TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 11

1Exemption from Waste Management Fees for Charitable Organizations

2Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Mediation Process

3Main Treatment Plant - Additional Expenditure for Construction of Digester Gas Control Building Contract No. WPC-5-97 16022

4Engineering Consulting Fees and Additional Expenditures for Zebra Mussel Control Facilities at F.J. Horgan Filtration Plant -Contract No. WS-1-92 16025

5Headhouse Improvements at Highland Creek Treatment Plant -Contract No. MW9802WP(Ward: East Toronto) 16029

6Assumption of Private Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer and Water Main - 1502 Queen Street East Townhouse Development (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

7New Municipal Class Environmental Assessments

8Sanitary Discharge Agreement -Canadian Waste Services Inc. (Ward 6)

9Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 11

OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on December 2, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

1

Exemption from Waste Management Fees

for Charitable Organizations

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 18, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

To seek general authority to allow charitable organizations free disposal of up to 20 tonnes of solid waste and source-separated recyclables each per year, and to authorize the General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services to administer this exemption from solid waste management fees in accordance with the conditions set out in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding implications resulting from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)charitable organizations be granted an exemption from the solid waste management fee otherwise payable at the City's solid waste management facilities for the receipt of solid waste and source-separated recyclable materials, provided that the following conditions are met:

(a)such organizations are registered as charitable organizations with Revenue Canada;

(b)the waste or recyclable materials are generated within the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality of York or the Regional Municipality of Durham;

(c)the waste or recyclable materials are generated through the activities of the charitable organization; and

(d)the exemption applies only to a maximum of 20 tonnes of waste or recyclable materials per year from the charitable organization; and

(2)the General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services be authorized to administer the conditions of the exemption as set out in Recommendation No. (1).

Council Reference/Background/History:

On September 30, 1992, the former Metro Council approved Clause No. 2 of Report No. 19 of The Works Committee which recommended that: "subject to approval by Council, charitable organizations as registered by Revenue Canada with waste originating from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Regional Municipality of York or the Regional Municipality of Durham be eligible for grants by way of exemptions from the waste management fees otherwise applicable for residual waste from a waste diversion program." On April 28 and 29, 1993, Metro Council approved Clause No. 15 of Report No. 9 of The Works Committee which recommended that these grants be extended to include source-separated recyclables.

In 1993, waste management provisions were enacted under the Municipal Act allowing for exemption of fees, aside from any grant-making powers.

On January 25 and 26, 1995, the former Metro Council approved Clause No. 9 of Report No. 1 of The Environment and Public Space Committee which recommended that "subject to approval of specific individual reports by Council, charitable organizations registered with Revenue Canada with waste generated through day-to-day operations originating from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Regional Municipality of York or the Regional Municipality of Durham be eligible for grants by way of exemptions from the waste management fees otherwise payable for source separated recyclables and residual waste from a waste diversion program."

Discussion and Justification:

In 1997, a total of 5390 tonnes of waste and nine tonnes of recyclable materials generated by charitable organizations were received at no charge at our solid waste management facilities. This waste was primarily from nine charitable organizations that dispose of their waste on regular basis, such as Goodwill Industries, The Salvation Army and Daily Bread Food Bank.

Presently, when this Department receives a request for free disposal by a charitable organization, a report is submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee and subsequently to Council for approval. This system works well for requests from charitable organizations with significant quantities of waste. However, we receive approximately 10 requests annually from charitable organizations that need to dispose of minimal quantities of waste (e.g., less than 20 tonnes), that has often been generated as a result of a special event. If they have not provided us with sufficient lead time, it is not possible to get their request through the approval process in time. Even if they do make their request well in advance, there are time and costs incurred for staff to prepare the report and for the Works and Utilities Committee and Council to review the report.

In order to streamline the process, we recommend that a general exemption be granted to charitable organizations for free disposal of up to 20 tonnes of waste per year and that the General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services be authorized to administer such requests. All requests by charitable organizations for free disposal of over 20 tonnes per year would still be subject to approval by Council.

Under the conditions to the exemption as set out in the Recommendations of this report, we will continue our procedure of ensuring that the charity requesting free disposal is registered as a charitable organization with Revenue Canada. We will also request that the attached form be submitted to our Department. This form will enable staff to verify the quantity and type of waste prior to disposal, identify any potential diversion opportunities and ensure that the conditions of the exemption are met. Furthermore, this prior notification will enable staff to monitor the quantity of waste delivered to our facilities by a hauler, on behalf of the charity.

Conclusions:

In order to streamline the process of approving requests from charitable organizations for free disposal of waste and recyclable materials, we recommend that a general exemption for charitable organizations be granted on the conditions set out in the Recommendations of this report and, in particular, that the exemption be limited to 20 tonnes of waste and recyclable materials per year. Further, the General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services should be authorized to administer the conditions to the exemption from fees.

Contact Name:

Kevin Vibert, Waste Management Advisor

Works and Emergency Services Department

Phone: (416) 397-0203; Fax: (416) 392-4754

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

(A copy of the form referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the supplementary agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of December 2, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Main Treatment Plant Environmental

Assessment Mediation Process

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to amending the report to provide that the mediator's report for the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment mediation process be issued to the Minister of the Environment no later than February 26, 1999:

Purpose:

This report provides an update on the status of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment, including the development of a mediation process with the nine parties which have made submissions to the Minister of the Environment concerning the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds for a mediator in the amount of $20,000.00 including all applicable taxes are available in the approved 1998-2002 Capital Work Program, account number WP160-S20374.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that authority be granted to engage a mediator for the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment mediation process at a cost of $20,000.00 including all applicable taxes and associated expenses.

Council References/Background/History:

On September 24, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 8 of Report No. 12 of the former Environment and Public Space Committee, entitled "Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Implementation Plan". The report recommended that Metropolitan Council endorse the conclusions of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment (the "MTP EA") and authorize its submission to the Ministry of the Environment for approval.

The purpose of the MTP EA is to establish the preferred alternative for:

-meeting future wastewater treatment needs in the MTP service area to the year 2011; and

-improving the effectiveness of the MTP at reducing environmental impacts.

Following the direction of the former Metropolitan Council, the MTP EA was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. Following receipt of the document, the Ministry initiated a public review period. At its conclusion, nine parties made submissions to the Minister regarding the MTP EA. The nine parties are:

-Ms. Karen Buck, on behalf of Citizens for a Safe Environment;

-Mr. David Done, Secretary, Public Committee for Safe Sewage Treatment in Metropolitan Toronto;

-Ms. Elizabeth Brubaker, Executive Director, Environment Probe;

-Mr. Don Gratton, resident;

-Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health, Toronto Public Health;

-Ms. Debra Kyles;

-Ms. Karey Shinn, on behalf of the Public Committee for Safe Sewage Treatment in Metropolitan Toronto;

-Mr. Stephen Whyte, member of the MTP EA Public Consultation Committee; and

-Mr. Dean Young, student, Ryerson University.

In association with the project consultant, CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited, staff assembled a consolidated "comment and draft response document" based on the submissions of the nine parties. The nine parties were then invited to participate in a mediation process with the City. To date, two pre-mediation meetings have been held to review the draft responses from the City regarding the submissions to the Minister and undertake the design of the mediation process. A third pre-mediation meeting is scheduled for November 26, 1998. At this meeting, candidates for the position of mediator will be interviewed followed by a selection. We estimate that the cost of the mediator to be up to $20,000.00, which includes all applicable taxes and associated expenses.

Attached is a copy of the Terms of Reference for the mediation process (please see Attachment A). All nine parties were offered the opportunity to participate in the design of the Terms of Reference. The document was also reviewed by officials of the Ministry of the Environment's Environmental Assessment Branch to ensure consistency with the mediation procedures contained within the Environmental Assessment Act and associated guideline document.

Based on their review of the draft responses that have been prepared to date, seven parties have identified remaining items from their submissions that they would like to carry forward into mediation. The office of the Medical Officer of Health has advised that based on the content of the draft responses to the Toronto Public Health submission, their concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Mr. Don Gratton has responded favorably to the draft response regarding his submission, although a clarification to one of the draft responses to his submission is currently being prepared.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Minister of the Environment can direct a mediation process following the submission of an environmental assessment. At the time of their submission several parties requested the Minister to direct a mediation process.

In order to be pro-active, the department has engaged in a mediation process with the nine submitting parties. The goal, as stated in the Terms of Reference is, to "¼arrive at a satisfactory level of agreement and/or understanding between the City and each party that has made a submission to the Minister, regarding outstanding issues related to the MTP EA document."

While the Minister could still invoke mediation following the completion of the City's process, the issues will be significantly scoped. This will also be of assistance if the Minister calls a hearing regarding the MTP EA, before the Environmental Assessment Board. The current mediation process will also assist with the subsequent Ministry review of the MTP EA.

