JEAN-PAUL ST. PIERRE Mayor/Maire

TOWNSHIP OF RUSSELL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA December 12, 2013 3:00 p.m. Gaston R. Patenaude Hall 717 Notre-Dame Street Embrun, ON CANTON DE RUSSELL SÉANCE EXTRAORDINAIRE DU CONSEIL ORDRE DU JOUR Le 12 décembre 2013 15 h Salle Gaston R. Patenaude 717, rue Notre-Dame Embrun ON JEAN-PAUL ST. PIERRE Mayor/Maire ERIC BAZINET Councillor/Conseiller CRAIG CULLEN Councillor/Conseiller PIERRE LEROUX Councillor/Conseiller JAMIE LAURIN Councillor/Conseiller

Special Council Meeting December 12, 2013 Page 2 of 26

Township of Russell Special Council Meeting Séance extraordinaire du conseil municipal du canton de Russell AGENDA / ORDRE DU JOUR December 12, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. Le 12 décembre 2013 à 15 h PAGE NO. 1. CALL TO ORDER RAPPEL À L'ORDRE 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ADOPTION DE L'ORDRE DU JOUR Be it resolved that we open this special meeting of council and approve the agenda as presented. Qu il soit résolu que nous ouvrions cette réunion extraordinaire du conseil et que nous approuvions l ordre du jour tel que présenté. 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST DÉCLARATION D'INTÉRÊT PÉCUNIAIRE 4. REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES RAPPORTS DES DIRECTEURS DE SERVICES ET DES COMITÉS a. Environmental Services Embrun Sanitary Sewage Collection System Servicing Options (Report PU 12-2013) Services environnementaux Options d entretien système de collection d égouts sanitaire d Embrun (rapport PU 12-2013) 5-26 5. RESOLUTIONS AND BY-LAWS RÉSOLUTIONS ET RÈGLEMENTS a. Resolution Environmental Services Embrun Sanitary Sewage Collection System Servicing Options (Report PU 12-2013) Résolution Options d entretien système de collection d égouts sanitaire d Embrun (rapport PU 12-2013) Be it resolved that Council acknowledges receipt of report PU 12- Special Council Meeting December 12, 2013 Page 3 of 26

2013 dated December 12, 2013 and accepts the administration s recommendation and directs staff to proceed to implement option # 3 of the Embrun Sewage Collection System Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area presented in Appendix A of the report. Qu il soit résolu que le conseil accuse réception du rapport PU 12-2013 daté du 12 décembre 2013 et que le conseil approuve la recommandation de l administration et qu il ordonne au personnel de procéder à la mise en oeuvre de l option #3 contenue dans le rapport intitulé Système de collecte des eaux usées d Embrun Options d entretien pour l aire de captage de la station de pompage #3 présenté à l annexe «A». 6. CLOSURE CLÔTURE Be it resolved that we close this special meeting of council. Qu'il soit résolu que nous clôturions cette séance extraordinaire du conseil. Special Council Meeting December 12, 2013 Page 4 of 26

REPORT TO COUNCIL: RAPPORT AU CONSEIL: PU 12-2013 DATE: 12/12/2013 EMBRUN SANITARY SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM SERVICING OPTIONS OPTIONS D ENTRETIEN - SYSTÈME DE COLLECTION D ÉGOUTS SANITAIRE D EMBRUN SUBJECT Servicing Options for the upgrading of the Sanitary Collection System from Pumping Station #3 to the New Patenaude East Subdivision PS # 8. RECOMMENDATION That Council accepts the administration s recommendation and directs staff to proceed to implement option # 3 of the Embrun Sewage Collection System Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area report presented in Appendix A. FINANCIAL IMPLICATION Increased costs to option retained by Council in April 2013 now represent an additional $310,000.00 due to the additional 2.0 metre excavation required for the siphon elevation. SUJET Options d entretien pour la modernisation du système de collecte des eaux usées, de la station de pompage #3 jusqu à la station de pompage #8 du nouveau lotissement Patenaude Est RECOMMANDATION Que le conseil approuve la recommandation de l administration et qu il ordonne au personnel de procéder à la mise en oeuvre de l option #3 contenue dans le rapport intitulé Système de collecte des eaux usées d Embrun Options d entretien pour l aire de captage de la station de pompage #3 présenté à l annexe «A». IMPLICATIONS FINANCIÈRES L augmentation des coûts pour l option retenue par le conseil en avril 2013 représente maintenant un montant additionnel de 310 000 $ en raison de l excavation additionnelle de 2 mètres requise pour l élévation du siphon. Implementing option # 3 under the present Class D cost estimate will represent an additional $100,000 over the initial Township s share of the project of $565,000. The municipal share of the project costs for the pumping station and the siphon is to be financed by Development charges and by existing users in respective shares of 84 % and 16 %. This additional $16,000 cost to existing users will be added to the amount of $408,638 to be borrowed. BUSINESS PLAN The Capital Project is part of the 2013 Business Plan under Item T1 2013 42. La mise en oeuvre de l option #3 en vertu de la présente estimation des coüts de classe D représente un montant additionnel de 100 000 $ pour la municipalité par rapport au montant initial de 565 000 $ La part municipale des coûts du projet de la station de pompage et du siphon doit être financée par les redevances d aménagement et par les utilisateurs existants dans une proportion de 84 % - 16 %. Le coût additionnel de 16 000 $ pour les utilisateurs existants sera ajouté au montant de 408 638 $ qui doit être emprunté PLAN D AFFAIRES LE PROJET D IMMOBILISATION EST INCLUS DANS L ARTICLE T1 2013-42 DU PLAN D AFFAIRES. COMMUNICATION PLAN PLAN DE COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 26

