Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and

Responsibilities of Community Councils

 (City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends:

 (1)the adoption of the report (February 24, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) embodied therein to provide that the following communications be included in the consultation document:

 (a)(February 25, 1998) from Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown, and Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River; and

 (b)(February 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council, entitled "Budgets for Community Councils";

 (2)that the aforementioned report, as amended in Recommendation No. (1) above of the Special Committee; and the communication (February 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, embodying the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council respecting this matter, be referred to the Community Councils for consideration and community consultation, and report thereon to the Special Committee;

 (3)that a relatively small advertising budget be provided to inform the public across the City that the "Role of Community Councils" will be considered by the six Community Councils on a specific date;

 (4)that Community Councils:

 (a)be permitted to establish sub-committees;

 (b)be authorized to delegate planning matters and statutory hearings to sub-committees of Community Councils; including delegating those matters under the City of Toronto Act, 1978; and

 (c)be permitted to record votes at meetings;

 (5)that City Council endorse, in principle, the idea of "consent agendas" for Community Councils; and

 (6)that Section 32(1) of the Council Procedural By-law No. 23-1998, be amended by adding the words "and signed by the Member", after the words "in writing", so that such Section shall now read as follows:

"32.(1)Except as provided for in Section 38, every motion and proposed amendment shall be in writing and signed by the Member and shall be moved before being debated or put to a vote."

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998, respecting Recommendations Nos. (4) and (5) of the Special Committee.

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (February 24, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee:

 Purpose:

 To transmit a draft Discussion Paper and to propose public consultations on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 The cost of consulting with the public will be accommodated within existing budget allocations.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)the attached report, entitled AThe Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the City of Toronto: a Draft Discussion Paper,@ and a short questionnaire requesting public feedback, be made available to the public through the City=s Civic Service Centres, libraries and other facilities, be distributed to everyone on the Special Committee=s mailing list, be circulated to all Members of Council for distribution to their constituents, and be posted on the City=s site on the Internet;

 (2)the Special Committee utilize the following vehicles for obtaining public input on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils:

 (i)one or more focused workshops on Community Councils;

 (ii)deputations to Community Councils; and

 (iii)deputations to the Special Committee; and

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

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council requested the Special Committee to Asubmit a report as soon as possible, but no later than March 4, 1998, on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils.@ This report and the attached draft Discussion Paper respond to Council=s request.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 The Special Committee held its first meeting on January 28, 1998. At that time the Committee approved its workplan. Consideration of the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils was identified as a priority matter in the workplan.

 On February 23, 1998, staff organized a half day workshop on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils for Members of the Special Committee and the Chairs of the Community Councils. All Members of Council were advised of the time and location of the workshop. A total of sixteen Members of Council participated in the workshop.

 The workshop included presentations by staff on the context of legislative parameters and governance principles and objectives affecting Community Councils. With a common understanding of these contexts, the participants explored how the Community Councils have functioned through two cycles and how they might be made more effective. The workshop provided an opportunity for Members of Council to have an informal discussion with staff and to raise issues and explore solutions.

 Consideration of the role of Community Councils by the Special Committee will benefit from the discussion at the workshop. It is also important that the Special Committee seek public input on the issues before finalizing its recommendations to Council. Therefore, staff have prepared the attached report, entitled AThe Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the City of Toronto: a Draft Discussion Paper,@ based on the presentations and discussion at the workshop.

 I recommend that the draft Discussion Paper and a short questionnaire requesting public feedback be made available to the public through the City=s Civic Service Centres, libraries and other facilities, be distributed to everyone on the Special Committee=s mailing list, be circulated to all Members of Council for distribution to their constituents, and be posted on the City=s site on the Internet.

 Using the draft Discussion Paper as a focal point for obtaining public comments on the role of Community Councils, I further recommend that the Special Committee utilize the following vehicles for obtaining public input:

 (1)One or more focused workshops on Community Councils. The workshop(s) would be modelled on the workshop held for Members of the Special Committee and the Community Council Chairs. They would provide participants with a clear understanding of the legislative parameters related to the Community Councils as well as an opportunity, through facilitated small group discussion, to explore and recommend practical ways to make the Community Councils effective and responsive to local needs.

 (2)Deputations to Community Councils. Special evening meetings of the Community Councils could be convened to provide residents with an opportunity to express their views to their local Community Councils.

 (3)Deputations to the Special Committee. Members of the public would be invited to make deputations to the Special Committee on the contents of the draft Discussion Paper.

 The Special Committee will forward its recommendations on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils to Council following its consultations with the public.

 Conclusions:

 Because of the complexity of the issues surrounding the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils, Members of the Special Committee, the Chairs of the Community Councils and a number of other Members of Council participated in a workshop to review the legislative and governance contexts. The common understanding derived from the workshop will contribute to a more informed debate of the issues. The debate will also benefit from public input. Community Councils are an innovative and relatively untested component of municipal government. It is important for the Special Committee to take the time and listen to the public to ensure that we get it right when we submit recommendations to Council.

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 25, 1998) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, and Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown:

 Please find enclosed the report of the Working Group on Citizen Participation.

 These recommendations were adopted by the Toronto Community Council. We would like the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to adopt the recommendations, and direct staff to develop by-laws to operationalize the recommendations.

 Thank you.

