Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and

Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to all Community Councils for further consideration, with a request that the Community Councils forward their recommendations with respect to the Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy to the Works and Utilities Committee.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report dated October21, 1998, from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, subject to adding thereto the following Recommendation:

"(2)(f) an appeal mechanism will be provided for those cases that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the City and the applicant"; and

(2)that authority for the appeals process be delegated to the Works and Utilities Committee, rather than the Corporate Services Committee.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to Council for consideration at its meeting on November 25, 1998:

(1)in consultation with City officials from the North York District, on the estimated number of service calls that staff have avoided due to the "Drainman" policy;

(2)on the feasibility of the following motion:

Moved by Councillor Walker:

"That Recommendation No. 2(d) be amended by deleting the words "one time only" and inserting in lieu thereof the words 'one time per three-year period'."; and

(3)on how many contractors are engaged by the former Area Municipalities.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (October 21, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for a harmonized Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy for the City.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for the Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program and the Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy for the City is provided in the City's Annual Operating Budget. The harmonized services proposed in this report will not impact the overall Annual Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the proposed harmonized Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program be adopted as follows:

(a)a first response to sewer connection blockage inspection and emergency repair service will be provided by City staff 24 hours, seven days per week; after normal business hours, response will be limited to emergency situations where the drain(s) are completely blocked, all other service calls will be investigated the next business day;

(b)in lieu of a cash deposit, excavations within the road allowance to determine necessary connection works will proceed, subject to the owner agreeing to reimburse the City for costs incurred in the event that the drain damage is determined to be on private property, or if the problem is within the road allowance and is non-structural (i.e., contravention of the Sewer Use By-law, grease, etc.), by signing a standard agreement form prepared by the City;

(c)road allowance clean-outs will be installed where they do not exist, in conjunction with connection repairs undertaken by the City, at no cost to the owner; and

(d)the Urban Planning and Development Services Department will be requested to investigate the actions necessary to require property owners to undertake the installation of clean-outs, if one does not exist, in conjunction with connection works on private property;

(2)the proposed harmonized Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy be adopted as follows:

(a)in all cases the repair of drains within City property will continue to be carried out by the City at no cost to the property owner, whether the blockage is caused by roots from a City or private tree;

(b)assistance for the repair of private drains under the policy will only be provided where drain blockage is the result of roots from a City-owned tree, as verified by City staff;

(c)assistance will be provided on a no-fault or grant basis, to any property owner;

(d)assistance will be provided on a one time only basis per property; and

(e)assistance will be provided in the amount 100 percent of the invoiced cost, to a limit of $500.00 per property, for a repair or partial renewal of a drain or drains, and to a limit of $1,500.00 per property, for the complete renewal of a drain or drains between the City property line and the building;

(3)the existing "Drainman" Policy of the former City of North York be repealed;

(4)the Drain Grant Appeal Program of the former City of Toronto be terminated; and

(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect hereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Transportation Services Review Team in their report for service leveling to the Transition Team identified several services that have a direct impact on the customer, where the service delivery and budget allocation need to be harmonized as a result of the amalgamation process. Two of these service activities are: (1) the Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program; and (2) the Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(1) Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program:

The inspection, cleaning and/or repair of wastewater and stormwater connections is provided to:

-assess the condition of the connection and determine any necessary action;

-restore the hydraulic capacity of the connection and/or reinstate the structural integrity of the connection system within City property; and

-determine if the connection can be reused when redevelopment occurs.

The service is primarily driven by complaints from customers resulting from a drain blockage or collapse. Preventative maintenance by the City, in the form of periodic inspection and remedial work, is only carried out at locations where historically there has been a problem which cannot be easily resolved due to physical restrictions, such as the proximity of other utilities. With the exception of the former City of North York, this "First Call" service is provided by City staff 24hours, seven days per week.

In the former City of North York, the initial inspection is done by a Drainman, i.e., private drain contractor, hired by the resident. Under the policy approved by the former City of North York Council, a Drainman must confirm that the problem is within the road allowance before City staff will respond to the complaint. The property owner is reimbursed for the Drainman's cost if the problem is found to be within the road allowance and is structural in nature.

Experience in implementing the Drainman policy dictates that a subsequent inspection is required by City staff to confirm the Drainman's conclusions that the problem is on City property. Records from North York indicate that only one quarter of the calls requesting reimbursement of the Drainman's fees are valid. Therefore, North York staff are duplicating the Drainman's work for 75percent of the calls for the initial inspection of drain connections.

Although the North York Drainman policy reduces the number of inspections required by the City, in two-thirds of drain problem cases the City must follow up on the Drainman's work, and there is insufficient information available to determine if the Drainman policy reduces or increases overall costs. However, it is anticipated that elimination of the policy would have a negligible impact on the annual budget. In addition, improved customer relations are established when the City provides the first response to calls/problems.

