Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program,

and Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April20, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for a harmonized Sewer Connection Blockage/Tree Root Removal and Grants Policy which incorporates the amendments requested by your Committee at its meeting of November4, 1998, and incorporates where appropriate the comments received from the January 20, 1999 Community Councils.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4)the Drain Grant Appeal Program of the former City of Toronto be terminated and drain grant appeals for repairs or replacement which exceed the policy limits be made to the Works and Utilities Committee;

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

below$18,000.00-100 percent of the balance

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

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of November 4, 1998, in considering my October21, 1998 report entitled "Sewer Connection Blockage/Tree Root Removal Grants Policy", recommended the adoption of this report subject to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Community Councils at their meetings of January 20, 1999, on considering this request from City Council commented as follows to the Works and Utilities Committee:

(1)North York Community Council commented:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2)Toronto Community Council commented:

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

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

(3)Scarborough Community Council commented

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

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

(4)York Community Council commented:

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

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

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

"(2)(e)assistance will be provided in the amount of 100 percent of the invoiced cost, to a limit of $750.00 per property, for a repair or partial renewal of a drain or drains, and to a limit of $1,500.00 per property for the complete renewal of a drain or drains between the City property line and the building;".

(5)East York Community Council commented:

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

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

Comments and/or Discussion:

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

Summary of Community Councils' Comments

The comments received will be discussed under the following topics:

(i)Frequency of Drain Grant Assistance:

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

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

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

(ii)Drain Grant Amount:

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

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

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

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

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

(iii)Appeal Process:

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

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

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

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

(iv)Assistance to Low Income Property Owners:

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

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

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

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

below $18,000.00-100 percent of the balance

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

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

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

(v)Emergency Plan Numbers for Drain Investigations:

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

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

The numbers are as follows:

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

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

Scarborough . . . . . . .396-7372

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

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

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

(after hours)395-6333

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

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

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

(vi)Feasibility of Pipe Bursting Technology:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Name:

Mr. W. Green, Director

Quality Control and System Planning

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

--------

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

(i)(December 11, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a copy of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy", which City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, struck out and referred to all Community Councils for further consideration, with a request that the Community Councils forward their recommendations with respect to the Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy to the Works and Utilities Committee.

(ii)(January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the East York Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Works and Utilities Committee that Recommendation No. (2) of the report dated October21, 1998, from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, be amended to provide that the proposed harmonized Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy be consistent with the policy of the former City of York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"(2)(e)assistance will be provided in the amount of 100 percent of the invoiced cost, to a limit of $750.00 per property, for a repair or partial renewal of a drain or drains, and to a limit of $1,500.00 per property, for the complete renewal of a drain or drains between the City property line and the building."

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

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

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