CITY CLERK

WORKS COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 2

For Consideration by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

2 Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Request for Expressions of Interest -
Results of Application of Evaluation Criteria

3 Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement with Browning-Ferris Group of Companies, and Proposed
Acquisition of Browning-Ferris Industries Ltd. by Canadian Waste Services Holdings Ltd.

4 Request for Proposals for Litter Bins with Advertising

5 City of Toronto Boundary Identification Signs

6 Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line Interchange Modifications Class Environmental Assessment (Lakeshore-Queensway)

7 Carbon Emissions Cap

8 Ontario Clean Air Alliance - Recommended Emission Caps for Ontario's Electricity Sector to Improve Air Quality

9 Support for Federation of Canadian Municipalities Action to Promote Municipal Infrastructure in the Millennium Budget

10 Water Rate Harmonization and Universal Metering in the Former Cities of Toronto and Etobicoke

11 New Water Bill Design

12 Water Efficiency Plan

13 Engagement of Consultants to Undertake Water Supply Joint Optimization Study

14 1999 Ultra Low Flush (ULF) Toilet Incentive Program

15 Gerrard Street Water Main - Alternatives to Increase Supply Pressure (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

16 Appointments to Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Steering Committee

17 Engagement of Consultants - General Administration and Site Supervision Services During Design/Build of
Biosolids Pelletization Facility, Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (Formerly the Main Treatment Plant)

18 Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program Update - Award of Design Build Contracts for Biosolids Truck Loading
and Odour Control Facilities and Plant Wide Heating System at Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant; Amendment of Agreement with Terratec Environmental Ltd.

19 Negotiations with USF Canada on the Contract for Transportation, Marketing and Distribution of Pellets

20 Joint Flood Protection Study: West Don Lands (Don River)

21 Dunkers Flow Balancing System Monitoring Program (Ward 13)

22 High Rate Treatment Technology Demonstration Projects for Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater

23 Cogeneration Facility at Humber Treatment Plant Additional Expenditures for Extra Work - Contract No. WPC-11-97

24 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements (Wards 5, 4, 2, 6 and 13)

25 Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement and Compliance Program with Monetary Concession - Grande Cheese Company Limited (Ward 6)

26 Compliance Program with Monetary Concession - Christie Brown & Co. (Ward 19)

27 Proposed Exit Driveway from 2100 Lawrence Avenue East (Scarborough Wexford)

28 Additional Expenditure - Contract No. 59714 Reconstruction of Pavement on Christie Street
(Ward 21 - Davenport, Ward 23 - Midtown)

29 Maintenance of Traffic Control and Related Devices Within City of Toronto - April 1, 2000 to January 31, 2003
Contract No. T-41-99, Tender Call No. 116-1999

30 Asphalt Resurfacing, Pavement Repair and Associated Concrete Sidewalk and Curb Repair - District No. 4 -
Contract No. SC9954RD, Tender Call No. 76-1999 (Agincourt, Malvern, Wexford, Scarborough City Centre,
Highland Creek and Scarborough Bluffs)

31 Asphalt Resurfacing on York Mills Road, Eglinton Avenue East and Parkwood Village Drive - Contract No. NY9905RD, Tender Call No. 128-1999 (North York Centre South and Don Parkway)

32 New Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Replacement and Road Rehabilitation for South End Streets - District 2,
Contract No. EB9904RD, Tender Call No. 130-1999 (Etobicoke Lakeshore - Queensway)

33 Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE WORKS COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on July 14, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Bill Saundercook, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

1

Collection of Service Fees -

Small Commercial Garbage Service

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the joint report dated July 23, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer issue monthly invoices for small commercial garbage service collection; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take all necessary actions to give effect to the above.' ")

The Works Committee submits the joint report dated June 30, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services without recommendation, having regard that a motion recommending adoption of the report lost on a tie vote.

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

(1) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to investigate the collection of the fees from the landlord in a like manner to taxes, so that the landlord can collect from tenants; and further that the City Solicitor investigate whether landlords can collect from tenants in a like manner to business taxes; and that a report thereon be submitted to Council for consideration at its meeting on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999;

(2) requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report directly to Council on providing businesses with the option of making payments on a monthly basis;

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to Council on the following:

(i) a standardized approach to waste collections, including frequency of collection;

(ii) services fees being tax-deductible; and

(iii) businesses having the option of reducing the number of waste collections from six or five times per week to three times per week; and

(4) further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back to the Works Committee on:

(i) a program to educate businesses on the options available for reducing the number of their collections to a lower level; and

(ii) a plan, with costs, for the provision of recycling services for main street businesses with garbage collection two or three times per week.

The Works Committee submits the following joint report (June 30, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To inform the Works Committee respecting the status of collection of service fees in 1999 from business operators currently receiving municipal waste collection services more than two times per week from the City.

Financial Implications:

Projected revenues in the amount of $2.3 million have been approved in the 1999 Operating Budget for implementation of service fees. The collection of service fees must be implemented this year in order to capture the 1999 revenues projected in the budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer proceed with the billing and collection of service fees in 1999 on a pilot basis from business operators receiving three, five and six garbage collections per week;

(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report back as part of the 2000 Operating Budget on the pilot billing and collection program as described in this report and any changes required next year, including enforcement and operational issues;

(3) the current three times a week garbage collection service be maintained for commercial properties located on Lake Shore Boulevard West in the former City of Etobicoke; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take all necessary actions to give effect to the above.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of April 26, 27 and 28, 1999, as part of the 1999 Operating Budget, adopted a three-year phase-in plan to deal with small commercial garbage and recycling collection that includes the implementation of service fees in 1999 to all commercial locations currently receiving more than twice a week collection. For 1999, service fees of $150.00 for three times a week collection, $600.00 for five times a week collection and $800.00 for six times a week collection were approved for the existing small commercial locations receiving this service. Currently, three times per week collection is provided in specific commercial districts in the Etobicoke and York communities, whereas five and six times per week collection is provided to restaurants and green grocers in the Toronto community.

Council also instructed staff to consult with the Lake Shore Boulevard West Business Improvement Area on the possibility of reinstating twice a week garbage collection for commercial properties located on Lake Shore Boulevard West in the former City of Etobicoke and reverting the collection to Tuesdays and Fridays.

Discussion:

Service Fees:

The implementation of service fees for the collection of garbage from the small commercial locations currently receiving this service in the City requires the maintenance of a database containing information respecting the names and addresses of business operators and the frequency of collection per week. Since tax bills for 1999 have already been sent to property owners, the billing of service fees for garbage collection will be sent out separately. Since budget approval, staff have reviewed and considered whether to bill the property owner, directly bill the business operator, or to consider the issuance of specially marked disposal bags or stickers to identify the payment of fees for garbage set out for collection.

Staff from Finance, Legal and Works and Emergency Services have discussed the above-noted methods of collecting the service fees and considered the feasibility and requirements necessary to implement each during 1999. Legal staff have advised that under the waste management provisions of the Municipal Act (section 208.6), Council may establish fees for the use of any part of its waste management system. Under the service fees provisions of the Act (section 220.1) and the regulations enacted under those provisions, Council can only impose fees on persons who discard waste.

This can be contrasted to the special rate provisions of the Act (section 208.5) which allow a rate to be levied on the owners of land or buildings and to recover such rates in similar fashion as taxes. The special rate would be imposed on land according to its assessed value. Similarly, monthly rates can be determined and charged on the owners or occupants of a building to defray the expense of waste management and recovered in similar fashion as taxes.

Consequently, property owners could argue that, insofar as service fees are concerned, it is their tenants who use the system or discard waste and therefore should be billed. Nonetheless, Legal further advises that the City may have the option of passing a by-law as part of the regulation of its system which provides as a condition of commercial waste collection service to a defined area that landlords agree to receive the service and to be billed for service fees directly. This option may, however, result in property owners declining the service and tenants being forced to contract with the private sector or set out garbage illegally. The billing of the property owner/landlord also requires the cross referencing of property tax databases with the Solid Waste Management's commercial collection database. This option is deemed more complicated at this time, and could delay the collection of fees by one or more months. Staff have agreed to consider this option further for possible implementation in 2000 as part of the property tax bill which would obviate the need for separate billing and collection.

The second option, namely, billing the business operator/tenant directly, could be implemented more readily in 1999 and also complies with Legal's opinion that invoices should be sent to the business operators as they are generating and discarding the garbage and therefore using the City's service. This option could be implemented with minimal computer system changes for invoicing and requires that only the business operator database be updated. The Revenue Division of the Finance Department will invoice and collect the fees based on the information supplied by the Solid Waste Management Division's commercial collection database. To simplify billing and collection processes, it is proposed that no discounts for early payment or penalties for late payment will be applied in 1999. In addition, businesses will have the option of making two installments for the payment of service fees in 1999. Details respecting due dates and payment options will be included in a comprehensive brochure to be sent to business operators when invoices are mailed. A separate notice advising the business operators of the frequency of their existing collection service and the rates applicable in 1999 will be sent out shortly in advance of the mailing of invoices to allow sufficient time for recipients to advise the City of any change in the service requested. Therefore, based on Legal's advice and given the need to the implement the service fees, it is proposed to proceed with this option on a pilot basis in 1999 and report back as part of the 2000 Operating Budget on any changes required next year.

The last option considered was a fee-per-bag system. This option requires additional research and more time is needed to consider operational issues. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services was requested to report to the Works Committee by December 1999 on a fee-per-bag system of funding commercial garbage collection, and this will be the subject of a separate report at that time. Accordingly, it is premature to consider this option for the collection of service fees in 1999.

Commercial Garbage Collection Frequency in the former City of Etobicoke:

The illegal set-out of garbage on Saturday at the curb along the Lake Shore strip in the former City of Etobicoke by businesses and residents, has been a problem that numerous enforcement and educational initiatives have failed to solve. The Works Department of the former City of Etobicoke decided to move to three garbage collections per week (Monday, Thursday and Saturday night) for this area when the collection contract for the southern portion of Etobicoke was renewed in January 1997. This additional collection has led to less litter in this area. Staff have consulted with the Business Improvement Areas along Lake Shore Boulevard West, who have indicated that they would be prepared to return to twice per week on Tuesdays and Fridays. Staff, however, are still concerned that resumption of twice a week collection will again result in an unacceptable accumulation of garbage in this area, especially during the weekends. It is therefore recommended that the three times per week collection schedule be maintained.

Enforcement:

All Solid Waste Management related by-laws from the former municipalities are being revised and will be harmonized into one by-law for the new City of Toronto. This new by-law, which is scheduled to be brought to Committee for consideration in the spring of 2000, will address enforcement issues related to the collection of service fees. If the timing of the harmonized by-law is delayed, it may be necessary to prepare an interim by-law(s) to address enforcement issues.

Conclusion:

A method of billing and collecting service fees for the collection of garbage for small commercial locations has to be undertaken this year in order to bill the $2.3 million in revenues projected in the 1999 Operating Budget. To expedite the collection process, it is proposed that service fees be billed to the business operator on a pilot basis in 1999. A report on the pilot collection program and any changes required for next year, including enforcement and operational issues, will be submitted as part of the 2000 Operating Budget. In anticipation of an unacceptable accumulation of garbage along Lake Shore Boulevard West in the Etobicoke community, it is recommended that the current three times a week garbage collection service be maintained for commercial properties.

Contact Names:

Giuliana Carbone, Director

Revenue Services, Finance Department

Telephone: (416) 392-8065

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (July 12, 1999) from Mr. Terry Mundell, President, Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association, providing comments with respect to the collection of service fees; requesting clarification on the periods for notification and invoicing, the criteria established for business operators to qualify for a change in service level, and the means of collection and verification of information for the database; and reiterating the industry's concerns that user fees are a temporary solution.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (July 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To provide additional information requested at the Works Committee respecting the collection of fees for small commercial garbage service.

Financial Implications:

Projected revenues in the amount of $2.3 million have been approved in the 1999 Operating Budget for implementation of service fees. The collection of service fees must be implemented this year in order to capture the 1999 revenues projected in the budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer issue monthly invoices for small commercial garbage service collection; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take all necessary actions to give effect to the above.

Background:

The Works Committee on July 14, 1999 had before it a joint report (June 30, 1999 Item No. 2) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the collection of service fees in 1999 for small commercial garbage service. The Works Committee submitted the aforementioned report to Council without recommendation and requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on a number of issues, including the collection of the fees from the landlord in a like manner to taxes; providing businesses the option of making payments on a monthly basis; the frequency of waste collection; businesses having the option of reducing the number of waste collections and service fees being tax-deductible. Each issue is discussed separately below.

The City Solicitor was also requested to investigate whether landlords can collect the fees from tenants and will report on this separately to City Council.

The Committee also requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back to the Works Committee on an education program outlining options available to reduce the number of collections and a plan, with costs, for the provision of recycling services for main street businesses with garbage collection two or three times per week. A separate report on these matters will be submitted to the Works Committee.

Discussion:

(1) Collection of Fees from the Landlord

As noted in the joint report (June 30, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, staff considered the feasibility and requirements of three options for the collection of fees for waste collection services in 1999, including the billing of fees to the property owner/landlord. With respect to this latter option, the Legal Services Division has advised that, in order for fees to be recovered in a like manner as taxes (i.e., added to the tax roll and billed as part of the tax bill), explicit statutory authority is required. The recovery of fees in a like manner as taxes is not contained in section 208.6 of the Municipal Act which deals with the establishment of fees as part of the regulatory powers in establishing and maintaining a municipal waste management system. There are, however, a number of provisions contained in the Municipal Act that would allow for charging landlords with the City's commercial waste collection costs and to recover such charges in like manner as taxes. Those provisions are:

(1) Section 208.5(1) (special waste management rate)

(2) Section 208.5(6) (monthly rates)

There is, in addition, provisions contained in the general "service fee" section of the Municipal Act (section 220.1) As indicated, however, in the previous joint report, the Province has passed a regulation under this section stating that waste management fees may only be charged on persons who directly, or by means of an agent, discard the waste. Based on this regulation, it is unlikely that the City could charge service fees directly on landlords (who have not made arrangements directly with the City for collection) and then recover in like manner as taxes.

Under the rate provisions contained in section 208.5 of the Municipal Act, Council may levy a rate on the owners of land or buildings in the City or a defined area to defray the expense of waste management facilities or services and recover such rates in a similar fashion as taxes. The special rate would be imposed on land according to its assessed value. Similarly, monthly rates can be determined and charged to the owners of a building. Therefore, a special or monthly rate could be charged to landlords in defined areas and recovered in like manner as taxes for the collection of commercial waste in those areas. In the case of buildings occupied by tenants, the landlord's ability to collect the applicable rate portion from its tenants would be subject to the applicable lease agreements.

While section 208.5(1) refers to the ability to impose rates at the expense of occupants of land in an area, the rate is imposed on the land according to its assessed value. With the recent changes to the Assessment Act, and, in particular, the elimination of business taxes, there is in fact no mechanism to allow for allocation of charges to tenants. Similarly, under section 208.5(6), the City may charge occupants of any building instead of the special rate but there is no tax roll for occupants allowing the charge to be billed to the occupant.

This option of charging landlords directly requires the cross referencing of property tax data with the Solid Waste Management's commercial collection database. In addition, the amount of the special rate to be levied will need to be determined based on Council's approval of 1999 service fees. Given the additional time requirement to complete the foregoing and in consideration of the need to collect revenues projected in the 1999 Operating Budget to avoid a budget shortfall at year-end, it was deemed more appropriate to consider the option of billing the landlord for potential implementation in 2000, in conjunction with the City's property tax bill.

Consequently, in order to expedite the collection of fees in 1999, and in keeping with the existing Council authority to impose service fees based on the frequency of collection, the Revenue Division of the Finance Department will invoice the business operator/tenant directly based on the information to be supplied by the Solid Waste Management Division.

Staff will report further on the feasibility of collecting fees from the landlord as part of the report on the 1999 pilot collection program and the changes required in 2000.

(2) Providing businesses the option of making payments on a monthly basis

The issuance of invoices for garbage collection service fees is scheduled by October 1999. In view of the timing, staff had contemplated the issuance of a single invoice with 1999 fees to be paid over two installments.

It is feasible to issue a single invoice with monthly installments so that 1999 fees could be paid over a three month period if desired; however, it is recommended that invoices be sent monthly.

(3) A standardized approach, including frequency of collection

City Council at its meeting on April 26, 1999 approved Recommendation No. 39 of Report No. 8 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee requesting that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Works Committee by June 2000 on providing a harmonized eligibility criteria for garbage and recyclables collection service to the small commercial sector and a harmonized service fee structure to be effective January 1, 2001. A harmonized eligibility criteria and service fee structure will address a standardized approach to services and collection frequency provided to the commercial sector and will be included in the aforementioned report.

(4) Option of reducing the number of waste collections from six or five times per week to three times per week

Prior to the issuance of invoices for garbage collection service, a separate notice advising business operators of the frequency of the existing collection service and the rates applicable in 1999 will sent out shortly to allow sufficient time for the recipient to advise the City of any change in the service requested. Businesses have the option of applying to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to either terminate their municipal waste collection service with the City or reduce their number of municipal collections to a lower level. During the pilot stage of implementing collection fees for commercial businesses and until the implementation of a full-harmonized program for the entire City is implemented, businesses may apply for a different level of service subject to the Community Council Area, available collection days and restrictions as outlined in the following table. These restrictions are due to collection route requirements and current contractual obligations.

Collection Day Options

Approval of applications are subject to satisfying the Medical Officer of Health and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that adequate and suitable garbage storage space is available and used.

(5) Tax deduction of service fees

The payment of fees for garbage collection services can be considered a normal expense of operating a business and as such would be eligible as a tax deduction similar to property taxes or utilities.

Conclusion:

In view of the further study and authorization necessary for the collection of fees from the landlord, it is proposed that service fees be billed directly to the business operator on a pilot basis in 1999 to expedite the receipt of revenues projected in the 1999 Operating Budget. Businesses will be billed monthly to permit better understanding of the customer base during this period. Business operators will also have the option of terminating the municipal collection service or reducing the frequency subject to collection route requirements, current contractual obligations, and adequate and suitable on-site garbage storage space. A report on the harmonized eligibility criteria for garbage and recycling collection services and a harmonized service fee structure to take effect January 1, 2001 will be sent to Works Committee by June 2000.

Contact Names:

Angelos Bacopoulos, General Manager Giuliana Carbone, Director

Solid Waste Management Services Revenue Services

Works and Emergency Services Finance Services

Tel: (416) 392-8831 Telephone: (416) 392-8065)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 23, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To provide additional information requested at the Works Committee respecting the ability of landlords to pass on to tenants any fees charged in like manner as taxes for small commercial garbage service.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works Committee on July 14, 1999 had before it a joint report (June 30, 1999 Item No. 2) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the collection of service fees in 1999 for small commercial garbage service. The Works Committee submitted the aforementioned report to Council without recommendation and requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on a number of issues and, in particular, the issue of collection of the fees from the landlord in a like manner to taxes. In respect of this particular issue, the Committee requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on whether landlords can collect from tenants in a like manner to business taxes.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As indicated in the report from the joint report, dated July 22, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, there are specific rate provisions contained in the Municipal Act that would allow for charging landlords with the City's commercial waste collection costs and to recover such charges in like manner as taxes. Those provisions are:

(1) Section 208.5(1) (special waste management rate)

(2) Section 208.5(6) (monthly rates)

As further indicated in the report, while section 208.5(1) refers to the ability to impose rates at the expense of occupants of land in an area, the rate is imposed on the land according to its assessed value. With the recent changes to the Assessment Act, and, in particular, the elimination of business taxes, there is in fact no mechanism to allow for allocation of charges to tenants. Similarly, under section 208.5(6), the City may charge occupants of any building instead of the special rate but there is no tax roll for occupants allowing the charge to be billed to the occupant. Therefore, while rates may be charged to owners of land and added to the tax roll, a landlord's ability to collect the applicable rate portion from its tenants would be subject to the applicable lease agreements allowing for the landlord to pass on such charges.

The general problem of the inability of a landlord to pass on what had previously been the liability of tenants for business taxes, was recognized by the enactment of sections 444.1 and 444.2 of the Municipal Act . These sections provide for the opening up of gross leases to allow landlords to pass on to tenants in the commercial or industrial property classes, an equivalent of the former business taxes and business improvement area charges. While business taxes were levied against the business tenant directly, the increase in realty taxes resulting from their abolition are now levied against the landlord and could not have been passed on to the tenant under the terms of a gross lease without section 444.1. Similarly, while business improvement area charges were levied directly against the business tenant, they are now levied against the landlord and could not have been passed on to the tenant under a gross lease were it not for section 444.2. This would have resulted in an unfair burden to landlords which could not have been contemplated under the laws in place at the time the terms of the gross lease were negotiated.

In this sense, the special rate for waste management system purposes levied against the landlord could have similar results for landlords with gross leases, in that they would be unable to pass the special rate through to their tenants.

(a) Sections 444.1 and 444.2:

Section 444.1 only applies to the following leases: leases that were entered into on or before June 11, 1998; leases renewed or extended after that date if the landlord has no right under the terms of the lease to re-negotiate the rent for such a renewal or extension term; and to leases entered into after January 16, 1997, but on or before June 11, 1998, if the parties to the lease, in determining the rent and other consideration payable to the landlord, failed to take into account that business taxes would be eliminated in 1998.

Further, for a lease to fall with the provisions of section 444.1, the tenant must not be required to pay any property taxes under the lease (ie. the lease must be a "gross lease") and the property must be within the commercial or industrial property classes (the property classes to which the elimination of the business tax is relevant).

The landlord may require the tenant to pay an amount which must not exceed a maximum amount. The maximum amount is calculated by applying a formula which is intended to produce a proportion of the average business taxes payable within the property class in 1997. If a tenant leases the premises for only a portion of the year, the maximum amount the tenant can be required to pay is adjusted proportionately.

The landlord is required to give two notices: firstly, a notice that the landlord intends to require the tenant to pay an amount under this section; and secondly, a notice that the landlord requires the tenant to pay the amount. The Act also sets the required contents of the notices and the deadlines by which they must be given to the tenant.

The amount required of the tenant by the second notice is deemed to be additional rent due on the date set out in the notice. If the notice requiring payment sets out an amount that is greater than the maximum amount calculated in accordance with this section, the tenant is required only to pay the maximum amount.

Special rules apply to situations where the landlord is not the owner of the property but has acquired an interest in the property under a lease.

Section 444.2 provides for a similar recovery process for business improvement area charges.

(b) Adapting s. 444.1/444.2 to Waste Management System Special Rates:

Any application to the Province for legislation allowing for the passing through of waste management system special rates to gross lease tenants, would best be modelled after section 444.2.

The leases to which such provisions would apply should be limited to gross leases which do not provide the landlord an opportunity to flow such rates through to their tenants. The leases to which they apply should be limited to those entered into prior to the provisions coming into force, as landlords and tenants should build this contingency into leases entered into after that date.

Similarly, the provisions should limit their application to property which is subject to rates for waste management system purposes.

The maximum amount that the landlord should be allowed to pass on to the tenant should be the amount of the waste management rate. If the property consists of more than one leased premises, the legislative provisions would have to determine the maximum that could be apportioned to one tenant.

A similar notice system could be used. For simplicity, however, the annual notices could probably be reduced to one. Deadlines should be established for the giving of notice and for payments to be made to the landlord. Such payment should be deemed to be additional rent, so that the landlord has all the rights to recover arrears as he/she has to recover rental arrears.

The simplest way to apply the above would be to add the following to section 444.2(1) (re business improvement area charges) of the Municipal Act, limiting the amendment to leases entered into prior to the applicable time of passage of the legislation:

"2. The tenant is not required under the lease to pay any part of a waste management rate under section 208.5 of the Municipal Act or a service fee imposed on the landlord under section 220.1 of the Municipal Act."

There would also have to be corresponding changes to other relevant sections referencing business improvement area charges to include waste management rates.

(c) Net Leases:

Problems could also arise for landlords with net leases which limit the amount of taxes and additional charges that are payable by the tenant. In such cases, it is possible that landlord would be unable to pass the waste management system special rate on to their tenants.

Section 447.24 of the Municipal Act was enacted to attempt to remedy such situations for landlords arising from the elimination of business taxes and the capping of property taxes on commercial and industrial properties by municipalities pursuant to Part XXII.1 of the Act. This section allows landlords to require their tenants to pay an amount on account of taxes that is more than the tenant would otherwise be required to pay under the tenant's lease. However, a landlord may not charge an additional amount in excess of the "tenant's cap". Such an additional amount may only be charged to recover the landlord's shortfall between the amount of taxes the landlord could have recovered from each of its tenants pursuant to their leases and the maximum amount the landlord may require the tenant to pay. In essence, this provision opens up net leases by allowing a landlord to recover from tenants who were assessed at higher business assessment percentages shortfalls resulting from tenants who had lower business assessment percentages.

Similar legislation could be enacted to allow landlords to re-open net leases to recover special rates for waste management system purposes where lease provisions limit the landlord's ability to fully recover such rates. Such legislation could likely be less complex than section 447.24 by simply allowing landlords to pass through such rates regardless of the terms of their leases. However, the means by which such rates are to be apportioned between tenants would require resolution.

Conclusions:

While rates may be charged to owners of land and added to the tax roll, a landlord's ability to collect the applicable rate portion from its tenants would be subject to the applicable lease agreements allowing for the landlord to pass on such charges. Legislation would therefore be required allowing landlords to pass on such charges. Any application to the Province for legislation allowing for the passing through of waste management rates to gross lease tenants, would best be modelled after section 444.2 of the Municipal Act, which was enacted to allow for the passing through of business improvement area charges after enactment of the assessment changes brought about by the Fair Municipal Finance Act and the Fair Municipal Finance Act (No. 2).

Contact Name:

Christina Hueniken 392-8429

Solicitor

James Anderson 392-8059

Director, Municipal Law)

2

Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource

Management Process - Request for Expressions of Interest -

Results of Application of Evaluation Criteria

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated July 23, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the proposed amendments to the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process project schedule, as contained in the body of this report, be approved, in order to facilitate Council's decision-making for disposal contracts following a decision-making process for identifying top-qualified Respondents to the Proven Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies Request for Proposals; and

(2) City Council not qualify Interstate Waste Technologies and First Key Products Technologies as qualified Respondents through the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI"), as such action would be contrary to the criteria contained in the existing REOI; to allow any opportunity for inclusion would necessitate the re-issuing of the REOI to overcome a commercial advantage that would be awarded to these firms over their competitors if they are qualified with deficiencies in their responses, and would result in an ensuing delay in the project schedule.' ")

The Works Committee report having received the report dated July 5, 1999 from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and having directed that such report be submitted to Council for information.

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

(1) referred the following motions to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to Council for its meeting on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999:

Moved by Councillor Layton:

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the next Works Committee meeting, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999, on the phasing of the RFPs providing a scheduling option which would provide that the disposal and diversion RFPs are issued and processed at the same time rather than in the current sequence."

Moved by Councillor Shiner:

"That the following two companies be included in the process:

- Interstate Waste Technologies; and

- First Key project Technologies."; and

Moved by Councillor Bossons:

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the potential for linkage where the residue from a front-end facility would be managed through an Energy from Waste facility.";

(2) directed that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provide a clear indication in the RFP documents that a public ownership and/or operation of the facility is to be thoroughly explored and offered as an option in the RFP responses;

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Works Committee on how a provision for a "front-end processing facility" can be incorporated into the City's plans, either through the diversion or disposal components of the RFP or in some other manner; and

(4) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the meeting of the Works Committee scheduled to be held on October 6, 1999, with a proposal for a pilot wet/dry collection project in conjunction with the demonstration composter/mixed waste processing plant.

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

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide members of the Works Committee and Toronto City Council with the results of the application of evaluation criteria to the 32 submissions received in response to Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI"). Of the 32 responses received, 23 are qualified to proceed to the Request for Proposals ("RFP") stage (TIRM - Stage 3). The remaining nine responses are not qualified to proceed. Attached to this report is a table that contains a description of each of the qualifying responses.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Reference/Background/History:

On April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, City Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of The Works and Utilities Committee, "Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Request for Expressions of Interest". The Clause was amended by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated April 13, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council set a minimum of 100,000 tonnes per annum disposal capacity for the proposed Request for Expressions of Interest for new disposal capacity; and

(2) the project schedule contained in the April 9, 1999 report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be approved with the identified February 2000 decision point for Council's approval of top-qualified respondents."

On April 26, 1999, the TIRM REOI was issued by the Purchasing and Materials Management Division of the Finance Department, as per the Council approved schedule. Prior to the closure of the REOI on May 31, 1999, four addendums were issued by the Purchasing and Materials Management Division. They related to points of clarification, responses to questions raised by potential Respondents, and notification of Council's passage of the anti-lobbying clause.

The REOI called for submissions in three categories:

Category 1. Proven Diversion:

Proven waste diversion technologies are those with an ability to handle mixed waste and/or source separated organic waste, utilizing a combination of manual, mechanical and/or biological processes. The products from waste diversion technology proposals must be capable of being commercially marketed for clearly established beneficial purposes. The technology must have been in operation for at least one year at a minimum of 10 percent of the proposed capacity or currently licensed for full capacity. Proposals in this category can provide up to 300,000 tonnes per annum of diversion capacity.

Twelve responses were received in this category, of which eight have qualified.

Category 2. Proven Disposal:

Proven waste disposal technologies must have an ability to manage mixed waste, utilizing landfill and/or energy recovery processes. Residuals from waste disposal technologies (e.g., energy from waste - "EFW" - ash) must be less than 20 percent of the input waste volume. Respondents are fully responsible for the management of any residuals. The technology must have been in operation for at least one year at a minimum of 10 percent of the proposed capacity or currently licensed for full capacity. Proposals that cannot be operational for January 1, 2002, must provide five years of guaranteed disposal capacity as an interim measure. Proposals can range from 100,000 tonnes per annum of disposal capacity to the maximum amount of solid waste requiring disposal.

Nine responses were received in this category, of which seven have qualified.

Category 3. New and Emerging Technologies:

New and emerging technologies are those that have been proven at the pilot scale, but have not yet been applied to larger waste volumes. These technologies generally are technologies or applications with:

- unproven large scale performance;

- no demonstration of long-term performance; or

- proposals for unconventional or unproven situations.

Technologies with six months of operating experience, or more, at one percent of the proposed capacity can submit responses that would provide up to 50,000 tonnes of service capacity per annum. Those technologies with six months of operating experience, or more, operating at 10 percent of the proposed capacity can submit responses up to 100,000 tonnes of service capacity per annum.

Twelve responses were received in this category, of which eight have qualified.

Discussion and Justification:

Our project consultant, Proctor and Redfern Limited, in conjunction with MacViro Consultants, has undertaken a comprehensive review and analysis of the submitted Expressions of Interest (EOI's) by applying the evaluation criteria contained within the Council approved REOI to the information submitted by the Respondents in their respective EOI's. Our consultant has reviewed each response to assess if the required financial and commercial information has been correctly provided; if the response has been submitted in the correct category and the proposed technology aligns with the category definition; and that all requisite information has been correctly submitted.

Certain responses contained information which required clarification. An example of the circumstances where clarification was required involved submissions which cited inclusion of documentation (e.g., confirmation of ability to obtain letters of credit), but which documentation was not found to be physically included within the submission package.

Listed below are the Respondents that have qualified within their respective categories to proceed to the Request for Proposals phase of the project. The proposed site or sites identified by Category 2 Respondents ("Proven Disposal") have been listed beside the names of the qualified Respondents.

Category 1: Proven Waste Diversion Capacity Qualified Respondents

1. Agra Monenco

2. All Treat Farms

3. Eastern Power/Subbor

4. HUWS

5. Rail Cycle North

6. Stinnes Enerco Business Partnership

7. Stone & Webster Canada Ltd.

8. The State Group

Category 2: Proven Disposal Capacity Qualified Respondents
Respondents	Technology	Site or Sites Identified
1. Agra Resource Management	EFW *	Two sites identified in Innisfil Township, Simcoe County, Ontario
2. Browning-Ferris Industries	EFW * Landfilling Landfilling	•Ref-Fuel Niagara Resource Recovery Facility site located in Niagara Falls, New York, U.S.A. •Eight landfills identified to provide disposal capacity. Seven of these landfills located in U.S.A.: - Arbor Hills site, Northville, MI - Vienna Junction site, Erie, MI - Carbon Limestone site, Lowellville, OH - Ottawa County site, Port Clinton, OH - Niagara Landfill, Niagara Falls, NY - Sauk Trail Hills site, Canton, MI - Citizens' Disposal site, Grand Blanc, MI •Ridge Landfill site identified in the Town of Blenheim, Kent County, Ontario
3. Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority	Landfilling	Site located in Town of Essex, Essex County, Ontario
4. Green Lane Landfill	Landfilling	Site located in Southwold Township, Elgin County, Ontario
5. Rail Cycle North	Landfilling	Adams Mine site, Township of Boston, District of Temiskaming, Ontario
6. Ref-Fuel Canada Ltd.	EFW *	Niagara Falls, New York, U.S.A.
7. Republic Services of Canada	Landfilling	Two landfill sites identified in Michigan, U.S.A. - Carlton Farms site, Sumpter Township, Wayne County - Brent Run site, Montrose Township, Genesee County

* Energy from Waste

Category 3: New and Emerging Technologies Qualified Respondents

1. Bright Star Synfuels Industries

2. Eastern Power/Subbor

3. HUWS

4. Lundell Canada

5. Plasma Environmental Technologies

6. TCR Environmental

7. Thermo Tech Ventures

8. Unisphere Waste Conversion

Appendix A contains a description of each of the responses provided by the qualified Respondents.

Several Respondents have not qualified to proceed to the RFP phase. Listed below are the names of these Respondents and the reason(s) for their non-qualification. In the case of the non-qualifying Category 2 Respondents ("Proven Disposal"), the site or sites proposed have not been identified, in keeping with the policy established by Council through its approval of the REOI.

Category 1 - Proven Diversion : Respondents Not Qualified
Flow-Kleen	The response proposed to address City street sweeping materials and not mixed waste or source separated organic waste. The Department is already involved with this Respondent in a pilot project involving processing of City street sweepings and catch basin material.
Interstate Waste Technologies	The response involved proven disposal - Thermoselect thermal gasification technology. Thermal treatment is considered as disposal and not diversion. Therefore, the response was deemed not to qualify.
Schaefer System International	The response addressed the nature of the containers which could be used at curbside to collect source separated organic or mixed waste. Response did not propose methods of processing and final management of waste. The curbside container technology proposed could, however, be utilized at the front-end of a number of qualified Category 1, 2 and 3 responses.
Vaughan Engineering	We have been advised by Vaughan Engineering that their letter to the Finance Department was only intended to be a supporting document to an REOI response for a Category 1 Respondent, and not to be considered as an REOI response.

Category 2 - Proven Disposal : Respondents Not Qualified
First Key Project Technologies	The response involved proven disposal - thermal (Energy from Waste) technology. However, the response did not contain information indicating that the Respondent had current possession, an option to purchase, lease or similar interest in property for locations proposed for the facility. The response did not provide information as to how the City's waste would be managed in the interim period between 2002 and the date the proposed facility's disposal capacity would become available. Their Category 3 submission (Plasma Gasification) is linked to their Category 2 submission (mass burn) as a closed loop system and, therefore, does not qualify.
Seneca Meadows	The response provided a general description of capacity being available at an existing landfill site in the U.S.A. No information pertaining to financial capability and surety was provided. No references from public jurisdictions and environmental authorities were provided.

Category 3 - New and Emerging Technologies : Respondents Not Qualified
Emery International Developments Ltd.	The response addressed processing of source separated fibres and did not address management of mixed waste or source separated organics. However, this technology could be incorporated into a number of the Category 1, 2 and 3 qualified responses.
Rapo Shrink Inc.	The response proposed a form of thermal pretreatment of waste to facilitate materials and energy recovery. Information was not provided to sufficiently establish that the technology had been proven even at a pilot scale.
Craft Alliance/Cantec Sytonic Technologies	The response involved a form of thermal treatment of waste to facilitate recyclable materials recovery. No financial capability or surety information was submitted.

Many of the Respondents offered innovative proposals that could be considered in the future in some other process as adjuncts to many of the technologies and practices proposed in the qualifying responses.

Next Steps:

Our next step in the TIRM process is to undertake an additional phase of stakeholder consultation regarding the evaluation criteria for the RFP for proven disposal capacity. Based on our public consultation program to date, we have developed three categories of evaluation criteria:

(1) human health and safety and the natural environment;

(2) GTA and Ontario social benefits; and

(3) financial cost.

Waste disposal capacity proposals will be evaluated based on their performance in these priority areas. Performance will encompass the effects, as they are defined within the scope of the RFP, associated with transportation of waste and processing waste throughout the potential contaminating life span of a waste disposal facility, including closure and post-closure care. Each proposal will be given an overall performance score, based on weighted criteria. Overall scores will in turn be used to rank proposals in relation to each other.

Listed below is a description of the three priority areas.

Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment:

Performance scores will be derived from the potential macro-environment effects (i.e., environmental burden) upon human health and the natural environment of waste transportation and disposal, and upon traffic safety associated with waste transportation. Higher scores will be awarded to proposals that have lower environmental burden and lower risk to traffic safety.

The macro-environment performance scores will be derived from the greenhouse gas emissions (indicators of energy resource consumption and climate change impacts), associated with proposed transportation and disposal facility operations. The RFP document will describe in detail the method for calculating macro-environment burden. In summary, the method will account for transportation fuel use efficiency and the net greenhouse gas emissions associated with facility operations, including direct emissions and offsetting reductions in emissions associated with energy recovery.

