1 Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process

2 Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project

3 Traffic Safety Bureau

4 City of Toronto Boundary Identification Signs

5 Road Salt Environmental Impact Study and Reduction of Road Salt Use

6 Engagement of Consultants - General Administration and Site Supervision Services During Design/Build of Truck Loading/Odour Control Facility and Plant-Wide Heating System Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant

7 Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Mediation Agreement - Implementation of Mediators Report and Work Program for Landscape Architectural Site Plan Project

8 118R Clinton Street - Water Servicing Charges (Ward 20, Trinity-Niagara)

9 Wastewater Treatment Agreement - South Peel

10 AMRC Recycling Cost Study

11 Small Business User Fee Education Program

12 Pilot Battery Collection Program at City Hall

13 Contract Extension - Collection and Haulage of Containerized Waste, Bulky Items and White Metal from Multi-Unit Apartments in the Former Borough of East York

14 Termination of Metro Waste Paper Inc. Container Processing Contract

15 Proposed Amendments to Traffic and Parking Regulations Required for Queens Quay West Streetcar Extension (Downtown - Ward 24, and Trinity Niagara - Ward 20)

16 Proposed Speed Limit Reduction on Sheppard Avenue East Between Greenbriar Road and Blue Ridge Road (North York - Centre South; Seneca Heights)

17 Proposed Speed Limit Reduction on Yonge Street Between Poyntz Avenue and Greenfield Avenue (North York - Centre)

18 Speed Limit on Kipling Avenue, Between Albion Road and Steeles Avenue West

19 Towing of Unplated Vehicles by Parking Enforcement Officers

20 Winter Maintenance on Toronto Roads - East Section of District 3 for the Period October 1999 to April 2003 - Contract No. NY9964RD, Tender Call No. 170-1999 (Various Wards)

21 Winter Maintenance on Toronto Roads - West Section of District 3 for the Period October 1999 to April 2003 - Contract No. NY9965RD, Tender Call No. 171-1999 (Various Wards)

22 Hired Loaders, Ploughs, and Tractors for Winter Services, District One for the Period December 1, 1999 to March 31, 2003 - Contracts Nos. T-68-99, T-69-99, T-70-99 and T-72-99 (East York, High Park, Trinity Niagara, Davenport, North Toronto, Midtown, Downtown, Don River, East Toronto, York Humber and York Eglinton)

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

24 Construction Claim Regarding Humber River Bridge, on Lakeshore Boulevard West

25 Other Items Considered by the Committee

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

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the recommendations of the Works Committee embodied in the communication dated September 24, 1999, from the City Clerk, be adopted, subject to deleting Recommendation No. (3), viz.:

'(3) that the social benefits be limited to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA);',

so that such recommendations shall now read as follows:

'The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated August 30, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process Request for Proposals for Disposal Services", subject to the following amendments:

(1) deleting the words "Fatality Rates" under Section 1.2 "Traffic Safety" in Table 5.2, entitled "Comparative Evaluation Criteria", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Accident Rates";

(2) reaffirmation of the position set out in the "Request for Expressions of Interest" document, as follows:

"Respondents to this combined transport and disposal service RFP will be required to provide a price for the combined service, and separate prices for each of the following (if applicable): truck; rail; and disposal service only"; and

(3) that the carbon dioxide criteria be amended to provide that it be green house gases as set out in the Kyoto Protocol, and as measured by C0² equivalents (eCO²);'; and

(b) the report dated September 27, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) qualified Respondents of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process Category 2, Proven (Landfill) Disposal Capacity, not be required to include in their Request for Proposals the provision of a front end processing and organic stabilization facility;

(2) City Council reiterate its policy to engage the marketplace for the provision of diversion (e.g. recycling and composting) technologies through the issuance of a Request for Proposals for Category 1, Proven Diversion Capacity, of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process; and

(3) the weighting for the Social Benefits criteria, as presented by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in his report of August 30, 1999, which had a mixed weighting factor for job creation and investment in goods and services between the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario, be reinstated.'; and

(c) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to further emphasize to any proponents, in a covering letter, Section 4.1.8 embodied in the Request for Proposal, the disclaimer that the City is not obligated to accept any of the bids.")

The Works Committee:

(1) submits without recommendation the report dated August 30, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Request for Proposals for Disposal Services", having regard for the Committee's direction that a special meeting be held at the call of the Chair prior to the Council meeting scheduled for September 28, 29 and 30, 1999, to receive comments and deputations on the proposed Terms of Reference for the Request for Proposals; and reports having tabled a motion by Councillor Fotinos with respect to amendments to the weighting factors under Table 5.2, "Comparative Evaluation Criteria" in the Request for Proposals, for consideration at such special meeting; and

(2) recommends the adoption of the report dated August 30, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Development of Secondary Planning Process for Category 3, New and Emerging Technologies".

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

(1) recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee the adoption of the report dated August 30, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Retention of MacViro Consultants Inc. and Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington for RFP for Proven Solid Waste Resource Diversion Services";

(2) received the report dated August 30, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Results of Stakeholder Review of Draft Evaluation Criteria for Proven Disposal Services RFP"; and

(3) referred the communication dated July 28, 1999, from the Toronto Civic Employees' Union, CUPE Local 416, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Works Committee submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Request for Proposals for Disposal Services":

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council authority to issue the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") Request for Proposals ("RFP") for Disposal Services.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process Request for Proposals for Disposal Services be approved for issuance on or about October 4, 1999, substantially in accordance with the Request for Proposals document attached to this report as Appendix "A".

Council Reference/Background/History:

On October 2, 1998, City Council provided direction to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

"…immediately proceed to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste management options including waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the City's long-term requirements through a Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals process based on the work undertaken in the planning process to date, but without proceeding to the submission of an environmental assessment." (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities Committee)

In addition, City Council provided direction on a comprehensive range of policy and operational matters, which are summarized below:

- the establishment of a 50 percent diversion rate by the year 2006 or sooner;

- inclusion of potential export to the United States;

- inclusion of Energy from Waste ("EFW") technology as a marketplace option;

- engagement of Regional governments in the Greater Toronto Area as potential partners with Toronto for future disposal capacity contracts;

- active consideration of potential partnership proposals with Toronto that may contain a range of options including transfer of ownership or leasing arrangements; and

- preparation of a planning process to engage the marketplace that includes public and industry consultation and development of multi-faceted evaluation criteria.

Policies regarding potential partnership with other members of the GTA (through the Memorandum of Understanding) and the introduction of a prohibition against lobbying were adopted by Council at its meeting of April 13, 14, and 15, 1999. At that time, Council also adopted recommendations regarding:

- the introduction of options for 5, 10, 15, and 20-year timeframes for provision of disposal capacity;

- the right of Toronto to engage in a subsequent tender for the haulage component from our transfer stations by third party haulers in order to broaden the potential marketplace response for the transport component;

- the right of Toronto to maintain a role for its public sector employees in the haulage component of the project, based on the existing levels of staff and equipment involved in the haulage of waste from Toronto's transfer stations to the Keele Valley Landfill Site; and

- the inclusion of a preferred customer clause to ensure that the price(s) charged to Toronto remain competitive over the contract timeframe.

Council also approved at its meeting of April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, the issuance of the Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI") document for three categories: Category 1. Proven Diversion; Category 2. Proven Disposal; and Category 3. New and Emerging Technologies.

On April 26, 1999, the TIRM REOI was issued as per the Council approved schedule. The TIRM REOI closed on May 31, 1999. A subsequent report dated July 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provided members of the Works Committee and Toronto City Council with the results of the application of the evaluation criteria to the 32 submissions received in response to the TIRM REOI. Of the 32 responses received, 23 were identified as qualified to proceed to the Request for Proposals ("RFP") stage (TIRM - Stage 3).

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The attached RFP for solid waste disposal services has incorporated the body of policy decisions made by Council during the course of the TIRM process. The RFP is designed to provide the City with new disposal capacity on January 1, 2002, in order to dovetail with the projected closure of the Keele Valley Landfill Site in 2002.

The RFP is designed to provide the City with sufficient flexibility through the contractual process to meet the Council policy of 50 percent diversion by 2006 or sooner, and to possibly proceed beyond 50 percent diversion through the course of the planning period.

Also listed on this agenda is a report recommending the hiring of MacViro Consultants Inc., to assist staff in the preparation of an RFP for Diversion Services. As per the Council schedule, the Diversion RFP will be prepared for submission to the November 1999 meeting of Council.

On July 27, 28, and 29, 1999, City Council adopted recommended amendments to the TIRM project schedule. The amendments enhance the integration of the RFP 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.

Development and Application of Evaluation Criteria:

The RFP for Disposal Services contains evaluation criteria in three categories:

(1) Human Health and Safety, Natural Environment;

(2) Ontario and GTA Social Benefits; and

(3) Financial.

These categories are weighted at 35, 30, and 35 points respectively. The evaluation criteria will be applied to the Respondents' service proposals. The service proposal will consist of the Respondents' technical (environmental) proposal, price proposal (fee per tonne), and any exceptions and partnership offers.

The evaluation criteria from the first two categories (Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment, and Ontario and GTA Social Benefits) will be applied to the technical performance information provided in the proposals (Envelope No. 1) without any reference to the information provided under the third category, Financial. After this initial step, the results of the application of the Financial evaluation criteria (Envelope No. 2) will be "aggregated" with the results of the first two categories to produce an overall ranking.

The top-ranked submissions will then be carried forward to City Council and will include a summary of any partnership proposals (Envelope No. 3) that may have accompanied the top-ranked submissions. At that time, we will seek Council's authorization to proceed with due diligence and contract negotiations.

The project schedule calls for the top-qualified proposals to be before Council in February 2000, with a recommendation(s) regarding engagement in contracts in June 2000.

Another report listed on the September 8, 1999 Agenda of the Works Committee provides a summary of the stakeholder consultation process regarding the evaluation criteria for the RFP for disposal services.

Conclusions:

We are recommending that Council approve the issuance on or about October 4, 1999, of the TIRM RFP for Disposal Services, substantially in accordance with the RFP document attached to this report as Appendix "A". The RFP for Disposal Services is scheduled to close on December 15, 1999. A list of top-qualified Respondents is then scheduled to be recommended to Council in February 2000, with recommendations for contracting to come before Council in June 2000, following the due diligence process and contract negotiations.

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

The Works Committee also submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Development of Secondary Planning Process for Category 3, New and Emerging Technologies":

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend the development of a secondary planning process for the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process Category 3, New and Emerging Technologies.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council authorize the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services not to proceed with the design and issuance of an RFP for New and Emerging Technologies, under Category 3 of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process; and

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

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to develop a secondary planning process for the potential engagement of the type of proposals submitted under Category 3, New and Emerging Technologies, of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On October 2, 1998, City Council provided direction to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste management options including waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the City's long-term requirements through a Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI") and a Request for Proposals process. (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities Committee.)

On April 26, 1999, the TIRM REOI was issued as per the Council approved schedule. The TIRM REOI closed on May 31, 1999. The TIRM REOI called for expressions of interest in three categories:

(1) Proven Diversion:

Proven waste diversion technologies are those with an ability to manage mixed waste or mixed waste and source-separated waste, utilizing mechanical and/or biological processes.

(2) Proven Disposal:

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

(3) New and Emerging Technologies:

Technologies that have been proven at the pilot scale, but have not yet been applied for larger waste volumes are referred to as new, emerging, innovative, and demonstration technologies. 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.

This category was "capped" at a service level of 100,000 tonnes per year through the TIRM REOI.

A subsequent report dated July 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, provided members of the Works Committee and Toronto City Council with the results of the TIRM REOI. In total, 32 submissions were received in response to the TIRM REOI, of which 12 were received in Category 3. Eight submissions under Category 3 qualified following the application of the evaluation criteria in the REOI.

The following table provides the names of the Category 3 qualified respondents and a short description of their proposed technologies.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The majority of qualified Respondents in Category 3, New and Emerging Technologies, use some form of thermal treatment process for the management of solid waste. Through their REOI submissions, some of the proponents of thermal treatment processes indicated that the management of quantities of waste beyond the Category limit of 100,000 tonnes per annum would be better suited to the economics of their particular technology. We are also aware that the ability to partner with the City, not presently contemplated under the conditions of Category 3, may assist the Category 3 Respondents, in taking a "new and emerging" technology to a commercial scale suitable for Toronto's needs.

In addition, the thermal technologies could be engaged to manage some of the residual waste following recycling and composting. However, at this time we are unsure of the residual waste tonnages, as contracts have not been signed with diversion and disposal service suppliers.

For the reasons cited above, we are recommending that Council not proceed with the Category 3, New and Emerging Technologies, within the stated conditions of the TIRM process. Instead we are seeking authorization to develop a secondary planning process for the potential engagement of the type of proposals actually submitted under TIRM Category 3.

Part of the development process for a secondary planning process would be dialogue with the Category 3 qualified respondents to acquire information from them regarding the optimum way to proceed.

Conclusions:

We are recommending through this report City Council's direction to withdraw Category 3, New and Emerging Technologies, from the TIRM Process. We are also seeking Council's authorization to develop a secondary planning process for the engagement of the type of proposals submitted in Category 3 on a different planning track and time schedule than that contemplated through the TIRM Process.

A subsequent report will provide further details regarding the components of the proposed secondary planning process for new and emerging technologies.

Contact Name:

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S., Manager, Strategic Planning

Policy and 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

The Works Committee also submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Results of Stakeholder Review of Draft Evaluation Criteria for the Proven Disposal Services RFP":

Purpose:

This report provides an account of the stakeholder consultation activities regarding the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process draft evaluation criteria for the Proven Disposal Services request for proposals ("RFP"). The stakeholder consultation activities were conducted between July 14, 1999 and August 27, 1999, following the submission of a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Works Committee identifying the qualified Respondents which made submissions under the TIRM Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI").

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, City Council adopted a revised TIRM Process schedule contained in the REOI, which it approved for issuance. (The schedule was modified through an approved recommendation to Council at its meeting of July 27, 28, and 29, 1999, in order to facilitate a closer linkage between decision-making on engagement of diversion and disposal services.)

The approved TIRM Process schedule included an engagement of stakeholders following the identification of qualified Respondents at the conclusion of the REOI process, to provide feedback on the draft evaluation criteria for the RFP for Proven Disposal Services.

To facilitate feedback, advertisements inviting comment were placed in newspapers in the communities where the potential sites are located. In addition, a letter dated July 16, 1999, was sent to those on the project mailing list.

To assist stakeholders, a consultation package was developed that included:

- a background description of the TIRM Process;

- a list of qualified Respondents;

- a brief description of the three categories (Proven Diversion, Proven Disposal, and New and Emerging Technologies);

- the project schedule;

- draft evaluation criteria; and

- feedback forms.

Comments were invited by fax, e-mail, telephone (including a toll-free line) and mail.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The stated purpose of the consultation was to invite comments on the draft evaluation criteria to be applied to the submissions to be received through the RFP for Proven Disposal Services. Specifically, we were seeking feedback on the following draft evaluation criteria:

- Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment (35 points)

- Ontario and GTA Social Benefits (30 points)

- Financial Costs (35 points)

Appendix A (attached) provides a summary of the comments received through the consultation process. Although comments were sought regarding the evaluation criteria, a great number of stakeholders made comments of a general nature. The specific comments regarding the draft evaluation criteria have been listed in the attached summary and corresponding responses have been provided.

The key modification to the evaluation criteria resulting from the consultation process has been the re-introduction of a broader range of priority pollutant categories under the Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment criterion. The following table provides a list of the pollutant categories we are recommending for inclusion in the RFP for Proven Disposal Services and the associated element to be considered in each pollutant category as the indicator of impact.

The emission rates of the priority pollutants listed above that are associated with proposed waste transport and disposal facility operations will be used to calculate performance scores, leading to the identification of top-qualified proposals.

Conclusions:

The stakeholder consultation process has provided a mechanism for TIRM Process stakeholders, including those stakeholders living in the vicinity of potential disposal sites, to comment and provide feedback on the draft evaluation criteria for the RFP for Proven Disposal Services.

While most of the feedback we have received was of a general nature and did not focus on the actual draft evaluation criteria, we have proceeded to broaden the list of priority pollutants. The emission rates for each priority pollutant associated with proposed waste transport and disposal facility operations will be used to calculate performance scores under the Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment evaluation criterion.

Contact Names:

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S. Tracey Ehl Harrison, MCIP, RPP

Manager, Strategic Planning Public Consultation Co-ordinator

Solid Waste Management Services Technical Support Services

Works and Emergency Services Works and Emergency Services

Metro Hall, 19^th Floor Phone: (416) 392-6698

Phone: (416) 392-9744 Toll Free: 1-800-465-2974

Fax: (416) 392-4754 Fax: (416) 392-2974

E-mail: lawson_oates@toronto.ca E-mail: tracey_ehl@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Toronto' Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") Stakeholder Consultation Report on Draft Request for Proposal Evaluation Criteria (Category 2 - Proven Waste Disposal)

August 27, 1999

Background:

The City of Toronto Works and Emergency Services Department undertook a stakeholder consultation process on Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") between July 14, 1999 and August 27, 1999. The stated purpose of this round of consultation was to invite comments on the draft evaluation criteria that are to be applied to the responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) that are received in Category 2 - waste disposal. It should be noted that the draft evaluation criteria were developed as a result of previous consultation efforts on this project.

Method:

On July 14, 1999, a staff report was presented at the Works and Utilities Committee regarding the TIRM project which outlined the seven "disposal" respondents who had successfully passed through the Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) stage. The following week, advertisements inviting comment on the draft evaluation criteria were placed in newspapers in the communities where the potential sites are located. In addition, a letter dated July 16, 1999, was sent out to those on the project database. This database includes all that have expressed an interest in this project in the past.

To assist stakeholders in understanding the process and commenting on the draft evaluation criteria, a consultation package was developed. This package included the following sections:

Section 1: Background general description of the TIRM process:

- staff report dated July 5, 1999, containing the results of the TIRM request for expressions of interest (REOI);

- the most recent TIRM newsletter.

Section 2: Respondents who have qualified through the REOI (all three categories: proven diversion, proven disposal, new and emerging technologies):

- a brief technology description (all three categories);

- a Respondent contact (all three categories);

- potential sites locations (disposal proposals only).

Section 3: Project schedule (taken from the REOI).

Section 4: Disposal RFP Comparative Evaluation Criteria - We want your comments!

- draft evaluation criteria;

- feedback forms to make comments.

Comments were invited by fax, e-mail, telephone (including a toll free line), and mail.

Results:

During the consultation period, a total of 243 comments were received. These can be broken down geographically as follows.

* In addition, a letter was received from the Deputy Mayor of the Town of Innisfil indicating 817 signatures on a petition in opposition to the AGRA proposal to site an EFW facility in the Town of Innisfil.

Comments - General:

Although comments were sought regarding the evaluation criteria, a great number of stakeholders made comments of a general nature. These can be characterized in the following points.

- The export of Toronto's waste outside of the Greater Toronto Area and outside of the country is not appropriate or desirable.

- Waste should be viewed as a resource.

- There is great concern over an increase in truck traffic on local and regional roads and the pollution associated with truck haul.

- The City of Toronto should focus its efforts on strengthening diversion (3Rs) programs.

- Residents in the vicinity of proposed sites are concerned over the local environmental impacts that will result from Toronto's waste being received at the site, including impacts due to landfill/incinerator emissions, health concerns, and increases in truck traffic.

- Many questions and concerns were raised regarding incineration technology and emissions/pollution standards. Toronto's position on incineration was also sought.

- Appreciate opportunity to comment.

Stakeholders also requested clarifications and/or elaboration of consultation staff and the project manager regarding the process being followed by the City.

Comments - Criteria-related:

As noted, this consultation effort was focussed on receiving feedback on the evaluation criteria and their assigned weighting (importance) that will be applied to the responses to the RFP (disposal).

The three comparative evaluation criteria, as distributed, are:

Human Health and Safety and Natural Environment 35 points

Ontario and GTA Social Benefits 30 points

Financial 35 points

A number of criteria-related suggestions/comments were made by stakeholders. These are noted in the following chart along with the response/resolution proposed by the City's project team.

Next Steps:

The above comments have been considered and reflected, as noted, in the preparation of the Request for Proposals (disposal). The next stakeholder consultation activities will focus on the development of the evaluation criteria for the "diversion" category. It is anticipated that this consultation will commence in September.

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

(i) (August 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Retention of MacViro Consultants Inc. and Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington for RFP for Proven Solid Waste Resource Diversion Services", which recommended that:

(1) additional funding of $520,000.00 ($499,200.00 net after GST rebate) under Solid Waste Management Capital Account C-SW168 Waste Management Planning be approved for the purposes of engaging a planning consultant and an external legal counsel to assist staff in the proposal call process for Proven Diversion Services; and

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

(i) the firm of MacViro Consultants Inc. as the overall highest scoring proposal be retained at a cost not to exceed $267,000.00 including GST, in order to assist staff in the proposal call process, including the preparation and issuance of an RFP for Proven Diversion Services, analysis of responses, due diligence, contract preparation and negotiation support;

(ii) the legal firm of Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington be retained to provide external legal expertise, at a cost not to exceed $203,000.00, including GST, in order to assist staff in the proposal call process, including the preparation and issuance of an RFP for Diversion Services, analysis of responses, due diligence, contract preparation and negotiation support; and

(iii) an expenditure in the amount of $50,000.00, including GST, be authorized for site visits, disbursements, advertising, communications, technical studies and public consultation activities.

(ii) (July 28, 1999) Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, stating the Union's position in support of a publicly owned and operate waste diversion/disposal system, and advising that Local 416 believes it is crucial for the City to maintain control over all aspects of the waste management system; further stating that the selection criteria to date has been totally in absence of any legitimate public consultation; and urging the City to implement a full broad-based consultation process on a proper waste diversion system and ultimate disposal;

(iii) (September 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, recommending that the Request for Proposals be amended as follows:

"The City will only enter into a contract with a proponent of waste disposal capacity option if the host community has endorsed the proponent's plans. Endorsement would be demonstrated by a municipally-organized referendum where residents of the affected municipalities indicated over 50 percent support for the proponent's plans.";

(iv) (September 8, 1999) from Mr. Kevin Heise, Thornton, Ontario, respecting the AGRA Birwelco sponsored incinerator proposal for Simcoe County;

(v) (September 8, 1999) from Mr. John Jackson, Citizens' Network on Waste, respecting the communication process for the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process and the disposal RFP comparative evaluation criteria; and

(vi) from the following in opposition to the Rail Cycle North proposal for Toronto garbage:

- (August 16, 1999) from Ms. Elizabeth Dexter, Tarzwell, Ontario;

- (August 16, 1999) from Susie and Paul Gatz, Tarzwell, Ontario;

- (August 16, 1999) from Ms. Beatrice Grant, Tarzwell, Ontario;

- (August 16, 1999) from Mrs. Jean Simms, Tarzwell, Ontario;

- (August 16, 1999) from Ms. Kylli Swanson, Tarzwell, Ontario;

- (August 18, 1999) from Fern and Pauline Bruneau, Swastika, Ontario;

- (August 18, 1999) from Ms. Marlene Pitcaithley, Swastika, Ontario;

- (August 19, 1999) from Mr. Norman Macdonald, Swastika, Ontario;

- (August 20, 1999) from Ms. Anne Parkman, Tarzwell, Ontario;

- (August 20, 1999) from Ms. Frances Swanson, Tarzwell, Ontario;

- (September 6, 1999) from Mr. John Patterson, North Bay, Ontario;

- (September 7, 1999) from Mr. Dennis Hakola, Cobalt, Ontario;

- (September 7, 1999) from Ms. Kathy Hakola, Cobalt, Ontario; and

- (September 7, 1999) from Mr. Bob Meister, Trout Creek, Ontario.

Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management, Works and Emergency Services, and Mr. Michael Pratt, Earth Tech (Canada) Inc., gave a presentation to the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a copy of the presentation.