N/A Sans objet. SUBMITTED BY SOUMIS PAR: Graham Gorman, Director, Environmental Services And Daniel Gatien, Director, Economic Development Date: December 10 th, 2013 10 décembre, 2013 APPROVAL(S) APPROBATION(S): Jean Leduc Date Chief Administrative Officer Directeur général Claudette Landry Date: Executive Director of Administrative Services/Treasurer Directeur exécutif des services administratifs/ Trésorière PROJECT DESCRIPTION DU PROJET HISTORY, REFERENCE AND SUPPORT INFORMATION Council approved the siphon design contract through Resolution # 106-2013. Initial project costs were presented to Council through report ECO DEV 09-2013 Pumping Station # 8 Servicing Agreement (Appendix B ). The initial intent of the Township was to design and construct a sanitary sewer siphon system to transport sewage effluent from PS # 3 (Ste. Marie Rd.) to the new sanitary pumping station # 8 located in the proposed Patenaude East subdivision at a cost of $ 565,000.00, plus the contingency. HISTORIQUE, RÉFÉRENCES ET INFORMATION DE SUPPORT Le conseil a approuvé la conception du siphon en vertu de la résolution #106-2013. Le rapport ECO DEV 09-2013 «Station de pompage # 8 Entente de service (annexe «B» a présenté au conseil les coûts initiaux du projet. Le plan initial de la municipalité était de concevoir et de construire un système de siphon d égout sanitaire pour acheminer les eaux usées de la station de pompage #3 (chemin Ste-Marie) vers la nouvelle station de pompage #8 située dans le futur lotissement Patenaude Est au coût de 565 000 $, plus les dépenses imprévues. Page 6 of 26

A cost sharing agreement with Melanie Construction has been concluded whereas the Township s share is 48 percent of the cost of the pumping station and the developer is to assume 52%. The cost of the siphon project is 100% the municipality s responsibility as per resolution Upon the receipt of the preliminary designs for the siphon, the identified elevation required that the new pumping station be constructed at an additional depth of 2.0 meters. McIntosh & Perry Consulting Engineering Ltd. designed the new PS # 8 for Mélanie Construction at an approximate depth of 6.9 meters. The extra excavation and additional shoring costs has led to a subsequent cost estimate of $ 310,000.00 as provided from the contractor - Louis Bray Construction, for the required increased amount to the Township s portion of the proposed PS # 8 construction, due to. This information prompted a Value Engineering meeting between the Township, McIntosh & Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. and Louis Bray Construction Ltd. (Contractor of PS # 8, for Mélanie Construction Ltd.) During the Value Engineering session, numerous suggested options were tabled and mentioned by the attendees prompting the request to produce the Embrun Sewage Collection System Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area report to be presented to Council for their decision. After performing a cost analysis and review of all identified options in the Class D cost estimates for the servicing options within the report (Appendix A ), the administration recommends the implementation of options # 3. James Ricker, from Stantec Consulting Ltd. and representative of the Township in this matter will be in attendance to present and give the conclusion of the Embrun Sewage Collection System Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area report. L accord de partage des coûts conclu avec Mélanie Construction prévoyait une participation de 48 % des coûts de la construction de la station de pompage pour la municipalité et de 52 % pour le promoteur. Conformément à la résolution, la municipalité devait assumer 100 % des coûts du siphon. Les plans préliminaires du siphon,ont indiqué que la nouvelle station de pompage devait être construite à une profondeur additionnelle de deux mètres. McIntosh & Perry Consulting Engineering Ltd. a conçu la nouvelle station de pompage #8 pour Mélanie Construction à une profondeur d environ 6,9 mètres. L excavation et les coûts additionnels d étayage ont porté à 310 000 $ le coût du projet, tel que prévu par l entrepreneur Louis Bray Construction, d où l augmentation de la portion municipale pour le projet de construction de la station de pompage #8. Ces données ont donné lieu à une réunion sur l évaluation des coûts entre la municipalité, McIntosh & Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. et Louis Bray Construction Ltd. (entrepreneur pour la station de pompage #8 pour Mélanie Construction Ltd.). Durant cet exercice d analyse de la valeur, plusieurs options ont été proposées par les participants conduisant ainsi à la rédaction du rapport intitulé Système de collecte des eaux usées d Embrun Options d entretien pour l aire de captage de la station de pompage #3 soumis à l approbation du conseil. Après avoir effectué une analyse des coûts et évalué toutes les options définies dans l estimation des coüts de classe D pour les options d entretien contenues dans le rapport (annexe «A»), l administration recommande l option #3. James Ricker de Stantec Consulting Ltd et représentant de la municipalité dans ce dossier sera présent pour présenter les conclusions du rapport intitulé Système de collecte des eaux usées d Embrun Options d entretien pour l aire de captage de la station de pompage #3. OTHER OPTION(S) TO THE RECOMMENDATION AUTRES OPTION(S) À LA RECOMMANDATION Choose other options within the report. CHOISISSEZ D AUTRES OPTIONS DANS LE Page 7 of 26

RAPPORT ATTACHMENT(S) Appendix A Township of Russell Embrun Sewage System Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station # 3 Catchment Areas. Appendix B ECO DEV 09-2013 Report Pumping Station # 8 Servicing Agreement PIÈCE(S) JOINTE(S) Annexe «A» Système de collecte des eaux usées d Embrun Options d entretien pour l aire de captage de la station de pompage #3 Annexe «B» Rapport ECO DEV 09-2013 Station de pompage #8 Entente de service Page 8 of 26

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 400-1331 Clyde Avenue Ottawa ON K2C 3G4 Tel: (613) 722-4420 Fax: (613) 722-2799 December 5, 2013 File: 163401201 Attention: Mr. Daniel Gatien, Economic Development Director Township of Russell 717 Notre-Dame Street Embrun Ontario K0A 1W1 Canada Dear Mr. Gatien, Reference: Township of Russell Embrun Sewage Collection System - Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area It is our understanding that the elevations of the proposed sanitary siphon, to service the Pump Station #3 (PS#3) catchment, under the Castor River will result in the lowering of the new Sanitary Pump Station #8 (PS#8) at significant cost. As per our meeting on November 29, 2013, Stantec was requested to redirect our original Level of Effort to produce a functional design of the siphon towards developing a high level evaluation of various servicing options of the Pump Station #3 catchment in order to determine the best course of action for the Township of Russell (Township). Costing of the wetwell deepening for PS#8 was provided by Louis Bray Construction and Operation and Maintenance costs for PS#3 was provided by the Township. Seven (7) potential options were discussed at the November 29 th meeting and it was agreed that these options would be presented in this letter. All costs are in 2013 dollars and and the opinions of probable cost associated with each option are considered a Class D estimate, therefore a 50% contingency was assumed. Note that any option that requires construction under or over the river will require an amendment to the existing Environmental Class Assessment, titled Sewage System Upgrading Muncipal Class EA, Phase 3 Report, August 2009, and will require public consultation which will impact schedule. Additionally, approval from the Ministry of the Environment will be required for changes to the servicing of the PS#3 catchment. Servicing Options Description Option 1 Do Nothing The first option is to keep the existing pump station as is, whereby PS#3 forcemain continues to discharge to the main sanitary trunk and flows to PS#2. No modifications to PS#8 are required (i.e. deepening, larger pumps) due to the PS#3 catchment and the only costs to the township in the short term are the existing operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of PS#3. This option is not viable as PS#3 will require a doubling Page 9 of 26