Micro-environment burden, defined as those emissions of substances regulated by municipal, provincial/state or federal jurisdictions, will not be taken into account in the TIRM Stage 3 RFP evaluation. Proposed transportation and facility operations must be in accordance with approvals given pursuant to these jurisdictions' authority. This authority is constituted to protect human health and the natural environment. Federal and provincial/state Environment Protection Acts address emissions of acid gases, smog prescursors, heavy metals and trace organics. In the case of landfill facilities' leachate, which may affect water quality, Respondents must comply with provincial/state standards and guidelines on ground and surface water quality protection and with municipal sewer use by-laws.

Ontario and GTA Social Benefits:

Performance scores will be derived from the following three factors: direct employment allocated to the contract, including jobs created; total dollar value of wages allocated to the contract, including wages for new jobs created; and the total value of goods purchased in the GTA and Ontario. Respondents are required to provide all estimates in regard to these factors for a five-year period. Higher scores will be given to those proposals that have the greatest benefit for the GTA, and Ontario outside the GTA, respectively.

Financial Cost:

Financial performance scores will be based on the average transportation and disposal price (i.e., tipping fee), expressed as net present value in dollars per tonne. The disposal price is to be based on costs per tonne for the entire duration of the contract. As was stated in the REOI document, Toronto may choose not to contract waste transportation services at this time. Respondents will therefore be required to provide a disposal price for both including and excluding costs associated with waste transportation. Both disposal prices must account for all proposed operations, including costs associated with any proposed modifications to a Toronto transfer station(s).

Appendix B of this report provides a table with the proposed evaluation criteria and priority weighing factors to evaluate responses to the RFP.

Public Consultation:

To facilitate stakeholder review of the proposed evaluation criteria, we will be placing advertisements in newspapers that provide coverage in the local vicinity of the proposed disposal locations. Members of the public and other interested stakeholders (including those on the project mailing list) will be invited to provide feedback and input on the proposed criteria and the weighting to be applied within each category. We will be seeking responses in writing (including e-mail) and voice messages on our 24-hour Comment Line.

We will report out on the results of the consultation process in September 1999, when we will be bringing forward the Request for Proposals for proven disposal capacity for Committee and Council approval. The Council approved project schedule identifies October 1, 1999, for the issuance of the RFP, with a closing date of December 15, 1999.

We will also be bringing forward in September 1999 a report regarding the scope and schedule for the RFP for proven diversion and new and emerging technologies. This report will include a description of the associated stakeholder consultation process related to the development of evaluation criteria.

Conclusions:

Thirty-two responses to the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI") were received within three categories: proven diversion; proven disposal; and new and emerging technologies. In conjunction with our project consultants, we have reviewed and analyzed these responses against the evaluation criteria established through the Council approved REOI.

We have proceeded, as per the Council authority provided on April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, to identify those Respondents who are qualified to proceed to the Request for Proposals phase of the project (TIRM - Stage 3). The list of qualified Respondents can be found in the body of this report. We have also provided in the body of this report a list of Respondents who have not qualified and the reasons for their non-qualification.

The 23 qualified responses, considered both as a whole and within the three waste management technology categories, are interpreted as constituting a strong subscription on the part of the North American waste management marketplace to Toronto's TIRM project. The 23 responses cover the full range of proven and new and emerging waste management technologies and practices, at large and small project scales and involving facilities located in Ontario and the U.S.A.

Our next step is to undertake an additional phase of stakeholder consultation regarding the evaluation criteria for the RFP for proven disposal capacity. This will include an invitation to stakeholders located near potential disposal sites to provide input and feedback, as well as others who have expressed an interest in the project to date.

We will report in September on the results of this consultation process. At that time we will submit a report seeking approval of an RFP for disposal capacity (TIRM - Stage 3). A report regarding the scope and schedule for an RFP for diversion capacity and new and emerging technologies will also be submitted.

Contact Name:

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

Manager, Strategic Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-4754

Appendix A

Description of Responses from Qualified Respondents

Category 1

Proven Waste Diversion Capacity

Category 2

Proven Waste Disposal Capacity

Category 3

New and Emerging Technologies

Appendix B

Comparative Evaluation Criteria (Waste Disposal Capacity)
	Criteria	Measure	Priority (weighting factor points out of a total of 100 points
1. 1.1 1.2	Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment Macro-Environmental Traffic Safety	Quantity of greenhouse gases released, expressed as the quantity emitted per tonne of waste managed (transported and disposed): •Greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4) expressed as global warming potential CO2 equivalents. Injury and mortality rates per mode of transportation and distance travelled	35 30 5
2. 2.1 2.2 2.3	Ontario and GTA Social Benefits Direct Jobs - Jobs created/allocated to the contract Value of the Jobs - Total value of jobs created/allocated to contract Investment in Goods - Total value of goods purchased in the execution of the contract	Net number of jobs. Preference is given to jobs in the GTA and Ontario outside the GTA respectively. Net present value $/tonne of wages and investment. Preference is given to jobs' value in the GTA and Ontario outside the GTA respectively. Total value of goods purchased from GTA and Ontario outside the GTA respectively. Preference is given to investment in the GTA and Ontario outside the GTA respectively.	30 10 (GTA 7; Ontario 3) 10 (GTA 7; Ontario 3) 10 (GTA 7; Ontario 3)
3. 3.1	Financial System Costs - Transportation and disposal cost (i.e. tipping fee)	Net present value $/tonne.	35 35

--------

Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services, Works and Emergency Services, gave a presentation to the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a copy of his presentation.

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, gave a video presentation to the Committee with respect to the Halifax Regional Municipality Waste Resource Management System.

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

- Mr. John Jackson, Coordinator, Citizens Network on Waste Management, and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Mr. Larry Little, Vice-President, Interstate Waste Technologies Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Mr. Harry Olivier, Vice President, Agra Birwelco Ltd., and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Ms. Brennain Lloyd, NorthWatch;

- Ms. Colleen Cooney, "Don't Burn Ontario" Coalition, Simcoe County, and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Ms. Shelley Petrie, Toronto Environmental Alliance;

- Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Mr. Brad Aggarwal, Global Engineering Services Ltd.;

- Mr. Clarence F. Boudreau, Chairman, First Key Project Technologies Inc.;

- Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, and submitted a communication with respect thereto;

- Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Greta Thompson, Blenheim, Ontario;

- Mr. Gordon E. McGuinty, President, Notre Development, representing Rail Cycle North; and

- Mr. Richard Gilbert, Toronto, Ontario, and submitted material with respect thereto.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the requested staff response including identification of implications regarding the motions referred to the City Council meeting of July 27, 28, and 29, 1999, from the Works Committee meeting of July 14, 1999, associated with the results of the Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI").

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial impacts arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the proposed amendments to the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process project schedule, as contained in the body of this report, be approved, in order to facilitate Council's decision-making for disposal contracts following a decision-making process for identifying top-qualified Respondents to the Proven Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies Request for Proposals; and

(2) City Council not qualify Interstate Waste Technologies and First Key Products Technologies as qualified Respondents through the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI"), as such action would be contrary to the criteria contained in the existing REOI; to allow any opportunity for inclusion would necessitate the re-issuing of the REOI to overcome a commercial advantage that would be awarded to these firms over their competitors if they are qualified with deficiencies in their responses, and would result in an ensuing delay in the project schedule.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 13, 14, 15, 1999, City Council adopted amended Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of the Works and Utilities Committee, "Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Request for Expressions of Interest" ("TIRM REOI"). On April 26, 1999, the TIRM REOI was issued by the Purchasing and Materials Management Division of the Finance Department, as per the Council approved schedule. The REOI closed on May 31, 1999.

Following the receipt of responses, our project consultant, Proctor & Redfern Limited, in conjunction with MacViro Consultants, undertook a comprehensive review and analysis of the submitted Expressions of Interest ("EOI") by applying the evaluation criteria contained within the Council approved REOI to the information submitted by the Respondents in their respective EOI's.

Our consultant reviewed each response to assess if the required financial and commercial information had been correctly provided; if the response had been submitted in the correct category and the proposed technology aligns with the category definition, and that all requisite information had been correctly submitted.

Thirty-two (32) submissions were received in response to the TIRM REOI. Through a report dated July 5, 1999 from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services (listed as Report No. 3 on the Works Committee Agenda of July 14, 1999), twenty-three (23) of the responses were identified as qualified to proceed to the Request for Proposals ("RFP") stage (TIRM-Stage 3). The remaining nine (9) responses were identified as not qualified.

The REOI called for submissions in three categories:

Category 1. Proven Diversion

Proven waste diversion technologies are those with an ability to handle mixed waste and/or source separated organic waste, utilizing a combination of manual, mechanical and/or biological processes.

Category 2. Proven Disposal

Proven waste disposal technologies must have an ability to manage mixed waste, utilizing landfill and/or energy recovery processes.

Category 3. New and Emerging Technologies

New and emerging technologies are those that have been proven at the pilot scale, but have not yet been applied to larger waste volumes.

The Commissioner's report of July 5, 1999 provides a description of each of the qualified Responses and lists the non-qualifying Responses and the reason(s) for their non-qualification. The Commissioner's July 5, 1999 report was received by the Committee as recommended.

Following a number of public deputations, including deputations by two of the Respondents identified as non-qualifying, the Committee considered a number of motions made by Committee members. Three of the motions were referred to the Council meeting of July 27, 28, and 29, 1999, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provide a corresponding report on the implications of the motions. This requested information appears below. The additional Committee motions requested subsequent information reports or provided direction to the Commissioner related to the content of the TIRM RFP. These additional items will be responded to in the timeframe identified in the Committee's motions.

Discussion and Justification:

Listed below are the three motions referred to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to Council at its meeting on July 27, 28, and 29, 1999.

Committee Motion No. 2 (i).

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the next Works Committee meeting, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999, on the phasing of the RFPs providing a scheduling option which would provide that the disposal and diversion RFPs are issued and processed at the same time rather than in the current sequence."

Response:

On April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, City Council approved the proposed TIRM project schedule contained in a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, dated April 9, 1999. The key dates in this schedule (post-REOI) are as follows:

Schedule for New Disposal Capacity (Post-REOI)

Committee/Council approval of RFP for Disposal	September 1999
Issuance of the RFP for Disposal	October 1, 1999
Disposal Proposals Received	December 15, 1999
Staff report on Top-qualified Respondents	February 2000
Council Approves Top-qualified Respondents	February 2000
Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations	February to August 2000
Council awards Contract(s)	September 2000
Preferred Contractor(s) Commissions Facility(ies)	2001
New Disposal Capacity	Available January 1, 2002

Schedule for New Diversion Capacity and Engagement of New and Emerging Technologies (Post-REOI)

Staff Report on Scope and Schedule for RFP for Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies	September 1999
Stakeholder Consultation regarding methodology and evaluation criteria.	October 1999
Committee/Council approval of RFP	December 1999/January 2000
Issue RFP	January 28, 2000
Proposals Received	March 31, 2000
Staff report on Top-qualified Respondents	June 2000
Council Approves Top-qualified Respondents	June 2000
Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations	July 2000 to December 2000
Council awards Contract(s)	February 2001
Facilities Commissioned	2001-2005

We do not recommend any delay in the schedule for new disposal capacity because of the projected closure of our remaining public sector landfill, the Keele Valley Landfill Site, in 2002.

However, we are recommending adjustments to the project schedule to facilitate closure linkages between the RFP for Proven Disposal and the RFP for Proven Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies to facilitate an integrated solution.

In order to achieve an integrated solution, we recommend the following adjustments to the TIRM project schedule. We propose bringing forward the Council approval of the RFP for Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies from January 2000 to November 1999, and an April 2000 date for the Council approval of the top-qualified responses. We would also recommend shortening the timeframe for the due diligence and contract negotiations timeframe for the top-qualified Disposal proposals by two months, in order to facilitate a Council decision point in June 2000, so that overlaps with the municipal election period in the year 2000 do not occur.

Through these amendments to the project schedule, Council will be in a position to award a Disposal contract(s) in June 2000, following its approval of the top-qualified Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies in April 2000. Therefore, in June 2000, disposal facilities and diversion facilities that can be linked and, in effect, integrated can be recommended.

RFP for Proven Disposal Capacity - Revised

Council Approves Top-qualified Respondents	February 2000
Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations	February to May 2000
Council awards Contract(s)	June 2000

RFP for Diversion Capacity and New and Emerging Technologies - Revised

Stakeholder Consultation regarding methodology and evaluation criteria for RFP	October 1999
Committee/Council approval of RFP	November 1999
Issuance of Diversion RFP	November 1999
Responses Received	January 2000
Staff report on Top-qualified Respondents	April 2000
Council Approves Top-qualified Respondents	April/May 2000
Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations	June -August 2000
Council awards Contract(s)	August - September 2000

Works Committee Motion 2 (ii).

"That the following two companies be included in the process:

Interstate Waste Technologies; and

First Key Product Technologies."

As cited earlier in this report, nine (9) responses were not qualified through the REOI process. The specific reasons for the non-qualification of these Respondents are contained in the Commissioner's report of July 5, 1999 to Works Committee. Representatives of two of the non-qualifying Respondents made deputations at the Works Committee meeting of July 14, 1999. These Respondents were Interstate Waste Technologies and First Key Product Technologies. Subsequently, a motion was made to qualify these two Respondents. The motion was referred to the City Council meeting of July 27, 28, and 29, 1999, with a request that staff comment on the implications of qualifying these two Respondents.

In order to appreciate the implications of Council qualifying these two Respondents it is necessary to provide an explanation of why they were not qualified through the consultant-staff review process which applied the Council approved REOI evaluation criteria and the definition of "Proven Diversion".

Interstate Waste Technologies (hereinafter referred to as "Interstate") submitted a Category 1 (Proven Diversion) response to the TIRM REOI. Technologies that can qualify under Category 1 are those "with an ability to handle mixed waste and/or source separated organic waste, utilizing a combination of manual, mechanical and/or biological processes." The Interstate response, however, proposes to use their Thermoselect thermal gasification technology. Under the Category 1 definition, a thermal treatment process is not considered a Proven Diversion technology.

The definition is based on the policy of the Ministry of the Environment and input from our stakeholder consultation process. Ministry policy identifies thermal treatment processes to be disposal technology. Emphasis was placed through our stakeholder consultation process to categorize incineration and thermal treatment processes as disposal.

In order to qualify as a Respondent under Category 2 (Proven Disposal), Interstate would have had to identify a site or sites indicating that they had current possession, an option to purchase, lease or similar interest in the property for locations proposed for the facility. In a letter to the TIRM Project Manager, Interstate advised it was their preference to submit under Category 2, but they were unable to identify a qualified site by the REOI closure date (May 31, 1999).

If Council was to retroactively qualify Interstate, it would be re-writing the definition of "Proven Diversion" to include thermal based technologies. This would have implications to the City, given that the issue would exist that the rules of the REOI have been changed unilaterally in favour of one bidder, contrary to the obligations of the City in an REOI/RFP process. If Council wishes to include thermal technologies as diversion, it would necessitate the re-issuance of the REOI, as other companies who submitted under Categories 2 and 3, may wish to re-submit under Category 1, and companies that did not submit at all may wish to submit under a revised definition of "Proven Diversion". Failure to re-issue the REOI may result in claims being made against the City by one or more firms because of the unfair competitive advantage given to Interstate in a public procurement process.

If Council directed that the REOI be re-issued, it would result in a potential five-month delay in the schedule to accommodate stakeholder review and input on the re-definition of "Proven Disposal" (this would be in-keeping with Council's decision to proceed under EA planning principles), the re-writing and Council approval of a second REOI, issuance of the REOI, receipt and evaluation of responses, and a staff report identifying qualified Respondents. A five-month delay would push the key decision points into the year 2001 and seriously compromise our ability to have new disposal services available for January 1, 2002.

The second firm under review, First Key Project Technologies (hereinafter referred to as "First Key") provided a submission under Category 2 - Proven Disposal. The response involved proven disposal (thermal - energy from waste) technology. However, the response did not contain information indicating that the Respondent had current possession, an option to purchase, lease or similar interest in property for locations proposed for the facility.

In addition, the response did not provide information as to how the City's waste would be managed in the interim period between 2002 and the date the proposed facility's disposal capacity would become available. Their Category 3 submission (plasma gasification) is linked to their Category 2 submission as a closed loop system and therefore does not qualify as the Category 2 submission provided insufficient information.

Through deputations to Works Committee, representatives of First Key have publicly announced the two sites they named in their submission. Category 2 Respondents had been asked to submit their site(s) in a separate sealed envelope which would be returned if they were non-qualified. First Key did not follow this procedure and named their sites in their main (Envelope 1) submission and subsequently in public. To date we have not cited their proposed site locations in our staff reports. However, as First Key has announced them in a public forum we will provide comments regarding the sites from a procedural perspective in order to explain the impact on the TIRM project should Council retroactively change the REOI process and qualify First Key.

First Key have identified two possible sites for their proposed energy from waste - plasma gasification facility. One site is the Keele Valley Landfill Site ("Keele Valley") located in the City of Vaughan, and the other is the Lakeview Generating Station located in the City of Mississauga. As stated above, First Key's submission of these sites was not supported with an identification of current possession, an option to purchase, lease or have similar interest in the properties.

The Keele Valley site cannot be qualified under the REOI because it would entail a partnership with the City at this stage of the process, which the REOI clearly states, is inadmissible. Engaging in a partnership at this stage with the provision of City-owned land would commit the City to engagement in an environmental assessment as a co-proponent under the Environmental Assessment Act. This form of engagement would be contrary to the main tenet of the TIRM process, which is the engagement of the marketplace to identify disposal and diversion solutions, not the engagement of the City in a public site search and engagement in one or more environmental assessments. In addition, Keele Valley will come under the ownership of the City of Vaughan upon its closure (projected for 2002) and therefore the City of Toronto is not in a position to commit the site to an EFW facility.

If Council qualified First Key based on their identification of the Lakeview Generating Station as a potential site for their proposed facility, then it would be retroactively amending the REOI. If Council followed this course of action then the REOI document would have to be revised and re-issued following Council authorization to do so. This would be necessary to ensure that one firm was not given an unfair commercial advantage over Respondents that met the requirements of the REOI as set by Council. A revised REOI that had no stipulations or need to demonstrate a commercial interest in the identified site(s) would allow current Respondents and other firms to submit proposals which just named a site or sites without any commercial commitment. We do not recommend this course of action.

In October 1998 Council directed that EFW technology be considered in the process as a marketplace option. In order to provide an opportunity for this technology and new "greenfield" landfill sites to participate, we structured in the REOI a requirement that Category 2 (Proven Disposal) Respondents provide five years of guaranteed disposal capacity to be available as of January 1, 2002. First Key, as cited above, did not provide this guaranteed disposal capacity "back-up", on the grounds that if they were awarded a contract in early 2000 (for both their Category 2 and 3 responses) they would be able to have the site operational in time. We consider this a major deficiency in their response because the earliest a Category 2 contract could be awarded is June 2000 and a Category 3 response in August or September 2000. In addition, experience has shown that the approvals process for a disposal facility can take several years or more including a hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act, which would then be followed by construction and operational start-up.

If Council were to qualify First Key and "waive" the five-year back-up requirement other Respondents may withdraw the back-up provisions they have arranged. In addition, other potential Respondents submitting proposals through a second REOI process would not be required to provide the back-up provision. We do not recommend this course of action, as it could leave the City with a significant short-fall in its disposal needs if contracts were awarded to firms that proposed new facilities that are not yet licensed and are not "back-stopped" with guaranteed disposal capacity at a licensed disposal facility.

Again, as indicated above, there are legal implications where the City breeches its RFP rules.

Motion 3 (iii).

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the potential for linkage where the residue from a front-end facility would be managed through an Energy from Waste facility."

Response:

The TIRM process provides for the possibility of an EFW facility to be contracted to receive and dispose the residue from one or more front-end materials recovery and/or composting facilities. Specific considerations would need to be given to operational factors (e.g. baseline tonnages) as presented by the EFW Respondent in their Request for Proposals submission and their standing in the comparative evaluation within Category 2 against other Respondents.

Conclusions:

This report has recommended several amendments to the TIRM project schedule in order to enhance the integration of the Request for Proposals processes for acquiring new disposal capacity and diversion capacity. The amendments will provide Council with the ability to make decisions in an integrated and comprehensive fashion.

In regards to the motion referred to Council that proposes to qualify Interstate and First Key as qualified Respondents to the TIRM REOI, this report has identified major concerns with this proposed action. If Council wishes there to be an opportunity to include one or both of these firms, the present REOI would need to be terminated, re-drafted and re-issued. This would be required in order to overcome the commercial advantage that would be awarded to these firms over Respondents who successfully met the evaluation criteria and requirements set by Council through its approval of the REOI.

Contact Name:

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

Manager, Strategic Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Metro Hall, 19^th Floor

Phone: 392-9744

Fax: 392-4754

E-mail: lawson_oates@toronto.ca )

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 21, 1999) from the President, Interstate Waste Technologies, Inc. (IWT), submitting comments respecting IWT's "Thermoselect" technology, and requesting that the City permit IWT to respond to the next stage of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process (TIRM), the Request for Proposals.)

3

Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement with

Browning-Ferris Group of Companies, and Proposed

Acquisition of Browning-Ferris Industries Ltd. by

Canadian Waste Services Holdings Ltd.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report back to the Works Committee on whether consenting to the change in ownership of the Browning-Ferris Companies is the best strategy for the City at this time, given concerns about future competition levels and ongoing developments in the industry.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (July 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain the consent of Council, as provided for under the City's Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement with the Browning-Ferris group of companies, to the pending change in ownership of the companies, including in particular, the acquisition of Browning-Ferris Industries Ltd. ("Browning-Ferris Canada") by Canadian Waste Services Holdings Inc. ("Canadian Waste").

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications if consent is granted, as the agreement and services would continue with the Browning-Ferris group of companies for the haulage to and disposal of solid waste at the Arbor Hills landfill in Michigan, although the companies would be owned and controlled by other waste management companies. In the event that consent was refused, the City would have to make alternate arrangements for the disposal of the quantity of waste presently being managed under the agreement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council consent to the change in ownership of the Browning-Ferris companies, as provided for under the City's Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement with the companies and on the basis set out in this report; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to execute any documents as may be required, in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to give effect to Recommendation No. (1).

Council Reference/Background/History:

By agreement, dated December 23, 1996 ("Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement"), Browning-Ferris Canada is contracted to transport and dispose of Toronto's solid waste to the Arbor Hills landfill in Michigan. The agreement expires at the end of 2002. The other parties to the agreement are Browning-Ferris Industries Inc., the United States parent company, as guarantor of the obligations under the agreement, and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., the successor company to Browning-Ferris Industries of Southeastern Michigan Inc., the owner of the Arbor Hills landfill site where the City's waste is disposed.

The City has been provided with notice that there is a pending merger between Allied Waste Industries, Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries Inc. (the parent BFI company), and further to that merger by related agreements, Canadian Waste, a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., will be acquiring all of the shares of Browning-Ferris Canada. Under the provisions of the Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement, any change in control or ownership or the transfer of a controlling interest in the beneficial ownership of any of the BFI parties shall constitute a default under the agreement unless the City consents to the transfer. Such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. The agreement further states that the City in its sole discretion may determine whether new ownership can adequately and faithfully render the services for the remaining term of the agreement.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under the pending merger or amalgamation, all of the property rights, privileges and obligations of Browning-Ferris Industries Inc. and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. are transferred to or become the property of the amalgamated company. Accordingly, the merger will not affect the rights and obligations in respect of the services to be provided for the disposal component of the agreement. In particular, the amalgamated company will assume the obligations of Browning-Ferris Industries Inc., as guarantor under the agreement, and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. as owner of the Arbor Hills landfill site. Similarly, after the Canadian Waste share purchase transaction, BFI Canada as an entity remains bound to its rights and obligations under the agreement.

There is no basis for reasonably believing that the companies, with Allied Waste or Canadian Waste, as new owners, cannot adequately and faithfully render the services called for in the agreement. The services will continue to be carried out in the same manner, although with new ownership, and the disposal price is beneficial to the City. Canadian Waste, in addition, has offered to (i) provide the further guaranty of its parent, Waste Management Inc., to all of the obligations to be undertaken under the agreement, and (ii) reimburse the City for any costs reasonably and properly incurred in respect of any due diligence on an alternate site to the primary disposal site, in the event, as a result of the transactions, that alternate site is not available and another alternate site is required.

Therefore, it is in the interests of the City and recommended that the required consent under the agreement be given on the basis set out above.

Contact Name:

Angelos Bacopoulos 392-8831

General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services

James Anderson

Director, Municipal Law, Legal Services

4

Request for Proposals for Litter Bins with Advertising

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the joint report dated July 23, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted, subject to the contract being entered into with the successful proponent(s) requiring that there be no net City cost in the first three years, through restructuring of cash flow or such other means that staff determine, and appropriate surety, such as a bond or letter of credit being in place:

'It is recommended that authority be granted to enter into agreements with Olifas Marketing Group Inc. for the replacement of existing City-owned litter bins with new bins with advertising in each of the Community Council Areas of East York; North York; York; and Toronto, excluding Ward 19 - High Park and Ward 23 - Midtown, and the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, and to amend the existing agreement with Olifas Marketing Group Inc. for the Etobicoke Community Council Area, in accordance with the prices stated in this report and terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.'; and

(2) these litter bins be placed along the boardwalk in the Eastern Beaches area, on a pilot project basis for two months this summer, if possible.")

The Works Committee reports having:

(1) received the following report (July 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2) authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to Council at its meeting of July 27, 28 and 29, 1999, on the results of the Request for Proposals, and recommending proponents for the provision of litter bins with advertising:

Purpose:

To request authority to report directly to Council on the results of the Request for Proposals for litter bins with advertising.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be received for information; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to submit a report directly to Council at its meeting of July 27, 28 and 29, 1999, on the results of the Request for Proposals, and recommending proponents for the provision of litter bins with advertising.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the replacement of existing litter bins with new bins with advertising throughout the City with the exception of the Community Council areas of Scarborough and Etobicoke, Ward 19 - High Park, Ward 23 - Midtown and the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The RFP for litter bins with advertising was issued through the Purchasing and Materials Management Division of the Finance Department on June 25, 1999. The closing date for submission of proposals is Wednesday, July 14, 1999.

The next Works Committee is not scheduled until September 1999. City Council asked us to expedite the approval process. We are thus requesting authority to report directly to Council at its meeting of July 27, 28 and 29, 1999, on the results of the RFP, and recommending proponents for the provision of litter bins with advertising.

Conclusions:

Reporting directly to Council on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999, on the results of the RFP will enable us to expedite the implementation of the litter bins with advertising project, subject to approval of the recommended proponents by Council.

Contact Name:

Tim Michael, Manager, Waste Diversion

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Tel: 392-8506; Fax: 392-4754

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

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (July 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To seek authority to enter into agreements with Olifas Marketing Group Inc. (OMG) for the provision of litter bins with advertising.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Entering into agreements with OMG for the provision of litter bins with advertising is projected to result in additional revenue to the City of approximately $10.9 million over a ten year period. It will also result in savings of approximately $100,000 annually or $1.0 million over ten years, which is the current cost to clean, repair and replace existing City-owned bins in those locations that would be covered by the agreement. In addition, further revenue of approximately $1.0 million will accrue to the City based on OMG's offer to increase revenue paid under the current Etobicoke contract. Therefore, the total projected revenue and savings to the City over the ten year period would be $12.9 million. This amount should more than offset the additional net estimated cost (after revenue from the sale of the material) to the City of between $7.0 and $10.0 million over the ten year period to collect recyclable containers and fibre from the litter bins, depending on how many of the litter bins can be integrated into the regularly scheduled curbside collection routes.

However, it should be noted that since the value of OMG's offer does not escalate until after year three, it is projected that there will be a budget shortfall in the first three years of the program. Specifically, it is projected that the cost to collect the recyclable materials will exceed revenue and savings by approximately $100,000 in year one, $300,000 in year two and $300,000 in year three. Commencing in year four, we will be in a surplus position each year, culminating in a projected surplus of $2.9 million to $5.9 million over the ten years.

Provision of three compartment containers will assist in meeting our waste diversion target by an additional 2000 tonnes/year which represents an increase of approximately ¼ per cent to our current diversion rate of 25 per cent.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that authority be granted to enter into agreements with Olifas Marketing Group Inc. for the replacement of existing City owned litter bins with new bins with advertising in each of the Community Council Areas of East York; North York; York; and Toronto excluding Ward 19 - High Park and Ward 23 - Midtown and the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area and to amend the existing agreement with Olifas Marketing Group Inc. for the Etobicoke Community Council Area in accordance with the prices stated in this report and terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 9, 10, and 11, 1999, Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals for the replacement of existing litter bins with new bins with advertising throughout the City, with the exception of the Community Council Areas of Scarborough and Etobicoke, Ward 19 - High Park, Ward 23 - Midtown and the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, in accordance with the terms of reference previously adopted as amended by Council.

At its meeting of July 14, 1999, the Works Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to submit a report directly to Council at its meeting of July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999 on the results of the Request for Proposals and recommending proponents for the provision of litter bins with advertising.

Discussion and Justification:

The Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued through the Purchasing and Materials Management Division of the Finance Department on June 25, 1999. The RFP solicited proposals from the private sector to supply, install and maintain (excluding emptying) new three-compartment litter bins with advertising, at no cost to the City, to replace existing City owned litter bins at various locations within the public road allowances in the City.

The proponents were requested to specify how much revenue they would guarantee to pay the City for the right to sell space on the bins for advertising goods and services. The RFP was broken down into separate contracts by Community Council Area (CCA) and included all existing street allowance litter bins within the City except in the CCAs of Scarborough and Etobicoke, Ward 19-High Park, Ward 23-Midtown and the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area (3079 locations in total). Proposals were requested for a five year term, with an additional five year option.

The closing date for submission of proposals was Wednesday July 14, 1999. Proposals were received from two companies: Olifas Marketing Group Inc. (OMG) and Creative Outdoor Advertising (COA).

The following is a summary of the proposals submitted:

Olifas Marketing Group Inc.

OMG is proposing to install bins at all the locations listed in the RFP, phased in over an eighteen month period. The three-compartment bins (litter, paper and containers) are high quality, proven, aesthetically pleasing and meet or exceed all the specifications in the RFP (please see attachment (1) for photos of the bins).

OMG is offering the City guaranteed revenue of $10 per installed bin per month in years one to three of the contract, $15 per bin per month in years four and five, and $20 per bin per month in years six to ten. The total value of this revenue to the City over the ten year period is $5,651,490 comprised as follows: North York - $2,185,890, Toronto - $2,366,970, East York - $337,300, York - $761,330.

In addition to this guaranteed per bin revenue, OMG is offering to pay the City 10 per cent of their gross advertising revenues, which they estimate to be $52,650,900 over the ten year period (i.e. $5,265,090 to the City). The 10 per cent of gross advertising revenue payment would commence in year 5 and be paid in six annual installments from years five to ten (i.e. 10 per cent of total gross advertising revenues for 10 years/6 = annual payments for years five to ten).

Therefore the potential revenue to the City over the ten year period is approximately $10.9 million. Please see attachment (2) for a breakdown of the projected annual revenue that would be paid to the City over the ten-year period.

OMG's maintenance plans, which include cleaning and repairing the bins, adequately address the City's requirements. OMG also has extensive experience in providing this type of equipment and service, with over 650 of their three-compartment litter bins in the field including approximately 230 bins in the City.

OMG is offering to allow 5 per cent of all side faces (sidewalk and roadway facing sides where the advertisements are placed) to be used by the City at no cost for public service announcements. OMG is also offering to renegotiate the current contract with Etobicoke at the rates in this proposal which are higher than in the Etobicoke contract, subject to acceptance of their entire proposal. It is projected that this will increase revenue from the litter bin contract in Etobicoke by approximately $1,000,000 over the ten year period. OMG will also provide bins to the City for special events at no cost (or revenue).

Creative Outdoor Advertising

COA is proposing to install bins in a specific number of locations in the CCAs of East York, North York and Toronto as opposed to all the sites listed in the RFP. Specifically, they are proposing to place 20 bins in East York out of a total of 184 available bin locations, 400 bins in North York out of 1191 available locations and 600 bins in Toronto out of 1289 available locations. COA did not bid on any locations in the CCA of York.

COA has stated that they would install the bins at a rate of up to 80 bins per month, resulting in the 1020 bins potentially being in place in a period of approximately thirteen months. The bins they are proposing have 3 compartments for litter, paper and containers, are high quality, aesthetically pleasing and meet or exceed all the specifications listed in the RFP. An optional bicycle rack attached to the bin is also included. Please see attachment (1) for photos of the COA bins.

COA is offering the City guaranteed revenue of $17 per installed bin per month in year one, $21 per bin per month in years two to six, $23 per bin per month in years seven and eight, and $25 per bin per month in years nine and ten. The total projected revenue to the City over the ten year period is $2,566,218, comprised as follows: North York - $1,005,906, Toronto - $1,509,522, East York - $50,790. Please see attachment (2) for a breakdown of the projected annual revenue that would be paid to the City over the ten year period.

COA's maintenance plans adequately address the City's requirements. COA also has extensive experience in providing streetscaping equipment.

COA is offering to provide a minimum of 5 per cent of all installed units to the City at no cost for public service announcements and an additional 10 per cent of those units that do not have advertising space on them sold.

Comparison of the Two Proposals

Both responses provide financial incentives for entering into a ten year agreement. Based on the proposals submitted and the experience of OMG and COA, we feel that each of these two firms could equally and successfully supply, install, maintain and sell advertising space on new litter bins for Toronto. However, from a financial perspective, the proposal from OMG would result in significantly more revenue to Toronto.

When comparing the two proposals by Community Council Area, since the RFP was broken down into separate contracts by these Areas, the proposal from OMG will result in significantly higher revenue to the City in each of the CCAs. As can be calculated from attachment (2), revenue from OMG is projected to be $600,748 higher in East York, $ 3,216,422 higher in North York, and $3,062,585 higher in Toronto, than COA over the ten year period when taking into account guaranteed revenue plus the 10 per cent share of gross advertising revenues. Even if the 10 per cent of gross advertising variable was excluded and just the guaranteed revenue was considered, OMG is still significantly higher in each of the CCAs.

The OMG proposal offers to replace all 3079 existing litter bins identified in the RFP with new 3 compartment bins that provide "away-from-home" recycling opportunities for residents, while COA proposes only 1020 locations. Acceptance of the COA proposal in any of the CCAs would result in either the old litter bins with no recycling remaining in place, or new three-compartment bins being purchased and maintained by the City, at those locations that COA did not bid on.

Council's Request for Award to More than One Proponent

At its meeting of May 11, 12, and 13, 1999, Council adopted the terms of reference for the RFP, adding the proviso that at least two firms be recommended for the program, and the RFP was designed accordingly (i.e., by CCA). In structuring the proposal call process by Community Council Area, Council's intent in its May approval was to ensure that a single supplier did not acquire a contract for the entire City. The subsequent June approval of the RFP by Council fully excluded the Scarborough Community Council Area as well as portions of the City of Toronto Community Council Area. In addition the process has left in place existing agreements with Creative Outdoor Advertising in North York and Etobicoke. These conditions meet Council's objective of avoiding a single supplier of litter bins for the whole City. To protect the City's flexibility in administering the arrangement, it is recommended that the agreement(s) remain structured by Community Council Area.

Based on the results of the proposals, we recommend that OMG be awarded contracts for the provision of litter bins with advertising in all the CCAs covered by the RFP due to the significantly higher revenues that would accrue to the City and the significantly higher number of recycling/litter bins that would be supplied and maintained at no cost to the City.

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

Budget Impact

As indicated previously in this report, the total projected revenue and savings to the City over the ten year period is $12.9 million, which should more than offset the additional estimated cost of between $7.0 million and $10.0 million to collect recyclable materials from the litter bins. However, it should be noted that since the value of OMG's offer does not escalate until after year three (i.e., an increase in the guaranteed per bin revenue starting in year four plus payment of the 10 per cent of gross advertising revenues which commences in year 5), there will be a budget shortfall in the first three years of the program. Specifically, it is projected that the cost to collect the recyclable materials will exceed revenue and savings by approximately $100,000 in year one, $300,000 in year two and $300,000 in year three. Commencing in year four, we will be in a surplus position each year, culminating in a projected surplus of $2.9 million to $5.9 million over the ten years.

Conclusions:

Based on the proposals, we feel that both OMG and COA could successfully supply, install, maintain and sell advertising space on new litter bins for Toronto. However, acceptance of the proposal from OMG for each of the CCAs would result in significantly higher revenues, many more 3 compartment bins that provide "away-from-home" recycling opportunities for residents on the streets and savings to the City in not having to purchase and maintain new bins in the locations that COA did not bid on.

Therefore, it is recommend that OMG be awarded contracts for the provision of litter bins with advertising in all the CCAs covered in the RFP.

Subject to approval of this report by Council, the City will enter into legal agreements with OMG based on terms and conditions acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor. The agreements will contain conditions that provide flexibility in terms of changing locations, and will allow the City to request that some or all of the litter bins be removed if the bins, advertising or servicing are deemed unsatisfactory by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Contact Name:

Tim Michael

Manager, Waste Diversion

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: 392-8506

L.A. Pagano, P. Eng.

Director, Purchasing and Materials Management

Telephone: 392-7312

Angelos Bacopoulos

General Manager

Solid Waste Management Services)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

COA Bin

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Projected Revenue to City of Toronto

5

City of Toronto Boundary Identification Signs

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause, together with the following motions, back to the Works Committee for further consideration:

Moved by Councillor Johnston:

"That:

(1) the existing boundary identification signs be preserved for disposal by the Community Councils and Heritage Toronto, as they determine; and

(2) the proposed boundary identification signs include the indication that Toronto is the Capital City of Ontario."

