1. Declaration of Interest

None

2. Changes to the Agenda

(some changes, but inaudible on tape)

Added: Presentation to the Red Hill Expressway Implementation Committee by Mr. John Ellis, on behalf of the Red Hill Neighbourhood Assoc. Copies will be distributed after the meeting.

3. Approval of Minutes

Approved

4. Delegation Requests

None

5. Items Referred from Council

5.1 Petition respecting a pedestrian crossing at Barton and Ruth St. in front of 709 and 711 Barton St. E. (May 26, 2004 Council meeting). Passed without discussion.

6. Consent Items

6.1  Additional appointments to the Keep Hamilton Clean and Hamilton Cycling Committees (City Wide) (CL04007) (Confidential addendum distributed under separate cover.) Passed without discussion.

7. Public Hearings/Delegations

7.1 Todd Schaefer , April 14, 2004, respecting noise wall issues in Winona Estates. (Note: Request to appear approved by Committee on May 17,2004)

Todd Schaefer : "This is a noise wall issue. Page 2 is the picture of the wall which is on the QEW in Winona, between Winona Rd. and the QEW, approximately 450 residents affected by this. Started back in 1988, there was a noise study done. The main issue is the increase in volume over the past number of years. Residents started a petition back in October of 2000, there was a noise study conducted in 2001 by (McCormack Ranking ?) . The wall is currently beyond half the projected life and is currently falling apart in a number of areas - holes in the walls, panels that need to be addressed before the end of the wall's life, as it sits right now. There's been approximately 5 meetings held with City Council, Councillor Mitchell , city Staff , Gavin Norman and many of the residents. Gavin has put up with a lot of negative feedback, a lot of angry residents. As I said this has gone back and forth and sideways. I spent probably 100 hours talking to residents on all the issues. . money, noise, 5 metre walls in their back yards, etc. so there's a number of issues that need to be addressed before we came to this point in time. The City of Stoney Creek took ownership of the wall back in 1988. It's located on city property. This was done so that residents would not be burdened by the costs of rebuilding the wall at the end of its useful life. Its useful life was over years ago. The MTO widened the QEW to 6 lanes, raised the highway approximately 4 feet. What this did was raise the (dB) level about 2 dB which .?? perceivable. The MTO doesn't need to do anything. We've a lot of residents angry at the MTO and the City. The MTO because of the changes in the highway, the City because the wall was not constructed to satisfy the volumes of current day ???. So the MTO, after talking with some employees there and presentation from them, they don't have to do anything, there's no precedent the MTO needs to get involved. However being the good corporate citizen they are, we got a commitment from them for 40, hopefully 50% of the $425,000 cost of the wall. If the wall happens now, they're going to pay approximately 40, anywhere from $170,000 to $212,000. If this issue dies the residents are the ones that got the MTO involved. If this issue does not go forth, the MTO is not willing to pay 5 years from now, 10 years from now that $200,000. There were approximately 47,000 cars in 1985 going up and down the QEW, then it went to 66,000, now it's basically 91,000. So the volume since 1985 has doubled on the QEW. Provincial Guidelines - the recommendations are 55 dB noise levels.now it's basically about 65 dB. . That's basically twice as loud. An increase in 5 dB there needs to be attention given.The preferred option that the study put forth was a 5 metre wall. They looked at issues such as costing, drainage, noise. If the MTO was to put the wall on their side, on their property, it was going to be just under a million dollars so for costs reasons, that's why this 5 metre wall is recommended. The new wall is about $425,000. This is the last page, the one you are interested in. The MTO is willing to pay, we got a guarantee before you, we're hoping to get 50.basically half of 425. There was approximately $125,000 in funds that were allocated for this project, there's been about $20,000 spent in studies and issues like that, so we're left with about $105,000 in that account allocated for this project. The revenue for the used panels for other projects will generate about 5-10%. What we're asking for today, assuming the residents can get the MTO the additional 10% which brings them to 50, we're looking for approximately, anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000. If we get the MTO the additional 10% and with the revenue from the used panels, we're looking at about $66,000. . If this motion goes forth and we do get the additional funds, the approximately $66,000 from City Council, that's option 1. Option 2 is to let this issue die, fix some of the used panels, and replace it with a 5 metre wall in 5 or 10 years. You would spend an addition 275 because the MTO's money will go away. All the walls in the subdivisions everywhere now are 5 metre walls. The 1988 noise study wasn't effective in terms of its projected volumes on the highway, etc., so hopefully that's it in a nutshell.."

