June 13, 1998

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

 From:Chief Administrative Officer

 Subject:The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure

  Purpose:

 The purpose of this report is to:

 -describe the outcome of the public consultations on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils;

-recommend specific actions to clarify the roles of Community Councils within the current Council-Committee structure and enhance the way in which Community Councils carry out their responsibilities;

-emphasise the importance of considering Community Councils within the context of the overall review of political governance structures in the City;

-advise Council not to consider changes to the relative authority and responsibilities of Council and the Community Councils in the short term that could preclude consideration of innovative, made-in-Toronto, citizen-centred options for the overall organisation of governance structures in the City;

-emphasise the importance of citizen involvement as a fundamental organising principle for the City=s political governance structures; and

-describe the parameters for a review of the City=s political governance structures.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 The actions recommended in this report can be accommodated within current budget allocations.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 Clarification of Community Councils= Roles within the Current Council-Committee Structure:

 Transportation:

 (1)to simplify the political decision-making process and enable Community Councils to deal with matters related to the former Metropolitan roads in addition to community roads:

 (a)Council endorse the principle that, once Council adopts a consolidated road classification system and traffic operations policies, responsibility be delegated to Community Councils to deal with matters related to all roads within their area of jurisdiction, except for policies and matters delegated to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC);

 (b)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services give priority to the preparation of a road classification system and associated traffic operations policies, for review by the UEDC and adoption by Council; and

 (c)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to the UEDC on how the Transportation Services Division will phase in the delegation of these responsibilities;

 (2)the UEDC continue to be responsible for policies and matters related to the road system which are of City-wide significance, such as the road classification system, traffic operations policies, road maintenance policies, right-of-way use and occupation policies, budgets prepared with input from the Community Councils, and all matters related to expressways;

 Planning and Development:

 (3)in response to Council's request of June 3 and 4, 1998 that the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Special Committee on a protocol for the processing of planning matters, and to ensure that there is input from both the UEDC and the Community Councils:

 (a)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the protocol for the processing of planning matters to the July 13, 1998 meeting of the UEDC for information and comments directly to the Special Committee meeting scheduled to be held on July 17, 1998;

 (b)the Special Committee forward the report and its comments to the July 22, 1998 meetings of the Community Councils for information and comments directly to the July 29, 1998 meeting of Council; and

 (c)in developing the protocol, the following principles be considered:

 (i)the guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation, yet allow for flexibility in application;

 (ii)if a City-wide interest cannot be established, then the matter should be considered a local interest by default and be processed through a Community Council;

 (iii)decisions regarding how planning matters are routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible;

 (iv)Community Councils should continue to have input in planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest; and

 (v)only one Committee of Council should make recommendations to Council on any given planning matter;

 Delegation:

 (4)to streamline Community Council and City Council agendas:

 (a)Council delegate final decision-making authority to:

 (i)the Chief Planning Official with respect to applications for permission under site plan control and ravine by-laws;

 (ii)the Director, Municipal Standards with respect to applications for permission under fence by-laws; and

 (iii)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with respect to applications for permission under tree by-laws,

 with the provision that ward Councillors will be notified about the applications and, if the applicant or a Member of Council is not satisfied with the proposed staff decision, staff will refer the matter to the appropriate Community Council to hear deputations and make a decision; and

 (b)the City Solicitor, in consultation with the City Clerk and the Commissioners of affected departments, submit a report to the Special Committee on additional matters, currently within the purview of the Standing Committees and Community Councils, that can be delegated to staff under current legislation;

  Parks and Recreation:

 (5)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions on options for stakeholder and volunteer input to the Parks and Recreation Division;

 Relationship of Community Councils to City Council:

 (6)because City Council is the municipality's "legislature" and should have the exclusive authority to legislate via the enactment of by-laws, Council not approve proposals to:

 (a)pursue legislative changes to empower committees of Council, including Community Councils, to pass by-laws; and

 (b)provide Community Councils with discretionary funding authority independent of City Council;

 (7)to explore Council=s options to delegate to Community Councils certain prescribed categories of final decisions involving the application of some discretion, the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, in consultation with the CAO and the Commissioners, submit a report to the Special Committee on the feasibility and legality of the delegation of the following responsibilities to another level within the legislative structure:

 -licensing and extension of boulevard cafes;

-special occasion LLBO permits;

-street name changes;

-parking pad issues;

-temporary road closures for special events;

-installation of stop signs on local roads;

-installation of speed bumps;

-changes to parking prohibitions on local roads;

-preliminary evaluation reports for planning applications;

-regular contract awards to the lowest bidder where funding for the project has already been approved in the budget; and

-appointments to local BIAs and recreation centre boards;

 (8)to reflect their geographic focus and status within the overall Council-Committee structure, the Community Councils be renamed so that they will now be known as the East York Committee, Etobicoke Committee, North York Committee, Scarborough Committee, Toronto Committee and York Committee;

 Community Council Boundaries:

 (9)to assess alternative approaches to ensuring that the City=s government has an effective geographic focus, the Special Committee=s examination of Council=s political decision-making structure should include consideration of:

 (a)the appropriateness of the current Community Council boundaries;

 (b) the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

 (c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the UEDC;

 Citizen Involvement in Government:

 (10)the CAO=s forthcoming report on citizen involvement in municipal governance explore more fully the experience of other jurisdictions in this regard and comment further on the potential of Citizens= Assemblies;

