July 10, 1998

  To:Special Committee to Review the Toronto Transition Team Report

 From:Chief Administrative Officer

 Subject:Governance Structure for Heritage Services

  Purpose:

 This report recommends a general direction for structuring the heritage functions provided across the seven former municipalities and recommends the next steps toward implementation.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 Once the general structure has been approved, the rationalization of the financial and human resources will be reported through the 1999 budget process.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)To foster a partnership among citizens, Council, and City program staff which will continue to engage citizens in the development and delivery of City heritage policies and programs, the general structure of City heritage functions outlined in this report be approved, including:

 (a)the continuation of the Toronto Historical Board, Heritage Toronto, comprised primarily of citizens nominated by the heritage community, and empowered to recommend to Council a Heritage Master Plan for the City, to recommend to Council heritage strategies and policies for all City programs, and to manage and distribute heritage funds donated privately;

 (b)the establishment of a single Toronto Architectural and Conservation Advisory Committee organized into seven committees as follows:

 (i)six LACAC panels comprised of citizens selected by and reporting to Community Councils as an integral part of the planning protocol on issues related to Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act; to be empowered to enforce Council's heritage by-laws; to recommend capital grants for preservation of heritage properties; and to help increase public awareness and knowledge of heritage conservation through plaquing, walking tours, lectures, etc;

 (ii)a City-wide Preservation Commission comprised of representatives of each of the LACAC panels to report to the Urban Development and Planning Committee on heritage issues of city-wide significance and to coordinate the policies and strategies of the LACAC panels;

 (c)the continuation of existing and the establishment of new site specific boards as required, comprised of citizens interested in the operations of individual sites and reporting to the Economic Development Committee, to develop programs, direct the operations, and manage resources allocated to museums and heritage sites; and

 (d)the City Culture Office work with staff of other City departments to promote heritage issues in all City programs, provide staff support to the LACAC panels, oversee the overall portfolio of City heritage resources and allocate human and financial resources to specific sites for use by sites;

 (2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Parks, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the current Toronto Historical Board, the Scarborough Historical Museum Board, and the Executive Director of Human Resources arrange for integration of staff into the Culture Office and report to the Amalgamation Office on the timeframe, strategy, and budgetary impact for staffing the Culture Office in the longer term;

 (3)the City Clerk report further on the process for citizen selection of LACAC members by the Community Councils;

 (4)site specific boards and advisory committees be continued and their members re-appointed, and the Culture Office report to the Task Force on Agencies, Board and Commissions on the structure, size and composition of boards for the sites currently managed by the existing Toronto Historical Board;

 (5)the Culture Office consult with the heritage community in developing a process for selecting members for Heritage Toronto and report further to the Economic Development Committee on a process agreeable to the heritage community;

 (6)the City Solicitor, in consultation with all appropriate stakeholders, develop for Council approval any necessary by-laws and agreements between the City and Heritage Toronto, LACAC's, and heritage site boards;

(7)the Commissioner of Finance, in consultation with the Culture Office, report on the impact of the restructuring on the 1998 and 1999 budgets; and

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

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 Under the former municipalities, heritage services were managed and delivered through a variety of structures ranging from internal departmental staff to advisory committees and boards, to arm's length boards appointed by Council. Even where the governance structures were similar, the staff supports and program delivery were diverse.

 In the summer of 1997, anticipating municipal amalgamation, heritage groups began to gather information regarding staffing, budgets, facilities, and functions of all arts and heritage activities in the new City and to discuss structural options. Heritage is of wide-spread interest in the community and earned the attention of staff groups, Council appointed committees and boards, independent heritage service organizations and the community at large.

 The Municipal Heritage Alliance was formed in January 1997 consisting of staff and citizens municipally appointed to LACAC's, advisory committees, and museum boards within the borders of the new City of Toronto. Only these people are directly affected by government restructuring of heritage service, and therefore, the Municipal Heritage Alliance was the appropriate group in which to discuss structural models. There was agreement that heritage needs a stronger presence in the new City of Toronto. It was also agreed that the larger issue of developing heritage policy which will impact the heritage community at large would involve the voluntary sector in a consultation process.

 In addition, the issues had been discussed at Metro's Roundtable on Culture; public meetings held by the Toronto Transition Team specifically on heritage; discussions within the Arts, Culture and Heritage Service Review Team to discuss transition issues; and a visioning exercise was held with arts, culture, and heritage staff and board members on February 26, 1998.

 Numerous submissions were received by the Toronto Transition Team, which were used to formulate its final recommendation 102 as follows:

 "Council should create a new city-wide Toronto Historical Board, consisting of two committees, the Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (TACAC) and the Toronto Museums Committee.

 The City's Culture Office should provide staffing to the Toronto Historical Board for the delivery of the following heritage services: heritage designation and conservation; monument and outdoor artworks maintenance; museums management; and natural heritage.

 The TACAC should have local panels to ensure that the local perspective on heritage issues is maintained. The TACAC should work with the local panels on all matters relating to, but not limited to, Sections IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

 The Toronto Museums Committee should oversee management of the City's museums in accordance with policy guidelines set by Council.

 Existing arrangements for heritage designations and conservation and for museums management should continue until alternative arrangements are approved by Council, preferably early in 1998."

 After the Transition Team report was submitted to City Council, many of the groups continued to meet to discuss possible approaches to restructuring. Board and committee members as well as heritage community representatives have taken the opportunity to appear before the Special Committee, in the context of the citizen nominations process, in order to advocate various positions on the governance structure. Staff do not make deputations, so the committee has not heard all points of view as yet. The Special Committee referred the issue to the CAO for a report.

