TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TRANSITION TEAM

REPORT No. 1

1Terms of Reference for the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

2Planning for the Seat of Government

3City of Toronto Administrative Structure

4Interim Policy for Citizen Appointments

5Interim Boards of Directors for the Municipal Housing Companies

6Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 1

OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION TEAM

(from its meeting on January 28, 1998,

submitted by Councillor David Miller , Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998

1

Terms of Reference for the Special Committee

to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the report (January 14, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, with the exception of Recommendation No. (2) having regard that a small workgroup, comprising Councillors Anne Johnston, Ron Moeser and David Miller, has met and accomplished its task:

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk to canvass all Members of the Committee to determine if there are any conflicts respecting the proposed schedule of meetings; and submit a revised scheduled to the next meeting of the Committee.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (January 14, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to propose draft Terms of Reference, draft priorities and a draft schedule of meetings for the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations in this report have no direct financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be adopted as the Terms of Reference for the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team;

(2) a small workgroup of Members of the Special Committee, including the Chair, be requested to canvass Members of the Committee and report to the next meeting of the Committee on proposed priorities and a sequence for dealing with the Transition Team's final recommendations;

(3) the Special Committee meet on a bi-weekly basis and, in order to deal with priority or time-sensitive items, special meetings may be called;

(4) the Chair of the Special Committee advise the Chairs of the following Task Forces and Special Committee of the schedule of meetings and request them to submit their draft Terms of Reference to the Special Committee for review:

(i) Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(ii) Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, and Ethno-Canadian Issues Task Force;

(iii) Environment Task Force;

(iv) Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

(v) Homeless Strategy Task Force;

(vi) Children's Action Committee;

(vii) Task Force on Community Safety; and

(viii) World City Committee;

(5) the Nominating Committee not proceed with its work until the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team has developed its recommendations on the process, policies and procedures for citizen appointments and Council has approved these recommendations; and

(6) the appropriate officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Transition Team published its Final Report on December 11, 1997. The report includes 136 recommendations to Toronto City Council. At the meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council adopted a motion by the Mayor to:

(a) approve the recommendations in the Transition Team's Final Report on an interim basis only;

(b) establish a Special Committee of Council to review the recommendations and report thereon to Council in four months; and

(c) refer all motions with respect to the Transition Team Report, except those dealing with staffing and salaries, to this Special Committee. These motions include motions with respect to the Council Procedural By-law.

Council appointed the following Members to the Special Committee:

Councillor David Miller (Chair);

Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby;

Councillor Mike Feldman;

Councillor Anne Johnston;

Councillor Joan King;

Councillor Norm Kelly;

Councillor Peter Li Preti;

Councillor Howard Moscoe;

Councillor Michael Prue;

Councillor Kyle Rae;

Councillor Judy Sgro; and

Councillor Ron Moeser.

Council also adopted a number of recommendations relating to specific tasks to be undertaken by the Special Committee. In addition, Council directed the Chief Administrative Officer to do everything necessary to provide support and assistance to the Special Committee.

Council requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Clerk to submit a report to the first meeting of the Special Committee outlining a suggested work plan and identifying priorities and implementation issues that require early resolution. This report discusses the Special Committee's mandate and work plan. The City Clerk has been consulted in the preparation of this report and concurs with its contents. It is recommended that this report be adopted as the Terms of Reference for the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Scope of the Special Committee's Mandate:

A comprehensive list of Council's resolutions relating to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team is provided in Appendix 1.

The Special Committee's mandate is wide-ranging because of the scope of the Transition Team's Final Report. Among the recommendations are proposals for:

(i) a political decision-making structure;

(ii) the role of Community Councils in the governance structure;

(iii) the role of a Greater Toronto Services Board;

(iv) principles and structures to facilitate citizen involvement in the activities of the City;

(v) an administrative structure to support the Council;

(vi) the role and structure of the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions; and

(vii) actions related to the development of the 1998 Budget and tax policies.

Sequence of Priorities:

Because of the breadth of this mandate, it is necessary for the Special Committee to immediately identify priorities and a work plan to address these priorities. It is recommended that a small workgroup of Members of the Committee, including the Chair, be requested to canvass Members of the Committee and report to the next meeting of the Committee on proposed priorities and a sequence for dealing with the Transition Team's final recommendations. It is further recommended that the Committee meet on a bi-weekly basis and, in order to deal with priority or time-sensitive items, special meetings may be called.

The identification of priorities and the sequence in which they are dealt with will be influenced by:

(1) specific timeframes requested by Council for certain matters;

(2) the significance of the Transition Team's individual recommendations; and

(3) the relationship between the work of this Special Committee and the activities of other Committees and Task Forces.

Council Requests:

The Special Committee has been directed to report on its review of the Transition Team's recommendations to the May, 1998, meeting of Council. However, Council has requested the Special Committee to deal with certain matters before then. Specifically, Council has requested:

(1) the Special Committee to report to Council on February 4, 1998, on the location for regular meetings of Council;

(2) the Special Committee to report to Council no later than March 4, 1998, on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils;

(3) the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Special Committee on three options, with advantages and disadvantages and cost factors involved in choosing the seat of government, and that these options, together with the recommendations of the Special Committee, be reported to Council in three months (i.e., April, 1998,); and

(4) the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Special Committee on a preferred organizational structure for the senior staff as soon as possible.

Significance of Transition Team's Recommendations:

The Special Committee may determine that a number of the Transition Team's recommendations deal with routine administrative matters and are not controversial. For example, the Transition Team has recommended that an inventory of all City vehicles and vehicle maintenance and repair facilities should be undertaken (Recommendation 64). Recommendations such as this can be expected to take up less of the Committee's time than other recommendations that deal with matters of much greater significance to the way in which the City operates and interacts with its citizens. These matters include the governance structure in general, the role of Community Councils in particular and citizen involvement in the affairs of the City. These issues have been the subject of much debate and controversy.

Implications for the Activities of Other Committees:

The work of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team necessarily impacts on the work of several other committees. In adopting the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on an interim basis, and in adopting Report No. 1 of The Striking Committee, Council established the following Task Forces and Special Committee:

(1) Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(2) Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, and Ethno-Canadian Issues Task Force;

(3) Environment Task Force;

(4) Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

(5) Homeless Strategy Task Force;

(6) Children's Action Committee (Sub-Committee of the Community Services Committee);

(7) Task Force on Community Safety; and

(8) World City Committee (to develop friendship agreements, twinnings, etc.).

Council requested the Chairs of each of these Task Forces and Special Committee to develop Terms of Reference, including a proposed composition, and report thereon to Council through the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. The review of these Terms of Reference will be closely tied to the overall approach that is recommended for the City's governance structure. It is recommended that the Chair of this Special Committee advise the Chairs of the following Task Forces and Special Committee of the schedule of meetings and request them to submit their draft Terms of Reference to the Special Committee for review:

(1) Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(2) Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, and Ethno-Canadian Issues Task Force;

(3) Environment Task Force;

(4) Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

(5) Homeless Strategy Task Force;

(6) Children's Action Committee;

(7) Task Force on Community Safety; and

(8) World City Committee.

In adopting Report No. 1 of The Striking Committee, Council established a Nominating Committee with the mandate to recommend citizen appointments. The work of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team will have implications for the bodies to which the Nominating Committee recommends appointments and for the nominations process itself. Therefore, it is recommended that the Nominating Committee not proceed with its work until the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team has developed its recommendations on the process, policies and procedures for citizen appointments and Council has approved these recommendations.

In addition, other Standing Committees have been and will be referring items to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

Conclusions:

This report outlines the mandate of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. The report highlights the scope of the mandate and considerations for the determination of priorities and the sequence in which they are addressed. The report recommends that:

(1) this report be adopted as the Terms of Reference for the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team;

(2) a small workgroup of Members of the Special Committee, including the Chair, be requested to canvass Members of the Committee and report to the next meeting of the Committee on proposed priorities and a sequence for dealing with the Transition Team's final recommendations;

(3) the Special Committee meet on a bi-weekly basis and, in order to deal with priority or time-sensitive items, special meetings may be called;

(4) the Chair of the Special Committee advise the Chairs of the following Task Forces and Special Committee of the schedule of meetings and request them to submit their draft Terms of Reference to the Special Committee for review:

(i) Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(ii) Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, and Ethno-Canadian Issues Task Force;

(iii) Environment Task Force;

(iv) Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

(v) Homeless Strategy Task Force;

(vi) Children's Action;

(vii) Task Force on Community Safety; and

(viii) World City Committee; and

(5) the Nominating Committee not proceed with its work until the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team has developed its recommendations on the process, policies and procedures for citizen appointments and Council has approved these recommendations.

________

Appendix 1

Council Resolutions Relating to the Mandate of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

At the meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Toronto City Council adopted the following recommendations regarding the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

(a) Council approve the recommendations in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on an interim basis only, and a Special Committee of Council, reporting directly to Council, be established to review the recommendations and report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held in the second week of May, 1998;

(b) The Special Committee be comprised of:

Councillor David Miller (Chair);

Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby;

Councillor Mike Feldman;

Councillor Anne Johnston;

Councillor Joan King;

Councillor Norm Kelly;

Councillor Peter Li Preti;

Councillor Howard Moscoe;

Councillor Michael Prue;

Councillor Kyle Rae;

Councillor Judy Sgro; and

Councillor Ron Moeser;

(c) all motions that come forward with respect to the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be referred to this Special Committee, and those dealing with staffing and salaries be referred to the Corporate Services Committee;

(d) the Chief Administrative Officer do all things necessary to provide support and assistance to this Special Committee;

(e) Recommendation No. (110)* of the final report of the Toronto Transition Team not be adopted on an interim basis but be referred to the Special Committee for consideration, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Interim City Solicitor be requested to submit a joint report to the Special Committee on the implications for the new City with regard to such recommendation.

(*Recommendation No. (110): Council should request the Province to amend the Toronto District Heating Corporation Act to include heating, cooling, co-generation and its associated by-products, and to clarify that it has full title to its property. Council should appoint new members to replace the existing political members of the Corporation's board.);

(f) an Economic Development Committee be established and the Special Committee be requested to develop Terms of Reference for the Economic Development Committee and, as part of the review of the Terms of Reference, to consider the merits of including Urban Planning as a responsibility of such Committee;

(g) the draft Council Procedural By-law, appended to the communication dated December 30, 1997, from the City Clerk, be adopted, in the interim, subject to:

(i) striking out and referring Section (3) to the City Clerk for a report thereon to the Special Committee; and

(ii) adding a new subsection (a) to Section 11, as follows, and renumbering subsections (a) and (b) accordingly:

'(a) if it is required in accordance with the Municipal Act or other applicable legislation;';

and the draft By-law and all communications and proposed amendments related thereto be referred to the Special Committee for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held in May,1998;

(h) the following motion be referred to the City Clerk for report thereon to the Special Committee: 'That Section 6 of the draft Council Procedural By-law be amended by deleting the words "24 hours' notice" and substituting therefor the words "48 hours' notice" ';

(i) the Special Committee be requested to submit a report to the meeting of Council to be held on February 4, 1998, on the location for regular meetings of Council and, until such time as the Special Committee reports back to Council on a permanent location for regular meetings of Council, such meetings be held at Metro Hall;

(j) the Special Committee be requested to submit a report to Council as soon as possible but no later than March 4, 1998, on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils;

(k) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Special Committee on three options, with advantages and disadvantages and cost factors involved in choosing the seat of government, and these options, together with the recommendations of the Special Committee, be reported to Council in three months (i.e., April, 1998,), and all Members of Council be invited to attend the meeting of the Special Committee at which this issue will be discussed;

(l) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Special Committee on a preferred organizational structure for the senior staff, such report to be submitted as soon as possible;

(m) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Special Committee on the administrative structure of the new City, such report to identify other possible options for the administrative structure;

(n) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Special Committee on Recommendation No. (66)* of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, and the possibility of enabling citizens to make routine applications for permits, etc., in their neighbourhoods, at libraries, community centres or other existing facilities by electronic means;

(*Recommendation No.(66)*: The City should establish a call centre-a centralized customer service organization to serve as the first point of contact for services, information and transactions.);

(o) the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Clerk be requested to submit a report to the first meeting of the Special Committee outlining a suggested work plan and identifying priorities and implementation issues that require early resolution; and

(p) the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report to the Special Committee on legal issues, if any, raised by Bill 103 and the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following report (January 26, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, Chairman, The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

Purpose:

This report identifies the priority items to be considered by the Special Committee and proposes a reporting timetable.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Special Committee's activities will be accommodated within existing budget allocations. Additional requirements, if any, will be identified through the 1998 Budget Process.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Special Committee adopt the workplan presented in Appendix 1; and

(2) the appropriate officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its January 2, 6, 8, and 9, 1998 meeting, Council established this Special Committee to review the recommendations in the Toronto Transition Team's Final Report. Council referred motions with respect to the Transition Team's recommendations to the Special Committee and directed the Special Committee to report to Council after four months.

