TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 10

1Environment Days

2Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy

3Water Efficiency Program -Water Efficiency Kits

4Compliance Program with Monetary Concession -Nestlé Canada Inc. (Ward 19)

5Further Development of Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements and Compliance Programs (All Wards)

6Compliance Programs with Monetary Concession -Amendment to By-law No. 153-89

7Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 10

OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on November 4, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

1

Environment Days

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out and referring Recommendation No. (2) of the Works and Utilities Committee to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report to the Works and Utilities Committee on a revised distribution program.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report dated October15, 1998, from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services; and

(2)that the following recommendation be added thereto:

"(4)should Councillors wish to distribute blue boxes, grey boxes, water kits, peak pails or composters free of charge at the Environment Days, they agree to reimburse the Department from their office budget for the price that would have been charged to residents for the units."

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee on the cost of the events.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (October 15, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of the 1998 Environment Days, and to recommend booking procedures for these events in 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the number of Environment Days to be held in 1999 be limited to 28, one per ward, in keeping with Council's directive for 1998, and that no exceptions be made to this policy;

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to choose the date and location and host the Environment Day in any ward where the two Councillors cannot agree by March 12, 1999, to jointly host an event on an available date and at a suitable location; and

(3)no changes be made to dates and locations for the Environment Days after they have been publicized, unless deemed absolutely necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Environment Days take place in locations such as schools, parks, shopping malls and other public areas, and allow residents to participate in a variety of 3Rs activities.

Since the program's inception in 1991, 259 Environment Days have been hosted by Councillors and co-ordinated by this Department.

Comments/Discussion/Justification:

In 1998, the Environment Days were very successful, with over 10,000 residents attending the 32events that were held. The following waste diversion results were achieved:

-sale of 2,244 home composters;

-collection of approximately 210 tonnes of household hazardous waste;

-distribution of 800 tonnes of leaf compost;

-collection of 47 tonnes of tires for recycling;

-sale of 1,442 blue boxes, 796 grey boxes, 262 water kits and 300 peak pails;

-recovery of 14 tonnes of used clothing, 10 tonnes of computers and 6 tonnes of books for reuse and recycling;

-collection of 3 tonnes of non-perishable food items and hundreds of pairs of eyeglasses for redistribution;

-collection of 1 tonne of polycoat cartons, juice boxes and Brita filters for recycling; and

-collection of 3 tonnes of various plastics including polystyrene, plastic bags and plastic tubs/lids for recycling.

While the events were very successful, some problems related to booking dates and locations for the events were encountered.

Dates and locations for the events are chosen by the Councillors and communicated to the Department. Staff then determine the site's suitability in terms of safety, accessibility etc., and provide confirmation of the location and date to the Councillor's office. Once the event dates are set, they are promoted through various methods such as our residential newsletters, Waste Watch and Water Watch, telephone hotlines, flyers, newspaper advertisements and radio advertising.

On occasion, the dates and/or locations were subsequently changed by the Councillor(s) after the original confirmed dates and locations were publicized. While every effort was made at that point to advise local residents of the change, it was not possible to convey the message to everyone. As a result, some residents showed up at the initially chosen location, or on the original date, and naturally were upset because there was no event taking place. We therefore recommend that in future, once the original dates and locations are established and publicized, they not be changed unless deemed absolutely necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

On March 6, 1998, Council decided to limit the number of Environment Days to be hosted in 1998 to 28, one per ward. While the majority of events were jointly hosted by both ward Councillors, some Councillors could not agree to jointly host an event. Since Council's rationale for limiting the events to one per ward was for budgetary considerations, a compromise was arrived at and those Councillors were allowed to host their own Environment Day but with no household hazardous waste (HHW) collection at the event (HHW collection represents approximately 50 percent of the cost of our Environment Day program).

This caused confusion for the public because advertising for the majority of events promoted HHW collection. In some cases, residents would leave the event disgruntled because they were not able to drop off their HHW. In other instances, they would drop off their HHW at the event even though staff advised them that the material could not be accepted. This led to unsafe working conditions for our Environment Day staff since they are not trained to handle HHW (Chemist Assistants handle HHW at the regular Environment Days).

As well, sometimes two ward Councillors would have separate Environment Days in proximity to each other in their ward, on the same day. This resulted in inefficiencies as the Department had to employ double the staff, and residents were still unable to drop off their HHW.

It is recommended that there be no exception to the policy that only one event per ward be held. If the ward Councillors cannot agree by March 12, 1999, to jointly host an Environment Day on an available date and at a suitable location, then the Department will choose the date and location and host the event.

A letter will be sent to all Councillors in January, inviting them to book their joint Environment Day for 1999. This letter will outline booking procedures, suggest suitable sites and provide a date when the Department will start accepting requests from Councillors for a preferred date and location for their 1999 event. Dates will then be booked on a first-come, first-served basis.

Conclusions:

In 1998, over 10,000 residents attended the 32 Environment Days that were operated by this Department and hosted by Toronto Councillors. While the 1998 Environment Days were very successful, the recommended changes in booking procedures for the events in 1999 should result in greater resident satisfaction and a more efficient program.

Contact Name:

Tim Michael, Manager - Waste Diversion

Solid Waste Management Division, Metro Hall

Phone: (416) 392-8506; Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-mail: Tim Michael@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

2

Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and

Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy

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

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

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

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

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

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

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

(2)on the feasibility of the following motion:

Moved by Councillor Walker:

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

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

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(1) Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2)Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

Contact Name:

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

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

E-Mail: wgreen@toronto.ca.

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

Recommendation:

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Report dated November 5, 1998, addressed

to the Toronto Community Council

from the City Solicitor)

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

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

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

Contact Name:

Mary Ellen Bench

Director, Municipal LawTelephone:392-7245.

(Communication dated September 18, 1998,

addressed to the Toronto Community Council

from Councillor Bussin, East Toronto)

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

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

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

Thanking you in advance.)

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

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

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

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(i)Service Calls Avoided Under "Drainman" Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Name:

Mr. W. Green, Director

Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone:(416) 392-8242

Fax (416) 392-2974

E-Mail wgreen@toronto.ca)

3

Water Efficiency Program -

Water Efficiency Kits

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated October 23, 1998, from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, subject to:

(1)deleting Recommendation No (1);

(2)amending Recommendation No. (3) to read as follows:

"(3)all other homeowners throughout the new City who wish to purchase indoor and outdoor water efficiency kits will be required to purchase such kits at a reduced price of $15.00 per kit."; and

(3)the total expenditure for water efficiency kits being $100,000.00.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1)submit a report to Council, for consideration at its meeting on November 25, 1998, on:

(i)utilization of the outdoor water efficiency kit; and

(ii)deletion of all but the mechanical timers from the outdoor kit;

(2)investigate alternative ways of delivering the kits, other than by courier; and

(3)consider co-ordination of this program with such programs as the Downspout Disconnection Program, backyard composter distribution and other initiatives that bring City services directly to residents.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (October 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services:

Purpose:

To harmonize the distribution of water efficiency kits throughout the new City.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999 Capital Works Budget will request funding to purchase and distribute approximately 20,000 water efficiency kits at no cost to participants in the proposed Universal Metering Program, and approximately 5,000 water efficiency kits to contribute at no cost to the students completing the Water Efficiency Curriculum at Toronto Public and Separate Schools throughout the new City. The cost of this program will be approximately $500,000.00. The total expenditure in 1997 was $100,000.00 for free water efficiency kits.