 (Report of the Working Group on Citizen Participation

February 12, 1998.)

 The Working Group on Citizen Participation recommends:

 (1)The appropriate relationship between City Council and the Community Councils.

 (a)City Council should be responsible for establishing the broad policy and procedural framework in which the Community Councils act.

(b)Providing the Community Councils act within the established policies and procedures of City Council, they can carry out their responsibilities as the implementation arm of the new City as they see fit. In cases where the City Council has not established applicable policies and procedures, Community Councils may act as they deem appropriate.

 (c)The City Solicitor is responsible for advising Community Councils when they are in breach of an established City Council policy, just as the Solicitor now advises City Council when a proposed course of action breaches provincial legislation.

 (2)The responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council.

 (a)As much as possible, implementation should happen at the Community Council level.

 (b)Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee.

 (c)Realistically, only City Council can manage sewage treatment, water filtration, regional transit, and regional arterial roads. But many things previously handled at the Metro level could and should be devolved to the Community Councils, including many former Metro roads and all Metro parks. Council should continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum local delivery of service.

 (d)By linking these functions into the existing community service infrastructure, citizens would enjoy cost savings and service integration.

 (e)Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan.

 (3)The powers of Community Councils.

 (a)In order to carry out these responsibilities, the Community Councils should have the freedom to establish sub-committees and other official bodies, and to pass by-laws. Enabling legislation should be sought to provide these powers.

 (4)How Community Councils set and spend their budgets.

 (a)City Council should establish spending envelopes for each community council, based largely on the local Council's own budget estimates.

 (b)Community Councils should have the power to spend, within their envelopes, in accordance with local priorities, provided they did not contravene a City Council policy, and they did not transfer funds between budget envelopes.

(c)The Working Group discussed the division of budgets into three categories, for equality of service, service equity and local preferences, but reached no final conclusion on the subject.

 (5)Staffing Structures.

 (a)Policies and procedures for staffing should be centrally administered by City Council.

(b)Commissioners should be hired by the City Council. Each Commissioner should be assigned to a Community Council to serve as a staff liaison.

 (c)All staff serving the functions managed by Community Council (that is to say, all staff not involved in broad policy issues) would report to the Community Council.

 (d)No Chief Administrative Officer would be required at the Community Council level.

 (6)Citizen Access to the Process of Government.

 (a)The Clerk should make all agendas and minutes available to the public via the Internet at the earliest opportunity

 (b)Copies of Council agendas and minutes should be made available to the public in libraries and community centres.

 (c)The Clerk should establish a group fax function to send Community Council Agendas to citizens who request it, free of charge

 (Citizen Participation Working Group

Report No. (1).)

 Purpose:

 To report on the work of the Working Group on Citizen Participation, and to recommend a model for the relationship of City Council to the Community Councils.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)Toronto Community Council adopt the recommendations contained in Appendix "A", the report of the Working Group on Citizen Participation; and

 (2)the Community Council forward its recommendation to the Miller Committee as a model for the relationship between City Council and the Community Councils.

Comments:

 On February 12, 1998, Citizens from across the old City of Toronto gathered in Committee Room No. 6 to review the issues and options for the formation of Community Councils where citizen participation was effective and meaningful. The 20 citizens present were each appointed by local councillors and represented all areas of the City. Councillors Rae and McConnell were also present, as were staff from two Councillors Offices. The working Group reviewed various proposals, including those contained in the Coalition of Concerned Councillors report.

 Discussions focussed on the following areas:

 (a)the appropriate relationship between City Council and the Community Councils;

 (b)the responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council;

 (c)the powers of Community Councils;

 (d)how Community Councils set and spend their budgets;

 (e)staffing Structures; and

 (f)Citizen Access to the Process of Government.

 (1)The appropriate relationship between City Council and the Community Councils.

 In keeping with the intent of Recommendation No. (1) of the Community of Concerned Councillors Report, the Working Group believed that the City Council should focus on policy, and the Community Councils should be free to implement policy. However, they did not adopt the Coalition of Concerned Councillors' position on how to determine the dividing line between the roles of Community Councils (Recommendation No. (2)(a)). Though they were sympathetic with the intent the Working Group preferred the following model:

 "City Council should be responsible for establishing the broad policy and procedural framework in which the Community Councils act.

 Providing the Community Councils act within the established policies and procedures of City Council, they can carry out their responsibilities as the implementation arm of the new City as they see fit. In cases where the City Council has not established applicable policies and procedures, Community Councils may act as they deem appropriate.

 The City Solicitor is responsible for advising Community Councils when they are in breach of an established City Council policy, just as the Solicitor now advises City Council when a proposed course of action breaches provincial legislation."

 (2)The responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council.

 The Working Group refined Recommendation No. (1)(a) of the Coalition of Concerned Councillors report. They agreed that implementation at the Community Council level was preferable from a citizen participation perspective. They felt that the majority of functions should be carried out at that level and that only functions that could not be carried out locally should be carried out by City Council. They felt that it was useful to identify some responsibilities that should be clearly assigned, and were particularly ardent in their belief that as many roads as possible should be administered at the local level. They adopted the following recommendation:

 "As much as possible, implementation should happen at the Community Council level.

 Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee.

 Realistically, only City Council can manage sewage treatment, water filtration, regional transit, and regional arterial roads. But many things previously handled at the Metro level could and should be devolved to the Community Councils, including many former Metro roads and all Metro parks. Council should continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum local delivery of service.