Conclusions:

Mediation is becoming a common means of attempting to resolve differing viewpoints between environmental assessment proponents and participating stakeholders. The mediation process for the MTP EA provides an opportunity to resolve issues with the nine parties that have made submissions to the Minister of the Environment. While all issues may not be resolved, the undertaking will significantly reduce the number of outstanding issues, which will assist in any further mediation process directed by the Minister and/or a potential hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board.

At the conclusion of the mediation process, a report will be submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee to advise on the outcome of the process.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

R.M. Pickett, P.Eng.

Director, Water Pollution Control

Phone: (416) 392-8230; Fax: (416) 397-0908

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

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.

Manager, EA Co-ordination, Technical Services

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-2974

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

Attachment A

Terms of Reference for the Main Treatment Plant EA Mediation Process

Preamble:

The City of Toronto's Works and Emergency Services is inviting the nine parties that have made submissions regarding the City's Main Treatment Plant EA to the Minister, to enter into a voluntary mediation process. Listed below are the tenets of the mediation process.

(1)The goal of the mediation process is to arrive at a satisfactory level of agreement and/or understanding between the City and each party that has made a submission to the Minister, regarding outstanding issues related to the MTP EA document. The mediation effort will focus on the draft issues and responses provided by the City in response to submissions made to the Minister and the re-drafting of the responses stemming from meetings and dialogue.

(2)Participation by all parties is voluntary and does not preclude a subsequent Provincially prescribed mediation. Representatives of the Ministry of the Environment are welcome to attend and participate in all mediation-related meetings.

(3)A "satisfactory level of agreement" will be expressed through a signed communiqué related to the completed responses provided by the City regarding the submissions. In the event that a "satisfactory level of agreement" cannot be reached regarding all issues, the communiqué will identify where differences still exist.

(4)A third party mediator who is acceptable to the City and the participating parties will facilitate the mediation process. The mediator will be responsible for facilitating meetings between the City and parties having outstanding issues regarding the City's draft responses to their submissions, and preparing the concluding "communiqué", to which all participants can submit letters of explanation in relation to their positions, which will be attached to the communiqué. The communiqué will be submitted to the Minister of the Environment and copied to all participants. The communiqué will identify any additional requests for Provincially prescribed mediation on the part of one or more participants.

(5)Participation by all participants is understood to be "without prejudice", aside of the final signed communiqué.

(6)Mediation meetings are confidential.

November 16, 1998.

3

Main Treatment Plant - Additional Expenditure

for Construction of Digester Gas Control Building

Contract No. WPC-5-97

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain Council authority to negotiate and authorize additional expenditures for the performance of necessary additional work on Contract No. WPC-5-97 for the construction of the Digester Gas Control Building at the Main Treatment Plant.

Funding Sources:

Funds are available in the approved 1998-2002 Water and Wastewater Services Division, Water Pollution Control Capital Account C-WP160, Main Treatment Plant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)additional expenditures in the amount of $1,393,444.44, including Goods and Services Tax, be authorized for the performance of necessary additional work on Contract No. WPC-5-97 for the construction of the Digester Gas Control Building at the Main Treatment Plant in accordance with the estimates listed in Appendix A attached; and

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

Background:

By adoption of Clause No. 28 of Report No. 12 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, the former Metro Council, at its meeting of September 24, 1997, awarded Contract No. WPC-5-97 for the construction of the Digester Gas Control Building at the Main Treatment Plant. The contract was awarded to Bondfield Construction Company (1983) Ltd. for the total lump sum tender price of $24,549,000.00 including GST and a Schedule of Prices allowance of $129,900.00 for additional work if required. The order to commence work was dated October 22, 1997, at which time the contract work began.

At the time of award, in accordance with former Metro By-law No. 146-90, as amended, a Department Head had authority to approve additional expenditures on a commitment in accordance with the By-law up to an amount equal to ten percent of the commitment. As such, under the former Metro By-law a further $2,454,900.00 or ten percent of the awarded contract amount would have been available for required extra work.

At its meeting of January 6, 1998, City of Toronto Council enacted By-law No. 7-1998, Interim Financial Control By-law, which repealed former Metro By-law No. 146-90. As the new by-law contains no provision to exceed the awarded contract value, as confirmed by the City's Legal Division, the Department has effectively lost its ability to authorize the unforeseen and necessary additional work that may arise during construction of capital projects. This is particularly problematic given that the majority of capital construction performed by this Department is tendered on a firm, lump sum basis. For contracts recently tendered, since confirmation of the repeal of former Metro By-law No. 146-90, we have been providing, on an interim basis, a general contingency allowance for possible extra work into the Schedule of Prices for Alterations, Extras, and Deductions for incorporation into the total lump sum tender price. In the case of Contract No.WPC-5-97, however, no such general contingency was added, as we believed it was still available through former Metro By-law No. 146-90.

Comments and Justification:

Since the commencement of Contract No. WPC-5-97, issues have been identified as requiring the performance of extra work. In some cases, additional information and unexpected circumstances have arisen during construction, which have necessitated changes to the original tendered scope of work. To ensure continuity with respect to liability and warranty issues under the contract, these changes must be implemented by the issuance of extra work orders. For example, unanticipated contaminated soils encountered during construction have resulted in the additional trucking and disposal costs associated with landfill disposal. In other cases, staff of the Department and/or our consultants have identified changes to the design of the original contract which are now advisable to be performed to conform to changed regulatory code requirements or operating procedures, and which should be implemented to ensure construction of the best possible finished product. For instance, proposed changes to the raw sludge distribution valving and control systems to be constructed in existing anaerobic digestion tanks nos. 5 to 12 have resulted in expediting the construction of a previously designed control room building for digestion tanks nos. 1 to 12. As well, it is proposed to install an integrated natural/digester gas flow measurement system to more accurately determine Main Plant digester gas production, and consumption of both digester gas and natural gas. Such a system will prove invaluable in improving unit process cost data during the conversion to 100 percent beneficial reuse of biosolids, and in any future district energy or co-generation initiatives. For the same aforementioned reasons of liabilities and warranty issues, these changes are required to be performed under the contract by the issuance of extra work orders.

Conclusion:

The additional expenditures required for extra work in the amount of $1,393,444.44 including GST on Contract No. WPC-5-97 are summarized in Appendix A.

Contact Name:

Mr. P.A. Bradley, P.Eng.,

Senior Project Engineer, Technical Services Division

Telephone No.: (416) 392-8251.

APPENDIX A

Main Treatment Plant

WPC-5-97 Gas Control Building

Request for Authorization of Additional Expenditures

Authorized

ItemDescriptionTermsAmount

1Truck/dispose registerable soil at Keele Valley LSLS$15,916.80

2CREDIT: delete flanges on exterior gas pipingLS-13,356.00

3Additional Seawall Tunnel wall dowels resteelLS3,218.15

4Construct Dig. 1-12 control room buildingLS615,250.00

5CREDIT: mods. to combustible gas monitoring systemLS-1,280.51

6CREDIT: delete security gate and guardhouseLS-36,000.00

7Extend height of shoreline sheetpilingLS24,726.00

8Remove obstruction at tunnel piles H19/H20LS5,000.00

9CREDIT: construction power consumptionLS-10,000.00

10Remove obstruction at sheet pile at outfallLS15,000.00

11Larger openings in seawall for cable trayLS15,000.00

12Relocate catch basin #2LS2,500.00

13Jeene joint alternativeLS1,500.00

14Replace spool at digester gas valve chamberLS5,500.00

15Remove conc. saddle encasement re: 750 dia. st. sewerLS3,500.00

16Program seawall gates flow metersSchedule10,000.00

17New HSS support beam at overhead gas pipeLS16,000.00

18Conc. encase drain pipe E. of line 7LS12,500.00

19Cut exist. steel sheeting at outfallLS14,000.00

20CREDIT: concrete haunch brick support at control

room bldg.LS-10,000.00

21CREDIT: clevis hangers in lieu of rollersLS-2,000.00

22Raise tunnel roof at exist. pipe bridge supportsLS31,500.00

23Substation grounding cable connectionLS2,500.00

24Add resteel at top of DT #1&3 columnsLS1,750.00

25CREDIT: gas dryer equipment alternativeLS-10,000.00

26CREDIT: alternative rolling doorsLS-4,280.00

27Additional excavation at Dig. #1-12 control room bldg.LS30,000.00

Authorized

ItemDescriptionTermsAmount

28Building lighting modificationsest60,000.00

29Gasproofing inspectionSchedule20,000.00

30Shoreline restorationSchedule25,000.00

31Digester gas utilization systemSchedule550,000.00

TOTAL$1,393,444.44

4

Engineering Consulting Fees and Additional

Expenditures for Zebra Mussel Control

Facilities at F.J. Horgan Filtration Plant -

Contract No. WS-1-92

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 18, 1998) from the Commissoner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize additional engineering fees for contract administration and site supervision and to authorize additional expenditures for the performance of extra work related to Contract No.WS-1-92, zebra mussel control facilities for the F. J. Horgan Filtration Plant.