 Council-Committee Structure and Procedures:

 (11)to develop a made-in-Toronto, citizen-centred, political governance structure to come into effect for the second eighteen months of the Council term:

 (a)the CAO report to the Special Committee by October 1998 on new political decision-making structures and procedures of Council and its Committees that will:

(i)ensure that Council's decision-making structures are sensitive to, accommodate and protect the diverse needs of all members of the community and unique character of all areas of the City;

 (ii)recognise the value of a geographic focus in the consideration of Council business;

 (iii)provide a visible, accessible and meaningful process for members of the community, Members of Council and City staff to participate in and respond to Council's deliberations and decision-making process;

 (iv)ensure that the role, function, policies and decisions of Council and its Committees are clear and communicated effectively throughout the organisation and to the community;

 (v)assert Council's policy direction and financial control over all parts of the organisation and its agencies, boards and commissions; and

 (vi)facilitate the efficient management of Council's workload; and

 (b)a small workgroup of Members of the Special Committee, including the Chair, act as a reference group to staff in the review of the political decision-making structures and procedures of Council and its Committees;

(12)Council not establish any new committees or task forces until the Special Committee brings forward its recommendations on political governance structures for the City, unless there are exceptional circumstances that cannot be accommodated within the existing Committee structure;

 General Recommendations:

 (13)authority be granted for the introduction of any Bills necessary to effect the foregoing; and

 (14)the appropriate City Officials be authorised to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

 Council Reference:

 Council adopted the Special Committee's workplan and terms of reference on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998. The workplan listed the definition of the role of Community Councils and their relationship to the rest of the Council structure as a priority item for the Special Committee.

 On February 23, 1998 Members of the Special Committee and the Chairs of the Community Councils attended a half-day workshop on the context of legislative parameters and governance principles and objectives affecting the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils. Following the workshop and public deputations at its meeting on February 26, 1998 the Special Committee submitted a public consultation plan and a discussion paper on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils to City Council. Council adopted the public consultation plan on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.

 This report describes the outcome of the public consultations on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and their relationship to the rest of the Council political governance structure.

 Staff of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services Departments contributed directly to the development of recommendations respecting their specific functions. Comments have been received from senior staff across the organisation on early drafts of this report.

 Discussion:

 The Consultation Process:

 The discussion paper and a short questionnaire requesting comments were sent to everyone on the Special Committee's mailing list and made available to the public through the City's Civic Service Centres and public library branches. Electronic versions of the discussion paper and questionnaire were posted on the City's website on the Internet. Efforts were made to give staff an opportunity to comment on the discussion paper.

   The Special Committee hosted three issue-specific discussion groups on April 6, 7 and 8, 1998 in which participants discussed:

 -the role of Community Councils in recreation services;

-the role of Community Councils in planning and development control; and

-the definition of community and the concept of neighbourhood reporting.

 The Special Committee also sent the discussion paper to the six Community Councils for their consideration and community input. The Community Councils held public meetings in April and May 1998 and have forwarded their comments to the Special Committee.

 Seventy-six people participated in the Special Committee=s three discussion groups. Thirty-five people mailed, faxed or e-mailed written comments in response to the discussion paper. A further 66 people made deputations or submitted written comments to the Community Councils. All of this input was reviewed and taken into consideration in the preparation of this report.

 What People Said:

 Although everyone had a unique way of expressing their opinions, the following common themes characterise the public input:

 (a)local government should have a visible, tangible local presence and the process of local government should be located throughout the city instead of confined to a downtown building - Council has a responsibility to reach out and engage the public through a variety of means, including decentralized service centres, community meetings, access to Council agendas in libraries and on the Internet, etc.;

 (b)access and communication are central to local government - local government should be approachable and citizens should have a forum in which they can easily contact councillors; this forum should make citizens feel comfortable;

 (c)dialogue between citizens and their local government must be meaningful - citizens do not want to speak to Councillors who are not interested in their particular concern; they also do not want to speak to Councillors who have no say in the resolution of their issues;

 (d)local forums are needed so that issues that are important to the community but less important on a city-wide scale get the attention they deserve - local facilities and resources are an important source of local identity but may not mean much to Councillors from other parts of the City;

 (e)local government needs to be understandable and visible to be accountable - citizens should know who is responsible for what and how local and city-wide issues are dealt with; it should be easy for the public to scrutinize Council spending and the process by which spending priorities are determined;

 (f)access, accountability and authority are linked - citizens should be able to access those who are accountable for the issues that concern local communities, but accountability does not mean much unless authority to act on the issues goes with it;

 (g)ensuring that local concerns are addressed is more important than trying to match the structure to defined community boundaries - the City is made up of many geographic communities much smaller than the current Community Council boundaries and of many non-geographic communities as well; we cannot segregate the city into air-tight geographical boxes; and

 (h)we are a city made up of various communities, not a city made up of former municipalities.

 Many of the comments received address the role of Community Councils because that is how the discussion paper was written and the questionnaire phrased. However, the comments also speak to the governance of the City in general, its relationship to the public and the public=s involvement in it. People described their needs and expectations with respect to the overall governance of the City. They want the City government to be visible, accessible, meaningful and sensitive to them. They want it to engage them and they want to have the opportunity, as well as the right, to participate in it. In short, they want a citizen-centred City government structure.