Following the first response, where the problem or condition of the connection cannot be determined through inspection by remote methods, all the former municipalities have undertaken an excavation within the street line. If repair work is not required on City property, then the owner is billed for work done by the City. The former municipalities of East York and North York require a deposit of $400.00 and $1000.00 respectively before City staff will do any excavation. The deposit is returned if the problem is within City property.

In harmonizing the service City-wide, the cash deposit should be eliminated. In lieu of a cash deposit, it would be more feasible to proceed with the necessary excavation within the road allowance subject to the property owner agreeing to reimburse the City's costs if the problem is determined to be on private property or is non-structural in nature (i.e., contravention of the Sewer Use By-law, grease, etc.), by signing a standard agreement form. A form of this type is already in use in the former City of Toronto. This will prevent field staff having to be responsible for deposits, cash, cheques, etc., and lessen any potential hardship to homeowners in an emergency situation. If the homeowner fails to pay any outstanding charges, these can be recovered through property taxes, thus avoiding any risk associated with the elimination of the deposit.

To reduce future inspection and maintenance costs, a clean-out should be provided on all connections. When one does not already exist, a cleanout should be installed at the street line in conjunction with connection repairs being undertaken by the City. In addition, when connection works are undertaken on the private portion of the drain, the property owner should be required to install a cleanout as near as possible to the outer wall of the building, when no other cleanout exists on the private portion of the drain.

In summary, to provide a consistent sewer connection blockage inspection and repair service across the City without impacting the overall budget, it is proposed that:

(a)a first response to sewer connection blockage inspection and emergency repair service be provided by City staff 24 hours, seven days per week; after normal business hours, response will be limited to emergency situations where the drain(s) are completely blocked, all other service calls will be investigated the next business day;

(b)in lieu of a cash deposit, excavations within the road allowance to determine necessary connection works proceed, subject to the owner agreeing to reimburse the City for costs incurred in the event that the drain damage is determined to be on private property, or if the problem is within the road allowance and is non-structural (i.e., contravention of the Sewer Use By-law, grease, etc.), by signing a standard agreement form prepared by the City;

(c)road allowance clean-outs be installed where they do not exist, in conjunction with connection repairs undertaken by the City, at no cost to the owner; and

(d)the Urban Planning and Development Services Department be requested to investigate the actions necessary to require property owners to undertake the installation of clean-outs, if one does not exist, in conjunction with connection works on private property.

(2)Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy:

The existing tree root policies of the former six Area Municipalities provide financial assistance to property owners for the repair of private drains (from the outside of the house to the property line) which have been blocked by the roots of a City-owned tree, as verified by City staff.

In all cases, the repair of drains within City property is carried out by the City at no cost to the property owner, whether the blockage is caused by roots from a City or private tree. Financial assistance in the form of a Drain Grant is provided to property owners for the repair of drains on private property on a "no fault" or "grant" basis, in recognition of the fact that roots are only able to enter drains which are already cracked or damaged.

The amount of the financial assistance and the conditions for assistance vary among the former municipalities as listed in the following table:

To provide a consistent policy across the City without causing a substantial impact on the City's budget, it is proposed that financial assistance be provided in the amount of 100 percent of the invoiced cost, on a one time only basis per property, to a limit of $500.00 for a repair or partial renewal of a drain or drains, and a limit of $1,500.00 for the complete renewal of a drain or drains between the City property line and the building.

This represents the average assistance available under the former policies, and provides more of an incentive for the homeowner to replace the drain rather than just do a repair. The chance of a problem re-occurring when the whole drain is replaced is much less than if only a repair is carried out.

In addition to the drain grant, the former City of Toronto has a drain grant appeal process established by City Council in June 1995, to consider appeals for additional funds for extraordinary claims.

The drain grant appeal process is administered through an existing Court of Revision, and hearings are typically attended by staff representatives from Parks, Legal, Clerks and Works Departments. The Court of Revision has met 33 times to consider grant appeals and heard approximately 140appeals, resulting in a total of $38,000.00 being awarded over the three-year period since its inception. This equates to an average award per appeal of $270.00.

Due to the lack of a clear definition of an "extraordinary" claim, the court has had difficulty in establishing a consistent criteria for the award of additional funds. The cost of the court and staff time to attend hearings and review cases is more than the awards being granted, and with the higher drain grant being proposed in the harmonized tree root policy, there is less justification to retain the existing drain grant appeal process. Accordingly it is proposed that the former City of Toronto drain grant appeal process be terminated. It should be noted that although elimination of the appeals process will result in a savings, a resolution in staff is not anticipated. The proposal to terminate the drain grant appeals process has been discussed with the City Legal Services, and they have no objection to the proposal.