The 1999 Capital Works Budget will also request funding for the purchase of approximately 5,000 water efficiency kits for the subsequent resale at a subsidized price of $15.00 per kit to homeowners throughout the new City. The net cost to the City for this program will be approximately $25,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)commencing in 1999 and continuing to the end of the Universal Metering Program (Year2003), one indoor or outdoor water efficiency kit be provided at no cost to homeowners who receive a meter; further, homeowners will be required to purchase additional indoor and/or outdoor kits for their home at a reduced price of $15.00 per kit;

(2)all students who complete the Water Efficiency Curriculum Program in the public and separate schools throughout the new City will receive a water efficiency kit at no cost; and

(3)all other homeowners throughout the new City will be required to purchase indoor and outdoor water efficiency kits at a reduced price of $15.00 per kit.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On August 10, 1994, the former Metropolitan Council approved a Water Efficiency Implementation Strategy which identified a broad range of water conservation initiatives including the sale and delivery of water conservation kits to homeowners. Similarly, the former City of Scarborough and former City of Toronto approved water efficiency programs in 1992 and 1994, respectively, which included among other initiatives, the distribution of water efficiency kits.

Comments and/or Discussion and /or Justification:

Currently, the former Metro and the Cities of Scarborough and Toronto each purchase water efficiency kits and distribute them to residents within their former municipalities.

The former Metro purchases and sells two types of water efficiency kits for indoor and outdoor use. Both kits are sold at a cost of $20.00. Indoor kits are delivered by courier to all residents of the former Metro Toronto. The former Metro Indoor Water Efficiency Kit includes a hand-held massage showerhead, a kitchen aerator, two bathroom aerators, two toilet tank displacement bags, leak detection tablets, teflon tape, and installation instructions. The Outdoor Water Efficiency Kit includes a plastic pail, a trigger hose nozzle, a mechanical timer, a set of hose washers and a sponge, along with installation instructions. These outdoor kits are purchased in person at Metro Hall, Environment Days and special events such as home shows and the CNE. Approximately 29,000 of both kits have been distributed since the beginning of the program.

The former City of Scarborough purchases and sells water efficiency kits at a cost of $11.00. The former City of Scarborough kit includes a wall-mount massage showerhead, a kitchen aerator, two bathroom aerators, two toilet tank displacement bags, leak detection tablets, teflon tape, two toilet fill cycle diverters and installation instructions. Kits must be picked up by the customer. Approximately 4,000 kits have been distributed under this program since 1994.

The former City of Toronto provides water efficiency kits at no cost to homeowners as an incentive for customers to convert to a water metered account. Further, water efficiency kits are also provided, free of charge, to owners of multi-residential buildings and to the Public and Separate School students that participate in the "Every Drop Counts" School Curriculum Program. The kit includes a wall-mounted showerhead, a kitchen aerator, a bathroom aerator, two toilet tank dams, a toilet tank bag, leak detection tablets, teflon tape, toilet bowl fill-cycle diverter, a showerhead flow measuring bag, and installation instructions. Approximately 50,000 kits have been distributed under this program since 1992. The purchase cost of the kit is approximately $9.00. Kits are distributed by the meter installation contractor when installing a water meter, and by staff at classroom demonstrations and Council Environment Days.

The other municipalities have not included water efficiency kits in their water conservation programs.

Conclusions:

Water efficiency kits are an essential tool in any water efficiency program. They not only help residents to conserve water and save money in their homes, but the kits help in educating the public on why it is important to use water efficiently.

It is recommended that the composition of the water efficiency kits for the new City should be similar to that provided under the former Metro program and include kits for indoor and outdoor water conservation.

The indoor and outdoor water efficiency kits should generally include the following items, however, the exact composition of the kit should be reviewed annually to determine the homeowners' needs and the satisfactory performance of the retrofit materials contained in the kit:

Indoor Water Efficiency Retrofit Kit:

1 Showerhead (handheld optional)

2Bathroom Aerators

2Toilet Tank Displacement Bags

1Kitchen Deluxe Swivel Spray Aerator

1 Package of Leak Detection Tablets (2/Pkg)

1Roll of Teflon Tape

Instructions

Outdoor Water Efficiency Retrofit Kit:

Peak Pail (Outdoor Kit)

1Plastic Pail

2Trigger Hose Nozzle

1Mechanical Timer

1Set of Hose Washers

1Sponge

Instructions

It is recommended that these kits, which cost approximately $20.00 to purchase, be sold and distributed to homeowners throughout the new City at a subsidized price of $15.00. It should be noted that the materials which make up these kits may cost up to three times more at retail outlets. Consequently, the savings in purchasing these kits from the City are significant and are intended to provide an incentive for homeowners to retrofit all of their plumbing fixtures with water efficient fixtures.

It is recommended that one indoor or outdoor water efficiency kit be provided free of charge to homeowners who receive a meter under the proposed Universal Metering Program. The free kit be installed at the time of the water meter installation to provide homeowners with an incentive to conserve water use and minimize their metered water consumption. It is proposed that approximately 20,000 kits will be distributed in this manner in each year of the proposed four-year Universal Metering Program.

It is also recommended that one free indoor or outdoor water efficiency kit be provided to school children who complete the "Every Drop Counts" School Curriculum Program. The composition of the school kit will be modified in consultation with the teachers involved in the program to reflect an appropriate kit for use in the home and to complement the classroom program. This program is now included in the Elementary Grades in both Public and Separate School Systems throughout the former City of Toronto. It is proposed that this program be offered to the Public and Separate School Boards throughout the new City school systems.

Contact Name:

Wayne Green, Director, Quality Control and System Planning

Water and Wastewater Services Division

Phone: (416) 392-8256; Fax: (416) 392-4594

E-Mail: wgreen@toronto.ca.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the requests made by the Works and Utilities Committee in considering the report from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services dated October 23, 1998 regarding Water Efficiency Kits.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of November 4 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee, in considering the report dated October 23, 1998 from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, entitled "Water Efficiency Program-Water Efficiency Kits", requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to Council on:

(i) utilization of the outdoor water efficiency kit and deletion of all but the mechanical timers from the outdoor kit; and

(ii) alternative ways of delivering the kits other than by courier, and considering coordination of the kit distribution with such programs as the Downspout Disconnection Program, backyard composter distribution and other initiatives that bring City Services directly to residents.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(i) Utilization of Outdoor Water Efficiency Kit:

The Outdoor Water Efficiency Kit or "Peak Pail" was first made available in 1998 as a means of conserving water and educating the public with respect to the opportunities for outdoor water efficiency and the importance of conserving water during peak demand hours.