 As discussed later in this report, these comments will help to guide the next phase of the Special Committee=s workplan, which will focus on a review of the overall political decision-making structure in the new City. While staff intend to submit recommendations on the Council-Committee structure to the Special Committee by October, implementation is likely to take several months following Council adoption of a new structure. Furthermore, in adopting Report No. 1 of the Striking Committee on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998 Council appointed membership of the interim Standing Committees for a period of eighteen months, or the first half of this term of Council. It may reinforce the stability of Council if any major changes to the Council-Committee structure that result from the Special Committee=s review of governance be implemented effective the second eighteen months of the Council term.

 In the interim, there are a number of ways to improve the functioning of Community Councils immediately within the current Council-Committee structure

 Clarification of the Roles of Community Councils within the Current Council-Committee Structure:

 The following proposals draw on ideas generated at the discussion groups and have been developed in consultation with the affected Commissioners and the City Solicitor.

 Role of Community Councils with Respect to Roads:

 A variety of approvals from City Council are required to plan, design, construct and operate the road system. These include:

  -traffic by-laws;

-parking control by-laws;

-traffic control signals;

-stop signs;

-pedestrian crossovers;

-permit parking;

-boulevard leasing/encroachments;

-vending;

-construction by-laws;

-environmental assessments (Class AC@ and Individual);

-capital/operating budgets; and

-contract tender awards.

 In order to determine how reports seeking these approvals are routed, that is, either through the UEDC or the Community Councils, it is important to clarify the types of roads within the road system and to understand their respective functions.

 Elements of the City's road system can be classified into five basic types: expressways; major arterials; minor arterials; collector roads and local roads. These classes can be aggregated into two main components, "main roads" and "community roads."

 Main roads are roads for which there is a City-wide interest and include the expressways and most of the former Metropolitan arterials, plus other arterials and major roads, such as those which carry streetcars, formerly under local municipal jurisdiction. The main road system provides for the connection between major land uses in the City, facilitates transit use and provides for adequate emergency access on a City and regional basis. The most important feature required to maintain the integrity and the proper operation of a main road network is that of continuity, whereby the nature of the road and especially its vehicular carrying capacity, do not change from community to community.

 Community roads are all other roads that are not classified as main roads and include minor arterial, collector and local roads. Minor arterial and collector roads provide the necessary connection between individual communities and the main road system. Traffic generated within neighbourhoods generally follows collector roads within those neighbourhoods to the main road system from where it can be distributed on a regional basis. While it is important to have uniform guidelines for the operation of these community roads, there can be exceptions as these roads serve specific districts or communities and tend to serve a particular local need that does not usually affect the City as a whole.

 Currently, the Community Councils deal with all community roads within their respective area of jurisdiction. The UEDC deals with the former Metropolitan roads and all policy matters. The UEDC can refer items to affected Community Councils for a response back to the UEDC as appropriate.

 At present, the decision-making process related to the implementation and administration of road system policies can be cumbersome and confusing to the interested public. It would be simpler if either the Community Councils or the UEDC dealt with all roads. Within the framework of a set of clear, harmonised policies, developed by the UEDC and adopted by Council, Community Councils should be able to deal with both main roads and community roads. The policy framework will guide the Community Councils with respect to the range of possible actions that they may take.

 It is recommended that to simplify the political decision-making process and enable Community Councils to deal with matters related to the former Metropolitan roads in addition to community roads:

 (a)Council endorse the principle that, once Council adopts a consolidated road classification system and traffic operations policies, responsibility be delegated to Community Councils to deal with matters related to all roads within their area of jurisdiction, except for policies and matters delegated to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC);

 (b)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services give priority to the preparation of a road classification system and associated traffic operations policies, for review by the UEDC and adoption by Council; and

 (c)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to the UEDC on how the Transportation Services Division will phase in the delegation of these responsibilities.

 In order to achieve consistency in the operation and maintenance of roads throughout the City of Toronto, it is important that the UEDC continue to be responsible for the development of harmonised and uniform policies and practices for all roads within the City. This will ensure that standards for construction, operation, maintenance, etc., are similar for roads of the same classification across the new City. These policies would be approved by City Council and would provide a uniform framework to which politicians and staff can refer in decision making and public consultation processes.

 It is recommended that the UEDC continue to be responsible for policies and matters related to the road system which are of City-wide significance, such as the road classification system, traffic operations policies, road maintenance policies, right-of-way use and occupation policies, budgets prepared with input from the Community Councils, and all matters related to expressways.

 Role of Community Councils with Respect to Planning and Development:

 The land use planning matters facing the City range from strictly local issues to wholly City-wide issues. Somewhere in the middle of this range are planning issues of interest to both the local community and entire City. Each point along the range can be characterised in the following manner:

 (a)Strictly City-wide Issues include:

 -major policy/research initiatives providing context/framework for community planning implementation (e.g., developing a new Official Plan, establishing a comprehensive zoning by-law);

 -thematic issues affecting the entire City (e.g., use of industrial lands, household and housing stock issues such as condominium conversion, infrastructure master planning, issues arising from planning research and monitoring);

 -inter-governmental issues related to planning (e.g., legislative changes, GTSB, GTA Transportation Plan);

 -administrative matters (e.g., applications and fees, best practices, budgets/work program); and

 -cross-community issues (e.g., matters straddling Community Council boundaries, Don River watershed, urban design awards);

 (b)Issues With Both a City-wide and Local Context, include:

 -key structural elements of the City impacting more than one community (e.g., establishing a waterfront corridor, major infrastructure elements);

 -features/areas/issues of city-wide significance (e.g., Exhibition Place, Union Station, Rouge Park); and

 -pioneering/precedent setting issues and areas (e.g., contaminated sites protocol);

 (c)Strictly Local Issues are:

 -all other planning matters.