A separate report from the Chief Administrative Officer sets out Terms of Reference for the Special Committee. The Chief Administrative Officer's report recommends that "a small workgroup of Members of the Committee, including the Chair, be requested to canvass Members of the Committee and report to the next meeting of the Committee on proposed priorities and a sequence for dealing with the Transition Team's final recommendations."

It had been my hope that the Special Committee would have had an organizing meeting in mid-January to review the Terms of Reference and commenced its working meetings on January28, 1998. This was not possible to arrange. However, because of the tight timelines, scope of the Special Committee's workload, and Council's request for reports on a number of matters to the Council meeting on February 4, 1998, I am bringing forward a workplan for the Committee's consideration at this time. I followed the approach recommended in the Chief Administrative Officer's report in the development of the workplan.

On January 20, 1998, I sent each Member of the Committee a chart which listed all 136 of the Transition Team's final recommendations. Relevant City Council resolutions, directions and referrals to the Special Committee were noted alongside the recommendations. I requested Members of the Committee to indicate:

(i) their level of comfort with each of the Transition Team's recommendations as written; and

(ii) the urgency or priority that the Special Committee should attach to each recommendation.

On Friday, January 23, 1998, a small workgroup, consisting of Councillors Anne Johnston, RonMoeser and myself, analyzed Members' responses and developed the proposed workplan based on those comments.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The proposed workplan is presented in schematic form in Appendix 1. Items were included in the workplan based on:

(i) the priority attached to them by Members of the Special Committee as indicated in responses to my request for comments last week;

(ii) the potential public interest in dealing with them reasonably quickly as indicated by the subject matter of Members of Council's motions referred to the Special Committee; and

(iii) the relative urgency of addressing particular issues as indicated by Council's requests for a number of reports within specified timelines.

Identification of Priorities:

The comments received from Members of the Special Committee were consistent in identifying the following as priorities:

(i) Confirmation of the location of the seat of government. Determining where the City Hall will be, where Council business will be conducted, and where Members of Council will be physically located is of great practical importance. The choice of the seat of government also has great symbolic significance. (Transition Team Recommendation No. (13) pertains to the seat of government.)

(ii) Definition of the role of Community Councils and their relationship to the rest of the Council structure. Again, this is an issue of both practical and symbolic significance. The success with which Council is able to manage its large agenda will be influenced by the role played by Community Councils. In addition, for many people, the way in which Council balances the centralization and decentralization of political decision-making will symbolize Council's sensitivity to diversity in the City. (Transition Team Recommendations Nos. (14) to (20) relate to the role and responsibilities of Community Councils.)

(iii) Definition of the basic Council-Committee structure. This part of the governance structure, together with the role of Community Councils, is fundamental to the way in which political decision-making and policy-setting will take place in the City government. The basic Council-Committee structure is dealt with in Transition Team Recommendations Nos.(2) through (10).

(iv) Reinforcement of mechanisms for citizen involvement in the City's governance. This issue is central to consideration of the role and composition of Agencies, Boards, Commissions, advisory committees and task forces and their relationship to the rest of the governance structure. (Transition Team Recommendations Nos. (31) to (40) present principles for citizen involvement and the role of task forces, while the role and structure of Agencies, Boards and Commissions are covered in varying levels of detail in Transition Team Recommendations Nos. (69) to (112).)

(v) Development of the Council Procedural By-law. The Council Procedural By-law codifies the relationships between different components of the political decision-making structure and establishes the processes for decision-making conduct. Therefore, it is an essential and fundamental component of the governance structure, once again adding both practical and symbolic value to the institutions of this City's government. The content of the Council Procedural By-Law will be impacted by conclusions with respect to Community Councils, the Council-Committee structure and the role and place of Agencies, Boards and Commissions. (The Transition Team's Draft Procedural By-law, which Council adopted as amended on an interim basis, has been referred to the Special Committee for review.)

(vi) Definition of the basic administrative structure. An accountable, empowered administration is clearly necessary to implement Council's policies and provide services to the public. The definition of the senior management structure is essential to facilitate the amalgamation of seven administrations. (Transition Team Recommendations Nos. (41) through (68) propose an administrative structure.)

The content of the motions moved during the Council debate on January 6 and 8, 1998, and referred to the Special Committee, also reflects the above priorities.

These priorities all focus on the basic structures and processes of the City's municipal government. To judge from the comments received from Members of the Special Committee and the motions moved at Council, much less priority may be attached to many of the Transition Team's other recommendations which tend to deal with administrative minutiae or matters of public policy that are the normal daily business of the City's administration or the duly elected Council and its Committees.

Urgency of Issues:

As noted in the Chief Administrative Officer's report on Terms of Reference for the Special Committee, Council has requested several reports by specified dates.

(i) The Special Committee must report to Council on February 4, 1998, on the location for regular meetings of Council. In addition, the Special Committee was requested to consider options for the permanent seat of government and report thereon to Council by April, 1998. The Chief Administrative Officer and the Acting Executive Director of Corporate Services have prepared a report dealing with both of these requests which is before the Special Committee for consideration on January 28, 1998, to meet the February 4, 1998, target for Council consideration.

(ii) The Chief Administrative Officer was directed to report to the Special Committee on a preferred organizational structure for the senior levels of the administration as soon as possible. In presentations to Council and the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the Chief Administrative Officer has explained the need for Council to approve the framework for the administrative structure as quickly as possible. The Chief Administrative Officer will present a report on a proposed administrative structure to the January 28, 1998, meeting of the Special Committee.

(iii) The Special Committee must report to Council by March 4, 1998, on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils.

In addition, a number of factors affect the sequence in which it is proposed that the Special Committee consider the priorities identified above. The City Clerk has informed me that Council must shortly make a number of citizen appointments to certain City agencies. She will report on these appointments and how to deal with them at the January 28, 1998, meeting of the Special Committee. Subsequently, she will prepare a report on principles related to the process of citizen appointments, which the Special Committee will consider during its review of Transition Team recommendations dealing with citizen involvement.

Proposed Workplan:

The Special Committee's priorities and timing considerations have lead to the proposed sequence for considering reports that is described in Appendix 1. The workplan is based on an assumption that the Special Committee will meet approximately bi-weekly. The precise timing of reports will be adjusted once the Special Committee's schedule of meeting dates has been confirmed. It is recommended that the Special Committee adopt the workplan presented in Appendix 1.

Public Input to the Special Committee:

It is not my intention to redo all the research, analysis or public consultation of the past year that was undertaken by the former municipal governments and the Transition Team. However, it is essential that there be public input to guide and validate the Committee's consideration of the role of Community Councils, the governance structure and the principles and means for citizen involvement. It is anticipated that the Special Committee will hear deputations directly and through the Community Councils.

Conclusions:

Council established the Special Committee for the express purpose of reviewing the recommendations in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. The 136 Transition Team recommendations are of two distinct types.

First, there are those recommendations that propose the basic structures and processes of the City's municipal government. These recommendations:

(i) define an organization for the City's political decision-making functions;

(ii) define the roles of community councils to balance the simultaneous need for Council to manage a large agenda, maintain a city-wide perspective, and recognize and respond sensitively to unique needs and situations in the City's different communities;

(iii) outline a structure of administrative accountability and co-ordination to ensure that Council's policies and decisions are implemented; and

(iv) develop principles and means to provide for citizen access to decision-makers and involvement in their City's government.

These components are the foundation and infrastructure for the conduct of City government in Toronto and are identified in this report as priorities for the Special Committee's review and Council's consideration. The proposed workplan is built around these priority items.

Second, there are many recommendations in the Transition Team's Final Report that are concerned with detailed policy that is more properly the normal business of the duly elected City Council and its committees. It is neither a priority nor, possibly, appropriate for the Special Committee to comment on or recommend endorsement of such recommendations. The proposed workplan suggests that such recommendations be captured in the Special Committee's report to the meeting of Council in May, 1998. At that time, the Special Committee will determine whether the suitable course of action is to recommend receipt of many of the Transition Team's recommendations.

The workplan proposed in this report is intended to be a practical tool to assist the Special Committee to fulfil its mandate. In addition, the work of this Special Committee, represented by the selection of priorities, can serve as a powerful and necessary signal that the elected Council, rather than a provincially appointed committee, is responsible for the formulation of City policies.

________

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (January 27, 1998) from the City Clerk submitting for approval a proposed schedule of meetings for The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

2

Planning for the Seat of Government

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, subject to:

(1) (a) City Council adopting the principle that all Members of Council are to be located in the same location, in the same building, in the year 1998;

(b) City Council approving the Toronto City Hall, at 100 Queen Street West, as the new City Hall for the Council of the City of Toronto;

(c) Council Members' offices, Committee Rooms and the Council Chamber renovations being completed no later than December 31, 1998, or sooner; and

(d) the necessary work at Toronto City Hall being undertaken at a cost not to exceed $5.2 million;

(2) striking out Recommendation No. (1)(ii) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(ii) striking out Recommendation No. (2) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

'(2) that City Council approve, in the interim, where appropriate, that Council meetings be located at Metro Hall, and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to meet with each Member of Council not presently located at Metro Hall to determine how best to accommodate their needs during the transition period and to ascertain what accommodation they might require at Metro Hall;'";

(3) adding to Recommendation No. (6) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team the words ", and to the University Avenue Subway", so that Recommendation No. (6) shall now read as follows:

"(6) that this project include a review of the feasibility of underground connections to Old City Hall and the Yonge Subway, either via the Eaton Centre or across Queen Street via The Bay, and to the University Avenue Subway;";

(4) adding the following new recommendations to the recommendations of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

"(12) that the Province of Ontario be served notice to vacate Old City Hall at the end of the present lease agreement; however, they be advised that the City of Toronto is prepared to extend the lease for a one-year period at $7.2 million, and that the money be used to offset the renovation at Toronto City Hall;

(13) that the Province of Ontario be offered the opportunity to lease the former Police Headquarters on Jarvis Street to house the Provincial Courts; and

(14) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, outlining a process for public participation in planning the redesign of Toronto City Hall, including organizations and groups such as Tourism Toronto."; and

(5) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) each member of staff of Members of Council be accommodated at Toronto City Hall in accordance with current City space standards;

(b) the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be requested to establish a sub-committee of five members to:

(i) report back on details for the relocation of all Members of Council, such report to address the time frame and construction details; and

