14. Britannia Village – Ottawa river flood protection

village de britannia – protection contre les inondations de la rivière des outaouais

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

That Council approve:

a) The implementation of the flood protection measures as identified in the report, subject to a survey of interest receiving support from at least 67% of the property owners within the flood plain limits defined by Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.

b) The City’s share in the amount of 50% of the cost of the base regulatory flood protection measures up to $390,000, and 100% of the cost in excess of $390,000,provided the total escalated project costs for the base regulatory measures are demonstrated to continue to be economically viable as a flood protection measure.

c) The benefiting property owners be 100% responsible for the cost of the enhanced wave protection measures up to $80,000 and the City be 100% responsible of the cost in excess of $80,000, provided the total escalated project costs for the enhanced wave protection measures are demonstrated to continue to be economically viable as a flood protection measure.

d) The City recover the private property owners’ share, representing 50% of the cost of the base regulatory flood protection measures up to $390,000 and 100% of the cost of the enhanced wave protection measures up to $80,000, through a special area charge to be levied subject to a bylaw to be established once construction is complete and the final costs, carrying charges and term of the recovery have been determined.

e) That the Survey of Interest being conducted for the Britannia Village – Ottawa River Flood Protection be extended to July 31, 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONS MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil approuve :

a) l’adoption des mesures de protection contre les inondations indiquées dans le rapport, à la condition qu’un sondage révèle qu’au moins 67 p. 100 des propriétaires de terrains situés à l’intérieur de la plainte inondable, définie par l’Office de protection de la nature de la vallée Rideau, sont favorables à ces mesures.

b) la part du financement incombant à la Ville, soit 50 p. 100 du coût des mesures de base de protection contre les crues réglementaires, jusqu’à concurrence de 390 000 $, et 100 p. 100 des coûts dépassant 390 000 $, à la condition qu’il soit démontré que l’augmentation du coût total des mesures de base demeurera justifiable sur le plan économique.

c) l’imposition aux propriétaires bénéficiaires de la totalité du coût des mesures améliorées de protection contre les vagues, jusqu’à concurrence de 80 000 $, la Ville étant responsable de la totalité des coûts dépassant 80 000 $, à la condition qu’il soit démontré que l’augmentation du coût total des mesures améliorées demeurera justifiable sur le plan économique.

d) le recouvrement par la Ville de la part des propriétaires privés, soit 50 p. 100 du coût des mesures de base de protection contre les crues réglementaires, jusqu’à concurrence de 390 000 $, et 100 p. 100 du coût des mesures améliorées de protection contre les vagues, jusqu’à concurrence de 80 000 $, au moyen d’un impôt extraordinaire spécial, moyennant l’adoption d’un règlement municipal une fois que les travaux auront été réalisés et que les coûts définitifs, les frais financiers et les modalités de recouvrement auront été établis.

e) le prolongement du sondage concernant le Village de Britannia – Protection contre les inondations de la rivière des Outaouais jusqu’au 31 juillet 2006.

DOCUMENTATION

1. Public Works and Services, A/Deputy City Manager’s report
dated 30 June 2006 (ACS2006-PWS-INF-0005).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 04 July 2006.

Report to/Rapport au :

Corporate Services Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationels et du développement économique

20 June 2006 / le 20 juin 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par: R.G. Hewitt,

Acting Deputy City Manager/ Directeur municipal adjoint par interim,

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux Publics

Contact Person/Personne ressource :

W.R. Newell, P.Eng., Acting Director/Directeur intérimaire

Infrastructure Services/Services d'infrastructure

(613) 580-2424 x16002, Wayne.Newell@ottawa.ca

Ward 7 (Bay)

Ref N°: ACS2006-PWS-INF-0005

SUBJECT:	Britannia Village – Ottawa river flood protection

OBJET :	village de britannia – protection contre les inondations de la rivière des outaouais

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve:

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique recommande au Conseil d’approuver :

BACKGROUND

Portions of Britannia Village are constructed within the 1:100 year flood plain limits of the Ottawa River, as defined by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) (see Attachment 1). There has been historical flooding of the area resulting in compromised access and use of property, public safety risks and inconveniences and flooding damage to property and dwellings. In addition, the threat of flooding impacts property values, insurance rates and creates stressful conditions for affected residents during high water events.