 In general, strictly City-wide issues are routed through the UEDC, with Community Council input as appropriate, and strictly local issues, which constitute the majority of planning matters, are routed through the Community Councils. In most instances, it is clear how the matter should be routed through the Committee structure to Council. However, in some cases, specifically those involving both City-wide and local contexts, there is potential for confusion and uncertainty over which Committee has jurisdiction over a planning matter.

 A good illustration of such uncertainty was provided during Council=s consideration of Clause No. 13 of Report No. 5 of the Scarborough Community Council (Morningside Heights Land Use Study) on June 3 and 4, 1998. In the course of the debate over a motion to strike out the Community Council=s recommendations and refer the item to the UEDC, concern was raised over the lack of clear guidelines to determine that there was a City-wide interest in the matter. Consequently, Council requested the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services Ato develop a protocol for the processing of planning matters and submit a joint report thereon to the Special Committee.@

Council=s request is consistent with the Transition Team=s proposal that a set of guidelines should be developed to assist in understanding what planning issues may have City-wide implications and should therefore be dealt with by the UEDC. Guidelines would provide the Chief Planning Official with a consistent mechanism to screen planning issues prior to forwarding them to the appropriate Committee of Council.

 Staff in the Urban Planning Division have indicated that they are in the process of finalising recommendations for guidelines and a protocol for their use. It is recommended that, in response to Council=s request of June 3 and 4, 1998 that the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Special Committee on a protocol for the processing of planning matters, and to ensure that there is input from both the UEDC and the Community Councils:

 (a)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the protocol for the processing of planning matters to the July 13, 1998 meeting of the UEDC for information and comments directly to the Special Committee meeting scheduled to be held on July 17, 1998; and

 (b)the Special Committee forward the report and its comments to the July 22, 1998 meetings of the Community Councils for information and comments directly to the July 29, 1998 meeting of Council.

 Guidelines for the development review process and for addressing policy/research planning matters should simplify the political decision-making process as it pertains to planning matters. To this end it is recommended that, in developing the protocol, the following principles be considered:

 (i)the guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation, yet allow for flexibility in application;

 (ii)if a City-wide interest cannot be established, then the matter should be considered a local interest by default and be processed through a Community Council;

 (iii)decisions regarding how planning matters are routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible;

 (iv)community Councils should continue to have input in planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest; and

 (v)only one Committee of Council should make recommendations to Council on any given planning matter.

 A more detailed description of these principles is contained in Appendix 1 at the end of this report. Establishing guidelines and a protocol for their use, based on the principles outlined above, should help to clarify the respective roles of the Community Councils and the UEDC in regard to planning and development issues.

 As noted above, the majority of planning matters have been local interest issues and have been reported to Council by the Community Councils. At the City Council meetings on February 4, 5 and 6, March 4, 5 and 6, April 16 and May 13 and 14, 1998, the Community Councils reported on almost 1,100 items that they had considered. Council=s action differed from that recommended by the Community Councils in just 36 cases, or approximately three times out of every hundred. The process appears to be working satisfactorily.

 Delegation of Final Decision-Making Authority:

 What does appear to be problematic, however, is the volume of business before the Community Councils. Some agendas can run to hundreds of pages. Many of the reports that appear on Community Council agendas deal with routine administrative matters, including applications for exemptions to fence, tree and ravine by-laws, and applications for site plan approval. The City of Toronto, Planning and Municipal Acts permit delegation of decisions on administrative matters to staff, a Committee of Council or another Council appointed committee.

 Various administrative responsibilities are already delegated to staff (e.g., plan of subdivision approvals and routine condominium approvals), Committees of Council (e.g., holding statutory public meetings, recommending citizen appointments to other committees), and other committees (e.g., Committee of Adjustment). Further delegation would help to streamline Community Council and City Council agendas. It would also address the frustration that some Councillors have expressed with having routine administrative matters compete with more substantive issues for consideration at Community Council meetings.

 It is recommended that Council delegate final decision-making authority to:

 (i)the Chief Planning Official with respect to applications for permission under site plan control and ravine by-laws;

 (ii)the Director, Municipal Standards with respect to applications for permission under fence by-laws; and

 (iii)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with respect to applications for permission under tree by-laws,

 with the provision that ward Councillors will be notified about the applications and, if the applicant or a Member of Council is not satisfied with the proposed staff decision, staff will refer the matter to the appropriate Community Council to hear deputations and make a decision.

 It is further recommended that the City Solicitor, in consultation with the City Clerk and the Commissioners of affected departments, submit a report to the Special Committee on additional matters, currently within the purview of the Standing Committees and Community Councils, that can be delegated to staff under current legislation.

 Role of Community Councils with Respect to Recreation Services:

At present the Community Councils consider matters related to:

 -local planning, development, maintenance and issuance of permits for the use of parks;

-gardening/greenhouse, garden plot and arborist services and administration of the Weed Control Act;

-maintenance and operation of recreational facilities, including administration of concessions;

-delivery of local recreation activities including participant registration and liaison with non-profit community, recreation and sports groups; and

-the establishment of local capital budget priorities as input to City Council=s capital budget process.

