1. UPPER FLOWING CREEK MUNICIPAL DRAIN

INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES DE DRAINAGE UPPER FLOWING CREEK

Committee Recommendation AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, the majority of the original petitioners who signed the original petition for the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain have signed a letter requesting the City to cancel the drainage works project described in the Engineer’s Report dated March 2010,

AND WHEREAS, the expenses in connection with the petition and the Engineer’s Report to date are approximately $381,000;

AND WHEREAS, the cost of the drainage works, as described in the Engineer’s Report, is $1,640,000 of which $1,200,000 is to be assessed to the landowners within the watershed and $440,000 to the City;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agriculture and Rural Affairs recommend that Council settle the petitioners’ liability under the Drainage Act for the sum of $0.00, on the condition that the petition does not, at the end of the Council meeting to consider the Engineer’s Report, contain a sufficient number of names to comply with Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

Recommandation MODIFIÉE DU Comité

ATTENDU QUE la majorité des pétitionnaires initiaux ayant signé la pétition d’origine demandant les installations municipales de drainage Upper Flowing Creek ont signé une lettre demandant à la Ville d’annuler le projet d'installations de drainage décrit dans le rapport de l’ingénieur daté de mars 2010;

ATTENDU QUE les frais associés à la pétition et au rapport de l’ingénieur à ce jour s’élèvent à environ 381 000 $;

ATTENDU QUE le coût des installations de drainage, telles qu’elles sont décrites dans le rapport de l’ingénieur, est de 1 640 000 $ dont un montant de 1 200 000 $ imposé aux propriétaires fonciers à l’intérieur du bassin hydrographique et le montant restant de 440 000 $ assumé par la Ville;

EN CONSÉQUENCE, IL EST DÉCIDÉ QUE le Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil de régler la charge des pétitionnaires conformément à la Loi sur le drainage à un montant de 0,00 $, si la pétition ne contient pas, à la fin de la séance du Conseil portant sur le rapport de l’ingénieur, un nombre suffisant de signatures conformément à l’article 4 de la Loi sur le drainage.

Documentation

1. Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Report dated 29 June 2010 (ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0071).

2. Original Deputy City Manager’s Report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability dated 20 May 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0016) appended to above at Attachment 1.

3. Extract of Minutes, 27 May 2010 appended to above report(s), at Attachment 2.

4. Extract of Draft Minutes, 8 July, 26 August and 7 September 2010 will be distributed prior to Council meeting of 22 September 2010.

Report to/Rapport au :

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité d'agriculture et des affaires rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

29 June 2010 / le 29 juin 2010

Submitted by/Soumis par : Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales

Contact Person / Personne-ressource : C. Zwierzchowski, Coordinator, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee / Coordonnateur, Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales

Legislative Services, City Clerk and Solicitor’s Department / Services legislatifs, Direction du greffier municipal et chef du contentieux

(613) 580-2424, ext. / poste 21359 Christopher.Zwierzchowski@ottawa.ca

Rideau-Goulbourn (21)

Ref N°: ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0071

SUBJECT:	UPPER FLOWING CREEK MUNICIPAL DRAIN
OBJET :	INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES DE DRAINAGE UPPER FLOWING CREEK

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council adopt the Engineer's Report for the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain and give first and second reading to the attached By-law in accordance with Sections 42 and 45 of the Drainage Act of Ontario.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver le rapport de l’ingénieur concernant les installations municipales de drainage Upper Flowing Creek et de présenter en première et deuxième lectures le règlement ci-joint, conformément aux articles 42 et 45 de la Loi sur le drainage de l’Ontario.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 27 May 2010, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) considered an original report pertaining to the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain (appended as Attachment 1, ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0016). At that meeting, the Committee deferred consideration of the report recommendation to its meeting of 8 July 2010 to allow for greater consultation with residents affected by the proposed works.

DISCUSSION

All pertinent information is included in the original report referenced below at “Attachment 1” and an extract of Draft Minute from ARAC's meeting of 27 May 2010 is included at “Attachment 2” for point of reference.

CONSULTATION

As per original report, attached at “Attachment 1”.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

As per original report, attached at “Attachment 1”.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

As per original report, attached at “Attachment 1”.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As per original report, attached at “Attachment 1”.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Attachment 1 - Deputy City Manager’s report (Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability) dated 20 May 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0016).

Attachment 2 - Extract of Draft Minutes, 22 April 2010 27 May 2010.

DISPOSITION

As per original report, attached at “Attachment 1”.

ATTACHMENT 1

Report to / Rapport au:

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

20 May 2010/ le 20 mai 2010

Submitted by / Soumis par: Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager / Directrice municipale adjointe; Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability /

Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person / Personne ressource: Dixon Weir, General Manager / Directeur général

Environmental Services / Services envrironnementaux

613-580-2424, x22002 Dixon.Weir@ottawa.ca

Rideau-Goulbourn (21)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0016

SUBJECT:	UPPER FLOWING CREEK MUNICIPAL DRAIN
OBJET :	InSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES DE DRAINAGE UPPER FLOWING CREEK

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council adopt the Engineer's Report for the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain and give first and second reading to the attached By-law in accordance with Sections 42 and 45 of the Drainage Act of Ontario.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver le rapport de l’ingénieur concernant les installations municipales de drainage Upper Flowing Creek et de présenter en première et deuxième lectures le règlement ci-joint, conformément aux articles 42 et 45 de la Loi sur le drainage de l’Ontario.

BACKGROUND

Upper Flowing Creek is located in Goulbourn Ward and lies generally to the south and west of Stittsville and to the north and west of Richmond.

The drainage area is bounded by the Jock River and the Carp River watersheds to the north, Hobbs Municipal Drain to the west, the Faulkner Municipal Drain to the east and outlets to the Flowing Creek Municipal Drain to the south. A map of the area, including the affected drainage area is attached as Document 1.

In 2006, the City of Ottawa was served with a petition for drainage works under Section 4 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990. Robinson Consultants Inc. was appointed by the City of Ottawa in October 2006 to prepare an Engineer’s Report under the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990 to address these modifications and drainage issues within the Upper Flowing Creek watershed. The required On-site Meeting was held on 23 October 2006 at the former Township of Goulbourn offices.

The Drainage Act prescribes the process and timelines that must be followed for any modification or construction of a municipal drain. (The “Þ” below indicates the current step in the process for the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain.) In brief, the process includes:

· Council appointment of the Drainage Engineer (12 July 2006);

· Conduct an On-site Meeting with affected landowners to review the proposed modifications, (23 October 2006);

· Submission of the Engineer's Report to the Clerk (March 2010);

· Þ Conduct a Meeting to Consider – (The meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee to consider the Engineer’s Report and the By-law (Document 2) presented in this report) (27 May 2010);

· Council approval of the Committee recommendation and first and second reading of the By-law (subject to the outcome of the Meeting to Consider and associated appeals process) (9 June 2010);

· Convene a Court of Revision – (A meeting of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee where landowners may appeal their assessment. Notices to be sent out within 30 days of provisional adoption of the By-law and Court of Revision to be held between 20 and 30 days of notices being sent). Committee may direct the Engineer to revise the assessment contained in the report. All affected landowners must then be advised of any revisions and the Drainage Act contains provisions for further appeal by landowners of their assessment within prescribed timeframes;

· Third reading of the By-law at Council;

· Construction of the drainage works; and,

· Assessment of the costs to benefiting landowners and road authorities (2010).

This report, places the Engineer’s Report, dated March 2010 before the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee as the Meeting to Consider as required by the Drainage Act. Pursuant to Section 41 of the Drainage Act, within 30 days of the filing of the Engineer’s Report the initiating municipality shall send a copy of the report and notice of the Meeting to Consider to the various landowners, municipalities, conservation authorities and utilities as described in the Act. The time for filing the Engineer's Report was extended under Section 39(1) of the Drainage Act by Council resolution on 10 December 2008.

DISCUSSION

The Upper Flowing Creek drainage area has experienced increased flooding in recent years due to changes to subwatershed boundaries related to ditching on private property, new residential development, aggregate resource operations, increased development of the Highway 7 corridor, the Trans-Canada Pipeline corridor and significant beaver activity resulting in an increase in peak rate and volume of runoff in the drainage basin. In particular, a large amount of surface water that should be conveyed via Flowing Creek is being directed to the adjacent Hobbs Municipal Drain watershed. The fact that Upper Flowing Creek does not have status under the Drainage Act has prevented the City of Ottawa staff to conduct preventative maintenance, manage beaver activity and restrict or correct unauthorized modifications to the watercourse and its watershed.

The northern half of the Upper Flowing Creek drainage area encompasses part of the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) known as the Goulbourn Wetland Complex. Certain lands within the area requiring drainage have been evaluated under the wetland evaluation process and have initially been found to be considered wetlands through complexing with other nearby Provincially Significant Wetland areas. However, the designation has not been adopted into the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan but rather has been designated by Council as Special Policy Areas which are to be re-evaluated five (5) years after the drainage works have been completed. The Special Policy Areas have been identified within Official Plan Amendment No. 76.