The kit comprises:

1. a plastic pail printed with water efficiency tips $ 1.75

2. a trigger hose nozzle$ 3.44

3. a mechanical timer$10.00

4. 12 hose washers and $ .30

5. a sponge $ .55

6. assembly, administration and tax$ 3.96

Total Kit Price$20.00

Although the mechanical lawn watering timer accounts for approximately 50 per cent of the kit cost, and provides the greatest single opportunity for water savings, all of the components of the kit serve to demonstrate different outdoor water efficiency opportunities:

(i)the plastic pail serves as packaging for the kit and, together with the sponge, identifies opportunities for water savings associated with car washing;

(ii)the trigger hose nozzle and hose washers help reduce water wastage during washing and watering; and

(iii)the mechanical timer draws attention to the importance of not over-watering and the benefits of using water during off-peak periods.

It should be noted that an evaluation of the benefits of the kit cannot be based solely on initial water reduction. In addition to benefits realized in terms of water savings, the kit serves as a long-term educational tool raising homeowners' awareness of the impact of outdoor water use.

To date, distribution of the kits has been limited to sales at Metro Hall and various environmental fairs throughout the City. In light of the fact that distribution of the "Peak Pails"only commenced in June of 1998, quantitative information regarding the impact of the kits on outdoor water use is not available. A study is currently underway to evaluate customer use and the effectiveness of the kits.

The evaluation study, which is scheduled to be completed in February 1999, will, through the use of homeowner questionnaires, determine the use of the various components of the kit and identify the impact of the kit on outdoor water use habits.

Funds were included in the 1998 Capital Budget for the purchase of 2,500 Peak Pails. To date, a total of 677 have been sold and 1,823 remain in inventory. It is intended that no additional Outdoor Water Efficiency kits will be purchased until the evaluation study is completed. However, the present inventory of Outdoor Water Efficiency Kits will continue to be distributed as proposed.

(ii)Distribution of the Water Efficiency Kits:

Distribution of indoor water efficiency kits under the 1998 Water Efficiency Program has been achieved through homeowners' purchases at Metro Hall or through community environmental events. Also, students who have completed the curriculum supplement will receive a free kit. Canada post courier services have also been used in the case of homeowners who purchase kits through mail or telephone request. The cost of distributing kits through Canada Post courier services is approximately $3.00 per kit.

Outdoor kits were only made available through direct purchase at Metro Hall and environmental events.

Similar programs to distribute composters sold under the City's waste reduction program also used direct supply and courier services for distribution. In the case of the composters the courier cost was $5.00 per unit.

In order to reduce distribution costs associated with the delivery of both the indoor and outdoor kits during 1999, it is proposed that the delivery of purchased kits will be undertaken by district operations patrol crews. These crews are responsible for monitoring the performance of the City's sewers and water distribution system and it is anticipated that the kit delivery can be incorporated into their regular responsibilities without impacting on their ability to maintain the sewer and water systems. This in effect would eliminate the courier distribution costs associated with the kits.

In addition, opportunities to deliver kits in conjunction with the delivery of other programs such as downspout disconnection and backyard composter will be co-ordinated, where they exist. However, it should be noted that unless a homeowner chooses to participate in more than one program at a time, or for example purchases a water efficiency kit and requests a downspout disconnection at the same time, joint delivery of services would be impractical.

Contact Name:

Mr. W. Green, Director

Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone:(416) 392-8242

Fax (416) 392-2974

E-Mail wgreen@toronto.ca)

4

Compliance Program with Monetary Concession -

Nestlé Canada Inc. (Ward 19)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to the compressed time-frame for installation of on-site treatment equipment as agreed to by Nestlé Canada Inc. in discussion with staff of the Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development Departments:

Purpose:

To address a request for a Compliance Program with monetary concession from Nestlé Canada Inc. to allow them to pay only 50 percent of the increase to the existing Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement for 1998, in return for them investing in on-site pollution control equipment to reduce their effluent loadings to our sewers by 50 percent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department maintains approximately 157 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, which allows for the recovery of approximately $7.5 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. Nestlé Canada Inc.'s new annual surcharge assessment is $211,317.50, an increase of $125,562.06 over their old surcharge of $85,755.44 per year. By allowing the company to pay at a reduced rate of 50 percent of the increase would mean a reduction in revenue of $62,781.03 per year.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a Compliance Program with monetary concession be granted to Nestlé Canada Inc. as described herein, to allow for payment of their reassessed surcharge less 50 percent of the increase for 1998, subject to the company's investment of the avoided surcharge payment in the 1998 Phase 1 activities; and

(2)if the waste loading is not reduced by 50 percent after 1998 Phase 1 is completed, the remaining Phase 1, plus Phase 2 and Phase 3 be implemented to achieve this reduction and staff be authorized to continue the monetary concession to Nestlé Canada Inc. for the remaining Phase 1 activities in 1999, Phase 2 in 1999, and Phase 3 in 2000, if required, to reduce the waste loading by 50 percent.

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 over-strength 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.

Section 6 of this By-law allows the owner of industrial premises to submit to the Commissioner of Works a program to prevent, or to reduce and control the discharge of wastewater into the sewer system. The Commissioner of Works may then issue an approval known as a "Compliance Program" to the person who submitted the program. The person to whom a Compliance Program has been issued shall not be prosecuted under the By-law during the period within which the Compliance Program is applicable, provided that the person complies fully with the terms of the Compliance Program.

On August 10 and 11, 1994, Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 12 of Report No. 14 of TheWorks Committee, authorized the Works Department to discuss modifications to Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements and Compliance Program policies with existing and potential surcharge companies to promote and encourage improvements in on-site treatment and source reduction.

The policy approved by Metropolitan Council was to allow industries facing significantly increased surcharge for new agreements or amendments to existing agreements to apply to be allowed to avoid up to 50 percent of the payment of the new agreement or the increase to the existing agreement, for up to three years, if they commit under a Compliance Program to invest the avoided surcharge payment for specific improvements to their on-site pre-treatment system.

There have been two Compliance Programs with monetary concessions approved by Metropolitan Council and one by City Council to date.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Recently, several companies have complained that their new surcharge assessment or increased surcharge assessment on existing agreements is creating financial hardship, and have expressed an unwillingness to pay the surcharge. These companies would like to reduce these costs, however, they would have to install treatment facilities which would add further costs.

Recognizing that some industries are really facing financial hardship, we recommend that industries facing significant increases in surcharges for new agreements or amendment to existing agreements could apply for a surcharge reduction of 50 percent of the new agreement or the increase to the existing agreement, for up to three years, if they commit under a Compliance Program to invest the reduced surcharge payment for specific pollution control equipment. In this way, the discharger benefits in the long term because they permanently reduce their surcharge costs. We also benefit in that more treatment capacity is free for additional development.

The following conditions must be met to be considered for a Compliance Program with monetary concession:

(1)the applicant must commit in writing, in the form of a Compliance Program, to reduce their waste loading by at least 50 percent by a specified date;

(2)the reduction in surcharge could be for a period of between one and three years, depending on the time required to complete the installation of pre-treatment equipment;

(3)an applicant can only be granted one Compliance Program with monetary concession per lifetime; and

(4)at the end of the Compliance Program period, the companies who are unsuccessful in reducing their waste loading to within by-law limits must resume paying a surcharge based on the actual waste loading at that time.

The Region of Niagara has a similar policy of granting a discharge under a "Program Approval" (which is similar to our Compliance Program) with monetary concessions. The concession has been as high as 50 percent for a period of one year. The reduction is based on the size of the surcharge compared to the amount the discharger plans to spend in effecting a reduction in both the hydraulic and contaminant load to the municipal sewage treatment system.

