TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999

WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 1

1Environment Days

2Liquor and Wine Container Deposit/Return By-law

3Advertising on Litter Containers and Consolidation of Management of Litter Containers

4Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement -Pizza Pizza Limited

5Pilot Treatment Wetland in Lower Duck Pond, High Park -Progress Report and Award of Phase II (Ward 19 - High Park)

6Assumption of Private Sanitary Sewer and Watermain -2206 Gerrard Street East (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

7Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 1

OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on January 13, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999

1

Environment Days

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(A)the adoption of the following recommendations embodied in the communication dated January 13, 1999, from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford:

"(1)instruct staff to retroactively compensate all Councillors who used their newsletters to promote Environment Days, subject to the limit;

(2)recommend and support access to HHW disposal to the residents of all wards; and

(3)ensure that department guidelines and decisions reflect Council's direction.";

(B)that where Councillors do not agree on a joint Environment Day and the Department is hosting the event, those Councillors be permitted to have their names included as part of any publicity material.

  The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)recommended to the Budget Committee, for consideration with the 1999 Operating Budget, that:

(i)Councillors be reimbursed up to a maximum of $500.00 each for promotion of Environment Days for 1999 through their newsletters; and

(ii)Blue Boxes and Grey Boxes be provided free of charge at Environment Days.

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 24, 1999, on the allocation of costs of Environment Days on a per capita basis for future years.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following communication (January 13, 1999) from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford:

With regard to the deputation Item No. 1 of the Committee meeting on January 13, 1999, I would like to urge the Committee to make the following motions:

(1)instruct staff to retroactively compensate all Councillors who used their newsletters to promote Environment Days (subject to the $500.00 limit);

(2)recommend and support access to HHW disposal to the residents of all wards; and

(3)ensure that department guidelines and decisions reflect Council's direction.

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (November 18, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

To report on the cost of Environment Days, and to revise some of the funding amounts for their promotion.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the payment for Environment Day advertisements in a Councillor's constituent newsletter be increased in accordance with the recommended payments for different size advertisements stated in this report.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of November 4, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee adopted a number of recommendations pertaining to procedures for Environment Days in 1999, and further requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to the Committee on the cost of the events. In addition, during the past two months, a number of Councillors have expressed concern with Environment Day promotional funding especially regarding advertisements in their constituent newsletters which have not been funded to the same extent that stand alone flyers or ads in community newspapers are funded. This report will deal first with the cost of Environment Days, followed by recommended changes to promotional funding.

Discussion and Justification:

In 1998, a total of 32 Environment Days were held. As indicated in our report on this subject that was before your Committee on November 4, 1998, the following waste diversion results were achieved as a result of the events:

-sale of 2,244 home composters;

-collection of approximately 210 tonnes of household hazardous waste;

-distribution of 800 tonnes of leaf compost;

-collection of 47 tonnes of tires for recycling;

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

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

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

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

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

The estimated cost to operate the 1998 Environment Days, including household hazardous waste management and disposal, was approximately $500,000.00. An additional amount of approximately $80,000.00 was spent promoting the events. The total amount is comprised of the following:

   Wages and Benefits$200,000

Supplies, Services and Other Expenses$100,000

Household Hazardous Waste$200,000

Promotion $80,000

Total$580,000

Wages and Benefits include the costs of a full-time Environment Day Coordinator and Clerk, six casual staff working approximately 20 hours per week each during the months of April to October, and a Driver from April to October. The duties of these positions are as follows:

Coordinator-responsible for arranging and coordinating the events, and ensuring the effective provision of services at the events.

Clerk-answers telephone inquiries related to the Environment Days and performs administrative functions such as recording bank deposits, sales and inventory.

Casual staff-provide service to the public at the events, such as selling composters, blue boxes and water kits, and accepting recyclable material. Also perform other duties such as loading composters, blue boxes, etc., on to trucks the day before the event and assisting in promoting the events, e.g., staffing mall displays, visiting schools.

Driver-delivers items such as composters to the events and transfers recyclables and reusables collected at the events to the markets.

Supplies, Services and Other Expenses include materials and services to operate the events such as signs, bins, trailer rental and police to control traffic; the net cost of the composters, water kits, etc. sold at the events; the cost to transport finished compost to the events; and administrative costs such as computers and office supplies.

Household Hazardous Waste costs are for the management and disposal of the material collected at the events.

Promotion includes newspaper advertisements (six 1/4-page ads in the Toronto Star), radio advertisements (five series of ads from the end of April to September), plus distribution of posters, recorded telephone messages, listings in Waste Watch, and information dissemination at displays. This is in addition to the $1,000.00 per ward which is allotted to the Councillors for promoting their events.

With respect to the promotion of Environment Days, departmental guidelines stipulate that a maximum of $1,000.00 per ward or $500.00 per Councillor be made available to Councillors to promote their events. This is in addition to the approximately $50,000.00 that the Department spends on promoting Environment Days. In February 1998, promotion guidelines for publicizing 1998 Environment Days were distributed to each Councillor. Councillors were asked to follow a number of rules regarding how the funds could be allocated between flyers, community newspaper advertisements and advertising in constituent newsletters. A number of Councillors have expressed concern that Environment Day ads in their constituent newsletters have not been funded to the same extent that stand alone flyers or ads in community newspapers are funded. After consultation with the Clerk's Division, we hereby recommend that the Department make changes to the promotion guidelines for 1999 as described below.

The payment for advertisements in a constituent newsletter should be increased as follows:

Size of AdvertisementCurrent PaymentRecommended Payment

Full page$180.00$500.00

3/4-page$150.00$375.00

2/3-page$135.00$330.00

1/2-page$120.00$250.00

1/3-page$105.00$165.00

1/4-page $90.00$125.00

1/8-page $60.00 $65.00

The amount for a full-page advertisement is restricted to $500.00 to enable both Councillors in a ward to advertise in their newsletters and to enable residents to receive the information twice (i.e., two "hits"). The remainder of the rules and requirements, as outlined in the 1998 promotion guidelines, would remain the same. The $1,000.00 limit on promotional spending per ward would also remain in place.

Conclusion:

The total cost to operate the 1998 Environment Days, including promotion and household hazardous waste management and disposal, is estimated to be approximately $580,000.00. Amending the promotion guidelines will allow Councillors to receive more funding for advertising in their constituent newsletters. All other promotion guidelines would remain the same as in 1998.

Contact Names:

Tim Michael, Manager, Waste DiversionNicole Dufort, Manager, Communications

Solid Waste Management ServicesSupport Services

Works and Emergency ServicesWorks and Emergency Services

Phone: 392-8506; Fax: 392-4754Phone: 392-2963; Fax: 392-2974

tim_michael@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.nicole_dufort@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (December 31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Council request for a further report on the distribution of items at Environment Days.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Free distribution of blue boxes, grey boxes, water efficiency kits and peak pails at Environment Days would result in an estimated operating budget increase of $150,000.00 per year.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of The Works and Utilities Committee by striking out and referring Recommendation No. (2) of the Committee to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report to the Committee on a revised distribution program.

Recommendation No. (2) of the Committee read as follows:

"(2)that the following recommendation be added thereto:

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

Discussion and Justification:

The recommendation to have Councillors reimburse the Department for items given away free at Environment Days was intended to harmonize the practices of the former municipalities with respect to distribution of items at public events. For example, Councillors of the former City of Toronto used to distribute blue and grey boxes and water efficiency kits for free at their events, whereas Councillors of the former Metro Toronto would charge $5.00 for blue and grey boxes and $20.00 for water efficiency kits (approximately the wholesale cost of the units). Composter units are generally sold for the subsidized cost of $15.00 per unit.