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

- Mr. Gregory Vogt, Eastern Power Ltd. & Super Blue Box Recycling;

- Mr. Nigel Guilford, representing Rail Cycle North;

- Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice-President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, and submitted a copy of his presentation;

- Mr. Bob Webb, Director of Business Development, Republic Services of Canada, and Mr. Marvin L. Banotai, Supervisor, Sumpter Township, Michigan, and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Ms. Greta Thompson, Blenheim, Ontario;

- Mr. Jim Hamilton, Thornton, Ontario, and submitted a copy of his deputation;

- Ms. Shelley Petrie, Toronto Environmental Alliance;

- Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Richard Gilbert, representing AGRA Resource Management.

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report headed "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Request for Proposals for Disposal Services" has been forwarded to all Members of Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 24, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated August 30, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Service, entitled "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process Request for Proposals for Disposal Services".

Background:

The Works Committee, at its special meeting of September 24, 1999, again had before it a report (August 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process Request for Proposals for Disposal Services be approved for issuance on or about October 4, 1999, substantially in accordance with the Request for Proposals document attached to this report as Appendix "A".

The Committee also had before it a communication (September 8, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Works Committee at its meeting on September 8, 1999, during consideration of various reports respecting the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process, deferred consideration of the report (August 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the issuance of a Request for Proposals for Disposal Services, to a special meeting of the Committee to be held at the call of the Chair prior to the Council meeting scheduled for September 28, 29 and 30, 1999, to receive comments and deputations on the proposed Terms of Reference for the Request for Disposals; and tabled a motion by Councillor Fotinos respecting amendments to the weighting factors under Table 5.2, "Comparative Evaluation Criteria" in the RFP in accordance with the attached table.

The Committee also had before it a communication (September 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton recommending that the Request for Proposals be amended as follows:

"The City will only enter into a contract with a proponent of waste disposal capacity option if the host community has endorsed the proponent's plans. Endorsement would be demonstrated by a municipally-organized referendum where residents of the affected municipalities indicated over 50 percent support for the proponent's plans."

The Committee also had before it the following communications:

(1) (September 8, 1999) from Mr. Kevin Heise, Thornton, Ontario, respecting the AGRA Birwelco sponsored incinerator proposal for Simcoe County;

(2) (September 8, 1999) from Mr. John Jackson, Citizens' Network on Waste, respecting the communication process for the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process and the disposal RFP comparative evaluation criteria;

(3) from the following in opposition to the Rail Cycle North proposal for Toronto garbage:

(i) (August 16, 1999) from Ms. Elizabeth Dexter, Tarzwell, Ontario;

(ii) (August 16, 1999) from Susie and Paul Gatz, Tarzwell, Ontario;

(iii) (August 16, 1999) from Ms. Beatrice Grant, Tarzwell, Ontario;

(iv) (August 16, 1999) from Mrs. Jean Simms, Tarzwell, Ontario;

(v) (August 16, 1999) from Ms. Kylli Swanson, Tarzwell, Ontario;

(vi) (August 18, 1999) from Fern and Pauline Bruneau, Swastika, Ontario;

(vii) (August 18, 1999) from Ms. Marlene Pitcaithley, Swastika, Ontario;

(viii) (August 19, 1999) from Mr. Norman Macdonald, Swastika, Ontario;

(ix) (August 20, 1999) from Ms. Anne Parkman, Tarzwell, Ontario;

(x) (August 20, 1999) from Ms. Frances Swanson, Tarzwell, Ontario;

(xi) (September 6, 1999) from Mr. John Patterson, North Bay, Ontario;

(xii) (September 7, 1999) from Mr. Dennis Hakola, Cobalt, Ontario;

(xiii) (September 7, 1999) from Ms. Kathy Hakola, Cobalt, Ontario; and

(xiv) (September 7, 1999) from Mr. Bob Meister, Trout Creek, Ontario;

(4) (September 3, 1999) from the City Clerk, City of Vaughan, forwarding a copy of Item 4, Report No. 61, of the Committee of the Whole, which was adopted by the Council of the City of Vaughan at its meeting of August 30, 1999, respecting the City of Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process, wherein it is resolved that:

"The City of Vaughan Council, on behalf of its constituents and residents strongly supports and encourages the City of Toronto to devote all possible energies, resources and resolve to the finalization of its long-term waste management objectives in sufficient time to meet its projected 2002 closure date for the Keele Valley Landfill Site; it being pointed out that the City of Vaughan is prepared to assist and cooperate in any way possible with the City of Toronto in meeting its objectives provided the interests of Vaughan continue to be maintained and that the projected closure date of the Keele Valley Landfill Site is not compromised.";

(5) (September 17, 1999) from Rail Cycle North Ltd. respecting the September 1, 1999 draft Request for Proposals for Waste Disposal Services; and

(6) (September 23, 1999) from Mr. Michael Bryson, Toronto, Ontario, expressing concern that the evaluation criteria proposed as part of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process will result in environmental and social impacts which would be unacceptable to the citizens of Toronto; and requesting adoption of the best waste management strategy (with the greatest amount of waste reduction) and the siting of small landfills close to the waste source to deposit any remaining volume.

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

- Mr. Blair McArthur, and Mr. Scott Wolfe, representing Rail Cycle North, and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Mr. Jim Hamilton, Thornton, Ontario, member of Stop Incineration Now, and submitted a communication, News Release and Petition from approximately 1131 persons in opposition to the waste and composting facility proposed in the Town of Innisfil;

- Ms. Elizabeth Denton; Tarzwell; Ontario;

- Mr. Richard Gilbert, and Mr. Harry Poch, Environmental Lawyer, representing AGRA Resource Management; and

- Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the request of the Works Committee to provide a staff report directly to the City Council meeting of September 28, 29, and 30, 1999, regarding the possibility of requiring qualified Respondents of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process ("TIRM") Category 2, Proven (Landfill) Disposal Capacity, to include in their proposals a requirement for a front end processing and organic stabilization facility.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial impacts arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) qualified Respondents of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process Category 2, Proven (Landfill) Disposal Capacity, not be required to include in their Request for Proposals the provision of a front end processing and organic stabilization facility;

(2) City Council reiterate its policy to engage the marketplace for the provision of diversion (e.g. recycling and composting) technologies through the issuance of a Request for Proposals for Category 1, Proven Diversion Capacity, of the Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process; and

(3) the weighting for the Social Benefits criteria, as presented by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in his report of August 30, 1999, which had a mixed weighting factor for job creation and investment in goods and services between the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario, be reinstated.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On September 24, 1999, City Council's Works Committee held a special meeting to consider a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, dated August 30, 1999, titled "Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process, Request for Proposals for Disposal Services". The Special Works Committee meeting was held to hear additional deputations regarding the TIRM Request for Proposals ("RFP") for Proven Disposal Services and to consider amendments to the Commissioner's report.

Works Committee adopted, with amendment, the Commissioner's report. The report, as recommended by Works Committee, is listed on the City Council meeting agenda of September 28, 29, and 30, 1999 (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of the Works Committee).

The Works Committee also requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to the same meeting of City Council, regarding the feasibility of inclusion in the RFP of a requirement for those proposing landfill disposal, to include a front end processing and organic stabilization facility, similar to Halifax Regional Municipality's Otter Lake Waste Management Facility. This report is in response to that request.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

After a lengthy environmental assessment planning process, Halifax Regional Municipality ("Halifax") proceeded to engage private sector contractors to design, build and operate two source separated household organics composting plants and a municipal Blue Bag processing facility for recyclable materials.

Halifax also sited a landfill facility within its jurisdiction, known as the Otter Lake Waste Management Facility. Its location is not predicated on geological factors, but on local social acceptance factors, which resulted in the integration of a front end processing capability to remove recyclable elements in the mixed waste stream, and an organic stabilization capability, which "composts" the mixed waste stream in order to stabilize organic matter before it is placed in the landfill.

The stabilization of the organic component of the mixed waste stream produces a leachate containing a low level of organic compounds. The landfill is also designed with several liners in order to protect against the risk of leakage and potential ground water contamination. Similar to the composting and Blue Bag processing facilities, the Otter Lake facility is operated by a private sector firm.

Toronto's TIRM process differs in several ways, which does not make the inclusion of a requirement in the TIRM RFP for Proven (Landfill) Disposal Capacity for a front end processing and organic stabilization facility the most optimal route to take from environmental and economic standpoints. Listed below are several points in favour of continuing to pursue increased diversion through the established TIRM process.

Multiple Waste Streams

Through the TIRM Process, City Council is proceeding to engage private and public sector proven disposal capacity. Many of the disposal facilities currently under consideration are already in operation or have identified business plans to seek other customers. If Toronto made it a requirement that its solid waste be processed through a front end processing and organic stabilization facility, we would very likely find our solid waste being processed and then being mixed with other sources of solid waste that was unprocessed and/or being added to unprocessed solid waste that had already been disposed. This would significantly reduce the environmental benefit of requiring front end processing before landfilling.

The landfill disposal facilities under consideration in the TIRM Process have been sited, designed, and approved with significant consideration of geological factors, including appropriately designed containment and leachate treatment systems. In order to have received a certificate of approval the landfill design has to meet regulatory requirements and ongoing monitoring by the regulatory authorities.

Reduced Environmental and Economic Benefits

As discussed in a previous report to the Works Committee on the Halifax waste management system, it may be cost prohibitive to process all residual material at the front end of the landfill, particularly if source separated organics are being processed at separate organics composting facilities.

The TIRM Request for Expressions of Interest process has identified seven qualified Respondents for Category 2, Proven Disposal Capacity. None of the proposed facilities exist within the Greater Toronto Area ("GTA"). As a result, we would be transporting recyclable and organic material to be processed outside of the GTA.

A firm or consortium could potentially locate a front end facility in the GTA for our mixed waste stream. However, this may require a very large facility (potentially in excess of one million tonnes throughput per year), significant re-handling of materials, potential siting difficulties, and expensive land or leasing costs.

Linked to this point, is Works Committee's amendment to the evaluation criteria for the RFP for Proven Disposal Services. The draft RFP, as submitted by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, recommended a mixed weighting factor (six to four ratio in favour of the GTA) for job creation and investment in goods and services between the GTA and Ontario within the Ontario and GTA Social Benefits Criteria.

The Committee's amendment recognizes only GTA-based job creation and purchase of goods and services. This detracts from Council's direction to proceed in an environmental assessment style manner, which requires the need to look at social impacts on an Ontario-wide basis. In addition, since all of the disposal locations are outside of the GTA, the Ontario-based disposal options gain no inherent advantage over their U.S.-based competition. A benefit to the Ontario economy is inherently more beneficial to the City of Toronto than would be the case of job creation and investment in the U.S. economy.

We therefore recommend that the weighting for the Social Benefits criteria, as presented by the Commissioner in his report of August 30, 1999, which recognized social benefits across the Province, be reinstated.

Reduced Marketplace Competition

City Council has approved under the TIRM Project the establishment of three categories of solid waste management for the marketplace to respond to: Category 1, Proven Diversion; Category 2, Proven Disposal; and Category 3, New and Emerging Technologies.

This design reflects the nature of the solid waste management industry, which generally speaking, is divided into firms that supply diversion technologies and firms that supply disposal services. The TIRM Process, recognizing this industry specialization, has provided the opportunity for the small and medium-sized businesses that market diversion services to participate without necessarily having to partner with large disposal firms.

If the TIRM RFP for Disposal Services carried a requirement for a front end processing and organic stabilization facility, forced "partnerships" may result in order to meet the stated requirement, which have not occurred in the marketplace to date, or the direct purchase of diversion technologies including operating expertise.

This may result in longer time requirements on the part of the Respondents to respond to the RFP, and may adversely impact the marketplace response to Category 1, Proven Diversion, resulting in reduced competition.

In addition, this will significantly increase the financial cost of the Category 2, Proven Disposal proposals, as a result of the requirement to process approximately 1 million tonnes of municipal solid waste, and over 2 million tonnes of solid waste, if the solid waste we now receive and manage from the private sector and the GTA is included.

Category 1, Proven Diversion Capacity, TIRM

We are currently in the process of designing an RFP for Category 1, Proven Diversion Capacity, scheduled to be presented to Works Committee and City Council in November 1999. We recommend that this RFP be the "engine" through which the City pursues its adopted policy objective of 50 percent diversion by 2006, with the opportunity to reach 80 percent diversion within a twenty-year planning period.

Eight firms have been qualified through the TIRM REOI to participate in the RFP for Proven Diversion Capacity. By engaging one or more of these firms we have the opportunity to produce high-grade end products through a competitive process.

We also have the opportunity to utilize existing transfer stations and/or other city-owned land. This provides the opportunity to realize benefits from the associated local employment, local utilization of compost and re-entry into the economy of other recyclable materials, and reduced transport costs and impacts.

Following the engagement of one or more proven diversion proposals, the City could proceed to manage unprocessed quantities of mixed waste by introducing a front end processing and organic stabilization facility(ies) prior to transport to a disposal facility(ies), in order to remove recyclable items and stabilize the organic content.

At that time an analysis would be undertaken regarding the quantities and characteristics of the remaining mixed waste stream in order to properly size a facility or facilities and to engage the most optimum technology.

Conclusions:

Halifax has responded to its particular needs by siting a landfill within its jurisdiction with a front end processing and organic stabilization facility. Halifax has also sited, in conjunction with private sector operators, two dedicated compost plants and a Blue Bag recycling facility.

Through the TIRM Process, Toronto City Council has the opportunity to engage Respondents to provide proven diversion capacity to achieve a 50 percent diversion by 2006, with the opportunity to reach 80 percent within a twenty-year planning period.

The TIRM Process can also provide the necessary proven disposal capacity to manage the City's residual disposal requirements following the application of the 3Rs and the engagement of diversion technologies offered through Category 1, Proven Diversion, of the TIRM Process.

We recommend against the inclusion of a requirement for Category 2, Proven Disposal Capacity, Respondents to build into their proposals a front end processing and organic stabilization facility. This will significantly increase the price of the disposal proposals and therefore reduce the financial ability of the City to engage Category 1, Proven Diversion, proposals.

By engaging firms specializing in diversion technologies we can produce high-grade unrestricted use compost for beneficial use, utilize energy producing gases in the local economy, and benefit from the associated local employment.

Following the engagement of proven diversion technologies, the City can return to the potential

implementation of one or more front end processing and organic stabilization facilities, in order to remove remaining recyclable items from the mixed waste stream and stabilize remaining organics prior to landfilling, if this is the form of disposal technology the City contracts for.

Contact Name:

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

Manager, Strategic Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Metro Hall, 19th Floor

Phone: (416) 392-9744

Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-mail: lawson_oates@toronto.ca)

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of:

(1) the report dated September 2, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2) the recommendations embodied in the communication dated August 6, 1999, from Councillor Norman Gardner, Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board.

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having received the report dated August 23, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Works Committee submits the following report (September 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Works Committee of the results of the Tender Call No. 189-1999, for the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of red light camera systems, which closed on August 25, 1999.

A description of the various components of the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project is provided in an accompanying report to the Works Committee on this same agenda entitled "Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project - Status Report".

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Tender Call No. 189-1999 for the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of red light camera systems within the City of Toronto, for the period October 1999 to April 2003, not be awarded; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to continue with the planning and implementation of the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project, as described in this supplementary report.

Funding Sources:

The funds required for the City of Toronto's equipment installation, operation and maintenance for the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department Capital Program. Overall pilot project costs will include a number of additional project components over and above the equipment such as Ministry of Transportation involvement (project facilitation, evaluation study, and vehicle ownership data), processing centre, and a public information campaign. An additional report will be submitted at a later date detailing overall pilot project costs, and confirming that the debt charge will be offset from the revenue generated by offence notices issued through the project.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998, granted authority to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to issue a public tender call for the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of red light camera systems. Council also granted authority for the appropriate City staff to meet with provincial officials to finalize the necessary agreements for this project as required by the new legislation.

In January 1999, the City of Toronto requested contractors experienced in the supply and installation of red light camera systems to submit an application to become a pre-qualified contractor for this project. As a result, the following five firms were pre-qualified to submit tenders: EDS of Canada Ltd. and Redflex Traffic Systems Pty. Ltd., Guild Electric Limited, Lockheed Martin IMS Canada Inc., Stacey Electric Company Limited, and Tellis Traffic Inc.

Municipalities participating in the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project include the Regional Municipality of Halton, Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth (with the City of Hamilton), Regional Municipality of Peel (with the City of Mississauga), Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, City of Toronto and Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Although only one tender document for the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of red light camera systems for all participating municipalities was issued, each municipality will be required to sign a separate contract with the successful bidder covering, insurance, bonding and payment issues.

Results of Tender Opening:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on August 25, 1999, opened the following tenders for Tender Call No. 189-1999:

No. Name $ Amount

1. Guild Electric Limited $10,168,468.52

2. Lockheed Martin IMS Canada Inc. $ 7,286,208.28

In consultation with the City of Toronto Legal Department, the submitted tenders are deemed as "invalid" as each tender submission includes a number of conditions proposed for negotiation between the City and the contractor.

Future Actions:

Following the tender opening on August 25, 1999, City staff met with the partner municipalities to develop a course of action, in the absence of any valid bid.

The following plan and tentative schedule were adopted by the participating municipalities:

(1) staff will review, in detail, the companies' concerns regarding the performance standards and tender specifications;

(2) staff will develop a new tender package;

(3) staff will release the new tender package this fall;

(4) the tender will close in November; and

(5) a report will be submitted to Committee before the end of the year recommending contract award.

This tentative schedule will result in a delay to the start of the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project. The two-year duration of the pilot project will remain intact, however, since the legislature proclamation of Bill 102 will be made simultaneous with the revised start date.

Conclusions:

This report requests the authority not to award Tender Call No. 189-1999. This report also seeks approval to authorize the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to continue with the planning and implementation of the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project.

Contact Name:

Les Kelman, P.Eng.

Director, Transportation Systems

Tel: (416) 392-5372

The Works Committee also submits the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Works Committee with a status report on the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project for consideration in association with the supplementary report recommending an award of contract.

Following the contract tender opening on August 25, 1999, the Project Steering Committee representing the six participating municipalities will meet to evaluate the tenders for the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of red light camera systems within their respective jurisdictions. A report recommending an award of contract will be submitted to the Works Committee at its meeting on September 8, 1999.

Due to the tight schedule, the report containing the recommendations may only be distributed to Committee members at the meeting. This "advance" report provides information on all components of the project as well as the contract tender process in preparation for the Works Committee meeting on September 8, 1999.

Funding Sources:

The funds required for the City of Toronto's component of the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department Capital Program. The estimated cost for the City of Toronto is $3,000,000.00, and the debt charge will be offset from the revenue generated by offence notices issued through the project.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be considered by the Committee along with the supplementary report to follow on the award of contract for red light camera systems and forwarded to Council and the Police Services Board for information.

Background:

On December 18, 1998, the Red Light Cameras Pilot Projects Act, 1998 (Bill 102) received Royal Assent. The Act amends the Highway Traffic Act to enable municipalities, for a period of two years, to use evidence obtained from red light cameras to issue violation notices. This Act comes into force on a date to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor when at least one municipality is ready to start its pilot project.

City Council, at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998, resolved that:

(1) authority be granted to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to issue a public tender call for the supply, installation and maintenance of red light camera systems at 10 high-risk City intersections and the installation of camera housings and detector subsystems at a further 10 high-risk City intersections;

(2) funding for these installations, estimated to be $3,000,000.00, be provided from the 1999 Transportation Capital Budget and that the debt charge be offset from the revenue generated by tickets produced by the red light camera system;

(3) the Traffic Services Unit of Toronto Police Services be requested to report on simultaneous police enforcement of an additional 10 high-risk City intersections to satisfy the Minister of Transportation's requirement for the pilot project, and that extraordinary police costs for this experiment be reimbursed from revenue generated by tickets issued as part of this pilot project;

(4) application be made to the Insurance Bureau of Canada for funding assistance for this pilot project, including police enforcement costs;

(5) the appropriate City staff be authorized to meet with provincial officials to finalize the necessary agreements for this project as required by the new legislation; and

(6) excess revenues generated by the pilot project go to the provision of additional cameras and housings.

Discussion:

Red light running is one of several aggressive driving behaviours that contributes to the annual toll of collisions and injuries at intersections in Ontario. In 1996, there were 44,971 collisions at signalized intersections operated by municipalities in Ontario. This accounts for 21 percent of all motor vehicle collisions in the Province. Seventeen percent of these collisions were the direct result of drivers disobeying a red light. Collisions resulting from red light running tend to be more severe than other intersection collisions because they typically involve at least one vehicle travelling at a high rate of speed. Moreover, in the most serious red light running collisions, the initial impact involves vehicles colliding at right angles to each other. This means that one vehicle is generally struck on its side. Side impact collisions tend to result in severe injury for two reasons: first, there is significant intrusion into the cab of the struck vehicle and, second, seat belts are less effective under these circumstances. Seat belts were designed primarily to protect vehicle occupants involved in head-on collisions.

In September 1998, the City of Toronto installed a camera on the westbound approach at the intersection of St. Clair Avenue West and Dufferin Street as an operational test of the equipment. The camera recorded about 60 red light violations per day prior to the installation of a warning sign and a media announcement. Once the warning sign was installed and the location was revealed to the media, the number of violations was reduced to about 30 per day.

In announcing Bill 102, the Province stipulated that municipalities wishing to introduce red light camera pilot projects will be required to introduce stepped-up police enforcement at other high-risk intersections to allow for comparison between the cameras and traditional enforcement. In February 1999, the Ontario Minister of Transportation invited interested municipalities and police services to attend a series of "Kick-off" meetings in order to establish a shared understanding regarding the purpose of the pilot projects, to address operational issues, and to reinforce a partnership approach with key stakeholders. Since then, a provincial-municipal Project Steering Committee was established to guide and direct three Working Groups. Working Group 1 is responsible for determining site selection criteria, conducting the evaluation study, establishing a police enforcement strategy and preparing a public awareness program. Working Group 2 is responsible for establishing a common province-wide approach to equipment selection, installation and operation. Working Group 3 is responsible for providing input into the regulations being developed under the Highway Traffic Act and Provincial Offences Act, regarding the processing of charges through the court system, as well as providing legal advice as required to the Steering Committee and Working Groups.

Municipalities and Police Services participating in the pilot project include the Regional Municipality of Halton, Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth (with the City of Hamilton), Regional Municipality of Peel (with the City of Mississauga), Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, City of Toronto and Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Provincial ministries facilitating the pilot project include the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario has also provided its advice to the Working Groups.

(1) Site Selection:

Each participating municipality identified high-risk locations based primarily on historical collision data. In total, municipalities intend to purchase 19 red light cameras and equip 74 fully prepared sites. Municipalities will be rotating the cameras around the prepared sites so that photo enforcement will occur at all prepared sites. In addition, participating police services have been requested to provide stepped-up traditional police enforcement at a total of 30 sites. The City of Toronto intends to purchase 10 cameras and prepare 40 sites. The exact total will depend upon actual prices received through the equipment tender process. The Toronto Police Service has committed to providing stepped-up police enforcement at six sites. The proposed 46 sites for the City of Toronto are listed in Appendix A.

In Toronto, the total number of collisions normally associated with red light running (right-angle, left-turn, pedestrian and cyclist types) were reviewed for each signalized intersection for the three year period from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996. The collision reports for the top 100 intersections were examined and collision totals were provided for each intersection approach to provide a list of approximately 400 high-risk approaches. Approaches from the ten intersections with the highest collision frequency in 1997 (all collision types) were also included. From the total list, 46 approaches with the highest number of relevant collisions were selected. In order to maximize the impact of red light cameras on the behaviour of road users throughout the City of Toronto, the list of high-risk approaches was reviewed to confirm that there was relatively even distribution throughout the City. From the list of 46 locations, one intersection per community council area was selected for stepped-up police enforcement.