 The Standing Committee deals with City-wide and system-wide matters including:

 -structures for service delivery;

-strategic and long range planning;

-establishment of overall standards for buildings, facilities, pricing, program registration, conservation and environment, preventive maintenance and parks maintenance;

-public park policy;

-uniform by-law;

-marketing and communication;

-grants policy;

-golf courses; and

-liaison with City-wide agencies such as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

 The current division of responsibilities between the Community Councils and Standing Committee for matters related to parks and recreation services appears to work well. The delegation to staff of responsibility for decisions on applications under the tree by-laws, as recommended in this report, will relieve some of the agenda pressure, particularly at the Toronto Community Council.

 The discussion group on the role of Community Councils in recreation services identified the need for a mechanism to provide input and advice to senior staff in the Parks and Recreation Division. Each of the former municipalities had some form of advisory arrangement and found them to be quite useful and an appropriate means for volunteer and stakeholder involvement without the statutory formality of formal board.

 The Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions is examining the role of recreation centre advisory committees and boards of management as part of its mandate. It is recommended that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions on options for stakeholder and volunteer input to the Parks and Recreation Division. No other changes are recommended at this time.

 Community Councils within the Context of the Overall Council-Committee Structure:

 The City of Toronto Act, 1997 defines Community Councils as committees of Council. As such it is important that they be considered within the context of the overall Council-Committee structure. Under Section 102.1 of the Municipal Act, the Council of a municipality may delegate to a committee or an employee various powers, duties or functions to implement the decisions of Council. However, the Act does not authorise the delegation of powers, duties and functions that are legislative or non-administrative in nature. Only City Council, not Committees of Council, has the power to pass by-laws, adopt estimates, levy taxes, or hire and fire staff.

 Statutory limitations like these are what distinguish Community Councils from City Council and reinforce their status as committees of Council. In law, Community Councils, like other Standing Committees of Council, are part of the Council decision-making structure. They are neither equal to nor an alternative to the City Council.

 Some respondents to the discussion paper proposed that this relationship should change and that the Community Councils should be more like the former area municipalities. They suggested that Community Councils should be empowered to pass by-laws, should have independent budgets, discretionary spending authority and hire their own staff. The Toronto Community Council proposed that increased delegation of responsibilities to and greater empowerment of Community Councils along these lines would reduce the burden of issues at City Council.

 There is little evidence to support the perception that City Council is overburdened because Community Councils lack by-law authority or discretionary budgets. As already noted in this report, Council has made amendments to only three per cent. of items in reports from the Community Councils. There is no case that can be made to further empower Community Councils based on an efficiency imperative. In fact, the pursuit of by-law authority and discretionary budgets for Community Councils or any other committees would impair the ability of Council to govern the City.

 Relationship of Community Councils to City Council:

 The City Council=s ability to represent the interests and govern on behalf of all people in the City must not be hindered. Ward based political representation provides the basic ingredient for a system of local government that balances the unique interests and needs of local communities with the collective interests and needs of all residents of the City as a whole.

 Each Member of Council is elected to perform two roles. One role is to represent a specific constituency of electors. This involves facilitating their access to the political and administrative structures, advocating on their behalf and representing their interests in the political decision-making process. The second role is to participate in the overall governance of the City.

 Councillors discharge both roles through their work in policy committees, Community Councils and agencies, boards and commissions. Not being a member of a particular committee does not preclude a Councillor from playing an active role as a Member of Council in the deliberation of issues.

 The committee system is a way of organising the decision-making process to make it work more efficiently, effectively and accessibly. As noted several times in this report, it is important that Community Councils be seen in this context. Like other committees of Council, Community Councils provide a forum for a sub-group of the full City Council to consider specific issues in depth, to hear deputations and engage in a dialogue with interested members of the community.

 Like all committees of Council, Community Councils are in a position to provide some measure of due diligence to the consideration of issues that come before them. The uniqueness of Community Councils within Toronto=s committee system is their geographic focus with membership of the committee based on representing a specific ward within the City. In other respects, Community Councils perform like other Standing Committees of Council.

 The granting of by-law authority to Community Councils, or any other committee of Council, would compromise City Council=s ability to deal with City-wide issues and could prevent some communities and interests from being fairly represented before their City government. Council is the municipality=s Alegislature.@ Within the municipal governance context, Council should have the exclusive authority to Alegislate@ via the enactment of by-laws. It is recommended that Council not approve proposals to pursue legislative changes to empower committees of Council, including Community Councils, to pass by-laws.

 It is further recommended that Council not approve proposals to provide Community Councils with discretionary funding authority independent of City Council. In the interests of fairness across the City, Council must retain the ability to set spending priorities. This ability would be compromised if Community Councils or other committees of Council had discretionary spending authority independent of Council. Participants in the community definition and neighbourhood reporting discussion group and several respondents to the discussion paper cautioned that spending decisions should not be sheltered, protected or hidden. Everything should be on the table and open to public scrutiny when City Council deals with the budget.