(ii) address the issue of how to phase in the funding of the $5.2 million cost for the renovations to Toronto City Hall over one year;

(c) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee, within four months, on the financial feasibility of accomplishing all of the recommendations that have been put forward by the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team;

(d) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to:

(i) submit a report to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee, within six months, outlining a detailed plan for the remainder of the City's office needs; and

(ii) submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on the use of the other Civic Centre locations, in order to ensure that local government remains accessible to local constituents; and

(e) the following motion be referred to the Corporate Services Committee:

Moved by Councillor Minnan-Wong:

'It is recommended that, until such time as Members of Council relocate to Toronto City Hall, during normal business hours, the doors to the Members' Offices at Metro Hall remain unlocked to allow access to Members of Council by the media, constituents and visitors.' ")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends:

(1) the adoption of the joint report (January 22, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Acting Executive Commissioner of Corporate Services, subject to:

(i) amending Recommendation No. (1) by deleting therefrom the words "in principle", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(1) City Council approve City Hall as its permanent, long-term location; and further, that the Acting Executive Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report on:

(a) a development plan for a Civic Complex, including the possibility of including City Hall, Old City Hall, NathanPhillips Square and the City-owned land to the north of City Hall, and processes for public participation;

(b) an action plan to relocate to a refurbished City Hall by the beginning of the next term of Council; and

(c) the development of space standards including space requirements for Council and the administrative functions of the organization;" and

(ii) amending Recommendation No. (2) by deleting the figure "$2.5"and inserting in lieu thereof the figure "$1.6", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2) City Council approve that, in the interim, Council meetings and Councillors' offices shall be located at Metro Hall, and that the necessary work be undertaken at Metro Hall at a cost not to exceed $1.6 million;";

(2) that New City Hall be designated the "City Centre Project";

(3) that this City Centre Project be designated as Toronto's Millennium Project;

(4) that federal and provincial assistance be sought if the City Centre Project is designated as Toronto's Millennium Project;

(5) that the Chief Financial Officer be requested to review the feasibility of partially financing the City Centre Project by development of City-owned land to the north of City Hall, including the rehabilitation of Bay Street from Queen Street to DundasStreet;

(6) that this Project include a review of the feasibility of underground connections to Old City Hall and the Yonge Subway, either via the Eaton Centre or across Queen Street via TheBay;

(7) that the Chief Financial Officer be requested to submit a report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, on the ability to finance underground connections through lease or sale of commercial space;

(8) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to commence discussions with BellCanada regarding possible incorporation of their holdings into the complex;

(9) that the Acting Executive Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to meet with principals of the Eaton Centre and the Bay in order to discuss possibilities;

(10) that the Toronto Society of Architects be invited to participate with other professionals in a charette to assist in outlining possibilities for the Civic Complex; and

(11) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to review the feasibility of establishing a Museum of Toronto as part of the Old City Hall renovations.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following joint report (January 22, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Acting Executive Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To provide Council with options for addressing issues related to the location of Council meetings and the location of Councillors' offices on both an interim and permanent basis.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve, in principle, City Hall as its permanent, long-term location; and further, that the Acting Executive Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report on:

(a) a development plan for a Civic Complex, including the possibility of including City Hall, OldCity Hall, Nathan Phillips Square and the City-owned land to the north of City Hall, and processes for public participation;

(b) an action plan to relocate to a refurbished City Hall by the beginning of the next term of Council; and

(c) the development of space standards including space requirements for Council and the administrative functions of the organization;

(2) City Council approve that, in the interim, Council meetings and Councillors' offices shall be located at Metro Hall, and that the necessary work be undertaken at Metro Hall at a cost not to exceed $2.5 million;

(3) additional Councillors' offices be completed at Metro Hall by the end of May;

(4) the necessary funding be authorized from the Capital-'Other Projects' account;

(5) staff be directed to explore options whereby the development of the Civic Complex could be financed with minimal net financial implications; and

(6) the necessary staff be authorized to give effect to these recommendations.

Council Reference:

At its first meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, City Council requested that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

"submit a report to the meeting of Council to be held on February 4, 1998, on the location of regular meetings of Council, and until such time as the Special Committee reports back to Council on a permanent location for regular meeting of Council, such meeting be held at Metro Hall; also requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Special Committee on three options, with advantages, disadvantages and costs associated with choosing the seat of government."; and

"The Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit reports to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on:

(i) three options, with advantages and disadvantages and cost factors involved in choosing the seat of government, and that these options, together with the recommendations of the Special Committee, be reported to Council in three months; and that all Members of Council be invited to attend the meeting of the Special Committee at which this issue will be discussed;".

In addition, the motion from Councillor Moscoe, which recommended that Metro Hall be the provisional seat of government until an appropriate Civic Complex can be planned and developed, was referred to the Special Committee.

Background/History:

The Toronto Transition Team, charged with making recommendations as to the location of the new City of Toronto Council, received presentations on Toronto City Hall and Metro Hall outlining the costs and actions required to house the new City Council at each location. The Team recommended that the Council of the new City of Toronto should meet initially in the Council Chamber at Toronto City Hall and also recommended that existing offices for Councillors in both Halls be used until a decision is made on a permanent location.

Renovations were made at both buildings as there were, in total, only 41 offices available in City Hall and Metro Hall. At City Hall, six new offices were added, as well as a new meeting room constructed, and additional desks added to the Council Chamber at a cost of $228,000.00. For Metro Hall, the costs were $125,000.00, primarily for the Council Chamber.

Comments:

Profile:

Toronto City Hall and Metro Hall were each built with very different concepts in mind. Toronto City Hall is a dramatic architectural landmark with a unique design that reflects its special purpose. Metro Hall was designed to be an efficient office facility that can readily be adapted to its occupants' needs. Both can enable the Council and head office staff to be comfortably accommodated and provide ready access to the public.

The following provides, for the purposes of comparison, a profile of each facility

Requirements for Council Operations:

Council Chamber:

(i) seating for 56 Councillors and the Mayor's podium and adequate seating for staff, the public and the press gallery;

(ii) a chamber that is fully accessible and secure;

(iii) an electronic voting system that can be managed by the Clerk and allows the public to view the vote results;

(iv) a quorum and vote call system that can be heard in the lounge and Councillors' offices; and

(v) a multi media audio-visual projection system.

Councillors' Offices:

(i) 56 office suites with 600 square feet to accommodate the Councillor, an Executive Assistant, and an Administrative Assistant;

(ii) each suite furnished to the same standards, with furniture from existing Councillor's suites at MetroHall, City Hall or other existing locations; and

(iii) all offices to be equipped with computers and network connections (cost is not included in the estimates, as these are budgeted separately).

Meeting Rooms:

(i) two large committee rooms for 150 people and wired for microphones and recording of proceedings;

(ii) six smaller rooms with a capacity of 75 to 100 people.

Considerations - Long-Term Options (after this term of Council):

City Hall as the Permanent Seat of City Government:

If City Hall is chosen to be the permanent seat of government for Toronto City Council, then work will be required to expand the Council Chamber, improve access and washroom facilities, add new meeting rooms and to build additional 33 offices for Councillors. Changes will also have to be made to accommodate the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Executive Commissioners and the Clerk. Costs for the improvements at a basic level are $5.12 million.

No assessment has been made of any additional work on the building that would be needed to the administrative offices or the public areas. Much of the work would need to be done in any case since the building would continue to be used as office space for the City regardless of where Council is located and for the Toronto Community Council.

Moving beyond the simple issue of locating City Council into City Hall, a broader vision has been proposed. This would see City Hall and Old City Hall being linked to form a re-designed Civic Centre. There are many possibilities. City land to the rear of City Hall could be incorporated into the design and the possibilities of commercial space to add to the life of the Centre and to provide revenue could be considered. Consideration of changes to the Council Chamber, public areas and office space within City Hall would also be required as part of the overall design. The development potential, design criteria and financial feasibility of such a proposal will require time to study and report to Council before a decision can be made.

If Council is no longer located at Metro Hall, it reverts to being simply a City-owned office facility and its future will be determined through the process of rationalising and disposing of surplus City property. The sale of Metro Hall as a commercial office building will yield funds that could be used to offset the costs of renovating the two Toronto City Halls.

With regard to Old City Hall, the majority of the space is currently leased to the Provincial courts. The lease agreement concludes at the end of 1998, and the Province has indicated that it wishes the lease to be renewed and has requested an early response to this request. Asset preservation of this important building is ongoing. It could become the location for the Toronto Community Council.

As the seat of local government is one of the most important functions in the City, the public should have an opportunity to contribute to the process which determines the final design of the Complex. Processes could include: a design charette or forum where architects, landscape architects and designers can contribute their ideas; a public forum for deputations or an invitation for submissions.

Metro Hall:

If Metro Hall is chosen as the permanent location of the Toronto City Council, work could be done to construct 23 additional Councillors' offices on the third floor and to relocate the present public meeting rooms. The Council Chamber will require some work to improve the present seating arrangements and equipment. The cost for this option is $2.5 million.

With regard to City Hall, the building would still be used for administrative office space and could house the Toronto Community Council. The points noted above for Old City Hall would still apply.

If all three City Halls continued to be occupied, a total of around 6,100 administrative office spaces would be available in the downtown core. An assessment of the requirement for this space will need to be conducted following amalgamation of the administrative and head office functions of the City.

Considerations - Medium Term Options (July, 1998 for term of Council):

Appendix B contains detailed cost estimates.

Consolidate Accommodation at City Hall on a Permanent Basis:

This would require construction of 33 offices for Councillors and improvements to the washrooms, access to the Council Chamber and seating arrangements, as well as new meeting rooms and improvements to existing ones. The cost estimate for the work is $5.1 million. This includes $350,000.00 for enlarging the Council Chamber and $250,000.00 for relocating the CAO's office and related key administrative functions. It also includes the cost of re-locating staff in space requiredforthe construction of Councillors' offices. However, this option does not include the cost of renovating/refurbishing the rest of Toronto City Hall nor does it include capital improvements to the building or Nathan Phillips Square. The work can be completed in six to eight months.

Consolidate Accommodation at Metro Hall on a Permanent Basis:

Construction of 23 offices for Councillors on the third floor, including stair access between the second and third floors and additional washroom facilities as well as some improvements to the seating arrangements and equipment in the Council Chamber could be completed within a six-month period at an estimated cost of $2.5 million. This includes the cost of re-locating staff in space required as a result of the construction of Councillors' offices and also re-locating meeting rooms that are presently on the third floor. Most departmental head office functions are already located in MetroHall.

Consolidate Accommodation at Metro Hall on an Interim Basis:

This option would allow all Councillors to be located at Metro Hall while planning, development and construction at City Hall is under consideration or implementation. It assumes that City Hall is to be the eventual seat of government. For this purpose, the only construction would be for 23Councillors' offices on the third floor, at a cost of $1.3 million. The option could be completed within three months. The cost includes relocation of staff and relocation of meeting rooms presently on the third floor. Meeting rooms would be used at other City locations, as needed. Improvements to the Council Chamber could also be made, bringing the total cost of this option to $1.6 million.

This option will allow work to proceed on the permanent seat of government at City Hall without interrupting Council during the construction phase. The other benefit of this option is that it provides time for the debt on Metro Hall to be substantially reduced, thus increasing the net proceeds from the potential sale of the building.

Short Term Issues:

There are a number of ongoing issues that staff are resolving to ensure that Council can operate in an efficient and cost-effective way in the short term, such as the provision of space for Councillors with City Hall offices while they are at Metro Hall. These are being resolved as they occur.

