TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 8

1Keele Valley Landfill Site - Filling Options

2Planning for Long-Term Solid Waste Disposal Capacity

3Waste Management Collection Costs

4Opportunity to Participate in Cogeneration Facility with Toronto Hydro and the Private Sector

5Settlement of Legal Claim

6500 mm New Toronto Standby Forcemain on Morrison Street and Thirteenth Street, New Toronto Pumping Station to Lake Shore Boulevard -Contract No. MW9807WP

7Cleaning and Cement Mortar Lining of Existing Water Mains, North York District -Completion of Contract No. 97-709

8Sanitary Discharge Agreement -Flint Ink Corporation of Canada

9Purchase of Bulk Common Coarse Rock Salt (Road Salt)

10Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on September 9, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

1

Keele Valley Landfill Site - Filling Options

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the financial implications and costs be referred to the Budget Committee for consideration in the 1999 Budget.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of Slow Fill Option "B" for filling the Keele Valley Landfill Site, as outlined in the report dated August 28, 1998, from the General Manger, Solid Waste Management Services; and

(2)the adoption of the aforementioned report.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the submission by the Toronto Environmental Alliance to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the Committee.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (August28, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the financial implications of various filling options of the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no immediate funding impact for 1998 resulting from the recommendation of this report. However, adoption of the recommendation of this report would require approval in the 1999 budget cycle for an increase in expenditure in the amount of $4,300,000.00. This initiative will extend the closure date of the Keele Valley Landfill by one year to late 2002.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that staff be authorized to increase the amount of waste being disposed of at BFI's Arbor Hills Landfill to 450,000 tonnes per annum commencing on June 1, 1999, and to immediately notify BFI in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract with BFI.

Council Reference/Background History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on July 15, 1998, had before it a report dated July 9, 1998, Item No. 3 in the supplementary agenda. This report reviewed the potential utilization of the remaining approved capacity in the Keele Valley Landfill Site and discussed the impacts of three options for filling the site to its approved capacity; provided an update on the City's environmental assessment planning process for post-Keele Valley disposal capacity; and advised that it was staff's intention to discuss the content of the report with staff in the City of Vaughan and York Region. Staff further advised that a subsequent report would provide information related to their position on the closure issue, in addition to more specific detail related to financial matters.

The Committee deferred consideration of the aforementioned report until its next meeting scheduled to be held on September 9, 1998, to provide an opportunity for the Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee (SWMICC) and any other interested parties to make a deputation.

Additionally, the Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee on September 9, 1998, providing more detailed information on the financial implications of the various options and outlining the timing of the proposal call for long-term disposal capacity, such report to include a breakdown of the origin of waste being disposed of at landfill.

The timing of the proposal call for long-term disposal capacity is the subject of another report before your Committee on September 9, 1998.

Discussion and Justification:

Waste Origin:

Table 1 outlines the breakdown of the origin of waste being disposed of at the Keele Valley and BFI and Arbor Hills Landfills.

Table 1

Waste Origin and Tonnages Anticipated for 1999

It is anticipated that in 1999 a total of 1,810,000 tonnes of waste will be managed from the City of Toronto, Region of York, and Region of Durham. Approximately 980,000 tonnes will originate from municipal sources including Agencies, Boards, and Commissions; 300,000 tonnes of private waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sources are expected to be delivered directly to the landfill; and 230,000 tonnes of ICI waste will be received at transfer stations. York Region and Durham Region will deliver 175,000 tonnes and 125,000 tonnes of municipal waste respectively directly to Keele Valley.

Effect of Site Closure Date on Site Capacity:

As a result of biological decomposition of the waste deposited into the Keele Valley Landfill, the site undergoes continuous settlement equivalent to the volume which would be occupied by approximately 500,000 tonnes of waste per annum. Hence, the slower the site is filled the more waste can be placed within the same approved volumetric capacity.

The landfill has been surveyed and an engineering model has been developed which accurately estimates the closure date depending on the fill rate. For example, if the site were filled at a rate of 1,900,000 tonnes per year, its capacity will be reached in spring 2001, at which time the site will contain a total of approximately 27,400,000 tonnes. If the site were filled at a rate of 1,200,000 tonnes per year, its capacity will be reached in the fall of 2003, at which time the site will contain a total of approximately 28,600,000 tonnes.

Hence, the rate of filling of the site not only affects its closure date but its ultimate capacity.

In general terms, any additional tonnage which can be disposed of into Keele Valley at the current approximate cost of $10.00 per tonne will offset future costs forecasted to be $50.00 to $70.00 per tonne.

Methods for Diversion:

Clearly, as part of our waste management strategy, planning and implementation of infrastructure such as the mixed waste processing and material recycling facilities will strive for the goal of 50percent diversion by 2006. However, these initiatives will not likely impact in time to extend the life of the site appreciably.

Action is required immediately at moderate cost to achieve long-term savings. Two such methods by which the City of Toronto can quickly control the rate at which the Keele Valley Landfill is filled is through the BFI contract to dispose of waste at Arbor Hills and through the setting of solid waste management (SWM) fees at its facilities.

BFI Contract:

Toronto began diverting waste from the Keele Valley Landfill in January 1998, at an approximate annual rate of 260,000 tonnes. Purchase of this diversion initiative at a price of $53.60/tonne will have an annual gross budget impact of approximately $14 million. Toronto already has the option to divert up to 500,000 tonnes annually via the BFI contract. The contract expires at the end of 2002.

SWM Fees:

Toronto can create a strong disincentive for the disposal of ICI waste at the Keele Valley Landfill by establishing a high SWM fee at the landfill. Some haulers of ICI material may choose to divert their loads to the transfer stations within the City if their waste is acceptable for receipt at the transfer stations. Historically, loads of construction and demolition (C&D) materials cannot necessarily be accepted at the transfer stations because during unloading, particulate concentrations in air may increase within the enclosed transfer station building. Additionally, loads containing material longer than four feet cannot be accepted due to the restrictions in the mechanical compaction equipment in the transfer stations Hence, if the fee at the landfill were to be increased significantly, haulers of C&D material may decide to avoid the Keele Valley Landfill and haul their loads to private facilities. These paid tonnages would be lost as a source of revenue.

Depending on the fee at the landfill, some ICI haulers may choose to avoid the landfill but to use the Toronto transfer station network. The City has the option to compact and haul the waste to the Keele Valley Landfill or to dispose of the waste via the BFI contract to Arbor Hills.

Filling Scenarios:

Table 2 outlines five scenarios for filling the Keele Valley Landfill: status quo; one option whereby the site is filled rapidly; and three scenarios whereby the site is filled more slowly. Sensitivity analysis showed that the single rapid fill scenario is representative of a number of pricing and diversion initiatives which affect the site closure date by a matter of months. Three slow fill scenarios are discussed in this report to show the effect of extending the site closure date by as much as a year and a half.

Table 2

(1)Status Quo - Landfill Fee $55.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 260,000 tonnes per year.

The status quo is assumed to be representative of costs and tonnages resulting from Solid Waste Management fees established in July 1998 of $65.00/tonne at the transfer stations and $55.00/tonne at the Keele Valley Landfill. It is assumed that approximately 530,000 tonnes would be received annually from the private sector of which 300,000 tonnes would be received directly at landfill; 230,000 tonnes would be received at the transfer stations. Approximately 260,000 tonnes annually would be disposed of through the BFI contract to Arbor Hills Landfill. At the status quo filling rate of 1,550,000 tonnes disposed of annually into the landfill, it will be full in December 2001 and will contain approximately 27,700,000tonnes of waste.

(2)Rapid Fill - Landfill Fee $45.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 260,000 tonnes per year.

Rapid filling of the landfill is assumed to occur if, for example, the SWM fee were set at $45.00/tonne at the Keele Valley Landfill and $65.00/tonne at the transfer stations effective January 1999. It is estimated that approximately 860,000 tonnes would be received annually from the private sector of which 680,000 tonnes would be received directly at landfill due to the incentive of the lowered landfill fee of $45.00/tonne; 180,000 tonnes of ICI waste would be received at transfer stations. Roughly 260,000 tonnes would be disposed of annually through the BFI contract to Arbor Hills Landfill. At this more rapid filling rate of 1,900,000tonnes disposed of annually into the landfill, the site will be full in spring 2001 and will contain approximately 27,400,000 tonnes of waste.

(3)Slow Fill Option (A) - Landfill Fee $90.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 360,000 tonnes per year.

Slower filling of the landfill is assumed to occur if, for example, the SWM fee were set at $90.00/tonne at the Keele Valley Landfill and $65.00/tonne at the transfer stations. It is estimated that the higher fee at the landfill will be a disincentive to haulers resulting in a reduction of ICI tonnes to approximately 50,000 tonnes per year. As has been discussed previously, certain haulers will continue to haul directly to landfill; however, there will be an increased use of the transfer stations to an amount of 330,000 tonnes per year. An additional 100,000 tonnes would be handled via the BFI contract compared to the status quo such that a total of 360,000 tonnes would be landfilled at Arbor Hills in Michigan. The City is obligated to give BFI six months notice of its intent to increase tonnages in excess of 325,000tonnes per year. Therefore it has been assumed for this analysis that BFI would begin hauling the higher tonnages in June 1999. The Keele Valley Landfill would be filled at an annual rate of 1,300,000 tonnes and would be full in early 2003. At closure, the site will contain approximately 28,300,000 tonnes.

(4)Slow Fill Option (B) - Landfill Fee $55.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 450,000 tonnes per year.

Another method of slowing the filling rate into the landfill is by significantly increasing the diversion of waste to Arbor Hills via the BFI contract. If the SWM fees are not altered but 450,000 tonnes of waste is diverted to Arbor Hills via BFI, haulers will continue to use the landfill and transfer stations similar to the status quo rate, but Keele Valley will be filled at a rate of approximately 1,360,000 tonnes per year. The site will be full in late 2002 and will contain approximately 27,900,000 tonnes.

(5)Slow Fill Option (C) - Landfill Fee $90.00/tonne; Transfer Station Fee $65.00/tonne

BFI hauls 450,000 tonnes per year.

Another variation on the slow fill scenario involves increasing the SWM fees at the landfill to $90.00/tonne and maintaining high diversion through the BFI contract. This pricing alternative will cause a disincentive for ICI disposal at Keele Valley and will cause an increase in ICI disposal at transfer stations. Under this scenario, Keele Valley will be filled at a rate of 1,210,000 tonnes per year and will contain 28,500,000 tonnes at closure in mid-2003.

Table 3 outlines the financial impacts of the five filling options.

Table 3

($000)

(1)Status Quo:

If SWM fees and diversion tonnages to BFI remain unchanged, total net disposal costs for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004 will be approximately $270 million. Net costs will rise from $14 million in 2001 to $74 million in 2002 following the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill.

(2)Rapid Fill:

If the Keele Valley Landfill is filled rapidly due to the incentive of low SWM fees at the landfill, net costs in the years 1999 and 2000 will be reduced by an amount of $10 million each year compared to the status quo. Net annual costs will rise from $2.5 million in 2000 to $58 million in 2001 to $75 million in 2002. The total net disposal costs for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004 will be approximately $293 million compared to the status quo of $270 million.

(3)Slow Fill - Option (A):

If the Keele Valley Landfill is filled slowly as a result of the landfill SWM fee of $90.00/tonne and diversion of 360,000 tonnes via BFI, total net disposal costs for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004 will be $246 million representing a saving of $24 million compared to the statusquo. There will be a reduction in the year 2002 cost impact of $49million.

