(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

(See Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3A of The Works and Utilities Committee.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated March 11, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to consider proposals for handling specific components of the waste stream as part of the City's ongoing work in this area; and

(2) that a copy of the report be forwarded to the proposed Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To report on the "Recycling Roles and Responsibilities Draft Consultation Report" prepared by the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) after its multi-stakeholder consultation process on product stewardship.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications of these recommendations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Ontario Minister of the Environment be advised that funding municipal recycling solely through municipal waste management user fees or property taxes is unacceptable; and

(2) the Province of Ontario be requested to collect and distribute environmental levies on all non-durable consumer products and packaging (other than beverage containers managed through deposit/return systems), with the monies received through the levies flowing into a dedicated, single purpose fund to pay the full net cost of municipal recycling programs.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on June 4, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 7 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, headed "Deposit/Return Systems for Beverage Containers", which recommended that:

(3) Metro participate directly in the Recycling Council of Ontario's product stewardship consultation process; and

(4) the Senior Manager - Waste Diversion and Planning, Mr. Andrew Pollock, accept an invitation to join the Recycling Council of Ontario's Waste Management Roles and Responsibilities Steering Committee.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Recycling Council of Ontario's multi-stakeholder consultation process on product stewardship, which involved consultation with representatives from a range of industry sectors, Ontario municipalities and environmental organizations, has resulted in the completion of a report entitled "Recycling Roles and Responsibilities Draft Consultation Report". The report was published on February 23, 1998. Copies of the report were sent to all City of Toronto Councillors on February 25, 1998.

Written comments on the draft report are being accepted by the RCO until March 24, 1998. These comments will be incorporated into the final report which will be forwarded to the Provincial Minister of the Environment by the end of April 1998.

The draft report focuses on the sharing of responsibility for the recycling of residential non-durable products and packaging. The report estimates that Ontario municipal recycling programs are diverting approximately 507,000 tonnes of material per year at an average net cost of $86.00 per tonne. Basically, the report identifies four municipal recycling funding options. These options include:

Funding Option No. 1 - Municipal Jurisdiction:

Variation A - Recycling funded through property taxes;

Variation B - Recycling funded through garbage user fees;

Variation C - Recycling funded through recycling user fees.

Funding Option No. 2 - Provincial Measures:

Variation A - Tax on specified products/containers at point of sale;

Variation B - Levy per product unit/container paid by product manufacturers or importers.

Funding Option No. 3 - Industry Funded:

Variation A - Voluntary industry funding of municipal recycling;

Variation B - Mandated industry funding of municipal recycling.

Funding Option No. 4 - Industry Funded and Operated:

Variation A - Industry funds and operates curbside recycling system;

Variation B - Industry funds municipal recycling and operates alternate recycling systems, for example a deposit-return system for liquor and wine containers.

The report does not recommend one particular option, but instead evaluates each of the options against a set of five Guiding Principles and six other evaluation criteria. The report also states that the options are not mutually exclusive, since user fees (Option No. 1) and deposit/return systems (Option No. 4) are compatible with municipal recycling funded through environmental levies under Option No. 2 or No. 3. An Executive Summary of the RCO report is attached.

This Department has provided written comments to RCO on the draft report, copy of letter appended. We would have preferred to have the draft report discussed at the Works and Utilities Committee prior to submitting our comments, however, this was not possible since a meeting of the Committee was not scheduled between February 23, 1998, when the report was released and the March 24, 1998 deadline for comments.

The attached letter to the RCO addresses our comments on the report, which can be summarized as follows:

(a) Municipal waste management user fees are not an acceptable funding mechanism for municipal recycling systems since this option is inconsistent with the principle of a shared responsibility (i.e., the full cost of municipal recycling remains with municipalities).

(b) Industry funding of 100 percent of net municipal recycling costs is entirely consistent with the principle of shared responsibility, since municipalities would continue to have financial responsibility for managing recyclable materials, and all other non-durable goods and packaging, that remain in the waste disposal stream.

(c) A deposit/return system for liquor and wine containers would reduce municipal recycling and waste disposal costs, and therefore is compatible with other funding options.

(d) Provincially mandated environmental levies on non-durable consumer products and packaging can be an effective funding mechanism provided that the monies flow into a dedicated, single purpose fund for municipal recycling administered by an arms-length, multi-stakeholder board.

Based on the above, we propose that the following two recommendations be adopted by City Council and forwarded to the Province:

(1) the Ontario Minister of the Environment be advised that funding municipal recycling solely through waste management user fees or property taxes is unacceptable, since the full cost of municipal recycling and all other waste management would remain with the municipalities; and

(2) the Province of Ontario be requested to collect and distribute environmental levies on all non-durable consumer products and packaging managed in municipal waste management systems, with the monies received through the levies flowing into a dedicated, single purpose fund to pay the full net cost of municipal recycling programs.

Recommendations regarding deposit/return systems for beverage containers are provided in a separate report on this agenda.

It should also be noted that a separate Interim Funding Proposal has been prepared by the Association of Municipal Recycling Co-ordinators (AMRC), after consultation with a number of municipal staff throughout Ontario, and submitted to the Minister of the Environment. The Interim Funding Proposal was originally developed by the Commissioners of Works from the former Area Municipalities and Metropolitan Toronto and was modified slightly after consultation by the AMRC with other municipal staff in Ontario. The purpose of the Interim Funding Proposal is to ensure that the immediate financial needs of municipal recycling programs in Ontario are met. A copy of the proposal is appended.

Conclusions:

The preferred option for funding municipal recycling programs is for the Province of Ontario to collect and distribute environmental levies on all non-durable consumer products and packaging (other than beverage containers managed through deposit/return systems), with the monies received through the levies flowing into a dedicated fund for municipal recycling programs.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pollock, Senior Manager - Waste Diversion and Planning

Solid Waste Management Division (Metro Hall)

Phone: (416) 392-4715; Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-mail: Andy_ Pollock@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (March 24, 1998) from Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights:

With respect to Item No. 1, "Recycling Roles and Responsibilities Draft Consultation Report", on the March 25, 1998 agenda of the Works and Utilities Committee, please be advised that AMO will be considering a response to the Draft Report at its March 26, 1998 executive meeting.

I will be pleased to make the AMO response available to all Members of the Works and Utilities Committee.

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance.

(A copy of each of the attachments referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To advise your Committee of the costs of a one-year extension of the Toronto and York Community Council areas bulk lift collection contracts, and to recommend how the bulk lift waste collection service should be continued.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Adoption of the recommendations in this report will result in the maintenance of bulk lift garbage and recycling collection services in the Toronto and York Community Council areas with no change in the combined taxation costs for the two Community Council areas. The current annual cost of providing these services is approximately $263,661.00 in the York Community Council area and $1,334,460.00 in the Toronto Community Council area (including GST) for a total cost of $1,598,121.00. However, if a one-year blended contract for the York and Toronto Community Council areas is entered into (Option 2 in this report), the annual cost of the work will increase by approximately $293,000.00 per year including GST.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council authorize a three-year extension of the Toronto and York contracts as the most cost-effective approach to the provision of bulk lift waste collection services;

(2) that Contract No. 50130 be amended as follows:

(i) to provide for the inclusion of the provision of bulk lift garbage and recycling services to the York Community Council area effective June 1, 1998 until June 17, 2001;

(ii) that on June 1, 1998, the unit prices in the contract be amended as follows:

Garbage Collection and Delivery to Disposal $18.79 per tonne

Recycling Collection and Delivery to Processing $44.62 per tonne

Bulky Item Collection and Delivery to Disposal $64.40 per tonne

White Goods Collection and Delivery to Processing $71.27 per tonne;

and

(iii) that the cost adjustment formula in Contract No. 50130 be applied to the unit prices imputed for 1993 based on the unit prices shown in Recommendation No. (2) above and shown below on June 21, 1998, and subsequent contract anniversary dates as provided in the contract documents:

Garbage Collection and Delivery to Disposal $17.48 per tonne

Recycling Collection and Delivery to Processing $41.50 per tonne

Bulky Item Collection and Delivery to Disposal $59.90 per tonne

White Goods Collection and Delivery to Processing $66.29 per tonne;

(3) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to your Committee on a recommended process for dealing with bulk lift contracts which will expire in the future, to provide for competition of external bids and consideration of providing the service by City staff; and

(4) that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council requested that quotations for a one-year extension to the York and Toronto bulk lift contracts be obtained so as to provide the option of considering carrying out this work by City staff in June 1999. It is not possible to carry out this work with City staff at this time because the City owns only two bulk lift collection vehicles, currently used in the North York Community Council area. These vehicles are not available to be used for bulk lift collection in the Toronto and York Community Council areas, and it would take approximately one year to acquire necessary collection equipment to carry out the work with City staff, for an equipment acquisition cost of $5,275,000.00.

The extension of Toronto Community Council Area Bulk Lift Contract No. 50130 for the collection of garbage and recyclable materials was considered by Council at its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998. As a result, Council approved Recommendation No. (2) of the Works and Utilities Committee:

"That the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management be requested to negotiate with Canadian Waste Services Inc. a one-year extension of the contract for the provision of bulk lift garbage and recycling collection services for the Toronto and York Community Council areas, and submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on March 25, 1998."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Quotations were obtained from Canadian Waste Services Inc. (CWSI), the current bulk lift contractor for the Toronto and York Community Council areas, for the extension of Contract No. 50130 for one year to June 1, 1999, for the provision of bulk lift services in the Toronto and York Community Council areas.

The quoted prices including GST of the one-year contract extension, compared with the previous blended quote for a three-year contract extension are shown in Table 1.

The one-year extension will increase the City's costs (including GST) by approximately $292,000.00 per year (18 percent). The costs thereafter will be dependent on the approach to collection selected.