Financial Implications:

The construction period for the City Hall and Metro Hall options, which includes the time necessary to let contracts, is around six months. The cost estimates range from $5.1 million to $1.3 million depending on the location and scope of work to be done. The costs of a Civic Complex can only be determined after further study and development of a design plan. Renovation of Old City Hall alone will cost an estimated $50 million for renovation costs and $20 million to bring it up to standard as an office facility.

There are a number of opportunities to fund the proposals discussed in this report. It is the intent of staff to work towards creating such opportunities, striving to complete the project with as little net impact on the budget as possible. Opportunities include the sale of Metro Hall, and of other properties that are no longer required, the use of special funding such as for Millennium projects, and allocation of rent being received for use of the Old City Hall by the Province.

Conclusions:

There are many long-term issues facing the City with regard to the appropriate and efficient use of its property assets and many unknowns. Council is being asked to decide between City Hall and Metro Hall as the location for its administrative offices and business meetings, so that the necessary construction work can begin and Councillors can be accommodated together at the earliest opportunity. The concept of a Civic Complex at City Hall/Old City Hall should be further explored, including cost minimization to the taxpayer.

Contact:

Art Coles: 397- 0805

Cathie Macdonald: 392-0449

________

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i) (January 27, 1998) from Mr. A. J. Diamond, A. J. Diamond, Donald Schmitt and Company, Architecture and Planning, indicating support for the retention of New City Hall as the CityHall for the expanded Toronto.

(ii) (January 27, 1998) from Mr. Stig Harvor, presenting reasons why he is in favour of the existing Toronto City Hall as the seat of Government.

(iii) (January 27, 1998) from Mr. David W. Oleson, advising that he is strongly in favour of the Civic Complex proposal comprised of the "new" City Hall and the Old City Hall as well as adjacent properties.

(iv) (January 28, 1998) from Mr. Michael McClelland, Vice-Chair, Toronto Society of Architects, indicating that he is in favour of the landmark Toronto City Hall as the permanent home for the new Council.

(v) (January 28, 1998) from Mr. Roland Rom Colthoff, B.Arch OAA, expressing his support of the continued use of Toronto City Hall as the interim and permanent home for the new City Council.

(vi) (January 21, 1998) from Dr. Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto, expressing Heritage Toronto's support for the continued use of the former Toronto City Hall as the seat of Toronto's government.

(vii) (January 28, 1998) from Mr. William N. Greer, Heritage Toronto, plus Preservation Consultant, advising that he strongly recommends that City Council move to adopt Toronto's New City Hall to be the permanent home for City Council, and make the necessary investment to update this publicly-owned heritage building of major cultural significant in the City.

________

The Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services gave a slide presentation to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team respecting the foregoing matter.

The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Michael McClelland;

- Mr. John Wimbs, Toronto Transition Team;

- Mr. Richard Stromberg, Manager, Preservation Services, Toronto Historical Board;

- Mr. Stig Harvor;

- Ms. Catherine Nasmith; and

- Mr. William Phillips.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway - Humber;

- Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River;

- Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland-Centennial

- Councillor Case Ootes, East York

- Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights;

- Councillor Michael Walker, North-Toronto; and

- Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto.

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of a submission (June 18, 1997), entitled "Toronto's Meeting Place", which was prepared by the former City of Toronto for presentation to the Toronto Transition Team.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (January 28, 1998) from Mr. B. Kuwabara, et al, Members of the Toronto Society of Architects, in support of the recommendation that the Toronto City Hall be the interim and permanent home for City Council.)

(Councillor Balkissoon, at the meeting of City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in those portions of the foregoing Clause pertaining to Bell Canada, in that he is an employee of Bell Canada.)

(Councillor Giansante, at the meeting of City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in those portions of the foregoing Clause pertaining to Bell Canada, in that his wife is an employee of Bell Canada.)

3

City of Toronto Administrative Structure

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause:

(1) by amending the Recommendations of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team as follows:

(a) by striking out the words "recreation and" in Recommendation (A) (1) (b) (ii) and placing "recreation" under the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism group;

(b) by adding thereto a new Recommendation (iv) as follows:

"(iv) by adding 'tourism' under the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism group."; and

(c) by striking out the words "Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee" in Recommendation No.(3) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team";

(2) to provide that the issue of the names for the service clusters be referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further review and, in no instance should the word "strategic" be used as part of such names; and

(3) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the report dated February 2, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer, entitled 'City of Toronto Administrative Structure', including the 2nd revised Appendix A, revised Appendix B, and Appendix C, be adopted, subject to amending such Appendices to provide that:

(i) 'recreation' be placed under Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(ii) 'tourism' be placed under Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(b) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit reports to City Council, in August, 1998, November, 1998, and February, 1999, on the linkages and improvements that may be made to the Corporate structure, such reports to be submitted through the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and/or the Corporate Services Committee, as appropriate;

(c) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to:

(i) give consideration to the matter of the titles used for positions below that of Commissioners after determining what is commonly used in other municipalities;

(ii) give consideration to recommending an appropriate title that recognizes the prestige and uniqueness of the title 'Commissioner' used for most Department Heads in the former municipalities; and

(iii) submit a report thereon, as soon as possible, to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(d) the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with appropriate staff, be requested to submit a report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on the staffing and administrative structure for the Community Councils.")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

(A) recommends:

(1) the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (3) and (4) embodied in the report (January 22, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer subject to:

(a) amending Recommendation No. (1) by deleting the words "Social and Health Services", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Community and Neighbourhood Services", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(1) Council approve an administrative structure comprising the Chief Administrative Officer and six Commissioners reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer for the following service groups: Community and Neighbourhood Services, Community and Economic Development Services, Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, Corporate Services, and Finance;"

(b) amending Option Three embodied therein entitled, "A Transitional Organizational Design":

(i) by changing the name "Social and Health Services" to "Community and Neighbourhood Services";

(ii) by moving recreation and libraries from the "Community and Economic Development Services" group, to the "Community and Neighbourhood Services" group;

(iii) by including the Strategic Directions Secretariat in the Administrative Structure; and

(iv) to provide that the City Solicitor, the City Clerk and the City Auditor report directly to Council, but report to the Commissioner of Corporate Services on administrative issues, such as personnel, only;

(2) that the title "Executive Commissioners" be changed to "Commissioners"; and

(3) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the appropriate functions and name of the proposed Strategic Directions Secretariat; and

(B) reports having concurred with Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the aforementioned report.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Administrative Officer:

(1) to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on February 4, 1998, on a modified Option Three incorporating the changes described in the foregoing Recommendation No. (1) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team;

(2) to submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, in nine months' time, on the progress of the corporate restructuring; and

(3) in consultation with the Chair of the Environment Task Force, to examine the Toronto Transition Team's recommendation respecting environmental issues, the International Council for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) report, and any other relevant information, on how the new City should handle environmental issues from an administrative point-of-view, and submit a report thereon to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (January 22, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report discusses options for an administrative structure for the City of Toronto. The report recommends a transitional organizational design that has the capacity to undertake the integration of seven independent and separate administrative organizations into one and to streamline the management of the organization.

Financial Impact Statement:

Work must begin immediately to implement an administrative structure that provides effective management controls, clear lines of accountability and efficient service delivery. It is also essential to the morale and productivity of the workforce of the seven organizations that stabilization initiatives begin right away, particularly initiatives for managing the exit and retention of staff and their skills. The financial impact will be reported to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee together with the related human resource policies required to support implementation of the approved structure.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council approve an administrative structure comprising the Chief Administrative Officer and six Commissioners reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer for the following service groups: Social and Health Services, Community and Economic Development Services, Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, Corporate Services, and Finance;

(2) this report be forwarded for information to a special meeting of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee to be held prior to the February 4, 1998, Council meeting;

(3) the Chief Administrative Officer report on a regular basis to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the progress of implementation of the administrative structure; and

(4) the appropriate officials be authorized to undertake the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

On January 8, 1998, Council established a Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. The Special Committee has a mandate to review the recommendations of the Transition Team within a four-month time frame, and is to report back on certain matters, such as the administrative structure, on a priority basis. The Transition Team has made recommendations regarding the senior administrative structure of the new City of Toronto and has communicated to Council recommendations resulting from its recruitment activities for Executive Commissioners and other Acting appointments. A number of motions were also referred to the Special Committee for its consideration, including the following motions to which this report responds:

"The Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit reports to the Special Committee on:

(a) a preferred organizational structure for the senior staff, such report to be submitted as soon as possible; and

(b) the administrative structure of the new City, such report to identify other possible options for the administrative structure."

Background:

Description of Current Situation:

At its first meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council confirmed the appointments of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Clerk, the Chief Financial Officer, the Commissioner of Human Resources, the Fire Chief and the Acting Medical Officer of Health. Council also received a communication from the Toronto Transition Team advising that it was recommending four candidates for the positions of Executive Commissioner, an Acting Solicitor and an Acting Auditor, for consideration by Council. A separate report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee will address this matter.

On December 30, 1997, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) advised the Mayor and Members of Council that an Implementation Task Force was established to ensure that City services continue without disruption and to facilitate the administration of the City. The Implementation Task Force consists of the four candidates recommended as Executive Commissioners by the Transition Team, along with the Chief Financial Officer. Each member of the Implementation Task Force is responsible for co-ordinating a group of functions. A "lead" person has been assigned for each functional area to assist the respective Implementation Task Force member by facilitating resolution of program issues, co-ordination of reports to committee and response to Council inquiries. The Implementation Task Force is establishing the administrative approval mechanisms required to ensure that business continues and that checks and balances are in place.

In summary, there are three categories of senior executives in place in the City of Toronto: those who have been through a competitive process and who have been hired by the Transition Team and subsequently confirmed by Council; those who have been through a competitive process and recommended by the Transition Team to Council and who are acting in their positions pending Council approval; and those who have been designated functional leads but have not been through a competitive process.

This interim arrangement provides some stability in these early days, but is far from ideal and cannot continue for long. Clear lines of responsibility and accountability are difficult to establish and maintain in such a patchwork configuration. The role and authority of the designated functional leads require greater certainty if they are to effectively exercise management responsibilities and integrate service delivery programs.

It is important to proceed as soon as possible with a planned organizational restructuring process. As the first phase, an appropriate administrative structure must be put in place. This will allow phase two of restructuring to begin within the service groups at the next level of management.

Establishing the Administrative Organization:

The design of an ideal administrative structure for the City of Toronto will be an evolutionary process. It must begin with some early decisions to put in place senior staff who have the responsibility and authority to drive organizational transition. The initial administrative structure must by necessity be a transition structure. The structure must streamline management, consolidate corporate functions, give priority to integration of non-amalgamated functions, and ensure that functions affected by Who Does What program delivery changes can efficiently reorganize to accommodate these changes. Concurrently, the structure must provide the means to provide strategic management direction, identify opportunities for service delivery integration at the frontline, and provide a client focus in redesigning the core businesses of the government.

The administrative organization and the restructuring associated with it must demonstrate fairness and equity, reinforce the professionalism and integrity of the public service, establish an organizational culture and values which support Council's vision and citizens' expectations, and must be financially sustainable.

The administrative organization established early in 1998 will be modified and adjusted over time and with experience. The City of Toronto is in totally new territory in Canadian municipal experience and will be establishing unique precedents as it evolves and matures. Several other jurisdictions were examined over the past year, and useful insights were obtained. Yet, it is quite clear that there is no other municipality of comparable size and complexity, and certainly no other municipal amalgamation of this scale, to guide us on the way. First steps are required on this journey. A "made in Toronto" model will emerge along the way.