A man-made channel was constructed and improved over time diverting surface water flows from the Upper Flowing Creek watershed into the Hobbs Municipal Drain. The channel diverts flows between the watercourse and the Conley Road Branch of the Hobbs Municipal Drain. When the diversion is coupled with the impact of ongoing beaver activity and ice storm damage, flows within the Upper Flowing Creek have been significantly reduced to the point that large reaches of the watercourse have no flow during periods of the year. Conversely, this diversion and the lack of maintenance within the Upper Flowing Creek watershed has resulted in increased flows in the Hobbs Municipal Drain. The Engineer’s Report recommends removal of the diversion which will restore the flows to the original watercourse, Upper Flowing Creek, significantly reducing the risk of flooding and property damage along the Conley Road Branch and in the Hobbs Municipal Drain in general. Robinson Consultants Inc. was retained by the City of Ottawa to investigate this diversion and, in June 2006, submitted a report to the City entitled “Drainage Investigation-Hobbs Drain Extension-Conley Road Branch”.

External to the Drainage Act process a Provincially Significant Wetland designation was placed on several properties within the watersheds of Upper Flowing Creek and the Hobbs Municipal Drain. In consideration of the disputed PSW designation on several properties, Council amended and carried the recommendation of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (22 June 2006) giving direction for the removal of the diversion, supporting the petition for drainage works and approving the creation of Special Policy Areas in the Official Plan which are to remain as such until they can be re-evaluated five (5) years after the completion of the drainage works.

Proposed Drainage Works

The Engineer’s Report sets specific details for the modified watercourse. Please refer to the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain Location Required Work Areas Plan, herein attached as Document 2, for further details for a high level overview of the required changes.

With Council’s approval of Upper Flowing Creek as a Municipal Drain, no further changes to the drain may be undertaken without proper approvals under the Drainage Act and other related regulatory approvals. Should unauthorized modifications or alterations to the drain occur, the City can intercede with legal action, if required, to address.

Key among the recommended modifications to be constructed is the infilling/blocking of the diversion ditch between the Upper Flowing Creek and Hobbs Municipal Drain watersheds. This will ensure that flows are re-directed into the Upper Flowing Creek, their natural watershed.

A short section of the drain will be diverted from the north side of Flewellyn Road to the south side to eliminate the need for large culverts under private entrance ways along the north side of Flewellyn Road.

Another section/area/branch of the Drain will be relocated to the north of the Flewellyn Road right-of-way (ROW) in the interest of public safety by eliminating the need for a ditch larger than that required to handle road water runoff. This relocation will also benefit fish habitat in the Drain by removing the section of drain currently in the ROW from the influence of road maintenance operations such as salting and periodic ditch cleaning.

Modifications to the watercourse will include some deepening and widening of the channel to provide sufficient outlet. Other improvements will include the repair and reinstatement of areas of the watercourse affected by erosion as well as the implementation of bioengineering and standard erosion control measures.

Existing beaver dams currently within the watercourse will be removed, thereby restoring flow. With the designation as a Municipal Drain, the City’s Drainage Superintendents will be able to re-enter the Drain in the future on an as-needed basis to remove beaver dams restoring and maintaining normal flows.

Several road, farm and private property crossings, i.e. culverts, are recommended for installation, replacement or lowering to ensure appropriate drainage.

An extensive fish habitat mitigation and compensation plan has been developed and approved for this drainage works. Features have been incorporated into the drainage works design to minimize impacts on fish habitat and other natural features.

In summary, the new Engineer’s Report recommends modifications and improvements, including some deepening and widening of the existing channel together with bank restoration and stabilization, and the installation of fish habitat measures, all with the intent of restoring adequate drainage to the area.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) have been consulted on the project and have been provided with a copy of the Engineer's Report. In consultation with the RVCA and DFO a comprehensive sensitivity analysis, fish habitat impact assessment and mitigation plan has been prepared and incorporated into the drainage works and includes: riparian vegetative plantings; bank erosion protection; areas of gravel and cobble substrate; refuge pools habitat areas; drain inlet and outlet erosion protection measures; and a construction monitoring plan. The Engineer's Report identifies the locations of the various environmental features. A qualified biologist will form part of the project team during construction. Necessary regulatory approvals have been received.

Pre-screening of the proposed drainage works has been completed by the MNR with regard to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a Letter of Advice issued by the MNR. The Screening Report and Letter of Advice are provided in Appendix F of the Engineer’s Report and provide direction for dealing with and mitigating impacts on species of note including butternut trees and spotted turtles.

Certain lands within the area requiring drainage have been evaluated under the wetland evaluation process and have initially been found to be considered wetlands through complexing with other nearby Provincially Significant Wetland areas. However, the designation has not been adopted into the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan but rather has been designated by Council as Special Policy Areas which are to be re-evaluated five (5) years after the drainage works have been completed. Other properties have been re-evaluated at the request of the landowners and have had the wetland designation removed.

The drainage problems in the area are, in large part, the result of extensive beaver activity on Upper Flowing Creek, which has not only altered the natural drainage patterns but has limited flows in the creek itself to the point where sections of the creek are dry during summer months. Through the Drainage Act process, the Engineer will be able to not only allow for the management of the beaver but also provide for and incorporate erosion and sediment control measures as well as fish habitat enhancement measures which will improve the functionality and health of the watercourse and allow for future maintenance of the watercourse to protect these features. The Engineer’s Report and By-law will also define legal subwatershed boundaries thereby preventing future unauthorized changes to the waterway and its associated subwatershed and ensure legal and sufficient outlet in perpetuity.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain will continue to provide outlet for surrounding rural roads and lands and its status under the Drainage Act will allow for the provision of future maintenance, as required, by the municipality. Affected landowners have been consulted and provided with a copy of the Engineer’s Report and notified of the date, time and location of the Meeting to Consider.

CONSULTATION

The On-site Meeting, as required under the Drainage Act, was held on 23 October 2006. Affected landowners, agencies and utilities in the watershed were notified in advance of the meeting.

Dialogue with some of the original petitioners has been ongoing from the outset.

A landowner information meeting to present the Engineer’s findings was held in October 2009.

Assessed landowners have been notified of the Meeting to Consider and have been provided with a copy of the Engineer’s Report, as required.

The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Fisheries and Oceans Canada have been consulted on the project and have been provided with a copy of the Engineer's Report. Necessary approvals have been received.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

The Councillor for Ward 21 is aware of this report and the proposed drainage works.

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Although there are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing the drainage works as recommended in this report, it should be noted that there is a potential for significant external legal costs to be incurred by the City Clerk and Solicitor Department with regard to this matter.

As noted in the “Background”, “Proposed Drainage Works” and “Financial Implications” sections of this report, there is a significant amount of work to be done. The “Financial Implications” section indicates the following: “The estimated total cost of the drainage works, including the Engineer's Report and associated studies, is $1,640,000. Of this amount, $1,200,000 is to be assessed to benefiting property owners and $440,000 to the City.”

The Engineer’s Report indicates that 156 landowners have been assessed for a portion of the construction cost of the drainage works. There is a very real potential that a significant number of assessed landowners will file an appeal with the Court of Revision in dispute of their assessments. It is anticipated that a significant number of hours of legal counsel work will be required within a tight 60 day period. Thus, the bulk of the legal services associated with these drainage works will need to be outsourced.

In addition, the members of the Court of Revision, similar to the City’s License Committee, require independent legal advice with respect to legal issues arising at any hearings of the Court of Revision and accordingly, external legal counsel will also need to be retained for any legal advice required by the members of the Court of Revision.

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

These works will fulfill the City’s 2007 – 2010 Strategic Plan service delivery goals by improving drainage in the area, and managing infrastructure in a cost effective and efficient manner.

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no technical implications.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The estimated total cost of the drainage works, including the Engineer's Report and associated studies, is $1,640,000. Of this amount, $1,200,000 is to be assessed to benefiting property owners, and $440,000 to the City.

Project costs have and will be paid initially by the City of Ottawa, Wastewater and Drainage Operations Branch, Environmental Services Department, and will be recovered through assessments/recoveries to the benefiting landowners. Funds have been approved in the 2010 Capital Budget in internal order 902960 Municipal Drains Improvements. The City’s share of $440,000 will be identified and included in the Public Works Department’s 2011 Draft Capital Budget.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain Location Plan

Document 2 – Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain Location Required Work Areas Plan

Document 3 – Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain By-law

A copy of the Engineer's Report has been provided to all Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Members.

DISPOSITION

Upon approval by Council, the City Drainage Superintendent will notify all assessed landowners of the date of the Court of Revision.