The City has improved flood response protocols and has completed miscellaneous storm and sanitary sewer improvements in the Britannia Park area in an effort to deal with flood response requirements.

Although protection against the risks of individual dwelling flooding can be undertaken on a voluntary property-by-property basis, reducing the risk of flooding effectively can only be achieved through some form of engineered protection system along the shoreline. Some individual owners have undertaken independent shoreline works in the past. These measures are limited, vary in approach and level of protection and are discontinuous over the impacted area; therefore, provide limited protection to the broader flood prone community.

In the early 1990’s, the RVCA commissioned a preliminary engineering study to estimate the average annual damages resulting from flooding and to examine the cost effectiveness of flood protection measures for the Britannia Village community. The study concluded the level of flood protection could be enhanced at a reasonable cost and the investment was economically viable since the estimated cost of the capital improvement was less than the estimated future flood damages over the lifespan of the improvements. The project did not proceed any further at that time.

In 2004, the community expressed renewed interest in broader flood protection measures to the RVCA. The RVCA approached the City to determine if there was potential for assistance with funding and to consider application of the Municipal Act provisions to undertake the work and provide payment options over a period of time. The Department has been working with the RVCA and the Community on the issue since 2004 and is providing a recommended course of action that could enable this project to proceed.

The RVCA’s recently established “Development regulations” under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act on the flood prone lands and other lands within its area of jurisdiction along the Ottawa River. Since the approval of the regulation by the Minister of Natural Resources in May 2006, construction of new buildings and additions/renovations to existing buildings within the flood plain area now come under additional scrutiny and control by the RVCA. The RVCA has indicated that if flood protection measures are constructed and maintained to protect the community against a regulatory flood, the works would be recognized as ensuring safe access/egress to properties during a flood. This would enable the RVCA to issue permission under its regulations for the construction of flood-proofed buildings and additions on existing lots, to the extent that is permitted under the City’s zoning by-laws. This has resulted in an increased interest in the implementation of flood control measures.

DISCUSSION

Given the time elapsed since the 1992 study undertaken by the RVCA, a key part of the recent work by RVCA and the City was to update cost estimates for flood protection measures previously identified and to reassess its economic viability. This was completed in 2005 and included an assessment of the potential for additional protection to shoreline properties against wind generated wave overtopping. It was determined that a base regulatory flood protection system could be implemented to protect against a 1:100 year flood level at a total estimated cost of $390,000. In addition, an option was considered to provide enhanced wave protection estimated to cost an incremental $80,000. Both scenarios were assessed by RVCA against the potential value of damage protection and found to be economically viable flood protection initiatives.

Scope of Flood Protection

The proposed flood protection measures involves the construction of a continuous barrier to control the high water levels in the Ottawa River. This would include increasing the height of existing berms/walls previously installed by the City and/or property owners, replacing existing measures that do not provide the appropriate level of protection and undertaking localized drainage improvements to manage flooding from wave action overtopping the berm/walls.

A functional design has been completed for these works as shown in Attachment 2. The intent would be to locate the flood protection measures along the shoreline with consideration to blending with existing landscape features and minimizing sightline impacts from existing residences. Once implemented, these flood protection measures would come under RVCA stewardship for ongoing maintenance and repair. RVCA intends to pursue voluntary permanent easement dedications in those locations where the flood protection measures are located on private property.

Legislative Authority

The Municipal Act, 2001, defines provisions for a municipality to undertake “local improvements” or “special services” initiatives and assess charges to the benefiting property owners. Based on the special nature of the work and since the physical improvements do not directly abut all the benefiting property owners, it is more appropriate to proceed with the project as a “special service” under Section 326 of the Municipal Act.