Community Safety Zones are designated areas within municipalities where the fines for moving violations including red light running are increased. The City of Toronto and other Ontario municipalities are currently evaluating the benefits of Community Safety Zones. In order to maintain as much independence as possible between the two evaluation studies (red light cameras and Community Safety Zones), intersection approaches within Community Safety Zones were not selected for red light cameras.

Intersection approaches with streetcar tracks were not selected because most red light camera systems require vehicle detectors that are installed in the pavement. The streetcar rails make installation impractical and the radio frequency signals transmitted from the streetcar track switching equipment may interfere with the calculations performed by the red light camera system. Similarly, locations undergoing major road construction were not selected because construction activity prevents the installation of vehicle detectors, and makes the installation and operation of other associated red light camera system equipment impractical.

(2) Evaluation Study:

The objective of the project evaluation is to conduct a before and after study to assess the combined effect of two red light running countermeasures for intersections with a high incidence of red light running related collisions namely: red light camera systems and stepped-up police enforcement.

Working Group 1, with the assistance of the Ministry of Transportation, has hired a consultant to conduct the study. The consultant will study approximately 50 sites in total. Study locations will be comprised of approximately equal numbers of red light camera sites, stepped-up enforcement sites, and control sites receiving routine police enforcement. Sites will be matched on the basis of collision frequencies, traffic volumes and approach geometrics. Study locations receiving increased enforcement will be selected from the 74 red light camera sites and 30 stepped-up police enforcement sites. In order to accurately measure the combined effect of the pilot project at the treated sites and to minimize the potential spillover effect of the increased enforcement at the control sites, it was decided to select control sites that are sufficiently distant from the treated sites. Municipalities that are not directly participating in the pilot project have been contacted and arrangements are being made with them to select control sites and collect data from intersections in their jurisdiction.

Data to be collected at all study sites will include collision frequencies, traffic volumes and red light violations. Data relevant to other violations will be collected at the stepped-up police enforcement sites. Annual totals of red light running convictions within the court districts of the participating municipalities will be also be obtained. An interim report with twelve months of after data and a final report with the results for the entire two-year after period will be prepared. The final report will include a cost accounting for each treatment and for the program as a whole.

(3) Stepped-Up Police Enforcement:

Working Group 1, in consultation with participating police services, prepared a stepped-up police enforcement strategy. The objective of the strategy is to provide an effective sustainable police presence with existing resources allowing police flexibility to schedule enforcement blitzes. Stepped-up police enforcement will occur at 30 sites in total. Police services for Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton, Peel and Toronto will be responsible for six sites each while police services for Halton and Waterloo will be responsible for three sites each.

Each site will receive two blitzes, one per year, during the course of the two-year pilot project. The project will have three four-week blitz periods per year, or six in total. The four-week periods will be selected within each of the two-month periods of March/April, July/August, and October/November. Therefore, the first blitz will occur in the spring of 2000 and the final blitz will occur in the fall of 2001.

An individual blitz will consist of 20 hours of enforcement in total. Enforcement will occur on 10 separate days, two hours per day, either during the morning or afternoon peak period. The 10 days of enforcement will be selected at random within the four-week periods.

(4) Public Awareness Program:

A public awareness program will be prepared for this project prior to the operation of red light cameras. A campaign guide is being developed by the Ministry of Transportation that will assist municipalities in addressing the problem of red light running. The proposed how-to guide will contain information on planning and implementing a community-based public education and enforcement program that targets red light runners and intersection safety. The guide will include artwork for posters, print inserts and flyers, sample radio public service announcements, and information on traffic signs and signals. It will be distributed to municipalities, community traffic safety groups and police.

In order to satisfy concerns expressed by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, signs will be posted to advise drivers of the presence of the red light cameras. Two options are currently being considered. One option is to post signs advising motorists in advance of each intersection approach with red light cameras. The other option is to post signs at the City's borders advising motorists that City intersections are photo enforced. This issue will be resolved at a later date.

(5) Equipment Installation and Operation:

In January 1999, the City of Toronto requested contractors experienced in the supply and installation of red light camera systems to submit an application to become a pre-qualified contractor for this project. As a result, the following five firms were pre-qualified to submit tenders: EDS of Canada Ltd. and Redflex Traffic Systems Pty. Ltd., Guild Electric Limited, Lockheed Martin IMS Canada Inc., Stacey Electric Company Limited, and Tellis Traffic Inc.

On July 28, 1999, a public tender for the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of red light camera systems for all participating municipalities was released to the five pre-qualified contractors. The scope of the tender includes the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of the red light camera units, prepared sites (poles, enclosures, flash units, and wiring), image processing hardware and software stations, and printers. The operation and maintenance activities include the supply, loading and unloading, development and delivery of photographic film, as well as the rotation and maintenance of the camera units. The tender includes provisions for additional cameras and sites, extended operation and maintenance beyond the two-year period, and the sale of equipment at the end of the project, if required. Municipalities are responsible for the field preparation of the camera sites, which will include the installation of the pole bases, wiring and power supply to the pole bases and the installation of the vehicle detectors in accordance with the successful bidder's specifications.

Although a common tender for all municipalities was issued, each municipality will be required to sign a separate contract with the successful bidder covering insurance, bonding and payment issues. Each municipality has assigned a Project Manager who will be responsible for site supervision, acceptance testing, operating and maintenance issues within their respective jurisdiction.

(6) Regulations:

There are a number of regulations required for the introduction of red light cameras including amendments under the Highway Traffic Act and the Provincial Offences Act.

On April 30, 1999, the Red Light Camera System Evidence regulation made under the Highway Traffic Act was filed with the registrar of regulations. This regulation sets out the requirements around the photographs and the service of the Offence Notice. The regulation appeared in the Ontario Gazette on May 15, 1999. On June 21, 1999, the Ministry of the Attorney General presented the "Rules to Implement Red Light Cameras Pilot Project Act, 1998" to the Provincial Offences Act Rules Subcommittee.

Regulations dealing with the Certificate of Offence, Offence Notice and the designation of municipalities have yet to be made and will occur over the next few months.

(7) Processing of Charges and the Municipal Processing Centre:

Working Group 3, with the assistance of the Ministry of the Attorney General, defined the process for the laying and processing of charges using photographic evidence obtained from red light cameras in Ontario. The main sub-components of the process include: matching photo and plate information, laying of charges by a Provincial Offences Officer, defendant response options, requesting trial, operation of first attendance facility, trials, defendant appeals and re-openings.

A municipal processing centre is required to perform several functions within this process, primarily: matching photo and plate information, laying of charges, assisting the Prosecutor in preparing the photographic evidence for first attendance and trial. The provincial court system is currently responsible for the remaining functions. Processing centre staff will receive developed rolls of film from the equipment contractor, images from the film will be digitized and retrieved with the aid of a computer program. A Provincial Offences Officer will view the digital images, and determine if an offence has occurred. If an offence has occurred, the licence plate number will be read from the digital image and entered on a form to request uncertified plate registration information from the Ministry of Transportation. Once the plate registration information is obtained, the Offence Notice Form is completed and mailed to the owner of the vehicle. If a defendant contests the charge and requests a trial, the municipal processing centre is required to assist the Prosecutor by providing the original photographs and certified plate registration information.

In order to ensure a consistent approach to the processing of red light camera violations, the Project Steering Committee opted for a centralized processing centre operated by municipal staff. Furthermore, due to the number of camera sites proposed for Toronto and the central location of Toronto relative to the participating municipalities, it was decided that the City of Toronto, Transportation Services would staff and operate the processing centre for all municipalities. The location of the processing centre will be the Corporate Computer and Communication Centre at 703 Don Mills Road. Agreements will be negotiated with the other participating municipalities to recover the applicable operating costs for the processing centre. Details regarding the staffing, office space and equipment requirements will need to be established, however, preliminary estimates suggest that the minimum staffing requirements for the centre will be one Supervisor, one Provincial Offences Officer and three Data Entry Clerks.

(8) Financial Aspects:

All costs associated with the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project will be borne by the participating municipalities. Provincial costs include providing project facilitation and legal services, conducting the evaluation study as well as developing and supporting systems to provide motor vehicle plate registration information. Provincial costs will be recovered through a transaction fee each time municipalities request motor vehicle plate registration information.

With respect to the City of Toronto, Council has directed that funding for the installation of red light cameras be provided from the 1999 Transportation Capital Budget, and the debt charge be offset from the revenue generated by tickets produced by the red light camera system. In addition, Council directed that extraordinary police costs be reimbursed from the revenue generated by tickets issued as part of the project.

The set fine for running a red light is $155.00 plus a $30.00 victim fine surcharge. Currently, all revenues from moving violations, including red light running, flow to the Province as stipulated in the Provincial Offences Act (POA). The Province has indicated that municipalities will be able to access these revenues, not including the victim fine surcharge, once municipalities have assumed responsibility for Courts Administration and Court Support Services for offences under Parts I and III of the POA and for prosecutions of offences under Part I of the POA. Bill 108, the Streamlining of Administration of Provincial Offences Act, 1998, provides the framework for this transfer of responsibilities. It is our understanding that the City of Toronto is currently considering the POA transfer, however, if it proceeds, it will not take place until April 2000 at the earliest.

Given the potential delay in offsetting the debt charge for this project, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has requested the Ontario Minister of Finance to make the revenues generated from Offence Notices issued through the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project available to municipalities prior to the completion of the POA transfer process.

In April 1999, the Province of Ontario and the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) announced the Road Safety Value Partnership (RSVP) program. Through this program, both the Province and the IBC will contribute a matching dollar amount to a police service wishing to dedicate a component of its budget to the program. The funds are intended for traditional police enforcement activities and may not be used for the purchase and installation of red light cameras. The funds may be used by police services, if desired, to offset costs associated with the stepped-up police enforcement activities for the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project.

(9) Provincial/Municipal Operational Agreements:

In order to become designated as a Red Light Enforcement Pilot area in the regulation, participating municipalities must sign an operational agreement with the Ministry of Transportation. A draft copy of the Table of Contents for the proposed operational agreement is included in Appendix B. Staff will also be submitting a recommendation to the Works Committee at its meeting on September 8, 1999, seeking approval for the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to enter into this agreement with the Ministry of Transportation.

Operational agreements will clarify the responsibilities of all parties to ensure that the red light offenders are successfully prosecuted and that the two enforcement strategies are properly evaluated. Agreement provisions will include requirements for provincial cost recovery, compliance with the applicable laws, stepped-up police enforcement blitzes, data collection and submission associated with the evaluation study, intersection selection criteria, minimum specifications for the camera equipment, business processes to be followed by all parities, termination of contracts and surviving obligations. A common format will be used for all municipal agreements with the Ministry of Transportation.

(10) Schedule:

The following table provides a tentative schedule of the major activities within the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project:

Conclusions:

The Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project represents an opportunity to introduce a major traffic safety initiative at no cost to taxpayers and is on schedule to begin by December 1999. A report containing a recommendation on the award of the contract for the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of red light camera systems will be submitted to the Works Committee on September 8, 1999.

Contact Name:

Les Kelman, P.Eng.

Director, Transportation Systems

Tel: (416) 392-5372; Fax: (416) 397-5011

* subject to confirmation by selected contractor

Stepped -Up Police Enforcement Sites

APPENDIX B

PROVINCIAL / MUNICIPAL

RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT PILOT PROJECT OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 Definition of Terms

2.1 Obligations of the Ministry

2.1.1 Development of Study Design

2.1.2 Hiring the Project Consultant

2.1.3 Business/Court Processes Documentation

2.1.4 Access to Information Products

2.2 Obligations of the Municipal Organization

2.2.1 Compliance with Laws and Regulations

2.2.2 Traditional Enforcement

2.2.3 Data Collection and Participation in the Pilot Evaluation Process

2.2.4 Use of Sub-Contractors in the Operation of Municipal Red Light

Enforcement Pilot Project

2.2.5 Signing at Red Light Camera Intersections

3.0 Grant of Licence

3.1 Grant

3.2 Title

3.3 Authorized Use

3.4 Data Matching and Data Profiling

3.5 Individuals Not To Be Contacted

3.6 Document Destruction

3.7 Survival

4.0 Terms

4.1 Terms and Termination

4.2 Early Termination

4.3 Surviving Obligations of the Municipal Organization

4.4 Surviving Obligations of the Ministry

4.5 Conflict With Privacy Laws

5.0 Transmission of Information Products

6.0 Fees and Charges

6.1 Payment of Amounts

6.2 Method and Timing of Payment

6.3 First Payment

6.4 Payment Information

7.0 Transaction Logs

8.0 Information Integrity, Security and Audit

8.1 Year 2000 Readiness

8.2 Virus Protection

8.3 Security

8.4 Audit

9.0 Default

9.1 Default

9.2 Events of Default

10.0 Certification of Records

10.1 Certification by Registrar

10.2 Transmission of Certified Information Products

11. 0 General

11.1 Independent Contractor

11.2 Indemnity

11.3 Limitation of Liability

11.4 Force Majeure

11.5 Advertising

11.6 Enforceability

11.7 Evidence

11.8 Non-Assignability

11.9 Notification of Breach

11.10 Objection Procedure

11.11 Notices

11.12 Waiver of Provisions

11.13 Entire Agreement

11.14 Survival of Provisions

11.15 Jurisdiction of Contract

11.16 Conflict Between Red Light Enforcement Project Agreement and Law

11.17 Severability of Clauses

11.18 Interpretation

11.19 Time of Essence

11.20 Enurement

Schedules

"A" Recommended and Mandatory Business/Court Processes and Documentation

"B" Approved Conventional Roadside Police Enforcement Program of the Municipal Organization

"C" Approved Red Light Technology Plan of the Municipal Organization

"D" Approved Pilot Program of the Municipal Organization

"E" Information Product Protocol

"F" Employer/Employee/Agent Security Statements

NOTE: The headings used in this Table of Contents are not considered part of the Agreement and are solely for convenience.

The Works Committee also submits the following communication (August 6, 1999) from Councillor Norman Gardner, Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Community Services Committee approve the Toronto Police Service's application for a grant to finance traffic enforcement programs;

(2) the Community Services Committee forward this report to the next meeting of Toronto City Council for approval; and

(3) subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (2), the Mayor, City of Toronto, be authorized to co-sign the Toronto Police Service application on behalf of Toronto City Council.

Council Reference/Background History:

At its meeting on July 22, 1999, the Toronto Police Services Board was in receipt of the following report June 30, 1999 from David J. Boothby, Chief of Police:

"Subject: Toronto Police Service Application to the Roadsafety Value Partnership (R.S.V.P.) Fund for a Grant to Finance Traffic Enforcement Programs

Recommendations:

That the Board:

(1) approve the TPS application to participate in the R.S.V.P. program;

(2) authorize the Chairman to sign any legal agreement that may be required on behalf of the Board based upon the advice of the City Solicitor; and

(3) forward this report to the City of Toronto Council for approval.

Background:

The Road Safety Value Partnership (R.S.V.P.) fund is intended to promote local road safety initiatives throughout Ontario. The Ontario Auto Insurers Coalition and the Ministry of Transportation have each contributed $1 million to the fund. Through R.S.V.P., municipalities are encouraged to apply for program funds to offset the cost of police traffic enforcement programs.

Municipalities are required to pay for one-third of the cost of these programs and the R.S.V.P. fund will cover the remaining two-thirds. Municipalities may apply for funds up to a maximum allocation permitted based on the number of sworn officers within their jurisdiction. In accordance with the program objectives, police officers will conduct high visibility traffic enforcement initiatives on an overtime basis.

Given the program allocation criteria, the Toronto Police Service qualifies for a maximum grant of $90,000.00. The maximum Service contribution is $45,000.00, for a potential $135,000.00 commitment to this program. A sum of $135,000.00 would fund approximately 3340 hours of overtime based on an average hourly cost of $40.42 (please refer to section D of the attached application). Funding for this program will be re-allocated within the existing Police Services Operating Budget.

The Toronto Police Service will be required to:

- complete an application form, including a description of front line operational activities to be undertaken by officers using the funds from this grant;

- demonstrate matched funding for one-third of the cost; and

- complete reporting requirements (one interim report, one final report) and complete evaluation data.

The Ontario Safety League is administering the program. Proposals will be reviewed by a Funding Review Committee comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of the Solicitor General, Office of the Minister Responsible for Privatization and government lead on Automobile Insurance, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Ontario Safety League.

If the application is successful, the Ministry of Transportation and the Insurance Bureau of Canada will enter into a contractual agreement with the Toronto Police Services Board. Standard government procedures regarding grants will be followed and the contract will outline:

- the purposes for which the grant will be used;

- the biannual submission of a report; and

- the payment schedule.

Funds will only be paid after a contract/Memorandum of Understanding is signed between the Police Services Board, the Ministry of Transportation and the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Funds will be paid in arrears, after completion of the enforcement initiatives through submission of the interim and final reports.

The Service welcomes the opportunity to increase the level of traffic enforcement on our city's roadways. A recent survey conducted by the Traffic Services Unit confirms the frustration felt by motorists and pedestrians alike at the apparent decline in safe driving behaviour on Toronto's streets and expressways. Police officers in Toronto are dedicated to traffic safety and are also frustrated by aggressive and poor driving behaviour. The R.S.V.P. grant will provide our officers the means to address the concerns of our community and implement new initiatives, which are not possible with the existing constraints on the Service's resources.

The Service divides its traffic law enforcement responsibilities primarily between the Traffic Services Highway Patrol and local divisional Traffic Response Units. The mandate of the Highway Patrol involves patrol and enforcement on Toronto's expressways, namely The Fred Gardiner Expressway, the Don Valley Parkway, Highways 27 and 2A and the William R. Allen Road. Accordingly, the Highway Patrol Unit would utilize its portion of the R.S.V.P. grant for enforcement on these roadways. The emphasis of this enforcement would be on aggressive driving behaviour, which includes offences such as speeding, following too closely, and abrupt lane changes. The grant funding will also provide for additional commercial vehicle inspections and enforcement as part of the Highway Patrol's ongoing commitment to closely monitor the safety of commercial vehicles travelling on Toronto's highways.

The mandate of divisional Traffic Response Units involves patrol and enforcement on Toronto's arterial and residential roads. Each of Toronto's 17 police divisions operates such a unit to address localised traffic concerns. Traffic concerns are identified by divisional managers in response to frequency of collisions and complaints generated by the community. Local enforcement initiatives will again focus on aggressive driving behaviours but will also devote equal consideration to intersection related offences such as failing to stop for signals and failing to yield to pedestrians.

The Traffic Services Traffic Enforcement Unit is a motorcycle based unit whose function includes addressing quality of life concerns throughout the city by utilizing locally concentrated, high visibility target policing. This unit responds to requests from local divisions when enhanced traffic enforcement is required. This unit will be in a position to augment its activities as a result of the additional funding. Preliminary discussions between the Traffic Enforcement Unit, local divisions and bordering police services have taken place concerning joint enforcement 'blitzes' which concentrate resources in a given area thereby creating maximum public awareness for the initiative.

The City of Toronto has recently experienced a disproportionate number of senior citizen involved pedestrian collisions, and as a result; special emphasis will be placed on addressing pedestrian safety. Planning and project co-ordinators at the Traffic Services Unit have been working in conjunction with the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, a sub-committee of the Toronto City Council, to identify means to address this serious concern. Much has been done to create awareness, but the availability of additional funds will facilitate specific enforcement initiatives in this area.

The Traffic Services Unit will organize a media event involving as many stakeholders, both police and public, as can be identified, to announce the launch of the program. Further, additional media events announcing local divisional or joint service initiatives are also anticipated. Traffic Services will be instrumental in facilitating such events. Finally, Traffic Services has recently produced 12,000 information pamphlets, which address the issue of aggressive driving on our roadways. These pamphlets will be featured in the media events and will be issued to all police divisions for distribution to the public.

Please note that the R.S.V.P. fund is not tied to the Red Light Enforcement Pilot Project (red light cameras). The two programs will exist independently of each other.

The R.S.V.P. fund represents an excellent opportunity for the Service to augment its traffic enforcement initiatives, thereby addressing the concerns of our community by providing a safer environment for all road users in Toronto. I would ask that the Board approve the application to this program.

Superintendent Gary Grant, Unit Commander of Traffic Services and Sergeant Craig Young, Traffic Services programs co-ordinator will be present at the Board meeting to respond to any questions."

Conclusions:

The Board approved the foregoing.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Superintendent Gary Grant, Traffic Services, telephone no. 808-1914, and Sergeant Craig Young, Traffic Services, telephone no. 808-1926.

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

(i) (June 16, 1999) from Councillor Norman Gardner, Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board, forwarding a communication (April 15, 1999) from the Minister of Transportation regarding red light camera technology which was before the Toronto Police Services Board at its meeting on May 20, 1999; and advising that the Board received the above-noted correspondence and requested that copy be forwarded to the City of Toronto Planning and Transportation Committee for information.

(ii) (September 7, 1999) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, confirming the Toronto Pedestrian Committee's continued support for a red light enforcement pilot project, and questioning whether the cameras capture illegal right turns on red lights.

Mr. Les Kelman, Director, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services, gave a presentation to the Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a copy of his presentation.

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing communication dated August 6, 1999, from the Toronto Police Services Board has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works Committee meeting of September 8, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1) by amending the report dated August 24, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services by:

(a) adding to Appendix "D" embodied in such report, the following new subsection (k), under the heading "Internal and External Links:":

"(k) the Traffic Safety Bureau will work in conjunction with various Community Groups, whose mandate is to promote traffic safety."; and

(b) deleting the title, "Joint Ventures with Educational Institutions", to Section (6) of Appendix "E" embodied in such report, and inserting in lieu thereof the following new title:

"(6) Joint Ventures with Community Groups and Educational Institutions:";

(2) to provide that the matter of the funding for the Traffic Safety Bureau be referred to the Budget Advisory Committee; and

(3) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the Joint Ventures with Community Groups and Educational Institutions shall include, but not be limited to, City Wide Awareness Campaigns to promote traffic safety;

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to consult with the General Manager, Ambulance Services, on the usefulness of assessing Ambulance data reports to enhance the accuracy and completeness of collision information;

(3) a formal liaison be established between the City's Pedestrian and Cycling Committees and the Traffic Safety Bureau;

(4) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to Council, through the Works Committee, on further ways and means that Community Groups whose mandate is to promote traffic safety can become full partners in the Traffic Safety Bureau;

(5) a copy of this Clause be forwarded to the Pedestrian and Cycling Committees for information and comments; and

(6) the following motion be referred to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for report thereon to the Budget Advisory Committee at such time as this matter is being considered:

Moved by Councillor Flint:

'That Appendix "D" to the report dated August 24, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, be amended by:

(a) deleting from subsection (d), entitled "Data Coding Staff (6 positions)", one staff position, on the condition that this does not reduce the budget allocation necessary under Recommendation No. (2) embodied in such report; and

(b) adding thereto a new subsection (e), to read as follows:

"(e) Community Co-ordinator:

A staff position of Community Co-ordinator shall be created whose job shall be to identify and co-ordinate programs and resources of external community groups whose mandate is to improve traffic safety with the Traffic Safety Bureau.' .)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

(1) outline a business plan and associated costs and benefits for a Traffic Safety Bureau; and

(2) seek approval for the establishment of a Traffic Safety Bureau.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost to establish and operate a Traffic Safety Bureau is estimated to be $535,000.00 per year.

The cost to establish a data coding unit to verify approximately one-third of the collision data (fatalities, personal injuries, public property damage and high frequency locations) for traffic analysis is estimated to be $265,000.00 per year for a total of $800,000.00 in 2000. Funds will be identified in the Department's year 2000 current budget estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) approval in principle be granted to establish a Traffic Safety Bureau within the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department;

(2) approval in principle be granted to temporarily establish a collision data coding verification unit within the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department until such time this service is provided by the Police Service;

(3) the Police Service be requested to submit a supplemental report by March 2000 to the Works Committee to address the status and corrective measure regarding the accuracy of the collision information submitted to Transportation Services;

(4) a portion of the revenues generated from the recovery of public property damage claims be used to offset the cost of the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau;

(5) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to enter into discussions with the Insurance Bureau of Canada regarding the feasibility of securing private sponsorships to offset the cost of the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau; and

(6) the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a supplemental report to the Works Committee to address what measures can be taken to reduce speeding on local roads used as by-passes.

