1 City of Toronto Draft Sewer Use By-law (All Wards)

2 Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan

3 Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy

4 Drain Grant Program - 2 Wendigo Way

5 Provision of Litter Bins with Advertising

6 Legal Claim Against the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

7 Downspout Disconnection Program

8 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements - Janes Family Foods Ltd., Honeyman's Beef Purveyors Ltd., and Wagener's Meat and Delicatessen Limited

9 Sanitary Discharge Agreement - Nuburn Capital Corporation (Ward 25)

10 Supply and Delivery of Process Controller Equipment to be Implemented under the Works Best Practices Program - Contract No. MWRFP198

11 License Agreement for Performance Management Software to be Implemented under the Works Best Practices Program

12 Amendment to Agreement for Supply of Ferrous Chloride

13 Attendance at Conference

14 Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the following report (March 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(2) that the City Clerk be requested to forward a copy of the City's draft by-law to all other municipalities whose boundaries include any portion of the watersheds that overlap with the municipal boundary of the City of Toronto;

(3) that the City Clerk request copies of the Sewer Use By-laws and sewershed maps for the above-mentioned municipalities, with copies of these by-laws and maps being forwarded to the Members of the Works and Utilities Committee and the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, for information;

(4) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to a means of requesting the above-named municipalities to meet with the staff from the City of Toronto for the purpose of identifying common elements and cross connections within their pipe network;

(5) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as a function of the public consultation element of the enactment of the Sewer Use By-law, report back to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to a means of co-ordinating a proposal to the above-mentioned municipalities of harmonization of their Sewer Use By-laws by applying the concept of harmonizing to the highest standard or beyond of environmental protection from elements contained within the former Sewer Use By-laws of these municipalities; and

(6) that a copy of the City's draft Sewer Use By-law be forwarded to the Greater Toronto Area Public Works Committees Chairs Group:

Purpose:

To advise the Committee of the content of the draft consolidated Sewer Use By-law for the new City of Toronto which harmonizes the former Cities' and Metro's Sewer Use By-laws into the Province's draft Model Sewer Use By-law and incorporates pollution prevention planning requirements for industries. Further, this report will recommend a Public Consultation Plan for obtaining comments on the draft Sewer Use By-law from industries, interest groups and the public before recommending a final Sewer Use By-law to your Committee for approval.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The initial cost of carrying out the by-law consultation phase with the public, interest groups, industries and affected Agencies, Boards and Commissions has been included in the 1999 Sewer Operating Budget. The City's communication staff will co-ordinate this phase of the process. It is planned, however, to include the draft by-law on the City's corporate Internet Web site as a communication method and means of obtaining comments from the public on the draft by-law.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the draft Sewer Use By-law be approved for publication and staff be authorized to consult with the public, industries, interest groups and affected Agencies, Boards and Commissions on the draft Sewer Use By-law; and

(2) staff be authorized to apply for a contribution of at least 50 percent of the start-up and implementation support costs from Environment Canada.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Transportation Services Review Team in their report on Service Levelling to the Transition Team identified several services and by-laws that have a direct impact on the public. Each of the former municipalities, including Metro, had Sewer Use By-laws for the control of sewage and stormwater discharge into the sewer systems. The need to harmonize these by-laws and create a new sewer use by-law has been identified as one of the service levelling issues.

With respect to harmonization issues, City Council, on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, recommended that:

(1) all reports on harmonization be first submitted to the Community Councils for comment, prior to consideration of such reports by Standing Committees; and

(2) comments from Community Councils be included in the reports to Standing Committee.

In this regard, it is proposed to include this draft by-law on their May 26 and 27, 1999 agenda.

With regard to the Pollution Prevention section of the draft by-law, the former Metro's Environment and Public Space Committee on June 17, 1996, had before it a report (June 3, 1996) from the Commissioner of Works responding to the communication from Councillor Ila Bossons, which forwarded correspondence from the World Wildlife Fund respecting the Pollution Prevention initiatives and the resulting impact on the quality of sewage sludge under Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89.

This Committee received the aforementioned report; and requested the Commissioner of Works to submit a report in six months' time on:

(1) the progress that both Metro staff and the Province of Ontario are making in terms of Pollution Prevention initiatives around regulating waste being discharged into Metro sewers; and

(2) means by which householders and industrial and commercial sector firms can be educated to use alternatives to toxic chemicals.

The former Metro's Environment and Public Space Committee on January 13, 1997, had before it a report (December 31, 1996) from the Commissioner of Works respecting the progress being made by both Metro staff and the Province of Ontario in terms of Pollution Prevention initiatives around regulating waste being discharged into Metro sewers, and the means by which homeowners and industrial and commercial sectors firms can be educated to use alternatives to toxic chemicals, as requested by the Committee on June 17, 1996.

This Committee received the aforementioned report, and requested the Commissioner of Works for a report to the former Metro's Environment and Public Space Committee to:

(1) develop draft amendments to By-law No. 153-89 (former Metro's Sewer Use By-law) which incorporate a requirement for Pollution Prevention planning and the requirement for dischargers to have permits issued by Metro;

(2) develop a phase-in plan which will target priority toxins and the industries which discharge them; and

(3) analyse the incremental costs of implementing, supporting and enforcing a Pollution Prevention-based by-law, as well as outline options for financing.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Draft Sewer Use By-law:

On June 1, 1998, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) released a draft Model Sewer Use By-law for public comments. The MOE's Model By-law has undergone several revisions since the initial release, however, there is still no indication as to when it will be finalized. Staff have used the latest revision of the MOE's by-law as the basis for the new draft City Sewer Use By-law. Further, the new draft Sewer Use By-law is a harmonization of all the sewer use by-laws of the former six Area Municipalities and Metro Toronto. Included in this draft by-law are garbage grinders, grease interceptors, oil interceptors, sediment interceptors and sewer connections to address districts' operations and maintenance, and stormwater management issues, and quality restrictions to address sewage treatment issues, and incorporates the issues requested by the former Metro's Environment and Public Space Committee's requests respecting Industrial Pollution Prevention Strategies.

A major distinction between our draft by-law and the MOE draft Model By-law is that we have incorporated a section on pollution prevention planning requirements. We have worked cooperatively with the World Wildlife Fund over the past two years in drafting the Industrial Pollution Prevention Section of the draft by-law.

The draft by-law has been circulated for comments within the City Departments, including the Building and City Legal Departments, as well as the MOE for their comment. As a result of comments which have been made on the initial drafts, we have now completed a fourth draft (April 1999), a copy of which is attached. The following modifications to the MOE draft Model Sewer Use By-law have been incorporated along with harmonized by-laws from the former municipalities and Metro for your consideration:

(1) Part 2 - Sanitary and Combined Sewer Requirements:

The draft by-law has more stringent limits on chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc, while the MOE's Draft Model Sewer Use By-law has either the same limits as their 1988 Model or not as stringent as ours. We also included 29 organics, of which 17 are found in trace amounts in either our influent, effluent or sludge, and 12 are on the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA) Tier I and Tier II Substances Lists. The MOE only has 10 organics under Part 2. Twenty times Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) is used to set limits for the 17 organic compounds, and 10 times Method Detection Limit (MDL) is used to set limits for the 12 organics listed under COA Tier I and II.

The objective of setting more stringent metal limits and new organic limits is to protect water quality and ensure that the quality of our biosolids will not only meet the biosolids guideline but exceed it, so that the farming community will have no problem accepting our biosolids.

Our current by-law and the draft MOE Model By-law both have a pH range of 6.0to 10.5. Lower pH (acidic) discharges will attack and disintegrate metal and concrete pipes and structures. High pH values are more tolerable and therefore we are recommending to raise the pH to 11.5 from 10.5. The rationale for this is to allow electroplaters, who sometime have to raise the pH over 10.5 to effect precipitation of some metals, not to have to then bring the pH down to below 10.5 using strong and corrosive acid to meet our by-law limit. This would avoid workers' exposure to this hazardous chemical and prevent the overuse of this acid which will turn their effluent too acidic and corrode the sewer.

We are proposing to get rid of the 15 mg/L limit on mineral and synthetic oil and grease and just go with a limit of 150 mg/L for total oil and grease (animal and vegetable plus mineral and synthetic). The differentiation of sources of oil and grease is not significant. Our analytical method is unable to distinguish between oxygenated or hydrogenated vegetable oil from mineral or synthetic oil and grease and thus render the analysis unreliable.

(2) Part 4 - Storm Sewer Requirements:

The draft by-law has limits on the conventionals (suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, etc.), metals, and organics. The limits are set either using current by-law limits or four times MDL to protect aquatic life. The MOE draft Model By-Law sets no limits; instead they stipulate that any discharge to a storm sewer may not impair the quality of the receiving water. We disagree with this approach, as to prove impairment would not be an easy task. Our approach is much easier to enforce. Once the discharger exceeded the numerical limits, unless they can prove that they had exercised due diligence, then they are guilty of the offence.

(3) Part 5 - Pollution Prevention Planning:

The City of Toronto will be one of the first municipalities in Canada to incorporate Pollution Prevention (P2) planning requirements into their Sewer Use By-law. Eleven metals and 29 organic compounds/groups of compounds are to be addressed by P2 planning. These parameters are listed in Appendix 2 of the draft by-law. Companies which discharge these metals and organic compounds are required under the proposed by-law to prepare a detailed P2 plan every five years and submit a P2 plan summary annually. Details of the P2 plan requirements and the P2 plan summary formats are provided in Appendices 3 and 4 of the proposed by-law. The objective of P2 planning is to help industries identify ways of reducing and/or eliminating the creation of pollutants and wastes at source. Many of these pollutants which include metals and organic compounds negatively impact the quality of biosolids and consequently the biosolids reuse program. In this regard, it is important that Pollution Prevention planning be phased in for the industries discharging these metals and organic compounds.

End-of-pipe treatment, dilution, or transfer of pollutants from one phase, e.g. liquid to other phases such as air or solid wastes, are not qualified as P2 planning. P2 can be achieved by different means such as through material substitution, process modification, product reformulation, recycling hazardous substances within process, and maintaining good housekeeping practices, etc. The P2 plan will be carried out in a phased-in schedule according to Appendix 1 of the by-law. Industries with the greatest potential to negatively impact biosolids quality will be targeted first, i.e.:

P2 Due Date Category

June 2000 Metal finishers, electroplaters, printed circuit board firms;

December 2000 Industrial launderers, printing, publishing and allied industries; and

June 2001 Organic chemicals, soaps and detergents, rubber and plastic products, leather and leather products.

We are following the State of New Jersey model in requiring industries to prepare P2 plans. A P2 Plan Summary will be submitted to the City for review and approval. The draft Sewer Use By-Law requires industries in the categories referred to above to submit Pollution Prevention Plans, however, the implementation of the plans will be voluntary. Experience in the U.S. shows that over 90 percent of the companies that prepare P2 plans implement all or parts of the plans.

In 1995, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection asked 42 facilities they visited to estimate the time and cost of preparing their P2 plans. The majority (74 percent) of facilities chose to prepare the P2 plans themselves while 26 percent used consultants. Of the 42 facilities visited, 20 were able to provide an estimate of their direct costs of preparing a P2 plan. The total cost estimates for all 20 facilities ranged from $1,000.00 to $50,000.00, with one at $100,000.00 and one at $200,000.00.

Well-designed pollution prevention activities actually provide a business advantage. For instance, Inform Inc.'s study, as reported by the industry trade paper "Chemical Week", concluded that "Investment to reduce toxic wastes at the source often have extraordinary financial rewards." Of the 38 pollution prevention projects examined, 24 had fully paid back the initial investment in six months or less.

To assist companies to comply with the P2 planning requirements, we are proposing to contract the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention (C2P2) from Sarnia, to provide support and training services. This is a non-profit organization originally formed in 1992 by Environment Canada. Its current membership includes cities, universities and industries interested in promoting and adopting Pollution Prevention programs. It serves as an information and training centre for Pollution Prevention strategies. The estimated cost for the following services is $55,000.00 with a possible 50 percent subsidy from the Federal Government through a Great Lakes 2000 Clean-Up Fund.

Guidance Manual:

A guidance manual to explain the pollution prevention requirements of the City's by-law and show how to complete the detailed Pollution Prevention Plan and Pollution Prevention Plan Summary.

Industrial Sector Training:

A series of half-day training sessions for each "subject sector" will be delivered over the phase-in period. The Guidance Manual will be the main resource used in delivering the training sessions. Additional research will be conducted to identify pollution prevention resources that would be useful for the sector.

Industries will learn:

- the pollution prevention planning requirements in the City of Toronto;

- the business benefits of pollution prevention;

- to identify and evaluate pollution prevention opportunities;

- to complete a pollution prevention plan and pollution prevention plan summary;

- the tools that can support pollution prevention planning, e.g., software, total cost assessment, information providers, etc.; and

- where to get ongoing support.

Information Support Line:

Easy access to the right information is essential if businesses are to adopt pollution prevention as the most effective means of eliminating wastes. The C2P2 will operate a 1-800 telephone enquiry service: to address administrative questions on the P2 planning requirements of the by-law; for sectoral training session registration; to respond to technical and pollution prevention related questions; and to refer industries to sectoral experts.

Internet Support:

If businesses are to adopt "at source" practices, information must be in a usable format. A growing number of businesses are using on-line resources in their day-to-day businesses. An Internet site could be a very valuable and efficient mechanism to:

- address common questions about the P2 planning requirements;

- distribute the Guidance Manuals; and

- link to technical resources for the subject sectors.

The C2P2 has extensive experience in designing and maintaining current Internet sites, and advocates the use of the Internet to support smooth P2 planning and implementation.

(4) Part 6 - Agreements:

Currently we only surcharge three parameters, i.e., suspended solids, BOD, and phenolics (4AAP). We are proposing to add total oil and grease and phosphorus. For the total oil and grease parameter, we would surcharge mainly the animal and vegetable type oil and grease, which is readily biodegradable. We will use our discretion in deciding whether to surcharge mineral and synthetic type oil and grease. The decision will be based on the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) to BOD ratio. If the ratio is more than 10, then there is a good indication of the presence of non-biodegradable component and we would refuse to surcharge such type of oil and grease.

We currently spend approximately $2 million in the use of iron salts to reduce phosphorus from our effluents to 1 milligram per litre to meet the Ministry of the Environment's requirement under their Certificate of Approval. We propose to recover part of that cost by surcharging any companies discharging phosphorus in excess of our by-law limit of 10 milligrams per litre. We expect the discharge of phosphorus to mainly come from industrial laundries and cheese-making companies.

(5) Part 10 - General:

We are proposing to include food related grease interceptors, interceptors for motor oil and grease, sediment interceptors for car washes, and garbage grinders for residential use into the by-law to address concerns with the operation of the local sewer system.

(6) Part 11 - Sewer Connections:

This section deals with the proper procedure for the construction and connection of private sewers to municipal sewers. It also has a section on stormwater management.

(7) Part 12 - Offences:

We are proposing to increase the maximum fine for an individual from $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 and for a corporation from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00, to be in line with that specified in the Municipal Act, 1998.

(8) Part 13 - Repeal:

Under this section, we are recommending that all the Sewer Use By-laws of the former Metro Toronto and the six Area Municipalities be repealed.

Financial Implications of the Draft Sewer Use By-law:

This by-law will require an initial start-up cost of approximately $55,000.00 to develop guidance manuals, staff training and industry workshops for the Pollution Prevention portion of the by-law. We are proposing to contract C2P2 to provide this service for which Environment Canada has agreed to pay at least 50 percent of the costs under the Great Lakes 2000 Clean-Up Fund Program. It is proposed that the Department's Public Consultation staff undertake the other public communication workshops described herein to obtain comments from the public and other interest groups.

Further, it is proposed to established an Information Support Line and an Internet Support for industries and the public if they have questions regarding Pollution Prevention planning requirements, and to distribute guidance manuals and link to technical resources for the industrial sectors. The cost of establishing and maintaining these support services is estimated to be $17,000.00 per year.

The by-law implementation costs have been included in the 1999 Sewer Operating Budget.