(4)Slow Fill - Option (B):

If haulage via the BFI contract is increased in mid-1999 to 450,000 tonnes but the SWM fees remain unchanged, there will be a cost increase of $4.3 million resulting in net disposal costs of $21 million in 1999. There will be cost impacts of $8.8 million in each of the years 2000 and 2001 resulting in net annual costs of $21 and $23 million in 2000 and 2001 respectively. The total net disposal costs for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004 will be approximately $265 million representing a saving of $4.5 million compared to the status quo.

(5)Slow Fill - Option (C):

If haulage via the BFI contract is increased in mid-1999 to 450,000 tonnes per year and the SWM fee at landfill is increased to $90.00/tonne, there will be cost impacts of $10 million and $14 million in 1999 and 2000. Option (C) results in the highest savings in costs of $28 million over the six-year period compared to the status quo.

Pros and Cons of the Options:

(1)Status Quo:

Pros:

The current ICI disposal fees are established; retaining these fees would result in the least resistance from this industry.

Cons:

The annual disposal costs will dramatically increase to $74 million in 2002 from $14 million in 2001.

(2)Rapid Fill:

Pros:

There is an annual net saving of $10 million in each of the years 1999 and 2000. Private generators would enjoy a two-year benefit of low disposal costs at the landfill.

Cons:

This option results in an overall increase of $23 million in net costs over the next six years (1999 to 2004). This option would result in the Keele Valley Landfill closing months before the status quo option and approximately 1.5 years before Slow Fill Option (B), considerably reducing the time available to plan and implement a long-term strategy for several viable options for diversion/recycling/disposal. The low SWM fee at the landfill may create an imbalance in pricing structures in the ICI sector. This option is the least effective in utilizing the total available capacity at Keele Valley.

(3)Slow Fill:

Pros:

The three slow fill options considered in the report all extend the life of the Keele Valley Landfill Site and all provide a savings ranging from $4.5 million to $28 million over the six-year period from 1999 to 2004. The recommended option identified as Slow Fill Option(B) although it results in the least saving of $4.5 million over the six-year period, provides the lowest costs of all the slow fill options leading up to the closure of the landfill. The recommended Option (B) also retains the existing ICI fees, consequently causing the least impact to this sector and retaining these customers in the interim. The slow fill options better utilize the capacity available at the Keele Valley Landfill and allow the City more time with control of its own landfill, to develop 3Rs alternatives to divert waste from landfill.

Cons:

All slow fill options increase the annual net operating costs in the years 1999 to 2001 compared to the status quo.

None of the options meet the wishes of Vaughan residents to close the landfill as soon as possible. Under the rapid fill option, the residents may seek to negotiate an end to the class action lawsuit.

Conclusions:

If the status quo involving SWM fees of $55.00/tonne at the landfill and $65.00/tonne at the transfer stations is maintained, coupled with minimal diversion of waste via the BFI contract of 260,000tonnes per year, Keele Valley will close in late 2001. Net annual disposal costs will rise from approximately $14 million in 2001 to approximately $74 million in 2002.

If slow filling of the Keele Valley Landfill were effected through increased SWM fees at the landfill and increased diversion via BFI haulage to Michigan, the site will close in early to mid-2003. Slow filling of Keele Valley will save the City from $4.5 million to $28 million for the six-year period from 1999 to 2004.

Slow filling of the landfill by increasing the BFI haulage to Michigan but not altering the landfill or transfer station SWM fees (Slow Fill Option (B)) will not impact generators and haulers of ICI waste. The City will retain its private sector customer base. This option will extend the horizon for planning and implementing waste diversion and disposal infrastructure by one year. Moderate net cost impacts in the short term yield overall net savings in the amount of $4.5 million, and will reduce by $27million the status quo impact of $60 million forecasted for the year 2002.

Contact Name:

Ken Hogg, P.Eng.

Assistant Director, Solid Waste Management Services

Phone: (416) 392-4226; Fax: (905) 392-4754

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

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to review potential utilization of the remaining approved capacity in the Keele Valley Landfill Site ("Keele Valley"). The report presents three options for filling Keele Valley to its approved capacity and the associated impacts of each option. This report also provides an update on the City's environmental assessment planning process for post-Keele Valley disposal capacity.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding implications resulting from this report.

In the body of this report the impacts of the three options for filling Keele Valley are discussed. A subsequent report will provide more specific detail related to financial matters.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Further to discussions held at the informal meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee on June18, 1998, this report is being presented to provide information related to the impacts of three options regarding the filling of Keele Valley. The options are: (1) Status Quo; (2) Rapid Fill; and (3) Slow Fill. This report also provides information related to our long-term environmental assessment planning process.

Toronto's remaining landfill site, Keele Valley, is located in the City of Vaughan, York Region. It has been in operation since November 1983. More than 22,000,000 tonnes of waste have been deposited at the site to date. It is anticipated that the landfill will reach its volumetric capacity of 33,125,254 m³ by mid-2002, if waste disposal at the site continues at the current rate.

In the early 1980's during environmental hearings regarding the development of Keele Valley, the operational site life was forecast to be 20 years. The 20-year forecast was entered as supporting information to the application for a Certificate of Approval to operate the site. The expectation of a 20-year operational period was subsequently incorporated into the York/Metro Toronto Agreement dated May 24, 1983. Through the Agreement, an obligation was made for Toronto to provide York Region with disposal capacity for 20 years (to July 2004) or until the closure of Keele Valley, whichever occurs last. A Supplementary Agreement dated June 12, 1996, reinforced the July 2004 disposal obligation of Toronto to York Region.

In the late 1980's, the amount of waste disposed of at Toronto's landfills was significantly higher than at present. In 1989, the total tonnage disposed of at Keele Valley was 3,220,300 tonnes. This higher disposal rate created an expectation in the local community that Keele Valley would be filled by the mid-1990's. In 1991, in recognition that Toronto's landfills were rapidly reaching their capacity, and in order to provide additional time to plan for alternate disposal alternatives, the Provincial Government directed Toronto, through a Minister's Section 29 Report, to design a vertical 'lift' expansion to Keele Valley.

As required by the Minister's Section 29 Report, Toronto has provided monthly reports to Council and to the Region of York and the City of Vaughan forecasting the remaining capacity at Keele Valley. Since 1995, forecasting has estimated that Keele Valley will reach capacity sometime in 2002, without the lift at the current rate of receipt of waste. This regular reporting has given the impression that there is a finality to the forecasted year of closure of 2002.

As a result of settlement and decomposition of waste, the site experiences annual settlement equivalent to the volume that would be occupied by approximately 500,000 tonnes of waste per annum. Hence, the slower the site is filled up the more waste can be placed within the approved volumetric capacity. Toronto and York Region can take advantage of this to keep the landfill operating to at least July 2004, which coincides with Toronto's obligation to York Region for provision of disposal capacity.

Discussion and Justification:

Three landfilling options have been considered to fill the Keele Valley site to its final capacity: (1)Status Quo; (2) Rapid Fill; and (3) Slow Fill.

Option 1 - Status Quo:

If current pricing policies remain relatively static and 3Rs programs produce consistent diversion results, Keele Valley will reach its volumetric capacity in mid-2002. Associated operating costs will continue to be paid for in part from tipping fees paid by the private sector and some residential users, and in part from the tax levy. No waste reserve exists to draw from.

Under the Status Quo option, approximately 1.45 million tonnes of solid waste would be disposed of at Keele Valley per year to mid-2002. Of this amount approximately 360,000 tonnes would be received from the private sector (the private sector refers to the Industrial/Commercial/Institutional sector). Through our contract with Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI), approximately 260,000 tonnes of solid waste would be disposed of at the Arbor Hills Landfill in Michigan. This factor also applies to the subsequent two options.

If this option was followed, Toronto would still be obligated to provide York Region with disposal capacity to July 2004, after the closure of Keele Valley in mid-2002 to July 2004. York Region would be required to pay the associated costs of new disposal capacity at the private sector facility. Following the closure of Keele Valley, Toronto would have to purchase disposal capacity from the private sector at market value.

Option 2 - Rapid Fill:

Under the "Rapid Fill" option, Toronto would lower its solid waste management (SWM) fees to attract additional tonnage from the private sector. A reduction in the SWM fee of approximately ten percent would translate into approximately 150,000 tonnes of additional private sector waste received annually at Keele Valley.

The advantage of this option is that it brings in significant funds from private sector SWM fees. However, it reduces the service life of Keele Valley by a year and negates the advantages of the sites "settling" feature due to compaction and decomposition of waste, which would help to extend the service life of the site. In addition, following closure Toronto would begin paying significantly higher disposal costs.

Option 3 - Slow Fill:

Under the "Slow Fill" option, Toronto would employ pricing policies for SWM fees and 3Rs programs to extend the service life of Keele Valley. By increasing the SWM fee after 1998, there would be a reduction in private sector waste being disposed of at Keele Valley. Coupled with new 3Rs programs and facilities, the service life of Keele Valley could be extended to mid-2004.

This option utilizes the settling feature of the landfill through compaction and organic decomposition to extend the service life beyond the current anticipated closure date of mid-2002 to mid-2004 (in conjunction with new 3Rs programs), which dovetails with the obligation to provide York Region with disposal capacity.

Under the Slow Fill option there would be a more extensive reliance on the tax levy to finance operations. Some revenue would still be attained from SWM fees, but at a reduced level. However, Keele Valley's service life would be extended by approximately two years and therefore offset the purchase of substantially higher private sector disposal capacity.

Current EA Planning Process for Long-Term Solid Waste Disposal Capacity:

Works and Emergency Services is currently preparing a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Terms of Reference for post-Keele Valley disposal capacity. EA-level planning for long-term disposal capacity was initiated by the former Metro Toronto Council. The preparation of a Terms of Reference is a mandatory planning step when undertaking an EA.

The former Metro Council initiated EA-level planning in response to an amendment to Bill 76, the Environmental Assessment and Consultation Improvement Act, 1997. The amendment (known as the "Metro Toronto" waste disposal clause) provides that designated municipalities (by regulation) cannot proceed to contract out without first submitting an EA and receiving the Minister's approval to proceed.

Our current EA planning process engages the marketplace to identify new long-term disposal capacity (i.e., a process of "contracting out"). While Toronto has not been designated to date, the City could be designated at any time in the process. We are therefore proceeding as if designated as a hedge against the possibility of being designated at the latter part of a non-EA contracting out process.

A comprehensive report regarding the EA planning process was submitted to the February 1998 meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee. The report, dated January 29, 1998, provides information regarding past public sector siting efforts and information about the current process, which is based on the following four planning principles:

(1)Toronto will turn to the marketplace to identify alternatives.

(2)No generic comparison will be undertaken between landfill and incineration technologies.

(3)The 3Rs strategy will identify residual needing disposal (set by the former Metro Toronto Council at 50 percent diversion by 2006).

(4)The consultation process is Toronto-based.

The current EA planning process is designed to have new disposal capacity available by mid-2002. However, this does not provide for a hearing (if required), or significant delays in the multiple planning steps, which may include site preparation (approvals and capital works). A mid-2004 closure date for Keele Valley will provide greater opportunity for the marketplace to respond to a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP), and facilitate EA-level planning.

In order for an EA Terms of Reference to be finalized and submitted to Council for adoption, followed by submission to the Minister for approval, Council direction is needed regarding the following issues:

(1)Is the marketplace approach (which may result in public-private and/or public-public partnerships) a suitable approach to identify and attain new disposal capacity?

(2)Is the inclusion of potential export to the United States an appropriate alternative?

(3)Should Energy from Waste technology (incineration with heat recovery) be included in the RFQ and RFP, in addition to landfill technology?

(4)Does Council endorse the target of 50 percent 3Rs diversion by 2006?