Council Reference:

At its meeting on May 11 and 12, 1999, Toronto City Council, in discussing the report titled "Speed Limit Compliance on Major Arterial Roads - Update", approved the following motion:

"WHEREAS the City of Toronto is committed to improving traffic safety within its boundaries; and

WHEREAS staff, as part of the City amalgamation and reorganization of Transportation Services, have recommended that the role of the Traffic Data Centre be expanded to include a Traffic Safety Bureau; and

WHEREAS the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau will function as a Centre of information for traffic safety for the City and its primary objectives to:

(a) enhance the extent of traffic analysis presently conducted;

(b) introduce, support and co-ordinate (where applicable) successful internal and external traffic safety programs;

(c) formalize the monitoring and evaluation of traffic safety programs;

(d) increase the safety awareness in the planning, design, construction, installation, maintenance and operating practices within the Department; and

(e) provide city-wide traffic performance and safety measures; and

WHEREAS due to budget constraints, no funding has been identified in the 1999 Operating Budget for this expanded role;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, prior to the 2000 budget cycle, outlining the business plan and the associated costs and benefits for a Traffic Safety Bureau, such report to also address what measures can be taken to reduce speeding on local roads that are used as by-passes."

The focus of this report is to address the business plan and issues related to the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau. The issue of speeding on local roads that are being used as by-passes will be addressed in a supplemental report to the Works Committee.

Discussion:

Traffic safety for pedestrians, cyclists, passengers and drivers is a city-wide issue that is inherent in the roles and responsibilities of many departments and boards; for example, Works and Emergency Services, Public Health, Police Service, Planning, Board of Education, etc. Current departmental programs are generally reactive and site specific either after an incident occurs or when a location is under review.

As part of the City amalgamation and reorganization of the Transportation Services Division, staff have recommended that the role of the Traffic Data Centre be expanded to include a Traffic Safety Bureau. The purpose of the Traffic Safety Bureau will be to take traffic safety efforts to the next higher level. The focus will be to develop and execute proactive, continuous, traffic programs to:

(a) gain a better understanding of the causes related to collisions;

(b) continually introduce new mitigating measures and improve standards;

(c) measure the effectiveness of applied mitigating measures; and

(d) support revisions to or development of new municipal-wide guidelines, policies and practices.

Transportation staff believe a Traffic Safety Bureau will provide the necessary attention and resources to help in developing proactive city-wide traffic safety programs.

The Problem:

In 1997, there were 80 collision related fatalities, 16,920 personal injuries, and 52,160 property damage claims over $1,000.00 for a total of 69,160 reported collisions within the City of Toronto. Police sources suggest that an additional 15,000 (1998) collisions are reported to the police where damage claims are less than $1,000.00 and no injuries are involved (known as "Non-reportables").

Appendix A highlights that in 1997, 31 percent of the provincial 220,000 collisions occurred within the City of Toronto. This translates into approximately 190 reportable collisions per day on the streets of Toronto.

Cost of Collisions:

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) estimated the total social cost of provincial traffic collisions in 1990 to be $9.1 billion or $41,000.00 per collision. The MTO research is based on a "willingness to pay model to forego a collision". The research quantifies both the indirect and direct costs of collisions. The indirect costs include "the value society would place on the elimination of human consequences of motor vehicle crashes" or in other words, the "pain and suffering" costs which amount to $7.3 billion province-wide. The remaining $1.8 billion is attributed to provincial direct costs associated with the collision. These direct costs include ambulance, hospital/health care, property damage, police, fire, tow-trucks, insurance claim expenses and other out-of-pocket expenses.

A total summary of the MTO's research is illustrated in Appendix B. In addition, Appendix B provides an estimate of the City of Toronto Collision Costs when the MTO's averages are applied to the Toronto collision figures.

Based on the MTO research, it is estimated that collision costs total between $2.5 and $2.9 billion per year in Toronto.

It may be more appropriate to focus on the more tangible direct cost of collisions, given that relating to the indirect cost may be difficult due to the intangible aspect of "human consequence pain and suffering". The estimated Toronto annual direct costs, which include services such as ambulance, fire, police and public/private damage claims amount to $0.5 to $0.6 billion per year. Each one percent collision reduction within the City of Toronto translates to a $5 million to $6 million savings to the public.

Collision Reduction Return Rate:

Safety experts continue to call incidents "collisions" rather than "accidents" since many believe collisions are preventable if the proper precautions are taken. The precautions include education, enforcement and engineering. Recently published information from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) states that for each dollar spent on traffic safety road improvements, rates of return range between 1:2.4 and 1:10. They gathered these return rates from road improvement projects from 1993 to 1996. During this period, ICBC invested approximately $960,000.00 on road improvement projects resulting in an estimated savings of $7,980,000.00 with an overall return rate of 1:8.3.

Generally, all of the City's programs have built-in safety policies and practices that have been carefully developed and implemented over the years. This is particularly true in the Transportation Services Division in terms of roadway design, operation and maintenance. The fact remains that collisions continue to increase as a by-product of increased population and economic growth. Transportation staff believe that it makes sense to enhance public safety in terms of proactive measures for vehicle collisions since the return rate and social costs are significant.

The Business Plan:

The purpose of this report is to define a business plan for the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau that will operate with the Traffic Data Centre, and in close liaison with all Works and Emergency Services Divisions as well as other City Departments.

The business plan has been divided into the following sections:

(i) Function;

(ii) Staffing;

(iii) Potential Programs and Monitoring Approach;

(iv) Benefits;

(v) Issues - Timely and Accurate Collision Data; and

(vi) Costs and Potential Revenues

(i) Function:

(For detailed description see Appendix C)

Currently the Traffic Data Centre records and compiles collision data primarily as input into traffic investigations resulting from public inquiries. The proposed Traffic Safety Bureau will analyze the causes of the collisions from a systemic view. This initiative will provide a better understanding and lead to development and implementation of improved collision counter measures. These measures will be developed by City staff in consultation with Councillors, police, private sector stakeholders, insurance companies, community associations, safety coalitions and educational entities. The Traffic Safety Bureau will function as a "Centre of Information and Analysis" for traffic safety for the City of Toronto.

The primary focus of the Traffic Safety Bureau will be to add value to the existing traffic volume and collision data collection programmes on the municipal road network by:

(a) enhancing the extent of traffic safety analysis presently conducted;

(b) introducing, supporting and co-ordinating (where applicable) internal and external traffic safety programs and mitigating measures;

(c) formalizing the monitoring and evaluation of traffic safety programs to ensure there is a positive return on investment;

(d) increasing the safety awareness in the planning, design, construction, installation, maintenance and operating practices within the Department; and

(e) providing city-wide traffic performance and safety measurements

(ii) Staffing:

(For detailed description see Appendix D)

The following ten positions are recommended to form the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau. These positions have been divided into two groups; namely, traffic safety programs and collision data accuracy verification.

Traffic Safety Programs: Collision Data Accuracy Verification:

(a) Traffic Safety Engineer (d) Collision Coding Staff

(b) Traffic Statistician (six positions for the verification of

(c) Application Technologists (two positions) one-third of the collision database)

One key aspect of the Traffic Safety Bureau will be to develop and establish effective links with both internal and external groups to heighten the traffic safety conscience within the City. These links include Councillors, Transportation Divisions, Technical Services, City Planning Division, Police Services, Media, Health and School Boards. A brief description of the functional links is also included in Appendix D.

(iii) Potential Programs and Monitoring Approach:

(For detailed description see Appendix E)

Potential programs range from publishing collision statistics, identifying problem locations, before and after evaluations to training programs. A sample of the programs is as follows:

- identification of problem areas both geographically and functionally, to improve the knowledge of road network performance.

- Assist in the development of city wide mitigating measures to reduce the preventable costs to the public and City, as well as optimizing current and capital program investment decisions.

- Perform before-after evaluation to quality the measure of effectiveness of current and proposed traffic policies and practices.

- Assist in the review of work zone safety audits to reduce the City's liability and lawsuits.

- Publish traffic safety reports, one-page educational brochures and newsletters to increase public and political awareness.

Details of the potential programs and monitoring approach are listed in Appendix E.

In addition, the intent is to establish a monitoring plan to evaluate the potential programs to ensure each of the initiatives' performances provide a well-founded basis for continuation, modification or replacement by other programs.

(iv) Benefits:

The expected benefits or effects of the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau achievements are listed in Table 3. The amount of savings in dollars is difficult to quantify since the savings are dependent on the extent of the programs that will be implemented.

However, as previously stated, there is the potential to reduce the estimated $2.5 to $2.9 billion annual social costs of collisions within the City at a fraction of the cost to establish a Traffic Safety Bureau. Each one percent reduction in collisions translates into $5 million to $6 million direct savings to the public; not to mention the additional indirect cost of pain and suffering which could increase the savings by five times. Another viewpoint would be for each collision prevented, the public would save $41,000.00.

Table 3

Proposed Traffic Safety Bureau

Potential Achievements and Resulting Effects Benefits

(v) Issues - Timely and Accurate Collision Data:

One fundamental requirement for the Traffic Safety Bureau is the supply of continuous, timely and most important, accurate collision data from the Police.

Historically, the Toronto Police Service has provided the former municipalities, including the Traffic Data Centre, with collision information. Prior to 1992, Toronto Police Officers would interview drivers who were involved in collisions and fill out collision reports. The information such as location and cause, was filled out on one report by the investigating police officer. The information was then transcribed into an electronic database by a single central group at police headquarters. Both a copy of the collision report and the electronic database was forwarded to the Traffic Data Centre.

In 1996, the Toronto Police Service in cooperation with the private sector launched three Collision Reporting Centres (CRCs). The main premise for the CRCs is to expedite the reporting of minor collisions without having people waiting at the collision location for immediate police involvement. Instead, they drive to the closest CRC and each driver is required to fill out a collision report (result: two or more reports per collision). The CRCs provide greater public convenience and comfort, reduce extended periods of traffic congestion, reduce the requirement for on-site police resources and have allowed the police to concentrate on more serious collision investigations.

The exceptions to the CRC process are if the collision involves (1) injury or death, (2) criminal activity, (3) federal, provincial, TTC or municipal vehicles, (4) vehicles transporting dangerous goods, (5) uninsured or suspended drivers, and (6) damage to private, municipal or highway property. On these occasions, drivers are instructed not to leave the collision site and wait until a police officer arrives. When a police officer arrives, the police proceed to interview the parties involved and document the information on a "401" collision report. These "401" reports are forwarded to police headquarters for data entry. In 1997, there were approximately 17,000 cases that met the CRC exception criteria or approximately 25 percent of the 69,180 reported collisions.

Another exception to the CRC process is collisions involving bicycles. Cyclists are not required to report to the CRCs, but are allowed to report to police stations. This is due to the lack of accessibility for cyclists to travel to the suburban CRC locations, particularly for downtown residents without cars.

With the introduction of the CRCs and the reduction of collision records personnel at police headquarters, Transportation staff have experienced substantial delays in receiving copies of collision reports ranging from one to six months. In addition, the records transcribed into the electronic collision databases by both headquarters and CRC staff contain errors when compared with the collision reports. Transportation staff have found that at least 50 percent of the collision records contain transcription errors, therefore staff cannot rely on the police collision database. As a result, for each request since 1996, Transportation staff have manually verified the electronic information before releasing the summarized information to the public. This additional required exercise was done at the expense of other divisional programs.

For approximately the past three years, Transportation staff have discussed with the Police Service Records Bureau procedures and programs to improve the quality of the electronic database and expedite the delivery of information on a regular continuous basis. The Police Service with the help of Transportation staff continue to try to improve the quality of the data with improved training methods, procedures, and computer software and hardware upgrades. Over the past six months there has been considerable effort made by the Police Service in this regard; however, the net result remains that the electronic database requires substantial manual verification by City Transportation staff. This information is typically used to form the basis for transportation improvements including traffic control changes such as stop signs, traffic signals, pedestrian crossovers, minor road improvements, additional turn lanes, and major transportation projects.

To meet the Traffic Safety Bureau requirements for the development of systemic traffic safety programs, Transportation staff are recommending that additional resources be dedicated to the partial verification of the electronic collision database. The partial verification will encompass the fatal, personal injury and public property damage "401" reports (approximately 25 percent) and high frequency locations (approximately 8 percent) which represents one-third of the collision database. The interim proposal is to hire six additional staff members to check and verify the collision records until the Police Service can substantially reduce or eliminate the transcription errors.

In addition, in consultation with the Police Service, Transportation staff recommend that the Police Service report back to the Works Committee by March 2000 regarding the status and corrective measure regarding the accuracy of the collision information forwarded to Transportation Services.

(vii) Costs and Potential Revenues:

Costs:

The annual staffing costs (including fringe benefits) are estimated to be $500,000.00. It is estimated that for ten people, an initial setup cost of $30,000.00 for computers and printers is required. An additional $20,000.00 for office and field survey equipment, including a digital camera-video, measuring devices, and speed guns, would be needed.

The out-sourcing costs will depend on the programs adopted for the coming and subsequent years. These are listed in Appendix C.

It is recommended that for the year 2000, the budget be allocated as follows:

Traffic Collision Data Total

Safety Accuracy

Verification

Staffing: $250,000 $250,000 $500,000

Equipment: $ 35,000 $15,000 $50,000

Contracts ¹⁾: $250,000 $0 $250,000

TOTAL: $535,000 $265,000 $800,000

Note ¹⁾: Includes possible out-sourced assignments for before-after evaluations, problem area identification, joint ventures with educational institutions, training programs, printing and distribution costs.

Potential Revenues:

To offset the operating cost of the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau, there currently exist two potential revenue sources.

(a) Public Property Damage Claims:

Revenue is generated from the collection of public property damage claims. In the past, through insurance claims and legal action, the City has collected $750,000.00 per year resulting from damage to public property. The recovery of public property damage claims remains uncertain since the basis for recovery requires accurate and timely collision reports. As mentioned, the Police Service is unable to provide the collision reports to the City in a timely and accurate fashion. Therefore many public property damage claims remain unrecoverable since reports cannot be found, are incomplete or "time expired" before legal action can take place. However, with the addition of collision coding staff, public property damage information could be easily captured and sent to the City's insurance group for recovery. Transportation staff recommends that with the addition of collision coding staff, the additional portion of the recovered public property damage claims can be used to offset the cost of the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau.

In addition, there is the potential to explore possible revenue streams with Bell, hydro, gas companies, cable companies and other utilities by supplying them with the necessary collision documentation to enable them to recover additional property damage claims.

(b) Insurance Bureau of Canada Sponsorship:

Member companies of the Insurance Bureau of Canada have expressed an interest in lowering the number of collisions. Collectively, these companies may be interested in sponsoring the proposed Traffic Safety Bureau and should be formally approached. Staff are recommending that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to enter into discussions with the Insurance Bureau of Canada regarding the feasibility of securing private sponsorship to offset the cost of proposed Traffic Safety Bureau.

Conclusions:

If approved, the Traffic Safety Bureau will become an integral part of the Transportation Services Division where the focus of its operation is to lead the advancement of explicitly safety-oriented activities. The Traffic Safety Bureau will operate in a proactive and reactive manner by introducing "value added" activities which can bring benefits to a number of stakeholders, as well as responding to requests from the same "customers" regarding the analysis and evaluation of available traffic and road data. The estimated annual cost of the Traffic Safety Bureau is in two parts, specifically $535,000.00 for traffic safety programs and $265,000.00 for data accuracy verification, for a total of $800,000.00. Staff have recommended that a portion of the revenues generated from public property damage claims and sale of collision data be used to offset the operating costs of the Bureau. The funding for the Bureau will be included in the 2000 annual budget submission.

Contact Name:

Steven T. Kodama Les Kelman

Manager, Traffic Data Centre Director, Transportation Systems

Phone: 392-9633 Phone: 392-5372

Fax: 397-5777 Fax: 392-4940

Toronto and Provincial

Ten Year Collision History

1990 Provincial Collision Costs ⁽¹⁾

and

Estimated 1997 City of Toronto Collision Costs

Note: (1) Source: Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Road Safety Program Office Research document entitled "The Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Ontario", March 1994.

(2) Estimated Toronto 1997 Annual Cost = 1990 Provincial Average Costs multiplied by 60,000 to 70,000 collisions per year.

FUNCTION

The Traffic Data Centre is scheduled to manage the overall data collection regarding traffic volumes, road collision information and speed information for the four operational districts within the Transportation Services Division. Traffic data collection includes the validation, and computerized coding and entering of the field data for future use.

This data is typically used in a wide range of localized transportation related activities, including but not limited to:

(1) traffic control studies (i.e. signals, stop signs, pedestrian crossovers, turn restrictions, etc.);

(2) road geometric revisions;

(3) speed limit requests;

(4) parking controls;

(5) intersection collision review;

(6) developmental review; and

(7) transportation environmental assessment studies.

In addition, the centralized information has intrinsic unrealized potential to develop broader proactive traffic safety initiatives.

This could be performed by analyzing the traffic volume and collision databases to identify:

(1) volume and collision trends;

(2) operational performance indicators;

(3) severity indexes;

(4) contributing factors and casual relationships;

(5) mitigating measures; and

(6) assessment of the effectiveness of mitigating initiatives.

The results of the volume and collision analysis would assist in the development of city-wide programing and policies such as:

(i) traffic operational reviews (parking, truck routing, HOV operations, etc.);

(ii) bicycle and pedestrian facility reviews;

(iii) facility specific safety reviews for traffic investigations and corridor studies;

(iv) capital road improvement program;

(v) Red Light Camera initiatives; and

(vi) Road Classifications.

Currently, the Traffic Data Centre records and compiles collision data primarily as input into traffic investigations resulting from public inquiries. The proposed Traffic Safety Bureau will analyze the causes of the collisions from a systemic view. This initiative will provide a better understanding and lead to development and implementation of improved collision counter measures. These measures will be developed by City staff in consultation with Councillors, police, private sector stakeholders, insurance companies, community associations, safety coalitions and educational entities. The Traffic Safety Bureau will function as a "Centre of Information and Analysis" for traffic safety for the City of Toronto.

The primary focus of the Traffic Safety Bureau will be to add value to the existing traffic volume and collision data collection programmes on the municipal road network by:

(a) enhancing the extent of traffic safety analysis presently conducted;

(b) introducing, supporting and co-ordinating (where applicable) internal and external traffic safety programs and mitigating measures;

(c) formalizing the monitoring and evaluation of traffic safety programs to ensure there is a positive return on investment;

(d) increasing the safety awareness in the planning, design, construction, installation, maintenance and operating practices within the Department; and

(e) providing city-wide traffic performance and safety measurements.

STAFFING

Staffing:

The following ten positions are proposed to carry out the primary functions:

(a) Traffic Safety Engineer:

The Traffic Safety Engineer will be reporting to the Traffic Data Centre and Safety Bureau Manager and be responsible and accountable for all required links, and the proactive and reactive activities of the Safety Bureau. This position may also support the Manager in the co-ordination with other Sections and Divisions across the City, as well as external links.

(b) Traffic Statistician:

The Traffic Statistician would also report to the Manager. The job function would require computer skills and would undertake and overlook the data manipulation, performance analysis, network screening, and other traffic safety studies.

(c) Application Technologists (two positions):

Reporting to the Traffic Safety Engineer, the position would support the work of the Traffic Safety Bureau and focus on data manipulation.

(d) Data Coding Staff (6 positions):

In order to provide accurate data for post-analysis, data coding staff would be required to verify and edit parts of the annual 60,000 to 70,000 collision records received from the Toronto Police Services. This topic is further discussed in the Issues Section (v) of this report.

The Bureau will also call on the following on an "as required" basis:

(i) the part-time support of a computer programmer to develop special software for the specific evaluation studies;

(ii) an accident reconstruction specialist; and

(iii) consultants for out-sourcing of tasks when there is a lack of internal resources or when independent/non-biased objective analyses are required.

Internal and External Links:

One key aspect of the Traffic Safety Bureau will be to develop and establish effective links with both internal and external groups to heighten the traffic safety conscious within the City. These links are described below.

(a) Politicians:

The Councillors would receive updated and well-based information to be used when faced with public requests. The Traffic Safety Bureau would support the development of a group of well-informed and safety-conscious engineers (of other Districts and Divisions) based on before/after studies and other monitoring of local and worldwide practices, and internal training programs.

(b) Traffic Data Centre:

The Traffic Data Centre provides traffic volume and collision information and is the most crucial partner of the Traffic Safety Bureau. The data quality, accuracy and timing will determine the quality of analysis and evaluation that the Traffic Safety Bureau will be able to provide.

(c) Transportation Service Districts:

The four Transportation Service Districts with their two Traffic Operation and Traffic Planning sub-units are the front-line users of the information. They provide the links to the general public by:

(i) disseminating the information given by the Traffic Safety Bureau within the context of the local community's individual project or programs;

(ii) providing the conduit for public complaints about traffic safety; and

(iii) implementing engineering changes and seek the Traffic Safety Bureau support in the monitoring and evaluation of the safety impact.

(d) Transportation Policy and Programming Division:

The Traffic Safety Bureau will work with the Transportation Policy and Programming Division to develop:

(i) network-wide transportation operational planning and policy;

(ii) infrastructure asset management and programming;

(iii) project planning; and

(iv) pedestrian and cycling planning, policy, and programming.

(e) Technical Services Division:

The Traffic Safety Bureau will work in conjunction with the Technical Services Division in evaluating current construction and inspection practices, safety performance during construction (work zones) and establish a safety audit policy (process and methodology).

(f) City Planning Division:

The Traffic Safety Bureau will work in conjunction with the City Planning Division in evaluating planning policies, programs and practices from a traffic safety perspective.

(g) Police Service:

The Police can benefit from the analysis of the collection data, by optimizing their following programs:

(i) RIDE programs on the basis of collision mapping and involvement of "drunk" drivers;

(ii) Speed Control - on the basis of collision mapping and speed-related causes; and

(iii) Specify General Enforcement - on the basis of collision mapping for specific violations, time and exposure risk.

(h) Fire and Ambulance:

The Fire and Ambulance Services can also benefit by optimizing their resources on the basis of the collision analysis and mapping of relevant details, by optimizing the positioning, type and number of their vehicles and personnel at key locations for rapid delivery of services where a higher probability of collisions was identified.

(i) Media:

The Media can assist in disseminating reliable and informative documentation to the public at large, which would increase safety awareness.

(j) Board of Education:

School area traffic safety continues to be a problematic issue in every community. The issues range from speeding to parking controls related to drop off and pick up of students, to pedestrian crossing protection. The Traffic Safety Bureau would assist the local district traffic operational groups to develop and implement school-related traffic safety initiatives with the school board.

POTENTIAL PROGRAMS

The Traffic Safety Bureau will establish on-going programs to support both the proactive and reactive operations as described in the Functional Structure above. In its first year of operation, the Traffic Safety Bureau will introduce the programs identified as high priority by the Transportation Services Division. This list may change on the basis of liaison with the other Sections of the Division, and identification of high priority programs.

Based on the definition of the operational model, described in Section (I), and the role of the Traffic Safety Bureau, the following programs are proposed.

(1) Annual Traffic Safety Report:

A traffic data report was first produced in 1996. It provides a comprehensive report of the traffic and road performance within the City on the basis of the collision data and traffic volumes recorded. Complementary to the data report, the Traffic Safety Bureau will analyse and process the collected data for the development and installation of systemic operational traffic improvements. It is envisioned that results from other activities, such as before-after evaluations of special practices and network screening process, will find this report as a possible medium of information.