December 5, 2013 Mr. Daniel Gatien, Economic Development Director Page 2 of 5 Reference: Township of Russell Embrun Sewage Collection System - Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area of its firm capacity (i.e. 30L/s to 64L/s) to accommodate future growth and the downstream sanitary system does not have the capacity to accommodate this growth. Additionally, by not deepening the new PS#8 wetwell, future servicing options of PS#3 catchment are limited to forcemain only. Summary: Least cost and risk near term, but limits development in PS#3 catchment. Option 2 Deepen PS#8 Wetwell and Defer Upgrades at PS#3 Similar to Option 1, PS#3 catchment would continue as-is and the future serving of PS#3 catchment would be deferred until the Township can acquire the funds. The wetwell for PS#8 would be deepened in order to accommodate the depth required for a potential siphon solution, so as to not limit the solution to forcemain only. Other advantages of a deeper wetwell are additional storage and the ability to service other development areas. A disadvantage of this solution is not only the capital cost of wetwell deepening, but that larger pumps, starters and generator for PS#8 would be required. Additionally, the longer the ultimate servicing solution takes to implement, the condition of the existing PS#3 will continue to deteriorate. Summary: Initial costs are associated with deepening of the wetwell only, which provides no benefit in the near term to PS#3 catchment, but upgrade at PS#8 leaves more options for future servicing. Option 3 Construct Forcemain under Castor River and Operate PS#3 in Perpetuity This option would result in the construction of a forcemain underneath the Castor River. Initial calculations indicate that the Total Dynamic Head (TDH) for the pumps is similar to the existing forcemain, therefore 30L/s could be pumped to PS#8 with minimal changes to PS#3. As the catchment is built out, the existing pumps will require replacement to increase the firm capacity to 64L/s. No deepening of PS#8 is required as the forcemain will much shallower than the proposed siphon. PS#3 will need to operate in perpetuity and PS#8 does not require larger pumps as the wetwell is the same elevation as the original developer design. Additionally, the upgrades to PS#3 could be staged to reduce initial capital cost (i.e. Stage 1 Construct FM and pump 35L/s, Stage 2 Replace Piping and pumps and pump 55L/s, Stage 3 Upgrade electrical and pumps and pump 64L/s) Summary: No change to the level of service for existing PS#3 catchment, results in constant O&M cost at PS#3. PS#8 requires no upgrades due to the PS#3 catchment. Additionally, the upgrades to PS#3 could be staged to reduce initial capital costs. Option 4 - Construct Forcemain and Attach to Bridge Structures across River and Operate PS#3 in Perpetuity Similar to Option 3, a forcemain would be constructed from PS#3 to PS#8, but the forcemain would be strapped to the existing bridges. This results in a significant increase in forcemain length and unknown risks associated with attachment to existing bridge structures. Also the bridges are not owned by the Township, but by the United Counties. As such approvals (i.e. EA addendum) and structural upgrades to the bridge structure make this option unfeasible within a short timeframe. Page 10 of 26

December 5, 2013 Mr. Daniel Gatien, Economic Development Director Page 3 of 5 Reference: Township of Russell Embrun Sewage Collection System - Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area Summary: Solution is more costly than option 3 and offers more risk in delay for approvals and construction. Option 5 Construct Siphon under Castor River and Operate PS#3 Temporarily This option proposes the construction of a HDD double barreled siphon under the River (i.e. 177mm and 220mm inside diameter (ID) pipes). One barrel will handle buildout average daily flow and the twin barrels will pass the peak wet weather flow. Based on the siphon design calculations the wetwell at PS#8 would be required to be lowered by 2m in order to prevent sewer backup into the PS#3 catchment. The PS#3 catchment area currently does not generate sufficient flow to provide scouring velocities within the siphon barrels. PS#3 would need to be redirected to pump to the siphon until sufficient base flow can keep the velocity high enough to cleanse the siphon barrels. Summary: Significant cost to construct a double barreled siphon that cannot operate effectively until the PS#3 catchment area is larger. Should development be delayed, the cost to operate PS#3 rises. Also PS#8 requires a 2m deeper wetwell in order for the siphon to function. Option 6 - Construct Siphon under River and Operate PS#3 as Settling Basin Temporarily Similar to Option 5, a double barreled siphon would be constructed under the river. Instead of operating PS#3 as a pump station to the siphon, the wetwell would be used as a settling basin to prevent fouling of the siphon barrels. In order to prevent odour complaints, an actived carbon system would be required to draw off air at the PS#3 wetwell for treatment and the wetwell would require frequent cleaning by vacuum trucks and the concrete protected from corrosion. Summary: Significant cost to construct a double barreled siphon that cannot operate effectively until the PS#3 catchment area is larger. Should development be delayed, the cost to operate PS#3 as a settling basin and odour treatment facility rises. Also PS#8 requires a 2m deeper wetwell in order for the siphon to function. Option 7 Construct Gravity Sewer under Castor River This option would result in the immediate decommissioning of PS#3 and construction of a gravity sewer across the river utilizing a jack & bore method. This solution would require a significant deepening of the PS#8 wetwell and much larger pumps would be required. Summary: Significant construction risk to installing the gravity sewer under the river (i.e. groundwater and geotechnical concerns). Considerable capital construction cost of the sewer and PS#8 infrastructure. Page 11 of 26