This recommendation is also consistent with the Solid Waste Management Service Level Harmonization report which recommended that residents be charged $5.00 for replacement blue and grey boxes.

The alternative would be to have Councillors give away blue boxes, grey boxes, water efficiency kits and peak pails for free at their 1999 Environment Days.

Based on an estimate that the number of units distributed would increase by a factor of 10, an additional $150,000.00 would need to be budgeted by the Department to accommodate free distribution.

The advantage of free distribution is that it provides a direct incentive to residents to recycle waste and conserve water.

The disadvantages are as follows:

(1)some residents may obtain extra units for other uses or for sale to others;

(2)inventory would be difficult to control since there would be no sales records; and

(3)the Department budget would have to be increased by approximately $150,000.00 per year.

Conclusions:

Free distribution of grey boxes, blue boxes, water efficiency kits and peak pails at Environment Days has not been recommended due to concerns about misuse of free units, inventory control problems and increased cost.

Contact Names:

Andrew Pollock, Director - SWM Policy and Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: 392-4715; Fax: 392-4754

E-mail: andy_pollock@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 (November 27, 1998) from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford, outlining deficiencies in the 1998 Environment Day program, in particular with respect to promotional costs and the elimination of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection from single-Councillor Environment Days; and urging the Committee to:

(1)instruct staff to retroactively compensate all Councillors who used their newsletters to promote Environment Days (subject to the $500.00 limit);

(2)recommend and support access to HHW disposal to the residents of all wards; and

(3)ensure that department guidelines and decisions reflect Council's direction.

Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway - Humber, appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

2

Liquor and Wine Container Deposit/Return By-law

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(A)inserting in Recommendation No. (2) of the Works and Utilities Committee, the words "in 1998, and $1.0 million in 1999" after the words "$1.0 million", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)that the Minister of the Environment be requested to provide the City of Toronto with the $1.0 million in 1998, and $1.0 million in 1999 previously offered, in order to assist the City in its disposal of the continued flow of Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) bottles in the Blue Boxes;"; and

(B)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto reaffirm its support for deposit/return systems as the preferred mechanism for maximizing diversion and lowering municipal costs;

(2)the Province of Ontario be requested to supply to the City Clerk, all correspondence from 1996 to present related to waste diversion between the Corporations Supporting Recycling (and their member organizations) and the Province of Ontario (specifically the Office of the Premier, the Minister of the Environment, and Consumer and Commercial Relations); and should this information not be forthcoming by March 1, 1999, the City Solicitor be directed to make a Freedom of Information Request in this regard;

(3)the City Clerk request the Minister of the Environment to appoint a Member of City Council who is a Member of the City's Works and Utilities Committee, in addition to any representation which may be provided by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), to sit on the Province's Waste Diversion Organization, in order to ensure that the interests of the City of Toronto are considered; and

(4)the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of the Environment be advised of Council's strong objection to:

(a)having the Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR) provide executive, professional and administrative services to the Waste Diversion Organization (WDO); and

(b)the apparent back-sliding in funding for the WDO.")

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report dated January 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(2)that the Minister of the Environment be requested to provide the City of Toronto with the $1.0 million previously offered, in order to assist the City in its disposal of the continued flow of Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) bottles in the Blue Boxes; and

(3)that the Federal and Provincial Governments be again requested to review packaging legislation in order for the City to achieve its waste reduction targets.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)adopted the following recommendation embodied in the submission from the Toronto Environmental Alliance, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on February 10, 1999:

"That the Works and Utilities Committee direct the Works and Emergency Services Department to meet with Toronto Environmental Alliance, Canadian Bottle Recycling Inc., and r/Works to investigate the possibility of a permanent bottle collection program.";

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the next meeting of the Committee on:

(i)all the costs the City of Toronto incurs when handling wine and liquor bottles sold by the LCBO;

(ii)the feasibility of allocating a portion of the funds set aside for deposit/return publicity to support the initiatives being recommended by the Toronto Environmental Alliance; and

(iii)the advertising budget that would be required to bring the issue of deposit/return to the public's attention; and

(3)further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to contact Brewers' Retail and Molson Breweries with any suggestions on how to reduce waste on a voluntary basis.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (January 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the Ontario government's regulation amending Regulation 27/96 made under the Municipal Act, which effectively blocks the City's deposit/return by-law for liquor and wine containers.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has indicated that if Toronto repeals its deposit/return by-law before March 31, 1999, the City will be eligible to receive its share of the $4.0 million in annual Blue Box Program funding committed by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for 1998 and 1999. Toronto's share of the funding is estimated to be approximately $1.0 million per year. The City will also be eligible to receive additional industry funding for recycling, centralized composting and household hazardous waste depots in 1999.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council repeal By-law No. 448-1998, being the licensing by-law imposing the deposit/return requirement on liquor and wine vendors, given the enactment of the regulation amending Ontario Regulation 27/96;

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to review the eligibility criteria and funding commitment related to the Ministry of the Environment's Blue Box funding plan and report back to the Works and Utilities Committee; and

(3)the City Solicitor be authorized to introduce the necessary Bill to effect the foregoing repeal.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on July 8, 1998, Toronto Council adopted By-law No. 448-1998 licensing all liquor and wine retail outlets in the City effective January 1, 1999, and requiring them to implement a deposit/return system for liquor and wine containers as a condition of licensing. Staff have estimated that removing liquor and wine bottles from the Blue Box and the garbage would save the City approximately $1.0 million per year in operating costs.

Discussion and Justification:

On October 7, 1998, the MOE announced a voluntary industry funding plan for Blue Box Programs and other 3Rs initiatives. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) has committed $4.0 million in annual funding in 1998 and 1999, of which Toronto is expected to be eligible for approximately $1.0 million per year. The MOE is also negotiating with other industry sectors to obtain additional voluntary funding for Blue Box Programs, as well as for centralized composting and household hazardous waste depots.

The Minister of the Environment has indicated that he expects industry funding to cover 50 percent of net Blue Box Program costs by the year 2000. The Minister has also stated that in order to be eligible for any funding, Toronto would have to repeal its deposit/return by-law.

On December 18, 1998, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing filed a regulation to amend Regulation 27/96 made under the Municipal Act to state that municipalities do not have the power to impose a deposit/return system on liquor and wine retail outlets as a condition of licensing. Specifically, Ontario Regulation 27/96 was amended by adding the following section:

"6.A municipality, including a regional municipality, does not have the power under any Act to impose, as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence, any condition respecting containers for alcoholic beverages, including a condition requiring the vendor of alcoholic beverages to establish, operate or maintain a system or facilities for the return of containers for alcoholic beverages."

Furthermore, the MOE has informed staff that the City of Toronto must repeal its deposit/return by-law in advance of March 31, 1999, in order to be eligible for the LCBO's 1998 Blue Box funding, which expires as of that date. This requirement is apparently part of the MOE's eligibility criteria for Blue Box funding. A letter from the MOE specifying the funding commitment and funding eligibility criteria is expected some time in January 1999.

Conclusions:

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has made a regulation effectively blocking the City of Toronto's deposit/return by-law for liquor and wine containers. If the City repeals By-law No. 448-1998 before March 31, 1999, it will be eligible for LCBO Blue Box funding of approximately $1.0 million for 1998. In 1999, an additional approximately $1.0 million in LCBO funding will be available to Toronto, plus a yet to be determined amount of funding from other industry sectors for Blue Box recycling, centralized composting projects and household hazardous waste depots. Given that the only municipal objective behind the licensing of vendors of liquor and wine beverages has been foreclosed, it is appropriate that By-law No. 448-1998 be repealed.