(2) One-Page Brochures:

The Districts and politicians have requested information from the Traffic Data Centre regarding a number of "specific safety performance" issues. These have been provided in coloured one-page brochures. The Traffic Safety Bureau will proactively produce brochures which could be identified by the "customers" in a survey, in early 2000. These brochures are a means to produce and provide a simplified way to disseminate knowledge.

(3) Newsletter:

The City of Toronto publishes a great number of informative pamphlets for the public, politicians and staff. The Traffic Safety Bureau, supported by editors and public relations, could provide an informative standalone newsletter or append to existing departmental newsletters, a description of special engineering projects where traffic and road safety was enhanced. With this information, the Traffic Safety Bureau would strive to bring recognition of safety achievements by the Sections and other Divisions, as well as disseminate additional knowledge acquired from other evaluation projects.

(4) Before-After Evaluations:

The Traffic Safety Bureau, in conjunction with other Sections and Divisions, will identify engineering practices to be evaluated on the basis of before-after safety performance analyses. This activity is of a great importance in updating the Districts of the scientifically correct analysis practices. This is the catalyst for performance improvement.

(5) Problem Area Identification:

Identification of problem areas in conjunction with the Police and Communities. Potential unsafe locations (lack of crosswalks, lack of conspicuous intersections, crossing times at signalized intersections, etc.) identified by school children, parents and teachers, elderly members, and police patrolling. These locations coupled with the occurrence of collisions, and road and traffic infrastructure safety review, will result in a list with "sites with promise". These "sites with promise" are locations where engineering measures may improve their safety performance.

(6) Joint Ventures with Educational Institutions:

The University of Toronto's Transportation group, in conjunction with the Traffic Data Centre, is developing safety performance functions which will be modelled on collision history, traffic volumes, road classes and characteristics.

This activity can be expanded and a safety software developed to provide the Traffic Safety Centre with the required tools to screen the performance of the road network. This screening will prioritize the sites with the most potential for safety improvement using the most updated statistical knowledge.

(7) Training Programs:

The Traffic Safety Bureau, as a catalyst of a safety conscious agency, would develop training programs to be offered to the other Sections and Divisions. These training programs would evolve over a period of time.

It is a continuous activity where different subject areas will be identified and developed from basic to advanced levels.

(8) Additional Programs:

In addition to the above programs, these additional programs could be considered:

(a) Work Zone - Safety Auditing Policy and Program to support the Technical Services Division and Districts. The first step will be to establish a municipal policy and process to ensure explicit traffic and road safety consideration at all implementation stages of a construction or maintenance project. The second step will be to train the staff and other consultants to put in practice the policy, as well as to designate "auditors" (independent and qualified persons) to assess the practices;

(b) Accident Reconstruction Special Projects - to increase the engineering understanding of collision causes and effects of specific types and at sites identified by the Traffic Safety Bureau;

(c) Joint partnerships with educational institutions, other municipalities, insurance companies and other private stakeholders in the development of traffic safety advancement programs. This group might also become a "think tank" for future programs;

(d) Revenue Sponsorship Program - the Traffic Safety Bureau will identify opportunities for sponsorship for specific programs;

(e) Safety Review Policy and Program - the Traffic Safety Bureau could become the independent body leading a group of independent specialists such as human factors and safety experts, road designers and others to "wear the safety hats" and assess projects, in their developmental phases, such as preliminary planning, detail design, and pre-opening; and

(f) School Zones and Programs - the Traffic Safety Bureau could participate in the safety activities in conjunction with the School Boards and the Districts.

MONITORING APPROACH:

The Traffic Safety Bureau strives to monitor all programs in terms of benefits and costs. A monitoring approach will ensure that an evaluation of the programs' performance will provide a well-founded basis for continuation, modification or replacement by other programs. At the start of the programs, a monitoring approach will be established with the framework for specifically required data collection. It is expected that each program be evaluated on the basis of two to three years of operation.

The table below is an example of the monitoring table to be completed in future years.

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (September 8, 1999) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, expressing support for the recommendations with respect to the establishment of a Traffic Safety Bureau, with the exception of Recommendation No. (6); and requesting that this recommendation be deferred until Community Councils have the opportunity to respond to the report on the Proposed Road Classification for the City of Toronto, and until it has been clarified whether the leal posted speed or the operating 85th percentile speed will be considered the speed to be enforced.

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1) amending Recommendation No. (1) of the Works Committee by:

(a) deleting, after the words "to include", the word "only"; and

(b) deleting, after the words "the wordmark 'Toronto' ", the word "without",

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(1) again recommends the adoption of the report dated June 17, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodied in Clause No. 2 of Report No. 2 of The Works Committee, entitled 'City of Toronto Boundary Identification Signs', subject to amending the perimeter and traffic regulation signs to include the wordmark "Toronto" with the logo;";

(2) deleting Recommendation No. (2)(i) of the Works Committee, viz.:

"(i) that the signs never be sold;",

and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (2)(i):

"(i) that the signs identifying the former Area Municipalities be returned to the respective Community Councils for a decision on their disposition;"; and

(3) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the policy of the City of Toronto shall be to prohibit the attachment of advertising material, in any form, to the boundary identification signs;

(b) the Community Councils be given authority to add community identification signs that may have historical or community significance, such signs to include not only the names of former municipalities but also communities/neighbourhoods, as defined by the Community Councils, such signs not to be located at Toronto's boundaries, but within the City limits;

(c) a complete set of signs from the former Area Municipalities be placed in the archives of the City of Toronto; and

(d) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to review the possibility of the installation of separate sets of signs to indicate the basic speed limit and the basic parking limit and report thereon to the Works Committee.")

The Works Committee:

(1) again recommends the adoption of the report dated June 17, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodied in Clause No. 2 of Report No. 2 of The Works Committee, entitled "City of Toronto Boundary Identification Signs", subject to amending the perimeter and traffic regulation signs to include only the wordmark "Toronto" without the logo;

(2) further recommends the adoption of the motion by Councillor Johnston, embodied in the communication dated August 6, 1999, from the City Clerk, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the signs never be sold; and

(ii) that the proposed boundary identification signs indicate "Toronto: Ontario's Capital"; and

(3) further recommends that the Community Councils be requested for responses to the Works Committee on ways in which identification of neighbourhoods can be identified with signage.

The Works Committee submits the following communication (August 6, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, the attached Clause No. 5 contained in Report No. 2 of The Works Committee, headed "City of Toronto Boundary Identification Signs".

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause, together with the following motions, be struck out and referred 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.'"

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, together with the following motions, struck out and referred this Clause 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

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.

The Works Committee also submits the following communication (September 8, 1999) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park:

Recently I received a letter from Mr. Perry Joyce of Foremost Communications, which I have attached for your information, outlining his concerns about the proposed removal of the former cities' signs. Mr. Joyce is very interested in preserving these signs and has an interesting proposal with respect to his company installing some of them at City Hall, and auctioning off the remaining ones.

I would very much appreciate if your Committee would review Mr. Joyce's suggestions and give them serious consideration.

Recently I was informed that the City of Toronto has given the go ahead to destroy the municipal signs for the former Cities of North York, Scarborough, Toronto, York, Etobicoke and the Borough of East York. This would be a great loss of historic memorabilia and revenue for the new City of Toronto.

These signs mean more than just markers where former City boundaries began and ended. They helped define communities.

That is why my company is proposing using some of these signs to decorate the new City of Toronto City Hall. This would not only give residents from the old municipalities a glimpse into their own past but also show how the City was formed.

Using my many contacts in the local artistic community, I would like to help create something within the new City Hall building using one sign from each of the former municipalities.

I would also propose an auction be held to sell each of the remaining signs. I know there are a number of residents in the new City of Toronto who are searching for a link to their past. A sign would provide that link. The money from the auction could go to the City to offset any number of costs, or could be donated to a charity of the City's choosing.

However, since this is a large undertaking, I am requesting funding from the City to retain an artist, cover the purchase of materials and other various costs. I believe that it would be money well spent for the reasons provided earlier in this communication.

I will contact you in the coming weeks to discuss the matter in greater detail. However, if you wish to speak to me before then, I can be reached at the number listed below.

Ms. Donna Lee McCallum, East York, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause 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 on the considerations being raised by the federal government concerning rock salt and the environment.")

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated April 28, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services embodied in Clause No. 17 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, entitled "Road Salt Environmental Impact Study and Reduction of Road Salt Use."

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

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

(i) the policies and criteria for the use of road salt and sand in the former municipalities, such report to be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on October 6, 1999;

(ii) a comparison of the use of road salt on arterial roads and residential roads during the winters of 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, such report to be submitted in spring of 2000;

(iii) the training of casual staff and the qualifications of the staff being hired;

(iv) reversing the policy presently in practice in the Toronto community requiring that lanes simply be salted; and

(v) the impact on departmental operations if resident associations or neighbourhoods "opt out" of salting (except in serious icing conditions); and

(2) further requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services review the use of salt along sidewalks adjacent to parks and other City-owned properties and that the practice be amended so that it is reduced to a minimum.

The Works Committee submits the following communication (June 17, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it Clause No. 17 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Road Salt Environmental Impact Study and Reduction of Road Salt Use".

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred to the Works Committee for further consideration and the hearing of deputations, in accordance with the recommendation of the Works and Utilities Committee embodied in the communication dated May 19, 1999, from the City Clerk.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Works Committee for further consideration and the hearing of deputations, in accordance with the recommendation of the Works and Utilities Committee embodied in the communication dated May 19, 1999, from the City Clerk.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the request from City Council to consider the road salt motion that was before City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 and report thereon to Works and Utilities Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds are available in the amount of $5,000 in the recommended 1999 Works and Emergency Services communications budget for production of a brochure on the alternatives to road salting and their potential benefits to the environment.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to your Committee following the publication of the results of the Canadian Federal Government's research programme on the toxicity of road salt; and

(2) Works and Emergency Services staff prepare an information bulletin outlining possible alternatives to road salt, including the costs and benefits, and make this information available to other major users of salt and public-at-large upon request, and that the same information be made available:

(a) on the City's Internet website; and

(b) as part of the annual winter maintenance brochure prepared by Transportation Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received for information, Clause No. 7 from the Works and Utilities Committee Report No. 10 which included the following Motion:

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

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

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

Discussion:

1. Road Salt Environmental Impact Assessment:

The impacts of road salt (or sodium chloride) on the natural and built environment are well known and have been widely researched by Government, industry, and academia. Over the years, the use of road salt has been linked to damage to vehicles, infrastructure and the environment.

(a) Previous Road Salt Impacts Studies in Toronto

In 1990, the Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Public Works for the former City of Toronto, prepared a report on the "Use of Road Salt and Alternative De-Icing Methods" which was adopted and amended by Toronto City Council at its meeting held on October 22, 23, and 24, 1990 (Clause No. 17 of Report No. 14, City Services Committee, 1990). Also in 1990, the Commissioner of Transportation for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto prepared a report on "De-icing Agents on Metropolitan Roads". Both reports are attached and contain a comprehensive review of studies and findings on the negative impacts of road salt on the environment, particularly water and soil quality, vehicles and infrastructure.

The link between the City's use of road salt and its effect on vegetation and lake water quality is difficult to ascertain. With respect to lake water quality, the Commissioner of Transportation's report cited findings of the National Water Research Institute that chloride levels in Lake Ontario had decreased to the present level of 26 milligrams per litre from a high of 28 milligrams per litre in 1974. The report also stated that the primary sources of chlorides in Lake Ontario are from industry and from natural salt mines under the lower portion of Lake Huron and the Detroit River area. A report prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey indicated that ice control accounted for only 33% of the total salt consumed in the United States in 1996. The chemical industry consumes approximately 42% of the salt produced.

With respect to the City's use of road salt and its impact on vegetation, the former Toronto City Council received a report on February 4, 1991 prepared by the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Department for the City of Toronto on the "Effect of Salt on Trees and Other Vegetation in Toronto" (Clause No. 44 of Report No. 2, City Services Committee, 1991). This report, which is attached, cited numerous negative symptoms observed on Toronto trees but could not attribute these symptoms solely to road salt. The report stated that the impact of road salt on trees in the urban environment is difficult to quantify due to the stress caused by many other factors such as other airborne pollutants, soil compaction, acid rain, lack of absorption area and high temperatures of air and soil.

(b) Update on Road Salt Impacts - Research Carried Out Elsewhere

Since the Toronto reports referred to above were written, several studies have been initiated or completed on assessing the environmental impacts of road salt and alternative de-icing methods.

The most substantial initiative that has been recently introduced is the Canadian Federal Government's inclusion of road salts on the Second Priority Substances List (PSL2) of December 16, 1995. The assessment of the first list of substances was completed in 1994. The substances identified on the (PSL2) will be given priority for assessment to determine if they are "toxic" under Section 11 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

The scope of the assessment for road salts will be limited to chloride salts: sodium chloride (NaCl), calcium chloride (CaCl₂), magnesium chloride (MgCl₂), potassium chloride (Kcl), and brines used in road de-icing/anti-icing and dust suppression, and the salt portion of abrasive mixtures. The anti-caking agents sodium ferrocyanide (also known as Yellow Prussiate of Soda) and ferric ferrocyanide (also known as Prussian Blue) are also proposed for assessment as common additives to sodium chloride for de-icing. In addition, hazards associated with possible alternatives to road salts will be identified, in order to provide a more comprehensive view in support of risk management decisions.

Under the CEPA, a substance is defined as "toxic" if it enters or may enter the environment in amounts or under conditions that may pose a risk to human health, the environment, or to the environment that supports human life. For substances determined to be "toxic", management strategies, which integrate socio-economic considerations, are developed in consultation with stakeholders and may include voluntary controls, process changes, substitutions, economic measures, regulations, guidelines, codes of practice, or a combination of these measures.

An Environmental Resource Group (ERG), has been established to complete the assessment of road salts under the CEPA. The group is made up of experts in the fields of groundwater, lakes and streams, plant toxicology, geochemistry, biology, microbial processes, geology, roadway maintenance, risk assessment, risk management, and ecotoxicology. Working groups are focussing on the effects of road salts in groundwater, the aquatic ecosystem, vegetation, wildlife and the effects of sodium ferrocyanide. Work is underway to determine where road salts are used, the quantities in which they are applied, and the locations and amounts of road salts in used snow, highway runoff and patrol yards. Two chapters (ground and surface water and benthic sediments) are ready to be sent for scientific peer review. The majority of the supporting document should be completed by May, 1999 and will then proceed to scientific peer review. A draft Assessment Report will be prepared and made available for a 60-day public comment period. Following consideration of comments received, the Assessment Report will be revised as appropriate and published with final conclusions as to whether or not the substance is considered to be "toxic" as defined in CEPA. The legislated deadline for completion of the assessment of all second priority substances is December 2000.

In Europe, a similar initiative to increase the understanding of the impact of de-icing salts and other chemicals on the natural environment began in 1997. The Pollution of Groundwater and Soils by Road and Traffic Pollutants (POLMIT) project, which is funded by the European Commission (EC), brings together the expertise of seven European based research organizations (i.e., Transport Research Laboratory in the UK, Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management in The Netherlands, Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Danish Road Institute, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées in France, and Laboratório Nacional de Engerharia Civil in Portugal). The principal outcome of the POLMIT project, which is slated for completion in 1999, will be comprehensive knowledge, collated and disseminated in the form of a final report encompassing a best practice guide for minimising potential pollution of groundwater and soil when designing, constructing and maintaining roads (which should include winter maintenance).

(c) Reduction of Road Salt Impacts

Efforts have been made at reducing the corrosive and negative environmental impacts of road salting. Epoxy-coated reinforcing bars and air-entrained concrete and/or high density concrete are used in the construction of new deck surfaces to help limit the corrosion of steel reinforcing and deterioration of concrete. Research into the use of polymer and carbon based reinforcing materials is also underway. During the last several years, automobile companies have intensified efforts to protect cars from corrosion by special dipping processes, use of aluminized waxes, zinc-rich primers, galvanized steel and greater use of other non-corrosive metals and plastics. In addition, some give the assembled cars an anti-corrosion treatment.

2. Reduction of the Use of Road Salt:

The issue of reducing road salt application has been researched extensively in Canada, the United States and abroad. Policies and practices that have been researched and implemented either on a full or pilot scale to reduce road salt use are substitution with chemical alternatives or abrasives such as sand, placing less emphasis on salting over snow ploughing and removal, and refinement and modernization of winter maintenance practices and equipment. All of the constituent former municipalities of the City have for several years developed reduced salt application methods, using more advanced salt application systems as this technology has become available. At least 7 other municipalities in Canada (i.e., Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carlton, Calgary, Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke, and Vancouver) have also adopted the principle of reduction of road salt use.

(a) Chemical Alternatives to Road Salt

The most popular chemical alternatives to road salt are CMA (calcium magnesium acetate), sodium formate, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride + PCI (a corrosion inhibitor called sulfonated polybenylpropane), and urea. The known or potential effects that these chemical alternatives to road salt have on the environment vary widely and in some cases are not known. The performance of these chemical alternatives vary greatly and may be less effective than salting.

Most of the chemical alternatives are less corrosive than road salt, but still exhibit properties that negatively impact the natural environment or the impact on the natural environment is not fully understood. Urea, for example, has been found to negatively impact aquatic life. Some studies suggest that CMA may impair soil quality and in some cases, water quality. Sodium formate, although considered less corrosive to steel, has similar impacts on the natural environment as road salt. The impacts of magnesium chloride + PCI on the environment and are not fully understood. One alternative, calcium chloride, is less harmful to vegetation but is corrosive.

In recent years, CMA has received the most research attention as an alternative to road salt. One of the more comprehensive studies that compared the costs of rock salt to CMA as a highway de-icer was completed by the United States, Transportation Research Board (TRB) in 1991. The report suggested that the environmental benefits were superior to road salt, however, the effectiveness and cost of CMA were inferior. CMA costs approximately 33 times as much as sodium chloride and requires an application rate of 1.6 times that of salt.

In the 1990 joint report prepared by the City of Toronto's Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Public Works, it was concluded that chemical alternatives to salt do exist and have proven to be effective as de-icing agents. It was also concluded that these alternatives are still not economically feasible and questions regarding the environmental effects of these chemical alternatives have not been fully resolved. Development of an alternative de-icer which is biodegradable and eliminates environmental harm is still the focus of much research.

(b) Abrasive Alternatives

Abrasives are often cited as practical alternatives, but they have limitations. Disadvantages of abrasives are that they cannot melt snow and ice, offer only temporary traction, are covered up by new snow, large quantities and frequent applications are necessary and they must be cleaned up at great expense. Sand can obstruct and clog drainage ditches and storm drain systems. Also, it is usually necessary to use some salt with abrasives in order to keep the abrasive stockpile from freezing.

(c) Mechanical Alternatives

Mechanical alternatives, such as snow ploughing or removal, at low snow accumulations are generally more expensive and labour-intensive than salting. As snow accumulations increase, salting becomes less effective and more expensive than ploughing or removal. A policy to plough at lower snow accumulations can result in reduced salt consumption. There are negative environmental impacts associated with increased snow ploughing or removal instead of salting, such as increased vehicle exhaust emissions and a potential for ice build-up on roadways.

(d) Winter Maintenance Practices

Considerable research is being done and programs are being implemented by other jurisdictions, such as the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), the Transportation Association of Canada, the United States Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Salt Institute at improving and modernizing winter maintenance practices and equipment, with emphasis on reducing salt use.

The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth has installed computerized salt spreader controls on winter maintenance vehicles, allowing greater control of salt applications on Regional roads minimizing the use of road salt.

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has initiated the Maintenance 2001 Project. The Project is designed to help build an information-based maintenance management system for carrying out winter operations. It will review and demonstrate, at one location (a 30 km test route along Hwy 26, between Barrie and Stayner), promising new winter maintenance technology and practices under Ontario conditions, and then assist with technology transfer activities. The project objectives are to introduce new technology, techniques and practices that will "reduce salt usage and negative impacts on the environment, maintain a more consistent winter maintenance level of service, measure the performance of winter maintenance contractors to ensure safety and standards are met, disseminate information on winter road conditions, and foster opportunities for partnerships (MTO, municipalities, private contractors) to share information." The three categories of technology/practices under investigation are "Advanced Road Weather Information Systems (ARWIS), advanced winter maintenance procedures and equipment, and tools for monitoring maintenance activities and performance."

The Transportation Association of Canada is completing a study on the management of road salt that will produce three documents scheduled for release in the spring of 1999. The first document is a Primer on Winter Maintenance for the general public that provides information on the importance of salt use to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system that sustains Canada's economy. The second document is a series of eight concise, practical and focused Codes of Practice for Salt Management. The third document is a longer and more comprehensive Salt Management Guide that provides information on the subject of winter maintenance and salt usage.

In June 1996, the U.S. FHWA published a report titled "Manual of Practice for An Effective Anti-Icing Program: A Guide For Highway Winter Maintenance Personnel". This manual provides information for successful implementation of an effective highway anti-icing program. It is written to guide the maintenance manager in developing a systematic and efficient practice for maintaining roads in the best conditions possible during a winter storm. It describes the significant factors that should be understood and must be addressed in an anti-icing program, with the recognition that the development of the program must be based on the specific needs of the site or region within its reach. The manual includes recommendations for anti-icing practices and guidance for conducting anti-icing operations during specific precipitation and weather events.

The Salt Institute has a training program for public works personnel responsible for snowfighting operations that focuses on "Sensible Salting". "Sensible Salting" emphasizes getting the most out of every application of de-icing salt, maintaining the safest roads possible in the most economical way while protecting the environment. According to the Salt Institute, a good "Sensible Salting" program should include personnel training, good equipment, calibration of spreaders, use of automatic controls, adequate covered storage, proper maintenance around storage areas, and an awareness of safeguarding the environment by all who use salt.

The principle of reducing salt usage through implementation of winter maintenance policies and practices should be addressed in a comprehensive winter services report prepared by the Transportation Services Division. In the meantime, Works and Emergency Services staff will continue to monitor the relative successes and acceptance of initiatives at reducing road salt use within other jurisdictions.

Public Awareness:

Although the potential environmental benefits of chemical alternatives to road salt are either limited or not well known, informing the public fosters a greater awareness of the alternatives and their advantages, where applicable. This could be achieved by the publication of an appropriate brochure. In particular, the public should be informed about the potential benefits or misconceptions that exist with chemical alternatives to road salt. The brochure should also discuss mechanical alternatives. The information contained in the brochure should also be displayed on the City's Internet site.

Conclusions:

The issue of the environmental impacts of road salt is a significant one. The Canadian Government has recognized the need to conduct an assessment on the environmental and health impacts of road salts. New initiatives at reducing road salt use are continually being introduced, researched and in some cases implemented. The City of Toronto should continue to take an active role in implementing appropriate strategies for reducing salt use and should publish information on its practises regarding the use of salt in a brochure and on the City's Internet site.

Contact Name:

Jerry Higgins, P.Eng., M.Eng.

Environmental Services Section, Technical Services Division

Tel: 392-7705; Fax: 392-1456, E-Mail: jhiggins@toronto.ca

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it Clause 44 of the City Services Committee Report No. 2, 1991 which was received by the Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto at its meeting No. 3 on February 4, 1991, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of May 17, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 19, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that the report dated April 28, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodied in Clause No. 17 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, be struck out and referred to the Works Committee for further consideration.

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

(i) include the Toronto Transit Commission, major highrise landowners, schools, malls and any other relevant institutions in the notification process; and

(ii) submit a report to the Works Committee as soon as possible providing further information on mechanical alternatives to the use of road salt, including a cost/benefit analysis.

Background:

The Works and Utilities Committee on May 19, 1999, had before it a report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to the request from City Council to consider the road salt motion that was before City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998; and recommending that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Committee following the publication of the results of the Canadian Federal Government's research program on the toxicity of road salt; and

(2) Works and Emergency Services staff prepare an information bulletin outlining possible alternatives to road salt, including the costs and benefits, and make this information available to other major users of salt and public-at-large upon request, and that the same information be made available:

(a) on the City's Internet website; and

(b) as part of the annual winter maintenance brochure prepared by Transportation Services.