The type of waste generated by Nestlé Canada Inc. is biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our Main Treatment Plant.

On August 13, 1998, Nestlé Canada Inc. submitted an application to have the industrial waste surcharge amount reduced in accordance with the policy adopted by Metropolitan Council on August10 and 11, 1994.

The company has retained Hatch Associates in Mississauga to undertake a study to evaluate their operations and develop an effluent loading reduction program to bring their effluent contaminants down to 50 percent by May 6, 1999 (Phase 1), July 22, 1999 (Phase 2), and September 14, 2000(Phase 3). They have provided us with a detailed schedule for their Compliance Program which is summarized as follows:

Phase 1 (1998), estimated expenditures $71,000.00;

Phase 1 (1999), estimated expenditures $34,000.00;

Phase 2 (1999), estimated expenditures $30,000.00; and

Phase 3 (1999 and 2000), estimated expenditures $1,030,000.00.

Nestlé Canada Inc. is currently under a surcharge agreement with the City. The surcharge is based on an average suspended solids (SS) concentration of 2,078 mg/L at an annual discharge of 216,328cubic metres. The average biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentration is 1,973mg/L. The estimated annual SS and BOD loading from the facility before the proposed treatment is 449,530kg per year and 426,815 kg per year, respectively. With the assumption that the pre-treatment will reduce the SS and BOD concentrations by 50 percent, the estimated loading for SS and BOD after pre-treatment will be 224,765 kg per year and 213,408 kg per year, respectively.

Conclusions:

In accordance with Section 6, Compliance Program, of Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89 and the policy adopted by Metropolitan Council on August 10 and 11, 1994, a Compliance Program with monetary concession should be issued to Nestlé Canada Inc. to provide a mechanism by which the over-strength effluent, which exceeds the by-law limit for SS and BOD can be discharged on a 50percent reduced fee basis while the company implements further wastewater treatment controls, under the conditions previously stated in this report.

Contact Name:

V. Lim, Chief Engineer - Environmental Services

Water Pollution Control Division

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

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

The Works and Utilities Committee submits, for the information of Council, the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request by the Works and Utilities Committee that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a further detailed report to the Committee on Nestlé Canada Inc.'s capital spending plans with regard to the project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no additional financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendation:

That this supplemental report be received for information and that the original report's recommendations be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on October 7, 1998, had before it a report (September 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:

(1)a Compliance Program with monetary concession be granted to Nestlé Canada Inc. as described therein, to allow for payment of their reassessed surcharge less 50 percent of the increase for 1998, subject to the company's investment of the avoided surcharge payment in the 1998 Phase 1 activities; and

(2)if the waste loading is not reduced by 50 percent after 1998 Phase 1 is completed, the remaining Phase 1, plus Phase 2 and Phase 3 be implemented to achieve this reduction and staff be authorized to continue the monetary concession to Nestlé Canada Inc. for the remaining Phase 1 activities in 1999, Phase 2 in 1999, and Phase 3 in 2000, if required, to reduce the waste loading by 50 percent.

The Committee:

(1)deferred consideration of the aforementioned report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on November 4, 1998;

(2)requested the City Solicitor to report to the Committee on any legal implications regarding the matter;

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a further detailed report to the Committee on Nestlé's capital spending plans with regard to the project; and

(4)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and theCommissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a joint report to the Committee on the use of this program to further the development of the food processing industry, so as to reduce excessive sewage loading while at the same time enhancing the industry in the city.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On Item (2) related to any legal implications regarding this matter, the Legal Department has advised that the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) authorizes the City to pass a by-law prescribing the conditions under which sewage will be received and disposed of and setting the charges for receiving and disposing of it. It further permits the City to make different conditions and charges applicable with respect to different classes of persons transporting waste to the City sewage works. Provided that objective criteria based guidelines are adopted and used to set out a class of persons to whom compliance programs with monetary concession are available, no bonusing problems should be encountered.

The current policy, which was approved by Metropolitan Council on August 10, 1994, allows industries facing significantly increased surcharges under the present surcharge agreements and industries facing significant surcharges under new or amended agreements to apply to avoid up to 50percent of the payment of the new agreement or the increase to the existing agreement, for up to three years if they commit under a Compliance Program to invest the avoided surcharge payment for specific improvements to their on-site pretreatment system.

The Legal Department has expressed concern regarding the term "significant increase", and advised that the amount of increase needs to be clearly defined to ensure an equitable application of the policy to candidate industries. In reviewing the previous three agreements under the Compliance Program with a monetary concession and Nestlé's current application, I can advise that a "significant increase" has ranged from 66 percent for Select Foods (an increase of $10,950.00 on an existing surcharge of $16,550.00) to 146 percent for Nestlé (an increase of $125,562.06 on an existing surcharge of $85,755.44). The 146 percent or $125,562.06 annual increase on Nestlé's surcharge, therefore, qualifies under the criteria used in administering the present policy as a significant increase. In order to permit the Nestlé agreement to proceed and to cover the definition of "significant increase" used in approving the present Compliance Program with monetary concession, it is recommended that the Legal Department prepare the necessary amendment to the existing Sewer User By-law for Council approval.

It is planned to further assess the criteria and guidelines for applying the monetary concession policy with the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department as well as the Legal Department, and report back to the Committee on a comprehensive list of criteria for industries applying under this program.

With regard to Item (3) on the company's capital spending plans, the proposed Compliance Program submitted by Nestlé Canada Inc. to significantly reduce the waste loading by more than 50 percent is separated into three phases and is detailed in Attachment A. A summary of the compliance activities with commencement dates, expected completion dates and the estimated cost for the project is summarized in Attachment B. Hatch Associates in Mississauga has been retained by Nestlé to carry out Phase 1 through Phase 3 activities.

With regard to Item (4), a separate joint report is being prepared in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism on the use of this program to further the development of the food processing industry and will be submitted to the Committee at this meeting.

The dollar value that the company is investing versus the amount of relief we are providing is summarized below:

EstimatedAmount of

ExpenditureRelief

Phase 1 (1998)$71,000.00$62,781.03

Phases 1 & 2 (1999)$64,000.00$62,781.03

Phase 3 (1999 & 2000)$1,030,000.00$62,781.03

Total$1,165,000.00$188,343.09

Conclusions:

A detailed report which outlines Nestlé's capital spending plans for their application of a Compliance Program with monetary concession is presented. The proposed Compliance Program, if fully implemented, will cost the company $1,165,000.00 to reduce their waste loading by more than 50 percent or eliminate the surcharge all together. In this way, Nestlé benefits in the long term because they permanently reduce their surcharge costs. We also benefit in that more treatment capacity is free for additional development.

Contact Name:

V. Lim, P.Eng., Chief Engineer - Environmental Services

Water Pollution Control

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

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

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Phase 1:

Process Optimization of Existing Systems:

All sources of losses from production are to be determined from:

-normal operations;

-clean-up operations; and

-accidental spills due to process or mechanical failures.

Hatch will carry out site visits to review the causes, frequency and effect of accidental spills. In addition, Hatch will identify and recommend appropriate measures such as process modifications and containment requirements.