Options for continuing bulk lift waste collection in the Toronto and York Community Council Areas:

City Council has three options to continue bulk lift collection services in the Toronto and York Community Council areas, as follows:

(1) accept the three-year extension blended contract for Toronto and York; or

(2) accept the one-year extension blended contract for Toronto and York; or

(3) exercise the three-year extension for the existing Toronto contract and call separate tenders for a one-year or a three to five-year contract for York.

Each of the above options is reviewed below.

(1) Three-year extension of blended contract for Toronto and York:

This option assures the continuance of bulk lift collection services in the Toronto and York areas at no additional cost. It precludes alternative service delivery such as in-house collection operations for three years in these areas of the City.

(2) One-year extension of blended contract for Toronto and York:

This option results in an increased cost of $292,000.00 including GST, for the contract extension period. It leaves very limited time to consider alternative service delivery options such as in-house collection operations. Contingency financing would have to be authorized in the 1998 fleet purchase budget at an estimated cost of $5,275,000.00 for the purchase of necessary vehicles to carry out bulk lift collection services in the Toronto and York Community Council areas on in-house basis.

(3) Three-year extension of the Toronto contract and retendering of York contract for a one-year or a three to five-year period:

If a one-year retender for York is considered in order to provide for the potential of carrying out collection work on an in-house basis in York starting in June 1999, tendering for future services should be commenced at the same time as negotiating with the union regarding the arrangements bringing the service in-house. This option guarantees the cost of service in Toronto, but may result in a variation in service cost in York. We expect that the low bid will be higher than the existing contract in York, particularly for a one-year contract, resulting in increased costs to the City. This option loses the benefit of retention of current costs for both York and Toronto under the three-year blended contract extension.

The procedure for tendering the service in York would be as follows:

(a) March 25, 1998 - Works and Utilities Committee determines that tenders should be called;

(b) preparation of tenders and advertising during the first week of April providing a period of two weeks for the contractors to review and submit their tender price by Friday, April 17, 1998;

(c) April 22, 1998 - report to Works and Utilities Committee with a recommendation on the acceptable tender; and

(d) May 13, 1997 - tender awarded by Council with work to commence on Monday, June 8, 1998.

Retendering of the York contract is possible, however, the timelines are critical. Due to the limited size of the York contract requirements, it is likely that competitive bids would be obtained, but, as noted above, these bids are likely to result in costs that are higher than the blended costs offered by Canadian Waste Services Inc. for a three-year contract extension.

Conclusions:

The one-year extension options do not provide an opportunity to enter into negotiations with union staff over a reasonable period of time and develop an alternative service delivery model for bulk lift services in the Toronto and York Community Council areas in 1999. Therefore, it is recommended that the option of providing bulk lift collection service by City staff be assessed for replacement of other bulk lift contracts for other Community Council areas which expire at later dates. Your Committee has requested that a report be prepared on these other bulk lift contracts that are due to expire and this report is under preparation.

The option of extending the Toronto and York contracts for a three-year period guarantees uninterrupted service at no additional cost. It is recommended that this option be adopted and that future consideration of delivery of bulk lift service by City staff be focussed on bulk lift contracts that expire at later dates.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Warren, Director of Operations and Sanitation

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone: (416) 392-1846; Fax: (416) 392-0396

E-Mail: "jwarren2@city.toronto.on.ca"

Table 1

Prices Quoted by CWSI for a One-Year or Three-Year Extension

of the Toronto and York Community Council Areas Contracts

for Bulk Lift Collection of Waste

* Note: all prices include 7 percent GST.

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Larry Katz, representing Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416;

- Mr. Lenny Campitelli, President, J & F Waste Systems Inc.; and

- Ms. Judy Shinn Nagano, Browning-Ferris Industries.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

(See Clause No. 4 of Report No. 3A of The Works and Utilities Committee.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request the Mayor and Council to proclaim the week of May 17 - May 23, 1998, Public Works Week in the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and Council proclaim the week of May 17 - May 23, 1998, Public Works Week in the City of Toronto and that the Canadian Public Works Association - Ontario Chapter be so advised.

Discussion:

Public works services form the foundation of the City's services and improve the quality of life for everyone in the community. When the citizens of the City of Toronto drive on the roads, drink and use the water, dispose of sewage and garbage, they are using services provided by public works staff.

Everyone uses public works services many times each day.

The City of Toronto provides its residents with a high level of public works services at very reasonable costs. Because these services are used each day and are so reliable, they are often taken for granted.

National Public Works Week is an opportunity to bring awareness to public works and the public works staff. The theme of this year's National Public Works Week is "Celebrating the People of Public Works".

Since 1960, a week in May is set aside for public works awareness throughout Canada by the Canadian Public Works Association and in the United States through our affiliate, the American Public Works Association.

In the past, the Public Works Departments in former municipalities such as the City of North York and City of Scarborough had the Mayor proclaim National Public Works Week and initiated events in this regard.

In 1997, the Executive Board of Directors of the Ontario Chapter of the Canadian Public Works Association awarded the former City of North York Public Works Department with a certificate in recognition for promoting National Public Works Week. This event was organized by the former City of North York Public Works Department and the North York Public Utilities Co-ordinating Committee (NYPUCC) composed of the various utilities: North York Hydro, Bell Canada, Rogers Cablesystems and Consumers Gas. Other participating departments included Transportation and Parks and agencies included Trans-Northern Pipelines, Interprovincial Pipelines, Sarnia Products Pipelines and Sun-Canadian Pipeline.

Conclusion:

In recognition of National Public Works Week, the Works and Emergency Services Department be encouraged to initiate events to promote public works awareness in the City of Toronto contingent on the availability of resources.

Contact:

S. Bertoia, P.Eng., Director of Engineering

Phone: 395-6235; Fax: 395-6200

E-mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 5, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To provide information on the "Blue Box Charity Drive" which has been conducted annually in the former City of Scarborough since 1995.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial implications of any significance will result from the approval of the recommendation in this report.

Recommendation:

That the City's recycling drivers be authorized to participate in a voluntary charity drive which would adopt the Children's Wish Foundation as the sole beneficiary of its efforts and to separate refundable beer cans and bottles from the blue box curbside collection program on an annual basis, with all proceeds from the sale of this material being donated to the Children's Wish Foundation.

Background:

In 1995, Scarborough's Works and Environment Committee authorized the City's recycling drivers to separate refundable beer bottles and cans from their normal collection routes. The proceeds from the sale of this material, to Brewers Retail, were to be donated to the Children's Wish Foundation, a non-profit charity committed to providing special wishes to children with high risk, life threatening illnesses. A typical wish is a trip to Disney World for the child and his/her family.

The original idea for this drive came from the recycling drivers. They organized the initial event and coordinated the sale of material. The collection took place during the month of October with over $900.00 worth of bottles and cans being collected. A cheque for the full amount was presented to the Children's Wish Foundation at the Scarborough Works and Environment Department's Waste Reduction Awards in November 1995.

At its meeting of February 26, 1996, Scarborough Council formalized the process when it adopted a recommendation of the Works and Environment Committee authorizing the City's recycling drivers to adopt the Children's Wish Foundation as their official charity and to separate refundable beer cans and bottles from the blue box curbside collection program on an annual basis with all proceeds from the sale of this material being donated to the Children's Wish Foundation.

In 1996, staff again collected over $900.00 worth of bottles and cans with similar results in 1997. The 1997 collection was done between June 2 and the end of October.

Discussion:

While participation in this program has been voluntary, to date all of the drivers have elected to participate.

Bottles collected are turned in daily at the City yard where they are stored in a secure compound until there are sufficient bottles to warrant a trip to the closest Brewers Retail store. The truck is clearly identified as participating in a charity drive. A receipt is then issued for the bottles received. All receipts are turned into security at the yard for safe keeping. At the conclusion of the program the receipts are cashed in and a cheque is issued by Brewers Retail for the accumulated amount. All funds are deposited to a City account and a cheque is prepared in the full amount payable to the Children's Wish Foundation.

As the former municipalities of Etobicoke and York have contracted collection, this program would not be applicable in those districts. However, collections undertaken in the remaining districts could easily result in an annual contribution of $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 to the Children's Wish Foundation.

Conclusion:

The extraction of this material from the blue box prior to processing results in a minimal reduction of gross revenues and the avoidance of processing costs. The Scarborough district drivers take pride in this program and its expansion can only serve to benefit a recognized and valuable charity.

Contact Name:

Ron Gordon, Director, Solid Waste, Recycling and Fleet Services, Scarborough Community Council Area, Phone: (416) 396-4771; Fax: (416) 396-4156,

E-mail: Gordon; Internet:Gordon@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To respond to the letter from the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) requesting that we print 100,000 copies of the booklet "Use It, Reuse It" at a cost of approximately $64,000.00 (not including PST and GST).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A quote by our Document Reproduction and Distribution Services indicates that printing 100,000 copies of the TEA booklet would cost approximately $61,500.00. With taxes, the price would be approximately $70,700.00. Of this required amount, $20,000.00 has been allocated in the proposed 1998 Operating Budget, leaving $50,700.00 that would have to be reallocated from other projects.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that expenditure of $20,000.00 be approved for printing of the "Use It, Reuse It" booklet as provided for in the proposed Works and Emergency Services Operating Budget submission.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On February 9, 1998, Toronto Environmental Alliance sent a letter to the Works and Utilities Committee requesting that Toronto print an additional 100,000 copies of its "Use It, Reuse It" guide to reuse, repair and rental establishments. The Committee referred the communication to the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management "for consideration with the operating budget, with a request that a report be submitted to the Committee on the responses received as a result of the guide by those companies listed therein".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Works and Emergency Services Department supports the production and distribution of this booklet. It benefits the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) by keeping materials out of the waste stream. In 1997, the department made substantial contributions to the production and printing of this booklet. Metropolitan Toronto contributed $22,369.00; the Cities of Toronto, Scarborough and Etobicoke each contributed $5,000.00; and the Cities of North York and York each contributed $2,000.00, for a total of $41,369.00.