The Committee also had before it the following communications:

(i) (undated) from Mr. John Hopkins, Storm Water Group, advising that the matter of salt on roads requires more background; and providing comments and recommendations with respect thereto.

(ii) (undated) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Member, Storm Water Group, requesting, on behalf of the Storm Water Group, that consideration of the report respecting the Road Salt Environmental Impact Study and reduction of road salt use be deferred to the next meeting of the Works Committee; and advising that it is generally felt that the information required to put together a brochure on this subject is incomplete.

(iii) (May 18, 1999) from Leslie Woo, Member, Toronto Bay Initiative Co-ordinating Circle, forwarding correspondence outlining the Toronto Bay Initiative's pilot project to treat stormwater run-off from the Gardiner Expressway, prior to entering Toronto Bay, in support of the request for deferral of the report respecting the Road Salt Environmental Impact Study and Reduction of road salt use.

(iv) (March 9, 1999) from Mr. Dalton Shipway, Storm Water Group, forwarding a submission with respect to the practice of snow dumping and environmental impacts on land, water quality and aquatic life.

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

- Ms. Karey Shinn, Member, Storm Water Group;

- Mr. John Hopkins, J.L.H. Services Ltd., and a Member of the Storm Water Group, and submitted material with respect thereto; and

- Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford.)

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it at its meeting on September 8, 1999, during consideration of the foregoing matter a further communication (July 4, 1999) from Mr. John L. Hopkins, J.L.H. Services Ltd. and Member of the Storm Water Group, providing information and comments with respect to the use of road salt.

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

- Mr. John L. Hopkins, J.L.H. Services Ltd., and Member of the Storm Water Group; and

- Ms. Karen Buck, Member of Stormwater Group, and submitted a communication on behalf of the Toronto Environmental Alliance making recommendations with respect to the use of road salt.

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

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 truck loading/odour control facility and plant-wide heating system at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant to support the Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program, and to obtain authorization to award the consulting services agreement to R.V. Anderson Associates Limited.

Funding Sources:

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, Ashbridges Bay 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 truck loading/odour control facility and plant-wide heating system at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant for an amount not to exceed $1,905,980.00 including GST for a design/construction period of up to 16 months, plus a contingency allowance of $190,000.00 to cover extended services during the design and construction of the facility, at a rate not to exceed $10,000.00 per week ($5,000.00 per project) 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. 18 of Report No. 2 of The Works Committee, Council at its meeting of July 27, 28 and 29, 1999, granted authority to commence negotiations with and enter into an agreement with ICON Systems Limited for the design, construction and commissioning of a biosolids truck loading and odour control facility at the City's Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant at a lump sum price of $44,332,992.97 including contingencies and GST. At the same meeting, Council also granted authority to commence negotiations with and enter into an agreement with Thorburn Penny Limited for the design, construction and commissioning of a plant-wide heating system at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant at a lump sum price of $17,847,719.00 including contingencies and GST. Both projects are required as part of the City's initiative to move from incineration to 100 percent beneficial use of biosolids at the Ashbridges Bay Plant.

Accordingly, consulting services for general administration and site supervision will be required immediately to assist the City during the design, construction and commissioning of the truck loading/odour control facility and plant-wide heating system. 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 Justification:

Engagement of Consultants for General Administration and Site Supervision Services:

Six qualified consulting firms were invited to submit proposals. The RFP was also advertised on the Internet website. Of the six firms invited only two firms, R.V. Anderson Associates Limited (in association with Brown and Caldwell Engineering & Consulting, Aldworth Engineering Inc., and Gratech Information and Control Systems Inc.) and Delcan Corporation (in association with Merber Corporation) submitted proposals. As requested in the RFP, each firm's detailed written proposal included a technical proposal and a separate sealed cost proposal.

A formal consultant selection committee was struck to evaluate the proposals comprised of representatives from the Water and Wastewater Services and Technical Services Divisions of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

Both technical submissions were 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. R.V. Anderson's technical proposal passed this threshold and their sealed cost proposal was opened and reviewed. Delcan's technical proposal did not pass the threshold, and their cost proposal envelope was not opened and was returned to Delcan.

R.V. Anderson proposed to provide the required consulting services over a period of 16 months for the total upset limit of $1,905,980.00 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 $10,000.00 per week ($5,000.00 per project) including disbursements and GST.

The selection committee concluded that the proposal submitted by R.V. Anderson satisfied the overall project requirements at a reasonable cost, and demonstrated 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 $190,000.00 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 R.V. Anderson on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Contact Name:

R.M. Pickett, P.Eng. L.A. Pagano

Director Director

Water Pollution Control Purchasing and Materials Management

Telephone: (416) 392-8230 Telephone: (416) 392-7312

Fax: 416) 397-0908 Fax: (416) 392-1052

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

The Works Committee reports having:

(1) received the following report;

(2) directed that such report be forwarded to Council for information; and

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back to the Committee as part of the 2000 Capital Budget process.

The Works Committee submits the following report (August 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the implementation of Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (ABTP) Environmental Assessment Mediation Agreement (the mediators report), and to provide information on the Landscape Architectural Site Plan (Site Plan) project arising out of the mediators report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The anticipated cost of the landscape architectural site plan project is approximately $500,000.00 over a two-year period. Funds will be included as part of the 2000-2004 Capital Works Program submission.

The anticipated cost for the implementation of the site plan is expected to be between five and ten million dollars. The total cost for the implementation of the new works identified in the mediators report (including landscaping), which are not currently in the Capital Works Program, is under development and will be included in the 2000-2004 Capital Works Program.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Work Program for the Landscape Architectural Site Plan be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

By adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, Council ratified the Mediation Agreement and obligated the City to undertake the studies and works identified in the mediators report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Following the ratification of the mediators report by Council, Works staff have commenced implementation of a number of the items contained in the mediators report. Implementation of any of the mediation items must proceed with a significant amount of public consultation and participation; thus, much of the initial work has focused on setting up forums for public input into the development of actual projects including:

- setting up of the Implementation and Compliance Monitoring Committee (ICMC) whose first meeting was held August 26, 1999;

- changing of the name of the Main Treatment Plant to the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant;

- facilitation of a meeting between the public and Trojan to review the terms of reference for the ultraviolet design optimization study underway at the ABTP;

- introduction of regular testing and posting of Ashbridges Bay as if it were a swimming beach;

- initiation of a series of meeting between works staff, public health staff and the public to discuss a possible community health study in the vicinity of the ABTP;

- commencement of the landscape architectural site plan project for the ABTP, including the creation of a landscaping subcommittee of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committee; and

- negotiations with Peel Region regarding enforcement of Toronto sewer use by-law for flows received from Peel Region.

The development of a budget to support the implementation of the over 40 new items contained in the mediation agreement is also underway, and will be included in the 2000-2004 Capital Works Program.

Work Program for the Landscape Architectural Site Plan:

The largest project initiated to date as a result of the mediation agreement is the Landscape Architectural Site Plan. The mediation agreement required that this task begin immediately upon ratification. The purpose of the site plan is to provide a long-term development strategy for the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (ABTP) which addresses functionality of the plant, as well as aesthetic fit with the immediate neighbourhood and the City at large.

A community-based planning strategy is being employed and is expected to result in a comprehensive management tool for the capital program for landscape architectural improvements at the site. This may include trail and pedestrian connections with surrounding systems, as well as aesthetic and visual enhancement of the frontages along Leslie Street, Lakeshore Boulevard, and Lake Ontario. The Site Plan will also include architectural guidelines for the existing and future facilities, including the berm, and an interpretive component that will create opportunities for the public to better understand the functionality of the ABTP. An additional by-product of the planning and design activity will be educational and informative sessions for interested public and staff in various aspects of landscape architecture, site planning, ecology of the Lake and urban hydrology attached to the development of the Site Plan for the ABTP.

The capital program improvements identified in the Site Plan will be those improvements that address the aesthetic fit of the ABTP with the surrounding landscape and communities. These improvements may include new planting, earth works, storm water management facilities, pedestrian access in non-restricted areas, gateways, signage, trail linkages, demonstration gardens, interpretive facilities, recreational facilities for plant workers, streetscaping, and aesthetic treatment of the boundaries of the plant.

Schedule and Cost:

The Site Plan is scheduled to begin in January of 2000, following the approval of the 2000-2004 Capital Works Program. Preliminary site investigations, work program development and overall project process has been underway since April 1999 through the Neighbourhood Liaison Committee (NLC). In general terms, it is anticipated that a consultant team will be required to assist in the undertaking in order to complete the work within a two-year time frame. The schedule is derived from a series of concurrent activities on and adjacent to the ABTP. A summary of the major City of Toronto projects which are currently being considered or are underway are summarized in the table below.

The timing of the Site Plan will allow it to take information from the other concurrent planning exercises and yet be completed in time to allow it to direct the design of future capital works on the site such as the outfall and the R.C.Harris residual management facility.

The estimated cost of the consulting contract for the Site Plan is approximately $500,000.00 over a two-year period. The anticipated cost of the implementation of the Site Plan is expected to be between five and ten million dollars ($5,000,000.00 and $10,000,000.00). The first landscape construction contract is anticipated to be let during 2001-2002.

Next Steps :

A list of 21 consulting firms have been asked to respond to an Expression of Interest in undertaking the Landscape Architectural Site Plan for the project. In addition, the project was advertised on the City of Toronto's web site. 11 responses were received on August 23, 1999.

A selection committee comprised of three members of the public, three members of City of Toronto staff and the Project Manager will review the Expressions of Interest and develop a shortlist of consultants. A Request for Proposal will only be sent to the shortlist of consultants during September 1999. Award of the consulting contract is anticipated to be brought forward to Council for approval in January 2000.

Public Process:

Since April of 1999, a series of public meetings was held with the Neighbourhood Liaison Committee (NLC) to define the scope of the undertaking, its time schedule, and the process for developing the Site Plan. The NLC has provided the forum for these discussions.

The project will be consultative in nature, developing ideas in workshops with the public through focus groups, the NLC and special seminars. Ideas will be generated by the public as well as by the consultant in a "classroom" format during the special seminars. The intent of the seminars will be to raise awareness about issues relevant to a particular phase of the design before engaging in a workshop session. It is anticipated that this format will maximize informed input into the development of a unique Site Plan for the ABTP.

The public will play a significant role in developing how the contextual landscape of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant will integrate with the surrounding ecological and human communities.

Conclusions:

The City is proceeding with the implementation of the mediation agreement and recommends that Council support this process by approving the Work Program for the Landscape Architectural Site Plan for the ABTP.

Contact Name:

R.M. Pickett, P.Eng.,

Director, Water Pollution Control

Telephone 392-8234

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 27, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

(1) To recommend a policy for reimbursing property owner(s) who extend local sewer and/or water infrastructure to service a lot(s), in the event that adjacent property owners connect to the local system extensions at a future date.

(2) To provide an accounting of the costs incurred by the City in installing the water servicing to 118R Clinton Street.

(3) To comment on the conditions placed when severances are granted which provide for the installation and maintenance of City services including water and sewer, etc.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the former City of Toronto policy for reimbursing property owners who extend local sewer and water infrastructure be eliminated and replaced by the following servicing cost recovery policy:

(i) the City will attempt to reimburse property owners who have constructed local sewer and water infrastructure by requesting adjacent property owners on existing lots who subsequently connect to the infrastructure to pay a per meter charge applied against the benefitting frontage;

(ii) the City will reimburse property owners who have constructed local sewer and water infrastructure which subsequently benefit adjacent landowners who obtain a land severance(s) by requiring the owner of the severed land to pay a per metre charge applied against the benefitting frontage as a condition of the severance(s);

(iii) the per metre frontage charge will be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services by dividing the original cost of extending the local sewer and water infrastructure by the total length of benefitting frontage serviced by the infrastructure;

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to incorporate the following standard conditions of approval for Consent applications resulting in new severed lots:

"The applicant will be responsible to undertake at his or her cost any work which may become necessary through the development or use of this land, including the installation, relocation or removal of existing services and utilities to the satisfaction of the Department of Works and Emergency Services";

(3) the City attempt to reimburse Ms. Astra Burka, owner of 118R Clinton Street, for the costs she incurred in constructing water infrastructure to service her property, by requesting adjacent property owners, who subsequently connect to the water services, to make a contribution in accordance with the proposed servicing cost recovery policy; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of December 2, 1998, in considering our report dated October 21, 1998, concerning the water servicing charges for 118R Clinton Street, requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report further on the feasibility of providing a prorated reimbursement of costs paid by property owners for the extension of the City's water distribution system to service their property, in the event that other owners connect to the extended portion of the distribution system at a future date.

The Works and Utilities Committee further requested that we provide a detailed explanation of the charges billed to Ms. Astra Burka, owner of 118R Clinton Street, for the installation of the 50 mm diameter watermain within the lane at the rear of her property.

In addition to these requests, the Works and Utilities Committee asked that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the conditions placed when severances are granted which provide for the installation and maintenance of City services including sewer and water, etc.

Comments:

(1) A Policy for the Reimbursement of Costs for the Extension of Local Sewer and Water Infrastructure:

The former City of Toronto adopted a policy whereby the City assumed responsibility for the construction of sewers and watermains within existing public streets, provided:

(i) the cost of this servicing is not significantly higher than the average servicing cost within the City; and

(ii) the need is not created by the severance of a parcel of land.

If the cost of providing the servicing was higher, on a per unit basis, than the average cost within the City, then the developer was responsible for the additional cost. At present, the average per unit cost of providing water servicing within the City is $21,000.00 (based on a three year average). If, however, the need for the servicing was created as a result of a land severance, the developer or land owner who has been granted the severance, was responsible for the full cost of the infrastructure required to service the severed lot(s).

This policy of contributing to the cost of constructing local sewer and water systems to service properties was not generally practiced by the former area municipalities. In the former Cities, property owner(s) were required to pay the full cost of extending local sewer and water systems to service their lands. The former municipalities would assume the new infrastructure, and no attempt was made to reimburse the original land owner in the event that future connections were made to the sewer and water systems by adjacent land owners.

An exception to this practice existed in the former City of Scarborough where the City would, under the provisions of a development agreement, attempt to recover a cash contribution toward the cost of extending the municipal services from subsequent property owners wishing to connect to the services, on behalf of the initial property owner. Any funds which were collected would then be reimbursed to the initial developer.

The percentage of the total servicing cost to be recovered from subsequent property owners would typically be calculated by dividing the servicing cost by the total length of lot frontage serviced by the extended infrastructure. For example, a service extension costing $10,000.00 and serviced lots having a total frontage of 100 metres would have a cost recovery based on a frontage charge of $100.00/metre.

It should be noted however that the City has no authority, provincial or otherwise, to charge property owners on existing lots who may benefit by connecting to local sewer and/or water systems constructed by an initial property owner. The proposed policy, therefore, will be based on the City endeavoring to recover funds for the original owner, but no guarantee for recovery of costs can be made or implied.

The proposed reimbursement policy will apply to the extension of local sewer and water systems which are needed to service undeveloped lot(s). Under the proposed policy, it will be the responsibility of the initial property owner(s) to pay 100 percent of cost of extending the local sewer and/or watermain to their property. As previously stated, there is no provincial legislation in place which will allow the City to recover costs from adjacent property owners of existing lots who subsequently connect to such local systems. The City will attempt to reimburse the initial property owner(s) who have extended local pipes by collecting a contribution from future benefitting property owners based on a per metre charge applied against the benefitting frontage. The per metre charge will be determined by dividing the cost of the local sewer and/or water infrastructure by the total length of benefitting frontage.

In the event, however, that adjacent property owners create a lot(s) through a land severance approval, the City will require the owner of the severed lot to contribute to the cost of the local services constructed by the original land owner on the basis of the per metre charge calculated as described above and applied against the length of benefitting frontage.

(2) Watermain Installation Charges- 118R Clinton Street:

The cost for the installation of the watermain from Grace Street to the rear of 118R Clinton Street was originally estimated at $58,160.00. This cost included the installation of approximately 230 m of 50 mm watermain pipe, all necessary surface repair works and a standard 15 percent overhead charge to cover administration and inspection of the work. The estimate also anticipated that the construction of the watermain would be carried out using auguring methods in accordance with the standard construction specifications of the former City of Toronto.

Based on the estimate and the $21,000.00 servicing contribution the City agreed to pay, Ms. A. Burka, owner of 118R Clinton Street, deposited $37,160.00 with the City for the watermain construction.

Prior to commencing the installation of the watermain, it was determined that if the property was serviced from Jersey Avenue, only 182 m of watermain would be required. It was also determined that because of the length of the service to be installed, the auguring method that had been assumed in the estimate could not be used, and open cut excavation methods had to be adopted. This change in construction method resulted in a higher per metre cost for the work, but because of the reduced length it was determined that additional funds would not be required.

The final cost of the works undertaken by the City's contractor was $49,232.08. Overhead and cut repair charges of $7,384.81 and $720.00 respectively were added to the contracted costs, yielding a total cost of $57,336.89. This total represented a savings of $823.11 compared to the original estimate.

It should be noted that the application form signed by Ms. Burka indicated that the deposit was based on an estimate of the costs to be incurred, and that the final payment would be based on the actual cost of the work, and accordingly a refund in the amount of the savings was provided to Ms. Burka.

As previously noted, Ms. Burka has previously received a contribution from the City for servicing her lot. It is recommended, however, that the City attempt to recover additional contributions on behalf of Ms. Burka in accordance with the policy outlined herein. The per metre frontage cost, however, for Ms. Burka's property will be calculated based on the original net cost to service her property which accounts for the former City's contribution to her servicing costs.

(3) Conditions Placed on the Provision and Maintenance of City Sewer and Water Servicing in the Granting of Severances:

The Committee also requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the conditions applied to the provision and maintenance of City sewer and water services in the granting of severances. We have been advised by staff of that Department that the Committee of Adjustment managers are working toward standardization of conditions of approval for all Districts. We have been requested to provide the Commissioner with the standard wording for an all-inclusive condition to be applied to the provision and maintenance of municipal services.

Accordingly, where a proposed severance will impact on the servicing of the properties, the severance be made conditional on the owner providing at his or her cost all necessary municipal services, and the receipt of written confirmation that these services have been constructed to our satisfaction. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services is requested to incorporate the following clause into the standard conditions of approval for Consent applications resulting in new severed lots:

"The applicant will be responsible to undertake at his or her cost any work which may become necessary through the development or use of this land, including the installation, relocation or removal of existing services and utilities to the satisfaction of the Department of Works and Emergency Services."

Specifically with regard to 118R Clinton Street, it would appear that at the time of severance in July 1952 water sewer servicing did exist to the property. However, the right of way within which the water service to Clinton Street was located was not registered on the title of the property, and accordingly, when the water service to Clinton Street was abandoned, the current owner of the property was forced to attempt to negotiate easement rights with the owner of 118 Clinton Street. Unfortunately these efforts were unsuccessful and the owner was forced to install water servicing within the lane at the rear of the property. Under current policy, the owner of the severed property would be required to register an easement on title at the time of the severance.

Conclusions:

The servicing cost contribution policy of the former City of Toronto is unique among the former municipalities, and it is suggested that the policy be replaced by a servicing cost recovery policy as described within this report.

The servicing costs charged to Ms. A. Burka, owner of 118R Clinton Street, reflects the actual cost of the work undertaken. However, if it is decided that the proposed cost recovery policy should be adopted, the City could attempt to recover additional contributions on behalf of Ms. Burka in accordance with the policy outlined herein.

Contact Name:

Mr. W. Green, Director Mrs. K.P. Llewellyn-Thomas, P.Eng.

Quality Control and System Planning Director, Engineering Services Districts 1 & 2

Telephone:(416) 392-8242 Telephone: (416) 392-8590

Fax: (416) 392-2974 Fax: (416) 392-4426

E-Mail wgreen@toronto.ca E-mail kathleen_llewellyn-thomas@metrodesk.on.ca

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (September 27, 1999) from Councillor Mario Silva, Trinity-Niagara:

I am requesting that Clause No. 8 of Works Committee Report No. 3 be held down and I wish to move that Recommendation No. 3 be struck out and replaced with the following amendment.

(3) The City immediately reimburse Ms. Astra Burka, owner of 118R Clinton Street, for the costs she incurred in constructing water infrastructure to service her property in the amount of $16,160.00 in lieu of any monies recaptured through this new cost recovery program, and that adjacent property owners, who subsequently connect to the water services, make their contribution to the City in accordance with the proposed servicing cost recovery policy.

Council Reference/Background:

Ms. Astra Burka provided a deposit of $37,160.00 to the City based on the original cost estimate for services less the $21,000.00 servicing contribution that the City agreed to pay at that time. Over one year and a half ago, Ms. Burka requested further financial assistance from the City that has resulted in this series of recommendations for cost recovery. The length of time that it has taken to deal with this matter has resulted in serious financial hardship for Ms. Burka, and she is willing to accept a payment of $16,160.00 ($37,160.00 less $21,000.00 her contribution) in lieu of any monies recaptured through the proposed servicing cost recovery policy.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance in this matter.)

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To approve the 1998 and 1999 rates from the Region of Peel for the treatment of wastewater flow from a portion of the City of Toronto to the Lakeview Plant, and from a portion of the Region of Peel to the Humber Treatment Plant.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The treatment rate, as set by the Region of Peel, is used in the calculation of the Water Rate and the preparation of the Water Pollution Control Operating Budget. The affect of this rate will be to reduce the 1998 expenditures by $106,500.00 and to reduce the 1998 revenues by $101,400.00.

Recommendations:

That we be authorized to accept from the Region of Peel (formerly Ontario Clean Water Agency) the wastewater treatment rate as follows:

(1) a final rate of 110.9 cents per thousand gallons (24.40 cents per cubic metre), for the period from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998; and

(2) a final rate of 112.0 cents per thousand gallons (24.62 cents per cubic metre), for the period from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Flow from a portion of the City of Toronto is directed to the Lakeview Treatment Plant in Peel Region operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA), on behalf of the Region of Peel. During 1998, a total flow of 2,098.4 million gallons (9.54 million cubic metres) was treated at this plant. Using the 1998 final rate indicated above, the total cost was $2,327,120.00. The City of Toronto, by agreement, also accepts flow from portions of the Region of Peel which is treated at our Humber Treatment Plant. The total flow accepted from Peel Region in 1998 was 2,036.3 million gallons (9.26 million cubic metres), generating a gross revenue of $2,258,230.00. The net effect of this agreement resulted in a payment of $68,890.00 to the Region of Peel.

Previously, at the end of each year, the Ontario Clean Water Agency would set the final rate for the current year and a preliminary rate for the following year based on their estimated costs. In June, 1999, we received a letter from the Region of Peel, stating that the final rate for the South Peel Sewage Agreement for 1998 was 110.9 cents per thousand gallons, the same as the 1998 Preliminary Rate set in December 1997.

For 1999, they advised that the preliminary and final rate method would not be used. The Region of Peel has set a fixed sewage treatment rate of 112.0 cents per thousand gallons (24.64 cents per cubic metre). This rate will not be adjusted at year end. This represents a one percent increase over the 1998 final rate.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The sewage treatment facilities (including Lakeview Treatment Plant) in the Region of Peel, owned and operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA), were transferred back to the Region of Peel under Provincial Bill No. 107, which passed Royal Ascent on May 27, 1997.

In 1998, the Region of Peel, in turn, hired OCWA to be their contract operator to operate their sewage treatment facilities.

Conclusions:

This exchange of flow between parts of the City of Toronto and the South Peel systems is to achieve drainage by gravity within the existing natural drainage area, and minimizes pumping and related costs for each system and region concerned. The calculation of the sewage treatment agreement rate is based on the principle of cost recovery and revenue neutrality.

