced costs to all stakeholders.
b) New employment opportunities locating and/or expanding in Kawartha Lakes could be larger industrial water users and wastewater treatment customers. This Master Plan supports and allows for those economic development opportunities. Treatment of highstrength sewage flows from such facilities can be arranged within the City to avoid overloading the system and requiring sooner than expected operating and/or expansion of the existing sewage treatment plants as well as the water treatment facilities.
c) Additional work should be completed on the City's water supply and treatment system for additional storage requirements and to address Trihalomethane’s (THM) management in all of the four (4) urban areas.
d) The established inventory and upgrading/replacement programs on the older substandard watermains and sewers in the City's water distribution and wastewater collection systems should be adequately funded in the City's capital and operating budgets. This work should coincide with other infrastructure renewal requirements (i.e. other utilities and surface works for optimized spending).
e) The City should continue with their ongoing programs to determine inflow and infiltration (I&I) sources and quantities to the wastewater collection systems. Corresponding remedial programs should be implemented where necessary and appropriate. Operating budget allowances for I&I identification, quantification and remedial work should continue to the extent that progress continues to be made and that the cost/benefit results of these programs is justified.
f) The long term water consumption/sewage discharge goal of the City of Kawartha Lakes should be below 400 L/c/d to reduce costs. The present City-wide average is about 500 L/c/d, and some systems in the City are closer to 600 L/c/d which is expensive and perhaps not sustainable. Flow monitoring, water system leak detection, and I&I reduction should continue in this regard on a City-wide basis
g) The water servicing and sewer use by-laws should be reviewed along with the next DC rate adjustment. During this Master Plan review, it was raised again that the City should continue to evaluate a utility-based administration and financing system for water supply and sewage treatment including all capital and O&M costs that might be required.
h) New municipal water/wastewater utilities should also consider the development and implementation of a separate storm rate by-law to better rationalize and assess costs for use, upgrading, and maintenance of the municipal drainage system; notably respecting urban compared to rural land uses. This recommendation is now being examined and implemented in many other Ontario municipalities.
i) The City should continue moving towards a GIS-based asset management system for its entire infrastructure system. The interactive project management file-sharing website that was set up and maintained for this project was intended to assist with this recommendation, including future asset management work, implementing and monitoring the recommendations of this Master Plan, and planning for future municipal servicing infrastructure work.
j) The City should continue facilitating development with a view towards developing municipal water supply and sewage collection and treatment systems where practical. This is the basis for recommendations on servicing Omemee and the hamlet areas with MOE preference for development on full municipal services.
8. This Municipal Servicing Assessment was also completed to assist with Development Charge (DC) calculations. Final rate determinations, including capital cost estimates (numerator) and final growth estimates (denominator) can be used by the City for DC bylaw updates that might be required. Some commentary has been included in this report on capital costs and development cost-sharing that should assist the City DC bylaw update work, calculations, and understanding.
9. A comprehensive review of this Municipal Servicing Assessment and the other aspects of this Master Plan should take place every five (5) years, as expected by the Province, particularly for the Official Plan and the DC bylaw; as well as capital and operating budget purposes. That review should similarly evaluate the background information available and assumptions made for this report to verify to the extent possible that population growth is occurring generally according to the GMS projected densities, locations, and rates therefore requiring the municipal servicing systems and investment requirements identified and assessed in this report.
Fenelon Falls Municipal Servicing Study
Janetville Municipal Servicing Study
King's Bay Hydrogeologic Peer Review Ground Water Supply Kings Bay Development
King's Bay Kings Bay Water Supply System capacity Review for Additional Lots
King's Bay Municipal Servicing Study
Kinmount Municipal Servicing Study
Lake Simcoe Lake Simcoe Protection Plan
Lindsay C. of A George St SPS 3-0043-99-006
Lindsay C. of A Riverview Estates Lift Station 8752-779RZN
Lindsay Downtown Trunk Sewer Supplementary Report
Lindsay Inflow & Infiltration Study
Lindsay Jennings Creek Secondary Planning Area-Sanitary Sewer Servicing Functional Study
Lindsay Lindsay Northwest Development Area Municipal Act Capital Charge Study
Lindsay Lindsay Property Assessment Sheets
Lindsay Lindsay SPS Flow Sheets
Lindsay Lindsay WPCP and Septage Disposal Facility Upgrades Environmental Study
Lindsay Lindsay WTP and Mary St. SPS
Lindsay Memo: Lindsay WPCP Reserve Capacity Study
Lindsay Memo: Mary St SPS Cost Sharing
Lindsay Memo: Mary St SPS Review
Lindsay North West Trunk Sanitary Sewer Extension
Lindsay Sanitary Sewer System Inventory
Lindsay Sanitary Sewer System Southeast Quadrant
Lindsay Sanitary Sewer System Southwest Quadrant Draft
Lindsay Storm Sewer Servicing Study
Lindsay Wastewater Collection System Modeling Study: Final Report
Lindsay Water Distribution System Model: Final Report
Water Servicing Study
WTP Preliminary Design Report
Sanitary Sewer Servicing Study
Water Servicing Study
Municipal Servicing Study
Estates Municipal Servicing Study
Norland Municipal Servicing Study
Performance Report 2008 for Omemee Waste Stabilization Pond
Amended C. of A. Omemee WPCP #7289-5FNSX6
Omemee C. of A. Omemee WPCP
Omemee Draft Review of Wastewater Assess. of Class EA
Memo Omemee Sewage Lagoons
Omemee ESR Water and Wastewater Treatment System Capacity Upgrades
Omemee Addendum ESR Class EA to Expand Wastewater Capacity for Omemee WPCP
Omemee Sewage Lagoons, Report for Assessing Alternatives considered in Class EA for
Resolution to Council Omemee WPCP
& Western Trent Municipal Servicing Study
City of Kawartha Lakes
MUNICIPAL SERVICING MASTER PLAN STUDY
List of Tables
Label Category Title
B.1
Summary Tables
Table
B.1.1Summary of Water & Wastewater Treatment Capacity & Costs for Growth in Urban Areas
B.1.2Details of Water & Wastewater Treatment Capacity & Costs for Growth in Urban Areas
B.1.3Summary of Estimated Water & Wastewater Upgrade & Expansion Costs
B.1.4Population Analysis to Buildout of Urban Areas
B.1.52011 Budget Requirement & Future Estimates
B.2WaterB.2.1Projected Water Treatment Plant Flows & Population in Urban Areas
B.2.2Summary of Watermains Not Currently Serviced in Urban Areas
B.2.3Water Storage Requirements for the Year 2031 Population of Urban Areas
B.2.4Breakdown of Water Usage by Area for the Year 2009
B.3WastewaterB.3.1Projected Water Pollution Control Plant Flows & Population in Urban Areas
B.3.2Summary Sanitary Sewers Not Currently Serviced in Urban Areas
B.3.3Sanitary Pumping Stations Inventory & Capacity Check in Urban Areas
B.4Hamlet Settlement AreasB.4.1Summary Water & Wastewater Infrastructure in Hamlet Settlement Areas
MUNICIPALSERVICINGMASTERPLANSTUDY
TABLE B.1.1 for Administration
Summary of Water & Wastewater Treatment Capacity & Costs for Growth in Urban Areas
Notes:
1. Includes Oakwood population & growth connected to Lindsay WTP.
2. Minor upgrade required for pumping equipment age & capacity and possibly Scugog water levels and/or THM's. Structural repairs also needed. Partly growth-related.
3. Lindsay WPCP has capacity available but operational upgrade needed soon which will add some growth capacity to delay expansion beyond 2031.
4. Bobcaygeon has distribution system deficiencies - water loss and pressure/flow limits in some areas. WTP expansion could be required sooner unless addressed.
5. Cost per person = estimated replacement + upgrade + expansion costs divided by 2031 population.
6. Existing water & wastewater treatment capacities and upgrade/growth requirements are based on previous measured and estimated future water consumption and sewage flow per person.
7. The 2011 Water, Wastewater Capital Budget cost required to complete project.
MHBC, Watson CKL Input UEM Est. DC PSAB
WTP - Water Treatment Plant
WPCP - Water Pollution Control Plant
Buildout assumed <-2006-2031 (conservative)
Water consumption makes was over 500 L/c/d as recently as 2001.
SPS - Sewage Pumping Station
E - Electrical
A - Architectural
P - Process Equipment
M - Mechanical
+/-hopefullytobeextendedwithoutcapital expansion(conservative),couldbesooner dependingonOmemee
1. MHBCPop.numbersweregivenfor2006, 2011,2021,2031forthegrowthareas.The changeinpop.wasassumedtobelinearin betweenthegivenyear& populations providedbyMHBC.