(5)Is the continuation of EA-level planning agreeable?

(6)Do we wish to collaborate with potential Greater Toronto Area partners through a dovetailing of planning processes, in order to combine waste streams and enter into joint disposal agreements?

The other issue which staff are seeking direction on regards the service life of the Keele Valley Landfill. This matter is addressed through this report.

It is our intention to submit a report to the September meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee regarding the policy issues listed above. A subsequent report will contain the draft Terms of Reference for consideration by Committee and Council.

Conclusions:

This report has set impacts related to three options for the potential utilization of the remaining capacity of Keele Valley. Pricing policies and 3Rs programs can be engaged to influence the closure date.

If the status quo is maintained, the site is expected to close in mid-2002. Substantially more expensive private sector disposal capacity will then be required and Toronto will still be obligated to provide disposal capacity for York Region to July 2004.

If a Rapid Fill option is engaged, the SWM fee will be reduced which will bring in new revenues from the private sector, but will result in the closure of the site in 2001, resulting in the need to engage private sector disposal capacity earlier than under the Status Quo option.

If a Slow Fill option is engaged, revenues from private sector SWM fees will decrease, but the service life of the site could be extended to mid-2004 due to a reduction in the total annual amount of disposal, new 3Rs program, and by the settling feature due to compaction and organic decomposition. Under the Slow Fill option, Toronto would offset the need to purchase substantially more expensive private sector disposal capacity. This would also bring the service life of the site to conclusion in correspondence with the 20-year life expectancy of the site.

It is our intention to discuss the content of this report with staff in the City of Vaughan and York Region. A subsequent report will provide information related to their positions on the closure issue.

Contact Name:

Lawson Oates, Manager, EA Co-ordination Branch

Management and Technical Services, City Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-2974

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

--------

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (July 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, City of Vaughan, advising that the Council of the City of Vaughan, at its meeting of July 6, 1998, adopted a resolution respecting closure and rehabilitation of the Keele Valley Landfill Site by the year 2000, wherein it resolved:

"THAT the City of Toronto be requested to immediately begin its RFP process to search for and select a solution for their waste management needs, effective the year 2000, with the closure of Keele Valley at that same time;

THAT the Council for the City of Vaughan establish a 'Rehabilitation 2000 Task Force' to manage the rehabilitation process of the Keele Valley Dump; that two representatives from each of the following: Vaughan C.A.R.E.S., Maple community residents, Ministry of the Environment, City of Toronto, York Region, City of Vaughan and the private sector be invited to serve on the task force and that the task force be in place to begin its work no later than the fall of 1998; and

THAT the City of Toronto be formally requested to inform the Minister of the Environment that the additional lift at Keele Valley Dump is no longer needed given the availability of numerous other options to manage their waste";

and requesting that the City of Vaughan be provided with the names of two appointed representatives to the Rehabilitation 2000 Task Force.

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

-Mayor Lorna Jackson, City of Vaughan;

-Councillor Mario Ferri, City of Vaughan, and submitted a petition from residents of the City of Vaughan requesting the City of Toronto to close and begin rehabilitation of the Keele Valley Landfill Site;

-Councillor Joyce Frustaglio, Regional Councillor, City of Vaughan;

-Ms. Marilyn Iafrate, Maple, Ontario;

-Mr. Dominic Curci, President, Maple Pioneer Seniors Club;

-Mr. Scott Somerville, City Manager, City of Vaughan;

-Mr. Ernst Von Bezold, Vice-President, Vaughan C.A.R.E.S.;

-Mr. Wilf Goldlust, Vice-President - GTA Division, Canadian Waste Services Inc.;

-Mr. Tony O'Donohue, President, Environmental Probe Ltd.; and

-Ms. Shelley Petrie, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and submitted questions with respect to fast-tracking waste reduction in the City of Toronto.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following:

(i)a copy of a letter (September14, 1998) from the President, Vaughan C.A.R.E.S., addressed to the Honourable Al Palladini, M.P.P., York Centre, expressing appreciation, on behalf of all the residents in Maple, for his effort to support the community in its struggle to have the Keele Valley landfill closed sooner rather than later;

(ii)communication (August 28, 1998) from the President, Maple Ratepayers Association, expressing support of Option No. (2) embodied in the report dated July9,1998 from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting the rapid fill approach of the Keele Valley Landfill Site;

(iii)communication (undated) from a Member of the Board of Directors, Maple Glen Homeowners Association, expressing support of Option No. (2) embodied in the report dated July 9, 1998 from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting the rapid fill approach of the Keele Valley Landfill Site; and

(iv)communication (September 1, 1998) from Mario Cianchetti requesting that Council not allow any further expansion of the Keele Valley Landfill Site;

(v)communication (September 28, 1998) from the Regional Clerk, York Region forwarding the decision of the York Region with respect to the Keele Valley Landfill Site; and

(vi)communication (September 16, 1998) from Ms. Marilyn Iafrate, Maple, Ontario, submitting comments regarding the Keele Valley Landfill Site.)

2

Planning for Long-Term Solid Waste Disposal Capacity

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)inserting in Recommendation No. (1) of the Works and Utilities Committee:

(i)the words "management options including waste diversion and" after the words "solid waste"; and

(ii)the words "request for expressions of interest and" after the words "through a";

so that Recommendation No. (1) of the Works and Utilities Committee shall now read as follows:

"(1)the City of Toronto immediately proceed to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste management options including waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the City's long-term requirements through a Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals process based on the work undertaken in the planning process to date, but without proceeding to the submission of an environmental assessment;"; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the report dated September 30, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed 'Long-Term Solid Waste Disposal Capacity - Request for Proposals Process and Implementation Time Frame', be adopted, subject to:

(a)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Regions being requested to expedite the process to achieve earlier target dates than shown on Schedule 'A' of the report dated September30, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(b)striking out Recommendation No. (2)(i) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

'(2)(i)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to draft the Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) and Request for Proposals (RFP) processes in such a manner that respondents are requested to provide fee per tonne disposal services and/or identify potential partnership proposals with Toronto that may contain a range of options including a transfer of ownership, leasehold, or other arrangement'; and

(c)deleting from Recommendation No. (3) the words 'included in' and inserting in lieu thereof the words 'in partnership with', so that Recommendation No. (3) shall now read as follows:

'(3)City of Toronto Council formally invite the Regional Governments of the Greater Toronto Area (Halton, Peel, York, and Durham), to be potentially in partnership with Toronto's proposal call process for long-term solid waste disposal capacity by:

(i)declaring through Council motion an "Expression of Interest"; and

(ii)requesting their Commissioners of Public Works (or designates) to meet with Toronto's Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the purposes of drafting a "Memorandum of Understanding" regarding the protocol for inter-regional solid waste disposal planning and decision-making, which, upon completion, will be submitted to his/her respective Councils for approval;'; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed, as a priority, to develop a strategy for waste disposal capacity that does not penalize the City of Toronto for failing to provide a minimum amount of waste for disposal in the event that diversion targets are met or exceeded.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that:

(1)the City of Toronto immediately proceed to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste disposal capacity to meet the City's long-term requirements through a request for proposals process based on the work undertaken in the planning process to date, but without proceeding to the submission of an environmental assessment;

and further recommends, subject to approval of Recommendation No. (1), that:

(2)the Mayor of the City of Toronto and the Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee meet with the Minister of the Environment to advise the Minister of Toronto's need to pursue this course of action to secure long-term solid waste disposal within a time line consistent with the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill Site, and to seek assurance from the Minister that Toronto will not be prescribed under the Environmental Assessment Act prior to executing a contract(s) for long-term solid waste disposal capacity;

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to prepare a planning process to engage the marketplace that contains the following components, which are consistent with those matters to be considered in environmental planning:

(i)a description of the planning approach;

(ii)public and industry consultation;

(iii)development of evaluation criteria which is multi-faceted and includes: macro-environmental impact analysis; identification of Ontario-based benefits; and financial implications;

(iv)integration of the City's disposal needs with its 3Rs planning process; and

(v)continued collaborative planning with other Greater Toronto Area Regions;

(4)the following direction be provided regarding the policy issues contained in the report dated August 28, 1998, from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, and that this direction be incorporated into the request for proposals process:

(i)that a marketplace approach (which may result in public-private and/or public-public partnerships), as opposed to a public sector site search, is the preferred approach to attain long-term solid waste disposal capacity;

(ii)that export of solid waste to the United States be included as a marketplace option, and accordingly, that proponents of disposal sites and facilities in the United States be invited to submit proposals;

(iii)that Energy from Waste technology (incineration with heat recovery) be included in the request for expressions of interest and request for proposals as a marketplace option, and accordingly, that proponents of Energy from Waste facilities be invited to submit proposals;

(iv)that Council endorse the target of 50 percent 3Rs diversion by 2006, with best efforts to achieve this target earlier, as set by the former Metro Toronto Council; and

(v)that Toronto continue to collaborate with potential Greater Toronto Area partners, to allow for the potential combination of waste streams and possible joint disposal contracts;

(5)subject to approval of Recommendation No. 4(v), the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:

(i)meet with his counterpart from the Region of York to discuss Toronto's potential participation in components of the Region of York's 3Rs planning (including composting and mixed waste processing); and

(ii)report back to the Works and Utilities Committee no later than December 1998, and include identification of other collaborative 3Rs solid waste related programs Toronto could engage in with other members of the Greater Toronto Area; and

(6)the appropriate officials be given authority and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to all of the preceding recommendations.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the meeting of City Council scheduled to be held on October 1, 1998, with recommendations on the request for proposals process, including the budgetary implications, consulting resources, and implementation time frames.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (August 28, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is two-fold. It describes the current environmental assessment ("EA") level planning for long-term disposal capacity, including the EA time frame, and describes the time frame and components of a "direct" contracting out process through a request for proposals ("RFP"), without review and approval by the EA Branch or Ministry of the Environment ("MOE"). The potential impacts of the two courses of action are described in the body of this report.

Secondly, the report presents a series of policy issues, including the EA-level planning approach, which need to be addressed before we can advance our current EA-level planning or proceed directly to an RFP. We are seeking direction from Members of Committee and Council regarding these policy issues.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

In the body of this report a description of funding requirements for project consultants and external legal assistance is described. The amount of the additional funding requirements is linked to the form of planning which the City pursues regarding long-term solid waste disposal.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On July 15, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee had before it a report from A. Bacopoulos, General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services (dated July 9, 1998), that described three options regarding the service life of the Keele Valley Landfill Site ("Keele Valley") and the impacts of each option. Contained within that report was a description of the EA planning process for long-term solid waste disposal capacity and a list of six policy issues. The report stated that Council direction was needed regarding the six issues in order for the EA Terms of Reference to be finalized and submitted to Council for adoption, followed by submission to the Minister of the Environment for approval.

After consideration of the report, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services was requested to submit a further report regarding Keele Valley's service life options, and a second report containing additional information related to the six policy issues. This report provides the additional information regarding the six policy issues as requested by the Works and Utilities Committee.

Discussion and Justification:

Current EA Planning Process for Long-Term Solid Waste Disposal Capacity:

Works and Emergency Services is currently preparing a draft EA Terms of Reference for post-Keele Valley disposal capacity. EA-level planning for long-term disposal capacity was initiated by the former Metro Toronto Council. The preparation of a Terms of Reference is a mandatory planning step when undertaking an EA under the current legislation.

The former Metro Council initiated EA-level planning in response to an amendment to Bill 76, the Environmental Assessment and Consultation Improvement Act, 1997. The amendment provides that prescribed municipalities (by regulation) cannot proceed with an undertaking to dispose of waste where the facility and services of another person are used, by contract or other arrangement, without EA approval.