December 5, 2013 Mr. Daniel Gatien, Economic Development Director Page 4 of 5 Reference: Township of Russell Embrun Sewage Collection System - Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area Opinion of Probable Cost The following table and graph present the opinion of probable cost for each option. These opinions are considered a Class D estimate and a 50% contingency has been applied to the base capital cost estimate. An annual O&M cost for PS#3 in 2012 was provided by the Township. O&M costs for the settling basin and treatment system were estimated and a present day 10year O&M cost was developed for both scenarios. Option Capital Construction Cost O&M Cost (10yr) Total 10yr Cost Description 1 $- $181,523 $181,523 Do nothing. PS#3 pumps to PS#2 catchment 2 $473,000 $181,523 $654,523 Deepen PS#8 WW and defer other changes. PS#3 pumps to PS#2 catchment 3 $1,425,000 $181,523 $1,606,523 Construct FM across river via HDD. PS#3 remains active and pumps to PS#8 4 $1,579,000 $181,523 $1,760,523 Construct FM across river by strapping to bridge. PS#3 remains active and pumps to PS#8 5 $2,273,000 $181,523 $2,454,523 Construct Siphon, Operate PS#3 until flows increase 6 $2,549,000 $471,000 $3,020,000 Construct Siphon, PS#3 acts as settling basin until flows increase 7 $4,401,000 $- $4,401,000 Decommission PS#3 and construct Gravity Sewer across river $5,000,000 Pump Station #3 Catchment Servicing Options $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 Capital Construction Cost O&M Cost (10yr) Total 10yr Cost $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Option Page 12 of 26

December 5, 2013 Mr. Daniel Gatien, Economic Development Director Page 5 of 5 Reference: Township of Russell Embrun Sewage Collection System - Servicing Options for Sanitary Pump Station #3 Catchment Area Conclusion While Options 1 and 2 are the least expensive, they do not provide the Township with the ability to increase the level of development within the PS#3 catchment. Options 3 and 4 can be constructed independently of the new PS#8 as the forcemain is much shallower at the new station. Option 4 presents undefined level of risk/cost as the forcemain attached to the bridge could trigger additional work on the bridge structures. Options 5 and 6 result in significant costs to deepen the PS#8 wetwell and additionally presents a timing issue as the deep siphon outlet structure next to the new station should be built at the same time given the challenging geotechnical conditions. Option 7, presents significant construction risk and results in a much deeper PS#8 wetwell and is not considered feasible. Based on the analysis for a ten (10) year cost, Option 3 (i.e. FM constructed under Castor River) provides the required level of service to the PS#3 catchment at the least cost to the Township. This would result in no modifications to the PS#8 wetwell, but PS#3 will remain operational in perpetuity. Additionally, the upgrades to PS#3 could be staged to reduce initial capital costs. Comparing the forcemain to the siphon options, it appears that the modified PS#3 could operate in excess of 30years before the siphon would become comparable in cost even assuming that the PS#3 does not need to operate for a period of time to achieve cleansing velocities. Regards, STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. James Ricker, P.Eng. Project Manager Phone: (613) 724-4089 Fax: (613) 722-2799 james.ricker@stantec.com Attachment: Costing sheets for PS#3 Servicing Options (10 pages) c. Graham Gorman, Jean Hebert, John Krug Jean Hébert, M.A.Sc.,ing.,P.Eng.,MPM Senior Environmental Engineer Phone: (613) 725-5562 Fax: (613) 722-2799 jean.hebert@stantec.com jcr w:\active\1634_01201_russell_sanitary sewer prelim siphon design\project_management\correspondence\let_131205_ps3_servicing_options_jr.docx Page 13 of 26

Servicing Pump Station #3 Catchment Area (Existing / Future Development) Option Capital Construction Cost O&M Cost (10yr) Total 10yr Cost Description Notes 1 $ $ 181,523 $ 181,523 Do nothing. PS#3 pumps to PS#2 catchment PS#2 catchment at capacity and PS#3 cannot increase flows. Limits development 2 $ 473,000 $ 181,523 PS#2 catchment at capacity and PS#3 cannot increase flows. Limits development. Deepen $ 654,523 Deepen PS#8 WW and defer other changes. PS#3 pumps to PS#2 catchment PS#8 wetwell to accept future development from the north. Defer cost for future. 3 $ 1,425,000 $ 181,523 PS#8 does not need additional deepening or larger pumps as FM is at higher elevation. Inlet $ 1,606,523 Construct FM across river via HDD. PS#3 remains active and pumps to PS#8 structure much shallower Construct FM across river by strapping to bridge. PS#3 remains active and 4 $ 1,579,000 $ 181,523 $ 1,760,523 pumps to PS#8 PS#8 does not need additional deepening or larger pumps as FM is at higher elevation. Inlet structure much shallower. Unknown risks associated with approvals to attach FM to bridge. EA addendum and bridges are owned by the United Counties not the Township. 5 $ 2,273,000 $ 181,523 $ 2,454,523 Construct Siphon, Operate PS#3 until flows increase 6 $ 2,549,000 $ 471,000 $ 3,020,000 Construct Siphon, PS#3 acts as settling basin until flows increase 7 $ 4,401,000 $ $ 4,401,000 Decommission PS#3 and construct Gravity Sewer across river Notes: Opinion of Probable cost considered Class D (50% contingency) Siphon will not have enough flow for cleansing velocities until buildout increases. Therefore PS#3 needs to pump to the siphon until flows are adequate. Deepening of PS#8 wetwell by 2m required and deep siphon outlet structure next to the PS required. Siphon will not have enough flow for cleansing velocities until buildout increases. PS#3 used as settling basin before siphon until flows are adequate. Active odour control required at PS#3 and cleaning of the wetwell will be required. Deepening of PS#8 wetwell by 2m required and deep siphon outlet structure next to the PS required. Jack and bore a gravity sewer across river. Deepen PS#8 significantly. Larger pumps required. PS#3 no longer required $5,000,000 Pump Station #3 Catchment Servicing Options $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Capital Construction Cost O&M Cost (10yr) Total 10yr Cost $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Option Page 14 of 26

