Other Items Considered by the Committee.

(a)Election of Vice-Chair of the

Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having elected Councillor Ron Moeser as Vice-Chair of the Committee:

Council, on June 3, 4, and 5, 1998, adopted By-law No. 276-1998, a by-law "Toamend further Council Procedural By-law No. 23-1998 [being a By-law "ToGovern the Proceedings of the Council and the Committees thereof"]."

Section 27 of By-law No. 276-1998 states:

"27.Section 107 of By-law No. 23-1998 is deleted and the following is substituted:

"107.The Members on each Committee shall meet on the day of the Inaugural Meeting to elect a Committee Chair and a Committee Vice-Chair from among the Committee's eligible members, and in the event of a vacancy occurring, shall elect a new Chair or Vice-Chair to hold office for the remainder of the term."

(b)F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project; and

Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998:

F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, Railway Relocation

Along Lake Shore Boulevard from the DonRoadway to Leslie Street.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following reports and communications until its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998:

-(July 7 and 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, entitled "F.G.GardinerExpressway East Dismantling Project";

-(July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, EastToronto;

-(June 18, 1998) from the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor;

-(June 8, 1998) from the Chair, South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee; and

-(July 8, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled "F.G.Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project - Railway Relocation along LakeShoreBoulevard from DonRoadway to LeslieStreet - Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No.62-1998";

(2)referred the remaining communications to the General Manager, Transportation Services; and requested the General Manager:

(a)to develop, in consultation with the local community, a plan to minimize traffic infiltration and improve the safety of pedestrians on EasternAvenue and other streets in South Riverdale, as well as in affected areas of East Toronto (Ward 26), and submit a report thereon to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(b)to conduct a detailed study of current and future rail movements (including Harbour Remediation and Transfer Facility trains) through this corridor, and their impacts, and review in detail the rail issues raised by the deputations; and submit a report thereon, including any alternative options, to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(c)to submit a report containing any origin destination traffic studies to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(d)to meet with representatives of the film industry to develop a plan for routing large vehicles during the demolition of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East;

(3)requested the Medical Officer of Health to submit a report to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on theshort and long-term impacts of dismantling or refurbishing the GardinerExpressway East on the health of children in the demolition area, including the impact on distribution of particulates and air quality; such report to be presented to the local community for its review and approval prior to consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(4)requested the Chief Financial Officer to submit a report to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on possible funding sources available for the proposed extension of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway over Leslie Street, should Council decide to proceed with that option:

(i)(July 7, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, entitled "F.G.GardinerExpressway East Dismantling Project", recommending that the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proceed as originally approved by the former Metropolitan Toronto and City of Toronto Councils providing additional information related to the Dismantling Project as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council; advising that many of the concerns raised about the GardinerEast Dismantling Project have already been addressed through previous planning and design work or can be addressed with appropriate mitigating measures; that those concerns which cannot be addressed relate to a desire to maintain the existing Expressway structure; expressing the opinion that the approved plan for the dismantling of the F.G.Gardiner Expressway East continues to provide the best combination of transportation service, urban character improvements and cost savings over the long term;

(ii)(July 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, entitled "F.G.GardinerExpressway East Dismantling Project", providing a summary of the differences between the current plan for the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project and an alternative plan developed to by-pass the LakeShoreBoulevard East and Carlaw Avenue intersection;

(iii)(July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee support and recommend to City Council the "Alternative Plan" for the dismantling of the F.G.Gardiner Expressway East and the renovation of Lake Shore Boulevard East; expressing the belief that the "Alternative Plan" will better accommodate the transportation needs of their constituents while, at the same time, improving accessibility to the harbour lands; that the "Alternative Plan" will also achieve the very desirable objective of refurbishing the streetscape and the environment along the LakeShore corridor in this area; and further recommending that staff be requested to meet with the area studio and other business property owners to seek their input on the "Alternative Plan".