Despite the department's support, however, in our experience 100,000 copies of this booklet is too many to print at one time. The booklet contains the names, addresses and lists of materials to be reused, rented or repaired at more than 1,000 Toronto businesses. This information is extremely time-sensitive and changes constantly. It is unlikely that 100,000 copies of this booklet could be effectively distributed before the information became outdated. If people receive a booklet with out-of-date information, it will generate complaints and they will cease to use it. We acknowledge that the booklet could be distributed free at a variety of venues but caution that it is important that the booklet end up in the hands of people who genuinely want it and will use it.

Several years ago, the former Metro Works Department printed more than 100,000 copies of its booklet "Beyond the Blue Box". This booklet had been more popular with residents (50,000 copies distributed in three months) than "Use It, Reuse It" (20,000 copies in two months). However, the department subsequently had difficulty distributing such a large quantity in a timely manner so that the booklet's information was still up-to-date. We believe the same situation could occur with this printing.

The department's proposed operating budget submission provided for $20,000.00 for reprinting the TEA booklet. Printing of 100,000 copies at a cost of approximately $70,700.00 would divert $50,700.00 from other worthwhile print projects. The printing budget covers such items as "Waste Watch", recycling reminder cards, collection calendars, apartment and commercial recycling information, composting public education materials, grasscycling information and public consultation materials. Reallocating $50,700.00 from these other programs could compromise their effectiveness.

Regarding the budget, as stated above, $20,000.00 was allocated for reprinting this booklet. This amount would produce approximately 20,000 booklets. This quantity is more in keeping with what could reasonably be disseminated over the next several months including effective free distribution. Once these booklets were distributed, we would have the opportunity to review and update the information, and determine the demand before printing additional copies (should the budget allow this). Depending on demand, an appropriate budget either greater or lesser than $20,000.00 would then be provided in the 1999 budget submission.

With respect to the booklet's effectiveness, it is probably too early to judge. Staff contacted 50 businesses listed in the guide at random and the majority reported no noticeable increase in business. However, most of the booklets have only been distributed since November and December, and it will take more time for identifiable results.

Conclusion:

For the reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the Works and Emergency Services Department spend the $20,000.00 already allocated to print approximately 20,000 copies of "Use It, Reuse It" rather than spending $70,700.00 as requested by the Toronto Environmental Alliance. Information and demand could then be reviewed before printing additional copies, budget permitting.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nicole Dufort, Manager, Environmental Promotion and Consultation - Management and Technical Services, Phone: (416) 392-2963; Fax: (416) 392-2974,

E-Mail: nicole_dufort@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To address the options relating to the expiry of our approvals to operate the centralized composting site at Avondale in the Region of York. The site approvals expire on May 31, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial implications will result from the approval of the recommendations in this report. A further report, regarding the outcome of the requests for an extension of the temporary zoning and Certificate of Approval, will be submitted subsequently in addition to a report regarding planning for a new facility.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to request an extension of the temporary zoning by-law applicable to the Avondale Composting Facility from the City of Vaughan;

(2) in the event that a temporary zoning extension from the City of Vaughan is denied, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to appeal the denial to the Ontario Municipal Board;

(3) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to apply to the Ministry of the Environment for an amendment of the Certificate of Approval applicable to the Avondale Composting Facility;

(4) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to engage in the necessary planning steps to secure a long-term composting facility for the City of Toronto; and

(5) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be authorized to take such steps as may be required to implement the foregoing.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The former Environment and Public Space Committee of Metropolitan Council on November 26, 1997, had before it a communication (September 29, 1997) from the Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of York, advising that the Council of the Regional Municipality of York does not object to the Ministry of the Environment issuing an approval for adjustments to the height of the Keele Valley Landfill Site, and that the operation of the Avondale Composting Facility shall cease on May 31, 1999, subject to the requisite approvals. The approvals referred to are temporary zoning and the Certificate of Approval applicable to the Avondale Composting Facility, both of which must be renewed effective May 31, 1999.

The Committee received the aforementioned communication and requested the Commissioner of Works to submit a report to the appropriate Committee of the new City of Toronto Council with respect to this matter. This report before you meets the request set by the former Environment and Public Space Committee of Metropolitan Council.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Avondale Composting Facility ("Avondale") has been in operation since 1988. It is located adjacent to the City of Toronto's Keele Valley Landfill Site, located in the City of Vaughan. Using a "windrow" composting technology, it diverts approximately 55,000 tonnes of leaf and yard waste from disposal, and produces a high quality compost product. Approximately 5,000 tonnes of compost are provided to Toronto residents free of charge through transfer station depots and Environment Days. The remaining quantity of compost is used by the Parks and Recreation Department, and to augment topsoil as final cover on completed portions of the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

The Ontario Municipal Board considered the Avondale operation as part of a hearing on the City of Vaughan's Official Plan Amendment 332, which dealt with land use on and around the Keele Valley Landfill Site. Through the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board in 1996, Official Plan approval and temporary zoning was approved to permit the operation of Avondale. The Board was satisfied that there were good reasons to link the completion of composting activities to the completion of the landfill site, and that while the planning documents should be used to permit the composting, we should cease at the completion of the final rehabilitation phase of the landfill site.

In 1995, some odour problems were experienced at Avondale as a result of the requirement of the Province that collected grass clippings be composted. Subsequently, grass clippings are no longer collected with leaf and yard waste, and complaints related to off-site impacts from composting have been virtually eliminated.

The City of Vaughan's zoning by-law currently permitting the operation of Avondale expires on May 31, 1999. The Department's objectives, as per the recommendations in this report, are to seek a favorable extension for the temporary zoning by-law and, should this not be forthcoming, to request an order from the Ontario Municipal Board permitting further composting on a temporary basis.

The continued use of Avondale will provide a greater return on the capital investment in the facility, and will assist in the progressive closure of sections of the Keele Valley Landfill Site by providing a useful source of compost. The Department's goal is therefore to maintain the operations of Avondale until the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill Site. The Ontario Municipal Board recognized this goal in its approval of the City of Vaughan's Official Plan Amendment 332, which allows for composting to continue during the life of the Keele Valley Landfill Site, subject to the granting of temporary zoning approval.

It is our intention to carry out the above cited actions regarding an extension of the temporary zoning by-law and potential appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board in co-operation with the City Solicitor. Staff of the City's Legal Department have reviewed the recommendations contained in this report and are in agreement with them.

While it would be preferable to maintain the operation of Avondale until the closing of the Keele Valley Landfill Site, scheduled for 2002, contingency planning is needed in the event that Avondale must close ahead of that date, and to identify potential sites to go beyond 2002. It is therefore our intention to engage in the following planning steps to secure long-term composting capacity, and, if necessary, to provide a contingency if new capacity is needed in the short-term:

- engage in an identification of suitable public lands that could be utilized for composting;

- investigate private sector options for provision of composting capacity;

- meet with Council's 3Rs Task Force to discuss options and solicit their input;

- investigate the possibility of an inter-regional compost facility to serve long-term needs; and

- prepare business cases for: (i) maintaining operations at Avondale; (ii) siting a new centralized facility; and (iii) establishing a multiple sites option.

A further report will advise of the outcome of our planning effort and will contain recommendations for next steps.

Conclusion:

The City of Toronto requires approvals in order to continue composting at its Avondale Composting Facility beyond May 31, 1999. Authorization is sought to obtain such approval through a request to the City of Vaughan to amend the site's zoning by-law, and, if unsuccessful, to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Authorization is also sought to apply to the Ministry of the Environment for an amendment of the Certificate of Approval applicable to the Avondale Composting Facility.

Planning will be initiated to secure long-term composting capacity to serve the City's needs, and, if necessary, to provide contingency capacity in the event of a May 31, 1999 closure date for Avondale.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Angelos Bacopoulos, Director, Solid Waste Management Division, City Works and Emergency Services Department, Phone: (416) 392-8831; Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-Mail: Angelos_Bacopoulos @ metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Lawson Oates, Manager, EA Co-ordination Branch, Management and Technical Services Division

City Works and Emergency Services Department, Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-2974

E-Mail: Lawson_Oates@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated March 10, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1) review the proposal for the mining of the Keele Valley Landfill Site in five years' time; and

(2) investigate whether there are any other landfill sites within City boundaries that might be suitable for consideration.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To provide information on the potential for landfill mining at the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding implications from our recommendations.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that landfill gas (LFG) collection and utilization continue at the Keele Valley Landfill Site, and that landfill mining not be considered.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On February 11, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee requested the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management to prepare a report on the feasibility and impact of mining the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Discussion:

Landfill mining is the process of recovering usable materials from a landfill. Landfill mining can be an effective method to reclaim valuable landfill space, and may provide revenue from the recovery and sale of recyclable materials. However, a landfill mining program will interfere with the LFG collection system at the Keele Valley Landfill Site. It would create additional truck traffic and noise impacts in a community which is adamantly opposed to any extension of landfill operations. A landfill mining project would also be subject to an Environmental Assessment. Due to the development within the community and the potential environmental impacts associated with landfill mining, it would be difficult to obtain approval for the project. Therefore, the collection of LFG must take precedence.

Landfill gas is produced by the biological decomposition of wastes placed in the landfill and is comprised of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and trace quantities of other gases. The Keele Valley Landfill Site has an LFG collection system comprised of approximately 30,000 metres of horizontal collection trenches and 1,500 metres of vertical wells within the solid waste mass, dual LFG headers, and a network of gas migration monitoring probes.

If LFG is not collected and burned under controlled conditions, LFG may have an impact on the environment and the surrounding community. The main components of LFG, methane and carbon dioxide, are primary greenhouse gases. Landfill gas also contains trace quantities of other gases such as hydrogen sulphide, and mercaptans which, if released to the atmosphere, may cause off-site odours. A landfill mining program would require the removal of interim and final cover which could cause excessive LFG to be released to the atmosphere. A mining project would also interfere with the existing network of LFG collection systems and the continual construction of new collection systems.

