1

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Transportation:

(a) to renegotiate with Bell Canada the financial aspects of the proposed agreement for the installation of illuminated commercial advertising panels on telephone booths; and

(b) to explore the feasibility of entering into a one-year agreement with Bell Canada; such agreement to be renegotiated at the end of the one-year term;

and submit a report thereon directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on December 10, 1997.

Purpose:

To seek authority to enter into an agreement with Bell Canada allowing illuminated commercial advertising on telephone booths.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The proposed agreement is estimated to generate a minimum of $33,750.00 in the first year, increasing to a minimum of $262,500.00 in the tenth year, subject to the number of advertising panels installed and percentage of advertising revenue.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that, subject to such approvals as may be required under the City of Toronto Act 1997, including approval by the Financial Advisory Board:

(1) authority be granted to enter into an agreement with Bell Canada concerning the installation of illuminated advertising panels on telephone booths operated and maintained by Bell Canada on Metropolitan rights-of-way based on the terms outlined in this report; and

(2) the revenue generated from telephone booth advertising be directed to the Transportation Department.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of August 13 and 14, 1997, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 5 of Report No. 17 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, entitled "Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising", which contains the following recommendations:

(a) the adoption of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee recommendations of June 25, 1997, which recommended that:

(b) that the Commissioner of Transportation be requested:

Discussion:

Proposed Agreement Outline:

Metro staff have been meeting with representatives of Bell Canada and International Media Advertising to negotiate an agreement to allow commercial advertising panels on Bell telephone booths located on Metro rights-of-way. The FCM model agreement was considered, but it was felt that it did not directly apply to structuring an agreement around commercial advertising panels on telephone booths. However, the principles are applicable and will be incorporated into the agreement with Bell Canada. The proposed agreement will provide for:

(1) the continued free use of 9-1-1 and 7-1-1 for users of public telephone service (7-1-1 provides access to operator assistance for calls that use telecommunication devices for the deaf);

(2) a provision to allow the Metropolitan Corporation to direct the location of a specified number of telephone booths;

(3) no advertising panels to be located in residential areas;

(4) the installation of services (i.e., hydro) to illuminate the backlit advertising panel at Bell Canada’s expense;

(5) maintenance of the telephone booth and advertising panel by Bell Canada;

(6) Metropolitan Council to be the sole judge with regard to any advertising material to be displayed which it might consider to be offensive, immoral or otherwise unacceptable (i.e., in the event of a dispute);

(7) the term of the agreement to be ten years from the date of execution of the agreement;

(8) advertising to comply with the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards;

(9) no advertising of tobacco or tobacco products, or for a business where the advertising on the advertising panel is directly in front of a similar business;

(10) five per cent. of the advertising panels to be made available free-of-charge for public service messages (e.g., street maps);

(11) Bell Canada to consult with the Metropolitan Corporation prior to discontinuing the use of its advertising panels;

(12) no taxes or other charges relating to the pay phone backlit advertising panels will be assessed by Metro;

(13) Bell Canada to indemnify and save harmless Metro from all claims relating to the installation of the advertising panel;

(14) a limited liability insurance of $3,000,000.00 for any one occurrence;

(15) a revenue-sharing formula with Metro as follows:

(16) penalties for breach of the agreement; and

(17) the consolidation of any existing similar Bell Canada agreements with Metro and the Area Municipalities into one master agreement by the end of 1998, using the most favourable terms of any of the agreements in favour of the New City of Toronto.

The draft agreement with Bell Canada will comply with Council's requirements with the exception that 4-1-1 (operator assisted calls) be at no charge. In its letter of November 4, 1997, Bell Canada indicated that although 4-1-1 calls are currently free from telephone booths, it is doubtful that this will continue beyond 1998 for the following reasons:

Bell Canada has indicated that it is committed to providing "service that is visible to many, accessible by all, convenient for the consumer and safely approached and used".

The proposed agreement is estimated to generate a minimum of $33,750.00 in the first year, increasing to a minimum of $262,500.00 in the tenth year, subject to the number of advertising panels installed and percentage of advertising revenue, as shown in Table 1.

Gross Receipts:

In accordance with the existing agreement between Bell Canada and Metro, the local municipalities receive a percentage of the gross annual revenue generated by telephone booths located within their jurisdiction. A communication dated September 16, 1997, from the Minister of Finance, Province of Ontario, advised that the Gross Receipts Tax Paid to Area Municipalities will be moved to the Provincial level in 1998, as recommended by the "Who Does What" panel.