Our current planning process, done in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act, engages the marketplace to identify new long-term disposal capacity (i.e., a process of "contracting out"). While Toronto has not been prescribed to date, the City could be prescribed at any time in the process. We have proceeded to date as if prescribed under the Act as a hedge against the possibility of being prescribed in the latter part of a non-EA request for qualifications/RFP.

A comprehensive report regarding the EA planning process, dated January 29, 1998, was submitted to the February 1998 meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee. Two subsequent briefing sessions have been held for Members of the Works and Utilities Committee.

The current planning process is designed to have new disposal capacity available by mid-2002. However, this does not provide for a hearing (if required), or significant delays in the multiple planning steps, which may include site preparation (approvals and capital works).

A chart showing planning steps and time frames is attached as Appendix A.

Engagement of the Marketplace without EA Approval:

On August 18, 1998, members of the Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee (SWMICC) discussed with the Chair of Works and Utilities Committee, Councillor Betty Disero, the engagement of the marketplace through an RFP process to secure long-term solid waste disposal capacity. It was proposed that the City embark on an RFP without proceeding with EA approval.

The advantage of moving directly to an RFP process is a time savings of at least a year and perhaps two years, to bring new disposal capacity on line, as compared with the time frame under the EA-level planning route.

The major disadvantages are the potential for prescription under the EA Act at any time in the planning process and potential criticism for avoiding environmental responsibilities in waste management planning.

However, in respect of the latter disadvantage, this could be mitigated by the maintenance of sound environmental planning irrespective of EA and MOE review, in the event that Council provides direction to directly engage the marketplace through an RFP. We would recommend that the major elements of the current planning process be maintained, including:

-description of our planning approach in a planning document format;

-ongoing public and industry consultation;

-refinement of the evaluation criteria at both the RFQ and RFP stages;

-maintain a multi-faceted evaluation process, which includes: (1) the macro-environmental impacts of proposals (greenhouse gas production, smog precursors, energy consumption, etc.); (2) the Ontario-based benefits that would be derived (job creation and purchase of goods and services); and the financial implications to Toronto;

-integration of our disposal needs with our 3Rs planning; and

-continued collaborative planning with other Greater Toronto Area Regions.

Listed as Appendix B is a chart that identifies the key planning steps and time frame for an RFQ/RFP process, which proceeds without EA approval.

Policy Issues:

In order for the current EA Terms of Reference to be finalized or a direct RFQ/RFP process to be engaged in, Council direction is needed on the following policy issues.

(1)Is the marketplace approach (which may result in public-private and/or public-public partnerships) a suitable approach to identify and attain new disposal capacity?

The former Metro Toronto Council initiated a marketplace approach for the contracting out of solid waste disposal following a series of public sector site searches - municipal and provincial - which were not successful. The current EA-level planning process provides for the opportunity to engage in public-private and/or public-public partnerships, in addition to a straight fee per tonne of solid waste disposed. The advantage of this approach is that we gain a broad range of opportunities and engage the expertise and diversity of the marketplace.

For example, by allowing for potential Toronto participation, we may gain access to opportunities that would not otherwise qualify for the RFP process because of lack of waste management expertise or other reasons.

We recommend that a marketplace approach be maintained as a means of securing long-term solid waste disposal capacity and that the opportunity for a public and/or private sector proponent to enter into a partnership with Toronto be maintained.

(2)Is the inclusion of potential export to the United States an appropriate alternative?

Export of solid waste to the United States is a viable and potentially cost-effective alternative that the marketplace can offer. Toronto is currently exporting solid waste to the Arbor Hills Landfill in Michigan, under contract with Browning-Ferris Industries ("BFI"). Issues such as border closure and liability were factors considered by the former Metro Toronto Council when it entered into a contract with BFI, and would have to be considered by Toronto City Council if a U.S.-based option(s) reached a short-listed stage. Our Legal Department, with the assistance of external legal expertise, would provide up-to-date information and a legal opinion at the point of Council consideration of a contract with a U.S.-based supplier, should this arise.

In order to draw on a broad competitive marketplace, we recommend the continued inclusion of U.S.-based options in an RFP call.

(3)Should Energy from Waste technology (incineration with heat recovery) be included in the RFQ and RFP, in addition to landfill technology?

The former Metro Toronto Council provided direction to the Commissioner of Works to facilitate the inclusion of the Energy from Waste ("EFW") component of the solid waste management industry. To date we have received input and interest in the project by a number of EFW-based firms. Their input has been co-ordinated by former Metro Toronto Councillor Richard Gilbert.

The EFW industry has expressed difficulty in meeting a 2002 time frame for the provision of new EFW-based disposal capacity in Ontario. We have proposed a formula that would require an EFW proponent - or a "greenfield" landfill proponent - to provide five years of guaranteed disposal capacity while they proceeded through approvals and construction of a facility in Ontario.

EFW technology is a licensable disposal technology in Ontario. If EFW technology is not included in an RFP process then a major sector of the marketplace is being precluded from participation and the options it may bring to the table.

We recommend that opportunity be provided for the EFW-based industry to participate in any RFP.

(4)Does Council endorse the target of 50 percent 3Rs diversion by 2006?

The former Metro Toronto Council established in 1996 a 3Rs diversion rate of at least 50 percent by the year 2006, following consideration of options presented in a comprehensive report prepared by Resource Integration Systems Ltd. ("RIS"). Accordingly, we have been planning to provide long-term solid waste disposal capacity to manage the remaining "residual" waste, after 3Rs efforts have been applied. We have also planned to seek proposals for a range in tonnages and include contractual flexibility in order to adjust the quantity needing disposal as a result of 3Rs-based diversion beyond 50 percent. Of course, such flexibility may affect the price.

In order to provide a framework for the identification of the quantity of solid waste needing disposal, we recommend that Council endorse a 3Rs diversion target of at least 50 percent by the year 2006.

(5)Is the continuation of EA-level planning agreeable?

The former Metro Toronto Council agreed to undertake a voluntary EA-level planning process for long-term solid waste disposal, following discussions with the Province in regard to a possible contract for export of solid waste. As noted earlier in this report, a shift to a direct engagement of the marketplace without EA approval could lead to the prescription of Toronto under the EA Act at any time in the planning process.

It should also be noted that even a non-EA planning approach might lead to EA requirements if Toronto selects a public-public or public-private partnership. If an undertaking becomes a "public" undertaking, because of Toronto's participation, it may trigger a requirement for approval under the EA Act without prescription. This could be addressed through an exemption granted by the Province or reliance on the partner's role in securing all necessary approvals, including potential EA Act approvals. However, this latter course of action is not likely to be realized without costs, as a "Toronto role" in any partnership would likely require participation in public consultation and a role in technical studies.

Initially, the EA-level planning process Toronto was to enter into was described by Provincial officials as focusing on the impacts of transporting waste to a third-party EA approved site and an assessment of the impacts of alternative solutions on the broad environment. It was emphasized that no duplication of planning processes would take place.

However, since 1996 we have been presented with suggestions from the Ministry of the Environment's EA Branch officials and other government reviewers for greater in-depth consideration of environmental issues local to proposed sites (such as impact on agricultural land) and engagement of stakeholders local to proposed sites in the planning process.

To date we have been working to strike a balance between the EA-level planning approach initially described by Provincial officials in 1996 and the subsequent government reviewers. This process has required extensive time and resource commitments. We are bringing this matter to the attention of Council Members to advise on the delays we have experienced to date, and to advise that we may have some areas of difference with Provincial reviewers that are not resolved at the point when we submit for approval a draft EA Terms of Reference to Committee and Council, prior to submission to the Minister.

If Council directs staff to proceed with EA-level planning, we would recommend that our main project consultant, Proctor & Redfern Ltd., be awarded a budget extension of $40,000.00, to facilitate the planning process through to the completion of a draft EA Terms of Reference, and that a budget extension of $20,000.00 be awarded to our external legal consultant, Tory Tory Deslauriers Binnington, for their continued participation in the project. Funds have previously been approved in the 1998 Capital Budget. The draft EA Terms of Reference would be scheduled to be presented to Committee in November 1998.

If Council directs staff to proceed with a direct engagement of the marketplace through an RFP and not proceed with EA-level planning, we would recommend the following steps be taken:

-that the Mayor and the Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee meet with the Minister of the Environment to advise on the change in the planning process and seek feedback related to the potential for prescription under the EA Act;

-that staff engage in the process of retaining a consultant and external legal expertise to provide assistance in the design and execution of an RFQ and RFP; and

-that the planning process include, but not be limited to, the components listed above under the heading "Engagement of the Marketplace through RFP".

(6)Do we wish to collaborate with potential Greater Toronto Area partners through a dovetailing of planning processes, in order to combine waste streams and enter into joint disposal agreements?

A very successful planning process among the GTA Public Works Commissioners has taken place during the course of 1998 regarding potential dovetailing of waste disposal planning processes. A formula for the potential inclusion of other GTA Regions with Toronto has been successfully arrived at with the Ministry's EA Branch. It includes the need for GTA regions to have in place a public consultation process which identifies the potential to partner with Toronto, a 3Rs plan, the identification of their disposal requirements, and an integrated planning document.

By combining waste streams for two or more GTA regions, there is the potential to acquire more competitive disposal rates and engage in more options. We therefore recommend that planning with potential GTA partners continue.

The other issue which staff is seeking direction on regards the service life of Keele Valley. This matter is addressed in an accompanying report also listed on this agenda.

Conclusions:

This report has described the current EA-level planning process for long-term solid waste disposal, and the components of a potential direct engagement of the marketplace through an RFP, without proceeding with formal EA review and approval.

The main concern associated with a direct engagement process is the potential to have the City prescribed under the EA Act by the Province at any time in the planning process.

The two attached appendices provide the time frames and planning steps associated with EA-level planning and direct marketplace engagement.

We are seeking Committee and Council direction on six key policy issues that have been described in the body of this report. Direction regarding these policy issues is needed whether the City continues with EA-level planning or proceeds to direct engagement of the marketplace without proceeding through formal EA review and approvals.

Contact Name:

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S., Manager, EA Co-ordination Branch

Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-2974

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

--------

Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, EA Co-ordination Branch, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services, gave a presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a copy of his presentation.

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

-Mr. Tony O'Donohue, President, Environmental Probe Ltd.;

-Mr. Scott Wolfe, General Manager, Miller Waste Systems;

-Mr. Gord McGuinty, Rail Cycle North, and submitted a brochure with respect thereto;

-Mr. Richard Summerfeldt, President, Central Group Development Corporation, and submitted a copy of a proposal with respect thereto;

-Ms. Lois James, Scarborough, Ontario, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Brennain Lloyd, Northwatch, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Shelley Petrie, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and submitted questions with respect to fast-tracking waste reduction in the City of Toronto; and

-Mr. George Paturalski, Vice-President - Market Development, Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI).