Contact Names:

Andrew Pollock, Director - SWM Policy and Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: 392-4715; Fax: 392-4754

E-mail: andy_pollock@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 the following communications, a copy of which has been forwarded to all Members of Council and which is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(i)(December 18, 1998) from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing forwarding a copy of the amendment to the regulation under the Municipal Act with regard to municipal powers concerning alcoholic beverage containers; advising that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is contributing $4.0 million to assist municipalities with the cost of recycling wine and liquor containers; and reviewing other steps in the government's waste diversion plan;

(ii)(January 12, 1999) from Mr. Joseph P. Hruska, Vice President, Municipal Development, CSR: Corporations Supporting Recycling, expressing support for the recommendation to repeal By-law No. 448-1998; and

(iii)(undated) from the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA), outlining a proposal for the implementation of a cost-effective bottle collection program based on a bottle drive that took place in December 1998; submitting an information brief on "r/Works", a coalition of groups working in partnership with people who experience long-term poverty, in the area of recycling; and recommending that the Works and Utilities Committee direct the Works and Emergency Services Department to meet with Toronto Environmental Alliance, Canadian Bottle Recycling Inc., and r/Works to investigate the possibility of a permanent bottle collection program.

Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint communication (February 3, 1999) from Councillors Jack Layton, Don River, and Judy Sgro, North York Humber:

Proposed Amendments to Works and Utilities Report No. 1, Clause No. 2.

(1)That the City reaffirm its support for deposit/return systems as the preferred mechanism for maximizing diversion and lowering municipal costs;

(2)That the Province of Ontario be asked to supply the following information to the City Clerk: all correspondence from 1996 to present related to waste diversion between the Corporations Supporting Recycling (and their member organizations) and the Province of Ontario (specifically, the Premier's Office, the Minister of the Environment, the Consumer and Corporate Relations). Should this information not be forthcoming by March 1, 1999, the City Solicitor be directed to make a Freedom of Information Request for this information.

(3)That the City Clerk request the Minister of Environment to appoint a City Council member from the City of Toronto's Works and Utilities Committee - in addition to any A.M.O. representation which may be provided - to sit on the Province's Waste Diversion Organization to ensure that the interests of the City are considered.

(4)That letters be sent to the Premier and the Minister of Environment expressing Council's strong objection to having the Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR) provide executive, professional and administrative services to the Waste Diversion Organization (WDO); and expressing Council's strong objection to the apparent back-sliding in funding for the WDO.

Background

Attached is information outlining the problems with the Ontario proposal for Blue Box funding.

To summarize: We have been forced to abandon our LCBO deposit/return by-law in favour of the Minister's Waste Diversion Organization. However, as Cabinet documents forwarded to our offices clearly reveal, the Minister's plan still makes municipalities pay most of the Blue Box costs. From an initial promise of over $20 million for province-wide blue box costs, the Minister is now saying he hopes to raise only $11 million. This will be less than 1/4 of the Blue Box costs.

Furthermore, he has put Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR - the packaging industry's lobbyist) in charge of the agency that will dole out the money and oversee municipal Blue Box programs. Not only will we be underfunded, we will lose control over the programs we wish to see implemented by the very people producing the containers.

We need to send a clear message to the Province that the Waste Management Organization, especially if it is controlled by CSR, is the wrong tool for supporting reuse and recycling in Ontario.

Your support for these motions would be greatly appreciated.)

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

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause a communication (January 26, 1999) from Michael R. Mills, Enviroclens, Inc., in support of the proposed by-law with respect to the liquor and wine container deposit/return.)

3

Advertising on Litter Containers and

Consolidation of Management of Litter Containers

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1)striking out the recommendation of the Works and Utilities Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

(a)the report dated November 17, 1998, from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, be adopted;

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2)adding thereto the following:

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

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, be directed to negotiate a five-year extended Pilot Project Agreement between the City and OMG Media Inc., which would replace any existing pilot project and which would be based on the type of agreements the City has with respect to bus shelters, to include the provision of collection of recyclable materials only by OMG Media Inc., such materials to be delivered to the City of Toronto transfer or processing facilities; and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor submit a report thereon to the Committee at its next meeting;

(2)based on the co-development of the Info-Boxes by OMG Media Inc. and the City of Toronto, the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, be directed to negotiate a royalty agreement with OMG Media Inc. for the installation of Info-Boxes units within and outside of the City of Toronto; and that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report thereon to the Committee at its next meeting;

(3)no advertising be permitted on boxes in Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) where the BIA has objected; that cleanliness and prompt removal of graffiti be paramount to the agreement; and that such boxes be kept in a state of good repair;

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

(5)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, provide an inventory on indoor and outdoor billboard, poster and sign advertising which are dependent on view from public areas including comments on the potential for additional revenue generation; and that such report be submitted to the appropriate reporting Committee by September 1999.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested that:

(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to consider such proposal in all of the City's parks; and

(2)the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on a corporate policy for the handling of unsolicited proposals by City staff.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide information and recommendations with respect to the provision of advertising on new three compartment litter container installations within the public road allowance at various locations within the City of Toronto, and to recommend the consolidation of the management of litter containers into the Solid Waste Management Services Division.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The provision of replacement litter containers with an advertising component by an outside firm could reduce the annual cost for the maintenance and replacement of existing City-owned litter containers by an estimated $75,000.00, and could potentially generate revenues from the sale of the existing containers and from the advertising component associated with the new containers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Works and Emergency Services Department put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) in early 1999 for the supply, installation, and maintenance (excluding emptying) of new litter containers which include an advertising component to replace existing litter containers at various locations within the road allowance in the City of Toronto;

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

(3)when existing pilot programs terminate, the successful proponent(s) from the RFP in Recommendation No. (1) be required to provide litter containers in the pilot areas under the same terms and conditions stipulated in the RFP;

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

(5)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with recommendations on a policy framework for advertising on litter containers within the road allowance and on a consultation process with Community Councils.

Council Reference/Background/History:

OMG Media presently supplies the stainless steel litter containers Info-Boxes within the City of Toronto. There are currently three agreements in place between the City and OMG Media as listed below.

In June 1997, the former City of Etobicoke entered into a ten-year agreement for a pilot program with OMG Media for the supply, installation and maintenance (excluding emptying) of stainless steel litter containers Info-Boxes at various locations within the road allowance in the Etobicoke Community Council area; to date, there are 57 of these Info-Boxes in place. The City's share of the revenue, generated from the advertising component of the litter containers and pro-rated over the ten years, is approximately $8.00 per container per month or $5,472.00 annually.

On November 12, 1998, based on a request by the local Business Improvement Area (BIA), the Etobicoke Community Council endorsed:

(i)the removal of two OMG Media Info-Boxes on Bloor Street West in the Kingsway BIA; and

(ii)that no further litter containers of this type were to be installed in the Kingsway BIA without the BIA's approval.

It is our understanding that the Kingsway BIA group did not think the Info-Boxes blended aesthetically well in the area.

In August 1998, the City entered into an agreement with OMG Media for a pilot program for the supply, installation and maintenance (excluding emptying) of approximately 20 stainless steel litter

containers Info-Boxes at various locations within the road allowance along St. Clair Avenue West between Winona Drive and Lansdowne Avenue. The pilot study will be completed in December of 1998. Staff are currently monitoring the area to:

(1)determine if the additional litter containers have reduced the litter on the street;

(2)measure the impacts the new litter containers have had, if any, on the City's collection systems; and

(3)receive input from the public with respect to the appearance and locations of the litter containers.