Proliferation of Street Advertising and City of Toronto's Sign By-law:

At its meeting of January 13 and 14, 1997, the Council of the City of Toronto adopted Clause No. 8 of Report No. 1 of The Land Use Committee, entitled "Advertising Signage on Outdoor Telephone Booths (All Wards)". The report, as adopted, endorsed the recommendation of the City of Toronto’s Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment that no additional third party commercial advertising be allowed on public roads allowance given that:

Furthermore, the City of Toronto's By-law Advisory Committee recommended that "the Bell proposal for signs on telephone booths on private property be reviewed by the Sign By-law Advisory Committee to ensure that advertising on telephone booths on private and public property is consistent with existing policies for third party signs". In the case of the City of Toronto position, it would appear that the concerns of additional street advertising outweigh the revenue opportunities and other benefits associated with this proposal. There is a large degree of subjectivity associated with weighing the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of proposal and, in the final analysis, a political decision is required.

Issues of Telephone Booth Advertising Competition and Monopoly:

According to the Metropolitan Solicitor, there is no significant competition or monopoly issue with respect to telephone booth advertising. Of course, the owner of the booth retains full control over who may be permitted to advertise on it and to this point in time Bell Canada has been the only telecommunication firm to provide telephone booths. To the extent that other telephone providers are able to provide this service, additional separate agreements would be required.

Police Concerns:

A letter dated September 18, 1997, from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service regarding telephone booth advertising indicated that, "the location of the advertising on the telephone booth is contrary to the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concept that the Metropolitan Police Service presently practices". To address this issue, the Metropolitan Police Corporate Planning (MPCP) staff suggest that the location, placement and size of the advertising be adjusted to allow for natural surveillance. Bell Canada’s representative has indicated that at a follow-up meeting with a Sergeant Rick Murdoch of the MPCP, there was discussion of a recent survey conducted by Thompson Lightstone for Bell Canada which found that women felt safer using backlit telephone booths due to increased lighting levels from within the booth and the surrounding area. Sergeant Murdoch did not dispute the survey result. Furthermore, they indicated that the level of concern is similar to concerns which the MPCP has with the existing transit shelter design.

Conclusions:

The proposed advertising panels on telephone booths on Metropolitan roads will generate revenues for Metropolitan Toronto. The weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of proposal tend to be subjective and require a political decision.

Summary Chart:

This report conforms with the following:

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Romualdo D'Ippolito, Manager, Road Allowance Control, 392-5371.

Table 1

Projected Yearly Revenues

Bell Canada Commercial Advertising Panels

Our Corporate Planning staff have reviewed the supplied material pertaining to the proposed advertising on Bell Canada telephone booths on Metro Roadways. The Metropolitan Toronto Police Service has some concerns regarding this proposal; however, we believe that with some adjustments, our safety concerns can be mitigated.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Service is regularly involved in a practice known by the acronym, "CPTED". This is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. CPTED is based upon the premise that:

The emphasis of CPTED is based on design and use. In this way, it deviates from the traditional target-hardening approach to crime prevention. The target-hardening approach focuses on denying access to a crime target through physical or artificial barrier (i.e., locks, alarms, fences, and gates). This approach often overlooks the opportunities for natural access control and surveillance while placing a constraint on the use, access and enjoyment of the hardened environment.

CPTED emphasizes and exploits these lost opportunities through the development of the following three overlapping strategies:

"Natural Surveillance" is a design strategy that is directed primarily at keeping intruders under observation. (This relates directly to our concerns regarding the proposed advertising.)

"Natural Access Control" is a design strategy that is directed at decreasing the opportunity for crime.

"Territorial Reinforcement" is a design strategy which realizes that physical design can create or extend a sphere of influence so that users of an area develop a sense of proprietorship over it.

The term "natural" refers to deriving surveillance and access control as a by-product of the normal and routine use of the environment. Natural surveillance and access control can be subdivided into three of the following categories: natural, mechanical and organized means.

The design, or more particularly, the location of the advertising on the telephone booth is contrary to the CPTED concept that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service presently practices. The location of the proposed advertising obstructs the natural surveillance on the side of the telephone booth on which it is located. In other words, the location of the advertising would block the view of the telephone patron of someone approaching the booth. Likewise, it would block the view of any pedestrians or drivers in the area of anyone, or, any occurrence taking place within the telephone booth.