Subject to the approval of this by-law, it is proposed to reassign two existing District Enforcement Officer positions to Pollution Prevention Officer positions to enforce the Industrial Pollution Prevention Clauses contained herein.

Enforcement:

The clauses in the draft Sewer Use By-law which relate to the portion of the sewer systems within the street allowance, including the quantity and quality of the sewage within the pipes, will be enforced by the Works and Emergency Services Department. Other clauses relating to plumbing connections, e.g. the use of garborators by homeowners, the use of grease traps in restaurants, etc., will be enforced by the Building Department. Appropriate procedures will be put in place following approval of the by-law to assign the enforcement responsibilities for each department.

Under Part 12 - Offences, failure to prepare a P2 plan or to submit an annual P2 summary plan is an offence. Companies who failed the new discharge limits will be charged under the by-law. After three convictions, the City will seek an Order of Prohibition against the company and if the company continues to violate the by-law, a Contempt of Court Order will be sought against the owner which may result in a jail term and/or fine.

Proposed Public Consultation for the Draft Sewer Use By-law:

Public consultation with the public, industries (or industrial associations), interest groups and affected Agencies, Boards and Commissions will be conducted according to the following schedule:

Steps Activities Dates

Step 1 Works and Utilities Committee April 21, 1999 and

Inform Works and and Council to receive a report on May 11, 12 and 13,

Utilities Committee the content of the draft Sewer Use 1999

and Council By-law

Step 2 Draft Sewer Use By-law will be Follow Council's

Distribution of the Draft mailed out and placed on the approval of the

Sewer Use By-law City's Web site report, May 13, 1999

Step 3 Community Councils to May 26 and 27, 1999

Inform Community receive the draft Sewer

Councils Use By-law report

Step 4 Two-month review period of the May 13 to July 13,

Public and industries Draft Sewer Use By-law 1999

consultation review

period

Step 5 Conduct meetings with the May 13 to July 13,

Public and industries public and industries (sector 1999

(by sector) meetings by sector) to discuss the draft

Sewer Use By-law

Step 6 Comments will be received in Deadline for

Receiving and writing, by fax or e-mail Comments - July 13,

integrating comments 1999

Step 7 Open house to introduce the September 1999

Introduction of the new finalized by-law

Sewer Use By-law

Step 8 Council's approval sought for November/December

New Sewer Use By-law the new Sewer Use By-law 1999

goes to Works and

Utilities Committee and

Council for approval

Conclusions:

A draft Sewer Use By-law for the new City of Toronto, which incorporates pollution prevention planning requirements for those industries which could negatively impact our biosolids quality, has been completed. Public consultation with industries and non-government organizations will begin in late April 1999 for a two-month period. Once the consultation process is complete and the comments are received and integrated, the finalized by-law will be presented to Committee and Council for adoption by the end of the year.

Contact Name:

Mr. V. Lim, P.Eng.

Manager, Industrial Waste and Storm Water Quality

Quality Control and System Planning

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

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

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following motion by Councillor Bill Saundercook:

"WHEREAS watersheds do not follow standard political boundaries; and

WHEREAS the effect of pollutants released into a watershed upstream will have effects downstream regardless of the quality of released effluent downstream; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto is located downstream in the Etobicoke Creek, Humber River, Don River, and Rouge River Watersheds to all other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area; and

WHEREAS precedent already exists within the Province of Ontario for environmental regulations based on watershed principles in the form of Conservation Authorities; and

WHEREAS the American Water Works Association also recognized and publised in 1994 that:

'Because most economic and natural events that affect the quality of water resources occur principally with watershed boundaries, watershed boundaries are the most sensible way of taking action to restore and protect water resources'; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto is currently undertaking the release of a draft sewer use by-law for public consultation;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Works and Utilities Committee request the City Clerk to forward a copy of our draft by-law to all other municipalities whose boundaries include any portion of the watersheds that overlap with the municipal boundary of the City of Toronto; and also

BE IT RESOLVED that the City Clerk request copies of the sewer use by-laws and sewershed maps for the above-mentioned municipalities, with copies of these by-laws and maps being forwarded to the Members of the Works and Utilities Committee and the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, for information; and also

BE IT RESOLVED that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report back to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to a means of requesting the above-named municipalities to meet with the staff from the City of Toronto for the purpose of identifying common elements and cross connections within their pipe network; and also

BE IT RESOLVED that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as a function of the public consultation element of the enactment of the Sewer Use By-law, report back to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to a means co-ordinating a proposal to the above-mentioned municipalities of harmonization of their sewer use by-laws by applying the concept of harmonizing to the highest standard of environmental protection from elements contained within the former sewer use by-laws of these municipalities."

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing report the following communications:

(i) (April 21, 1999) from Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice-President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, providing recommendations with respect to consultation on the Draft Sewer Use By-law with the vew of implementation before the end of the year, and on the role of the City's workforce in the control, management and operations of the water and wastewater systems.

(ii) (April 21, 1999) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee, expressing concerns with respect to Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements and the draft Sewer Use By-law.

(A copy of the City of Toronto Sewer Use By-law, Draft No. 4, dated April 1999, 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 April 21, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To receive and approve the attached Step 1 Summary Report for the Development of the City of Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management; obtain authorization to develop a Wet Weather Flow Management Policy based on the Vision and Goal Statements, Technical Objectives, Institutional Objectives and Financial Objectives as set out in Section 4 of the Step 1 Summary Report; and approve a Steering Committee structure for the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Step 2 and a project workplan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $512,000.00 has been approved in the 1999 Capital Works Program, Water Pollution Control, under Sewer Systems Improvements, Project No. WP250, to initiate Step 2 of the Master Plan Project (Step 2 is the Development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the attached Summary Report for the Development of the City of Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management - Step 1 be received and approved;

(2) authority be granted to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Project Step 2 Steering Committee, to develop a Wet Weather Flow Management Policy for the City of Toronto based on the Vision and Goal Statements, Technical Objectives, Institutional Objectives and Financial Objectives established in Step 1 and summarized in Section 4 of the attached Summary Report;

(3) authority be granted to form a new Steering Committee for Step 2 of the project as described in attachments entitled "Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan - Step 2 Steering Committee" and which will serve to advise the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the development of the Master Plan and will report through the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Works and Utilities Committee; and

(a) the citizen members of the Steering Committee and their alternates be selected through the Nominating Committee of Council; and

(b) the Works and Utilities Committee select the two Councillor ex-officio members of the Steering Committee; and

(4) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report back to the Works and Utilities Committee when a workplan for Step 2 of the project has been completed.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee, in their report dated July 28, 1994, on the City of Toronto's proposed Western Beaches Storage Tunnel, identified a strong need for master planning on a watershed basis in order to restore beneficial uses within the watersheds. This recommendation was supported by the Provincial government.

Subsequently, Metro Council, on April 5 and 6, 1995, by adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, as amended, endorsed undertaking master planning for wastewater systems on a watershed basis, in consultation with regional and local municipalities.

On August 13 and 14, 1997, Metro Council by adopting Clause No. 3 of Report No. 11 of The Environment and Public Space Committee authorized the engagement of the firm of Dillon Consulting Limited to provide consulting services required to complete Step 1 of a four-step process for the development and implementation of a Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management.

The Master Plan, developed through a strategic planning process, will establish a wet weather flow management policy and formulate strategies for the prevention, control and reduction of wet weather flow impacts. Wet weather flow quantity and quality issues are to be managed on a watershed basis to enhance and preserve ecosystem health through a hierarchy of source, conveyance and end-of-the-pipe controls and/or treatment measures.

The Master Plan exercise is being undertaken in four steps which are described as follows:

Step 1 - gathering and synthesizing existing information and issues, formulation of a draft Wet Weather Flow Management Policy and development of a framework for the Terms of Reference for Step 2 of the Master Plan process;

Step 2 - development of the Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management that contains the strategies, an implementation plan for the strategies, and defines the monitoring programs necessary to measure the effectiveness of the strategies as they are implemented;

Step 3 - implementation of the Master Plan in accordance with the implementation plan developed in Step 2, in consideration of priorities, proponents, costs, funding sources and time lines for specific projects or activities. The various strategies would be implemented over a time frame of several years; and

Step 4 - monitoring the effectiveness of the Master Plan through implementation. The Master Plan will be reviewed and updated every five years to incorporate new technologies, environmental changes or as new policies are developed by senior regulatory agencies.

The development of the Master Plan will follow the planning principles of the Environmental Assessment Act as detailed in the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects (Class EA). Where individual projects are identified, the Master Plan will satisfy the requirements under Phase I (Problem Definition) and Phase II (Conceptual Alternatives) of the Class EA process, where feasible. The implementation of the Master Plan in Step 3 may require project specific work to satisfy the next appropriate phases of the Class EA.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Step 1 Documents:

The work in Step 1 of the Master Plan process has been completed and is summarized in the attached "Development of the City of Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management - Step 1 Summary Report - February 1999" (Attachment 1). The report was prepared by staff with input from the Step 1 project Steering Committee and the Toronto Stormwater Group. This summary report outlines a new philosophy for wet weather flow management and presents a vision statement, goals and objectives adopted by the Step 1 Steering Committee and supported by the Toronto Stormwater Group to guide the development of the Master Plan. A summary of the process undertaken in completing Step 1 of the project, outcomes and findings of Step 1 and work to be undertaken in Step 2 is also provided in the report.

The information contained in this report was derived from the following technical reports which are available through the Works and Emergency Services Department upon request:

- Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management, Step 1 Report (including Appendices under separate cover), August 1998, Dillon Consulting Limited; and

- Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management, Step 2 Terms of Reference, August 1998, Dillon Consulting Limited.

Wet Weather Flow Management Policy:

A draft Wet Weather Flow Management Policy Paper was prepared in Step 1 based on a consolidation of the existing stormwater policies from the former municipalities. The new philosophy, vision, goal and objectives as presented in the Step 1 Summary Report are proposed by the Steering Committee to form the basis for a new Wet Weather Flow Management Policy for the City. The draft policy paper was developed with input from key stakeholders, and it generically defines how and to what extent the wet weather flow problem is to be addressed.

It is critical that a Wet Weather Flow Management Policy be developed for the City as soon as possible, in order to provide overall guidance for the development of the Master Plan and a consistent base for wet weather flow management activities across the City.

Steering Committee:

The structure and make-up of the Steering Committee for Step 2 of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan will be critical to the success of the Plan development.

During Step 1, there were a number of challenges associated with the large size of the committee, the changing and growing membership, and the amalgamation of the City. A new steering committee is proposed for Step 2 and is described in detail in Attachment 2. The proposed structure consisting of 24 members was approved by the Toronto Stormwater Group and attending Step 1 Steering Committee members at a joint meeting with members of the Step 1 Steering Committee on March 16, 1999. The Steering Committee would consist of two City Councillors ex-officio, ten City and external Agency staff and 12 public representatives.

To ensure an open and objective candidate selection process, the citizen representatives and their alternates should be selected through the Nominating Committee of Council.

Step 2 of the Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management:

Step 2 will focus on the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. This will include the identification of appropriate wet weather flow management strategies to address wet weather flow issues, the development of a funding mechanism to support the implementation of the Plan and development of an implementation schedule and a monitoring program to track improvement as the Plan is implemented.

The major activities to be pursued in Step 2 are described in the attached Step 1 Summary Report (Section 5) and include:

(1) development of an equitable, dedicated and sustainable funding mechanism for the implementation of the Master Plan in order to provide for wet weather flow management on a continuous basis;

(2) filling of data and information gaps that have been identified in Step 1;

(3) target setting to define what is expected to be accomplished;

(4) problems will be prioritized as it is not possible to deal with all the problems at the same time due to the magnitude of the wet weather flow problems in Toronto;

(5) development of wet weather flow management strategies based on a control/treatment hierarchy of at source/conveyance/end-of-pipe measures consisting of natural systems, non-structural and structural solutions; and

(6) development of an Implementation Plan that will provide for phasing of the Master Plan over several years and monitoring of the results.

In preparing draft Terms of Reference for Step 2, the consultant assumed that the bulk of the work would be contracted out. This will be reviewed with the project Steering Committee to determine which activities can be conducted in-house and to identify those that must be contracted out. Once the Terms of Reference are finalized, a detailed Work Plan Summary will be prepared and submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee for approval. In the interim, work will be initiated to fill the data and information gaps identified in Step 1.

Based on the findings in Step 1, the time frame to complete Step 2 (Development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan) is estimated to be a minimum of two years. However, positive wet weather flow initiatives will continue in parallel with the development of the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan. The approved 1999 Capital Works Program provides $512,000.00 in 1999 to initiate Step 2 of the Project.

Conclusions:

Step 1 of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan has been completed and focused on data gathering, analysis of available information and project scoping. A philosophy, vision statement, goals and objectives have been adopted by the Step 1 Steering Committee and supported by the Toronto Stormwater Group to guide the development of the Master Plan in Step 2 and the development of a new Wet Weather Flow Management Policy for the City. The final report on the Step 1 work has been submitted and is summarized in a Summary Report provided as Attachment 1.

The development of the Master Plan will be undertaken in Step 2. A new Steering Committee structure is proposed and summarized in Attachment 2. Prior to proceeding with Step 2, approval is necessary for the Step 1 Summary Report, the development of a Wet Weather Flow Management Policy, a new project Steering Committee and the development of a workplan for Step 2.

Contact Name:

Michael D'Andrea, P.Eng. Manager

Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone: (416) 397-4631; Fax: (416) 392-2974

e-mail: michael_d'andrea@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(1) Overview:

Stormwater runoff has posed many problems in Toronto through flooding, stream erosion and water quality degradation. Approaches used to address these problems have been divers and undertaken independently by each former municipality. In the absence of a legislative requirement for wet weather flow management , measures undertaken by the former municipalities have been driven, in large part, by the need to address flooding problems and impacts on recreational beach areas. To date, although source control options have usually been considered, the problems have largely been addressed through the construction of infrastructure and end-of-pipe treatment facilities.

The Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management (WWFM) represents a re-thinking of the way that the City manages stormwater. The first step of this process is now complete. The key outcome of the Step 1 work was the adoption of a new philosophy developed in consultation with key stakeholders which is:

"Rainwater is to be treated as a resource to be utilized to enhance and nourish the City's environment. Wet weather flow quantity and quality issues are to be managed on a watershed basis to enhance and preserve ecosystem health through a hierarchy of source, conveyance and end-of-the-pipe control and/or treatment measures. Source control measures will be considered first in this hierarchy in a manner that is balanced with the other two measures in terms of environmental, social and economic impacts."

The following report is a summary of the process undertaken to date.

(2) Current Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Problem and

the Need for a WWFM Master Plan:

The "WWF problem" has been defined as the degraded environment in the City's watersheds and near shore zone of Lake Ontario as a result of a number of WWF management barriers, and the lack of a city-wide comprehensive strategy.

Development and urban growth within the City of Toronto and surrounding regions over the past 200 years have resulted in very intense pressures on the ecosystem, and the alteration of the hydrologic cycle and natural environment.

In the past, stormwater runoff was considered a problem associated with the flooding of streets, property and basements. This was usually addressed through the construction of sewer pipes and the lining of stream banks to move the water as quickly and efficiently as possible, generally without much consideration for the environmental degradation of our streams, rivers and waterfront. These negative impacts include increased runoff volumes and peak flows in the watercourses resulting in flooding, erosion and destruction of fisheries habitat.

If the problem became severe, natural streams were replaced with buried pipes. Most of the marshes and swamps (natural stormwater filtration systems), have been altered or destroyed in order to accommodate urban development.

Wet weather flow resulting in combined sewer overflows (CSOs), storm sewers discharges, and infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the sewer system causing treatment plant by-passes have contributed to degraded water quality. The consequences are beach closures, adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat and degraded aesthetics of the overall environment. These issues have been recognized through previous studies and were confirmed and documented in Step 1 of the WWFM Master Plan.

In addition, there are administrative, management and funding components that are lacking and consequently inhibit proper WWF management. They include:

- Public Awareness: Insufficient public awareness of stormwater and watershed related issues.