In providing a consistent Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy across the City without impacting the overall budget, it is proposed that:

(1)in all cases, the repair of drains within City property continue to be carried out by the City at no cost to the property owner, whether the blockage is caused by roots from a City or private tree;

(2)assistance for the repair of private drains under the policy only be provided where drain blockage is the result of roots from a City-owned tree, as verified by City staff;

(3)assistance be provided on a no-fault or grant basis, to any property owner;

(4)assistance be provided on a one time only basis per property;

(5)assistance be provided in the amount 100 percent of the invoiced cost, to a limit of $500.00 per property for a repair or partial renewal of a drain or drains, and to a limit of $1,500.00 per property for the complete renewal of a drain or drains between the City property line and the building; and

(6)assistance not be provided for maintenance work associated with snaking or chemically treating a drain to relieve a blockage.

Conclusions:

The harmonized Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program and a Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy and Drain Grant Program is proposed for the new City, and can be implemented with a negligible impact on the operating budget.

In order to establish a uniform policy, the former City of North York's Drainman policy and the former City of Toronto's drain grant appeal process should be eliminated.

Contact Name:

Mr. W. Green, Director, Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone: (416) 392-8242; Fax: (416) 392-2974

E-Mail: wgreen@toronto.ca.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (November 16, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council:

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refer this matter back to the Works and Utilities Committee in order that the Toronto Community Council may forward its recommendations on this matter for the consideration of the Works and Utilities Committee.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on November 12, 1998 had before it a communication (September18, 1998) from Councillor Bussin respecting Drain Claim - 156 Felstead Avenue (East Toronto).

During consideration of this matter, the Toronto Community Council also had before it a report (November 5, 1998) from City Solicitor recommending that the letter dated September 18, 1998 from Councillor Bussin respecting 156 Felstead Avenue and this report be received.

The Toronto Community Council's recommendation is noted above. The Toronto Community Council further advises that it has:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on December 9, 1998;

(2)requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council on whether the policy respecting drain claims, as it relates to the limitations on the number of claims, should be interpreted as being at the same location along the pipe, or at a new break elsewhere in the pipe;

(3)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council on the question of income threshold for single parents and elderly persons, to ensure that the maximum benefit is available to those persons; such report to include (i) when the policy respecting income threshold was adopted and/or amended; and (ii) methods of providing relief to low-income persons; and

(4)requested the City Forester to report to the Toronto Community Council on the impact on the urban forest of any proposed recommendations and/or actions.

(Report dated November 5, 1998, addressed

to the Toronto Community Council

from the City Solicitor)

Purpose:

This report addresses the letter dated September 18, 1998 from Councillor Bussin requesting Toronto Community Council to consider a request from the owner of 156 Felstead Avenue for reimbursement in respect of drain repairs.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial implications arise if Toronto Community Council receives this item, as recommended.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the letter dated September 18, 1998 from Councillor Bussin respecting 156 Felstead Avenue and this report be received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The former City of Toronto had a program of providing grants to homeowners to assist in the cost of drain repairs where those repairs were necessitated by roots from a tree located on City property. The program was established under the City of Toronto Act, 1974 and provided assistance up to a maximum amount that was determined by Council from time to time. Since 1995 the cap has been $1,000.00.

The Council of the former City of Toronto established an appeal process for the purpose of hearing appeals in connection with "extraordinary claims". For grants in excess of the drain grant cap of $1,000.00 (Clause No. 43 of Report No. 17 of The Executive Committee , amended and adopted by Council, June 26 and 27, 1995). Prior to the establishment of this appeal process, Councillors would bring requests for special consideration to the Executive Committee for review.

At its meeting of October 14, 1998, Toronto Community Council had before it the letter dated September 14, 1998 from Councillor Bussin seeking consideration of a request by Kimberly Crichton, owner of 156 Felstead Avenue, for reimbursement in respect of drain repairs. The matter was deferred for consideration at the November 12, 1998 meeting.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Drain Grant Program provides for the possibility of reimbursement for only one excavation every three years. This is the result of a policy decision not to allow contractors to replace a drain section by section, year by year. In this case, there have already been two instances of reimbursement. First, in April 1995, the City paid $1,100.00 for a claim submitted by Richard Parks of that address. In August 1997, the City paid $906.00 for a further claim by Ms. Crichton.

Ms. Crichton was advised by letter dated October 2, 1998 that her third claim was denied, but that she could appeal to the Court of Revision. On November 2, 1998, Ms. Crichton filed an appeal to the Court of Revision with the City Clerk. In her appeal, Ms. Crichton argues that her request should be given special consideration because her house is situate on a corner lot having "approximately four times the amount of normal frontage". The Program is not based on frontage; however, the Court of Revision has a broad discretion in connection with "extraordinary claims". In accordance with the Program, it is now up to the Court of Revision to consider Ms. Crichton's current claim.