 By linking these functions into the existing community service infrastructure, citizens would enjoy cost savings and service integration.

 Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan."

 (3)The powers of Community Councils.

 The Working Group strengthened Recommendation No. (2)(b) of the Coalition of Concerned Councillors. They agreed with the report, that it was impractical and undesirable to deprive the Community Councils of the structure and powers they need to carry out their mandates. They felt it necessary to add the ability to pass by-laws to the powers of the Community Councils, even if it required enabling legislation. They adopted the following recommendation:

 "In order to carry out their responsibilities, the Community Councils should have the freedom to establish sub-committees and other official bodies, and to pass by-laws. Enabling legislation should be sought to provide the powers to enact by-laws."

 (4)How Community Councils set and spend their budgets.

 The Working Group reviewed Recommendation No. (5) from the Coalition of Concerned Councillors. They discussed the report's model of three budget categories, one covering basic costs, one compensating for special needs in areas of the new City and one accommodating local preferences. The Working Group reached no final conclusion on that model. The Working Group felt strongly that the Community Councils should play a significant role in setting the budget, and that, once set, the Community Council should have some latitude in how the budget was spent. The adopted the following recommendation:

 "City Council should establish spending envelopes for each Community Council, based largely on the local council's own budget estimates.

 Community Councils should have the power to spend, within their envelopes, in accordance with local priorities, provided they did not contravene a City Council policy, and they did not transfer funds between budget envelopes."

 (5)Staffing Structures.

 The Working Group strengthened Recommendation No. (6) of the Coalition of Concerned Councillors. They expressed concern about the possibility of a staffing structure that put little authority into the hands of the Community Council. They felt that staff responsible for implementation should report directly to Community Council. They felt that, as the majority of implementation functions were at the Community Council level, the majority of staff should report to them. They recognized that a single staffing structure with a single Chief Administrative Officer was more appropriate than fragmenting the staffing structure in seven parts, but also felt that the senior staff levels should have a direct relationship with the Community Councils. They adopted the following recommendation:

 "Policies and procedures for staffing should be centrally administered by City Council.

 Commissioners should be hired by the City Council. Each Commissioner should be assigned to a Community Council to serve as a staff liaison.

 All staff serving the functions managed by Community Council (that is to say, all staff not involved in broad policy issues) would report to the Community Council.

 No Chief Administrative Officer would be required at the Community Council level."

 (6)Citizen Access to the Process of Government.

 The Working Group had only a short time to discuss access to government, a topic not fully discussed in the Coalition of Concerned Councillors Report. The Working Group did conclude that greater effort should be made to make the information about Community Council activities readily available to the public and adopted the following recommendations:

 "The Clerk should make all agendas and minutes available to the public via the Internet at the earliest opportunity.

 Copies of Council agendas and minutes should be made available to the public in libraries and community centres.

 The Clerk should establish a group fax function to send Community Council Agendas to citizens who request it, free of charge."

 The Working Group chose not to comment on the Report's Recommendation No. (4) regarding East York, feeling that this was a matter best left to that Community. The Working Group did not address Recommendation No. (8) of the report dealing with border issues, or Recommendation No. ( 7) dealing with Boards and Commissions, feeling that the matter was too detailed to be included in the first meeting.

 The Working Group expressed a strong interest in meeting several more times to flush out proposals in more detail and deal with the issues left outstanding.

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council, entitled "Budgets for Community Councils":

 Recommendation:

 The East York Community Council on February 18 and 19, 1998, referred the communication (February 6, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Simpson to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, requesting the allocation of monies from City Council to each Community Council to undertake local initiatives.

 Background:

 The East York Community Council on February 18, 1998, had before it a communication (February 6, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York, requesting the creation of autonomous budgets for the Community Councils to allow them to undertake local initiatives.

 Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council:

 The Toronto Community Council, on February 18, 1998, had before it a communication (January 27, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting the Role of the Community Councils.

 The Committee also had before it the following communications:

 -(January 20,1 998) from Mr. John Sewell;

-(January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk;

-(January 28, 1998) from the City Clerk;

-(February 17, 1998 from Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

-(February 18, 1998 from Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

-(February 18, 1998) from Phyllis Creighton;

-(February 12, 1998) Report on the Working Group on Citizen Participation;

-(February 19, 1998) from Liz Rykert;

-(undated) from David Vallance, CORRA;

-(February 13, 1998) from Lorna Marion and Janice Hillen;

-(February 18, 1998) from Jocelyn Stratton;

-(February 18, 1998) from William Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers= Association.

 The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

 -Ms. Jutta Mason, Toronto, Ontario

-Mr. David Vallance, obo CORRA

-John Sewell, Toronto, Ontario

-Ms. Mary Scott, Toronto, Ontario

-Ms. Brenda Marks, Toronto, Ontario

-Mr. Robert Barnett, Toronto, Ontario

-Ms. Jocelyn Strattan, Toronto, Ontario

-Mr. William Roberts, on behalf of the Swansea Area Ratepayers= Association

-Ms. Julian Saweczko

 The Toronto Community Council requested its Chair and Councillor McConnell to prepare detailed recommendations based on the following principles and to present those recommendations to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on behalf of the Toronto Community Council:

 A(1) The Appropriate Relationship between City Council and the Community Councils.