 Given the numerous discussions that had already taken place, it was deemed repetitive to conduct a full-scale study and consultation process. To document the options available and to make available a reasoned proposal for discussion which had the support of the majority of staff and board members, the CAO requested the Culture Office to prepare a report. That report was circulated to heritage organizations and individuals who were asked to comment back directly to the Chief Administrator's Office. A letter dated April 7, 1998 made it very clear that the report was for discussion purposes only and the CAO had not yet formulated a position. Heritage Toronto also prepared a communication to many independent heritage community organizations indicating that plans had already been made to dismantle Heritage Toronto and urging them to oppose the report through a sample letter. Eighty-five written responses were received directly, 2 community meetings were arranged where 41 people spoke to the issue, primarily from the former City of Toronto, and hundreds of telephone calls were received and individual meetings attended. In addition, many communications were received by other staff and Council Members.

 This review addresses only the governance structure of City departments and agencies delivering municipal heritage services and is not a review of the vision, policies, strategies, or operations. While a good structure should support the overall vision, the City master plan for heritage has yet to be developed. This report is intended to create a participative structure which will enable the City government to best develop the plan in a way that furthers heritage issues.

 There is definitely no consensus on the structure which is most appropriate. This report, therefore, presents an independent assessment of the issues and is based on the principles of governance structure outlined in the approved Terms of Reference for the Task Force on ABC's which was intended as a guideline in determining the composition of municipal agencies.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 1.0Context for Municipal Heritage Structures:

 Much of the concern expressed during consultations stems from a misunderstanding of the scope of the issues and functions under review. It is therefore essential that the scope be described within the larger context to put the whole issue into perspective.

 1.1City Role in Heritage

 The City of Toronto does not have stewardship, control, or influence over all aspects of heritage, nor should it. Sheldon Godfrey, former Chair of Heritage Canada wrote, "Our heritage is that each person has the right to define him/herself in terms of their own culture". Culture and thus heritage is created, documented, preserved, and retold in various ways by the people of the community individually and in groups.

 Within the City of Toronto, there are virtually hundreds of individuals and groups, both formally constituted and informal, commercial and non-profit, who have taken on various aspects of this role. It was stated emphatically during consultations that heritage belongs to the people and the people should develop and control it. This is understood and supported. The City plays a specific role in heritage. Restructuring of the City function is intended to improve performance as it relates to the City's role in Heritage.

 Municipal Role in Perspective

 The City has a duty to:

• identify physical structures owned by others having heritage value and encourage owners to maintain and preserve such assets
• preserve and maintain the physical assets (natural and built) the City owns which are deemed to have historical significance and tell the story of those assets
• document government actions and preserve their records
• make available to the public documentary history of the City's heritage

Beyond that, however, municipal governments have also come to understand that a community rich in culture is attractive to its own residents and to its visitors. Culture enriches the quality of life in the community and helps to attract investment. It is therefore in the government's interest (on behalf of its residents) to encourage the community to develop culture, preserve it, and tell about it. This can be accomplished through funding of community initiatives, incentives, administrative support or professional assistance. The government might also provide training or educational courses to encourage interests in these areas. In some cases, the government may acquire properties, artifacts, or documents at risk in order to preserve them. In this way, the government may take a more participative role in service delivery. However, it is clear that the government's role is supplementary to the community's role in these areas.

 There is a distinction between the broad heritage voluntary sector and volunteers who work at municipal museums and in many other ways in support of the City's programs. The voluntary sector is a collective term for all independent groups who form and conduct programs and activities mostly without government support or influence. City program volunteers refers to those who work within the government sphere usually individually donating their time, knowledge, and expertise toward delivering a government program. Citizen appointees are those who represent Council's interest by serving on boards and committees which oversee municipal services. Individuals may find themselves participating in one or all of these capacities.

 1.2Sectors Impacted

 This report deals with the City's current role in heritage including its agencies and will impact staff and citizen appointees, but should not impact other sectors. There is no intention now, nor was there ever, to take over any part of the role served by individuals and groups in the community including any historical societies in operation now or in the future. The hope is that the diversity of citizen activity will continue and further encourage citizen-initiated activities. Non-municipal government entities are unaffected by reorganization that takes place as a result of municipal restructuring. Other than normal budget priority shifts, entities receiving municipal supports are also unaffected as are entities with which the government has operating agreements. It is intended at this point, to continue all services previously provided by any of the six former municipalities - no more and no less. Only staff of the municipality and municipally appointed committees and agencies are affected by the reorganization.

 1.3Legislative Constraints:

 The Ontario Heritage Act requires that a register of all properties designated under Part IV within a municipality be kept by the City Clerk. The legislation permits a municipality to establish a local architectural conservation committee, but does not require it. Where established, the committee shall be composed of not less than 5 members to advise and assist Council in all matters related to Parts IV and V of the Act which deal with designation of properties and districts.

 2.0Existing Structures

 Although it is understood that heritage is a broad strategic and policy area involving many municipal issues, the two main operating components are preservation and heritage sites or museums. The provision of heritage services in the former municipalities have basic similarities. Each of the local municipalities has a LACAC to advise on matters under the Ontario Heritage Act. All seven municipalities operate museums or heritage sites in conjunction with citizen volunteers.

 There are, however, some distinct differences among the municipalities. In East York, Scarborough, and York the LACAC's and the museum boards are separate entities. In Etobicoke, North York and Toronto the LACAC function and the museum functions are combined within one entity.