A single administrative structure must provide support concurrently to Council and its functional standing committees and to Council's geographically decentralized committees--the Community Councils. The administration will require a centralized management structure for consistency in management direction and policy formulation, while at the same time continuing the strong traditions of decentralized service delivery of the former upper and lower tier municipalities. The review of service delivery models and the integration of individual services and functions are separate issues that will be addressed in phase three of the restructuring process.

Administrative Structure in Relation to the Political Structure:

The administrative structure must be able to provide advice, receive political direction and maintain accountability to Council and its committees. However, this does not necessitate a mirroring of the political and administrative structures. The respective structures are influenced by different factors, and flexibility is essential within the overall governance structure. For example, Council's strategic agenda may require the establishment of other committees for various periods of time, or alteration of the Council-committee structure mid-term or in a new term of Council. In contrast, management and operational considerations are the primary determinants of administrative structure, and the administrative organization will not undergo major restructuring on as frequent a basis.

Political and administrative structures are shaped by different factors--one structure does not and should not dictate the other. It is easier and quicker to realign the political structure than it is to realign the administrative structure.

Organizational Hierarchy and Nomenclature:

Organizational structures bring coherence to complex organizations and facilitate their effective management. This applies to the public and private sectors alike. In theory, an organization's various products, services, functions and activities are organized by program groups or business units, and are nested or stratified (e.g., from strategic to operational), forming both a horizontal and vertical stratification.

The context of private sector organizations, and hence their approach to structure and management, is dramatically different to that of public sector organizations. Multi-product private sector companies tend to organize around product divisions and regional business units, often on a global scale. While their approach to organizing provides valuable insights, direct applicability in the public sector is limited due to a number of factors. For example, private sector organizations have flexibility in product lines and geographic service areas, and enjoy a relatively private decision-making and management environment. In contrast, public sector organizations in the first instance are democratic institutions, not private businesses. They provide mandatory and essential services, operate in defined geographic areas, face multiple and at times competing objectives, have decisions made in public forums, and are expected to facilitate citizen participation in their operations. Lessons from the private sector are most applicable to the methods of service delivery rather than the senior level administrative structure.

Other public sector jurisdictions provide more appropriate insights. At the municipal level of government, administrative structures take many forms, yet follow some key patterns. The CAO or City Manager model continues to serve as the most common administrative structure among Canadian municipalities. Departments are the highest order of organization immediately below that of the CAO. Departments house a group of related program responsibilities in a single organizational entity for management purposes (e.g., Community Services Department). Departments at the municipal level are traditionally led by commissioners, and Council involvement in the hiring process traditionally extends to the commissioner level.

Most municipal departments are comprised of a further organization and management level. In many medium and large departments, this level is usually defined as a division (e.g., Social Services Division). This level in the organization may be defined according to common purpose or function, or geographic district, and is often further organized into units. In terms of management, directors or general managers are common titles of divisional managers. Councils traditionally are not involved in the hiring process at the divisional level or below.

Organizational structures at the provincial and federal levels are influenced by the parliamentary system of government. Below the level of the Minister, there are several points of consistency. At the federal level, government program responsibilities are assigned to program envelopes. Each envelope comprises several departments. Similar to the municipal experience, federal departments house a number of related program responsibilities in a single organizational entity for management purposes. These are commonly referred to as groups or branches. The next level in the federal structure, depending on how the structure is nested, is generally a directorate, region, or section.

In the Province of Ontario, government program responsibilities are organized into ministries. Provincial ministries correspond to departments at the federal and municipal levels. Consistent with municipal and federal structures, provincial ministries nest a number of related program responsibilities in organizational entities commonly referred to as groups or divisions. The next level in the provincial organization structure is referred to as a branch. Depending on how the program structure is nested, ministry structures then group functions according to units, sections or regions.

Regardless of the level of government, the largest organizational entity will take the form of a department or equivalent service group. Departments will be further stratified in smaller organizational components, reflecting functions or geographic districts, and will be designed to best accomplish organizational objectives.

Key Considerations:

In assessing the options for administrative structures, a number of considerations have been used to determine the relative merits of each model.

The administrative structure is headed by the Chief Administrative Officer who will have a number of direct senior management reports. The CAO in this context is comparable to a Chief Operating Officer, since the Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer. The CAO is the first level of the administrative organization.

A CAO or City Manager as the first level of the administrative organization was the practice in six of the municipalities being amalgamated. The popularity of this model in municipal administrative structures is directly related to the clear leadership and accountability that this model provides. The Transition Team recognized the significance of a clear line of accountability from the administrative leadership to Council and its committees as an essential feature of the City's administrative organization.

Much has been said about clusters of functions and how to organize the second level of the administration using the cluster concept. The concept of clustering is not new in any of the seven organizations merging into the City of Toronto. Corporate Services clusters are common throughout, as are Works clusters; at the upper tier, Community Services is an example of a very large clustering of related functions. A number of criteria are used to determine appropriate functional clusters. One set of criteria relates to functional fit: policy integration across a number of functions; operational synergy and efficiency; functions which support governance and internal processes; regulatory functions affecting common clients; and high levels of interaction in operational relationships affecting services or delivery systems.

Management considerations form another set of criteria. In assessing the practicality of managing any set of functions, the span of control and scale of operations described by budget and staff size are particularly important considerations in designing organizational structures. Generally, it is assumed that a span of control ranging from five to seven direct reports of diverse functions is reasonable. However, the literature and experience in other jurisdictions suggest that context is critical. The scale of operations determined by staff, budget and location must be further analyzed according to the nature of each function. For example, is the staff complement generally delivering a single service or many diverse services? Are expenditures controllable or are the drivers of cost externally imposed? Are revenues a critical component of the budget?

A broader span of control is possible when some reporting functions are the same or similar, when variability and uncertainty are limited, and when functions are geographically compact. A narrower span of control is advisable when reporting functions and disciplines are unique, when issues are not routine or predictable, and when services are geographically dispersed. Depending on the circumstances, decentralized and geographically dispersed functions may necessitate an additional layer of management. Similarly, spans of control that are too narrow will likely necessitate additional management layers if senior management is expected to effectively hold front-line supervisors accountable for their performance.

Greater and more direct senior management attention, and hence a reduced span of control and/or a flatter management structure, are required by the degree of corporate risk and the consequences of decision-making associated with some functions. Corporate risk may also be minimized by appropriately spreading across clusters those functions that exhibit relatively greater risk potential. The structure must allow senior management to attend to important policy direction and "steering" functions.

Another set of criteria relates to operational and political complexity. Some rather large operations are straightforward and are reasonably predictable because of routine procedures and policies, and the relative absence of change in technology or service delivery methods. Others are affected by continuing shifts in policies, demand for service change, or rapidly changing technology. The legislative and regulatory environment for many services also impacts the degree of complexity. At the political level certain functions have a high profile for a variety of reasons including the level of constituent interest in certain functions. Some functions are critical to Council's strategic agenda and have a priority status in terms of time devoted to debate of issues related to these functions at Council and Committees.

Discussion:

Administrative Structure Options:

Options were developed through an iterative process, using the Transition Team model as the starting point. All were considered in the context of the key considerations discussed above, and were discussed with the Implementation Task Force. While several variations were discussed along the way, three main options are presented in this report. A description of each of the three options is provided below, with administrative structure charts for each option appended. A summary of the assessment of the options follows.

The charts describe the first and second levels of the senior management structure (the CAO and the senior managers reporting directly to the CAO). Specific functions are shown for each service group. Though not exhaustive, they represent the main areas of responsibility within each group. The list of functions and services does not represent any specific structural arrangement or predetermine service delivery models. These are separate issues to be determined through subsequent service integration and redesign reviews. In fact, the service integration reviews may identify the need for shifts in the alignment of functions.

The charts also provide quantitative features of the administrative structure options, in each case reflecting the position prior to restructuring and excluding special purpose bodies:

(a) size of the budget for all the functions nested within the respective groups, defined as the gross operating budget;

(b) staffing level for all the functions managed within the respective groups, defined as full time equivalents; and

(c) the number of distinct organizational and program components comprising the functions within the respective groups that are coming together from the former municipalities prior to restructuring (e.g., six fire departments, three housing portfolios, seven parks and recreation departments, seven real estate functions, six tax billing functions).

(1) Option One: Toronto Transition Team Model:

The Transition Team in its December 1997 report, entitled "New City, New Opportunities", proposed an administrative structure which features a CAO directly accountable for the entire corporation and a strong senior management team of four Executive Commissioners. After considering other models, the Transition Team opted for a CAO model based on its two-fold advantage of direct accountability and central leadership, considered critical for any corporation, and certainly one the size of the new City. The Transition Team further proposed that operational or departmental commissioners report to the Executive Commissioners. Key features of the model include:

(a) a CAO to guide the transformation of the organization, support development of a new corporate culture, and set the tone for the relationship with Council and the public;

(b) four Executive Commissioners, each to lead a cluster of functions, facilitate collaboration, provide leadership for the cluster as a whole and take the lead at Council meetings; and

(c) operational or departmental commissioners to do the day-to-day management work and take the lead at meetings of Council committees.

The four functional clusters in this model are Urban Development Services, Community and Neighbourhood Services, Emergency and Protective Services, and Finance and Corporate Services. Refer to the appended administrative structure chart for Option One (Appendix 1).

In the Transition Team proposal, the Economic Development function is to report directly to the CAO. The model also calls for the establishment of a Strategic Directions Secretariat to provide corporate strategic and policy support and report directly to the CAO. The Secretariat would include functions to provide corporate policy support, organizational transition support, and environmental planning and management, as well as a function based on the Healthy City model.

A Clerk's department provides a range of services and functions. For those direct services in support of the governance function, the Transition Team proposed that the Clerk report directly to Council despite being located within a cluster (as noted in the chart for Option One).

The Transition Team report included several proposals with respect to key corporate officers and functions, although these were not formalized as part of the chart on the administrative structure. The Transition Team proposed that the annual attest audit be conducted by an external auditor commissioned by and reporting to Council (via an Audit Committee). The Team proposed that the Chief Financial Officer and, during the transition period, the Commissioner of Human Resources report to the CAO as part of the core senior management team despite their location within a cluster. The Team noted that legal services are required by two clients - Council and the administration - and that the location of the legal services function in a cluster would not preclude the Solicitor from having a solicitor-client relationship with Council.

The Transition Team also proposed that access and equity responsibilities be located within the human resources function. This arrangement would ensure that access and equity principles become an integral part of the organizational culture, a responsibility of all managers. A task force was also recommended to further review access and equity mechanisms and strategies.

(2) Option Two: Modified Transition Team Model:

Option Two is a variation on the Transition Team model. This option realigns functions among the clusters under the four Executive Commissioners. The modifications to the Transition Team model are based on the aforementioned criteria, particularly operational and political complexity.

Option Two has the Chief Financial Officer reporting directly to the CAO as part of the senior management team. This model places the annual attest audit under the direct auspices of Council. Dual reporting relationships of the Clerk and the Solicitor are also noted in the administrative structure chart for Option Two. The access, equity and human rights function in this model has a reporting relationship to the CAO on issues which have significant corporate policy and community impact. The Economic Development function is re-located to a cluster.

The realignment of functions and services retains four clusters with a modified focus. The functional clusters in this model are Urban Development Services, Community and Health Services, Works and Emergency Services, and Corporate Services. Refer to the appended administrative structure chart for Option Two (Appendix 2).

(3) Option Three: A Transitional Organizational Design:

Option Three entails additional modifications based on the previously discussed considerations, particularly those relating to span of control and reduction of layers of senior management. The further realignment of functions and services in this model results in more service groups than featured in either of the previous options. The key features of Option Three include:

(a) a CAO to guide the transformation of the organization, support development of a new corporate culture, and set the tone for the relationship with Council and the public;

(b) five Commissioners responsible for the overall management of their service groups, plus the Finance Commissioner, reporting directly to the CAO and forming a strong senior management team of seven, including the CAO; and

(c) a third level of senior managers at a range of levels and titles below that of a commissioner, depending on the function, responsible for the day-to-day management of operations.