In 1995, the City of Toronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto) committed to a 20-year contract to provide LFG from the Keele Valley Landfill Site to a private power generator. The LFG is used as a fuel to generate electricity which is sold to Ontario Hydro. Toronto has received $2.78 million in net royalties from the sale of landfill gas which has been extracted and converted to electricity at the Keele Valley Landfill Site since May 1995. In 1998, net royalties from the sale of Keele Valley landfill gas are expected to be $1.17 million. The Keele Valley Landfill Site will continue to generate landfill gas well beyond the year 2015 for which Toronto, under contract with Eastern Power Limited, will receive royalties in excess of $20 million from electricity sales.

In 1997, a $600 million class action lawsuit was commenced against the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto alleging that the Keele Valley Landfill Site is a source of odours and a nuisance for the community. The certification motion was argued on February 25 and 26, 1998. The decision of the judge is under reserve. Given the class action, the City should not undertake any project which may be perceived to adversely affect the gas collection system or to generate odours and increase the nuisance potential of the landfill. Any action that may prejudice the gas collection system may increase Toronto's potential exposure to liability.

The Region of York has expressed its opposition to a landfill mining project occurring at the Keele Valley Landfill Site. On January 15, 1996, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto received a communication from the Regional Municipality of York, forwarding a copy of Clause No. 7 of Report No. 1 of the Regional Transportation and Works Committee, entitled "Landfill Mining, Keele Valley Landfill Site". Regional Council, by adoption of the foregoing clause, advised Metropolitan Toronto that the Region opposed any consideration of landfill mining at the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Any proposal regarding landfill mining would require environmental assessment compliance and approvals.

Conclusions:

A landfill mining program would negatively impact revenue from the LFG utilization project and could affect the environment and the local community, and therefore is not a feasible option at this time.

Contact Name:

D. Angove, P. Eng., Engineer - Operations

Solid Waste Management Division

Phone: (416) 392-3701; Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-mail: Derek_Angove@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

(1) To design, document and produce an implementation plan for a pilot greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction trading project for the new City of Toronto based on emission reductions already achieved by Toronto and Metro over the past seven years; and

(2) to assist the Toronto Atmospheric Fund in the design and implementation of a communications and consultative strategy to ensure that staff and community partners that will be affected by this new initiative are informed and involved from the outset.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost of the consultant services will be made available from the Energy Conservation Reserve Fund (Fund Code 52-80) inclusive of GST. The Energy Conservation Reserve Fund was established in 1994 (By-law No. 194-268) to receive any contributions from Municipal Gas and participants in Municipal Gas' City-wide Direct Purchase of Natural Gas program. Contributions from participants would result from the realization of energy cost savings. City Council directed that funds deposited into the Energy Conservation Reserve Fund be used for the provision of benefits to all residents through the funding of projects that reduce harmful environmental emissions.

This pilot GHG project is consistent with the City's previous commitment to the reduction of CO₂ emissions through energy efficiency and conservation, and is eligible for funding from the Energy Conservation Reserve Fund.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund jointly enter into a consultant agreement with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) for the provision of the consulting services described in this report;

(2) $30,000.00 be made available from the Energy Conservation Reserve Fund (Fund Code 52-80) to pay for the services of the consultant (ICLEI);

(3) an in-kind contribution of City staff costs in the amount of $5,000.00 be provided in support of this project; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Not applicable.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The United Nations Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, at its third meeting held in Kyoto, Japan on December 12, 1997, gave final approval to the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol amends the Convention, creating legally binding targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions for the Parties. The Protocol will come into effect when 55 national governments officially approve it. The Canadian government is in strong support of it and is expected to sign the Protocol.

Of interest to the City and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) is that the Protocol establishes an international GHG trading system, one that would allow buyers and sellers to trade GHG Emission Reduction Units. In anticipation of the implementation of this trading system, pilot trading arrangements could be developed on a bi-lateral basis particularly between Canada and the USA.

In support of the above, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives recently made a proposal to TAF to design, document and produce an implementation plan for a pilot GHG emission reduction trading project for the new City of Toronto based on emission reductions already achieved by Toronto and Metro over the past seven years; and to assist TAF to design and implement a communications and consultative strategy to ensure that staff and community partners that will be affected by this new initiative are informed and involved from the outset. The ultimate objective is for Toronto to realize additional financial benefits from its CO₂ reduction policies and programs by selling GHG emission reduction credits into the emerging GHG trading market. The proposal indicates that ICLEI would act as the primary consultant, with Torrie Smith & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, as the sub-consultants. The total fee requested by ICLEI is in the amount of $45,000.00.

The Toronto Atmospheric Fund has approved an amount of $10,000.00 in support of this initiative and has requested that ICLEI submit the proposal to the City in an effort to secure the remaining $35,000.00. I have received a revised draft proposal from ICLEI dated February 17, 1998, and have discussed the merits of this initiative with ICLEI. Upon review of the draft proposal, I suggest that it would be appropriate for City staff to assist ICLEI and/or ICLEI's sub-consultant in the following areas during the course of the work contracted:

(1) assist in quantifying Toronto's Emission Reduction Units from various GHG emission reduction projects identified as being eligible for inclusion in the City's database of initiatives;

(2) assist in the analysis of the above data;

(3) assist in determining ownership of the Emission Reduction Units related to the above; and

(4) provide guidance in municipal administrative and policy matters in the establishment of the trading framework.

The above services (Items (1) to (4)) provided in-kind by City staff towards the completion of this initiative are estimated to be valued at $5,000.00. Consequently, ICLEI's request for $35,000.00 has been revised to $30,000.00.

I have consulted with Mr. Philip Jessup of ICLEI and he is in agreement with the foregoing.

Conclusions:

This project is potentially viable and would be consistent with the City's previous commitment to the reduction of CO₂ emissions. I am recommending that $30,000.00 inclusive of GST be made available from the Energy Conservation Reserve Fund (Fund Code 52-80), and that an in-kind contribution of City staff costs in the amount of $5,000.00 be provided in support of this project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ted Bowering, Acting Director, Environmental Division

City Works Services, Toronto Community Council Area

Phone: (416) 392-7763; Fax: (416) 392-1456

E-Mail: "tbowerin@city.toronto.on.ca"

(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Works and Utilities Committee, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a further report to the Committee outlining a comprehensive policy for the use of public rights-of-way for the development of a telecommunications infrastructure network.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize an agreement between The Consumers Gas Company Limited (Consumers Gas) and the City to permit the refurbishing and use of abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains within public road allowances for the purposes of a conduit structure for fibre optic cable.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The proposal will result in revenue generation potential for the City in accordance with the formula set out in the body of this report. No costs to the City are involved.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council authorize the entering into of an agreement with The Consumers Gas Company Limited (and/or other parties as may be necessary) to permit the refurbishment and use of abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains within public road allowances for the purposes of a conduit structure for fibre optic cable, with such agreement generally containing the terms and conditions set out in this report, and such other terms and conditions as may be required by the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(2) that the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare and introduce in Council a by-law to authorize the entering into and execution of this agreement; and

(3) that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.

Background:

The Consumers Gas Company Limited and Metronet Communications Group Inc. have approached City staff with a proposal to utilize abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains located within public road allowances as a conduit structure for fibre optic telecommunications cable. Staff have met with representatives of the firms on a number of occasions, and based on the discussions, have concluded that the scheme is supportive of the City's dual objectives of fostering the development of a competitive, state-of-the-art telecommunications infrastructure to benefit the business community and to enhance economic development, while realizing direct revenue and services to the City.

Comments:

Introduction:

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of June 23 and 24, 1997 authorized an agreement between Metronet Communications Group Inc. and the City involving:

(i) a lease of a decommissioned high pressure watermain system in the downtown core and other City-owned decommissioned pipe located within the (former) City of Toronto, in accordance with a Request for Proposals, for the purposes of installing, maintaining and operating a high speed fibre optic telecommunications network and sub-leasing space for third party-owned cables within the pipes; and

(ii) a licence by way of a Municipal Access Agreement to allow Metronet to enter upon the Public Highways under the jurisdiction of the (former) City of Toronto for the purposes of installing, maintaining and operating the network throughout the City, subject to the City's requirements and permissions for construction within the street allowance.

The Agreement that followed set out the parties' rights and obligations related to such work and included a comprehensive compensation package to the City with substantial direct revenues accruing. The Metropolitan Toronto Council, at its meeting of August 13 and 14, 1997, among other things, approved the installation of the telecommunications network within the limits of Metro roads located in the former City.

Subsequently, City Council, at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, endorsed a Standard Form Municipal Access Agreement to be entered into by parties wishing to access (former) City of Toronto streets for the purposes of installing telecommunications cables and auxiliary equipment.

Proposal:

Consumers Gas and Metronet Communications Group Inc. wish to enter into an agreement to utilize abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains in the public road allowances for the purposes of providing a conduit structure to carry fibre optic telecommunications cables, and require the City's consent to this arrangement. The Consumers Gas arrangement with Metronet involves two aspects:

(i) lease of the abandoned (decommissioned) gas mains on a non-exclusive basis, but with Metronet having first rights of refusal. Compensation would be in the range of $2.00 to $2.50; and per metre of pipe per annum which reflects the return on active gas main to Consumers Gas; and

(ii) under a separate agreement, a non-regulated affiliate, Consumers Gas Energy Inc., would act as Metronet's project (construction) manager or agent for work related to the decommissioned gas mains and handle aspects such as construction, maintenance, permitting operations, locates, and infrastructure management. A fee would be involved. Consumers Gas representatives advise that the term of such agreement would not be dependent on the term of the pipe access agreement. In this regard, I also understand that charges by Consumers Gas to Metronet would be competitive with other contractors and would not involve any "surcharge" in lieu of higher lease fees for Item (i) above.