Funding Sources:

Funding is available in the approved 1998-2002 Water and Wastewater Services Division Capital Works Program, Zebra Mussel Control, Water Supply Account No. C-WS005.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that authority be granted to:

(1)issue payments to Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, Consulting Engineers, for additional engineering services provided under the terms of the present engineering agreement, pertaining to Contract No. WS-1-92, "Zebra Mussel Control Facilities for the F.J.Horgan Filtration Plant", in the amount of $87,747.06 for contract administration and site supervision, including the Goods and Services Tax; and

(2)issue payments to the contractor, Trist Construction Limited, in the amount of $39,242.57, including the Goods and Services Tax, for necessary additional work for the construction of the zebra mussel control facilities at the F. J. Horgan Filtration Plant.

Background:

Metropolitan Council on January 30, 1991, by adoption of Management Committee Report No. 3, Clause No. 17, authorized the engagement of the firm of Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited (MMM) for design services for zebra mussel control facilities for the F.J. Horgan Filtration Plant, at a cost not to exceed $80,000.00, including the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

The design was completed within the agreed fee limit and tenders were called on August 5, 1992. With the report for the award of the construction contract to Trist Construction Limited (TCL), in the amount of $621,880.00, Metropolitan Council on September 30, 1992, by adoption of Management Committee Report No. 31, Clause No. 22, authorized the extension of MMM's services to include contract administration and site supervision during construction at an estimated cost of $87,000.00, including GST, based on an anticipated construction period of six months. However, the contractor had tendered a 12-month construction period and the aforementioned estimated engineering fees for site services were inadvertently not adjusted to match the construction period tendered.

Discussion and Justification:

The Order to Commence was issued on November 20, 1992, but no site work could start until five months later, at the end of April 1993, when pipe was delivered to site, after alternatives for pipe suppliers were reviewed.

Due to Ministry of Labour strict diving requirements during construction, which were not anticipated during the design phase, diving work was considerably delayed. These requirements, which only became apparent through Ministry of Labour site reviews, included full plant shut-downs in lieu of reduced flows for diving at the plant inlet well, extra back-up equipment for lifting divers, and extra temporary power for the lifting equipment. Concurrently, unscheduled but necessary shut-downs at the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant, and later at the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant, prevented diving at the F.J. Horgan Filtration Plant. Work was interrupted, further delayed and ultimately, due to adverse and unsafe winter conditions, postponed until the spring of 1994. These unexpected plant shut-downs were required by the Water Supply Division and were necessary to address urgent water quality issues.

The contractor, therefore, demobilized for the 1993/1994 winter, with the intent to restart the following spring. However, no work was possible in the month of April 1994, due to another unscheduled but necessary shut-down at the R.L. Clark Filtration Plant, required to address critical water quality issues similar to those of the previous year. Some work was possible in May and early June, but ultimately the peak summer water demand period, between June and September, prevented further "marine" work as contractually specified until the end of September 1994.

Unforeseen technical issues further interrupted the progress of this project, requiring review and modifications to the contractor's procedures, some of which involved design modifications by MMM. In some instances this required contractually implemented extra work and, in other cases, City staff implemented the modifications to reduce costs and make the system operable. Some of the major technical issues were as follows:

-underwater wall penetration through the caisson wall of the plant inlet well for piping, including successful testing of the temporary bulkhead;

-underwater connections between the caisson wall penetration piping and the raw water sample lines;

-successful pressure testing of the chlorination and sample lines installed in the intake;

-evaluation of the existing pre-chlorinating system to remedy hydraulic problems and to rectify loss of vacuum at the existing chlorine injector during increased high lift pumping rate periods;

-elimination of air leaks on the suction side of sample pumps to stop excessive vibration of the discharge piping and pulsing of the pressure relief valves, including the relocation and reorientation of these valves;

-modification and reinstallation of the underwater chlorine diffuser ring and sample intake points, within the intake structure;

-rebuilding of the sample pumps to correct damage caused by pipe material trapped in impeller housing;

-modifications to the sample pumping system, including adjusting computer programming to eliminate chlorine residual in the raw water sample; and

-elimination of excessive vibrations and damage to the check valves on the discharge lines of the chlorine booster pumps, when automatic switch over of the duty and standby pumps was engaged.

These technical issues required considerable time by all parties involved, as the identification of the problems and the solutions often required a trial and error process, in most cases involving several months, prior to a successful resolution of the issues. However, as the new zebra mussel control facility is integrated with the water purification system, the integrity of the system, its safety and quality were of primary concern and never compromised, although the project schedule was negatively impacted.

We have agreed with MMM that the costs which could be attributed to MMM for resolving the technical problems amount to $16,050.00, inclusive of GST. This amount will be deducted from the consulting engineering fees invoiced and reduces the balance of outstanding payments to MMM, under the terms of the engineering services agreement, to an amount of $87,747.06.

To date MMM has been paid engineering fees in the cumulative amount of $204,112.94, including GST. Of the total amount, $80,000.00 was paid for design fees and $124,112.94 for contract administration and site supervision. Further payments have been withheld, until all design liabilities issues had been resolved with MMM and the zebra mussel control system was successfully commissioned and operating satisfactorily. These two issues have recently been achieved and accordingly, we are now seeking approvals for the additional expenditure, within existing funding authorities.

During construction, the engineering fees for contract administration and site supervision of a contract, to a great extent, are proportional to the actual duration of the contract. For this contract, although its duration increased 43 months from the original estimate (from 6 to 49 months), due to unforeseen and unexpected circumstances, we are recommending the approval of an upset fee limit for contract administration and site services of $211,860.00, including GST, which is equivalent to a total of less than 15 months of engineering construction services. When compared to the initial fee based on 6 months, this represents an increase in duration of services of only 3 months, beyond the 12-month period tendered by the contractor.

The extra work that was approved and paid to date to TCL totals $67,769.00, including GST, for necessary additional work, representing the maximum amount allowed under the former Metro By-law No. 146-90. Although no further extra work could be paid, it was necessary to proceed on site with additional items of extra work with the contractor's forces, to address some of the technical issues previously listed, which became apparent during construction, to avoid further delays and work stoppages. The additional work items total $39,242.57, including GST.

The contractor has notified us of his intent to claim for changed conditions, impact costs and extended duration costs in the approximate amount of $800,000.00. Once the detailed claim is received, a rigorous analysis of the claim will be performed to identify any valid portions of the claim and to negotiate with the contractor, in an effort to resolve the claim without litigation. If additional project funding will be required at that time, this issue will be the subject of a further report to Council.

Conclusion:

The engineering services of Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited for contract administration and site supervision of Contract WS-1-92 were required for a longer period of time than originally estimated, due to reasons beyond the consultant's control. Accordingly, an additional fee increase in the amount of $87,747.06 should be authorized, resulting in an upset limit of $211,860.00 including GST for contract administration and site supervision.

The additional work performed by the contractor, Trist Construction Limited, was essential to ensure a safe and proper operating zebra mussel control system and, therefore, payment for the necessary additional work in the amount of $39,242.57 should be authorized.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. A.F. Piccolo, P.Eng.,

Senior Project Engineer, Technical Services Division,

Telephone No.: (416) 392-8853.

5

Headhouse Improvements at

Highland Creek Treatment Plant -

Contract No. MW9802WP

(Ward: East Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (November 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To award Contract No. MW9802WP for the construction of Headhouse Improvements at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant, in accordance with specifications of the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to amend the consulting engineering agreement to adjust the fee schedule for general administration and site services during construction reflecting the longer construction period tendered.

Funding Sources:

This project is included in the approved "1998-2002 Water and Wastewater Services Division Capital Works Program", and funds are available in the Highland Creek Treatment Plant, Stage IV capital account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. MW9802WP for the construction of Headhouse Improvements at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant be awarded to the lowest tenderer, W.A. Stephenson Mechanical Contractors Limited, for the Total Lump Sum Price of $2,919,000.00, including all taxes and charges; and

(2)authority be granted to amend the existing engineering services agreement with the consulting firm of Simcoe Engineering Group Limited for general administration and site services during construction by an additional amount of $113,220.00, including GST, and a contingency allowance of $19,980.00 to cover extended services during construction at a rate not to exceed $3,330.00 per week including GST, if necessary and as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, all in accordance with the terms of the existing engineering agreement.