2. $$Millions 8. 2005
3. 2004to20069. 2006
4.2006to200810. 2007
5. 200211. 2008
6. 200312.2009
7. 200413.2003to2005
14.2000to2002MaxDayAveraged
Very high water consumtion rate should be reduced by leak reduction and/or water conservation.
Summary of Estimated Water & Wastewater Upgrade & Expansion Costs for Development Charge Calculations in Urban Areas
11,641
Upgraded & expanded low lifts, clearwell, highlifts, SCADA, and intake in 2008. Approx. 25-year design period. Next upgrade required for the floc., filters, lowlifts, strucutural wall repair, and/or Scugog water levels. New THM regulation could require upgrade sooner. Expansion will be required to actiflo + new building & 2 new filter bed pumps and highlifts.
2011-2013 upgrade for mostly operational reasons & some capacity for growth & could delay expansion depending on final design. P2G growth forecast suggests expansion around 2031. Upgrade includes constructed wetland, tertiary filtration bypass, Montana Parshall flume, 2 aeration tanks, 2 aerobic tanks, 2 biosolids tanks, piping to divert clarifier effluent, new septage receiving station (prov.) Expansion required to add third unit to aeration, clarifier, actiflo, UV, headworks.
Victoria-Glen WTP supplies water to 20% of village. Work being considered to find additional local water supply capability, local supply should be cheaper than Lindsay pipeline if supply requirements can be met.
Existing WTP is capable to support P2G 2031 growth estimate provided that some plant features are upgraded incl. intake, low lift, clearwell & some treatment expansion. Expansion required beyond 2031.
Existing WTP is expanded & well maintained, but is site constrained for possible future expansion beyond 2031. Leak repairs and/or water conservation should delay expansion beyond 2031. Chlorinators are of lower capacity then stated in C. of A.
Plant is over capacity (seasonal) and does not meet Pigeon River discharge criteria. I & I is also a problem. Work is underway to upgrade existing WPCP which should allow for some growth.
Plant capacity can provide for some growth but upgrade required soon for aeration and tertiary treatment for existing population and some growth. Expansion required in 2030 to replace aeration, retrofit, new building. Addittional property might be required for expansion and/or wet weather flow management.
Existing PCP is upgraded, expanded & well maintained, but is site constrained for possible future expansion. WPCP is on a small site & bedrock immediately underlying the plant. Plant should service P2G 2031 population with minor upgrades and equipment renewal. Upgrade required to low lift pumps, ecodyne system, sludge return pumps, secondary clarifier, metering pump, sludge transfer pump, chlorination, holding tank & clarifier & scrubber odour control.
1 $108.8
2031 POPULATION SERVED41,410
MUNICIPAL SERVICING MASTER PLAN STUDY
TABLE B.2.1
Projected Water Treatment Plant Flows & Population in Urban Areas
Major water supply works are possible in the near future, the upgrading/expansion of the Victoria Glen water treatment plant, and increased waterdemand from new service connections are dependent on population growth and sewage treatment servicing. Thus, an analysis for Omemee water supply & max day flow was not undertaken at this time.
UEM
450L/c/d 2.00Max Day Peaking Factor
Historic Report Assumptions 645L/c/d 2.00Max Day Peaking Factor
MHBC, Growth Management Strategy, 2010.
Pop. 2031+ calculated based on the premise that the pop. will grow at the same rate as the 2006-2031 growth rate Refer to Population Analysis to Buildout of Urban Areas Table for details on populations & assumptions
J407Duke
J410Glenelg
J416S.
Fire -MOE Guideline)
J444O'Connell Crt150390.01636.53 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
P4Durham St1502780.117Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P5Adelaide St150260.011Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P7Adelaide St150860.036Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P9Adelaide St1501410.059Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P16Adelaide St2501160.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P21Kent St250870.046Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P22Durham St2501830.096Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P25Durham St1501920.081Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P27Durham St1501280.054Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P29Glenelg St1502730.115Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P31Kent St2501940.102Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P34Sussex St1501430.060Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P35Sussex St1501370.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P36Sussex St2001310.062Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P37Russell St1001950.082< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P37Peel St1001950.082Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P38Glenelg St1001950.082Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P39Melbourne St E.2001950.092Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P40Melbourne St E.2001210.057Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P41Melbourne St E.2001280.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P42Melbourne St E.2001990.094Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P43Kent St1501290.054Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P45Kent St2001930.091Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P47Victoria Ave1501440.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P48Albert St1501350.057Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P49Victoria Ave1501340.056Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P50Russell St1001290.054Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P52Cambridge St1501460.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P53Cambridge St1501380.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P56Glenelg St1002030.085Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P60Qilliam St1501350.057Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P62Glenelg St1001270.053Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P63Sussex St150750.032Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P64Sussex St150760.032Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P65Victoria Ave150770.032Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P66Victoria Ave150760.032Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P81Albert St2001490.070Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P82Albert St2004850.229Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P107Easement Angeline St2503310.174Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P146Adelaide St2001030.049Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P149Adelaide St1501680.071Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P155Colborne St1501890.079Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P163Bond St1501940.082Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P168Colborne St1502730.115Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P170Cambridge St1501390.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P171Cambridge St1501440.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P172Cambridge St1501440.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P173Cambridge St150910.038Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P174Colborne St1501300.055Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P183Bond St1501360.057Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P184Bond St1501220.051Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P187Colborne St1501300.055Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P188Colborne St1501930.081Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P194William St N.1501470.062Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P196Bond St1501900.080Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P197Wellington St1501880.079Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P198Peel St1001950.082Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P203Mary St2502730.143Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P204Mary St2502870.151Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P205Mary St2502760.145Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P207Lindsay St2001420.067Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P208Lindsay St2501370.072Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P209Lindsay St2501410.074Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P210Lindsay St2501520.080Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P211Lindsay St2502140.112Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P212George St3001450.084Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P213George St3001400.081Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P214Wolfe St3001050.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P219Glenelg St1001860.078< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P219Glenelg St1001860.078Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P220Melbourne St W.2001900.090Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P222Wolfe St3001060.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P227Lindsay St2001010.048Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P230Lindsay St200990.047Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P231Ridout St2001280.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P233Simcoe St2001260.060Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P234Simcoe St2001490.070Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P235Simcoe St2001350.064Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P236Melbourne St E.2001160.055Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P237Huron St2001620.077Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P238Mill St1501360.057Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P239Mill St1501430.060Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P240Mill St1501430.060Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
B-9
TABLE B.2.2
Summary of Watermains Not Currently Serviced in Urban Areas
P241Mill St1501580.066Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P242Duke St1502160.091Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P243Russell St1501290.054Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P245Russell St1501230.052Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P246Russell St1501150.048Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P247Russell St1501190.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P248Water St1501470.062Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P249Water St1501200.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P250Georgian St251380.058< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P251Glenelg St1501180.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P252Georgian St1501270.053Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P253Georgian St1501210.051Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P254Simcoe St1501650.069Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P255Glenelg St1501190.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P256Glenelg St1001190.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P257Huron St1001230.052Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P258Glenelg St1001270.053Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P259Huron St1001460.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P260Melbourne St E.1001240.052Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P261Melbourne St E.1001200.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P262Melbourne St E.1001280.054Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P263Huron St1001390.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P264St Lawrence St1001410.059Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P265St Lawerence St1001590.067Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P266Georgian St1001410.059Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P267Durham St3001330.077Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P268Durham St3001250.072Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P269Durham St3001200.069Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P270Durham St3001170.068Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P271Wolfe St3002410.139Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P274Scugog River Crossing2501430.075Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P290William St N.1001410.059Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P315Albert St200900.043Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P326William St N.2001080.051Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P327Eglington St2001380.065Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P328Eglington St200510.024Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P367Elgin St1503210.135Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P368Albert St1501400.059Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P370Pottinger St1502820.119Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P411Colborne St3003560.206Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P412Colborne St3002010.116Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P414Colborne St3002060.119Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P415Colborne St3001960.113Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P435St Patrick St1502470.104Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P436St Patrick St1503470.146Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P439St. Paul St1501190.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P440St. Paul St150800.034Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P441King St1501940.082Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P442King St1501970.083Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P447Lindsay St1501610.068Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P452St Patrick St150620.026Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P459Berti St1501940.082Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P461Princess Elizabeth Cres1502080.087Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P472St. Paul St150710.030Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P473King St1501890.079Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P475St David St150690.029Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P476St David St1501450.