 The other major difference centres on the amount of management control exercised by the governing body and how the functions are staffed. In East York, North York, Metro and York, museums and heritage sites are managed by municipal staff with citizens acting in an advisory capacity. In Etobicoke, the citizen board has budgetary responsibility and operational control, but staff are City staff reporting through the Parks and Recreation Department. In the former cities of Toronto and Scarborough, the citizen boards have full control of staff and budgets. The following illustrates the variations in structure:

 The City owns some heritage sites which are operated and managed by independent non-profit organizations without operating subsidy from the City. These include Lambton House (operated by a voluntary organization), Casa Loma (operated by the Kiwanis Club), and Campbell House (managed privately and receives an operating grant from the City).

 Appendices 1 and 2 illustrate the specific structures for LACAC and museum management in each of the former municipalities. Each of the former municipalities had a different model suggesting that each is workable for its circumstances.

 During consultations, many people relayed stories and disappointing outcomes which resulted in destruction of important heritage features of the City. All of the stories concerned downtown sites. Examples include the John Street Roundhouse, the Rousseau site, Gooderham & Worts, and the properties in West Toronto. This is not surprising given that the majority of heritage sites are within the old City of Toronto boundaries. However, it does serve to illustrate that an arm's length Board is not necessarily more effective in advocating preservation than a City department might be. At the same time, citizens have criticized the actions of other former City of Toronto departments and have concluded that internal management of heritage cannot work. Since no internal department in the former City of Toronto was ever charged with heritage issues, as these were the mandate of Heritage Toronto, it is not surprising that the departments were not advocates for heritage issues. This is a correction that any new model should make.

 It is a common assumption that a citizen run board is more cost effective and is more entrepreneurial. Although it is difficult to compare different entities for cost-effectiveness, some indicators may be useful.

 1)Heritage Toronto management staff salary scales are generally higher than City staff salary scales. This does not take into account whether they are more productive or effective, but it does demonstrate that it is not always safe to say that core City staff are paid at higher rates.

 2)A comparison of cost per visitor and percentage of expenditures funded by the tax base by museum is shown in Appendix 3. It demonstrates that arm's length board enterprises are not necessarily more entrepreneurial. Many of the sites managed by staff through citizen advisory committees showed a lower dependence on the tax base and lower costs per visitor. Although there may be sites which have the potential to reduce their dependence on tax base funding, none of the sites operating currently are even close to financial independence. The one exception may be the Pier which is scheduled to open in July and its financial success has yet to be determined.

 It is also a common misconception that government operations cannot attract volunteers to work within the program and attract monetary donations. Keeping in mind the large differences in program size among the former municipalities, a comparison of monetary donations and volunteers working within the government program demonstrates that either structure can attract such giving. As an example, 250 volunteers donated 8,900 hours directly to Heritage Toronto programs and all of the other municipal programs attracted 150 volunteers donating 13,600 hours. This is in addition to the 140 volunteers serving on boards, LACAC's, and advisory committees throughout the City.

 Many people expressed concern that preservation is not as effective if separated from museum management. Where the LACAC function is combined with museum management, the degree of attention paid to preservation is in competition with site management. No complaints were heard about museum management, whereas all complaints expressed were regarding efforts on preservation issues. This suggests that the separation of preservation from museum management would provide more focus on preservation issues. Most jurisdictions outside of Toronto keep these two functions separate.

 Most people consulted during this review, suggested that change was needed to improve results on preservation issues, engage the voluntary sector more actively in setting government strategies, and establish interrelationships with other government program areas.

 3.0Restructuring Objectives

 3.1Several Voices Required

 One of the common themes emerging from the consultations was that government needs to hear the heritage message loud and clear and that heritage issues should be either integrated or taken into consideration within many different government program areas. To ensure that this happens, it is necessary to strike a three-way partnership among Councillors, municipal staff, and citizens.

  Any model which eliminates any of these components is unlikely to be as effective as a model which has a strong role for all three groups. To raise the profile of heritage issues, a structure is needed to ensure that heritage issues cannot be sidelined, but rather are considered within all municipal programs.

 Sheldon Godfrey said, "Heritage preservation has focused on the tangible; the built heritage, the artifacts, the natural or scenic heritage, but citizens all have a different perspective and focus". It is for this reason that the City needs to engage as many people as possible in providing input into its decision-making process. Citizen engagement must go beyond a select few who may serve on a board or committee within the government structure. Council should receive the most informed advice possible respecting its role, its policies and its strategic direction for heritage. One voice and one perspective is not enough.

 3.2Meaningful Citizen Involvement

 A primary objective is to increase meaningful citizen involvement. There has been the suggestion that citizen involvement cannot be meaningful unless citizens are empowered with budgetary and staffing responsibilities. Citizens currently serving in advisory capacities within LACAC's and museum advisory boards do not share this view. Most believe that their contribution has been meaningful and influential to decision-making. One cannot invalidate the positive impacts and experiences of those who serve in an advisory capacity.

 In addition to the 140 citizens who currently serve on heritage boards and committees within municipal programs, it was estimated by a community group that the total voluntary sector consists of 130 organizations in which 15,311 volunteers contributed 5,877,400 hours annually. It should be noted that these organizations generally work on community heritage initiatives outside the government sector. Volunteerism should be encouraged both within the government program and in the community at large to maximize impact on the City as a whole. It is clear that local concerns are paramount in both preservation and site development and programming. Empowerment at a local level is essential, as is a city-wide perspective and overall policy and strategic direction provided by City Council.