Access/Egress

Throughout the consultation period with the affected community, issues were raised regarding the potential benefit to property owners located outside the flood plain area but that could be impacted from an access/egress perspective. These are referred to as “island properties”. Assessing a precise quantitative value to each property for access/egress issues is difficult to quantify. The charge for this attribution of cost for access/egress to the “island properties” was found to be relatively small compared to the costs to administer recovery. The Department concluded that these issues should be considered as part of the City’s share to ensure safe access/egress to the community at large.

Cost Sharing

The estimated cost of the base regulatory flood protection measures is $390,000. The estimated cost of the enhanced wave protection is $80,000.

Provincial funding is not available for these works. The cost for the base regulatory flood protection measures would be shared by all flood plain properties with an additional cost to be borne by a select group benefiting from wind generated wave action protection. This forms the basis of two defined benefiting areas and, from a cost-sharing perspective, the Department considers it reasonable that, as owners of property parcels in the flood plain area, the City share on the same basis as the rest of the property owners within the floodplain for the base regulatory flood protection measures but not for any enhanced works. Based on the City’s ownership of property within the affected area (predominantly Britannia Park) and the less tangible access/egress issues, the Department considers it reasonable in this situation to cost share at 50% of the base regulatory flood protection measures ($195,000).

Cost Certainty

Property owners require a sense of certainty with respect to potential financial commitment to formulate a decision to sign up to participate or not. On the basis of acceptance of the design estimates and reasonable price escalation, the Department is recommending the private property owners’ share not exceed 50% of the base regulations flood protection measures ($195,000) or 100% of the enhanced wave protection measures ($80,000). Should the cost of the project exceed the total estimated costs for the works, the City would assume the escalated costs as long as the project continues to be deemed to be an economically viable flood protection initiative.

This approach is consistent with provisions of the Local Improvement Policy approved by Council on 10 May 2006 (ACS2006-PWS-INF-0001).

Financing

General

Special Area charge provisions are calculated on the basis of the property assessment values for property owners within the affected area. The process precludes consideration of properties opting in or out over the course of the term which also precludes lump sum payment provisions. Charges would be assessed and adjusted on an annual basis for a fixed term. It has been City practice to use a 10-year term or longer for typical local improvement projects. For information and decision-making purposes, the Department has maintained the 10-year term as the basis of information provided to the community. The length of the term remains to be confirmed through further discussions with Financial Services and the Community.

The City will recover carrying charges associated with the private property owners’ share of the costs that are advanced by the City and subsequently recovered over time. The value of the carrying charges is subject to the final costs and the term of repayment.

Credits for work previously completed

Some property owners have undertaken independent shoreline works in the past and have requested consideration for allowance of these works as acceptable flood protection measures. Preliminary review of these measures suggest they are limited, vary in approach and not likely to be able to be incorporated into the proposed flood protection measures for the broader community. It is also unlikely the RVCA would consider them acceptable for transfer of ownership and long term sustainability. However, the final assessment of the flood proofing worthiness and acceptability for long term protection will be determined as part of the final detailed design process. This may result in an overall reduction in project costs.

Grants, Fund Raising or Donations

The Britannia Village Community Association identified several potential sources of donations or community fundraising contributions to the project. The Department has indicated that any such funds received by the City would be applied against the private property owners’ share of the cost. Grants, subsidies or other forms of public funding would be applied against the total project costs.

Next Steps

A survey of interest is currently underway in the community and is scheduled to be submitted to the City in late June 2006. The project, should it proceed, would be managed by RVCA whose roles would generally be to:

Design and prepare tender documents
Negotiate consent to enter and easement agreements with affected landowners
Award contract and supervise construction
Undertake legal surveys and registration of permanent easements
Assume responsibility for the flood protection structure
Undertake annual inspection and routine maintenance of the flood protection structure

RVCA have initiated the preliminary detailed design work to be able to provide sufficient information to the community and to allow construction to proceed in 2006 should Committee and Council approve the proposed project approach and the survey of interest indicate 67% majority support.

The City’s role is to facilitate the undertaking of the works by initially funding the works, cost-sharing and recovering private property owners’ share of the total cost through a special area charge levy.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Discussions with the community regarding the concept of a berm shoreline protection scheme have been ongoing since the early 1990’s. More recently, public meetings were held in November 2004, July 2005 and May 2006.