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P477Logie St1502270.095Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P496Albert St2002080.098Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P524Adelaide St2001420.067Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P525Adelaide St1501390.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P556Elgin St1001470.062Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P557Elgin St1001750.074Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P558Regent St1003270.137Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P564William St N.1001100.046Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P627Mohawk Dr.1001380.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P645Easement S. of Hamilton St1501040.044Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P646Easement S. of Hamilton St1501090.046Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P647Lindsay St150770.032Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P648WTP – Mary St E.1001670.070Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P649Durham St200780.037Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P650Bay St2001070.051Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P651Vimy Rd1002240.094Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P652Albert St2001220.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P655Albert St15012230.514Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P656Angeline St1501200.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P657Angeline St251460.061< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P666Division St250850.045Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P667George St250940.049Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P670Water St2001180.056Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P671Water St200420.020Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P672Water St200770.036Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P673Georgian St200520.025Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P674Ridout St2002210.104Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P677Verulam St2002280.108Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P683Easement N. of Hwy 7B at Angeline St2002940.139Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P686Don Crt1002270.095Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P705Jane/Henry St150830.035Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P706George St19910.038< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P707St. Paul St1001010.042Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P708St Patrick St100710.030Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P709St David St3001420.082Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P710St David St3001700.098Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P711Armour Crt25540.023< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P712John St1501450.061Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P713John St150530.022Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P714Crandall1001840.077Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P719St. Paul St1005390.227Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline) B-10
P721Water St25630.026< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P722Water St1501390.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P723Albert St2001170.055Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P724Albert St2001210.057Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P725Huron St191290.054< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P726St Lawrence St251310.055< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P727Kent St200630.030Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P730Lindsay St N.100380.016Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P731Lindsay St N.150360.015Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P732Wellington St381000.042< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P734Durham St251230.052< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P736George St1002210.093< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P737Division St1001340.056< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P738Division St1001380.058< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P739Division St1001430.060< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P740Duke St251050.044< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P741Mary St2501400.074Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P742Mary St250640.034Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P743Duke St100590.025< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P743Duke St100590.025Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P746Russell St150770.032Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P747Russell St1501070.045Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P748York St S.1001470.062< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P750Kent St W.1501390.058Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P751Kent St W.1502010.084Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P752Kent St W.150870.037Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P753Kent St W.1501170.049Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P754Glenelg St100560.024< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P758Adelaide St150660.028Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P759Adelaide St1501180.050Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P762Vimy Rd1002740.115< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P763Ardmore Ave1502790.117Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P764Durham St1501330.056Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P765Durham St1001600.067< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P766Bay St1001050.044< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P770Adelaide St150770.032Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P771Adelaide St150740.031Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P774Sylvan Cres1002740.115< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P775Henry St1501550.065Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P782Cambridge St150720.030Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P783Cambridge St150760.032Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P784Easement E. of Victoria Ave1001320.055< than 100mm diameter (MOE Guideline)
P806Bond St1501410.059Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P807Bond St1501270.053Unlined cast iron pipe (MOE Guideline)
P844Kari
currently serviced
SEARock St Area0.137Not currently serviced
SEBSE Area BLooping150 to 200-0.392Not currently serviced
SWBWest St S.2006000.200Not currently serviced
SWBWychwood Cres Area--0.461Not currently serviced
SEBWychwood Dr. E. Area150 to 200-0.099Not currently serviced
SWABass St13-0.017Not currently serviced- 10 WS Connections
SWBWest St S.13-0.020Not currently serviced- 12 WS Connections
SWBIndustrial Park Dr.13-0.040Not currently serviced- 20 WS Connections
SWACounty Rd No. 813-0.067Not currently serviced- 40 WS Connections
SWAWest St N. (W. Side)13-0.013Not currently serviced- 8 WS Connections
SWBWychwood Cres13-0.010Not currently serviced- 8 WS Connections
4Colborne St20013000.512Not currently serviced
2Concession Rd2006700.263Not currently serviced
3Concession Rd2004300.169Not currently serviced 1County Rd No. 1212009500.375Not currently serviced
1No Name St2005000.197Not currently serviced 1North St Extension2004500.177Not currently serviced
St2005500.217Not currently serviced
Rd13-0.028Not currently serviced- 14 WS Connections
Rd No. 12113-0.028Not currently serviced- 14 WS Connections 4Colborne St13-0.031Not currently serviced- 16 WS Connections
Name St13-0.004Not currently serviced- 2 WS Connections
2Concession Rd13-0.008Not currently serviced- 4 WS Connections 1North St Extension13-0.008Not currently serviced- 4 WS Connections
St13-0.008Not currently serviced- 4 WS Connections
12113-0.016Not currently serviced- 8 WS Connections
Rd
J57Navigators Trail1501290.06832.44
J67Island Bay Dr Area150217.50.11436.98
J68Island Bay Dr Area150130.00736.37
J71Island Bay Dr Area1501530.08036.54
available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J72Marina Dr150280.01535.39 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J77Island Bay Dr Area1501870.09833.18 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J78Marina Dr150410.02234.73 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J81Navigator Trail Area15062.50.03331.66 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J84Island Bay Dr150290.01534.22 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J85Riverside Dr1504750.25032.99 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J86Island Bay Dr Area1503100.16336.61 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J92Marina Dr150290.01535.09 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J93Navigators Trail1502890.15235.15 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J95Mill St150160.00834.36 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J96Mill St15013.50.00734.21 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J105Bick St/ Reid St1503890.20431.81 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J106Front St W1504470.23537.9 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J107Front St W150338.50.17833.11 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J114Island Bay Dr Area1501710.09034.92 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J116Navigators Trail150850.04531.88 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J122Little Bob Dr150380.02033.33 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J123Little Bob Dr1502230.11734.53 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J130Island Bay Dr Area1501500.07933.14 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J131Governors Dr Area150500.02634.05 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J136Riverside Dr1504050.21323.49 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J137Governors Dr Area1501470.07736.16 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J138Governors Dr Area150700.03735.62 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J141Patricia Place150280.01535.81
J142Patricia
J143Navigators
J144Patricia
J146Manor Rd15051.50.02737.8
J159Bick
J195Island Bay Dr/Governor Dr Area15037.50.02031.52 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J196Island Bay Dr Area1501270.06736.44 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J385Riverside Dr1505680.29836.69 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J386Cole St150310.01634.34 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J393Boyd St1502020.10632.12 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
J397East Street South1502500.13137.5 Best available flow < 38 L/s (for Fire -MOE Guideline)
--King St E. (Port 32 Area)150-0.048Loop 200mm 100m pipe (Dead ends MOE)
--Main St or East St river crossing150-0.535Install new watermain to increase reliability
--Watermain West St150-0.357Loop 150mm 650m pipe (Dead ends MOE)
currently serviced East St S1508300.436Not currently serviced
Bond St1506150.323Not currently serviced
Queen St150200.011Not currently serviced
Francis St1506100.320Not currently serviced Prince St1504100.215Not currently serviced County Rd No. 81501800.095Not currently serviced Area 41505000.263Not currently serviced
Unlined Cast Iron
2007CO- Copper
City of Kawartha Lakes
MUNICIPAL SERVICING MASTER PLAN STUDY
TABLE B.2.3
Water Storage Requirements for the Year 2031 Population of Urban Areas
Notes:
1. MOE, Design Guidelines for Drinking Water Systems, 2008.
2. TSH, Lindsay Water Servicing Study, 2004.
3. TSH, Fenelon Falls Municipal Servicing Study, 2004. City staff indicate that 90% of the volume of this standpipe is currently being utilized.
4. TSH, Bobcaygeon Water Servicing Study, 2004. B-14
MUNICIPAL SERVICING MASTER PLAN STUDY
TABLE B.3.1
Projected Water Pollution Control Plant Flows & Population in Urban Areas
It
2011 ESRrecommends upgrade to WPCP with large subsurface disposal system designed for a 1,219m3/day sewage flow rate. The report recommends that additional disposal beds be added as needed; to increase capcity to accomodate the 2031 population.
MHBC, Growth Management Strategy, 2010. Pop. 2031+ calculated based on the premise that the pop. will grow at the same rate as the 2006-2031 growth rate Pop. 2031+ calculated based on the premise that the pop. will grow at the same rate as the 2006-2031
Refer to Population Analysis to Buildout of Urban Areas Table for details on populations & assumptions Lindsay WPCP Reserve Capacity Study, 2009. Proposed 24,500m3/day upgrade capacity. B-16
Dr East Area------$0.142Not currently serviced, collect sewage from proposed River Dr SPS to PCP
Colborne St--200590--$0.168Not currently serviced
Concession Rd--200670--$0.263Not currently serviced
Concession Rd--200400--$0.157Not currently serviced County Rd No. 121--200460--$0.181Not currently serviced
No Name St--200500--$0.197Not currently serviced
North St Extension--200450--$0.177Not currently serviced
County Rd No. 121--125---$0.028Not currently serviced - 14 connections
Colbourne St--125---$0.031Not currently serviced - 16 connections
County Rd No. 121--125---$0.035Not currently serviced - 18 connections
No Name St--125---$0.004Not currently serviced - 2 connections
Concession Rd--125---$0.008Not currently serviced - 4 connections
Concession Rd--125---$0.028Not currently serviced - 4 connections
North St Extension--125---$0.008Not currently serviced - 4 connections
Bass St--200210--$0.079Not currently serviced
County Rd No. 8--200120--$0.047Not currently serviced
Ellice St--300150--$0.076Not currently serviced
Industrial Park Dr--250500--$0.214Not currently serviced
West St--250600--$0.257Not currently serviced
Wychwood Cres--300240--$0.300Not currently serviced
Bass St--125---$0.020Not currently serviced - 10 connections
West St South--125---$0.024Not currently serviced - 12 connections
County Rd No. 8 Area------$0.057Not currently serviced - 2 flushing chambers
Industrial Park Dr--125---$0.047Not currently serviced - 20 connections
County Rd No. 8--125---$0.079Not currently serviced - 40 connections
West Side of West St N.--125---$0.016Not currently serviced - 8 connections
Wychwood Cres--125---$0.012Not currently serviced - 8 connections
UEM Est.