Servicing Pump Station #3 Catchment Area (Existing / Future Development) Option Capital Construction Cost O&M Cost (20yr) Total 20yr Cost Description Notes 1 $ $ 363,047 $ 363,047 Do nothing. PS#3 pumps to PS#2 catchment PS#2 catchment at capacity and PS#3 cannot increase flows. Limits development 2 $ 473,000 $ 363,047 PS#2 catchment at capacity and PS#3 cannot increase flows. Limits development. Deepen $ 836,047 Deepen PS#8 WW and defer other changes. PS#3 pumps to PS#2 catchment PS#8 wetwell to accept future development from the north. Defer cost for future. 3 $ 1,425,000 $ 363,047 PS#8 does not need additional deepening or larger pumps as FM is at higher elevation. Inlet $ 1,788,047 Construct FM across river via HDD. PS#3 remains active and pumps to PS#8 structure much shallower Construct FM across river by strapping to bridge. PS#3 remains active and PS#8 does not need additional deepening or larger pumps as FM is at higher elevation. Inlet 4 $ 1,579,000 $ 363,047 $ 1,942,047 pumps to PS#8 structure much shallower 5 $ 2,273,000 $ 363,047 $ 2,636,047 Construct Siphon, Operate PS#3 until flows increase 6 $ 2,549,000 $ 942,000 $ 3,491,000 Construct Siphon, PS#3 acts as settling basin until flows increase 7 $ 4,401,000 $ $ 4,401,000 Decommission PS#3 and construct Gravity Sewer across river Notes: Opinion of Probable cost considered Class D (50% contingency) $5,000,000 Siphon will not have enough flow for cleansing velocities until buildout increases. Therefore PS#3 needs to pump to the siphon until flows are adequate. Deepening of PS#8 wetwell by 2m required and deep siphon outlet structure next to the PS required. Siphon will not have enough flow for cleansing velocities until buildout increases. PS#3 used as settling basin before siphon until flows are adequate. Active odour control required at PS#3 and cleaning of the wetwell will be required. Deepening of PS#8 wetwell by 2m required and deep siphon outlet structure next to the PS required. Jack and bore a gravity sewer across river. Deepen PS#8 significantly. Larger pumps required. PS#3 no longer required $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Capital Construction Cost O&M Cost (20yr) Total 20yr Cost $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Option Page 15 of 26

PS#3 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs Unit Rate # Cost Notes 1 Electrical Cost $ 5,252 1 $ 5,252.34 Provided by Township (2012) 2 Mechanical Maintenance (labour) $ 200 24 $ 4,800.00 No generator at site. Maintenance on pumps only. 2hrs a month, 2 operators at $100/hr for 4hr day 3 Landscape Maintenance $ 250 4 $ 1,000.00 Snowclearing / Yardwork 3 Parts $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000.00? 4 Wet well Cleaning $ 1,500 1 $ 1,500.00 One / yr 5 Administration (Supervisor) $ 150 24 $ 3,600.00 say 2hrs/month for scheduling. 1 supervisor at $150/hr Total Subtotal O&M Cost $ 18,152.34 Township $ 16,389.86.00 O&M cost including electricity 2012 $5,252.34 electricity cost Page 16 of 26

PS#3 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs Unit Rate # Cost Notes 1 Electrical Cost $ 2,500 1 $ 2,500.00 for Odour control fan power 2 Mechanical Maintenance (labour) $ 200 6 $ 1,200.00 No generator at site. Maintenance on odour control required. 1 days a month, 2 operato 3 Landscape Maintenace $ 250 4 $ 1,000.00 Snowclearing / Yardwork 4 Parts $ 2,500 4 $ 10,000.00 Carbon replacement (4X per annum) 5 Wet well Cleaning $ 1,200 24 $ 28,800.00 2 cleanings a month 6 Administration (Supervisor) $ 150 24 $ 3,600.00 say 2hrs per month for scheduling. 1 supervisor at $150/hr Total $ 47,100.00 Page 17 of 26

Servicing PS#3 Catchment Area Revised: 12/5/2013 Opinion of Probable Cost (CLASS D) - Option 2 - Deepen PS#8 Wetwell and Defer other work STANTEC PROJECT NO.: 1634-01201 Date: December 5, 2013 Item No. Division and Description Units Unit Cost Quantity Estimate Division Total Division 1 - General Requirements 1 LS 1 Division Subtotal $0 Division 2 - Site/Civil Work 1 Deepen wetwell in PS#8 LS $ 315,000.00 1 $315,000 cost provided by Bray Division Subtotal $315,000 Division 5 - Metals 1 LS 1 $0 Division 6 - Wood and Plastics 1 LS $0 Division Subtotal $0 Division 15 - Mechanical 1 ea 1 $0 Division Subtotal $0 Division 16 - Electrical 1 LS 1 $0 Division Subtotal $0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Contingency ENGINEER'S OPINION OF COST (CONSTRUCTION) Note: All division subtotals within the opinion of probable cost are rounded to the nearest thousand. $315,000 50% $158,000 $473,000 Page 18 of 26

