The Corporation of the Township of Huron-Kinloss
Bruce Beach Municipal Drain – Phase II Meeting Notes
Date: February 5, 2022
Time: 9:00am
Location: Virtual Meeting (Zoom)
In Attendance
Stephen Brickman, P.Eng. Headway Engineering
Michel Terzian, Headway Engineering
Mary Rose Walden, CAO, Township of Huron-Kinloss
Emily Dance, Clerk, Township of Huron-Kinloss
John Yungblut, Director of Public Works, Township of Huron-Kinloss
Grant Collins, Drainage Superintendent, Township of Huron-Kinloss
Members of the Public: Approximately 63 log-ins
Steve Brickman opened the meeting at 9:00 am. He clarified that the meeting would be
recorded for note taking purposes only and would not be posted following the meeting.
He explained that Headway Engineering would provide the presentation then the
meeting would be open to questions.
Mr. Brickman stated they would be covering off the type and design of the drainage
system, the estimated costs then the proposed assessment and the meeting materials
will be posted on the Headway Engineering Site and the Township of Huron-Kinloss
“Have your Say HK site.
Mr. Brickman gave a brief history of the Bruce Beach Municipal Drain and noted that the purpose of the meeting was to present the materials and receive public input on the Phase II proposal in order to move forward to the Drainage Report for the second
Phase.
Michel Terzian followed with a presentation explaining the watershed and design
standards, the drainage system pipe sizes, the manholes, catch basins and junction
boxes, main drain and outlet structure, and profile. He illustrated the existing model
and the 100-year event for full duration and peak then the proposed model at the 100-year event followed by a 5 year event comparison.
Mr. Brickman then outlined the estimated costs of approximately $968,100 (Main Drain $784,400 Branch A $183,700) which includes construction ($564,100), allowances ($203,500), survey, design, administration,($104,100) permitting ($2,000), tendering ($63,900) and contingencies and taxes ($30,500).
Mr. Brickman explained the Drainage Act Assessment including benefit assessment,
outlet liability and Special Assessment followed by showing the Total Assessment for
Construction broken down by property.
He explained that today was public engagement followed by the next steps of
environmental consultations, preparing the final report, processing the report, tendering
construction then recovering costs. Mr. Brickman went into further detail on processing the report and explained that once the Engineer will file the report with the Township, the Township will schedule a meeting to receive the report which everyone affected will be given notice, the meeting will take place with provisional acceptance given to the ByLaw along with the Notice of Court of Revision and appeals process, following the appeal process the By-Law can be given third reading followed by the tendering process and finally construction. This concluded the presentation.
The Clerk explained that they are unable to answer the questions posed in the q&a and the chat, all questions will need to come through raising your virtual hand and then asking the questions directly. She noted that if anyone wanted to ask their question in a different manner, they could email the Township or the Engineer directly. She also noted that all the materials from the meeting will be posted on the Have your Say HK website.
Question and Answers
- Joan McLaughlin – 123 Bruce Beach Road
- Q: Beach access and erosion and will there be a grate or something on the beach outlet for safety and kids from exploring? Suggested it be wheelchair accessible.
- A: A grate will be included at the end of the structure. The drain alignment will favour the north side of the ROW, while the public access will continue to favour the south side. A catch basin will be located at end of guide rail at the bottom to eliminate the surface water for erosion,
- Mark Gancevich – 98 Bruce Beach Road
- Q: Noted that the Engineering and Design, looks sound, adequate and maintainable. Did not see risk mitigation through the construction phase based on lessons learned from phase one.
- A: Risk mitigation was not included in the presentation; the focus was on design and assessment. More details will be included in the report. Risks for Phase II include the depth at the intersection, the number of utilities on Bruce Beach Road and flow system. Q: Noted that today Stormwater Management would be borne by the developer, this process is backwards after the fact, this is a byproduct of the development that has been allowed to occur, none of those costs have been allocated to put in correct infrastructure. A: Will take the question more as a comment, this is not an issue that Headway can address.