Background:

On October 21, 1998, the Bid Committee opened the following tenders for Contract No.MW9802WP for the construction of Headhouse Improvements at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant:

Comments, Discussion and Justification:

Representatives of the Works and Emergency Services Department and the consultants having met with the lowest tenderer, W.A. Stephenson Mechanical Contractors Limited (Stephenson), to review the contract, are satisfied that this company fully understands the contractual requirements and has the capability to carry out the work as specified. Stephenson has successfully carried out similar work for the Works and Emergency Services Department in the past.

The tenders submitted by the first, second and fourth tenderers, offered credits to the tendered lump sum price for the same alternative, proposing different pumping equipment. The alternative does not impact on the ranking of the tenders and, therefore, Stephenson's alternative will be reviewed in detail after contract award, and if found acceptable, will reduce the tendered Lump Sum Price of the contract by $28,000.00.

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firm recommended and its proposed subcontractors.

On August 14 and 15, 1996, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 11 of Report No. 13 of TheEnvironment and Public Space Committee, authorizing the engagement of the consulting firm of Simcoe Engineering Group Limited for engineering design and construction services at a total cost of $224,402.00, including GST. This total included an amount for engineering construction services of $145,146.00, based on an assumed construction period of 30 weeks and a provision for extension of services during construction, if necessary, not to exceed a rate of $3,780.00 per week.

As the design of the project developed through the pre-design and final design stages with direct input from the Works and Emergency Services wastewater division, design improvements recognized as beneficial to both the project and to the health and safety of the operating and maintenance staff were added to the scope of the work. Some of the major improvements included:-the provision of a "dry" pumping system for the grit slurry, in lieu of "submersible" pumps;

-the provision of an improved ventilation system in the building, requiring the implementation of a new separate foul air system to control potential hazardous gases and odours;

-the provision of separate extensive operational testing and start-up periods for various components of the project to ensure trouble-free operation, as functioning of these components critically affects the continuous treatment operation of the plant. The operational periods of some components were specified as a minimum of 14 days, while others required a minimum of 21 days, prior to allowing work to proceed on other components. The operational trouble-free period for the whole grit and screening collection system was specified for a period of six months, before allowing the final modifications to the overhead crane and removal of the clam shell bucket, which ultimately becomes redundant.

The inclusion of these improvements to the project resulted in a longer tendered contract completion time than originally anticipated prior to commencement of design. Stephenson's tender indicated a 90 week completion period. We estimate that, of this period, 64 weeks would require full-time contract administration and site supervision, representing a 34-week increase of engineering services during construction, as compared to the original 30-week period.

It is proposed to extend the fee limit at a reduced rate of $3,330.00 per week including GST, for 34weeks, for a total of $113,220.00 and to establish a contingency allowance for an extra period of six weeks at the same weekly rate totalling $19,980.00. The upset limit for engineering services during construction is therefore revised to $278,346.00, including GST.

This contract provides for improvements to the grit and screenings collection and processing system of the Headhouse facilities at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant. On contract completion, a continuous automatic collection of grit and screenings will be implemented, with minimal operator attendance, greater capture of rags, grit and other non-organic materials, improving the performance of the downstream process. Occupational health and safety aspects will also be improved by enhancements to the ventilation and foul air system, enabling the working area of the building to be classified as non-hazardous.

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to:

(a)issue a contract for the construction of Headhouse Improvements at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant, to the lowest tenderer, W.A Stephenson Mechanical Contractors Limited; and

(b)amend the engineering services agreement with Simcoe Engineering Group Limited to increase general administration and site services during construction to an upset fee limit of $278,346.00, including GST and a contingency allowance of $19,980.00, for extension of services, if necessary.

Contact Name:Contact Name:

Mr. A.F. Piccolo, P.Eng.,Mr. L.A. Pagano, Director

Senior Project Engineer,Purchasing and Materials Management

Technical Services DivisionTelephone No.: (416) 392-7312

Telephone No.: (416) 392-8853

6

Assumption of Private Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer

and Water Main - 1502 Queen Street East

Townhouse Development (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To assume ownership of a 300 mm sanitary sewer, a 300 mm storm sewer, and a 150 mm water main required to service the proposed development at 1502 Queen Street East.

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 300 mm storm sewer and a 150 mm water main required to service the proposed development at 1502Queen Street East subject to the owner of these properties granting the necessary easement to the City as indicated on Sketch No. EAS-492 attached, in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in this report and any others the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services 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 January 22, 1997, the Committee of Adjustment approved an application filed by Universe Investments to construct an 18 unit, freehold townhouse development at premises 1502 Queen Street East.

To service this development, it is necessary to construct a 300 mm sanitary sewer, a 300 mm storm sewer and a 150 mm water main on private property with connection to the municipal services on Kent Street as shown on Sketch No. EAS-492.

Universe Investments, the current owner of the property, has requested that the City of Toronto assume the proposed sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main servicing the proposed dwelling units within the subject property.

The former City of Toronto generally accepted such requests from developers because the private ownership of sewers and water mains often results in inadequate maintenance and eventual servicing problems.

We are currently in the process of reviewing the policies of the former Area Municipalities with respect to servicing such infill developments, in order to develop a harmonized approach across the new City.

In the meantime, and because the development proposal pre-dates amalgamation, we propose that the developer's request be accepted, subject to the following conditions:

(1)Universe Investments, the Owner, shall, at its cost, provide the design of the water main 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 our Department's current Standards and Specifications and subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(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 our 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;

(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-492 attached, containing the following terms and conditions and any others that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services 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.

Universe Investments has agreed in writing to the above terms and conditions.

Conclusion:

Approval should be given for the City to assume ownership of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main servicing 1502 Queen Street East at nominal cost.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David Crichton, P.Eng.

Engineering Services Districts 1 and 2

Phone: (416) 392-7674

(A copy of the sketch 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 December 2, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

New Municipal Class Environmental Assessments

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority for the City of Toronto to act as a proponent for the new Municipal Class Environmental Assessments.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council adopt the Resolution, attached in Appendix "A", by which:

(a)Council agrees to be one of the proponents of the new "Municipal Class Environmental Assessments"; and

(b)Council authorizes the Municipal Engineers Association to act on behalf of the City of Toronto in the submission to the Minister of the Environment for approval of the new Municipal Class Environmental Assessment; and

(2)the City of Toronto Clerk be instructed to advise the Minister of the Environment and the Municipal Engineers Association.

Council Reference/Background/History:

What are Class E.A.'s?

In general terms, a Class Environmental Assessment (Class E.A.) is a planning process approved under the Environmental Assessment Act for specific groups of projects. A Class E.A. allows projects within the group to be implemented without further approval under the E.A. Act provided the planning process in the ClassE.A. is followed. The types of projects allowed to be covered by a Class E.A. are recurring, usually similar in nature, usually limited in scale, have a predictable range of environmental effects and are responsive to mitigating measures.

Municipalities have been subject to the Environmental Assessment Act for all their activities for well over ten years. To avoid completing individual environmental assessments for every road, water and wastewater project, municipalities have had a Class E.A. in place since 1987.

Status of Class E.A.'s:

The existing Municipal Class E.A.'s expired in May 1998, and on behalf of Ontario municipalities the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) has undertaken to submit new ones to replace them. Since Class E.A.'s allow municipalities to proceed with providing services to the public without having to go through the lengthy individual environmental assessment process, it is of the utmost importance to continue to have Class E.A.'s in place for our use.

The creation of these new Class E.A.'s for municipalities must be done as an individual environmental assessment under the new E.A. Act, which requires at the outset, that Terms of Reference be prepared and submitted for ministerial approval. Terms of Reference for the new Municipal Class E.A.'s were approved earlier this year and the new Class E.A.'s have now been drafted for submission to the Minister.

Comments:

Process:

Revisions to the Municipal Class E.A.'s were guided by the MEA/MOE Class E.A. Monitoring Committee chaired by the MEA and consisting of a team of practitioners which included planners, developers and lawyers in addition to the MEA's traditional committee of engineers. The committee was formed this way in recognition of the multi-disciplinary nature of E.A. planning, and to ensure the development of new Class E.A.'s will have buy-in from all stakeholders. City of Toronto staff were involved in a number of different ways. First, the committee had two representatives from the Works and Emergency Services Department, one of whom chaired the committee. Second, staff from the Planning Department have been involved through the Regional Planning Commissioners, and last, interested City staff have been kept informed through newsletters, workshops, as well as through formal and informal contact.

The work program consisted of the following key elements:

(a)survey of stakeholders through distribution of questionnaire;

(b)preparation of Terms of Reference required under revised E.A. Act;

(c)ongoing consultation;

(d)preparation of a summary of issues;

(e)preparation of new draft Class E.A.;

(f)preparation of a new Class E.A.; and

(g)submission to Council.