Collins : Any questions of Mr. Shaefer.

Braden : What number of dB do we expect will be reduced if we do what you're suggesting?

Staff (not introduced): We expect a 5 metre wall will see a 5 (dB) reduction in noise level, and that's what exactly what you're looking for when you're spending money on walls, getting a noticeable decrease and 5 dB is a very noticeable decrease in noise levels.

Braden : If we project the use and the kind of uses it will be on the road would we project that in 5 years the dB will go up another 5 or 10, and therefore we'll never break even?

Staff : Noise walls at some point - we can't just keep building them higher and higher. Right now we're proposing a 5 metre wall, we're maxing out in terms of height - it becomes structurally an issue when it goes beyond that as well as an aesthetic issue. Will it provide good service for a long period of time? Yes. At some point that level of service will decrease as traffic volumes increase. We just can't keep building walls higher.

Braden : Let me try this again. If noise levels go up to 80, and this wall is still effective, is it probably still bringing it down 5?

Staff : Yes, that wall will likely always give you that kind of noise control.

Ferguson : What's the length?

Staff : The length of the wall is approximately 400 metres.

Ferguson: What's on the other side? Is this liable to start a domino effect?

Staff : No. What we've got on the subdivision on the northwest quadrant Winona Road and the QEW, so there's the North Service Rd. in between , to the west is a private road and lands owned by the MTO and to the east of the development immediately is Winona Rd. So we don't expect.a domino effect. Most of the walls up and down the freeway on the QEW and to Stoney Creek are adequate in terms of height and effectiveness.

Ferguson : I don't understand how concrete can wear out in 16 years. Is it really shot?

Staff : These walls.are a concrete wood blend, they're effective in noise control, they'll absorb a lot of noise, it doesn't reflect off them. They absorb water as well, so over the course of its life they tend to degrade. The panels at the base of the wall receive the most drainage and will be the ones to degrade first. There are probably a number of panels on the wall that need replacement for this reason.

Ferguson : I assume this product isn't used anymore?

Staff : This product is the only one approved by the Ministry of Transportation for use on their freeways. It's a top quality system, but doesn't mean it'll last forever. It has a service life and we can expect them to last between 30 and 35 years.

Ferguson : So extending the height is not an option of the existing wall?

Staff : .can we just extend the height? Like a typical fence system, you got these posts, and the posts are steel I beams and we can't just weld another piece of post on top of that. They have to be replaced. You are in effect disassembling the wall and rebuilding another one next to it. Mr. Schaefer noted that there's an ability to salvage 10-15% of the panels, if not more. We're being conservative when we're talking how much money this might cost because we expect to re-use a lot of the panels that are already in place.

Ferguson : Is there development going on in the area where there's excess topsoil and could that be an alternative using a berm as opposed to a concrete wall?

Staff : That could be a consideration. There are issues in the utilities in the corridor there, there's Hydro line, there's light standards, it could reduce the cost in terms of building a berm and placing a new wall on top. However, as the berm goes up, the wall gets closer to the freeway and not that I can comment on it, but it can start to effect the effectiveness of the wall. .Typically, you want the wall right next to the roadway or right next to the houses and the minute you put it on a berm, this wall will tend to back up away from the houses and there might be an effect there, but I think overall that's an option that can be looked at for costs savings.

Ferguson : But isn't a berm proven to be more sound absorbing than a concrete wall?

