November 20, 1998

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

From:Chief Administrative Officer

Subject:Summary of Heritage Workshop

Purpose:

To provide a summary of the results of the Heritage Workshop.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the attached summary be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 31, 1998, Council referred the issue of the governance structure for heritage functions back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team and directed that the Heritage Community develop the City's heritage master plan.

The Committee Chair organized a workshop where Councillors could meet with stakeholders and representatives of the Heritage Community to discuss the City's role in heritage and a process for developing the City's long term vision or strategy for heritage.

Staff of the Chief Administrator's Office were asked to summarize the workshop discussion and report to the Committee.

Comments:

Forty-two people attended the workshop including Councillors, Chairs of City heritage boards and committees, representatives of the heritage community, agency and City staff, and invited guests representing federal, provincial, and other municipal perspectives.

Five speakers with perspectives external to the City of Toronto experience were invited to talk on the subject of the role of the City of Toronto in heritage.

Speakers:

(1)Sheldon Godfrey spoke about the definition of heritage, its scope and principles.

(2)Dorothy Duncan described how heritage groups evolved and why heritage should be supported by tax dollars, and why partnerships among governments and interest groups is important.

(3)Pamela Craig addressed the legislative provisions and offered some advice on the process of developing the City's vision and structure.

(4)Marilynn Havelka reinforced principles developed by the Ontario Museums Association and spoke about her experience within the City of Hamilton.

(5)Michael McClelland spoke about the need to imbed heritage in the municipal structure because it is a core mandate of the government and pervades many municipal programs.

These presentations were followed by facilitated break-out groups to discuss who should take the lead in the development of the City's heritage strategy and what approach should be taken to develop the plan. Many opinions on timing and structural issues were also brought forward.

Summary of Presentations:

The following summarizes ideas expressed by the five speakers.

There was agreement that the definition of heritage is inclusive, meaning that it represents the tangible and intangible, natural and built, and concerns all aspects of culture including lifestyle, arts, artifacts, skills, mores, religions, etc., as well as architecture.

There may be a distinction drawn between local community heritage and City heritage, just as there is a distinction between provincial and national heritage. Cities that have strong cultural identities will be cities that grow. The sense of place is what sells a city to tourists and residents. The City's interest in heritage includes the education and enjoyment of citizens to assist in understanding City roots as well as enrichment of the ambiance of the City to attract visitors. Heritage is a prime contributor to the quality of life and economic health of the City. The City government's role should be to protect significant symbols of our history, to promote heritage beyond stewardship of the City's owned assets, and to secure the power of community heritage institutions to fulfill their mandates.

Heritage should be supported by tax dollars because it is an economic stimulant. Cultural activities attract more participants than sports - 88percent compared to 31percent. Special events yield $87 per day per person to the surrounding community. Developers and merchandisers understand this interest by selling heritage as product as well.

Citizen concern over the City's history dates back to 1869 when societies and foundations were formed to create a common voice to the City Councils. These groups were and still are often concerned with specific sites. Provincial contributions to heritage include the Archives of Ontario, Ontario Heritage Act, and support and program funding provided by the Ministry of Culture. Toronto is the headquarters for many provincial organizations.

There are clearly many different groups and many different perspectives. It is essential that a climate of understanding exist among these. Taxpayers need to understand how heritage benefits the City and why tax money should be spent on heritage. Individuals and organizations who contribute vast resources and effort need to feel part of a team working together for heritage. City staff need to be recognized as experts in their field and Councillors need to understand how heritage policies will benefit the City overall.

The Ontario Heritage Act is enabling legislation specifying a direct, but limited role for municipalities and encourages citizen participation, specifically through LACACs (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees). Although the legislation permits a single LACAC for the City with a minimum of 5 members, the committee may operate through functional sub-groups. Provincial museum funding criteria requires that each museum achieve provincial museum standards, have a curator, and an appointed body that is responsible for overseeing its operation.

Although most cities in Ontario have a LACAC and at least one museum, few cities have developed a vision or strategy for heritage.

Council's involvement in heritage is unique in each city and depends on the historic relationship between the community and the Council, on the mandates upon which historic properties were based, on the community needs and interests, and on the degree to which programs and services were developed by staff or volunteers.

Stakeholders need commitment and leadership from municipal officials and politicians to best deliver heritage services. The principal goal is that the structure have dedicated resources that benefit residents and visitors alike. Current levels of qualified staff, facilities, and funding of heritage programs and services will support the City's role.