7 TSH, Fenelon Falls Water Municipal Servicing Study, 2004. System was designed for 8,944 persons. Fenelon Falls Wastewater Collection System Model, 2007. Report states there are areas that do not meet the MOE guidelines min velocity requirement.
8 TSH, Bobcaygeon Sanitary Sewer System Servicing Study, 2004.
Report states sanitary sewer system has sufficient capacity to accommodate at least 4,343 persons.
9 An additional 25% in cost was added to Bobcaygeon due to the probability of dealing with bedrock
10 TSH, Bobcaygeon Sanitary Sewer System Servicing Study, 2007.
B-18
If/when water supply solution is found then Omemee can grow and pumps will be needed for development.
Does not include FM costs, except for the Wellington St, Colborne St, Francis St, Ellice St SPS'sCity's cost share for new Mary St 55.4L/s SPS & new forcemain.
or by gravity sewer
Rated Station Capacity is 325.0 L/s for Ridout SPS.
Station capacity of 425.0 L/s from design drawings for Colborne St SPS.
MOE, C. of A. #3-0043-99-006, 1998.
5 TSH, Municipal Servicing Studies Summary Report, 2005. Colborne St total capacity 510 L/s each pump rated at 252 L/s. 28 AECOM, Jennings Creek Secondary Planning Area Lindsay Sanitary Sewer Servicing Functional Study,
7 Total Municipal Sanitary Sewer System
18 TSH, Omemee ESR, 2007. Omemee section.
8 KMK, Lindsay Water Treatment Plant and Mary Stree Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades, 2007Proposed Area 4 SPS includes 2,200m of 200mm diameter forcemain twinned with existing 200mm diameter forcemain.
9 TSH, Lindsay Sanitary Sewer Servicing Study, 2004
Cost includes allowance for engineering & contingencies and FM if necessary.
Cost includes FM, engineering, contingency & GST.
Lindsay Sanitary Sewer System Southwest Quadrant, 2007.
32 Fenelon Falls Municipal Servicing Study, 2004.
10 CKL, Lindsay SCADA Daily Flow Summary Sheets Bobcaygeon Sanitary Sewer System Servicing Study, 2004. Bobcaygeon section. Cost includes FM, contingency & GST.Cost includes forcemain, engineer & contingency and GST.
12 TSH, Omemee Municipal Servicing Study, 2004. Omemee Section. Design Population.
TSH, Fenelon Falls Water Municipal Servicing Study, 2004. Fenelon Falls Section. Design Population.
19 TSH, Bobcaygeon Wastewater Collection System Model, 2007.
20 TSH, Omemee ESR, 2007. Omemee Section.
13 TSH, PSAB, 2007. TSH, Fenelon Falls Wastewater Collection System Modeling, 2007. Fenelon Falls section.
TSH, Bobcaygeon Wastewater Collection System Modeling, 2007. Bobcaygeon section.
23 TSH, Lindsay Wastewater Collection System Modeling Study, Final Report, 2007.
33 Lindsay Sanitary Sewer System Southwest Quadrant 2007.
34 Total Peak Flow 30L/s 2009 Highest Number SCADA, CKL Input
35 Total Peak Flow 23L/s SCADA, CKL Input
37 Watson & Associates Economists, Northwest MA Study, 2009.
Cost includes FM, 25% allowance for engineering & construction related works.
Proposed George St 125 L/s SPS. Abandonment cost for Uniroyal SPS.
38 CKL, 2011 Draft Capital Budget.
B-19
G Growth
U Upgrade
C Capital Renewal
• Figure C-1 – Lindsay Water Distribution System
• Figure C-2 – Lindsay Wastewater System
• Figure C-3 – Omemee Water Distribution System
• Figure C-4 – Omemee Wastewater System
• Figure C-5 – Fenelon Falls Water Distribution Systems
• Figure C-6 – Fenelon Falls Wastewater System
• Figure C-7 – Bobcaygeon Water Distribution System
• Figure C-8 – Bobcaygeon Wastewater System
• Figure C-9 – Bethany Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-10 – Bolsover Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-11 – Coboconk Existing Sanitary System
• Figure C-12 – Janetville Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-13 – Kinmount Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-14 – Manilla Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-15 – Norland Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-16 – Oakwood Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-17 – Pontypool Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-18 – Sonya Existing Water Distribution System
• Figure C-19 – Woodville Existing Water Distribution System
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continued use of existing WTP with ongoing scheduled maintenance and repair.
• Private wells continue with status quo
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Possible water level and THM concerns
• Adequate water supply from Scugog River
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Consideration
• Will limit growth beyond 2018
• capital investment required
• Pumping issues
• Should provide capacity to 2018
Upgrade
• Modernization of existing WTP components
• Addresses concerns associated with THM’s and water levels
• Adequate water supply from the Scugog River
• Will allow growth
• $1.0 million capital investment required
• In City’s budget and under rate revenues
• Larger pumps would be the primary component of an upgrade
• Will provide capacity to 2026
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand • Increase WTP capacity by adding treatment components and high-lift pumps
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Will address potential future concerns
• Adequate water supply (i.e. no impact to Scugog River)
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Consideration
• Additional land could be required
• Will allow growth
• $9.0 million capital investment required but recovered through water rates & Development Charges (DC)
• Site is constrained
• Should provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
New • New WTP
• Will address potential future concerns
• New location –potential effects
• Will allow growth
• New location –potential effects
• $20.0 million capital investment for facility, land, etc.
• Should provide sufficient capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
Redirect growth
• Redirect growth to other Settlement Areas
• May place additional demand on other settlement areas
• Potential effect to natural environment in other settlement areas
• Potential effect to social/cultural in other settlement areas
• Higher net servicing costs in other settlement areas
• Additional study and design work would be required
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project City of Kawartha Lakes
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continue use of existing WDS with regular repair and maintenances
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• No effect
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Would limit growth in some Greenfield and intensification areas
• Potential for higher insurance premiums for residents and businesses due to fire flow limits
• $0.0 capital investments required
• Continued pressure and fire flow deficiencies in existing developed areas
Upgrade
• Replace existing deficient watermains
• No effect
• No effect
• Removes growth restrictions on existing built boundary area
• Additional advantage of improving system performance for expansion
• $15.6 million capital investment required
• Will not adequately address requirements for growth in most Greenfield areas
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand
• Increase size of trunk mains and expand WDS including reservoirs and pumping
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• Potential crossing of Scugog River and other water courses
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Expanded system will allow for the servicing of Greenfield areas
• $0.7 million capital investment required
• Provides capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
Water Conservation
• Public education, more stringent building codes, seasonal limitation bylaws and system leak reduction
• No effect
• Reduces stress on natural ecosystem
• Improves public awareness of water/ environmental issues
• Decreased energy costs
• Need to enhance overall water conservation program in the City
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• No increase in WPCP capacity
• Regular and ongoing maintenance & repair
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Lagoons reported as potentially leaking will continue
• No effect
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will limit growth – need upgrades in unit capacity
• $0.0 capital investment required
• Capacity provided to +/2011
Upgrade
• Modernization of some existing WPCP capacity (i.e. aeration)
• Will possibly address existing concerns
• Improves water quality, potential to reduce contaminate discharge to Scugog River
• Addresses issue of lagoons that are potentially leaking
• Possible odour reduction
• Will allow growth
• $10.0 million capital investment required
• Capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• Improved sludge management
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand • Increase WPCP capacity by adding process components
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
New • New WPCP • N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as upgrade of Lindsay WPCP provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Redirect growth
• Redirect growth to other Settlement Areas
• May place additional demand on other settlement areas
• Potential effect to natural environment in other settlement areas
• Potential effect to social/cultural in other settlement area
• Higher net servicing costs in other settlement areas
• Additional study and design work would be required
• Considerable effect, with Growth Management implications
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continue use of existing wastewater collection system with regular repairs and maintenance
• Properties on private septic systems continue with status quo
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Possible basement overflows
• Possible wet weather bypasses to receiving watercourse
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Limits growth to existing serviced and draft approved/ committed areas
• $0.0 capital investment required
• I&I problems within existing system not addressed
• Capacity to +/2020
Upgrade
• Replace existing capacity
• Replace deficient and older sewers and upgrade existing pumping stations
• Addresses existing concerns
• Reduces potential for basement flooding
• Will reduce possible wet weather bypasses
• Limited growth capacity added
• Limits growth to existing serviced and draft approved/ committed areas
• $0.2 million capital investment required
• Addresses I&I problems
• Some additional capacity provided for limited additional growth beyond 2020
• Improves system performance for expansion
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand
• Increase size of trunk sewers, expand wastewater collection system and add new/expand existing pumping stations
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Addresses existing concerns
• Potential effects to the natural environment associated with possible water course crossings
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will allow growth
• $5.3 million capital investment required (+ pumping station)
• Will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Table
Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance and Repair
• Continue use of existing Victoria Glen water supply and treatment system by those currently on the system with ongoing scheduled maintenance and repair.