The Minister of the Environment has granted an extension of the existing approval to cover any gaps in the time between expiry of the old approval and granting of the new one. This extension is contingent upon the MEA submitting new Class E.A.'s by December 31, 1998.

The Steering Committee has been issuing regular updates on this project to individuals who responded to the survey or who have expressed an interest in the project.

Scope of Changes:

The new Class E.A.'s have been written to address the following issues:

(i)coordination between E.A. Act and Planning Act approvals;

(ii)appropriateness of existing schedules for projects;

(iii)harmonization with federal E.A. requirements (CAA);

(iv)consolidation of roads and water and wastewater into one Class E.A.;

(v)extension of the application of the Class E.A.'s to other municipal projects (e.g. solid waste);

(vi)monitoring of projects and Class E.A. application over time; and

(vii)latest techniques in consultation and mediation.

Despite the apparently extensive scope of the renewal of the Class E.A.'s, the changes have been achieved with some re-organization of the documents and with clarification of certain terms and language. The result is that the substantive issues have been addressed but the new Class E.A.'s are similar enough to the existing ones to minimize the learning for municipal proponents using the new documents.

Why We Like Them:

The new Class E.A.'s provide a refined and improved document over the old ones. The basic principles and process remain unchanged: that is, clear definition of the problem, identification of all alternatives through public participation, the methodical development of a preferred solution, and identification of mitigating measures to satisfy negative impacts on the environment and stakeholders. The new Class E.A.'s are easier to read and interpret and the undertakings to which it applies are defined to our satisfaction.

The City has successfully applied the Class E.A. to large projects as well as to small projects. We support the process in the revised Class E.A. because, as with the original Class E.A., its basic philosophy is that municipalities and not the Ministry of the Environment make the critical decisions throughout the planning and design process. Under the Class E.A. process, municipalities need not seek the Ministry of the Environment's approval before proceeding with a project, provided they have followed the approved planning and design process. This is an approach that eliminates the lengthy review and approval which individual environmental assessments require.

Proponency:

The MEA is a volunteer organization and cannot itself be the proponent of the Class E.A.'s. In the past, the MEA has relied upon several municipalities to be the proponents. Once approved, it is expected that as in the past, the Province will write a regulation extending the Class E.A. approval to all Ontario municipalities. Being a proponent involves endorsing the Class E.A.'s and allowing the use of the City's name in the submission to the Minister of the Environment. The MEA has made this request to a number of municipalities to ensure representative proponents which are large and small, urban and rural and located geographically in the north, south, east and west regions of Ontario.

The following twelve municipalities are being requested to be proponents:

(1)City of Barrie²;

(2)City of Guelph¹ ²;

(3)City of London²;

(4)City of Sault St. Marie¹;

(5)City of Thunder Bay;

(6)City of Toronto¹ ² (former Metro was a proponent in 1987 and 1998);

(7)County of Lanark¹;

(8)Regional Municipality of Durham¹ ²;

(9)Regional Municipality of Niagara¹;

(10)Regional Municipality of Waterloo;

(11)Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carlton; and

(12)Town of Carlton Place.

Original Proponents for:¹ Municipal Road Projects

² Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects

Conclusions:

The City supports the Class E.A. planning process and agrees with the revisions which have been made to the original Class E.A.'s approved in 1987. Council is therefore asked to support this position and agree to be a proponent of the revised Class E.A.

Copies of the new Municipal Class E.A. document are available in the Works and Emergency Services Department, Metro Hall Office, 16th Floor, for examination by interested Members of Council.

Contact Name:

K.P. Llewellyn-Thomas

Director of Engineering Services (Districts 1 and 2)

392-8590

Appendix "A"

"WHEREAS the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road and Water and Wastewater Projects was prepared by the Municipal Engineers Association, and approved by the Minister of the Environment on June 7, 1993, for use by all Ontario municipalities; and

WHEREAS the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road and Water and Wastewater Projects expires on May 31, 1998, and, if not renewed by the Minister of the Environment, will result in all Ontario municipalities being required to carry out individual environmental assessments for all municipal projects; and

WHEREAS the fulfilment of a condition of approval of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Projects the Municipal Engineers Association has undertaken a review of the said Class Environmental Assessment, and has prepared a revised Class Environmental Assessment dated November, 1998, for submission to the Minister of Environment to renew and extend approval of the said revised Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Projects for a further five (5) years; and

WHEREAS the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and City of Scarborough were one of eight (8) municipalities which acted as proponents for the Class Environmental Assessment in 1993 and authorized the Municipal Engineers Association to act on its behalf;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Toronto does hereby agree to continue to act as proponent for the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Projects and hereby authorizes the Municipal Engineers Association to continue to act on its behalf in securing the said extended approval and hereby supports the submission of the revised Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Projects dated November, 1998, to the Minister of the Environment for approval for a further minimum period of five (5) years from January 30, 1999."

8

Sanitary Discharge Agreement -

Canadian Waste Services Inc. (Ward 6)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To allow Canadian Waste Services Inc. to enter into a Sanitary Discharge Agreement with the City of Toronto permitting them to discharge from its private water system into the sanitary sewer system and pay a surcharge fee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department maintains approximately 30 Sanitary Discharge Agreements, which allow for the recovery of approximately $700,000.00 per year in treatment costs. These charges reflect a user pay philosophy and directly recover the cost of operation of our treatment plants.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that we be authorized to enter into a Sanitary Discharge Agreement with Canadian Waste Services Inc., for the discharge of treated groundwater from its private water system at 55Fenmar Drive to the sanitary sewer system, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On June 24, 1980, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of The Works Committee, approving By-law No. 96-80, authorizing execution of agreements with industries permitting them to discharge effluent from a private water system into the Metropolitan Toronto sanitary sewer system, or any sewer system draining into the Metropolitan Toronto sanitary sewer system, under condition of payment for treatment. Otherwise, Toronto would not receive payment for water pollution control treatment purposes that is normally obtained from a surcharge on the water supplied by the public municipal system.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Stanley Consulting Group Limited is assisting Canadian Waste Services Inc. in the remediation of subsurface hydrocarbon contamination at their site located at 55 Fenmar Drive.

Groundwater will be pumped from a well installed on the property. The collected groundwater will be discharged to an on-site oil/water separator, before discharging into the sanitary sewer system on Fenmar Drive.

The remediation program is expected to last for at least a year, and the anticipated maximum discharge into the sanitary sewer system will be 4.5 litres per minute. Water quality monitoring will be conducted on a monthly basis during the pumping operation to ensure compliance with the Ministry of the Environment's 1997 Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario Table B Industrial/Commercial Land Use Criteria in a Non-potable Groundwater Situation and the Toronto Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89.

Conclusions:

In accordance with our policy with regard to By-law No. 96-80, Canadian Waste Services Inc. has been notified of the surcharge rate of 38.59 cents per cubic metre to be levied in 1998, and has signified agreement to the surcharge.

Contact Name:

Vic Lim, P.Eng.

Chief Engineer - Environmental Services

Water Pollution Control

Telephone: (416) 392-2966; Fax: (416) 397-0908

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

9

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Water Servicing Charges - 118R Clinton Street

(Ward 20, Trinity - Niagara).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report; and having requested:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee on:

(a)the feasibility of an allocation to all future water service connections resulting from increased development, and compensation for those persons originally paying for such services, on a pro-rated basis, to be credited to the property owner of the day; and

(b)resolving the discrepancy with respect to the subject property to the benefit of the applicant; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to submit a report to the Committee on the conditions placed when severances are granted which provide for the installation and maintenance of City services including water, sewer, hydro, etc.:

(October 21, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, providing comment regarding the contribution of funds by the City of Toronto for the installation of water services for 118R Clinton Street, in response to the communication from Councillor Mario Silva that was before the Committee at its meeting on October 7, 1998; outlining the policy adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto whereby the City assumes responsibility for the construction of sewers and water mains within existing public streets, provided that (1) the cost of this servicing is not significantly higher than the average servicing cost within the City, and (2) the need is not created by the severance of a parcel of land; noting that there is no provision under the cost-sharing policy to reimburse developers should future connections be made to infrastructure assumed by the City; advising that no changes to the cost-sharing policy are recommended at this time; and recommending that this report be received for information.