- Standards: The lack of municipal criteria and standards related to stormwater quantity and quality control for retrofit situations.

- Municipal/Agency Coordination: The lack of understanding and coordination among municipalities and agencies of the policies and actions related to WWF management.

- Strategy: The lack of a framework for integrating environmental concerns with infrastructure planning on a watershed basis.

- Land Use/Development Controls: Lack of adequate and appropriate land use development control policies and an enforceable process for ensuring development adheres to existing policies.

- Budget: The absence of a dedicated and sustainable funding mechanism for stormwater management.

- Regulation: Lack of regulatory control and other legislative requirements.

Since the early 80's, mitigating the environmental impacts of past practices related to wet weather flows has become a major focus of the public, government agencies and elected officials. Several major initiatives have been undertaken, independently, to address concerns about the degraded state of Toronto's surface waters. These included Pollution Control Planning Studies, Water Quality Management Plans and Sewer System Master Plans undertaken by former municipalities of Toronto. These activities usually addressed the problem related to CSO and stormwater rather than the cause. In addition to the infrastructure initiatives, watershed rejuvenation has been underway under the stewardship of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) through the Don Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance, the Rouge River Alliance and other watershed groups. The Storm Water Group was established, as one of the conditions of the Ministry of the Environment's Exemption Order for the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel, to identify areas of the City where the implementation of non-structural programs to address stormwater and/or CSO needs are feasible. Several other community based groups have also been investigating the feasibility of alternative stormwater management solutions.

This piecemeal approach does not consider the interrelationship of individual activities and often does not consider impacts on the ecosystem of the watersheds as a whole. To protect and enhance the overall ecosystem, stormwater quantity and quality impacts must be addressed on an holistic basis that considers all elements (social, economic, natural) of the watershed simultaneously.

The Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee (EAAC) of the Ministry of the Environment recognized this and in their July 28, 1994 report on the former City of Toronto's Class environmental assessment for the Western Beaches Tunnel, identified a strong need for master planning on a watershed basis. This recommendation was supported by the Provincial government, and was subsequently agreed to by both former Metro and the City of Toronto Councils. This provided the need to establish a WWFM Master Plan.

In 1997, the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan process was initiated by the former Metro Toronto to address wet weather flows identified as CSO, I/I, and stormwater. Instead of focusing on wet weather flow issues in an isolated fashion, the whole natural hydrologic cycle is being considered within the context of watershed management and protection of the ecosystem.

(3) Master Planning Process:

The Master Plan will be developed in four steps:

Step 1 - data gathering and analysis, policy formulation, and scoping phase of the Master Plan;

Step 2 - development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan;

Step 3 - implementation of the Master Plan; and

Step 4 - monitoring and updating of the plan.

Stakeholder and public consultation will be a major component of the process.

Stakeholder Involvement:

In Step 1, a Steering Committee was struck to guide this process. Members included representatives from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, TRCA, the former municipalities of Toronto, members of the public and various environmental groups from each watershed across the city.

Public consultation was structured to provide opportunities for input and communication of information at key times. Activities included:

- formation of a Steering Committee that included members of the public;

- creation of a comprehensive database;

- circulation of two newsflyers;

- providing information on the City's web site;

- holding two "Public Forums"; and

- hosting special events which brought together international experts in the wet weather flow field.

The consultation component is to be revisited before the commencement of Step 2. Although a great deal of momentum and interest was built in Step 1, additional and more focussed consultation activities will be required to bring together the large number of stakeholders.

Strategic Planning/Evironmental Assessment:

The Master Plan is to be considered a strategic planning process which is reviewed and updated on a regular basis (e.g., every five years).

The development of the Master Plan will follow the planning principles of the Environmental Assessment Act as detailed in the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects (Class EA). Where individual projects are identified, the Master Plan will satisfy the requirements under Phase I (Problem Definition) and Phase II (Conceptual Alternatives) of the Class EA process, where feasible.

As the Plan is implemented, project specific work may be necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Class EA (e.g., Schedule C projects). Thus Phase II of the Class EA may have to be revisited for some projects at a later time.

(4) Step 1 - Summary/Outcomes:

The Step 1 work has been completed and is documented in the following reports. These reports are available from the Department upon request.

- Toronto Master Plan For Wet Weather Flow Management, Draft Step 1 Report (including Appendices under separate cover), August 1998, Dillon Consulting Limited.

- Toronto Master Plan For Wet Weather Flow Management, Draft Step 2 Terms of Reference, August 1998, Dillon Consulting Limited.

The key outcome of the Step 1 work was the endorsement of a new philosophy for WWF management by the Steering Committee and the public. Previously, stormwater was considered a nuisance/problem that had to be managed. Now, in the WWFM Master Plan, stormwater is considered a resource to be utilized to enhance and nourish the City's environment.

Products from Step 1 are outlined below:

WWFM Policy:

A draft WWFM Policy was prepared in Step 1 based on a consolidation of the existing policies from the former municipalities. The following principles established in the draft WWFM policy are proposed by the Steering Committee to provide direction to the development of the WWFM Master Plan and to form the basis for a new WWFM Policy for the City.

Vision Statement:

WWF will be managed on a watershed basis in a manner that recognizes rainwater as a potential resource to be utilized to improve the health of Toronto's watercourses and near shore zones of Lake Ontario and to protect and enhance the natural environment of Toronto's watersheds.

Goal Statement:

To reduce and ultimately eliminate the adverse impacts of wet weather flow on the built and natural environment in a timely and sustainable manner and to achieve a measurable improvement in ecosystem health of the watersheds.

Technical Objectives:

Rainwater is to be treated as a resource to be utilized to enhance and nourish the City's environment. Wet weather flow quantity and quality issues are to be managed on a watershed basis to enhance and preserve ecosystem health through a hierarchy of source, conveyance and end-of-the-pipe control and/or treatment measures. Source control measures will be considered first in this hierarchy in a manner that is balanced with the other two measures in terms of environmental, social and economic impacts and benefits.

Institutional Objectives:

Wet weather flow issues will be recognized in the City's Strategic Plan, Official Plan policies, zoning by-laws and Environment Plan, and the City will use both by-laws and incentives to achieve its goals. WWF management activities will be undertaken in a co-operative manner by the City of Toronto, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, government agencies and community groups with emphasis on private stewardship and community involvement. WWF problems that originate beyond the City's boundaries, will be addressed in a coordinated manner with headwater (upstream) municipalities.

Financial Objectives:

Both the generators of pollution and the beneficiaries of a clean environment should contribute equitably to the financing of wet weather flow management initiatives. The costs of protecting the environment against potential pollution from new development should be borne by the developer or the property owners.

SWM Funding Mechanism:

In Step 1, funding mechanisms currently being used locally, nationally, and internationally were reviewed. These included property taxes, water billings, sewer surcharges, development charges and user charges.

Major criteria established in Step 1 to assist in developing and evaluating an equitable and harmonized funding strategy included sufficiency, predictability, flexibility, fairness, incentives, financial impacts, administrative burden, authority and public acceptance. Options for an equitable and harmonized funding strategy will be explored and a final recommendation is made in Step 2.

Terms of Reference for Step 2:

A Terms of Reference document for Step 2 was prepared which provides the framework for developing the Master Plan. The Terms of Reference exposes the significant issues that must be considered in developing the Master Plan. It is intended to be used to assist in scoping and developing work plans.

(5) WWFM Master Plan - Step 2:

Step 2 will focus on the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. It will involve filling data and information gaps, evaluating and selecting preferred strategies to deal with the wet weather flow problems, and preparing an implementation plan for the strategies. The following are the major activities to be pursued:

Development of a Funding Mechanism:

In the past, there was no legislative requirement or municipal mandate to address stormwater especially from a water quality perspective. Municipal actions were driven by the need to protect recreational beach areas and to address flooding problems. Funding for stormwater management initiatives have been limited and derived through Capital Budgets, generally under sewer infrastructure improvement programs. In this approach, stormwater management initiatives are disadvantaged by competing with infrastructure improvements for capital financing.

Based on the Step 1 funding work, adoption of the new philosophy and the draft WWFM policy principles, a dedicated and sustainable funding mechanism will be required for WWF management on a continuous basis.

Filling of Data and Information Gaps:

Numerous data and information gaps have been identified in Step 1. These include: characteristics and condition of drainage systems; receiving water quality data; foundation drains and downspout connection information; locations of buried water courses groundwater and inflow/infiltration information; existing topographic, soils and land use mapping to identify areas amenable to infiltration, areas susceptible to basement flooding and operational/maintenance and best management practices, etc. A substantial effort will be required to obtain georeference and model this information which is vital to the creation and implementation of the WWFM Master Plan. In addition, the success of a comprehensive source control program will rely on extensive detailed lot level information. Common standards and a single accessible system should be established for the new and various existing GIS databases.

Target Setting:

Appropriate receiving biophysical water based targets must be established with input from the approving agencies. These will be driven by the need to protect human health and public safety, aquatic habitat and/or recreational water use. Once established, appropriate targets and criteria could be specified at other functional levels such as subwatershed, sewersheds, facilities and outfalls.

These targets will define what is expected to be accomplished, provide the benchmark for problem prioritization, a basis for evaluation of alternative solutions and for the development the plan. Both short term and long term targets are to be developed.

Problem Prioritization:

Due to the magnitude of the WWF problems in Toronto, it is not possible to deal with all the problems at the same time. In Step 2, the following problems will be prioritized:

(a) Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO):

The City has an obligation through MOE's Procedure F-5-5 to control, reduce and eliminate CSO discharges. CSO outfalls are relatively few in number and have been studied extensively in the past. Previous studies will have to be reviewed in the context of ensuring consistency in how the problem is addressed and with respect to the applicability of new technologies and approaches. There is no need to prioritize which CSO outfalls should be deferred for future study.

(b) Stormwater Discharges (SWM):

Most of the City is serviced by a separated storm sewer network. Thousands of storm sewer outfalls are dispersed across the City and little work has been done to reduce the impacts of their discharges. A proper assessment will require an analysis at a sub-watershed or, as a minimum, at a sewershed scale, as opposed to the traditional end-of-pipe analysis.

Study areas will have to be prioritized considering factors, such as sensitivity of the local receiving water body, degree of existing stormwater impact on the receiving water, development/redevelopment pressures and opportunities to implement stormwater management measures.

(c) Basement Flooding:

It may be necessary to prioritize the basement flooding areas depending on the extent and frequency of the problem once the previously identified Information Gap has been addressed.

(d) Inflow and Infiltration (I/I):

It may also be necessary to prioritize the I/I areas depending on the extent and magnitude of the problem once the previously identified Information Gap has been addressed.

Development of Technical Solutions:

Technical solutions refer to the potential natural systems, non-structural and structural means available to manage WWF. It has become quite clear through a review of both stakeholder input and national/international trends, that the preferred approach to deal with wet weather flow problems is through the Source/Conveyance/End-of-Pipe control hierarchy.

This approach requires detailed analyses to determine how that pre-defined targets can be met with this proposed treatment-train approach. The 'source control-first' approach is fundamentally different than in the past and measures of effectiveness for this approach are not well defined. Experience with widespread application of source controls is quite limited and extremely detailed information as well as micro-scale (lot level) analyses are required to fully establish their effectiveness.

Development of Institutional Mechanisms:

Institutional mechanisms are the administrative/management processes and tools required for WWFM Master Plan implementation. Issues and challenges that must be addressed in the Master Plan include:

- integrating the development of the WWFM Master Plan with existing and future watershed/sub-watershed plans;

- co-ordinating the WWFM Master Plan initiatives with upstream municipalities;

- developing an appropriate mix of regulations and incentives for the implementation of WWFM initiatives;

- incorporating land use planning as a mechanism for the management of WWF;

- determining an appropriate time frame for attaining set targets;

- making the public aware of the need for and value of WWF management;

- securing a commitment to addressing the WWF problems;

- developing appropriate by-laws and policies to facilitate the implementation of the WWFM Master Plan; and

- co-ordinating development of the WWFM Master Plan with other City Departments, i.e., Urban Planning and Development Services (Planning and Building Divisions) and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division).

Development of an Implementation Plan:

The cost and magnitude of works required to deal with the wet weather flow problem will make immediate implementation of the entire plan impractical. The plan will have to be phased in, possibly over many decades. Priorities must be developed on environmental improvement and cost-effectiveness. In addition, phasing may be required between watersheds or within watersheds. Major issues to be considered in developing the implementation plan include a clear delineation of responsibilities, costs (implementation and operation), available resources and affordability, implementation timelines and monitoring results.

(6) Ongoing Complementary Initiatives and Programs:

While the Master Plan will provide the blueprint for all future wet weather flow management activities, it will take several years for completion and final approval. In the meantime, positive wet weather flow management initiatives should not be abandoned. An approach was developed in Step 1 for assessing which initiatives should continue in parallel with development of the Master Plan. The overriding criterion was that there should be minimal conflict with the direction to be provided by the Master Planning process.

It was determined that Best Management Practices (street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, system rehabilitation, chemical use control, sewer use by-law enforcement, public education, etc.) and at-source stormwater management activities (downspout disconnection, inlet controls, lot level infiltration, porous pavements, etc.) as well as demonstration projects should continue and enhanced. Step 1 also identified some structural projects that should continue as they provide immediate local benefit and are relatively low cost. Typical projects include Terraview/Willowfield Park and Massey Creek naturalization, Don Valley Parkway/Gardiner Expressway runoff control, Leaside stormwater detention, implementation of Morningside Creek and Centennial Creek sub-watershed study recommendations, Spring Creek and Sherwood Park Sedimentation Facilities and Etobicoke's Stormwater Management Facility.

(7) Stakeholder Consultation:

Any public consultation program undertaken for the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan development should provide effective opportunities for input into the process and communication of information. Due to the large number of identified stakeholders, it will be critical to continue to work within existing networks (i.e., watershed groups or committees) and to build momentum from this point. Mechanisms are also necessary so that members of the general public can access information and provide feedback on key issues.

During Step 1, the following activities were carried out to accomplish this. It is proposed that all of these activities be continued and refined in Step 2 of the Master Plan. Key points of stakeholder contact will be determined once a terms of reference and project schedule are developed. The Step 2 Steering Committee will be instrumental in determining the final consultation program.

- To facilitate ongoing communications, two newsflyers were circulated by regular mail to all stakeholders noting project plans, opportunities for input and soliciting feedback.

- Information and updates on the project were placed on the City's web site.

- To reach out to the general public (those not already involved in existing groups) and give everyone the opportunity for input into this process, two "Public Forums", which were advertised both in local papers and through the network with existing groups, were held at important points in this project. Participants helped to establish major wet weather flow related issues in their neighbourhoods. They also discussed their priorities related to these issues.

- Three special events were hosted which brought together international experts in the wet weather flow field for discussions. Information from these discussions was considered in the production of the Step 1 documentation.

- A comprehensive database of interested members of the public, municipal and agency contacts and watershed based groups was created.

The database needs to be revisited and updated. Once the database is updated, partnerships need to be explored with groups to facilitate the dissemination of information about the project through their existing channels. Project team members should be available to meet with these groups, as requested.

The master plan should be connected to any water events that are held or publications that are produced. It is realized that some members of the general public are not likely to participate in any consultation activities. It is therefore recommended that survey work/focus groups be conducted around key issues for the City.

If and when individual projects and related Environmental Assessments are commenced either in parallel or upon formulation of the Master Plan, specific consultation activities will have to be designed around those projects. These activities will likely be more focused on one geographic location and require direct contact with local citizens.

Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan - Step 2 Steering Committee:

The development of the Master Plan will be undertaken in Step 2 of the City's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Project. The structure and composition of the Steering Committee for Step 2 of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Project will be critical to the success of the Plan development.

The design of the Step 1 Steering Committee was based on key stakeholder representation consisting of staff from collaborating agencies, public members from each watershed and staff representatives from each of the seven former municipalities. This presented many challenges associated with its large size, the changing and growing membership and the amalgamation of the City.