• Private wells continue with status quo
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Potential iron bacteria issues in groundwater
• No effect
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will continue to limit any future growth
• $0.0 capital investment required
• Existing water quality & quantity concerns for servicing existing and future growth
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project City of
Alternative Solutions Definition
Upgrade • No opportunity for upgrade of WTP because of raw water supply and water level issues, which cannot be addressed by plant upgrade
Expand • Expand existing Victoria Glen WTP and add new well clusters
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Potential effect on public health and safety –potential contamination of water supply
• N/A – there is no opportunity for upgrade
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Continue to limit any future growth
• N/A – there is no opportunity for upgrade
• Water quality and potential quantity issues
• Potential effect on public health and safety –potential contamination of water supply
• Potential effects associated with the construction of new wells
• May need additional land for wells and equipment
• Source water protection could restrict land use adjacent to new well locations
• $12.4 million capital investment required
• Hydrogeological & water quality supply studies ongoing
• Increase size of WTP and number of groundwater supply wells
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal
Alternative Solutions Definition
New • New WTP for all future and existing residents of Omemee
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• N/A as expansion of the WTP would address needs of existing Omemee residents and some or all growth
• N/A as expansion of the WTP would address needs of existing Omemee residents and some or all growth
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• N/A as expansion of the WTP would address needs of existing Omemee residents and some or all growth
• N/A as expansion of the WTP would address needs of existing Omemee residents and some or all growth
• N/A as expansion of the WTP would address needs of existing Omemee residents and some or all growth
Pipe from Lindsay
• Piping of water from Lindsay
• THM regenerations
• Potential effects associated with the construction of the pipe
• Would allow for growth
• Quality and quantity concerns addressed
• Economic/ financial to be considered in conjunction with piping of wastewater to Lindsay
• To be considered in conjunction with the piping of wastewater to Lindsay
Redirect growth
• Redirect all future growth to Lindsay urban area
• May place additional demand on Lindsay
• Potential effect to natural environment in Lindsay
• Growth can be redirected to Lindsay
• Considerable effect, with Growth Management implications
• Lower net per/unit servicing costs in Lindsay
• Additional design work and study would be required
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continue use of existing WDS with regular repair and maintenances
• Private systems continue with status quo
• No effect
• No effect
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will continue to limit growth
• No municipal WDS available to properties on private wells if water supply/quality issues remain
• $0.0 capital investment required
• Potential for higher insurance premiums for residents and businesses due to fire flow limits
• Fire protection deficiencies exist where fire hydrants not available
Upgrade
• Replace existing deficient watermains
• No effect
• No effect
• No effect
• $0.0 million capital investment required
• Minor upgrades needed to meet requirements of current system Expand
• Increase size of trunk mains and expand WDS including reservoirs and pumping
• No effect
• No effect
• No effect
• $8.1 million capital investment required
• Will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond if adequate water supply is available
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Water Conservation
• Public education, more stringent building codes, seasonal limitation bylaws and system leak reduction
D – ‘Net-Effects’ Evaluation Tables
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• Reduces stress on natural ecosystem
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Improves public awareness of water/ environmental issues
• Decreased energy costs
• Need to enhance overall water conservation program in the City
Table D-7: ‘Net-Effects’ Evaluation - Omemee Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)
Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Work that needs to be done to meet current needs but no increase in WPCP capacity
• Regular and ongoing maintenance & repair
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Possible effects on public health and safety associated with phosphorous loading to Pigeon River
• Currently exceeding phosphorous loading restrictions to Pigeon River
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Growth on full municipal services to be restricted
• $0.0 capital investment required
• Plant currently out of compliance with regulatory requirements
• “Do Nothing” alternative not acceptable as it does not address immediate issues
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
Alternative Solutions Definition
Upgrade
• Package Plant for primary treatment and constructed wetland for polishing of treated effluent from lagoons
Expand • Increase WPCP capacity by adding process components
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Addresses concerns associated with discharge to the Pigeon River
• Addresses existing phosphorous and nitrogen discharge exceedances
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will allow growth
• Allows for connection of existing private septic systems to municipal systems
• $0.9 million capital investment required
• Provides capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
• Will meet regulatory requirements
• N/A as upgrades to the Omemee WPCP will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
• N/A as upgrades to the Omemee WPCP will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
• N/A as upgrades to the Omemee WPCP will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
• N/A as upgrades to the Omemee WPCP will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
• N/A as upgrades to the Omemee WPCP will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
Alternative Solutions Definition
New • New WPCP
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Will address concerns associated with discharge to the Pigeon River
• Addresses existing phosphorous and nitrogen discharge exceedances
• Potential effects associated with the siting of a new WPCP
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will allow growth
• Allows for connection of existing private septic systems to municipal systems
• $16.5 million capital investment required
• Provides capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
• Will meet regulatory requirements
Pipe to Lindsay
• A pipe to Lindsay along existing rail corridor
• Will address concerns associated with discharge to the Pigeon River
• Addresses existing phosphorous and nitrogen discharge exceedances
• Allows growth
• Allows for connection of existing private septic systems to municipal systems
• $18.0 million capital investment required
• Requires construction and ongoing maintenance of a 14 km pipe to Lindsay
• Anaerobic H2S concerns in long distance transmittance of sewage which will impact Lindsay WPCP
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Redirect growth
• Redirect all future growth to Lindsay urban area
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• May place additional demand on Lindsay
• Potential net effect to natural environment in Lindsay
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Growth can be redirected to Lindsay
• Considerable effect, with Growth Management implications
• Lower net per/unit servicing costs in Lindsay
• Additional design work and study would be required
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment Social Cultural Economic Financial Technical Considerations
Do Nothing including Maintenance and Repair
• Continue use of existing wastewater collection system with regular repairs and maintenance
• Properties on private septic systems continue with status quo
• Replace existing capacity, deficient and older sewers and upgrade existing pumping stations
• No effect
• No effect
• Limits growth to existing serviced and draft approved/ committed areas
• $0.0 capital investment required
• Will provide capacity to 2020 Upgrade
• No effect • No effect
• Limited growth capacity added
• Limits growth to existing serviced and draft
approved/ committed areas
• Capital investment required
• Some additional capacity provided for limited growth beyond 2020
• Improves system performance for expansion
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand
• Increase size of trunk sewers, expand sewage collection system and add new/expand existing pumping stations
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
Evaluation Criteria
Social Cultural Economic Financial Technical Considerations
• No effect • No effect • Will allow growth
• $0.9 million capital investment required (+ pumping stations)
• Will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continued use of existing WTP with ongoing scheduled maintenance & repair
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Possible THM concerns (see Tech Memo No. 3, Appendix E)
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• No effect • Will limit growth beyond 2015
• Will provide capacity to approximately 2015
• Private wells continue with status quo
• Intake capacity and storage limitations
• Capital investment required to upgrade intake and tertiary system
• Upgrade intake and tertiary system plus other maintenance to meet current needs Upgrade
• Modernization of existing WTP components
• Fire protection concerns
• Addresses technical concerns
• Work by others indicates adequate water supply is available
• Upgrade can be done within existing property
• Will allow growth
• $1.0 million capital investment required
• In City’s budget and under rate revenues
• Capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
• Upgrade intake, clear-well, and high-lift pumps
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand • Increase WTP capacity by adding treatment components
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
• N/A as capacity 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
New
• New WTP
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
• N/A as capacity to 2031 and likely to build out can be achieved with upgrade
Redirect growth
• Redirect growth to Lindsay
• May place additional demand on Lindsay
• Potential effect to natural environment in Lindsay
• Growth can be redirected to Lindsay
• Considerable effect, with Growth Management implications
• Higher net servicing costs in Lindsay
• Additional design work and study would be required
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continue use of existing WDS with regular repair and maintenances with continued properties on private systems
Public Health & Safety Natural/ Environment
• No effect
• No effect
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Limit growth in some Greenfield areas and some infilling areas
• Potential for higher insurance premiums for residents and businesses due to fire flow limits
• $0.0 capital investment required
• Continued pressure and fire flow deficiencies in existing developed areas
Upgrade
• Replace existing deficient watermains
• No effect
• No effect
• Removes growth restrictions on existing built boundary area
• Additional advantage of improving system performance for expansion
• $0.4 million capital investment required
• Will not adequately address systems requirements for growth in most Greenfield areas
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand
• Increase size of trunk mains and expand WDS including reservoirs and pumping
Public Health & Safety Natural/ Environment
• No effect
• Potential crossing of Scugog River and other water courses
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Expanded system will serve Greenfield sites and will allow for connection of properties on private wells