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

"That the motion by Councillor Johnston be amended by adding the following new Part (3):

'(3) City policy prohibit the attachment of advertising material, in any form, to the boundary identification signs.' ")

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to amending the perimeter and traffic regulation signs to include only the wordmark "Toronto" without the logo:

Purpose:

To propose the installation of road signs which identify the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources:

The estimated cost to manufacture and install identification signs for the City of Toronto is $68,000.00, which is included in the Division's 1999 Current Budget estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that during 1999:

(1) new City of Toronto identity signs described in this report be installed at major road boundary locations identified in Appendix 1;

(2) the existing signs identifying the previous local municipalities, at old boundary locations now within the amalgamated city, be removed;

(3) the general traffic regulation signs be amended to identify the City of Toronto; and

(4) the directional signs providing guidance to the Civic Centres be replaced with new legend signs.

Background:

There are a variety of signs in and around the City of Toronto which identify municipal boundaries, traffic regulations and Civic Centres which make reference to the previous municipal names. A signage program is required to update and replace these signs to identify the amalgamated City of Toronto.

Discussion:

During 1998, a new City of Toronto logo was designed and approved. Utilizing the new logo where appropriate, new designs were generated for the various city identity signs which would appear at a variety of locations, primarily at the perimeter of the City. While developing the sign designs, Transportation Services staff liaised with Corporate Services staff who were instrumental in completing the new City logo project.

Following is a list of the existing road signs which were reviewed in the context of new City identity signage:

(1) signs identifying the boundaries of the previous local municipalities;

(2) general traffic regulation signs at perimeter and freeway exit locations; and

(3) guide signs to the Civic Centres.

Staff are recommending a signage program which places a new City of Toronto identity sign at major vehicular entry points into the City on City roadways. Because there are a variety of road characteristics to be signed, some providing limited space for sign installation, two basic sign designs are required as illustrated on the white on black attachments. The actual signs will be white on blue, using the shade of blue which has been approved with the corporate logo.

There are 45 locations to be signed (listed in Appendix 1) and the estimated cost of sign manufacture and installation is approximately $33,000.00.

The previous municipalities of York, East York, North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough installed numerous identity signs at their respective borders, and staff recommend that these 54 signs be removed once this report is adopted by Toronto City Council, at an approximate cost of $8,000.00.

A standard design of traffic regulation signs was adopted by the seven previous municipalities in 1994. The top panel of the sign was reserved for the name of the municipality. All of the existing signs can be readily retrofitted to identify the City of Toronto by placing an overlay across the top panel.

There are approximately 190 signs which should be retrofitted with an overlay, at an estimated total cost of approximately $15,000.00.

Presently approximately 12 guide signs identify Civic Centres throughout the amalgamated City of Toronto. The existing signs incorporate a logo that was unique to the previous local municipality. Staff recommend that these guide signs be replaced by signs which simply identify the individual Civic Centres by name (a legend message only) with white wording on the special blue background. The use of the City Hall symbol would be confusing, and some members of the general public would be guided to a different Civic Centre when they were actually seeking City Hall. The exception would be guide signs to City Hall itself. Examples of these guide signs are illustrated on the attachments. Staff will work with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario to replace these types of signs on provincial highways.

There are 18 locations which staff have identified for Civic Centre guidance signs, and the estimated cost of the manufacture and installation of these signs is $12,000.00.

The total cost of the aforementioned signage program is estimated to be approximately $68,000.00, which is included in the Division's 1999 Current Budget estimates.

Conclusions:

Since the approval of a new City logo, staff have prepared a comprehensive road signage plan to identify the City of Toronto boundary, to amend the traffic regulations signs, and to guide motorists to Civic Centres. The estimated cost of this program is $68,000.00. Staff recommend the implementation of this plan occur in 1999.

Contact Name:

Peter K. Hillier

Manager, Traffic Operations, District 4

Tel: (416) 396-7148

City of Toronto Boundary Identification Signs

Appendix 1

City Identity Sign Locations

--------

The following Councillors appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Norman Kelly, Scarborough-Wexford; and

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.

Insert Sign No. 1

Insert Sign No. 2

Insert Sign No. 3

Insert Sign No. 4

Insert Sign No. 5

Insert Sign No. 6

6

Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line

Interchange Modifications Class Environmental Assessment

(Lakeshore - Queensway)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that staff from the Works and Emergency Services Department be requested to meet with staff from the Ministry of Transportation, Province of Ontario, to explore opportunities for tree planting in the Highway 427/Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway/Queen Elizabeth Way interchange and other locations on the 400 series highways throughout the City of Toronto.")

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to summarize the environmental assessment and public consultation process leading to the findings and recommendations of the Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line Interchange Modifications Class Environmental Assessment.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The City of Toronto will be responsible for the installation of traffic control signals and the associated road modifications at the intersection of the westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp and Kipling Avenue at an estimated cost of $250,000.00. Funds for this work will be included in the 2000-2004 Transportation Services Division Capital Budget submission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to file the Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line Interchange Modifications Class Environmental Assessment with the City Clerk, and to give public notification of such filing in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects;

(2) approval be given to install traffic control signals at the intersection of the westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp and Kipling Avenue;

(3) the appropriate City of Toronto by-laws be amended accordingly;

(4) the introduction of any necessary bills be authorized; and

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

Council Reference:

On February 2, 1999 (Clause No. 3 of Report No. 2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee), the City of Toronto Council authorized the General Manager of Transportation Services, in partnership with Canada Life Assurance Company, to conduct a Class Environmental Assessment Study for modifications to the Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line interchange.

Background:

The Sherway Centre Secondary Plan was adopted by the former City of Etobicoke on October 17, 1994. A number of revisions were made to the transportation component of the Secondary Plan, and these were approved by the former City of Etobicoke on November 25, 1996. The Sherway Centre Secondary Plan Area is bounded by Dundas Street West to the north, the Queen Elizabeth Way to the south, the Etobicoke Creek to the west and Highway 427 to the east. The Secondary Plan identified various transportation improvements that would be required to realize the full development potential within the Secondary Plan Area. A major part of the required road works involved increasing the connectivity between the Secondary Plan Area and the nearby freeway system.

The Canada Life Assurance Company is the major owner of the Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre. They have indicated that they are interested in expanding this development, and as such wish to pursue the implementation of the road modifications that are required to support this expansion. The proposed expansion of the Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre together with the recognition of the need for transportation improvements to support the implementation of the Sherway Centre Secondary Plan was the impetus for the Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line Interchange Modifications Class Environmental Assessment Study. The following sections of this report summarize and comment on the findings of the study. More detail on each subject can be found in the Environmental Study Report (ESR).

Discussion:

Study Process:

The Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line Interchange Modifications Class Environmental Assessment was carried out in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects (the Class EA) and the Provincial Highways Class Environmental Assessment. The proposed modifications to the Gardiner/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line interchange fall under Schedule C of the Municipal Class EA process, and Group B of the Provincial Highways Class EA process. For the purposes of this study, the two processes have been combined by adopting the more stringent requirements of the two. This is consistent with advice received from staff of the Ministry of the Environment's Environmental Assessment Branch.

If the City of Toronto Council endorses this project, the ESR will be filed in the public record for a minimum of 45 days according to the requirements of the combined Class EA processes. During this period, affected municipalities, any members of the public, interest groups or government agencies may request that the status of the project be elevated or "bumped up" from a Class EA to an Individual Environmental Assessment. The Minister of the Environment determines whether or not to grant a bump-up request. If the bump-up is granted, the project may not proceed until an Individual Environmental Assessment is prepared by the proponent and approved by the Minister. If the bump-up is not granted or if no bump-up requests or objections are received during the filing period, the project is automatically approved under the Environmental Assessment Act and may proceed.

The ESR describes in detail the following five-phase environmental planning process:

Phase 1 - identify the problem;

Phase 2 - identify and evaluate alternative solutions to the problem;

Phase 3 - identify and evaluate alternative design concepts for the preferred solution;

Phase 4 - document findings in an ESR and place the ESR in the public record for a minimum of 45 days by filing it with the Municipal Clerk; and

Phase 5 - construct and operate with monitoring for environmental provisions and commitments.

The Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line Interchange Modifications Class EA Study has reached Phase 4 where, upon approval by City Council, the ESR must be filed for a minimum 45-day public review period.

The Class EA Study was carried out with the assistance of technical consultants and supported by a Technical Advisory Committee composed of staff from the City of Toronto's Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services Departments, the Ministry of Transportation and the Toronto Transit Commission.

Public Participation:

Public involvement has been an integral and ongoing part of the study process for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line Interchange Modifications Class EA Study. The public contact requirements of the Class EA were met and surpassed. Two Public Information Centres (PIC) were held. The first PIC was held on Thursday, February 25, 1999, and was attended by 121 people. At this PIC, the problem to be addressed by the Class EA Study and possible alternative solutions to the public were presented. Based on the comments and concerns received, additional alternative solutions were added to the list for further consideration and evaluation.

The evaluation of alternatives and the preliminary preferred solution were presented at the second PIC, which was held on Thursday, April 15, 1999, and attended by 68 people. The preliminary preferred solution was generally accepted by those in attendance at the second PIC. A summary of the discussion held at the second PIC and the comments received after the meeting can be found in Chapter 9.0 of the ESR. Following the second PIC, a project status update was sent to the project mailing list. Included in this package was a summary of the questions and corresponding answers provided at the second PIC. A full description of the public consultation program can be found in Section 2.6 of the ESR.

Environmental Assessment Study Findings:

(1) Problem Identification:

The objective of the Class EA Study was to address the problems identified with the operation of the Gardiner/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line interchange both under existing conditions and under future traffic conditions as identified in the Sherway Centre Secondary Plan. These problems include:

(i) no connection between the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes and the eastbound Gardiner Expressway;

(ii) no direct connections at Highway 427 between the Sherway Centre Secondary Plan Area and the QEW/Gardiner Expressway to the east;

(iii) heavy congestion on the southbound Highway 427 express lanes during peak commuting periods;

(iv) congestion at exit locations on the westbound Gardiner Expressway east of the interchange, including the Kipling Avenue exit;

(v) short weaving distances on the southbound Highway 427;

(vi) poor alternative routing of traffic during incidents on the southbound Highway 427 express lanes and the ramp to the eastbound Gardiner Expressway; and

(vii) no connections between Dundas Street or The Queensway, to Highway 427 and the Gardiner Expressway/QEW, to serve Etobicoke and Mississauga.

(2) Investigation of Alternative Solutions:

Five alternative solutions were developed and presented to the public at the first PIC. These were:

Alternative 1 - "Do Nothing" (Figure 6.1 in the ESR):

No modifications to the freeway system.

Alternative 2 (Figure 6.2 in the ESR):

(i) connection from southbound Highway 427 to North Queen Street; and

(ii) a direct connection from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to the Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre service road, Sherway Gardens Road.

Alternative 3 (Figure 6.3 in the ESR):

(i) ramp from the westbound QEW to the West Mall/Evans Avenue intersection;

(ii) ramp from the West Mall Evans Avenue intersection to the eastbound QEW/Gardiner; and

(iii) a connection from the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes to the eastbound Gardiner Expressway.

Alternative 4 (Figure 6.4 in the ESR):

(i) a direct connection from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to the Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre service road, Sherway Gardens Road; and

(ii) a connection from The Queensway to the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes.

Alternative 5 (Figure 6.5 in the ESR):

(i) a direct connection from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to the Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre service road, Sherway Gardens Road;

(ii) a connection from The Queensway to the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes;

(iii) a connection from the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes to eastbound Gardiner Expressway; and

(iv) the deletion of the existing westbound Gardiner Expressway ramp to southbound Brown's Line/Evans Avenue.

During the first PIC, the public strongly expressed their concerns regarding the deletion of the ramp from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to southbound Brown's Line and Evans Avenue. As a result, Alternatives 5A and 5B were generated. In addition, Alternative 6 was developed from a proposal submitted by a member of the public. These alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 5A (Figure 6.6 in the ESR):

This alternative includes the features in Alternative 5, however, rather than deleting, it modifies the existing westbound Gardiner Expressway ramp to southbound Brown's Line/Evans Avenue so that it can be retained in combination with the connection to the eastbound Gardiner Expressway. From the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes.

Alternative 5B (Figure 6.7 in the ESR):

In addition to the features that comprise Alternative 5A, Alternative 5B includes a connection from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to the northbound Highway 427 collector lanes.

Alternative 6 (Figure 6.8 in the ESR):

(i) ramp from the westbound QEW to the West Mall/Evans Avenue intersection; and

(ii) connection to Evans Avenue from the new ramp connecting southbound Highway 427 collector lanes to eastbound Gardiner Expressway.

Detailed descriptions of each of the alternatives can be found in Chapter 6 of the ESR. In addition to these alternatives, it was determined that the community in south Etobicoke could benefit from a more direct connection from the westbound Gardiner Expressway between Islington Avenue and Brown's Line. As a result, it was proposed that the westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp terminal at Kipling Avenue be signalized to facilitate left turns to southbound Kipling Avenue. This modification could be implemented along with any of the above alternatives. The provision of this movement also provides a detour route during construction of the modifications to the westbound Gardiner Expressway ramp to southbound Brown's Line.

(3) Initial Screening of Alternatives

These eight alternatives were developed to a general level of detail so that basic characteristics and distinguishing features could be identified. In order to ensure that only reasonable alternatives were carried forward to detailed analysis and evaluation, a number of screening criteria were developed. Each alternative had to pass through the criteria in order to be considered further. The criteria used in the initial screening were:

(i) Environmental and Community Impacts:

Under this criteria, alternatives were assessed based on their impact on the natural environment (i.e., wildlife, water courses, vegetation), on the community - both residential and commercial, and on property.

(ii) Engineering:

Engineering screening criteria included construction feasibility and whether the proposed solutions met the relevant design standards.

(iii) Benefit-Cost:

This criteria compared the capital construction cost against the user benefits gained from the proposed road modification.

Using these criteria, Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 were screened out from further detailed evaluation. Alternative 2 had significant private property impacts and relatively low user benefits. Additionally, the Ministry of Transportation had expressed concern over the proposed design for Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 had significant negative environmental impacts as the proposed ramp from the West Mall/Evans Avenue intersection to the eastbound QEW encroached upon the Etobicoke Creek and adjacent lands. At the first PIC, local residents strongly expressed their objection to this alternative because of the severe environmental impacts.

Alternative 6 was dropped from further consideration due to its significant operational and geometric design problems, and the impact the deletion of the westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp to southbound Brown's Line/Evans Avenue would have on the local community.

(4) Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Solutions:

As a result of the screening exercise, five alternatives were carried forward for more detailed evaluation: Alternatives 1, 4, 5, 5A and 5B. These alternatives were evaluated using the following criteria:

(i) Traffic Service: this included the impact on traffic capacity, the delivery of emergency services, incident management and safety;

(ii) Residential Community Impacts: this included assessing how the alternatives would change the current accessibility to the neighbourhood, and whether the changes would encourage or discourage neighbourhood traffic infiltration. Noise impact was also included under this criteria;

(iii) Economic Development: incorporated impacts on local businesses with respect to accessibility and future development potential;

(iv) Natural Environment: impacts on the natural environment that were assessed included disruption to water courses, air quality, vegetation and wildlife;

(v) Engineering: this criteria related to the ability to provide a design for each alternative that satisfied the applicable design standards. Additionally, the ability to construct each alternative was reviewed with respect to impact on drivers and commuters, and timing of construction; and

(vi) Benefit-Cost: a benefit cost review was undertaken for each alternative. User benefits were estimated in the form of travel time savings for motorists, and compared with the construction cost for each alternative.

A brief description of the evaluation of the alternative solutions follows. Full details of the evaluation can be found in Section 6.4.2, and Tables 6.3 and 6.4 of the ESR.

Alternatives 1 and 4 do not provide the level of traffic service required to address the operational concerns of the interchange. However, they have either no or minimal impact on the neighbouring community or the natural environment.

In Alternative 5 the existing westbound Gardiner Expressway to southbound Brown's Line/ Evans Avenue ramp must be removed to avoid an otherwise difficult and unacceptable weaving condition. This creates a significant community impact, as this ramp currently provides access to the residential and business communities south of the QEW. The alternative route for these vehicles would be to take the new connection from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to Sherway Gardens Road, then travel north, through The Queensway traffic signal and onto the southbound Highway 427 ramp to Brown's Line. At the first PIC, a significant number of people expressed their dissatisfaction with the removal of the ramp.

In response to the community's concerns, Alternative 5A was derived from Alternative 5. It has the benefit of maintaining the westbound Gardiner to southbound Brown's Line ramp. The traffic on this ramp, however, will not be able to exit at Evans Avenue, as it does under the existing situation.

Alternative 5B is a further enhancement of Alternative 5A, in that a new connection from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to the northbound Highway 427 collector lanes is provided. In comparison to Alternative 5A, this alternative provides better traffic service.

Based on the detailed evaluation, it was concluded that Alternatives 5A and 5B best address the problems outlined in the problem statement, provide the greatest benefit and have the fewest negative impacts.

Given that the majority of the modifications within this interchange are under the Ministry of Transportation's jurisdiction, the designs of Alternatives 5A and 5B were reviewed with Ministry of Transportation staff in considerable detail. The Ministry of Transportation concluded that there were a number of concerns with respect to geometric design and operation of the connection from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to northbound Highway 427 collector lanes in Alternative 5B. The concerns were considered significant enough to preclude Alternative 5B from further design consideration in the environmental assessment process. As a result, Alternative 5A was chosen as the recommended design.

(5) The Recommended Design:

The following points highlight the main features of the recommended design, as shown in the attached figure, Figure 1:

(i) construction of Sherway Gardens Road from Sherway Gate to The Queensway;

(ii) a new westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp to Sherway Gardens Road;

(iii) realignment of the southbound Highway 427 off-ramp at The Queensway;

(iv) a new connection from The Queensway to the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes and Brown's Line;

(v) a new ramp connection from the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes to the eastbound Gardiner Expressway;

(vi) modifications to the westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp to southbound Brown's Line; and

(vii) modifications to the Kipling Avenue/westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp to allow for the installation of traffic control signals.

Sherway Gardens Road will be constructed to City of Toronto standards, and then transferred to the City through a Site Plan Agreement. The signalization of the westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp at Kipling Avenue, along with the associated road modifications, are the responsibility of the City of Toronto. Staff is recommending that the cost of this signal installation be included in the 2000-2004 Transportation Services Capital Budget submission. The remaining components of the recommended design are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation.

A detailed description of the recommended design and each of its components can be found in Chapter 8 of the ESR.

Resolution of Public Concerns:

Throughout the public consultation process, a wide variety of valuable input was received from the general public which assisted in the development, screening, analysis and evaluation of alternatives. The primary concerns raised at the PICs and through written submissions were:

(i) The negative impact of Alternative 3 on the Etobicoke Creek ravine: Due to this negative environmental impact, Alternative 3 was dropped from further consideration in the initial screening phase.

(ii) Loss of access to the Alderwood community with the deletion of the off-ramp from the westbound Gardiner Expressway to southbound Brown's Line: Alternatives 5A and 5B were generated in order to address this concern. Under these alternatives the Brown's Line ramp is maintained, however access is restricted to Brown's Line only and not Evans Avenue.

(iii) Neighbourhood traffic infiltration: The provision of a ramp directly into Sherway Gardens will reduce the amount of traffic infiltrating through the neighbourhood. Also, since access from the westbound Gardiner Expressway is restricted to southbound Brown's Line only and not Evans Avenue, traffic infiltrating along Gair Drive will be reduced.

Timing and Future Steps:

Canada Life Assurance Company is currently negotiating a cost-sharing agreement with the Ministry of Transportation for the estimated $10.5 million in proposed modifications to the Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line interchange. The timing of the construction of these modifications will be dependent on the agreement reached. It is anticipated that the developer's component of the modifications will be constructed in conjunction with the expansion of Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre. The timing of the Ministry of Transportation's components will be dependent upon the availability of provincial funds.

The next steps for the City of Toronto are to file the ESR in the public record, respond to any bump-up requests received, and facilitate final Environmental Assessment approval. The detailed design and contract preparation for the modifications will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and the Canada Life Assurance Company.

Conclusions:

A Class Environmental Assessment Study was conducted in partnership with Canada Life Assurance Company for modifications to the Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line interchange. A full public consultation program was carried out as part of the five-phase environmental planning process. In total, eight alternative solutions were developed. Of these alternatives, five were carried through a detailed evaluation process, after three alternatives were screened out in an initial screening phase. The Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427/Brown's Line Interchange Modifications Class Environmental Assessment Study recommends that approval be sought for Alternative 5A. This alternative proposes that the following modifications be made to the interchange:

(i) construction of Sherway Gardens Road from Sherway Gate to The Queensway;

(ii) construction of a new westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp to Sherway Gardens Road;

(iii) realignment of the southbound Highway 427 off-ramp at The Queensway;

(iv) construction of a new connection from The Queensway to the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes and Brown's Line;

(v) construction of a new ramp connection between the southbound Highway 427 collector lanes to the eastbound Gardiner Expressway;

(vi) modifications to the westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp to Brown's Line; and

(vii) modifications to the Kipling Avenue/westbound Gardiner Expressway off-ramp to allow for the installation of traffic control signals.

The Ministry of Transportation, which has jurisdictional authority over this interchange, does not object to the proposed modifications as outlined in the ESR.

Contact Name:

John P. Kelly

Manager, Infrastructure Planning

Phone: 392-8340; Fax: 392-4426

(A copy of the Environmental Study Report has been forwarded to all Members of Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Insert Figure 1

7

Carbon Emissions Cap

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the adoption of a carbon emission cap system to encompass the City of Toronto that would support the City's goal to reduce global warming and its climate change impact, as recommended by an Environmental Task Force (ETF) report which was adopted by City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This initiative to be carried out within the recommended 1999 Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council's action previously taken in establishing a goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent relative to 1990 levels by year 2005, be endorsed as a voluntary greenhouse gas emissions cap for the City of Toronto for activities carried out in the City proper;

(2) the Province of Ontario be requested to:

(i) join the City and establish a goal to reduce CO₂ emissions by 20 percent relative to 1990 levels by the year 2005; and

(ii) enact a province-wide carbon dioxide emissions cap system in support of the Kyoto Protocol; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council at its meeting held on April 16, 1998, adopted Clause No. 10 of Report No. 3 of The Works and Utilities Committee, and in so doing authorized the engagement of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to undertake the design of a Pilot Project for Carbon Emissions Trading.

City Council at its meeting held on July 8, 1998, received for information Clause No. 10 embodied in Report No. 6 of The Works and Utilities Committee entitled "Strategic Action Plan to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the New City of Toronto".

City Council at its meeting on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted Clause No. 15 embodied in Report No. 26 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee entitled "Sustainable Energy, Greenspace/Nature and Water Actions", and in so doing formally committed the new City of Toronto to a carbon dioxide emission reduction goal of 20 percent relative to 1990 levels by year 2005, and also requested the investigation of the feasibility of a carbon emission cap system that would complement a carbon trading program.

City Council at its meeting on April 13, 14, and 15, 1999 amended and adopted Clause No. 2 embodied in Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee entitled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Trading", and in so doing authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to enter into negotiations with interested purchasers for the purposes of trading emissions reduction credits.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(1) Why Should the City Consider Having a Carbon Emissions Cap?

City Council at its meeting on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted Clause No. 15 embodied in Report No. 26 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee entitled "Sustainable Energy, Greenspace/Nature and Water Actions", and in so doing formally committed the new City of Toronto to a carbon dioxide emission reduction goal of 20 percent relative to 1990 levels by year 2005. This report also contained a recommendation that a carbon emissions cap system be implemented to encompass the City of Toronto.

A carbon emission cap system can be considered in several ways, however for the purposes of this report it is being examined in the following context:

(2) Emissions Trading Systems - Cap and Trade vs. Baseline and Credit:

During the development of policies that complement a Domestic Emission Trading System for greenhouse gas emissions, cap and trade options for the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions are usually combined and evaluated to determine the economic, environmental and other potential outcomes that may result from a particular program design. In this first scenario voluntary and/or mandatory requirements are considered, whereby a cap is allocated to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that may be produced by a particular sector of the economy or within a specified geographical area.

(a) In a cap and trade system, a governing authority establishes a ceiling or cap on total allowable emissions. Allowances or shares of the total capped target level of emissions are distributed to emitters. Sources emitting less than their allowance may sell their surplus to other emitters. How and to whom allowances are issued before trading commences are key issues which must be defined in the development of a greenhouse gas trading market. In a cap and trade system, the supply of emission allowances must be generated by a government trading authority.

(b) Alternatively, emissions reduction trading may follow a "Baseline and Credit" system wherein program or project specific technical baselines for emissions are established and emission reductions credits represent a verified reduction in emissions below the specified baseline. With a "Baseline and Credit" system, Emissions Reduction Credits may be generated by individual sources which achieve verifiable reduction below their baseline.

(3) Cap on the Carbon Content of Fossil Fuels:

A carbon emission cap system can also be considered in the context of the imposition of a cap on the carbon content of fossil fuels used by a particular sector of the economy or used within a specified geographical area. This scenario could involve the importers and producers of fossil fuels whereby they are required by regulation to hold allowances equal to the carbon content of their products which are sold locally. Other major sources of greenhouse gas emissions could also be required to hold allowances that are equal to their actual emissions. These allowances would ensure that point source emitters conduct their operations with due regard for the emissions limits that they must adhere to. In all of the above scenarios, the environmental and economic implications are usually explored in a attempt to identify actions that would promote economic development and environmental preservation.

In consultation with the City Solicitor, we have determined that the City does not have the jurisdictional legislative authority to impose a mandatory emissions cap. However, as an interim measure we are recommending a voluntary greenhouse gas emissions cap for activities carried out in the City proper. This voluntary cap will be based on actions previously taken by Council to establish and reduce CO₂ emissions by 20 percent relative to 1990 level by year 2005.

It is being recommended that City Council request the Ontario Provincial Government to enact a province-wide CO₂ emissions cap system in support of the Kyoto Protocol as part of the regulations made under the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act contained in Bill 35, the Electricity Act. Such a cap system could include a cap on the carbon content of fossil fuels as well as a cap on targeted sectors and major energy producers and end users.

A separate report on the proposed Emissions Reduction Caps for Ontario's Electrical Sector is being submitted to your Committee.

(4) The Kyoto Protocol:

The United Nations Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, at its third meeting held in Kyoto, Japan on December 12, 1997, gave final approval to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol proposes legally binding targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions for participating nations. The Protocol will come into effect when 55 national governments ratify the agreement. The Canadian government has yet to ratify the agreement. Of interest to the City is that the Protocol establishes the basis for an international greenhouse gas trading system, one that would allow buyers and sellers to trade Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Credits.

In consideration of the Kyoto Protocol, it may be in the interest of municipal governments to undertake an analysis of the potential economic and environmental impacts of a mandatory i.e. legislated requirement that may eventually impact directly or indirectly, certain municipal/public, non-profit and private sector activities locally, to achieve a national greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 6 percent by 2008-2012. An important component of proposed future regulations could involve an emissions cap system.

(5) Pilot Emission Reduction Trading Project (PERT):

The Pilot Emission Reduction Trading (PERT) project is an industry-led, multi-stakeholder initiative formed to evaluate the potential environmental and economic benefits of open-market emissions reduction trading in Ontario and is the forum in which Ontario's protocols and rules for trading are being developed. At the present time, the PERT Protocol is the only recognized authoritative venue for emissions trading by a corporate entity resident in Ontario. The Pilot Emission Reduction Trading project model offers the promise of an integrated system for qualifying and brokering measures that create Emissions Reduction Credits for both air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

(6) The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE):

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) recently published a report entitled "Canada's Options for a Domestic Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Program". It could be concluded from a review of the NTREE report that a successful voluntary domestic cap system that complements a domestic trading program for greenhouse gas emissions could be instrumental in creating opportunities for early reductions and in defining the design considerations for future national programs.

Conclusions:

Council's action previously taken in establishing a goal to reduce carbon dioxide emission by 20 percent relative to 1990 levels by year 2005, could be viewed as a voluntary greenhouse gas emission limit or "cap" for the City of Toronto. Should this option become Council's method, the 1990 carbon dioxide emissions inventory would have to be quantified and referenced within the context of any emissions trading undertaken by the City.

In consideration of the foregoing, City Council should request the Government of Ontario to enact a province-wide CO₂ emissions cap system in support of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services will continue to consult with the City Solicitor and the Medical Officer of Health regarding the foregoing recommendations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Richard Morris, Manager, Energy Efficiency Office

Environmental Services, Technical Services Division

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-1452; Fax: (416) 392-1456

E-mail "rmorris@toronto.ca"

--------

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (June 29, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Environmental Task Force, at its meeting on June 28, 1999, endorsed the recommendations as contained in the report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the adoption of a carbon emission cap system.

8

Ontario Clean Air Alliance - Recommended Emission Caps

for Ontario's Electricity Sector to Improve Air Quality

(City Council on July 27, 28. 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the City of Toronto recommend to the Province of Ontario that the generation of coal-fired electricity in Ontario be completely phased out in order to significantly reduce the emissions that cause smog, acid rain and climate change.")

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To comment on proposed greenhouse gas and other air toxics emission caps for the Ontario electricity sector, and recommend endorsement of the caps as a means of improving air quality in Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The proposed caps could result in a minor increase in electricity cost to the consumers of approximately 3 percent which represents $1.86 per month on an average residential Hydro bill if the costs were fully passed on to customers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council endorse Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) recommendations that the Government of Ontario be requested to:

(1) establish annual emission caps which will ensure that, commencing in the year 2002, Ontario's total (domestic and imported) electricity generation-related sulphur dioxide and air toxic emissions will not exceed the following levels:

Sulphur dioxide: 17.5 kt

Arsenic: 19 kg

Beryllium: 9 kg

Cadmium: 7 kg

Chromium: 180 kg

Lead: 24 kg

Mercury: 45 kg

Nickel: 228 kg

(2) establish annual emission caps and appropriate mechanisms which will ensure that starting in the year 2002, Ontario's total (domestic and imported) electricity generation-related greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions will not exceed the following levels:

Greenhouse Gas (CO₂) 15,000 kt

Nitric Oxide (NO) 25 kt

(3) issue a discussion paper and consult with the people of Ontario on the appropriate caps for Ontario's electricity generation-related greenhouse gas (CO₂) and nitric oxide emissions after the year 2002 in the context of a multi-sector strategy to reduce Ontario's greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, by adopting Clause No. 4 of Report No. 7 of The Works and Utilities Committee endorsed the City's membership in the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, the recommendation of implementing air emission standards as proposed by OCAA, and that staff report further on ways to achieve additional reductions in emissions. OCAA has now proposed specific emissions caps for the Ontario electricity sector including caps for selected air toxics. The proposal is based on an emission reductions study carried out for the OCAA, dated November 9, 1998, which includes the assessment of the average cost increase to the electricity consumer in Ontario in general as well as the cost impact for the typical residential homeowner.

The Board of Health at its meeting of April 6, 1999, adopted the report from the Medical Officer of Health, entitled "Changes in Ontario's Electrical Sector and Air Quality" dated March 25, 1999, which contained a recommendation that annual air emission caps be established for the pollutants and limits as proposed by OCAA and discussed below.

Comments:

The restructuring of the electricity utility industry as a result of the Energy Competition Act 1998 poses both challenges and opportunities. One of the main challenges will be to ensure that electricity competition does not result in increased air pollution in Ontario. Competition also presents an opportunity, however, for the government to develop pollution standards (e.g., emission caps) that will actually improve air quality and create a level playing field for all electricity generators, including renewable energy generators, that sell power to Ontario consumers.

It is the process of burning fossil fuels that causes the emission of a variety of air polluting gases including the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO₂). An emission cap imposed on one pollutant will, therefore, automatically result in the reduction of the emission of other pollutants, when meeting the cap is achieved by reducing the burning of fossil fuel or by substituting dirtier fuel (coal) with cleaner fuel (natural gas).

Existing restrictions for emissions of air pollutants in the electricity sector in Ontario are limited to a regulated cap for sulphur dioxide (SO₂) at 175 kilotonnes (kt) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) at 40 kt as well as a voluntary commitment by Ontario Hydro to stabilize emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂), a greenhouse gas, at 1990 levels by the year 2000, and to reduce CO₂ emissions by 10 percent by 2005. Both the regulated caps and the voluntary commitment apply only to Ontario Hydro, now Ontario Power Generation. Therefore, they should be re-examined and replaced with necessary regulations covering the entire deregulated electricity sector (local generation and imports) to ensure adequate protection of Ontario's air quality.

Despite existing regulations and commitments on SO₂ and NOx emissions in Canada and the United States (USA), studies have shown that acid rain remains a serious problem. Accordingly, the international Acidifying Task Group, established on behalf of the Environment and Energy Ministers of the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada, concluded that in eastern Canada and the USA SO₂ emissions must be reduced by a further 75 percent, relative to the existing legally binding caps, in order to arrest the acidification of the environment. Similarly, Ontario's Smog Plan currently stipulates a required NOx reduction target of 45 percent relative to 1990 levels by 2015.

In view of the above, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance has recommended the reduction, by the year 2002, of SO₂ emissions by 90 percent to 17.5 kt relative to Ontario Hydro's current cap of 175 kt. An Emission Reduction Study completed on behalf of OCAA determined that based on switching 83 percent of Ontario Hydro's coal-fired generation capacity to gas-fired capacity, this SO₂ cap and other related emission reductions can be achieved at modest cost. The average Ontario supply price would increase by approximately 3 percent or the typical residential customer monthly electricity bill would increase by $1.86.

Based on OCAA analysis, substituting coal-fired generation with gas-fired generation would, at no extra cost, also achieve reduction in air toxics emissions in the same order as the SO₂ reduction. In addition, CO₂ and NOx emissions would be substantially reduced, although to a lesser degree, since combustion of natural gas emits these gases as well but no SO₂ and air toxics. Cumulative reduction of CO₂ and NOx (measured as NO) emissions over the planning horizon of 2002 to 2014 would be in the order of 51 percent and 77 percent when capped at 15,000 kt and 25 kt respectively.

OCAA calculations indicate that the above noted average cost increase in the consumer supply price of 3 percent or an additional $1.86 per monthly bill for residential customers would be a small price to pay for the substantial environmental and health benefits. Even if these figures would double or triple, the cost increases would still be quite reasonable, and will be competitive with alternative methods of achieving equivalent reductions in emissions into the environment. These alternative methods could be an effective emissions cleaning process for coal-fired generation or a substantial increase of the renewable energy proportion. The competitive electricity market will determine the future generation mix to maintain the recommended emission caps at least cost.

Replacing coal-fired generation with gas-fired generation has been demonstrated as an economically feasible option to achieve the following caps in the year 2002:

Sulphur dioxide 17.5 kt Chromium 180 kg

Arsenic 19 kg Lead 24 kg

Beryllium 9 kg Mercury 45 kg

Cadmium 7 kg Nickel 228 kg

Greenhouse Gas (CO₂) 15, 000 kt

Nitric Oxide (NO) 25 kt

Meeting real electricity growth in the post-2002 period with gas-fired generation will not increase SO₂ and air toxics emissions. Accordingly, a cap for SO₂ and air toxics emissions can be set at 90 percent reduction from the present SO₂ cap without implications on future economic growth provided increased demand for thermally generated electricity is met by gas-fired generation. However, increased gas-fired electricity generation to meet real growth rates will increase CO₂ and NO emissions. Therefore, a fixed cap for CO₂ and NO could pose constraints on economic growth, unless the Ontario Government implements these caps together with associated mechanisms such as increased investment incentives in renewable energy and energy efficiency, a carbon emission trading program and/or incremental increases of the caps after 2002.

Therefore, OCAA has recommended that the Ontario government be requested to:

(1) establish annual emission caps which will ensure that commencing in the year 2002, Ontario's total domestic and imported electricity-related sulphur dioxide and air toxic emissions will not exceed the levels shown in Recommendation No. (1) of this report;

(2) establish emission caps and appropriate mechanisms which will ensure that in the year 2002, Ontario's total (domestic and imported) electricity-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) and nitric oxide (NO) will not exceed the levels shown in Recommendation No. (2) of this report; and

(3) issue a discussion paper and consult the people of Ontario on appropriate caps for Ontario's electricity-related CO₂ and NO emissions after the year 2002 in the context of a multi-sector strategy to reduce Ontario's greenhouse gas (CO₂) and nitric oxide emissions.

The attached Technical Compendium provides additional details of the Emission Reduction Caps Study which was carried out for the Ontario Clear Air Alliance with funding and guidance from government agencies and electricity related associations and corporations such as Ontario Hydro, Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, Environment Canada, Independent Power Producers' Society Ontario(IPPSO) and the Commission for Environmental Co-operation established under the North-American Free Trade Agreement.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

K. Hemmerich, P.Eng.

Manager, Air Quality Improvement

Environmental Services Section, Technical Services Division

Tel: (416) 392-7702; Fax: (416) 392-0816

E-mail "khemmeri@toronto.ca"

Emissions Reduction Caps for Ontario's

Electricity Sector

Technical Compendium

(1) General:

The restructuring of the electricity utility industry as a result of the Energy Competition Act 1998 poses both challenges and opportunities. One of the main challenges will be to ensure that electricity competition does not result in increased air pollution in Ontario. Competition also presents an opportunity, however, for the government to develop pollution standards (e.g., emission caps) that will actually improve air quality and create a level playing field for all electricity generators, including renewable energy generators, that sell power to Ontario consumers.

It is the process of burning fossil fuels that causes the emission of a variety of air polluting gases including the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO₂). An emission cap imposed on one pollutant will, therefore, automatically result in the reduction of the emission of other pollutants, when meeting the cap is achieved by reducing the burning of fossil fuel or by substituting dirtier fuel (coal) with cleaner fuel (natural gas).