Servicing PS#3 Catchment Area Revised: 12/5/2013 Opinion of Probable Cost (CLASS D) - Option 3 - Forcemain installed under River STANTEC PROJECT NO.: 1634-01201 Date: December 5, 2013 Item No. Division and Description Units Unit Cost Quantity Estimate Division Total Division 1 - General Requirements 1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 3% 1 $22,140 2 Traffic Control LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Health & Safety LS $5,000 1 $5,000 4 Administration LS 10% 1 $72,800 5 Bid Bonding and Insurance LS 2% 1 $14,560 Division Subtotal $120,000 Division 2 - Site/Civil Work 1 Site Work including removals, infrastructure relocations and utility trenching LS $5,000 1 $5,000 2 Groundwater Dewatering and Pumping Wells LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Earth Excavation 3.1 Gravity Sewer Trench (Typical) m3 $50 918 $45,900 4 Granular Backfill 4.1 Gravity Sewer Trench m3 $35 92 $3,213 5 Trenchless Forcemain Installation 5.1 River Crossing m $1,500 200 $300,000 5.2 Drilling Mud Disposal LS $50,000 1 $50,000 6 Precast Concrete Chambers 6.1 Gravity Sewer MH ea $5,348 2 $10,696 6.2 Isolation Valve Chambers (Either side of River) ea $5,348 2 $10,696 7 Gravity Sewer (375mm) m $105 92 $9,637 8 Forcemain Pipe (HDPE DR11) 8.1 Forcemain (250mm) m $250 30 $7,500 8.2 Other Restoration LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Division Subtotal $458,000 Division 5 - Metals 1 Misc. Metals Including Landings and Ladders LS $5,000 1 $5,000 Division Subtotal $5,000 Division 15 - Mechanical 1 Isolation Valves (either side of river crossing) each $7,500 2 $15,000 2 Replace Pumps and starters for 64L/s firm capacity each $50,000 2 $100,000 3 Install New outdoor Generator & fuel system each $75,000 2 $150,000 Division Subtotal $265,000 Provisional Items 1 $0 Division Subtotal $0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Contingency Design and Contract Administration Amendment to EA ENGINEER'S OPINION OF COST (CONSTRUCTION) $848,000 50% $424,000 15% $128,000 $25,000 $1,425,000 Page 19 of 26 Note: All division subtotals within the opinion of probable cost are rounded to the nearest thousand.

Servicing PS#3 Catchment Area Revised: 12/5/2013 Opinion of Probable Cost (CLASS D) - Option 4 - Forcemain Installed Along Bridge STANTEC PROJECT NO.: 1634-01201 Date: December 5, 2013 Item No. Division and Description Units Unit Cost Quantity Estimate Division Total Division 1 - General Requirements 1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 3% 1 $24,570 2 Traffic Control LS $10,000 1 $10,000 3 Health & Safety LS $5,000 1 $5,000 4 Administration LS 10% 1 $80,400 5 Bid Bonding and Insurance LS 2% 1 $16,080 Division Subtotal $137,000 Division 2 - Site/Civil Work 1 Site Work including removals, infrastructure relocations and utility trenching LS $20,000 1 $20,000 2 Groundwater Dewatering and Pumping Wells LS $7,500 1 $7,500 3 Earth Excavation 3.1 Gravity Sewer Trench (Typical) m3 $50 918 $45,900 3.2 Forcemain Trench m3 $50 1350 $67,500 Length? 150 4 Granular Backfill 4.1 Gravity Sewer Trench m3 $35 92 $3,213 4.2 Forcemain Trench m3 $35 225 $7,875 5 Precast Concrete Chambers 5.1 Gravity Sewer MH ea $5,348 2 $10,696 5.2 Isolation Valve Chambers (Either side of River) ea $5,348 2 $10,696 6 Forcemain Pipe (HDPE DR11) 6.1 Forcemain (250mm) m $250 250 $62,500 6.2 Other Restoration LS $10,000 1 $10,000 7 Bridge modifications (assume drilling through abutments, possible reinforcement) LS $250,000 1 $250,000?? 8 Gravity Sewer (375mm) m $105 92 $9,637 9 Roadway 9.1 Granular A m3 $65 68 $4,388 Length? 150 9.2 Granular B m3 $35 135 $4,725 9.3 Superpave 12.5 (50mm) t $125 56 $7,031 Surface Area 450 9.4 Superpave 19 (70mm) t $155 79 $12,206 Division Subtotal $534,000 Division 5 - Metals 1 Misc. Metals Including Landings and Ladders LS $5,000 1 $5,000 Division Subtotal $5,000 Division 15 - Mechanical 1 Isolation Valves each $7,500 2 $15,000 2 Replace Pumps and starters for 64L/s firm capacity each $50,000 2 $100,000 3 Insulation for Forcemain LS $50,000 1 $50,000 4 Strapping for Forcemain on Bridge LS $100,000 1 $100,000 Division Subtotal $265,000 Provisional Items 1 $0 Division Subtotal $0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Contingency Design and Contract Administration Amendment to EA ENGINEER'S OPINION OF COST (CONSTRUCTION) $941,000 50% $471,000 15% $142,000 $25,000 $1,579,000 Page 20 of 26 Note: All division subtotals within the opinion of probable cost are rounded to the nearest thousand.

Servicing PS#3 Catchment Area Revised: 12/5/2013 Opinion of Probable Cost (CLASS D) - Option 5 - Siphon Under River w Active PS#3 STANTEC PROJECT NO.: 1634-01201 Date: December 5, 2013 Page 21 of 26 Item No. Division and Description Units Unit Cost Quantity Estimate Division Total Division 1 - General Requirements 1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 3% 1 $35,550 2 Traffic Control LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Health & Safety LS $5,000 1 $5,000 4 Administration LS 10% 1 $117,500 5 Bid Bonding and Insurance LS 2% 1 $23,500 Division Subtotal $187,000 Division 2 - Site/Civil Work 1 Site Work including removals, infrastructure relocations and utility trenching LS $5,000 1 $5,000 2 Groundwater Dewatering and Pumping Wells LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Earth Excavation 3.1 Gravity Sewer Trench (Typical) m3 $50 918 $45,900 4 Granular Backfill 4.1 Gravity Sewer Trench m3 $35 92 $3,213 5 Trenchless Siphon Barrel Installation 5.1 River Crossing 10" HDPE DR11 m $1,400 200 $280,000 5.2 River Crossing 8" HDPE DR11 m $1,300 200 $260,000 5.3 Drilling Mud Disposal LS $100,000 1 $100,000 6 Precast Concrete Chambers 6.1 Gravity Sewer MH ea $5,348 2 $10,696 6.2 Upstream siphon chamber ea $25,000 1 $25,000 6.3 Downstream siphon chamber ea $80,000 1 $80,000 7 Forcemain Pipe (HDPE DR11) 7.1 Forcemain (250mm) m $250 20 $5,000 7.2 Other Restoration LS $10,000 1 $10,000 8 Gravity Sewer (375mm) m $105 92 $9,637 9 Deepen Wetwell PS#8 LS $315,000 1 $315,000 Division Subtotal $1,155,000 Division 5 - Metals 1 Misc. Metals Including Landings and Ladders (stoplogs) LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Division Subtotal $10,000 Division 15 - Mechanical 1 Overflow flap gate (at upstream chamber) each $10,000 1 $10,000 Division Subtotal $10,000 Provisional Items 1 $0 Division Subtotal $0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Contingency Design and Contract Administration Amendment to EA ENGINEER'S OPINION OF COST (CONSTRUCTION) Note: All division subtotals within the opinion of probable cost are rounded to the nearest thousand. $1,362,000 50% $681,000 15% $205,000 $25,000 $2,273,000