(A copy of each of the appendices referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of September9, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations and background information regarding the provision of long-term solid waste disposal capacity.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)if Council wishes to proceed to immediately engage the marketplace for long-term solid waste disposal capacity, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to engage the marketplace in a two-stage tendering process, consisting of a Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI") and a Request for Proposals ("RFP"), for the provision of long-term solid waste disposal capacity related to the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill Site; and

(2)subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (1), it is recommended that:

(i)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to Works and Utilities Committee for approval of the REOI and RFP processes;

(ii)the firm of Proctor and Redfern Limited be retained at a cost not to exceed $722,500.00 including GST, and including a contingency allowance of $200,000.00, including GST, to fund additional work, if necessary, as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in order to assist staff in the proposal call process, including the preparation and issuance of an REOI and RFP, analysis of responses, due diligence, and report preparation;

(iii)the legal firm of Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington be retained to provide external legal expertise, at a cost not to exceed $200,000.00, including GST, and including a contingency allowance of $28,200.00 including GST, to fund additional work if necessary as authorized by the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in order to assist staff in the proposal call process, including the preparation and issuance of a REOI and RFP, analysis of responses, due diligence, and report preparation; and

(iv)an expenditure in the amount of $220,000.00 including GST, be authorized for site visits, disbursements, advertising, communications, technical studies and public consultation activities; and, furthermore, it is recommended that:

(3)City of Toronto Council formally invite the Regional Governments of the Greater Toronto Area (Halton, Peel, York, and Durham), to be potentially included in Toronto's proposal call process for long-term solid waste disposal capacity by:

(i)declaring through Council motion an "Expression of Interest"; and

(ii)requesting their Commissioners of Public Works (or designates) to meet with Toronto's Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the purposes of drafting a "Memorandum of Understanding" regarding the protocol for inter-regional solid waste disposal planning and decision-making, which upon completion will be submitted to his/her respective Councils for approval.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This project is included in the approved 1998-2000 Solid Waste Management Division Capital Works Program. Funds are available under Waste Management Capital Account No. C-SW168 (Waste Management Planning). The identified cost of the undertaking is $1,142,500.00. Related expenditures in 1998 are estimated to be approximately $300,000.00.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On September 9, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee had before it an information report from the General Manager - Solid Waste Management Services, regarding "Planning for Long-Term Solid Waste Disposal Capacity". At that time a series of motions were passed by Works and Utilities Committee regarding solid waste disposal planning, which are before this Council.

Included in the motions was a request for the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the October 1, 1998 meeting of Toronto City Council with recommendations on the request for proposals process, including the budgetary implications, consulting resources, and implementation timeframes. This report addresses these matters.

Discussion and Justification:

The project schedule (see Appendix A) identifies a minimum 24-month proposal call process (that may extend to 29 months due to planning delays), starting with Council approval to proceed on October 1, 1998, through to September 2000, with the execution of a contract(s) for new disposal capacity prior to the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill Site. On September 9, 1998, Works and Utilities Committee adopted a motion to increase the amount of waste being disposed at Browning-Ferris Industries' ("BFI's") Arbor Hills Landfill to 450,000 tonnes per annum commencing on June1, 1999, which will result in a projected target date of late 2002 for the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill Site. This motion is before this Council (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities Committee).

Contained within the project schedule are the key planning steps, which include:

(i)preparation of a planning document(s) setting out the project process;

(ii)public, government, and industry consultation;

(iii)development, issuance and evaluation of the REOI and RFP including consideration of private and public sector partnerships;

(iv)due diligence (which examines proposals from financial, technical, legal, corporate background, and regulatory perspectives);

(v)contract negotiations; and

(vi)associated reports to Committee and Council.

We feel that the timeframe for the project is reasonable, given the complex planning steps to be undertaken, the magnitude of the cost, and the potential inclusion of other members of the Greater Toronto Area.

In order to assist in the accomplishment of this undertaking, this report recommends the retainment of a consortium consisting of Proctor and Redfern Ltd., MacViro Consultants Inc., and LURA Group. The three-member consortium was the successful respondent to an RFP for the consulting contract. Proctor and Redfern and MacViro will assist staff in the proposal call process including the preparation and issuance of a REOI and RFP, analysis of responses, due diligence, and report preparation. LURA will provide advice on project related communications and public consultation activities and assist in newsletter preparation.

The total budget for the consortium is $722,500.00, which includes GST and includes a contingency allowance of $200,000.00, including GST. We recognize that the contingency allowance is significantly above the standard for contingency allowances. However, the nature of the project requires this in order to provide flexibility to respond to a marketplace that may offer numerous viable proposals. Accordingly, the contingency is designed to provide funds, if necessary, to:

(i)carry out due diligence reviews of two additional top-qualified proponents, beyond three Ontario-based top-qualified sites that have budgeted for including any U.S. site previously subjected to a due diligence review by the former Metro Toronto;

(ii)undertake a detailed performance specification in the RFP if one of the short-listed submissions proposes a new Energy from Waste facility. Elements of the detailed specification include: site access; waste storage and handling; process constraints; ash handling; emission control; and environmental testing; and

(iii)additional project team meetings associated with the two work tasks cited above and adjustments in the project schedule.

The potential need to engage the contingency allowance will be closely monitored and only accessed if required.

Due to time restrictions, we did not issue a REOI for consulting services, but proceeded directly to an RFP from firms registered on our departmental roster of qualifying firms. With the exception of the REOI, a selection process was carried out in accordance with current consultant selection policy, which is detailed in Appendix B.

On the advice of the City Solicitor we are recommending retaining the external legal firm of Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington, to assist staff in the proposal call process, including the preparation and issuance of a REOI and RFP, analysis of responses, due diligence, and report preparation. This firm will also facilitate U.S.-based legal counsel regarding border closure and liability matters if one or more disposal options based in the U.S. are considered. Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington was the firm providing external legal expertise in the process leading to the current disposal contract with BFI. The estimated budget for Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington is $200,000.00 including GST and including a contingency allowance of $28,200.00, including GST.

We have also identified an internal project budget to accommodate site visits, staff disbursements, advertising, technical studies, communications, and public consultation activities. The estimated budget for these activities is $220,000.00 including GST. Technical studies may be required for third party analysis of partnership options and verification of RFP submissions.

The total project budget for: (i) the consortium led by Proctor and Redfern Ltd., (ii) Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington, and (iii) the internal project budget, is $1,142,500.00.

We are recommending that the potential inclusion of other regional members of the Greater Toronto Area in the proposal call process be through formal Council resolution and the drafting of a "Memorandum of Understanding", to define the protocol for inter-regional solid waste disposal planning and decision-making.

Currently, waste from York and Durham is accepted at Toronto's Keele Valley Landfill Site for disposal. Maintaining this connection and potentially expanding it to include a percentage of the waste streams from Peel and Halton may lead to more favourable pricing due to larger volumes and may provide flexibility to potentially attain multiple disposal capacity suppliers, should this be deemed preferable.

Conclusions:

This report was requested by the Works and Utilities Committee on September 9, 1998, and should be read in conjunction with the accompanying motions adopted by that Committee regarding attainment of long-term solid waste disposal capacity. The Committee's motions are also listed on the Council Agenda of October 1, 1998 (Clauses No. 1 and No. 2 of Report No. 8).

We recommend a two-stage process (an REOI followed by an RFP) to secure long-term disposal capacity prior to the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill Site. To assist in this process we are recommending retaining a consortium of consulting firms led by Proctor and Redfern Ltd., and including MacViro Consultants Inc., and LURA Group. We are also recommending engagement of the legal firm of Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington to assist staff in the proposal call process. A project schedule is attached (Appendix A), which charts the key planning steps over a 24-month period.

We also recommend that Toronto City Council ask other Greater Toronto Area members to advise if they wish to formally pursue their potential inclusion in the proposal call process. The details of this potential dove-tailing of Greater Toronto Area based waste streams would be arrived at through the drafting at the Commissioners level of a "Memorandum of Understanding", which would subsequently be submitted for Council endorsement.

Contact Name:

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.

Manager, EA Co-ordination, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-9744

Fax: (416) 392-9744

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

Appendix A

Appendix A (page 2)

Appendix B

Details of the Consultant Selection Process

(1)A consultant selection committee was struck including representatives from Solid Waste Management and Technical Services Divisions.

(2)A pre-notification to seven (7) qualified consulting firms was issued advising of the restricted timeline for responses to the Terms of Reference that would be issued.

(3)Six (6) firms advised of their interest in receiving Terms of Reference.

(4)Detailed proposals, including separate sealed cost proposals, were requested and received from two (2) of the firms.

(5)Both technical submissions were reviewed first independently, then jointly by members of the consultant selection committee and were evaluated according to a set of pre-established criteria. Prior to undertaking the review a threshold level of 75 percent of the maximum attainable score was established as the criteria for the next step, review of the separately submitted sealed cost proposals.

(6)Following detailed review of the technical submissions, both firms qualified for further consideration of their cost proposals.

(7)Following a review of the cost proposals, the two firms were interviewed in order to clarify and finalize the specific scope of work required and the related cost factors for same.

(8)On completion of all of the above, the selection committee concluded that the proposal submitted by the consortium of Proctor and Redfern Ltd., MacViro Consultants Inc., and LURA Group, best satisfied the overall project requirements, at the lowest evaluated cost, for an appropriate level of effort to properly address the critical elements of the work.

(9)The estimated fees for the work to be undertaken by the consortium led by Proctor and Redfern Ltd., is $522,500.00 including GST and disbursements. We recommend inclusion of a contingency allowance of $200,000.00 including GST, for a total budget of $722,500.00.)

(City Council, also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 1, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton - Don River, submitting amendments to the foregoing Clause.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of a communication (undated) addressed to Mayor Lastman, from Mr. V. Bianco, Maple Glen Homeowners Association, Maple.)

3

Waste Management Collection Costs

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 13, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

To identify the cost(s) of curbside and bulk lift waste collection in Toronto, based on the operating systems of the six former municipalities.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications associated with the adoption of this report.

Recommendation:

That the Works Department, in conjunction with the Finance Department, develop a costing framework which provides a uniform set of guidelines and principles for all activities and programs within the Solid Waste Management Division, and which will provide accurate and standardized cost accounting and will allow for an activity based costing analysis.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 22, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee directed the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report providing a comparison of costs for both curbside and bulk lift waste collection in the former municipalities which now comprise the City of Toronto.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Due to the different cost structures and financial systems in each former municipality, the guidelines set forth by an independent financial auditor for a previous analysis were used as a reference so as to attempt to provide uniformity in the development of the 1997 curbside and bulk lift garbage collection costs reported by each former municipality. These guidelines also prescribe the treatment of indirect costs associated with providing the collection service. Costs include items budgeted within Solid Waste Management and costs incurred by other Divisions for services supporting garbage collection.

Some municipalities charge cost items directly to the activity performed, while others may charge the same cost item to an administrative account, departmental account or corporate account. In the latter three cases, for the purposes of this report, most cost items have been estimated and allocated to the garbage collection activity based on such criteria as employee time or as a percentage of the total solid waste tonnage collected. Each municipality was responsible for determining the amount allocated for these costs.

Where appropriate, the following cost components were reported by each former municipality. Where actual costs were available, they were utilized. Otherwise, costs were estimated and allocated to the garbage collection activity. In some cases, due to former municipal policy, it was not appropriate to include any cost estimates.

(a)Direct Labour Costs:

These costs include the hourly rates and benefits of each person responsible for collecting garbage. These are actual costs and are dependent on the number of permanent and casual employees required to carry out the activity.

(b)Truck Rental:

This includes the total cost for truck rentals in 1997. Costs reported are only for those vehicles that collect garbage. These are actual costs and are dependent on the fleet size in each operation and the truck rental rates charged to the activity.

(c)Miscellaneous Expenditures:

These costs include all incidentals directly related to the operation (i.e., safety equipment and radio dispatch). These are actual and estimated costs and are dependent on the operational requirements of the reporting municipality.

(d)Front Line Supervision:

These costs include the wages, benefits and vehicle costs of those employees who provide the direct supervision to the collectors. These are actual and estimated costs and are dependent on the number of supervisors, salaries, benefits and the vehicle rental rate charged to the activity.