A revised Steering Committee structure is proposed for Step 2 of the project as a result of the experience in Step 1, relevant research into effective committee structures, the expressed opinions of a number of stakeholders and the outcome of the Main Treatment Plant Mediation Agreement, and discussions with the Step 1 Steering Committee and the Toronto Stormwater Group. The revised structure, approved by the Toronto Stormwater Group and attending Step 1 Steering Committee members at a meeting held March 16, 1999, consists of 24 members comprising of two City Councillors ex-officio, ten City and external Agency staff and 12 public representatives. The selected citizen representatives should have a strong commitment to the project, its scope and mandate, and should provide a range of expertise to the Steering Committee. To ensure an open and objective candidate selection process, these representatives and their alternates should be selected through the Nominating Committee of Council.

The Steering Committee will serve to advise the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the development of the Master Plan and will report through the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Works and Utilities Committee.

The proposed structure of the Steering Committee is summarized as follows:

City Councillors ex-officio: (2)

Public Representatives: (12)

These public representatives should be drawn from non-profit/environmental groups/industry/citizens.

Suggested representatives include:

- Stormwater Group;

- Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment/Mediation;

- Toronto Bay Initiative;

- industry; and

- across the City's six watersheds based on public interest or through existing Watershed Councils, Alliances, etc.

City and Agency Staff: (10)

- Water and Wastewater Services Division;

- Transportation Services Division;

- Technical Services Division - Soil and Water Quality Improvement;

- Urban Planning and Development Services (City Planning Division);

- Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division);

- Ontario Ministry of the Environment;

- Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;

- Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); and

- Waterfront Regeneration Trust.

Steering Committee Advisors:

It is envisioned that advisors will be called upon to offer advice and input through various phases of the Step 2 process. These advisors include members from the following:

- Balance of Stormwater Group Membership;

- Finance Department;

- Corporate Services Department (Legal Division);

- Works and Emergency Services Department;

- Environment Canada;

- Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans;

- Ontario Ministry of Transportation;

- consultants/external experts;

- academics; and

- others as needed.

Steering Committee Chair:

For a project of this size and to build trust, it is recommended that the Steering Committee have two Co-chairs, one from the City Works and Emergency Services Department (project lead) and one additional person. Alternatively, a neutral chair decided upon by the Steering Committee should be retained.

Steering Committee Meetings:

The Steering Committee meetings are proposed to be facilitated by a member of the Works and Emergency Services Department's Public Consultation Unit. All Steering Committee meetings will be open to the public and all stakeholders. Each meeting will provide time, scheduled through meeting agendas, to respond to questions and/or hear deputations.

Steering Committee Advisory/Specialty Sub-Groups:

The Steering Committee structure does not preclude the necessity for ad hoc advisory groups to be struck around key issues. Topics for discussion could include a modelling, policy development, a target setting, and natural systems development, preservation and enhancement. This should be defined more fully once the project terms of reference have been fully developed by the Steering Committee and staff. It should be noted that key issues will also be the focus of broader stakeholder consultation efforts.

Discussion of cross boundary/upstream municipality issues will be facilitated through the representatives of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

(i) (April 21, 1999) from Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, submitting recommendations with respect to the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; and

(ii) (April 21, 1999) from Mr. Brian Cochrane, President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, commenting on the contracting out of work with respect to the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; and advising that Local 416 believes that it is crucial that the work of the City should be done in-house by unionized employees.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(a) amending Recommendation No. (4) embodied in the report dated April 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to provide that authority for appeals related to drain grant claims be delegated, in the first instance, to the appropriate Community Council for report thereon to Council, through the Administration Committee; and

(b) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:

(a) provide each Member of Council with a series of emergency night service and back-up telephone numbers;

(b) ensure that the emergency night service telephone lines are answered by a staff person, rather than by electronic means such as voice mail;

(c) develop a 24-hour protocol for quick responses to Councillors' enquiries;

(d) submit a report to the Works Committee on:

(i) guidelines and criteria to be followed by Community Councils in the implementation of this policy; and

(ii) how the sewer repair program can dovetail or be harmonized with the City of Toronto's lead pipe replacement program;

(e) evaluate the experience of this program, especially in regard to the three-year limitation and the amount of assistance, and report thereon to the Works Committee no later than February 2000; and

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee on a harmonized tree removal policy for instances where it has been determined that the roots of a City-owned tree have caused the blockage.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 20, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for a harmonized Sewer Connection Blockage/Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy which incorporates the amendments requested by your Committee at its meeting of November 4, 1998, and incorporates where appropriate the comments received from the January 20, 1999 Community Councils.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The approved 1999 Waste Water Operating Budget includes $2.1 million for the Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy.

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) grant assistance will be provided one time per three-year period for each property; and

(e) assistance will be provided in the amount of 100 percent of the invoiced cost, to a limit of $500.00 per property, for a repair or partial repair of a drain, and to a limit of $1,500.00 per property for the complete repair of a drain 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 drain grant appeals for repairs or replacement which exceed the policy limits be made to the Works and Utilities Committee;

(5) applicants may apply for additional assistance beyond the drain repair and replacement policy amounts providing the gross household income is less than $30,000.00; the additional assistance will be determined as follows based on the verified gross income for the property:

below $18,000.00 - 100 percent of the balance

$18,000 - $23,000.00 - 50 percent of the balance

$23,000 - $30,000.00 - 25 percent of the balance; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of November 4, 1998, in considering my October 21, 1998 report entitled "Sewer Connection Blockage/Tree Root Removal Grants Policy", recommended the adoption of this report subject to:

(i) an appeal mechanism being provided for those cases that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the City and applicant; and

(ii) authority for the appeals being delegated to the Works and Utilities Committee rather than the Corporate Services Committee.

The Committee further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the November 25, 1998 Council on the following:

(i) the estimated number of service 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.

This information was provided to the November 25, 1998 Council in my report entitled "Sewer Connection Blockage/Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy".

Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 struck out and referred my report and the Works and Utilities recommendation to all Community Councils for further consideration, with a request that 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 Community Councils at their meetings of January 20, 1999, on considering this request from City Council commented as follows to the Works and Utilities Committee:

(1) North York Community Council commented:

(i) that the proposed harmonized Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program and the proposed harmonized Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy be adopted;

(ii) that the authority for the appeals process be delegated to the Community Councils rather than the Works and Utilities Committee;

(iii) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provide each Member of Council with a series of emergency night service and back-up telephone numbers:

(a) that the emergency night service lines referred to in Recommendation No. (iii) above be answered by a staff person and not by electronic means, such as voice mail; and

(b) that a 24-hour protocol be developed for quick responses to Councillors' enquiries; and

(iv) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to prepare a report on the feasibility of the pipe bursting technology developed through the University of Waterloo.

(2) Toronto Community Council commented:

(i) Recommendation No. (2)(e) of the report (October 21, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, contained in Clause No. 2 of The Works and Utilities Committee Report No. 10, be amended by deleting the words "$500.00" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "$1,000.00"; and

(ii) low-income (as previously defined by Council for property tax purposes) property owners be exempt from the limits on assistance and instead, be provided a grant for the full cost of repair, or partial renewal or complete renewal, as the case may be, of a drain, or drains between the City property line and the building where drain blockage is the result of roots from a City-owned tree, as verified by City staff.

(3) Scarborough Community Council commented

(i) that the Works and Utilities Committee be advised that the Scarborough Community Council concurs in the Works and Utilities Committee recommendations to City Council embodied in Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10, including the Motion by Councillor Walker, viz:

"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.'"

(4) York Community Council commented:

(i) that Recommendation No. (2)(d) be amended to read as follows:

"(2)(d) assistance be provided on a per property basis, once every 10 years;"

(ii) that Recommendation No. (2)(e) be amended to read as follows:

"(2)(e) assistance will be provided in the amount of 100 percent of the invoiced cost, to a limit of $750.00 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;".

(5) East York Community Council commented:

(i) that the Tree Root Removal/Grants Policy be consistent with the policy of the former City of York.

(6) Etobicoke Community Council endorsed the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee.

Comments and/or Discussion:

A summary of the comments from the Community Councils are as follows:

The comments received will be discussed under the following topics:

(i) Frequency of Drain Grant Assistance:

The majority of Community Councils have agreed with the recommended policy of allowing homeowners to apply for a drain grant once every three years. East York and York have recommended a drain grant frequency of five and ten years respectively.

The recommended policy provides for a frequency of once every three years. This frequency provides homeowners with the option of carrying out four repairs over a 9-year period, or doing a one-time full length repair. The financial impact of the two options is approximately the same given a repair grant of $500.00 and a full length replacement grant of $1,500.00.

In the event Committee chooses to increase the repair grant to $1,000.00 per claim, the frequency of grants applications should also be increased to at least once every five years. This will encourage homeowners to consider the full length replacement option as opposed to carrying out several drain repairs.

(ii) Drain Grant Amount:

The former City of Toronto had between 1,900 to 2,200 approved drain grants over the past three years. The remaining municipalities had a total of approximately 300 to 400 per year.

Based on a typical year for the former City of Toronto drain grant program, it is estimated that 80 percent of the grants were given for repair work and 20 percent for full length replacements or on a City-wide basis for an average year under the current policies the drain grant program will be applied to approximately 2,300 repairs and approximately 500 drain replacements.

The full length replacement is the preferred type of repair due to the significantly longer life expectancy (approximately 50 years) of maintenance free service for a fully replaced drain. Drains which are repaired may need subsequent cleaning or repairs as roots infiltrate the remaining older sections of the drain. The recommended repair grant amount of $500.00 and full length replacement of $1,500.00 will encourage homeowners to consider the replacement option. It was estimated in my previous October 21, 1998 report that the increased number of full length repairs and the decreased number of partial repairs will be cost neutral to the City.

Three of the Community Councils have suggested an increase in the repair grant from $500.00 to $750.00 or $1,000.00 per occurrence. If the Committee chooses to increase the private drain grant to $1,000.00, it will result in approximately a $200,000.00 increase in the program cost. It should also be noted that this increase may result in homeowners continuing to choose the repair option which may over time result in a lower life expectancy on each repaired drain. Maintaining the repair grant at $500.00 and the replacement grant at $1,500.00 will, over time, increase the percentage of full drain replacements and result in a more reliable private drain system.

It should also be noted that these amounts are full City compensation to the applicant including permit fees.

(iii) Appeal Process:

The former City of Toronto was the only municipality which had a formalized appeal process to review extraordinary drain grant claims from homeowners. The former City's appeal process was administered through the Court of Revision which met approximately every month. Over a three-year period, the Court of Revision along with four city staff members reviewed approximately 140 appeals and awarded additional grants totalling $38,000.00 or an average of $270.00 per appeal. Appeals for additional compensation included both repairs and full length replacements which exceeded the former City's $1,000.00 limit.

Under the new policy, the number of appeals should be less as the upper limit for full length replacement has been raised to $1,500.00 per homeowner.

There will no doubt continue to be appeals from homeowners for drain grant repairs and for some full length replacements which are unusually complicated. It is difficult to estimate the number of appeals from homeowners under the new recommended policy for drain grants contained herein. It is proposed therefore that staff will report to your Committee on extra ordinary claims from homeowners for expensive drain repairs or replacements which exceed the upset limit approved under this policy.

In the event that the number and frequency of claims increase substantially, an alternative appeal process will be recommended to your Committee.

(iv) Assistance to Low Income Property Owners:

The former City of Toronto provided additional assistance to low income households for drain grant claims which exceeded the policy amounts on drain repairs and drain replacements.

It is recommended that this additional grant assistance be included in the new City drain grant policy.

Applicants with bills totalling more than the upset limits set out in the drain grant policy for repairs and full length replacement may qualify for additional assistance based on their total gross household income. The applicant will be advised of the possibility of additional assistance when applying for the initial repair or replacement grant.

If the applicant's total gross household income is less than $30,000.00, the additional amount he/she qualifies for depends on the level of income and the range in which it falls. At the present time the recommended guidelines are as follows:

below $18,000.00 - 100 percent of the balance

$18,000.00 - $23,000.00 - 50 percent of the balance

$23,000.00 - $30,000.00 - 25 percent of the balance

The homeowner, and anyone contributing to the income of the property, must provide their income tax return for verification of income. The total gross income is used to determine any additional assistance, not net income. Gross rental income must also be included in calculation for determining eligibility for additional drain grant assistance.

(v) Emergency Plan Numbers for Drain Investigations:

The North York Community Council requested that emergency numbers be provided to homeowners and Councillors and a 24-hour protocol be established for a quick response to Councillors' enquiries on drain blockages.

In this regard, a 24-hour, seven-day per week emergency phone number has been set up for each of the former municipalities for homeowners to contact in the event of any type of drain blockage emergency.

The numbers are as follows:

East York . . . . . . . . . 396-2800

Etobicoke . . . . . . . . . 394-8615

Scarborough . . . . . . . 396-7372

Toronto . . . . . . . . . . . 392-7737

York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394-2630

North York . . .. (day) 395-6205

(after hours) 395-6333

These numbers are continuously staffed and the dispatch person in the event of an after hours emergency can contact the "on call" City crew. All non-emergency service calls will be investigated the next business day.

A new brochure entitled "Stop Basement Flooding" has recently been printed which contains helpful information for homeowners on what to do in the event of a basement flooding occurrence and includes the emergency numbers referred to above.

It should be noted that Etobicoke had a policy of reimbursing homeowners up to $100.00 for the use of a private plumbing contractor to carry out blocked drain investigations. Under the proposed new policy, the City will assume the responsibility of providing a "first response" service to homeowners. Consequently, the former homeowner compensation for private drain investigations will no longer apply.

(vi) Feasibility of Pipe Bursting Technology:

The North York Community Council asked for a report on the feasibility of pipe bursting as a method of repairing drains.

Pipe bursting is a "trenchless" method of replacing old/broken underground pipes and is described briefly as follows. Having decided on the pipe section to be replaced, two access pits are dug at either end of the pipe section to be replaced. A pipe bursting apparatus which splits the existing pipe is driven through the section of pipe being replaced. Usually a flexible PVC pipe is pulled through behind the pipe bursting apparatus to accomplish the pipe replacement.

This pipe replacement method is used to replace watermains, sewers, and drains with pipes of the same size as the existing pipe or one size larger. The major benefit of utilizing pipe bursting is the minimal disruption to the ground surface. For example, large sections of lawns, gardens, sidewalks, boulevards and road pavement do not have to be excavated with this method of replacement.

Pipe bursting as a means to replace watermains and sewers is definitely economically feasible in areas where there are no water services or drains connected to the systems, for example, a watermain or a sewer crossing a stream valley. However, in areas with large numbers of connections, the use of this technology may not be feasible since excavations will still be required to reconnect either the individual water services or drains. Another instance where pipe bursting may not be feasible is in an area where the resultant vibrations of pipe bursting may interfere negatively with immediately adjacent sensitive services such as gas pipelines.

Specifically for drain replacement, pipe bursting is economically feasible since the average cost is believed to be equal to or only slightly more than that using an open cut/trench method. In this instance, vibration is not considered a major factor since the force required to burst a drain pipe is much less than that required for a sewer or watermain.

The City encourages contractors to submit proposals using trenchless technology methods where they are deemed feasible. This method has not been widely used to date by local contractors possibly due to the marginal cost advantage of this method for drain replacements, the specialized equipment needed and the potential increased risk due to the effect of vibrations on adjacent utilities and homes.

Contact Name:

Mr. W. Green, Director

Quality Control and System Planning

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

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

(i) (December 11, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a copy of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy", which City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, struck out and referred 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.

(ii) (January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the East York Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Works and Utilities Committee that Recommendation No. (2) of the report dated October 21, 1998, from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, be amended to provide that the proposed harmonized Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy be consistent with the policy of the former City of York.

(iii) (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Scarborough Community Council on January 20, 1999, directed that the Works and Utilities Committee be advised that the Community Council concurs in the Works and Utilities Committee recommendations to City Council embodied in Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10, including the Motion by Councillor Walker, viz:

"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'."