(i)City Council should be responsible for establishing the broad policy and procedural framework in which the Community Councils act.

 (ii)Providing the Community Councils act within the established policies and procedures of City Council, they can carry out their responsibilities as the implementation arm of the new City as they see fit. In cases where the City Council has not established applicable policies and procedures, Community Councils may act as they deem appropriate.

 (iii)The City Solicitor is responsible for advising Community Councils when they are in breach of an established City Council policy, just as the Solicitor now advises City Council when a proposed course of action breaches provincial legislation.

 (2) The Responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council.

 (i)As much as possible, implementation should happen at the Community Council level.

 (ii)Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee.

 (iii)Realistically, only City Council can manage sewage treatment, water filtration, regional transit, and regional arterial roads. But many things previously handled at the Metro level could and should be devolved to the Community Councils, including many former metro roads and all Metro parks. Council should continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum local delivery of service.

 (iv)By linking these functions into the existing community service infrastructure, citizens would enjoy cost savings and service integration.

 (v)Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan.

 (3) The Powers of Community Councils.

 (i)In order to carry out these responsibilities, the Community Councils should have the freedom to establish sub-committees and other official bodies, and to pass by-laws. Enabling legislation should be sought to provide these powers.

 (ii)Recorded votes should be permitted at all Standing Committee and Community Council meetings

 (4) How Community Councils Set and Spend their budgets.

 (i)City Council should establish spending envelopes for each community council, based largely on the local council's own budget estimates.

 (ii)Community Councils should have the power to spend, within their envelopes, in accordance with local priorities, provided they did not contravene a City Council policy, and they did not transfer funds between budget envelopes.

 (iii)No final conclusion has been reached on the division of budgets into three categories, for equality of service, service equity and local preferences.

 (5) Staffing Structures

 (i)Policies and procedures for staffing should be centrally administered by City Council.

(ii)Commissioners should be hired by the City Council. Each Commissioner should be assigned to a Community Council to serve as a staff liaison.

 (iii)All staff serving the functions managed by Community Council (that is to say, all staff not involved in broad policy issues) would report to the Community Council.

 (iv)No CAO would be required at the Community Council level.

 (6) Citizen Access to the Process of Government.

 (i)The Clerk should make all agendas and minutes available to the public via the Internet at the earliest opportunity.

 (ii)Copies of Council agendas and minutes should be made available to the public in libraries and community centres.

 (iii)The Clerk should establish a group fax function to send Community Council Agendas to citizens who request it, free of charge.@

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (February 25, 1998) from Councillor Bill Saundercook, York Humber:

 I would like to propose that we move collectively to strengthen the Community Council concept as follows:

 Current Community Council Membership:Proposed Membership:

 Toronto16Toronto 14

North York14North York10

Scarborough12Scarborough 8

Etobicoke 8Etobicoke 8

York 4York 8

East York 2East York 8

 This proposal focuses on a more equal distribution of workload and geographic representation of the new City in order to provide the equal distribution of services.

 I look forward to a discussion of this proposal.

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following Draft Discussion Paper prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer, dated February, 1998:

 1.0Introduction

 On January 1, 1998, the new City of Toronto replaced the former municipalities of East York, Etobicoke, Metropolitan Toronto, North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York. The elected Members of Council for the amalgamated City were sworn into office on January 2, 1998.

 An amalgamation of this scale and complexity is unprecedented in Canadian municipal government experience. It is a massive undertaking. Therefore, a primary goal of the new City Council during its first and even second terms of office will be to build the new, integrated City of Toronto. This includes putting in place the committees and processes that enable the Council to make its decisions and that ensure that the people of Toronto can play a part in the government of their City.

 At the same time as it is building the new City, Council must continue to provide municipal services that the public relies on and expects. Therefore, City Council has put in place an interim decision-making structure so that it can make the decisions necessary to carry out its day-to-day business. This structure is based on the recommendations of a provincial Transition Team that was disbanded shortly after the elected City Council took office. The City=s interim decision-making structure includes committees called Community Councils that focus on specific geographic areas of the new City.

 City Council established a Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team. The Special Committee must report to City Council on how the Community Councils are working. First, it wants to hear the public=s views on the subject. The Special Committee has prepared this discussion paper to provide some background information about how Community Councils fit into City Council=s decision-making structure, their current roles and responsibilities, and how they may evolve.

 2.0Toronto=s Governance Challenge.

 Community Councils form part of the governance structure in the amalgamated City of Toronto. This structure must be both robust and flexible enough to enable City Council to set policies and make decisions thoughtfully, responsibly, responsively and in a timely fashion. Therefore, the assessment of Community Councils must pay heed to the context of governance objectives and challenges that must be met by the City=s decision-making structure.

 The public debate about amalgamation during the past year brought four objectives for municipal government into sharp focus. Municipal government should be:

 (a)effective, that is:

 (i)able to identify and implement City-wide objectives and manage City-wide policies; and also;

 (ii)be sensitive to local community objectives and have the flexibility to meet unique local needs;

 (b)efficient, which means:

 (i)having simple and understandable decision-making processes;

 (ii)making maximum use of staff and financial resources in service delivery; and

 (iii)Council can control all short and long-term municipal spending;

 (c)accountable, which requires:

 (i)responsibility for each municipal service to be assigned clearly; and

 (ii)Council to have the authority it needs to fulfil the responsibilities for which the public holds it responsible;

 (d)accessible, so that:

 (i)the public can understand who is responsible for each municipal service and can easily contact those individuals;

 (ii)all members of the public have opportunities to make their views known and influence decisions on City-wide matters; and

 (iii)constituents in local communities have the opportunity to participate in decision-making and services of strictly local interest.

