Other Items Considered by the Committee.
(a)Vital Services in Rental Residential Properties in the City of Toronto.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:
(1)deferred consideration of this matter to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998, to facilitate review
and input from the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes; and
(2)requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services, to submit a report to such meeting on:
(a)the timing implications for tenants who use the Provincial Tribunal process for prosecution/enforcement of vital
services issues; and
(b)Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated August24, 1998, from the Medical Officer of Health, viz:
"(2)that the City Solicitor be requested to review the feasibility and conditions under which the Health Protection
and Promotion Act, c.H.7, R.S.O. 1990 could be applied in situations involving the discontinuation of vital services.":
(i)August 28, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, advising
that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes will not be meeting before the September 8, 1998 meeting
of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and, therefore, will be unable to comment on the issue of vital
services in rental residential properties in the City of Toronto; and requesting that this item be deferred until the October 5,
1998 Committee meeting to facilitate review and input from the Council Strategy Committee.
(ii)(August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services advising that staff are of the
opinion that a Vital Services By-law should not be enacted under current legislation as it could put the City in the position
of having significant and potentially non-recoverable funds owing; that other mechanisms are available to address the risk
to vulnerable persons without incurring the high administrative costs and uncertainty of recovery of funds; that legislation
exists to allow Toronto Hydro essentially the same power of recovery of outstanding bills as under the former City of
Toronto's "Urgent Hazards Program"; that the policy of Consumers Gas notes that "gas service may be discontinued only
as a last resort", and the company advises that it would generally not cut service in the winter where vulnerable persons
would be at risk; stating that prior to considering enacting a Vital Services By-law, it would be appropriate for a working
group, comprised of representatives from Municipal Standards, Public Health, and the relevant utilities or fuel providers, to
establish policies with respect to discontinuing service/supply, and to monitor these policies in action for at least one year;
explaining that it is possible to minimize the number of situations under which Emergency Orders (either under a Property
Standards By-law, or the Health Protection and Promotion Act) would have to be used by ensuring that the utility
companies provide sufficient notice of planned cutoff to allow for proper evaluation of specific situations and to provide
the opportunity to apply alternative solutions; and recommending that this report be received as information.
(iii)(August 24, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health advising that Public Health staff met with representatives from
agencies and organizations that serve tenants and persons living in poverty on August 13, 1998 to discuss possible health
impacts to residents should the City not intervene to restore cut-off vital services; stating that the health of the residents of
Toronto could be compromised if vital services are turned off; further advising that the August 24, 1998 report of the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (Item1 above)has been reviewed, and the idea of a working
group to review anticipated service cut-offs before they occur is supported; however, there are concerns about the
feasibility of using the Health Protection and Promotion Act as a remedy in these circumstances; and recommending that:
(1)this report be received for information; and
(2)the City Solicitor be requested to review the feasibility and conditions under which the Health Protection and
Promotion Act, c.H.7, R.S.O. 1990 could be applied in situations involving the discontinuation of vital services.
(iv)(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that the City of
Toronto not enact a vital services by-law under authority of the Tenant Protection Act, given the expected high cost of its
administration and potential for financial risk to the City; advising that, in the event that Council chooses not to adopt the
aforementioned recommendation and, instead, chooses to enact a Vital Services By-law, then that action would require the
reversal of Council's previous budgetary decision to discontinue the former City of Toronto's "urgent hazard" program in
order to commit funds now to the staffing and administration of a vital services program in the amount of $60,000.00 for
1998 and $120,000.00 annualized thereafter; that, in addition, historically the former City of Toronto committed funds,
ranging from $500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 annualized, to the restoration of utilities in rental residential properties;
explaining that under authority of the City of Toronto Act, these funds were recoverable as they were collectible through the
municipal realty tax process; that any future funds to be expended by the City to restore such utilities under a vital services
by-law would be at great risk of being unrecoverable, given that the enabling legislation does not provide for such funds to
be placed on the tax rolls; stating that the current legislation provides for a lien to be placed against the property and/or for
the City to have tenants pay rents directly to the City; and suggesting that City Council seek to rely instead on general
enforcement of municipal standards regulations through prosecution by the City as necessary, as well as on procedures
which are currently being put into place under the Tenant Protection Act for tenants to seek prosecution activity through the
Provincial Tribunal specifically regarding vital services.