(iv) (January 27, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Toronto Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended that:

(1) Recommendation No. (2)(e) of the report dated October 21, 1998, from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, contained in Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10 of The Works and Utilities Committee, be amended by deleting the words "$500.00" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "$1,000.00"; and

(2) low-income (as previously defined by Council for property tax purposes) property owners be exempt from the limits on assistance and instead, be provided a grant for the full cost of repair, or partial renewal or complete renewal, as the case may be, of a drain, or drains between the City property line and the building where drain blockage is the result of roots from a City-owned tree, as verified by City staff;

and also advising that it has requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, and thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee, on an appeal mechanism.

(v) (January 27, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the North York Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Works and Utilities Committee that:

(1) the proposed harmonized Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program and the proposed harmonized Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy be adopted;

(2) the authority for the appeals process be delegated to the Community Councils rather than the Works and Utilities Committee; and

(3) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provide each Member of Council with a series of emergency night service and back-up telephone numbers;

(i) that the emergency night service lines referred to in Recommendation No. (3) above be answered by a staff person and not by electronic means, such as voice mail; and

(ii) that a 24-hour protocol be developed for quick responses to Councillors' enquiries;

and also advising that the Toronto Community Council has rfequested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, and thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee, on an appeal mechanism.

(vi) (January 29, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the York Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Works and Utilities Committee the adoption of the report dated October 21, 1998, from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, subject to the following amendments:

(1) that Recommendation No. (2)(d) be amended to read as follows:

"(2)(d) assistance be provided on a per property basis, once every 10 years"; and

(2) that Recommendation No. (2)(e) be amended to read as follows:

"(2)(e) assistance will be provided in the amount of 100 percent of the invoiced cost, to a limit of $750.00 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."

(vii) (February 23, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Etobicoke Community Council on February 17, 1999:

(1) endorsed the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee embodied in Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy"; and

(2) received the report dated February 10, 1999, attached thereto, from the Director, Water and Wastewater Operations, Districts 1 and 2, providing staff comments respecting the status of the Repair Program and Grant Policy in the Etobicoke area.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following communication (February 10, 1999) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park; and submits such communication to Council at the request of Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am writing to you on behalf of Ms. Sherwood, 2 Wendigo Way, Toronto, Ontario.

For your reference I attach the following documents, and I would ask that you place the attached matter on the next Committee meeting agenda.

Your consideration of this report is greatly appreciated.

I refer to the correspondence from Wendy Sherwood regarding the above and advise that the drain grant program, as approved by City Council, deals specifically with damage done to private drains by the roots of City-owned trees. Therefore, the Legal Department dealing with the application for a grant to repair the septic system would not be in a position to approve the grant.

As far as I know, the issue of a damaged septic system from tree roots has never come up before and, in any case, because there are very few septic systems in the City, this would not be a big problem. I can see why the owner argues that the damage to the septic system should also be eligible for a grant, however, the approval of such a grant would require City Council approval.

If you want to pursue this matter, then it should be brought before the Works and Utilities Committee for its consideration and recommendation to City Council.

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (April 19, 1999) from Ms. Wendy Sherwood, Toronto, Ontario:

The purpose of the deputation is to request the Committee to endorse and recommend the inclusion of septic tanks into the Drain Grant Program and forward said motion to City Council for approval.

Rationale for Inclusion in Program:

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) defines "Drain" as:

"Drain (vb.) 1. to pass (liquid) through some permeable substance; 2a. to draw off (liquid) by degrees: cause to flow gradually out of: draw off completely (the water from a tank); 3a. to exhaust liquid contents by drawing them off: to make gradually dry or empty."

"Drain (n), an artificial channel by means of which liquid or other matter is drained or carried off".

A septic system consists of a tank that collects the waste and a perforated tile bed. The tiles provide the means for the drainage from the tank. I believe that the above definitions of drain accurately describe a septic system.

With reference to the original intent of the Drain Grant Program (since the number of septic systems in the City has been and continues to be in a very small minority), I believe its intention was to cover off all drains, be it a septic system or sanitary sewer system.

In our specific case, the roots of the two large willow trees on the City's property invaded the tile bed and damaged the system beyond repair.

Expenses Incurred by 2 Wendigo Way:

As a result of the tree roots invading the tile bed, we incurred considerable expense in connecting our sanitary drains to the City's sanitary sewer system. In addition to the $1,800.00 we paid for the sewer connection from the property line to the City's manhole, we had to remove the septic tank and retrofit the existing drains in the house. Since the invert of the City's sanitary sewer is above the elevation of our basement, we had to install a pumping system to access the City sanitary sewer system. Our costs for these additional actions resulted in an expenditure of over $5,900.00. I believe that it is in the best interest of all parties (homeowners, City of Toronto, and environmentalists for reduction of carbon dioxide) to connect all septic tanks users to the sanitary sewer system. Extending the Drain Grant Program to include septic systems will assist homeowners with this common objective. If any member of the Committee or Council would like a personal visit to verify the facts, please contact me.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of each of the attachments to the foregoing communication dated February 10, 1999, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of April 21, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1) deleting the second sentence from Item No. (4) of the draft Terms of Reference embodied in the report dated March 15, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, so that such item shall now read as follows:

"(4) Toronto will retain responsibility for emptying the containers."; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:

(a) submit a report directly to Council for its meeting to be held on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, on the results of the Community Council consultations on the Request for Proposals (RFP) for litter bins with advertising, in order that the RFP can be issued in June, 1999;

(b) submit a report to the Works Committee for its meeting to be held on June 16, 1999, on whether OMG Media Inc. has fully complied with its agreement with the former City of Etobicoke, in accordance with Item No. (16) of the Terms of Reference; and

(c) submit a report to the Works Committee providing an evaluation of this project after six months, and, thereafter, on an annual basis, outlining the status of this program.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the terms of reference for the Request for Proposals for the provision of litter bins with advertising, embodied in the report dated March 15, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to:

(a) deleting the last sentence in No. (9) and striking out No. (17) of the terms of reference, as previously directed by the Works and Utilities Committee;

(b) providing that at least two firms be recommended for the program;

(c) any bin or furniture being proven, and including a multi-compartment component so that recyclables can be separated; and

(d) the firms having at least one year of experience in the provision of such equipment.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to provide directly to Council, for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, the report of the former City of Toronto relating to discontinuing the three-compartment litter recycling containers, with any comment thereon.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to Council's request for a report to the Works and Utilities Committee on the terms of reference for a Request for Proposals for the provision of litter bins with advertising.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The provision of replacement litter bins with an advertising component, by the private sector, would reduce or eliminate the cost to maintain, replace and clean existing City-owned bins, and could potentially generate revenue from the sale of advertising space. Once responses to the RFP are received, we will be able to report on the financial implications of the various proposals.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City Council approved the following recommendations pertaining to litter bins:

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

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

(5) that 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;

(6) all pilot projects in existence in Community Council areas be permitted to continue until such time as the RFP process has been completed;

(7) no bins be installed in any area in a Ward until a favourable staff report is recommended for adoption by City Council through the appropriate Community Council, after consultation with local residents and businesses;

(8) Council adopt a policy, and all interested parties in the proposed RFP process be advised, that no proposal will be accepted if the proponent has not been in full compliance with any previous contracts or pilot projects with the City of Toronto or its predecessor municipalities;

(9) appropriate protocols regarding permitted advertising be developed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer, and incorporated into the RFP;

(10) local residents, businesses and associations be consulted regarding approval of advertisements on litter containers and the placement of such containers on sidewalks; and

(11) notwithstanding any other recommendations in this Clause, a Business Improvement Area (BIA) pilot project using OMG Media Inc. litter containers be permitted on the Danforth (by the Danforth by the Valley BIA and the Greektown on the Danforth BIA) for three years, commencing in 1999."

Council further recommended "that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works and Utilities Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 24, 1999, on the terms of reference for this RFP, such terms of reference to include a provision whereby the City of Toronto is divided into geographical areas so that no one company will have a monopoly position in the City".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The following are draft terms of reference which will form the basis of the RFP for the provision of litter bins with advertising.

(1) The City is interested in entering into agreements with proponents for the provision of litter bins with an advertising component at various locations within the public road allowances in the City of Toronto at no cost to the City.

(2) The City will provide a listing of the litter bin locations under consideration and develop geographic categories of locations. The City reserves the right to choose the locations at which bins with advertising will be placed.

(3) The successful proponent will be responsible for the supply, installation, cleaning, maintenance and repairs of the litter bins and all associated costs. Bins must be kept clean and free from posters and graffiti.

(4) Toronto will retain responsibility for emptying the containers. As an option, respondents will be required to submit a fee schedule for emptying the containers and recycling and disposing of collected material.

(5) Proponents are to specify the projected annual revenues in total and on a per bin basis grouped by category of locations, to be payable to the City with such amounts subject to audit by the City.

(6) The Request for Proposals (RFP) will be broken down into separate contracts, by Community Council area. Whereas proponents are encouraged to bid on all contracts, the City reserves the right to limit the number of bins to be provided by a proponent.

(7) Respondents are to provide detailed specifications of the bins that they will be supplying including type of material, dimensions, size of slots, etc. Samples or prototypes of the bins are preferred. The City will identify which bins will have single slots for litter and which bins must have three slots for litter and recyclable materials, e.g., litter, paper and containers. The bins must be fire, animal, dent and graffiti resistant.

(8) The area of the bins that will contain the advertising must be clearly identified. Respondents must also stipulate whether any advertising space on the bins will be made available to Toronto at no cost for public service announcements.

(9) All advertising shall be in accordance with the regulations and standards set by the Advertising Council of Canada, will not include advertising of tobacco products and will be free of vulgarity or indecent suggestions in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. All advertising must also conform with the advertising protocol currently being developed by the City under the Corporate Sponsorship Program.

(10) The term of the contract will be five years, with an additional five-year option.

(11) The actual placement and orientation of the bins in the specified locations must be approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safe movement of vehicles.

(12) The successful proponent will be required to provide an irrevocable letter of credit, from a chartered bank or bonding company, or a certified cheque, in an amount to be determined once the number of locations where the new litter bins will be placed is determined.

(13) The successful proponent will be required to enter into a legal agreement with the City based on terms and conditions acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. The agreement will contain conditions that provide flexibility in terms of adding bins or changing locations, and will allow the City to request that some or all of the litter bins be removed if the bins, advertising or servicing are deemed unsatisfactory by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(14) Proponents are to provide an implementation plan for the design, manufacture, installation and maintenance of the bins; a description of the company's projected costs and advertising revenues associated with the project; a marketing plan outlining the sale of the advertising; and a description of past experience in similar projects.

(15) Proposals will be evaluated based on revenue to the City of Toronto, quality and aesthetics of the bins, and operational considerations (e.g., ease of emptying).

(16) No proposal will be accepted if the proponent has not been in full compliance with any previous contracts or pilot projects with the City of Toronto or its predecessor municipalities.

(17) The City reserves the right to enter into negotiation with the preferred respondent(s). In the event that the proposal does not entirely address the requirements of the City, or if the City's requirements should change after the public consultation process, mutually agreeable terms and conditions may be negotiated and included as a modification to the proposal.

Conclusions:

The draft terms of reference, which are subject to change once further information is available (e.g., further information on the Corporate Sponsorship Program), will form the basis of an RFP for the provision of litter bins with advertising. Discussions are underway with the Finance Department as to whether issuing an RFP at this time for advertising on litter bins fits in with the development of the Corporate Sponsorship Program recently approved by Council.

Contact Name:

Tim Michael, Manager - Waste Diversion

Solid Waste Management Services, Metro Hall

Phone: (416) 392-8506

Fax: (416) 392-4754

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

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (April 16, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it Clause No. 12 of Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Other Items Considered by the Committee".

Council directed that the following Item (a), embodied in the aforementioned Clause, be struck out and referred back to the Works and Utilities Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on April 21, 1999, and report thereon to Council for its next regular meeting to be held on May 11, 12 and 13, 1999:

"(a) Provision of Litter Bins with Advertising.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having directed that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to amend the draft terms of reference embodied in the following report by:

(1) deleting the last sentence in No. (9) of the draft terms of reference; and

(2) striking out No. (17):

(March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing draft terms of reference for a Request for Proposals for the provision of litter bins with advertising, in response to the request of Council at its meeting on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999; advising that discussions are underway with the Finance Department as to whether issuing an RFP at this time for advertising on litter bins fits in with the development of the Corporate Sponsorship Program recently approved by Council; and recommending that this report be received for information."

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (April 15, 1999) from Mr. Paul C. Seaman, Director of Municipal Affairs, Creative Outdoor Advertising, requesting the opportunity to appear before the Works and Utilities Committee with information regarding the existing programs for litter bins with advertising currently being provided by Creative Outdoor Advertising.

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

- Mr. David Gray, Creative Outdoor Advertising, and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Ms. Gina Gignac, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416; and

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 6, 1999) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, Works and Emergency Services:

At its meeting of April 21, 1999, the Works and Utilities Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to provide directly to Council, for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, the report of the former City of Toronto relating to discontinuing the three-compartment litter recycling containers. Appended for your information is a copy of the former City of Toronto report.)

(The Committee recommends that:

1. The existing litter/recycling bin system be modified in accordance with Option C in the report (April 17, 1996) from the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment and the separate collection of recyclable materials from litter bins in the City be terminated.

2. The resources released by adopting Option C (approximately $680,000 per year) be directed equally to street cleaning and recycling, and that the $170,000 from the sale of equipment be held in reserve for future capital expenditures for recycling programmes.

3. The Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment report to the City Services Committee on the most cost effective use of these resources for recycling initiatives (including the possible purchase of equipment for a centralized composting facility), in order to assist the City in reaching its 50% diversion goal.

4. The Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment be requested to bring forward his report to the City Services Committee on other waste diversion issues as soon as possible.

5. The Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment report further to the City Services Committee on appropriate levels of service and resource requirements for all street cleaning activities, the integration of Parks and Recreation Department litter collection into the City Works operation, and the appropriate manner of expenditure of any net financial savings that may be available to the City from changes in street cleaning methods, and that the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment be requested to include plans to improve street cleaning on streets that do not have alternate side permit parking in the above report on street cleaning services and address in his report the removal of notices and flyers on City trees and poles.

6. The Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment, in conjunction with the Acting Executive Director of Management Services, report on the impact (if any) on overall worker requirements of the direction of rehabilitation workers to street cleaning.

The Committee submits the report (April 17, 1996) from the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment:

Origin: City Services Committee Meeting of June 28, 1995 (p:\1996\ug\san\cs960008.san) - bmk

Recommendations:

1. That the existing litter/recycling bin system be modified in accordance with Option B shown in this report and that resources released by such modification of this system be directed to street cleaning activities;

2. That the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment report further to City Services Committee on appropriate levels of service and resource requirements for all street cleaning activities, the integration of Parks and Recreation Department litter collection into the City Works operation, and the appropriate manner of expenditure of any net financial savings for waste diversion programmes that may be available to the City from changes in street cleaning methods and the modification of the litter recycling programme; and

3. That the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment report in conjunction with the Acting Executive Director of Management Services, on the impact (if any) on overall worker requirements of the direction of rehabilitation workers to street cleaning.

Background: City Services Committee, at its meeting of June 28, 1995, in considering my reports (May 15, 1995 and June 14, 1995) entitled "Review of Recycling Programmes" and "Collection of Additional Fibre Recyclable Materials" respectively requested that I report, inter alia, on more cost effective uses of the funds currently devoted to the three-compartment litter/recycling bins (Clause 42, in City Services Committee Report No. 10, amended and adopted by City Council on July 24 and 25, 1995).

City Services Committee also requested that the I report on a number of other issues related to waste diversion from landfill. This report focuses only on the issue of alternatives for litter bin collection. I will report separately to City Services Committee regarding the other issues.