 In addition to those general objectives that apply to all municipal governments, several factors are specific to the Toronto situation. Toronto=s size and complexity pose particular challenges for the City=s governance structures.

 (1)The City=s political decision-making structure has to cope with an enormous agenda. The structure must be organized in a way that manages the agenda so that items are dealt with and decisions are made within a reasonable timeframe.

 (2)The City has many different communities, both geographic and interest, with different needs, expectations and priorities. The City=s government must be nimble enough to respond sensitively to this diversity of needs.

 (3)It follows that the City government must be founded on an excellent intelligence capability. It must be able to maintain Aeyes and ears@ in all of its communities.

 (4)The best Aeyes and ears@ are community members themselves. Toronto=s decision-making structures must be hospitable to their input. People need to feel comfortable speaking to their City government. The governance structure must take into account where people might feel most comfortable talking about very local concerns such as a neighbour=s noisy dog or the truck that keeps blocking the driveway.

 (5)Of course, this is also one big City with City-wide issues and priorities. It is essential to find the correct balance between City-wide perspectives and localized perspectives in the City=s decision-making structure.

 The above-noted challenges all point to the need for accessibility, sensitivity and responsiveness. When talking about an accessible, sensitive and responsive City government, it is important to make a distinction between the political and administrative structures. Both provide opportunities for accessibility and for tuning in to diverse communities= needs and interests.

 On the political side:

 (1)Ward Councillors are the starting points for accessibility. An advantage of amalgamation is that ward representation is more understandable in a single-tier City than having to work out who represents Metro versus local issues.

 (2)Citizens can become involved in City government by speaking at committee meetings and participating in advisory committees and other bodies.

 (3)The City can actively engage community participation and canvass public input through a variety of consultation and outreach initiatives.

 On the administration side:

 (1)Service delivery is decentralized and will remain so. Local service centres bring the City into people=s neighbourhoods.

 (2)Service delivery contracts with community-based agencies puts service delivery into the hands of people who are in the community and of the community.

Recognition of this context of municipal government objectives, Toronto=s governance challenges, and political and administrative options for making City government more accessible provides a sound starting point for a look at the role of Community Councils in Toronto=s municipal government structure. From this perspective, it is possible to be forward looking and try to assess the contribution that Community Councils make to the realization of the following desired outcomes for Toronto=s City government:

 (1)local communities have access to decision-makers;

 (2)local voices are heard in decision-making processes;

 (3)City services are sensitive to local needs and priorities;

 (4)there is local participation in matters that have a local impact; and

 (5)City Council has the time to attend to City-wide matters.

 3.0The Legislative Framework.

 In order to have an informed discussion about Community Councils, it is helpful to understand the potential and limits of their role. These are defined by provincial legislation, which sets out what responsibilities City Council may delegate to committees in general and to Community Councils in particular.

 The term ACommunity Councils@ is misleading, as they are not in fact councils. The City of Toronto Act, 1997 defines Community Councils as committees of Council. Generally, municipalities must act by by-law. Under Section 102.1 of the Municipal Act, the Council of a municipality may, by by-law, delegate to a committee of Council or to an employee of the municipality any powers, duties or functions that are administrative in nature. In the by-law, the Council may impose conditions on the exercise or performance of the delegated powers, duties and functions.

 Section 102.1 does not authorize the delegation of powers, duties or functions that are legislative or otherwise non-administrative in nature. These would include the power to pass by-laws, adopt estimates, levy, cancel, reduce or refund taxes, or appoint people to or remove them from offices created by statute.

 A delegation by-law delegates the administration of a particular function to a committee of Council or to an employee of the municipality. It includes:

 (1)the name of the committee or officer to whom the authority is delegated;

 (2)the scope of the authority being delegated; and

 (3)the parameters for the exercise of discretion so as to retain control over factors affecting decision-making.

 The Community Councils have no inherent power. The City of Toronto Act, 1997 indicates the powers that may be assigned to Community Councils by by-law. These powers include delegatable planning functions, Committee of Adjustment functions and recreational facility management in the name of the City. Within their general status as committees, Community Councils can play an advisory role, have administrative powers, can conduct statutory hearings on behalf of Council and can be delegated a variety of functions, such as temporary road closures, for which statutory authority exists outside the City of Toronto Act, 1997.

 Thus, provincial legislation provides a fair amount of scope for the assignment of responsibilities to Community Councils. The legislation also places fairly clear limits on what powers may be delegated. The following matters will always be outside the jurisdiction of Community Councils under present legislation:

 (1)the authority to pass by-laws;

 (2)the authority to restructure Community Council boundaries, alter ward boundaries or change councillor representation;

 (3)the authority to levy taxes;

 (4)the ability to issue debentures;

 (5)the power to expropriate land;

 (6)the power to enter into agreements, or to sue or be sued;

 (7)the ability to hold title to property;

 (8)the power to appoint municipal officers or to hire and fire staff; and

 (9)the authority to make grants.