Following the site visits, Hatch will recommend measures to:

-avoid spill, e.g. placement of alarms;

-provide immediate response to a spill condition;

-provide containment of spills; and

-provide backup to containment.

A report will be generated which summarizes the measures to prevent and handle accidental spills. Implementation of the recommendations provided by Hatch may be sufficient to reduce the waste loading by more than 50 percent. The expected cost to carry out this work is $15,000.00.

This work started in January 1998, and was completed by September 30, 1998.

Wastewater Characterization: Continuous Flow Measurement and Wastewater Sampling:

Hatch will co-ordinate the implementation of a continuous wastewater sampling and flow measurement program for manhole 1 (MH1), manhole 2 (MH2), and manhole 6 (MH6). Nestlé has agreed to permanent flow monitoring stations for MH1, MH2 and MH6. This will provide Nestlé with continuous record of flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and suspended solids concentrations until such time as it is no longer required. Additional flow measurement sensors, transmitters, data loggers, and wastewater sampling devices have been purchased. The accuracy of the wastewater flow measurement will be reviewed by comparison with water meter readings on a weekly basis for a minimum of three months.

Wastewater sampling is to be carried out on a 24-hour, time-weighted composite for a period of three months from each manhole. The 24-hour composite samples will be collected by a sampling technician, stored properly and transferred to an accredited laboratory for analysis. Field measurement will be carried out to determine pH.

Wastewater sampling and analysis of the effluent will allow an accurate characterization of the effluent, and may identify additional opportunities for process optimization which may be sufficient to reduce the waste loading by more than 50 percent.

The estimated total cost to carry out the purchase, calibration, and installation of the flow measurement devices is $20,000.00. The flow measurement devices were installed and calibrated on October 2, 1998. Wastewater sampling commenced on October 5, 1998, and is expected to be completed during the first quarter of 1999. The cost to implement continuous wastewater sampling and analysis up to the end of 1998 is $36,000.00 and another $14,000.00 up to February 9, 1999, for a total cost of $50,000.00.

Treatability Studies:

Treatability studies will be carried out to determine the process design criteria. Hatch will oversee the physical and biological testing. It is expected to commence on February 10, 1999, and completed by May 6, 1999. The total cost for this work is $20,000.00.

Total Phase 1 estimated expenditures - $105,000.00.

Phase 2:

Identify and Recommend Appropriate Wastewater Treatment Technology:

If implementation of Phase 1 activities indicate that the waste loading has not been reduced by more than 50 percent, Phase 2 will be carried out. Hatch will determine the most cost-effective and optimum wastewater treatment processes in order to reduce the waste loading by more than 50percent or eliminate the surcharge.

This includes obtaining price quotations from a minimum of three suppliers for the recommended wastewater treatment system. In addition, an overall budget estimate (" 25 percent accuracy) for the implementation of the recommended wastewater treatment system, and a general arrangement drawing for the location of the treatment system will be provided.

A report will be submitted by Hatch summarizing the results of the wastewater sampling, analyses, and flow measurement, and recommended wastewater treatment process with budget cost estimates.

The expected commencement date is May 7, 1999, and the expected completion date is July 22, 1999.

Total Phase 2 estimated expenditures - $30,000.00.

Phase 3:

Detailed Design, Installation and Commissioning of the Treatment System:

If implementation of Phase 1 activities indicate that the waste loading has not been reduced by more than 50 percent, and the results from Phase 2 indicate that the implementation of the treatment system is economically justifiable, detailed design, installation, and commissioning of the treatment system will proceed.

Based on a Hatch study carried out in 1992, the cost of the treatment system was estimated at $966,000.00 using 1991 flows discharged and 1989 wastewater analyses. The annual operating and maintenance costs to the treatment plant were estimated at $44,500.00. The design basis for the treatment plant was based on a design flow from manholes 2 to 6 of 125 to 155 Imperial gallons per minute, an estimated BOD concentration of 1,100 to 1,300 milligrams per litre, and suspended solids concentration of approximately 260 milligrams per litre.

The expected commencement date is July 23, 1999, and the expected completion date is September14, 2000.

The wastewater characteristics of the plant have changed since 1992 as many process modifications have occurred, and the 1992 estimate is outdated. Nevertheless, for budget purposes, $1.0 million is allowed at present, based on the 1992 estimate.

Total Phase 3 estimated expenditures - $1,030,000.00.

APPENDIX B

COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY

Compliance ScheduledScheduledProject

Program ActivitiesStart Date Completion DateCosts ($)

Phase 1

Process optimization ofJan. 1998 Sept. 30, 1998$15,000

existing system.(fees only -

Spill containment identification:additional costs

Review all production areasassociated with

and processes to determineimplementation

all sources of losses fromof containment

production processes.measures not

Spill containment implementation:finalized at this

Identify and implement measurestime)

to prevent and handle accidental spills.

Wastewater CharacterizationJuly 27, 1998 Oct. 2, 1998$20,000

Flow measurement: Install

permanent flow monitoring

devices and implement

continuous flow measurement

for manholes 1, 2, and 6.

Compliance Scheduled ScheduledProject

Program ActivitiesStart Date Completion DateCosts ($)

Wastewater sampling and Oct. 5, 1998 Feb. 9, 1999$36,000 (1998)

analysis: Implement continuous $14,000 (1999)

wastewater sampling for a

period of three months.

Treatability Studies:Feb. 10, 1999 May 6, 1999

Allowance for implementation

of physical testing (e.g. screening).$10,000

Implementation of biological testing.$10,000

TOTAL PHASE 1 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:$105,000

Phase 2

Identification of appropriateMay 7, 1999 July 22, 1999$30,000

wastewater treatment processes/

technology. Obtain minimum of

three quotations from suppliers

for wastewater equipment.

Budget cost for implementation

of treatment system (civil, mechanical,

electrical costs, operating costs,

and payback period). Cost estimate

to be 25% accuracy.

Summary report:

TOTAL PHASE 2 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:$30,000

Phase 3

An allowance for:July 23, 1999 Sept. 14, 2000No firm cost available

Detailed design of treatmentat this stage, as it will

system, if required.depend on the success

Selection of contractor/equipment.of Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Procurement/fabrication/installation.For budgeting purposes,

Commissioning and performance$1 M is allowed at

evaluation.present, based on 1992

estimate.

TOTAL PHASE 3 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:$1,030,000

--------

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

5

Further Development of Industrial Waste Surcharge

Agreements and Compliance Programs (All Wards)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (October29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To set out a process for consulting with those companies that have sewer surcharge agreements with the City, and in particular the food processing industry, with respect to how the program could be used to strengthen the City's industrial base while at the same time reducing sewage loading.

Funding Sources:

The consultation process will require no additional funds.

Recommendations:

That the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to meet with companies that have surcharge agreements with the City, representatives of industry and environmental organizations and other government agencies for the purpose of discussing issues and opportunities related to the sewer surcharges, and that the Commissioners report on the results of these discussions and any opportunities for enhancing the surcharge program.