- Sven Wiggermann, 760 Lake Range Drive
- Q: Noted concerns with the construction now on Lake Range Drive, spoke to the Township Office two times, no workers showed up for the first 6 weeks, who will be paying for the delay? Was only notified one week before, felt Lake Range Drive should not have been closed.
- A: Clarified the current construction is for Phase 1, there are no increased costs for the delay in construction, and that the schedule is on track. They were expecting a lengthy road closure.
- Doug Dunlop – 102 Bruce Beach Road
- Q: Upset that the questions in the q&a are not going to be answered. Concerns with the pipe into the lake, is there mitigation measures for settling when taking the water from the top. Asked about the drawings of the detention pond.
- A: Clarified that the concerns are from Phase 1 and noted that the agricultural practices will be the same. Explained the water will be entering the detention facility was designed to focus on quantity of the water. Drawings of the detention pond are in the Phase I report page 6 of 8.
- Q: When will the construction occur and how long will Bruce Beach Road be closed?
- A: Depending on feed back to move forward with the report approximately 4 months, then appeal process tentative end of 2022, then to tender then depending on contractor availability. Cannot confirm time for road closure, more work needed on utilities.
- Q: Did you model potential blockages in the new pipe?
- A: No modeling for blockages. However, there will be modelling for events larger than the design standard to assess post construction flow paths. Lucille Fisher-92 Bruce Beach Road
- Q: Will there be a catch basin at the back of her property? Can I put one in myself?
- A: There is not a branch at the back of her property, they do not have the authority to extend to her backyard without a drainage petition. Yes, she could install a private catch basin on her property.
- Larry Willoughby 298 Concession 8
- Q: Was the increased water run off taken into account? Concession 8 is the busiest access to the public beach, will there be testing of water for SWM safe? Concerns with the municipal water system impact with the drain?
- A: Some benefits will be a relief on the Cameron Drain, the quality of water will not be altered by Phase 2 (although it will be improved by Phase 1). The detention pond does (not designed) add quality treatment. They will be looking into the utilities further; water may be shut off to a few properties for a couple of hours but the rest of the service along Bruce Beach Road will remain functional.
- Q: Hard to picture the outlet, how high will it be?
- A: The drain outlet will be located on the north part of the road allowance; access will be reconstructed to allow for access.
- Ruth McLean Cottage 23 Tout’s Grove
- Q: Concerns with run-off to the lake, pesticides going into the lake, concerned with the trees being uprooted along the ravine as trees contain the water in the soil, are natural barriers.
- A: The water will spend more time in the detention facility before being conveyed to the lake, which does have some inherent quality treatment. The ravine was beginning to erode, with tree cover and lack of sunlight on the surface, the ground land losses its natural stability. Phase I will have grass and a riprap swale and in the end the ravine will be more stable.
- Angela Corbet 85 Martyn Lane
- Q: Having trouble visualizing the outlet on the beach, could a drawing be provided? What would be the peak and minimum flows?
- A: The pipe is going to be deeper than the ground and tying in, the headwall flushes up with the grade out letting at ground level. The base flow rate is minor, the modeling shows 100-year event.
- Tom Clark – 97 Bruce Beach Road
- Q. Make sure time spent on utility disruption, spend time listing out all the risk natural and man-made risks, and the controls to mitigate the risks, how will the storm water drainage be addressed, find a common way on notifications and alerts, will the fire department do a stand by during the water shut-off, noted safety concerns during construction, daughter wedding planned for the middle of August would like to be able to have the wedding without the construction disruption.
- A: We are investigating more information on the utilities and the risks, water disruption will be off on some houses for a short duration, the watermain will remain in operation, notification will be provided, it is very unlikely that construction will be this August.