The service groups in this model are Social and Health Services, Community and Economic Development Services, Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, Corporate Services, and Finance. Refer to the appended administrative structure chart for Option Three (Appendix 3).

Option Three also places the annual attest audit under the direct auspices of Council, and identifies the dual reporting relationships of the Clerk and Solicitor, and the human resources and access, equity and human rights functions, in the administrative structure chart.

Assessment of Options:

(1) Option One: Toronto Transition Team Model:

The strengths of the Transition Team model reside in its validation of the concept of service clusters, and its recognition of the need for clear lines of accountability between the Council and the administration as reflected in the CAO model recommended. The model also highlights the importance of economic development as a program function and the lead role of the CAO in strategic policy development.

However, one of the major weaknesses of Option One is the lack of balance in workload and responsibility across the clusters. Emergency and Protective Services is the simplest in terms of program complexity, having significantly fewer organizational and program components and less political complexity compared to the other clusters. In comparison, workload and responsibility are excessive in the Community and Neighbourhood Services cluster which has by far the largest budget and a high degree of political complexity including absorbing service transfers and costs and ongoing provincial cost sharing arrangements.

A second major weakness of Option One is the insertion of another layer of senior management on top of the operational commissioners. The two-tier commissioner system is inevitable in this model given the wide span of control associated with such a small number of executive commissioners reporting directly to the CAO. This approach does not achieve a streamlined senior management structure with clear lines of accountability and the capacity to provide effective leadership, and would stall efforts to drive organizational transformation.

With respect to internal corporate services, the organizational and program components are considerably smaller in terms of budget and staff, and will also be subject to extensive integration. Therefore, more functions can be reasonably located within the Finance and Corporate Services cluster as compared to the other service clusters. However, the number of components brought together in the Finance and Corporate Services cluster from the seven former municipalities is excessive in Option One if the functions are to receive appropriate senior management attention.

In Option One, the number and nature of functions that are to report directly to the CAO are a concern. Although there are only four executive commissioners reporting directly to the CAO in this model, it is proposed that other corporate staff report to the CAO as part of the senior management team and that several other functions report to and be managed by the CAO. This model has too many functions, if not too many direct reports, under the CAO.

While the Transition Team model provides an interesting approach, a post-amalgamation organization would first need to be in place to test out the validity of some of these approaches. The temptation to use the opportunity of restructuring to test innovative approaches may be counter-productive to the restructuring process itself.

(2) Option Two: Modified Transition Team Model:

The approach taken in Option Two is based on the Transition Team's model with modifications introduced to address some of the concerns identified with that model. Option Two remedies the imbalance among cluster responsibility and workload to some extent by realigning functions from the Emergency and Protective Services cluster and reducing the range of services in the Community and Neighbourhood Services cluster.

While Option Two achieves a better balance in workload, the issue of the level of workload and complexity (exceeding 30 organizational and program components in two of the service clusters) is not addressed. These clusters are too large and complex to guide the restructuring process and provide effective senior management direction to all of the constituent components.

Option Two does formalize the reporting relationship of key corporate officers and functions which were not explicitly included in the administrative structure chart for Option One. This model sets out modified reporting relationships for the external attest audit function, the human resources function, the access, equity and human rights function, the Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer.

However, Option Two does not correct the other major weakness of Option One, namely the creation of a two-tier commissioner system. As with Option One, an additional layer of senior management and some sub-clustering is required due to the very large span of control, most pronounced in two of the service clusters in Option Two. A key result would be the leveling-up of positions currently below the level of Commissioner that would now have responsibilities commensurate with those positions described as Commissioners.

Span of control issues remain in Option Two. The confusion of accountabilities and management responsibilities created by this two-tier approach would stall efforts to drive organizational transformation and do not adequately meet the Transition Team's objective of achieving clear accountabilities and effective leadership.

(3) Option Three: A Transitional Organizational Design:

Option Three encompasses the strengths of the model presented in Option One, including service clusters and clear lines of accountability, and the strengths of the model in Option Two, including workload balance and explicit recognition of dual reporting relationships. Option Three also incorporates further improvements to effect a more efficient administrative structure and respond to some of the other concerns in Options One and Two.

Option Three redresses the issue of excessive workload and complexity in some of the service groups and establishes a more reasonable span of control. This is achieved by introducing a new service group. Related modifications include the realignment of functions and services reporting through each service group to ensure both balanced and manageable workloads.

A key feature of Option Three is the provision of clear accountabilities and a single tier of senior management reporting to the CAO. Option Three avoids the two-tier commissioner structure, and the resulting confusion in lines of accountability. By moving to six service groups with manageable spans of control, the need for an extra layer of commissioners is not necessary.

Finance, which contains several distinct functions in its own right, is split-out to report directly to the CAO. This arrangement not only provides a more manageable workload for Corporate Services, but in a $6.5 billion corporation, has the benefit of having the Chief Financial Officer reporting and providing financial advice directly to the CAO.

While it may not be the perfect model for the City in the long run, it does break down traditional barriers and builds capacity to undertake the primary challenge of the next three years--restructuring. It will permit streamlining, consolidation and innovation within each of the service groups as transformation occurs. It provides clear accountability to the elected representatives by streamlining the senior management tier. Finally, this model can be implemented immediately, will rationalize current senior management resources, and will allow service integration initiatives to commence with appropriate senior management leadership. Building on the Transition Team proposals, modifications which better recognize the complexity of the pending restructuring, and yield clearer lines of management accountability, combine to make Option Three - A Transitional Organizational Design, the preferred model for the initial administrative structure of the City of Toronto.

Conclusions:

This is the beginning of the restructuring process, not the end. Key senior staff catalysts must be in place to lead the restructuring of the administration and to establish a climate of stabilization. The clustering of functions may shift over time as the most appropriate forms of service integration become evident and further experience with the structure is gained. The Senior Management Team will be the size required to undertake the twin goals of restructuring and strategic direction setting.

This report does not address a number of other elements related to the total restructuring process. These items will be dealt with in other reports coming before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. This report seeks Council's approval for the administrative structure comprising six Commissioners reporting to the CAO and having responsibility for the following six service groups: Social and Health Services, Community and Economic Development Services, Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, Corporate Services, and Finance. This structure is based on a Transitional Organizational Design as described in Option Three of this report.

The Chief Administrative Officer gave a slide presentation to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter.

________

The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

Mr. Ron Nielson, Pollution Probe;

Mr. William Phillips;

Mr. Peter Clutterbuck; Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto;

Ms. Karen Lieberman; and

Mr. Marvyn Novick, Professor, School of Social Work; and

Faculty of Community Services, Ryerson Polytechnic University.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown;

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River; and

Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity-Niagara.

--------

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (January28, 1998) from Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto, forwarding her concerns respecting the Chief Administrator's proposed Administrative Structure.

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998 had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 2, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to submit a modified Option Three Administrative Structure incorporating the changes recommended on January 28, 1998 by the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

Financial Impact Statement:

There is no immediate financial impact.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the name of the Community and Economic Development Services group be changed to Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(2) the appropriate officials be authorized to undertake the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit to the February 4, 1998, meeting of Council a modified administrative structure incorporating the changes recommended by the Committee.

Background:

The report (January 22, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer on the City of Toronto Administrative Structure recommended approval of Option Three. The Special Committee adopted this recommendation subject to:

- changing the name of the Social and Health Services group to Community and Neighbourhood Services;

- moving recreation and libraries to the Community and Neighbourhood Services group;

- including the Strategic Directions Secretariat in the structure; and

- providing that the Clerk, Solicitor and Auditor report directly to Council, but report to the Commissioner of Corporate Services on administrative issues such as personnel only.

Discussion:

Appendix A attached presents a modified Option Three incorporating the changes noted above. Given the change in name from Social and Health Services, to Community and Neighbourhood Services, the name of the Community and Economic Development Services group should also be changed to clarify the range of services provided in this group. It is recommended, therefore, that the Community and Economic Development Services group be changed to Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Appendix A indicates the services and functions that will be managed initially under each service. In most cases, agencies, boards and commissions are not under the direct management responsibilities of commissioners and, therefore, are not shown on this chart. However, the service groups do coordinate their programs and service delivery with various agencies, boards and commissions. The primary coordination linkages of the service groups are identified in AppendixB.

The services and functions managed in the service groups report to standing committees of Council for policy direction and program priorities. The reporting relationship of services and functions to respective standing committees is described in Appendix C.

Conclusions:

This report provides a modified Option Three administrative structure incorporating changes recommended by the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and further recommends a change to the Community and Economic Development Services group in order to better reflect the focus of this group of services.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 3, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on February 3, 1998, recommended to Council the adoption of the report dated February 2, 1998, from Mayor Lastman respecting the ratification senior staff; and that such recommendation be considered with Clause No. 3 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "City of Toronto Administrative Structure".

Background:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it the attached report (February 2, 1998) from Mayor Lastman respecting the ratification of senior Staff.

(Report dated February 2, 1998 addressed to

the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

from Mayor Lastman)

Purpose:

The Purpose of this report is to recommend the ratification of six senior staff.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds have been provided in the 1998 budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the following candidates for the positions indicated be ratified for the positions of Solicitor, Auditor and Commissioners (4); Jeffrey Griffiths, Auditor; Osmond Doyle, Solicitor; Shirley Hoy, Commissioner responsible for the community and neighbourhood services portfolio; Virginia West, Commissioner responsible for the planning and urban development services portfolio; Barry Gutteridge, Commissioner responsible for the works and emergency services portfolio; and Margaret Rodrigues, Commissioner responsible for the corporate services portfolio;

(2) the Commissioner responsible for the economic development, culture and tourism portfolio be hired as soon as possible according to the process approved by Council, with a hiring team consisting of the Mayor or his designate, the Deputy Mayor, the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee and two other members to be appointed by Council, and the Chief Administrative Officer; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Coincident with these recommendations, I have directed that the Chief Administrative Officer provide a supplementary information report to Council on the process that was followed.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 2, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this information report is to outline the ratification process followed for senior staff. It is provided to Council as supplementary information to the Mayor's report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the ratification of senior staff.

Council Reference/Background History:

The Toronto Transition Team recommended candidates for the positions of Auditor, Solicitor and four Executive Commissioners following the completion of a rigorous screening, interviewing and referencing process. The guiding principles for that process were fairness, objectivity, confidentiality and the identification of the very best candidates for those positions. The individuals selected demonstrated their commitment to working with the Chief Administrative Officer to make the amalgamation to the new City of Toronto a successful reality.

Recognizing that it is now essential that the restructuring of the new City move ahead quickly, both the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee (SPPC) and the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team (the "Miller" Committee") have worked quickly to facilitate Council's decisions on the organizational framework and the senior staff.

In an effort to support Council's decision-making process on this critical first step to amalgamation, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee (SPPC) determined it would be appropriate to meet and review the Transition Team's recommended candidates before Council's February 4, 1998 meeting. In a parallel process, the "Miller" Committee reviewed the organizational framework for the new City and its recommendations were before the SPPC in a presentation format for information and then proceeding directly to Council for February 4. The review team's recommendations to SPPC to ratify the six candidates take into account the "Miller" Committee's recommendations on the administrative structure.