The Region of Peel requests a certified copy of City of Toronto's resolution accepting the wastewater service rate each year.

Contact Name:

R.M. Pickett, P.Eng. Wayne Green

Director Director

Water Pollution Control Quality Control & System Planning

Telephone: 392-8230 Telephone: 392-8242

Fax: 397-0908 Fax: 392-2974

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

The Works Committee recommends that the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators (AMRC) be invited to provide the City with a preliminary proposal on how the Association would conduct a recycling cost study, and on any funding that would be required.

The Works Committee submits the following report (August 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide an assessment of the proposal by the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators (AMRC) to analyze municipal recycling costs and develop a product stewardship funding formula.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that we not proceed with funding the AMRC recycling cost study at this time.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the Works Committee meeting on July 14, 1999, Mr. Ben Bennett of the AMRC made a presentation regarding a proposal to analyze municipal recycling costs across Ontario and develop a recycling funding allocation formula for the industry funding which is expected to be forthcoming through the Provincial Government's proposed Waste Diversion Organization.

The Committee referred the proposal to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In April 1998, the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) submitted a report on options for consumer product and packaging stewardship in Ontario (The Recycling Roles and Responsibilities Report) to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The report included an analysis of municipal Blue Box recycling costs across Ontario. In November 1998, the Minister of the Environment announced the formation of a provincial Waste Diversion Organization (WDO) whose mandate would be to collect industry funding and distribute it to municipalities to fund Blue Box Programs and other waste diversion activities. Since the announcement, the MOE has been in discussions with industry groups about participation in the WDO and funding levels.

As of this date, there has been no formal announcement on the structure and responsibilities of the WDO, other than the fact that industry, municipalities and non-government organizations will have seats on the WDO board. A formal announcement on the start up of the WDO is expected before year-end. According to MOE staff, it is anticipated that the WDO will conduct multi-stakeholder discussions on the costs of municipal recycling programs and how the industry funding should be allocated.

We agree with the AMRC that there is a need to review the program cost information presented in the RCO report. However, we think it is premature to start gathering municipal cost data and analyzing it before the WDO is in place.

The multi-stakeholder WDO board should first decide what cost data it needs and how the data should be collected. Information gathered in advance of this step may not be in accordance with the agreed upon protocol, and result in duplication of effort.

Conclusions:

Based on staff's understanding that the proposed WDO will be given a mandate to review municipal recycling costs and develop funding formulas, we recommend not funding the proposed AMRC recycling cost study at this time.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pollock, Director, Policy and Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Metro Hall, 19^th Floor

Phone: 392-4715; Fax: 392-4754

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

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (September 3, 1999) from Mr. Ben Bennett, Manager, Projects and Communications, Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators, advising that given the recent indications that the Minister of the Environment may be making an announcement about the Waste Diversion Office shortly, AMRC will not be proceeding with the project for the time being.

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

(A copy of the communication dated June 2, 1999, from the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators appended to the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works Committee meeting of September 8, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

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

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee on revised methods of charging user fees, including the possibility of charging restaurants based on their licensed capacity under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario; and

(2) future communications be revised to be consistent with the original direction of City Council.")

The Works Committee reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1) submit a report directly to Council for its meeting on September 28, 29 and 30, 1999, on the issues raised during the meeting of the Committee with respect to garbage collection for small businesses, with input from interested Members of the Committee respecting their concerns; and

(2) establish a focus group of waste producers, including greengrocers and restaurants, and in particular, Ms. Lisa Marsden of the Ontario Restaurant Association, to be involved in the development of a communications program.

The Works Committee submits the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To present the plan to educate businesses on the available options for reducing their number of garbage collections.

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:

The City of Toronto will be charging user fees to small businesses for garbage collection beginning in the fall of 1999. This phased-in user fee will apply to small businesses receiving municipal collection three, five or six times per week.

At its meeting of July 14, 1999, the Works and Utilities Committee had before it a report on the implementation of user fees for the businesses receiving more than twice per week garbage collection. The Committee directed the Works and Emergency Services Department to provide a report on a program to educate businesses on the options available for reducing the number of their garbage collections to a lower level.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A communications plan has been developed to educate small business owners of the impending user fee for garbage collection. The plan includes the following components:

Objectives:

- To inform small business owners of the upcoming user fees and alternative options (reducing collection to twice a week); and

- to promote environmentally friendly practices to small business owners (composting, recycling).

Key Messages:

- The user fees are part of the service harmonization process for the city.

- Business owners may be able to reduce the amount of garbage being collected by increasing recycling activity (if this service is provided), arranging for separate food waste collection by private haulers, discussing with suppliers options for reducing packaging waste and switching to reusable packaging containers.

- This is an opportunity for business owners to apply to the City of Toronto for a reduction in their garbage collection levels. If the waste can be stored on-site in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Medical Officer of Health, the number of collections per week can be reduced.

Tactics:

- A letter to affected businesses (attached);

- providing businesses with a question and answer sheet discussing the implications of the upcoming user fees;

- contacting the local Business Improvement Areas (BIAs);

- promoting a number for people to call for help from city staff regarding reducing the amount of garbage created (i.e., returning cardboard boxes back to suppliers for reuse; composting, if possible; more focus on recycling); and

- promoting the Access Toronto Language Line (338-0338) for small business owners who do not speak English as their first language.

As well, the upcoming BottleWorks program, which is a pilot project for reusing wine bottles, will be promoted to the business owners as a future option. The goal of BottleWorks is to implement the pilot project by November 1999, and to assess the pilot after one year of operation to determine the feasibility of expanding the program.

Conclusion:

By promoting the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) to small business owners, and providing them with information and viable options (more recycling, returning boxes to suppliers), the number of collections that small business owners receive should decrease.

Contact:

Andrew Pollock, Director, Policy and Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Metro Hall, 19^th Floor

Phone: 392-4715; Fax: 392-4754

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

(A copy of the communication referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

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

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the communications to small businesses about the new garbage and recycling user fees.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from the report.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on September 8, 1999, the Works Committee had before it a report entitled "Small Business User Fee Education Program." The Committee requested a report directly to Council on the issues raised during the meeting with respect to garbage collection for small businesses, with input from interested members of the Committee respecting their concerns.

A memorandum was sent to all Works Committee members on September 22, 1999 advising them that time would be allotted at the end of the special meeting of the Works Committee on September 24, 1999 to obtain interested Councillors' input on the communications plan. Attached to the memorandum were a list of Frequently Asked Questions and Answers regarding garbage and recycling service fees and a sample copy of the letter sent to all businesses receiving more than twice per week municipal garbage collection.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

All small commercial locations receiving three, five and six times per week garbage collection have received a letter advising them of the new 1999 garbage and recycling service fees for locations receiving more than twice per week garbage collection.

The letter included a "Change of Service Request Form" that allowed businesses an opportunity to request a reduction in garbage collection service to twice per week, subject to a site review by staff to determine whether the site has adequate storage capacity.

At the Works Committee on September 24, 1999, staff were requested to translate the letter into Chinese. Staff were also asked to attend meetings with Business Improvement Area representatives to discuss options for reducing garbage generation and increasing waste diversion.

To date, approximately 1,000 Service Change Request Forms have been received. The following procedures are being implemented to ensure that the new service fee policy is implemented in a fair and reasonable manner:

(1) Commercial locations in the York and Etobicoke communities receiving three times per week garbage collection will have their service change requests approved automatically if they are small non-food retail locations (e.g. hairdressers, travel agents, constituency offices). In the case of restaurants and "green" grocers, staff will conduct a site visit to determine if the location has adequate storage space to allow for twice per week collection.

(2) Commercial locations that are approved to receive twice per week garbage collection will be notified and requested to advise any other building tenants of the change.

(3) If locations that are approved for twice per week collection continue to set out garbage on non-collection days, by-law enforcement officers will issue a warning, and if necessary, inspect the garbage to determine its origin. Business owners will only be issued a by-law offence notice if it can be proven that the waste came from their premises.

We expect the site visits to be completed by mid October, and the first invoices will be issued at that time.

Conclusion:

Councillor input has been incorporated into the communications to small businesses regarding garbage and recycling service fees. The first invoices will be issued in mid-October.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pollock

Director, Policy and Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Metro Hall, 19th Floor

Phone: 392-4715

Fax: 392-4754

E-mail: andy_pollock@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca)

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

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

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to Council, through the Works Committee, on options for a more aggressive program to collect hazardous household waste, including batteries.")

The Works Committee recommends that:

(1) the pilot battery collection program at City Hall continue for six months, and be evaluated at the end of that time;

(2) the program not be extended to new locations at this time; and

(3) improved promotion of the program be undertaken, including the placement of very large signs at the collection bins.

The Works Committee submits the following report (August 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide a status of the one-year pilot used battery collection program for employees at City Hall, and to provide information on the extension of the pilot to new locations.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount estimated at $1,000.00 to finance the used battery collection program is accommodated within the approved 1999 Operating Budget for the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that we continue to monitor the pilot battery collection program at City Hall and not pursue extension of the pilot to new locations until the results at the end of the one-year pilot can be analyzed to determine if more locations for battery collection are needed.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, City Council approved Clause No. 5 of Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee which recommended that "a one-year pilot project to collect used batteries from City employees at City Hall be implemented."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Bins for batteries were put into place in front of the East and West office towers at City Hall in June 1999. Staff in the HHW Program at Metro Hall monitoring this pilot reported that approximately 15 pounds of batteries have been collected to date. Most of these were collected from the bin located at the East office tower. Moreover, the bins were also used for regular refuse and plastic/aluminum soft drink containers even though the signs on the bins clearly stipulate that only batteries can be deposited. The batteries collected so far appear to be mainly alkaline types and not the rechargeable nickel-cadmium types which are used mainly for cellular and cordless phones. We believe that these types of batteries are likely collected through our main HHW Program or another program initiated by the Canadian Household Battery Association (CHBA) which utilizes boxes to collect batteries located at many retail outlets.

Conclusions:

To date, the battery bins at City Hall have been utilized for the collection of batteries for recycling but a significant volume of contaminated materials such as garbage and blue box materials has been received as well. We will continue to monitor the pilot and a further report will follow at the end of the one-year pilot in June 2000.

Contact Name:

Dennis Lam, Supervisor - Hazardous Waste

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Metro Hall, 19^th Floor

Phone: (416) 392-3668; Fax: (416) 392-4754

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

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for a one-year renewal of Contract No. 96-500-001 with BSD Environmental Solutions for the collection and haulage of containerized waste, bulky items and white metal from multi-unit apartments in the former Borough of East York, commencing November 1, 1999, and terminating October 31, 2000.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for this contract has been provided for in the 1999 Operating Budget under Account No. O-SW270. The year 2000 operating budget will reflect the necessary expenditures in the same account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council authority be granted to extend Contract No. 96-500-001 between the City of Toronto and BSD Environmental Solutions for the collection and haulage of containerized waste, bulky items and white metal from multi-unit apartments in the former Borough of East York for a period of one year commencing November 1, 1999, and terminating October 31, 2000.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of September 16, 1996, the former Borough of East York Council approved the award of Contract No. 96-500-001 to 231768 Ontario Inc., carrying on business as BSD Environmental Solutions (BSD), at an annual estimated cost of $190,410.00 excluding GST, commencing November 1, 1996, for a three-year period.

Comments and/or Justification:

Clause No. 47.1 of the Specifications section of Contract No. 96-500-001 states, "the term of this Contract shall be for three years commencing November 1, 1996, and ending October 31, 1999. The Borough retains the right to extend this Contract for a further one year period on October 31, 1999, and again on October 31, 2000. This Contract may be terminated upon thirty days notice in writing to the Contractor, or as other wise specified in this Contract, if the Contractor fails to carry out the terms and conditions of this contract, as determined by the Commissioner." At this time, the City recommends extending the contract for the one-year term commencing November 1, 1999, and terminating October 31, 2000.

BSD is performing well and the collection prices contained in Contract No. 96-500-001 are significantly lower than the prices in the former City of Etobicoke contract and the prices contained in the combined contract for the former Cities of Toronto and York.

Conclusions:

Staff recommend that Council authority be granted to extend Contract No. 96-500-001 between the City of Toronto and BSD Environmental Solutions for the collection and haulage of containerized waste, bulky items and white metal from multi-unit apartments in the former Borough of East York for a period of one year commencing November 1, 1999, and terminating October 31, 2000.

Staff will report back in early 2000 to recommend whether or not to renew the term of the contract for the second one-year extension period from November 1, 2000, to October 31, 2001.

Contact Name:

Steve Whitter, Director

Solid Waste Collections, Districts 1 and 2

Solid Waste Management Services Division

Phone: (416) 392-1950

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated August 25, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services ensure that the savings resulting from the termination of the contract are detailed in the budget.

The Works Committee submits the following report (August 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain Council authority to terminate the Blue Box container material processing contract between the City of Toronto and Metro Waste Paper Inc. to be effective on or about December 15, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The termination of the current container processing contract with Metro Waste Paper Inc. will result in decreased operating costs of approximately $126,000.00 per year associated with the transfer and processing of the City's Blue Box commingled container material.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that staff be authorized to negotiate the termination of the existing Blue Box container material processing contract between the City of Toronto and Metro Waste Paper Inc. to be effective on or about December 15, 1999.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on May 29, 1996, the Council of the City of North York adopted Clause No. 5 of Report No. 8 of the Works Committee which recommended that the City of North York enter into an agreement with Metro Waste Paper Inc. to receive, process, market and sell all containers collected in the City of North York under the City's Recycling Program.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Metro Waste Paper Inc.'s commingled container processing contract commenced on July 9, 1996, and was scheduled to terminate three years thereafter. Prior to the scheduled termination date (July 9, 1999), the City opted for a one-year extension under the terms of the contract to provide adequate time for the construction, commissioning and opening of the Dufferin Material Recovery Facility (MRF). The intent was to redirect material currently processed by Metro Waste Paper Inc. to the Dufferin MRF upon its opening.

Miller Waste Systems, the company that was awarded the contract to design, construct and operate the Dufferin MRF, anticipates that the facility should be ready for commissioning by mid-December 1999, barring any unforseen delays in the construction schedule. The termination of the Metro Waste Paper Inc. contract to be effective on or about December 15, 1999, will enable the City to begin directing material to the Dufferin site in time for plant commissioning. Metro Waste Paper Inc. is agreeable to the early termination of the contract extension because the lease is expiring on the building where the processing line is located.

Metro Waste Paper Inc. currently receives, processes and markets approximately 6,000 tonnes per year of commingled container material collected in the North York community. The processing costs to the City, which are approximately $90.00 per tonne (full GST), include a processing fee of $68.00 per tonne, a five percent share of revenue from the sale of the marketed material and a $17.00 per tonne transfer fee to haul the unprocessed material from City of Toronto facilities to Metro Waste Paper Inc.'s sorting line.

Once the Dufferin MRF is fully operational, it will receive approximately 20,000 tonnes of commingled container material per year at a processing rate of $69.00 per tonne, including GST. Therefore, shifting the North York container material to the Dufferin MRF will result in an annual operating cost saving of $126,000.00 (6000 tonnes x $21.00/tonne).

The balance of the 20,000 tonnes of material destined for the Dufferin MRF will include approximately 14,000 tonnes from the Community Council areas of York, Scarborough and Etobicoke which are currently being processed at the Commissioners Street MRF. The Commissioners Street facility currently processes approximately 30,000 tonnes annually. Therefore, once the Dufferin MRF is operational and the Metro Waste Paper Inc. contract has been terminated, the Commissioners Street MRF will handle the remaining 16,000 tonnes of material at a processing rate of $66.50 per tonne, including GST.

Conclusion:

We recommend that the Metro Waste Paper Inc. commingle container material processing contract be terminated on or about December 15, 1999. This will enable the City to prepare for the opening of the Dufferin MRF and to ultimately reduce its per tonne processing costs for commingled container material.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pollock, Director, Policy and Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: 392-4715; Fax: 392-4754

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

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to amending the traffic regulations to provide that Item No. (5) in Appendix 1 and Item No. (11) in Appendix No. 2, insofar as they apply to No. 500 Queens Quay West, not come into force for a period of two months following Council approval:

Purpose:

To amend various traffic and parking regulations on Queens Quay West, Bathurst Street and Fleet Street, and to install traffic control signals on Queen Quay West at Lower Portland Street, in order to accommodate the Queens Quay West streetcar extension.

Funding Sources:

Funding for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Queens Quay West and Lower Portland Street, estimated to be $88,000.00 and for the installation of appropriate signs and pavement markings, estimated to be $10,000.00, as part of the Queens Quay streetcar extension, is accommodated within the Toronto Transit Commission's project budget.

Recommendations:

In conjunction with the completion of the Queens Quay West streetcar extension, it is recommended that:

(1) traffic control signals be installed at the intersection of Queens Quay West and Lower Portland Street;

(2) the traffic regulations listed in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(3) the traffic regulations listed in Appendix 2 of this report be enacted; and

(4) appropriate City officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

At its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, City Council adopted Clause No. 3 in Report No. 5 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee entitled "Queens Quay Streetcar Connection - Modifications to Environmental Assessment". Also, at its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, City Council adopted Clause No. 1 in Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee entitled "Draft By-law for Alteration of Queens Quay West and Bathurst Street". The "509 Harbourfront" streetcar route will operate between Union Station and Exhibition Place commencing July 2000. The extended portion of the route will largely use existing streetcar tracks. However, new streetcar double tracks and loading platforms are currently under construction along Queens Quay West, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street, and along Bathurst Street from Queens Quay West to Fleet Street. The length of the new streetcar tracks is approximately 850 metres.

Discussion:

As a result of the extension of the Harbourfront streetcar line from its present terminus at Lower Spadina Avenue to Exhibition Place, new or revised traffic and parking regulations are required to ensure a safe and efficient operation for streetcars and other road users in this area. These measures were contemplated throughout the original studies and analysis undertaken for this project. Each regulation is discussed briefly below:

Reserved Lanes:

The "509 Harbourfront" streetcar extension will operate within its own right-of-way in the middle of the roadway on:

Queens Quay West, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street;

Bathurst Street, between Queens Quay West and Lake Shore Boulevard West; and

The eastbound median lane on Fleet Street at Bathurst Street.

The legal designation of this exclusive streetcar right-of-way will provide better delineation for all road users, and will provide optimal efficiency for streetcar operations.

Streetcar Loading Platforms:

To ensure a safe environment for streetcar patrons, loading platforms will be provided at all stops along the new streetcar connection. Therefore, streetcar loading platforms must be designated at the following locations:

North side of Fleet Street, west of Bathurst Street;

South side of Fleet Street, west of Bathurst Street;

East side of Bathurst Street, north of Queens Quay West;

South side of Queens Quay West, east of Bathurst Street;

North side of Queens Quay West, west of Lower Portland Street;

South side of Queens Quay West, east of Lower Portland Street;

North side of Queens Quay West, west of Lower Spadina Avenue; and

South side of Queens Quay West, east of Lower Spadina Avenue.

Proposed Traffic Control Signals at Queens Quay West and Lower Portland Street:

Currently, Lower Portland Street at Queens Quay West forms the north leg of a "T-intersection" and is controlled by a "Stop" sign. This intersection will be signalized with the introduction of the streetcar service, which will proceed east-west through this intersection within its own right-of-way in the middle of the roadway. An exclusive transit-only signal phase, similar to those on Queens Quay West, east of Lower Spadina Avenue, will be provided to streetcars. Traffic control signals at this intersection will provide safe and efficient access across the streetcar right-of-way for pedestrians, cyclists and turning motorists.

Bathurst Street/Fleet Street/Lake Shore Boulevard West Traffic Operations:

Streetcars on the "509 Harbourfront" route will travel through this intersection by completing northbound left turns from Bathurst Street to Fleet Street and eastbound right turns from Fleet Street to Bathurst Street. Currently, these turns are prohibited to all vehicles due to a number of potential vehicular conflicts and the associated safety concerns. However, a transit-only signal phase will be provided to streetcars to safely complete these turns. Therefore, streetcars must be exempted from these turn prohibitions.

Parking and Stopping Regulations:

Currently, parking on the west side of Bathurst Street between Lake Shore Boulevard West and Queens Quay West is prohibited at all times. On the east side of Bathurst Street, parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, while three-hour parking is permitted at all other times. The new alignment of Bathurst Street will generally consist of one through lane in each direction. Therefore, to ensure that traffic flow is maintained, stopping should be prohibited on both sides of Bathurst Street, from Lake Shore Boulevard West to Queens Quay West.

Furthermore, parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of Fleet Street, between Bathurst Street and a point 248 metres west thereof. Stopping on this stretch is prohibited between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. At other times parking is permitted for three hours. A streetcar loading platform will be installed on the north side of Fleet Street, just west of Bathurst Street. To provide for a safe merging area for westbound motorists from the curb lane into the median lane past the loading platform, existing parking should be removed and stopping should be prohibited at all times on the north side of Fleet Street, from Bathurst Street to a point 90 metres west thereof.

City Council at its meeting of April 16, 1998, adopted Clause No. 13 in Report No. 3 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Installation of Parking Meters - Queens Quay West, north side, from Lower Spadina Avenue to Portland Street (Downtown)", and in so doing, authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to implement on-street parking meter/loading zone regulations for Premises Nos. 500 and 550 on an interim basis, pending the future construction by the Toronto Transit Commission of the extension of the streetcar line, west from Lower Spadina Avenue.

In this regard, the following was noted in the above Clause:

"For your Council's information, the Queens Quay West LRT line (which currently turns at Lower Spadina Avenue) may be extended further west to the CNE grounds in the near future. In order to accommodate this anticipated extension, it may be necessary at that time to prohibit parking on the north side of Queens Quay West, from Lower Spadina Avenue to Portland Avenue. Since this project has no tentative start date, the installation of parking meters during this interim period is feasible."

Bicycle lanes were also provided on both sides of Queens Quay West between Bathurst Street and Lower Spadina Avenue.

With the construction of the LRT right-of-way, the pavement width is insufficient to support one lane of traffic, a bicycle lane, and parking. As it is desirable to maintain the bicycle lane network, the on-street parking/loading will have to be removed and replaced with a full time stopping prohibition. Our staff as well as Urban Planning and Development Services are working with the stakeholders in the area to establish alternative loading areas.

Conclusion:

New streetcar tracks and loading platforms are being constructed along Queens Quay West, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street, and along Bathurst Street from Queens Quay West to Fleet Street. Therefore, revisions to traffic and parking regulations are required to ensure a safe and efficient operation for streetcars and other road users in this area. Also, traffic control signals on Queens Quay West at Lower Portland Street will provide safe access across the streetcar right-of-way for pedestrians, cyclists and turning motorists.

Contact Names:

Jacqueline White, Manager Danny Budimirovic, Traffic Engineer

Traffic Operations, District 1 - West Traffic Operations, District 1 - Central

416-397-5021 (phone) 416-392-5209 (phone)

416-392-8504 (fax) 416-392-8504 (fax)

(1) That the existing parking prohibition in effect at all times on the west side of Bathurst Street, between Lake Shore Boulevard West and Queens Quay West be rescinded.

(2) That the existing parking prohibition in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, on the east side of Bathurst Street, between Lake Shore Boulevard West and Queens Quay West, be rescinded.

(3) That the one-hour maximum parking regulation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, on the north side of Queens Quay West, from Lower Spadina Avenue to Lower Portland Street, be rescinded.

(4) That the parking meter regulation on the north side of Queens Quay West, from Lower Spadina Avenue to Lower Portland Street operating from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, for a maximum period of one hour at a rate of $1.00 per hour, be rescinded.

(5) That the on-street, curbside loading zones to service Premises Nos. 500 and 550 Queens Quay West be rescinded.

(6) That the existing bicycle lane adjacent to the curb lane used for parking on the north side of Queens Quay West, from Spadina Avenue to Lower Portland Street, be rescinded.