Comments:

Existing Litter/Recycling Collection System

The existing litter/recycling collection system involves the annual collection of 7,750 tonnes of litter and 310 tonnes of recyclable materials from 513 three-compartment litter/recycling bins and 1,235 single compartment litter bins. This work is carried out by using seven side-loading three-compartment collection vehicles, plus one side-loading single-compartment vehicle. Each vehicle is operated by a single worker seven days per week, during the day and night. The three-compartment containers are emptied seven days per week, generally in the evening or at night. Litter from single compartment litter bins is collected using open trucks or three-compartment collection vehicles. Twenty-six staff are assigned to the litter/recycling collection operation in order to provide for sufficient staffing and to allow for sickness, vacation, statutory holiday and other absences. The existing collection system is relatively inefficient because recycling payloads are frequently quite low. High contamination levels in recycling and low volumes of recyclable materials result in filling up the litter compartments of the three-compartment vehicles, prior to the entire vehicle being full with litter and recyclable materials.

Litter bins are used both for litter directly deposited by the public and for litter swept from the sidewalks and streets by City street cleaning staff.

The cost of litter collection under the existing programme is approximately $149.00 per tonne and the cost of the recycling programme taking account of revenues from the sale of recyclable materials is approximately $1,962 per tonne of waste diverted from landfill. The cost of diversion per tonne of materials under this programme is by far the highest of all of the City's waste diversion programmes. Table 1 shows the cost of the litter collection/recycling programme together with other related information.

I receive numerous requests to locate three-compartment litter/recycling bins at various locations and over the past four years have proceeded with a programme of gradually converting single compartment bins to multi-compartment recycling bins. As described above, there are presently 513 three-compartment litter/recycling bins and 1,235 single compartment litter bins throughout the City.

The three-compartment litter/recycling bins provide a high profile for the City's involvement in recycling programmes, but diverts funds away from more cost-effective waste diversion procedures. There is no Provincial requirement for the City's litter bin recycling programme. The total cost of litter collection, as well as separate recycling collection from 513 three-compartment litter containers under the existing programme, is approximately $970,000 per year, while the cost of collection of litter from 1,235 single compartment litter bins is approximately $815,000 per year, for a total litter recycling collection cost of $1,785,000 per year.

Options for Reduced Costs for Litter Collection and Litter Recycling

In considering how the litter/recycling collection system can be modified to reduce costs, I have developed the following options for modification of the collection programme:

Option A - Retain Existing System But Do Not Expand and Locate Three-Compartment Litter/Recycling Bins at Locations of Highest Recycling Generation

Under this option the litter/recycling collection system as described above would be retained, but no additional three-compartment litter/recycling bins would be put in service and three-compartment recycling bins would be placed only at the 513 locations of the highest potential generation of recyclable material (i.e., generally in areas of high pedestrian activity and adjacent to food vending premises).

Option B - Reduced Collection System for Litter Recycling

Under this option the number of three-compartment litter/recycling bins would be reduced from 513 units to approximately 250 units and they would be placed at the 250 locations of highest potential generation of recyclable material (the areas of highest pedestrian activity adjacent to food vending premises in the City).

Option C - Elimination of the Litter Recycling Programme

Under this option recycling collection from litter bins would be abandoned.

Each of the above options is reviewed in more detail below.

Option A - Retain Existing System But Do Not Expand and Locate Three-Compartment Litter/Recycling Bins at Locations of Highest Vending Generation

Under this arrangement, the existing 513 three-compartment litter/recycling containers will be relocated to locations where the maximum recyclable materials are generated and minimum contamination of recycling occurs. No additional three-compartment litter bins will be installed. I estimate that recycling collection will increase from approximately 310 tonnes per year to approximately 400 tonnes per year under this system. The annual cost of litter and recycling collection under this system will be approximately $1,720,000 and estimated annual revenue from the sale of recyclable materials will be $29,200.

Option B - Reduced Collection System for Litter Recycling

Under this arrangement the existing 513 three-compartment litter/recycling bins will be reduced to 250 litter/recycling bins, with the balance of bins converted to litter only receptacles, at a cost of approximately $5,000. The 250 litter/recycling bins will be located in areas of only the highest recycling generation and lowest contamination of recyclable materials. I estimate that approximately 80% of the weight of recyclable materials collected from the 513 three-compartment litter/recycling bins under the existing system will be collected from the 250 litter/recycling bins under this arrangement, resulting in a more cost effective system for recycling from litter recycling bins with minimal loss of collected recyclable materials. While it would be possible to purchase 263 replacement single compartment litter containers at a cost of approximately $175,000, a more economical arrangement would involve the conversion of the balance of three-compartment litter recycling bins to litter only receptacles. The cost of conversion of these receptacles would be $5,000 based on using Departmental staff for this work.

The annual cost of litter and recycling collection under this system will be approximately $1,450,000 and estimated annual revenue from the sale of recyclable materials will be $18,250.

Option C - Elimination of Litter Recycling Programme

If the existing litter bin recycling programme is abandoned, it will be possible to collect litter from conventional litter containers for approximately $1,105,000 per year. While it would be possible to purchase 513 replacement single compartment litter receptacles at a cost of approximately $350,000 to replace the existing three-compartment litter/recycling receptacles, a more economical arrangement would involve the conversion of the existing three-compartment recycling receptacles to litter only receptacles. The cost of conversion of these receptacles would be $10,000, based on using Departmental staff for this work.

The existing litter recycling collection system and Options A, B and C are summarized in Table 2.

Improvements to Efficiency of Litter/Recycling Collection System and Integration with Parks and Recreation Department Litter Collection.

I am reviewing the current operational methods used for litter/recycling collection in conjunction with my ongoing overall review of operational methods. This review, when complete, may result in revised collection methods, resulting in reduced costs. Any operational changes must take into account the transfer of the existing Parks and Recreation Department litter collection to City Works under the City's Corporate Review. Full implementation of operational changes should be carried out in conjunction with the design of the transfer of the Parks and Recreation Department litter collection responsibility.

Immediate Cash Savings to the City Resulting from Changes to Litter Collection System, and Reassignment of Staff Carrying Out Litter/Recycling Collection to Street Cleaning Duties

While savings from the implementation of Option A, B or C could ultimately be directed to new recycling programmes, most of these savings will not be immediately available to the City as cash, but as available labour and equipment time availability, which should be directed to other street cleaning activities, as shown in Table 3. The elimination of three side-loading litter/recycling vehicles will result in a one time revenue of $170,000 from the sale of the collection vehicles.

* Plus $170,000 from sale of equipment in first year.

Options A, B and C would, to varying degrees, allow the reassignment of street cleaning staff who currently carry out litter collection to street cleaning duties. This will assist me in addressing the restoration of the street cleaning level of service in the City to that which existed prior to 1991. The street cleaning level of service has declined since that time, partially as a result of the reassignment of street cleaning staff to litter/recycling bin collection. Table 3 details the labour cost for litter/recycling collection which could be transferred back to street cleaning for each option.

Level of Service for Street Cleaning

As indicated above, over a period of time, as the three-compartment litter/recycling bin programme has expanded, street cleaning resources have been transferred from sidewalk and road cleaning to litter and recycling bin collection. The placement of injured workers into street cleaning and the elimination of watching and similar positions (where injured workers were previously employed) have resulted in a significant decline in available fully able-bodied street cleaning staff. This may have contributed to a greater need for personnel to maintain the street cleaning level of service which previously existed across the City. Placement of injured workers in street cleaning has occurred because this activity is suitable for such workers and maximizes their productivity capability for the City. The impacts of these organization changes are illustrated in Table 4. I will report further to City Services Committee in conjunction with the Acting Executive Director of Management Services regarding the estimated productivity changes (if any) that have resulted from the assignment of rehabilitation workers to street cleaning.

Fully able-bodied staff assigned to street cleaning declined between December 21, 1991 and December 31, 1995 by 104 persons or 32%. In the 1996 Operating Budget, funds have been included which will permit me to fill all existing vacant positions in the litter collection/street cleaning area. However, this will still leave me with 93 fewer fully able-bodied street cleaning staff at the end of 1996 compared with 1991 or a reduction of 29%. Nevertheless, the planned additional fully able-bodied staff allows restoration of the seven days per week, afternoon litter cleaning shift in the downtown core of the City, which was last provided to its full extent in 1991. For the most part, the areas of street cleaning that have seen the largest decline in service since 1991 are the labour intensive activities such as cleaning from between and under parked vehicles (once every three to four weeks now, versus once every two weeks in 1991), cleaning of lanes (once every four to six weeks or on complaint now, versus once every two weeks in 1991) and quickly attending to random locations of high litter.

Future Improvements to Street Cleaning Methods

I am currently carrying out an operational review of all street cleaning methods and will report further to City Services Committee on resource requirements and levels of service for street cleaning after the operational review of this activity has been completed. This operational review should enable the Department to achieve an improved street cleaning level of service at reduced cost. However, until this review is complete, any resources released from changes in three-compartment litter/recycling bin collection should be directed to street cleaning. This operational review will include the assessment of how the existing Parks and Recreation litter collection operations can be integrated with City Works Operations and Sanitation to produce the most efficient and effective combined litter/recycling collection system. After the street cleaning operational review is complete, it will be possible for City Council to decide either to divert savings from elimination of litter recycling collection, improved litter collection methods and improved street cleaning methods to increased waste diversion activities or reduced taxes. Due to the high profile of the litter/recycling collection programme on City streets, I feel that it should be retained in reduced scope and Option B should be implemented. Approximately 80% of recyclable materials collected under the existing system will be collected under this option for an operational saving of $335,000 per year.

The Committee also submits the report (April 23, 1996) from Councillor Maxwell:

Recommendation:

That the report of the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment dated April 17, 1996 be adopted with the following amendments:

(a) That option C be adopted (elimination of litter/recycling containers).

(b) That the resources released by adopting option C (approximately $680,000 per year) be directed equally to street cleaning and recycling, and that the $170,000 from the sale of equipment be held in reserve for future capital expenditures for recycling programs.

(c) That the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment report on the most cost effective use of these resources for recycling initiatives, (including the possible purchase of equipment for a centralized composting facility), in order to assist the City in reaching its 50% diversion goal.

(d) That the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment be requested to bring forward his report on other waste diversion issues as soon as possible.

(e) That the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment be requested to include plans to improve street cleaning on streets that do not have alternate side permit parking in his upcoming report on street cleaning services.

Comments: I am pleased to have this report before the Committee. It is well researched, and contains information that can help us provide better litter collection and recycling programs for the citizens of Toronto.

However, we should not accept the premise that paying $1280 per tonne (see page 5 of the Acting Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment's report) to recycle materials collected in the litter/recycling containers is a useful expenditure of taxpayers' money. We should have the courage to admit this program has not been successful, scrap it, and divert the resources to more cost-effective areas.

According to the most recent edition of Waste Talk, we have only achieved a diversion rate of just under 21% since introducing the Blue Box. We will have to step up our efforts dramatically if we are going to reach 50% by the year 2000. Recent provincial cuts to Blue Box funding underscore the need for more effective 3 R's programs.

The Department has indicated in previous reports that the only way we can reasonably expect to achieve 50% diversion is through a comprehensive wet waste (composting) program. The revenue generated by the sale of equipment in Option C ($170,000) could be set aside to assist in this. We should also continue to actively promote backyard composting.

Although developing a comprehensive wet waste diversion program will be expensive, it will become cost-effective when landfill fees begin to rise to reflect the true cost of that activity.

I also support the suggestion that some resources should be diverted back to street cleaning. We have all received numerous complaints about the decline in the City's cleanliness. This gives us an opportunity to address those complaints. I am particularly interested in ensuring that streets that are not under the alternate side permit parking system receive more attention in the pending review of street cleaning services.

I hope the Committee will adopt my recommendations.

City Council action taken at its Regular Meeting held on May 21, 1996

Councillor Maxwell moved that the Clause be amended by adding:

"That Recommendation 2 of the City Services Committee be amended by inserting the word 'Citywide' after the words 'street cleaning'".

which Council adopted.

Council adopted the Clause, as amended.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 10, 1999) from Ms. Gina Gignac, National Representative, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, C.U.P.E. Local 416, submitting comments on the provision of litter bins with advertising.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential joint report (April 9, 1999) from the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting a legal claim against the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which was forwarded to Members of Council under "Confidential" cover, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that, if the response to this program is greater than the target of 4,000 disconnections for 1999, a waiting list be established.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To describe the feasibility, costs and benefits of making downspout disconnection mandatory for all buildings in the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the voluntary downspout disconnection program be continued in its current form, and that the need for a mandatory program and an appropriate funding mechanism be established through the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan process.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Budget Committee, at its meeting held on December 8, 1998, in considering a report of September 30, 1998, recommending that $1,640,000.00 be allocated in the 1999 Capital Budget to continue the Voluntary Downspout Disconnection Program, requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Works and Utilities Committee on the feasibility of passing a mandatory downspout disconnection by-law. It was suggested that a mandatory disconnection by-law would result in almost all downspouts being disconnected at no cost to the City as homeowners would be forced to comply at their own expense. North York was presented as an example of where this had been done in the past.

Comments and Discussion:

(1) Connection of Downspouts to Sanitary Sewers:

The Sewer Use By-laws of all the former municipalities prohibit the direct connection of downspouts to sanitary sewers. Sanitary sewers have no capacity for significant inflows of rainwater. When their capacity is exceeded, flow can backup into basements and cause significant property damage. Where direct connections of downspouts to sanitary sewers are discovered, homeowners are required to disconnect them at their own expense. In an attempt to alleviate basement flooding problems and surcharging of the sanitary sewer system, North York made a concerted effort to locate these illegal connections and have the homeowners correct the situation. It should be noted that the subject of this report does not refer to the correction of illegal connections to the sanitary sewer system.

(2) Connection of Downspouts to Combined Sewers:

The older parts of the City were originally serviced by combined sewers. Combined sewers are much larger than sanitary sewers and were designed to carry sanitary sewage in addition to stormwater inflow from downspouts and catch basins without causing basement flooding or property damage. (They cause environmental impacts in the form of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), but more on that later.) However, by the 1950's and 60's, it was apparent that old combined sewers were not providing acceptable service due to increases in impervious areas which increased peak flow rates and basement flooding, which in turn resulted in increased impacts as homeowners added living space and other improvements to basement areas. Since the mid 1960's, many of the old existing combined sewers have been relieved by constructing new storm sewers in parallel. The new storm sewers picked up all of the road catch basins, but the combined sewers still had to carry all of the flow from existing building drains. In these areas, unless the downspout had been disconnected or a new building was constructed with a direct stormwater connection to the new storm sewer as noted below, the existing building drain would carry the roof runoff and foundation drainage as well as sanitary sewage to the combined sewer.

Since 1965, in the former City of Toronto, by-laws were revised to prohibit direct downspout connections to combined sewers except where there was no storm sewer available. This only applied to new construction and major renovations. There was no provision to make the by-law revisions apply retroactively to existing buildings, as it was felt that as the City rebuilt itself over the next century, all downspouts would eventually be disconnected from the combined sewer which would evolve into a sanitary sewer.

It is estimated that at least 150,000 buildings in the City are serviced by combined sewers and that 77 percent of them have one or more roof drains directly connected to the combined sewer. These buildings are located throughout most of the former Toronto, and portions of York, East York and Ward 13 in Scarborough. There are no combined sewers in Etobicoke or North York.

(3) Connection of Downspouts to Storm Sewers:

It has, until recently, been considered perfectly acceptable to connect downspouts directly to storm sewers. There are approximately 189,900 properties with downspouts directly connected to the storm sewer system throughout the City. Storm sewers are designed to carry storm runoff, including roof runoff, directly to watercourses without treatment. However, research (starting in the late 1960's) has shown that typical urban storm drainage practices are a major cause of stream degradation due to contaminants in urban runoff (from sources such as: air pollution, animal wastes, pesticides and fertilizers, emissions from vehicles, etc.) as well as excessive erosion from flash flooding. This has led to efforts to increase the amount of on-site infiltration of stormwater into the groundwater to the greatest extent practicable. New policies and regulations being developed under the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan will propose the elimination of as-of-right direct connection of downspouts to storm sewers for new development, and only allow them where it can be demonstrated that there is no practical alternative.