Staff : Are you suggesting we replace the wall with a berm?

Ferguson : Yes.

Staff : I don't think that's possible. I don't think there's a lot of land there, not enough to get the height we need through that corridor.

Ferguson : Have you recognized or established a funding source?

Staff : Currently we have $105,000 approved in the capital budget that was from 2001 or 2. With the capital cost estimate of $425,000 Mr. Schaefer is asking Public Works to ask the City to find new money to pay for that additional money required for replacement, assuming we're getting about $170,000 from the MTO.

DiIanni : Gavin, your last comment, assuming we get the funding from the MTO, you had some discussions, residents had, we had some discussions with the MTO as well.

Staff : Our last correspondence was in the fall of 2003. It was an email correspondence. What I asked is if they were still online with a commitment of 40% of the cost. They replied yes. That yes they're committed is from a staff level. However, there is precedent with the MTO in terms of their involvement with a project in Ancaster. Shaver Rd. has the same sort of funding arrangement. Staff had to go to the Minister for approval, but those monies came through and today we're assuming the same thing on this project.

DiIanni : .Can you remind me of the history of the construction of this wall? I do recall that the Service Roads were governed by the province until fairly recently and is this part of the issue here as well. When the wall first came up, was it that the Service Road was a provincial responsibility or was it the city .

Staff : The noise wall that's up is part of that subdivision development, typically owned by the residents that abut that wall, so the MTO will approve it's constructions in terms of it's within its jurisdiction. The MOE at the time would approve the wall based on the process and the protocol of the MOE for determining noise levels next to freeways. Stoney Creek approved the plan as well. I think the execution of the plan wasn't that great. We're at a point now where it needs replacing but back in 1992 Stoney Creek recognized that at some point this wall would need replacing and assumed ownership of it. This is a strange one in that when I first came online with this project I was extremely surprised, especially when I had 100 people telling me that the city owned it and I was quite convinced, based on my information, that the city wouldn't have owned that wall, that it would actually be owned by the residents. This is almost a one-off for Hamilton, I would think. A developer built noise wall being taken over by the city upon construction.

DiIanni : Your comment on this being the only concern, the walls to the west are ok. Please check the history on that. I do recall an issue with the wall close to Gray's Rd. in the . of the ?Lincoln? Landing?? Neighbourhood. I think you will find that there are some issues there as well. As for the height of the wall.the length of the wall and I recall that there was some protracted discussions with MTO that owned the land adjacent to that particular wall on the Service Rd. that caused some particular concerns there as well.

Bruckler : .part of the situation that we are in today is the result of the construction of the QEW and the decision that the city of Stoney Creek had taken in 1992. And further this is not a trend, sort of a one-off situation particular to this development. Do we have a legal responsibility or a moral responsibility to address this issue?

Staff : I think that they're probably both in terms that we own the wall. At some point if it's not doing the job.there's a certain liability. In terms of the moral issue, that's anybody's opinion, but I think in the interest of Council it's probably where we'd like to see those issues resolved; it's a matter of how we'd like to allocate funding.

Braden : I think I actually built in that subdivision and I built in a similar one and I can remember as developer we had to do noise studies, we had to do all the projections, and we had to put up all the securities, so presumably the developer ??? to the responsibility to which the householder takes over. Would you be able to confirm that they would have likely done those studies, and taken the appropriate action, particularly for those who would be most affected.

Staff : In fact the noise study was done as per the MOE guidelines.the noise study, I think the forecasts were low. The truck percentages were low but in 1988 it was hard to forecast that we'd see so much increase in truck traffic on the QEW. So what we have is increasing traffic in general, a lot more trucks on the road, and the MTO's come along and widen and increase the highway somewhat. It's almost like a death of 5000 cuts. Based on the rules of the day, they were followed, maybe they could have done a bit better. I think you'd still be in 2004, at a point where you'd be thinking about increasing the height of that wall, regardless of all those assumptions back in 1988.