 To enhance citizen influence on decision-making, operations, and municipal strategies, a structure is needed which engages citizens where they have the greatest interest and direct access to Councillors. Citizen volunteers working within the government program complement staff.

 3.3Accountability

 Heritage needs a framework of Council approved policies. In particular, strong measures to assist in heritage preservation need to be taken at the Council level. In addition, there is a need to ensure that the heritage program is coordinated to tell the story of the City in a compelling and engaging way. Program policy making authority needs to be retained at the political level to ensure that the government remains accountable to its electorate. Advice from all sectors should be encouraged.

 Any group or individuals charged with spending taxpayer money must clearly understand their role and expectations and be held fully accountable to Council who is ultimately responsible for these expenditures. Council also has an obligation to ensure that municipal assets are maintained and protected at municipal government standards. Implementation of any model must ensure that this accountability is built in whether through staff reporting relationships to Council or citizen boards.

 3.4Balance of Cost and Service Levels

 In consolidating City functions, the aim is to ensure that every part of the City receives the attention it requires and common principles of service are applied across the City. This is not to say that attention and service must be the same for every part. It is obvious that there are different concentrations of historically significant sites across the City. For heritage, equalized service means ensuring that all communities have common standards of excellence and relevance and equal access to heritage awareness programs. The City should also apply a common definition of "historical significance" across the City. The built environment and programming opportunities will continue to determine the funding and efforts allocated to each part.

 All municipal services are expected to use resources as effectively and efficiently as possible to meet Council priorities. All sites should have available to them additional expertise in specific disciplines which were not generally available in smaller operations. An organization which provides flexibility in resourcing would be optimal.

 Additional revenue generating opportunities should be explored as appropriate and as the opportunities arise. The Provincial museum grant program requires that each museum site have a curator and a citizen board (or advisory committee) responsible for operations. A structure which meets these criteria will maximize the potential for Provincial support.

 4.0Rationale for Arm's Length Management

 Research and collective experience in assessing the need for arm's length management of specific functions suggest there are many reasons why a Council may choose to use this form of governance.

 (1)Decisions need to be independent of political influence;

(2)Issues are multi-jurisdictional;

(3)A large percentage of funding comes from sources other than the tax base;

(4)The type of business or market environment requires operational flexibility outside of the rather stringent administrative policies of the government;

(5)The service need not inter-relate to other municipal programs and outcomes are identifiable and results are measurable;

(6)Efficiency and effectiveness of a program is dependent on citizen fund-raising and volunteer work.

 With respect to heritage, issues are very much tied to political decision-making especially in the area of preservation where Council must be able to balance the many differing needs of the community. Legislation, in fact, requires that Council itself retain the authority to make designation decisions. The issues are not multi-jurisdictional since all properties are geographically based within the City borders. Heritage functions are highly dependent on tax base funding and are likely to remain so. Although some would argue that museums operate in a competitive market and compete for tourism dollars, there are few in the City which could be classified as commercial sites. Heritage costs money, but the benefits are deemed to be worthwhile, providing the City with an ambiance and texture which is attractive to residents and tourists alike. Heritage is intrinsically linked to many other municipal programs in arts and culture, parks, roads, libraries, archives, planning, economic development, tourism, special events, among others. It is true that heritage depends heavily on the voluntary sector to continue to do the bulk of the legwork required to maintain a history rich community. In the various cities' experiences, however, volunteers and outside funding have been attracted to this function regardless of governance structure.

 There is no public policy rational to support an arm's length board. The community, however, wants to have an active role and certainly has the interest, time, and expertise to be so engaged in a variety of ways in the City's programs.

 It is agreed that heritage should be strongly linked to parklands, archives, libraries, planning and other municipal programs. Some would have these City responsibilities moved into the heritage program. To maintain a strong relationship with these other functions, there needs to be a tighter relationship between those who plan and manage heritage services and those who manage these other municipal services. This is best accomplished by having a heritage program integrated within the municipal core structure and directed by and accountable to Council.

 5.0Proposed Model for Heritage

 Appendix 4 contains a discussion of several models reviewed - some suggested by other stakeholders and some from other jurisdictions. None of those reviewed meet the objectives of restructuring to the extent of the model proposed in this report.

 The proposed model outlines the general direction for structuring the municipal heritage services which most effectively meets the objectives set out in this report. The model is flexible enough to provide for growth and maturity of the functions over time because the scope and responsibilities of the individual entities can be further developed as the function grows.

 This report suggests general guidelines for the size and composition of each entity and for the processes for selection of their members. However, additional work is required to precisely define the individual relationships, the precise size and composition of each, and to develop the selection processes. The recommendations suggest the next steps in moving toward implementation of this general direction.

 5.1One Board or Several

 One of the key issues is whether all aspects of heritage should fall under one governing body, whether internal or arm's length. The Transition Team recommendation, the Heritage Toronto model, and the Heritage Community model all suggest that one overarching body is appropriate. There are a number of concerns with this approach.

 One of the most consistent complaints was that preservation was not being given the attention, resources, and profile required to be effective. Part of the reason given was that the single board model would split attention among strategic issues, preservation, museum operations, and administration. One board which is all things to all people is not as effective if functions have to compete for attention. It is difficult for part-time citizen volunteers to remain focussed on all of these issues to the degree necessary. A distinction between preservation and museums is common in almost all other jurisdictions examined. Both functions require concentrated effort and often attract different individuals with specific interests in one area or the other. If entities are separate, appointments can be tailored to the specific requirements of each function.