Consumers Gas states that about 42 km of abandoned gas main would likely be used for the Metronet network. Metronet would be responsible for all of the pipe refurbishment costs, but would not take ownership of the pipes. Metronet would own appurtenances installed on the pipes as well as the fibre optic network, including telecommunications improvements. In the event small portions of the pipes are missing, the links that would be constructed to connect the pipes would be deemed to be part of the abandoned gas main. Letters of Intent have been entered into between Consumers and Metronet, and resolution of the City participation remains the last outstanding item to completing these arrangements.

City Interests:

In addition to the obvious advantages to the proponents of the proposed use of abandoned gas mains for telecommunications purposes (in Consumers Gas case, the ability to realize a return on an unutilized asset, and for Metronet, the ability to deploy its telecommunications at a quicker rate with potentially far less capital cost), the concept, in principle, also holds promise from the City's perspective.

In accordance with the City's agreement with Metronet, payments are made to the City in part based on Metronet's revenues. If these can be accelerated by virtue of the network being installed more efficiently, then the City will benefit. Of course, this is also consistent with the overriding objective of facilitating a competitive telecommunications infrastructure in Toronto and the resulting economic development enhancement. Finally, the use of the existing abandoned structures in the streets will result in far less disruption of the streets than would otherwise be possible if new conduit were to be laid. This will reduce construction impacts on pedestrian and vehicular flows and avoid damaging the pavements.

Terms of Agreement:

The following list outlines the key issues and basic terms that should be addressed in an agreement between Consumers Gas and the City for the grant of permission to utilize decommissioned gas mains in the City streets for telecommunications purposes.

(1) Permission to use the decommissioned gas mains for telecommunications purposes would only be granted to parties with a valid Municipal Access Agreement (and only in the areas where the MAA is applicable) with the City, and would be non-exclusive, to ensure that only authorized parties are carrying out work within the public road allowance.

(2) City staff are of the view that Consumers Gas has statutory rights to be in Toronto road allowances for purposes of distributing gas, but this does not extend to any other unrelated use for these pipes. Accordingly, the agreement should limit the use of the decommissioned gas mains only to telecom purposes. Consumers Gas will be responsible to secure any regulatory or other approval (if any) required to authorize this initiative.

(3) The issue of co-ordinating underground road allowance space, particularly in the highly congested downtown area, is very important. We do not want Consumers Gas to "reactivate" the substantial abandoned gas main network on the basis that there may be an opportunity to use it at some undefined future time for revenue generating purposes unrelated to gas distribution. Co-operation amongst all utilities operating within the tight confines of the road allowance is essential to preserve efficiencies for all. Consumers Gas has acknowledged this issue, noting that the plan now involves approximately 42 km of pipe, and have pledged that requests by other utilities to install plant in an abandoned gas corridor would be "dealt with reasonably". From the City's perspective, the agreement must contain the provision that unless the abandoned main has already been refurbished or a plan is actively being developed (i.e., installation within a specified period of time) to do so, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has the right, in his sole discretion, to reallocate the corridor for other municipal or utility purposes.

(4) Permitting and Occupancy of the Street Allowance - Works in the street allowance would be subject to all of the applicable municipal by-laws, usual payments, taxes, fees and permit approval requirements. Consumers Gas would be subject to all of the requirements and conditions for this undertaking that are currently in effect relative to its gas system in the streets.

(5) Compensation - It should be recognized that entering into an agreement with Consumers Gas to permit the use of abandoned gas pipes for telecommunications purposes would not affect the revenue or dark fibre provisions the City receives from the telecom companies through its lease/licence agreement with Metronet or any future Municipal Access Agreements. On the other hand, staff feel that the City should also participate directly in some reasonable manner in the revenue generation potential of the abandoned gas mains given that Consumers Gas has the ability to generate these additional revenues only by virtue of the fact that it occupies valuable space in the public highways with plant that was originally intended to distribute gas.

Consumers Gas has offered to pay the City an annual fee of $1.00 per metre of refurbished decommissioned gas main, based on the municipal taxation rate currently payable on a four-inch diameter active plastic gas pipe. In view of the payment to be received by Consumers, stated to be in the range of $2.00 to $2.50 per metre per annum, I am prepared to recommend acceptance of a fee within this general order of magnitude. Consumers has indicated that the proposed fee to be charged to Metronet reflects the return it receives currently on its active gas distribution network. To ensure that all of the above parameters remain in relative balance throughout the term of the agreement, while maintaining the general relationship proposed by Consumers, however, I would suggest that the fee to be paid to the City for the use of refurbished decommissioned gas main for telecommunications purposes in the road allowances be set at the greater of:

(i) the applicable taxation rate of an active four-inch diameter plastic gas pipe; or

(ii) 50 percent of the gross per meter per annum fee (excluding taxes) Consumers Gas charges the telecom operator.

The fee would be exclusive of any other applicable taxes that are currently in effect, or may be imposed in the future by any regulatory body, with such taxes being the responsibility of Consumers Gas and/or the telecom operator. Further, in order to ensure that the per metre fee component is fair and reflective of its value, the agreement with the City should include an undertaking from Consumers Gas that any party seeking access to the decommissioned gas mains would be charged in accordance with the principle set out earlier in this report.

At the time of submission of its annual fee, Consumers Gas would submit appropriate documentation and plans outlining the extent of the system. Confirmation provisions should also be incorporated in the agreement.

(6) In the event an abandoned gas main parallels a decommissioned City watermain and Metronet has not utilized the full capacity of the watermain, the City should receive compensation at a rate equivalent to the City lease with Metronet. This provision may require the involvement of the telecom provider and not Consumers Gas directly.

(7) With respect to the construction of new links to connect breaks or other gaps in decommissioned gas lines, for the purposes of this agreement, such links will be deemed to be part of the refurbished gas pipe and subject to the City fee if they are also subject to Consumers Gas per metre fee charged to the telecom operator.

(8) City use of capacity in refurbished gas pipe: staff have requested that should the City, at its sole option, wish to utilize sections of decommissioned gas pipe to install fibre optic cable and appurtenances for its own non-commercial purposes, it should have the opportunity to do so subject to paying a reasonable amount to refurbish the pipe, but not the per metre fee. Of course, the Consumers Gas fee to the City would also not be applicable in this instance.

(9) The City, by entering into this agreement would not be representing or assuring that any particular alignment or routing of a segment of abandoned gas pipe would be usable or approved for the purpose of telecommunications conduit.

(10) Term: it is proposed that the agreement be based on a 15-year or lesser term, with renewal considerations.

(11) The ability of Consumers Gas to assign the agreement to a subsidiary or affiliate provided that Consumers Gas remains responsible for the fulfilment of the terms is generally acceptable.

(12) Consumers Gas will agree to fully indemnify the City against all loss and liability, including environmental liability stemming from the permission granted under this agreement.

(13) Consumers Gas shall provide proof of insurance in a form and amount satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer, including naming the City as an additional named insured.

(14) The agreement shall contain provisions relating to expiry and termination, including the right for the City to require that all equipment be removed from the pipes, or the pipes relocated and the public highway restored to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(15) The agreement will contain any other provisions deemed appropriate by the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

Staff are of the view that the proposal by Consumers Gas and Metronet to utilize abandoned gas mains within public road allowances as a telecommunication conduit structure, under the general framework set out in this report, is a positive initiative for the proponents and the City in terms of facilitating the deployment of a current, competitive telecommunications infrastructure in the City. It will achieve these objectives with less disruption to the street and sidewalk system than would otherwise be possible if new construction were involved. The proposal will enable the efficient use and conservation of structures that are presently located within the road allowance, but not currently in active use. Finally, the City will derive direct revenue from the plan.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Koropeski, Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, Toronto City Works Services, Phone: (416) 392-7711.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, amended this Clause, by inserting in Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated March 11, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer, after the words "Emergency Services to determine if any", the words "demand side issues in Phase I or any other", and after the words "City Solicitor to intervene in", the words "Phase I and", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2) the Chief Administrative Officer consult with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to determine if any demand side management issues in Phase I or any other issues on the proposed Shared Savings Incentive Mechanism in Phase II of the Consumers Gas Rate application may impact the City or City residents on matters such as access to or cost of services provided by Consumers Gas and that the Chief Administrative Officer be granted the discretion to instruct the City Solicitor to intervene in Phase I and Phase II of the Consumers Gas Rate application on these issues, if deemed necessary;".)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To update Council on the status of the City of Toronto intervention in the Consumers Gas Rate Case before the Ontario Energy Board.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council ratify the interim steps taken to date by the City Solicitor in intervening in the application to the Ontario Energy Board by Consumers Gas Inc. for the unbundling of the appliance sales, rental and servicing unit to an affiliate, and that the Chief Administrative Officer explore the possibilities of linking the City's intervention with that of other intervenors in respect of the same issue;

(2) the Chief Administrative Officer consult with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to determine if any issues on the proposed Shared Savings Incentive Mechanism in Phase II of the Consumers Gas Rate application may impact the City or City residents on matters such as access to or cost of services provided by Consumers Gas, and that the Chief Administrative Officer be granted the discretion to instruct the City Solicitor to intervene in Phase II of the Consumers Gas Rate application, if deemed necessary; and

(3) the Chief Administrative Officer be given the authority to limit the form and content of the City's intervention in respect of the issues noted in Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council, at its meeting of February 4, 5, and 6, 1998, adopted a Motion of Councillor Layton which provided, in part, that:

"(3) the City Solicitor be authorized to take any interim steps required on the application made by Consumers Gas in order to reserve the City of Toronto's rights to intervene or comment as may be required by the Board's rules and to file comments consistent with the above-noted position and, further that, if on examination of the Consumers Gas Application, any further position or intervention is required in the opinion of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Administrative Officer report back to Council through the appropriate Standing Committee at the earliest opportunity."