Braden: For the record could we ask for a legal opinion sometime about whether we're obliged to look after that wall.

Collins: Yes. As Gavin pointed out we technically own the wall.

Braden : That's different from having to reconstruct it.

Collins : We can get that information for you. Councillor Mitchell you're my final speaker and you're going to ask for a report on this and would in fact cover off C.

Braden 's concerns.

Mitchell : I want to first of all thank Todd for all the work he's done, and the volunteer time with all the neighbours. We have had 4-5 meetings and Gavin's been fantastic.and residents 40-50 have been out to one meetings, several different times and Gavin's been patient, everybody's been patient; it's been kinda frustrating and for my Stoney Creek Councillors - colleagues it's one of those issues that I kinda inherited with the boundary expansion. So we're getting there together. It is a unique one off in the fact that the City owns this wall, while the rest of the development around doesn't operate that way anymore. I was pleased to get the provincial government onside for some of the money. And some of the neighbours have mixed feelings, but that comes down to what it's going to cost them. But it's a one off factor that's been goin' on for about 3 years now. I support the idea of, and I asked in our agenda review whether we could find, if there was unallocated reserves in a Stoney Creek account to finish this project and take it off the books 'cause I know Gavin's got quite a list of duties he's doin' and wouldn't mind havin' a few less somewhere along here. If I could ask for a report, the Staff bring back a report on this, where the funding can come from, clarify again the provincial funding, to get this wall built hopefully by this fall. The neighbours would certainly appreciate that.

Collins : Timing of the report Councillor, of what you'd expect. Are you looking for during the summer, after the summer, just so we're clear when we give the direction. And I guess the next question would be (interrupted by Mitchell )

Mitchell : Gavin's got a massive amount of work to be done in studies and what not, so as far as that report goes, it would have to go to him, but I think it's possibly all there, just compiling it

Staff : Given that we're going into summer committee schedule, I guess we could have a report for the fall dealing with all the issues Council's raised today .

Mitchell : That's fine with me, we've been patient but the community's been waitin' for a long time, if we have to wait 'til the fall, but if we could see the light at the end of the tunnel, thank my Councilor colleagues for that and get this report.

Collins : Motion on the floor. It's been moved by Mitchell , seconded by McCarthy , all in favour - Councillor Braden on that motion.

Braden : It won't be very popular, in looking at 50 to 60 thousand, it might be the residue at the end, can I ask Staff to look at whether or not we should get contributions from the residents? In other words, if the province is paying, the city is paying, the reserves are paying, and if the $60,000 is there that means a direct benefit here, it's obviously we know where it's going. All our infrastructure is important as we know this is but it's either coming from the black hole or people are going to payup.

Collins : I think we'll leave it for Staff to come back with the report. If they want to provide options at that time, that's fine. If that's option is not included then that doesn't prevent you from bringing it up. (inaudible off microphone comment). I've lost my seconder, it's moved by Mitchell , seconded by Jackson , that the report will come back - Mr. Schaefer ?

Schaefer : The reason this is taking so long is because it's such an emotional issue and we've got people on fixed incomes, people that back onto the wall and people that don't, so the reason it really took so long is we wanted to make sure everybody's voice was heard. We've got retirees that are on fixed budget, we officially looked at being 3 partners: the MTO, the City, the residents. We looked at whether it should be a whole subdivision all the way back to the ?lane?, or whether it should be just the people who see the most benefit. We looked at a grading scale: $3000 if you backed onto the wall, $1500 if you were across the street. So we've looked at a number of issues. As Gavin said, it's partly the MTO, partly the developer, we're lucky it's a city-owned wall, it's the one benefit we have as residents in this action or we might not be here. Because of all the issues, and the finances, and we were - there was people who want to pay and there was people who didn't, and we tried to work through the issue and hear people and we didn't want to force people to pay money that they didn't feel they were responsible for paying so because of that some of those people said well, listen, let's wait, we know they're going to put a 5 metre wall up in 5-10 years, why do I pay $3000 now so we, just so you know, that initially that's where it started. We're an equal partner, that's kinda where it went in year one, so there has been numerous discussions, just so you know.