Servicing PS#3 Catchment Area Revised: 12/5/2013 Opinion of Probable Cost (CLASS D) - Option 6 - Siphon Under River w PS#3 as settling basin STANTEC PROJECT NO.: 1634-01201 Date: December 5, 2013 Page 22 of 26 Item No. Division and Description Units Unit Cost Quantity Estimate Division Total Division 1 - General Requirements 1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 3% 1 $39,900 2 Traffic Control LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Health & Safety LS $5,000 1 $5,000 4 Administration LS 10% 1 $132,000 5 Bid Bonding and Insurance LS 2% 1 $26,400 Division Subtotal $209,000 Division 2 - Site/Civil Work 1 Site Work including removals, infrastructure relocations and utility trenching LS $5,000 1 $5,000 2 Groundwater Dewatering and Pumping Wells LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Earth Excavation 3.1 Gravity Sewer Trench (Typical) m3 $50 918 $45,900 4 Granular Backfill 4.1 Gravity Sewer Trench m3 $35 92 $3,213 5 Trenchless Siphon Barrel Installation 5.1 River Crossing 10" HDPE DR11 m $1,400 200 $280,000 5.2 River Crossing 8" HDPE DR11 m $1,300 200 $260,000 5.3 Drilling Mud Disposal LS $100,000 1 $100,000 6 Precast Concrete Chambers ########## Gravity Sewer MH ea $5,348 2 $10,696 6.2 Upstream siphon chamber ea $25,000 1 $25,000 6.3 Downstream siphon chamber ea $60,000 1 $60,000 7 Forcemain Pipe (HDPE DR11) 7.1 Forcemain (250mm) m $250 20 $5,000 7.2 Other Restoration LS $10,000 1 $10,000 8 Gravity Sewer (375mm) m $105 92 $9,637 9 Dedirect sewers to PS and new Gravity sewer to act as settling basin LS $20,000 1 $20,000 10 Deepen Wetwell PS#8 LS $315,000 1 $315,000 Division Subtotal $1,155,000 Division 5 - Metals 1 Misc. Metals Including Landings and Ladders (stoplogs) LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Division Subtotal $10,000 Division 15 - Mechanical 1 Overflow flap gate (at upstream chamber) each $10,000 1 $10,000 2 Odour control system, fan and stack each $120,000 1 $120,000 3 Decommission PS LS $25,000 1 $25,000 Division Subtotal $155,000 Provisional Items 1 $0 Division Subtotal $0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Contingency Design and Contract Administration Amendment to EA ENGINEER'S OPINION OF COST (CONSTRUCTION) Note: All division subtotals within the opinion of probable cost are rounded to the nearest thousand. $1,529,000 50% $765,000 15% $230,000 $25,000 $2,549,000

Servicing PS#3 Catchment Area Revised: 12/5/2013 Opinion of Probable Cost (CLASS D) - Option 7 - Gravity Sewer across River STANTEC PROJECT NO.: 1634-01201 Date: December 5, 2013 Item No. Division and Description Units Unit Cost Quantity Estimate Division Total Division 1 - General Requirements 1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 3% 1 $69,210 2 Traffic Control LS $5,000 1 $5,000 3 Health & Safety LS $10,000 1 $10,000 4 Administration LS 10% 1 $229,200 5 Bid Bonding and Insurance LS 2% 1 $45,840 Division Subtotal $360,000 Division 2 - Site/Civil Work 1 Site Work including removals, infrastructure relocations and utility trenching LS $5,000 1 $5,000 2 Groundwater Dewatering and Pumping Wells LS $75,000 1 $75,000 3 Earth Excavation 3.1 Shallow Gravity Sewer Trench (Typical) m3 $50 918 $45,900 3.2 Entry and Exit Pits for Jack and Bore (sheet piled) LS $600,000 1 $600,000 4 Granular Backfill 4.1 Gravity Sewer Trench m3 $35 92 $3,213 5 Trenchless Gravity Sewer Installation 5.1 Jack and Bore installation (375mm sewer) m $3,500 150 $525,000 6 Precast Concrete Chambers ########## shallow Gravity Sewer MH ea $5,348 2 $10,696 6.2 Deep gravity sewer MH either side of river (16m depth) ea $20,855 2 $41,711 8 Gravity Sewer (375mm) m $105 92 $9,637 9 Deepen Wetwell in PS#8 LS $900,000 1 $900,000 Division Subtotal $2,217,000 Division 5 - Metals 1 Misc. Metals Including Landings and Ladders LS $25,000 1 $25,000 Page 23 of 26 Division Subtotal $25,000 Division 15 - Mechanical 1 Larger Pumps in PS#8 each $25,000 2 $50,000 Division Subtotal $50,000 Provisional Items 1 $0 Division Subtotal $0 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Contingency Design and Contract Administration Amendment to EA ENGINEER'S OPINION OF COST (CONSTRUCTION) Note: All division subtotals within the opinion of probable cost are rounded to the nearest thousand. $2,652,000 50% $1,326,000 15% $398,000 $25,000 $4,401,000