Presently, Ontario Hydro (Ontario Power Generation) has a virtual monopoly on the generation of electricity in Ontario. The company produces approximately 94 percent of the electricity consumed in this province. Existing air emission cap regulations were written on the assumption that the fossil fuel generation of electricity in Ontario would be produced predominantly by Ontario Hydro. Regulation 355 under the Environmental Protection Act states that beginning in 1994, Ontario Hydro will not emit more than 175 kilotonnes (kt) of sulphur dioxide (SO₂) per year. The same regulation limits the sum of SO₂ and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission to 215 kt per year. In other words, Ontario Hydro's maximum NOx emissions cannot exceed 40 kt per year unless its SO₂ emissions are less than 175 kt per year. This regulation applies only to the existing Crown Corporation and not to any other current or future electricity generator in Ontario.

No regulations are in place for greenhouse gas emissions. However, Ontario Hydro has made a voluntary commitment to stabilize its emissions of carbon dioxide at 1990 levels by the year 2000, and to reduce them by 10 percent by 2005. Ontario Hydro also made a voluntary commitment to limit net emissions of NOx to 38 kt per year by the year 2000. Again, these commitments apply only to Ontario Hydro and do not include emissions from any other electricity generators in the province or beyond. Therefore, commitments and regulations that apply only to Ontario Hydro must be re-examined. The Energy Competition Act 1998 takes a step in this direction by amending the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act to permit environmental issues to be addressed through regulations. However, no specific regulatory caps have been identified as yet.

Despite existing regulations and commitments on SO₂ and NOx in Canada and the United States (USA), studies have shown that acid rain remains a serious problem. Accordingly, the international Acidifying Emission Task Group concluded that in eastern Canada and the United States, SO₂ emissions must be reduced by a further 75 percent, relative to the existing legally binding caps. Similarly, Ontario's Smog Plan stipulates a required NOx reduction target of 45 percent, relative to 1990 levels by 2015.

Currently no regulations address the emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) from the electricity generating sector and air toxics, although the need for substantial reduction of current emissions has been identified by, amongst others, the Ontario Medical Association.

In view of the above, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) recommended in their report on Electricity Competition and Clean Air, April 1998, updated July 1998, that caps be implemented for greenhouse gas and air toxics emissions associated with the production or purchase of electricity in Ontario, and that existing caps on SO₂ and NOx be reduced below current levels. In November 1998, OCAA completed an Emission Reduction Study to determine the cost and emission impacts for achieving specific SO₂ caps and associated reductions in other air emissions by replacing coal-fired electricity with natural gas-fired generation. Based on that report, OCAA recommends that specific caps on emissions of SO₂, NOx, GHG and carcinogenic air toxics be established as discussed below.

(2) OCAA Emission Reduction Study:

(a) Study Objective:

The objective of the study was to determine the cost and emission impacts of replacing coal-fired with natural gas-fired electricity generation for a range of SO₂ reductions below Ontario Hydro's current SO₂ emission cap of 175 kt.

The costs of establishing electricity-related SO₂ emissions caps at 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 90 percent below the current cap of 175 kt were assessed and the associated reductions in emissions of CO₂, NOx and air toxics were determined in order to provide adequate information in support of setting economically and environmentally sustainable emission caps.

(b) Study Methodology:

The SO₂ reduction caps set at 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 90 percent of the current cap level were translated into an upper limit for SO₂ emissions. This upper limit along with emission coefficients applicable to Ontario Hydro's coal-fired plants determined the required reductions, if any, in coal-fired electricity generation. In turn, this required decrease in kilowatt-hours (kWh) generated from existing coal-fired plants defined the quantity of electric energy "deficit" to be met by new gas-fired plants using high efficiency combined cycle technology. Based on the energy deficit and the relevant annual gas capacity factors, as provided by Ontario Hydro, the absolute annual capacity, measured in megawatts, of new gas plants required was determined for each year.

The Planning Horizon selected was 2002 to 2014 taking into account the minimum lead time of four years for the design and construction of a combined cycle gas-fired power plant, and Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan) assumption that in about 2015 a new "low-pollution" coal plant would be commissioned to meet Ontario's load growth. For the base case analysis NRCan's "business as usual" inputs on natural gas prices, load growth and generation mix were applied.

Gas fuel cost and coal cost savings were calculated using heat rates and fuel price projections. The annual net gas substitution costs were discounted to 1998 and expressed in terms of (i) the net present value (NPV) of costs, and (ii) the levelized costs, also known as the supply price, per unit of electric energy consumption in Ontario.

Emissions of SO₂, NOx, CO₂ and the air toxics (Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury and Nickel) were calculated in absolute terms, in terms of changes from the business as usual case, and as cost per cumulative (2002-2014) tonne of emissions savings using specific emission coefficients for each Ontario Hydro fossil fuel plant. Sensitivity analyses as to cost were carried out for lower and higher gas prices and with respect to emissions for lower and higher growth rates as well as lower nuclear generation.

(c) Findings:

The required new gas-fired generating capacities replacing coal-fired plant capacity in order to meet the SO₂ reduction scenarios in 2002 under the business as usual case were determined. Only the 75 percent and 90 percent reduction scenarios require new gas-fired capacity in 2002 of approximately 1300 MW and 2600 MW respectively, while for the 50 percent and 25 percent reduction scenarios, new gas-fired capacity is only required in the years 2008 and 2012 respectively.

The corresponding 1998 NPV cost of meeting the low SO₂ cap of 25 percent reduction and the high end of 90 percent reduction ranges from $282 million to $1.82 billion. The supply cost as levelized across all generation types range from about 0.03 cents/kWh for the 25 percent SO₂ reduction scenario to about 0.2 cents/kWh for 90 percent reduction. In terms of the impact on the supply price as percent of the average retail electricity price in Ontario, the cost increase of meeting the SO₂ reduction targets range from 0.5 percent (-25 percent) to 3.0 percent (-90 percent). The respective cost increases for the typical residential hydro customer would range from $0.28 (-25 percent) to $1.86 (-90 percent) per month throughout the planning period.

The following Table identifies the estimated gas emissions from Ontario Hydro's operation for the year 2002 under the 90 percent SO₂ reduction scenario, as well as the corresponding figures for the year 2014, the last year of the planning period. The 2014 estimates are based on the assumption that increased electricity demand due to economic growth is met by gas-fired generation. In addition, estimates for CO₂ and NOx (NO) emissions from current Non-Utility Generation (NUG) operations (all gas-fired), which are assumed to be constant over the planning period, are shown for the year 2002. The last column contains the proposed caps set to achieve compliance in the year 2002 under the 90 percent reduction scenario.

Relationship of Estimated Emissions vs. Proposed Caps:

Air Pollutant	Existing Caps 1)/ Commitment 2)/	Ontario Hydro (Power Generation) Emissions (-90% SO2)		NUG Emissions Estimates	Proposed Caps
		Yr. 2002 Yr. 2014		Yr. 2002	Yr. 2002
SO2 (kt)	175 1)	17.5	17.5	-	17.5
CO2 (kt)	1990 level	9,202	18,243	6,000	15,000
NOx (kt)*	40 1) / 38 2)	12.7	17.3	12.0	25.0
Arsenic (kg)		19	19	-	19
Beryllium (kg)		9	9	-	9
Cadmium (kg)		7	7	-	7
Chromium (kg)		180	180	-	180
Lead (kg)		24	24	-	24
Mercury (kg)		45	45	-	45
Nickel (kg)		228	228	-	228

* measured in NO

As can be seen from above figures, the caps proposed for CO₂ and NOx for the year 2002 could not be met in the latter part of the planning horizon (2008-2014) without additional measures such as investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, emissions trading with other section of the economy and/or raising the proposed cap by 2008.

The generating mix (nuclear, hydro, coal, gas) fluctuates from year to year due to the availability/use of nuclear power and new gas-fired plants. Accordingly, the cumulative emission reductions were calculated. The cumulative reduction for each of the pollutants was about ten times greater for the 90 percent reduction target than the 25 percent. In terms of emission quantities, nearly 99 percent of the total reduction is attributed to CO₂ - an important consideration in the context of global climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. The cumulative reductions between 2002 and 2014 in the emissions of SO₂, CO₂, NOx and carcinogenic air pollutants were calculated as 83, 51, 77 and 83 percent respectively for the 90 percent SO₂ cap relative to the NRCan "business as usual" scenario.

Sensitivity analysis was undertaken using assumption of a 4 percent per year real growth in gas prices rather than 0.25 percent price increase for NRCan's base case, to reflect the volume of increased demand for gas relative to current provincial demand. In this high price scenario, the NPV costs of achieving the SO₂ reduction targets range from $370 million (0.04 cents/kWh) to $2.7 billion (0.32 cents/kWh) as the SO₂ reduction targets are raised from 25 to 90 percent. This is an approximate increase in the supply cost (cents/kWh) over the base case of 33 and 60 percent respectively for the low and high SO₂ reduction targets.

(d) Implementation of Emission Caps:

Meeting an SO₂ emission cap for a 90 percent reduction through the switching from coal to natural gas fired-electricity generation would not only reduce annual SO₂ and air toxics emissions up to 90 percent (83 percent cumulative 2002-2014), but also substantially reduce Ontario's electricity-related greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions. Based on figures in the above Table, Ontario's electricity generation-related greenhouse gas and nitric oxides emission could be capped in 2002, at no extra cost, at 15,000 kt and 25 kt respectively.

These caps would reduce Ontario's electricity-related greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions by approximately 48 percent and 72 percent respectively in 2002 relative to the business as usual forecast.

According to the study, post-2002 increases in the demand for electricity will be met by additional gas-fired generation. Since gas-fired generation does not emit sulphur dioxide or air toxics, the proposed 2002 sulphur dioxide and air toxics emission caps can be maintained post-2002 at no additional cost.

However, gas-fired generation does produce greenhouse gas (CO₂) and nitric oxide emissions. Therefore, Ontario's post-2002 electricity-related greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions will rise unless the demand and supply for electricity is balanced by increased investments in renewable energy and/or energy efficiency.

There are a number of options that should be considered by the Ontario government for controlling Ontario's electricity-related greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions post 2002, such as:

(1) maintaining the 2002 cap and requiring the supply and demand for electricity to be balanced by increased investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency;

(2) maintaining the 2002 cap and permitting new gas-fired electricity generators to achieve compliance by purchasing excess emission quotas from other sectors of the economy. As the Provincial Market Design Committee has noted, "an emissions trading program would be more efficient if it included emitters outside the electricity industry; allowing trading across a broader group would decrease the average cost of compliance" (Second Interim Report, p. 5-5); and

(3) raising the cap after 2002 to permit additional gas-fired generation to meet Ontario's electricity needs.

Despite the apparent need for additional analysis to determine the appropriate cap and/or trading mechanisms to control Ontario's electricity-related greenhouse gas (CO₂) and nitric oxide (NO) emissions after 2002, it is suggested that:

(1) the Government of Ontario establish annual emission caps which will ensure that, commencing in the year 2002, Ontario's total (domestic and imported) electricity-related sulphur dioxide and air toxic emissions will not exceed the following levels:

Sulphur dioxide 17.5 kt

Arsenic: 19 kg

Beryllium: 9 kg

Cadmium: 7 kg

Chromium: 180 kg

Lead: 24 kg

Mercury: 45 kg

Nickel: 228 kg

(2) the Government of Ontario establish annual emission caps and appropriate mechanisms which will ensure that in the year 2002, Ontario's total (domestic and imported) electricity-related greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions will not exceed the following levels:

Greenhouse Gas (CO₂) 15,000 kt

Nitric Oxide (NO) 25 kt

(3) the Government of Ontario issue a discussion paper and consult the people of Ontario on the appropriate caps for Ontario's electricity-related greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions after the year 2002 in the context of a multi-sector strategy to reduce Ontario's greenhouse gas and nitric oxide emissions.

(e) Stakeholder Comments:

Staff of both Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology commented on the Emissions Reduction Study prepared for OCAA. Their main concern was that the cost impact of 0.2 cent/kWh or an additional $1.86 per month for the typical residential consumer for the 90 percent SO₂ reduction scenario may be understated. They argued, amongst other things, that the annual escalation of the gas price, assumed at 0.25 percent in the business as usual case, is too low, and that the cost for switching from coal-fired to gas-fired plants should have been averaged only over electricity produced by the new gas-fired plants instead of the total electricity generation in the Province.

Ministry staff, based on their initial interpretation of Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan) forecast, suggested real growth in gas prices of about 3 percent. However, NRCan confirmed that their official gas price forecast is still at only 0.25 percent annual increases for the real gas price. This forecast is supported by the fact that the North American gas market is in the process of becoming fully integrated. While the switch from coal to gas-fired plants increases Ontario's gas consumption by 19 percent, this increase is less than 1 percent of the integrated North American market, and therefore, should have little impact on gas prices.

Notwithstanding the above, the study assessed the cost impact of a 4 percent real annual growth rate of the gas price. The impact on the consumer price of electricity under the 90 percent SO₂ reduction scenario was a monthly electricity cost increase of $2.75 for the typical residential consumer instead of $1.86 calculated for the base case. Even such a monthly increase is still a reasonable cost impact considering the environmental benefit of substantially reduced air emissions.

With respect to the incremental cost resulting from the operation of the new gas-fired plants, it can be assumed that in a competitive electricity market there will be only one market clearing price for electricity at any point in time. The owners of gas-fired generation will receive the same price per kWh for their output as the owners of nuclear and hydraulic generation. Therefore, if lower emission caps push up the price of fossil generation, they will simultaneously push up the price of nuclear and hydro power, that is the increased cost would still be reflected in a levelized supply price.

In a deregulated electricity market, assuming stricter emission caps, the new average price of electricity cannot rise by more than the incremental cost to Ontario of obtaining the new supplies unless some suppliers are earning excess profits. The only supplier that has a potential to earn excess profits is Ontario Hydro as a result of its ownership of nuclear and hydraulic generating stations which have very low incremental fuel and operating costs. As a result, the Market Design Committee, set up by the Ontario Government for advice on creating and implementing a competitive electricity market, has recommended that Ontario Hydro be subject to a revenue cap of 3.8 cents per kWh. If the Government of Ontario adopts a 3.8 cents per kWh revenue cap for Ontario Hydro, Ontario Hydro will not be able to earn excess profits and hence the study's estimates of the average price impact of stricter emission caps is reasonable.

Lakeview New Generation, a joint venture of CU Power Canada, Ontario Hydro, Mississauga Hydro and Toronto Hydro, has proposed an additional natural gas generating capacity (550 MW) for the Lakeview site (approximately 20 percent of the capacity required by 2002 under the 90 percent SO₂ reduction scenario). Their answer as to the consumer price implications of the proposed gas-fired generating plant was that "The Lakeview New Generation facility will provide reliable electric energy at a price that is both stable and competitive." This would confirm the OCAA's study conclusion that substituting coal-fired with gas-fired generation has a very limited impact on the consumer electricity price.

Conclusion:

The Emission Reduction Study for the Ontario Clean Air Alliance has demonstrated that setting a Sulphur Dioxide (SO₂) cap for the future Ontario electricity sector at 10 percent (90 percent reduction) of Ontario Hydro's current cap of 175 kilotonnes (kt) can be accomplished through the substitution of coal-fired generation with gas-fired generation at modest cost increases to consumers; i.e., 3-5 percent average price increases to all consumers or monthly bill increases of $1.86 to $2.75 for the typical residential customer.

Replacing coal-fired generation with gas-fired generation to meet a 90 percent reduction in the current SO₂ emission cap during the study period of 2002 to 2014 and beyond will indirectly result in a 78 percent reduction of air toxics, 48 percent reduction of carbon dioxide (CO₂, a greenhouse gas), and 72 percent nitric oxide (NO) in the year 2002. The equivalent cumulative reductions over the study period are 83 percent, 51 percent and 77 percent respectively.

Meeting real electricity growth in the post-2002 period with gas-fired generation will not increase SO₂ and air toxics emissions. Accordingly, a cap for SO₂ and air toxics emissions can be set at 90 percent reduction from the present SO₂ cap without implications on future economic growth. However, increased gas-fired electricity generation to meet real growth rates will increase CO₂ and NO emissions. Therefore, a fixed cap for CO₂ and NO could pose constraints on economic growth, unless the Ontario Government implements these caps together with associated mechanisms such as increased investment incentives in renewable energy and energy efficiency, a carbon emission trading program and/or incremental increase of the caps after 2002.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

K. Hemmerich, Manager, Air Quality Improvement

Environmental Services Section

Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-7702; Fax: (416) 392-0816

E-mail "khemmeri@toronto.ca"

--------

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (June 29, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Environmental Task Force at its meeting held on June 28, 1999, endorsed the recommendations as contained in the report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services headed "Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) - Recommended Emission Caps for Ontario's Electricity Sector to Improve Air Quality".

9

Support for Federation of Canadian Municipalities Action to

Promote Municipal Infrastructure in the Millennium Budget

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the resolution embodied in the following communication (June 28, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River; and further recommends that more emphasis be given to investment in public transit:

Recommendation:

That the following resolution be adopted:

"WHEREAS the FCM-inspired $8.3 billion, six-year Canada Infrastructure Works Program (CIWP) - described by Prime Minister Jean Chretien at the FCM 1998 Annual Conference, as "... one of the proudest achievements of our government" - exceeded original projections, funding 17,000 projects that created assets of lasting value and generated more than 130,000 short-term jobs, and set a new standard for intergovernmental cooperation in Canada; and

WHEREAS the CIWP could not fully address Canada's long-term infrastructure needs given the extent of the problem revealed in various FCM studies completed between 1985 and 1996; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto has benefitted from the CIWP but still has a number of outstanding infrastructure projects which it cannot finance out of municipal revenues alone; and

WHEREAS FCM is dedicated to improving the quality of life in all communities; and

WHEREAS the Millennium budget offers an opportunity for achieving an improved quality of life and ensuring sustainable communities; and

WHEREAS the FCM National Board of Directors has endorsed a new long-term national infrastructure program with environmental benefits as a component of a sustainable communities strategy; and

WHEREAS the FCM proposal, with the theme "Clean Air, Clean Water, Clean Soil", calls for flexibility to accommodate equally the needs of rural/small communities and large municipalities, supporting:

- waste management systems (waste diversion, product stewardship, upgrading landfill sites, methane capture, upgrading incineration technology to meet new requirements for dioxins and furans and mercury emissions);

- water efficiency (water conservation, sewage upgrades to reduce contaminants in water effluent and water treatment alternatives such as settling ponds and wetlands);

- energy efficiency (alternative energy sources, energy efficiency, vehicle emissions testing, and public transit);

- mobility (investment in road repair and upgrades, commuter rail, and advanced technology public transit like Ballard Fuel Cell buses); and

- main-street and urban core renewal; and

WHEREAS such investments will create jobs, reduce pollution, save taxpayers money resulting from reduced health and environmental damage, improve the efficiency of the economy and make Canada more competitive, productive and innovative; and

WHEREAS Canada is a leader in environmental technologies;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto endorses the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) call for a long-term national core municipal infrastructure program highlighting environmental benefits, in the federal Millennium Budget; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto, through letters, personal meetings and/or other communications, will urge local Members of Parliament to support FCM's Millennium Budget proposal and to communicate their support to the Minister of Finance; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto through letters, personal meetings and/or other communications, will urge the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, other members of the federal Cabinet and members of the Government of Ontario to support FCM's Millennium Budget proposal; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto will communicate the urgent need for a new municipal infrastructure program with environmental benefits to neighbouring communities; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto will communicate to local media and the public our support for FCM's Millennium Budget proposal.

Background:

Since meeting with FCM in January to discuss the federal budget, Federal Finance Minister Paul Martin has indicated interest publicly in FCM's call for a new core municipal infrastructure program with environmental benefits in the Year 2000 federal budget (Millennium Budget).

FCM's strategy over the next few months will include a funding proposal to the federal government, technical and economic analyses to update FCM's data and to build a compelling case, and a communication plan, all supporting the call for a new program.

FCM's environmental infrastructure proposal is the first phase of an integrated approach to improving the quality of life of all Canadians. FCM sees the Millennium Budget as an opportunity to highlight and promote other FCM priority issues that could enhance the quality of life and ensure sustainable communities. These include affordable housing and action on homelessness, child/youth welfare and a national highway program.

At the January meeting with FCM President, Deputy Mayor Claude Cantin (Quebec City, Quebec) and Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt (Laval, Quebec), Chair of the FCM Standing Committee on Municipal Finance, the Finance Minister expressed interest in working with FCM to address both environmental concerns and Canada's municipal infrastructure deficit in a single program.

To further FCM's objectives, Mayor Vaillancourt and James Knight, Executive Director of the FCM, appeared before the House of Commons Finance Committee Round Table on Infrastructure Investment and Productivity on May 4. Cross-Canada hearings before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance are to begin soon. FCM President Cantin, Mayor Vaillancourt and Municipal Infrastructure Chair, Councillor Roger Mareschal (Aylmer, Quebec) and possibly other Directors, will participate in these hearings on FCM's behalf. Members will receive advisories regularly as the strategy evolves and results of analyses become available.

Fundamental to achieving success, as always, is the hands-on involvement of every FCM member - provincial/territorial/municipal associations and municipal governments. That is why I encourage support for FCM's call for a new long-term, municipal infrastructure program with environmental benefits, and to open discussion on this matter with local Members of Parliament, federal ministers, including the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, and provincial/territorial legislators. Members are also encouraged to seek participation in the cross-Canada Finance Committee hearings on the Millennium Budget.

--------

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

- Ms. Joan Doiron, and submitted material with respect thereto; and

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.

10

Water Rate Harmonization and Universal Metering in the

Former Cities of Toronto and Etobicoke

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following recommendations Nos. (7) and (10) embodied in the joint report dated June 30, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

"(7) the effective date for the first year water and sewer rates (of the four-year phase-in plan) for the former Cities of East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York, be amended by changing the words "Effective September 1, 1999" to read "Effective November 1, 1999", to coincide with implementation of the new water billing system;" and

"(10) due dates for water billing be set at the discretion of the Treasurer, at least 21 days after the billing dates;"

The Works Committee reports having deferred consideration of the remainder of the report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999, for consideration as a deputation item.

The Works Committee submits the following joint report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To respond to Council's request for a report on funding and implementation options available for the water meter conversion program and the implications on water rates in the former City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Funding Impact:

All options presented in this report continue to provide full funding for the water and wastewater program through the water and sewer rates. The 1999-2000 water and sewer rates for the former Cities of East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York have already been adopted by Council (a four-year phase-in to the competitive rate structure), and as such, will not be affected by any of the options discussed in this report.

Funding in the amount of $21.0 million for the conversion of flat-rate accounts to metered service for the former City of Toronto is contained in the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program previously received by Council, however, this amount was held in reserve pending a resolution on an appropriate Universal Metering strategy. New funding sources for this conversion, such as that available through the deferral of decreases that would be realized by former Toronto water customers and/or a rate increase specific to flat-rate customers, will have a favorable impact on the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) with respect to the implementation of the Universal Metering Program, a voluntary program be implemented over a four-year period to convert the remaining 85,000 flat-rate accounts in the former City of Toronto and 1,500 flat-rate accounts in the former City of Etobicoke, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the City install water meters free of charge to homeowners and provide one water efficiency kit per home;

(ii) as an incentive to installing a water meter, the flat-rate customers in the former City of Toronto and the former City of Etobicoke be eligible for a $60.00 subsidy towards the installation of a low-flow toilet;

(iii) on January 1, 2004, the rate charged to flat-rate customers in existence at that time be increased by 100 percent, and by a further 100 percent in each successive year; and

(iv) effective January 1, 2004, any flat-rate customers that have not voluntarily participated in the meter conversion program be required to pay for the cost of the water meter if the customer then so chooses to convert to a metered service;

(2) with respect to funding the Voluntary Meter Conversion Program:

(i) the rate charged to flat-rate customers in the former City of Toronto and the former City of Etobicoke be increased by:

- 5.0 percent effective January 1, 2000;

- a further 10.0 percent effective January 1, 2001;

- a further 15.0 percent effective January 1, 2002;

- a further 20.0 percent effective January 1, 2003; and

- a further 100.0 percent effective January 1, 2004, and a further 100.0 percent in each subsequent year;

(ii) the rate decrease that would be realized by former City of Toronto's metered customers under the phased-in competitive rate structure be deferred for a period of three years, and effective November 1, 2002, the harmonized competitive rate structure be applied for metered customers in the former City of Toronto; and

(iii) the anticipated new revenue from the former City of Toronto, in the amount of $14.6 million from the three-year deferral of decreases respecting metered customers, and $11.6 million from the increases in flat-rate charges, be used to fund the Universal Metering Program ($21.0 million), and the balance be used to fund an incentive program directed at facilitating the conversion of residential flat-rate customers to metered service ($5.2 million or approximately $60.00 per residential flat-rate customer), and such an incentive program to include consideration of a subsidy towards low-flow toilets;

(3) a list of flat-rate customers requesting conversion to metered service be established on a first-come basis and tendered as a priority each year;

(4) the following be established as mandatory water meter installation criteria for the City to install a free of charge meter where no meter exists:

(i) homeowners who take out a plumbing permit to upgrade their household plumbing;

(ii) new home construction; and

(iii) purchasers of properties which are on a flat-rate billing system agree, as a condition precedent to receiving a clearance letter from the City at the time of property ownership transfer, to having a water meter installed; and

(iv) as a condition of the City's Water Service Connection Repair Program, flat rate customers agree to having a water meter installed;

(5) Council redirect the provision of $21.0 million contained the 1999-2003 Capital Works Plan of the Water and Wastewater Program respecting Universal Metering to providing funding to the City's water efficiency programs, and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Works Committee in the fall of 1999 on a Water Efficiency Plan for the new City and the use of these funds;

(6) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer prepare an annual report to the Works Committee and the Policy and Finance Committee on the annual progress and financial impact of the Voluntary Universal Metering Program, and recommend any modifications to the financing and/or implementation plan described herein;

(7) the effective date for the first year water and sewer rates (of the four-year phase-in plan) for the former Cities of East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York, be amended by changing the words "Effective September 1, 1999" to read "Effective November 1, 1999", to coincide with implementation of the new water billing system;

(8) a public awareness program be carried out over a four-year implementation period of the Universal Metering Program at an estimated cost of $100,000.00 to inform homeowners of the benefits of a metered water supply and the metering incentives, described herein;

(9) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Works Committee in the fall of 1999 regarding joint meter reading and billing opportunities and financing options for automated meter reading technologies;

(10) due dates for water billing be set at the discretion of the Treasurer, at least 21 days after the billing dates; and

(11) the appropriate City officials be granted the authority necessary to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of April 26 to 28, 1999, during consideration of water rate harmonization, Council adopted Recommendation No. 233 of Report No. 8 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, respecting the phasing-in of the competitive rate structure for all of the former cities with the exception of the former City of Toronto, with the following amendment:

"The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a joint report to the Works Committee, for subsequent submission to Council by the end of July 1999, on all funding options for the meter conversion program, such report to also consider the issue of freezing water rates in the former City of Toronto."

This report also addresses issues raised by the Works and Utilities Committee and the Toronto Community Council respecting the implementation of the Universal Metering Program as contained in the October 19, 1998 report from the General Manager of Water and Wastewater Services, "Universal Metering Program", to which the responses to these motions are summarized in Appendix A along with appropriate responses.

Comments/Background:

This report presents options for funding the Universal Metering Program. The key decision to be made is who should pay for the cost of converting the 85,000 flat-rate customers in the former City of Toronto and the 1,500 flat-rate customers in the former City of Etobicoke to metered service. Funding may be provided via:

(1) the Capital Works Program, whereby water customers from all of the former municipalities share in the cost of meter conversion;

(2) flat-rate customers, whereby increases to the flat rate charges would be used to obtain the required funding;

(3) metered customers in the former City of Toronto, whereby the decreases that would be entitled to these customers under water rate harmonization would be deferred, and the surplus revenue would be used to fund the conversion program; and

(4) a combination of flat-rate customers and metered customers, whereby a combination of increases in flat-rate charges and a deferral of decreases that would be realized by former Toronto metered customers would be used to provide the necessary funding.

Although each of these options is viable, various stakeholders have raised concerns with respect to each of the options.

With respect to funding the Universal Metering Program from the Capital Works Budget, stakeholders from all of the former municipalities except Toronto have expressed concern that it was unfair for them to share in the cost of converting the former City of Toronto to metered services, as the cost of meters in their municipalities were paid by the residents historically through higher development fees.

With respect to funding through increases in flat-rate charges, stakeholders expressed concern that this would require sizeable increases in these charges, which may result in a hardship to some customers, and further that, while some customers may wish to accelerate the timing of their conversion in order to avoid the rate increases, the logistics involved in such a large conversion program may result in customers having to wait for a significant period of time to receive a meter.

With respect to funding from metered customers in the former City of Toronto, these customers have indicated that this approach is punitive, as they have, in the past, voluntarily installed water meters and should not be punished by deferring the decreases they would otherwise be entitled to under rate harmonization. A contrary view is that, had amalgamation not taken place, all customers in the former Toronto, metered and unmetered, would have shared in the cost of conversion for the rest of the customers.

The combination approach attempts to balance the interests and concerns of both the metered and unmetered customers in the former City of Toronto.

Universal Metering in the former City of Toronto:

A customer on a flat-rate account is generally charged in accordance with the number of rooms and fixtures installed in the building, or in some cases, on a per-building basis. Flat-rate accounts predominate in the former City of Toronto, within which there are approximately 85,000 flat-rate accounts verses 46,000 metered accounts. Generally, flat-rate accounts are scattered throughout the former City of Toronto with the exception of the former communities of Forest Hill and Swansea which have a higher concentration of metered customers. The former City of Etobicoke also has a few remaining flat-rate accounts (less than 1,500), which is not significant compared to its 66,000 metered accounts. These accounts are generally located in the older part of the City, south of Lake Shore Boulevard between Royal York Road and Kipling Avenue.

A preliminary review of the billing data indicates that the average annual flat-rate bill is $348.00 whereas the average annual bill for metered residential customers is $286.00. Over the years, the rate charged to flat-rate water users has increased in proportion to rate increases for metered customers.

In 1990, the former City of Toronto adopted a policy of universal water metering whereby all new buildings and buildings where the water service or the plumbing in the basement is being replaced are to be metered. The City also installed free of charge water meters and provided a water efficiency kit to homeowners who voluntarily requested a water meter. Further, homeowners were required to install water meters as a condition of the City's Water Service Repair program. The Universal Metering Program has been promoted through an ongoing education program to make homeowners aware of the benefits and cost saving opportunities which can result from a metered water supply. Since 1990, approximately 23,000 water meters have been installed under these programs. The former City of Etobicoke had no formal program for meter conversion, however, the City installed approximately 30 to 50 meters per year for flat-rate customers who requested it.

The estimated average cost for each water meter retrofit installation including a water efficiency kit amounts to $247.00 including GST, and based on current prices, the estimated total cost of retrofitting the 85,000 remaining buildings on flat-rate billing amounts to approximately $21.0 million.

In November 1998, the General Manager of Water and Wastewater Services reported to the Works and Utilities Committee on the program of Universal Metering as part of the service leveling process across the new City of Toronto. The report recommended the mandatory metering of all buildings in the former City of Toronto with a five-year implementation plan. The report further recommended that the flat-rate charges be increased by 100 percent for customers who have received adequate notice (minimum three written notices and have been provided with sufficient time to arrange for the mandatory installation of a water meter but continue to refuse to cooperate), and that the flat-rate charges be increased an additional 100 percent every three months thereafter.

While the Committee endorsed the program, a number of questions were raised and the report was referred to the Toronto Community Council for consideration, which in turn raised additional questions particularly regarding the use of incentives such as water efficiency initiatives. Further, the Community Council discussed the feasibility of further cost sharing incentives under the Water Service Repair Program for the private side portion of the water service which would result in additional meter installations. City Council at its meeting of June 9, 1999, approved a harmonized Water Service Repair Program, in which substandard water service connections are replaced at no cost to homeowners within the road allowance. Under the harmonized program, homeowners are responsible for the cost of repairing the private side portion of their water service.

Funding in the amount of $21.0 million for the conversion of flat-rate accounts to metered service for the former City of Toronto was requested under the Universal Metering Project in the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program. At the time of the capital budget review, the strategies for water conservation and universal metering were yet to be finalized, and the Budget Committee recommended that the expenditures earmarked for 1999 be put on hold until a formal direction in this matter was set by Council.

Water Rate Harmonization:

The report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, dated March 22, 1999, provided a comprehensive review of the current practices and rate structures respecting the water and wastewater program, and an analysis of a number of options to provide a harmonized rate across the new city. The report recommended the competitive pricing structure (Option 3).

Addendum (1), dated March 31, 1999, provided additional options respecting water rate harmonization in response to the motions raised by the Community Councils at their meetings of March 26 to 30, 1999. In particular, a four-year phase-in of the competitive pricing strategy was presented.

Addendum (2), dated April 12, 1999, provided further options regarding the water rate harmonization initiative, which addressed issues raised respecting funding for the conversion of flat-rate (unmetered) accounts to metered services, in response to the discussions of the Budget Committee at its meeting of April 6, 1999. The options presented in that addendum included funding the Universal Metering Project through a rate increase specific to flat-rate water users, funding the project through a two-year deferral of the decreases that water customers in the former Toronto would realize under rate harmonization while the competitive rate would be phased-in over two years for all other users, and funding the project through a four-year deferral of decreases for the former Toronto while phasing-in increases and decreases for all other users over a four-year period.

Funding Options Respecting Universal Metering:

In general terms, the water rate setting process is premised upon the objective that the program remain fully self funding with a high degree of financial stability for both operating and capital needs over the long term. The approach taken with respect to the harmonization of the differing rates of the former municipalities was that the anticipated revenue increase from those former municipalities whose rates would increase under harmonization would be balanced with the anticipated revenue decreases from those municipalities who would be experiencing rate decreases under harmonization (i.e., the exercise would be revenue neutral).

Council at its meeting of April 26 to 28, 1999, during consideration of the matter of water rate harmonization, adopted the phasing-in over four years of the competitive rate structure for all of the former cities with the exception of the former Toronto, leaving open the option for funding the Universal Metering Program from the deferral of the decreases that would be realized by the former Toronto under rate harmonization. Having adopted the rates for the other cities, the monies available from the deferral of Toronto's decreases is now fixed. Table 1 shows the potential funding available from the deferral of Toronto's decreases. For example, deferring the decreases for one year would result in the accrual of approximately $2.4 million in surplus funds; two years would result in the accrual $7.3 million in surplus funds; three years in $14.6 million; and a deferral of three-and-one-half years would accrue in the order of $21.0 million, which would be sufficient to fund the entire Universal Metering Program.

Table 1

Potential Funding Available from the Deferral of former Toronto's Metered Customer Decreases ($000's)

No. of Years Decrease 1 2 3 4 5

Deferred

Four Year Phase-In of Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental

Harmonized Rate Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact

Sep/99-Sep/00 Sep/99-Sep/01 Sep/99-Sep/02 Sep/99-Sep/03 Sep/99-Sep/04

East York (435) (435) (435) (435) (1,741)

Etobicoke 212 212 212 212 847

North York (17) (17) (17) (17) (70)

Scarborough 2,975 2,975 2,975 2,975 11,899

York (304) (304) (304) (304) (1,217)

Incremental/Annual Impact 2,430 2,430 2,430 2,430 9,719

to City

Toronto Incremental/Annual (2,430) (2,430) (2,430) (2,430) (9,719)

Decreases Deferred

Cumulative Revenue Impact *2.430 7,289 14,578 24,297** 34,016

* Interest not accrued as it is anticipated additional revenue would be expended as incurred to cover the costs of Universal Metering.

** Assuming 3.5 year deferral to the harmonized rate for the former City of Toronto instead of four years would result in the accrual of $20,682,223, which would be sufficient to fund the Universal Metering Project

It should be noted that the above analysis is premised on the deferral of the decreases that is to be realized by former Toronto's metered customers. Another source of funding is potentially available through increasing the rates charged to flat-rate customers. Table 2 shows the potential funding available from increases to former Toronto's flat-rate charges. For example, a 15.0 percent annual increase in the flat-rate charges will provide an additional $21.2 million in revenue to the City over the projected four years that it may take to phase-out flat-rate accounts. The recommended 5 percent incremental annual increase in flat rates will provide an additional $11.6 million in revenue. Such an approach will result in the average flat-rate bill increasing from the current $348.00 to approximately $554.00 in the fourth year.

Table 2

Potential Funding Available from Rate Increases on Toronto's Flat-Rate Customers Assuming 4 Years to Implement Conversion ($000's)

Funding Available from

Rate Increases on Flat

Rate Customers over the

4-Year Implementation

Period

Year 1 2 3 4

Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Funding Funding Funding Funding

Impact Impact Impact Impact

Sep/99-Sep/00 Sep/99-Sep/01 Sep/99-Sep/02 Sep/99-Sep/03

No. of Conversions* 10,000** 25,000 25,000 25,000

Projected Number of 75,000 50,000 25,000 0

Flat-Rate Accounts Remaining

Annual Increase to Flat-Rate Charges:

Option B 5% per annum 1,392 3,621 5,678 6,616

Option C 10% per annum 2,784 7,352 11,671 13,690

Option D 15% per annum 4,176 11,190 17,988 21,246

Option E 20% per annum 5,568 15,138 24,638 29,309

Variable Rate Increases:

Option F 5% 1^st year, 1,392 4,763 9,047 11,630

10% 2^nd year, 15% 3^rd year

20% 4^th year,***

Option G 20% 1^st year, 5,568 15,138 20,880 22,794

20%2^nd year, 0% 3^rd year

0% 4^th year,****

* Assumes a planned and orderly conversion of flat-rate accounts to metered service over a 4-year period, and that flat-rate customers continue to pay the increased flat-rate charges until meter conversion.