Council Background:

On October 7, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee considered the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Service's report on the use of the sewer surcharge compliance program by Nestlé Canada. The Committee deferred the report to its November 4, 1998 meeting and requested the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to submit a joint report to the Committee on the use of this program to further the development of the food processing industry, so as to reduce excessive sewage loading while at the same time enhancing the industry in the City.

Comments:

The City maintains approximately 157 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements with companies across the new city. By-law No. 153-89 establishes wastewater sewer discharge limits and prohibits the dumping of noxious or toxic materials. The by-law also allows for the limits to be exceeded in cases where the wastewater is amenable to treatment at the City's plants and where the company agrees to pay the City a surcharge for further treatment. These agreements allow the City to recover approximately $7.5 million per year which is used to pay for the additional costs associated with the treatment.

Currently, the City of Toronto offers a program called compliance program with monetary concession which forgives up to 50 percent of the increase in the value of a surcharge for up to three years. This is based on a commitment from a company that it will install an effluent pretreatment system capable of removing at least 50 percent of its waste loading. This allows a company to offset any required capital investment from its sewer surcharge savings.

The compliance program has the potential to create significant win-win benefits for the City, business community and environment. The City would benefit by reducing its waste treatment requirements and costs over time. This in turn makes more treatment capacity free for additional development across the City. A company can benefit by permanently reducing its operating expenses by lowering or eliminating the surcharge. The City's overall environment benefits by reducing the amount discharged to the lake. The amount of energy and chemicals used as part of the treatment process would also be reduced.

To date, the compliance program has been only used by three companies. There is a need to examine the program with respect to supporting its use by all of the existing companies currently paying surcharges. In the short term, the City should ensure that all of the companies paying a surcharge are fully aware of the existing compliance program. The program also has the potential to help improve the City's overall economic competitiveness in the long term. The availability of the program will make reinvestment in existing facilities more attractive, and can be used to encourage the establishment of new companies in the City. This will be particularly true of companies in the food processing sector.

The vast majority, about 85 percent, of the companies with surcharge agreements with the City are in the food processing sector. Recently, several small and medium sized companies have complained that their new surcharge assessment, or an increased assessment, is creating financial hardship. They have expressed concerns about their ability to pay and the impact the charges may have on the future viability of their businesses. Many of these companies would like to reduce these costs, however, this would require the installation of treatment facilities which would add additional capital costs.

The food sector plays a central role in the City's economy and has dynamic linkages that exist between its various components. Seventy percent of Canada's top food and beverage manufactures have headquarters in Toronto. It is one of the largest employment sectors and is composed of 10,798 establishments employing 120,937 people in the processing, retail, wholesale and food service sub-sectors. In total, the food sector accounts for 14 percent of the total business establishments in the City.

Food processing is also the City's largest manufacturing sector with the number of firms in the sector increasing by 10 percent since 1991. Food processing has one of the highest economic impacts of all types of manufacturing activity and is strategically linked to other economic sectors including tourism, bio-technology, packaging, environmental/recycling and advertising. The income multipliers for food processing are at least twice as high as those in such important U.S. manufacturing industries as pharmaceuticals, concrete, steel mills, televisions, motor vehicles and aircraft.

The City is fortunate to have the largest concentration of food processing firms in Canada. We cannot take this for granted. To date, the Economic Development Office has implemented a strategy of business retention which focusses on working with existing companies in order to facilitate their growth and retain local employment. The Economic Development Office has been involved with the expansion activities of Central Bakery, Nestlé Canada, Redpath Sugars, St. Helen's Meats, Cadbury Chocolate and others. The new investment in these operations over the last four years has totalled over $180 million, of which about $10 million was for new construction.

The purpose of the City's business development and retention strategy is to deliver a program which will recognize the contribution to the City made by existing firms, and encourage these companies to maintain and grow their operations in the City. One of the key components of this program includes working with individual companies to ensure that they are able to effectively and competitively operate in the City. It is important that the City maintain a competitive position with other locations in Ontario and Canada by assisting companies to control their costs, and thereby receive more value from a City location. There are a number of specific projects that should be developed and/or made more available to the industry. The projects could include the City's energy audit and retrofit program and the further development of the City's sewer compliance program which assists companies to eliminate their sewer surcharge by making capital improvements to their wastewater handling procedures.

Conclusions:

The compliance program has the potential to create significant win-win benefits for the City, business community and environment. These include reducing sewage treatment costs, making more sewer capacity free for new development, reducing business operating costs and reducing discharges to the lake. In the short term, the City should ensure that all of the companies paying a surcharge are fully aware of the existing compliance program.

The sewer surcharge issue needs to be reexamined from the perspective of both improving the environment and improving business operations, particularly for the food processing sector. In order to explore this opportunity and determine what changes to the compliance program are warranted, staff are recommending that the Works and Emergency Services and the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Departments be authorized to meet with companies that have surcharge agreements with the City, representatives of industry and environmental organizations and other government agencies for the purpose of discussing issues and opportunities related to the sewer surcharges, and that staff report further on the results of these discussions and any opportunities for enhancing the surcharge program.

Contact Name:

Kyle Benham, Senior Economic Development Officer

Economic Development Office

392-1004

Vic Lim, Chief Engineer

Water Pollution Control Division

392-2966

6

Compliance Programs with Monetary Concession -

Amendment to By-law No. 153-89

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 2, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To amend Metropolitan By-law No. 153-89 to permit compliance programs with monetary concession.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That the by-law appended to this report be recommended for adoption by City Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on October 7, 1998, had before it a report (September 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that a compliance program with monetary concession be granted to Nestlé Canada Inc. as described therein.

The Committee:

(2)requested the City Solicitor to report to the Committee on any legal implications regarding the matter.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) authorizes the City to pass a by-law prescribing the conditions under which sewage will be received and disposed of and setting the charges for receiving and disposing of it. It further permits the City to make different conditions and charges applicable with respect to different classes of persons transporting waste to the City sewage works. Provided that objective criteria based guidelines are adopted and used to set out a class of persons to whom compliance programs with monetary concession are available, there should be no negative legal implications. However, the sewer use by-law should be amended in the form attached to permit such programs.

Conclusions:

If adopted, this by-law amendment would permit the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to recommend to City Council compliance programs with monetary concession in appropriate cases.

Contact Name:

Robert H. Ashley

Telephone: 392-2892; Fax: 397-5624

E-Mail: rashley@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 153-89, a by-law

"Respecting the regulation of the discharge of sewage and land drainage."

The Council of The City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Section 6 of Metropolitan By-law No. 153-89, as amended, is further amended by adding the following:

"(10)(a) In this subsection, "compliance program with monetary concession" means, a program under which the owner or operator of an industrial premises undertakes to carry out works or improvements to prevent or reduce and control the discharge or deposit of matter into or in land drainage works, private branch drains or connections to any storm sewer from its premises, in order to avoid significant surcharges pursuant to an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement or a proposed Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement in accordance with subsection5(2).

(b) A compliance program under this section may include a compliance program with monetary concession and, notwithstanding subsection(6), upon recommendation of the Commissioner, the municipality is authorized to execute an agreement in respect of a compliance program with monetary concession with an owner or operator of industrial premises who meets the guidelines adopted by the municipality from time to time, in respect of such programs on such terms and conditions as they may agree."

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D.