The Motion also provided that the City support Pollution Probe's petition to Cabinet that the Ontario Energy Board "be required to take into account the broader public interest in any application, including any application affecting the residents of the City of Toronto, for the transfer of merchandising rentals, sales and servicing to unregulated companies", as well as the City's opposition "to the potential substantial increases in the rental, sale and servicing of natural gas appliance equipment as a result of deregulation by the gas companies".

Comments and/or Discussions and/or Justification:

The Motion noted above drew Council's attention to a proposal submitted for consideration by the Ontario Energy Board (the "Board") initiated first by Union Gas and Centra Gas, and then by Consumers Gas. The proposal seeks to "unbundle" or separate into independent business units, portions of the regulated natural gas utility. Currently most aspects of the utility's operations are submitted on an annual basis to the Board for approval, in the form of a rate case. At the same time, the utility may propose various new initiatives for providing different customer services or for carrying out its business. The Board's responsibility is to ensure that those directly or potentially affected parties, or those with an interest in the proceedings, are provided with an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

Current Status of Proceedings:

Council has already instructed the City Solicitor to intervene in the Consumers Gas hearing, with respect to the unbundling of the Consumers Gas appliance rental, sale and servicing unit, as well as the potential impact that unbundling may have in terms of increased pricing.

It should be noted that the hearing is comprised of four separate, but linked applications. Phase I - the Rate Case, and Unbundling of certain financial and administrative services to an affiliate company; and Phase II - Unbundling of the appliance sales, rental and servicing unit to an affiliate, and two separate incentive mechanisms, one related to Operations and Maintenance and the other ("Shared Savings Incentive Mechanism") related to the Demand Side Management program.

The City has obtained Intervenor Status and the Board has determined that the City is eligible to apply for a cost award (but only to the extent that the City's intervention relates to its status as a consumer of natural gas). It should also be noted that costs may only be awarded in the event that the City is required to retain outside legal or technical expertise.

Further, the Board encourages Intervenors or other parties who have similar interests or issues to, as much as possible, combine their efforts, both from the consideration of the potential length of the proceeding and from the consideration of evaluating any cost award. Therefore, it is appropriate for City staff to canvass other Intervenors to establish whether the City can combine its efforts with one or more other Intervenors in this proceeding. This will also serve to limit the City's involvement with this proceeding, since these cases are quite technically complex and generally involve weeks of hearing dates (in addition to the extensive review and preparation time required).

Other Issues:

There may be similar broad policy issues of concern to the City related to the Shared Savings Incentive Mechanism, including how it may impact accessibility or the cost of utilizing Consumers Gas incentives by its customers (including the City) where those incentives relate to reducing CO₂ emissions or other energy efficiency measures. This matter will be addressed in the Phase II materials, which may not be available until the end of April, and given the tight timelines governing procedural steps in the hearing (which may be out of sync with scheduled Council meetings), I am seeking authority to instruct the City Solicitor, based on my consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to intervene on this issue, if necessary, for reasons set out in Recommendation No. (2) above.

Conclusions:

That the recommendations contained in this report be adopted. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor have been consulted and agree with the recommendations of this report.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lorraine Searles-Kelly

392-7240

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To revise Recommendation No. (2) of Clause No. 12 of Report No. 3 of The Works and Utilities Committee Report, dated March 11, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Recommendation No. (2) of the Chief Administrative Officer's report dated March 11, 1998 be revised by inserting into the original recommendation the words "demand side management issues in Phase I or any other", following the words "Emergency Services to determine if any", and by inserting the words "Phase I and" following the words "City Solicitor to intervene in", so that Recommendation No. (2) now reads as follows:

"(2) that the Chief Administrative Officer consult with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to determine if any demand side management issues in Phase I or any other issues on the proposed Shared Savings Incentive Mechanism in Phase II of the Consumers Gas Rate application may impact the City or City residents on matters such as access to or cost of services provided by Consumers Gas and that the Chief Administrative Officer be granted the discretion to instruct the City Solicitor to intervene in Phase I and Phase II of the Consumers Gas Rate application on these issues, if deemed necessary; and".

Council Reference/Background/History:

Clause No. 31 of Report No. 21 of The Executive Committee adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of August 14 and 15, 1995 (on file with the City Clerk) authorized the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Consumers Gas which stipulated the type of support that Consumers Gas was willing to provide the City as part of the Energy and Water Efficiency Pilot Program (now the Better Buildings Partnership or "BBP"). The goals of the BBP include: the furtherance of the City's goals of promoting and implementing energy and water efficiency programs and other initiatives to address the challenge of global warming and its climate change impact; the City's goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent (relative to 1988 levels) by the year 2005; job creation, enhanced business competitiveness, and the renewal of the City's building stock.

The Consumers Gas goals in participating in the BBP include the fulfilment of its Demand Side Management obligations to the Ontario Energy Board (addressed as part of its annual rate cases); to enhance the Consumers Gas Merchandise Financing Program ("MFP") with respect to the BBP; and, to provide a partial recourse pool of funds in the event of default of any loans made under the program.

The former City also had a separate agreement with the Toronto Atmospheric Fund ("TAF") under which TAF agreed to make available $2 million to cover any defaults under certain portions of the BBP. The former City's rationale for this financial arrangement is based on the expectation of a higher participation rate by building owners in the BBP which would result in significantly higher emissions reduction, more jobs created and improved economic renewal. Furthermore, City staff as well as an independent consultant report, projected that a significant net surplus of funds of approximately $2.0 million could be gained by the City as a result of accumulated Budgeted Incentive Contributions paid by Consumers Gas.

Clause No. 12 of Report No. 18 of The Executive Committee adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of July 14, 1997 (on file with the City Clerk) authorized the former City, Consumers Gas and TAF to enter into a modified arrangement of the existing agreements. In this arrangement, Consumers Gas stipulated that a portion of the credit for certain energy savings arising from retrofit work under the BBP would be provided to the City based on Consumers Gas current calculation of $0.125 per cubic metre of gas efficiency realized in the BBP, for the purposes of covering certain defaults under the MFP-BBP. Furthermore, Consumers Gas would provide a means of accruing for the City, a pool of funds which could be recycled to support further retrofit initiatives to help the City, Consumers Gas and TAF attain their goals stated above. The agreement respecting the modified arrangement is pending finalization and execution.

The City's BBP is one of the components of the Consumers Gas Rate application, filed as part of its Demand Side Management ("DSM") evidence. Therefore, it would be appropriate to file as evidence before the Board, the Council resolutions and any other pertinent information about the BBP to update the Board on the status of the City's participation in Consumers Gas DSM efforts and as a means of urging the Board to continue to allow Consumers Gas to participate in the City's program. It is unlikely that this participation in Phase I of the hearing would require anything more than filing the above written evidence, unless the Board or Consumers Gas required the relevant City staff to make a short oral presentation.

Conclusion:

That the recommendation contained in this report be adopted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Richard Morris, Acting Senior Environmental Engineer, Works and Emergency Services, Environmental Division, Toronto Community Council Area, Phone (416) 392-1452, Fax (416) 392-1456. E-Mail "rmorris@city.toronto.on.ca".)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated March 9, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested, in camera, that the Audit Committee consider further action in connection with this matter.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 9, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater:

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to engage a consultant to provide engineering services for the rehabilitation of the North Electrical Substation and related structures and services at the Main Treatment Plant.

Funding Sources:

Financing for the expenditure recommended herein has been previously approved by Metropolitan Council, and funds are available under Water Pollution Control Capital Account No. WP160, Main Treatment Plant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the firm of MacViro Consultants Inc. be engaged to provide engineering services in connection with the rehabilitation of the North Electrical Substation and related structures and services at the Main Treatment Plant for the following estimated costs including Goods and Services Tax:

(a) for pre-design and detailed design services, an amount not to exceed $293,000.00, including GST and including a contingency allowance of $40,000.00 to cover additional work if necessary and authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(b) for general administration and site services during construction, an amount not to exceed $259,750.00 including GST for a construction period of up to ten months and a contingency rate not to exceed $6,550.00 per week including GST for extension of services during construction beyond a period of ten months if necessary and authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

By adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Environment and Public Space Committee on July 2, 1997, Metropolitan Council authorized further funding for continuation of the program to upgrade facilities at the Main Treatment Plant. This authorization included the North Substation upgrade at a gross estimated cost of $7,134,000.00 after Municipal Goods and Services Tax Rebate.

In order to carry out this work, the Department requires the engagement of a consulting firm to provide both preliminary and detailed design services for building rehabilitation or replacement, the removal of existing obsolete equipment and installation of new equipment, the assessment and replacement, if required, of power feeder cables, ancillary power and control systems, and related work as required. The consultant will further be required to provide services during construction including general administration, resident inspection, system integration, operating and maintenance manuals, commissioning and post-construction follow-up during the warranty period.

Discussion and Justification:

The North Substation at the Main Treatment Plant is the primary source of power to equipment within the plant. It was constructed and placed into service approximately 40 years ago. The building, transformers, electrical panels, breakers, and cables have been added to over the years, with some equipment also becoming redundant as various processes in the plant have been decommissioned. Much of the electrical equipment is obsolete and can no longer be economically maintained as parts are no longer available. The redundant equipment is to be removed; obsolete equipment is to be replaced with equipment meeting the latest standards; and the aging building structure is to be either rehabilitated or replaced to ensure building code conformance. A key component of the rehabilitation is to improve conditions in the partial basement crawl space where many high voltage cables are either buried directly in soil, or suspended from the underside of the main floor slab. This will improve the plant staff's ability to maintain these cables.

The current undertaking results from previous studies and consultant's reports which recommended renovation/replacement of the existing facility in order to maintain reliable service delivery. It is consistent with Ministry of the Environment requirements to maintain the equipment within our wastewater facilities.