 A single heritage board consisting of both LACAC and heritage site management poses a problem in relating to Community Councils. Concentration of the LACAC on local issues and working closely with Community Councils is one of the essential ingredients in a workable structure. At the very least, local panels of a larger preservation board would be required. It would be preferable that the local panels be selected by the Community Councils.

 Putting all heritage issues under one board which reports to one standing committee provides only one voice for heritage direct to decision-makers and concentrates these issues in a standing committee with a focus on only a portion of the issues that heritage deals with. The proposed model creates three different groupings of citizen bodies with focused attention and reporting through several different standing committees. In so doing, several voices for heritage are heard in several different contexts. In total, the profile of heritage is raised without one dominant governing entity.

 One of the key advantages of maintaining several distinct entities reporting to standing committees is that the number of citizens appointed by Council and interacting with and influencing the political decision-making process is far greater than in a model which consolidates these into one entity. There are currently approximately 140 citizens appointed by Council to act for heritage. If one body were appointed, this number would be drastically reduced by about 75%. Although many citizen groups might be continued, their delegated powers would necessarily be curtailed and their concerns would be filtered through the governing body.

 Preservation is essentially a regulating process whereas museum and heritage site operation is a public service. It is increasingly necessary to raise funds through sponsorship, donations, grants and other funding-raising initiatives to support heritage sites. It is difficult to raise funds from those who are being regulated by the same entity.

 The recommended model provides the greatest number of direct citizen access points to a number of standing committees, enables citizens to focus on the areas of their greatest interest, and raises the overall profile of heritage issues across the full range of related city programs.

 5.2Preservation:

 The Preservation role is to:

• establish the criteria for evaluating properties for their architectural and/or historic value or interest;
• identify sites of historic significance and make recommendations on their listing or designation under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act;
• advise Council on means of conserving heritage properties, including natural sites, through development requirements, agreements, restorations funding or purchase; and
• help increase public awareness and knowledge of heritage conservation.

 Issues related to property designation often arise when a property is put at risk through a development application. The Preservation function is therefore very much inter-related with City planning functions. Most issues are local in nature. However, the concept of "historical significance" and City policies respecting site designation and listing are City-wide issues. A structure is needed which recognizes both the local perspective and the City-wide perspective.

 The Ontario Heritage Act is the enabling legislation which permits the establishment of a LACAC by a municipality. It is generally held that only one formally established LACAC is permitted. However, the Act does not specify how the LACAC must function and does not prevent delegation to panels of the formally established single entity. It is proposed that a single Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee be established and organized into seven committees. The Preservation Commission would deal with city-wide issues, but operationally, local LACAC panels would deal with local issues and processes. The governance structure chart indicates that the local panel recommendations pass through the Preservation Commission, but operationally, this is a formality rather than a decision-making process step.

 The LACAC works within the site plan approval process to seek heritage-sensitive solutions on proposals, applications, and policies affecting heritage properties. Local panels of LACAC's would report to Community Councils on local issues. The Preservation Commission would ensure that City-wide issues are moved forward to the Urban Development and Planning Committee, establish common criteria for property designations and define the term "historically significant". The Preservation Commission would also provide the input to the Official Plan for heritage issues.

 The size of the LACAC should depend on the number of properties and issues to be reviewed, the other functions and activities assumed by its members, and the interest of the community. A minimum of 3 and a maximum of 15 would be appropriate. The actual size and membership should be recommended by the Community Council to which the LACAC reports.

 A local LACAC panel would be comprised of citizen members and one Councillor from the Community Council to which it reports. LACAC members would be chosen from local community groups or other knowledgeable and interested individuals from each district. LACAC members would be nominated by their respective Community Councils. Chairs would be selected from among its members and should not be members of Council. Each local LACAC panel would select a representative to form the single Preservation Commission required by legislation. It has been suggested that in addition to these six citizen members, another two citizens and two Councillors should be appointed to the Preservation Commission who do not sit on the local panels. There is merit to this suggestion, but further investigation is required to ensure that the composition complies with the intent of the Heritage Act.

 Most people consulted during this review indicated that there was a need to separate the LACAC functions from other heritage issues in order to ensure that preservation issues were given appropriate focus and energy. However, there still needs to be a tie in to developing the overall policy and strategic direction for heritage beyond specific preservation policies. It is proposed that the Preservation Commission would nominate a representative to serve on Heritage Toronto.

 Staff support to the LACAC's would be provided by the Culture Office which will work closely with Planning and other City departments to ensure that preservation issues are considered in reviewing development proposals or planning other physical structure changes. Budget for the LACAC's would be included in the Culture Office. The City Clerk is also required by legislation to maintain the property registry which is developed through the LACAC functions.

 Some people suggest that the LACAC's should be resourced by staff outside of the municipal departmental structure in order to maintain independence. This approach is adversarial and in some situations has merit. However, in order to give heritage presentation status and clout within the City, it should be integrated within the fabric of the organization. The checks and balances can be provided through the partnerships with the voluntary sector and through Heritage Toronto. External staff can use the media as leverage to rally support in lobbying Council to favour heritage issues over development.

 This structure enhances the profile of the preservation function and permits a concentrated effort on the function most criticized by the heritage community. By its composition and processes, it will represent the voice of the heritage community rather than staff or political views. In addition, it promotes consistency across the City and provides a voice to the strategic directions board. The LACAC's should also make recommendations on capital grants for preservation. LACAC members have traditionally also provided public education on architecture through walking tours, plaquing, lectures, etc. This should continue under the new structure.