DOCUMENT 1

Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain Location Plan

DOCUMENT 2

Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain Location Required Work Areas Plan

DOCUMENT 3

BY-LAW NO. 2010 -

A by-law of the City of Ottawa to provide for drainage works and the future maintenance of drainage works in the City of Ottawa to be known as the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain.

AND WHEREAS a majority of the landowners within the drainage basin petitioned the City of Ottawa under section 4 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17 (the “Drainage Act”) in an effort to improve surface and subsurface drainage on agricultural, rural and residential lands in the drainage basin;

AND WHEREAS Drainage Engineer, Robinson Consultants Inc., was appointed on July 12, 2006 by the Council of the City of Ottawa pursuant to section 4 of the Drainage Act to prepare an engineer’s report for the area requiring drainage and the report entitled Engineer’s Report, Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain, Construction and Improvements, Goulbourn Ward - Final and dated March 2010 is on file with the Deputy City Clerk.

AND WHEREAS the section 2.1 on page 3 of the Robinson Consultants Inc., Consulting Engineer’s Report dated March 2010 indicates that “agricultural practices and urbanization, as well as increased development of the Highway 7 corridor, Trans-Canada Pipelines corridor, quarries, and beaver activity have impacted the drainage area, resulting in an increase in peak rate and volume runoff in the drainage basin and in the adjacent Hobbs Drain drainage basin through an undocumented diversion of flow. A significant increase in peak flows as well as flooding of downstream lands within the Hobbs drainage basin has occurred due to the diversion of flow caused in part by blockages in the upstream portion of Upper Flowing Creek.”

AND WHEREAS the section 3.2 on page 5 of the Robinson Consultants Inc., Consulting Engineer’s Report dated March 2010 indicates the drainage basin and limits as follows: City of Ottawa, formerly the geographic Township of Goulbourn, more specifically Lots 15 and 16, Concession XII, Lots 14 through 18, Concession XI, Lots 14 through 20, Concession X, Lots 15 through 22, Concession IX, Lots 17 through 23, Concession VIII, Lots 21 through 23, Concession VII, and Lots 21 through 24, Concession 6;

AND WHEREAS the estimated total cost associated with the construction, engineering, contract administration, allowances, report and contingencies of the drainage works is $1,640,000 as per Table 8.1 on page 42 of the Robinson Consultants Inc., Consulting Engineer’s Report dated March 2010;

AND WHEREAS $440,000 is the amount to be charged to the City of Ottawa for construction of the drainage works in accordance with Schedule A, Summary Schedule of Assessment, in the Robinson Consultants Inc., Consulting Engineer’s Report dated March 2010;

AND WHEREAS the remaining cost of the construction of the drainage works, $1,200,000, is to be charged to the landowners in the drainage basin in accordance with Schedule A, Summary Schedule of Assessment, in the Robinson Consultants Inc., Consulting Engineer’s Report dated March 2010;

AND WHEREAS Council of the City of Ottawa is of the opinion that the drainage of the area is desirable;

AND WHEREAS Council of the City of Ottawa considers it desirable to give this by-law 1^st and 2^nd reading on June 9, 2010 so that it is provisionally adopted pursuant to Section 45 of the Drainage Act:

AND WHEREAS the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain, upon enactment and passage of this by-law, shall be maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Drainage Act;

THEREFORE the Council of the City of Ottawa enacts as follows:

1. The report entitled Engineer’s Report, Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain, Construction and Improvements, Goulbourn Ward - Final dated March 2010, filed with the Deputy City Clerk, is hereby adopted and the drainage works as therein indicated and set forth is hereby authorized and shall be completed in accordance therewith.

2. The Corporation of the City of Ottawa may borrow on the credit of the Corporation the amount of $1,640,000 being the amount necessary for construction of the drainage works.

3. The Corporation of the City of Ottawa may arrange for the issue of debentures on its behalf for the amount borrowed less the total amount of:

(a) grants received under Section 85 of the Act;

(b) commuted payments made in respect of lands and roads assessed within the municipality;

(c) money paid under Subsection 61(3) of the Drainage Act; and,

(d) money assessed in and payable by another municipality,

and such debentures shall be made payable within ten (10) years from the date of the debenture and shall bear interest at a rate to be set by the City of Ottawa.

4. $440,000 to be charged to the City of Ottawa for the construction of the drainage works is assessed for special benefit.

5. The remaining cost of the construction and future maintenance of the drainage works shall be charged to the landowners in the drainage basin in accordance with Schedule A, Summary Schedule of Assessment, of the Robinson Consultants Inc., Consulting Engineer’s Report dated March 2010.

6. All net assessments of $1,000.00 or less are payable in the first year in which the assessment is imposed.

7. This by-law comes into force on the passing thereof and may be cited as the “Upper Flowing Creek Road Municipal Drain Improvement By-law, 2010”.

ENACTED AND PASSED this XXth day of September 2010

CITY CLERK MAYOR

BY-LAW NO. 2010 –

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

A by-law of the City of Ottawa to provide for drainage works in the City of Ottawa to be known as the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

1^st Reading….…….…June 9, 2010

2^nd Reading……….....June 9, 2010

3^rd Reading………….

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Enacted by City Council at its meeting of Sept XX, 2010.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

LEGAL SERVICES

CLC/ File

COUNCIL AUTHORITY:

The Drainage Act, sections 4, 42, 45, 63, 74 and 84

ATTACHMENT 2

Extract of draft ARAC minutes 56 27 MAY 2010

extrait de l’Ébauche du procès verbal 56 du CAAR le 27 MAY 2010

UPPER FLOWING CREEK MUNICIPAL DRAIn

INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES DE drainage upper flowing creek

ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0016 RIDEAU-GOULBOURN (21)

Prior to Committee’s consideration of this item, the Chair read the following statement:

“In accordance with Section 42 of the Drainage Act notice is hereby given as follows to all persons present at this meeting:

Any person who has signed the petition for the area requiring drainage as described in the Engineer’s Report may withdraw from it at any time before the recommendations in the report “Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain” are approved by the Council of the City of Ottawa. A person’s written notice of withdrawal from the petition must be delivered to the City Clerk & Solicitor on or before June 8, 2010 July 13, 2010.

Any person present who owns land with the area requiring drainage as described in the Engineer’s Report may sign the petition for the drainage works on or before June 8, 2010 July 13, 2010. Any person wishing to sign the petition should contact the Office of the Drainage Superintendent at 613-580-2424 ext 25008 to arrange an appointment to sign the petition.

If, after the removal and addition of names from the petition, the Section 4 requirements of the Drainage Act are not met, then the original petitioners are liable to pay to the municipality the expenses incurred by the municipality in connection with the petition and the engineer’s report.

If the number of names on the petition meets the requirements of Section 4 of the Drainage Act, the Council of the City of Ottawa may proceed to adopt the Engineer’s Report dated March 2010 and no person who has signed the petition may thereafter be permitted to withdraw.”

Councillor Thompson introduced Councillor Brooks, who addressed the audience and emphasized the importance of the present meeting as the next stage in a process that had been ongoing since at least 2004, regarding the petition for Municipal Drain status for the Upper Flowing Creek (UFC) drainage project. He acknowledged that for many in attendance, this project had, at a current estimate of $1.6 million, become prohibitively expensive, well beyond the original $200,000.00 to $250,000.00 the original petitioners had signed on for. The Councillor told residents that all options would be presented, and that all concerned parties including residents, the Committee, and Council, would be faced with making a decision as to whether or not to proceed with the project.

Chair Thompson introduced Mr. Dave Ryan, Project Manager, Municipal Drainage, who in turn introduced Messrs. Dixon Weir, General Manager, Environmental Services, and Andy Robinson, P.Eng., the Council-appointed Drainage Engineer, Robinson Consultants Inc. Mr. Ryan explained that on 12 July 2006, Council considered a petition for drainage works under Section 4 of the Drainage Act (DA) and appointed Mr. Robinson as the engineer of record to prepare an Engineer’s Report, which was submitted to the Office of the City Clerk in March of this year. He further explained that the current meeting was being held under Section 42 of the DA for the purpose of considering the technical aspects of the report, following which, a future meeting will be held, with Committee convening as a “Court of Revision” to deal with individual assessments, depending upon the outcomes of the current meeting and that of City Council.

The Committee then received a detailed PowerPoint slide presentation from Mr. Robinson, which served as an overview of the project (held on file with the City Clerk). Mr. Robinson’s report, outlining the details (required under the DA), and presentation included a history of the UFC Municipal Drain and project, originally initiated as a petition by local landowners for improved surface and subsurface drainage on agricultural and residential lands within the UFC drainage basin.

Councillor Brooks commented that residents had originally signed on to this project with the understanding that the proposed works would involve the removal of beavers responsible for area flooding, mitigating measures to block the flow of water illegally being diverted from another watershed, and work along a two-kilometre stretch between two Concession Roads. He noted the project had expanded to encompass 14 kilometres, which the petitioners had not expected, and he asked the engineer for an explanation of how this had happened.