- David Moore- 94-2 Bruce Beach
- Q: In the design how was it decided what the line gets placed in the road or private side, why is it not in all or the other, will there be construction accommodations by their property hydro pole, explain the assessment between allowance and net?
- A: The pipe alignment of drain on private properties is due to the depth of the pipe to align with the water main on the road. Utilities will be located by the contractor and appropriate measures in place. The net assessment is the cost to be expected to be contributed by the property owner. John Beveridge –88 Martyn Lane
- Q: There is no realistic rendering what the drain will look like on the beach. Reinforce the concerns on utility disruption. Is there any thought on the drain at 98 Bruce Beach Road being maintained as a secondary outlet? Concerns on water quality, has the Conservation Authority taken an active role? Questioned who to pick up the costs, are they shared evenly? Can you provide example other areas similar type projects had to pay for it, in Ripley or Lucknow? Stated cottagers have highest tax base, much higher than Kincardine asked to pay sizable portion of the project, feel taken advantage of.
- A: When the outlet structure is finalized will provide details on the outlet structure and renderings and show some photos of something similar. The outlet at 98 Bruce Beach is not part of the drainage system designed, too many challenges, it will not be decommissioned as part of the project. Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority is a commenting agency in the project and will take an active part. Costs for municipal drain projects are borne by the drainage system, anyone in the watershed has an assessment. Referred question related to other examples to the Township. Following the meeting the Township notes a municipal drain project is currently underway in the Village of Ripley (Park Street Drain) and one has been completed in the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh in Port Albert along the Lakeshore.
- Paul Willoughby 84 Martyn Lane
- Q: Expressed that the area is well used by cottagers and visitors and day trippers, were any other alternative outlets reviewed?
- A: Yes, alternatives including the continued use of 98 Bruce Beach and the Right of Way between 95 & 96 Bruce Beach Road however due to future maintenance challenges and higher costs relative to the expected benefits, they were not feasible.
- Stephen Krol 297 Concession 8
- Q: Frustration on notice of the project and that the recording of the meeting would not be posted. Wants to continue the conversation on assessment and distribution of costs keep interactive conversation going. Project has a large impact on the community and should be shared with the broader community with further outreach. Why would an outlet be constructed so close to the Cameron outlet? How can they participate with Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority for beach and water quality? Timelines?
- A: The report will be taken forward to Council at a Council meeting. All the materials will be on the Have your Say HK website. The outlet was selected to achieve the most benefits. Saugeen Valley was attending the meeting and the Engineer will have more consultation with them during the process including the dynamic beach. Hard to determine exact timelines as it will depend on comments.
- Eugene Duke 82 Cameron Lane
- Q: Has the property between 89 & 90 considered? What parameters were set for choosing site? What is the expected outflow compared to the Cameron outlet? Concern with the water tiling from the farmlands.
- A: There is a watermain down the middle of 89 & 92 and its very narrow. The Cameron outlet was not modeled so cannot compare. Rain events are causing the erosion. Rainwater on farm tiles infiltrate to ground above the tile. Once the shallow groundwater table rises above the invert of the farm tile, then tile flow is engaged The flow occurs much later than in the event. The water from the farm tile enters at the tail of the event, not during the peak.
- Joan McLaughlin – 123 Bruce Beach Road
- Q: Could the grassed area at the ravine include rudbeckia?
- A: The grass included in the project does not provide for different mixes, however it could be discussed with the property owner and be planted later.
- Gary Pollock 726 Lake Range Drive
- Q: For the transition between Phase1 & Phase 2 – There’s two manholes. Are they covered at the end of the pipe? Also, will the pipe for Phase 1 be changed from 18” to 24”?
- A: It wasn’t an 18”, it was a 15” pipe. That pipe has been removed, and a 24” pipe has already been installed. The ditch inlet CBs are open top to receive overland flow. There will be a grate on top, bird caged grates. Gary would also like to look into Rudbeckia in more detail.
The meeting concluded at 12:02 p.m.