 5.3Museums

 Each heritage site or museum is quite unique and may have different program objectives and modes of operation. This diversity needs to be encouraged so that residents and visitors are offered a whole range of experiences and learning opportunities. Much of the volunteer interest is in supporting, planning, and working within specific museums and historic sites. In addition, provincial grants are contingent on having a citizen board for each of the sites funded. Appendix 3 shows that provincial funding is lower where sites are combined into common boards which serve more than one site or combine the LACAC function.

 For these reasons, it is recommended that separate citizen boards be continued or established to oversee the operations of individual sites. However, each site differs in size and complexity and degree of the local communities' participation. There may be the need for a whole range of structures from program advisory committees, to operating boards, to boards which create long-term business plans, organize restoration projects, and manage fund-raising events. The structure should be appropriate to the individual needs of the sites and communities. An agreement between the individual board and the City should be developed to clarify the authority and responsibilities of each board with respect to budgeting, spending, staff hiring and management, operating policies and procedures, marketing, recruitment and coordination of volunteers and other activities.

 Museum Boards would consist of citizens selected from the heritage community based on their knowledge and expertise in the field. Nominations should be made jointly by the Chair of the Economic Development Committee; the Commissioner of Economic Development, Parks, Culture, and Tourism; the Chair of Heritage Toronto; and representatives of the local Historical Societies or other heritage groups.

 Staff would be provided by the Culture Office in order to maximize efficiency and provide the benefits of centralized professional services which some sites currently lack because they are small stand-alone operations. There may be a need to coordinate some activities such as marketing. This could be accomplished through the Culture Office and through board cooperation. Volunteers would be recruited by either staff or their boards and work along side staff and with the board directly.

 It is likely that Council will consider the heritage budget as one program within the Culture Office. However, the boards will develop their own individual budgets and business plans and provide the justifications necessary. The clustered budget will be broken down into site specific allocations which would fall under board control once approved. The boards and advisory committees for museums may choose to meet jointly periodically to share ideas, cooperate in joint program development, exchange resources and make nominations to Heritage Toronto. Reports of the boards and advisory committees will be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee.

 This structure builds on the citizen involvement essential to the success of the museum program which needs the volunteer resources and the input of the community to ensure that the program is both relevant and excellent. Coordination where needed can be accomplished through the Culture Office, through joint projects among boards, and through common overall City program strategies. An overarching museum board is unnecessary and would tend to diminish the enthusiasm and participation of volunteers who want to be accountable directly for program direction.

 5.4Heritage Toronto and Heritage Trust

 Heritage issues cross functional boundaries and go beyond museum management and property designation. One of the key issues arising from discussions and consultations during this review was the need to have an arm's length citizen board to consider the overall strategic direction for the government role in heritage and to make recommendations on heritage issues which may impact departments outside of the traditional heritage functions. Beyond museums and preservation issues, these would include natural heritage, archives, libraries, archaeology, etc. It should also provide a vehicle for developing an innovative vision which builds on the synergies among the arts, special events and tourism. Although the name is retained, this entity would be quite different from the site management and LACAC function currently performed by the existing Heritage Toronto.

 The objective is to establish an entity which is quite independent of the government structure. Heritage Toronto will advise the City on development of its heritage master plan. Members should be selected for their knowledge and expertise in the heritage field and may be high profile, respected experts in specific disciplines. To ensure that the membership is truly representative of the heritage community views, nominations should come from the heritage community directly. This will require that the community be organized to establish such a process. In addition, the museum boards should jointly nominate a representative to Heritage Toronto as should the Preservation Commission. A representative of the Economic Development Committee should also be a member. The Director of Culture should also participate as a non-voting member.

 A sub-committee specifically structured to raise funds for heritage functions is also recommended. Since fund-raising is a different skill than policy and strategy determination, a separate committee is proposed for this purpose. The fund-raisers may secure funds which are ear-marked for specific projects or may be donations for general purposes. In addition, the Heritage Trust may initiate site specific fund-raising events in cooperation with site boards and staff. A membership program may also be a practical method of raising funds. However, the Heritage Trust activities must be coordinated with the site boards wherever admission privileges are part of the donation benefits. The specific structure of the Heritage Trust will have to be developed as part of the implementation process.

 To maintain its independent perspective, Heritage Toronto would have its own small staff to assist the Board in conducting research, writing reports, and fund-raising. Heritage Toronto would determine how the funds raised would be spent, thereby having a degree of influence in the types of initiatives to be undertaken. It is expected that a board free of daily operating concerns can be creative in its approach to fund-raising thorough events which raise the profile of heritage in the community.

 Knowledgeable advice suggests that fund-raising must be tied to programming and sponsorship activities in order to be effective. With cooperation among entities, joint ventures on specific fund-raising projects and operational agreements can be used to maximize the impact of fund-raising campaigns. There is no need for fund-raisers to have complete operational control over the functions being funded. Few fund-raising foundations have operational control over the functions which they fund.

 5.5Summary

 The appropriate linkages must be put in place to ensure that all aspects of heritage are co-ordinated. This is accomplished through some cross-appointments to governing bodies, staff resources reporting to a common director and through overall Council vision and policies which links components at a high level.

 Strategies and policies need coordination, but there is not the same need to ensure operations are consistent. This model is based on the premise that different approaches at each site are needed to meet the individual interests of the communities and provide diversity in the overall program. Necessary commonalities can be promoted through staff approaches without eroding the authority and distinction of the individual boards.