--------

Mr. Berardo Masciotti, Executive Assistant to Councillor Mario Silva, Trinity - Niagara, and Ms. Astra Burka, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(A)recommended to Council the adoption of the recommendations of the Board of Health, embodied in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 14 of The Board of Health, entitled "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", subject to:

(1)striking out Recommendation No. (1) of the Board of Health and Recommendation No.(1) of the Medical Officer of Health, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)That City Council adopt in principle the banning of pesticides on all City property; and further that:

(a)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health, in coordination with the departments affected, report back to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health no later than February 1999 on a reasonable phase-in of the proposed ban that would aim to achieve an end to applying pesticides on public green space in 1999, except in emergency situations or other exceptions to be outlined in the report by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health, such report to include a financial impact and risk assessment and the final timetable for the setting of goals and targets for the reduction of pesticides in time for the 1999 season;

(b)staff ensure that the phased-in ban include an improved and modified lawn care program to balance the effect of eliminating pesticides; and

(c)the proposed Pesticide Sub-Committee, as amended by Recommendation No.(2) of the Board of Health, be convened to assist the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health in the development of their report;" and

(2)amending Recommendation No. (3) of the Board of Health to provide that funding for the proposed public education program be included for consideration in the 1999 budget; and

(B)further recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to develop a pilot project to engage the use of the various beneficial use products arising from the biosolids management initiatives from the Main Treatment Plant;

(2)the appropriate staff be requested to submit a report to the appropriate committee on a program similar to the Plant Health Care Program of the City of Waterloo that involves horticultural practices to lead to the near elimination of pesticide use on City of Toronto properties; and

(3)the submission by Councillor Shiner, consisting of a report dated November 1996 which was before the former City of North York Environment Committee, entitled "Pesticide Use/Alternatives to Pesticides - 1996", and detailed recommendations with respect thereto, be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team, the Medical Officer of Health and any other staff reviewing pesticide use, to review in context with the final reports:

(i)(October 29, 1998) from the Environmental Task Force responding to the request from City Council to consider the pesticides motion that was before Council on June3, 4 and 5, 1998, and report thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee; and recommending that:

(1)City Council indicate its support for the development of targets, strategies and actions to eliminate uses of chemical pesticides on public green space and in public buildings by all City departments, agencies, boards and commissions and that targets, strategies and actions be established in time for preparation for the 1999 growing season (i.e., winter 1998);

(2)City Council and relevant City departments, agencies, boards and commissions be advised that the Task Force strongly supports the following actions which are under way by City staff:

(i)an inventory of types, volumes and reasons for chemical pesticide use both indoors and outdoors by all City departments, agencies, boards and commissions; and

(ii)strategies and options to reduce/eliminate chemical pesticide uses in the City of Toronto;

(3)City Council be advised that the Environmental Task Force is willing to assist by examining the issue of chemical pesticides, including the reports being prepared by City staff, and recommending a plan which will include targets, time lines, options and strategies for the elimination of pesticide uses in Toronto;

(4)the Works and Utilities Committee receive this report for information;

(5)the Board of Health adopt this report and forward it to City Council together with the report on pesticides from the Medical Officer of Health;

(6)the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee receive this report for information and consideration together with the pending report requested by City Council on pesticide alternatives and costs involved from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(7)the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team (TIE) submit the inventory of indoor and outdoor pesticide uses and the proposed corporate strategy for the reduction/elimination of outdoor pesticide uses to the Environmental Task Force by fall 1998 en route to Standing Committee.

(ii)Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of The Board of Health, entitled "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", which sets out the recommendations of the Board of Health at its meeting on November 10, 1998, and which was deferred by City Council on November 25, 1998, until the meeting of Council to be held on December 16, 1998, with a request that the Works and Utilities Committee and the Economic Development Committee submit comments thereon at that time.

(iii)(November 27, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, responding to communications from the Weed Man dated November 23, 1998, and from the Landscape Ontario Horticultural Trades Association dated November 19, 1998; and advising that the communications completely misrepresent the Board of Health motions on pesticides.

(iv)(December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, addressed to the Economic Development Committee and the Works and Utilities Committee, recommending that:

(1)an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program be implemented for all City of Toronto Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions that provides for safe management of pests and reduces reliance on pesticides;

(2)standard procedures in distinct program areas be developed in order to monitor the effectiveness of the IPM Program and to provide regular reports;

(3)a copy of this report be sent to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health;

(4)the appropriate staff participate on the Pesticide Sub-Committee and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team;

(5)staff report back to the Economic Development Committee once targets are set and standards devised; and

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

(v)(November 17, 1998) from Mr. Danny Passmore, President, Frechette Lawncare, recommending that Council postpone any decision on the phasing out or banning of pesticide use in the City of Toronto for the reasons outlined therein, and that Council make no decision on this issue until further information is provided.

(vi)copy of correspondence from the Ontario College of Family Physicians in support of the recommendations of the Medical Officer of Health on phasing out pesticide use in the City of Toronto, and of a presentation prepared by the City of Waterloo, Parks Services Group, entitled "Plant Health Care Program: Mastering Change", submitted by Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.

(vii)copy of a report dated November 1996, entitled "Pesticide Use/Alternatives to Pesticides - 1996", which was before the former City of North York Environment Committee, and detailed recommendations with respect thereto, submitted by Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights.

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

-Mr. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario Horticultural Trades Association, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Gerald Boot, Owner, Boots Landscaping and Maintenance Ltd.;

-Mr. Gavin Dawson, Technical Manager, Greenspace Services Ltd.;

-Mr. Bill Stennson, President, Sheridan Nurseries;

-Ms. Janet May, Toronto Environmental Alliance;

-Mr. Dino Grande, Rouge Valley Naturalists;

-Ms. Marcie Goldman, Parents' Environmental Network, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Vic Palmer, President, The Green Team;

-Mr. Luciano Martin, ARCH (Action to Restore a Clean Humber), and submitted a communication with respect thereto;

-Ms. Susanne Burkhardt, South Riverdale Community Health Centre;

-Mr. Caryl Manning, Toronto, Ontario;

-Dr. Earle R. Nestmann, Principal, Cantox Inc., and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Wendy C. Rose, Executive Director, Urban Pest Management Council of Canada, and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Mrs. Lois James, Scarborough, Ontario; and

-Ms. Patricia Wolchok, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and filed a submission with respect thereto.

(c)1999-2003 Capital Budget Review.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that, having regard that the Works and Utilities Committee lost quorum at its meeting on December 2, 1998, and that the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program will be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting scheduled to be held on December 11, 15 and 18, 1998, the Chair of the Committee requested that the following submissions by Councillor Jack Layton and Mr. John Sewell be referred to the Budget Committee for consideration with the Capital Works Program for Water Pollution Control, and that those persons listed to appear before the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to the capital budget be advised accordingly:

(i)1999-2003 Capital Works Programs for the following:

-Solid Waste Management;

-Water Supply; and

-Water Pollution Control.

(ii)(November 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer presenting a 1999-2003 Capital Works Program for the City of Toronto, and recommending for approval projects and cash flow for 1999; providing an overview of the capital budget process; and summarizing the various issues and challenges currently faced by the City.

(iii)(November 11, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer proposing a preliminary capital financing plan for the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program.

(iv)(November 3, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Storm Water Group, advising that the Storm Water Group, at its meetings on October 20 and November3, 1998, urged that:

"Council agree to refocus sewer and roadway capital projects to ensure that a highly advanced approach to storm water is part of such projects and that a staff committee be formed to review capital projects so this occurs starting in early 1999".

(v)(December 2, 1998) from Mr. John Sewell, Storm Water Group, advising that the Storm Water Group, at its meeting on December 1, 1998, discussed the allocation of $512,000.00 for the Wet Weather Master Plan in the 1999 capital budget (line WP250), and approved the following motion:

"The Storm Water Group does not have confidence that the funds allocated in the Capital Budget for the Wet Weather Master Plan will be used to pursue objectives that the City should accomplish. If the $512,000.00 proposed is to be included in the budget, none of this sum should be spent without further consultation with the Storm Water Group and its report back to the Works and Utilities Committee".

(vi)(December 2, 1998) from Mr. John Sewell, Toronto, Ontario, commenting on the capital budget for Water Pollution Control with respect to major expenditures dealing with storm water in the city, and in particular, expressing concern with respect to the expenditure on the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel; and recommending that a reasonable amount be set aside in the budget for natural solutions and approaches to stormwater since they are more cost-effective, more attractive, environmentally friendly and more labour intensive.

(d)Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred back the following reports to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to examine the feasibility of a cost-sharing policy for the replacement of older pipes where leaks are located, and to submit a report thereon to the Committee, including the criteria and mechanism for such a policy:

(i)(October 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, recommending that, within the following categories, the new service levels should be:

(1)Breaks/Leaks:

(i)Homeowners requesting the City to carry out a street line excavation to investigate a water service for breaks or leaks, which cannot be located using remote leak detection methods, will be required to enter into an agreement with the City. This agreement will state that, if the break or leak is found on the private side of the street line, the homeowner will pay the cost of the investigation.