• $6.3 million capital investment required
• Provides capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Water Conservation
• Public education, more stringent building codes, seasonal limitation bylaws and system leak reduction
• No effect
• Reduces stress on natural ecosystem
• Improves public awareness of water/ environmental issues
• Decreased energy costs
• Need to enhance overall water conservation program in the City
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Work that needs to be done to meet current needs but no increase in WPCP capacity
• Regular and ongoing maintenance & repair
• Tertiary treatment filtration repair
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• Improved water quality of discharge to receiving stream
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will allow growth
• $0.5 million capital investment required for tertiary treatment filtration repair
• Tertiary treatment filtration repair required as a component of the “Do Nothing” alternative
• Increased certainty to meet regulatory requirements
Upgrade
• Modernization of WPCP by upgrading aeration system and implementing improved wet weather flow management
• No effect
• Improved water quality to receiving stream
• May provide further certainty to allow future growth
• $2.5 million capital investment required
• Will provide sufficient capacity to +/2030
• Increased certainty to meet regulatory requirements
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand • Increase WPCP capacity by adding process components
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• Improved water quality to receiving stream
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Allows growth to 2031 and possibly to build out
• $8.0 million capital investment required
• Capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• Need additional land which may require adjacent properties
• Increased certainty to meet regulatory requirements
• Site expansion constrained by size of existing property
• Preferable to new site due to configuration of existing sewage collection system
Alternative Solutions Definition
New • New WPCP
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• N/A as ongoing maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to existing Fenelon Falls WPCP provides for growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as ongoing maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to existing Fenelon Falls WPCP provides for growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• N/A as ongoing maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to existing Fenelon Falls WPCP provides for growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as ongoing maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to existing Fenelon Falls WPCP provides for growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as ongoing maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to existing Fenelon Falls WPCP provides for growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Redirect growth
• Redirect all future growth to Lindsay urban area
• May place additional demand on Lindsay
• Potential net effect to natural environment in Lindsay
• Growth can be redirected to Lindsay
• Considerable effects, with Growth Management implications
• Lower net per/unit servicing costs in Lindsay
• Additional design work and study would be required
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continue use of existing wastewater collection system with regular repairs and maintenance
• Properties on private septic systems continue with status quo
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Possible basement overflows
• No effect
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Limits growth to existing serviced and draft approved/ committed areas
• $0.0 capital investment required
• I&I problems within existing system not addressed
• Capacity to +/2020
Upgrade
• Replace existing capacity, deficient and older sewers and upgrade existing pumping stations
• Addresses existing concerns
• No effect
• Limited growth capacity added
• Limits growth to existing serviced and draft approved/ committed areas
• Capital investment required
• Addresses I&I problems
• Some additional capacity provided for limited growth beyond 2020
• Improves system performance for expansion
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand
• Increase size of trunk sewers, expand sewage collection system and add new/expand existing pumping stations
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• Addresses existing concerns
• Potential effects to the natural environment associated with possible water course crossings
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will allow growth
• $4.9 million capital investment required (+ pumping stations)
• Will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond
Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance and Repair
• Continued use of existing WTP with ongoing scheduled maintenance and repair.
• Private wells continuing with status quo
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• No effect
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• No effect
• $1.0 capital investment required
• Capacity to 2031 and possibly beyond but not to build out
Alternative Solutions Definition
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
Upgrade
• Modernization of existing WTP components
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out. Expand
• Increase WTP capacity by adding treatment components, specifically highlift pumps
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
Alternative Solutions Definition
New • New WTP
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WTP can provide capacity to 2031. However, upgrade, expansion or a new WTP would be required beyond 2031 to provide capacity to build out.
Redirect growth
• Redirect growth to Lindsay
• Map place additional demand on Lindsay
• Potential effect to natural environment in Lindsay
• Growth can be redirected to Lindsay
• Considerable effect, with Growth Management implications
• Lower net per/unit servicing costs in Lindsay
• Additional design work and study would be required
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continue use of with existing WDS with regular repair and maintenances
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• No effect
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will limit growth in the southeast area of Bobcaygeon.
• Remainder of Bobcaygeon could grow under ‘Do Nothing’ scenario
• Potential for higher insurance premiums for residents and businesses due to fire flow limits
• Capital investment required
• Continued pressure and fire flow deficiencies in southeast area of Bobcaygeon
• Continued water loss will limit overall growth and WTP capacity
Upgrade
• Replace existing deficient watermains
• No effect
• No effect
• Removes growth restrictions on existing built boundary area
• Additional advantage of improving system performance for expansion
• Some capital investment required
• Capital investment required
• Will not adequately address systems requirements for growth in most Greenfield areas
• Addressing water loss will provide capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project City of Kawartha Lakes
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand
• Increase size of trunk mains and expand WDS including reservoirs and pumping
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• Potential crossing of Scugog River and other water courses
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Expansion will allow for the servicing of Greenfield sites and will allow for connection of properties on private wells
• $1.0 million capital investment required
• Provides capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Water Conservation
• Public education, more stringent building codes, seasonal limitation bylaws and system leak reduction
• No effect
• Reduces stress on natural ecosystem
• Improves public awareness of water/ environmental issues
• Decreased energy costs
• Need to enhance overall water conservation program in the City
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Work that needs to be done but no increase in WPCP capacity
• Regular and ongoing maintenance & repair
Upgrade • Modernization of some existing WPCP components
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• No effect
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Reduces odour through regular maintenance
• $0.8 million capital investment required
• Capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon
WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon
WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon
WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon
WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon
WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand • Increase WPCP capacity by adding process components
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon
WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
New
• New WPCP
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Alternative Solutions Definition
Redirect growth
• Redirect all future growth to Lindsay urban area
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
• N/A as existing Bobcaygeon WPCP with regular and ongoing maintenance provides growth capacity to 2031 and possibly to build out
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes
Evaluation Criteria Alternative Solutions Definition Public Health & Safety Natural Environment Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
Do Nothing including Maintenance & Repair
• Continue use of existing wastewater collection system with regular repairs and maintenance
• Properties on private septic systems continue with status quo
• Replace existing capacity, deficient and older sewers and upgrade existing pumping stations
• No effect • No effect
• Limits growth to existing serviced and draft approved/ committed areas
• $0.0 capital investment required
• Will limit growth Upgrade
• No effect • No effect
• Limited growth capacity added
• Limits growth to existing serviced and draft approved/ committed areas
• Capital investment required
• Some additional capacity provided for limited growth
• Improves system performance for expansion
Municipal Servicing Assessment
Municipal Master Plan Project
City of Kawartha Lakes Appendix D – ‘Net-Effects’ Evaluation Tables July 2011
Alternative Solutions Definition
Expand
• Increase size of trunk sewers, expand sewage collection system and add new/expand existing pumping stations
Public Health & Safety Natural Environment
• No effect
• Potential effects to the natural environment associated with possible water course crossings
Evaluation Criteria
Social/Cultural Economic/ Financial Technical Considerations
• Will allow growth
• $1.3 million capital investment required
• Will provide capacity to 2031 and likely to build out
Z:\UEM\Projects\2008\400\08-409 Kawartha Lakes Municipal Master Plan\N. Municipal Servicing Assessment Document\Appendix D - Net Effects Evaluation\'Net-Effects' Evaluation Tables - Appendix D - rev5 - March 12, 10.doc
• Tech. Memo. No. 3 – December 7th, 2011
• Tech. Memo. No. 4 – December 7th, 2011
Kawartha Lakes Master Plan
TechMemoNo.3
Date: December 7, 2011
To: David Kerr, Project Director, CKL; Wayne Wood, Project Manager; UEM
From: Paul Flood, M.Eng., P.Eng.; Project Engineer; UEM
Re: Capital Budget - Lindsay Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
Master Plan Review of Estimated Population Growth & Intensification
Scugog River Water Levels & Timing of WTP Upgrade/Expansion Review of Existing Plant Hydraulic Capacity & Treatment Processes
1. Introduction
It was decided during the Master Plan exercise that a supplemental technical report should be prepared on the above. This memo provides additional background information on some of the conclusions and recommendations of the Municipal Master Plan related to the Lindsay water supply, treatment, and distribution system. As noted in the municipal servicing assessment Master Plan, there would be significant benefit to the City in reviewing the whole system, including both minor and larger issues, to successfully plan for the future. This includes the capability and capacity of the treatment plant and distribution system to accommodate growth.