In Hamilton, city staff within the Culture and Parks Department are responsible for 5 museums, a marine archaeological project, arts programs, the Farmers' Market, and special events. Planning Department staff support LACACs. The Historical Board and LACAC have overlapping representation and deliver a joint plaquing program.

Heritage is a mainstream issue that pervades many municipal departmental programs. There is a need to imbed heritage in the municipal structure rather than view it as an externally driven advocacy issue. Currently heritage is over-regulated and poorly integrated within the municipal services. The struggle over leadership in heritage in the City has resulted in little actual policy development and fewer staff. Toronto has fallen behind most Canadian cities in its policies and funding for heritage.

Summary of Roundtable Discussions:

1)Sequencing of strategy development and restructuring:

• strategy then structure, possibly need for City of Toronto Heritage Act as an enabler for implementing the vision
• prefer vision then structure, but it would likely take 1-2 years to develop a master plan; meanwhile there is pressure to reduce costs and the organization needs stability; practically, establish general direction, design structure, develop strategy; implementation requires commitment to the strategy which is secured by taking leadership in its development
• identify scope of issues, decide on goals and priorities, identify tools for implementation, then decide on structure; however this is long term and something needs to be done in the interim

2)Who should lead development of the Strategy?

• political leadership - 3 members of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team as a reference group; consultant to work with heritage community and key stakeholders; must be resourced and funded
• City needs to take ownership and therefore lead; alternatively ad hoc committee of 8 people not involving stakeholders; need Terms of Reference and professional advice; meanwhile freeze budget, get buy-in of staff who will deliver
• ad hoc committee including Councillors, CAO representative, major players, citizens at large
• Heritage Regeneration Trust - Heritage Toronto to form vision group including architect, historian, environmentalist, archaeologist; include chairs of sub-groups; City Council to direct that all departments participate
• Heritage Task Force of stakeholders and 2 politicians, staff of Toronto Historical Board and others, and heritage volunteers; need a champion at both staff level and political level

3)Structural Options

• currently diffused accountability because responsibility resides in too many departments and agencies; consider a single unit within administrative structure reporting to a standing committee
• strategy, policy and monitoring should be central functions, but some issues may fall under Community Councils; links to other culture programs, tourism, special events and cross-pollinization necessary; some think there should be a heritage section in Planning Department
• should consider core services and the required linkages to other City programs; local vs City-wide issues; direct service (sites) vs support services (oral history); should consider whether City wants its residents and City administration to be aware of their heritage leading to political will and integrated services
• internal staff don't have the whole picture; need to embed heritage in departmental planning processes; locate in the community, not bureaucratize
• formulate partnerships among politicians, appointed bodies, civil staff, taxpayers, heritage groups; one LACAC comprised of branches representing Community Council jurisdictions

4)Strategy

• agree that heritage is defined in broadest context; City is not responsible for delivering all aspects of heritage, but sets the vision city-wide
• Council sets municipal goals, prioritize choices; use inclusive definition of heritage; citizen involvement a key component as well as staff and politicians, coordination points required, connections to industry, tourism, economic development
• change Heritage Act; pursue taxation and development incentives, provide grants, include heritage in Official Plan and zoning considerations

5)Other comments

• heritage policy must serve the public interest which must come first
• take time and do this right
• can't muddle through another year, nobody is watching the store while preservation issues sliding through
• delays are holding up private donations for fear that recipient entity will no longer exist in a year
• need a heritage planner
• budget targets for 1999 are impacted since cannot realize savings from integration

Conclusions:

There were a number of areas where there was consensus.

First, it is clear that virtually everyone agrees that the definition of heritage is inclusive. Second, there seemed to be agreement that it would be worthwhile to determine what aspects of heritage apply across the City and what might be considered local to the community. Third, determination of core services is essential to establishing priorities and required linkages with other programs.

The common message seemed to be that the City's role is to:

(1)protect and preserve existing symbols of heritage;

(2)provide assistance in response to local initiatives; and

(3)promote heritage.

It was also generally agreed that development of the heritage plan would require input from Councillors, staff, citizens serving on City boards, the heritage community, and citizens in general. This process was estimated to take upwards to a year to develop a comprehensive plan.

Most agreed that form should follow function and the City strategy for heritage services should be developed prior to establishing the long term structure required to support the strategy. However, it was acknowledged that there are pressures to reorganize the function to address budgetary and staffing issues. Several people expressed the concern that business was in a holding pattern until the organizational issues were addressed; others believe that "buy-in" of the new organization's leadership is necessary to successfully implement the strategy and therefore should be developed after the organization is in place.

Contact Name:

Nancy Autton 397-0306

Michael R. Garrett

Chief Administrative Officer