Report to / Rapport au:
Transportation Committee
Comité des transports
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by / Soumis
par: Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe
Infrastructure Services and
Community Sustainability/
Services d’infrastructure et
Viabilité des collectivités
|
City-Wide / À l’échelle de la Ville |
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-INF-0002 |
SUBJECT: LOCAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY UPDATE –
INSTALLATION OF NOISE BARRIERS
OBJET: mise à jour de la politique en matière d’aménagements
locaux – installation d’écrans antibruit
That the Transportation Committee recommend
Council approve inclusion of retrofit noise control measures as eligible
projects in the City of Ottawa Local Improvement Policy as per terms set out in
this report.
Que le Comité des
transports recommande au Conseil d’approuver l’inclusion des dispositifs
antibruit installés à titre de mesures correctrices au nombre des projets
admissibles aux termes de la Politique de la Ville d’Ottawa en matière
d’aménagements locaux, conformément aux modalités énoncées dans le présent
rapport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Noise levels
generated from within City-owned traffic corridors can impact residential
properties. Both the Official Plan and
Transportation Master Plan identify the need to limit traffic noise exposure
levels. In 2006, Council approved a
Local Improvement Policy governing how requests are administered. Council also approved the City of Ottawa
Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG) as the tool to implement the
City’s Official Plan policies on environmental noise. The ENCG identifies that noise control
measure retrofits will be undertaken in accordance with the Local Improvements
Policy.
Adoption of the ENCG in 2006 replaced all previous guidelines/policies related to noise control installations from the former municipalities. Prior to 2006, the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton (ROC) was the only former municipality to have a specific policy on cost-sharing for noise barrier retrofits. Where warrants were met, the policy provided for a 50/50 cost-sharing with the subsidy applying to a maximum average lot width of 20 meters.
Unlike extension of municipal water and sewer services where the driving force is a desire by the property owner to change or enhance the level of service received, the need for noise mitigation has both different drivers and implications on affected properties. Staff have considered a number of different cost-sharing schemes and has undertaken a review of practices in other peer municipalities. A 50/50 cost-sharing scheme is recommended. This cost-sharing scheme between the City and property owners is considered to be an appropriate method as it is easy to understand, provides clear cost implications to property owners and can be administered effectively and efficiently.
If adopted,
changes to the Local Improvement Policy will be undertaken to reflect that a
maximum of 50% of total project costs be attributed to abutting property owners
for Local Improvement retrofit noise control measures that meet the warrants of
the City's Environmental Noise Control Guidelines and the Local Improvement
Policy requirements.
There has not been specific public consultation on this report. There has been public consultation related to site-specific noise barrier retrofit requests.
Any proposed Local Improvement charges require approval by Committee and Council to establish the by-law authorizing their implementation. Funding provisions for future noise control measure retrofits will be included in the Long Range Financial Plan and budget requirements to cover the City’s share will be identified through the annual capital budget cycle.
RÉSUMÉ
Les niveaux de bruit produits par les couloirs de
circulation appartenant à la Ville peuvent avoir des répercussions sur les
propriétés résidentielles. Tant le Plan
officiel que le Plan directeur des transports constatent
la nécessité de limiter le niveau d’exposition des propriétés résidentielles au
bruit produit par la circulation. En
2006, le Conseil a approuvé une politique en matière d’aménagements locaux qui
régit l’administration des demandes. Le
Conseil a également approuvé les Lignes directrices sur la lutte contre le
bruit environnemental de la Ville d’Ottawa, qui constituent l’outil de mise en
œuvre des politiques énoncées dans le Plan officiel de la Ville concernant le
bruit environnemental. En vertu de ces
lignes directrices, les dispositifs antibruit installés à titre de mesures
correctrices doivent être réalisés en conformité avec la Politique en matière
d’aménagements locaux.
Les Lignes directrices sur la lutte contre le
bruit environnemental adoptées en 2006 ont remplacé l’ensemble des lignes
directrices et politiques relatives aux installations de lutte contre le bruit qui
avaient été adoptées par les anciennes municipalités. Avant 2006, la Région d’Ottawa-Carleton était
la seule des anciennes administrations municipales à posséder une politique
précise sur le partage des coûts des écrans antibruit installés à titre de
mesures correctrices. Dans les cas où la
nécessité de tels ouvrages était constatée, la politique prévoyait un partage
des coûts 50/50 et la subvention s’appliquait à une largeur de lot maximale
moyenne de 20 mètres.
Contrairement au prolongement des services
d’aqueduc et d’égouts municipaux résultant de la volonté du propriétaire de
modifier ou d’améliorer le niveau des services qu’il reçoit, la nécessité de
réduire le bruit obéit à des motivations différentes et a aussi des
répercussions différentes sur les propriétés en cause. Le personnel a étudié plusieurs formules de
partage des coûts et examiné les pratiques en vigueur dans d’autres
municipalités. C’est ainsi qu’une
formule de partage des coûts 50/50 est recommandée. Cette façon de répartir les coûts entre la
Ville et les propriétaires est considérée comme une méthode appropriée, parce
qu’elle est facile à comprendre, qu’elle permet aux propriétaires de connaître
précisément les coûts qu’ils devront assumer et qu’il est possible de
l’administrer d’une manière efficace et efficiente.