The Department’s suggested approach was reviewed with Community representatives in April 2006. The Britannia Village Community Association (BVCA) and Ward Councillor subsequently hosted a public information session 01 May 2006. The focus of the session was to provide information regarding the flood protection measures, proposed cost-sharing, the process to move forward and opportunities for implementation in 2006.

Based on the meeting, it was agreed that the BVCA would manage meeting with the residents, RVCA and Engineers to review the design and to discuss the merits of proceeding and the City would finalize the survey of interest package and deliver it for circulation by mid-May.

The information packages were delivered to the Ward Councillor's office and mailed to residents 23 May 2006. The information package also included letters from BVCA, the Ward Councillor and RVCA supporting the project with a return date (post-marked) for the survey of interest of 30 June 2006. Attachment 3 is a fact sheet provided in May 2006 to residents highlighting the details for the project. Attachment 4 is a copy of the fact sheet provided with the survey of interest form.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The total estimated cost to implement the proposed flood protection measures is $470,000, which includes the base regulatory flood protection measures ($390,000) and enhanced wave action protection measures ($80,000).

The City’s share of the project is $195,000 (50% of $390,000). The remaining funds ($275,000) will be recovered from the benefiting property owners. Should project costs exceed $470,000, the City would be 100% responsible for the incremental costs.

A new capital project for the Britannia Village Ottawa River Flood Protection will be added to the 2006 Capital Budget.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Attachment 1 – Britannia Village Flood Plain Area

Attachment 2 – Berm Concept

Attachment 3 – Fact Sheet for Public Meeting

Attachment 4 – Fact Sheet for Survey of Interest

DISPOSITION

The Public Works and Services Department will coordinate the implementation of the flood protection measures with the RVCA, should the community decide to proceed.

The City will be responsible to administer the project under the Municipal Act, including recovery of private property owners’ share.

Attachment 1 – Britannia Village Flood Plain Area

The drawing below is an excerpt from a report entitled: “Lac Deschenes Flood Damage Reduction Investigation” (Novatech Engineering Consultants Ltd. for RVCA, Dec. 1992).

The 100-year flood line shown here was originally delineated in a study entitled: “Ottawa River Flood Plain Mapping (MacLaren Plansearch for MVCA, RVCA and RMOC, Dec. 1984), and has been reviewed and confirmed in subsequent hydrologic analyses.

Attachment 2 – Berm Concept

Attachment 3 – Fact Sheet for Public Meeting

Attachment 4 – Fact Sheet for Survey of Interest

Britannia Village – Ottawa river flood protection

village de britannia – protection contre les inondations de la rivière des outaouais

ACS2006-PWS-INF-0005

Wayne Newell, Acting Director, Infrastructure Services, Public Works and Services Department, provided a brief overview of the staff report. Mr. Newall advised a survey of interest had been initiated with the community and originally a cut off date of June 30 was set for submission of the survey. The Community Association has requested this deadline be deferred to later in the summer. As well, they have requested the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) look at other opportunities with respect to how to implement the berm along the waterfront to control the water elevation. Mr. Newell stressed the project would not proceed unless the survey of interest of the community had the support of 67% of the benefiting property owners. Further, he advised the estimated cost as outlined in the report was based on the understanding these works would be implemented in 2006. He indicated a delay in moving forward with the survey of interest and also, if other measures are to be pursued with the RVCA, could have impacts on the cost.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations.

Wendy Hough-Eyamie, President, Britannia Village Community Association (BVCA) (correspondence from Ms. Hough-Eyamie dated 15 June 2006 is held on file with the City Clerk). Ms. Hough-Eyamie spoke of the long history the issue of flood proofing this community has had. She said despite there being a general consensus in the community that flood proofing would be prudent, the community has in the past not moved forward in this regard. She advised the recent community interest in the issue has been spurred on by the implementation of the RVCA’s developmental regulations under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act (adopted in May 2006), which regulates the construction of new buildings and the renovation of existing buildings on flood-prone lands under its jurisdiction along the Ottawa River including Britannia Village. Ms. Hough-Eyamie then highlighted the effects these regulations would have on Britannia Village, namely, they will restrict the development potential of the properties located on the flood plain; they will adversely affect the assessed and resale values of these properties; and, they will increase the time and costs involved with implementing any future development projects.