In order to select a consultant to assist in this work, a selection process was carried out in accordance with current policy generally as follows:

- the size of the assignment was assessed against the selection policy and the appropriate level of procedure was selected;

- a selection committee was struck including representatives from both the Water Pollution Control and Management and Technical Services Divisions of the Department;

- ten firms selected from the Department's roster lists for the type of work involved were requested to submit "Expressions of Interest" in providing the necessary engineering services for the project, seven responses were received and reviewed by the selection committee from which four were short-listed for further consideration;

- detailed terms of reference were prepared and written proposals were requested and received from the four short-listed firms, each proposal included a technical submission and a separate sealed cost proposal;

- each technical submission was reviewed, first independently and then jointly by members of the selection committee with specific attention to each firm's response to the detailed terms of reference, and was evaluated according to a set of pre-established criteria each with a weighting factor and maximum point score;

- following detailed review and discussion of the technical submissions, the selection committee concluded that three of the four firms qualified for further consideration of their cost proposals and the other did not;

- following a preliminary review of the cost proposals, the three firms were interviewed in order to clarify and finalize the specific scope of work required and the related cost factors for same; and

- on completion of all of the above, the selection committee concluded that the proposal submitted by MacViro Consultants Inc. best met the overall project requirements, at the lowest evaluated cost, and all proponents were notified that MacViro Consultants Inc. would be recommended for award of the assignment.

The estimated cost for this consulting assignment, including Goods and Services Tax, is as follows:

(i) Pre-design and detailed design services $253,000.00

(ii) Contingency allowance for design $40,000.00

(iii) Services during construction

(based on estimated construction period of 10 months) $259,750.00

Total estimated cost: $552,750.00 including GST

(iv) Provision for extension of services

during construction if necessary, not

to exceed an average cost of $6,550.00 per week

The assignment shall be performed in accordance with an agreement containing terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Solicitor.

Conclusions:

Following a consultant selection procedure in accordance with current corporate policy, the firm of MacViro Consultants Inc. has been selected by a consultant selection committee as best meeting the overall project requirements for engineering services to rehabilitate the North Electrical Substation at the Main Treatment Plant, and should therefore be awarded this assignment.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. P.A. Bradley, P.Eng., Phone: (416) 392-8251

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the permanent repair of utility cuts in sidewalks, curbs and concrete pavements in Wards 19 to 26, inclusive.

Funding Source:

Cut repair operations in the former City of Toronto are financed through a self-sustaining budget. The utility companies responsible for the sidewalk or pavement cut pay the necessary amount for the permanent repair. Funds are available in Cut Repair Operations Fund, Fund Code 4052-39291-Feat-5017 (Utilities).

Recommendations:

(1) That Contract No. 59421-135 for the permanent repair of utility cuts in sidewalks, curbs and concrete pavements be awarded to the low bidder, Maple-crete Incorporated; and

(2) that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the actions necessary to give effect thereto.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto Tender Committee, at its meeting of February 11, 1998, received tenders for Contract No. 594321-135 for the repair of utility cuts in sidewalks, curbs and concrete pavements in Wards 19 to 26, inclusive, as summarized below:

Tender No. Tenderer Tender Price

(1) Maple-crete Incorporated $1,913,580.00

(2) Sunrise Holding & Investments Incorporated $2,018,900.00

(3) D & F DiCarlo Construction Limited $2,025,900.00

(4) Panza Brothers Construction Limited $2,373,630.00

(5) Brennan Paving & Construction Limited $2,846,460.00

The tender prices have been checked and mathematical errors were found in the tender submitted by Brennan Paving and Construction Limited. The corrected total is shown above.

Please note that this is a unit price contract and is to be awarded on the basis of the unit rates quoted by the successful tenderer, Maple-crete Incorporated. The amounts shown above have been extended to determine the minimum required amounts for deposit and performance bond purposes.

As far as I can ascertain, the interim purchasing procedures adopted by City Council at its meeting of March 4, 1998, require the award of all contracts over an amount of $1,000,000.00 to be approved by City Council. Since this contract is in excess of $1,000,000.00, its award requires the approval of Council.

The award of this contract is subject to the receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

R. A. Spizarsky, Senior Engineer, Cut Repairs, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division,

Toronto City Works Services, 392-7711.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater; and

(2) that the Councillors for the area be consulted with respect to the construction of the proposed watermain:

Purpose:

To award a contract for constructing a new watermain on Jane Street from the intersection of Weston Road to the Facelle Plant. The watermain is being requested by Procter & Gamble Inc.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

There are no financial implications as the expenditure will be fully recovered from Procter & Gamble Inc.

Recommendations:

(1) That the expenditure in the total amount of $190,000.00, all of which will be fully recovered from Procter & Gamble Inc., be authorized to cover the construction, engineering inspection and pavement restoration for a watermain on Jane Street from the intersection of Weston Road to the Facelle Plant; and

(2) that Contract No. 97-28-340-15, watermain construction on Jane Street from Weston Road to the Facelle Plant, be awarded to the lowest bidder, E.R.P. Savini Construction Company, in the estimated amount of $103,115.90.

Council Reference/Background History:

In November 1997, at the request of Procter & Gamble Inc., York Civic Service Centre (formerly City of York) called a public tender for constructing approximately 200 metres of 300 mm (12") diameter watermain on Jane Street from the intersection of Weston Road to the Facelle Plant. The purpose of Procter & Gamble Inc.'s request is to provide an additional water supply source to its warehouse on Cobalt Street, and to provide adequate water supply for the installation of a new diesel fire pump at its plant.

The result of the tenders which were received and opened on November 21, 1997, are as follows:

The total cost of the project is estimated in an amount of $190,000.00, which includes $103,114.90 for the contract, $16,900.00 for design, inspection and $70,000.00 for permanent pavement restoration. The permanent pavement restoration will be carried out by the Transportation Department late in 1998.

Procter & Gamble Inc. has agreed to pay for the cost and has also agreed to provide a financial security to the City with an irrevocable letter of credit. This work has not been included in the Operating or Capital Budget, however, the full cost must initially be provided from our current budget.

Conclusions:

As Procter & Gamble Inc. will pay for the full cost of the new watermain on Jane Street and its related costs, we recommend that the appropriate officials be authorized to proceed with the work.

Contact Name:

Mr. W. E. Dunford, P. Eng., Commissioner of Operation Services, York Civic Service Centre, Phone: (416) 394-2659; Fax: (416) 394-2888.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's authorization for the construction of a subtrunk watermain on Yonge Street from Avondale Avenue to Poyntz Avenue and on Poyntz Avenue from Yonge Street to Beecroft Road and to allocate the necessary monies from the City's Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund.

Source of Funds:

Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City share 25 percent of the cost of upgrading the existing 250 mm watermain to a 400 mm watermain on Yonge Street from Poyntz Avenue to Johnston Avenue at an estimated cost to the City of $50,000.00, and the work be undertaken by the Toronto Transit Commission in conjunction with the Yonge-Sheppard Subway Station construction;

(2) the upgrading of the local watermains to 400 mm watermains on Yonge Street from Johnston Avenue to Avondale Avenue and on Poyntz Avenue from Yonge Street to Beecroft Road at an estimated cost to the City of $500,000.00 and the work be undertaken by the Toronto Transit Commission in conjunction with the Yonge-Sheppard Avenue Subway construction;

(3) the City's share of the costs amounting to an estimated $550,000.00 be charged to available funds in the Sewer and Water Development Charges Fund; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Discussion:

To provide adequate water pressure and flows in the future for the North York South Downtown, a subtrunk watermain loop on the east and west sides of Yonge Street extending from Sheppard Avenue to Avondale Avenue was identified as being required. This subtrunk watermain has been installed in stages as development has proceeded and has been co-ordinated with road construction. The subtrunk watermain has now been constructed on sections of Beecroft Road from Sheppard Avenue to Poyntz Avenue in conjunction with the construction of the road.

The installation of the subtrunk watermain to provide adequate water supply to developments in the North York South Downtown should be continued on Poyntz Avenue from Beecroft Road to Yonge Street and on Yonge Street from Poyntz Avenue to Avondale Avenue.

The Toronto Transit Commission has advised that the construction of the Yonge-Sheppard Subway Station is to commence early this summer and is scheduled to be completed by summer 2001. The subway station will occupy almost the entire width of the Yonge Street road allowance and will be constructed by cut and cover method from Harlandale Avenue to Johnston Avenue. In order to facilitate the construction of the Yonge-Sheppard Avenue Subway Station, the local watermains on Yonge Street will be relocated.

The relocation of the existing local watermains on Yonge Street from Sheppard Avenue to Johnston Avenue is the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission. However, since a 400 mm subtrunk watermain is required by the City on Yonge Street from Poyntz Avenue to Avondale Avenue and on Poyntz Avenue from Yonge Street to Beecroft Road in the future, the City is to fund the additional costs for upgrading the watermain from 250 mm to 400 mm on Yonge Street from Poyntz Avenue to Johnston Avenue to be undertaken by the Toronto Transit Commission. The estimated cost of the City's share for the watermain on Yonge Street from Poyntz Avenue to Johnston Avenue is $50,000.00. The work will be carried out by the Toronto Transit Commission as part of the subway contract.

The construction of a 400 mm subtrunk watermain on Poyntz Avenue from Yonge Street to Beecroft Avenue and the extension of the proposed watermain on Yonge Street south from Johnston Avenue to Avondale Avenue will provide adequate water pressure and flows to the North York South Downtown, including the Wittington Properties Limited and the Anndale Properties Limited/Crestview Investment Corporation plans of subdivision located immediately east of Yonge Street and south of Avondale Avenue. In order to minimize disruption to traffic and neighbouring properties and avoid scheduling conflicts, the watermain construction could be undertaken by the Toronto Transit Commission in conjunction with the construction of the Yonge-Sheppard Subway Station. The estimated cost of the work is $500,000.00.