(iv)(June 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Task Force on the Gardiner/LakeShore Corridor reaffirms that it prefers the option selected as part of the environmental assessment process with the ramps coming down at BouchetteStreet;

(v)(June 8, 1998) from the Chair, South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee, advising that at its meeting of May 26, 1998, the City of Toronto's South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee discussed issues respecting the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, had before it, the following motions:

"That the South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee:

(i)objects to any dismantling options that would eliminate or bypass the controlled intersection at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East, and any other design or construction options that would constrict vehicular or rail access to the Port Area, as reductions in the level of access would have substantial negative impacts on local businesses, the development potential of the Port Area and would impede access of emergency vehicles to the Port Area;

(ii)requests Council, in its consideration of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, to direct Toronto Transportation staff to consult with appropriate Civic Officials and report on the impact on local emergency services, should the controlled intersection at CarlawAvenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East be removed; and

(iii)request Council, in its consideration of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, to direct Toronto Transportation staff to undertake short-term improvements to the Cherry Street/Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection in conjunction with PhaseI of the GardinerExpressway dismantling, including, but not limited to, traffic signal modifications to extend the green light for north bound vehicles on Cherry Street, improved pavement markings, and the establishment of warning lights and activated signals for pedestrian and cyclists, while longer-term improvements for the intersection are developed.";

(vi)(July 2, 1998) from Mr. James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (C.R.E.G.E.), requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee not approve further progress on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, and setting out the reasons therefor; that the rehabilitation of all of the existing Expressway structure be approved, and that new double ramps be provided at the eastern end of the structure over the Leslie Street intersection; stating that, after this is done, Lake Shore Boulevard, west of LeslieStreet under the Gardiner Expressway, should be downgraded to a more local status with the creation of bicycle lanes in both directions on Lake Shore Boulevard;

(vii)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Kenneth W. Ferguson, Vice-President, Toronto Film Studios Inc., expressing grave concern regarding the City's plan to relocate certain railway tracks in connection with the proposed demolition of the Gardiner Expressway, east of the Don Valley Parkway; urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to weigh the consequences of such railway relocation on both the local community and the film and television industry; and advising that it would be premature for CityCouncil to award a contract to relocate the railway tracks until several major conflicts resulting from the relocation have been mitigated;

(vii)(July 8, 1998) from Mr. Barry Munro, P.Eng., expressing support for the option to rehabilitate the F.G. Gardiner Expressway east of the Don Valley Parkway, and for the 1987 motion to provide a two-lane ramp for westbound traffic at Leslie Street in order to maintain a constant traffic flow;

(ix)(April 6, 1998) from Mr. Manny Danelon, Industry Co-Chair, Film Liaison Industry Committee, advising that the Film Liaison Industry Committee (FLIC) on March 26, 1998, unanimously adopted a motion to oppose the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway due to the effect of such demolition on the studio district in terms of noise and traffic congestion;

(x)(July 13, 1998) from Mr. Boris Mather, Director, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway, urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to proceed with the original plan to dismantle the eastern portion of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway, thereby beautifying the waterfront;

(xi)(July 9, 1998) from Ms. Gail Thompson, Director, Location Promotion and Services, Ontario Film Development Corporation, expressing concerns regarding the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway between Leslie Street and the Don Valley Parkway; stating that the plan to relocate the railway tracks from the centre of Lake Shore Boulevard to the north boulevard, directly adjacent to the Toronto Film Studios and Cinevillage, will cause irreparable harm to the business undertaken at those two facilities; that the City of Toronto will lose business to other jurisdictions due to the unfavourable filming conditions that will result from the relocation of the railway tracks; and urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to reconsider its position about proceeding with the demolition of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East until all conflicts have been resolved and an analysis has been made of the impact of the demolition; and

(xii)(July 13, 1998) from Ms. Catherine Lake (and on behalf of Ms. Monique Volpe and Mr.Nigel Lake) expressing concern with the current speed and volume of traffic on LoganAvenue, between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard, particularly transport trucks and vans; stating that the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway will make this neighbourhood a speed zone of more traffic accessing the new ramp location, and will subject the community to even more stresses and unhealthy toxins in its living environment; and submitting a copy of minutes from a meeting attended by some of the residents in consultation with the Lura Group.

--------

Mr. John Kelly, Project Manager, Transportation Services, made a presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway; and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. Stephen Richard Morrison, President, The Rose Corporation;

-Mr. Kenneth W. Ferguson, Vice-President, Toronto Film Studios Inc.;

-Ms. Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

-Mr. Peter Smith, Toronto;

- Mr. Kevin Walters, Toronto;

-Mr. David Hanna, Toronto; and submitted various articles with respect thereto;

-Ms. Ang McCluskey, Toronto;

-Ms. Kathy Chandler, Toronto;

-Mr. Barry Munro, P.Eng., Toronto;

-Mr. Boris Mather, Director, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway;