 The structure engages all of the parties necessary to ensure that the heritage program is embraced by the City at several levels and that the components work together. This partnership among Council, citizens, and staff will promote cooperation and communication. The following illustrates the interactions and participation of the various entities proposed.

 Conclusions:

 The proposed structure creates a three-way partnership among Council, staff, and citizens to multiply the voices for heritage issues. It not only maintains citizen involvement, but expands it by involving more citizens in areas where they have particular interest and are able to interact and influence Council through several different standing committees. In addition, citizens will be empowered with direct operational responsibilities as members of citizen boards to manage site operations where there is interest, ability, and clear objectives to be achieved. Citizens will be formally engaged in developing heritage policies and strategies throughout municipal programs.

 The structure maintains the local focus for preservation issues, but facilitates common application of city-wide principles and policies. Utilizing internal staff charged with protection of heritage concerns will serve to enhance the profile of these issues and encourage inter-departmental cooperation in achieving satisfactory outcomes.

 The voluntary sector is not impacted by this reorganization, but may experience a simpler relationship with the municipal government and will have improved opportunity to guide the municipal agenda for heritage and impact decisions, not only for preservation and museums, but for all municipal functions with heritage concerns.

 The model maximizes efficiency by streamlining top management, bringing compensation structures into line with municipal rates, sharing specialist resources and using the corporate support systems for administration. This will free up resources to be spent on direct programming instead of administration. It also provides the essential linkages with other cultural initiatives and eliminates duplication of functions across the several existing structures. The placement of staff within the larger cluster of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture along with Parks and Recreation enhances operational flexibility to marshal resources and expertise within the cluster.

 The proposed structure builds a powerful partnership among citizens, politicians, and municipal staff which is needed to ensure that there remains a commitment to heritage issues throughout municipal service areas.

 Contact Name:

 Nancy Autton 397-0306

 Michael R. Garrett

Chief Administrative Officer

Appendix 1Existing LACAC Structures

 Under legislation, the City may establish a committee which advises Council on designations and listings of properties of historical significance. In all cases, regardless of structure, this is an advisory body and Council may not delegate such authority. Council must retain the responsibility of weighing the many conflicting priorities of historical value, cost to the taxpayer, and development needs.

 The number of listed and designated sites varies dramatically by former municipality. There could be many reasons for such geographical differences. First, the history may be concentrated in the central district since the suburbs are relatively new in historical terms. Second, the interpretation of "historical significance" could be very different by district. Third, the resources available to conduct research on properties may have varied significantly by district over time.

 The existing LACAC functions are delivered as follows:

Appendix 2Museum Governance Structures

 Appendix 3Financial Analysis of Museums

 The City also provided grants to Sir William Campbell House ($35,000) and Town of York Historical Society for Toronto's First Post Office ($27,000) and Heritage Toronto provided 12 capital grants for preservation ($112,000).

 1997 budget data taken from Inventory of Toronto Municipal Cultural Programs prepared by the Inventory Sub-Group of the Municipal Arts, Heritage and Culture Work Group except Pier taken from 1998 plan. Excludes capital costs.

 Statistics on 191 Ontario museums gathered through the Ontario Museums Operating Grants process for 1996 indicated the following:

  *supplied by Heritage Toronto and excludes preservation expenditures and employee separation costs experienced in 1996.

 Expenditures for museums consists of 3 types of costs for (1) the preservation and maintenance of the physical assets, (2) public history and programs aimed at education for the local community, and (3) commercial/tourist attraction programming.

Appendix 4Models Reviewed:

 A.Single Heritage Board Model

 There are many vairations on this model, but the traditional model is a single arms' length board appointed by Council to carry out the City's heritage role. Responsibilities include:

 (1)preservation function where the board is the LACAC

(2)management of all museums

(3)development of heritage policy and strategies

(4)capital development of sites

(5)capital restoration grants administration

(6)development of heritage vision or Master Plan for the City

 Under this model, the board would employ its own staff, manage its own administration, and administer its own budget.

 The advantages are:

• Citizens appointed to the board are empowered and engaged in a meaningful way in carrying on the business of the City
• The board enjoys independence and is not influenced by the City agenda
• Those who create the vision also implement it. This ensures that the plan is carried out as intended.
• The board has control over operations and financial management and can be held accountable if Council chooses to exercise its power to replace ineffective board members
• Facilitates coordination of all heritage activities
• Fund-raising can be directed and coordinated

 The drawbacks include:

• Local focus on preservation issues is difficult to maintain through a centralized board
• Authority delegated by Council to City boards cannot in turn be delegated to other boards at the site level. Therefore, the number of citizens directly accountable to Council is dramatically reduced and other citizens must act within the parameters set by the heritage board.
• The model does not engage City staff and a large number of Councillors in the standing committee forum. This means that it will be much more difficult to raise the profile of heritage issues which relate to planning issues and other municipal programs.
• Provincial grants may be at risk without specific boards for individual sites
• Does not take advantage of the City administrative services
• Spreads part-time citizen board's attention among many competing demands. This means that many issues will be delegated to staff of the board and the bureaucracy created may not be much different from internal City bureaucracy.
• It is difficult to ensure that the City priorities are considered in administering this program.