Collins : Thank you. Collins : All those in favour, Carries. Thank you Mr. Schaefer .

Collins : 7.2 (was 9.8) Sewer Use By-law review Phase 1 (PW04050a) ( City Wide), we bumped that up (from 9.8). In addition to the public meeting that we held on May 17, 2004, members of the committee, we have 2 delegations requests this morning. One from PSC and the other from Andria Kelly , and Grant Ranalli, from Hamilton WaterWatch. First I would ask our staf f to give us a brief outline of the report, and then we will go to the delegations.

Staff : I'll just give you a very brief overview. Earlier in the spring we went through a process where we brought the draft Sewer Use By-law to Public Works Infrastructure and Environment Committee (PWIE). We then held public delegations and subsequently brought the report back for final approval. In this report today, if you look through the background section, we walked through every issue that was raised during the public delegations with respect to the Sewer Use By-law and believe we've addressed them fully. And at the end of the day, we're back to ??? Sewer Use By-law a couple of months ago.

Collins : Open up to the delegations, first on our list we have PSC Industrial Services Canada Inc. representatives here this morning. Mr. (Wayne) Jackman .

Jackman : .I work at the Taro landfill. I have with me 2 presenters who'd like to address you briefly. First is Mr. Ken Post, legal counsel from Hodgson Post, second is Mr. Richard Rosh(?), senior partner with FCG(?). Post: .2 ½ years ago there was acrimony between us and we asked at that time that we could meet with you and resolve matters peacefully. His honour, Mayor Wade, met together with some of those here today and Brian Ricotta(?) from PSC. They came up with a fair and decent agreement. It benefited both parties and it benefited this community. The agreement said that an independent expert would review the parameters for chlorides and sulphates to determine appropriate levels for sewer leachate coming from Taro, in this instance. Now experts have professional reputations. They have to come up with reports commensurate with their level of expertise. In this case, they have to be scientific. But the City went further and it said that the report must look at just 4 things. If I could just read those to you. The settlement agreement said: the City shall carry out and complete a study of chlorides and sulphates using a 3 rd party consultant. Which studies shall have the impact of chlorides and sulphates on the harbour, the city's infrastructure and waste water treatment plants as well as any regulatory requirements. But then look at the report, the final report that you have, and if you go to page 19, the report says: in addition to the assessment of potential impacts, the sulphate and chloride environmental discharges were also compared to the environmental guidelines, objectives, standards identified as being either applicable to the City or as a valuable comparative reference. These environmental documents were presented and summarized and are listed below. There are 11 new parameters listed. Among them, Vision 2020 goals, Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Pollution Prevention, which the report goes on to say it doesn't apply in this instance, Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan, and so on and so forth. We have another expert here today, Richard Rosh. He'll tell you why this report is not even science. It was not in our agreement that this report would not be based on science. Look at how the report deals with chlorides when they affect people other that PSC. It increases the parameter from 1500 to 4000. If you look at p. 32, this is what it says, after having recommended a 1500 mg/L level, it says: The motivation for the 2-step approach (that is to raise that level), was to??? levels of discharge approaching 4000 mg/L threshold the opportunity to consider process changes or other strategies to meet the discharge limit. In particular, as the treatment for the removal of chlorides from waste streams is problematic and potentially expensive both from economic and energy considerations, the intermediate range of between 1500 and 4000 mg/L offers some ??? into complying with the discharge limit. When the sulphate levels only affect one party, PSC, there's no such accommodation. Unequal treatment is not science, but it is discrimination, and discrimination was not part of our agreement. Different parameters, lack of science and discrimination, are all in breach of our agreement. This is why we urge you to reconsider this report and the by-law emanating from it.

Collins : Any questions.?