(4) Current Voluntary Downspout Disconnection Program:

The current program consists of an individually addressed mailing to all property owners in the targeted area describing the program and providing a response card. City staff assess each property where the owner indicates an interest, to determine which downspouts are feasible to disconnect under the City program. A sketch is prepared of the work to be carried out and the owner signs a consent form. A City contractor performs the disconnection work as shown on the sketch, at no cost to the property owner. Do-It-Yourself disconnection kits are available upon request.

A more complete description of the current program and its rationale was provided in the September 30, 1998 report to your Committee adopted at its meeting of November 4, 1998, entitled "Delivery of 1998/99 Downspout Disconnection Program".

This free downspout disconnection service is available to all Toronto property owners, however, the program target areas for mailings will be where properties are serviced by combined sewers in former Toronto, East York, York and Scarborough.

(5) Benefits of a Mandatory Downspout Disconnection By-law:

The primary objective of the Downspout Disconnection Program is to divert roof runoff from the combined sewer system which reduces the frequency of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and also provides relief to areas subject to basement flooding.

Reducing the volume of flow in both combined and storm sewer systems through on-site infiltration of roof runoff has the following additional environmental benefits:

- less burden on sewer system and treatment facilities;

- increased effectiveness of storage and treatment facilities for CSO and stormwater;

- delay and reduction in peak flow of storm runoff;

- reduced volumes of CSOs;

- a reduced risk of basement flooding;

- recharging the groundwater table; and

- reduced peak flows and flash flooding in creeks and streams.

In the former City of Toronto, the voluntary downspout disconnection program, combined with redevelopment, has resulted in the disconnection of one or more downspouts in about 20 percent of the properties (approximately 8 percent through the City's voluntary Downspout Disconnection Program 1993-1998, and the remaining through post 1965 reconstruction and other voluntary actions by property owners). The cost to the City to obtain a voluntary disconnection averages $395.00 per property. This cost includes inspection staff, administration, marketing and contract costs. There is no direct cost to the homeowner.

The 1999 Downspout Disconnection Program has been approved to be continued on the same basis with a target of 4,000 disconnections and total cost of approximately $1,600,000.00. The City's costs will be recovered through the sewer service charge, i.e., a surcharge on the water rate.

The primary advantage of a mandatory downspout disconnection program is that a much greater number of properties would be disconnected from the sewer system than is likely under a voluntary program. An independent review of the former City of Toronto program concluded that voluntary participation in the Downspout Disconnection Program would not likely exceed 16 percent even with a number of enhancements to the program.

It has also been suggested that a mandatory program would cost the City nothing because each property owner would be responsible for their own costs to comply with the new by-law. However, considering the large numbers of properties affected, this may be perceived as simply another tax. Costs to property owners would range from zero, for those already disconnected or for those where disconnection is "not feasible", to over $1,000.00 for those who have to make extensive renovations to eavestroughs or rearrange their landscaping, existing decks and patios.

(6) Some Problems with Mandatory Downspout Disconnection:

Disconnecting downspouts is not always straightforward and the following situations would have to be avoided:

- discharging storm runoff onto a neighbour's property;

- discharging storm runoff directly onto a sidewalk;

- discharging storm runoff directly onto steep slopes which would cause erosion;

- allowing water to pool or collect against a building foundation wall;

- increasing groundwater tables in the vicinity of steep slopes which could cause slope failures;

- infiltrating stormwater where groundwater is already very shallow (unless it is intended to create a wetland or pond); and

- infiltrating rainwater through contaminated soil or fill which could result in transmission of the contaminants to surrounding properties.

Finding solutions to the above situations could make it very difficult and expensive for some building owners to disconnect from the combined sewer system. A mandatory by-law would have to make provision for exemptions. The criteria for exemptions would have to be unambiguous and also include a method for determining a reasonable maximum cost per property.

The by-law would also have to be enforced equitably. This would involve an inspection of most of the buildings in the combined sewer area over some reasonable period of time.

(7) Costs of Implementation:

If the City assumed responsibility for the costs of the program, then the expenses would be spread among all those paying for water through recoveries on the water rate. Also, the City is able to obtain competitive prices by contracting for approximately 1,000 properties at a time. The average price per property has been $200.00 in the former City of Toronto. The average price would likely be reduced when neighbourhoods with larger lot sizes (and therefore simpler disconnections) are included.

There would be inspection costs to enforce the by-law and to assess feasibility at various properties. An analysis of the current program has shown that it costs approximately $50.00 to inspect a property and assess the feasibility of disconnecting its downspouts. Considering that there are more than 300,000 properties in the City with downspouts to disconnect, the inspection and enforcement costs would still be considerable.

The Wet Weather Flow Master Plan will be reviewing alternative funding mechanisms for stormwater management and there may be more directly appropriate means to recover costs for stormwater services.

(8) Legal Authority:

A legal opinion obtained by the former Borough of East York and reviewed and confirmed by City staff, states that the City has the authority to require the disconnection of existing downspouts as part of its duty to regulate and maintain the sewage system in a way that does not cause damage to the users of that system. From a legal perspective, the fact that there may have been a previous approval or even an obligation to connect downspouts to the sewer system in no way impedes Council's ability to now prohibit connection and require disconnection. However, if Council enacted such a by-law, and if there was a flood which resulted in a claim by a property owner against the City, it could be held liable in negligence if it had failed to effectively enforce the by-law. Therefore, the Council should also make a policy decision with respect to how the by-law would be enforced including provisions for staffing and phase-in.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that the voluntary downspout disconnection program be continued in its current form, and that the need for a mandatory program and an appropriate funding mechanism be addressed through the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan process.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Warren, P.Eng.

Director, Environmental Services

Technical Services Division

Tel: (416) 397-4625; Fax: (416) 392-6279

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (April 21, 1999) from Ms. Karen

Buck, Toronto, Ontario, providing recommendations with respect to the Downspout Disconnection Program.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This department currently maintains 157 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, which allow for the recovery of approximately $8 million per year in additional treatment costs. These charges reflect a user pay philosophy and directly offset the cost of operation of our treatment plants.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that, subject to adoption of the report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on March 16, 1999, entitled "Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements (all wards)", the City enter into Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements with Janes Family Foods Ltd., 401 Canarctic Drive; Honeyman's Beef Purveyors Ltd., 130 The West Mall; and Wagener's Meat and Delicatessen Limited, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

Annual Excess

Yearly Plant Waste By-law

Effective Surcharge Discharge Strength Limit

Date $ m³ mg/L mg/L

Janes Family Foods Oct. 1, 1998 $31,971.03 26,577 2,128 350

Ltd. S.S. S.S.

Honeyman's Beef July 1, 1998 $957.23 3,171 534 300

Purveyors Ltd. B.O.D. B.O.D.

Wagener's Meat Jan. 1, 1998 $1,280.64 2,208 1,026 300

and Delicatessen B.O.D. B.O.D.

Limited

The alternative to Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements would be to require the industry to comply with the Sewer Use By-law limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS), by the addition of effluent pretreatment equipment. This would not be possible for many industries due to financial and/or space limitations. Those industries that could afford to install pretreatment systems may have problems with odours or upsets in treating wastes in smaller plant treatment systems. The Ministry of the Environment acknowledges the use of surcharge agreements in their Model Sewer Use By-law (1988).

Conclusions:

The overstrength effluents from the above industries are organic in nature, biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our treatment plants.

In accordance with section 5 of our Sewer Use By-law, it is recommended that Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements should be entered into with the above industries to provide a mechanism by which the overstrength effluent which exceeds the by-law limit for SS or BOD can be discharged on a fee basis.

Contact Name:

Mr. Vic Lim, P.Eng.

Manager, Industrial Waste and Storm Water Quality

Quality Control and System Planning

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

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

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To allow Nuburn Capital Corporation to enter into a Sanitary Discharge Agreement with the City of Toronto permitting it 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 currently has 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 Nuburn Capital Corporation, for the discharge of treated groundwater from its private water system at 633 Eastern Avenue 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 are normally obtained from a surcharge on the water supplied by the public municipal system.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Bruce A. Brown Associates Limited is assisting Nuburn Capital Corporation in the remediation of subsurface hydrocarbon contamination at the A. R. Clark site located at 633 Eastern Avenue.

Groundwater will be collected using the pump and treat remediation system, using granular activated carbon before discharging to the sanitary sewer system on Eastern Avenue.

The remediation program is expected to last for a minimum of two years, and the anticipated maximum discharge into the sanitary sewer will be 50 cubic metres per day. Water quality monitoring will be monitored by Bruce A. Brown Associates Limited initially on a weekly basis to ensure that concentrations of dissolved organic constituents do not exceed 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. In addition, the effluent will also be tested to ensure compliance with Toronto's Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89. Once system performance has been assessed, monitoring of water quality will be done on a monthly basis.

Conclusions:

In accordance with our policy with regard to By-law No. 96-89, Nuburn Capital Corporation has been notified of the surcharge rate of 38.59 cents per cubic metre to be levied in 1999, and has signified agreement to the surcharge.

Contact Name:

Mr. Vic Lim, P.Eng.

Manager, Industrial Waste and Storm Water Quality

Quality Control and System Planning

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

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

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the Request for Proposals for the selection of a process controller hardware technology, and provide the rationale for awarding the contract for the supply and delivery of process controller equipment to Guiltech Automation.

Funding Sources:

On March 2, 3, and 4, 1999, City of Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Strategic, Priorities and Planning Committee, approving the 1999-2003 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Program which contained funding for the Works Best Practices Program, including funds for the purchase of process controller equipment to be installed in Water and Wastewater treatment facilities. Accordingly, funds are available in the Water and Wastewater Services Division, Water Pollution Control Capital Account No. C-WP001 and Water Supply Capital Account No. C-WS026.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Contract No. MWRFP198, for the supply and delivery of process controller equipment for use in Water and Wastewater facilities, be awarded to Guiltech Automation Inc, at a total cost of $5,185,962.74 including the Goods and Services Tax;

(2) subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (1), a contingency amount of $250,000.00 be provided for any additional products and services if necessary, as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

On July 2 and 3, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 3 of Report No. 13 of The Financial Priorities Committee authorizing us to proceed with the implementation of the Works Best Practices Program in the Works Department.

Accordingly, a Process Control System (PCS) User Group was established comprising representatives from the Water and Wastewater Services Division and Technical Services Division, with support from our industry expert consultants, EMA Canada Inc. This PCS User Group, following evaluation of functional requirements across Water and Wastewater operating facilities, recommended that standard controller and programming software technologies be adopted for use in all Water Pollution Control and Water Supply process control systems.

Comments and/or Justification:

On June 9, 1998, the Works and Emergency Services Department received five proposals in response to its Request for Proposals MWRFP1998. Detailed technical proposals including separate sealed cost proposals were submitted by Westburne Ruddy Electric, Guiltech Automation, Motorola Canada Limited, Foxboro Canada Inc., and Elsag Bailey (Canada) Inc.

All of the submissions were reviewed according to a pre-determined process of evaluating the proposals against specified technical and functional criteria. Following detailed review of the technical aspects of the submissions, without opening the price envelopes, the following three firms qualified for further consideration: Westburne Ruddy Electric, Guiltech Automation, and Motorola Canada Limited. The remaining two firms of Foxboro and Elsag Bailey were advised that they did not meet the specified technical and functional criteria and their cost proposals were returned unopened.

Formal presentations were provided and bench testing was performed on the products of the three short-listed proponents. After bench testing, the PCS User Group completed the technical and functional evaluation and requested all proponents to provide written clarification to proposal items in order to clarify and finalize the specific scope of work required and submit any related cost factors for same in a separate sealed envelope.

On completion of all of the above and after opening of the proponents' cost proposals, the PCS User Group concluded that the proposal submitted by Guiltech Automation best satisfied the overall process controller hardware technology requirements established by the PCS User Group at the lowest evaluated cost. Guiltech Automation submitted the lowest price proposal in the amount of $5,185,962.74.

Subsequent to finalizing controller selection, the City of Toronto Year 2000 Project Office determined that the proposed Guiltech Automation controllers and programming software satisfied the requirements of the Year 2000 Office.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that Contract No. MWRFP198 should be awarded to Guiltech Automation Inc. for the supply and delivery of process controller equipment to the Works Best Practices Program in the Water and Wastewater Services Division. This equipment is intended for use in the design and construction of automation works at Water and Wastewater facilities so as to maximize their operating effectiveness and efficiency as endorsed under the Works Best Practices Program.

Contact Name:

Mr. J. Coe

Program Manager, Works Best Practices

Water and Wastewater Services Division

Telephone No. (416) 382- 3141

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 10, 1999) from Ms. Gina Gignac, National Representative, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, C.U.P.E. Local 416, respecting the Works Best Practices Program, pointing out that the value for money audit on the consultant services for this program has yet to be completed by the City Auditor.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999; and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services was requested to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration therewith, on why a Proposal Call was not issued for this project.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to enter into a software licensing and maintenance agreement with Alacrity Inc. of Toronto for the supply of software and related implementation services for use as a Performance and Operations Management System in the Water and Wastewater Services Division under the Works Best Practices Program.

Funding Sources:

On March 2, 3, and 4, 1999, City of Toronto Council, by adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, approved the 1999-2003 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Program, which contained funding for the Works Best Practices Program, including funding for the acquisition and implementation of a Performance and Operations Management System for use by operations, maintenance and management staff across the Water and Wastewater Services Division. Accordingly, funds are available in the Water and Wastewater Services Division, Water Pollution Control Capital Account No. C-WP001 and Water Supply Capital Account No. C-WS026.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted to enter into a software licensing and maintenance agreement with the firm of Alacrity Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, for the purchase and implementation of the Alacrity Results Management System, to be implemented as the Performance and Operations Management System under the Works Best Practices Program, at a cost not to exceed $975,153.00 after the Municipal Goods and Services Tax Rebate; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

On July 2 and 3, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 3 of Report No. 13 of The Financial Priorities Committee authorizing implementation of the Works Best Practices Program in the Works Department.

Accordingly, the Works Best Practices Performance and Operations Management Team initiated design and development activities for purposes of creating and implementing a Performance and Operations Management System in the Water and Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Services units, as identified in the Works Best Practices Program applications architecture.

Comments and/or Discussion and /or Justification:

The Performance and Operations Management System and its associated practices (generally referred to as "POMS") is a key component of the Works Best Practices Program (WBPP), which brings together new enabling technologies, work practices redesigned to take advantage of those new technologies, and a transformed organizational model which focuses on team processes aligned with overall operational and business goals. With the information-rich and highly functional POMS "toolkit", work teams and management will be provided with the ability to establish operational efficiency and improvement targets and measure performance against those targets. POMS is specifically configured to import operational and resource utilization information from a wide range of sources, and to analyse and display that information in both tabular and graphical forms in support of the three major performance dimensions: quality; efficiency; and effectiveness. The importance of this in supporting "continuous improvement" is a key ingredient in the long-term success of the WBPP.

The preliminary WBPP "applications architecture" included provisions to develop a custom (i.e., program it from scratch) Performance and Operations Management System for use across Water and Wastewater Services as well as in the Solid Waste Management area (in 1998, Solid Waste Management embarked on a varied approach to implementing specific components of the WBPP, with the intention of assessing the feasibility of implementing POMS at a later date). While buying a packaged system was known to be preferable to custom-development for long-term viability, it was felt at the time that the unique nature of our requirement precluded a "packaged" solution. However, in 1997, a "market scan" to locate and compare technical capabilities of business modelling systems uncovered the Alacrity Results Management (A.R.M.) System developed and marketed by Alacrity Inc. here in Toronto. This system was discovered to provide a solid architectural foundation on which to develop POMS, was technically and functionally superior to other modelling/business component-based products in terms of our specific requirements, and, as the only viable alternative to custom-building a system, represented a clear opportunity to the City. Representatives of the corporate information technology group were involved in this process.

A joint pilot development and implementation project was commissioned (via Purchase Order with the support of Corporate Purchasing) to prove the concept and applicability of the A.R.M. product to the POMS requirement. The system was configured and implemented on a field trial basis during 1998, and, as a result, the WBPP Program Management Office, in conjunction with the Technology Architecture Office, and in consultation with corporate information technology, determined that the system had clearly proven its capabilities and was the clear choice as the software technology platform for POMS implementation. Negotiations with Alacrity Inc. were carried out, resulting in the contract award recommendation contained herein.