Preliminary analysis indicates that the new containers have been well received by the public.

In October 1998, City of Toronto Council approved a six-month pilot project for the York Community Council area with OMG Media for the supply, installation and maintenance (excluding emptying) of approximately 20-40 stainless steel Info-Boxes at various locations within the road allowance in the York Community Council area.

During that same month, a letter was received from OMG's solicitors requesting approval to give a presentation to the Scarborough Community Council to place Info-Boxes within the road allowance in the Scarborough Community Council area of the City of Toronto.

Comments and/or Justification:

In addition to OMG Media, we have received enquiries from other firms interested in supplying the City with litter containers that have an advertising component.

In order to provide all interested firms an equal opportunity to compete for the supply of these containers to the City and in order to allow the City to identify its options to maximize cost reductions and potential revenue opportunities, we recommend that a Request for Proposals be issued in early 1999 for the replacement of existing litter containers. The replacement containers will be placed in locations that are acceptable to the Commissioner of the Works and Emergency Services Department and the local Community Councils.

There are currently 4,649 litter containers located at various locations within the public road allowance (litter containers in parks are not included). The type and style of the litter containers range from standup plastic, single and double aluminum standup, wire baskets with metal inserts, and pole mounted. The capital costs of the above-noted containers range from $115.00 to $700.00 per container.

The estimated annual cost city-wide for the replacement and maintenance (excluding emptying) of the existing litter containers is approximately $150,000.00 or $32.00 per container.

Currently, the management of the litter containers in the Etobicoke, North York, East York, and Scarborough Community Council areas is the responsibility of the Solid Waste Management Services Division (SWMD) and the responsibility of the Transportation Services Division (TSD) in the Toronto and York Community Council areas. The emptying of the litter containers is performed by a mix of municipal SWMD staff, garbage collection contractors for the SWMD and by municipal TSD staff.

At this time, it makes operational and economic sense to consolidate the management of the litter containers into the SWMD since litter collection is part of this division's core business. Consolidation of this function will also eliminate any confusion amongst City Councillors and their constituents as to which division of the Works and Emergency Services Department is responsible for the management of litter containers.

There are financial benefits to the City in avoided replacement and maintenance costs as well as potential revenues from the sale of advertising on the new litter containers and the sale of the existing containers, should Council decide to go with an OMG-type Info-Box litter container. It is difficult to provide precise figures with respect to the avoided costs and the potential revenues that could be generated. However, if 50 percent of the existing litter container locations are deemed appropriate for the Info-Box type of litter container, the annual avoided replacement and maintenance costs would be approximately $75,000.00.

Conclusions:

This report requests approval to put out a Request for Proposals for the supply, installation and maintenance of street litter containers with an advertising component, and to consolidate the management of the existing litter containers into the Solid Waste Management Services Division from the Transportation Services Division. The consolidation would be completed by mid-1999.

Contact Name:

Steve Whitter, Director, Solid Waste Collections, Districts 1 and 2

Solid Waste Management Services Division

Phone: (416) 392-1950; Fax: (416) 392-0396

email: swhitter@toronto.ca.

--------

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

(i)(December 14, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the East York Community Council on December 9, 1998, had before it a communication dated December 3, 1998, from Councillor Betty Disero requesting the East York Community Council to provide comments to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to advertising on new garbage receptacles; and further advising that the East York Community Council:

(1)wishes to participate in such project and, further, recommends that a Request for Proposals (RFP) may be the best way for the City to proceed; and

(2)received the aforementioned communication;

(ii)(December 16, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Scarborough Community Council on December 9, 1998, had before it a communication from Councillor Betty Disero requesting that the Community Council consider the issue of advertising on garbage receptacles as a pilot project in Scarborough and forward any comments thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee; and further advising that the Scarborough Community Council has concerns respecting the impact of these types of containers on its neighborhoods, and suggests to the Works and Utilities Committee that it not let one large contract for the City but, rather, come forward with recommended districts for the implementation of this proposal;

(iii)(January 12, 1999) from Ms. Lisa McGee, General Manager, Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, submitting comments and concerns with respect to advertising on litter containers; and requesting that should the City pursue litter bin advertising, the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area be consulted prior to any installations within its BIA; and

(iv)(undated) from OMG Media advising that OMG Media does not concur with some of the information contained in the staff report recommending that a Request for Proposals be issued for the supply, installation and maintenance of litter containers; providing an alternate strategy for this project through the use of Info-Boxes; and proposing that the Committee reconsider the recommendations in the report in consideration of the aforementioned proposals by OMG Media.

--------

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

-Councillors Doug Holyday, Markland - Centennial; and

-Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber.

4

Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement -

Pizza Pizza Limited

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for further consideration and report thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee; and Council directed that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services also submit a copy of such report to the Economic Development Committee for comment thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report dated November 20, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(2)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to advise those industries with existing Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements that such agreements will be terminated by January 1, 2000, and that staff provide assistance wherever possible similar to that provided to Nestlé Canada Inc. in cleaning up sewer discharge; and

(3)that no further agreements be approved.

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

(1)send out the Nestlé Canada Inc. Model to all those companies that have Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements with the City of Toronto, with a suggestion that the City would be willing to negotiate similar initiatives; and to invite all parties to a workshop or forum on this topic in order to provide information to such industries regarding strategies for reducing industrial waste; and

(2)submit a report to the Committee on:

(i)the banning, as well as phasing out, of such agreements;

(ii)the deployment of staff presently engaged in auditing industrial and commercial operations; and

(iii)the doubling of fees charged, in the interim.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To allow Pizza Pizza Limited to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with the City of Toronto permitting them to discharge overstrength effluent which is amenable to treatment at our treatment plants and pay a surcharge fee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department maintains approximately 157 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements, which allow for the recovery of approximately $7.5 million per year in additional treatment costs. These charges reflect a user pay philosophy and directly offset the cost of the operation of our treatment plants.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that we be authorized to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with Pizza Pizza Limited, 58 Advance Road, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The type of waste generated by Pizza Pizza Limited is biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our Humber Treatment Plant.

This company has been notified of the annual charge to be levied, and has signified agreement to the amount of the assessment:

AnnualExcess

Yearly Plant WasteBy-law

EffectiveSurchargeDischargeStrength Limit

Date $ m³ mg/L mg/L

Pizza Pizza LimitedJan. 1, 1998$7,167.11 13,751 922 350

SS SS

The alternative to an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement would be to force the industry to comply with the Sewer Use By-law limit for suspended solids (SS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), by the addition of effluent pretreatment equipment. This would be an impossibility for many companies due to financial and/or space limitations. Those industries that could afford to install pretreatment systems may have problems with odours or upsets. The Ministry of the Environment acknowledges the need for surcharge agreements in their Model Sewer Use By-law (1988).

Conclusions:

The overstrength effluent from the above industry is organic in nature, biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our treatment plants.

In accordance with section 5 of our Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89, an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement should be established with the above industry to provide a mechanism by which the overstrength effluent which exceeds the by-law limit for SS can be discharged on a fee basis.

Contact Name:

Vic Lim, P.Eng.