Mr. Robinson said that the DA requires the Drainage Engineer to ensure that drains are taken to an adequate outlet, based on the engineer’s best judgement. In working on this drain, he explained that measures need to be taken to improve downstream conditions, i.e., erosion and culvert replacement, to accommodate an expected increase in water flow resulting from works to include the eventual remediation of previous works which diverted water inappropriately into the Hobbs Drain. In response to additional questions from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Robinson confirmed that people along the full length of the subject watercourse area would be assessed, albeit differently. He outlined that the assessment area had been broken into sections to make assessments easier now and for future maintenance work, as required. Noting that the principle of the DA is that residents pay only for the part of the drain downstream of where they are contributing their portion of the runoff, Mr. Robinson referenced a map in his slide presentation to illustrate how residents of Section 1, closer to the drain outlet, would pay for Section 1 runoff, whereas residents of Section 2, farther up the watercourse, would pay for part of their own section in addition to part of Section 1, and so on.

Breaking down the project cost of approximately $1.6 million (to date), Mr. Robinson reported that the City had been assessed (figures approximate) $400,000.00 and property owners had been assessed just over $1 million, with a $45,000.00 back-charge for fish habitat studies requested by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and a Cut-off Benefit assessment of $140,000.00 to residents along the Conley Road branch of the Hobbs Municipal Drain.

Councillor Brooks stated that in discussions with the RVCA Board, he had been informed that the RVCA, backed by legal advice it had obtained, had indicated that it would not contribute towards the $45,000.00 fish habitat study, which the Councillor noted would subsequently be borne by residents. Mr. Robinson then outlined several steps in an appeal process, should residents believe they had been unfairly assessed, beginning with a Court of Revision, subsequent to which, appeals could be brought to a Drainage Tribunal for further adjudication.

Responding to a question regarding total costs to the City including the associated works, Mr. Robinson explained that the cost for culverts was in the area of $1.8 million, resulting in an overall project cost of around $3.4 million. He added that due to necessity, one culvert had already been replaced, whereas the replacement of others might be accelerated because of this project. He further explained that should the project proceed, the Roads Branch of the Public Works Department would be obligated to perform the work on the culverts at the same time as work was being done on the drain. Noting he could not speak to departmental budget allocations for such work, Mr. Robinson pointed out that the proposed work would not be done this year, but was being projected to be done within the next two years. He added that the consultants had met with the appropriate members of staff, who had been alerted to this matter.

Councillor Brooks commented that in reviewing the costs, it was clear that there was a disparity between what people believed they were buying into versus what they were now obligated to pay for, making drainage, a once-affordable necessity, now unaffordable.

In response to a query from Councillor Jellett as to whom would pay the Hobbs Drain Cut-off amount of $140,000.00, Mr. Robinson explained that a future update of the Hobbs Drain report would presumably assess this amount back to property owners along the Hobbs Drain, who would pay for the ‘benefit’ of a reduced amount of water flowing through their drain due to the elimination of the improper diversion.

Referencing a slide from Mr. Robinson’s presentation listing the cost of work required by Federal and Provincial bodies at over $500,000.00, Councillor Jellett singled this out as the primary reason such drainage works were unaffordable. He emphasized the need to have the bodies requesting such work to pay for it themselves, but acknowledged that such was not within the City’s ability to enforce. However, he added that Councillor Thompson will address this issue with the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) and that the City’s rural Councillors will also lobby area MP’s and MPP’s on this matter. He then asked Mr. Robinson to estimate how much of the flooding was man-made (i.e., quarries, municipalities, etc.) versus as a result of natural activity (beavers, erosion, etc.). Mr. Robinson acknowledged that a combination of natural and man-made factors were involved, but that his assessment had not been specific enough to delineate such.

Councillor Jellett wondered whether there was any way to apportion more of the cost to the municipality, but Mr. Robinson said he believed he had objectively assessed the City a fair and reasonable amount, noting the City’s assessment included the full cost of moving the drain from the road allowance as being of benefit to the City, along with the costs associated with culverts. He reiterated that should any party feel they had been unfairly assessed, such assessments could be appealed, as noted earlier.

Responding to questions regarding scaling back the amount of work being recommended in terms of “nice-to-have” versus “must-have”, Mr. Robinson said he did not believe this was possible. He further noted that should the City decide not to proceed with the project, the original 19 petitioners could bring the matter to the Drainage Tribunal for action, as he did not believe it was possible for the City to take no action without there being some consequence. He emphasized that should a sufficient number of signatories to the petition withdraw to the point where the petition was no longer valid, the stipulations of the DA outlined that the $365,000.00 incurred to date would be borne by these original 19 petitioners. Mr. Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, confirmed this, adding that were Council not to approve the petition, the City would pay the cost.

Referring to drainage work involving Highway 7, Councillor El-Chantiry asked whether the highway had been included in the engineer’s assessment. Mr. Robinson stated that although the works involved a relatively small section in the watercourse, it had been assessed, as the pertinent section did drain through Branch No. 1. He added that upon further review, an increased assessment would be recommended at the Court of Revision, but noted that the highway’s impact was of lesser significance than many believed, with most of Highway 7’s reconstruction occurring in areas outside of the drainage course. Responding to a question from the Councillor as to why the Province’s requirement to pay had not been identified in the report, Mr. Robinson explained that costs had not been separated for assessed landowners (including the Province’s Ministry of Transportation [MTO]), save for the City of Ottawa’s portion.

Referencing the history of how an improper diversion of water from the UFC watershed had created flooding problems for residents along the Conley Road portion of the Hobbs Drain, Councillor Hunter asked why the recommendation had been made to redirect the flow back to UFC, which would require additional downstream work for UFC, rather than improve the outlet for the Hobbs Drain. Mr. Robinson pointed out that despite past history, the proposed work had been initiated by a petition for drainage from UFC area landowners. The engineer emphasized that the work will not involve a quick discharge of backed-up water from the watershed once the blockage is removed, but that where there is beaver activity, DFO requirements stipulate that such water be released slowly.

Councillor Qadri pointed out that there seemed to be a disparity in the assessment apportioned to Highway 7, in that other landowners had seemingly been assessed based on their total acreage, versus the assessment for one particular portion of the highway. Mr. Robinson explained that only a certain portion had been assessed as it had been determined that only this portion was contributing to drainage through this watercourse, and that other parts of the highway contributing to drainage were doing so in different areas. Mr. Robinson also clarified that landowners were only being charged for the portions of their property within the drainage basin, rather than on their total acreage. Responding to a question from Councillor Qadri as to the flexibility or potential variance of the cost estimates, Mr. Robinson said that while they did contain an allowance for certain contingencies, he felt that overall, his estimates were realistic and accurate.

Noting that drainage of the subject area would be a slow process, Councillor Qadri asked whether all of the culverts identified in Mr. Robinson’s report would require complete replacement, or whether work could be done to clear or straighten some of these in order to minimize the scale of the work. Mr. Robinson said that almost every suggestion regarding replacement had been made because of under-sizing or to lower culverts to allow for improved drainage, in adherence to current City of Ottawa design criteria.

Mr. Terry Hale, Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC), and Lead on the RIAC Sub-Committee on Drainage and Wetlands, recounted that RIAC members had discussed this issue in detail at its meeting held the previous week, and had approved three Motions which he presented to ARAC. Mr. Hale then spoke to a PowerPoint slide presentation (held on file with the City Clerk) which served to provide a background summary.

Speaking to the first of his Motions, Mr. Hale noted that as early as 1988, an earlier engineer’s report had identified the problems of a blockage and an excavated channel diverting backed-up water over an unopened road allowance onto Conley Road. Mr. Hale said that rather than fix these problems, Goulbourn Township had charged residents along Conley Road $125,000.00 to extend the Hobbs Drain to provide an outlet for this water. Mr. Hale noted the current report’s identification of the problems was identical, but was recommending the correct solution; removal of the blockage and remediation of the improper diversion, to send the water back to where it would drain properly. However, the speaker noted the report was recommending an assessment of $140,000.00 to those who had already paid $125,000.00 for a “band-aid solution” in the first place. Mr. Hale said that because of this, RIAC had approved the following Motion:

WHEREAS the drainage blockage in Flowing Creek and the excavated channel diverting water into the Hobbs drainage basin were identified in the Totten, Sims, Hubicki Engineers Report of 1988, and

WHEREAS the solution employed by Goulbourn Township was to extend the Hobbs Drain to accommodate this diverted water flow from the Flowing Creek drainage basin, and provide suitable outlet for it, and

WHEREAS the property owners were charged for the cost of this solution, and

WHEREAS the 2010 Engineers Report from Robinson Consultants also identifies this drainage blockage and water diversion channel, and recommends that the same property owners now be charged $140,000 to remove the blockage and block the water diversion channel, and

WHEREAS such a charge would mean that the property owners were paying twice for correcting the same problem,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) recommends to the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC), that this recommended charge to the property owners in the Hobbs drainage basin be borne by the City of Ottawa.