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

7

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Universal Water Metering Program

(All Wards in the Former City of Toronto).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)forwarded the following report to the Toronto Community Council for consideration;

(2)taken the following action with respect to such report, subject to submission of the further reports requested by the Committee and consideration thereof at a future meeting:

(A)approved Recommendation No. (1);

(B)struck out Recommendation No. (2); and

(C)not approved Recommendation No. (3);

(3)adopted Recommendations Nos. (4) and (5) of the following report;

(4)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to undertake a comparative study of alternative strategies to achieve the greatest efficiency for the funding of $21 million; and report back thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee in January 1999; and

(5)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Committee on the following:

(i)the use of incentives such as free water saver kits and/or low flow toilets to reduce water use;

(ii)the installation of water meters evenly throughout all neighbourhoods during each phase of the program, instead of designating one specific area for each year;

(iii)past practices in other municipalities;

(iv)background information on the cities mentioned as examples in the report, including information on the water rates before and after installation of the water meters;

(v)information regarding the amount paid by the average consumer in various cities outside of the City of Toronto for water;

(vi)a retrofit program for older meters in the City of Toronto, including the number of water meters in question, retrofit options and cost implications;

(vii)the cost per litre of the water that the Region of York pays the City of Toronto; and

(viii)the communication dated November 3, 1998, submitted by Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Local 79, Canadian Union of Public Employees:

(i)(October 19, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, recommending that:

(1)a policy of Universal Water Metering be adopted that provides for:

(a)the mandatory metering of all buildings in the City of Toronto and the phasing out of the existing flat rate charges for water and sewer services in the former City of Toronto; and

(b)a free of charge Universal Water Metering Program to retrofit approximately 85,000 existing residential buildings which are currently being charged for water and sewer services on a flat rate basis with water meters over a five-year period at a total estimated cost of $21.0 million;

(2)the flat rate water and sewer charges be increased 100 percent for customers who have received adequate notice (minimum three written notices) and have been provided with sufficient time to arrange for the mandatory installation of a water meter but continue to refuse to cooperate, and that the flat rate water charges be increased an additional 100 percent every three months thereafter;

(3)approval be given to issue a Request for Proposals to qualified companies for the complete implementation of the 1999 Universal Water Metering Program, including the necessary public relations and administration work, promotion of water conservation and the supply and installation of water meters, subject to funding for the 1999 Universal Water Metering Program being approved as part of the 1999Water and Wastewater Capital Budget;

(4)the City Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works and Utilities Committee on the cost and staffing requirements for the reading of the additional water meters to be installed as part of the Universal Water Metering Program, including any opportunities to arrange for joint water meter reading and billing with Toronto Hydro and Consumers Gas or, alternatively, the use of phone-in meter readings by residents;

(5)this report be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for its consideration; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

(ii)(November 3, 1998) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Local 79, Canadian Union of Public Employees, respecting the recommendation that staffing requirements for the reading of the additional meters in connection with the expansion of Universal Water Metering be examined, including opportunities for joint water meter reading and billing with Toronto Hydro and Consumers Gas; recommending that in order to preserve the integrity of this service, Water Revenue inspections should continue to be the City's direct responsibility, carried out by its own employees; and urging Members of the Committee to reject Recommendation No. (4).

--------

Mr. Dalton Shipway, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Residential Water Service

Connection Repair Program.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on December 2, 1998, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to the Committee on the following motions:

Moved by Councillor Bossons:

"That Recommendation No. 2(ii) be amended by adding thereto the following:

'unless the size requested is needed to provide standard water supply to rental units for buildings with two to eight units.'";

Moved by Councillor Shiner:

"(1)That all references to 14 litres per minute as the minimum acceptable flow be deleted, and the amount of 18 litres per minute be inserted in lieu thereof; and

(2)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Committee on ways of increasing the pressure in the watermains as a means of increasing flow."; and

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Committee on extreme situations where homes are located in difficult areas.":

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

(1)Breaks/Leaks:

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

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

(2)Standard Size for Water Service Connection:

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

(ii)Where a water service connection is to be replaced under the proposed repair policy; and the homeowner requests a larger diameter connection than the standard size, then, if the request is approved by the City, the homeowner will be charged a $500 fee for the difference in cost between the standard size and the size requested by the owner.

(3)Minimum Acceptable Flow (MAF):

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

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

(4)Water Service Cleaning:

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

(5)Water Service Connection Replacement/Upgrade Program:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c)Delivery of 1998/99

Downspout Disconnection Program.

The Works and Utilities reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report, subject to amending Recommendation No. (5) to provide that students also be requested to include questions on blue boxes, trees, water kits and composters:

(i)(September 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:

(1)a free and voluntary Downspout Disconnection Program be provided to all eligible residents in the new City of Toronto commencing in January 1999 based on the program delivery model developed by the former City of Toronto;

(2)promotion of the Downspout Disconnection Program be targeted in areas of the new City that are serviced by combined sewers and/or are susceptible to basement flooding problems;

(3)approximately 4,000 property disconnections be budgeted for each year;

(4)an annual budget of $1,640,000.00 be allocated for the delivery of the program including marketing, staffing, property assessments and all materials and labour required to undertake the disconnection work;

(5)students be utilized to undertake canvasses, conduct property assessments and prepare disconnection plans; and

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

(ii)(October 30, 1998) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Local 79, Canadian Union of Public Employees, expressing concern with respect to the use of students as canvassers for the expanded Downspout Disconnection Program; and advising that CUPE Local 79 believes that City employees, paid according to the appropriate union classification, should be carrying out all assessments for the program.

(d)Western Beaches Storage Tunnel,

Progress Report and Award of Phase II

(Trinity - Niagara, and High Park).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)recommended to the Budget Committee:

(i)the adoption of the following report; and

(ii)that Council commit to the resolution that no sewage may be transported from Etobicoke and the West Toronto area through the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel;

(2)directed that the Storm Water Group be requested to:

(i)report to the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting in January 1999 on specific initiatives regarding stormwater management; and

(ii)provide regular oral status reports to the Works and Utilities Committee; and

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Works and Utilities Committee on the status of the next phase of the CSO retention program including development of the Railway Lands:

(i)(October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:

(1)the report on the progress of the construction of Phase I of the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel (WBST) project, and on a revision to the alignment of the tunnel in the vicinity of Ontario Place from the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West to the north side onto Exhibition Place lands, be received for information;

(2)subject to the necessary funding being approved by City Council as part of the 1999Water and Wastewater Capital Budget, approval be given to award Phase II of the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel at a contract price of $17,259,100.00 to McNally-Frontier Joint Venture Inc. in accordance with the provision of the WBST Design-Build Agreement between the Joint Venture and the City of Toronto; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including preparation and execution of the necessary amendments of the Design-Build Agreement between McNally-Frontier Joint Venture Inc. on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(ii)(November 4, 1998) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, the Safe Sewage Committee, raising questions with respect to Phase II of the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel; and advising that at presentations made to the Storm Water Group, it was concluded that lot level, block level and community level stormwater projects were far more cost effective than the Western Beaches project.

(iii)(November 4, 1998) from Mr. John Sewell, Storm Water Group, requesting that consideration of the report dated October 15, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on December 2, 1998.