2. Background
During preparation of the Master Plan, new information became available through discussion with City staff and other engineering consultants. There are new issues related to the existing Lindsay raw water intake design, treatment operations, and plant capacity. These emerging issues to be examined could affect the timing and costs of the next upgrade and expansion work at the WTP beyond that evaluated for the population growth and corresponding capital costs for the Master Plan.
The water levels on the Scugog River are controlled by the federal Trent Severn Waterway group. Seasonally regulated water levels being experienced at the Lindsay raw water intake location will now require certain intake pumping design and equipment modifications to be undertaken by the City. In late 2009 to late 2011, the regulated seasonal low water levels have been periodically lowered to a point where there is an operational concern with the low lift pumping system which feeds the WTP from the River. The water levels are adjusted by the Feds when it is deemed necessary to reduce upstream flooding risks from ice jams. This operational concern could affect the reliability and capacity of the existing WTP to supply existing Lindsay customers and new ratepayers expected from growth. Corresponding meetings have been held between City of Kawartha Lakes and the Trent Severn Waterway. As a first step, the plant operations staff have adjusted the timing of the low lift pumps so that they run simultaneously rather than alternating. This results in the pumps running at a lower rate and causing less vortex concerns. Further discussion is likely required. The Trent Severn Waterway officials have demonstrated a willingness to work in a cooperative manner with the City.
In addition to the above, new more stringent provincial regulations are potentially forthcoming on trihalomethanes (THM) in Ontario drinking water. THM’s are a group of four (4) chemicals that are formed along with other disinfection byproducts when chlorine or other disinfectants combined with organic and inorganic matter in water. The THM’s are chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane.
It is understood that there could be a reduction in the MOE allowable residual concentration of THM’s in the treated water output from the Lindsay WTP. This potential future new drinking water quality standard change could have serious capital budget and operating cost implications to the City in the next few years. This would potentially be in addition to the proposed longer term upgrade and expansion requirements presented in the Master Plan to service population growth alone. Changes to the THM limit could be difficult and/or expensive to achieve. and possibly require significant capital work and operational changes including upgrading the existing Actiflo treatment system. Various options to optimize the reduction of THM formation should be closely examined which staff has been working on, however, additional work is required.
It is expected that an upgrade to the low lift pumping capacity of the treatment plant will be required in approximately the year 2018. This work will be required to accommodate growth at an estimated cost of $1.0 million. Subsequently, in approximately 2026, a major expansion would be required at estimated cost of $9.0 million; again largely to serve population growth. These estimates are based on the present overall capacity of the WTP, the current THM regulation, and the existing rated capacity of the individual treatment processes.
The existing plant has been built and added on to in many phases over the last several years and more. A study should be undertaken to assess whether it makes sense or not to invest in additional infrastructure that the existing plant or consider other options such as a new plant for longer term sustainability and assurance. The Master Plan estimated costs and capital project timing would also be largely attributable to growth and would therefore be mostly recoverable through development charges (DC’s).
1. There would be considerable benefit to the City in reviewing the entire Lindsay water system, including both minor and larger issues, to successfully plan for the future.
2. The above water level and water quality issues, including pumping, treatment plant, and distribution system capacity and online reservoir storage, along with other moderate needs at the existing WTP, should be carefully examined beginning as soon as possible in 2012.
3. This functional design and regulatory review work can be used to increase the reliability and accuracy of the above estimated costs and their timing of capital work required at the Lindsay WTP. Class EA work might also be required for implementation of the remedial, upgrade, and capacity expansion work that might be required to service existing development and growth
4. The estimated cost for this study and corresponding environmental study report (ESR) work is $150,000.
Prepared and respectfully submitted by:
Paul Flood, M.Eng., P.Eng Senior Project Engineer
c Greg Taras - Principal, UEM (all by e-mail PDF & working electronic copy)
Kawartha Lakes Master Plan
TechMemoNo.4
Date: December 7, 2011
To: David Kerr, Project Director, CKL; Wayne Wood, Project Manager; UEM
From: Paul Flood, M.Eng., P.Eng.; Project Engineer; UEM
Re: Lindsay Sanitary Servicing
Master Plan
Review of Estimated Population Growth & Intensification
Development Applications & Vacant Land Inventory
Mary St. SPS Upgrade & Possible Diversion to Colborne St. SPS
Review of Existing Downtown Gravity Sewer & Pumping Capacity
1. Introduction
It was agreed with City Engineering and Public Works staff that a separate report should be prepared on the above to provide additional technical information and discussion beyond the Municipal Servicing Master Plan. This memo was also prepared for capital budgeting and project planning purposes as well as to address correspondence and discussions with developers in the south Lindsay area.
2. Executive Summary Concern has been expressed regarding the limited capacity of the downtown trunk sewer and the Colborne St. SPS to service committed, planned, proposed, and future development. This report provides a brief outline of how those concerns can be addressed including estimated costs for capital budget planning and DC calculation purposes. There are a number of sewage collection & pumping system upgrade options to ensure that the recognized and future development applications in the area can be permitted, encouraged, and successfully serviced over time.
3. Background
Council Resolution July 14, 2009
This report was also prepared as a follow-up to the report: PW2009-001 which was presented to Council by the Public Works Department on the Mary St. Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) in July 2009. The resolution at that time was that the Mary St. SPS "Update on Progress" report be received and that an RFP for engineering services proceed. Subsequently, Council directed Public Works staff to delay this project to consider more information from the Servicing Master Plan. The Master Plan identified I&I concerns and related wet weather capacity problems in the sanitary sewers draining to both the Colborne and the Mary St. SPS facilities. These infiltration concerns and related system capacity issues need to be better accounted for in the sewer modeling work by staff prior to a final decision on diversion of the Mary St. SPS to the Colborne SPS.
By memorandum dated June 5, 2009, AECOM (consulting engineers formerly TSH and KMK) provided an update to staff on the options originally considered for upgrading the Mary St. SPS. Previously, a “Schedule B” Class EA study was completed on this project in January 2007 by AECOM. The original preferred solution was to construct a new SPS at the existing Mary St. site with multiple forcemain discharge points. The intent of that option was to minimize surcharging of existing sanitary sewers in the southeast Lindsay sanitary collection and pumping system; especially during wet weather.
The additional forcemain route was to be located along Mary St. E., from Wolfe St. to Lindsay St. S. This forcemain was proposed in addition to the existing forcemain on Wolfe St. to George St. Both of these discharge options would still direct all of the sanitary flow to the Ridout St. SPS which presently has some overflow, electrical, and future development servicing constraints. The Ridout
St. SPS will also will begin to have additional capacity concerns as the southeast vacant land area of Lindsay begins to develop. This option is no longer recommended by the previous engineering firm or UEM; the Servicing Master Plan consultants.
Prior to implementing the original preferred option, AECOM recommended a sanitary sewer flow monitoring program to gather additional data to confirm that the original preferred option would be reliable going forward. City staff therefore initiated a flow monitoring program to verify actual flows, and the Lindsay computerized sewer hydraulic model was updated to assist with ongoing system analysis including potential design alternatives.
The updated/revised recommendation from AECOM was to replace the existing Mary St. SPS with a new expanded facility adjacent to the existing facility at the same location. This option will direct existing and future development sewage flows from the Mary St. SPS to the downtown sanitary trunk sewer and to the Colborne SPS.
This redevelopment land is the former Trent Rubber property at Mary St., Albert St., and James St. Terrasan’s engineer completed a Functional Servicing Report in February 2008 for this development that comprises 11.5 hectares of residential and 6.6 ha of commercial and institutional land. The Terrasan sanitary servicing proposal to the City is construction of a gravity sewer flowing east to the Mary St. SPS collection system to avoid a new pumping station located at the development which would be 100% developer cost.