-Mr. Wilfrid Walker, Transport 2000 Ontario; and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. Manny Danelon, Industry Co-Chair, Film Liaison Industry Committee;

-Mr. Peter Lukas, Showline and The Ontario Film/TV Owners Association;

-Ms. Gail Thompson, Director, Location Promotion and Services, Ontario Film Development Corporation;

-Mr. Ken Greenberg, Urban Strategies;

-Mr. J. Michael Kirkland; The Kirkland Partnership Inc.;

-Mr. David Glassey; Toronto;

-Ms. Catherine Nasmith, Co-Chair, Task Force on the Gardiner/LakeShore Corridor; and submitted copies of two articles from the March 1998 issue of "STPP Progress"; and

-Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto.

(c)Application of Former City of Toronto's 1984 Special Legislation

Respecting Demolition Control to the New City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following report:

(June 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998, during consideration of the conversion to condominium, and demolition, of rental housing before and after the proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act, for a report on the feasibility of amending the former City of Toronto's special demolition control legislation in the City of Toronto Act, 1984, so that the Act will apply to the whole of the urban area of the new City; advising that the costs of filing an application for special legislation includes a filing fee of $150.00, the cost of publishing a notice of application once a week for fourweeks in the Ontario Gazette and newspaper, the cost of printing the Private Bill and the cost of printing the Act in the annual statutes; that, based on 1996 costs for a similar sized Private Bill, costs are estimated at $6,000.00 with newspaper advertising costs being the largest component; and recommending that, if the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends an application for special legislation, authority be granted to apply for special legislation substantially in the form of the draft Private Bill attached to this report.

(d)Intervenor Funding of Community Groups at Ontario Municipal Board Hearings.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following report to the City Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, with a request that they submit a joint report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the criteria for extending intervenor funding to community groups; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on whether it is appropriate for applications by community groups for intervenor funding to be reviewed by a City Committee; and, if so, to identify the Committee to conduct such review:

(June 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services reporting, in response to Council's request at its June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 meeting, on a policy for requests for intervenor funding; advising that an emphasis on advance community consultation, negotiation, facilitation and mediation, rather than on litigation, will best ensure that the decision making process for development and planning matters is accessible to all citizens; and recommending that Council not support intervenor funding but continue to make decisions on requests on a case-by-case basis, evaluating at the time of the request the availability of funds and whether other dispute resolution methods could be used to achieve the interests of the City of Toronto.

(e)Toronto Transit Commission

Project Approval and Procurement Authorization

- General Business Computer.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee that increased project financing approval in the amount of $1,608,395.00 gross be granted to CityProject No. 710 of the Toronto Transit Commission, "Computer Equipment and Software -Various":

(June 19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on June 17, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in a report, entitled "Project Approval and Procurement Authorization - General Business Computer":

"It is recommended that the Commission approve:

(1)awarding a contract to GlassHouse Systems Inc., in the amount of $1,433,900.00 to replace the existing IBM 9121/480 with an IBM 2003/225, including the hardware and IBM operating system software;

(2)an additional $350,000.00 for the transfer and upgrade of existing third party (non-IBM) software;

(3)an additional $24,495.00, required to pursue the option to purchase nine additional channels, for a total upset limit of $1,808,395.00;

(4)approval to declare the current IBM 9121/480 surplus and authorize the Manager of Materials and Procurement to dispose of it in the best interest of the Commission;

(5)forwarding this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting increased project approval be granted in the amount of $1,608,395.00 gross ($731,820.00 net) by advancing approved expenditures from future years; and

(6)authorize staff to proceed with the award of this contract, due to the critical nature of the request and hold in TAC accounts, pending City Council approval.

(f)1998 Wheel-Trans Budget Update.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the BudgetCommittee the adoption of the recommendations of the Toronto Transit Commission, embodied in the following communication:

(June 19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on June 17, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in Report No. (5), entitled "1998 Wheel-Trans Budget Update":

"It is recommended that the Commission approve:

(1)increasing the 1998 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget of $38.2M by up to $625,000.00, and the workforce complement from 380 to 383, as set out below:

(a)increasing the Sedan Taxi service by up to $400,000.00 to accommodate unbudgeted costs associated with increased trip demand;

(b)increasing the Wheel-Trans maintenance costs by $75,000.00 as a result of decreasing Orion bus reliability and thereby delaying the planned reduction of the Wheel-Trans Maintenance workforce; and

(c)allocating the legal costs associated with the current Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Challenge of the Wheel-Trans application process and eligibility criteria, in the amount of $150,000.00 to the 1998 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget;

(2)increasing the current purchase order upset limits of the Sedan Taxi Contracts by up to $400,000.00 in order to provide for these additional trips; and

(3)forward this report to the City of Toronto requesting City Council approval, through the City Budget Committee, of a draw from the Corporate Contingency Account in the amount of $625,000.00, bringing the 1998 Budget to $38.8 million.