On average, there have been approximately 20 crimes against persons, per year, over the last five years, which have occurred in relation to telephone booths within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. Although this is a small average in relation to the number of Bell Canada telephone booths located in Metropolitan Toronto and the number of calls made from telephone booths, it is the position of the Service that even one victim of crime is too much. It is not possible to predict if there would be an increase in crimes committed against persons should the proposed advertising be allowed; however, the possibility for more crime to occur does appear when natural surveillance is obstructed, whether it be in the design of a building or a telephone booth.

Potential Solution:

It is suggested that the location, or placement, or size of the advertising be adjusted to allow for natural surveillance. Should the advertising be lowered, or made smaller, to allow for an unobstructed view for the person inside the booth, the safety concerns of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service may well be lessened.

If you wish to discuss our response or any related matters, please do not hesitate to call Sergeant Richard Murdoch of Corporate Planning at 808-7767.

The following persons appeared before the Planning and Transportation Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

(The Metropolitan Council on December 10 and 18, 1997, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (December 2, 1997) from the Commissioner of Transportation:

Purpose:

To request final approval of the proposed agreement with Bell Canada pertaining to advertising on telephone booths and to modify the revenue sharing formula.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The proposed changes will increase the revenue associated with the proposed agreement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Committee contained in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 21 of The Planning and Transportation Committee be struck out and the following recommendations be substituted:

Council Reference/Background/History:

At their meeting on November 25, 1997, the Planning and Transportation Committee considered my report regarding advertising on Bell Canada telephone booths and recommended approval, in principle, for the concept of installing illuminated commercial advertising on telephone booths operated and maintained by Bell Canada on Metropolitan rights-of-way, subject to the booth siting for each location being approved by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service at Bell Canada’s expense, and requested the Commissioner of Transportation to:

Discussion:

In response to the request from the Planning and Transportation Committee, further negotiations were held with the Bell Canada advertising agency, International Media Advertising Inc., and a revised revenue sharing formula is now proposed as follows:

The difference with the original formula is the increase from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of gross advertising revenues (minus commissions and bad debts) following year five. This brings the formula in line with the most recent transit shelter agreement initiated by the City of Scarborough.

In addition, to provide the opportunity to monitor its share of revenue, it is proposed to add a clause giving Metropolitan Toronto the right to audit the advertising agency accounts and records. The advertising agency has no objection to this proposal.

With regard to the feasibility of a one-year agreement, it is our understanding that the reason for the imposition of a one-year term on the Etobicoke and East York agreements with Bell Canada by the Financial Advisory Board was to provide an opportunity for the new City of Toronto to merge these agreements and any other similar agreements within the Metropolitan Toronto area into a single agreement. Item No. 17 of the November 21, 1997 report pertaining to the proposed agreement addresses this concern by specifying that the Metropolitan agreement be consolidated with any similar local agreements by December 31, 1998, using the most favourable terms of any of the associated agreements in favour of the municipality.

The Committee also considered the communication from Ms. Kristina Kijewski, Director, Corporate Planning, Metropolitan Toronto Police Service, advising that the Service had concerns about the obstructed view of the person inside the booth. These concerns are similar to the Service concerns regarding transit shelters. To ameliorate these concerns, the Committee proposed that each booth siting be subject to approval of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service at Bell Canada’s expense. In this regard, it should be noted that the proponent has agreed, as noted in our November 21, 1997 report, that advertising panels will not be installed on booths in residential areas. In our view, a review of each location by the Police Service, separate from our location analysis, would be a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Accordingly, we would propose that as an alternative arrangement, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service be included in our permit distribution process for commenting on sites considered to be in areas of above normal public safety risk. This will meet the safety objectives and provide for an efficient site permitting process.

Conclusions:

The foregoing changes to the proposed agreement provide the potential for greater revenues for Metropolitan Toronto, dependent on the overall advertising income generated by the telephone booth programme.

Summary Chart:

This report conforms with the following:

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Romualdo D’Ippolito, Manager, Road Allowance Control, 392-5371.)

(The Metropolitan Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(The Metropolitan Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 26 of The Executive Committee, headed "Advertising Signage on Outdoor Telephone Booths - Metropolitan Toronto Road Allowances", which was adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its special meeting on December 8, 1997, recommending that City Council request Metropolitan Council to defer consideration of this matter until the new City of Toronto Council has had an opportunity to review this request in light of the decision of the former City of Toronto to not permit this type of signage within the City's road allowance; and that if Metropolitan Council chooses to permit these signs on outdoor telephone booths, it exclude those portions of the Metropolitan rights-of-way that exist within the former City of Toronto boundaries from any agreement.)