REPORT TO COUNCIL: RAPPORT AU CONSEIL: ECO DEV 09-2013 DATE: 06/04/2013 SUBJECT PUMPING STATION #8 - SERVICING AGREEMENT/ STATION DE POMPAGE #8 - ENTENTE DE SERVICE Service agreement for the pumping station #8 between Melanie Construction and the Township of Russell. RECOMMENDATION That Council authorizes the Mayor and Clerk to sign the service agreement with Melanie Construction as recommended. SUJET Entente de service pour la station de pompage # 8 entre Mélanie Construction et la municipalité de Russell. RECOMMANDATION Que le conseil municipal autorise le Maire et la greffière de signer l entente de service avec Mélanie Construction tel que recommandée. FINANCIAL IMPLICATION - The cost of the project with Melanie Construction is estimated at approximately $4.6 million. - The township s share is 45% of the cost $2,070,000. - In addition to these costs, we have other expenses that are entirely the responsibility of the township and are estimated at $600,000. - The user fee contributions are estimated at $430,000 and the balance will come from the development charges. (This is subject to changes to the development charges By-law as discussed with Council in previous reports.) - These expenses are included in the 2013 budget. IMPLICATIONS FINANCIÈRES - Le coût du projet avec Mélanie Construction est évalué à environ 4,6 millions de dollars. - La part de la municipalité est 45 % du coût, soit 2 070 000 $. - En plus de ces dépenses, nous avons des coûts qui sont entièrement la responsabilité de la municipalité et sont évalués à environ 600 000 $. - La part des usagers sera environ 430 000 $ et la balance proviendra des frais de développement. (Ceci est sujet à ce que le nouveau règlement des redevances d exploitation soit modifié tel que confirmé par des rapports antérieurs au conseil.) - Ces dépenses sont prévues dans le budget 2013. BUSINESS PLAN PLAN D AFFAIRES This is part of the proposed 2013 business plan. Ceci fait partie du plan d affaires proposé pour 2013. COMMUNICATION PLAN Provide a press release to all media once the agreement is signed. PLAN DE COMMUNICATION Fournir un communiqué de presse à tous les médias lorsque le contrat sera signé. SUBMITTED BY SOUMIS PAR: Daniel Gatien Directeur développement économique/ Economic Development Date: June 4 juin, 2013 Page 24 of 26

APPROVAL(S) APPROBATION(S): June 4 juin 2013 Jean Leduc Chief Administrative Officer Directeur général Date Claudette Landry Director of Finance Directeur des finances Date PROJECT DESCRIPTION DU PROJET HISTORY, REFERENCE AND SUPPORT INFORMATION We have been working on this file since the fall of 2011 and we have reached an agreement for the construction of the new pumping station. This station will serve the new subdivisions of Melanie Construction (land east and west of Ste-Marie south and section north-west in Embrun). The new pumping station will solve much of the problems with the sewer collection for the village of Embrun. The highlights of the new agreements are: - The pumping station will be situated in Richelieu Park. - There will be a syphon underneath the Castor River with a structure on the north side on the Lapalme property and the pumping station on the south side. - The project will be completed by the end of October 2014. - The project includes a new pumping station and the forcemain that will connect to the lagoon. - The Township will reimburse 50% of the costs for the hydrological studies for the syphon and pumping station (approximately $15,000). - Contribution of $15,000 by Melanie Construction for the exchange of land with the Lapalme family. - Contribution of $130,000 from the Township for the sewer pipes in the subdivision (Melanie claims that this work is the responsibility of the township). - The Township will reimburse Melanie Construction for the capacities used beyond its allocated capacities if they are used within fifteen (15) years from the date that the pumping station HISTORIQUE, RÉFÉRENCES ET INFORMATION DE SUPPORT Nous travaillons sur ce dossier depuis l automne 2011 et nous sommes venus à une entente de service pour la construction d une nouvelle station de pompage. Cette station servira pour le développement des terrains de Mélanie Construction (terrains ouest et est de la rue Ste-Marie sud ainsi que la section nordouest du village d Embrun.) Cette nouvelle station de pompage règlera en grande partie les problèmes de notre système de collection du système sanitaires pour le village d Embrun. Voici les grandes lignes de l entente: - La station de pompage sera située dans le Parc Richelieu. - Il y aura un siphon sous la rivière Castor avec une structure sur le terrain Lapalme (côté nord) et la station pompage (côté sud). - Le projet sera complété pour la fin du mois d octobre 2014. - Le projet comprend la nouvelle station de pompage ainsi que le «forcemain» qui se raccorde à la lagune. - La municipalité remboursera 50 % des coûts pour les études hydrologiques pour le siphon et station de pompage (environ 15 000 $). - Contribution de 15 000 $ de Mélanie Construction pour l échange de terrain avec la famille Lapalme. - Contribution de 130 000 $ de la municipalité pour la section des tuyaux sanitaires dans la subdivision (Mélanie réclame que ces travaux sont la responsabilité de la municipalité). - La municipalité remboursera Mélanie Construction pour les capacités de la station de pompage qu elle utilisera au-delà de ses capacités allouées si celles-ci sont utilisées dans les quinze (15) ans REPORT- ECO DEV 09-2013 Entente de service station de pompage #8 Page 2 of 3 6/5/2013 Page 25 of 26

is operational. After this period, the responsibility of the township is to ensure that the capacities allocated to Melanie Construction are retained until the lands are developed by Melanie. All residual capacities will be allocated to the township with no compensation to Melanie Construction. - If the project does not go forward, all expenses incurred on this project will be split 55/45. de la date que la station de pompage est opérationnelle. Après cette période, la responsabilité de la municipalité est d assurer que les capacités allouées à Mélanie Construction sont retenues jusqu à ce que les terrains de Mélanie soient développés. Toutes capacités résiduelles seront attribuées à la municipalité avec aucune compensation à Mélanie Construction. - Si le projet ne va pas de l avant, tous les coûts dépensés pour ce projet seront répartis 55/45. OTHER OPTION(S) TO THE RECOMMENDATION Install a new sanitary sewer pipe from the west side of the village of Embrun to pumping station #1. It will also be necessary to make improvements to the same pumping station. ATTACHMENT(S) By-law with agreement AUTRES OPTION(S) À LA RECOMMANDATION Installer un nouveau tuyau collecteur sanitaire à partir de l ouest du village d Embrun jusqu à la station pompage #1. Aussi, il faudra faire des améliorations à cette même station de pompage. PIÈCE(S) JOINTE(S) Règlement avec entente REPORT- ECO DEV 09-2013 Entente de service station de pompage #8 Page 3 of 3 6/5/2013 Page 26 of 26