** Assumes 10,000 customers converted in start-up year of program.

*** Rate increases in each successive year.

**** Councillor Prue moved a motion at Council's meeting of April 26, recommending that conversion be implemented over two years, to be funded from a two-year deferral of former Toronto's decreases ($7.2 million from column 2 of Table 1, and a 20% per annum increase in flat-rate charges over the two-year implementation plan ($15.1 million from column 2 above), for a total of $22.0 million.

The above analysis is premised upon a planned and orderly conversion of flat-rate accounts to metered service over a four-year period. It is noted that some customers may wish to accelerate the timing of their conversion in order to avoid the rate increases. Such an acceleration would have a direct negative impact on the projections of incremental revenue from the rate increase, and a further indirect impact through higher conversion costs associated with a more demographically fragmented response to conversion.

It is recognized that in spite of the flat-rate charge increases referred to in Table 2, there may be a small percentage of customers who will resist installation of a water meter. To reach closure with respect to Universal Metering and achieve full participation, it may be necessary to significantly increase flat-rate charges for the few remaining customers. In the City of Niagara, which recently adopted a mandatory metering program, customers who refuse the installation of a water meter are subject to a 300 percent increase in their flat-rate charge. The withdrawal of the offer of a free meter after a well-advertised cut-off date would be further encouragement for customers.

Table 3 below shows the potential funding available from a combination of rate increases on flat-rate customers and the deferral of the decreases that would be realized by metered customers in the former Toronto. Combinations that approximately result in the $21.0 million required for the Universal Metering program included:

- funding solely from the deferral of decreases that would otherwise be realized by former Toronto's metered customers, which would mean former Toronto's metered rate would remain at the current level for three-and-one-half years, before moving to the lower harmonized rate; or

- funding from a 5.0 percent per annum increase in the flat-rate charges in combination with the deferral of the decreases for a three-year period for former Toronto's metered customers; or

- funding from a 10.0 percent per annum increase in the flat-rate charges in combination with the deferral of the decreases for a two-year period for former Toronto's metered customers; or

- funding solely from a 15.0 percent per annum increase in the flat-rate charge over the four year implementation plan; or

- funding solely from increases of 20.0 percent in flat-rate charges for the first two years; or

- some other combination, such as that moved by Councillor Prue at the Council meeting of April 26, whereby funding would be obtained through a 20.0 percent per annum increase in flat-rate charges over the first two years, in combination with the deferral of former Toronto's metered customers decreases for two years (this motion assumes that meter conversion would be over an accelerated two year plan).

Table 3

Potential Funding Available from a Combination of Rate Increases on Flat-Rate Customers* and the Deferral of Decreases of Metered Customers ($000's)

No. of Years Deferral of Decreases 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5.5

for Former Toronto's metered

customers

Annual Increase in Flat-Rate Charge

Option A 0% (i.e. Funding from 0 2,430 4,859 7,289 10,934 14,578 19,438 24,297 38,875

Deferral of Decreases of

metered accounts

Option B 5% 6,616 9,204 11,634 14,064 17,708 21,353 26,212 31,072 45,650

Option C 10% 13,690 16,498 18,928 21,358 25,002 28,647 33,506 38,366 52,944

Option D 15% 21,246 24,342 26,772 29,202 32,846 36,491 41,350 46,210 60,788

Option E 20% 29,309 32,768 35,198 37,628 41,272 44,917 49,776 54,636 69,214

Variable Rate Increases:

Option F 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%** 11,630 14,060 16,490 18,919 22,564 26,209 31,068 35,928 50,506

Option G 20%, 20%, 0%, 0%** 22,794 25,200 27,600 30,100 33,700 37,400 42,200 47,100 61,678

* Assumes that implementation of meter conversion occurs over four years regardless of deferral option.

** Flat-rate charge increases in each successive year

Universal Metering Implementation Options and Issues:

Implementation options fall into two general categories, i.e., voluntary programs and mandatory programs. The following presents numerous options respecting the rolling-out of the Universal Metering program and implementation issues.

(A) Voluntary Programs:

Voluntary programs depend on the good will of the customers towards converting to metered service. Voluntary customer participation may be facilitated through financial motivation, such as through increases in the flat-rate charges, or through incentive programs. The following sections provide a description of several voluntary implementation programs.

(1) Status Quo:

This approach continues the 1990 policy adopted by the former City of Toronto whereby all new buildings and property owners who undertake plumbing upgrades are required to install a water meter along with those participating in the Water Service Repair program. In addition, homeowners are encouraged to voluntarily install a meter all of which is done at no cost to the homeowner. Historical experience suggest that approximately 2,000-4,000 conversions per year may be achieved, notwithstanding any other policy interventions such as rate increases specific to flat-rate customers. At this rate, the funding requirement would be approximately $500 thousand to $1.0 million per year, and it would take more than 25 to 40 years to achieve universal metering.

(2) Voluntary with Incentive Program:

This approach utilizes financial motivation and/or incentives to increase the voluntary participation rate. One means to motivate flat-rate customers to convert to metered service would be to increase flat-rate charges. It is recommended that the flat rates increase incrementally each year from 5 percent to 20 percent over the four-year metering program. Such increases should not be punitive to those flat-rate customers who wish to accelerate their conversion, but may have to wait due to the logistics involved in coordinating such a large number of conversion. One approach to alleviate this concern would be to establish a priority list of flat-rate customers requesting conversion, and as such, those customers who are more motivated to convert may avoid some of the rate increases.

Incentives are another means to encourage conversion. Many incentives are available in this respect, including providing a full or partial subsidy towards a low-flow toilet, or a subsidy towards the repair of deficient water service (i.e., lead or galvanized pipes) on the private side of a customer's property.

The Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting in November 1998, in considering the Universal Metering Program, requested, among other things, a report on the issue of the use of incentives such as free water saver kits and/or low-flow toilets to reduce water use, and on opportunities to combine Universal Metering with the Water Services Program.

Of the 85,000 flat rate customers in the former City of Toronto, approximately 33,000 have been identified as substandard and in need of replacement. The Harmonized Water Services Program recently adopted by Council provides for the City to replace/repair substandard services on the road allowance, and to advise the customer of a competitive quote for the repair/replacement of the private-side water service. In the past, this section of upgrade has been totally funded by the homeowner. The average cost of the upgrade on the private portion of the water service ranges from $800.00 to $1,000.00.

An incentive program whereby the City subsidizes the full cost of repairing the water services on the private side would achieve a greatly accelerated Water Service Repair program and consequently an accelerated water meter installation program, however, the implications of such a fully subsidized program is prohibitive due to the cost (estimated at $33.0 million in the former Toronto). A more modest subsidy program may be considered whereby the homeowner pays a flat fee of $500.00 for upgrading the private portion of the water service, and the City provides a subsidy of approximately $400.00. This subsidy program will require further funding of approximately $13.2 million and necessitate a longer deferral of the harmonized rate for the metered customers in the former City of Toronto. Legal Services has advised that the Municipal Act and Public Utilities Act provide authority to implement a cost-sharing program for upgrading the private portion of the water service, providing the City obtains a consent waiver from the property owner and a warranty and indemnification provision from the contractor undertaking the work.

It is estimated that the remaining flat-rate customers in the former Cities of Etobicoke and Toronto, which are approximately 53,500, may have a reasonably adequate supply of water and consequently may not be interested in the private side water service repair incentive. Alternatively, the City may choose to install a low-flow toilet for these homeowners as an incentive to installing a water meter. A number of Canadian municipalities (City of Barrie, Durham Region, Region of Waterloo and City of Victoria) have implemented low-flow toilet change-out programs as a water efficiency initiative. Low-flow toilets are required in all new home construction under the current Ontario Plumbing Code and Ontario low-flow toilet manufacturers are required to meet the standards established by the Canadian Standards Association, which exceeds other manufacturers such as ASTM. These cities have found that the complaint frequency regarding the operation of low-flow toilets which are CSA approved is less than 1 percent. The cost of a CSA standard low-low toilet is approximately $300.00 per toilet, or approximately $15.6 million for the remaining flat-rate customers.

These major incentive programs will require additional funding in the amount of approximately $29 million. One possible source of funding is to defer the rate decreases in the former City of Toronto for 5.5 years, plus a four-year increase in flat-rate fees would generate funding in the amount of $50.5 million. This funding would be sufficient to fund the $21 million cost of universal metering and the $29 million in major incentives. Alternatively, the $21.0 million which has been held for Universal Metering in the 1999 Capital Budget plus a 3.5 year deferral in the rate decrease, combined with a four-year increase in flat-rate fees will provide sufficient funding for the major incentive programs.

This deferral of decreases will, however, have an impact on the four-year water rate harmonization strategy which Council has adopted, and further may be considered an unfair hardship on the former City's metered customers to defer the water rate decrease for a longer period to fund the major incentive programs. Consequently, the three-year rate deferral for the former City of Toronto metered customers is being recommended along with a four-year 5 percent per annum increase on the unmetered customers' rates as the financing strategy. This funding option will generate approximately $26.2 million, thus providing funding for the Universal Metering Program and a further $5.2 million towards a water efficiency incentive program. The additional revenues will be sufficient to provide a $60.00 incentive for flat-rate customers to install an ultra low flush toilet. Flat-rate property owners will be eligible to apply for this incentive by showing a proof of purchase receipt for the ULF toilets. This incentive is consistent with that offered under the Ultra Low Flush Program for the multi-residential sector which has been recommended under a separate report on this agenda.

(B) Mandatory Programs:

A mandatory program assumes that customers cannot be sufficiently motivated to convert to metered service, and that mandatory conversion would be enforced by by-law. Mandatory conversion programs have been utilized by other cities. The Region of Niagara recently adopted a by-law requiring that their 24,000 flat-rate customers be metered within one year. Customers who refuse entry to permit conversion, after sufficient notice is given, will be subject to a flat-rate charge increase of 300 percent.

If a mandatory program is adopted, then incentives may be considered as unnecessary. Thus any of the funding options described in the previous section that provide the necessary $21.0 million in funding may be used.

As previously discussed, the former City of Toronto enforced a minimum mandatory program whereby new home construction, homeowners undertaking plumbing upgrades and homeowners participating in the water service repair program were required to have a meter installed. It is proposed that these mandatory requirements continue, and further that purchasers of homes which are currently on a flat-rate system agree to allow the City to install a water meter, free of charge, as a condition of the City providing a clearance letter at the time of ownership transfers.

Installation of Water Meters Evenly Throughout all Neighbourhoods:

One means to ensure that water meters are installed evenly throughout all neighbourhoods is to specify that work be undertaken in designated geographic areas with a large number of installation crews, with first priority given to customers on a waiting list. It may be possible to assign one or more crews per Ward for those Wards which have a large number of flat-rate properties. The 1,500 flat-rate customers in Etobicoke could be included with the crew responsible for the Toronto High Park Ward, which has a large number of existing metered properties throughout the Swansea area. In the past, approximately five to seven contracts were called annually under the former City of Toronto Water Service Repair Program, and the same number could be called for the meter conversion; there may also be opportunities to combine contracts for both programs. The number of flat-rate customers by geographic area is estimated as follows:

Geographic Area Estimated Number of Flat-Rate Customers

Ward 19 and part of Ward 2 12,400

Ward 20 9,010

Ward 21 13,300

Ward 22 12,600

Ward 23 and 24 13,250

Ward 25 10,870

Ward 26 15,070

Total 86,500

Billing Due Dates and Meter Reading:

The existing water by-law for the former City of Toronto allows an early payment discount if the account is paid in full one calendar month from the due date and the due date is the last day of the month in which the account is billed.

Most water billing systems in the other former municipalities allow customers between 15 and 21 days to pay and qualify for the discount.

With the new water billing system, the billing of accounts will be done evenly throughout the month. In order to accomplish this, the existing by-laws must be amended to allow for flexible due dates within the existing cycles, and to allow the former City of Toronto water customers at least 21 days to pay the bill in full to qualify for the early payment discount.

With respect to meter reading, the Finance Department and Works and Emergency Services Department are jointly investigating a full range of meter reading and billing options and automated meter reading technologies, and will prepare a service rationalization report for a harmonized meter reading system(s) which will be presented to the Budget Committee and the Works Committee in the fall of 1999.

Conclusion:

This report presents various funding and implementation options available for the water meter conversion program for flat-rate customers in the former Cities of Toronto and Etobicoke. Funding may be achieved by the deferral of the decreases that the former City of Toronto customers would have realized under water rate harmonization and/or by rate increases specific to flat-rate customers. The amount of funding depends on the length of term that the decreases are deferred and on the degree of increases to flat-rate charges.

Implementation can be made through a voluntary or a mandatory program. Participation rates in voluntary programs may be increased through the use financial motivation and/or incentives. One means to motivate flat-rate customers to convert to metered service would be to increase flat-rate charges. However, such increases should not act as punitive measures to those customers who wish to accelerate their conversion, but may have to wait due to the logistics involved in coordinating such a large number of conversions. Establishing a priority list based on first-come first-served, and ensuring that meters are installed evenly throughout all neighbourhoods can alleviate much of this concern.

Incentives are another means to motivate customers in a voluntary program. Incentives can include a subsidy towards water efficient low-flow toilets, or a subsidy towards the repair of deficient water service on private property. Offering the full cost of these incentives would be prohibitively expensive for the City's water customers. Mandatory programs render incentives as unnecessary, as conversion would be mandated by by-law.

This report recommends a voluntary program with modest subsidies and escalating increases to the flat charges as an appropriate means to achieve the necessary participation. Such a program would be entirely funded by former City of Toronto water customers through a three-year deferral of the decreases that would be realized by their metered customers under water rate harmonization, in conjunction with escalating increases in flat-rate charges. It is believed that, as flat-rate charges escalate, most customers will be motivated to convert as their awareness of the benefits of metered service increase.

To successfully implement this type of voluntary metering program, it will be necessary to initiate a comprehensive public education program explaining the benefits of the "User Pay" principle and the opportunities to reduce water charges through indoor and outdoor water conservation practices. Further, the communication program will explain the water efficiency measures contained in the recommended program along with the sign-up procedures for having a meter installed.

Contact Names:

Joe Farag

Director - Development Policy and Research, Finance Department

Tel: 392-8108

Appendix "A"

The Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of November 4, 1999, in considering the report from the General Manager of Water and Wastewater entitled "Universal Metering Program", requested, among other things, a further report on the following issues:

(1) "undertake a comparative study of alternative strategies to achieve the greatest efficiency for the funding of $21.0 million; and report back thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee in January 1999; and

(2) "report to the Committee on the following:

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

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

(iii) past practices in other municipalities;

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

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

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

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

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

Further, City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, endorsed the recommendations from the December 9, 1998 Toronto Community Council meeting, which considered the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services October 19, 1998 report on Universal Metering, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the following [Report No. 16, Clause No. 67(i)]:

(1) requested the City Solicitor to report to the Toronto Community Council on whether small towns and villages which were amalgamated into the former City of Toronto can keep their flat-rate bill as part of previous agreements;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report comprehensively to the Toronto Community Council on:

(a) the impact of the proposals set out in the report (October 19, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, on the former City of Toronto's Water Pressure Improvement Grant System;

(b) the potential long-term loss in the revenue and the impact on the other former municipalities of the proposals set out in the report (October 19, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services;

(c) the advantages, if any, of the former City of Toronto program as it relates to (i) voluntary participation; (ii) the value to the City of upgrading old and ageing water pipes; (iii) on the savings inherent in the reduction of ruptures, given the replacement of piping on City property; and (iv) the health benefits of replacing old lead piping with copper; and

(d) on a budget to supply one-third of the households with water meters, and a budget for water upgrades;

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to advise the Toronto Community Council when water efficiency measures, such as low-flow toilets and water saver kits, will be provided universally to every household across the City; and

(4) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to advise senior citizens of the potential benefits of accepting water meters.

With respect to item (1) above, I can advise that the City Solicitor will respond directly to the Toronto Community Council and Works Committee on this issue. Further, action has been taken by staff to advise senior citizens of the benefits of accepting water meters as requested under item (4). Item (2) (c) was reported on to the Works and Utilities Committee as part of my April 30, 1999 report entitled "Harmonized Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program."

Further, City Council at its meeting of March 2, 1999, adopted the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program which among other things recommended that:

(1) "Although a policy decision regarding the Universal Metering Program is still subject to Council approval, funding ($21.0 million) to be retained in the estimates. Authorization to spend is however, contingent upon final Council approval."

(2) "It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee, prior to the 2000 budget process, on the number of meter conversions that have been requested in 1999 and the ability of staff to respond to such requests."

Response to Other Issues Not Addressed in this Report:

(i) Universal Metering Program Impact on Water Pressure Grant Program:

City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted the recommendations from the December 9, 1998 Toronto Community Council meeting which among other things, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the impact which a mandatory Universal Metering proposal would have on Toronto's Water Pressure Improvement Grant System otherwise known as the Water Service Connection Repair Program.

Homeowners who participated in the Water Service Repair Program are required to agree that the City install a free of charge water meter as a condition of having their water service repair upgraded. Should Committee choose to adopt a mandatory Universal Metering Program whereby the meters would be installed systematically throughout the former City, then the requirement for homeowners to install a meter at the time of the water service repair upgrade would no longer apply. In the event that Committee chooses a mandatory Universal Metering Program, there would continue to be a need to upgrade the ageing water services located within the street allowance thus ensuring an adequate supply of high quality drinking water to the street line at each property.

(ii) Retrofit Program for Older City Meters:

Generally, the meter installations for each of the former Cities and Scarborough Public Utilities Commission have received routine maintenance either through contracted services in the case of York, or by city crews assigned to meter maintenance within the operating divisions of the former Cities or within the Finance Departments. The former Cities of Etobicoke and Toronto and the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission each had dedicated crews for meter maintenance and a dedicated meter maintenance shop. Meter maintenance in each of the former cities and Scarborough Public Utilities Commission was generally concentrated on the larger commercial meters which measured the majority of the water consumed and consequently necessitated the highest level of maintenance. Residential meter maintenance was generally limited to replacing faulty meters and changing out the very old style residential meters which were no long repairable or in some cases were no longer recording an accurate volume of water.

In the case of the former City of Etobicoke, a complete meter change-out program took place in the early 1990's for all of the residential metered customers.

A further evaluation of the maintenance requirements, particularly for the older residential meters, will be considered under the needs assessment evaluation of the Water and Wastewater Division.

(iii) Past Practices in Other Municipalities:

The majority of the residential water meters installed in North York, Scarborough, York, East York and parts of Etobicoke were installed by developers at the time of the original housing developments. All of the former cities and the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission had in place by-laws requiring a mandatory water meter installation with all new home construction.

(iv) Long Term Loss in Revenue:

The average residential flat-rate bill in the former City of Toronto is $348.00 and the average residential metered bill is $286.00. The lower revenue of approximately 15 percent from the metered customer is due primarily to a greater incentive to conserve water due to the user pay principal. Further, this reflects the reduced household water use due to the water efficiency kits installed in each home at the time of the water meter installation.

This reduction is consistent with the following municipalities which have undertaken Universal Metering Programs in the past:

Pre Metering Post Metering %Charge

(Litres/Capita/Day) (Litres/Capita/Day)

Lemington 627 563 -10

Port Colborne 777 689 -11

Kingston 1,003 748 -25

Brockville 889 752 -15

Given the variability of what these cities have experienced in water conservation due to metering programs, my previous report estimated a range of 5 percent to 15 percent in reduced water use due to a fully metered system, or across the new City, this would represent a .3 percent to 1 percent reduction in water use.

The former Metro Toronto Council, in 1996, established an objective of reducing the average day water demand by at least 15 percent by the year 2011. The reduction in water use due to the metering program in the former City will contribute to the 15 percent target. Further, the long-term water rates will reflect the reduced water use which the former Metro and new City have established as the 2011 targeted water use reduction.

(v) Water Rates in Various Cities Outside the City of Toronto:

City $/M³

1. Peel Region 0.8100

2. Toronto 1.0308

3. Halton Region 1.2200

4. Durham Region 1.2900

5.(a) York Municipalities Using Toronto Water

(i) Markham 1.1021

(ii) Vaughan City 0.9730

(iii) Richmond Hill 1.2650

5.(b) York Municipalities Not Using Toronto Water

(i) East Gwillimbury 1.2500

(ii) Newmarket 1.2643

(iii) Aurora 1.1070

(iv) Whitchurch/Stouffville 1.1420

(v) King City 1.5403

(vi) Number of Meter Conversions Requested in 1999 and Ability of Staff to Respond:

The estimated number of meter conversions for 1999 will be approximately 2,500. This number is lower than previous years where 3,500 to 4,000 meters per year have been installed. The estimated number of meters to be installed is made up from both voluntary meter installations where homeowners request a meter installation, and meters installed as a requirement of a plumbing upgrade or water service repair installation. An annual contract is called each year for the meter installations under the voluntary program. City crews have generally installed the meters required due to new home construction. Contractors have installed meters required under the Water Service Repair and Plumbing Upgrade Programs. Staff are available to respond to these requests in 1999.

(vii) Region of York Water Agreement:

The former Metro Toronto supplied water to Region of York on a wholesale basis at 19.5 cents per cubic metre. This rate is adjusted annually to reflect the current operating cost for producing water, an allowance for depreciation of capital assets and a replacement allowance. The current agreement was executed on September 14, 1998. In addition to the charges for water use, there is a cost-sharing provision requiring the Region of York to pay a share of any infrastructure required to produce and deliver water to the York Region customers based on the proportion of anticipated use. York Region sells the water to its local municipalities who distribute it to their customers at the following rates:

Markham .97 $/M3

Vaughan 1.10 $/M3

Richmond Hill 1.26 $/M3

The agreement indicates that both York Region and the City will apply best efforts to implement water efficiency programs as approved by their respective Councils.

(viii) Response to November 3, 1998 Communication from Local 79 Regarding Meter Reading:

In a communication to Councillor Betty Disero, Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee, Local 79 outlined the services provided by their membership in carrying out the meter reading function for the former City of Toronto Finance Revenue Section. The communication further urged the members of the Works and Utilities Committee to reject the staff recommendation to review opportunities for joint water meter reading and billing with Toronto Hydro and Consumers Gas, or alternatively, to consider a phone-in meter reading system.

At the present time, the Finance Department and Works Department are jointly investigating a full range of meter reading and billing options and automated meter reading technologies for each of the former cities and the former Scarborough PUC, and will prepare a service rationalization report for a harmonized meter reading system(s) which will be presented to the Budget Committee and the Works Committee in the fall of 1999.

The Works Committee also submits the following communication (May 4, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April 26, 27 and 28, 1999, adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 8 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed "1999 Operating Budget".

In so doing, Council referred the following motion to the Works Committee for further consideration and report thereon to Council:

Moved by Councillor Prue:

'That:

(1) Recommendation No. (233) of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, be amended by:

(i) deleting the words "four-year deferral" from the first paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof the words "two-year deferral", so that such paragraph shall now read as follows:

"(233) the recommendations to provide for a harmonized water rate structure embodied in the report (March 22, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Harmonization of Water and Water Pollution Control Rates", be adopted, subject to striking out Recommendations Nos. (1) and (4), and inserting in lieu thereof the following paragraphs in order to provide funding for the Universal Metering Project through a two-year deferral of the decreases to which former City of Toronto water users would realize under any harmonization initiative, while phasing-in increases and decreases for all other users over a four-year period, as described in Section (3) in the report (April 12, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled 'Water Rate Harmonization - Addendum (2)':";

(ii) inserting after the words "Toronto shall be" in Part (1)(ii), the words "increased by 20 percent per year for a two year period effective July 1, 1999" (Schedules "B", "C" and "D" to be amended accordingly), so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(ii) effective September 1, 1999, the combined water and sewer rate in the former City of Toronto for metered customers for accounts paid on or before the due date shall be $1.03083 per cubic metre, and the rate charged to flat-rate customers in the former City of Toronto shall be increased by 20 percent per year for a two-year period effective July 1, 1999 as set out in Schedules "B", "C" and "D" of City of Toronto By-law No. 356-1998;"; and

(iii) deleting Recommendation No. (233)(1)(iv) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(iv) effective September 1, 2001, the rate charged to metered customers in the former City of Toronto shall be the appropriate phased-in competitive rate structure for the former City of Toronto;"; and

(2) the Clause be amended by 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 Committee, prior to the 2000 budget process, on the number of meter conversions that have been requested in 1999 and the ability of staff to respond to such requests." ' 

A copy of the aforementioned Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, in its entirety, is available through this office. Please direct enquiries in this regard to 392-4737.

11

New Water Bill Design

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the water bill design include a year-to-year consumption comparison, and that every effort be made to include this comparison, as soon as possible, in the first year.")

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 5, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To present the design for a new City of Toronto water bill which will replace the existing bills utilized at the former municipalities of East York, Etobicoke, North York and Toronto, and the bill used by the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission in the billing of water for the former Scarborough and York.

Funding Sources:

Funding for the design and printing of the water bill is contained within the Finance Department's operating budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the design for the new water bill (attached as Appendix I) be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City of Toronto Finance Department currently bills water customers for the former municipalities of East York, Toronto, North York and Etobicoke. In the early fall, the Finance Department will commence billing the water customers for the former municipalities of Scarborough and York. Currently, Toronto Hydro (formerly Scarborough Public Utilities Commission) bills water customers for the former municipalities of Scarborough and York.

At its meeting held on June 16, 1999, the Works Committee gave consideration to a report (June 1, 1999) from Councillor Saundercook regarding the water bill format. In its consideration of this matter, the Works Committee, among other things:

(a) adopted the following principles and guidelines for a new water bill:

(i) bill must be easy to read and understand (in contrast to the public perception of the 1998 tax bill) - mailing addresses, information, etc., should be prominently displayed and printed in relatively large and readable fonts so that it is easy to read. The information flow on the bill must also be relatively simple;

(ii) for public information purposes, the cost of water could be prominently displayed and broken down. This is consistent with current bill status and work plan - where W&WW develop the ratios for the bill, and this information is provided to Finance. In the same spirit, Toronto Hydro has also recently redesigned its bill giving a breakdown of total costs that make up an energy bill;

(iii) for public information for metered customers, previous and current readings on the meter, along with total consumption per billing period should be displayed. This is consistent with many billing practices in the former municipalities;

(iv) a consumption history chart (in the form of a graph or table) could be provided once data is collected on the new system, as this will allow the individual homeowner to monitor their consumption and identify potential problems (for example, if water usage keeps increasing, this may indicate a leak in the plumbing of the home);

(v) there must be a provision made for general information boxes - where other water related information may be shown (such as messages regarding taste and odor problems); and

(vi) consistent with generally accepted product labeling regulations, US Congressional Legislation and Works and Utilities Committee precedent, chemical composition of the tap water should be included on the bill and/or any inserts based on yearly reporting from the Water and Wastewater Services data;

(b) directed that the new water bill be forwarded to the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment (TIE) team for review; and

(c) directed that the Commissioner of Finance, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, report to Works Committee regarding the final design of the water bill.

Comments:

With the consolidation of water billing operations and systems, and the adoption by Council of a harmonized water rate structure for the City, the Finance Department has embarked on the design of a new City of Toronto water bill. The goal for the new bill design is a clear, easy-to-follow format which provides customers with comprehensive water and sewer information.

The Finance Department currently bills water customers for the former municipalities of East York, Toronto, North York and Etobicoke off of four different water computer systems, using four different bill formats:

Appendix A Former East York bill

Appendix B Former Etobicoke bill

Appendix C Former North York bill

Appendix D Former Toronto bill

Toronto Hydro (formerly Scarborough Public Utilities Commission - SPUC) currently bills water customers for the former municipalities of Scarborough and York. Appendix E is a copy of the bill format used by former SPUC. Appendix F is a copy of the new bill format recently adopted by Toronto Hydro. In early fall 1999, the Finance Department will commence billing water for the former municipalities of Scarborough and York.

None of the water billing systems currently in use across the former municipalities are Y2K compliant. In addition, the existing systems, including Toronto Hydro's system, cannot bill water consumption in accordance with the new water rate structure adopted by Council in May of this year.

In August, the Finance Department will begin converting the current water billing systems onto a new, consolidated water billing system which is Y2K compliant and which accommodates the new water rate structure scheduled to come into effect later this year. By November, all of the former municipalities, including Scarborough and York, will be on one, consolidated water database system.

In preparation for the conversion to a consolidated water billing system, and the introduction of the new water rate structure adopted by Council to take effective later this year, the Finance Department, in consultation with Works and Emergency Services, embarked on the design of a new water bill for the City of Toronto.

Appendices G and H are examples (in black and white) of what the new bill will look like for a large volume, commercial account and for flat-rate accounts:

Appendix G Large Volume Commercial Account

Appendix H Flat-Rate Account

Appendix I is a coloured mock-up of the proposed water bill design. The billing information presented in Appendix I is typical of a residential water account.

The proposed water bill was designed in consultation with staff from Works and Emergency Services. The design encompasses the principles adopted by the Works Committee at its meeting of June 16, 1999, and was reviewed and endorsed by the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment (TIE) team at its meeting held on June 22, 1999.

By June of next year, once consumption data is collected and recorded on the new consolidated water system, the bill format will be expanded to include a consumption history chart (in the form of a graph or table). An additional panel (7" x 3 ½") will be added to the bottom of the bill to accommodate consumption history information (including date of read, number of days, consumption per day, amount billed for the period) and a chart/graph. The additional panel will allow us to increase the font size of the information printed on the back of the bill, making it easier to read. A draft mock-up of the expanded design will be available at the meeting.

Conclusion:

The proposed Toronto water bill design (attached as Appendix I) provides our customers with comprehensive water and sewage information in an easy-to-understand format. The design was developed in consultation with staff from Works and Emergency Services, and was reviewed and endorsed by the Toronto Inter-Department Environment team.

It is our intention to begin using the new water bill format as current water systems across the former municipalities are converted onto the new, consolidated water database system. Conversion is scheduled to begin in August of this year, and should be completed by October/November 1999.

It is necessary to finalize the bill design by the end of July 1999 to enable the work to be completed to meet this objective.

Contact:

Giuliana Carbone 392-8065

(A copy of Appendices A to H has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works Committee meeting of July 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Insert Appendix I

Insert Appendix I (page two)

12

Water Efficiency Plan

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain the necessary authority for the expenditure of $26,000.00 to complete the development of the Water Efficiency Plan and investigate more aggressive water reductions as identified in the Main Treatment Plant Mediation Agreement.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $26,000.00 has been approved in the 1999 Capital Works Program, Water Supply, under Engineering Studies, Project No. WS363-T20126, "Water Efficiency Study".

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted to amend the existing agreement with the firm of Renewable Energy in Canada (Consulting) Limited (REIC Consulting Limited) from $136,587.00 to $162,587.00 to complete the development of the City's Water Efficiency Plan as indicated in the revised scope of work, and complying with the terms of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Mediation Agreement pertaining to the Water Efficiency Plan which includes public consultation and the establishment of a Water Efficiency Plan Review Committee; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1996, the former Metropolitan Toronto Council commissioned the development of a new Water Efficiency Plan. The objective of the plan was to reduce the projected average day water demand by at least 15 percent by the year 2011, the date when major capital works would have to be undertaken to meet the demand projections. On December 18, 1996, the former Metropolitan Toronto Council, by adoption of Clause No. 14 of Report No. 13 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, approved the engagement of the firm REIC Consulting Limited (Renewable Energy in Canada Consulting Limited), selected through an open consultant selection process in accordance with corporate policy, to develop a Metro-wide Water Efficiency Plan. Since the initiation of the Plan development, a number of issues have arisen delaying the completion of the Plan and changing the original scope of work.

These include the following:

- during the development of the plan it was recognized that the original water demand projections would not occur until approximately 2018 because of lower than expected employment growth;

- as a result of the recent amalgamation of the six area municipalities with Metropolitan Toronto to the new City of Toronto and through the harmonization of programs and service delivery, the process by which the Water Efficiency Plan will be developed and implemented has changed;

- the focus on water consumption reduction targets is two-fold and includes reductions in:

- maximum day water demands to provide capital works deferrals in Water Supply; and

- average annual day water demands to provide capital works deferrals in Water Pollution Control;

- the City has undertaken several pilot projects recently to assess the effectiveness and cost of various water efficiency measures; this new data is available for incorporation into the development of the Plan; and

- the terms of the recent Council approved Main Treatment Plan Environmental Assessment Mediation Report obligate the City to investigate more aggressive water reduction targets, provide broad public consultation through public and industry review of the Plan, establishment of a Water Efficiency Plan Review Committee and completion of the Plan for Council approval by December 1999.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In the years since the development of the Water Efficiency Plan began, several issues have arisen which have a bearing on water efficiency planning. As a result, a change in the scope of work is warranted. The intention is to complete the development of the Water Efficiency Plan in a manner that will address the following:

- incorporate the revised water demand projections;

- incorporate new population and employment projections;

- identify programs/measures that focus on reductions in maximum day demand (to reduce capital costs associated with water supply);

- identify programs/measures that focus on reductions in average day demand (to reduce capital costs associated with water pollution control);

- incorporate new information regarding capital works requirements with and without water efficiency measures implemented;

- provide an analysis for the more aggressive water reduction targets identified in the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Mediation Agreement;

- incorporate new information about water efficiency measures that is now available through pilot projects undertaken by the City and data derived from other jurisdictions;

- provide information on costs and water savings associated with each measure, separated by sector;

- conduct a preliminary cost-benefit analysis for all water efficiency measures, based on available capital works information;

- provide information to guide the implementation of the Plan; and

- completion of the Plan for submission to City Council for adoption by December 1999.

Consistent with the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Mediation Agreement, a Water Efficiency Plan Review Committee will be formed to provide review of the Plan, review public comments, and report to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Works Committee regarding revisions that should be made to the draft Plan.

In addition, a public consultation process will be undertaken to provide broader stakeholder input in the identification and selection of appropriate water efficiency measures and opportunities for review of the draft Water Efficiency Plan.

The firm REIC Consulting Limited (Renewable Energy in Canada Consulting Limited) was originally selected through an open consultant selection process in accordance with corporate policy, to develop a Metro-wide Water Efficiency Plan. The firm is recognized as a leader in the field of water efficiency planning, and has revised their work plan to accommodate the above needs and the tight time schedule mandated by the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Mediation Agreement.

Conclusions:

The change in scope of work for the development of the City's Water Efficiency Plan is necessary to address several issues which have arisen since the development of the Plan began. This results in additional expenditure of $26,000.00 which has been approved in the 1999 Capital Works Program.

The City has an obligation, through the terms of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Mediation Agreement, to complete the development of the Water Efficiency Plan and submit the Plan to Council for adoption by December 1999. In the interest of maintaining project continuity and to complete the Plan within the time lines identified, it is recommended that the existing agreement with the firm of Renewable Energy in Canada (Consulting) Limited (REIC Consulting Limited) be amended from $136,587.00 to $162,587.00.

Contact Name:

Mr. M. D'Andrea, P.Eng.

Manager, Infrastructure Asset Management

Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone: (416) 397-4631; Fax: (416) 392-2974

e-mail: michael_d'andrea@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

13

Engagement of Consultants to Undertake

Water Supply Joint Optimization Study

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To present the results of the Request for Proposals for the selection of consultants to carry out the Water Supply Joint Optimization Study, and to obtain approval to award the consulting assignment to Proctor & Redfern Limited.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

During the meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City of Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee approving the 1999 - 2003 Capital Budget and Five-year Capital Program. This included funds for the engagement of consultants for the Water Supply Joint Optimization Study. These funds are available in the Water and Wastewater Services Division, Water Supply Account No. WS 363 Engineering Studies.

The total approved funds for this study is $513,000.00 net of Goods and Services Tax (GST) rebate. The total estimated cost of the study is $1,006,000.00 net of GST rebate, to be shared equally with York Region. Therefore, the net cost to Toronto is estimated at $503,000.00 which is within the approved amount.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the consulting assignment for the Water Supply Joint Optimization Study be awarded to the firm of Proctor & Redfern Ltd. at a cost not to exceed $955,000.00, including GST and a contingency allowance of $90,000.00, including GST to cover potential additional engineering work required if necessary and as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, City of Toronto Council approved Clause No. 1 of Report No. 7 of The Works and Utilities Committee authorizing execution of an agreement for supply of additional water to York Region. This agreement allows for an average day supply of 260 megalitres (ML) to York Region, a demand anticipated to occur in 2004. The Capital Works required to satisfy the additional supply of water are based on the 1995 Water Supply Joint Study. This study undertaken by Fenco MacLaren Inc. identified infrastructure to meet City of Toronto demand to the year 2011 while providing average day supply of 260 ML to York Region. This includes demand reductions of 13 percent within the City of Toronto due to water efficiency programs. The capital cost of the additional infrastructure to meet these demand conditions was estimated at $206 million. This cost is shared with York Region based on proportional use, in this case both shares being approximately $103 million.

The agreement also includes a clause wherein the parties agree to complete joint infrastructure studies in a timely fashion to confirm the need for construction of new capital works which consider expansion of the Toronto system to service the Toronto area and York Region. The cost of these studies are to be shared between the parties.

Growth within the City of Toronto continues, however, at a rate less than that anticipated in the 1995 Water Supply Joint Study. There is also ongoing growth within York Region. As one option to meet growth demands, York Region is currently undertaking an Environmental Assessment for additional water supply from Lake Ontario via a Durham West route. However, the Region is eager to explore the viability and effectiveness of additional supply from Toronto. Considering the above changes from assumptions used in the 1995 Water Supply Joint Study, a new infrastructure study is required. Due to the long lead time for works of this nature, this study must be undertaken at this time.