(e)Operational Management and Administration:

These costs include all remaining management, administrative staff, promotion, building and maintenance, engineering, IT, by-law enforcement and any other administrative functions necessary to the operation. These are actual and estimated costs. These cost items tend to be charged outside the activity in most municipal reporting systems and may be incurred departmentally or corporately. It is for this reason that an estimate has been applied for such costs. However, corporate costs not charged directly to the activity, but related to such items as finance, human resources, legal, purchasing etc., have not been included in any costs reported by the former municipalities. While it is recognized that these services are part of the cost of doing business, with the current inconsistences in the treatment of such costs, it was not possible to accurately apportion these costs by activity.

(f)Workers Safety Insurance Board Cost (formerly WCB):

This is the cost of employees on WSIB at any time during 1997. These are actual costs incorporated into this analysis.

(g)Modified Workers Cost:

This is the cost to Solid Waste Management for employees on modified duties regardless of which Department they were assigned to.

While the above methodology was used for the purposes of this report, it is important to note that differences in costing and reporting methods continue to partially contribute to cost variances between the former municipalities. In order to provide an equitable manner in which to evaluate the costs incurred by each municipality, the total cost has been divided into two categories. The comparable costs, such as the direct labour, supervision, fringe benefits and miscellaneous costs, which have been calculated using common accounting principles, are in one category. The incomparable costs, such as truck rental, modified worker, etc., which have been calculated using differing accounting principles amongst the various former municipalities, have been put into another category.

Comparable Costs:

Direct operating costs including labour, supervision, fringe benefits and miscellaneous are known costs. Table 1 summarizes these costs for curbside garbage collected by municipal staff (non-contracted). Wage rates are for the direct labour required to collect the product. Salary rate differences shown are a result of the varying policies and collective agreements in the former municipalities. Once standard wage rates are established across the City, direct operating costs can be compared without bias. Supervisory costs will differ among municipalities based on operational requirements and the number of supervisors required to oversee front line employees and first level supervisors.

Incomparable Costs:

(a)There are differences in the modified work program costs reported by each former municipality. The modified worker costs and WCB costs are long-term costs which would remain with the City whether collection services were being provided by private sector or public sector forces.

(b)Administration and non-budgeted costs including promotion costs related to the activity, salaries and benefits related to administering the activity and other related costs (i.e., by-law enforcement, customer service) will vary among municipalities based on staffing levels, operational requirements, building maintenance costs, etc. In addition, the former City of Toronto is the only municipality that budgets for services that are incurred to cover some functions that may be considered to be corporate (i.e., cost control, payroll and personnel).

(c)Each former municipal operation may differ based on previously determined operational needs and budgeting rationale. For example, some municipalities included the costs associated with furniture and large item collection within the curbside refuse collection budget, while others have identified it as a separate budget activity.

(d)There is a variation in the rate charged for the use of vehicles from one municipality to another. The rate is based on varying accounting principles which do not allow for a fair cost comparison. Table 2 summarizes the incomparable costs associated with each of the former municipalities that collect curbside garbage with municipal staff.

Table 3 and Table 4 summarize the total costs associated with providing curbside garbage collection and bulk lift garbage collection, respectively, in each of the former municipalities. As three of the six municipalities use a combination of municipal and contract forces, both direct and indirect costs have been appropriately allocated. It is important to note that certain costs would remain within the activity even if the entire operation were to be contracted out. For example, municipal staff would still be required to supervise the daily operation and administer the program (i.e., by-law enforcement, promotion, education and customer service).

Conclusions:

While every attempt has been made to provide an accurate costing analysis, further work is required to ensure that costs related to such things as building maintenance, human resources and general governance are reported in a consistent manner. In addition, common fleet/labour rates and accounting methods must be developed in order to standardize costs for programs previously provided by the former municipalities.

Contact Name:

Catharine Daniels, Waste Management Analyst

Solid Waste Management, Scarborough District

Phone: (416) 396-5205; Fax: (416) 396-4156

E-Mail: daniels@city.scarborough.on.ca.

4

Opportunity to Participate in Cogeneration Facility

with Toronto Hydro and the Private Sector

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To address connecting the Main Treatment Plant (MTP) to a proposed cogeneration facility at the Paperboard Industries Plant at 495 Commissioners Street, which is supported by Toronto Hydro. It is proposed that the City would provide the facility with the MTP generated digester gas in exchange for hot water and standby electric power, after implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report. Any financial implications will be addressed in the follow-up report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be given authority to negotiate a draft agreement with Toronto Hydro and Boralex, the Paperboard Industries' subsidiary, specializing in cogeneration. In return for the supply of hot water and standby power to the MTP, we would supply the MTP's generated digester gas upon implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program. The terms and conditions are to be satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor, and be the subject of a further report to the Committee.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on July 8, 1998, City of Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No.6 of The Works and Utilities Committee, entitled "Implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program". The report authorized the establishment of an Independent Review Committee for the purposes of providing peer review of the biosolids project and the move away from incineration to a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The implementation of a 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program at the MTP will result in shutting down the sludge incinerators. This will make available quantities of digester gas presently fired in the incinerators, but at the same time deprive the plant of the benefit of heat energy generated by the incinerator heat recovery boilers.

In reviewing heat supply alternatives to replace heat quantities presently provided by the incinerator heat recovery boilers, we were made aware of the proposed Paperboard Industries' Cogeneration Project which is supported by Toronto Hydro. Due to the location of the proposed facility (495Commissioners Street in Toronto, see map attached), which is very close to the MTP, the idea of an energy exchange scheme was born.

The cogeneration facility requires gas to power its prime mover(s) and produces electric power and steam for the paper plant. The MTP generates gas and needs hot water (a by-product of steam) as well as standby power in case of a power failure in the Hydro grid system.

The timing of both projects, the 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program at the MTP and the Cogeneration Facility for the 495 Commissioners Street Paperboard Plant, is similar.

We believe that this proposal could also reduce the overall CO₂ emissions resulting from the required energy generation using conventional methods, compared with the cogeneration.

Conclusions:

The negotiations will determine if the MTP could benefit from an energy exchange scheme with the Cogeneration Facility at the Paperboard Industries Plant at 495 Commissioners Street, and if successful, could lead to a three-party energy supply agreement with Toronto Hydro. If an acceptable draft agreement is reached, it will be the subject of a separate report to the Works and Utilities Committee.

Contact Name:

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

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

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

(A copy of the map referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of September 9, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

5

Settlement of Legal Claim

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential joint report (August 27, 1998) from the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services entitled "Legal Claim of Dagmar Construction Inc. Against the City of Toronto, Contract No. WPC-8-94", which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (September 9, 1998) from the City Clerk embodying a confidential joint report, dated August 27, 1998, from the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

6

500 mm New Toronto Standby Forcemain

on Morrison Street and Thirteenth Street,

New Toronto Pumping Station to Lake Shore Boulevard -

Contract No. MW9807WP

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report (August 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in accordance with By-law No.57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended; and having directed that such report be forwarded to Council for information:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. MW9807WP for the construction of a 500 mm New Toronto standby forcemain on Morrison Street and Thirteenth Street from New Toronto Pumping Station to Lake Shore Boulevard.

Source of Funds:

This project is included in the approved 1998-2002 Water and Wastewater Services Division, Capital Works Program. Funds are available in the appropriate account for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. MW9807WP for the construction of a 500 mm New Toronto standby forcemain on Morrison Street and Thirteenth Street from New Toronto Pumping Station to Lake Shore Boulevard be awarded to Timbel Limited, for the Total Lump Sum Price of $1,524,683.00 including the Goods and Services Tax and a Schedule of Prices Allowance of $30,000.00 for potential additional work;

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

(3)this report be forwarded to the next meeting of Council for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On July 29, 1998, the Bid Committee opened the following tenders for Contract No. MW9807WP:

All Total Lump Sum Prices tendered include a contingency allowance of $30,000.00, as specified, for potential additional work.

Alsi Contracting Ltd. offered a credit alternative of $70,000.00 which does not impact on the ranking of the low tenderer and was therefore not considered further for purposes of tender award.

The low tenderer, Timbel Limited (Timbel), has offered a credit alternative of $6,000.00 which does not impact on the ranking of the bidders. Accordingly, the credit will be reviewed in detail following award of contract and if found acceptable will reduce the tendered Lump Sum Price of the contract.

Representatives of the Works and Emergency Services Department have met and reviewed the tender with the lowest tenderer, Timbel. Works and Emergency Services staff are satisfied that this company fully understands the contractual requirements and has the capacity to carry out the work as specified.

The Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office has advised that Timbel and the named subcontractor maintain wage rates, working conditions, and contractual agreements conforming to City of Toronto requirements.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has approved the proposed bonding company.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The project is required to provide system security. It will replace an existing 30-year-old standby forcemain which is structurally unsound and therefore not available for use in an emergency. The existing forcemain also does not have the capacity to handle present flows.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that Contract No. MW9807WP for the construction of a 500 mm New Toronto standby forcemain on Morrison Street and Thirteenth Street from New Toronto Pumping Station to Lake Shore Boulevard be awarded to the lowest tenderer, Timbel Limited.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. A. Pagnanelli, P.Eng.,

Senior Project Engineer, Management and Technical Services Division

Phone: (416) 392-8245; Fax: (416) 392-4594

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

7

Cleaning and Cement Mortar Lining of

Existing Water Mains, North York District -

Completion of Contract No. 97-709

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to authorize the City to enter into a takeover/construction completion agreement with the surety company for Contract No. 97-709 for the cleaning and cement mortar lining of existing cast and ductile iron water mains throughout various locations within the City of Toronto, North York District, to allow the successful completion of the project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for this work was included in the approved 1998 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto enter into the takeover/construction completion agreement with the Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company, to allow the completion of Contract No. 97-709; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

This contract was called in 1997, and the tender closed on September 3, 1997, with Spiniello Construction Company having submitted the lowest bid of $2,032,134.37. Spiniello Construction was owned by Spiniello Construction Company of New Jersey, USA. The contract was signed and executed on September 24, 1997.

Work on this project was discontinued in November 1997 due to the onset of winter. Construction activity resumed in June 1998, and work has continued to date.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On June 12, 1998, the City of Toronto was informed that Spiniello Construction Company sought protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Court.

On June 29, 1998, an Order from the United States Bankruptcy Court indicated that a settlement had been reached. Spiniello Construction Company's surety, the Employers Insurance of Wausau, acting through The Guaranty Company of North America, has assumed control of the situation. In addition, a new company called Spiniello Companies was formed, and an arrangement with Wausau and Spiniello was established to perform the remaining work on all outstanding contracts.

In order to ensure the successful completion of all outstanding works, all activities must now be coordinated through Wausau, which requires the City to enter into a takeover/construction completion agreement.

The takeover/construction completion agreement has been reviewed by Legal Department staff and found to be appropriate and in order. Please find attached the form of agreement.

Conclusions:

It is concluded that the City enter into the takeover/construction completion agreement with the Employers Insurance of Wausau, for Contract No. 97-709 for the cleaning and cement mortar lining of existing cast iron water mains at various locations within the City of Toronto, North York District.

Contact Name:

Mr. Mario Crognale, P. Eng.

Director of Water and Sewer Operations

Phone: (416) 395-6219; Fax: (416) 395-6200

E-Mail: mcrognal@city.north-york.on.ca.