(7) That the existing bicycle lane adjacent to the curb lane used for parking on the south side of Queens Quay West, from Bathurst Street to Lower Portland Street, be rescinded.

(1) That the southerly westbound and northerly eastbound lanes on Queens Quay West, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street, be designated as reserved lanes for public transit vehicles only.

(2) That the westerly northbound and easterly southbound lanes on Bathurst Street, between Queens Quay West and Lake Shore Boulevard West, be designated as reserved lanes for public transit vehicles only.

(3) That the northerly eastbound lane on Fleet Street, between Bathurst Street and a point 30.5 metres west thereof, be designated as a reserved lane for public transit vehicles only.

(4) That streetcar loading platforms be designated at the following locations:

- Westbound direction on the north side of Fleet Street, west of Bathurst Street;

- Eastbound direction on the south side of Fleet Street, west of Bathurst Street;

- Northbound direction on the east side of Bathurst Street, north of Queens Quay West;

- Eastbound direction on the south side of Queens Quay West, east of Bathurst Street;

- Westbound direction on the north side of Queens Quay West, west of Lower Portland Street;

- Eastbound direction on the south side of Queens Quay West, east of Lower Portland Street;

- Westbound direction on the north side of Queens Quay West, west of Lower Spadina Avenue; and

- Eastbound direction on the south side of Queens Quay West, east of Lower Spadina Avenue.

(5) That streetcars be exempted from the northbound left-turn prohibition from Bathurst Street to Fleet Street.

(6) That streetcars be exempted from the eastbound right-turn prohibition from Fleet Street to Bathurst Street.

(7) That stopping be prohibited at all times on both sides of Bathurst Street, between Lake Shore Boulevard West and Queens Quay West.

(8) That stopping be prohibited at all times on the north side of Fleet Street, from Bathurst Street to a point 90 metres west thereof.

(9) That the existing one-hour parking in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Fleet Street, from Bathurst Street to a point 284 metres west thereof, be amended to be in effect from a point 90 metres west of Bathurst Street to a point 194 metres further west thereof.

(10) That stopping be prohibited at all times on both sides of Queens Quay West, from Lower Spadina Avenue to Bathurst Street.

(11) That a bicycle lane be designated adjacent to the curb on the north side of Queens Quay West, from Lower Spadina Avenue to Lower Portland Street.

(12) That a bicycle lane be designated adjacent to the curb on the south side of Queens Quay West, from Bathurst Street to Lower Portland Street.

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (September 7, 1999) from Mr. James W. Harbell, Stikeman, Elliot, Barristers and Solicitors, requesting that the Committee recommend the deletion of Item No. (5) in Appendix 1 and Item No. (11) in Appendix 2 of the report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as the rescission of the previous Council approval of an on-street loading zone and the implemenation of a bicycle lane are premature in advance of Council's approval of a replacement location for a loading zone in front of No. 500 Queens Quay West.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out and referring the following portion of the recommendation of the Works Committee back to the Works Committee for further consideration at such time as the Toronto Transit Commission has submitted further comments in this regard to the Committee:

"and the eastbound left-turn lane at Bessarian (to the Plaza and garden centre) being maintained during the construction period".)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to the reduced speed limit signs being oversized, and the easbound left turn lane at Bessarian (to the Plaza and garden centre) being maintained during the construction period:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed limit on Sheppard Avenue East between Greenbriar Road and Blue Ridge Road during construction of the Sheppard Subway - Bessarian Station.

Funding Sources:

All costs associated with this work will be the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission under the Rapid Transit Expansion Program.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the speed limit be reduced to 40 km per hour on Sheppard Avenue East between Greenbriar Road and Blue Ridge Road until completion of Bessarian Station surface construction in the fall of 2001; and

(2) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

Construction of the Bessarian Station for the Sheppard Subway will be underway from early 1999 through to the fall of 2001. The cut-and-cover method is being used for the construction of the station. To maintain traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue East during the construction period, a detour road has been constructed which will provide four traffic lanes. The detour in its final configuration will be in place in mid-August 1999.

Discussion:

Sheppard Avenue East between Greenbriar Road and Blue Ridge Road is operating as a four-lane detour road during the construction of the Bessarian Subway Station. The posted speed limit is 60 km per hour. There are a considerable number of traffic turning movements in the area as the adjacent land use includes a strip mall, a garden centre, a medical centre, and a day care facility. These turning movements are being made from the through traffic lanes on the Sheppard Avenue East detour that has been constructed with several curved sections. There are also a number of school children that cross Sheppard Avenue at the Burbank Drive intersection, assisted by a School Crossing Guard.

As drivers gain familiarity with the new detour layout, it is expected that traffic speed will approach the normal operating speed of Sheppard Avenue East. This would not be appropriate with the curvature of the detour road and the number of vehicles making turns from the through traffic lanes. In order to reduce this possibility, and ensure its control by Police enforcement if the situation arises, a reduction in the speed limit for vehicles travelling on Sheppard Avenue East through the work area is justified.

Conclusions:

The posted speed limit should be reduced from 60 km per hour to 40 km per hour on Sheppard Avenue East between Greenbriar Road and Blue Ridge Road for the duration of construction of the Sheppard Subway Bessarian Station.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David Butler, Manager

Sheppard Subway Traffic Operations

(416) 392-5285

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to the reduced speed limit signs being oversized:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed limit on Yonge Street between Poyntz Avenue and Greenfield Avenue during construction of the Sheppard Subway - Yonge Station.

Funding Sources:

All costs associated with this work will be the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission under the Rapid Transit Expansion Program.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the speed limit be reduced to 40 km per hour on Yonge Street between Poyntz Avenue and Greenfield Avenue until completion of the Yonge Subway Station surface construction in the fall of 2001; and

(2) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

Construction of the Yonge Station for the Sheppard Subway will be underway from early 1998 through to the fall of 2001. The cut-and-cover method is being used for the construction of the station and the wye tracks that will form the connections between the Sheppard line and the Yonge line. To facilitate the construction of the Yonge Station where it is situated above the existing Sheppard Station, a detour has been constructed to the west of the Yonge Street/Sheppard Avenue intersection and put into operation in August 1999.

Discussion:

The detour road will provide similar traffic carrying capacity to that existing on Yonge Street prior to the construction, with six lanes being provided for through traffic. The geometry of the detour, however, has curves that are more severe than those normally encountered on the arterial road network.

The Yonge Street - Sheppard Avenue intersection has a high volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and the introduction of a reduced speed limit would permit the use of Police enforcement if required to enhance the safety of all users of this intersection.

Conclusions:

The posted speed limit should be reduced from 50 km per hour to 40 km per hour on Yonge Street between Poyntz Avenue and Greenfield Avenue for the duration of construction of the Sheppard Subway Yonge Station.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David Butler, Manager

Sheppard Subway Traffic Operations

(416) 392-5285

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for further consideration and report thereon to the Works Committee, in order to provide an opportunity for the Ward Councillors to conduct public consultations in this regard.)

The Works Committee recommends that:

(1) the speed limit on Kipling Avenue be a uniform speed of 50 km/h between Albion Road and Steeles Avenue West; and

(2) the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following confidential report (August 27, 1999) from the City Solicitor; and reports having directed that such report be made public:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the City's powers to tow unplated vehicles parked on City streets.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a request be made to the Toronto Police Services Board to appoint City of Toronto parking enforcement officers as special constables for the purpose of towing unplated vehicles parked on City streets.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Councillor Betty Disero has requested the City Solicitor to prepare a report to this Committee respecting the authority of parking enforcement officers to tow unplated vehicles from City streets.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Subsection 221(1) of the Highway Traffic Act provides that police officers or officers appointed from the staff of the Government of Ontario may take abandoned or unplated vehicles into custody of the law and may cause them to be taken to and stored in a suitable place. Although the City has parking enforcement officers in place, the authority to tow unplated vehicles set out in subsection 221(1) of the Highway Traffic Act does not extend to parking enforcement officers. However, pursuant to section 53 of the Police Services Act, special constables may be appointed by a police services board. The effect of this appointment is to confer on special constables the powers of a police officer for the purpose specified in the appointment. This appointment is subject to the approval of the Solicitor General.

Therefore, City Council could request the Toronto Police Services Board to appoint City parking enforcement officers for the purpose of towing unplated vehicles from City streets.

In the alternative, City Council could request the Province to amend the Highway Traffic Act to permit parking enforcement officers to tow unplated vehicles from City streets. However, it may be more feasible to avoid a legislative amendment and to address the issue locally by making a request to the Toronto Police Services Board to appoint special constables.

Conclusion:

It is preferable to request that the Toronto Police Services Board appoint special constables rather than requesting the Province to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Contact Name:

Amanda Ross

(416) 392-3108

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (August 26, 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 winter maintenance on Toronto roads, the spreading of salt and sand on local roads of the east section of District 3 for the period October 1999 to April 2003 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 provided in the Transportation Services 1999 operating budget for the current year's requirements. Funds will be included in the subsequent year's submissions for each required portion of the contract.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Tender submitted by Fowler Construction Company Limited in the amount of $2,579,390.80 including all taxes and charges for winter maintenance on Toronto roads, the spreading of salt and sand on local roads of the east section of District 3 for the period October 1999 to April 2003 be accepted being the lowest Tender received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on August 4, 1999, opened the following Tenders for Contract No. NY9964RD, Tender Call No. 170-1999, winter maintenance on Toronto roads, the spreading of salt and sand on local roads of the east section of District 3 for the period October 1999 to April 2003:

Tenderer Tender Price

Fowler Construction Company Limited $2,579,390.80

Miller Paving Limited $2,670,219.60

Gazzola Paving Limited $3,458,892.24

K.J. Beamish Construction Company Limited $3,496.396.20

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Tender documents submitted by the recommended bidder have been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and were 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 winter maintenance of Toronto roads, the spreading of salt and sand on local roads of the east section of District 3 for the period October 1999 to April 2003, in accordance with specifications, to Fowler Construction Company Limited, being the lowest Tender received.

Contact Name: Contact Name:

Trevor Tenn Lou Pagano, P. Eng

Manager Director

Transportation Services Purchasing & Materials Management

Tel. (416) 395-6270 Tel. (416) 392-7311

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (August 20, 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 winter maintenance on Toronto roads, the spreading of salt and sand on local roads of the west section of District 3 for the period October 1999 to April 2003 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 provided in the Transportation Services 1999 operating budget for the current year's requirements. Funds will be included in the subsequent year's submissions for each required portion of the contract.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Tender submitted by Fowler Construction Company Limited in the amount of $2,930,560.52 including all taxes and charges for winter maintenance on Toronto roads, the spreading of salt and sand on local roads of the west section of District 3 for the period October 1999 to April 2003 be accepted being the lowest Tender received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on August 4, 1999, opened the following Tenders for Contract No. NY9965RD, Tender Call No. 171-1999, winter maintenance on Toronto roads, the spreading of salt and sand on local roads of the west section of District 3 for the period October 1999 to April 2003:

Tenderer Tender Price

Fowler Construction Company Limited $2,930,560.52

Osler Paving Limited $3,047,770.88

K.J. Beamish Construction Company Limited $3,263,585.60

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Tender documents submitted by the recommended bidder have been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and were 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 winter maintenance of Toronto roads, the spreading of salt and sand on local roads of the west section of District 3 for the period October 1999 to April 2003, in accordance with specifications to Fowler Construction Company Limited, being the lowest Tender received.

Contact Name: Contact Name:

Trevor Tenn Lou Pagano, P.Eng

Manager Director

Transportation Services Purchasing and Materials Management

Tel. (416) 395-6270 Tel. (416) 392-7311

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause 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 on the dates of the contracts in time for next year's contracts."

City Council at its in-camera meeting held on September 28 1999, also issued confidential instructions to staff, such instructions to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (August 26, 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 Tenders issued for winter services for hired loaders, ploughs and tractors, District One, for the period December 1, 1999 to March 31, 2003, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to request authority to issue contracts to the recommended bidders.

Source of Funds:

Funds for Winter Services are contained in Transportation Services 1999 Operating Budget for the current year's requirements. Funds will be included in the subsequent years' submissions for each required portion of the contract period.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the following contracts for hired loaders, ploughs and tractors, for winter services, District One, for the period December 1, 1999 to March 31, 2003, be awarded to the following Tenderers in the total amount of $15,656,155.08 including all taxes and charges:

Contract/Tender Call No. Tenderer Tender Price

T-68-99, Call No. 182-1999 K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited $4,934,168.72

T-69-99, Call No. 183-1999 Miller Paving Limited $2,180,767.00

T-70-99, Call No. 184-1999 James Dick Construction Limited $5,548,741.80

T-72-99, Call No. 185-1999 Gazzola Paving Limited $2,992,477.56

Council Reference:

The Bid Committee at its meeting held on August 4, 1999, opened the following Tenders for winter services for hired loaders, ploughs and tractors, District One, for the period December 1, 1999 to March 31, 2003:

Contract No. T-68-99, Tender Call No. 182-1999, Winter Services for Hired Loaders, Ploughs and Tractors - District One - North Eastern Area:

Tenderer Tender Price

K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited $4,934,168.72

Gazzola Paving Limited $5,014,028.56

Contract No. T-69-99, Tender Call No. 183-1999, Winter Services for Hired Loaders, Ploughs and Tractors - District One - South Eastern Area:

Tenderer Tender Price

Miller Paving Limited $2,180,767.00

Gazzola Paving Limited $3,311,422.56

Contract No. T-70-99, Tender Call No. 184-1999, Winter Services for Hired Loaders, Ploughs and Tractors - District One - North Western Area:

Tenderer Tender Price

James Dick Construction Ltd. $5,548,741.80

K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited $6,959,005.92

Gazzola Paving Limited $7,637,349.84

Contract No. T-72-99, Tender Call No. 185-1999, Winter Services for Hired Loaders, Ploughs and Tractors - District One - South Western Area:

Tenderer Tender Price

Diamond Roadworks Limited $2,940,360.00

Gazzola Paving Limited $2,992,477.56

James Dick Construction Ltd. $3,406,914.24

Comments:

For Contract T-72-99, Tender Call No. 185-1999, the low bid submitted by Diamond Roadworks Limited failed to provide a Bid Bond, and an Agreement to Bond. Also, they failed to prequalify with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. This process is outlined in the tender advertisement and documents. The Legal Department was consulted and advises that their tender is incomplete and considered informal. The remaining tender documents submitted by the recommended bidders have been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and were found to be in conformance with the Tender requirements.

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

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to issue contracts for winter services for hired loaders, ploughs and tractors, District One, for the period December 1, 1999 to March 31, 2003, in accordance with specifications, to the recommended contractors, being the lowest Tenders received.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andy Koropeski L. Pagano, P. Eng.,

Director, District 1 Director of Purchasing and Materials

Transportation Services Management Division

Telephone: 392-7711 Telephone: 392-7311

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause 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 Audit Committee on:

(1) the issue of the purchase of rock salt from only one bidder in Ontario; and

(2) why no attempt has been made to purchase rock salt directly from the source.")

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (August 20, 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 the Committee of the results of the tender issued for the supply and delivery of bulk common coarse rock salt, used for de-icing road surfaces for the 1999-2000 winter season, and to request authority to award a contract to the recommended bidders.

Sources of Funds:

Funds are available in the appropriate accounts for this requirement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the tenders noted below for the supply and delivery of approximately 139,390 tonnes of bulk common coarse rock salt, used for de-icing road surfaces for the 1999-2000 winter season, in accordance with specifications, be accepted, being the lowest tenders received:

(a) The Canadian Salt Company Limited for approximately 82,830 tonnes for District 1 (Toronto) and District 3 (North York) in the amount of $4,354,783.54 including Goods and Services Tax, Ontario Retail Sales Tax and all other charges; and

(b) Sifto Canada Incorporated for approximately 56,560 tonnes for District 2 (Etobicoke) and District 4 (Scarborough) in the amount of $2,659,099.00, including Goods and Services Tax, Ontario Retail Sales Tax and all other charges; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on June 30, 1999, opened the following tenders for the supply and delivery of bulk common coarse rock salt, used for de-icing road surfaces for the 1999-2000 winter season.

Tender No. 127-1999

Price Per Tonne, Exclusive of all Taxes

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4

(Toronto) (Etobicoke) (North York) (Scarborough)

A - Stockpiling Shipments - (bulk deliveries to fill salt domes) to be shipped betweenOctober 15, 1999 and November 21, 1999.

Tenderers

The Canadian Salt $45.09 $45.25 $45.25 $45.09

Company Limited

Sifto Canada No Quote $40.50 No Quote $40.50

Incorporated

Cargill Salt $47.84 $47.84 $47.84 $47.84

B - Additional Shipments - (for delivery as and when required) to be shipped between November 29, 1999 and April 30, 2000.

Tenderers

The Canadian Salt $45.84 $46.00 $46.00 $45.84

Company Limited

Sifto Canada No Quote $41.00 No Quote $41.00

Incorporated

Cargill Salt $48.34 $48.34 $48.34 $48.34

Above prices are subject to 8% Ontario Retail sales Tax and 7% Goods and Services Tax.

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

District 1999 price per 1998 price per Difference % Difference

tonne excluding tonne excluding

all taxes all taxes

District 1 A $45.09 A $44.34 $0.75 1.70%

Toronto B $45.84 B $45.09 $0.75 1.70%

District 2 A $40.50 A $41.50 -$1.00 -2.40%

Etobicoke B $41.00 B $42.50 -$1.50 -3.50%

District 3 A $45.25 A $43.04 $2.16 5.00%

North York B $46.00 B $43.84 $2.16 4.90%

District 4 A $40.50 A $44.34 -$3.84 -8.70%

Scarborough B $41.00 B $45.09 -$4.09 -9.10%

A - Stockpiling Shipments

B - Additional Shipments

The decrease in pricing in Districts 2 and 4 for this commodity for the 1999-2000 contract compared to the 1998-1999 contract is attributed to competition in the market place.

In 1998, Sifto Canada Incorporated only submitted a bid on the requirements for one district - Etobicoke - and was the lowest bidder for that district. Sifto advised, at that time, that they did not have the capacity to service more than one district. This year, Sifto has bid on an additional district - Scarborough - for which they are also the lowest bidder. Sifto advises that they anticipate submitting a bid on all districts for the 2000-2001 requirement.

The increase in pricing in Districts 1 and 3 is attributed to increases in transportation costs.

Comments and/or Discussions and/or Justification:

The Tender Documents submitted by the recommended bidders have been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and were found to be in conformance with the Tender requirements.

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

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to award contracts and for the appropriate officials to complete the necessary contract documents for the supply and delivery of bulk common coarse rock salt, used for de-icing road surfaces for the 1999-2000 winter season in accordance with specifications, to the lowest bidders as follows:

The Canadian Salt Company Limited for District 1 (Toronto) and District 3 (North York) in the amount of $4,354,783.54 including Goods and Services Tax and Ontario Retail Sales Tax, and Sifto Canada Incorporated for District 2 (Etobicoke) and District 4 (Scarborough), in the amount of $2,659,099.00 including Goods and Services Tax and Ontario Retail Sales Tax.

Contact Name: Contact Name:

L.A. Pagano, P. Eng. B. Mason

Director Manager, West District

Purchasing and Materials Management Transportation Services Division

Telephone: 416 392-7312 Telephone: 416 394-5784

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

The Works Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (August 25, 1999) from the City Solicitor entitled "Construction Claim Regarding Humber River Bridge, on Lakeshore Boulevard West", which was forwarded to Members of Council under "Confidential" cover.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (August 25, 1999) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, save and except the following recommendations:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Authority be granted to pay Ellis-Don the sum of $412,500.00 (plus G.S.T.) in full and final satisfaction of its claims in this litigation. As further terms of this settlement, the claims of Ellis-Don and its subcontractors against the City, and the City's counterclaim against Ellis-Don, would be dismissed without costs, mutually acceptable releases exchanged between Ellis-Don and the City, and the balance of the contract price, for work previously certified complete, released to Ellis-Don.

(2) The appropriate City officials be authorized to sign any documentation and take any necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Installation of Traffic Control Signals at O'Connor Drive at Northridge Avenue; O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent; and O'Connor Drive at Four Oaks Gate. (Ward 1, East York)

The Works Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following matter until its next regular meeting, scheduled to be held on October 6, 1999, as the first deputation item; and having requested that the Ward Councillors and all residents affected by the proposed installation of traffic control signals be notified accordingly:

(i) (May 7, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the East York Community Council on April 29, 1999, recommended:

(1) adoption of the report dated April 20, 1999, from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) to provide that turn restrictions be instituted at St. Clair Avenue and St. Columba Place, and St. Clair Avenue and Rexleigh Drive, at the same time as the installation of traffic control signals at the O'Connor Drive/Glenwood Crescent intersection, to ensure that there is no infill of traffic in the morning;

(2) that for the 90 days following the installation of the traffic control signals at the O'Connor Drive/Glenwood Crescent intersection, the Toronto Police Service be requested to give top priority to the enforcement of the turn restrictions in both directions in the morning and afternoon;

(3) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to conduct further studies on additional means of improving Glenwood Crescent, in particular, the feasibility of turning Glenwood Crescent south of O'Connor Drive into a one-way street;

(4) that north bound left turn restrictions be implemented at Rexleigh Drive and Glenwood Crescent during the morning peak period;

(5) that, should City Council not implement a left turn restriction on St. Clair Avenue at St. Columba Place, there be a right hand turn restriction implemented on St. Columba Place and Glenwood Crescent;

(6) that right hand turns on a red light be prohibited at Glenwood Crescent and O'Connor Drive;

(7) that consideration be given to implementing one-way east bound operation on Glenwood Crescent, east of St. Columba Place; and

(8) that the Community Safety Zone currently in effect on O'Connor Drive between Pape Avenue and Woodbine Avenue be extended to St. Clair Avenue.

(ii) (August 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:

(1) the Works Committee endorse Recommendations Nos. (2), (3), (6), and (7) of East York Community Council as recommended at its meeting held April 29, 1999, under Minute No. 5.13;

(2) Recommendation No. (1) of East York Community Council be revised to state:

"adoption of the report (April 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) to prohibit southbound right turns between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, at the north and south leg of the intersection of St. Columba Place and Glenwood Crescent; and to prohibit southbound right turns between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, at the intersection of Rexleigh Drive and Glenwood Crescent; and to prohibit northbound left turns between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, at the intersection of Rexleigh Drive and Glenwood Crescent concurrent with the installation of traffic control signals at O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent;" and

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

(iii) (September 7, 1999) from Councillor Jane Pitfield, East York, requesting that consideration of the matter of the installation of traffic control signals at O'Connor Drive at Northridge Avenue; O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent; and O'Connor Drive at Four Oaks Gate, in Ward 1, East York, be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee.

(iv) (September 7, 1999) from Ms. Cheri Aitken, expressing concern with respect to the lack of notice for the Works Committee meeting; and requesting that consideration of the item be deferred until the next meeting.

(v) (September 7, 1999) from Peter and Jaclyn Krakus, urging the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Glenwood Crescent and O'Connor Drive.

(b) Soft Drink Containers Originating from Vending Machines.

The Works Committee reports having:

(1) received the following report; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(i) work with interested parties to develop a voluntary pilot project at City-owned facilities for reverse vending machines, to be funded by the private sector; and to report back to the Committee with the terms of reference for such a pilot project; and

(ii) report back to the Committee on increasing the use of recycling containers in malls and public places:

(i) (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.

(ii) (September 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, recommending that By-law No. 20-85, a by-law "Respecting the licensing, regulating and governing of trades, callings, businesses and occupations in the Metropolitan Area", be amended to require soft drink vending machine operators to either operate two-way vending machines or else place a reverse vending machine in proximity to vending machines.

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

- Mr. Darcy McNeill, Aluminum Marketing Council, and submitted material with respect thereto;

- Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance; and

- Mr. Bruce Davis, Urban Intelligence Inc.

(c) Review of Sub-Committees, Special Committees and Task Forces.