 The request for by-law authority for Community Councils may relate to another issue altogether. That has to do with the requirement to enact a by-law to put certain decisions into effect. The issue is not that Community Councils need by-law powers. It is that it may be appropriate for Community Councils to make final decisions on strictly local matters. This would be possible for some of those matters, which are currently sent to City Council for a final decision because a by-law is required. If there was no requirement to enact a stand alone by-law to effect the decision, there would be no need to require Council to make the final decision. It is possible that final decisions on a number of matters related to roads and traffic within the jurisdiction of Community Councils could be affected in this way.

 The Secretariat contacts in the City Clerk=s Division have identified numerous items, in addition to the matters already recommended for delegation to staff in this report, that appear consistently on the agendas of Council, Standing Committees or Community Councils and are consistently approved with minimal debate.

 It is recommended that the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, in consultation with the CAO and the Commissioners submit a report to the Special Committee on the feasibility and legality of the delegation of the following responsibilities to another level within the legislative structure:

 -licensing and extension of boulevard cafes;

-special occasion LLBO permits;

-street name changes;

-parking pad issues;

-temporary road closures for special events;

-installation of stop signs on local roads;

-installation of speed bumps;

-changes to parking prohibitions on local roads;

-preliminary evaluation reports for planning applications;

-regular contract awards to the lowest bidder where funding for the project has already been approved in the budget; and

-appointments to local BIAs and recreation centre boards.

 Renaming Community Councils:

 Given their role and the clear intent of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 the term ACommunity Council@ is misleading. Community Councils are committees of Council, not councils themselves. The Toronto Transition Team recommended that City Council should consider renaming Community Councils to better reflect their role as committees of City Council dealing with local matters. This proposal has merit, as it would help to reduce any confusion about the nature of the Community Councils.

 The Community Councils= mandates encompass matters specific to geographic areas. The name should reflect their focus and their status within the Council structure. It is recommended that the Community Councils be renamed so that they will now be known as the East York Committee, Etobicoke Committee, North York Committee, Scarborough Committee, Toronto Committee and York Committee.

 Community Council Boundaries:

 The common thread that knits together the themes coming out of the public input is the high value placed on citizen participation in municipal government. Some people stressed that maximum citizen involvement must be the central objective of municipal government rather than one desirable outcome. From this citizen-centered perspective, the principle of locally-based, inclusive decision-making must guide the structures and functions of municipal government.

 It is more difficult to achieve agreement on what is meant by Alocal.@ The discussion group on the definition of community and the concept of neighbourhood reporting demonstrated that some people have a fierce sense of what local means, while others have a very unclear notion of its meaning to them. What was clear, however, was that definitions of Alocal@ and Acommunity@ involve the issue of scale. Local tends to mean smaller than the City and smaller than the areas covered by any of the Community Councils.

 To some extent, any geographic definition of community is imprecise. Nevertheless, the best starting point may well be the ward. Ward Councillors, with their dual roles as representative and governor, are the first elements of municipal governance. They are also a fundamental and essential link between citizens and the municipal government. Aggregations of wards are currently used to define Community Council boundaries. Many respondents to the questionnaire suggested that these groupings could or should change to reflect communities more appropriately. Different groupings of wards could be used for planning different services. In this way, wards and their elected representatives become the logical building blocks of City government.

 Among the ideas raised in the discussion groups and public comments were the formation of civic districts linked to civic commissions on, for example, children and youth, the notion of clusters of two or three wards, the creation of anywhere from four to a dozen geographic committees of roughly equal size, and the establishment of City-wide Standing Committees that would carry out their functions through geographically distinct panels, much as the Committee of Adjustment is conceived in the new City.

 There are many potential approaches to organising City governance on a geographic basis. It is important to recognise that it is the geographic focus itself that makes sense. It does not necessarily follow that the current configuration of Community Councils is the most appropriate way to effect that focus. To assess alternative approaches to ensuring that the City=s government has an effective geographic focus, it is recommended that the Special Committee=s examination of Council=s political decision-making structure should include consideration of:

 (a)the appropriateness of the current Community Council boundaries;

 (b)the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

 (c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the UEDC.

 Citizen Involvement as a Cornerstone of Local Government:

 Wards also provide the logical building blocks for local democracy and citizen participation in government. Experience in some wards in the City suggests that ward-based Citizens= Assemblies can provide a valuable and inclusive way for citizens to participate in municipal governance. The Citizens= Assembly has made a successful contribution to local democracy in Ward 19 (High Park) since the fall of 1997 and is taking root in Ward 21 (Davenport).

 The Ward 19 Citizens= Assembly is based on public forums such as town hall meetings that take place several times a year in different parts of the ward. The assemblies are open to all residents and are widely publicized throughout the ward. At the assemblies, ward Councillors report to their constituents about the business and issues of the City, respond to questions and concerns about municipal activities and hear community members= advice about directions to take at City Council. The agenda is set and driven by the citizens.

 Residents involved in organizing the Ward 19 Citizens= Assemblies say that these forums are intended to achieve several short-term goals. They:

 -provide regular, open forums where all local residents have a voice;

-increase public reporting by elected Councillors to their constituents;

-hold Councillors accountable to electors between elections;

-provide a forum for community organizations to interact around issues of common concern; and

-stimulate community action on issues between meetings.

 These goals reflect the potential of the Citizens= Assembly concept to both generate community interest and involvement in civic issues and provide linkages between ward Councillors and their constituents.

