March 9, 2000

March 9, 2000

WORKS COMMITTEE

At its meeting held on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration to Clause No. 37 contained in Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Drain Grant Appeal - 60 Woodrow Avenue (East Toronto)".

During consideration of the foregoing Clause, City Council also had before it Clause No. 3 of Report No. 7 of the Works and Utilities Committee, entitled "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy", which was adopted by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999.

City Council:

(1)re-opened Clause No. 3 of Report No. 7 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy", which was adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999;

(2)struck out and referred Clause No. 37 of Report No. 4 of The Toronto Community Council to the Works Committee for further consideration; and

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Works Committee, for consideration therewith, on the current drain grant appeal process and what amendments would be required to ensure an appropriate method for dealing with drain grant appeals.

Yours truly,

   City Clerk

Frances Pritchard/la

2000to4-37.let

c.:Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services

Director of Districts 1 and 2 and Wastewater Operations

Mr. Mike Siokalo, Manager of Operations and Maintenance, District 1

   Clause embodied in Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000

  37

(City Council on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000, re-opened Clause No. 3 of Report No. 7 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy", which was adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, and struck out and referred Clause No. 37 of Report No. 4 of The Toronto Community Council to the Works Committee for further consideration.

Council also adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee, for consideration therewith, on the current drain grant appeal process and what amendments would be required to ensure an appropriate method for dealing with drain grant appeals.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the appeal for a drain claim grant in the amount of $1,568.00 for 69 Woodrow Avenue be allowed, funds to be provided from the Water and Wastewater Services Division's 2000 Preliminary Operating Budget.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 31, 2000) from the Director of Districts 1 and 2 Water and Wastewater Operations:

Purpose:

An appeal to a Drain Grant Claim has been made by the property owner, Mrs. Jaqueline Campbell of 69 Woodrow Avenue. The applicant is seeking reimbursement over and above the limits of the former City of toronto Drain Grant Program.

Financial Implications:

There are currently sufficient funds in the Water and Wastewater Services Division's 2000 Preliminary Operating Budget to cover this appeal.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Toronto Community Council deny the appeal.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999 adopted, as amended, Clause 3 of Works and Utility Committee Report No. 7, entitled "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy". Under the Policy the City provides grant assistance for repairs to private drains between the City property line and the building where the blockage is the result of roots from a City tree.

The Policy also provides the homeowner the opportunity to appeal for an enhanced grant and appear in deputation before Community Council when the grant application is denied or when total costs exceed the grant maximum.

In 1986, a claim for damages to the drain at 69 Woodrow Ave. due to roots from a City tree was submitted totaling $700.00. The City reimbursed $500.00. Again in 1993, a claim for damages to the drain at 69 Woodrow Ave. due to roots from a City tree were submitted totaling $1,364.25, of which the City reimbursed $1,300.00. The City also removed the tree on City property and planted a new tree.

On March 5, 1999, further drain expenses were incurred by Mrs. Campbell due to tree roots from the removed City tree causing damage to the drain system in her basement. Drain repair invoices totaling $2,568.00 were submitted on March 11,1999 for consideration under the Drain Grant Program. Mrs. Campbell was reimbursed the maximum grant of $1,000.00 as per the policy of the former City of Toronto.

Mrs. Campbell was advised she could appeal to the Court of Revision and be considered for additional reimbursement. Mrs. Campbell subsequently filed an appeal with the Court of Revision. The appeal was heard on November 17, 1999 and was dismissed.

Staff have reviewed this appeal and have determined that there are no extenuating circumstances. Staff noted that under the new Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy, drain repairs under the house are not eligible for grant assistance.

Comments:

Mrs. Campbell's request for reimbursement was processed under the former City of Toronto's Drain Grant Policy prior to May 11, 1999. A maximum grant of $1,000 was awarded and a follow up appeal to the Court of Revision was dismissed. If Mrs. Campbell's request had been processed under the new policy no grant assistance would have been awarded.

Reconsidering staff or Court of Revision decisions made for any grant application that was finalized prior to May 11, 1999 could set a costly precedent. Funding has not been provided in the Water and Wastewater Division's 2000 Preliminary Operating Budget to cover any additional costs from appeals that were appropriately administered under former policies.

Conclusions:

Mrs. Campbell's original applications for grant approval and subsequent appeal to the Court of Revision were appropriately administered under the policies of the former City of Toronto. As noted, there are no extenuating circumstances that effected the cost of the repairs that were carried out on March 5, 1999. Any additional award could set a costly precedent for all other grant applications processed prior to May 11, 1999. As such, this appeal should be denied.

Contact:

Mike Siokalo, Manager of Operations and Maintenance

District 1, Area 1 Water and Wastewater Operations

Phone:392-9331

Fax:392-0378E-Mail:msiokalo@toronto.ca

_________

Ms. Jacqueline Campbell, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

_________

 (A copy of the letters, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 15, 2000, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of Clause No. 3 of Report No. 7 of the Works and Utilities Committee, entitled "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy", which was adopted by the Council on May 11 and 12, 1999.)