Mr. Hale then identified two areas bounded by Fernbank and Flewellyn Roads, which continue to flood due to beaver activity and blockages along Branch 1 and along the main UFC drain. He identified these as the key areas which residents had petitioned to have corrected, but likened the proffered solution to asking for a Volkswagen and being forced to purchase a Cadillac, despite neither wanting, nor being able to afford one. Referencing the involvement of various environmental and government agencies who were adding to the amount of work being proposed by demanding additional works and studies, Mr. Hale suggested there was a need to differentiate between “must have” versus “nice to have” solutions, given that the costs will be borne by those who had requested a simple solution that they had believed would be affordable. He then introduced RIAC’s second Motion:

WHEREAS the property owners petitioned under the Drainage Act to have the flooding conditions in the sections of Flowing Creek between Fernbank Road and Flewellyn Road corrected through establishment of Upper Flowing Creek as a Municipal Drain, and

WHEREAS the petitioners were lead to believe that this project would cost in the range of $125,000 to $150,000, and

WHEREAS the Engineers Report now estimates the cost to be $1,600,000.00 of which $1,200,000.00 is to be charged to the property owners within the drainage basin, and

WHEREAS the Engineers Report recommends work be undertaken along the entire 14 km. length of the drain, as far downstream as Brownlee Road, in order to bring the drain up to current specifications and to provide suitable and adequate outlet,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) recommends to the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC), that the Engineers Report be modified to include only that work which is absolutely necessary to correct the original problem of blockages within the sections of Flowing Creek between Fernbank Road and Flewellyn Road. Additional work downstream could be undertaken at a later date, if it is deemed necessary after the results of this initial work have been evaluated.

Speaking to the third of RIAC’s Motions, Mr. Hale clarified an earlier point of contention regarding cost estimates. He noted that at an on-site meeting held approximately two years earlier on the property of Mr. Peter Krauthaker, attended by himself, Messrs. Krauthaker and Westley, and a Robinson employee, discussions had centred on the drain in general terms, and specifically on the blockage and excavated diversion on the Krauthaker property.

Mr. Hale said that in response to questions pertaining to cost, he had been told that most engineer’s reports for municipal drains fall within the range of between $80,000.00 and $120,000.00, but because the UFC Drain was larger, costs could be as high as $135,000.00, with construction costs estimated to be equal to this amount. He pointed out that this was why people had signed the petition, believing their total costs would be in the range of between $200,000.00 and $300,000.00.

Referring to the assessment for the portion of Highway 7 deemed to be contributing to the runoff, Mr. Hale pointed out that in the 1950’s, the highway, then a portion of Flewellyn Road, consisted of a 50-foot wide roadway. He said maps of the era indicated that Flowing Creek did not extend north of Flewellyn Road, and that there had been no issues with respect to drainage. He said that moving the highway to Hazeldean Road, along with additional construction to expand it to a 500-foot right-of-way and to link it to the Queensway, had resulted in vast increases in surface runoff. Mr. Hale felt the Province, responsible for highway expansion and for studies related to fish habitat, should pay what he believed was its fair share, in compensation. Further, he strongly advocated that such costs and their remedial works, of benefit to the entire population and not just adjacent property owners, should be allocated to the general population through taxation, as reflected in the Motion below:

WHEREAS there has been a considerable increase in the amount of water flowing through the Flowing Creek drainage basin due to construction of Highway 7 and the subsequent widening of highway 7 to four lanes,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommends to the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee, that the Engineers Report be revised to consider the effect of these increased water flows caused by highway construction and the associated drainage changes, and allocate such costs to the province in an equitable fashion,

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommends to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee that the City consider that the costs of environmental studies requested by Provincial and Federal bodies, and the remedial actions arising from these studies, be allocated to those bodies.

Councillor El-Chantiry informed the assemblage that Councillor Brooks had agreed to move the above Motions on behalf of RIAC.

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Hale clarified that flooding problems were caused not only by beaver activity, but also by the accumulation of debris and fallen trees. The Councillor pointed out that eliminating beaver dams would likely solve little, as beavers would return, as long as conditions remained favourable. Mr. Hale informed that the City had embarked on a program to trap beavers, but that their dams had not been removed. He added that once the area achieved Municipal Drain status, the City would have the responsibility and authority for maintenance and upkeep.

Councillor Hunter then commented on quarry activity, and the likelihood that pumping to de-water quarries had contributed to increased water runoff. He asked why RIAC had not moved a motion in this regard. Mr. Hale said RIAC had had insufficient information to be able to do so, but noted that flooding had been a problem following Highway 7 expansion since before the quarries had commenced operations, requiring the upsizing of area culverts from three- to seven-foot diameters, which he said was still insufficient.

Mr. Jack MacLaren, President, Ontario Landowners’ Association (OLA), categorized the issue as an intrusion on landowners’ property rights. He reiterated previous assertions that new or additional runoff was being created at the upper end of the watershed because of Highway 7 expansion, quarry activity, and the construction of new homes and subdivisions. Mr. MacLaren suggested it was unfair to expect residents along the middle or bottom of the watershed to pay for costs that should more fairly be borne by those creating or adding to the problems upstream. He further suggested that maintenance work, to include the removal of beaver dams, be performed along the original petitioners’ two kilometre stretch of property to restore the drainage area to a functional level, prior to making decisions on additional works. He added that residents should not be asked to pay more than the figure they had originally been quoted and had been prepared to pay.

Mr. Al Penchuk, an area resident had registered to speak but opted not to, as he believed the preceding speakers had adequately summed up his views.

Mr. Mike Westley, a resident in the Flewellyn / Conley Road area since 1970, read from a prepared statement (held on file with the City Clerk) echoing many of the points covered by the previous speakers, with an emphasis on the changes he had witnessed during the past 40 years. He made particular note of the error in creating the Hobbs extension to drain water from the UFC watershed (originally designed to handle occasional overflows), one of the causes of which had been an obstruction identified by engineers in the mid-1980’s. In addition, Mr. Westley pointed out that a number of errors had been made by the Township of Goulbourn in replacing culverts, leading to the flooding of private property, its eventual designation as Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), and in not providing residents with appropriate information regarding alternate solutions. Mr. Westley also stated that the residents who had signed on in good faith for a service for which they believed they were paying a reasonable price, should not be expected to further suffer increased costs resulting from fish habitat studies demanded by outside agencies. In conclusion, he asked that the bodies asking for additional studies be held accountable to pay for same, that Hobbs Drain residents not be charged costs for drainage emanating from the UFC watershed, and that costs be fairly allocated to the agencies supplying the water to this area.

Mr. Ken McRae, a resident of Stittsville, said he had advocated for the protection of PSW for over two decades. He reminded members that in speaking on previous occasions regarding proposed drainage works, he had expressed that all that was needed was the removal of beavers and their dams. He said he did not support the need for drainage works within PSW, and did not believe that the general taxpayer should subsidize landowners who wanted to destroy environmental features via the DA.

Referencing earlier comments about excessive water generated upstream, he stated that people should have taken an interest in such matters a decade earlier, when a local quarry had applied for approval of its license, permit to take water, and sewage works. He noted he had done so at the time, appealing to an Environmental Review Tribunal to express concerns about the implications for downstream water. He suggested that ARAC bear this in mind for future quarry applications. Mr. McRae said he was familiar with the drainage area of Highway 7, and that its contribution was small. He suggested that highway expansion had had nothing to do with the amount of water downstream between Fernbank and Flewellyn Roads, and that to expect MTO or the Province to pay additional costs for a portion of the drainage works would be improper. He suggested further studies in this regard would be a waste of taxpayers’ money. In response to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry, pointing out that Council does not approve quarry applications, Mr. McRae noted the City does have approval over their rezoning and Official Plan Amendments.

Mr. Richard Fraser read from a prepared statement (held on file with the City Clerk), recounting the 140-year history of municipal drainage in the Province of Ontario as it relates to today’s DA, and the changes to municipal drainage cost-sharing agreements over time. He also distributed a fact sheet (also held on file with the City Clerk) outlining municipal drainage legislation for the Province of Ontario. Mr. Fraser’s presentation touched upon how drainage projects, once affordable because of government assistance, were now becoming less so because of increased costs added by conservation bodies who can demand additional works without having any financial obligation to pay for same. While acknowledging that such works may be justified as a benefit to the whole population, Mr. Fraser said it is unfair to expect such expenses to be borne by those upon whose lands such works centre. He said that if Council believes in the preservation of farmland and those who work it, Council should stand up for its citizens to ensure that the bodies who request additional works pay their share. Mr. Fraser also cautioned that the engineer’s report was allocating costs beyond the ability of the land to generate payment income. Further, were the project to be abandoned, there would remain a bill that would still require payment. In conclusion, he further cautioned that if this injustice is not dealt with, future needed drainage works will remain unconstructed, as no-one will petition for drainage no matter how badly such works might be needed, given their ongoing history.