The main objectives of the study include:

(a) a high level assessment of Greater Toronto Area wide services and identification of opportunities to meet growth and security needs;

(b) determination of projected water demands within the City of Toronto for the years 2011 and 2031 and incorporating existing water demand projections for York Region to the same planning horizons;

(c) to identify and incorporate the effects of ongoing water efficiency programs in Toronto and York Region; and

(d) determination of optimal infrastructure required to meet the above demands including assessment of options for additional supply from Toronto.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The terms of reference to undertake this study were issued to consultants on May 17, 1999. The details of the selection process are outlined in Appendix "A". On June 14, 1999, the Works and Emergency Services Department received detailed proposals including separate sealed cost proposals from CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited, Proctor & Redfern Limited and the Greater Toronto Consulting Group.

All of the proposals were reviewed by a Consultant Selection Committee comprised of representatives from the City of Toronto and York Region, based on a predetermined selection process of evaluating the proposals against specified criteria. Following detailed review of the technical aspects of the submissions, all three firms qualified for further consideration and the price envelopes were opened.

Interviews were held with the three firms in order to clarify and finalize the specific scope of work required and the related costs involved. Further dialogue and communication took place after the interviews.

As indicated in Appendix "A" which details the consultant selection process, the Consultant Selection Committee concluded that the proposal submitted by Proctor & Redfern Ltd. was determined to have the "lowest cost/point" and best satisfied the overall project requirements at a reasonable cost.

Conclusions:

A thorough consultant selection procedure has been followed consistent with corporate practices.

It is recommended that Proctor & Redfern Ltd. be awarded the assignment to undertake the Joint Optimization Study.

Contact Name:

Mr. H.A. Taniguchi, P. Eng., Director, Water Supply

Phone: (416) 392-8220; Fax: (416) 392-3639

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

Appendix "A"

Water Supply Joint Optimization Study

Details of the Consultant Selection Process

(1) A two-stage process was undertaken whereby Expressions of Interest were requested first, followed up by a Request for Proposals from the short-listed proponents.

(2) Sixteen firms with experience in similar work were chosen from a roster of qualified consultants and invited to submit Expressions of Interest. Nine firms declined to submit proposals. Of the remaining seven firms, four banded together to form a consortium in order to prepare responses such that four responses were submitted in total. The responses were evaluated according to a set of pre-established criteria by representatives from the Water and Wastewater Services and Technical Services Divisions of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

(3) Using a threshold level of 75 percent of the maximum attainable score as a criterion, evaluation of the Expressions of Interest resulted in a short list of three consulting firms. Detailed written proposals, including separate sealed cost proposals, were requested and received from the three firms.

(4) A formal consultant selection committee was struck to evaluate the detailed proposals. As with the Expression of Interest, the committee was comprised of representatives from the Water and Wastewater Services and Technical Services Divisions of the Department and York Region.

(5) The technical submissions were reviewed first independently and then jointly by members of the Consultant Selection Committee, and were evaluated according to a set of pre-established criteria. Once again, a threshold level of 75 percent of the maximum attainable score had been previously established as the criterion for the next step which was a review of the separately submitted sealed cost proposals.

(6) Accordingly, all three firms qualified for further consideration and the cost proposals were reviewed.

(7) The three firms were then interviewed in order to clarify and finalize the specific scope of work required and the related costs involved. Further dialogue and communication took place after the interviews and proponents were requested to provide written clarification to proposal items as required.

(8) On completion of all the above, the selection committee concluded that the Proctor & Redfern Ltd. submission had the "lowest cost/point" based on the costs in the fee proposal and the points awarded in the technical evaluation and was, therefore, ranked first.

(9) It was recommended that the Water Supply Joint Optimization Study be awarded to Proctor & Redfern Ltd.

14

1999 Ultra Low Flush (ULF) Toilet Incentive Program

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by deleting Recommendation No. (2) of the Works Committee. viz.:

"(2) that tenants in participating apartment buildings be advised that the City expects water costs to be reduced through the program:".)

The Works Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2) that tenants in participating apartment buildings be advised that the City expects water costs to be reduced through the program:

Purpose:

To recommend a program to replace approximately 10,000 existing high-consumption (13 litres or more per flush) toilets located in the multi-residential property sector with ultra low flush (ULF) six-litre toilets as a quick start component of the City's Water Efficiency Plan. This ULFT₉₉ Program will also test the disposal methods and reuse options for the existing high-consumption toilets.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999 Water and Wastewater Capital Works Program - Water Efficiency Budget included funds in the amount of $665,000.00 for a multi-residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet (ULFT₉₉) replacement program of which $615,000.00 will be used as financial incentives for the multi-residential property owners to replace existing high-consumption toilets, and $50,000.00 will be used to promote the ULFT₉₉ program.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be given to offer multi-residential property owners a financial incentive to replace existing high-consumption toilets with ultra low flush toilets in the amount of $60.00 per floor outlet toilets using 13 to 20 litres per flush, and $75.00 per back-outlet toilet using 20 litres per flush;

(2) the City pre-qualify through a Request for Proposals process approximately six Performance Contractors to undertake the ultra low flush toilet change-out program as well as a showerhead and faucet aerator program in the multi-residential sector;

(3) the Solid Waste Management fees be waived for the disposal of all existing high-consumption toilets replaced through this program; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be granted the authority necessary to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The former Metro Toronto Council adopted a target reduction in its average day water production capacity of 15 percent through water efficiency strategies by year 2011. The City of Toronto is currently developing a Water Efficiency Plan aimed at meeting this target with a range of water efficiency strategies. The recommendations from the Water Efficiency Plan will be reported on to your Committee later this year. As an initial quick start initiative and as a follow up program to a pilot Ultra Low Flush replacement program undertaken by Metro in 1997, it is recommended that a financial based incentive Ultra Low Flush Toilet replacement program be offered to the multi-residential sector for the remainder of 1999.

The former Metro Council undertook an Ultra Low Flush Toilet Pilot Project on February 12 and 13, 1997. This pilot offered a $75.00 incentive to single-family and multi-family residential sectors for every existing toilet replaced. A total of 300 toilets were replaced in the four buildings with a water savings of about 20,000 m³. Results from this pilot demonstrated that the four multi-residential buildings received, on average, a 30 percent reduction in water consumption. The average cost of a toilet installation is $300.00 and the cost to the property owner after the rebate is approximately $225.00. Based on the 30 percent water savings, the homeowner will recover the cost of the toilet installation in three years or less from water savings.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Water Efficiency Plan has identified replacement of high-consumption toilets in the multi-residential sector as one water efficiency initiative which is technically feasible, cost-effective and socially acceptable. The ULF toilets use 6 litres per flush, consequently there is approximately a 50 to 70 percent reduction in water use associated with these toilets over the 12 litre to 20 litre high-consumption toilets. The multi-residential sector is an ideal target for the initial toilet change-out program due to the demographics of the multi-residential sector, which tend to have a higher percentage of young families and consequently a higher per capita water consumption.

There are approximately 450,000 multi-residential units in the city of Toronto. Approximately ten percent of these have been retrofitted with ULF toilets to date. The objective of this multi-residential replacement program is to replace 10,000 units this year, and increase the replacement to at least 25,000 units each year to 2011, subject to approval of capital funding for the continuation of this program in each subsequent year.

Staff have determined from the pilot study undertaken in 1997, and from measurements taken on actual replacements in the City, that on average, the water savings expected by installing 10,000 high-quality ULF toilets in the multi-residential sector will amount to about 225 litres/day for every toilet or about 820,000 m³/year.

It is proposed to offer a financial incentive of $60.00 per toilet to building owners for all existing high-consumption water use toilets using more than 13 litres/flush. An incentive of $75.00 per toilet will be offered to building owners who choose to replace the more expensive back-outlet toilets. It is estimated that these toilets make up about three to four percent of the total number of inefficient toilet stock in this sector. These existing back-outlet toilets are very expensive to replace, are poor flushers and use as much as 20 litres per flush. The City will provide incentives for the replacement of approximately 1,000 of the back-outlet toilets.

The Performance Contractors may choose to install showerheads and faucet aerators as water and energy saving devices for the multi-residential property owners. Enbridge Consumers Gas has expressed interest in the ULFT₉₉ Program, and has agreed to provide an additional incentive to the multi-residential property owners in the amount of $5.40 per unit for every showerhead and faucet aerator replaced up to a maximum of $54,000.00, provided that the building uses natural gas to heat their domestic hot water.

It is proposed to implement the ULFT₉₉ Program by pre-selecting a number of Performance Contractors to undertake the toilet installations for the multi-residential property owners. The City of Toronto will pre-select, through a Request for Qualifications process, approximately six contractors who are competent and appropriately experienced to undertake this work. Multi-residential property owners may request proposals from one or more of the Performance Contractors on ULFT change-out programs. The proposals should provide, among other things, the amount of guaranteed water and energy savings and length of pay-back period for each owner to consider. The owners will contract with the Performance Contractor that best meets their business plan for a low flush change-out program.

Contractors who wish to be qualified as Performance Contractors will be rated according to the following criteria:

(a) licensed/registered status under all applicable laws (mandatory);

(b) extent and compliance with performance guarantees given to customers;

(c) years in business;

(d) financial references and bonding capacity;

(e) management experience and skills;

(f) qualifications and references of key personnel;

(g) co-ordination techniques/abilities;

(h) ability to achieve timely project completion;

(i) annual volume of water saved;

(j) annual number of toilets replaced; and

(k) provision of CSA approved toilets.

Under the ULFT₉₉ Program, multi-residential building owners will become entitled to receive a per-unit financial incentive if they have a registered Performance Contractor carry out the replacement, and provide certification to the City as to the make/model of the ULF toilets, the day of completion of their installation, proof of toilet disposal at the Keele Valley Landfill, and required payment terms.

The City will provide the names of all registered qualified Performance Contractors to multi-residential owners applying for financial incentives, and it will be up to each selected owner to make contractual arrangements with one of such contractors.

The use of Performance Contractors is imperative for successful ULF toilet replacements, in that they have several years of experience in the installation and monitoring of high-quality ULF toilets in the multi-residential sectors. In addition, Performance Contractors provide a unique business arrangement under which they can provide a turnkey service of water and energy analysis, engineering, financing and operator training to implement a successful water and energy efficiency improvement project in a building facility through Performance Guarantees.

All privately owned buildings will be require to use Performance Contractors in order to qualify into the program. All publicly owned buildings will have the option to use Performance Contractors or in-house staff for replacements. Incentives will be offered such that 75 percent will be allocated for private sector and 25 percent will be allocated to the public sector respectively. Building owners located within the City of Toronto will submit an application to the Works and Emergency Services Department to qualify into the program. This program will be administered by staff of the Technical Services and Water and Wastewater Divisions.

It is important to note that ultra low flush toilet manufacturers are required to meet the quality of manufacturing established by the Canadian Standards Association. This standard exceeds other manufacturing standards for ultra low flush toilets such as the ASTM manufacturing standards common throughout the U.S. The Terms of Reference for selecting Performance Contractors will require that only the CSA standard of manufacturing will be supplied under this program. Staff have consulted with the City of Barrie, Durham Region, Region of Waterloo and the City of Victoria each of whom have undertaken ultra low flush toilet change-out programs and determined that the complaint frequency regarding the operation of the ultra low flush toilets has been less than 1 percent.

Approximately 10,000 existing, high-consumption toilets will be removed from circulation and destroyed:

(1) to prevent them from being re-installed in Toronto or sold to other nations; and

(2) to divert them from landfill.

The porcelain collected through the ULFT₉₉ Program will be reused as aggregate for lining of the gas collection trenches at the Keele Valley Landfill site. Normally, crushed limestone is purchased at a cost of about $14.00 per tonne for the gas collection trenches. We expect to collect approximately 380 tonnes of existing high-consumption toilets for reuse, thus saving approximately $5,300.00 in aggregate costs.

To ensure that only toilets from this program are disposed of free of charge, staff from the Solid Waste Management and Water and Wastewater Divisions are jointly preparing a validation system to track the disposal methods of all existing, high-consumption toilets before any incentives are paid out. Basically, the number of toilets being installed must equal the number of toilets being disposed of.

It is proposed that all Solid Waste Management fees be waived for the disposal of toilets during this program.

Conclusions:

Toronto's population is growing and the City must be able to meet the increased water supply and wastewater needs of this growth. As a sound environmental principle, water efficiency will play an important role in meeting future water demand. The City is committed to a 15 percent reduction target of projected average annual day demands through the implementation of water efficiency measures by the year 2011. The ULFT₉₉ Program will assist the City in meeting this target.

This program will be analysed and re-evaluated at the end of 1999. A full program roll-out, target replacement and budget will be set for the year 2000 and beyond. Interested stakeholders will be consulted throughout the development of present and future programs.

There is sufficient funding of $719,000.00 from the approved 1999 Capital Works Program WS021-T20342 Water Efficiency Program - Implementation Projects, to implement the ULFT₉₉ Program in the multi-residential sector in the City of Toronto as described in this report.

Contact Name:

Roman Kaszczij, P. Eng., Engineer - Water Efficiency

Tel: (416) 392-4967; Fax: (416) 392-2974

15

Gerrard Street Water Main -

Alternatives to Increase Supply Pressure

(Ward 26 - East Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of Option (3) embodied in the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and that staff be requested to move as expeditiously as possible to assure that the work can be commenced in the year 2000, subject to capital budget approval of funds:

Purpose:

This report provides results of a review of alternatives to increase the water supply pressure in the trunk water main servicing the area bounded by Main Street, Gerrard Street, Victoria Park Avenue and Kingston Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications as a result of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on May 19, 1999, had before it a report (dated May 7, 1999, Item No. 10) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing information in response to concerns raised by a number of residents in the Main and Gerrard Street area about the adequacy of their water supply. This report noted that supply pressures would drop in a household when a tap was turned indicating a reduction in flow capacity due to the condition of local water mains, substandard sizing of service connections and substandard internal house plumbing. The report also noted that the supplied static pressure is at the lower end of operating standards because the area is located in the upper part of Pressure District No. 2 at a relatively high elevation. Four main options to solve the problem were noted including:

(1) increase the static pressure in the Gerrard Street trunk main;

(2) improve water services to properties;

(3) clean and line water mains; and

(4) enlarge existing connections and construct new connections to the trunk water mains.

Work on Options 2 and 3 which involve improving the water services to properties and the cleaning and lining of local distribution water mains is currently underway.

As these measures may not fully address the situation, a motion was adopted at the Committee meeting recommending that staff conduct a review of the alternatives outlined in Option (1) to increase the lower range of the supply pressures in the Gerrard Street trunk main; such review to determine the feasibility of the alternatives and the estimated capital and operating costs associated with them; and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the results of the review at the July 14, 1999 Works Committee meeting.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The source of water supply to this area is a 1200 millimetre (mm) trunk water main running from the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant to St. Clair Reservoir. This trunk main supplies the Main and Gerrard area through two branch connections, one at Wayland Avenue and Gerrard Street, the other at Kingston Road and Kingswood Road. The city-wide standard is that pressure at branch connections should fall between 276 kiloPascals (kPa) (40 pounds per square inch (psi)) and 793 kPa (115 psi) at all times. Pressure measurements at these branch connections taken between May 26 and June 2, 1999, indicate that supply pressure was between 280 (kPa) (41 psi) and 450 kPa (65 psi). The lower pressures occur when only one pump is operating to supply this main at the R.C. Harris plant, while the higher pressures occur when two pumps are operating. Pressures at these branches are at the lower end of the standard because this area is in an elevated section of Pressure District 2.

The report identified three alternatives under Option (1): changing the pumping operations at the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant; the installation of a booster pump; and a change in the boundaries between Pressure Districts 2 and 3. A description of these alternatives and results of a preliminary analysis are as follows:

(1) Changing the Pumping Operations at R.C. Harris Filtration Plant:

Currently only one pump is required to be in operation to supply the Gerrard Street main except during the high demand season from May to September and from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily. Operation of two pumps for the rest of the year would require the throttling of R.C. Harris pump discharge valves, and would significantly constrain operational flexibility. Moveover, operation of two pumps would not be possible during periods of extremely low demand or during plant shutdowns for maintenance purposes.

Increasing supply from the R.C. Harris plant to the transmission system by operating two pumps into the Gerrard Street main must be offset by decreasing supply from the F.J. Horgan and R.L. Clark plants. This has significant energy cost implications. Given that hydro consumption charges in the amalgamated city have not been harmonized to date, hydro consumption is more expensive at the R.C. Harris than at other plants. It is estimated that operating two pumps at R.C. Harris when possible will result in an annual hydro cost increase of $56,000.00. In addition, peak hydro consumption charges resulting from running two pumps throughout the day instead of only from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. are estimated to be $57,000.00 annually, for a total annual increase in energy costs of $113,000.00. As indicated in Appendix "A" (attached), 20-year life cycle costs would be $1.85 million.

This alternative is not considered feasible to implement.

(2) Construct a Booster Pumping Station:

A booster pumping station possibly located in an underground vault at Wayland Avenue and Gerrard Street would be capable of boosting supply pressure to this area by approximately 200 kPa (30 psi). Based on this preliminary assessment, construction costs for this station would be approximately $350,000.00. Assuming average day consumption of 2,000 cubic metres per day, annual operating and maintenance costs for this station would be approximately $7,000.00. Twenty-year life cycle costs are estimated at $465,000.00.

The City of Toronto has recently discontinued operation of a similar underground pumping station at Dorset Avenue and Kingston Road in Scarborough. Operation of this station proved to be problematic as difficulty was encountered balancing supply pressure through periods of high and low demand.

Accordingly, this alternative should not be pursued.

(3) Adjust the Boundary between Pressure Districts 2 and 3E:

If pressure district boundaries are adjusted so that the Main and Gerrard district is included in Pressure District 3E instead of District 2, water would be provided at higher pressure to the area in question. This would result in pressures in the area of between 520-585 kPa (75-85 psi). Preliminary hydraulic analysis has shown that this would have a minor impact on overall District 3E pressures. More detailed hydraulic modelling would need to be completed to confirm that the low pressure problem is not shifted from one area to another.

Incorporating this system modification would require the construction of a small section of water main as well as the installation of a metering chamber and a check valve to allow for a secondary supply to the area. The estimated cost of construction is $235,000.00, with an increase in annual operating and maintenance costs of $12,500.00. This alternative has the lowest life cycle cost at $440,000.00.

Based on a preliminary analysis this alternative appears feasible, however, further analysis is required to confirm costs and hydraulic impact.

Workplan:

Work to improve flow capacities and pressures is currently underway, including repairs and upgrades to property water services and the cleaning and lining of local mains. Completion of the water service repair contract is expected in July 1999, with the water main cleaning and lining contract targeted for completion in November 1999. After completion of this work, a representative survey of supply pressures and flows will be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the upgrades. This should be completed by the end of 1999.

If pressures are still considered unsatisfactory, an analysis must be made to determine if further local upgrades, including enlargement of and/or added connections between the trunk main and sub-trunk mains, or an increase in bulk supply pressure, are required. This analysis would consist of the taking of pressures at various representative locations throughout the affected area during maximum and minimum hour demand periods to determine the extent and location of local pressure loss. This analysis can be completed by the spring of 2000.

Funding will be requested in the 2000 Capital Works Program to enable timely implementation of projects required for further service upgrades, including bulk supply pressure increase. If it is determined that an increase in bulk supply pressure is the most effective remedy to improve service in this area, the pressure district boundary change will proceed pending results of the detailed analysis of the alternative.

Conclusion:

A preliminary review of alternatives to increase the water supply pressure in the trunk water main serving the area bounded by Main Street, Gerrard Street, Victoria Park Avenue and Kingston Road has been undertaken. The alternative involving pressure district boundary change appears feasible but requires more detailed assessment. Funding will be allocated in the 2000 Capital Works Program for implementation of further service upgrades in the event pressure improvements are not realized following local upgrades currently underway.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Hiroshi Taniguchi

Director, Water Supply

Phone: (416) 392-8220; Fax: (416) 392-3639

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

Appendix "A"

Increased Supply Pressure at

Main and Gerrard

Life Cycle Cost Comparison of Alternatives

* 2 percent discount rate used.

--------

Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

16

Appointments to Toronto's Wet Weather Flow

Management Master Plan Steering Committee

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Councillor Saundercook also be appointed to the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Steering Committee as an additional representative of the Works Committee.")

The Works Committee recommends that Councillors Ila Bossons and Jack Layton be appointed as representatives of the Works Committee on the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Steering Committee, as requested in the following communication (June 24, 1999) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services:

At its meeting in May 1999, City Council approved a staff report dated March 25, 1999, regarding the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMMP). One of the recommendations of this report was to form a new Steering Committee for Step 2 (the Plan development phase) of the project. This Steering Committee will serve to advise the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the development of the Master Plan.

The Steering Committee membership will consists of:

City Councillors ex-officio - 2 members

Public Representatives - 12 members

City and Agency Staff - 10 representatives

I am writing this letter to request that two members of the Works Committee be appointed as representatives to the WWFMMP Steering Committee.

It is anticipated that an introductory meeting will be held on July 15, 1999, with regular meetings to commence in September 1999.

Please call me or Tracey Ehl Harrison at (416) 392-6698, if you have any questions. Thank you for your support in this project.

17

Engagement of Consultants - General Administration and

Site Supervision Services During Design/Build of

Biosolids Pelletization Facility, Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant

(Formerly the Main Treatment Plant)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise on the Request for Proposals for professional consulting services required for general administration and site supervision during the design and construction of the biosolids pelletization facility to be built at the Main Treatment Plant required to support the Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program, and to obtain authorization to award the consulting services agreement to R.V. Anderson and Associates Limited.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The necessary funds are available in the approved 1999-2003 Water and Wastewater Services Division Capital Works Program, Water Pollution Control, Capital Account No. C-WP160, Main Treatment Plant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the firm of R.V. Anderson Associates Limited be engaged to provide general administration and site supervision services during the design, construction and commissioning of the pelletization facility at the Main Treatment Plant for an amount of $842,000.00 including GST for a design/construction period of up to 20 months, and a contingency allowance of $80,000.00 to cover extended services during the design and construction of the facility at a rate not to exceed $5,000.00 per week including disbursements and GST, if necessary and as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By adoption of Clause No. 23 of Report No. 5 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, Council at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, granted authority to commence negotiations with and enter into an agreement with USF Canada Inc. to design and construct a biosolids pelletization facility at the City's Main Treatment Plant (MTP) for a lump sum cost of $22,235,959.00. The pelletization facility is required as part of the City's initiative to move from incineration to 100 percent beneficial use of biosolids at the MTP. An agreement has been entered into with USF Canada Inc. and design activities have commenced with facility construction to start this summer.

Accordingly, consulting services for general administration and site supervision will be required immediately to assist the City during design, construction and commissioning of the pelletization facility. In order to secure the necessary consulting services as expeditiously as possible, a one-stage Request for Proposals (RFP) competitive consultant selection process was issued by the Purchasing and Materials Management Division. Results of the consultant selection process are summarized below.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Six qualified consulting firms were invited to submit proposals. The RFP was also advertised on the internet website. Of the six firms only one firm, R.V. Anderson and Associates Limited (RVA), submitted a proposal. Three firms submitted written notice that they would not be submitting a proposal. As requested in the RFP, RVA submitted a detailed written proposal including a separate sealed cost proposal.

A formal consultant selection committee was struck to evaluate the proposal comprised of representatives from the Water and Wastewater Services and Technical Services Divisions of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

RVA's technical submission was evaluated first independently and then jointly by members of the Consultant Selection Committee in accordance with a set of pre-established criteria. A threshold level of 75 percent of the maximum attainable score was applied as a criterion for further consideration through a review of the separate cost proposal. RVA's technical proposal passed this threshold and their cost proposal was opened and reviewed. In order to obtain minor clarifications on elements of their proposal, RVA was interviewed by the selection committee.

RVA proposed to provide the required consulting services over a period of 20 months for the total upset limit of $842,000.00 including disbursements and GST. Any extended services required during design and construction of the facility would be limited to a maximum rate not to exceed $5,000.00 per week including disbursements and GST.

The selection committee concluded that the proposal submitted satisfied the overall project requirements at a reasonable cost, and demonstrates an appropriate level of effort to properly address the necessary elements of the work.

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

A contingency allowance of $80,000.00 is also recommended to cover the cost of any extended services during design and construction, if necessary and as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusions:

The proposal submitted by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited satisfies the requirements of the City's RFP, and the fee proposal is fair and reasonable in comparison with other design/build projects of a similar scale.

It is recommended that a consulting services agreement be entered into with RVA on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Contact Names:

R.M. Pickett, P. Eng. L.A. Pagano

Director, Water Pollution Control Director

Water and Wastewater Services Division Purchasing and Materials Management

Telephone: 392-8230 Telephone: 392-7312

18

Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program Update -

Award of Design Build Contracts for Biosolids Truck Loading

and Odour Control Facilities and Plant Wide Heating System

at Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant;

Amendment of Agreement with Terratec Environmental Ltd.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the amended Agreement with Terratec Environmental Limited include a clause that obliges Terratec to annually take up to 15,000 tonnes, at a rate of $121.67 per tonne, in addition to the 10,000 tonnes at $85.00 per tonne, and that this agreement be signed prior to the signing of any agreement with Thorburn Penny Limited and ICON Systems Limited.")

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (July 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, subject to amending Recommendation No. (4) to read as follows:

"(4) staff be authorized to continue negotiations with Toronto Hydro Energy Services to address electrical and thermal power supply, and to report back on progress at the next meeting of the Works Committee, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999.":

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the implementation of the Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program, to advise the Committee of the results of the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued for the Biosolids Truck Loading and Odour Control Facilities (Loading) and the Plant Wide Heating System (Heating), to request authority to enter into Agreement with the successful respondents, and to amend the existing Agreement related to biosolids land application demonstration.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $83,758,000.00 is available in the approved 1999-2003 Water and Wastewater Services Capital Works Program Account Nos. 2200112 and 2200110, Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (formerly Main Treatment Plant), and Account No. 22000034, Equipment Replacement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an Agreement with ICON Systems Limited (ICON) for the design, construction and commissioning of a biosolids truck loading and odour control facility in accordance with ICON's proposal dated June 14, 1999, at a lump sum price of $44,332,992.97, including contingencies and full GST, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, RFP No. 9155-99-01548, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(2) authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an Agreement with Thorburn Penny Limited (TPL) for the design, construction and commissioning of a plant wide heating system in accordance with TPL's proposal dated June 16, 1999, at a lump sum price of $17,847,719.00, including contingencies and full GST, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, RFP No. 9155-99-01547, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(3) authority be granted to amend the existing Agreement with Terratec Environmental Ltd. for biosolids land application demonstration to include increased quantities of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant biosolids, in order to accommodate execution of the biosolids design build projects on terms and conditions described further in this report and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

(4) staff be authorized to continue negotiations with Toronto Hydro Energy Services to address alternative thermal power supply.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On September 24, 1997, the former Metropolitan Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 8 of Report No. 12 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, titled "Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Implementation Plan", which endorsed the conclusions of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment, including the phased implementation of Biosolids Beneficial Use following the completion of four demonstration programs.

In January 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the feasibility of accelerating the shutdown of incineration at the Plant. The Plant is now known as the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (ABTP) as a result of the MTP EA Mediation Agreement approved by Council at its meeting of June 9, 10, and 11, 1999.

By adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 6 of The Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of July 8, 9, and 10, 1998, City Council authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to establish the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee (BMSC) and Independent Review Committee (IRC), retain consultants, and request proposals to allow for the shutdown of sewage sludge incinerators at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant within a three-year period. This initiative is now known as the Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program.

At its meeting of July 28, 1998, City Council adopted Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Works and Utilities Committee, which contained an accelerated timeline developed for planning purposes by the Committee for the initial implementation of the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program. Subsequently, with input from the BMSC, an aggressive timeline was set with the target date of December 31, 2000, for the end of sludge incineration at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant.

By adoption of clauses embodied in Report No. 5 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at its meeting of March 2, 3, and 4, 1999, City Council authorized staff to negotiate Agreements for the beneficial use of the City's biosolids with Terratec Environmental Ltd. (Terratec) and USF Canada Inc. (USF).

The adoption of the above-noted report also authorized the use of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) followed by a Request for Proposals (RFP) as a methodology for the selection of firms to undertake design/build contracts for the necessary biosolids truck loading and odour control facilities and a plant wide heating system, as well as authorized the shortlisting of respondents to the Request for Qualifications to receive the RFP.

Preliminary cost estimates of the design/build projects for the Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program were also included in the adopted report, and corresponding expenditure was provided in the 1999-2003 WPC Capital Works Program.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In order to support the beneficial use contracts described above, and to allow the shut down of incinerators, it is necessary to implement modifications to the ABTP as part of the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program. These modifications will replace some of the services currently linked to the incineration process. The required modifications are:

- the installation of a new biosolids loading and storage facilities to allow for unrestricted removal of biosolids from the plant by the land application contractor(s);

- the installation of hot water boilers and related piping to replace the heat generation currently provided by incineration; and,

- provision of new odour control facilities to treat odorous air from the dewatering building, the existing loading facility, the biosolids storage facility, and the new loading facility to replace the odour control currently provided by incineration.

The time available to design and construct these facilities is very short, and the design/build delivery method will be utilized to ensure they are operational prior to December 31, 2000. The Purchasing and Materials Management Division of the Finance Department assisted the staff of the Water Pollution Control Section and its consultant in the development and issuing of the RFQ and RFP. The three projects were bundled into two calls: (1) for the design and construction of the biosolids loading facility and odour control facility, and (2) for the design and construction of plant heating facilities.

The process for selection of design/build teams was developed by the City's biosolids consultants, R.V. Anderson Associates Limited and Brown and Caldwell. The method used was adopted from the Canadian Construction Association for design/build projects. This procurement strategy was consistent with that developed by the BMSC and IRC for the biosolids beneficial use projects. The progress of these design/build projects was reviewed on a regular basis by the public participating in the ABTP Neighbourhood Liaison Committee.

The key milestone dates during the design/build procurement process were;

Advertise for Letters of Interest January 26, 1999

Issue Request for Qualifications (RFQ) February 12, 1999

Receive Statements of Qualification March 11, 1999

Short list respondents March 29, 1999

Issue Request for Proposal (RFP) to Short listed Firms April 6 (loading) and 14 (heating), 1999

Receive Proposals June 14 (loading) and 16 (heating), 1999

Issue requests for supplemental information June 22, 25, 27, 1999

Respondent interviews June 28, 29 and 30, 1999

Finalize evaluation July 12, 1999

Recommend Award to Works Committee July 14, 1999

RFQ Responses:

Statements of qualifications were received from six firms for the Loading project and six firms for the Heating project. Following a technical review of their experience and financial capabilities, the following firms where shortlisted and received RFP's:

Loading Project Heating Project

CH2M Waterworks/Comstock AGRA Monenco Inc.

ICON Systems Limited Comstock Canada

Granville Constructors ICON Systems Limited

USF Canada / Asdor Thorburn Penny Limited

In order to ensure that the proposals received would meet the needs of the City and could be successfully integrated into the ongoing operation of the ABTP, a 20 percent design of the required facilities was undertaken by the City's biosolids consultants prior to the development of the RFP. The 20 percent design was developed through extensive consideration of the reliability, flexibility and functionality required of these facilities to support the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program. The constraints of the existing ABTP infrastructure were also examined and many different approaches were considered. The resulting 20 percent design formed the basis of the RFP and the base bid for which all the shortlisted firms would be invited to submit proposals. Respondents were also allowed to submit one alternate design proposal which could be based on a different design concept while maintaining the same required functionality.

Significant attention was paid to the area of odour control. Samples were taken of odorous air from the existing dewatering and biosolids loading facilities and analyzed for the odorous compounds characteristic of biosolids. These samples and the air flow requirements needed to prevent release of odours from the existing and new biosolids facilities were used to develop the 20 percent design. The 20 percent design and RFP called for a three-stage odour control system, consisting of two stages of wet scrubbers followed by a biofilter. Preliminary odour modeling work shows that there will be no discernable odour from the new odour control facilities at the ABTP property line. The RFP required that the contractor undertake a significant series of odour removal tests prior to full operation of the new facilities to ensure that the odour control system is effective.

During the development of the 20 percent design and RFP, several presentations were made at the ABTP Neighborhood Liaison Committee meetings to provide for public input.

Proposals were received from the following firms:

Loading Project Heating Project

ICON Systems Limited (base and alternate bids) AGRA Monenco Inc. (base bid only)

Granville Constructors (base bid only) Comstock Canada (base bid only)

USF Canada/Asdor (base and alternate bids) ICON Systems Limited (base and alternate bids)

Thorburn Penny Limited (base bid only)

In order to ensure equitable treatment of all proponents, a formal evaluation procedure with established criteria and scoring methods was developed and provided to the Purchasing and Materials Management Division prior to the receipt of the proposals. After completing an initial review of required financial instrument which had to be included in the proposal, and a review of the companies' financial stability, the proposals were evaluated by a team of consultants and staff based on the criteria contained in Appendix A (attached).

Following the evaluation, it was determined that the proposals with the highest scores were provided by ICON Systems Limited (base bid) for the Loading project with a total cost of $44,332,992.97, and by Thorburn Penny Limited for the Heating project with a total cost of $17,847,719.00, including both contingencies and full GST.

The total cost of the three projects related to the ABTP Biosolids Beneficial Use Program, namely, the sludge pelletization facility (already awarded to USF Canada), sludge loading and odour control facility, and plant-wide heating facility, excluding contingencies, but including the related cost of engineering site services and administration during their execution, is within the approved budget.

Accordingly, the program can start this year as planned.

The scope of work related to the proposed new Biosolids Loading Facility includes demolition of three existing sludge incinerators to make room for installation of the three sludge storage silos. During the construction period, after decommissioning of the three incinerators and prior to commissioning of the Sludge Pelletizer and the new Biosolids Loading Facility, the ABTP sludge disposal capabilities will be reduced by 50 percent. To provide for the continuous and reliable disposal of the sludges processed by the plant (53,000 dry tonnes per year), it is recommended that the present Agreement between the City and Terratec Environmental Ltd. be amended. The amended Agreement would include an increased quantity of biosolids to be land applied under Terratec's ongoing demonstration project beginning in August 1999 and continuing until commencement of their new contract, previously approved by Council, in 2001.

The unit costs of the biosolids land application services under the present Agreement with Terratec are $85.00 per dry tonne for up to 10,000 dry tonnes per year, and $124.00 per dry tonne for any additional tonnage over and above the 10,000, for a total quantity not to exceed 17,000 dry tonnes per year.

Under the amended Agreement, Terratec would be taking up to 25,000 dry tonnes of biosolids per year from the plant, including the basic 10,000 tonnes at a unit cost of $85.00 per dry tonne and up to 15,000 dry tonnes of additional biosolids at a cost of $121.67 per dry tonne, both including all applicable taxes.

Recently staff received a written proposal from Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc. (THES) to provide lower cost electrical and thermal energy to ABTP, which are made possible through cogeneration. Toronto Hydro is a taxable, incorporated business and the City is its largest customer. While we are reviewing the proposal at this time, there is a need to make certain decisions in order to meet Council's timeline for the elimination of incineration.

Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc. have indicated that, notwithstanding our desire to award the design/build contracts at this time, they can still work with us to address our energy needs even after completion of the construction of the hot water boilers contained in this RFP award.

We will continue to negotiate with Toronto Hydro for the provision of electrical and/or thermal energy through cogeneration.

This report is subject to a favourable report from the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that the design/build contract for the ABTP Biosolids Loading and Odour Control Facilities be awarded to ICON Systems Ltd. at a cost of $44,332.992.97, including $2,250,000.00 for contingencies, and the Plant Wide Heating contract to Thorburn Penny Limited at a cost of $17,847,719.00, including $700,000.00 for contingencies.

It is also recommended that the existing Agreement between the City and Terratec Environmental Ltd. for biosolids land application demonstration be amended to include an additional amount of the ABTP processed biosolids, at a unit cost of $85.00 per dry tonne for the basic $10,000 dry tonnes per year and $121.67 per dry tonne for any additional tonne up to 15,000 dry tonnes per year with a total not to exceed 25,000 dry tonnes per year starting in August of this year and until the new Agreement with Terratec comes into force in 2001.

Contact Name: Contact Name:

R.M. Pickett, P.Eng. Lou Pagano

Director Director , Purchasing and Materials Management Div.

Water Pollution Control Finance Department

Telephone 392-8234 Telephone 392-7311

Appendix "A"

(1) Experience and Capabilities:

- Corporate structure

- Construction capability

- Personnel Qualifications/Experience

- Design/build experience

- Related design experience

- Related construction experience

- References

(2) Design and Permitting:

- Conformance with specifications

- Quality of design (including drawings)

- Reliability

- Equipment selection

- Ease of future expansion

- Systems Operation/Performance

- System Failure Redundancy

- Level of required maintenance

- Materials of construction

- Approach to approvals and permits

- Flexibility and functionality

- Lifecycle costs

(3) Approach and Methodology:

- Organization/coordination/quality control

- Risk assessment for the City

- Quality control in design/construction

- Construction methodology

- Construction control

- Approach to safety issues

- Commissioning of facilities/training

- Environmental protection plan

- Response to draft Form of Contract

(4) Schedule:

- Level of detail

- Manpower allocation

- Critical path/task relationship

- Time to complete

- Realism/flexibility of schedule

- MTP operation issues/interruptions

- Staging for December 31, 2000

A total of 150 points were available for the technical criteria. Respondents were required to achieve a minimum of 100 points to be considered responsive and be considered further. Once the technical evaluation was completed, the final criteria of price was applied.

(5) Price:

The relative weights of technical criteria and price were 75 percent and 25 percent respectively. The firm with the lowest price for each project received 50 points and proportionally lower points were apportioned for higher prices. The technical score and price score was then added together to obtain a total score.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a joint communication (July 21, 1999) from the President, AGRA Monenco Inc. and the President, The State Group Limited, appealing the recommendation of the Works Committee regarding the award of tender to a competitor for Request for Proposal No. 9155-99-01547, and requesting that this recommendation be sent back to the Works Committee for reconsideration and that AGRA-State be given an opportunity to exercise their rights to participate in the selection process.)