Ms. Hough-Eyamie indicated the BVCA unequivocally supports the implementation of flood proofing measures to protect the property and well being of village residents. She went on to site a number of reasons why the City should financially support all or a large portion of the costs related to the proposed flood proofing initiative. These reasons included: Britannia Village is a designated heritage community and should be afforded protection from foreseeable hazards such as potential flooding; the City should protect access to and the functioning of the Britannia Water Filtration Plant; and, the City has been involved in other flood proofing initiatives (e.g. ice removal along the Rideau River and the recent flood drainage project in Sandy Hill.

In concluding her remarks, Ms. Hough-Eyamie spoke to the issue of the survey of interest. She noted although a number of public meetings and information sessions were held, these were not truly open-ended discussions. So on June 8 a community meeting was held and many of the residents (particularly those who live along the river front properties on which the proposed flood control works would be built) voiced several concerns. Specifically they were concerned about the construction of a berm in general, the disproportionate allocation of costs for Scenario 2 and the fact the islanders would not be contributing to the cost of the project. She said the residents felt they could not support the project at such an early stage in terms of the engineering designs. In light of those objections, the BVCA requested the survey of interest be held in abeyance at this point in time. She noted they had been in touch with the RVCA and were advised that Novatech is exploring three options and their report is expected this week. Ms. Hough-Eyamie stated they hoped to have another community meeting on July 18 and after that they would be happy to move ahead with the survey of interest.

Mayor Chiarelli advised Councillor Cullen had put forward a motion to extend the deadline for the survey of interest to July 31, 2006. He asked the delegation if this would be acceptable. Ms. Hough-Eyamie agreed this would be acceptable.

In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Ms. Hough-Eyamie confirmed the initial drawings for the works being proposed were presented at a public meeting of the community in June 2005. As well, in a package mailed out to residents (and appended to the staff report) the drawings were clear about the intent of the program. The community also had another opportunity to look at those drawings in detail on May 1, 2006. Ms. Hough-Eyamie stated her belief the concerns of the river front residents related to the size of the berm, where it would be located (relative to their property lines) and whether there were other options that were not explored.

Councillor Cullen noted he, City staff and the RVCA have been strongly in favour of this project and he sought confirmation that the Britannia Village Community Association was still in favour of this project. Ms. Hough-Eyamie confirmed this to be true.

Bert Foulds advised he was a homeowner on the riverside of Kehoe Street. He stated this program had come as a great shock to him and indicated there had been no consultation on this. He said the last consultation to take place on flood proofing was held in 1997 by Councillor Ron Kolbus and at that time, there was no support from the riverside home owners. Mr. Foulds spoke of the impact the proposed berm (which would be as high as 44 inches) would have on the yards and gardens of the 20 homes on the river front and on top of that, the City would then charge them over $110,000 in extra taxes for the cost of the flood proofing. He noted he had written to members of Committee outlining his concerns and a copy of this correspondence dated 19 June 2006, is held on file with the City Clerk.

Mr. Foulds asked that the Committee put this project aside. He said it appeared to him that this proposal was an attempt to “work around” the RVCA regulations, to enable a few people in the Village to build or renovate their properties. He went on to say the RVCA recently showed the residents the plans but prior to that no one had ever actually come to look at the property, not even the senior project manager of Novatech. Further, he pointed out the protection wall that built in 1982, was not taken into account and the drawings used were outdated (i.e. they did not include decade old trees).