Mr. Immo Tilgner, P.Eng., having been informed that he could not ask questions of either Committee or staff directly, submitted a comment sheet listing a number of questions related to Pool Creek water diversion, technical aspects of the proposed improvements to the UFC MD, processes dealing with pollution control and silt build-up, and the effects of ongoing Trans-Canada Pipeline construction. The Chair assured that Mr. Tilgner’s questions will be referred to staff and/or the engineer to be considered and addressed.

Messrs. Pat Fera, John Hutchison and Peter Doyle, although registered, did not speak, as they echoed that the preceding speakers had adequately summed up their shared views.

Mr. Peter Krauthaker, an area landowner, explained that his was the property referenced earlier by Messrs. Westley and Hale as the one most affected. He recounted that his father had purchased 100 acres on Flewellyn Road in the late 1960’s, at which time the land had been dry. He said there had been no problems until 1987, when the Township of Goulbourn increased the size of the existing culvert to 7 x 50 feet, resulting in the flooding of his farm. Mr. Krauthaker said landowners had met with a Robinson engineer on his property two years earlier, and had been told the work to resolve the flooding would cost between $80,000.00 and $135,000.00. He indicated that neglect by the Township had transformed 35 acres of his property into PSW, which he said should never have been so designated. He expressed frustration and felt that he and others were being penalized by being asked to pay what had grown to a $1.6 million cost to resolve a problem which should not have been created in the first place, and which he felt was due to negligence on the part of Goulbourn, and a failure by the City to acknowledge and deal with this issue. The speaker also expressed frustration regarding the issues of local quarries contributing to excess runoff, which he felt had remained unaddressed, beaver dam-related flooding, and calls by the RVCA for fish habitat studies. Mr. Krauthaker said that in contacting trappers to remove the animals, he had been told this was no longer financially viable, and he reiterated Councillor Hunter’s view that if the dams were removed but the beavers remained, flooding would continue. As for the RVCA’s demand for fish habitat studies, he noted fish had never been present until the land had become flooded. In conclusion, Mr. Krauthaker said he preferred a common-sense approach. He asked to be provided common-sense answers to help him contribute to a common-sense solution, but noted that no such answers had yet been provided.

Mr. Mark Russell said he had spent the past year working on his Bachelor of Science thesis in Environmental Sciences, studying the area between Flewellyn and Fernbank Roads. He concurred with the statements of Messrs. Hale and Westley, and emphasized that during Spring flows, a 1:1 ratio exists between the volume of water coming across at Fernbank Road and the volume being discharged at Conley and Flewellyn Roads. During the Summer, however, Mr. Russell noted this changes to a 21:1 ratio, with Fernbank having the greater, leading to the flooding which the speaker asserted is caused by the blockage and redirected flow. He also confirmed that a local quarry does add to the Spring runoff due to the necessity to begin pumping water starting in the early Spring, but that the effect of this is less significant on flows during the Summer months, as the wetland is, by this point, absorbing the water, retaining it and slowly discharging it later.

Mr. Russell noted another area of concern in the vicinity of the Capital City Speedway, north of Highway 7 where residents along Spruce Ridge Road were bothered by their assessment. He drew Committee’s attention to three culverts across Speedway Road which were not contributing to effective drainage, as they had remained elevated due to work that had originally been undertaken in 1977 when Highway 7 had been raised by one metre. Although the roadway and culverts along Highway 7 were subsequently lowered, the culverts on Speedway Road remained unchanged, leading to standing water along Highway 7 and assessments against properties to the north.

In regard to the Hobbs Creek drain extension, constructed to help drain the Fernbank and Flewellyn Road area, Mr. Russell said that the elevation drop from Conley and Flewellyn Roads to where it connects to the Hobbs Creek Drain was insufficient to allow water to flow properly. The speaker then referenced work performed on the Hobbs Creek Drain a number of years earlier, where a contractor had excavated without a permit, for which the contractor had been penalized, despite the area now having proper drainage and providing a healthy fish habitat. Mr. Russell said the residents in the current subject area had thought of undertaking similar work, but had opted to do things the “right” way, for which they were now being asked to pay a high price. He commented that in promoting environmental ethics, charging too high a price to do things properly might incite people to do things improperly. In conclusion, as pertained to the maintenance of wetlands, Mr. Russell offered that in his professional opinion as an environmental scientist, the area in question was not a wetland, and that the PSW designation should be reviewed.

Mr. Michael Erland commented on what he perceived as the unfairness of holding landowners liable for excessive costs accrued over a lengthy process at the determination of the consulting engineer. He related that when he had signed the petition, he had been under the impression that the DA dealt with agricultural, and not municipal or industrial runoff caused by construction. He also said he had recently written to Council and his MPP asking that the report be suspended on the grounds that the process was inconsistent with the DA, that the report was inaccurate, inconclusive and that the costing had been unsubstantiated. He also asked for an independent third-party audit of the whole process.

Commenting on the Motions proposed by Mr. Hale and submitted to ARAC on RIAC’s behalf by Councillor Brooks, Mr. Erland asked for an explanation of the time frames within which a resident could remove their name from the petition, given that the Motions were, in part, asking for a reconsideration or reapportionment of the assessed costs. At Committee’s request, Mr. Marc explained there was a difficulty related to the Motions pertaining to financing, which properly belonged before the Court of Revision, the stage subsequent to the deadline for removing one’s name from the petition. He advised that in this case, the decision to either leave one’s name on or remove it from the petition would have to be made prior to the consideration of such Motions. He added, however, that were Committee to refer the matter back to the engineer for further study, the June 8^th date would no longer be fixed, and the new “target date” would depend upon when the report would return to Committee for further consideration. Mr. Marc said he believed landowners would be appropriately notified of the new date in such a case.

Mr. Tom Black explained that his farm is located at the point at which Upper Flowing Creek joins the Hobbs Creek Drain, and that in the past, both channels experienced a high volume of fast-flowing water for two weeks every Spring, but that this had not happened for a considerable time. Speaking to the issues of slope and ditch maintenance, Mr. Black surmised that rather than performing work on an entire 14-kilometre section of the ditch downstream of Flewellyn Road, it might be more beneficial to clean out or remove rock from the smaller lead-in ditches along Flewellyn Road. He related that the Trans-Canada Pipeline, which owns property along Highway 7, had done so a number of years ago at its own cost to alleviate problems with water along Flewellyn Road.

Messrs. Amit Haziz and Alain Tilgner, although registered to speak, had left by this point in the meeting.

Ms. Debbie Trouten said that roughly half of the 12 years she and her husband had lived on Fernbank Road had been taken up by this process, which has negatively impacted on their lives. She asked that members of Committee and Council think of landowners as real people rather than mere statistics when making their decisions, and to consider the causes of water diversion. She noted that through no fault of their own, their property had become flooded from drainage along three different areas, resulting in 40% of their land currently being designated PSW, which had served to lower its value. Ms. Trouten said she and her husband were two of the original petitioners, and confirmed that at earlier meetings, petitioners had been told their costs would be calculated in the hundreds of dollars, and not in the thousands. In conclusion, she asked for clarification of the ramifications of their names being left on the petition versus having them removed.

Mr. Marc informed that if the parties were to remove their names from the petition, and the petition no longer had the numbers to be valid, the $365,000.00 cost to date would be apportioned equally amongst the petitioners; at roughly $19,000.00 each. If their names were to be left on the petition and the work were to proceed, the petitioners would pay whatever assessment would be generated from the drainage report.

Mr. Mark Henry, representing another area landowner, said people had signed on to the petition based upon a rough estimate which they had been told would total approximately $200,000.00, yet now that the process had commenced, the petitioners would be asked to pay roughly $365,000.00, shared equally, if they wished to have their names removed from the petition. He asked if Council would consider an option to defer such costs to allow petitioners to decide whether or not to remove their names, based upon the merits of the actual project and what they had originally signed on for.

Councillor Hunter expressed surprise over some of the views presented. He suggested that if petitioners collectively did not wish the project to proceed, it would be cheaper for the City to pay their costs to date, than to continue. He further suggested that the petitioners meet to discuss and decide what they wanted, and to communicate same to the Committee. He said it had been believed that the project would be of benefit to the community, but that it was not the City’s desire to force anything at the political level.

Having concluded with delegations, Councillor El-Chantiry said Councillor Brooks would introduce the RIAC motions for staff comment prior to Committee discussion.

Speaking to Motion No. 1, in brief, “…that the cost of the Hobbs Drainage basin be borne by the City of Ottawa…”, Mr. Marc explained that this Motion properly belonged with the Court of Revision, and he recommended that the Motion be referred to a Court of Revision, if such be held.