 Heritage Toronto has also put forward variations of this model. The first proposed one arm's length board making policy, strategically planning the City's heritage role, and delivering all preservation and museum services. This body would report directly to Council. A second model was to support preservation through the Culture Office reporting to a LACAC; an entrepreneurial museums board to manage Fort York, the Pier, Spadina House, Montgomery's Inn, Todmorden Mills, Black Creek Pioneer Village, the Guild, and the Brick Works; other museums managed through staff and site specific advisory committees; and an overarching strategic advisory committee to advise Council on policy and long term plans. As time went on the second option evolved back to the original position.

 A third variation of this model is that used in Etobicoke which follows the basic model but is supported by staff reporting through the City Parks and Recreation Department. The Etobicoke model, however, manages only one site and deals with local preservation issues. This model is not comparable to an amalgamated City-wide function. However, the benefits of the staff dual reporting relationship have been used in the structure proposed in this report.

 Heritage Toronto has suggested that the new direction for heritage is to become more entrepreneurial and that a citizen dominated arm's length board is the only means by which that can be achieved. Appendix 3 shows that the museums which are operated by staff under the direction of citizen advisory committees have actually been less dependent on the tax base than operations which are managed by citizen boards of management. This is not a criticism of the boards of management, merely an observation which disproves the premise. It may not be in the public interest for many museums to aspire to become commercial. There is always a conflict between authenticity and commercial salability which may not be healthy for some museums.

 B.Staff and Advisory Commissions Model

 This model would bring all operational supports in-house within the Culture Office, being advised by two separate advisory bodies - a Preservation Commission and a Museums Commission. The LACAC function would be performed by panels of the Preservation Commission each reporting to the Community Councils. The Museums Commission would coordinate site development strategies and be a forum for airing new ideas on operations and programs. Site committees would advise on operations, budgets, and programming for individual sites. This model is almost the same as the Transition Team recommendation except that it eliminates the overarching heritage board.

 This model has the advantage of providing coordination points for both the LACAC and museums functions and engages citizens in both. Citizen involvement in terms of numbers would actually increase. This model enhances the interrelationship of heritage with other culture programs as well as with other internal municipal programs. It provides the internal advocacy role necessary to raise the profile and priority of heritage issues. It is also the most cost-effective of any of the models explored because it takes advantage of the comprehensive administrative support structures within the core government, eliminating the need to duplicate such efforts for support of a relatively small entity required for a separate board.

 One of the drawbacks of this model is its symmetry. All sites need not be governed in the same way. It also distances citizens involved in the front-line programs from political decision-makers by setting up two layer reporting structures. Since all citizens serve in advisory capacities, it does not empower citizens with real authority to plan and implement programs and take budgetary responsibility. The key concern with this model, however, is the absence of a citizen-based entity which deals with overall heritage policy and strategies and has the opportunity to influence other municipal programs in which heritage issues arise.

 C.Heritage Community Model

 The structure presented by the Society of Heritage Associates would be modeled along the lines of the Toronto Arts Council which is an independent corporation, not an agency of the City. This model would be completely independent of the City, but receive a grant to sustain operations. However, the suggestion is that this entity would establish heritage policy to be included in the Official Plan of the City and set policy for other programs of the City. Under this model the entity would be charged with property designation responsibilities, have the authority to enforce by-laws and to assume full authority for all parks areas where the natural heritage is at risk.

 The Board would consist of 2 Councillors, 1 citizen from each of East York and York, 2 citizens from each of Etobicoke, North York, Toronto, and Scarborough as well as 4 Chairs of geographic regional divisions. Division committees would be elected out of citizen organizations. Each division would have full jurisdiction over staff and spending for its division without interference from the Board. This model does not take advantage of the opportunities available in the new City. It instead maintains the regionalization of issues. It also fails to recognize that Council must retain policy and spending responsibilities since it is accountable to the taxpayer on these matters.

 The main complaint of most of those who prefer this option is that City staff have not performed well in protecting heritage during consideration of development opportunities and therefore should not be entrusted with heritage issues in the new structure. This was precisely because no city staff were charged with heritage responsibilities. This is the danger with separating heritage completely from the core civic structure.

 Some in the voluntary sector have suggested that all staff positions dealing with heritage issues in all departments of the City be vetted by the heritage board; that staff positions be put on contracts of one year duration; and that all staff be clear that they have no decision-making responsibility with respect to heritage. Taxpayers should be concerned about paying municipal staff under these circumstances.

 D.Ontario Heritage Foundation:

 This is an advisory board established by the province reporting to the Minister of Culture and operates in accordance with the policies and priorities established by the Minister and the Minister himself may exercise any powers of the Foundation directly. The Heritage Act also makes it clear that the Foundation may exercise its powers only as an agent of the Province. All property acquired remains the property of the Province.

 The Foundation is recognized as an effective model which engages citizens. It should be noted, however, that under the Ontario Heritage Act the Minister retains most of the decision-making authority under this structure.

 4.5Other Cities

 The research for this study included a review of the organization of heritage services in 150 different organizations across North America including 25 largest Canadian and 50 largest American cities. The preservation and museum functions are typically organized under separate bodies. This reflects the distinct mandates and legislative basis for the two functions. It is rare to find these functions combined into one body. Advice on preservation issues is usually provided to Council by an appointed commission or committee supported by departmental staff. There is no common model for the management of civic museums. Municipalities employ a wide range of governance and staffing approaches.

 Tyne & Wear Museums in the United Kingdom is purported to be very successful in moving toward an entrepreneurial model for museums. It is an independent entity which serves seven different funding public sector entities. The model is not comparable to the City of Toronto situation for this reason. However, it is interesting to note that one of its main revenue sources is the provision of archaeological and capital works for third parties including municipalities.