(A copy of the Agreement referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of September9, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Sanitary Discharge Agreement -

Flint Ink Corporation of Canada

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To allow Flint Ink Corporation of Canada to enter into a Sanitary Discharge Agreement with the City of Toronto permitting it to discharge from its private water system into the sanitary sewer system and pay a surcharge fee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department maintains approximately 30 Sanitary Discharge Agreements, which allow for the recovery of approximately $700,000.00 per year in treatment costs. These charges reflect a user pay philosophy and directly recover the cost of operation of our treatment plants.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that we be authorized to enter into a Sanitary Discharge Agreement with Flint Ink Corporation of Canada for the discharge of treated groundwater from its private water system at 4590 Dufferin Street to the sanitary sewer system, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On June 24, 1980, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of The Works Committee, approving By-law No. 96-80, authorizing execution of agreements with industries permitting them to discharge effluent from a private water system into the Metropolitan Toronto sanitary sewer system, or any sewer system draining into the Metropolitan Toronto sanitary sewer system, under condition of payment for treatment. Otherwise, Toronto would not receive payment for water pollution control treatment purposes that are normally obtained from a surcharge on the water supplied by the public municipal system.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Golder Associates Ltd. is assisting Flint Ink Corporation of Canada in the remediation of subsurface toluence contamination at the former Flint Ink site located at 4590 Dufferin Street.

Groundwater will be collected using vacuum enhanced recovery (VER) technology whereby a vacuum is applied to an extraction well network consisting of seven VER extraction points. The collected groundwater will be transferred to an isolation tank to remove any floating product. The water phase will be treated on-site using primary and secondary granular activated carbon filters, stored in two canisters, before discharging to the sanitary sewer on Dufferin Street.

The remediation program is expected to last for about five years, and the anticipated maximum discharge rate into the sanitary sewer will be three litres per minute. Water quality will be monitored by Golder Associates Ltd. initially on a weekly basis to ensure that concentrations of dissolved organic constituents do not exceed the Ministry of the Environment's 1997 Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario, Table B, Industrial/Commercial Land Use Criteria in a Non-potable Groundwater Situation. In addition, the effluent will also be tested to ensure compliance with Toronto Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89. Once system performance has been assessed, monitoring of water quality will be done on a monthly basis.

Conclusions:

In accordance with our policy with regard to By-law No. 96-80, Flint Ink Corporation of Canada has been notified of the surcharge rate of 38.59 cents per cubic metre to be levied in 1998, and has signified agreement to the surcharge.

Contact Name:

Vic Lim, P.Eng., Chief Engineer - Environmental Services, Water Pollution Control

Phone: (416) 392-2966; Fax: (416) 397-0908, E-mail: victor_lim@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

9

Purchase of Bulk Common Coarse Rock Salt (Road Salt)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report dated August25, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a joint report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on a policy for including in such reports the following information:

(1)comparable costs for the two previous years; and

(2)a sampling of five-year pricing in other municipalities surrounding the Greater Toronto Area and the Cities of London and Ottawa.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following joint report (August 25, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of the results of the tender issued for the supply and delivery of bulk common coarse rock salt, used for de-icing road surfaces for the 1998-99 winter season, and to request authority to award a contract to the recommended bidders.

Source of Funds:

Funds are available in the appropriate accounts for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the tenders as noted below for the supply and delivery of approximately 130,866 tonnes of bulk common coarse rock salt, used for de-icing road surfaces for the 1998-99 winter season, in accordance with specifications, be accepted, being the lowest tenders received:

(a)Sifto Canada Limited for approximately 25,633 tonnes for the Etobicoke District in the amount of $1,248,254.28 including Goods and Services Tax, Ontario Retail Sales Tax and all other charges; and

(b)The Canadian Salt Company Limited for approximately 105,233 tonnes for the Toronto Core, North York/York, and Scarborough/East York Districts in the amount of $5,364,586.09 including Goods and Services Tax, Ontario Retail Sales Tax and all other charges; and

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

Council Reference/Background History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on July 29, 1998, opened the following tenders for the supply and delivery of bulk common coarse rock salt, used for de-icing road surfaces for the 1998-99 winter season.

Tender No. 77-1998:

Tenderers:

Price Per Tonne, Exclusive of all Taxes

Scarborough/

East YorkNorth York/EtobicokeToronto (Core)

DistrictYork DistrictDistrictDistrict

A - Stockpiling Shipments - (bulk deliveries to fill salt domes)

to be shipped between October 15, 1998 and November 21, 1998

The Canadian Salt Company$44.34$43.09$44.34$44.34

Limited

Sifto Canada IncorporatedNo bidNo bid$41.50No bid

Cargill Salt $46.58$46.58$46.58$46.58

B - Additional Shipments - (for delivery as and when required)

to be shipped between November 22, 1998 and April 30, 1999

The Canadian Salt Company$45.09$43.84$45.09$45.09

Limited

Sifto Canada IncorporatedNo bidNo bid$42.50No bid

Cargill Salt$47.58$47.58$47.58$47.58

Above prices are subject to 8 percent Ontario Retail Sales Tax and 7 percent Goods and Services Tax.

One deterrent to bidding on this annual tender which has been identified by potential suppliers of this commodity is the large volume of the City of Toronto requirement. It was determined that by dividing the City into four districts, additional competition could result in lower prices. The dividing of the City into four districts resulted in an additional supplier being able to bid on one part of the requirement. The district boundaries were selected for the purpose of establishing a basis to obtain competitive bids for this commodity.

A comparison of the low price for each district against the pricing received last year is as follows:

A - Stockpiling Shipments

B - Additional Shipments

The low bid in the Etobicoke district from Sifto Canada Limited can be attributed to competition in the market price in that Sifto, who was unable to bid on previous tenders for the former City and Metro Toronto due to the large volume of the requirement, submitted the lowest priced bid. Sifto has advised that presently, they do not have the capacity to service more than one district and determined that they could only guarantee supply at this time to one district. They advise that they are expanding, and hope to bid on all districts next year.

The low bid for the other three districts is offered by the Canadian Salt Company Limited. In the North York/York District, the pricing is unchanged from 1997. The price increase in the Scarborough/East York and Toronto (Core) Districts is less than that experienced this year by the following municipalities: Burlington/Halton (9.8 percent), Cambridge/Kitchener (7.4 percent), Durham Region (4.2 percent) and York Region (4 percent). Further rationalization of yard operations in the Works and Emergency Services Department may allow for additional efficiencies in the delivery and pricing of this commodity being achieved in future years.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidders has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and was found to be in conformance with the Tender requirements.

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firms recommended.

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to award contracts and for the appropriate officials to complete the necessary contract documents for the supply and delivery of bulk common coarse rock salt, used for de-icing road surfaces for the 1998-99 winter season in accordance with specifications to the lowest bidders, Sifto Canada Incorporated to the Etobicoke District in the amount of $1,248,254.28 including Goods and Services Tax and Ontario Retail Sales Tax, and The Canadian Salt Company Limited to the Scarborough/East York, North York/York, and Toronto (Core) Districts in the amount of $5,364,586.09 including Goods and Services Tax and Ontario Retail Sales Tax.

Contact Name:

L.A. Pagano, Director, Purchasing and Materials Management, Phone: 392-7312

B. Mason, Manager, West District, Transportation Services, Phone: 392-5640.

10

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, received this Clause, as information, subject to adding thereto the following:

"Notwithstanding subsection 128(5) of the Council Procedural By-law, it is recommended that the report dated August 25, 1998, from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, referred to in Item (d), entitled 'New Fee for Residues from Recycling Operations', be adopted, wherein it is recommended that:

'(1)a new solid waste management fee of $10.00 per tonne be established at the Keele Valley Landfill Site for soil-like residues from recycling operations for use as alternative daily cover at the landfill site, conditional upon approval by the Ministry of the Environment for such use;

(2)the quantities of materials described in Recommendation No. (1) be limited to a maximum of 1,000 tonnes per day, and that this material be accepted on a first-come first-served basis; and

(3)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be authorized to give effect thereto.' ")

(Report dated August 25, 1998,

from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services,

entitled "New Fee for Residues from Recycling Operations" referred to above)

Purpose:

To seek authority to establish a new solid waste management fee for residues from recycling operations which will be used for daily cover material at the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

It is recommended that a new fee of $10.00 per tonne be established for residues from recycling operations that is lower than the fee of $50.00 per tonne for mixed waste. Recycling residues may be utilized as an alternative to soil for daily landfill cover subject to approval for such use by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). This will generate additional revenue and provide operating savings to the City.

It is assumed that approximately one-half of the daily cover requirements at the Keele Valley Landfill Site may be obtained from recycling residues. This amount of alternative daily cover equates to approximately 500 tonnes per day or approximately 130,000 tonnes per year. If a new fee of $10.00 per tonne is established for this material, revenues of approximately $1,300,000.00 may accrue to the City on an annual basis.

The use of this material as daily cover will also offset the operating costs incurred in excavating and transporting clean soil to the tipping face. This operational saving is estimated to be $130,000.00 per year.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a new solid waste management fee of $10.00 per tonne be established at the Keele Valley Landfill Site for soil-like residues from recycling operations for use as alternative daily cover at the landfill site, conditional upon approval by the Ministry of the Environment for such use;

(2)the quantities of materials described in Recommendation No. (1) be limited to a maximum of 1000 tonnes per day and that this material be accepted on a first come first served basis; and

(3)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be authorized to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The operation of the Keele Valley Landfill Site requires that the tipping face be covered at the end of each working day to provide litter, odour and vermin controls. Typically, six inches of clean soil is used which incurs costs for excavating and transporting the soil to the tipping face. To partially offset these operational costs, we are presently accepting clean soil delivered to the site at a fee of $10.00 per truckload. In 1997, we received a total of 26,652 loads. Materials other than soil for daily landfill cover have been tested and used as a common practice in numerous landfills in North America and the Province of Ontario. An opportunity exists to use soil-like residue from recycling operations as alternative daily cover at the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Discussion and Justification:

In recognition of the fact that alternatives exist to using soil for daily cover at landfills in Ontario, the MOE has prepared a guideline entitled "Procedures for Gaining Approval to Use Alternative Material to Soil as Daily Cover in Landfills that Receive Only Municipal and Non-Hazardous Solid Waste." City of Toronto staff have applied to the MOE to use dewatered paper fibre and soil-like residue from recycling operations for alternative daily cover at the Keele Valley Landfill Site. Staff expect that a source of revenue from such materials can be realized and that operating costs for excavating and hauling daily cover can be reduced. A photograph of such typical residues is attached to this report for reference.

The relatively high fee for mixed waste is a deterrent to generators of these recycling residues to dispose of the material as mixed waste at the Keele Valley Landfill Site. Presently, this recycling residue is being accepted free of charge at other landfills as daily cover material. Hauling costs to these landfills vary from $6.66 to $12.00 per tonne. A lower fee competitive with their total disposal cost is required so that the generators of recycling residues will bring their materials to the Keele Valley Landfill Site to be put to beneficial use. In addition, their existing disposal sites are insufficient, and having Keele Valley Landfill as another avenue for disposing of their residue material will allow them to expand their recycling operations.

City staff applied to the MOE on August 10, 1998, (for a six-month trial period) to use two types of recycling residues as alternative daily cover at the Keele Valley Landfill Site: paper fibre and soil-like residue from recycling operations. Paper fibre created in producing recycled paper sometimes contains small pieces of glass and plastic which make it unacceptable in producing finished paper. This product is therefore rejected from the paper producing process but it is an appropriate material to use as daily cover. Paperboard Industries who produce paper fibre have expressed interest in bringing their rejected paper fibre to the Keele Valley Landfill Site for use as alternative daily cover material at a fee lower than that for mixed waste.