 It is important to appreciate these limitations as they are what distinguish Community Councils from City Council and reinforce their status as committees of Council. In law, Community Councils are one part of the City Council decision-making structure. However, they are neither equal to nor an alternative to that structure.

 4.0What Community Councils Can Do Now.

 At its first meeting, in January 1998, City Council approved an interim Procedural By-law. This by-law defines the mandates of Council=s committees and sets out the rules and procedures for decision-making. Section 93 of the Procedural By-law specifies what Community Councils can do now.

Each Community Council:

 (1)has been delegated the power and authority to hold the public meetings required under the Planning Act regarding proposed Official Plans, Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-laws and Zoning By-law Amendments that relate to land that lies totally within the Community Council area;

 (2)has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to hear public deputations and make recommendations to Council on other neighbourhood matters requiring a municipal by-law or commitment of unbudgeted City funds, including:

 (i)exemptions to fence, sign, ravine and tree by-laws;

 (ii)Business Improvement Area streetscape improvement plans and traffic; and

 (iii)parking regulations;

 (3)has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to hear deputations on staff decisions regarding:

 (i)construction-related permits;

 (ii)billings related to snow removal, cleaning and clearing of debris and cutting of weeds and long grass;

 (iii)encroachments on municipal property; and

 (iv)requests to remove trees and damage caused by trees on municipal property

 (4)has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to involve citizens in neighbourhood issues to:

 (i)identify recreational needs and safety concerns;

 (ii)monitor the well-being of local neighbourhoods; and

 (iii)report to Council on how well community needs are being met;

 (5)has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to nominate citizens as members of:

 (i)the community panels of the Committee of Adjustment;

 (ii)the community panels of the Property Standards Committee; and

 (iii)local recreational facility boards of management.

 5.0How Well Community Councils Are Working.

 If the legislative framework is compared to a tool kit, the City=s Procedural By-law describes which tools have been picked out of the kit and handed to the Community Councils. How effectively are these tools being used?

 5.1Are Community Councils= Workloads Manageable?

 A review of the agendas for the first two meetings of the Community Councils shows clearly that there is an uneven distribution of workload. Some Community Councils have a far heavier workload than others and have proposed that they should organize sub-committees, task forces or panels within their Community Councils to manage the workload. This could be a solution. Care would have to be taken to ensure that issues do not get mired in several time consuming layers of decision-making at the Community Council. Community Councils are intended to help Council manage its workload in a timely manner. In addition, the workload and staff resources associated with supporting a task force or committee of a Community Council would be significant.

 Another option is to deal with the workload issue through changes to some of the City=s decision-making procedures. The challenges include:

 (1)how to deal with 4,000 planning applications per year in the new City;

 (2)how to free up Community Council agendas from routine matters that can be delegated to staff, such as vending, trees and parking matters; and

 (3)how to ensure that local communities and neighbourhoods continue to be involved in deciding the future and having a say in shaping development in their local areas.

 The solutions could include:

 (1)delegating as much as possible to staff to free up Community Council and City Council agendas;

 (2)giving Councillors an option to have certain delegated matters, such as site plan applications, Abumped up@ for consideration by the Community Council; and

 (3)adopting a consistent City-wide planning approval process that maximizes citizen input.

 This would include:

 (i)a preliminary Planning report prepared for all applications for Official Plan Amendments and rezonings;

 (ii)a Public Meeting held by the Councillors in the local community to obtain community input;

 (iii)a final Planning report on the application along with draft by-laws to be considered as a deputation item at the Community Council; and

 (iv)Community Council recommendation to City Council and the introduction of the necessary by-law.

 5.2Do Community Council Boundaries Make Sense?

 An uneven or unmanageable distribution of Community Council workloads could be an indication that the current Community Council boundaries are incorrect. The uneven size of the present Community Councils does pose problems. The Community Councils range in size from a membership of two in East York to 16 members in Toronto. East York has encountered several practical issues due to its small membership. At the other extreme, a Community Council of 16 members may be too large for a committee of Council.

 Following an extensive consultation process last year, the networks of agencies providing community and social services across the City proposed that the City be divided into Acivic districts@ that would align more closely with natural communities rather than be based on the borders of the former municipalities. Under this proposal, the number of Community Councils, based on civic districts, would increase.

 5.3Are Community Councils= Mandates Clear?

 One of the advantages of Community Councils is that they provide a forum for consideration of matters that have a local impact. Some problems have arisen in determining what is properly before the Community Councils. The problem is most apparent when Community Councils deal with road issues and issues related to development of recreation facilities in parks. From the perspective of communities and citizens, every road is a local road and every park is a local park. All roads and parks have an impact on local communities and it is appropriate that community voices be heard. At the same time, different roads and parks perform different functions. The safety of children on a neighbourhood street is important. The effective operation of the overall road network is also important. Roads provide local access. They also move goods and buses. It has not always been easy to decide which roads and parks issues are properly within the purview of the Community Council versus other Standing Committees of Council.

 It is important to remember that a key objective of Council=s decision-making structures is to enable decisions to be made effectively, efficiently, accountably and sensitively. An unnecessarily complicated decision-making process would run counter to that objective.