19

Negotiations with USF Canada on the Contract for

Transportation, Marketing and Distribution of Pellets

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) an Advisory Group be convened, as soon as possible, with the following responsibilities, to provide input to the City in its negotiations with USF Canada, regarding the transportation, marketing and distribution of biosolids pellets:

(a) to develop a set of criteria, for consideration by the City, to assist in its negotiations with USF Canada. The criteria will be based on protecting human and environmental health in Toronto and anywhere else the pellets might end up; and

(b) to report back to the Works Committee, prior to signing of the contract; and

(2) the membership of the Advisory Group be established by interested members of the Works Committee and include members of the Works Committee, City staff, including a representative of Purchasing and Materials Management, representatives from CUPE Local 416, and members of the Environmental Community.")

The Works Committee reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999, on the following communications from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River:

(July 14, 1999)

Recommendations:

(1) That an advisory group be convened to advise the City in its negotiations with USF Canada regarding the transportation, marketing and distribution of pellets with the following responsibilities:

(a) to develop a set of criteria to guide and assist the City in its negotiations with USF Canada. These criteria should be based on maximizing human and environmental health in Toronto and anywhere else the pellets might end up; and

(b) to report back to the Works Committee prior to the signing of the contract; and

(2) membership of the advisory group will be established by interested Works Committee members and shall include Works Committee members, City staff, representatives from CUPE Local 416 and members of the environmental community.

Rationale:

At a June 19, 1999 workshop sponsored by CUPE and the Toronto Environmental Alliance to look at the City's biosolids program (see attached agenda), a number of questions about the pellet contract with USF Canada were raised. Some of these are outlined in my memo. CUPE and the environmental community proposed some innovative ideas that would be very helpful in negotiating a good contract with USF Canada. The proposed advisory group would provide an opportunity for such input. It would only meet a few times and would disband once the contract is signed.

(June 30, 1999)

The following letter was sent to Mr. Bob Pickett and copied to Councillors Saundercook, Disero, McConnell, Bussin, and to Commissioner Barry Gutteridge, Mike Price and James Anderson on June 24. It asks for information on, and an update on the status of the negotiations with USF Canada.

Given the importance of these negotiations, I have asked Mr. Pickett to provide the Works Committee with this information at the July 14 Works Committee meeting.

June 24, 1999

Dear Bob,

Thanks for the excellent presentation on Saturday at the CUPE Biosolids Conference. As you know, I think the Works Department is doing a great job in facilitating the shutdown of the MTP incinerator.

Now, we need to ensure the biosolids going into the plant is of "champagne" quality and that anything coming out of the MTP is dealt with in an environmentally responsible manner.

I understand that the Works Department is in the process of negotiating with USF Canada about the transportation, marketing and distribution of pellets.

As you know, there were concerns raised at the conference about various aspects of these negotiations. I kept a list and would appreciate your help in answering them.

(1) Is the City legally obligated to negotiating a 15-year contract? What would be the consequences to the City of lessening the contract length?

(2) At what point does the City lose liability over the pellets, if ever?

(3) What provisions are being considered to ensure that as the City's biosolids get cleaner, any added revenue gained by USF Canada is shared with the City?

(4) What is being done to ensure that City pellets will not be mixed with contaminated biosolids or pellets derived from contaminated biosolids?

(5) Are there criteria being used to determine where USF Canada can take City pellets?

(6) What is the process and timeline for negotiating the contract with USF Canada? What provision is there for stakeholder input into the negotiations?

Maybe you could come to an informal meeting with some of the participants of the workgroup and others, once you have answers to these questions.

--------

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (July 14, 1999) from Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice-President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union Local 416, respecting the status of negotiations with USF Canada on the contract for the transportation, marketing and distribution of pellets; stating that any pelletization facility must remain publicly operated, publicly staffed and publicly accountable; and supporting the suggestion of an informal meeting.

(A copy of the attachment referred to in the foregoing communication dated July 14, 1999, from Councillor Layton is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on recommendations from Councillor Layton as requested by the Works Committee at its meeting of July 14, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of March 2,3, and 4, 1999, by adoption of Clause No. 23 of Report No. 5 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, Council granted authority to enter into agreements with USF Canada to design and build a biosolids pelletization facility at the ABTP and to market and distribute the biosolids pellets produced.

Following negotiations, an agreement was entered into with USF Canada to design and construct the pelletization facility. Work on this project has been already initiated with the facility to be fully operational by December 31, 2000.

In accordance with Council authority we are currently in the process of negotiating an agreement with USF Canada to market and distribute the biosolids pellets.

Works Committee at its meeting of July 14, 1999, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the following Council meeting on recommendations from Councillor Layton regarding negotiations with USF Canada on the marketing and distribution of the pellets.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Prior to submission of this report staff have discussed and agreed with Councillor Layton's office to the following revised recommendations:

(1) That an advisory group be convened as soon as possible to provide input to the City in its negotiations with USF Canada regarding the transportation, marketing and distribution of biosolids pellets with the following responsibilities:

(a) to develop a set of criteria, for consideration by the City, to assist in its negotiations with USF Canada. The criteria will be based on protecting human and environmental health in Toronto and anywhere else the pellets might end up; and

(b) to report back to the Works Committee prior to signing of the contract.

(2) Membership of the advisory group will be established by interested Works Committee members and shall include Works Committee members, City staff, representatives from CUPE Local 416 and members of the environmental community.

In order to provide a forum for public input in the future, we intend to establish a committee to assist in the ongoing development and implementation of the City's biosolids program. This committee will be similar to the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee that assisted the City in the development of the Request for Proposals (RFPs) for beneficial use contractors and recommendations of the preferred proposals.

Conclusions:

In accordance with Councillor Layton's recommendations, the criteria developed by the advisory group will be considered in negotiating an agreement with USF Canada for the marketing and distribution of biosolids pellets produced at the ABTP.

We anticipate that the negotiations with USF Canada will continue over the next several months and will be finalized by November 1999.

Contact Name:

R.M. Pickett

Director, Water Pollution Control

Water and Wastewater Services Division

Telephone: 392-8230)

20

Joint Flood Protection Study: West Don Lands

(Don River)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Executive Director and Chief Planner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To authorize a joint study between the City of Toronto, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ontario Realty Corporation addressing technical issues related to flood protection of the West Don Lands and associated lands in the flood plain.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Existing funds in Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Budget - Stormwater Management up to the lesser of $50,000.00 or 40 percent of the study costs, are sufficient to pay for the City's portion of the cost of the work as outlined in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ontario Realty Corporation be authorized to:

(a) prepare a detailed terms of reference for the planning and design of flood protection works in the West Don Lands;

(b) engage a qualified technical consulting group to carry out the planning and design study, in accordance with standard City practice for the selection and hiring of consultants; and

(c) fund the City's contribution for the study from the 1999 Works and Emergency Services Capital Budget - Stormwater Management with such expenditures not to exceed the lesser of $50,000.00 or 40 percent of the total project study costs;

(2) Recommendation No. (1) be subject to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ontario Realty Corporation agreeing to pay for the balance of the study costs above and beyond the City's maximum contribution;

(3) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Works Committee in approximately six months with information on the results of the planning and design study and recommendations on the next steps; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In the late 1980's, the former City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario jointly undertook to develop 35 hectares of land east of Parliament Street, south of Front Street East to construct a 7,000 unit affordable housing project to alleviate a regional housing shortage. The planning and implementation of the project proved difficult because of unforeseen technical problems, including the mitigation of flood impacts from the Don River and the management of polluted soil and groundwater. These and other difficulties led to the project being cancelled in March 1992.

Between 1992 and 1996, the City and the Province negotiated the terms and conditions of transferring ownership of the development site back to the Province. In 1996, the deal was finalized and the transfer occurred. The City's liability in the project cancellation was limited to $30 million while the Province's liability was a substantially greater amount.

From a planning perspective, the failure of the project left a large planning vacuum. The site, which was primarily abandoned and derelict, had an antiquated heavy industrial zoning and no height limit. The City undertook to obtain a Special Policy Area (SPA) designation to permit development in the flood plain. However, the requisite flood proofing of individual buildings limits development unless remedial control works for regional flood protection is provided.

In the spring of 1996, an opportunity arose to implement planning measures to help revitalize the site. Two separate but parallel planning studies were completed to assist revitalization. The first study, undertaken by City planning staff, resulted in the development of an innovative set of new planning regulations for the King-Parliament area of downtown Toronto, including the West Don Lands. The regulations permit the reuse of existing buildings in the West Don Lands for non-residential uses in the short run. However, additions, new buildings and residential or live-work uses are not permitted until a Holding Symbol ("H") is removed from the lands. The resolution of flood protection, soil and groundwater, and infrastructure issues are required for the "H" to be removed. Of these issues, flood protection is the most complex and difficult to resolve. The full development potential of the West Don Lands cannot be achieved in the absence of a flood protection strategy.

The second study completed in 1996 by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on behalf of the Province examined greening options for the Lower Don area, and recommended the construction of a shallow, wide earth berm as the most cost effective way of resolving flood protection issues affecting the West Don Lands. The advantage of this solution is that it is cost effective, and permits substantial "greening" and public use of the Don River corridor. The study, however, was preliminary and lacked the substantial engineering detail needed to confirm its feasibility and effectiveness.

To date, the impact of the City's and Waterfront Regeneration Trust's studies has been mixed. The new planning regulations have assisted the reuse of existing building stock in the West Don Lands for non-profit and film-related uses. However, fuller revitalization of the lands has not been achieved. The Ontario Realty Corporation, which conducted an extensive RFP for development of the lands came close, but failed to sell the site to a major and credible Ontario developer. The reason the land deal failed was because the developer felt that resolution of certain issues, particularly the flood protection of the lands, was not adequately clear to reduce the development risk. Therefore the land price was discounted, and the ORC, whose mandate is to maximize the value of the land to the Province, could not get authorization to sell the land.

Clearly, a need to resolve the flood protection issue was apparent. This report addresses how more certainly regarding how to flood protect the West Don Lands can be achieved.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(1) The Ontario Realty Corporation's Current Mandate:

The Ontario Realty Corporations's mandate is to generate as much revenue as quickly as possible from the lease or sale of lands in the West Don Lands. This mandate is consistent with the province-wide direction from the Management Board that the Ontario Realty Corporation sell as many assets as quickly as possible to generate provincial revenues. According to senior staff at the Ontario Realty Corporation, they cannot finance construction of the infrastructure required up front prior to the sale of the lands.

The ORC's mandate raises a serious dilemma for both the Province and the City. Without comprehensive resolution of broader planning issues affecting the West Don lands which are the subject of an "H" under the Planning Act, the Province has little choice but to require purchasers to resolve them. This approach was tried and it failed.

The incremental sale of small parcels of land in the West Don Lands will also fail. Some of the infrastructure, such as the flood protection measures, is expensive and is not readily implemented incrementally. Second, a cost sharing arrangement between several individual landowners would be difficult to arrange and would hamper effective negotiations with the City on the removal of the "H". In short, a more creative approach to the reduction of development risk in the West Don Lands is required.

(2) The Technical Working Group - Flood Protection Study:

City planning staff have repeatedly indicated to the ORC that the key to initiating redevelopment of the West Don Lands is to provide prospective purchasers with a "road map" on how to resolve the larger technical planning issues within the West Don Lands. In this manner, the development risk associated with the West Don Lands can be minimized. This would likely result in better redevelopment of the lands, and the ORC will sell the lands for more. For this reason the ORC struck a working group with representatives from the ORC, the City, local resident groups, and other public agencies such as the Conservation Authority. The working group has agreed that the flood protection issue should be resolved first. The group feels that the key technical issues regarding flood protection are best resolved through a detailed study with costs shared between the involved public agencies. The Ontario Realty Corporation and the Conservation Authority are willing to commit funds to the study.

(3) The Potential Benefits of Resolving Flood Protection:

The benefits of resolving the flood protection issue are several and include:

(a) facilitates viable redevelopment of the West Don Lands;

(b) reintegrates a desolate area into the surrounding downtown;

(c) enhances the public open space network in the Lower Don and King-Parliament area; and

(d) addresses the issue of flood hazards in the floodplain as a whole, including South Riverdale, the Port area and the lower downtown.

(4) Preliminary Terms of Reference:

The purpose of the study is to expand on the conceptual design of a shallow berm and other measures recommended by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust in early 1996. The study will build on previous work by resolving certain detailed engineering issues and addressing some conceptual issues not previously considered. As part of the study the consultant group retained would be expected to provide:

(a) a detailed engineering design and specifications for the shallow berm, including a grading plan, and its offsite flood impacts;

(b) a detailed engineering design for any diversion culverts;

(c) a conceptual design for berming required on the east side of the Don River, and its offsite flood impacts;

(d) a drainage and storm water management plan for the area;

(e) a detailed engineering design for the Don River utility conduit bypass, and scoping of other potential issues associated with utility conflicts;

(f) a strategy for the management of contaminated soil and groundwater underneath and adjacent to the berm area or any other flood related infrastructure required;

(g) a conceptual design, feasibility and cost estimate for a pedestrian underpass and trail connection under the CNR rail corridor;

(h) preparation of a concept plan for the West Don Lands, 480 Lake Shore and adjacent areas which integrates the flood protection components with transportation, naturalization and trail connection concepts;

(i) scoping of any downstream issues such as the need for dredging the Keating channel or its replacement; and

(j) a detailed cost estimate for remedial works and the development of a financing strategy.

(5) Composition of the Steering Committee:

It is proposed that a Steering Committee be struck consisting of City staff from both Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ontario Realty Corporation and the West Don Lands Committee.

(6) Costs and Time Frame:

The total cost of the study is estimated to be between $100,000.00 and $125,000.00 and will take about six months to complete. It is intended that the study will proceed on a cost-shared basis with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and ORC. The City's contribution would be limited to the lesser of $50,000.00 or 40 percent of the total study cost.

Conclusions:

This proposed study is necessary to facilitate redevelopment of the West Don Lands in a manner that best benefits the City. This proposal has been discussed with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services who is supportive of this initiative.

Contact Names:

Lance Alexander Ted Bowering

Senior Planner Manager, Soil/Water Quality Improvement

Phone: 397-7573 Phone: 392-7705

Fax: 392-1330 Fax: 392-1456

Insert Map No. 1

Don River Flood Plain

Insert Map No. 2

Waterfront Regeneration's Concept Plan

for a Shallow Berm

21

Dunkers Flow Balancing System Monitoring Program

(Ward 13)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to enter into an agreement with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, through the Stormwater Assessment and Monitoring Performance II (SWAMP II) Program, to evaluate the performance of the Dunkers Flow Balancing System for treating stormwater runoff from the Brimley Road Drainage Area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $160,000.00 has been approved in the 1999 Capital Works Program, Stormwater Management, under Scarborough Various Locations, Project No. WP953-S25021, "Dunkers Flow Balancing".

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted for an expenditure of $160,000.00 to jointly fund, in conjunction with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the performance assessment of the Dunkers Flow Balancing System servicing the Brimley Road Drainage Area over a two-year monitoring period, subject to funding of $185,000.00 being provided by Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and an additional expenditure of about $50,000.00 being provided by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for chemical analyses;

(2) authority be granted to enter into an agreement with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to have this assessment undertaken through the Stormwater Assessment and Monitoring Performance II (SWAMP II) Program; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The environmental impacts of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflow discharges on area watercourses and the waterfront are well documented. The impact of these non-point sources of pollution has contributed to Toronto's designation as one of 42 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes basin by the International Joint Commission. Environmental impacts attributed to wet weather pollution include: posting of recreational beach areas due to bacterial contamination; nuisance algal growth as a result of nutrient enrichment; degraded water clarity attributed to algal growth and suspended solids; elevated contaminant levels in lake sediments; and stressed aquatic communities in areas close to sewer outfalls. A Remedial Action Plan has been developed to restore beneficial uses within the area. The Remedial Action Plan has identified and includes recommendations to abate the impacts of these discharges through implementation of source controls, in-system or conveyance control measures, and implementation of downstream storage and/or treatment systems.

On April 13, 1994, the former City of Scarborough Council, by adoption of Recommendations embodied in Report No. 8 of the Works and Environment Committee, endorsed the Environmental Study Report - Brimley Road Drainage Area Water Quality Enhancement Strategy. The strategy recommended utilizing source control and other stormwater best management practices and construction of a Dunkers Flow Balancing System with a wetland cell to treat stormwater runoff from the above-mentioned drainage area. As part of the strategy, an intensive monitoring program was developed to evaluate the performance of both the water quality enhancements, their operation and maintenance requirements, as well as testing the self-sustainability of the wetland ecosystem. The monitoring program will assess the facility's performance to ensure that it meets the original design expectations and complies with the Certificate of Approval issued for the facility by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

This project was initiated from the outset as a joint venture between the three levels of government and with a common goal of demonstrating a new, innovative and transferable technology to deal with non-point source discharges of pollution. Construction of the facility was recently completed and the $2.4M cost was shared by the three levels of government through the Canada/Ontario Infrastructure Program.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The facility is now fully operational, and the City has a legal obligation to undertake a monitoring program in compliance with the Certificate of Approval issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for the facility. Minimum monitoring requirements have been identified which involve assessing the effectiveness of the facility in providing water quality enhancement for the outfall servicing the Brimley Road Drainage Area. This involves assessing the system's hydraulic and water quality performance. Through the Certificate of Approval, the City must report on the results of the monitoring program and the system evaluation two years after the system becomes operational.

While the City is obligated to undertake monitoring to satisfy the Certificate of Approval requirements, more extensive monitoring is required to identify measures to optimize the facility performance, reduce operations and maintenance costs and assess the facility performance against the original design criteria. These analyses would also be used by the City in considering the viability and applicability of this technology at other locations through the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan.

Similarly, the Federal Department of Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment have an interest in assessing this new technology. The Dunkers Flow Balancing System is a cost-effective stormwater treatment technology which could be applied to other sites across the Province and Canada. However, as with most new technologies, the lack of monitoring data in an Ontario climate precludes acceptance by other jurisdictions. To this end, Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministries of the Environment and Transportation and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority have established the Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance (SWAMP) Program in collaboration with municipal agencies. Under this program, now expanded into a second phase (SWAMP II), staff and financial resources of municipal, provincial and federal agencies are pooled to support the monitoring activities undertaken through the program. The prime objective of the program is to evaluate facility performance with respect to design and compliance parameters and to provide technology transfer and promotion to municipalities, government agencies, consultants and community groups. The pooled resources serve to address the following objectives for each technology tested:

- evaluate and document operational and maintenance requirements;

- demonstrate environmental benefits:

- water quality;

- sediment quality; and

- fisheries and habitat;

- make recommendations for optimizing the facility and evaluate design and operational improvements;

- developing a monitoring and reporting protocol for performance assessment and regulatory compliance purposes;

- develop site selection criteria appropriate to Ontario conditions; and

- identify specific technology limitations and applicability.

The two-year monitoring program for this facility would begin in the fall of 1999 and continue until the fall of 2001. As noted, the monitoring provides data to support the City's obligation for Certificate of Approval requirements and provides the detailed analysis required for system optimization. The cost of conducting the monitoring to address the objectives identified is estimated to be about $395,000.00. The City's contribution of $160,000.00 would be matched with a total of $185,000.00 contributed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada and an additional in-kind contribution for chemical analyses equivalent to $50,000.00 by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Conclusions:

The Dunkers Flow Balancing System is a new cost-effective stormwater management technology. The facility is now fully operational, and the City has a legal obligation to undertake a monitoring program in compliance with the Certificate of Approval issued by the Ontario Ministry of Environment for the facility. However, more extensive monitoring is required to identify measures to optimize the facility performance, reduce operations and maintenance costs and assess the facility performance against the original design criteria. These analyses would be used by the City in considering the viability and applicability of this technology at other locations through the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan.

A recommendation is made to cost share the two year monitoring program with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment through the Stormwater Assessment and Monitoring Performance II Program.

Contact Name:

Mr. M. D'Andrea, P.Eng.

Manager, Infrastructure Asset Management

Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone: (416) 397-4631; Fax: (416) 392-2974

e-mail: michael_d'andrea@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

22

High Rate Treatment Technology Demonstration Projects

for Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to enter into an agreement with the Federal Department of Environment, Burlington Environmental Technology Office (BETO), to continue with Phase III of High Rate Treatment Technology Demonstration Projects for combined sewer overflow (CSO) treatment process in the North Toronto CSO Detention Tank and stormwater treatment using a pilot scale facility within District 2 (Etobicoke).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $175,000.00 has been approved in the 1999 Capital Works Program, Water and Wastewater Services, under District Stormwater Management, Project No. WP953-S25020, to undertake stormwater management initiatives including the High Rate Treatment Technology Demonstration Projects at the North Toronto CSO Detention Tank and for stormwater treatment in District 2 (Etobicoke).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted to enter into an agreement with the Federal Department of Environment, Burlington Environmental Technology Office, to jointly fund and undertake the Demonstration Projects for treatment of combined sewer overflows at the North Toronto Detention Tank and for stormwater treatment in Etobicoke; and the City's contribution of $175,000.00 toward the project is subject to equal funding of $175,000.00 being provided by Environment Canada and $60,000.00 being provided by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The environmental impacts of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflow discharges on area watercourses and the waterfront are well documented. The impact of these non-point sources of pollution has contributed to Toronto's designation as one of 42 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes basin by the International Joint Commission. Environmental impacts attributed to wet weather pollution include: posting of recreational beach areas due to bacterial contamination; nuisance algal growth as a result of nutrient enrichment; degraded water clarity attributed to algal growth and suspended solids; elevated contaminant levels in lake sediments; and stressed aquatic communities in areas close to sewer outfalls. A Remedial Action Plan has been developed to restore beneficial uses within the area. The Remedial Action Plan has identified and includes recommendations to abate the impacts of these discharges through implementation of source controls, in-system or conveyance control measures and implementation of downstream storage and/or treatment systems. These downstream control measures typically consist of storage facilities to detain combined sewer overflows (CSOs) for subsequent treatment at a wastewater treatment plant, and to provide treatment of stormwater flows through sedimentation prior to discharge to a receiving water body. These options, however, are expensive and unable to intercept flows from large storm events.

Satellite high-rate treatment facilities may provide a significantly more cost-effective alternative, if demonstrated to provide treatment satisfying the requirements of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The Assessment of Advanced Physical-Chemical Treatment Options for Combined Sewer Overflows Study undertaken by CH2M Hill Engineering Ltd. for the City of Toronto estimated savings of more than $40,000,000.00 could be derived on the Don Sewer System alone, by implementing the high rate satellite treatment instead of conventional CSO control methods.

Subsequently, an investigation of high-rate treatment technology for combined sewer overflows and stormwater was initiated as a multi-agency initiative between Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the former Metropolitan Toronto and Cities of Scarborough, Toronto and Etobicoke. To date, the former Municipalities contributed $973,000.00 towards this $2.593M initiative as follows:

- 1994, City of Scarborough - $250,000.00

- 1995, Metropolitan Toronto - $250,000.00

- 1996, Metropolitan Toronto - $333,000.00

- 1997, City of Toronto - - $100,000.00

- 1997, City of Etobicoke - $ 40,000.00

In 1994, Phase I of the Pharmacy Pilot-Scale High Rate CSO Treatment Demonstration Project was established to investigate new technologies for high-rate treatment of CSO. The project was a multi-agency initiative consisting of the former municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto and the City of Scarborough, Environment Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

The initial objective of the project was to examine the performance of a vortex separator and ultraviolet irradiation, in conjunction with small storage. The performance of the vortex separator was limited by the fine suspended solids characteristic to CSOs and would only meet the treatment objectives at low loading rates. In addition, acceptable disinfection levels could not be achieved due to the high residual suspended solids in the effluent. Alternative treatment options and chemical coagulants were examined subsequently in Phases II and III of the project during the 1995, 1996 and 1997 operating seasons.

Preliminary investigations were also initiated on the effectiveness of a cross-flow plate separator and a rotary screen in the treatment of CSO. Initial results indicate that these unit processes provide treatment levels similar to the vortex separator.

The results of Phase II and Phase III work demonstrated the variability and relatively poor settleability of CSO solids suspensions without chemical coagulation. With polymer coagulation in conjunction with the high-rate treatment process, the study demonstrated the potential for effective solid/liquid separation, mostly by floatation, resulting in an effluent amenable to ultraviolet disinfection. Initial analysis suggested that the technology could comply with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment's Procedure F-5-5.

In 1997, the former City of Etobicoke expressed an interest in the applicability of the high-rate treatment technology for the treatment of stormwater discharges. The conventional approach to downstream stormwater control using facilities such as ponds, filter berms and infiltration systems is reasonably effective, but can be expensive because of the land requirements. The use of a high-rate treatment device may be a more cost-effective approach.

Due to the uncertainty about the universality of the process, particularly when applied to locations with hydraulic conditions and wastewater characteristics which may be appreciably different than those used in the pilot-scale project, full-scale and pilot-scale testing at other sites was initiated in 1998. A full scale demonstration project was initiated at the existing CSO storage tank facility at the North Toronto Treatment Plant site. The primary objective of the project was to test the effectiveness of the polymer coagulant at a full-scale facility with a wastewater of potentially different characteristics than those experienced at the Pharmacy pilot-scale site. In addition, pilot scale testing of a cross-flow plate clarifier was initiated at a storm sewer, located south of Lakeshore Boulevard, west of Kipling Avenue, within the former City of Etobicoke.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The lack of rainfall events in 1998 and the difficulty with the initial setup of monitoring, sampling and chemical feed system resulted in limited performance data for the full-scale demonstration project at the North Toronto site . Although this limited data did indicate that the objectives of the Ministry of the Environment's Procedure F-5-5 for CSO control can be achieved, there is insufficient data to establish operational parameters.

The full-scale CSO demonstration project at the North Toronto site should be continued for the 1999 season to establish optimal polymer dosages, a polymer mixing regime, process performance curves and the characteristics of the float and sludge material and disposal options. This information is necessary to provide sizing criteria and assess the applicability of this technology at other sites across the City through the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan and ultimately to seek Ministry of Environment approval to apply this technology.

Limited rainfall events and initial set-up difficulties of the pilot-scale stormwater demonstration facility in Etobicoke provided limited operational data. The preliminary data suggests substandard performance as a stand-alone technology, similar to the pilot scale testing results previously obtained for CSO treatment. Difficulties in obtaining the Certificate of Approval for coagulant use at the site precluded an assessment of the technology with polymer coagulant. The testing should be continued through 1999 and approval should be sought from the Ministry of the Environment to permit testing of the cross-flow plate clarifier with polymer coagulation at the pilot-scale stormwater demonstration facility in Etobicoke.

The cost of conducting this testing is estimated to be $400,000.00. The City's contribution of $175,000.00 would be matched with an additional $175,000.00 from Environment Canada and $50,000.00 from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Conclusions:

Satellite High Rate treatment facilities at CSO locations may be practical cost-effective alternatives for CSO control which have the potential to comply with the treatment requirements of the Ministry of the Environment's Procedure F-5-5 for CSO control. The technology may also prove to be a viable downstream treatment option for stormwater. The data obtained from the 1999 field tests is necessary to provide sizing criteria and assess the applicability of this technology at other sites across the City through the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan.

If the treatment efficiency of these innovative technologies are proven to be acceptable, they may be an effective means of limiting the environmental impacts of CSOs and stormwater discharges.

Contact Name:

Mr. M. D'Andrea, P.Eng.

Manager, Infrastructure Asset Management

Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone: (416) 397-4631; Fax: (416) 392-2974

e-mail: michael_d'andrea@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

23

Cogeneration Facility at Humber Treatment Plant

Additional Expenditures for Extra Work -

Contract No. WPC-11-97

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain Council authorization to negotiate and authorize additional expenditures for the performance of necessary additional work on Contract No. WPC-11-97 for the construction of the Cogeneration Facility at the Humber Treatment Plant.

Funding Sources:

Funds are available in the approved 1999-2003 Water and Wastewater Services Division Capital Account C-WP115, Humber Treatment Plant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) additional expenditures in the amount of $196,000.00 including Goods and Services Tax be authorized for the performance of necessary additional work on Contract No. WPC-11-97 for the construction of the Cogeneration Facility at the Humber Treatment Plant, in accordance with the estimates listed in Appendix A attached; and

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

Background:

By adoption of Clause No. 3 of Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee, City Council, at its meeting of May 13, 1998, awarded Contract No. WPC-11-97 for the construction of the Cogeneration Facility at the Humber Treatment Plant. The contract was awarded to Comstock Canada Ltd. for the total lump sum tender price of $16,798,000.00 including GST and a Schedule of Prices allowance of $22,860.00 for additional work if required. The order to commence work was dated July 14, 1998, at which time the contract work began.

At the time of award, in accordance with former Metro By-law No. 146-90, as amended, a Department Head had authority to approve additional expenditures on a commitment in accordance with the by-law up to an amount equal to ten percent of the commitment. As such, under the former Metro by-law a further $1,679,800.00 or ten percent of the awarded contract amount would have been available for required extra work.

At its meeting of January 6, 1998, City of Toronto Council enacted By-law No. 7-1998, Interim Financial Control By-law, which repealed former Metro By-law No. 146-90. As the new by-law contains no provision to exceed the awarded contract value, as confirmed by the City's Legal Division, the Department has effectively lost its ability to authorize the unforeseen and necessary additional work that may arise during construction of capital projects. This is particularly problematic when construction is tendered on a firm, lump sum basis. For contracts recently tendered, since confirmation of the repeal of former Metro By-law No. 146-90, we have been providing, on an interim basis, a general contingency allowance for possible extra work into the Schedule of Prices for Alterations, Extras, and Deductions for incorporation into the total lump sum tender price. In the case of Contract No. WPC-11-97, however, no such general contingency was added, as we believed it was still available through former Metro By-law No. 146-90.

Comments and Justification:

At its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, City of Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 10 of Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee authorizing an additional expenditure in the amount of $140,000.00, including Goods and Services Tax, for the performance of necessary additional work on Contract No. WPC-11-97.

Since the last request to City Council for authorization of additional expenditures for Contract No. WPC-11-97, more recent issues have been identified as requiring the performance of extra work. In some cases, additional information and unexpected circumstances have arisen during construction, which have necessitated changes to the original tendered scope of work. To ensure continuity with respect to liability and warranty issues under the contract, these changes must be implemented by the issuance of extra work orders. For example, a centralized electrical power consumption monitoring system, which was installed under another ongoing contract at the Humber Treatment Plant, is currently being activated. It would be most economical and expedient to also incorporate the Cogeneration Facility, Contract No. WPC-11-97, into the programming of the centralized electrical power monitoring system at this time. In other cases, staff of the Department and/or our consultants have identified changes to the design of the original contract which are now advisable to be performed to conform to changed regulatory code requirements or operating procedures, and which should be implemented to ensure construction of the best possible finished product; for instance, the requirement by Ontario Hydro for electrical grounding of existing equipment in plant buildings where new plant systems are proposed to negate electrical hazards.

The total value of the estimated extra work required to date as a percentage of the overall value of the contract is equivalent to 2.0 percent.

Conclusion:

The additional expenditures for extra work in the amount of $196,000.00 including GST are summarized in Appendix A attached. This additional work is necessary to either meet regulatory code requirements and/or ensure construction of the best possible product.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

M. Barbon, P.Eng.

Senior Project Engineer

Engineering Services-Works Facilities & Structures

Technical Services Division

Telephone No. (416) 392-8854

APPENDIX A

HUMBER TREATMENT PLANT

WPC-11-97 COGENERATION FACILITY

REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES

Item Authorized

No. Description Terms Amount

1 Additional 115V wiring for power supply and control for eight new estimated $7,000.00

electrical heaters in Engine Room purchased by Plant

2 Modification to Engine Room east wall to allow access to electrical estimated $12,000.00

panel and provide new access cover for crane disconnect switch

3 Extend height of canopy wall shielding inlets for air handling units estimated $20,000.00

running along east and west walls of Engine Room to provide drainage

from canopy roof to main Engine Room roof

4 Supply and install stainless steel structural supports for precast concrete estimated $6,000.00

floor slabs over influent channel in Head House. Support corbel was not

originally constructed due to interference of original engine exhaust

stacks

5 Supply and install wiring for both bearings and remote thermal devices estimated $9,000.00

on each of two gas compressors required for monitoring operation and

efficiency of gas compressors

6 Supply and install control wiring and selector switches from main gas estimated $4,000.00

control valves to main control room in order to provide computer

control by operators as requested by Plant

7 Supply and install pipe supports for 200 mm hot water piping estimated $10,000.00

recirculation system adjacent to pumps as required by pump

manufacturer

8 Upgrade hot water circulating pumps and drives from 60 HP to 100HP estimated $70,000.00

for 3 pumps to ensure adequate heat supply to existing digester Nos.

1-6, sludge thickening building and primary scum tanks Nos. 1 and 2

9 Install steel stud framing to support acoustical wall panels in Engine estimated $10,000.00

Room at applicable column to avoid conflicts with existing fresh air

ventilation ducts feeding Administration area

10 Upgrade passage - type (non-locking) door hardware for workshop estimated $2,000.00

doors to locking type for security purposes, as required by Plant

11 Programming changes to the Plant electrical power distribution system estimated $15,000.00

to include cogen project for the purpose of centralized monitoring of the

Plant power consumption

12 Provide electrical grounding to existing systems required by Ontario estimated $16,000.00

Hydro to meet current code requirements to negate electrical hazards

13 Supply and install hot water control valves required for efficient and estimated $12,000.00

effective operation of heat exchanger KU-509 and hot water cooler

HWC-1

14 HVAC low limit switch to air handling unit to allow access for estimated $3,000.00

maintenance purposes, as requested by Plant

TOTAL $196,000.00

24

Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements

(Wards 5, 4, 2, 6 and 13)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To enter into Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements with Cynar Dry Company Limited, Confectionately Yours, Inc., Planway Poultry Inc., Scott's Restaurants Inc., and Winsun Laundry & Linen Supply Ltd., 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 Cynar Dry Company Limited, 25 Enterprise Road; Confectionately Yours, Inc., 65 Vickers Road; Planway Poultry Inc., 26 Canmotor Avenue; Scott's Restaurants Inc., 61 Signet Drive, Toronto; and Winsun Laundry & Linen Supply Ltd., 689 Warden Avenue, Units 4 and 5, 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 wastes generated by Cynar Dry Company Limited, Confectionately Yours, Inc., Planway Poultry Inc., Scott's Restaurants Inc., and Winsun Laundry & Linen Supply Ltd. is biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our treatment plants.

These industries have been notified of the annual charge to be levied, and have signified agreement to the amount of the assessment:

Annual Excess

Effective Yearly Plant Waste By-law

Date Surcharge Discharge Strength Limit

$ m³ mg/L mg/L

Cynar Dry Company 10/01/96 $ 8,254.64 10,938 1,335 300

Limited B.O.D. B.O.D.

Confectionately 01/01/99 $ 1,471.87 533 4,885 300

Yours Inc. B.O.D. B.O.D.

Planway Poultry Inc. 01/01/99 $ 2,383.70 3,792 1,112 300

B.O.D. B.O.D.

Scott's Restaurants Inc. 01/01/99 $ 8,693.05 21,720 708 300 B.O.D. B.O.D.

Winsun Laundry & 01/01/99 $1,720.15 16,100 189 350

Linen Supply Ltd. S.S. S.S.

The alternative to an Industrial Surcharge Agreement would be to force the industry to comply with the sewer by-law limits for biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.) and Suspended Solids (S.S.), 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 (1998).

Conclusions:

The overstrength effluents from the above industries are 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 Agreement should be established with the above industries to provide a mechanism by which the overstrength effluent which exceeds the by-law limit for B.O.D. or S.S. can be discharged on a fee basis.

Contact Name:

Mr. Vic Lim, P.Eng.

Manager, Industrial Waste and Storm Water Quality

Quality Control and System Planning

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

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

25

Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement and

Compliance Program with Monetary Concession -

Grande Cheese Company Limited (Ward 6)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To allow Grande Cheese Company Limited to enter into an Industrial Waste 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; and to issue a Compliance Program with Monetary Concession to the company to allow them to pay 50 percent of the new re-assessed surcharge for three years in order to facilitate the installation of an on-site pretreatment system.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department currently maintains 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.

Grande Cheese Company Limited's annual surcharge assessed for 1999 is $421,473.89. By allowing the company to pay at a reduced rate of 50 percent would mean a reduction in revenue of $210,736.95 per year for a total of $632,210.85 for three years.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement with Grande Cheese Company Limited, 175 Milvan Drive, under terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2) subject to approval of Recommendation No. (1), a Compliance Program with Monetary Concession be granted to Grande Cheese Company Limited, as described herein, to allow for payment of their re-assessed surcharge less 50 percent of the increase for three years, subject to Grande Cheese Company Limited's investment of the avoided surcharge payment in the purchase and installation of an on-site pretreatment system.

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.

On November 25, 1998, City Council, by adoption of Clause No. 6 of Report No. 10 of The Works and Utilities Committee, amended section 6 of By-law No. 153-89 to allow the owner or operator of industrial premises to apply for a Compliance Program with Monetary Concession by submitting to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a Compliance Program to carry out works or improvements to reduce their waste loading, in order to avoid up to 50 percent of the payment of the new or the increase to the existing agreement, for up to three years. On May 11, 1999, City Council, by adoption of Clause No. 14(b) of Report No. 5 of The Works and Utilities Committee, modified the policy on the eligibility for Compliance Program with Monetary Concession that was adopted by the former Metro Council on August 10 and 11, 1994, to include all new surcharge companies as well as all existing surcharge companies.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The type of waste generated by Grande Cheese Company Limited is biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our treatment plant.