(v)(June 9, 1998) from the City Solicitor reviewing the potential implications of the motion referred by City Council at its
meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, which proposes that the City enact a by-law requiring providers of vital services to adopt
a program whereby the service providers would continue to provide services to tenanted properties despite the landlord's
failure to make utility payments; advising that City Council lacks the authority to enact such a by-law; that Council may
require utility companies to give 30 days notice of the intention to discontinue service for non-payment; however, after the
30-day period has elapsed, Council cannot require continuation of the service without payment to the utility company; and
recommending that this report be received for information.
(vi)(August 10, 1998) from the City Clerk enclosing, for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No.3
contained in Report No. 9 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Vital Services in Rental
Residential Properties in the City of Toronto", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of
Toronto at its meeting held on July29, 30and31,1998; such action, in effect, being that City Council received the report
dated July 15, 1998, from the City Solicitor.
(b)Sheppard Subway - Status of Permits and Approvals.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following
communications to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998:
(i)(May 21, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit 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.
(ii)(July 30, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, responding to a request made by the
Urban Environment and Development Committee for a full report on the potential cost overruns on the Sheppard Subway
project; submitting a copy of the briefing given to the Toronto Transit Commission on July 9, 1998, which covers the
potential cost overruns; advising that the TTC does not expect to have any more information until after September 8, 1998;
and that staff will be present at the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Committee to respond to any questions.
(iii)(August 31, 1998) addressed to the Toronto Transit Commission from the ChiefGeneral Manager of the Commission,
and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, regarding building permits for the Sheppard Subway.
(c)Toronto Transit Commission: Procurement Authorization
- Excavation and Paving 1998 Surface Track Program.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:
(A)recommended to the Budget Committee that:
(1)additional project financing approval in the amount of $2,223,000.00 be granted to City Project No.120 of the
Toronto Transit Commission, "SurfaceTrack"; and
(2)the TTC's approved 1998 Capital Program be increased by a corresponding amount to cover the road
reconstruction portion of the surface track work; and
(B)requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report directly to the Budget Committee, for
consideration with this matter at its meeting on September 15, 1998, regarding the issue of
inter-departmental/inter-agency cost allocations with respect to this program:
(i)(August 20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on August
19, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in Report No. (10), entitled "Procurement Authorization -
Excavation and Paving 1998 Surface Track Program":
"It is recommended that the Commission:
(1)approve the issuance of a Purchase Order in the total upset limit amount of $3,802,000.00 to the City of Toronto -
Works and Emergency Services Department for the Commission's cost of excavation and paving within the track
allowance. This work will be completed by the City of Toronto in 1998;
(2)forward this report to the City of Toronto requesting an increase in the TTC's approved 1998 Capital Program in the
amount of $2,223,000.00 and a corresponding increase in Project Approval to reflect the downloading of costs from the
City to the TTC for the road reconstruction portion of the surface track work, (this work has traditionally been funded
through the City's Transportation Department's budget); and
(3)note that this work is proceeding at this time since deferral of the work would impact the ability to complete the work in
a timely and cost-efficient manner."
(ii)(April 23, 1998) addressed to the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, from the Interim Functional
Lead, Transportation, regarding TTC track rehabilitation projects; acknowledging that the TTC is willing to fund the entire
cost for the CoxwellAvenue project, both Lake Shore Boulevard West projects, and the two DundasStreet East projects in
the 1998 Track Rehabilitation Program; advising that Transportation staff are currently in the process of preparing contract
documents and will be tendering the work in an effort to meet the 1998 work schedule; pointing out that, for subsequent
years, the TTC has proposed that it initiate, fund (100percent) and complete all surface track replacement and track
allowance projects; stating that Transportation Services supports this proposal in principle ; and setting out some of the
numerous responsibilities and details that still need to be clarified to ensure safe and effective program implementation.