 One way to overcome the lack of clarity would be to define the purpose and functions of infrastructure such as parks and roads very clearly in City policies. Thus, issues relating to all types of roads and parks would come before the Community Councils enabling local community input and perspectives to inform decision-making. At the same time, clear city-wide policies would guide the Community Councils in terms of the options available for resolving issues in specific parks and on specific roads.

 6.0Enhancing the Role of Community Councils.

 Last year, senior staff in the former City of Toronto wrote a paper that proposed a wider range of powers and responsibilities for Community Councils than they now possess. These proposals were subsequently endorsed by a number of Members of the new City Council.

 The proposals are reviewed in the appendix to this report. As the analysis in the appendix shows, many of the proposed powers cannot be delegated to Community Councils under the present legislation. If it was possible to empower Community Councils to pass by-laws and approve budgets, it could be argued that Community Councils would simply be recreations of the former municipal governments. Some would see this as running counter to the principle of amalgamation and undermining the capacity of an elected City Council to govern on behalf of its constituents.

 On the other hand, proposals for City Council-like powers for Community Councils reflect a deep concern that communities= voices will not be heard, their needs will not be recognized or met, and their unique identities and characters will be lost in the large city. This, in turn, may be a reflection of how disempowering the events leading up to amalgamation were. The circumstances surrounding the passage of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 were controversial; the preparation for amalgamation was undertaken by a small group of people appointed by the Provincial government. The process was not designed to be inclusive or instill confidence that voices would be heard. Therefore, it is reasonable that there should be nostalgia for the powers of the former municipal governments. They were able to guarantee that resources would be allocated in their respective geographic areas.

 The challenge now is to reignite confidence that City Council=s decisions and investments in services will be no less sensitive to different communities= needs and priorities. The challenge is to recognize that the people we elect are not either Members of a large City Council or Members of a Community Council. All Members of City Council are Members of Community Councils and all Members of Community Councils are Members of City Council. All of them must have both local sensitivity and a city-wide perspective.

 Community Councils are part of the City government=s decision-making structure. As such, how can their role be enhanced to ensure that local priorities form a legitimate and influential part of the Council=s budgeting and resource allocation processes?

 Community Councils currently have a responsibility to monitor the well-being of local neighbourhoods and report to Council on how well community needs are being met. This responsibility could be developed into a more formal way of flowing community priorities into the City=s strategic planning and resource allocation processes. One way of achieving this could be through the preparation of Neighbourhood Report Cards by Community Councils. The Report Cards would provide a tool for gathering locally relevant information about neighbourhoods in a systematic way and using that information for decision-making at the community and municipal levels. Report Cards are also a way to make information that the City and others collect accessible to citizens and elected officials and, therefore, to reinforce accountability.

 The purpose of Report Cards could be to:

 (1)help neighbourhoods track how well/poorly they are doing in relation to other neighbourhoods in the City;

 (2)help identify both gaps in service and capacities (i.e., what particular neighbourhoods do well and can build upon);

 (3)help Community Councils set local service priorities; and

  (4)help City Council address inequities across the City.

 A Neighbourhood Report Card would be a report on the state of the community. It would use a number of indicators to highlight key outcomes (such as wide use of recreation services, high employment rates, low crime and fear of crime rates) and key conditions that have an impact on desired outcomes. The Report Cards would also identify community needs and propose how gaps in services might be addressed. Each indicator would have implications for resource allocation and service delivery.

 Neighbourhood Report Cards could be a balance between a standard form, which would be comparable across the City, and a locally based decision-making process. As such, Report Cards would be developed in consultation with communities so that they can reflect community priorities, but also in relation to a common, City-wide template for Report Cards. Through the Community Councils, this information would then feed into the City=s strategic planning, priority setting and budget setting processes.

 As public documents, the Report Cards would help hold Council accountable for the impact of its decisions on local communities. The Report Card process would help to ensure that:

 (1)local communities have access to decision-makers;

 (2)local voices are heard in decision-making processes;

 (3)City services are sensitive to local needs and priorities; and

 (4)there is local participation in matters that have a local impact.

 CCCC

 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

 (i)(February 18, 1998) from Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers and Residents advising, that the new Toronto City Council serves a population larger than all but four Canadian provinces; that the ability to effectively operate a city of this size depends very much on the delegation of local matters to the Community Councils; and forwarding recommendations in regard thereto;

 (ii)(February 5, 1998) from Mr. David Vallance, Chair, Confederation of Resident and Ratepayers Associations, forwarding the following motion that was passed by the Confederation of Resident and Ratepayers Association (CORRA) at its regular meeting on February 4, 1998:

 "CORRA supports in principle strong Community Councils with real effective control over local issues or no Community Councils at all, with a letter of explanation.";

 and advising that it was agreed that Community Councils will be essential if this government is going to have a chance to function with any efficiency at all; and forwarding reasons for this;

 (iii)(February 25, 1998) from Mr. John Sewell, forwarding recommendations in an attempt to fairly implement the decisions of the Toronto Community Council on February 18, 1998, regarding Community Councils; and

 (iv)(February 25, 1998) from Mr. Arthur Lofsky requesting that the memorandum, entitled "Decision Making in the MegaCity: Avoiding Amalgamation Cost Penalties", prepared by Mr. Peter Tomlinson, former Chief of Economic Development in the City of Toronto, be included as part of his deputation respecting the Role of Community Councils.