Terms of Licensing Agreement:

It is intended that POMS will be used in a "front-line" capacity by plant technicians and maintenance staff to support day-to-day operations, by team coordinators and plant managers to support the performance of major plant functions, and by senior and executive managers to support overall business management. The implications on licensing of such ubiquitous use of a major, specialized software product can often be significant. For example, based on the published license fees for the basic Alacrity Results Management System, a 300-user license would cost US$475,000.00.

Alacrity Inc., however, believes as we do that there is great potential for widespread use of their product for specific operations performance management applications. Knowing that the success of our implementation would be very beneficial to the market outlook for A.R.M., Alacrity has agreed to a "site license" arrangement (more accurately, an "enterprise" license - this term is not used to avoid possible confusion with City-wide use) that would provide for unlimited use of the system across the entire Water and Wastewater Services Division as well as the Solid Waste Management Division. This agreement includes unlimited use in the business areas of the former municipalities (i.e., District operations). The negotiated cost, to be paid over a two-year roll-out period, is CDN$537,500.00. In addition to the designed POMS functionality, Alacrity has agreed to include in the license coverage full future use (not presently in the WBPP scope) of the budgeting features of the systems on a site-wide basis. Annual maintenance charges for the full site license are to be phased in through the year 2001 to the maximum amount of CDN$134,375.00.

The table below shows the payment plan for roll-out of Alacrity Results Management software licensing and maintenance components through to the end of Works Best Practices Program implementation in the year 2002. Maintenance costs beyond that time will be included in the appropriate operating budgets.

License Fees Maintenance Total

1997 $50,000.00 - $50,000

1998 $87,500.00 $12,000 $99,500

1999 $300,000.00 $31,750 $331,750

2000 $100,000.00 $96,750 $196,750

2001 - $134,375 $134,375

2002 _____-_____ $134,375 $134,375

Subtotal $537,500.00 $409,250.00 $946,750.00

GST after Rebate $16,125.00 12,277.50 $28,402.50

Total $553,625.00 $421,527.50 $975,152.50

Alacrity has agreed to incorporate in the licensing agreement software code protection through an escrow arrangement at no charge to the City.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that a software licensing and maintenance agreement be entered into with the firm of Alacrity Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, for the provision of Performance and Operations Management System software products and related implementation and support services to be implemented under

the Works Best Practices Program.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Jim Coe

Program Manager, Works Best Practices

Water and Wastewater Services Division

Telephone No. (416) 392-3141

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 10, 1999) from Ms. Gina Gignac, National Representative, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, C.U.P.E. Local 416, respecting the Works Best Practices Program, pointing out that the value for money audit on the consultant services for this program has yet to be completed by the City Auditor.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To amend the price of ferrous chloride for 1999, in accordance with the decrease in the Consumer Price Index, Transportation, for the previous 12 months, as allowed under Clause No. 5 of the existing agreement.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Based on the estimated 1999 consumption at our four treatment plants of 3,508,000 kilograms, the 1999 estimated cost of ferrous chloride used at the treatment facilities is $1,456.0 thousand. Given the downward trend of the Consumers Price Index for Transportation during 1998, this decrease was predicted and reflected in our 1999 Operating Budget submission. Therefore, there is no impact on the 1999 Operating estimates. Funding for the purchase of ferrous chloride is available in the 1999 Operating Budget - Wastewater Program.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the 1999 price for ferrous chloride be adjusted, as required, under the contract and decreased by 0.8 percent to $0.403 per kilogram, in accordance with the decrease of the Consumer Price Index - Table 1, Canada, Transportation, contained in Catalogue 62-001 for the previous months.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On May 3 and 4, 1995, Metro Council, by adoption of Clause No. 15 of Report No. 9 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, authorized entering into an agreement with Eaglebrook Inc. of Canada for the supply and delivery of soluble iron salts for the five-year period ending December 31, 2000. Iron salts are used at our four sewage treatment plants to remove phosphorus, which is a major contributor of the growth of algae in Lake Ontario.

The agreement contains a provision for an annual adjustment of the price based on the transportation rate contained in the Consumer Price Index. The clause dealing with this provision states:

"The only allowance for inflation will be for transportation rates, and the publication to be used for any price adjustments will be the Consumer Price Index - Table 1, Canada, Transportation, contained in Catalogue 62-001 produced by Statistics Canada. An annual review of this index will be made in December of each year. The public price index for the last 12 months will be used to negotiate any price adjustment required, and that price will apply for the next year following approval by City of Toronto Council."

With reference to the Consumer Price Index, the Transportation rate for December 1997 was 121.3 and the same rate for December 1998 was 120.3. This represents a decrease of 0.8 percent. Accordingly, the 0.8 percent rate decrease is to be applied to the 1998 contract price of $0.406 resulting in a 1999 rate of $0.403 per kilogram.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Not applicable.

Conclusions:

The 1999 price for iron salts should be decreased by 0.8 percent in accordance with the decrease of the Consumer Price Index - Table 1, Canada, Transportation, contained in Catalogue No. 62-001 for the previous 12 months, as allowed under Clause No. 5 of the existing agreement.

Eaglebrook Inc. of Canada requests a certified copy of City Council's resolution accepting the 1999 rate for ferrous chloride.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director, Water Pollution Control

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

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

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that authority be granted for Councillor Ila Bossons to attend the Orbit '99 - International Conference on Biological Treatment of Waste and the Environment, at a cost of approximately $900.00 (Canadian), to be funded from the Business Travel Budget, as requested in the following communication (March 24, 1999) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown:

Re: Orbit '99 - International Conference on Biological Treatment of

Waste and the Environment - September 2 and 4, 1999, Weimar, Germany

I am writing to request the Committee's support for my attendance as a delegate, representing Toronto, at the above-noted Orbit '99 Conference. I have been a member of the committee responsible for the environment for most of my ten years as a Councillor, with a keen interest in the

Conference Themes listed for Orbit '99.

The details of this conference, including the registration form, are in the attached announcement and preliminary program.

The cost will be only for registration, which is Euro-dollars $550.00 for the whole conference and the cost of three nights' accommodation. I will provide my own air fare.

Your support is appreciated. Thank you.

(A copy of the conference material referred to in the foregoing communication is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Utility Coordination and Road Reinstatement Work -

Status Report.

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

(i) (February 10, 1999) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, forwarding a communication (October 29, 1998) from Mr. R.G. Riedl, President, Enbridge Consumers Gas, with respect to cost saving opportunities for road reinstatement work in the City of Toronto; and requesting that this matter be placed on the agenda for discussion.

(ii) (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to the communication dated October 29, 1998, from Enbridge Consumers Gas with respect to utility coordination and road reinstatement work, and providing information on the ongoing discussions between Works and Emergency Services Department staff, Enbridge Consumers Gas and the other major utility companies, including a joint review of different options for permanent pavement restoration after utility cuts are made; further advising that staff are working with all the major utilities to establish a new Public Utilities Coordinating Committee; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(b) Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements.

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

(i) (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to the direction of Council at its meeting on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, that Clause No. 4 of Report No. 1 of The Works and Utilities Committee, entitled "Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement - Pizza Pizza Limited", be struck out and referred back to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for further consideration; advising the Works and Utilities Committee, the Economic Development Committee and the Budget Committee of the various impacts which would result from a unilateral termination of all existing Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements by January 1, 2000, as recommended by the Works and Utilities Committee, including the financial impact, potential impact on biosolids quality, legal implications and economic development impact; and recommending that:

(1) the City not proceed with the unilateral termination of all existing Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements by January 1, 2000;

(2) subject to approval of Recommendation No. (1), the current Compliance Program with Monetary Concession Policy be expanded to include not only new surcharge companies and existing surcharge companies facing substantial increase in surcharge, but also existing surcharge companies wishing to reduce or eliminate their surcharge assessments; and

(3) also subject to approval of Recommendation No. (1), the Committee adopt the recommendations contained in the report dated November 20, 1998, entitled "Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement - Pizza Pizza Limited, 58 Advance Road", with terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(ii) (March 30, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee on March 29, 1999, referred the report dated March 16, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, to the Works and Utilities Committee for further consideration, to report thereon to the Budget Committee with a request that, when considering Recommendation No. (2) from a budgetary point of view, the same levels as 1998 be maintained.

(iii) (April 7, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Economic Development Committee at its meeting on March 29 and April 6, 1999, had before it the report dated March 16, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, and that the Economic Development Committee supports the adoption of such report.

(iv) (January 29, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Local 79, Canadian Union of Public Employees, expressing concern with respect to the implications of the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee that Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements with existing industries be terminated by January 1, 2000; and noting that the agreements allow industries to discharge non-toxic wastes provided that they can be treated at the City's treatment plants, at a fee to offset operational costs of the plants, rather than through the purchase of their own individual, costly equipment.

(v) (February 1, 1999) from Mr. Frank Ingratta, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, advising that any proposal to replace Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements with an increased fee structure would have significant competitive implications to food processors in the City of Toronto; and noting that the beverage, brewery, confectionery, dairy, fruit and vegetable and meat processing sectors would all face significant cost increases on municipal water and wastewater charges which would make the food processing sector, one of Toronto's largest employers, uncompetitive, and which could lead to plant closures and reduce Toronto's ability to attract new food investment.

(vi) (February 1, 1999) from Mr. Russell Tabata, Director, Operations, Molson Breweries - Etobicoke, expressing concern with respect to the lack of consultation prior to the recommendation with regard to the elimination of sewer surcharges being presented to Toronto City Council; noting that Molson Breweries has been actively pursuing effluent reduction initiatives and has made significant progress towards reducing loading to the municipal sewer system, and further, that through a co-operative relationship with Toronto Works and Emergency Services, the surcharge agreement has provided a very effective and responsible strategy for the management of the treatable waste from the Etobicoke Brewery; and requesting the opportunity to meet with the Committee and staff to discuss this issue further.

(vii) (February 2, 1999) from Mr. Ken W. Holmes, Vice President - Operations, Campbell Soup Company Ltd., urging that the recommendation to terminate existing sewer surcharge agreements, and any related actions, be withdrawn immediately and deferred to permit a full dialogue between the City of Toronto and the affected businesses; expressing concern that there has been no consultation on this proposal and no notice of the City's intention to make changes to the Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement; and advising that the sudden cancellation of this agreement does not permit sufficient time to identify and implement cost effective alternatives and, if adopted, will severely impact the future operation of the Toronto plant.

(viii) (February 23, 1999) from Mr. Charles Buehler, President, Organic Resource Management Inc., advising that the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of January 13, 1999, with respect to Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, are unnecessary and financially damaging to many industries, in particular the food processing industries; and providing a background on municipal wastewater treatment services for the food processing and food services sectors, and arguments for maintaining the current system of agreements.

(ix) (April 21, 1999) from Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, respecting the financial implications of terminating Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements and making recommendations with respect thereto.

(x) (April 21, 1999) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee, expressing concerns with respect to Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements and the draft Sewer Use By-law.

(c) Cleaning and Cement Mortar Lining of Existing

Watermains at Various Locations Within District 4 -

Award of Contract No. SC9980WS Phase I (Various Wards) -

Tender No. 33A-1999.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(April 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that Contract No. SC9980WS - Tender No. 33A-1999 for the cleaning and cement mortar lining of existing water mains at various locations be awarded to Fer-Pal Construction Limited, in the total amount of $1,627,975.15 including all taxes and charges being the lowest Tender received.

(d) Cleaning and Cement Mortar Lining of Existing

Water Mains at Various Locations Within District 3 -

Award of Contract No. NY9980WS (Various Wards)

Tender No. 58-1999.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(April 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that Contract No. NY9980WS - Tender No. 58-1999 for the cleaning and cement mortar lining of existing water mains at various locations be awarded to Fer-Pal Construction Limited in the total amount of $1,461,197.35 including all taxes and charges being the lowest Tender received.

(e) Compost Give-Away Days.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report for information; and having directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to the Scarborough Community Council:

(i) (April 7, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting held on March 30, 1999, directed that the Works and Utilities Committee be requested to re-establish the "compost give-away" days conducted by the former City of Scarborough Council, and direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Scarborough Community Council on a method of accomplishing this event.

(ii) (April 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to the request from the Scarborough Community Council, and updating the Committee on guidelines related to requests from Councillors for delivery of finished compost to locations other than Environment Days; and recommending that this report be received for information and forwarded to the Scarborough Community Council.

(f) Works Best Practices Program - Status Report.

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

(April 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing an overview of the Works Best Practices Program, along with the progress to date and an outline of the workplan for completion of the program, including benefits tracking; advising that at this point, program implementation is proceeding as planned, and benefits achieved to date are well ahead of the planned targets; that the 1999 workplan includes key procurements necessary to continue WBPP implementation, in keeping with the business case and planned achievement of benefits; and that further work area implementations will occur in the latter half of the year, initiating WBPP Phase 2, the major implementation thrust of the program; noting that the next status report will be submitted in the fall of this year; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(g) Consulting Services -

Water Pollution Control Treatment Plants.

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

(April 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing an update on the annual expenditures pertaining to existing long-term engineering consulting services agreements for the three major Water Pollution Control Treatment Plants, identifying actual annual expenditures for 1992 to 1997 and estimated expenditures for 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h) Blue Box Collection for Townhomes and

"Flower Pot" Collection System.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report; and having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee at its meeting scheduled to be held on July 14, 1999, on the financial implications and recommendations with respect to alternatives to the "flower pot" bins:

(April 9, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to requests for information with respect to collection of recyclable materials from single family townhouses and the automated recycling collection system in use in the North York Community Council area using round plastic containers ("flower pots"), as requested at the joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Works and Utilities Committee on service harmonization held on March 16, 1999; advising that there are still a number of inconsistencies with respect to material collection service delivery across the City of Toronto, and that in the coming months, staff will endeavour to develop and recommend a common set of criteria governing material collection, in an effort to harmonize service delivery; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i) National Climate Change Process.

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

(undated) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, respecting the National Climate Change Process - Municipalities Table Meeting, held in Victoria on March 7, 1999; and outlining some key developments in the National Climate Change Process of relevance to the City.

(j) Water Treatment Process and Water Quality Analyses.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1) received the following report;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee on the enactment of a Bill by City Council entitled the "Safe Drinking Water By-law" that provides for yearly public notification, commencing in the year 2000, to the residents of the City with regards to the contents of the water produced at each of the City's water treatment facilities; on the contents of the notification; and, in order to minimize costs, on the notification taking place through the following:

(i) a dedicated page within the "Water Watch" publication currently produced by the City and distributed to all households in the City of Toronto;

(ii) a notification sent out to all City Councillors' offices for potential inclusion into their publications;

(iii) a yearly limited series of advertising in community newspapers (as decided by the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, in consultation with the Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee);

(iv) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Finance, reporting back to the Works and Utilities Committee with regard to the inclusion of this report with a water bill; and

(v) whatever other means deemed useful by the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services; and

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and/or the Medical Officer of Health to submit a report to the Committee on pesticide testing results in the City's watersheds, for example, at the mouth of the Don River, and on the implications of the findings of such tests; and that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be invited to participate in compiling test results and offering their commentary on those results:

(i) (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing information on the water treatment process, quality assurance methods and an assessment of the drinking water quality analyses and trends over the past ten years, as requested by the Committee at its meeting of September 9, 1998; advising that the City uses standardized and accepted processes and materials for the treatment of lake water to produce water that is safe to drink, and maintains a comprehensive water quality program, which in terms of scope and frequency surpasses regulatory requirements by a wide margin; noting that while there has been a steady improvement in the quality of drinking water over the past ten years, Water Supply endeavours to improve the quality of potable water on a continuous basis; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(ii) motion by Councillor Bill Saundercook, York Humber, respecting the enactment of a Bill by the City of Toronto entitled the "Safe Driving Water By-law", which would provide for yearly public notification with respect to the City's drinking water.

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO

Chair

Toronto, April 21, 1999

(Report No. 7 of The Works and Utilities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999.)