In order to provide an appropriate recommendation to Council, all Councillors on the SPPC were invited to participate in that interview process on January 29, 1998. Each candidate was interviewed and asked to make a brief presentation to the interview team. The review team then considered each candidate. It is understood that each individual will be put on contract for a three-year term and during that time performance appraisals will be carried out at least annually and with an extra appraisal at the mid-way point of the first year. The Chief Administrative Officer was asked to report back to the SPPC after each stage of the appraisal process during the term of the contracts.

Conclusion:

In order for the amalgamation to proceed, the senior management staff must be in place along with a transitional organizational framework. The Chief Administrative Officer will carry out regular performance appraisals of these members of the senior management team. Within the first six to seven months of their three-year contracts the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Mayor, will report back to the SPPC on the performance achievements of these members of the senior management team.

Based on a firm understanding of the selection process followed by the Transition Team and as a result of the SPPC's review of each of the candidates, the Committee is recommending that the following candidates be ratified for the positions of Solicitor, Auditor and Commissioners (4): JeffreyGriffiths, Auditor; Osmond Doyle, Solicitor; Shirley Hoy, Commissioner responsible for the community and neighbourhood services portfolio; Virginia West, Commissioner responsible for the planning and urban development portfolio; Barry Gutteridge, Commissioner responsible for the works and emergency services portfolio; and Margaret Rodrigues, Commissioner responsible for the corporate services portfolio.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of an information sheet (February 3, 1998), entitled "CSPC Toronto Sound Bite", prepared by the Community and Social Planning Council of Toronto, providing research data on the health and social benefits of recreation programs, and requesting that this service fall under the Community and Neighbourhood Services cluster in the new City's administrative structure.)

4

Interim Policy for Citizen Appointments

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding to Part (7) of the Appendix 2, entitled "City of Toronto, Interim Policies for Appointments of Citizens to Agencies, Boards and Commissions" embodied in the report dated January 26, 1998, from the City Clerk, the sentence "All Members of Council be notified of the meeting dates, and all Members of Council be permitted to review the list of applicants who have submitted their names prior to the interview process, in order that they can provide input prior to the meeting.", so that Part (7) shall now read as follows:

"(7) The Nominating Committee shall meet in private to review the applications and select candidates for interview. The Chairman of the relevant Standing Committee, a representative of the Access and Equity Unit, and any program staff identified by the Nominating Committee shall be invited as advisors/observers. All Members of Council be notified of the meeting dates, and all Members of Council be permitted to review the list of applicants who have submitted their names prior to the interview process, in order that they can provide input prior to the meeting.")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report (January 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Appendix 1 embodied therein by adding thereto the following:

(i) the Toronto Parking Authority; and

(ii) the Toronto District Heating Corporation;

and, further:

(2) that the joint report (December 29, 1997) from the Chair, the Parking Authority of Toronto and the Chair, The Parking Authority of North York be adopted; and

(3) authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (January 26, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To recommend an interim process for a limited number of required citizen appointments to Toronto Agencies, Boards and Commissions.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no immediate financial impact.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City Clerk be authorized to proceed with the appointment of citizens to Agencies, Boards and Commissions listed in Appendix1 using an interim citizen appointment process described in this report;

(2) the policies contained in Appendix2 of this report be used for the appointments referred to in Recommendation No. (1);

(3) the City Clerk and the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the City Solicitor, be requested to report back to the Special Committee on a new policy for citizen appointments and a plan for proceeding with the remaining appointments; and

(4) the appropriate officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of January2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council considered the final report from the Toronto Transition Team and referred the report to the Special Committee for review. Among the many issues covered by the report is involvement of citizens in the activities of the City. One of the primary methods for citizen involvement is their participation on the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions. The policies relating to the appointment of citizens is one key component of how the city encourages citizen involvement.

Council has appointed Members of Council to serve on these bodies at its first meeting. The terms for some of the citizen incumbents on certain boards have expired and new appointments are required. In order to begin the citizen appointment process, a set of interim policies is required as well as a list of appointments to be made. This report deals with these two issues.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Each of the seven former municipalities has developed policies and procedures for making citizen appointments. An initial review of these processes indicates that there are some differences in the details among the various procedures, but the principles and objectives are very similar. It will be necessary to harmonize the procedures into one common set of policies.

There are also a number of issues outstanding which impact the appointment of citizens. These include:

(1) the role of the Community Councils in the appointment of citizens to Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(2) recommendations of the Transition Team which impact citizen appointments including the standardization of the term of appointment; and

(3) the size, composition, and the number of citizens to be appointed to individual special purpose bodies.

However, there are a number of bodies where there are no specific outstanding issues and appointments could and should be proceeded with at this time. These are contained in Appendix1 to this report. It is recommended that the City Clerk be authorized to begin the appointment process to these Agencies, Boards and Commissions.

The attached Appendix 2 includes the existing policies used by the former municipalities in making citizen appointments with amendments to reflect the new City structure. Until a new process can be developed which harmonizes the existing policies of the various municipalities, it is recommended that the policies outlined in Appendix2 be used on an interim basis.

It is also recommended that the City Clerk and the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the City Solicitor, jointly prepare a new set of policies and a plan for addressing the outstanding issues so that the remaining appointments can be proceeded with.

Conclusions:

The report recommends proceeding with a limited number of citizen appointments required immediately for the Agencies, Boards and Commissions listed in Appendix1. It is also recommended that the City Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the City Solicitor, develop new policies which harmonize the practices of the seven former municipalities and lay out a plan for dealing with citizen appointments. It is further recommended that the policies outlined in Appendix2 to the report be used in the interim to make the appointments required at this time.

Contact Names:

Joanne Hamill, Clerks Department, 392-4339; and

Nancy Autton, Chief Administrator's Office, 397-0306.

________

Appendix 1

Citizen Appointments to Be Made Immediately

External Bodies:

(a) Greater Toronto Airports Authority (1)

(b) Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corporation (2)

Legislated Appointments:

(c) Canadian National Exhibition Association, Municipal Section (15);

(d) Toronto Police Services Board (1)

Special Purpose Bodies - Administrative Committees:

(e) Sinking Fund Committee (4);

(f) Metro Toronto Police Benefit Fund, Board of Trustees (1);

(g) Metro Toronto Pension Plan, Board of Trustees (1);

(h) Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund Committee (1); and

(i) Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund Committee (1).

________

Appendix 2

January 23, 1998

City of Toronto

Interim Policies for Appointments of Citizens to Agencies, Boards and Commissions

(1) The Council of the City of Toronto shall make citizen appointments on the basis of equal opportunity for all residents. City Council recognizes that the City is best served by Agencies, Boards and Commissions that fairly reflect the diversity of the community which they serve. Proactive strategies in achieving this result shall be followed.

(2) The Nominating Committee shall recommend to City Council a slate of citizen nominees for appointment to Toronto Agencies, Boards and Commissions except for administrative bodies which are submitted through the Corporate Services Committee.

(3) Any person applying for appointment to Agencies, Boards or Commissions is required to be a qualified elector in the City of Toronto and may not be an employee of the City or any of its Agencies, Boards or Commissions. Citizen appointees are required to maintain this status throughout their term of office.

(4) Any citizen interested in appointment to an Agency, Board or Commission, other than an incumbent or former incumbent, is required to attend an Orientation Seminar relating to that Agency, Board or Commission as a prerequisite to applying for appointment.

(5) Incumbents who are eligible and willing to seek reappointment to an Agency, Board or Commission must reapply in the prescribed manner, but are not required to attend the Orientation Seminar.

(6) The Nominating Committee shall consider only applications received in the prescribed form by the deadline date. Late applications shall not be considered unless the number of applicants is less than the number of vacancies.

(7) The Nominating Committee shall meet in private to review the applications and select candidates for interview. The Chairman of the relevant Standing Committee, a representative of the Access and Equity Unit, and any program staff identified by the Nominating Committee shall be invited as advisors/observers.

(8) The Nominating Committee shall interview in private the selected candidates and recommend to Council one person for each vacant position on Agencies, Boards and Commissions. The Chairman of the relevant Standing Committee, a representative from the Access and Equity Unit, and any program staff identified by the Nominating Committee shall also be invited as advisors/observers.

(9) For the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and the Metropolitan Toronto Sinking Fund Committee, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer shall review applications and make recommendations to the Corporate Services Committee.

(10) For the Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund Committee, a Committee composed of members of the Benefit Fund Committee shall review applications, interview candidates, and make recommendations to the Benefit Fund Committee for the appointment of an Independent Member. The Benefit Fund Committee shall submit its recommendation to Council through the Corporate Services Committee. This same process will be followed for the Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund Committee.

(11) No citizen shall serve on more than one Board or Commission at the same time provided, however, that one member of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan may also serve as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund.

(12) The term of appointment shall be for a term of three years, as provided for in the interim Council Procedure By-law, or for such term as provided for by the legislation creating the office.

(13) All appointments will continue until their successors are appointed or City Council terminates an appointment.

(14) City Council may from time to time, in accordance with applicable law, make appointments of successor members on Agencies, Boards and Commissions or to fill vacancies. Vacancies shall be filled only if there are at least six months remaining of the appointment term or if necessary to maintain a quorum. When filling vacancies, the Nominating Committee shall either refer to existing applications on file or advertise the vacancy.

(15) City Council's citizen appointees to Agencies, Boards and Commissions shall be requested to submit to the City Clerk an annual report on any major financial or policy items of potential relevance to the City of Toronto.

(16) Citizen appointees shall be required to make a declaration of office in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following joint report dated December 29, 1997, entitled "Enabling By-law for the Toronto Parking Authority", from the Chair, the Parking Authority of Toronto and Chair, The Parking Authority of North York:

Purpose:

To establish the size, composition and qualifications for membership of the Board of the Toronto Parking Authority and to establish the delegation of responsibility for the operation of parking facilities, including on-street metered parking, to the Toronto Parking Authority in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted for the introduction of a bill in Council substantially in the form of the draft by-law attached to establish the new Toronto Parking Authority and delegate responsibilities to it; and

(2) the President of the Toronto Parking Authority meet with City staff to develop appropriate policies and procedures for the assumption of City-wide responsibility for on-street metered parking by the Toronto Parking Authority, for approval by the Board of the Toronto Parking Authority and by Council.

Discussion:

The City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) (the "Act") dissolves the current Parking Authority of Toronto and Parking Authority of North York and establishes a new Toronto Parking Authority for the City, all effective January 1, 1998. The Act requires Council to pass a by-law establishing the size and composition of the new Toronto Parking Authority, the qualifications of its members, rules respecting re-appointment, procedures for filling vacancies, and circumstances under which members' seats become vacant. In addition, the Act allows Council to give certain authority to the Toronto Parking Authority by by-law.

The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council an enabling by-law for the Toronto Parking Authority that provides for those matters that must be established by by-law and provides the new Toronto Parking Authority with the authority and responsibilities otherwise authorized by the legislation. In accordance with the recommendations of the Transition Team, the composition of the Toronto Parking Authority board is recommended to be seven voting members, five of whom will be citizen members and two Councillors, at least one of whom will be a member of the Urban Environment and Development Committee. In addition, the Transition Team recommended that the City's senior transportation administrator be a non-voting member of the Toronto Parking Authority. The Act provides that until the Council appoints new members of the Toronto Parking Authority, the persons who are members of the Parking Authorities of the old municipalities on December 31, 1997 will become the interim board for the Toronto Parking Authority.

In accordance with the Transition Team's report, the draft enabling by-law authorizes the Toronto Parking Authority to manage and operate both off-street parking and on-street metered parking on behalf of the City. Issues respecting the assumption of responsibility for on-street metered parking by the Toronto Parking Authority, such as outstanding contractual obligations, procedures and responsibility for the installation of meters, rates and revenues, etc., will have to be addressed prior to implementation. It is therefore recommended that the President of the Toronto Parking Authority meet with appropriate City staff to develop necessary policies and procedures for presentation to the Board of the Toronto Parking Authority and City Council.