 Ward 19 residents also suggest that, in the longer-term, Citizens= Assemblies can:

 -inform communities better about issues relevant to them;

-engage residents in discussion about municipal decisions and policies that affect them;

-increase the visibility of and improve communication among existing local organizations;

-increase participation of marginalized groups and individuals;

-encourage deeper thinking by residents, local organizations and politicians about solutions to problems and directions for community development; and

-lead to greater empowerment of communities.

 These are all-important functions, which contribute to community empowerment and informed and active participation in municipal government.

 Citizens= Assemblies are not substitutes for other locally based resident and ratepayer associations or other more formal citizens= groups that exist in great numbers and varieties across the City. However, a striking feature of the Citizens= Assemblies is the way in which they have succeeded in capturing the energy of groups of citizens. Many residents in the western wards of the former City of Toronto coalesced into West Enders for Local Democracy (WELD) to voice their concerns over Bill 103 and the impending amalgamation. The Citizens= Assemblies, with their broader focus on community empowerment, local democracy, Councillor accountability and citizen-centred government structures have evolved from WELD=s initial concentration on the potential impacts of Bill 103 into a continuing engagement of citizens with their City government.

 Another characteristic of the assemblies is that the impetus for their creation comes from within the communities themselves and not from government. The City government cannot make Citizens= Assemblies happen or succeed. However, the City can play a valuable role in assisting community groups in wards in which there is a desire to create Citizens= Assemblies.

 In some jurisdictions, the City government plays a very active role in facilitating citizen involvement. The City of Portland, Oregon has gone so far as to establish an Office of Neighbourhood Associations and is said to have one of the most effective city-wide systems of citizen participation in the United States today. Citizens of Portland began creating neighborhood associations in the 1950s. After a series of struggles between the associations and the city government in the early 1970s, the city formally recognized the neighborhood associations, and has since helped to build an elaborate structure to fund them, ensure open and fair participation, and give them an important role in city budgeting, crime prevention, and land use planning.

 As noted in the report outlining the progress of the Special Committee=s workplan, the CAO is preparing a comprehensive report on needs and issues related to citizen involvement in municipal governance. The report will be submitted to a forthcoming meeting of the Special Committee and will address the linkages between citizen involvement and governance structure. It is recommended that the CAO=s forthcoming report on citizen involvement in municipal governance explore more fully the experience of other jurisdictions in this regard and comment further on the potential of Citizens= Assemblies.

 Parameters for a Review of Governance Structures:

 The report on the progress of the Special Committee=s workplan also notes that the next phase of the Special Committee=s work will focus on reviewing the City=s political governance structure. The themes highlighted in the present report and the above comments on citizen involvement and Citizens= Assemblies point to some key community-generated objectives against which governance structural options must be tested.

 The governance structure must also satisfy internal organizational needs. It must facilitate Council=s role in setting policies and priorities and making decisions necessary to govern the City. Both community-generated objectives and internal organizational needs define the parameters for the Special Committee=s review of options for the political decision-making structure.

 The Transition Team=s Final Report provided an interim Astarter kit@ for the Council-Committee structure which was adopted for the first part of this term of Council. It is now time to focus on what needs to be in place for the second half of the Council term.

 To develop a made-in-Toronto, citizen-centred, political governance structure to come into effect for the second eighteen months of the Council term, it is recommended that:

 (a)the CAO report to the Special Committee by October 1998 on new political decision-making structures and procedures of Council and its Committees that will:

(i)ensure that Council=s decision-making structures are sensitive to, accommodate and protect the diverse needs of all members of the community and unique character of all areas of the City;

 (ii)recognise the value of a geographic focus in the consideration of Council business;

 (iii)provide a visible, accessible and meaningful process for members of the community, Members of Council and City staff to participate in and respond to Council=s deliberations and decision-making process;

 (iv)ensure that the role, function, policies and decisions of Council and its Committees are clear and communicated effectively throughout the organisation and to the community;

 (v)assert Council=s policy direction and financial control over all parts of the organisation and its agencies, boards and commissions; and

 (vi)facilitate the efficient management of Council=s workload.

 It is further recommended that a small workgroup of Members of the Special Committee, including the Chair, act as a reference group to staff in the review of the political decision-making structures and procedures of Council and its Committees.

 The review of political decision-making structures will consider the role of Community Councils, or alternative approaches to geographically focussed committees of Council, within the context of the overall Council-Committee structure. It will also address some of the anomalies that have become apparent within the interim structure. It will also aim to relieve the stress that the interim structure is placing on Council agendas and staff resources. It is necessary to look at the overall Council-Committee structure to understand the extent to which Council agendas may be under stress.

 On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998 Council adopted the Committee structure recommended by the Transition Team on an interim basis. To begin with, that structure included the following sixteen Committees:

 -Urban Environment and Development Committee;

-Works and Utilities Committee;

-Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee;

-Emergency and Protective Services Committee;

-Corporate Services Committee;

-East York Community Council;

-Etobicoke Community Council;

-North York Community Council;

-Scarborough Community Council;

-Toronto Community Council;

-York Community Council;

-Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee;

-Budget Committee;

-Audit Committee;

-Striking Committee; and

-Nominating Committee.

 At the same meeting, Council created a further ten committees and task forces including:

 -Economic Development Committee;

-Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team;

-Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

-Task Force on Community Access and Equity;

-Homeless Strategy Task Force;

-Task Force to Develop a Strategy on Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

-Environmental Task Force;

-Children=s Action Committee;

-Task Force on Community Safety; and

-the World City Committee,

 and adopted a motion to have the Board of Health report directly to Council.