Referring to the public meeting that was held on June 8, Mr. Foulds noted there was no discussion about personal safety or protecting property. Rather, the discussion centred on the RVCA regulations and how to get around them. He urged the Committee to stop this process and instead work with the few people in the Village who want to renovate or build and with the RVCA, to try to find a solution. Further, he asked that everything in the survey be expunged totally because there is nothing to base it on – the plans are not clear and they are indefinite. Finally, Mr. Foulds stated if there was to be consultation, he asked that this take place after the summer, when people are back from their holidays.

Sandra Todd advised she was asking the Committee to defer approval of the project, as she felt it was premature. She provided members of the Committee with a copy of a letter to the community dated 21 June 2006, from Ms. Hough- Eyamie and a copy of the information flyer that was sent by the BVCA to the community a few months earlier (these documents are held on file with the City Clerk). Ms. Todd stated the proposal before the Committee had been rejected by the community. Referencing the letter from Ms. Hough-Eyamie, Ms. Todd pointed out the community was led to believe there would be a whole new vote, when actually what Ms. Hough-Eyamie had proposed at this meeting was that the deadline be held open until sufficient votes are received.

Ms. Todd opined the proposal before the Committee was seriously flawed and did not have the support of the community. She asked that the funding be deferred until there is a viable plan and the consensus of the community has been attained. Ms. Todd went on to say that at the community meetings held in November 2004; June 2005 and July 2005, Councillor Cullen had indicated repeatedly these were information meetings and the community’s opportunity to discuss the matter would come at a later date. However, at the May 1, 2006 meeting, the Councillor advised the community’s opportunity to discuss the issue had passed. The June 8, 2006 community meeting was the first community discussion meeting and it was held three weeks after the vote started.

In concluding her remarks, Ms. Todd noted the BVCA is an incredibly capable, energetic and hard working group of people that have worked very hard to campaign for the flood proofing. However, she said felt there needed to be some sort of supervision of the process, as it was an unfair process. Ms. Todd also conveyed another neighbour’s thoughts on the matter, namely, that they felt it was not appropriate or ethical for the vote to be held open until there are sufficient votes in favour of the proposal.

Having heard from all public delegations, the matter returned to Committee for discussion.

Councillor Cullen thanked the residents for appearing before the committee. He noted this project had been a difficult one with a very long history. Both the RVCA and the City have recognized this area as being in the 100-year flood plain and have supported previous efforts to try and deal with it. The Councillor noted this process began a result of the initiative of the BVCA and he spoke of the many public meetings held since November, 2004 (copies of the meeting notices and correspondence from the Councillor that went out to all Village residents, are held on file with the City Clerk). He emphasized the process had not finished and the vote had not stopped. There are efforts underway to see if the flood proofing design can be tweaked (the costs of which are to be borne by the community) and if they can be tweaked to the satisfaction of the RVCA, the City will be happy. He said he was confident that reasonable people could come up with a reasonable plan that Council could support.

Councillor Cullen thanked the Mayor for his work in increasing the City’s funding contribution from 20% to 50%. He noted the staff report protects the interests of the City and if the 67% support threshold is not reached, the project will not proceed. He urged the Committee to accept the staff report (which is conditional on the community’s participation), as well as his motion to extend the survey of interest to the end of July.

Councillor Jellett noted one of the presenters had indicated if the required support of the community is attained and the flood proofing is put in place, this would meet the requirements of the RVCA and construction would be allowed in the Village. He asked for staff comment. Bruce Reid, Director, Watershed Science and Engineering, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, advised that if the community decides to proceed with the project and the flood protection work is built to the 1 in 100 year standard, this would enable the RVCA to consider the access issue that always comes up when they are dealing with applications. He said they would consider that issue to be addressed for the purposes of allowing existing lots to be built out to the extent that is allowed under the current zoning. He stressed it would not enable development beyond that limit, in terms of severances or changes in zoning to a higher density.

Councillor Cullen’s motion was considered at this point.

Moved by Councillor A. Cullen

That the Survey of Interest being conducted for the Britannia Village – Ottawa River Flood Protection be extended to July 31, 2006.

CARRIED

The report as amended was then approved.

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve:

e) That the Survey of Interest being conducted for the Britannia Village – Ottawa River Flood Protection be extended to July 31, 2006.

CARRIED as amended