November 18, 1999

To: Works Committee

From: Barry H. Gutteridge, Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services

Subject: Harmonized Water Service Connection Repair Program

Purpose:

To confirm that home owners whose water service connections satisfied the previous minimum acceptable flow of 14 litres/minute at the water meter but failed to meet the new minimum acceptable flow of 18 litres/minute at the water meter in previous years will be given priority should they apply for upgrades.

To advise on the proposed allocation of the annual Water Service Repair budget to each of the former Cities for years 2000 and beyond.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The proposed 2000 Capital Budget recommends an amount of $14.1 million for replacing approximately 8,250 water services across the new City which meet the replacement criteria of the Harmonized Water Service Repair Program for on demand applications and in conjunction with roadway reconstruction and watermain reconstruction.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Homeowners who have applied for water services repairs in 1996, 1997 and 1998 and up to June 30, 1999 and did not qualify under the previous Cities programs but now qualify under the new harmonized Water Service Repair program, be upgraded as a priority under the approved 2000 Capital budget.

(2) In years 2000 and beyond, funds under the approved Water Service Repair budget be allocated on the basis of need as determined from the estimated number of customers who will qualify for water service repairs in each former City.

Background:

City Council, having adopted the Harmonized Water Service Connection Repair Program (Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, April 30, 1999) at its meeting of June 9^th, 10^th, and 11^th, 1999, requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Works Committee on the following:

That priority be given to those homeowners who have applied for improvements in 1996, 1997, 1998 and up to June 30^th, 1999 and who have now qualified for this program as a result of the policy change; and

That in years 2000 and beyond, the allocation of funds under the approved budgets be allocated on a per capita basis across the City.

Comments:

The former Cities of North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York had programs to replace free of charge or to subsidise water service connection upgrades under certain conditions. In the case of the former North York and Scarborough, records were maintained for those addresses where the water services failed to qualify under the former criteria used in these Cities. On reviewing this information from 1996, 1997 and 1998 and up to June 30, 1999 it has been determined that in North York, there were 280 customers who have previously applied and now qualify for a water service repair using the new criteria and in Scarborough there are a further 800 properties that now qualify. These records have been forwarded to the appropriate staff to give priority to replacing these services.

The allocation of the Water Service Repair Capital Budget on a per capita basis may result in an inequitable distribution of funds based on the anticipated water service repair needs to be addressed in each of the former Cities. For example, the Cities of East York, and York which have the smallest population basis have also a high percentage of lead and galvanized services which qualify for replacement. A distribution of funds based on population would result in a 75 - 100 year replacement program for the lead and galvanized services in these Cities and for Cities with a larger population, the Water Service Repair Program may be completed in a shorter period of time. Further, the distribution of funds on a per capita basis would effect the water service replacements planned in conjunction with the road and watermain reconstruction programs.

I recommend therefore, that the Water Service Repair Budget be distributed each year based on the estimated need for water service repairs in each of the former Cities thus resulting in a more equitable distribution of funds. This need will be clearly demonstrated from the number of customers who apply for an upgrade and qualify under the program each year. Each budget year, the budget request and distribution of funds will be adjusted based on the previous years water service repair experience in each of the former Cities.

The attached Table I provides an estimate for the number of services in each of the former Cities which has been included in the 2000 Budget request. The estimates include not only the homeowners on demand applications but also allows for the replacement of services which meet the criteria on road and watermain reconstruction programs.

Conclusions:

It is feasible to give priority for free water service upgrades to those homes which previously failed under previous programs, but now qualify under the new Harmonized Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program.

Allocation of funds under the Water Service Repair Program be based on an as need basis and include an allowance for a replacement of services which meet the new criteria on the roadway and watermain reconstruction projects.

Contact:

Wayne Green, P. Eng.

Director, Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone: (416) 392-8242

Fax: (416) 392-2974

e-mail: wgreen@toronto.ca

Michael A. Price, P.Eng., FICE

General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services

____________________

Barry H. Gutteridge

Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services

/car

List of Attachments:

Table I

Table I

Summary of the Proposed Distribution of Water Services by

Former Municipality for Preliminary 2000 Capital

Water Service Repair Program