 The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

 -Mr. Arthur Lofsky, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

 -Mr. Robert Barnett, The Municipal Coalition on Local Government, and filed a document, entitled "Summary Report Card of Responses";

 -Ms. Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association Inc., and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

 -Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, on behalf of Mr. Gary Collver, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government;

 -Mr. John Sewell, and submitted four Recommendations for consideration by the Special Committee;

 -Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;

 -Mr. William Phillips; and

 -Mr. George Carere.

 The following Members of Council appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

 Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Scarborough City Centre; and

 Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River.

 (A copy of the Appendix attached to the foregoing Draft Discussion Paper; and the attachments to the communication (February 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the February 26, 1998, agenda of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

 (City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (March 3, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

 Purpose:

 At its meeting of February 26, 1998, the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team (the Special Committee) requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on March 4, 1998 on several proposed amendments to the Procedural By-law. Certain amendments respecting the functions of Community Councils were recommended for implementation as soon as possible.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 Not applicable.

 Recommendation:

 That this report be received for information.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 City Council, at its meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, referred several motions tabled at that meeting to the Special Committee for report to Council. Among those matters referred to the Committee were the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and amendments to the Procedural By-law. In its consideration of the roles and functions of Community Councils at its meeting of February 26, 1998, the Committee recommended a number of amendments to the Procedural By-law, By-law No. 23-1998, and requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on March 4, 1998, on several of the suggested amendments.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 This report will discuss certain of the amendments recommended to be made to the Procedural By-law by the Special Committee.

 Sub-Committees of Community Councils:

 At present, section 94 of the Procedural By-law prohibits Community Councils from delegating work to sub-committees, special committees or task forces. The Special Committee recommends that Community Councils be permitted to establish sub-committees and that Community Councils be authorized to delegate planning matters and statutory hearings to these sub-committees. In addition to planning matters, statutory hearings are required for several other municipal matters including dog muzzling/leashing orders, (can be delegated to a committee or to staff) road closings, rescinding vending permits, etc. The Committee has requested the City Solicitor to report on such delegation, including delegation under the City of Toronto Act, 1977 (the CTA, 1977).

 Subsection 105(1) of the Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass a by-law delegating to a committee of the Council responsibility for holding statutory or other hearings, including hearings respecting planning matters. Subsection 105(2) of the Municipal Act requires the committee delegated the responsibility to hold hearings to, as soon as practicable following the conclusion of a hearing, make a written report to the Council summarizing the evidence and arguments presented as well as the findings and recommendations of the Committee. Pursuant to subsection 105(4), provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act including provisions respecting notice, the submission of evidence, summoning witnesses and cross-examination apply to statutory hearings delegated to committees by by-law.

 Section 1 of the CTA, 1977, authorizes a similar delegation of the hearing function to a committee of council, however, this provision applies only within the geographic boundaries of the old City of Toronto. The provisions of the CTA, 1977, differ from the Municipal Act provisions respecting the conduct of the hearing and reporting requirements. The CTA, 1977, does not require a committee holding a hearing in Council's stead to submit a report to Council; the process is much less onerous as the committee can simply submit its recommendations. The conduct of hearings is also simpler as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to such hearings.

 The general legal principle of delegatus non potest delegare provides that a delegated authority may not be further delegated. Therefore, without express statutory authority, Committees of Council cannot sub-delegate statutory hearing functions delegated to them by Council. If Council were to deem a sub-committee to be the committee for the purposes of holding a hearing, the sub-committee would have to report directly to Council; it could not report through a Community Council or standing committee without contravening subsection 105(2) of the Municipal Act.

 While statutory hearings must be heard at the Committee to which they have been delegated by City Council, Council could authorize Community Councils to establish sub-committees and delegate administrative work to them. Section 102.1 of the Municipal Act authorizes the delegation of administrative functions to a Committee of Council or to staff. This work could include responsibility for the conduct of non-statutory hearings, such as hearings under a trees by-law, hearing deputations respecting the granting of vending permits, licences to operate boulevard cafes or hold sidewalks sales, the installation of fences, hedges, bicycle stands or other objects that encroach on the road allowance, etc.

 Recorded Votes:

 By virtue of subsection 117(1) of the Procedural By-law, the provisions of subsection 76(b) of the By-law prohibiting recorded votes apply to committee meetings, including meetings of Community Councils. If Council chose to do so, it could amend the Procedural By-law to allow for recorded votes at committee meetings, or it could decide to establish different rules and allow for recorded votes at Community Council meetings, but not at the meetings of other council committees. It is wholly within Council's jurisdiction to make this determination.

 Consent Agendas:

 The Special Committee has recommended that City Council endorse, in principle, the idea of consent agendas for Community Councils. The concept of a "consent agenda" refers to a system whereby recommendations of Community Councils on purely local matters would be adopted by City Council without debate, on consent. Council has always had the ability to simply adopt the recommendations of a committee, including a Community Council, without debate as long as the opportunity for debate, if desired, is not fettered. This is reflected in subsection 17.(4)(c) of the Procedural By-law, which provides that recommendations of a Committee or Community Council embodied in a report to Council are deemed to have been moved as adopted by Council without amendment unless Council decides otherwise. Accordingly, there is no legal impediment to Council endorsing, in principle, the concept of consent agendas.

 Contact Name:

 Mary Ellen Bench, Legal Department, 392-7245.)