(ii)The City will assume the cost of repairs within the street allowance and the investigation of the water service connection if the break or leak is on the public side of the street line.

(2)Standard Size for Water Service Connection:

(i)The standard Residential Single Family Dwelling water service connection shall be 19 mm (3/4 inch) in diameter.

(ii)Where a water service connection is to be replaced under the proposed repair policy and the homeowner requests a larger diameter connection than the standard size, then, if the request is approved by the City, the homeowner will be charged a $500.00 fee for the difference in cost between the standard size and the size requested by the owner.

(3)Minimum Acceptable Flow (MAF):

(i)The City adopt 14 L/min (3.1 gal/min) as the minimum acceptable flow when measured at the water meter.

(ii)The City, at its expense, will carry out the necessary work on the portion of the water service within City property, when the flow within the water service is less than the MAF of 14 L/min (3.1gal/min).

(4)Water Service Cleaning:

(i)The City clean copper water service connections, free of charge, in order to restore the flow capacity of the connection, where appropriate as determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(5)Water Service Connection Replacement/Upgrade Program:

(i)The City adopt a Water Service Connection Replacement/Upgrade Program to provide for the replacement of water service connections within the road allowance in accordance with current standards of size and material (19 mm diameter, copper material), at the City's expense if the flow as measured at the water meter is found to be less than 14L/min (and all other alternatives have been assessed) or the existing connection is non-copper (lead or galvanized iron).

(ii)The City combine all the former municipalities' water service connection replacement work (as described above) into the Water Service Connection Replacement/Upgrade Program with a total funding amount of $5,891,000.00 for the 1999 Capital Budget; this amount is to be reviewed and adjusted annually to meet demands in subsequent years until after the repairs of all sub-standard water services have been completed.

(iii)The City undertake the replacement of substandard services in conjunction with the capital pavement program, as determined by the Commissioner to be appropriate.

(iv)The City establish a Water Service Repair Request List for the replacement of water service connections within the road allowance on a first-come, firstserve basis, continuing each year until the funds for that year are exhausted.

(v)If any homeowner wishes to have the repair of the water service carried out in a year in which their name is not expected to come up on the Water Service Repair Request List until after the funds available for the year have been exhausted, and the City can accommodate the request within the current program, then the City will agree to the request provided the homeowner first pays, at their own risk, the actual cost for the repair. In such a case, the name of such homeowner shall remain on the Water Service Repair Request List and when their name reaches the top of the list in any following year in which funds have been authorized by City Council, the City will reimburse, in current dollars, the amount paid by that homeowner for the repair of the water service.

(vi)Any homeowner whose name comes up on the Water Service Repair Request List for a water service repair and requests that the repair of the water service be carried out prior to the scheduled time for repair in that year, shall be charged a non-reimbursable quick service repair fee of $500.00.

(vii)Homeowners who request the repair of their water service be advised that the repair of the service within the street allowance by itself may not effect a sufficient improvement in water supply and that, in order to gain the full benefit of the repaired water service within the street allowance, the internal plumbing system and the water service connection from the building wall to the street line should also be repaired; and

(viii)The homeowner be given an opportunity to obtain a quotation from the City contractor for the repair of the water service on private property concurrently with the repair of the City portion; however, homeowners shall be advised that disputes regarding work done on private property shall be resolved between the homeowner and the contractor.

(ii)(November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Servicesresponding to the requests made by the Committee at its meeting of November 4, 1998, with respect to:

(i)the impact of raising the proposed minimum acceptable flow from 14 l/min to 18l/min;

(ii)the feasibility of increasing pressure in the water mains as a means of increasing available flow;

(iii)an amendment to Recommendation No. 2 (ii) to ensure that property owners requesting service repair for small multiple residential repair rental properties are not required to pay the proposed $500.00 fee to ensure the installation of an adequately sized service; and

(iv)ways in which streetline excavations can be avoided where the water service connection to a property experiencing low flow is located in a difficult to access location.

(e)R.C. Harris Filtration Plant - Residue Management Facilities - Amendment of Agreement for Class Environmental Assessment and Pre-Design Study.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that the following report was withdrawn at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:

(1)authority be granted to increase the approved level of expenditure for completion of a class environmental assessment and pre-design study for the provision of residue management facilities at the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant under the existing agreement with Dillon Consulting Limited by an amount of $175,000.00, including Goods and Services Tax and including a contingency allowance of $23,540.00 to cover additional work if necessary and authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

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

(f)Sale of Paper Fibre from the Grey Box Program.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report:

(November 19, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services,recommending that authority be granted to enter into agreements with Donohue Recycling Inc. and Canada Fibres Ltd. for the purchase of mixed paper fibre from Toronto's grey box program during the period May15, 1999 to April 30, 2003, in accordance with the prices stated in this report and terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(g)Environment Days.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on January 13, 1999, as a deputation item:

(i)(November 18, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting the cost of Environment Days, as requested by the Committee at its meeting of November 4, 1998; outlining concerns expressed by some Councillors with respect to Environment Day promotional funding; and recommending that the payment for Environment Day advertisements in a Councillor's constituent newsletter be increased in accordance with the recommended payments for different

(ii)(November 27, 1998) from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford, outlining deficiencies in the 1998 Environment Day program, in particular with respect to promotional costs and the elimination of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection from single-Councillor Environment Days; and urging the Committee to:

(1)instruct staff to retroactively compensate all Councillors who used their newsletters to promote Environment Days (subject to the $500.00 limit);

(2)recommend and support access to HHW disposal to the residents of all wards; and

(3)ensure that department guidelines and decisions reflect Council's direction.

(h)Eastern Beaches Water Quality - Effectiveness of the Kenilworth Avenue and Maclean Avenue Detention Tanks (Ward 26).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that consideration of the following report was deferred until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on January 13, 1999, having regard that the Committee lost quorum:

(October 26, 1998) from the Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services, respecting the postings that occurred at the Eastern Beaches during the 1998 swimming season, and the effectiveness of the Kenilworth Avenue and Maclean Avenue detention tanks in improving the water quality at the Eastern Beaches; advising that by examining the conditions that existed prior to the construction of the two detention tanks, it can be seen that these facilities have had a profound impact on reducing the frequency the provincial guideline was exceeded at the Eastern Beaches, and thereby the need for the Medical Officer of Health to post these beaches; further advising that although other environmental factors can result in short-term impaired water quality, the detention tanks have provided a significant benefit to the Eastern Beaches; and that in comparison, from 1995 to 1998, the Western Beaches, which are still affected by sewer discharges, have been posted for more than 65 percent of the time during the swimming season; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)Transportation Climate Change Table - Progress Report.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report, and having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to arrange a presentation on all the Issue Tables in which City staff are involved at a future meeting of the Committee, if possible at the meeting of the Committee scheduled to be held on February 10, 1999:

(November 2, 1998) from the Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services, providing an update on the City's participation in the Transportation Climate Change initiative which involves representatives of the Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments as well as the private sector, environmental groups and other stakeholders; advising that on December 10, 1997, Canada agreed to the Kyoto Protocol under which it would reduce its national greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels, by 2010; that Canada's First Ministers agreed to review the provisions of the Protocol in further detail; and that the Ministers have established fourteen Issue Tables, including the Transportation Table which has met three times; forwarding a copy of an executive summary of the Transportation Table's first document, the Foundation Paper on Climate Change/Transportation Sector, and noting that the second and final document, the Options Paper, is due in May 1999; further noting that the City of Toronto's contribution to the work of the Table is essential in terms of the urban context; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(j)Main Treatment Plant Energy Supply Interim Status Report.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred back the following report to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for consultation with staff of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, and to submit a report to the Committee on such consultations:

(November 3, 1998) from the Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services, advising that as a consultants update report is required to identify the preferred alternative for meeting the thermal energy and electricity requirements of the Main Treatment Plant, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is considering authorizing an update by CH2M Gore and Storrie of the cogeneration feasibility study report prepared by Gore and Storrie Limited in 1993, at a cost of approximately $22,000.00 including GST, funds for which are available in the approved 1998 Capital Works Program of the Water and Waste Water Division, Water Pollution Control, Main Treatment Plant; further advising that cogeneration on site at the Main Treatment Plant will be compared with cogeneration by Toronto Hydro/Boralex Inc. with respect to cost, operations, security of supply and environmental benefit including potential emissions credits in an update report; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(k)Greater Toronto Area 3Rs Planning Activities.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report and communication:

(i)(November 18, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting the City's potential participation in 3Rs planning activities being undertaken by Regions within the Greater Toronto Area, and reporting on discussions with staff of York Region and other GTA Regions; advising that the Solid Waste Management Services Division will continue to explore 3Rs opportunities and facilitate information exchange with member municipalities of the Greater Toronto Area, and that these efforts will serve to better identify facilities and programs required to achieve the City's waste diversion target of at least 50 percent by the year 2006; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(ii)(November 20, 1998) from Ms. Ava Macintyre, Legislative Co-ordinator, Region of Peel, respecting the City of Toronto invitation to participate in the planning for long-term solid waste disposal capacity; and advising that a resolution was approved by Regional Council on November 12, 1998, wherein it is resolved, in part, that:

(1)the Region of Peel authorize the Commissioner of Public Works to meet with the Greater Toronto Area Commissioners of Public Works for the purpose of drafting a "Memorandum of Understanding" regarding a protocol for inter-regional solid waste disposal planning and decision-making; and

(2)the report of the Commissioner of Public Works dated October 23, 1998, appended thereto, be submitted to the City of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area Mayors and Regional Chairs, for their information.