Conclusions:

Recommending a grant to the owner would seriously undermine the process established by the Council of the former City, which process includes an appeal to an independent arbitrator, the Court of Revision. The Notice of Appeal was filed by on November 2, 1998 and, given its recent filing, the Court has not even had an opportunity to consider this claim.

It would be appropriate for Toronto Community Council to receive the letter and this report.

Contact Name:

Mary Ellen Bench

Director, Municipal LawTelephone:392-7245)

(Communication dated September 18, 1998,

addressed to the Toronto Community Council

from Councillor Bussin, East Toronto)

In April 1998, Ms. Crichton experienced damage to the drain pipes of her home due to large maple trees on the boulevard and their leaves clogging the eavestroughs.

This is the third instance resulting in damage to the pipes since 1994 at this location. As a result, Ms. Crichton was charged $3,798.50 by R. J. Drain Service in order to replace all the remaining clay piping under her basement which was damaged, in order to rectify the problem. She feels the City should reimburse the total cost, as the damage occurred due to trees located on City property.

I would kindly request permission for Ms. Crichton to address the Toronto Community Council regarding the above.

Thanking you in advance.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the requests made by the Works and Utilities Committee in considering the report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated October 21, 1998 regarding Sewer Connection Blockage/ Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of November 4, 1998 the Works and Utilities Committee, in considering the report from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, dated October 1998, entitled "Sewer Connection Blockage / Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy", requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to City Council on:

(i) the estimated number of service services calls that have been avoided as a result of the former City of North York's "Drainman" policy;

(ii) the number of contractors engaged by the former Area Municipalities in the repair or installation of drains; and

(iii) the feasibility of permitting property owners to submit applications under the drain claim policy once in a three year period, in lieu of the "one time only" proposed.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(i)Service Calls Avoided Under "Drainman" Policy

Under the "Drainman" policy adopted by the Council of the former City of North York, homeowners experiencing drain blockage were required to contact a private plumbing contractor or "Drainman" to determine the nature and location of the blockage, prior to contacting the City. If the blockage was determined to be on private property the owner would make arrangements with the contractor to have the repairs made. If the blockage was on City property the homeowner would contact the City to investigate and if the Drainman's findings were confirmed, the City would reimburse the homeowner for the costs they incurred in the initial investigation. The intent of the program was to avoid the need for the City to inspect drain blockages on private property.

Information provided from the former City of North York indicates that approximately 1,250 complaints are investigated annually by the "Drainman".

The former City of North York's records indicate that of this number 825 properties are subsequently referred to the City to confirm the Drainman's fundings. Accordingly, it is estimated that approximately 425 inspections are avoided annually as a result of the Drainman policy. However, of the 825 properties which are referred to the City, only 25 percent or approximately 200 are found to have blockages within the street allowance and therefore are the City's responsibility for repair.

The cost of the City's inspection and reimbursement to property homeowners under the Drainman policy amounts to approximately $110,000.00 per year. Under the proposed first response policy it is estimated that the City would incur an annual cost of approximately $120,000.00 within the former City of North York. This marginal increase of $10,000.00 reflects the additional service cost of providing a first response inspection to homeowners, in the former City of North York.

It should be noted that with the exception of former City of North York each of the former Municipalities provided a first response inspection to homeowners with blocked drains.

(ii) Contractors Undertaking the Repair and Replacement of Drains:

During 1998 there were a total of nine different contractors undertaking drain repair and replacement works within the City, under 11 individual contracts. Typically these contractors are retained under annual contracts within the areas of the former Municipalities. A report is currently being prepared to recommend an amalgamated policy for retaining drain and water service installation contractors within the City.

(iii)Feasibility of Permitting One Drain Grant Application Within A Three Year Period

Under the policy proposed in the October 21,1998 report, property owners would only be eligible for a drain grant on a one-time basis.

A review of statistics within the other former municipalities indicates that multiple applications for drain repairs account for about 2 percent of the applications received in a given year are from applicants who have previously applied under the program.

The frequency between these re-applications, however, varies significantly due to the condition of the drains and the environment within which these are located.

For property owners choosing to replace their drains, the amendment of the proposed drain grant policy to permit property owners to submit grant requests once in three years, would not be an issue since new drains have an estimated life of at least 50 years.

A three-year time limit for drain repairs would make it possible for property owners to have their drains renewed, at the City's cost, one repair at a time. A financial impact review indicates that a full-length drain replacement grant in the amount of $1,500.00 is equivalent to a series of four partial repairs each in the amount of $500.00 extending over a period of nine years.

Accordingly, I advise that the proposed amendment to permit grants "one time per three-year period" will have no significant impact on the funding required under the proposed policy.

Contact Name:

Mr. W. Green, Director

Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone:(416) 392-8242

Fax (416) 392-2974

E-Mail wgreen@toronto.ca)