Braden : When you talk about the agreement, are you talking about the ??? parties that you talked to first, and then simply the former mayor of this city?

Jackman : I'm talking about the agreement with the city of Hamilton and PSC. Yes, the settlement agreement.

Merulla : On the one point.??? where the agreement was to be based on science, so presumably the agreement should be based on non ???.

to be based on science is because there was to be a third party consultant that is an expert.

Merulla : The other components of the agreement that you find contentious? .along the lines of discriminatory?

Jackman: The 3 aspects of the agreement are being breached by this are first: that the parameters to be considered are far expanded from the parameters that were agreed to, for example Vision 2020; secondly: the report was to be based on science and that has not taken place; and thirdly: the report, when it considers the effect on multiple users, then defaults for a concern for the economic impact on those users, but in the case of sulphates, which only affect PSC, the report does not offer that default arrangement.

Merulla : So you think that the governing body, that if we have an agreement, perhaps ??? were involved with that we learn down the road that perhaps that agreement wasn't in the best interests of the public, that somehow we should abide by it anyhow? Is that what you're suggesting?

Jackman : No, I'm suggesting that you continue to abide by the agreement.

Merulla : Even though it might not be in the best interest of the public?

Jackman : I believe that the agreement is in the best interests of the public. That's exactly what I'd like to say.

McCarthy : What component of Vision 2020 are you speaking about when you suggest that this goes outside the boundaries of Vision 2020?

Jackman : In the report the experts refer to, among other things, Vision 2020 as a basis for coming up with these limits. That was not in our agreement. As to how they derive these limits from Vision 2020 and all the other things that they looked at, that's not clear in the report. (Next presenter not introduced but speaking for PSC ): Refers to some of the engineering and science that affect the sulphate by-law limit, and agrees with 3 of the 5 potential impacts of sulphates that were raised in the report. He admits that "a lot of good testing has gone into the evaluations in the report..In fact the scientific literature is quite clear that limiting industrial discharges to 1500 or any other number is going to have a negligible effect on the hydrogen sulphite generation. This is our point. Standards have large safety factors built into them, and this standard is not different." To summarize, we recognize that there are potential impacts, but we don't see the science, there's no scientific basis. If you read through your consultant's report, it's a lot of general statements alluding to potential. This is what we're getting at here. In our opinion science shows that limiting to 1500 will provide no benefit to your infrastructure or your workers. . All we're asking is an opportunity to discuss with our experts and your Staff on this matter."

McHattie : Vision 2020 speaks to a precautionary approach. I was one of the authors of Vision 2020 in the early 1990's. It's apparent to me that Staff are following that approach in this context so that's a comment based on my experience. . I seem to recall that the landfill site was around 1750 mg/L in terms of the sulphate.the leachate .the limits suggest 1500, so I guess I'd like to ask for a comment from the speaker as to how you would bring it down to be within the limit that staff are indicating. It appears not to be a huge difference between the two. I would relate to C. Merulla 's comments that it's in the public interest or it may not be in the public interests for us to have this agreement with PSC, given that ??? compliance are not suited for leachate, or for landfills in general. However we do have this agreement at this point in time and we're trying to keep the limits as low as we possibly can and we're looking for you to come down to the ??? limits. I'd like you to comment on that.

Unnamed presenter: It may be more appropriate for PSC's Mr. Jackman to speak to that. I'll comment briefly that there certainly are efforts that can be made by segregating east south east from west and so on and managing through the equalization pond, but that's really not the point of the presentation today. The point is, that 1500 is, I hate to say, is kinda picked out of the air. It really doesn't have the science behind it, whether it's 2000 or 4000, it shouldn't be a fixed number. It should all industry in the city take a ??? step approach to it.