--------

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

-Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park; and

-Councillor Blake F. Kinahan, Lakeshore - Queensway.

(e)Acquisition of Ontario Hydro Corridor -

Kennedy Road to Birchmount Road

(Scarborough City Centre).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)recommended to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration at its meeting to be held on November 9, 1998, the adoption of the following report; and

(2)requested that this matter also be referred to the Storm Water Group for its information and any input as the project unfolds:

(October 22, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, recommending that:

(1)Council endorse the conclusions in the report prepared by XCG Consultants Ltd. and Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster and Anthony Usher Planning Consultant entitled "Ontario Hydro Corridor (West Highland Creek) Investigation of Stormwater Management, Naturalization and Open Space Opportunities";

(2)Council authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of the highest priority area south of Highway 401 identified by the XCG report, Kennedy Road to Birchmount Road, and report back; and

(3)Council agree in principle to use the funds from the Water Reserve for the acquisition of the enhanced watercourse lands as part of the ongoing Watercourse Land Acquisition Program.

(f)Award of Contract No. 358 -

Bulk Lift Collection Services -

North York and Scarborough Community Council Areas.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following joint report dated November 2, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

(i)(October 22, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting the Tender for Contract No. 358, for refuse, bulky items and recyclable collection from multi-residential apartment buildings, multi-residential townhouse locations, municipal, institutional, and commercial establishments located in Districts3 and 4; advising that the Tender does not close until October 28, 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information, pending the submission of a handout supplementary report at the Works and Utilities Committee which will contain specific recommendations respecting the Tender award.

(ii)(November 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that:

(1)bulk lift service be harmonized across the City by using one person collection vehicles;

(2)J & F Waste Systems Inc., utilizing one person collection vehicles, be awarded Contract No.358 in the total estimated annual amount of $1,546,865.40 including GST for the provision of bulk collection services for all designated areas within the North York and Scarborough Community Council areas for a three-year period, subject to adjustment in the price for years two and three of the contract based on the average percentage increase/decrease of the Statistic Canada's Employment Earnings and Hours for the previous year, with an option to extend for two years should the terms and conditions be agreeable to both parties;

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services notify all property management companies responsible for locations in the North York and Scarborough Community Council areas of the change in collection requirements and ensure that all locations are compliant;

(4)the appropriate officials be authorized to complete the necessary contract documents; and

(5)this report be forwarded to Council for approval.

(g)Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee -

Parking Lot Issues.

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

(October 22, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, respecting the summary of "Parking Lot Issues" prepared by the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee that was before the Committee at its meeting on October 7, 1998; advising that the majority of the issues identified by the Multi-Stakeholder Committee have been addressed in the Request for Proposal document and will be responded to in the proposal submissions; further advising that it is intended that the Sewer Use By-law to be brought before City Council later this year will include sewage discharge parameters that will enhance the quality of sludge for continued beneficial use of biosolids; noting that the department plans to further report on the opportunities for biosolids handling at other plant sites under a future report which will deal with a Biosolids Management Plan for the new City; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h)Water Servicing Charges -

118R Clinton Street (Ward 20, Trinity - Niagara).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on December 2, 1998:

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

(ii)(November 3, 1998) from Councillor Mario Silva, Trinity - Niagara, requesting that consideration of the report dated October 21, 1998, from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, respecting water servicing charges with regard to 118RClinton Street, be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee in order to speak to the matter.

(i)Submission by Toronto Environmental Alliance

Regarding Fast Tracking of Waste Diversion.

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

(October 21, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, responding to the submission by the Toronto Environmental Alliance regarding fast tracking of waste diversion that was before the Committee at its meeting on September 9, 1998; advising that organic waste diversion levels of 60 to 80 percent are feasible, but will require a system which includes organic food waste collection and centralized composting facilities, and/or mixed waste processing; further advising that staff are proceeding with a phased implementation approach, starting with a 20,000 tonne per year composting and mixed waste processing facility, and in the meantime, are continuing to increase the quantity of organic waste being diverted through leaf and yard waste composting, backyard composting and "grasscycling" programs; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(j)Vehicle Emissions Testing.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the Committee:

(October 6, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, respecting the status of the request by the former Metropolitan Council to the Province of Ontario to implement a stringent vehicle emissions testing program, accompanied by procedures which would ensure that vehicles exceeding emission limits would be brought into conformance or taken out of operation; requesting that City of Toronto staff report on the technology, procedures and funding (user fees) that would be required to implement a vehicle emissions testing and enforcement program for automobiles and commercial vehicles in the City of Toronto and in the Greater Toronto Area with a minimum of delay; and suggesting that the City invite all municipalities in the GTA to participate in this exercise, in order that working proposals for a rigorous emissions testing/enforcement program for the GTA could be presented to the Province.

(k)Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Program -

Adjustment to Consultant Workplan and Budget.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report; and

(2)directed that Proctor &Redfern Limited be requested to make a presentation to the Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee with respect to its work on this project:

(November 3, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services recommending that:

(1)the workplan for Proctor & Redfern Limited, related to the engagement of the marketplace to acquire new long-term solid waste disposal capacity, be amended to include:

(i)modification of the Request for Expressions of Interest to include requests for diversion approaches/technologies as well as new and emerging technologies and other associated modifications as outlined in the body of this report; and

(ii)engagement to undertake an assessment of Request for Expressions of Interest responses on diversion and new and emerging technologies, and other associated modifications as outlined in the body of this report; and

(2)subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (1), the approved budget for Proctor & Redfern Limited be adjusted by the addition of $82,510.00, including GST, to fund the additional workplan items listed in Recommendation No. (1).

(l)Award of Tender No. 104-1998 -

Collection and Transportation of Recyclable Materials -

York Community Council Area.

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

(November 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that:

(1)Miller Waste Systems, a division of Miller Paving Limited, be awarded Tender No.104-1998 in the total annual estimated amount of $642,481.50 including GST, for the collection and transportation of recyclable materials from residential dwelling units and certain multiple unit residential buildings, institutions and commercial locations within the York Community Council area for a three-year period, subject to adjustment in the price for years two and three of the contract based on the Toronto All-Items Consumers Price Index Formula with an option to renew for a fourth and/or fifth year, should the terms and conditions be agreeable to both parties;

(2)the appropriate officials be authorized to complete the necessary contract documents; and

(3)this report be forwarded to Council for information.

(m)Road Salt Environmental Impact Study.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following Motion to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the Committee:

Motion submitted by Councillor Saundercook respecting the usage of road salt, wherein it is resolved:

"THAT staff report to the Works and Utilities Committee on a means of conducting a comprehensive road salt environmental impact study; and

THAT the Committee endorse, in principle, that the City of Toronto work towards decreasing the amount of road salt used, and finding new and less environmentally hazardous substances to use in place of road salt; and

THAT the Committee ask staff to advise on a public education campaign aimed at not only residents of Toronto, but also major users of road salt, educating them on potential alternatives".

(n)1999 Schedule of Meetings.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports have directed that the City Clerk be requested to submit the schedule of meetings for 1999 to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on December 2, 1998.

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO,

Chair

Toronto, November 4, 1998

(Report No. 10 of The Works and Utilities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.)