Chief Engineer - Environmental Services

Water Pollution Control

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

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

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (January 29, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To advise Council of the legal implications of the unilateral termination by the City of all existing industrial waste surcharge agreements by January 1, 2000.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on January 13, 1999, while considering the granting of an industrial waste surcharge agreement to Pizza Pizza Limited, adopted the following recommendation:

"(2)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to advise those industries with existing Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements that such agreements will be terminated by January 1, 2000, and that staff provide assistance wherever possible similar to that provided to Nestle Canada Inc. in cleaning up sewer discharge;".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The form of Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement currently in use was adopted by Metropolitan Toronto Council as an appendix to its sewer use by-law (By-law 153-89). This form of agreement has been in use for several years. Each agreement is for a one year term and is automatically renewed on an annual basis on the same terms unless a new agreement is reached, or the agreement is terminated in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

The agreement sets out a number of specific circumstances which permit the City to terminate it. They include:

"(a) if the sewage is causing a health or safety hazard to a sewage works employee;

(b)if the sewage is causing damage to the sewers, materially increasing their maintenance costs or causing a dangerous condition;

(c)if the sewage is causing damage to the sewage treatment process or causing a dangerous condition in the treatment works;

(d)if the sewage is causing the sludge to fail to meet Provincial criteria relating to contaminants for spreading the sludge on agricultural land;

(e)if the sewage is causing the sewage works effluent to contravene any requirement under Provincial legislation;

(f)if the sewage is contrary to the By-law in any other way than as permitted under the agreement;

(g)where there is an emergency situation of immediate threat or danger to any person, property, plant or animal life, or waters; or,

(h)if the company fails for more than two months to pay an overdue amount.

In addition, the City may terminate the agreement at the time of a renewal, where the City gives written notice to the company within 30 days before or after the start of a calendar year, that the amount of the fee or any of the discharge limits set out in the agreement are to be changed, and no new agreement can be reached between the City and the Company.

Unless one of these conditions are met, the City has no contractual right to terminate an agreement. However, the City would likely be permitted to terminate the agreements so long as reasonable notice was provided to the other party. What would constitute reasonable notice would vary on a case by case basis and would depend on such factors as how long the agreement has been in place, the costs and potential damages that might be incurred or suffered by the company as a result of the termination, and the length of time it would take for the company to arrange for alternative treatment on site or to make other alternative arrangements. It is unlikely that the short notice period proposed would be seen as reasonable in all circumstances. Accordingly, it is possible that if the City were to terminate all Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements in the time frame and manner proposed by the Committee, the City could be liable for a substantial amount of damages. The exact amount of the damages would be difficult to determine and would vary on a case by case basis.

While the City could try to take advantage of the last mentioned right of termination by drastically increasing the fee charged, this approach could likely be successfully challenged. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently held that the amount of a fee charged for a service provided must bear a reasonable connection to the cost to the City in providing that service. As an alternative, if the City were to reduce the amount of the permitted discharges as a way of eliminating the agreements, a court would likely hold that the City would have to give the affected industries a reasonable notice period in relation to such change, and would certainly require such a decision be made only after there has been a fair hearing to those who may be affected.

Conclusions:

If all the Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements were terminated by January 1, 2000, as recommended by the Works and Utilities Committee, the City would be open to a large number of claims for breach of contract, and could be liable to pay a substantial amount of damages to those with whom it was entered into Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements. If the City wished to terminate all existing Surcharge Agreements, it would have to provide a reasonable period of notice to the affected parties.

Contact Name:

Robert H. Ashley

Telephone 392-2892

Fax:397-5624

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

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications respecting the implications of the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee regarding the Waste Surcharge Agreement with Pizza Pizza and other existing industrial waste surcharge agreements:

(i)(January 29, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79; and

(ii)(February 2, 1999) from Mr. Ken W. Holmes, Vice-President, Operations, Campbell Soup Company Limited.)

5

Pilot Treatment Wetland in Lower Duck Pond, High Park -

Progress Report and Award of Phase II (Ward 19 - High Park)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated January 6, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the report to the Storm Water Group for information, and having requested the Committee Administrator to include this group on the mailing list for storm water issues.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (January 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide, for information purposes, a progress report on Phase I of the proposed Pilot Treatment Wetland in Lower Duck Pond, High Park.

Furthermore, to obtain authorization to award the implementation of the Pilot Treatment Wetland (Phase II) in accordance with the Terms of Reference and the scope of work described in the agreement, dated September 26, 1997, between CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and the City of Toronto, and including additional work as described in the body of this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for this project has been included in the 1999 Capital Budget Submission and $500,000.00 of this is in the Interim Funding Request, which was approved by Council on December 16 and 17, 1998. The funding is available in Account No. WP953.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the progress report for Phase I of the Pilot Treatment Wetland project for the Lower Duck Pond in High Park be received for information;

(2)(a)approval be given to increase the contract price for Phase II of the Pilot Treatment Wetland by $75,100.00 from $282,011.34 to $357,111.34 including G.S.T. to cover additional construction costs related to unstable sediment deposits discovered at the bottom of the Lower Duck Pond in the course of the Phase I study work and additional cost related to site supervision and waterfowl control which were not included in the original scope of work; and

(b)approval be given to award Phase II of the Pilot Treatment Wetland in Lower Duck Pond (High Park), for a total price not to exceed $357,111.34 to CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited in accordance with the terms and conditions and the scope of work of the agreement dated September 26, 1997, between CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and the City of Toronto and including the additional work described below; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto including preparation and execution of the necessary Phase II agreement with CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background/History:

The Lower Duck Pond is located in the south-east corner of High Park. The main source of storm water to the pond is from the Spring Creek watercourse, which runs along the east side of High Park and is fed from two large storm outlets in the north-east corner of High Park and draining a large drainage area north of Bloor Street.

The pond suffers from poor water quality due to the runoff pollutants from Spring Creek. Furthermore, the pond's water quality is adversely impacted by many geese and ducks which inhabit the pond and surrounding lands.

In 1997, Terms of Reference for a Request for Proposal were issued by the former City of Toronto for the design and implementation of a biological treatment facility to improve the quality of water in the Lower Duck Pond. The proponents were asked to submit proposals based on a two-phase design/build process, with Phase I providing for the development of a conceptual design and consultation with the public and other stakeholders, and Phase II providing the detailed design, construction and installation of a biological treatment system. Five firms submitted proposals and after detailed evaluations, the proposal submitted by the team headed by CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited for a Natural Treatment Wetland was determined by the Review Committee as the overall best proposal meeting the pre-determined criteria.

The Board of Management of the former City of Toronto at its meeting no. 1997-38 starting on September 25, 1997 (Minute No. 2.15), in considering the report from the City Engineer, entitled "Water Quality Improvement Project Utilizing Biological Processes ("Living Machines") for the Lower Duck Pond in High Park - Phase I", authorized the engagement of CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited for Phase I of the project for a cost of $69,754.37 including G.S.T.

Subsequently, the City entered into an agreement with CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited (dated September 26, 1997) for carrying out Phase I of the project. Under the terms of the agreement, the City has the option, upon completion of Phase I, to award Phase II to CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited at a contract price of $282,011.34 including G.S.T.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

1.Phase I - Progress Report:

1.1Preferred Treatment Wetland Alternative:

Phase I consists of the development of the conceptual design for the design/build of a Pilot Treatment Wetland to be located in the Lower Duck Pond in High Park. The purpose of the Pilot Treatment Wetland is to improve the water quality in the Lower Duck Pond by utilizing biological treatment processes.

CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited commenced work on the development of a conceptual design in January 1998. The project followed the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Water and Wastewater (Schedule B) planning and design process.