Mr. Jackman : The only comment I can make at the moment is that we've been through this scenario once before dealing with chlorides, at a time when chlorides seemed to be the topic of the day. They did an evaluation on potential alternative treatments for aluminum(?) chloride which is much like sulphates in this instance. In the end we came to the same conclusion (tape turned to side B). and a generation of secondary environmental impacts . The end result, in my opinion, of imposing pretreatment at this level, 1500 mg/L, this treatment doesn't remove the material from the environment, it just forces you to put it somewhere else, and at the same time end up generating unwanted greenhouse gases. I just hope ??? that there could be a creative solution found by the proponent.

Collins : Next delegation Andrea Kelly and Grant Ranalli.

Grant Ranalli : I'm chair of the group called WaterWatch (at this time there is much background noise, and speaker's words are not clear, so unable to transcribe accurately)

Collins : Thank you Mr. Ranalli. I'll allow flexibility on this as we're dealing with a serious by-law, I know you're commenting more so on the operation of the plant. What I'd suggest is maybe have a motion from the committee to receive that information that you've presented and the recommendations and refer it to the sub-committee that's dealing with the RFP (Request for Proposal) for the operations of those plants. C.

Merulla : I'm prepared to move the recommendations that were brought forward and I'm awaiting staff response ???. Having said that I don't want to speak too much on the situation, I think everyone knows where I stand. ??? I think it's important enough, being that it was a promise I made during the election, and these days we all know promises sometimes aren't fulfilled, and I'll continue to fight for the ??? having said that, I will move this particular motion that the recommendation be brought forward. I believe I have a seconder in C. Jackson .

Collins : Can I come back to you under motions, because we're dealing with a serious by-law which really doesn't have anything to do with the operation of the plant.

Merulla : ??? come back at the appropriate time.

Collins : Thank you. Questions for Mr. Ranalli before we move on to the report. None. Thank you Mr. Ranalli.

Ferguson : (asks a question of Mr. Crockett , but does not speak clear enough to transcribe)

Mr. Crockett : ???

Collins : I've no further delegations on the issue. The report is before you, 9.8 we're treating it as 7.2. Questions on the report?

Bruckler : Like other members of Council, I'm extremely concerned that we need to protect our environment and our infrastructure as well, and that we need to take some mitigative measures to mitigate risk and that requires appropriate measures to do so. A question to Staff , I just need to understand, within the report it talked about other municipalities not measuring sulphates and chlorides, I'm just questioning why that is and would they not have similar concerns with respect to our environment and infrastructures as we do.

Staff : ??? is with us from CRN? and what I'd like to do is get his perspective on it from a third party perspective.

CRN? rep : During the work we looked at other municipalities ??? with both chlorides and sulphates. With regard to sulphates, recently what's happening with the by-law is some municipalities are taking it out and others are keeping it in. Vancouver kept it in, Toronto took it out. So, if you look at what the rationales were on some of those , Vancouver's was that the information with regard to infrastructure wasn't an issue with them and they kept it in. Regards to Toronto, it was a different issue, and ??? that one.

Bruckler : I think we all like to see all the contaminants, if you will, to zero if we could achieve those things. I believe the consultant indicated that up to 2000 parts that there was no concern with respect to the operation or the environment or the infrastructure. Is that correct?

PSC Rep : There are 2 numbers that are out there with regard to corrosion. The 2000 relates back to actually protection when you get at that level when you start to see ??? with steel. The Canadian ??? Association, their numbers ??? 1500 (due to poor audio conditions and mumbling by speaker, unable to transcribe his remarks.)

Bruckler : As Councillor McHattie indicated, we'd certainly hope, given the area of, we're somewhat concerned that we could come up with some sort of creative solution in dealing with this to mitigate the problem that we're now facing here.

Collins : I have no further speakers from the committee. The mover of the report C. Merulla , seconder C. McCarthy . All those in favour? Carries. Opposed? Thank you.

Collins : Next on the agenda, we've bumped up the noise mitigation, sorry Councillor?

( Merulla speaks with no mic)

Collins : I was going to put it under, we have 2 other motions, 10.1, 10.2, I'll put it under 10.3.

Continue to Part 2