(l)Drinking Water Taste And Odour Control Options.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that consideration of the following report was deferred until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on January 13, 1999, having regard that the Committee lost quorum:

(November 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing information on options to eliminate or reduce the occurrences of an unpleasant taste and odour in drinking water and a strategy to address this issue in the future, as requested by the Committee at its meeting on September 9, 1998; advising that a feasibility study will be undertaken to determine an effective interim solution, and that funding has been allocated in the 1999 Capital Works Program to implement an interim solution at an estimated cost of $7 million, pending confirmation by the feasibility study; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(m)Communication Program Respecting Deposit/return By-law.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that the Chair of the Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to proceed with the printing of the proposed brochure, having regard that the Committee lost quorum and for the timing of this matter:

The Committee had before it the copy for the proposed brochure with respect to the Deposit/Return By-law, submitted by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(n)Interim Spending Approvals for the 1999 Water and Wastewater Capital Works Program.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report:

(November 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:

(1)the Budget Committee be requested to recommend the approval of interim spending authority, in the amount of $12,618,000.00 for the projects identified in Appendix"A", prior to the approval of Water and Wastewater Division's 1999-2003 Capital Works Program;

(2)subject to approval of Recommendation No. (1) above, authority be granted to extend and amend the existing consulting and engineering services contract with EMA Canada Inc., by an amount not to exceed $979,203.00 including Goods and Services Tax;

(3)subject to approval of Recommendation No. (1) above, authority be granted to engage the firms listed in Table 2 of this report, to maximum amounts indicated therein; and

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

(o)Harmonization of Service Levels for Waste and Recycling Collection.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that consideration of the following report was deferred until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on January 13, 1999, having regard that the Committee lost quorum:

(November 27, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services,recommending, based on the comments received at an informal meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee held on November 25, 1998, to review the issues and options discussed in this report, that:

(1)existing service levels for waste and recycling collection be continued into 1999, except for harmonization of the following services, which are to be referred to North York Community Council for comments before consideration by the Works and Utilities Committee:

(a)effective April 1, 1999, on an interim basis, the North York Community Council Area be provided with once-a-week garbage collection and bi-weekly recycling collection, with twice-a-week garbage collection retained from the last week of June to the last week of August at an estimated annual cost savings of $1.0 million; and

(b)effective April 1, 1999, optional rear and side yard collection service provided at an additional fee be terminated;

(2)effective January 2, 1999, rear and side yard collection service be provided at no direct charge to all residents in low density properties who, on the basis of a doctor's certificate, lack sufficient mobility to carry waste materials to curbside, and who do not live in a residence with a fully able person, at an estimated additional annual cost of $50,000.00;

(3)effective April 1, 1999, replacement blue and grey boxes be provided to residents at a charge of $5.00 per box for pick-up at service yard and Civic Centre locations, and that green boxes be replaced with grey boxes as required, at an estimated saving of $120,000.00 per year;

(4)medium and high density residential buildings receiving municipal bulklift collection service be required to rent bulklift garbage bins from the City, as a condition of receiving garbage and recycling collection service from the City, at a rental fee sufficient to offset the cost of both bulklift garbage bins and recycling containers, subject to a further report on implementation issues to be submitted within approximately six months; and

(5)staff undertake the evaluation of the options for service harmonization outlined in this report with respect to:

(a)frequency of garbage, recycling and yard waste collection for low density and medium density residential properties which receive curbside collection;

(b)the provision of blue bags and other recycling support services to high density residential properties which receive bulklift collection;

(d)the provision of waste management services to small commercial properties and institutional properties, including consideration of full cost recovery user fees; and

(e)the number of industrial properties where municipal collection is proposed to be terminated and the method of phase out;

and that a report be brought forward in approximately six months.

(p)Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process - Release of Stage One Draft Planning Document for Public and Industry Consultation.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that the Chair of the Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to proceed with the circulation of the Stage One Draft Planning Document of the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process, for public and industry review and comment, having regard that the Committee lost quorum and for the timelines embodied in the following report:

(i)(November 25, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, advising that, as the first key step in the engagement of the marketplace to secure solid waste management options including waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the City's long-term requirements, the planning document that sets out the proposed process the project may follow has been completed in draft by the project team; and recommending that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to release the Stage One Draft Planning Document of the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process, attached thereto, for public and industry review and comment commencing on December 2, 1998 and concluding on January 15, 1999.

(ii)(October 27, 1998) from Councillor Bill Enouy, Chair, Economic Development Committee and Finance Committee, Council Liaison Adams Mine Project, Town of Kirkland Lake, respecting the proposal by Rail Cycle North to landfill municipal solid waste at the Adams Mine site near the Town of Kirkland Lake; advising that the Council of the Town of Kirkland Lake supports this venture and feels that the entire northeast corner of Ontario will benefit because of its development; further advising that the Town Council, along with the Councils of the Town of Englehart and the Township of Larder Lake, has entered into economic partnership agreements with Notre Development for the development of the site; stating that the Adams Mine waste management site is a "made in Ontario" solution to a growing problem that plagues many communities; and requesting that the City consider waste disposal at the Adams Mine site.

(q)Advertising on Litter Containers and Consolidation of Management of Litter Containers.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that consideration of the following report was deferred until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on January 13, 1999, having regard that the Committee lost quorum:

(November 17, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services,recommending that:

(1)the Works and Emergency Services Department put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) in early 1999 for the supply, installation, and maintenance (excluding emptying) of new litter containers which include an advertising component to replace existing litter containers at various locations within the road allowance in the City of Toronto;

(2)no additional pilot programs be approved until the results of the above-noted RFP have been received;

(3)when existing pilot programs terminate, the successful proponent(s) from the RFP in Recommendation No. (1) be required to provide litter containers in the pilot areas under the same terms and conditions stipulated in the RFP;

(4)the collection of waste from, and the maintenance of litter containers within the road allowance be consolidated into the Solid Waste Management Services Division; and

(5)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with recommendations on a policy framework for advertising on litter containers within the road allowance and on a consultation process with Community Councils.

(r)Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement - Pizza Pizza Limited (Ward 2).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that consideration of the following report was deferred until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on January 13, 1999, having regard that the Committee lost quorum:

(November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that staff be authorized to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with Pizza Pizza Limited, 58 Advance Road, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(s)Amendment of Licensing Fees for Vendors of Alcoholic Beverages.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report:

(November 26, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting amendments to the Licensing By-law in respect of vendors of alcoholic beverages to ensure full cost recovery, including related operational costs, and the initiation of a licence denial system for non-payment of costs to the City, as requested by Council at its meeting on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998; concluding that the nature of the fees that may be charged as part of licensing is contained in subsection 257.1(3) of the Municipal Act, and that while the municipality may be able to recover its costs of administration and enforcement of licensing, the fees would not extend to the type of operational costs referred to in the recommendations adopted by City Council; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(t)Health Effects of Landfill Gas Emissions and the Role Played by Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Medical Officer of Health for a report thereon to the Committee:

(December 1, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, recommending that:

(1)the Medical Officer of Health investigate into what is known about the negative health effects from landfill gases and what role Vinyl Chlorides (VCs) and other carcinogens such as benzene play in these effects; and

(2)the Medical Officer of Health report on what sort of study is required to determine what causes VC emissions in landfills.

(u)Rebate of Sewage Surcharge on the Water Rate for Toronto District Heating Corporation.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports that consideration of the following resolution was deferred until the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on January 13, 1999, having regard that the Committee lost quorum:

(December 1, 1998) from Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, and Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, respecting the consumption of water by the Toronto District Heating Corporation and the program for the rebate of the sewer surcharge on the water rate, which provides an incentive to major water consumers not to send water for treatment that does not require treamtment; and wherein it is resolved that the Toronto District Heating Corporation be granted a rebate of the sewage surcharge on its water rate.

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO,

Chair

Toronto, December 2, 1998

(Report No. 11 of The Works and Utilities Committee was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)