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

Annual Excess

Effective Yearly Plant Waste By-law

Date Surcharge Discharge Strength Limit

$ m³ mg/L mg/L

Grande Cheese 01/01/98 260,928.68 82,510 5,624 300

Company Limited B.O.D. B.O.D.

The alternative to an Industrial Surcharge Agreement would be to force the industry to comply with the sewer by-law limits for B.O.D. and Suspended Solids, 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 its Model Sewer Use By-Law (1998).

The company's surcharge in 1999 has been reassessed at $421,473.89. On June 24, 1999, Grande Cheese Company Limited submitted an application to have the industrial waste surcharge amount reduced in accordance with section 6 of our Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89.

The company had retained Skorh Enviro-Tech Inc. to undertake a study to evaluate their production processes and develop an effluent B.O.D. reduction process, procure, construct and operate a Dissolved Air Flotation unit and a Reverse Osmosis System to bring their effluent down by 50 percent by December 31, 2001. They have provided us with the following schedule for their Compliance Program:

Compliance Scheduled Scheduled Program Program Activities Start-up Date Completion Date Costs ($)

(a) Process review and May 1996 May 1996 $ 10,000

Wastewater Characterization

(b) Treatability Studies May 1996 May 1997 $ 25,000

(c) Design of System June 1997 June 1997 $ 100,000

DAF and Silos

(d) Installation/Construction July 1997 March 1998 $ 300,000

(e) Installation and Start-up of August 1998 November 1998 $ 120,000

Reverse Osmosis System

(f) Installation of two silos for Installed $ 35,000

Reverse Osmosis water

retention

(g) Water Polisher to remove Installed $ 80,000

BOD from Reverse Osmosis

Water

(h) 80 ton Chiller, Plate Cooler Late Summer $ 100,000

and Cooling Tower 1999

(i) Replacement of Ricotta Machine December 2000 $ 450,000

to further reduce B.O.D. loading

(j) Studies and Tests to be conducted December 2001 Unknown

on the reused water, to make it at this time

acceptable for discharge to storm

sewer

Total cost to date $1,220,000

Conclusions:

The overstrength effluent from Grande Cheese Company Limited is organic in nature, biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our treatment plants.

Staff have met with Grande Cheese and they have agreed to enter into an Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement in accordance with section 5 of our Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89.

Further, in accordance with section 6, Compliance Program, of our Sewer Use By-law No. 153-89, a Compliance Program with Monetary Concession should be issued to Grande Cheese Company Limited to provide a mechanism by which the over-strength effluent which exceeds the by-law limit for B.O.D. can be discharged on 50 percent reduced fee basis while the company implements further wastewater treatment controls.

Contact Name:

Mr. Vic Lim, P.Eng.

Manager, Industrial Waste and Storm Water Quality

Quality Control and System Planning

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

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

26

Compliance Program with Monetary Concession -

Christie Brown & Co. (Ward 19)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To issue a Compliance Program with Monetary Concession to Christie Brown & Co., 2150 Lakeshore Boulevard West, to allow them to pay 50 percent of the new re-assessed surcharge for three years in order to facilitate the installation of an on-site pretreatment system.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This Department currently maintains 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. Christie Brown & Co.'s new surcharge is $17,086.40 per quarter, an increase of $15,971.58 over their old surcharge of $1,114.82 per quarter. By allowing the company to pay at a reduced rate of 50 percent of the new surcharge rate per quarter would mean a reduction in revenue of $34,172.80 per year for a total of $102,518.40 for three years.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a Compliance Program with Monetary Concession be granted to Christie Brown & Co., 2150 Lakeshore Boulevard West, as described herein, to allow for payment of 50 percent of their re-assessed surcharge for three years, subject to Christie Brown & Co.'s investment of the avoided surcharge payment in the purchase and installation of an on-site pretreatment system.

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.

Section 6 of this by-law allows the owner of industrial premises who has an existing surcharge agreement or who is entering into a new surcharge agreement to apply for a Compliance Program with Monetary Concession by submitting to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a Compliance Program to carry out works or improvements to reduce their waste loading in order to avoid up to 50 percent of the payment of the new or existing surcharge assessment, for up to three years. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may then issue an approval known as a "Compliance Program" to the person who submitted the program. The person to whom a Compliance Program has been issued shall not be prosecuted under the by-law during the period within which the Compliance Program is applicable, provided that the person complies fully with the terms of the Compliance Program.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

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

The following are the guidelines for considering for Compliance Program with Monetary Concessions:

(1) all companies who have existing surcharge agreements, including new companies seeking their first surcharge agreement and companies facing substantial increase in their surcharge costs, are eligible to apply;

(2) the applicant must commit in writing, in the form of a Compliance Program, with specific program activities, commencement dates, completion dates and program costs, to reduce their waste loading by at least 50 percent by a specified date;

(3) the reduction in surcharge could be for a period of between one and three years, depending on the time required to complete the program for waste reduction;

(4) pollution prevention would be the preferred option for waste reduction; end-of-pipe treatment would be approved only if there are no pollution prevention options available;

(5) an applicant can only be granted one Compliance Program with Monetary Concession per lifetime; and

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

The type of waste generated by Christie Brown & Co. is biodegradable and amenable to treatment at our Humber Treatment Plant.

On June 21, 1999, Christie Brown & Co. submitted an application to have the industrial waste surcharge amount reduced. The company will undertake a study to evaluate their production processes in order to identify sources of contaminant in the plant, evaluate and implement methods to reduce amount of contaminants by 50 percent by December 31, 2001. They have provided us with the following schedule for their Compliance Program.

Compliance Scheduled Scheduled Project

Program Activities Start Date Completion Date Costs ($)

(a) Chemical Treatment Feb., 1999 May, 1999 $ 49,500

Installation Program

- Install flocculant and

coagulant addition system

- Purchase and install pumps,

meters, piping, controls

(b) Chemical Treatment Feb., 1999 Dec., 2001 $237,600

Operation Program

- Chemical costs -

flocculant, coagulant

- Sludge removal costs

- Labout costs - turbidity

tests, rate adjustments

(c) Stream Rerouting Program Jan., 2000 Dec., 2001 $ 36,000

- Increase no. of contaminant

source points connected to

DAF

- Purchase and install piping,

pumps, sump pits, controls

(d) Engineering Study Program Sept., 1999 Dec., 2001 $ 29,000

- Identify locations of source Sept., 1999 Jan., 2000

points and prepare drawings

- Develop process flow Oct., 1999 Feb., 2000

drawings of waste processes

- Quantify amount of waste Jan., 2000 Mar., 2000

for each point by BOD/SS

testing

- Investigate alternate methods Jan., 2000 June, 2000

of waste management

- Research new processes Nov., 1999 July, 2000

for waste reduction

- Develop revised procedures Aug., 2000 Mar , 2001

for waste management

- Evaluate and implement Mar., 2001 June, 2001

new processes/procedures

- Prepare operator training June, 2001 Sept., 2001

manual

- Provide operator training Oct., 2001 Dec., 2001

Total Program Cost $352,100

Christie Brown & Co. is currently under a surcharge agreement with the City. The surcharge is based on an average suspended solids concentration of 1144 mg/L at an annual discharge of 152,269 cubic metres. The average biochemical oxygen demand concentration is 928 mg/L. The estimated annual S.S. and B.O.D. loading from the facility before the proposed treatment is 174,196 kg per year and 141,306 kg per year, respectively. With the assumption that the pretreatment will reduce the B.O.D. and S.S. concentrations by 50 percent, the estimated loading for S.S. and B.O.D. after pretreatment will be 87,098 kg per year and 70,653 kg per year, respectively.

Conclusions:

In accordance with section 6, Compliance Program, of our Sewer Use By-Law No. 153-89, a Compliance Program with Monetary Concession should be issued to Christie Brown & Co. to provide a mechanism by which the overstrength effluent which exceeds the by-law limit for B.O.D. and S.S. can be discharged on a 50 percent reduced fee basis while the company implements further wastewater treatment controls, under the conditions previously stated in this report.

Contact Name:

Mr. Vic Lim, P.Eng.

Manager, Industrial Waste and Storm Water Quality

Quality Control and System Planning

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

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

27

Proposed Exit Driveway from 2100 Lawrence Avenue East

(Scarborough Wexford)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 24, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to the following conditions:

(1) the provision of streetscaping improvements by the owner, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2) removal of automobiles by the present owner of the site:

Purpose:

To report on the terms of access permit issuance as it relates to access restrictions from a new exit driveway to serve 2100 Lawrence Avenue East, immediately west of the traffic control signals on Lawrence Avenue at Crockford Boulevard.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The owners of the property at 2100 Lawrence Avenue East, 1282411 Ontario Limited, are responsible for all costs associated with driveway construction and sign installation under the terms of issuance of their access permit.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the south left-turn movement from the driveway on the north side of Lawrence Avenue, on the north side of Lawrence Avenue, approximately 15 metres west of Crockford Boulevard, be prohibited at all times, as identified in Appendix 1 of this report;

(2) the eastbound left-turn movement into the driveway on the north side of Lawrence Avenue, approximately 15 metres west of Crockford Boulevard, be prohibited at all times, as identified in Appendix 1 of this report;

(3) the westbound right-turn movement into the driveway on the north side of Lawrence Avenue, approximately 15 metres west of Crockford Boulevard, be prohibited at all times, as identified in Appendix 1 of this report;

(4) all costs associated with construction of the driveway and signing the southbound, eastbound and westbound turn prohibitions at the driveway be borne by the owners of the property serviced by the driveway, namely 1282411 Ontario Limited; and

(5) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

As a condition of access permit issuance, the owners have agreed to the imposition of a southbound and eastbound left-turn prohibition, and a westbound right-turn prohibition, all in effect at all times, at their new driveway on Lawrence Avenue just west of Crockford Boulevard at their cost. The estimated cost of the signage is $2,200.00.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

1282411 Ontario Limited applied for a permit to construct a new driveway to provide right-turn exit manoeuvres from their property on the north west corner of Lawrence Avenue and Ellington Drive. The business in question (Trusty Car Rental) presently has full movement access onto Ellington Drive and they wish to improve their access to exit on to Lawrence Avenue and proceed westerly. Staff reviewed two options: one to provide a driveway within the signalized intersection of Lawrence Avenue and Crockford Boulevard (which would be controlled by the traffic signal operation); and the other to provide a right-turn exit driveway just west of Crockford Boulevard.

Staff does not support adding a north leg to the existing signalized intersection of Lawrence Avenue and Crockford Boulevard because it would add further complication to an already awkward signal operation, and would also conflict with left-turn movements at Ellington Drive immediately to the east of the traffic signals. Furthermore, the cost of incorporating a new driveway into the traffic signal control would be significantly higher than the second option, and an unnecessary cost considering the second option can provide adequate service from the site to suit the business.

The proposed exit driveway will be designed and constructed so as to operate as a right-turn only exit driveway, and should operate efficiently and safely. Left-turn manoeuvres into or out of a driveway at this location, within such close proximity to the traffic control signals, would create a high collision potential and should be prohibited by by-law and signed for the safety of the general public. Westbound right-turn access into the site is conveniently and safely provided via Ellington Drive and should not be permitted at the new driveway on Lawrence Avenue, so a by-law and signage should be in place to convey this prohibition as well.

The Ward Councillors have been advised of this matter, and Councillor Kelly is unavailable for comment and Councillor Tzekas supports the staff recommendation.

Conclusions:

As a condition of access permit approval, and in order to protect public safety, the property owners at 2100 Lawrence Avenue East have agreed to the following turn prohibitions at their new proposed exit driveway on the north side of Lawrence Avenue approximately 15 metres west of Crockford Boulevard: southbound and eastbound left-turn prohibitions; westbound right-turn prohibition; all in effect at all times.

Contact Name:

Peter K. Hillier

Manager, Traffic Operations, District 4

Telephone: 396-7148

Appendix 1

"Prohibited Turns"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Intersection or Turns Times

Portion of Highway Direction Prohibited or Days

Lawrence Avenue East Eastbound and Left Anytime

at the driveway Southbound

90 metres west of

Ellington Drive

Lawrence Avenue East Westbound Right Anytime

at the driveway

90 metres west of

--------

Councillor Norman Kelly, Scarborough Wexford, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Sketch No. 1

Proposed Exit Driveway from 2100 Lawrence Avenue East

Insert Sketch No. 2

28

Additional Expenditure - Contract No. 59714

Reconstruction of Pavement on Christie Street

(Ward 21 - Davenport, Ward 23 - Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To advise the Works Committee of an increase in cost of Contract No. 59714, Reconstruction of Pavement on Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the additional cost of the work are available within Capital Budget Account No. 292-810.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that approval be given for the expenditure of additional funds in the amount of $85,000.00, under Contract No. 59714.

Background:

Contract No. 59714 for the reconstruction of the pavement on Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street was awarded by City Council at its meeting of November 25, 26, and 27, 1998, to Ferma Construction Limited, in the amount of $1,198,343.50.

The purpose of the contract was to reconstruct the existing pavement which had reached the limit of its design life, and to achieve the pavement narrowing objectives of the community.

Since the Interim Financial Control By-law requires that expenditures beyond the awarded value of a contract be reported to City Council, this report is to authorize the additional expenditure.

Discussion:

City Council at its meeting of October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted Clause No. 10 in Report No. 11 of The Toronto Community Council, entitled "Alteration of Christie Street", and enacted By-Law No. 702-1998 authorizing the alteration of Christie Street by narrowing the pavement between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street. At the same time, Contract No. 59714 for the reconstruction work was tendered and subsequently awarded to Ferma Construction Limited by City Council at its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.

Although the contract had already been awarded, City Council adopted Clause No. 36 in Report No. 4 of The Toronto Community Council, entitled "Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street - Refinements to Approved Roadway Narrowing Plan" on March 2, 1999, and in so doing, authorized further changes to the design. These changes addressed community objectives by introducing a visual narrowing, to break up Christie Street's long and broad sight lines, and by increasing the available parking supply. At the time, it was anticipated that the proposed amendments to the design would not significantly affect the cost of the contract previously awarded in November 1998.

A detailed estimate of the cost of the design amendments submitted by the contractor indicated that the changes would cost an additional $90,000.00. Since a provisional sum in the amount of $125,000.00 had been included in the reconstruction contract to cover contingency work and uncertainty with respect to subsurface conditions, it was anticipated that these funds would cover the cost of the design changes.

Reconstruction of Christie Street commenced on April 6, 1999, and was completed, as scheduled, on June 4, 1999. During the course of the work, the sub-base soil conditions were determined to be worse than anticipated, and it became necessary to excavate and replace additional sub-base material at a total cost of $86,500.00.

The provisional sum provided in the contract was inadequate to accommodate the impact of the design changes and the sub-base soils conditions and, as a result, a cost overrun of $85,000.00 was incurred. This represents approximately 7 percent of the total contract price.

The final cost of the work is $1,283,000.00. The additional cost of the work can be accommodated under the Capital Budget Account No. 292-810.

Conclusions:

The final cost of Contract No. 59714 in the amount of $1,283,000.00 is in excess of the award amount by $85,000.00. The additional costs were due to the design modifications requested by the community following award of the construction contract, and the need to dispose of a greater quantity of unsuitable sub-base material than was originally anticipated based on preconstruction investigations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Tim Dennis,

Manager Design and Construction, District 1

Technical Services

Phone (416) 392-6787; Fax (416) 392-7874

29

Maintenance of Traffic Control and Related Devices

Within City of Toronto - April 1, 2000 to January 31, 2003

Contract No. T-41-99, Tender Call No. 116-1999

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

'WHEREAS Contract T-41-99, a three-year contract for the maintenance of traffic control and related devices, is based on unit costs for an estimated volume of work; and

WHEREAS there may be cost advantages to tendering activities which significantly exceed the estimated volumes, using ten percent as a guideline;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT wherever practicable, Transportation Services staff separately tender additional work related to the maintenance of traffic control and related devices.' ")

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the Tender issued for the maintenance of traffic control and related devices under the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to request authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Source of Funds:

The funds for the activities covered under this contract will be provided for in the Transportation Services Division's annual current budget for each year of the contract.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the existing Contract No. T-27-96 for the maintenance of traffic control and related devices within the City of Toronto be extended for an additional three months from December 31, 1999 until March 31, 2000, to ensure contract continuity during the first three months of the new millenium (potential for Y2K operational problems);

(2) a new Contract No. T-41-99 for the maintenance of traffic control and related devices within the City of Toronto for the period April 1, 2000 to January 31, 2003, be awarded to Stacey Electric Company Limited in the total amount of $12,489,825.16 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received; and

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

Background:

The existing contract for the maintenance of traffic control and related devices will expire on December 31, 1999. In consultation with the Y2K Office, it was agreed that it would be prudent to extend Contract No. T-27-96 until March 31, 2000, in order to ensure that the existing experienced contractor is in place during the first three months of the year 2000 to address any Y2K operations issues. As a result, the new tender package was designed to commence on April 1, 2000.

Notwithstanding the Y2K issue, commencing a maintenance contract on January 1 of any calendar year, in the midst of the holiday season, can lead to logistical problems, particularly if a new contractor is beginning a contract. Therefore, January 31 was selected as a more suitable date for the end of the new contract(s).

For the new contract(s), tenderer(s) were invited to submit tenders for District 1 or the combination of Districts 2, 3, and 4 and, in addition, they were invited to submit a tender for all Districts combined. The contract(s) would be awarded by submitting the lowest District or combination Districts tenders and comparing this figure to the low tender for all Districts combined.

Results of Tender Opening:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on June 16, 1999, opened the following tenders for Contract No. T-41-99:

Call No. 116-1999:

$ Amounts

No. Name District 1 Only District 2, 3, 4 Only All Districts

1. Stacey Electric 5,381,144.33 7,580,862.99 12,489,825.16

Company Limited

2. Guild Electric Limited 10,187,866.47 14,233,819.27 22,449,938.89

3. BFC 10,811,919.86 13,026,232.43 21,018,930.20

Based on the submitted tenders, the Stacey Electric Company Limited bid for "All Districts" provides the required services at the lowest cost.

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office has reported favourably on the firm recommended. The Tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and was found to be in conformance with the Tender requirements.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the maintenance of traffic control and related devices within the City of Toronto for the period April 1, 2000 to January 31, 2003, in accordance with specifications to Stacey Electric Company Limited, being the lowest bidder.

Contact Name:

Paul Nause Lou Pagano

Manager, Electrical and Lighting Systems Director, Purchasing and Materials

Tel. No. (416) 392-9570 Management

Tel. No. (416) 392-7311

30

Asphalt Resurfacing, Pavement Repair and Associated

Concrete Sidewalk and Curb Repair - District No. 4 -

Contract No. SC9954RD, Tender Call No. 76-1999

(Agincourt, Malvern, Wexford, Scarborough City Centre,

Highland Creek and Scarborough Bluffs)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (May 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the Tender issued for the asphalt resurfacing, pavement repair and associated concrete sidewalk and curb repair at various locations within District 4 for 1999, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to request the authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Source of Funds:

Funds are available in the Road Rehabilitation and Utility Cut Repair Accounts.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Contract No. SC9954RD, Tender Call No. 76-1999, for the asphalt resurfacing, pavement repair and associated concrete sidewalk and curb repair at various locations within District 4 for 1999, be awarded to Furfari Paving Co. Ltd., in the total amount of $2,856,001.20 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on May 4, 1999, opened the following Tenders for Contract No. SC9954RD, Tender Call No. 76-1999, for the asphalt resurfacing, pavement repair and associated concrete sidewalk and curb repair at various locations within District 4 for 1999:

Tenderer Tender Price

Furfari Paving Co. Ltd. $2,856,001.20

D. Crupi & Sons Limited $3,154,690.63

Paveco Road Builders Corp. $3,520,460.50

Warren Bitulithic Ltd. $3,530,328.52

Brennan Paving & Construction Ltd. $3,672,565.49

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

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

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for asphalt resurfacing, pavement repair and associated concrete sidewalk and curb repair at various locations within District 4 for 1999, in accordance with specifications to Furfari Paving Co. Ltd., being the lowest Tender received.

Contact Name: Contact Name:

R. Burlie L.A. Pagano

Manager Director

Road Operations Purchasing and Materials Management

Telephone: 396-4823 Telephone: 392-7312

31

Asphalt Resurfacing on York Mills Road,

Eglinton Avenue East and Parkwood Village Drive -

Contract No. NY9905RD, Tender Call No. 128-1999

(North York Centre South and Don Parkway)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 28, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the Tender issued for the asphalt resurfacing on York Mills Road from Bayview Avenue to Leslie Street, Eglinton Avenue East from Don Mills Road to Wynford Drive and Parkwoods Village Drive from Victoria Park Avenue to York Mills Road, and to request the authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Sources of Funds:

Funds are available in the Transportation Services Capital Account - Road Resurfacing.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Contract No. NY9905RD, Tender Call No. 128-1999, for the asphalt resurfacing on York Mills Road from Bayview Avenue to Leslie Street, Eglinton Avenue East from Don Mills Road to Wynford Drive and Parkwoods Village Drive from Victoria Park Avenue to York Mills Road, be awarded to Osler Paving Ltd in the total amount of $2,572,547.50 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on June 23, 1999, opened the following Tenders for Contract No. NY9905RD, Tender Call No. 128-1999, for the asphalt resurfacing on York Mills Road from Bayview Avenue to Leslie Street, Eglinton Avenue East from Don Mills Road to Wynford Drive and Parkwoods Village Drive from Victoria Park Avenue to York Mills Road:

Tenderer Tender Price

Osler Paving Ltd $2,572,547.50

D. Crupi & Sons Ltd. $2,779,055.16

Furfari Paving Ltd. $2,791,860.05

Gazzola Paving Ltd $3,043,668.96

Fermar Paving Ltd. $3,054,222.98

Brennan Paving Ltd. $3,122,911.86

Warren Bitulithic Ltd. $3,129,462.59

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favorably on the firm recommended.

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the asphalt resurfacing on York Mills Road from Bayview Avenue to Leslie Street, Eglinton Avenue East from Don Mills Road to Wynford Drive and Parkwoods Village Drive from Victoria Park Avenue to York Mills Road, in accordance with specifications to Osler Paving Ltd., being the lowest Tender received.

Contact Name Contact Name

Gord MacMillan, P. Eng, L.A. Pagano P.Eng.

Manager Director

Design and Construction Purchasing and Materials Management

Telephone: 395-6359 Telephone: 392-7323

32

New Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Replacement and Road

Rehabilitation for South End Streets - District 2,

Contract No. EB9904RD, Tender Call No. 130-1999

(Etobicoke Lakeshore - Queensway)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the Tender issued for new storm sewer, sanitary sewer replacement and road rehabilitation for south end streets, District 2, in accordance with the specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to request the authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Source of Funds:

Funds are available in the 1999 Road Resurfacing - City Account, and in the 1999 New Sewer Construction Account.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Contract No. EB9904RD, Tender Call No. 130-1999, for new storm sewer, sanitary sewer replacement and road rehabilitation for south end streets, District 2, be awarded to Bridgecon Construction Ltd., in the total amount of $3,663,548.82 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on June 23, 1999, opened the following Tenders for Contract No. EB9904RD, Tender Call No. 130-1999, for new storm sewer, sanitary sewer replacement and road rehabilitation for south end streets, District 2:

Tenderer Tender Price

Bridgecon Construction Ltd. $3,663,548.82

Osler Paving Ltd. $3,732,388.82

Ferpac Paving Inc. $3,814,098.43

Comer Group Limited $3,856,708.31

Pave-Al Limited $3,867,656.20*

Engineering Estimate $3,976,915.60

* Tender price corrected for mathematical errors. Purchasing and Materials Management has verified that the mathematical errors have been corrected.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

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

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for new storm sewer, sanitary sewer replacement and road rehabilitation for south end streets, District 2, in accordance with the specifications to Bridgecon Construction Ltd., being the lowest Tender received.

Contact Name: Contact Name:

Tom Ellerbusch, P. Eng. L.A. Pagano, P. Eng.

Manager Design and Construction Director

Technical Services Division Purchasing and Materials Management

Telephone: 394-8399 Telephone: 392-7312

33

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, received this Clause as information, subject to striking out and referring Item (w), entitled "Vehicle Emission Testing (All Wards)", back to the Works Committee for further consideration.)

(a) Product Stewardship.

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

(June 2, 1999) from Mr. Ben Bennett, Manager, Projects and Communications, Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators, respecting the announcement by the Minister of the Environment on the proposed Waste Diversion Organization; and requesting the opportunity to address the Committee with regard to the product stewardship issue.

--------

Mr. Ben Bennett, Manager, Projects and Communications, Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted material with respect thereto.

(b) Metropolitan Toronto Watershed and Lakefront Pollution Abatement Work - 1996-1997 Report.

The Works Committee reports having received the following report:

(June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services presenting to the Committee the biennial report from the former Industrial Waste Control (IWC) Branch, Water Pollution Control Division, detailing the most significant watershed point source pollution related problems found and resolved for the period 1996-1997; noting that this work will continue under the present Industrial Waste and Stormwater Quality Unit of the Water and Wastewater Services Division, with the generation of a similar report every two years; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(c) Class Environmental Assessment for Residue Management Facilities Project - R.C. Harris Filtration Plant. (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

The Works Committee reports having received the following report:

(June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the progress to date of the Class Environmental Assessment for Residue Management Facilities at the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant; advising that following extensive public consultation through the environmental assessment process, a recommended solution has been identified for managing the residues from the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant in an environmentally responsible and cost-effective manner, and that the recommended solution consists of off-site treatment at the Main Treatment Plant, which includes construction of underground storage tanks at the R.C. Harris site, installation of a 600 mm forcemain from the R.C. Harris plant to the Main Treatment Plant, and further processing at the Main Treatment Plant; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(d) 353/355/357 Nairn Avenue.

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

(June 15, 1999) from Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton, forwarding correspondence from constituents with respect to problems with the sewage system and flooding due to heavy rainfall in their area.

(e) Proposed Road Classification System. (All Wards)

The Works Committee reports having:

(1) concurred in the recommendation of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services embodied in the following report; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit comments on the proposed road classification system to the Committee at its November 3, 1999 meeting:

(June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the consolidation of the various road classification systems inherited from the amalgamated municipalities into a single, consistent system, and the clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and various Standing Committees with respect to traffic operations policies in the context of the new classification system; and recommending that this report be referred to all Community Councils for consideration, and that their comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

--------

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted material respect thereto.

(f) Audit of Telecommunications Leased Line Costs for Traffic Signal Control Systems.

The Works Committee reports having recommended to Council, through the Telecommunications Steering Committee, the adoption of the following report:

(June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:

(1) the proposal received from Expense Recovery and Overhead Reduction Services (ERORS) Inc., to audit the past payments made to Bell Canada for leased telecommunications lines associated with the traffic signal control systems be accepted; and

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

--------

Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina, appeared before the Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(g) Community Safety Zones - Status Report on Study.

The Works Committee reports having received the following report:

(June 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing information on the status of studies to determine the effectiveness of Community Safety Zones (CSZ's) within the City of Toronto; advising that Transportation Services staff are presently in the process of collecting traffic operations data, as well as police enforcement data and records of related charges laid "after" the implementation of the subject CSZ's, and that at this time, the amount of data collected is not sufficient to provide any meaningful analysis; further advising that staff are presently on course to provide a comprehensive impact analysis for a report to the Committee in the fall of 1999; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h) Winter Maintenance on Toronto Roads, Salting and Snow Ploughing, for the Period October 1999 to April 2003 - Contract Nos. T-11-99 to T-17-99, Tender Call Nos. 99-1999 to 105-1999

The Works Committee reports having recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee the adoption of the following joint report:

(June 28, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that the following contracts for winter maintenance on Toronto roads, salting and snow ploughing, for the period October 1999 to April 2003, be awarded to the following Tenderers in the total amount of $54,682,639.57 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tenders received:

Contract/Tender Call No. Tenderer Tender Price

T-11-99, 99-1999 Gazzola Paving Limited $ 7,683,177.80

T-12-99, 100-1999 Cruickshank Construction Limited $ 7,622,187.40

T-13-99, 101-1999 D. Crupi & Sons Limited $ 5,655,442.20

T-14-99, 102-1999 Fowler Construction Company Limited $11,205,304.29

T-15-99, 103-1999 Steed and Evans Limited $ 8,466,995.60

T-16-99, 104-1999 K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited $ 7,004,712.20

T-17-99, 105-1999 Steed and Evans Limited $ 7,044,820.08

(i) Asphalt Resurfacing of Rexdale Boulevard - Contract No. T-23-99, Tender Call No. 119-1999. (Etobicoke Rexdale - Thistletown)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that Contract No. T-23-99, Tender Call No. 119-1999, for the asphalt resurfacing of Rexdale Boulevard from Kipling Avenue to Precision Road be awarded to Fermar Paving Limited, in the total amount of $1,211,354.49 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

(j) Asphalt Resurfacing on Warden Avenue - Contract No. SC9902RD, Tender Call No. 121-1999. (Scarborough Wexford)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(June 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that Contract No. SC9902RD, Tender Call No. 121-1999, for the asphalt resurfacing on Warden Avenue from Lawrence Avenue to Eglinton Avenue be awarded to D. Crupi & Sons Limited in the total amount of $1,280,553.95 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

(k) Asphalt Resurfacing on Dufferin Street - Tender No. NY9906RD, Tender Call No. 134-1999. (North York Spadina)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(June 28, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, recommending that Tender No. NY9906RD, Tender Call No. 134-1999 for the asphalt resurfacing in District 3 be awarded to Osler Paving Ltd. in the amount of $1,011,770.60 including all taxes and charges being the lowest tender received.

(l) Reconstruction of Track Allowance and Pavement, Sidewalk and Curb on Queen Street East - Contract No. TO9905RD (59731), Tender Call No. 88-1999. (East Toronto)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that Contract No. TO9905RD (59731), Tender Call No. 88-1999, for the reconstruction of track allowance and pavement, sidewalk and curb on Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Lark Street, be awarded to CRCE Construction Limited, in the total amount of $1,236,785.00, including all taxes and charges, being the lowest tender received.

(m) Pavement Reconstruction at Various Locations - Contract No. YK9905RD, Tender Call No. 90-1999. (York Humber and York Eglinton)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(June 24, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, recommending that Contract No. YK9905RD, Tender Call No. 90-1999, for pavement reconstruction at various locations, be awarded to Il Duca Construction Inc., in the total amount of $1,846,295.70, including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

(n) Road Reconstruction of Anglesey Boulevard Contract No. EB9901RD, Tender Call No. 120-1999. (Etobicoke Kingsway-Humber)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(i) (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that Contract No. EB9901RD, Tender Call No. 120-1999 for the road reconstruction of Anglesey Boulevard from Islington Avenue to Royal York Road be awarded to Sanan Construction Limited in the total amount of $1,927,164.66 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

(ii) (July 12, 1999) from Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby and Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway Humber, requesting approval of the reports regarding the reconstruction of Anglesey Boulevard and the rehabilitation of King Georges Road; and noting that both projects are necessary improvements to the infrastructure of the road system in their community.

(o) Rehabilitation of Pharmacy Avenue Bridge Over Massey Creek - Contract No. T-48-99, Tender Call No. 106-1999. (Scarborough Bluffs)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that Contract No. T-48-99, Tender Call No. 106-1999 for the rehabilitation of the Pharmacy Avenue Bridge over Massey Creek be awarded to Bridgecon Construction Ltd. and Bridgecon Holdings Ltd. in the total amount of $1,112,078.71 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

(p) Rehabilitation of King Georges Road, Including Storm and Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction and Upgrading Non-Standard Water Service Connections - Contract No EB9903RD, Tender Call No. 126-1999. (Etobicoke Kingsway - Humber)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(i) (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that Contract No. EB9903RD Tender Call No. 126-1999 for the road rehabilitation of King Georges Road from the Kingsway to Royal York Road including storm and sanitary sewer reconstruction and upgrading non-standard water service connections be awarded to G. Macera Contracting Ltd. in the total amount of $2,485,559.18 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

(ii) (July 12, 1999) from Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby and Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway Humber, requesting approval of the reports regarding the reconstruction of Anglesey Boulevard and the rehabilitation of King Georges Road; and noting that both projects are necessary improvements to the infrastructure of the road system in their community.

--------

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a communication with respect thereto.

(q) Construction of Water Mains on Church Street and Lombard Street - Contract No. 58555, Tender Call No. 111-1999. (Downtown)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that Contract No. 58555, Tender Call No. 111-1999, for the construction of water mains on Church Street from Queen Street East to Gerrard Street East and Lombard Street from Victoria Street to Jarvis Street, be awarded to KVC Construction Limited, in the total amount of $1,185,141.00, including all taxes and charges, being the lowest Tender received.

(r) Water Main Cleaning and Cement Mortar Lining On Various Streets, District 1- Contract No. YK9980WS, Tender Call No. 125-1999. (Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton)

The Works Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following joint report, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(June 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that Contract No. YK9980WS, Tender Call No. 125-1999 for water main cleaning and cement mortar lining on various streets within the City of Toronto, District 1, be awarded to New Tide Investments Limited in the total amount of $1,134,959.70, including all taxes and charges, being the lowest tender received.

(s) Garbage Packers.

The Works Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999:

(April 19, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, directed that Clause No. 6 contained in Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Garbage Packers", be struck out and referred back to the Works and Utilities Committee for further consideration; and that Council also adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee, Councillor Shiner and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services meet to discuss this matter prior to it being again considered by the Works and Utilities Committee."

(t) Review of Commissioner Street Transfer Station Project Expenditures.

The Works Committee reports having received the following communication:

(June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Audit Committee on May 25, 1999, recommended the adoption of the report dated April 24, 1999, from the City Auditor respecting the review of Commissioner Street Transfer Station Project Expenditures, wherein it is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Administrative Officer advise all department heads that the selection and engagement of all consulting services be made in accordance with the City's purchasing policies;

(2) the Chief Administrative Officer advise all department heads of the importance of providing accurate and complete cost estimates when submitting projects to Council for approval, ensuring that necessary due diligence and care is exercised when preparing these estimates, and that if changes in the scope of work are necessary, the details and implications of the changes, as well as additional funding requirements, be clearly communicated to Council for approval;

(3) as part of the 2000 and 2004 Capital Budget Process, the Budget Division, Finance Department advise all departments and local boards that all funds relating to a particular capital project be provided for in one capital account, so that the full funding requirements and expenditures for each project are more readily available and known; and

(4) this report be forwarded to the Works Committee and Budget Committee for consideration.

(u) City-Wide Public Awareness Campaign on Litter Clean-up.

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

(June 18, 1999) from Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Rexdale - Thistletown, respecting problems with respect to litter on various boulevards in the north end of Etobicoke; and suggesting that a city-wide public awareness campaign be initiated through the Works Committee in order that schools, community agencies and neighbourhoods can become actively involved.

(v) Soft Drink Containers Originating from Vending Machines.

The Works Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor submit for discussion at that time the form of the by-law which would be required:

(June 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to a request from the Works and Utilities Committee to research specific issues related to plastic soft drink containers from vending machines; advising that it is not currently possible to determine the costs to the City for handling such containers, due to a lack of information on the quantities of such containers sold in Toronto and the quantities that end up in the City's recycling or waste streams; further advising that the licensing provision that is available to the City to require soft drink vending machine operators to operate two-way or reverse vending machines is to amend By-law No. 20-85 to make it a condition of licensing, but that such an amendment may be blocked by the provincial government, as was the case with Toronto's proposed deposit-return system for liquor and wine containers; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(w) Vehicle Emission Testing. (All Wards)

The Works Committee reports having received the following report:

(June 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing additional information on the provincial Vehicle Emission Testing program, as requested by City Council at its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(x) Review of Sub-Committees, Special Committees and Task Forces.

The Works Committee reports having:

(1) endorsed the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Committee with respect to the establishment of a Road Allowance Task Force to be comprised of members of the Planning and Transportation and Works Committees;

(2) recommended to Council that Councillors Bossons and Fotinos be appointed to the aforementioned Road Allowance Task Force; and

(3) deferred consideration of the remainder of the following report until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999:

(June 28, 1999) from the City Clerk providing for the information of the newly formed Standing Committees a list of the various sub-committees, special committees, advisory committees and task forces which were formed under the previous Council-Committee structure; and recommending that the Standing Committees:

(1) determine whether the mandate and membership of those sub-committees listed under the column "Sub-Committees" in Schedule 1 attached thereto should be continued; and

(2) receive for information the balance of Schedule 1 regarding special committees, advisory committees and task forces established by Council.

--------

Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York-Spadina, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(y) Siting of Wind Turbines on City-Owned Waterfront Property.

The Works 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 September 8, 1999:

(July 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Vice-Chair, Toronto Hydro Board, recommending that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the meeting of the Works Committee scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999, on the siting of two wind turbines as outlined by the communication from Toronto Hydro, attached thereto; that such report should outline a process for City approvals, potential leasing arrangements, required technical expectations, exact locations for the siting and the nature of approvals with other agencies such as the Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada, and including commentary on the public consultations which have been and will have been conducted; and that such report be prepared in consultation with Toronto Hydro and Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative.

(z) Halifax - Report on Waste Resource Management System.

The Works Committee reports having received the following communication:

(Undated) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, describing in detail the Halifax Regional Municipality Waste Resource Management System, including its background, the facility itself and key discussion points.

--------

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, gave a video presentation to the Committee with respect to the aforementioned matter.

(aa) Yards Rationalization.

The Works Committee reports having:

(1) received the following report; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee at its next meeting, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999, on the status of the Turnberry Street site and whether such site can be declared surplus:

(July 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing an update on the status of Works and Emergency Services yard locations that are surplus to the Department's operating requirements; and recommending that this report be received for information.

Respectfully submitted,

BILL SAUNDERCOOK,

Chair

Toronto, July 14, 1999

(Report No. 2 of The Works Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999.)