There are different types of Engineered Wetlands, e.g.:

-Natural Wetlands;

-Surface Flow Constructed Wetlands;

-Sub-Surface Flow Constructed Wetlands; and

-Floating Aquatic Plant Systems.

Based on an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the various types, it is recommended to construct a Surface Flow Wetland because it is best suited for the southern Ontario climate and will tolerate hydraulic loading fluctuations. The constructed wetland will be located at the inflow of Spring Creek into Lower Duck Pond and will take approximately 15 percent (0.25 ha) of the Lower Duck Pond area.

Various native plant species such as bulrush will be planted in the wetland, and the base flow from Spring Creek will be diverted permanently into the wetland. Increased flows from Spring Creek during rain events will be partly diverted into the wetland and partly bypass the wetland depending on the flow rate. The splitting of the inflow rate will be determined during initial operation of the wetland to ensure maximum efficiency.

Water sampling carried out over a two-year period has determined that the pond water and sediment contain high levels of suspended solids, various contaminants and E-coli bacteria. The proposed wetland will reduce sediment, contaminant and E-Coli levels. The wetland will also provide wild life habitat.

Furthermore, the wetland will determine the feasibility and effectiveness of a Surface Flow Constructed Wetland for the treatment of storm water. Its location, adjacent to park pathways, will also allow for public viewing and it is proposed to install viewing points and information panels for the public.

The wetland will also provide research potential for school and university students.

1.2Public Consultation:

A Notice of Intent was published in the Toronto Star on January 27, 1998, to inform the public of the start of this project. In March 1998, a newsletter on the project was sent out to various review agencies, local interest groups and interested individuals. This was followed by the first public open house at the Keele Recreational Centre on March 5, 1998, to describe to the public the water quality problem of the pond and to present alternative improvement solutions. Comments from the public were very supportive of the project. A public tour to view the site was held on April 18, 1998. A second newsletter was sent out in May 1998, followed by the second public open house, on May 27, 1998, to present a recommended wetland design. Again, comments from the public were supportive for the construction of a treatment wetland.

Subsequently, the consultant completed an assessment screening report detailing the process, the findings and the preferred treatment wetland alternative. This report was reviewed by City staff and filed for a 30-day public review period, as set out by a Notice of Completion published in the Toronto Star on July 7 and 8, 1998.

Only one government agency responded to the Notice - no further comments from the public were received.

1.3Bottom Sediment in Lower Duck Pond:

During the Phase I study work, it was discovered that there is layer of unstable sediment approximately 1.0 metre thick at the bottom of the Lower Duck Pond . It appears that the sediment primarily originates from erosion occurring in Spring Creek and from suspended solids carried by storm water runoff which has settled out in the pond over the years. This layer of sediment is substantially deeper than anticipated prior to the proposal call and increases the construction cost of the pilot treatment wetlands described under item 2 below.

With respect to the erosion problem along Spring Creek, it is noted that in recent years the Works and Emergency Services Department, in cooperation with the Parks Department, has carried out improvements to Spring Creek to alleviate the erosion problem. It is intended that inspections of the creek bed be carried out yearly to address further erosion problems as early as possible.

With respect to the sediment carried by storm water, it should be noted that there are two small sedimentation ponds upstream of Spring Creek at the north-east corner of High Park. The purpose of these ponds is to allow suspended solids carried by the storm water runoff from the two storm sewers discharging into Spring Creek at that location to settle out. Sediment deposits in these ponds are periodically removed by the Works and Emergency Services Department. However, these ponds are not very effective because they are too small and because of their geometric configuration. A Class Environmental Assessment Study (Schedule B) is being carried out concurrently with the study work for Lower Duck Pond to develop improvements to the two sedimentation ponds, and we expect to report on the results of the study and the preferred improvement solution in the spring of 1999. Once the effectiveness of the two sedimentation ponds has been improved, the amount of sediment from storm water runoff entering Spring Creek and Lower Duck Pond will be substantially reduced.

1.4Phase I - Conclusions:

Based on the results of the review process and the response received during the public consultation process, it can be concluded that the project has the support of the public.

Therefore, in consideration of the poor water quality condition of the existing pond and the improvements and benefits which can be achieved by implementing the preferred scheme, it is proposed that the proposed treatment wetland as described above be implemented.

2.Scope of Work and Phase II Award:

Phase II of the project consists of the detailed design, construction and installation of the natural treatment wetland proposed under Phase I for the improvement of water quality utilizing biological processes for the Lower Duck Pond in High Park. In accordance with the agreement for Phase I, the proponent, CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited, agreed to enter into an agreement for Phase II implementation of the work at a total project cost of $282,011.34 including G.S.T. As indicated above, it was discovered during Phase I that there is an unstable sediment deposit approximately 1.0 metre thick at the bottom of the existing pond. The proposal received was based on sediment deposits being on average approximately 0.40 metre thick. The deeper sediment layer increases the time required for design investigations and increases construction cost for temporary works, berm construction and the wetland preparation and installation. In total, the increased design and construction cost related to deeper sediment deposits amounts to $47,000.00 including G.S.T.

Furthermore, the original scope of work as stipulated in the RFP as well as in the proponent's proposal and the agreement between CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and the City, did not include construction site supervision and waterfowl control which is required to protect newly planted bulrush shoots from being eaten or damaged before they are firmly established. The cost for site supervision amounts to $22,500.00 and waterfowl control to $5,600.00 including G.S.T.

The total increase in contract price for Phase II amounts to $75,100.00 and increases the total contract price to $357,111.34 including G.S.T. Funding for this project has been included in the 1999 Capital Budget Submission and $500,000.00 of this is in the Interim Funding Request, which was approved by Council on December 16 and 17, 1998. The funding is available in Account No. WP953.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the above described increase in contract price be approved and Phase II be awarded to CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited.

Construction of the Treatment Wetland facility should be carried out in the winter and planting should take place in early spring while the plants are dormant. Accordingly, it is proposed to commence construction in February 1999 and complete the work in May 1999. It should be noted that staff of the Parks Department have actively participated in the study work of this project and concur with the proposed improvement work to the pond.

Conclusions:

Various types of wetlands for Lower Duck Pond have been evaluated and a Surface Flow Constructed Wetland which is best suited for local climatic conditions and existing hydraulic conditions is recommended. The wetland will cover approximately 15 percent of the existing Lower Duck Pond. The facility will remove suspended solids, contaminants and E-coli bacteria which are present at high levels in the pond water and in the storm water entering the pond. The wetland will also create habitat for wild life and will determine the feasibility and effectiveness of such a facility for treating storm water. Finally, it will be available for public viewing and educational research for schools and universities.

The proposal has undergone extensive public consultation as part of the Class EA (Schedule B) process and has been well received by the public and government agencies. In consideration of the public support as well as the water quality improvements and other environmental benefits which will be derived from this project, it is proposed to proceed with the implementation of Phase II which provides for the detailed design and construction of the project.

As a result of deeper than anticipated bottom sediments in Lower Duck Pond and a required increase in the scope of work related to construction supervision as well as the control of waterfowl immediately following planting of the wetland, the total contract cost for Phase II (design and construction) has increased by $75,100.00 from $282,011.34 to $357,110.34 including G.S.T.