(d)Toronto Transit Commission:
Confirmation of Additional Project Approval - Roofing Rehabilitation Program.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee that:
(1)additional project financing approval in the amount of $1,530,000.00 gross ($765,000.00net) be granted to City
Project No. 311 of the Toronto Transit Commission, "Finishes - Roofing Rehabilitation Program", for a total City
approval of $5,744,000.00 to cover cash flow requirements to the end of 1998; and
(2)a corresponding reduction in project financing approval be granted to City Project No.610 of the Toronto
Transit Commission, "Environmental Programs";
noting that there is no net increase in the overall Capital Budget of the Toronto Transit Commission:
(August 20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission advising that the Commission on August 19,
1998, approved the following recommendations contained in Report No. (14), entitled "Confirmation of Additional Project
Approval - Roofing Rehabilitation Program":
"It recommended that the Commission confirm the approval provided by the Chair, Vice-Chair and Chief General Manager
with regard to the following:
(1)authorize staff to undertake previously unscheduled urgent work in 1998 under Project No. 3.1Finishes - Roofing
Program, noting that additional expenditures of $1,530,000.00 will be required to the end of 1998 and noting that full
project documentation will be provided in the 1999-2003 Capital Program submission;
(2)forward this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting that additional project approval (City Project No. 311) be
granted in the amount of $1,530,000.00 gross ($765,000.00 net), for a total City approval of $5,744,000.00 to cover cash
flow requirements to the end of 1998, and reducing the project approval for Project No.6.1 Environmental Programs (City
Project No. 610) by a corresponding amount; and noting that there is no net increase in the overall TTC budget; and
(3)authorize staff to proceed with project expenditures, due to the critical nature of this request, and hold in TTC accounts,
pending City Council project approval."
(e)Toronto Transit Commission:
Confirmation of Additional Project Approval -
Garage Subsurface Investigation and Remediation Program.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee that
additional project financing approval in the amount of $493,000.00 gross ($123,250.00 net) be granted to City
Project No. 613 of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), "Environmental - Garage Subsurface Remediation
Program", for a total City approval of $11,610,000.00 to cover cash flow requirements to the end of 1998; noting
that sufficient under-expenditures are available in 1998 under other projects in City Project No. 610 of the TTC,
"Environmental Programs -Various", to accommodate the aforementioned increase in cash flow requirements for
this project:
(August 20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on August 19,
1998, approved the following recommendations contained in Report No. (15), entitled "Confirmation of Additional Project
Approval - Garage Subsurface Investigation and Remediation Program":
"It is recommended that the Commission:
(1)grant additional project approval in the amount of $493,000.00 for 6.1Environmental - Garage Subsurface Remediation
Program for a revised total project cost to the end of 1998 of $11,610,000.00, noting that full project documentation will be
provided in the 1999-2003 Capital Program submission;
(2)forward this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting that additional project approval (City Project No. 613) be
granted in the amount of $493,000.00 gross ($123,250.00 net), for a total City approval of $11,610,000.00 to cover cash
flow requirements to the end of 1998;
(3)authorize staff to proceed with project expenditures, due to the sensitive nature of this request, and hold in TTC
accounts, pending City Council project approval; and
(4)forward this report to the Ministry of Environment for information.";
such report also noting that sufficient under expenditures are available in 1998 under other projects in 6.1 Environmental
Programs to accommodate the aforementioned increase in cash flow requirements for this project.
(f)Funding of Pedestrian Improvements.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:
(1)recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report from the General Manager,
Transportation Services; and
(2)referred the brief filed by Ms.RhonaSwarbrick to the General Manager, Transportation Services, with a request
that he report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on:
(a)criteria which can be used to evaluate, prioritize and implement pedestrian improvements, how such
improvements can be accommodated within the budget process, and how the private/business sector can be
involved; and
(b)the allocation of revenues from the leasing of road rights-of-way, and how those funds are expended:
(i)(August 16, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, advising that the annual revenue from the lease
of City of Toronto road rights-of-way for pedestrian tunnels and bridges is approximately $100,000.00; that reallocation of
this revenue from general transportation uses to specific pedestrian improvements can be accommodated within the existing
budgets for transportation services; and recommending that the revenue collected in the City of Toronto from the leasing of
road rights-of-way for pedestrian tunnels and bridges be allocated to improve pedestrian facilities.
(ii)(July 23, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, suggesting that a fund for pedestrian
improvements be established; and, if necessary, that the Committee request staff to bring forward a report on how
pedestrian improvements are funded and whether or not a specific fund would be desirable.
____________
Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with
the foregoing matter, and filed a written brief containing recommendations with respect to the funding of pedestrian
improvements.
(g)Contract No. T-47-98: F. G. Gardiner Expressway
- Saulter Street to Leslie Street, Substructure Repairs.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the
adoption of the following report:
(August 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advising that emergency repairs are required
to remove delaminated concrete from the south cantilevers and bearing seats of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway which are in
danger of spalling, thus posing a potential threat to motorists currently using LakeShore Boulevard westbound; stating that
funding for this project has previously been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No. C-TR026,
F.G.Gardiner Repairs - Parkway to Leslie Street; that here are sufficient funds available in Capital Account No. C-TR026
to accommodate the extension of this Contract.;and recommending that the contract price for Contract No.T-47-98,
F.G.Gardiner Expressway - Saulter Street to Leslie Street, Substructure Repairs, be increased by $250,000.00 net to a total
of $1,036,920.80 to accommodate the additional emergency work.
(h)Proposed Installation of Pedestrian Crossover:
McNicoll Avenue and Silver Springs Boulevard.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:
(1)deferred consideration of the following report from the General Manager, Transportation Services, to its
meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998; and
(2)received the following communication from Councillor Sherene Shaw, Scarborough Agincourt:
(i)(July 30, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services recommending that a pedestrian crossover be
installed on McNicoll Avenue at SilverSprings Boulevard; advising that the subject location has been investigated on
numerous occasions in response to pedestrian safety concerns raised by the SilverSprings Community Association; that the
technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are not met at the aforementioned location; that, in support of
the September 1997 resolution of the former Scarborough Council, a pedestrian crossover should be installed at this
location at an estimated cost of $19,300.00; and stating that funds are available for the installation of pedestrian crossovers
as per Section 37 agreement, Account No.70697-0000-0000-853.
(ii)(September 2, 1998) from Councillor Sherene Shaw, Scarborough Agincourt, requesting that the Urban Environment
and Development Committee defer consideration of this matter until its October 5, 1998 meeting in order to permit her to
notify and consult with the local community.
(i)Non-Concurrence with Request for Traffic
Control Signals: Midland Avenue and Lockie Avenue.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report
to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998:
(July 30, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services reporting on the results of the traffic signal warrant
studies conducted at MidlandAvenue and Lockie Avenue, in response to concerns raised by members of the public about
the operation of the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) at this location; stating that the technical warrants for the
installation of traffic control signals are not met at the aforementioned intersection; that the location is suitable for a PXO;
and recommending that this report be received for information.
(j)Use of Flashing Hand and Walk Displays at Signalized Intersections.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:
(1)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services:
(a)to undertake a study of the flashing orange hand and walk signal display at three signalized intersections, as well
as an evaluation of the timing of the walk signal; such study to include the intersections of CarpenterRoad and
Steeles Avenue, and Lawrence Avenue and Kingston Road, as two of the subject intersections, with the remaining
intersection to be located in the vicinity of a senior citizens' centre;
(b)to seek permission, if necessary, from the Minister of Transportation of Ontario for the City of Toronto to take
the foregoing action within the existing legislation contained in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act;
(c)to conduct a public education program in the areas affected by the aforementioned study;
(d)to establish focus groups in order to determine the effects of the recommended flashing orange hand signal; such
focus groups to be conducted under the auspices of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and
(e)to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee upon conclusion of the study; such
report to provide a comparison of the study's findings versus existing experience, and recommendations on the most
appropriate method of proceeding with pedestrian signals; and
(2)received the following communication and report:
(i)(August 26, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee on August20, 1998, had before it
a motion regarding the use of flashing hand and walk signals throughout the City, and recommended to the Urban
Environment and Development Committee that:
(a)the City's plan to install flashing hand and walk signals be deferred and that appropriate staff be instructed to review
and report, through the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, on their performance and effectiveness;
(b)no further installations of such signals take place until the review has taken place and a report submitted within a time
line consistent with 1999 Capital Budget considerations; and
(c)the review include the timing of all current walk signals.
(ii)(August 17, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, providing information in response to a request
made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on June 15 and 16, 1998, for a report on the
feasibility of replacing the "flashing don't walk" display at signalized intersections with a "flashing orange walking-person"
display; advising that replacing the flashing orange hand display used for pedestrian clearance with a flashing orange
walking person display is not recommended due to:
(1)non-compliance with provincial legislation;
(2)non-compliance with widely accepted practices applied throughout NorthAmerica;
(3)the importance of reinforcing the message to pedestrians that sufficient crossing time will not be available if they leave
the curb/sidewalk during the pedestrian clearance display; and
(4)the significant cost associated with converting existing pedestrian signal displays;
and recommending that this report be received for information.
____________
The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-Mrs. Helen Hansen, North York, and filed a written brief with respect thereto; and
-Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke.
(k)Audible Pedestrian Signals.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having
(1)requested the Audible Pedestrian Signals Advisory Group, in consultation with the GeneralManager,
Transportation Services, and in accordance with the budget allocation, to develop a detailed priority system for the
installation of audible pedestrian signals, together with an annual recommendation which identifies high priority
locations;
(2)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit a report to the Urban Environment and
Development Committee, on:
(a)potential mechanisms which could be utilized in order to install audible pedestrian signals at a higher rate than
they are currently installed;
(b)any alternative technologies which may be available and the costs thereof; and
(c)the cost of making audible pedestrian signals standard equipment in new traffic control signal installations, and
on the incremental cost-savings which might accrue as a result thereof; and
(3)received the following communication and memorandum:
(i)(August 27, 1998) from Mr. Garnett Martin, Chair, Audible Pedestrian Signals Advisory Group, advising that there are
41 outstanding requests for the installation of audible pedestrian signals; that, at the present rate of funding, it will take
three-and-one-half years to install those signals, by which time an additional 41requests will have been received; and
recommending that City Council give consideration to a special grant of $640,000.00 in 1998 to finance the installation of
outstanding approved requests for audible pedestrian signals.
(ii)(September 8, 1998) from Mr. Les Kelman, Director, Transportation Systems, Works and Emergency Services
Department, advising that as of September 8, 1998, audible pedestrian signals have been installed at 20 locations, and the
Division's 1998 budget estimates will permit the installation of additional eight signals; explaining that the average
installation costs have risen to $25,000.00 per location to cover other treatments required in conjunction with the audible
pedestrian signals in order to make the locations more accessible for pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired; stating
that staff could address the current backlog of 43 requests in 1999 if a capital budget of approximately $1,100,000.00 was
provided.
____________
Mr. Ron Stewart, Senior Manager, Traffic Systems, Works and Emergency Services Department, made an overhead
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. Garnett Martin, Chair, Audible Pedestrian Signals Advisory Group;
-Ms. Natalie Litwin, Co-Chair, Environmentalists Plan Transportation;
-Councillor John Adams, Midtown; and
-Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.