Conclusion:

The extension of the existing 400 mm subtrunk watermain on Beecroft Road at Poyntz Avenue eastward on Poyntz Avenue to Yonge Street and southward on Yonge Street from Poyntz Avenue to Avondale Avenue will provide adequate water supply for the North York South Downtown. The installation of the proposed subtrunk watermain by the Toronto Transit Commission in conjunction with the subway work would be an efficient method for coordinating the works.

Contact:

S. Bertoia, P.Eng., Director of Engineering

Phone: 395-6235, Fax: 395-6200

E-mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca.

(A copy of the plan appended to the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To assume ownership of a 300 mm sanitary sewer and a 200 mm watermain required to service the proposed development at 322 Clinton Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to assume the ownership of a 300 mm sanitary sewer and a 200 mm watermain required to service the proposed development at 322 Clinton Street subject to the owner of these properties granting the necessary easement to the City as indicated on Sketch No. EAS-489, in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in this report and any others the City Solicitor or I may determine necessary; and

(2) that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required and the execution of the necessary easement agreement.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Not applicable.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On March 13, 1997, the Ontario Municipal Board approved an application filed by BrandyLane Homes (Clinton) Ltd. to construct a nine-unit townhouse development within the subject properties.

To service this development, it is necessary to construct sanitary sewer and watermain on private property with connection to existing municipal services on Clinton Street as shown on Sketch No. EAS-489.

BrandyLane Homes (Clinton) Ltd., the current owner of the properties, has requested that the City of Toronto assume the proposed sanitary and watermain servicing the proposed dwelling units within the subject properties.

Since the private ownership of common sewers and watermains often results in inadequate maintenance and eventual servicing problems, I propose that the developer's request be accepted, subject to the following conditions:

(1) BrandyLane Homes (Clinton) Ltd., the Owner, shall at its cost, provide the design of the watermain and sanitary sewer and storm drainage necessary to service the development. The design shall be undertaken by a Registered Professional Engineer in accordance with my Department's current Standards and Specifications and subject to my approval.

(2) The Owner shall, at its cost, construct the services in accordance with the approved design, under the inspection of a Registered Professional Engineer and by a contractor approved by my Department.

(3) Prior to assumption of the services by the City, the Owner shall:

(i) provide, at its own cost, all necessary legal surveys and descriptions for the easement;

(ii) provide certification by the Professional Engineer that the work has been executed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications;

(iii) provide a Letter of Credit in the amount of 25 percent of the cost of the services to be held as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years; and

(iv) for a nominal fee, enter into an Easement Agreement with the City for the maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the services, generally, as indicated on Sketch No. EAS-489, containing the following terms and conditions and any others that the City Solicitor or I may determine to be necessary:

(a) no buildings, structures or work of any kind shall be erected or placed in, under, over, or upon the Easement Lands without the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(b) the Owner shall protect the services against damage during any construction or alteration of any buildings or structure on the property, and agrees to provide detailed plans for protection of the services for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to commencing any such work;

(c) the City shall have a right of access over the Easement Lands at any time to survey, lay, construct, operate, use, inspect, remove, renew, replace, alter, enlarge, reconstruct, repair, expand, and maintain the services;

(d) the City shall, after each entry, restore the Easement Lands as nearly as possible to their previous condition;

(e) neither the Owner, nor anyone acting for or on behalf of the Owner, shall permit any other utility to be located in, under, over, or upon the Easement Lands, without the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f) any separate drains and private water service connections located or installed in the future in, under, and/or upon the Easement Lands, shall remain the responsibility of the Owner; and

(g) the Owner shall indemnify the City against any action which may be brought against the City with respect to building structures and appurtenances adjacent to the Easement Lands, resulting from or arising out of the City's exercise of the rights transferred to it or arising out of the acquisition of the services and/or the easement, provided such action does not arise out of negligence on the part of the City.

(4) Within six months of completing the servicing work, the Owner shall provide as-built drawings of the services in a reproducible format, and video inspection of the sewer lines.

If the above is not provided, the City will, at its discretion, prepare the documents and draw the associated costs from the Letter of Credit.

BrandyLane Homes (Clinton) Ltd. has agreed in writing to the above terms and conditions.

Conclusions:

Approval should be given to assume ownership of the sewer and watermain servicing 322 Clinton Street at nominal cost.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

W. Wichmann, City Engineer, Toronto Community Council Area

Phone: (416) 392-7703; Fax: (416) 392-0816

E-Mail: "wwichman@city.toronto.on.ca"

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following communication (March 18, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity Niagara:

As one of the two councillors for the area, I am writing to the members of the Works and Utilities Committee to support the recommendations of Commissioner Gutteridge regarding this item. I regret that I am unable to attend the Committee meeting.

Thank you for your consideration of my views.

(A copy of Sketch No. EAS-489 referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To assume ownership of a 300 mm sanitary sewer, a catch basin and a 50 mm watermain required to service the proposed development at 461A- 461E Roncesvalles Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to assume the ownership of a 300 mm sanitary sewer, a catch basin and a 50 mm watermain required to service the proposed development at 461A, 461B, 461C, 461D and 461E Roncesvalles Avenue subject to the owner of these properties granting the necessary easement to the City as indicated on Sketch No. EAS-490, in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in this report and any others the City Solicitor or myself may determine necessary; and

(2) that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Not applicable.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On October 22, 1997, the Committee of Adjustment approved an application filed by 1238057 Ontario Limited to construct a five-unit townhouse development within the subject properties.

To service this development, it is necessary to construct a 300 mm sanitary sewer, a catch basin and a 50 mm watermain on private property with connection to the municipal services on Roncesvalles Avenue as shown on Sketch No. EAS-490.

1238057 Ontario Limited, the current owner of the properties, has requested that the City of Toronto assume the proposed sanitary sewer, catch basin and watermain servicing the proposed dwelling units within the subject properties.

Since the private ownership of common sewer, catch basin and watermain often results in inadequate maintenance and eventual servicing problems, I propose that the developer's request be accepted, subject to the following conditions:

(1) 1238057 Ontario Limited, the Owner, shall at its cost, provide the design of the watermain and the sanitary sewer and the storm drainage necessary to service the development. The design shall be undertaken by a Registered Professional Engineer in accordance with my Department's current Standards and Specifications and subject to my approval.

(2) The Owner shall, at its cost, construct the services in accordance with the approved design, under the inspection of a Registered Professional Engineer and by a contractor approved by my Department.

(3) Prior to assumption of the services by the City, the Owner shall:

(i) provide, at its own cost, all necessary legal surveys and descriptions for the easement;

(ii) provide certification by the Professional Engineer that the work has been executed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications;

(iii) provide a Letter of Credit in the amount of 25 percent of the cost of the services to be held as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years; and

(iv) for a nominal fee, enter into an Easement Agreement with the City for the maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the services, generally, as indicated on Sketch No. EAS-490, containing the following terms and conditions and any others that the City Solicitor or I may determine to be necessary:

(a) no buildings, structures or work of any kind shall be erected or placed in, under, over, or upon the Easement Lands without the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(b) the Owner shall protect the services against damage during any construction or alteration of any buildings or structure on the property, and agrees to provide detailed plans for protection of the services for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to commencing any such work;

(c) the City shall have a right of access over the Easement Lands at any time to survey, lay, construct, operate, use, inspect, remove, renew, replace, alter, enlarge, reconstruct, repair, expand, and maintain the services;

(d) the City shall, after each entry, restore the Easement Lands as nearly as possible to their previous condition;

(e) neither the Owner, nor anyone acting for or on behalf of the Owner, shall permit any other utility to be located in, under, over, or upon the Easement Lands, without the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f) any separate drains and private water service connections located or installed in the future in, under, and/or upon the Easement Lands, shall remain the responsibility of the Owner; and

(g) the Owner shall indemnify the City against any action which may be brought against the City with respect to building structures and appurtenances adjacent to the Easement Lands, resulting from or arising out of the City's exercise of the rights transferred to it or arising out of the acquisition of the services and/or the easement, provided such action does not arise out of negligence on the part of the City; and

(4) Within six months of completing the servicing work, the Owner shall provide as-built drawings of the services in a reproducible format, and video inspection of the sewer lines.

If the above is not provided, the City will, at its discretion, prepare the documents and draw the associated costs from the Letter of Credit.

1238057 Ontario Limited has agreed in writing to the above terms and conditions.

Conclusions:

Approval should be given from the City to assume ownership of the sanitary sewer, catch basin and watermain servicing 461A- 461E Roncesvalles Avenue at nominal cost.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

W. Wichmann, City Engineer, Toronto Community Council Area

Phone: (416) 392-7703; Fax: (416)392-0816

E-Mail "wwichman@city.toronto.on.ca"

(A copy of Sketch No. EAS-490 referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Water and Wastewater:

Purpose:

To allow the industries named herein to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with the City of Toronto permitting them, for payment of a surcharge fee, to discharge overstrength effluent which is amenable to treatment at our treatment plants.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department maintains approximately 150 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, which allow for the recovery of approximately $7.5 million per year in additional treatment costs.

These charges reflect a user pay philosophy, and directly offset the cost of operation of our treatment plants.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that we be authorized to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with Wing Loon Food Products Co. Ltd.; 94272 Canada Limited, operated as The Body Shop; and Deer Park Laundry Limited, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On November 9, 1989, Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 6 of Report No. 16 of The Works Committee, authorized execution of agreements with industries, permitting them to discharge wastewater in excess of the limits set out under By-law No. 153-89, providing that the overstrength discharges are amenable to treatment at our treatment plants. Industries are required to pay for the additional cost of treatment above the limit of the by-law.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The type of wastes generated by the industries listed below is biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our treatment plants. These industries have been notified of the annual charge to be levied, and they have signified agreement to the amount of the assessment: