Councillor Gibson was not present for the discussion of this item.
Joel Miller, P. Eng, K. Smart Associates Limited presented the Hamilton Municipal Drain 2025 Report. The acceptance of the report will be considered with item 8.1 Drainage Report DRA 2025-04.
Presentation from the Engineer
The Engineer presented the Drain report. Miller provided a high level summary of the history of drainage in the watershed, and the recommended work included in the report.
Miller discussed delays to the project to determine a change in scope to the original petition. Both landowners elected to restore the original scope of the project. Additionally, there was a further wetland area project, at the constructed wetland downstream of the drain.
Upstream of the open water area is to construct a long sediment track which aids in the function of the Towel branch, and providing an area for sediments to drop out in an area of the channel that can be maintained with traditional equipment. The report also creates status under the drainage act for an area between the original drain and the wetland area. It is for maintenance purposes only, and does not have related construction costs.
Bank stabilization and cleanout works are recommended to occur as part of the construction.
Presentations from the Public
All property owners affected by the drain had the opportunity to influence Council's decision.
Darryl Gibson, landowner inquired whether enough assessment had been attributed to the Duck's unlimited project, questioning if the design changed because of the Ducks Unlimited pond. The Engineer provided information on the modification which were made to the outlet structure in the late 80's, confirming that the pond did not impact the current design. Discussions relating to how assessment costs are distributed are considered during a Court of Revision. Miller indicated there is a line item in the assessments specific to the landowner where the pond is, assessing any costs attributed to the pond directly to them.
The Mayor provided opportunity for any petitioner to withdraw from the petition or any other owners in the area requesting drainage to sign the petition. No one added or removed names from the petition.
Questions and Clarification from Council
The Engineer noted that many options were explored for changing the style of watercourse from open drain to closed drains. Members of Council inquired as to the impact that exploring these options had to the overall costs of the project. Miller stated that from a design and consulting standpoint, all costs associated with looking at closures, had been separated from the other watershed, and assessed to the two landowners who requested this investigation. Consulting with the outside agencies would need to have happened at any rate, and exploring these options helped expedited the required approvals and permits
Council discussed the locations of the tile outlets into the Towel Drain, and the benefits of slowing the water before it enters the watercourse. Council asked the Engineer if there had been any indication that tiles were constructed on the unopened road allowance to the west of that drain. Miller confirmed that there is one from the property to the west, as there is a poor condition culvert there now, the culvert was not deep enough to be tiled into. The Engineer noted that an additional petition under Section 4 would be required to provide a legal outlet at that location.
Members of Council asked for information on how engineering costs were tracked over such a long period of time. Miller confirmed that records including invoicing records were available from the period prior to Miller's appointment to the project. Additionally, Miller told Council that the engineering cost amounts reflect what the firm believes would be reasonable had the report been produced earlier, and that actual engineering costs are higher.
A resident, Owen thanked the Engineer for keeping the natural heritage features while advancing the needs of neighbors.