Harbour Front Recycling, Harkow Recycling and Rancor Wood Recycling each have Certificates of Approval from the MOE to accept, handle, recycle, and transport construction and demolition material. The recycling process involves removing recyclable materials from the waste streams. It includes shredding and screening the material in the process which yields a relatively homogeneous, finely ground soil-like material suitable to use as daily cover. All three companies have expressed interest in bringing this residual material to the Keele Valley Landfill Site for use as alternative daily cover material at a fee lower than that for mixed waste. The proposed SWM fee of $10.00 per tonne has been discussed with these generators. Staff has received feedback that if the fee were set higher than $10.00 per tonne, the generators would not deliver the material to Keele Valley.

A list of criteria has been described in the letter of application to the MOE for the utilization of paper fibre and soil-like products from recycling operations as alternative daily cover. These criteria include maximum allowable levels of specific chemical compounds, maximum leachable levels of specific chemical compounds, maximum particle size, passing of a slump test, minimal odour, minimal dust, and no wind blown litter. Each generator will be required to prove that their residue complies with these criteria prior to acceptance at the site.

It is recommended that a maximum of 1,000 tonnes per day of recycling residue be accepted at the Keele Valley Landfill Site. This is based on the daily requirements for daily cover material assuming current disposal rates of approximately 7000 tonnes per day, an in-place waste density of approximately 650 kilograms per cubic metre, a density of the recycling residue of 500 kilograms per cubic metre and a ratio of waste to daily cover of 5.7 to one by volume.

Although a maximum of 1,000 tonnes per day is required, existing suppliers cannot provide this amount. Based on this uncertainty in supply, if it is assumed that approximately 500 tonnes per day of these residues are delivered to the Keele Valley Landfill Site, annual revenues of approximately $1,300,000.00 may accrue to the City (500 tonnes x 260 days/year x $10.00/tonne).

The alternative daily cover material would offset current annual costs of excavating and hauling 500 tonnes of on-site soil for daily cover by approximately $130,000.00 (500 tonnes x $1.00/tonne x 260 days /year).

Conclusions:

Establishing a new solid waste management fee for paper fibre and soil-like residues from recycling operations which are of beneficial use for alternative daily cover at the Keele Valley Landfill Site should create a source of revenue to the City of approximately $1,300,000.00 per year. Utilization of residue as alternative daily cover should offset annual operating costs of approximately $130,000.00. Upon approval from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to use these residues as substitutes to daily cover, it is recommended that is a SWM fee of $10.00 per tonne be applied to these materials.

Contact Name:

Lou Ciardullo, Sr. Eng. - Keele Valley Landfill Site

Solid Waste Management Services

Phone: (905) 832-0682 (235); Fax: (905) 832-4944

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

(A copy of the photograph referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(a)Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association Proposed Resolution.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on October 7, 1998, as a deputation item:

(July 29, 1998) from Mr. Salvatore Morra, Executive Director, Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association, advising that the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association has been advocating for a number of issues of importance to municipalities including the revitalization and maintenance of core infrastructure, and requesting the opportunity to make a brief presentation in support of a proposed resolution, appended thereto, wherein it is resolved:

"THAT the City of Toronto supports positive action to ensure its future health, safety and economic viability;

THAT the City of Toronto supports the establishment of a sewer and watermain reserve account and the implementation of an ongoing sewer and watermain infrastructure maintenance and replacement program; and

THAT the City of Toronto subscribes to the principle of full cost accounting for sewer and watermain services and, more specifically, that taxpayers' money not be used to subsidize maintenance and replacement of sewer and watermain services."

(b)Solid Waste Management Fees.

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

(July 16, 1998) from the City Clerk, City of Toronto, advising that City Council, at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it a Motion by Councillor Disero, seconded by Councillor Jakobek, which was adopted by City Council at its meeting on May13 and 14, 1998, wherein it is resolved:

"THAT in accordance with Section 46 of the Council Procedural By-law, Clause No.8 of Report No. 8 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed "Solid Waste Management Fees", be reopened for further consideration at the meeting of City Council to be held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998; and

THAT Council adopt the following recommendations:

(1)the solid waste management fee at Toronto transfer stations be put back to $70.00 per tonne effective immediately; and

(2)the solid waste management fees at Toronto transfer stations and landfill be adjusted to $65.00 and $55.00 per tonne respectively, effective December 1, 1998";

and advising that Council reopened consideration of the aforementioned Clause and referred the foregoing Motion to the Works and Utilities Committee for consideration.

--------

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

-Mr. Wilf Goldlust, Vice-President - GTA Division, Canadian Waste Services Inc.;

-Mr. Richard Butts, Chair, Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee (SWMICC);

-Mr. Barry Henderson, J & F Waste Systems;

-Mr. John Bray, Executive Director, Ontario Waste Management Association;

-Mr. Bruce Westaway, Sales Manager, Metro Waste Paper Recovery;

-Ms. Linda Lynch, representing Harkow Recycling Ltd.; and

-Mr. Scott Wolfe, General Manager, Miller Waste Systems.

(c)Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report; and having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, when reporting back to the Committee on the funding mechanisms for such projects, to include a full inventory of initiatives currently being undertaken by the City and the percentage of revenues being allocated to environmental projects:

(August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing information on funding mechanisms for the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds and other stormwater management initiatives/projects, as requested by the Committee at its meeting of July 15, 1998; advising that concepts such as "generator of stormwater runoff" and the "beneficiaries of stormwater improvements" paying for stormwater projects are being evaluated, and detailed criteria such as impervious area and credit for stormwater reduction, as suggested by the Committee, are being considered through the development of a funding strategy; further advising that an appropriate and equitable funding strategy including all necessary detailed criteria is expected to be developed through the ongoing Master Planning study in approximately 12 to 18 months; and recommending that this report be received for information.

--------

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

-Mr. Dalton C. Shipway, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Jorma Palomaki, Weston, Ontario; and

-Mr. Tim Lambrinos, Executive Assistant to Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber.

(d)New Fee for Residues from Recycling Operations.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on October 7, 1998, as a deputation item:

(August 25, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, recommending that:

(1)a new solid waste management fee of $10.00 per tonne be established at the Keele Valley Landfill Site for soil-like residues from recycling operations for use as alternative daily cover at the landfill site, conditional upon approval by the Ministry of the Environment for such use;

(2)the quantities of materials described in Recommendation No. (1) be limited to a maximum of 1,000 tonnes per day, and that this material be accepted on a first-come first-served basis; and

(3)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be authorized to give effect thereto.

(e)Berry Road Overflow Chamber of Humber Treatment Plant - Sewer Odours.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on October 7, 1998, as a deputation item:

(July 20, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, forwarding a copy of a communication addressed to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services concerning the Berry Road Overflow Chamber of the Humber Treatment Plant, and concerns raised by residents with respect to strong odour and gases coming from the Plant.

(f)Drinking Water Taste and Odour.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report; and having requested the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, to submit a further report to the Committee at its meeting scheduled to be held on November 4, 1998, on:

(1)the options available to eliminate or reduce odour and other problems in the future with regard to water quality;

(2)chemical analyses of water samples for the last ten years; and

(3)a description of the steps involved in making the water from Lake Ontario potable:

(August 28, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, providing information on the recent occurrence of an unpleasant taste and odour in drinking water, and a strategy to address the issue; advising that the taste and odour was caused by minuscule levels of a compound produced by algae and higher than normal water temperatures, and that water quality was otherwise not affected and remained safe to consume; further advising that given the likelihood of increased frequency and duration of taste and odour occurrences in the future, the feasibility of alternative processes for taste and odour control at the water treatment plants is being investigated; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(g)Management of Grass Clippings.

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

(August 17, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, responding to a communication from the former City of Etobicoke Works and Environment Committee respecting the reintroduction of grass clippings into the yard waste collection program for composting, that was before the former Metro Environment and Public Space Committee at its meeting of September 8, 1997; advising that grass clippings have been banned from the yard waste collection program due to a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board forbidding grass composting at the Avondale Composting Site, and that the City of Toronto is therefore not investigating opportunities to reintroduce grass into the program at this time; noting that the City is continuing its advertising campaign to advise residents of the benefits of leaving their grass clippings on the lawn, and that there will be an opportunity in the future to test the composting of grass in the Small Scale Mixed Waste Recycling and Organics Processing Facility scheduled to be operational in spring 2000; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h)Old Landfill Sites in the City of Toronto.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report; and having requested the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, to:

(1)prioritize the list of old landfill sites in terms of risk factors, and to meet with interested Councillors to provide comprehensive information with respect to sites in their wards;

(2)investigate and submit a report to the Committee, if necessary, on the possibilities of landfill gas recovery or flaring at old landfill sites in the City of Toronto;

(3)provide to the Committee a list of former PCB storage sites in the City of Toronto; and

(4)submit a status report to the Committee on a semi-annual basis:

(August 24, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, forwarding an interim list of old landfill sites in the City of Toronto, as requested by the Committee at its meeting of May 20, 1998; advising that old landfills were defined as land which is owned by the municipality and which has been documented as having been used for the disposal of municipal solid waste under the authority of the municipality, and that the list does not include brown field sites which are generally considered as sites that have been contaminated in some manner and for which decommissioning may be required; noting that the list is a compilation of information which is readily available at this time, and requires verification before further study is conducted on these sites; further advising that a committee has been struck comprised of staff of the six Community Council areas and former Metro Toronto to oversee and report follow-up action required to ensure that any risk associated with the sites is managed appropriately; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)Ultra Violet Disinfection Trial At

Main Treatment Plant.

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

(August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services clarifying the present status of the Ultra Violet Disinfection Trial project at the Main Treatment Plant in light of the change in contractor carrying out the trial, as well as a reduction in funding available for the project in 1998, in response to the request of the Budget Committee at its meeting of July28, 1998; advising that there will be no impact on the trial resulting from reallocation of funds from this project to the Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program, and that the project will be completed by Trojan Technologies Inc. following issuance of the related Purchase Order; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(j)1998 Steve Bonk Scholarship.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following motion to the Municipal Grants Review Committee:

Moved by Councillor Bossons:

"That the City of Toronto be requested to grant funds on an annual basis to the recipient of the Steve Bonk Scholarship to match the $500.00 provided by the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association."

The Works and Utilities further reports that the Chair of the Committee, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Dr. Larry Moore, Director of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, presented to Mr. Paul Beveridge of Toronto, the recipient of the 1998 Steve Bonk Scholarship, a cheque in the amount of $500.00 and congratulated him on winning the award; and advised the Committee that this award is given by the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association to a full-time student from across Canada who has completed one-year of post secondary education and intends to pursue a career related to the municipal water or wastewater industry.

(k)Recovery of Reusable Goods.

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

Mr. Tim Michael, Manager - Waste Diversion, Metro Hall, Works and Emergency Services, gave a presentation to the Committee on the recovery of reusable goods, as requested by the Committee at its meeting of June 17, 1998.

(l)Garbage and Recycling Collection Calendar.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having had before it a draft layout of the garbage and recycling collection calendar for 1999/2000, submitted by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and having requested that:

(1)the calendar be modified by incorporating a consistent format using the former City of Toronto icons, by enlarging the text explaining the icons, and by listing the reference to "Questions?" in different languages; and

(2)the final version of the calendar be approved by the Chair of the Committee, in consultation with interested Members of the Committee.

(m)100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program -

Status Report.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received a verbal report from the Chair of the Committee on the status of the Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals with respect to the 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program at the Main Treatment Plant.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of Item (b), headed "Solid Waste Management Fees", embodied in the foregoing Clause, a communication (October1, 1998) from the Executive Director, Ontario Waste Management Association, requesting Council to direct staff to once again establish a six-month consultation and information period between the time of a fee change announcement and the time that it is to take effect.)

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO,

Chair

Toronto, September 9, 1998

(Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.)