Si elles sont adoptées, les modifications à la
Politique en matière d’aménagements locaux seront appliquées de manière que
50 p. 100 au maximum du coût total d’un projet soient imputés aux
propriétaires des propriétés contiguës, dans le cas des écrans antibruit
installés à titre de mesures correctrices qui satisferont aux exigences des
Lignes directrices sur la lutte contre le bruit environnemental et de la
Politique en matière d’aménagements locaux de la Ville d’Ottawa.
Le présent rapport n’a pas fait l’objet d’une
consultation publique particulière. Il
n’ya pas eu de consultation publique
relative à des demandes précises d’installation d’écrans antibruit à titre de
mesures correctrices.
Tout projet de taxe d’aménagements locaux
nécessite l’approbation du comité concerné et du Conseil, qui doit promulguer
le règlement municipal autorisant un tel prélèvement. Les crédits d’immobilisation nécessaires au
paiement de la part de la Ville seront établis dans le cadre du cycle
budgétaire annuel.
BACKGROUND
Noise levels generated from within City-owned traffic corridors can impact residential properties. Both the Official Plan (OP) and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) identify the need to limit traffic noise exposure levels. In 2006, Council approved the City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG) as the tool for implementation of the City’s Official Plan policies on environmental noise. The ENCG identify baseline criteria, warrants and technical procedures for the control of environmental noise along City surface transportation corridors. The ENCG are used as a technical manual dealing with issues involving sources of environmental noise in various respects:
· New Land Use Planning
· New Capital Works Projects (Roads, Transitway, LRT)
· Existing surface transportation corridors – retrofits as local improvements
This report focuses on the retrofit or upgrade of noise control mitigation measures in existing surface transportation corridors that are not related to new developments, new roadways or capacity enhancement capital works projects. Prior to 2006, the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton (ROC) was the only former municipality to have a specific policy on cost-sharing for noise barrier retrofits. The former ROC policy (February 2000) allowed for noise barrier retrofits only for abutting properties impacted by noise from arterial-class roads. Where all the warrants were met, the policy provided for a 50/50 cost-sharing with the subsidy only applying to a maximum average lot width of 20 meters (full cost recovery from owners for construction in excess of 20m). Adoption of the ENCG in 2006 replaced all previous guidelines/policies related to noise control installations from the former municipalities.
The ENCG identifies that noise control measure retrofits will be undertaken as Local Improvements and processed in keeping with the requirements of the City’s Local Improvement Policy. The Local Improvement Policy, approved by Council in 2006, governs how requests for municipal servicing extensions are administered. This report is intended to update the existing policy to include provisions related to noise control measures retrofits and cost-sharing.
DISCUSSION
Rationale
Historically, existing communities lacking municipal watermains, sewers, sidewalks or other infrastructure typically associated with the urban environment have driven the majority of local improvement projects. Most of these communities were initially developed outside the urban service areas, but as a result of surrounding growth, have since become part of the Public Service Areas established by the Official Plan. The urban development around these communities would often spur requests for service level upgrades, infrastructure enhancements and network expansions that are not associated with the rehabilitation or maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Capital costs associated with the initial construction of sewers, watermains, roads, sidewalks and other utilities are generally borne by the initial land developer. When these services are constructed, the developer recovers the costs as part of the purchase price of the homes. The City’s Local Improvement Policy allows the installation of new municipal services in areas where the initial development did not include those services to be borne by the benefiting property owners.
Local
improvements that have been previously undertaken have typically involved the
extension of municipal water and sewer systems and roadway improvements to
areas that already have service in some form or other. In the case of piped infrastructure, the
property owners share the full costs of the initial capital works, excepting
any costs directed to the City by regulation.
The need for noise mitigation has both different drivers and
implications on affected properties. Retrofit noise barriers are:
· meant to mitigate the direct impact to private property of excessive noise levels from traffic and/or rapid transit corridors where none were originally provided or where existing installations are insufficient;
In new residential development, traffic noise impacts can be minimized at the time of initial construction through building design and landscaping measures or physical noise attenuation structures. Regardless of the method, at the time of initial development, cost associated with mitigation measures whether passive or physical structures are borne by the proponents developing and then form part of their cost recovery models through property sales to both abutting owners and the larger developed area overall. Similarly, in the case of new capital works where the City is constructing a new transportation corridor or expanding an existing facility to increase capacity, environmental noise control requirements are addressed through the environmental assessment and design stages and costs are captured as part of the overall City project.
Peer Scan –
Practices
In addition to former practices, staff undertook to review practices of other peer municipalities. The review included fifteen Canadian regional and local governments (3 regional and 9 cities in Ontario, 2 in Alberta, 1 in Nova Scotia). The consulting engineering firm McCormick Rankin Corporation was also hired to complete a study of options. The study requirements included:
1. benchmarking/best practice review of current cost sharing schemes and rationales employed by peer municipalities in Ontario and other provinces;
2. the development and analysis of options for a cost-sharing scheme, and;
3. the identification of potential locations along existing City traffic corridors that could be sites for warranted noise control measure retrofits, with the provision of high-level noise barrier cost estimates for the sites.