With respect to Motion No. 3, in brief, “…that the engineer’s report be revised to consider the effect of these increased water flows caused by the highway, and that the City consider that the cost of the environmental studies requested by Provincial and Federal bodies and the remedial actions arising from these studies be allocated to those bodies…”,

Mr. Marc advised that the same advice given above would apply to the first recommendation (i.e., the effect of increased water flow caused by highway construction, etc.). With respect to the second issue (i.e., the reallocation of the cost of environmental studies, etc.), he explained that the City is not in a position to charge such environmental studies to the Province or to the Federal Government. For this reason, he recommended that this second active clause of Motion No. 3 be ruled Out of Order. The Committee then opted to deal with Motions Nos. 1 and 3 prior to the consideration of Motion No. 2.

Councillor Jellett said he would move referral of Motion No. 1 to the Court of Revision, should it be convened, at which time he said he would support the Motion, agreeing that it would be improper to deal with it at this time. He said he would do the same for the first active clause of Motion No. 3. The Councillor suggested the second active clause be amended to direct staff to prepare a report, for the Committee’s next meeting, to allow the City to take an official position to be presented to the Provincial and Federal Governments, through ROMA, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and all area MP’s and MPP’s.

Responding to questions from Councillors Brooks and Hunter as to process, Mr. Marc clarified that Committee was not currently in a position to vote on the above Motions, as the allocation of the finances for the drain is a matter for the Court of Revision. He explained that at present, Committee could only make decisions regarding the engineer’s report, and not on the issues of the assessment and finances. Mr. Marc further elaborated that, assuming the drainage report was “carried” by Committee and Council, the matter would be brought before the Court of Revision, where both he and Ms. Crosby would take the position of representing the City’s interests. He added that were the Court to adopt the recommendations, legal staff would have a chance to acquire instructions from Council and return to Committee a third time, but he emphasized that at this stage, he and Ms. Crosby would no longer be acting in an impartial capacity, but would be presenting the position of the Council of the City of Ottawa. He informed that Ms. Janet Bradley, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, would advise on process at that time.

Proposing a hypothetical scenario that should Committee not make a recommendation to Council on the above Motions, Councillor Hunter asked how direction could be sought from Council for the Court of Revision. Mr. Marc admitted that such a scenario had never before been encountered, but by way of comparison, he offered that in the case of the Dowdall Drain, the amount was modest enough to allow staff to make a decision not to object under delegated authority. As he was uncertain of the current dollar amounts involved, Mr. Marc said a decision would have to be made as to whether staff could establish the City’s position, failing which, a report would be prepared to seek Council’s direction. While acknowledging this process seemed somewhat awkward, Mr. Marc assured the Committee that staff would find a way to make things work, in a process similar to that of the Committee of Adjustment or the License Committee.

Councillor El-Chantiry referenced DFO’s request for $519,000.00-worth of fish habitat studies, the cost of which was to be passed on to residents who had had nothing to do with this request. He asked if there were a mechanism to request that the agencies requesting such studies pay for them. Mr. Marc differentiated this from the current Motion, which was suggesting that such payments be directly allocated to those bodies.

He reiterated that Committee could not do this, but referred to Councillor Jellett’s request that this matter be taken up with lobbying groups on behalf of municipalities. He also said that if requested, staff could compose a letter asking these bodies to contribute, but he offered that the chances of success for a favourable response were minimal.

There being no further discussion on Motions 1 and 3, the Committee considered the Motions as follows.

Moved by G. Brooks:

That the following Motion from the Rural Issues Advisory Committee be referred to the Court of Revision:

That the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) recommends to the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC), that this recommended charge to the property owners in the Hobbs drainage basin be born by the City of Ottawa.

REFERRED

To the Court of Revision

Moved by G. Brooks:

That the following Motion from the Rural Issues Advisory Committee be referred to the Court of Revision:

That the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommends to the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee, that the Engineers Report be revised to consider the effect of these increased water flows caused by highway construction and the associated drainage changes, and allocate such costs to the province in an equitable fashion.

REFERRED

To the Court of Revision

Moved by G. Brooks:

That staff be directed to provide comment on the directions outlined in the Motion submitted by the Rural Issues Advisory Committee to Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, as noted below, and modified to allow staff to prepare a report for the Committee’s next meeting, to allow the City to take an official position to be presented to the Provincial and Federal Governments, through ROMA, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and all area MP’s and MPP’s:

That the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommends to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee that the City consider that the costs of environmental studies requested by Provincial and Federal bodies, and the remedial actions arising from these studies, be allocated to those bodies.

REFERRED to staff

Speaking to Motion No. 2, Mr. Marc noted that the direction to refer the report back to the Engineer to perform further analysis was within Committee and Council’s authority, but he suggested the engineer might wish to comment. Mr. Robinson acknowledged Committee could do so, but cautioned that it would have to provide specific direction as to what it wished to have addressed. He said he felt there was little that could be changed, as his firm had worked on this matter closely with DFO, the RVCA and MNR over the course of two years to come up with a reasonable proposal and solution that met all requirements and provided an acceptable level of drainage, given that the drain must be taken to an adequate outlet, and while dealing with a host of different approval bodies. He suggested that any deferral of proposed works would lead to increased erosion and greater sedimentation, which would, in turn, exacerbate flooding over time.

In response to questions from Councillor Jellett as to whether it was within the Committee’s purview to specify the areas within which the work could be carried out (i.e., between Fernbank and Flewellyn Roads), Mr. Marc explained that as a requirement of the DA, the City needs the advice of an engineer to proceed, and thus it could not provide such direction independently.

Councillor Brooks pointed out that the engineer could be requested to examine a variety of different issues, consider additional modifications, etc., although he noted that every such request would have an associated cost, which he felt was unjustifiable if the answers already provided were unlikely to change.

Councillor Hunter commented that erosion and sedimentation were natural processes, yet the ‘environmental industry’ was seeking to stop such natural evolutionary processes from occurring, the result of which were costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in studies, some of which the Councillor labelled ridiculous. However, he acknowledged that such were the rules which governed the Province, Country, and much of the world at present. Councillor Hunter pointed out that Mr. Robinson had indicated it was unlikely that he could return with different advice, and the Councillor suggested Committee should accept this rather than ask for additional review, given that the engineer was also constrained by rules from senior levels of government by which he was forced to abide.

Councillor Brooks said he would support the Motion, as he had originally felt that having work performed between the two Concessions (between Fernbank and Flewellyn Roads) might have solved most of the problems.

Councillor Jellett said he supported what the Motion wished to achieve, but he noted that the engineer had already indicated additional review would likely result in no changes to his original recommendations. Given that approval of the Motion would achieve little more than to increase costs, Councillor Jellett said he could not support it.

Councillor Brooks asked what the effect would be of Committee accepting a re-worded Motion, not asking the engineer to perform any additional work. Mr. Marc explained that Committee could not ignore the legislation, which stipulates that an engineer’s report is required to proceed.

He suggested that if it was Committee’s intent not to proceed with the project, Council could opt to vote the report down at its meeting of 9 June, which would result in no work being undertaken. Under such a scenario, the City would pay the $365,000.00 in costs incurred to date. Councillor Jellett pointed out that the current situation would remain unchanged, in that flooding would continue, property values would remain diminished, and affected farmland would still be unsuitable for cultivation. He felt it was important to hear the wishes of the residents, and in particular, the 19 original petitioners, to determine how they wished to proceed. He then asked about the possibility of deferring the matter to the Committee’s next meeting to allow time for such a process to occur.

Following a brief pause to review the pertinent legislation, Mr. Marc informed that there was no time limit, hence, Committee could agree to defer the matter to its next regular meeting (8 July). He suggested Committee might wish to give direction to staff to canvass the original 19 petitioning property owners to determine their intent with regard to proceeding with the drainage works.

Councillor Brooks felt it would be good to bring the residents together to see if any common ground could be found. He reminded those in attendance that in regard to wetlands, the City had negotiated an agreement with the Province’s MNR and MOE for a moratorium, and that certain areas identified as wetlands could shrink if the drainage proved that these areas were not, in fact, part of a wetland. The Councillor said that if residents opted not to proceed with the drainage works, the City could assume the costs incurred to date, but failure to provide proper drainage would eventually worsen flooding problems and cause the wetlands to grow over time. While not advocating either for or against the project, Councillor Brooks suggested residents bear this in mind to consider potential future scenarios. In conclusion, he praised those in attendance for their patience and willingness to listen, acknowledging that this issue had involved a considerable amount of frustration and stress, but he said Committee would listen to residents’ wishes.