 Since January, Council has established numerous additional committees and task forces. To date, Council has created at least 40 committees and task forces.

 All of these committees are formally constituted and require secretariat support from the City Clerk, including formal agendas and minutes, and policy support from appropriate departments. This proliferation of committees contributes to scheduling difficulties and places significant pressure on the use of staff resources. In addition to the 40 committees, Councillors also sit on the City=s agencies, boards and commissions and the boards of numerous external organisations and must also represent and respond to the needs of their constituents.

 The Council of the newly amalgamated City took office in January 1998 without the benefit of a coherent transition plan. In that light, Council has accomplished a tremendous amount in its first five months, including the passage of a zero mill rate increase budget and the adoption of key recommendations on the location of the seat of government and an administrative structure.

 In hindsight, though, Council established task forces and committees based on reactions to the Transition Team=s recommendations and in recognition of the inheritance from seven governments. Consequently, insufficient consideration was given to the relationship between specific policy issues and the mandates of different committees. From one perspective, it may be possible to submit reports on particular issues to Standing Committees, rather than through an additional layer of task forces. For example, many of the items on the World City Committee=s workplan appear to fall within the mandate of the Economic Development Committee. Similarly, the rationale for reporting policies on user fees through a task force rather than through the appropriate Standing Committee is not immediately clear.

 Even the interim mandates of the Standing Committees recommended by the Transition Team are not always clearly distinct from each other. For example, both the Corporate Services and Strategic Policies and Priorities Committees deal with key resource matters, normally within the purview of an executive committee, although neither performs the role of an executive committee.

 These issues will be addressed in the review of Council=s political decision-making structure and procedures. It is recommended that Council not establish any new committees or task forces until the Special Committee brings forward its recommendations on political governance structures for the City, unless there are exceptional circumstances that cannot be accommodated within the existing Committee structure.

Conclusions:

 This report proposes parameters for a review of the overall political governance structure in the City and stresses that Community Councils must be considered within that context. Community Councils are part of a committee system that should facilitate efficient, effective and accessible decision-making by City Council and they should not be dealt with in isolation.

 In responding to proposals for greater decision-making authority to be granted to Community Councils, it is important to avoid creating a divisive system of government lacks the capacity to address City-wide issues. As ward representatives and Members of City Council, Councillors are in a position to deliberate on all aspects of an issue and consider what is best for their constituents as well as what is best for all citizens of Toronto. The structure of government should not pit communities against each other or make it difficult to achieve a broad consensus.

 Community Councils, with their geographic focus, add an important perspective to the decision-making process. However, the political governance structure must not be restricted to recognition of geographic communities alone. The City=s governance structure must be responsive to other definitions of community and give all self-defined communities a chance to participate in the process of government. A simplistic definition of City-wide versus local matters may not reflect the reality of a City that is made up of overlapping and interdependent communities.

 Toronto is now a unified City made up of many communities. City Council must move forward and define the political governance structures of the new City in terms of the needs and interests of all citizens and communities as well as the practical requirements of a large organisation. While it is true that the current Community Council boundaries may provide an element of continuity in a period of change, they should not dictate the specific design of a citizen-centred governance structure.

 This next step in the work program of the Special Committee will facilitate the movement from interim governance structures towards the development of a made-in-Toronto, by Toronto City Council, citizen-centred governance structure.

     Michael R. Garrett

Chief Administrative Officer

Appendix 1

 Principles to Guide the Establishment of a Protocol for the Development Review Process

  (a)The guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation, yet allow for flexibility in application. The guidelines should provide as much guidance as possible in regard to interpretation and the consequent routing of planning matters through the political decision-making system, but should not be rigid and prescriptive. They should be able to accommodate extraordinary circumstances. The protocol should give the Chief Planning Official the authority to apply the guidelines and the discretion to determine when to use them. Developing the first set of guidelines is just a starting point representing current conventional wisdom that would be refined over time as the body of experience in their use is developed.

 (b)Planning matters should be addressed at the lowest level possible unless a greater City-wide interest can be demonstrated. In developing and interpreting the guidelines, the onus should be on establishing a City-wide interest. If a City-wide interest cannot be established, then the matter should be considered a local interest by default, and subsequently processed through Community Councils.

 (c)Decisions regarding how planning matters are routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible. In applying the guidelines, decisions on Committee routing should be made early. For development applications requiring a preliminary staff report, that report should identify whether there is a City-wide interest in the matter and whether the matter will be routed to City Council through the Community Council or through the UEDC. The preliminary report should always be routed through the affected Community Council(s) and, in cases where it is decided the Committee route is through the UEDC, the UEDC as well.

 (d)Community Councils should continue to have input in planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest. For planning matters defined to have a City-wide interest and routed through the UEDC, provision should continue to be made for Community Councils to hear deputations (as well as UEDC) on City-wide planning matters and forward their recommendations to the UEDC.

 (e)Only one Committee of Council should make recommendations to Council on any given planning matter. If a planning matter is to be routed through Community Council (based on the guidelines), then the recommendation to City Council should come from the Community Council only. If a planning matter is to be routed through the UEDC, then the recommendation to City Council should come from the UEDC only. In this latter case, any comments and recommendations received from the Community Councils should be considered by the UEDC in its recommendation and become part of the record to City Council.