The survey found that six municipalities were not comparable for analysis of cost-sharing due to either a lack of explicit information or a lack of any involvement in the construction and/or ownership of noise barrier retrofits. The remaining nine municipalities surveyed were indicative of a general trend toward some form of owner/city cost-sharing ranging from 75/25 to 25/75, with 50/50 being a common split (see Appendix 1).
Cost-Sharing
Options
The analysis considered different cost-sharing options, including fixed ratio, matrix related to noise levels and a variable point system based on site specific and technical factors (see Appendix 1). In reviewing the options, the fixed ratio 50/50 split of total project costs between the City and property owners is considered to be an appropriate method as it is easy to understand, provides clear cost implications to property owners and can be administered effectively and efficiently. It is also consistent with the former ROC policy.
If adopted, changes to the Local Improvement Policy will be required to reflect that a maximum of 50% of total project costs be attributed to abutting property owners for Local Improvement retrofit noise control measures that meet the warrants of the City's Environmental Noise Control Guidelines and the Local Improvement requirements.
· General interest being expressed by the community (50% survey of interest);
· Information sharing with the property owners in the form of fact sheets, information sessions, surveys of interest, etc;
· Petitioning for works as may be required (requiring support of 2/3 of benefiting property owners representing at least 50% of property assessment value);
· Reporting to Committee and Council regarding the proposed local improvement, cost sharing allocations and budgetary requirements;
· Passing a bylaw to undertake the works as a Local Improvement;
· Public notification of the City’s intent to undertake a Local Improvement;
· Public tender for the implementation of the physical assets;
· Construction of the work;
· Notification of the final charges to be assessed to the owners;
· A review period for concerns related to the charges to be assessed; and
· Charges assessed to property owners.
The City of Ottawa Environmental Noise Control
Guidelines (ENCG) identify baseline criteria, warrants and technical procedures
for the control of environmental noise along City surface transportation corridors. The guidelines consider issues involving
sources of environmental noise with respect to existing surface transportation
corridors and identifies that noise control measure retrofits will be
undertaken as Local Improvements. The
recommendations of this report support implementation of the ENCG objectives.
There are no rural implications to this report.
There has not been specific public consultation on this report. There has been public consultation related to site-specific noise barrier retrofit requests.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management implications to
this report.
Any proposed Local Improvement charges require approval by Committee and Council to establish the by-law authorizing their implementation. Funding provisions for future noise control measure retrofits will be included in the Long Range Financial Plan and budget requirements to cover the City’s share will be identified through the annual capital budget cycle.
Appendix 1 – Cost Sharing Options
The Infrastructure Services Department will amend the
Local Improvement Policy to:
Appendix
1 – Cost Sharing Options
The following 9 municipalities provided survey information: Halton, Peel, Waterloo, London, Mississauga, Oakville, Whitby, Calgary and Toronto.
Table 1 - Cost Sharing Options
|
In order to qualify for retrofit as a local improvement and
cost-sharing consideration, modeled noise levels must exceed qualifying
equivalent noise levels (Ottawa – 60dBA) |
|||||||||||||||
Fixed
|
·
standard fixed ratio regardless of site specifics (ex.. Owners/City Share = 100/0, 75/25, 50/50…) |
||||||||||||||
|
Matrix |
·
ratio adjusted incrementally as the site noise level increases beyond the
qualifying equivalent noise level
|
||||||||||||||
|
Variable Points |
·
variable cost-share from site to site based on a
detailed series of technical factor scores |
||||||||||||||
|
·
Study noted Mississauga having abandoned use of a
point factor cost-share ratio (when replacing existing, privately-owned
barriers) in favour of a fixed cost-share ratio due to homeowner confusion |
|||||||||||||||
Table 2 - Cost Sharing Considerations
|
|
Fixed |
Matrix |
Variable Points |
|
Managing Requests |
·
least time or resource intensive |
·
some additional time and resource needed but not intensive ·
could result in requests for updating calculations ·
additional
work required for questions on model results where noise levels are at or
near the transition between two rates |
·
time and resource intensive (requirement to collect and analyze
data for factors) ·
delays in processing and construction could result
in requests for updating calculations |
|
Ease of Understanding |
·
easy
to understand for public ·
cost-share
known at outset |
·
owners
may not understand incremental steps (log scale noise measurement) ·
cost-share not immediately known |
·
methodology
based on evaluation of data that may not be understood or be accessible ·
more difficult to understand ·
cost-share not immediately known |
|
Subjectivity |
·
minimal
|
·
minimal
|
·
some
subjectivity based on judgment |
|
Equity |
·
all
locations treated the same ·
does
not distinguish between affected locations based on severity of noise level
above warrant |
·
similarly
impacted locations treated similarly ·
distinguishes
between affected locations based severity of noise level above warrant |
·
all
locations treated differently ·
possible
that locations with higher identified noise levels could receive less funding ·
lack of available historical data could result in an inability
to equitably apply |