(g)Sheppard Subway: Status of Permits and Approvals.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter until its next meeting, scheduled to be heldon September8, 1998; and

(2)requested the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, to submit a full report to the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the potential cost overruns on the Sheppard Subway project:

(May 21, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on May 20, 1998, considered Report No. (27), entitled "Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals"; that the Commission received the subject report for information and approved the following:

(1)that staff report on the critical path for completion of the Sheppard Subway, including tenders, site plan approvals, building permits, design work, tunnelling work and any other appropriate deadlines associated with the project; and further

(2)that any site plan approval conditions which add costs beyond the approved budget for the Sheppard Subway project be forwarded to the City Budget Committee and City Council for additional project and funding approval;

and stating that the foregoing is forwarded for the information of the City of Toronto Council.

(h)510 Spadina: Progress Towards Resolution of Safety Problem.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication, having regard that City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, by the adoption of Clause No. 45 of Report No. 8 of The Toronto Community Council, already dealt with this matter:

(June 19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on June 17, 1998, considered Report No. (22), entitled "510Spadina: Progress Towards Resolution of Safety Problem"; and setting out the action taken by the Commission with respect thereto.

(i)Russell Hill Subway Train Accident of

August 11, 1995 - Due Diligence Checklist Update.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:

(June 19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that at its meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 1998, the Commission considered a report, entitled "Russell Hill Subway Train Accident of August 11, 1995 - Due Diligence Checklist Update."; and that the Commission received the updated Due Diligence Checklist contained therein, which provides a status report on the progress toward closing the Coroner's Jury Recommendations and the TTC's Internal Team Recommendations.

(j)Request to Install Traffic Control Signals:

Bayview Avenue and Tudor Gate.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the recommendation of the North York Community Council, embodied in the communication (June 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending the motion by Councillor Flint by striking therefrom the third operative paragraph, viz:

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT provision be made in the 1998Transportation budget to cover the cost of installing this signal light.";

(2)recommended to the Budget Committee that funds for the proposed traffic control signals at BayviewAvenue and Tudor Gate be allocated from cancelled projects within the Works and Emergency Services Department's 1998 Capital Budget for Transportation Services;

(3)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit a report to the next meeting of the Budget Committee on the funding sources for the proposed traffic control signals at Bayview Avenue and Tudor Gate; and

(4)received the following communication from Mr. Clifford R. Jenkins, President, TheYork Mills Ratepayers' Association:

(i)(June 2, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the North York Community Council on May27, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the adoption of a motion by Councillor Flint, which contains the following operative paragraphs:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT a traffic signal light be installed on Bayview Avenue at Tudor Gate; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this light be activated in off-peak hours so as to allow a single vehicle to legally turn left onto BayviewAvenue; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT provision be made in the 1998 Transportation budget to cover the cost of installing this signal light.";

submitting a copy of a report (May 26, 1998) from the Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, Transportation Services, wherein it states that based on a review of the intersection, the traffic volumes recorded during the busiest hours of a typical weekday do not satisfy the minimum technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals; and further stating that the Urban Environment and Development Committee previously approved the re-striping of Bayview Avenue to provide a centre two-way left-turn lane between YorkRoad/Wilket Road and Post Road, which will assist motorists turning left onto BayviewAvenue, from Tudor Gate, CountryLane and other streets and driveways in this vicinity.

(ii)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Clifford R. Jenkins, President, The York Mills Ratepayers' Association, recommending strongly that the City of Toronto install traffic control signals at the intersection of Bayview Avenue and Tudor Gate in the interest of the community's safety.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Ryan Brooker, North York;

-Mr. Paul Elstro, North York;

-Ms. Margaret Nightingale, North York;

-Mr. Ruby Osten, Toronto;

-Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South; and

-Councillor Milton Berger, North York Centre South.