Responding to questions from Councillor Jellett as to the status of the Motions earlier referred to the Court of Revision, should this item be deferred to the next ARAC meeting, Mr. Marc confirmed that if the Court of Revision did not meet, the Motions would expire. Councillor Jellett cautioned that this matter would not necessarily be concluded with Committee’s meeting on 8 July, as Council could still take a different position, a fact of which he said residents needed to be aware. He suggested that the community meet with Councillor Brooks on this matter to allow the Councillor to provide context regarding MNR’s involvement. In regard to the City’s Official Plan, Councillor Jellett asked whether the current Holding Zone designation would continue, should the work not proceed. Mr. Marc said that this provision was under appeal, and suggested that it was difficult to foresee what would occur at the OMB if there was no intent to proceed with the drainage works. He suggested that unless Council directed otherwise, the City would likely request that the Holding Zone remain in place for five years, as he felt this was a defensible position, given that the Province and City supported the Special Study Area.

However, he suggested that as this agreement had been reached by special understanding between the City and the Province, he did not believe such would likely be repeated during a subsequent review of the City’s Official Plan.

Councillor Jellett asked for a show of hands from the original 19 petitioners to determine whether they were in favour of deferring this item to ARAC’s meeting of 8 July to allow residents time to meet with Councillor Brooks in the interim. An unidentified member of the audience pointed out there were many names on the list of assessed property owners who, although not part of the original 19 petitioners, and had not signed the petition, had still been allocated assessments. The speaker suggested that instead of a show of hands, it would be better to poll all affected landowners whose names appeared on this list.

Chair Thompson asked whether Committee wished to debate the merits of Motion No. 2, at which point Councillor Hunter raised a Point of Order, noting the Motion did not speak to sending the report back to the engineer, but asked that the engineer’s report be modified. Councillor Hunter noted that as Committee did not have this authority, he suggested the Motion was Out of Order. Chair Thompson concurred, and ruled the Motion Out of Order, following which Councillor Brooks withdrew the Motion.

Responding to Chair Thompson’s request to provide an outline of what the next steps would be for the month preceding the Committee’s next meeting, Mr. Marc said staff could do so, but were first awaiting direction from Committee. In response to a query from an unidentified member of the audience who had asked why residents were being forced to rely on the opinion of one consultant, and the possibility of acquiring additional opinions from different parties, Mr. Marc explained that Mr. Robinson’s firm had been appointed by Council as the engineer on this file under the requirements of the DA. The Chair explained he had allowed the question for purposes of clarification.

Councillor Jellett suggested there was a possibility that costs could prove lower once the project was tendered, but also acknowledged that the reverse could be equally true.

Councillor Hunter expressed that he felt uncertain of what to do, and said he was inclined to support deferral, as there had been no sense of certainty or unanimity from those who had initiated the process, other than the shock of discovering they would bear the cost of the work performed to date, should others withdraw from their petition. The Councillor said that even if the report were approved at Committee, there would still be sufficient time for residents to communicate their wishes to Council either individually, or collectively, through their Ward Councillor by 9 June, the date at which this item would be scheduled to be considered by Council. Councillor Hunter felt the original petitioners had a greater say in the proceedings, as they would be asked to pay a greater share of costs, but he expressed that Committee and Council would do their best to accommodate residents’ wishes to either proceed with, or abandon the project, noting both scenarios had merit, for either improved drainage for residents, or financial savings for the City.

At Councillor Brooks’ request, Mr. Marc outlined the next steps in the process, should Committee approve the report and should it rise to Council for its meeting of 9 June.

He explained that beyond standard statutory requirements, Councillor Brooks will likely meet with the original 19 petitioners and others to provide and receive additional information or direction before 7 June.

If, by 8 June, no-one has removed their name from the petition, it will remain valid, and the report will rise to Council on 9 June. Mr. Marc then outlined three different possible outcomes. First, the 19 petitioners could request that the work proceed. Such would be communicated to Council, where Council would likely vote in favour of the works and the works would proceed. The subsequent step would be the convening of a Court of Revision. Second, the petitioners could ask that the work not proceed. Council could accept this position, as relayed by Councillor Brooks, and terminate the project. Under such a scenario, the City would bear the $365,000.00 cost incurred to date. Third, the same position with petitioners asking that the work not proceed might not be accepted by Council, as Council is not bound to accept such advice. Mr. Marc added that petitioners would still retain the right of appeal.

Councillor Jellett believed the solution would be to proceed with the drainage works, while seeking to somehow lessen the financial burden on the petitioners. He then asked Mr. Marc to offer his views on the possible outcome of the Motions referred to the Court of Revision. Mr. Marc speculated that the Motions, if approved, could lead to appeals before a Drainage Tribunal by those who might subsequently be assessed at higher rates, although he said it was impossible to accurately foresee any outcomes until at least the Court of Revision stage, or perhaps beyond.

Councillor El-Chantiry suggested that based on the advice staff had provided, it would be prudent for Committee to defer consideration of this item to allow Councillor Brooks the opportunity to communicate with the community and to bring a preferred position back to Council. While he said he hoped Council would support Councillor Brooks’ position, he cautioned that the community consider its options carefully, as this process was the near culmination of a request for work that had commenced in 2006. Councillor El-Chantiry acknowledged that the petitioners were hesitant to proceed because of the unanticipated costs, but said he did not wish the residents to miss an opportunity to acquire proper drainage, failing which, their land would remain flooded and devalued. He promised that the Committee would support the community’s wishes, but admitted that he could not speak for the rest of Council. In conclusion, he asked that Councillor Brooks be given clear direction during follow-up meeting(s) with his community.

Speaking to the validity of the petition, Councillor Qadri asked how many petitioners would need to withdraw for the petition to no longer be valid. Mr. Marc directed this question to Mr. Robinson, who explained that for the petition to be valid, one of two things was required; either a majority of the property owners in the area requiring drainage, or over 60% of the land area. Mr. Robinson said that in the present case, the petition consisted of roughly 54% of the property owners and 87% of the land area, meaning the question would depend on which property owners decided to withdraw.

There being no further discussion, Councillor El-Chantiry moved the following.

Moved by E. El-Chantiry:

That consideration of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Agenda 56, Item 10, Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain be deferred to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of 8 July 2010.

CARRIED

Mr. Marc informed that this item was now scheduled to return for consideration by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee at its meeting of 8 July, to be held at the Richmond Memorial Community Centre, 6095 Perth Street, in Richmond. He further clarified that in so doing, should petitioners choose to remove their names from the petition, the date had accordingly been extended from 8 June to 13 July, 2010.

The Committee then considered the report as amended by the foregoing.

Moved by G. Brooks:

That the following Motion from the Rural Issues Advisory Committee be referred to the Court of Revision:

WHEREAS the drainage blockage in Flowing Creek and the excavated channel diverting water into the Hobbs drainage basin were identified in the Totten, Sims, Hubicki Engineers Report of 1988, and

WHEREAS the solution employed by Goulbourn Township was to extend the Hobbs Drain to accommodate this diverted water flow from the Flowing Creek drainage basin, and provide suitable outlet for it, and

WHEREAS the property owners were charged for the cost of this solution, and

WHEREAS the 2010 Engineers Report from Robinson Consultants also identifies this drainage blockage and water diversion channel, and recommends that the same property owners now be charged $140,000 to remove the blockage and block the water diversion channel, and

WHEREAS such a charge would mean that the property owners were paying twice for correcting the same problem,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) recommends to the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC), that this recommended charge to the property owners in the Hobbs drainage basin be borne by the City of Ottawa.

REFERRED

to the Court of Revision

Moved by G. Brooks:

That the following Motion from the Rural Issues Advisory Committee be referred to the Court of Revision:

WHEREAS there has been a considerable increase in the amount of water flowing through the Flowing Creek drainage basin due to construction of Highway 7 and the subsequent widening of highway 7 to four lanes,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommends to the Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee, that the Engineers Report be revised to consider the effect of these increased water flows caused by highway construction and the associated drainage changes, and allocate such costs to the province in an equitable fashion.

REFERRED

to the Court of Revision

That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend Council adopt the Engineer's Report for the Upper Flowing Creek Municipal Drain and give first and second reading to the attached By-law in accordance with Sections 42 and 45 of the Drainage Act of Ontario.

DEFERRED to ARAC
meeting of 8 July 2010

Directions to staff

That staff be directed to canvass the 19 original petitioning property owners to determine their intent with regard to proceeding with the drainage works, and;

That staff be directed to provide comment on the directions outlined in the Motion submitted by the Rural Issues Advisory Committee to Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, as noted below, and modified to allow staff to prepare a report for the Committee’s next meeting, to allow the City to take an official position to be presented to the Provincial and Federal Governments, through ROMA, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and all area MP’s and MPP’s:

WHEREAS there has been a considerable increase in the amount of water flowing through the Flowing Creek drainage basin due to construction of Highway 7 and the subsequent widening of highway 7 to four lanes…

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommends to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee that the City consider that the costs of environmental studies requested by Provincial and Federal bodies, and the remedial actions arising from these studies, be allocated to those bodies.”