(l)Pollution Probe - GTA Transit Summit Project - Final Report.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communication to the
Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services, and the Chief
General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, with a request that they submit a report thereon to the Urban
Environment and Development Committee:
(July 13, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund on July 6, 1998,
gave consideration to a communication (February 28, 1998) from K.B. Ogilvie, Executive Director, Pollution Probe,
forwarding a final report, entitled "Trans-Action'98 - An Action Plan for a Modal Shift to Transit in the Greater Toronto
Area", prepared by Mr. Dave Roberts for Pollution Probe; and stating that the Board, among other things, requested that a
copy of the final report be forwarded, for information, to the Urban Development and Environment Committee
(m)Proposal for the Causeway Concept.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication and
presentation:
(May 15, 1998) from Mr. Abel Van Wyk, submitting four letters sent to all Members of Council regarding the Causeway
Concept; and requesting that the following motions be put before City Council:
(1)that a small task force be formed that will report to Council whether it appears true, on the surface, that the Causeway
Concept is technically feasible and that it will create savings to the Toronto community of more than $4billion per year;
and based on this, whether a broader study should be considered; and
(2)that Council consider giving financial support to a booth presentation of the Causeway Concept at the Canadian
National Exhibition.
__________
Mr. Abel Van Wyk made a presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the
foregoing matter, and also filed a copy of his presentation material.
(n)Construction Activity Report for the Second Quarter of 1998.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following report:
(August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing consolidated
information regarding the building permit activity in the City of Toronto for the second quarter of 1998; and recommending
that this report be received for information.
(o)TTC Insurance Company Limited: Financial Statements for the Year 1997.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:
(August 6, 1998) from the Secretary, TTC Insurance Company Limited, advising that the Board of Directors of TTC
Insurance Company Limited at its meeting of June 17, 1998, approved the Financial Statements for the year 1997; and
submitting a copy thereof to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for information.
(p)Toronto Transit Commission:
58 MALTON
(July 17, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on July 15, 1998,
approved the following recommendations contained in ReportNo. (23), entitled "58MALTON - Service to Pearson Airport
and in Mississauga":
-this change will be for a six-month trial period, beginning Sunday, July19, 1998;
-this change will make the fare collection procedures at the Pearson Airport area consistent with the fare collection
procedures on other TTC routes at locations close to Toronto's boundary;
-this change is expected to result in a net loss of revenue to the TTC of approximately $40,000 each year, but it will make
TTC service to the airport significantly more attractive for Toronto residents and visitors, and is expected to increase TTC
ridership;
(2)approve the continued operation of the current TTC service and fare collection procedure on the 58 MALTON route in
Mississauga west of the airport, pending discussion with the City of Mississauga regarding revenue sharing on this section
of the route. If negotiations with that municipality on the cost recovery issue are not satisfactorily resolved by September
30, 1998, the service west of Pearson Airport be eliminated, effective Sunday, January3, 1999; and
(3)forward this report to the City of Mississauga, the City of Toronto, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and the
Office of the Greater Toronto Services Board."
(August 24, 1998) from Mr. Rocco Maragna, President, Maragna Architect Incorporated, submitting information regarding
the Flexlink Advanced Auto Network (FAA); advising that FAA is a new transportation system which is an intermediate
between public and private transit, yet is complementary to both systems; requesting the opportunity to give a short
presentation of this Smart Mobility concept to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with a view to seeking
the endorsement of the Committee, and a recommendation that City staff be directed to provide assistance to, and
participate with, the FAA team in applying this approach to the specific needs of the City of Toronto.
(August 20, 1998) from the City Clerk submitting a copy of an advance notice of a joint meeting of the Urban Environment
and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee to be held on Tuesday, September 29, 1998, in
the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, Metro Hall, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the proposed fixed link (bridge) to the City Centre
Airport.
(September 8, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, regarding planning policies for railway corridors; and
recommending that Council develop planning policies and procedures to ensure:
(1)the safety and protection of not only new developments but also of existing neighbourhoods;
(2)that noise and safety measures are designed in consultation with representatives of existing neighbourhoods; and
(3)that any outside consultant reports commissioned by the City and relied upon for any approvals for developments,
become the property of the City.
(1)a Parking Committee be formed to find solutions to the serious problems of residential, commuter and small business
parking in the City core;
(a)at the very least, Councillors representing the City core; that is, Downtown Ward 24 and Midtown Ward 23;
(3)the Parking Committee be administered by the City Clerk.