(k)Request for the Installation of Noise Barrier on Romanway Crescent.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter to its meeting scheduled to be held on October5, 1998; and

(2)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to examine the shrubbery and pavement on Jane Street in the vicinity of Romanway Crescent to determine whether changes to the landscaping and/or road surface would accommodate the concerns of the residents of Romanway Crescent; and submit a report thereon to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(May 1, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, submitting a copy of a staff response dated March 23, 1998, prepared with respect to a constituent's request for noise barriers on Romanway Crescent, wherein it states that such installation is not supported due to the cost involved and the impacts on public security and aesthetics; and advising that her constituent wishes to pursue this matter and make a deputation before the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

--------

Ms. Maria Demarco, Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(l)Review of Level Crossings and the

Construction of Grade Separations in the City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communication to the General Manager, Transportation Services, with a request that he submit a report to the Committee on the issue of level crossings and grade separations in the new City of Toronto:

(June 1, 1998) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, P. Eng., submitting comments pertaining to a proposed review of level crossings and the construction of grade separations in the City of Toronto; and recommending that the Urban Environment and Development Committee adopt thefollowing:

"Request staff:

(a)to report on the locations of all level crossings in Toronto;

(b)to report on the financial formulas to be used for the construction of grade separations;

(c)to review the contributions of benefitting developers/industries; and

(d)to review the status of the Strachan Avenue level crossing; and, further, comment on safety, legal and the rights of the abutting new residential community."

(m)Summary of History and Status of the Acquisition of Steeles Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)established a Steeles Avenue Sub-Committee, comprised of the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and Members of the Committee whose Wards abut Steeles Avenue (i.e, Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe and Sgro); and

(2)requested the Steeles Avenue Sub-Committee to meet with the General Manager, Transportation Services, in order to develop a strategy for dealing with Steeles Avenue, and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(June 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services advising that Council at its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted Clause No. 7 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Proposal to Commence Negotiations for a New Agreement with the Region of York Regarding Steeles Avenue", in which staff were requested to prepare a summary of previous reports on Steeles Avenue; providing a summary of the information previously presented to Metro Council in this regard; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n)Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc.

Financial Statements for Year Ended December 31, 1997.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)received the following communication, and having directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to the Audit Committee for its consideration; and

(2)requested the General Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., to submit a report directly to the Audit Committee, for consideration with this matter on July 21, 1998, regarding Note (6) to the Non-Consolidated Financial Statements, viz:

"6.Economic Dependence:

The Company is dependent on the continuing support of its parent, the Commission. In addition, a significant portion of the Company's revenue is attributable to four tenant carriers. Agreements with three of these carriers have expired. The ability of the Company to continue as a going concern is dependent on the renegotiation of the agreements with these carriers, or alternates.":

(June 23, 1998) from the General Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., submitting a copy of a staff response dated March 23, 1998, prepared with respect to a constituent's request for noise barriers on Romanway Crescent, wherein it states that such installation is not supported due to the cost involved and the impacts on public security and aesthetics; and advising that her constituent wishes to pursue this matter and make a deputation before the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(o)Scarborough Port Union Pedestrian Underpass:

Transportation Capital Budget Project No. C-TR-703.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)directed that the following report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for consideration; and

(2)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit a report to the next meeting of the Budget Committee regarding the proposed reallocation of $900,000.00 from Project No. C-TR-703, Scarborough Port Union Pedestrian Underpass, to Project No.C-TR-701, Scarborough Sidewalk Construction; specifically, whether such proposed reallocation is an appropriate use of funds given the transportation requirements City-wide:

(July 9, 1998) from the the General Manager, Transportation Services, recommending that $900,000.00 be re-allocated from Project No. C-TR-703, Scarborough Port Union Pedestrian Underpass, to Project No. C-TR-701, Scarborough Sidewalk Construction, and, further, that this report be forwarded to theScarborough Community Council for its information; advising that the proposed Port Union Pedestrian Underpass is one component of the PortUnion Common/Waterfront Regeneration Project which stretches from Highland Creek to the Rouge River, and that the underpass links the Port Union Road Headland to the Village Common by creating a tunnel underneath the railway line separating them; explaining that construction of the underpass was originally expected to begin in 1998, but has now proceeded to the point where only $100,000.00 in engineering work can be completed in 1998; stating that $1,000,000.00 was allocated in the 1998 Capital Works Program for the Port Union Pedestrian Underpass; and that, because of the delay in construction to 1999, it is appropriate to reallocate $900,000.00 from this project to the Scarborough Sidewalk Construction program which was cut back as part of the original budget process.