Funding for this project has been included in the 1999 Capital Budget Submission and $500,000.00 of this is in the Interim Funding Request, which was approved by Council on December 16 and 17, 1998. The funding is available in Account No. WP953.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David Crichton, P.Eng., Manager, Design and Construction District 1

Technical Services Division, Toronto Community Council Area

Phone: (416) 392-7674; Fax: (416) 392-7874

E-mail: "dcrichto@toronto.ca"

6

Assumption of Private Sanitary Sewer and Watermain -

2206 Gerrard Street East (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To assume ownership of a 300 mm sanitary sewer and a 100 mm watermain required to service the proposed development at 2206 Gerrard Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to assume the ownership of a 300 mm sanitary sewer and a 100 mm watermain required to service the proposed development at 2206 Gerrard Street East subject to the owners of this property granting the necessary easement to the City as indicated on Sketch No. EAS-493 attached, in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in this report and any others the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may determine necessary; and

(2)that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Not applicable.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On November 12, 1997, the Committee of Adjustment approved an application filed by Waddington Development Corporation to construct four pairs of semi-detached houses and one detached house at Premises No. 2206 Gerrard Street East.

To service this freehold development, it is necessary to construct a 300 mm sanitary sewer and a 100 mm watermain on private property with connection to the municipal services on Gerrard Street East as shown on Sketch No. EAS-493 attached.

Waddington Development Corporation, the developer of the property, has requested that the City of Toronto assume the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain servicing the proposed semi-detached and detached houses within the subject property.

The former City of Toronto generally accepted such requests from developers because the private ownership of common sewer and watermain often results in inadequate maintenance and eventual servicing problems.

We are currently in the process of reviewing the policies of the former Area Municipalities with respect to servicing such infill developments, in order to develop a harmonized approach across the new City.

In the meantime, and because the development proposal pre-dates amalgamation, we propose that the developer's request be accepted, subject to the following conditions:

(1)Waddington Development Corporation, the Developer, shall at its cost, provide the design of the watermain and sanitary sewer necessary to service the development. The design shall be undertaken by a Registered Professional Engineer in accordance with our Department's current Standards and Specifications and subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(2)the Developer shall, at its cost, construct the services in accordance with the approved design, under the inspection of a Registered Professional Engineer and by a contractor approved by my Department;

(3)prior to assumption of the services by the City, the Developer shall:

(i)provide, at its own cost, all necessary legal surveys and descriptions for the easement;

(ii)provide certification by the Professional Engineer that the work has been executed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications;

(iii)provide a Letter of Credit in the amount of 25 percent of the cost of the services to be held as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years;

(iv)for a nominal fee, enter into an Easement Agreement with the City for the maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the services, generally, as indicated on Sketch No. EAS-493 attached, containing the following terms and conditions and any others that the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may determine to be necessary:

(a)no buildings, structures or work of any kind shall be erected or placed in, under, over, or upon the Easement Lands without the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(b)the Owner shall protect the services against damage during any construction or alteration of any buildings or structure on the property, and agrees to provide detailed plans for protection of the services for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to commencing any such work;

(c)the City shall have a right of access over the Easement Lands at any time to survey, lay, construct, operate, use, inspect, remove, renew, replace, alter, enlarge, reconstruct, repair, expand, and maintain the services;

(d)the City shall, after each entry, restore the Easement Lands as nearly as possible to their previous condition;

(e)neither the Owner nor anyone acting for or on behalf of the Owner, shall permit any other utility to be located in, under, over, or upon the Easement Lands, without the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f)any separate drains and private water service connections located or installed in the future in, under, and/or upon the Easement Lands, shall remain the responsibility of the Owner; and

(g)the Owner shall indemnify the City against any action which may be brought against the City with respect to building structures and appurtenances adjacent to the Easement Lands, resulting from or arising out of the City's exercise of the rights transferred to it or arising out of the acquisition of the services and/or the easement, provided such action does not arise out of negligence on the part of the City; and

(4)within six months of completing the servicing work, the Owner shall provide as-built drawings of the services in a reproducible format, and video inspection of the sewer line.

If the above is not provided, the City will, at its discretion, prepare the documents and draw the associated costs from the Letter of Credit.

Waddington Development Corporation has agreed in writing to the above terms and conditions.

Conclusion:

Approval should be given for the City to assume ownership of the Sanitary Sewer and Watermain servicing the development at 2206 Gerrard Street East at nominal cost.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David Crichton, P. Eng.

Engineering Services Districts 1 and 2

Phone: (416) 392-7674

(A copy of Sketch No. EAS-493 referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Harmonization of Service Levels for

Waste and Recycling Collection.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of Recommendations Nos (1) to (4) of the following report, with Recommendation No. (4) amended to read as follows, pending consideration of the harmonization of services by City Council and the proposed strategic planning session being arranged by the Chief Administrative Officer for Members of Council:

"(4)medium and high density residential buildings receiving municipal bulklift collection service be required to rent bulklift garbage bins from the City, as a condition of receiving garbage and recycling collection service from the City, and that a rental fee for the bulk lift garbage bins be established sufficient to offset the cost of both bulklift garbage bins and recycling containers, subject to a further report on implementation issues to be submitted within approximately six months;"

(2)adopted Recommendation No. (5), amended as follows, with the direction that the report requested therein be submitted to the Committee for consideration at that time:

"(5)staff undertake the evaluation of the options for service harmonization outlined in this report with respect to:

(a)frequency of garbage, recycling and yard waste collection for low density and medium density residential properties which receive curbside collection;

(b)the provision of blue bags and other recycling support services to high density residential properties which receive bulklift collection;

(c)the provision of waste management services to small commercial properties and institutional properties, including consideration of full cost recovery user fees; and requests for proposals to the waste-hauling industry regarding the collection of industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste;

(d)the number of industrial properties where municipal collection is proposed to be terminated and the method of phase out;

(e)an analysis of the 3Rs pilot projects which were conducted; and

(f)options concerning recycling, in consultation with the Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee;

and that a report be brought forward in approximately six months"; and

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee on a strategy to make replacement boxes available to those who are unable to pick them up at designated locations, with delivery on a cost-recovery basis:

(i)(November 27, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, recommending, based on the comments received at an informal meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee held on November 25, 1998, to review the issues and options discussed in this report, that:

(1)existing service levels for waste and recycling collection be continued into 1999, except for harmonization of the following services, which are to be referred to North York Community Council for comments before consideration by the Works and Utilities Committee:

(a)effective April 1, 1999, on an interim basis, the North York Community Council Area be provided with once-a-week garbage collection and bi-weekly recycling collection, with twice-a-week garbage collection retained from the last week of June to the last week of August at an estimated annual cost savings of $1.0 million; and

(b)effective April 1, 1999, optional rear and side yard collection service provided at an additional fee be terminated;

(2)effective January 2, 1999, rear and side yard collection service be provided at no direct charge to all residents in low density properties who, on the basis of a doctor's certificate, lack sufficient mobility to carry waste materials to curbside, and who do not live in a residence with a fully able person, at an estimated additional annual cost of $50,000.00;

(3)effective April 1, 1999, replacement blue and grey boxes be provided to residents at a charge of $5.00 per box for pick-up at service yard and Civic Centre locations, and that green boxes be replaced with grey boxes as required, at an estimated saving of $120,000.00 per year;

(4)medium and high density residential buildings receiving municipal bulklift collection service be required to rent bulklift garbage bins from the City, as a condition of receiving garbage and recycling collection service from the City, at a rental fee sufficient to offset the cost of both bulklift garbage bins and recycling containers, subject to a further report on implementation issues to be submitted within approximately six months; and

(5)staff undertake the evaluation of the options for service harmonization outlined in this report with respect to:

(a)frequency of garbage, recycling and yard waste collection for low density and medium density residential properties which receive curbside collection;

(b)the provision of blue bags and other recycling support services to high density residential properties which receive bulklift collection;

(c)the provision of waste management services to small commercial properties and institutional properties, including consideration of full cost recovery user fees; and

(d)the number of industrial properties where municipal collection is proposed to be terminated and the method of phase out;

and that a report be brought forward in approximately six months.