If the preferred option for upgrading the Mary St. SPS is to redirect flows to the Colborne St. SPS, it will require construction of a new forcemain flowing west along Mary St. to the Hamilton St. sanitary manhole 06075 connecting to the downtown trunk system flowing north to the Colborne SPS. The upgrading/enlarged Mary St. SPS is still recommended to be constructed with a total design capacity of L/s to facilitate the Terrasan proposal. This option will benefit the City with increased development revenues and economic opportunities, renewal of existing infrastructure, and cost-sharing the upgrade of the Mary St. SPS. This option was reviewed by UEM for the Servicing Master Plan and this memo, and additional flow monitoring work has been recommended. City staff have recently completed a one-year flow monitoring program in the Colborne SPS sewersheds, and this data is now being reviewed respecting all of the options available for the Mary St. and the Colborne SPS facilities and sewersheds.
City Public Works and Engineering staff are currently reviewing the option of sending all sewage flows from Mary St. SPS to the Colborne St. SPS. Prior to finalizing this decision, staff will review the Colborne St. SPS flows and the existing infrastructure capacity to handle the diverted flows, new development, and intensification within both sewersheds. The corresponding Class EA therefore remains in draft.
The Servicing Master Plan public consultation program included a developer’s workshop hosted by the City and the MHBC/UEM planning & engineering consultants. The workshop involved considerable discussion of infill and intensification opportunities and constraints as well as new greenfield development in all areas of Lindsay as well as the other urban areas in Kawartha Lakes. A number of concerns were expressed regarding existing and contemplated sanitary servicing upgrades and capacity including the Mary St. SPS and the Lindsay downtown trunk sewer to the Colborne SPS. Written submissions were made by some of the developers to Public Works and
Engineering staff. UEM, the Servicing Master Plan consultants, were therefore asked to review the servicing implications of increased population densities and new development on the existing Lindsay sewage collection and pumping systems. Those written submissions and servicing of the overall development potential of the south Lindsay area have been reviewed and considered by UEM in the preparation of this memo.
5. Mary St. SPS Upgrade
Peer Review Work by UEM
UEM concurs with staff observations and conclusions that additional sewage flow monitoring, system modeling and capacity assessment should be be undertaken to determine the best longterm plan for the Mary St. SPS drainage area and sanitary servicing of south Lindsay overall. Funding for this south Lindsay sanitary system upgrade review and assessment is identified in the 2012 capital budget.
ESR & Pre-Design Report
It is noted that the draft ESR completed for the Mary St. SPS upgrade project requires an addendum as the previous recommended option of diversion to the Colborne SPS is not acceptable due to capacity concerns and overflow issues experienced at the Ridout and the Colborne SPS. The addendum should be completed in conjunction with a pre-design report to accomplish two steps at once. The pre-design report can be used to review the recommended growth servicing and wet weather control options, satisfy Class EA addendum requirements, and confirm estimated costs and design criteria.
6. South Lindsay Trunk Sewers
The capacity of the gravity sewers through downtown Lindsay was examined in detail by TSH in 2004 and KMK in 2007 (both now AECOM). Additional sewer modeling is underway by City staff. This sewer analysis work should continue for assessing the options for upgrading the capacity of the Mary St., Colborne, and Ridout SPS facilities as well as their connecting sewersheds. This work is necessary to confirm the details of the required ESR addendum for the Mary St. SPS and the additional capital work that is also expected to be necessary in the Colborne sanitary system to address wet weather flows and to service intensification as well as growth. Extreme wet weather causes problems in some areas of the existing Lindsay sewage collection and pumping system. This is particularly notable in the older areas of the Town where clean water inflow & infiltration is known to be a problem and is very difficult and expensive to identify and remove.
Significant sewer analysis and upgrading work has been completed by the City over the past few years to understand and manage the sanitary drainage capacity required for existing and proposed development. However, additional work should be completed on the Colborne SPS and the upstream sewer system to ensure proper system performance; especially during wet weather. During the Master Plan review work, it was identified that there could be significant development constraints related to redirection of the Mary St. SPS flows to the Colborne St. SPS including the wet weather capacity of the Colborne St. SPS and the downtown trunk sewer.
7. Colborne St. SPS Upgrading & Wet Weather Flows
There are a number of limitations to upgrading the capacity of the Colborne St. SPS. However, based on our review of existing, committed, and future development potential, including infill & intensification in this sewershed, diversion of sanitary flows from the upgraded Mary St. SPS might be able to be accommodated through the downtown trunk sewer and the Colborne St. SPS. Additional capital work might be required on the system, and there are combinations of options available such as sewer capacity improvements, storage, and operational real-time controls (RTC).
Additional flow monitoring and modelling work is recommended to verify capacity requirements and the specific work required to allow development to continue. However, much of this work will be required over the long-term anyway for infrastructure lifecycle renewal, and the necessary work can be completed efficiently and effectively with careful budget planning and engineering including developer participation through local infrastructure cost-sharing agreements and development charge funding assistance.
The Colborne SPS pumping capacity can be increased to its present physical capacity at a relatively low cost; approximately $50,000 by increasing the size of the impellors. This increase might be sufficient to accommodate the additional flows from the Mary St. SPS diversion as well as some additional development. This could maximize the value of the existing Colborne St. SPS respecting the estimated remaining service life of the existing wet well, piping configuration, electrical service, and other elements.
The existing pumps should be refurbished by the manufacturer anyway (e.g. pump seals) to ensure that the rated capacities are achieved. This important lifecycle renewal work could be completed as part of the recommended SPS upgrades to ensure capacity for existing ratepayers and growth; including allowance for wet weather overloading.
Electronic computer-controlled communication between the wet weather water levels in the Colborne St. SPS and the Mary St. SPS pumping station should be considered to allow for storage and off-peak pumping to potentially reduce the impact of the proposed Mary St. SPS diversion on the downtown trunk sewer and the Colborne SPS diversion. RTC technology is increasingly being used successfully in other Ontario and North American cities to address similar issues.
8. Colborne/Mary St. SPS Wet Well & Sewer Online Storage with Real-Time Control (RTC) These options are presently being investigated. There are opportunities to include online sewage storage in the Ridout, Mary St., and Colborne sewage collection system to ensure sufficient capacity in the overall system and minimize potential overflows to the River. Combinations of options should be sufficient to address existing wet weather capacity deficiencies and accommodate growth. The challenge is to achieve the most cost effective solution respecting flow data that is expensive and difficult to acquire. Underground concrete sewer system storage is expensive unless the sewers need replacement work anyway, but it can be valuable in combination with other "partial solution" options e.g. extra storage and RTC at the Mary St. SPS to be reconstructed as well as at the Colborne and Ridout SPS facilities which always needs monitoring and periodic upgrading. As long as routine progress continues on this work, proposed development can continue within reasonable capital budget and DC allowances.
RTC could be implemented at the Colborne and Mary St. SPS to limit pumping from the south Lindsay area to the downtown sewer during wet weather events. Flows could be controlled from the proposed Mary St. station capacity of 65 L/s down to say 20 L/s which could be added to the Colborne St. SPS to ensure improved wet weather bypass protection. This is a relatively low cost upgrading option with immediate benefits.
9. Other System Diversion, Capacity Increase & Development Assurance Opportunities
There are a number of other sewer replacement/manhole storage/capacity increase projects that can be undertaken to ensure that existing and future development sewage flows, including wet weather influence, can be successfully managed to permit continued growth. This includes the design and construction of the proposed Jennings Creek northwest trunk sewer which will relieve the existing and future development capacity deficiencies in the existing northwest trunk sewer. This new development sanitary servicing project in northwest Lindsay
could also allow for the diversion of some flows from the north Colborne SPS drainage area to the existing northwest trunk sewer to provide additional capacity for development in south Lindsay.
10. Estimated Costs if Mary St. SPS flow diverted to Colborne St. SPS
1. The previous recommended Mary St. SPS upgrade, diversion, forcemain, and connecting sewers should be reviewed with the recommended additional flow monitoring and capacity assessment work.
2. The Colborne SPS impellor upgrades should be completed and RTC should be examined for the Colborne, Mary Street, and Ridout wastewater collection and pumping systems
3. Approved and anticipated development should be able to be accommodated if the additional work recommended in this memo is completed. This includes collection system and SPS capacity upgrades were required and the use of storage where feasible.
4. The additional preliminary estimated costs outlined above should be considered in the City's 2012/2013 capital budget along with updated DC calculations and corresponding cost/revenue planning for the proposed and possible future development work.
Prepared and respectfully submitted by:
Paul Flood, M.Eng., P.Eng Senior Project Engineer
c Greg Taras - Principal, UEM (all by e-mail PDF & working electronic copy)