(ii)(January 13, 1999) from the Ontario Waste Management Association expressing concerns with respect to the harmonization of service levels for waste and recycling collection, and the suggestion that the City begin to provide services already adequately and economically provided by private sector waste haulers; and requesting that the Committee not approve this item at this time.

--------

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

-Ms. Nancy Porteous-Koehle, Canadian Waste Services Inc.;

-Councillors John Adams, Midtown;

-Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway - Humber;

-Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland - Centennial;

-Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber; and

-Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina.

(b)Contamination of Recyclables at Multi-Unit Residential

Locations in the Scarborough Community Council Area.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

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

(2)referred this issue to the Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee for consideration:

(December 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting ongoing contamination and noncompliance problems respecting recycling at multi-unit residential locations through the Scarborough Community Council area; and recommending that:

(1)staff be authorized to enforce Scarborough By-law No. 24478 with respect to the removal of waste collection services from multi-unit residential locations in the Scarborough Community Council area not fully participating in the City's recycling program;

(2)Councillors be appraised of the affected locations in their Ward; and

(3)the City of Toronto's new waste management by-law include a provision that any multi-unit residential location that does not establish, operate and maintain a valid recycling program be subject to the removal of all municipal waste management services.

(c)Lester B. Pearson International Airport -

Noise Monitoring Study -

Terms of Reference and Cost Estimate.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on February 10, 1999, for the hearing of deputations; noting the invitation from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for Members of the Works and Utilities Committee and City staff to tour their Noise Management Office to see what noise monitoring practices are being utilized:

(i)(December 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting a study to address the concerns of Toronto residents within the Lester B. Pearson International Airport operating area with respect to the noise impact resulting from the airport operation; and recommending that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to engage a consultant to carry out a study as outlined in the proposed terms of reference shown in this report at an estimated cost of $25,000.00, subject to approval of Council and the 1999 Budget process; and

(2)the Greater Toronto Airports Authority be requested to reimburse the City for this expense.

(ii)(January 13, 1998) from Ms. Lorrie McKee, Executive Manager, Government Relations, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, inviting Members of the Works and Utilities Committee and City staff to tour their Noise Management Office to see what noise monitoring practices are being utilized.

(d)Rebate of Sewage Surcharge on the Water Rate for

Toronto District Heating Corporation.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on February 10, 1999:

(December 1, 1998) from Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, and Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, respecting the consumption of water by the Toronto District Heating Corporation and the program for the rebate of the sewer surcharge on the water rate, which provides an incentive to major water consumers not to send water for treatment that does not require treatment; and recommending that the Toronto District Heating Corporation be granted a rebate of the sewage surcharge on its water rate.

(e)Drinking Water Taste and Odour Control Options.

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

(November 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing information on options to eliminate or reduce the occurrences of an unpleasant taste and odour in drinking water and a strategy to address this issue in the future, as requested by the Committee at its meeting on September 9, 1998; advising that a feasibility study will be undertaken to determine an effective interim solution, and that funding has been allocated in the 1999 Capital Works Program to implement an interim solution at an estimated cost of $7 million, pending confirmation by the feasibility study; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(f)Eastern Beaches Water Quality -

Effectiveness of the Kenilworth Avenue

and Maclean Avenue Detention Tanks (Ward 26).

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee on the costs of completing the connection of the remaining storm sewers to the Eastern Beaches detention tank(s), in the event that the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant residue management Executive Assistant recommends the construction of a forcemain from the water treatment plant, along the beach, to the sewage treatment plant:

(2)referred the report and additional communications to the Storm Water Group for information:

(i)(October 26, 1998) from the Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services, respecting the postings that occurred at the Eastern Beaches during the 1998 swimming season, and the effectiveness of the Kenilworth Avenue and Maclean Avenue detention tanks in improving the water quality at the Eastern Beaches; advising that by examining the conditions that existed prior to the construction of the two detention tanks, it can be seen that these facilities have had a profound impact on reducing the frequency the provincial guideline was exceeded at the Eastern Beaches, and thereby the need for the Medical Officer of Health to post these beaches; further advising that although other environmental factors can result in short-term impaired water quality, the detention tanks have provided a significant benefit to the Eastern Beaches, and that in comparison, from 1995 to 1998, the Western Beaches, which are still affected by sewer discharges, have been posted for more than 65 percent of the time during the swimming season; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(ii)(January 13, 1999) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee, recommending that the City consider changes to the Sewer Use By-law to reduce 'Inlow/Infiltration' and enhance the current performance of the existing system; that non-structural projects to keep storm water out of the piped system be encouraged; and that the City's Wet Weather Master Plan Terms of Reference require a study of the City of Boston's Watershed planning model.

(iii)(January 13, 1999) from Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, recommending that the Works and Utilities Committee put in place a process that will accomplish a final implementable plan for wet weather; and that the new process structure put in place will make sure that Phase 2 of the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan will evolve into a final implementable plan that is endorsed by the current interests at the table.

(g)Hollick v. Toronto -

Keele Valley Landfill Class Action.

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

(January 4, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting legal proceedings commenced by the plaintiff in February 1997 alleging damage to a class of persons living near the Keele Valley Landfill Site as a result of the operation of the site; advising that the City of Toronto sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from the certification of the proceedings as a class action, which was granted and heard in September 1998; forwarding a copy of the decision handed down by the Ontario Divisional Court on December 17, 1998, and further advising that the Court was unanimous in setting aside the certification order, dismissing the plaintiff's cross appeal and awarding the City of Toronto $15,000.00 in legal costs; noting that the plaintiff is now seeking leave to appeal the decision, and that legal staff will continue to take such steps as may be required to defend against this lawsuit and will report back on future developments; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h)Yards Rationalization Update.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on February 10, 1999:

(January 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing an update on the status of the yard rationalization study, and a listing of Works and Emergency Services locations that are surplus to the Department's operating requirements, in response to the request of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for a report on the impact of the closure of the yard locations; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)Amendment to Consulting Services Agreement -

Implementation of 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial

Use Program at the Main Treatment Plant.

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

(January 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that, subject to approval of the necessary funding included in the 1999 Water and Wastewater Capital Works Program, authorization be given to amend the existing consulting services agreement with the engineering consulting firm of R. V. Anderson Associates Limited for predesign services pertaining to design/build assignment arising from the 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program at the Main Treatment Plant, by an additional amount of $1,250,000.00, including Goods and Services Tax, and including a contingency allowance of $110,000.00 to cover additional work, if necessary, and as authorized by the Commissioner, all in accordance with the terms of the existing consulting services agreement.

(j)Request for Honorarium for Members of

Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment -

Mediation Sub-Committee.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Corporate Services for discussion on a policy for honorariums for sub-committees of Council, and to consider issues such as the provision of child care and transportation costs:

(January 12, 1999) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, forwarding a communication from Mr. David S.H. Done, representing the public members of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Mediation Sub-Committee of the Works and Utilities Committee, with respect to a request that the public participants of this sub-committee be provided with an honorarium for their services in resolving, through mediation, many outstanding issues.

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO,

Chair

Toronto, January 13, 1999

(Report No. 1 of The Works and Utilities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)