The Transition Team's report also recommends that the City explore opportunities for service agreements with the new Parking Authority respecting the issuance of permits for residential street permit parking, boulevard parking and front yard parking. This will be the subject of a later joint report from the Toronto Parking Authority and the Executive Commissioner, Urban Development.

Finally, the Transition Team has recommended that the Toronto Parking Authority explore opportunities for service agreements with the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit regarding the operation of commuter parking lots. The draft enabling by-law authorizes the Toronto Parking Authority to pursue these possibilities.

The draft enabling by-law establishes an arm's-length relationship between the City and the new Parking Authority, however, policy continues to be the responsibility of City Council, land and buildings are owned by the City, and only Council has the authority to pass any by-laws required to regulate the parking of vehicles and impose penalties for the contravention of by-laws. Also, the draft enabling by-law continues the present situation whereby net revenue from the operations of the Toronto Parking Authority would be placed into a City reserve fund established under clause (d) of paragraph 56 of section 207 of the Municipal Act.

It is recommended that Council adopt the attached draft by-law for the purpose of establishing the framework for membership of the board of the Toronto Parking Authority and empowering the Toronto Parking Authority to administer on-street metered parking and off-street parking operations in the City.

________

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. _________

A By-law respecting the "Toronto Parking Authority".

WHEREAS, by the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2), a parking authority (the "Parking Authority) was established on January 1, 1998 under the name of Toronto Parking Authority in English and Office des parcs de stationement de Toronto in French, and the Parking Authority is deemed to be a parking authority established under paragraph 57 of section 207 of the Municipal Act;

AND WHEREAS section 89 of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) provides that the Council of the City shall pass a by-law to establish the size, composition and membership of the Parking Authority, and may by by-law give the Parking Authority certain additional powers;

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORONTO HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. (a) The Parking Authority shall consist of seven members appointed by Council, each of whom shall be a person qualified to be elected as a member of Council. At least two members shall be members of Council, one of whom shall be a member of the Urban Environmental and Development Committee.

(b) The City's senior transportation administrator shall be a non-voting member of the Parking Authority.

2. The members shall hold office until the expiration of the term of the Council that appointed them and until their successors are appointed to office.

3. The members may be paid such remuneration as may be fixed by Council.

4. Where a vacancy occurs in the membership of the Parking Authority from any cause, Council shall immediately appoint a qualified person who shall hold office for the remainder of the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed.

5. A member's seat becomes vacant or a member becomes disqualified from sitting as a member upon the occurrence of any of the following circumstances:

(a) if he or she ceases to be a person qualified to be elected as a member of Council;

(b) is mentally incapable and has been so found by a tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction;

(c) has the status of a bankrupt;

(d) resigns from his or her office;

(e) becomes an employee of the Parking Authority; or

(f) dies during his or her term of office.

6. Any member is eligible for re-appointment on the expiration of his or her term of office subject to any policies adopted by Council from time to time respecting the appointment of persons to municipal boards and committees.

7. All the powers, rights, authorities and privileges now or hereafter conferred upon the City by any general or special Act with respect to the construction, maintenance, operation and management of parking facilities within the City of Toronto including on-street metered parking facilities shall be exercised by the Parking Authority subject to the following limitation:

(a) Land and buildings where vehicles may be parked shall be acquired and owned by the City and shall be used by the Parking Authority only where designated by by-law of Council for that purpose.

(b) Only Council shall pass by-laws regulating the parking of vehicles and imposing penalties for the contravention of such by-laws.

8. Administration for the Parking Authority shall be provided through the President/Chief Administrative Officer who shall be appointed by the Board of the Parking Authority.

9. The Parking Authority may enter into agreements for the construction of parking facilities in, under, over or on land that is vested in the City for any purpose.

10. (1) The Parking Authority may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land or buildings, or parts of them, that have been designated for the Parking Authority's use by by-law of Council and are no longer required for the Parking Authority's purposes.

(2) The terms of the transaction shall be subject to Council's approval.

(3) The City shall execute any documents that are required for the transaction.

(4) The money obtained from such transaction shall be paid to the City and the balance remaining after payment of incidental expenses shall be paid into the reserve fund established under clause (d) of paragraph 56 of section 207 of the Municipal Act.

11. Where the City or the Parking Authority constructs a building or structure on land owned by the City, for the purposes of the Parking Authority, above or below ground level or both, the City or, with Council's consent, the Parking Authority may construct on, under or in connection with the building or structure any foundations, footings and supports that the City or the Parking Authority considers necessary to permit space above the building or structure that is owned by the City, but not required for City or Parking Authority purposes, to be used for the construction of other buildings or structures by any person to whom an interest in the space is transferred.

12. A building that the City or the Parking Authority constructs as a municipal parking facility may include facilities at basement, street mezzanine or second floor levels that are not required for City or Parking Authority purposes. The City or the Parking Authority may lease those facilities for commercial or administrative purposes.

13. (1) The Parking Authority may enter into agreements for the maintenance, operation and management of parking facilities within the City of Toronto.

(2) The Parking Authority may, with the consent of the council of the municipality concerned, enter into agreements for the maintenance, operation and management of parking facilities outside the City of Toronto.

(3) The net revenue obtained under such agreements shall be paid into the reserve fund established under clause (d) of paragraph 56 of section 207 of the Municipal Act.

14. The Parking Authority shall submit to Council its estimates for the current year, at the time and in the form prescribed by Council and shall make requisitions upon Council for all sums of money required to carry out its powers and duties, but nothing herein divests Council of its authority with reference to providing the money for the purposes of the Parking Authority and, when money is so provided by Council, the City Treasurer shall, upon the certificate of the Parking Authority, pay out such money.

15. On or before the first day of March in each year, the Parking Authority shall submit its annual report for the preceding year to Council including a complete audited and certified financial statement of its affairs, with balance sheet and revenue and expenditure statement.

16. The municipal auditor shall be the auditor of the Parking Authority and all books, documents, transactions, minutes and accounts of the Parking Authority shall, at all times, be open to his or her inspection.

17. Municipal Code Chapter 75, Parking Authority, of the City of Toronto and By-laws 31295, 32181, 32726 of the Corporation of the City of North are repealed.

ENACTED and PASSED this _____ day of _________________, 1998.

________________________________ ______________________________

City Clerk Mayor

5

Interim Boards of Directors for

the Municipal Housing Companies

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the joint report dated January 28, 1998, from the President, City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation, and the President, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited, entitled 'Appointments to the Interim Boards of Directors for the Municipal Housing Companies', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) this report be considered by Council simultaneously with communication dated December22, 1997, from the General Managers of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited and Cityhome, which was before Council at its meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998 and referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration;

(2) a special resolution of the City of Toronto in its capacity as the sole shareholder of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) authorizing a Board of Directors of nine members (to be effective as provided for therein) be passed in accordance with the wording appended to this report;

(3) effective on the date of effectiveness specified in the special resolution referred to in Recommendation No. (2);

(i) the existing Directors of MTHCL, other than Councillors Michael Walker and Michael Feldman, be removed; and

(ii) the following individuals be elected to fill the seven MTHCL Board vacancies created by the combined operation of such removal and the said special resolution:

Marvin Sadowski (President, MTHCL);

Madeleine Fleming (President, Cityhome);

John Alleyne;

Catherine Bertucci-Menchetti;

John Metson;

David Monk; and

Wayne Stickley;

(4) effective on the date of effectiveness specified in the special resolution referred to in Recommendation No. (2), the following individuals be elected to the Board of Directors of the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Cityhome) in the place and stead of the seven (7) existing Directors thereof who have continued in office after the end of he last term:

Marvin Sadowski (President, MTHCL);

Madeleine Fleming (President, Cityhome);

John Alleyne;

Catherine Bertucci-Menchetti;

John Metson;

David Monk; and

Wayne Stickley;

(5) an expression of thanks for their public service to the persons whose directorships will terminate pursuant to Recommendation No. (4) and Part (i) of Recommendation No. (3) be recorded, and conveyed to them following such termination;

(6) By-law No. 1997-0305 of the former City of Toronto providing for payments to Cityhome Directors be repealed and authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bill effective on the date of effectiveness of the appointments referred to in Recommendation No. (4); and

(7) the appropriate officials of the City be authorized to take all steps necessary to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (2) to (6).' ")

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (January 26, 1998) from the General Manager, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited and Interim Functional Lead, Housing:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Special Committee approve the recommendations contained in the report (December 22, 1997) from the General Managers of Cityhome and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited regarding Interim Boards of Directors for the Municipal Housing Companies, and forward them to Council for approval; and

(2) the clause referred to the Special Committee concerning additional appointments to the Board be deferred for consideration in the context of the structure and composition of the permanent Board of the amalgamated housing company.

Background:

At its meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, Council referred a joint communication from the General Managers of Cityhome and MTHCL to the Special Committee for consideration. This communication recommends that Council:

(1) appoint the same nine member interim Board for each organization, drawing from the current membership of the two Boards. This would result in interim Boards composed of two councillors, the current Board Chairs of each organization, one tenant from each organization, and three citizens;

(2) ask the current Chairs of the Cityhome and MTHCL Boards to develop and implement a selection process to identify the tenant/citizen members of the interim boards, and forward their recommendations to Council for appointment; and

(3) in its capacity as shareholder, pass amending by-laws and special resolutions required to harmonize the provisions of the companies' by-laws to allow the same group of people to serve as the Board for both housing companies.

The joint communication which was submitted to Council is attached.

At its meeting, Council made provisions for the appointment of the same Councillors to both Boards. Councillors Michael Feldman and Michael Walker have been appointed to both Boards and are intended to continue to serve on both Boards once the interim structure is in place. Councillors Nunziata and Prue will remain on the MTHCL Board, with its current requirement for four councillors, until the interim structure is in place.

Council referred the communication from the General Managers to the Special Committee for review in the context of its review of Transition Team recommendations.

When recommending the amalgamation of the two municipally-owned housing companies, the Transition Team also recommended the establishment of an interim transitional Board. They suggested that this interim Board be composed of the same seven members, to serve as the Board for each organization and also address amalgamation issues. The intention of this recommendation was to allow the two organizations to begin, as quickly as possible, to work towards the intended amalgamation.

At a meeting in December, the two Boards endorsed the Transition Team approach, and recommended the addition of two members to the interim transitional Board, one tenant from each organization.

In anticipation of Council approval, the Board Chairs have begun a selection process for members of the interim transitional Boards. They will be prepared to submit recommendations for Council approval, through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, later this week. These recommendations cannot be adopted until the Special Committee considers the communication on Interim Boards which Council has referred.

Discussion:

Short Term:

It is our assumption that Council will have no interest in maintaining the current two municipal housing companies, one operating in the boundaries of the former City of Toronto, the other operating in the former Metro boundaries. This report and its recommendations are designed to assist in the process of getting the two organizations to begin working as one, and to jointly plan for the formal amalgamation of the two companies as quickly as possible. We believe that the recommended approach is a practical way to work towards amalgamation and to benefit from the expertise of people who know the organizations and have already served on their Boards.

Longer Term:

There are many issues to be dealt with in establishing the permanent Board of the new amalgamated Toronto Housing Company. These include: the size and composition of the Board, including the number of Councillors, the nature of tenant involvement, the role of key stakeholder organizations, and so forth. In addition, further clarity regarding anticipated social housing program reform, and the status of the provincially-owned Metro Toronto Housing Authority, will need to be taken into account in determining the structure of the amalgamated Housing Company's Board. Council's recommendation regarding increasing the number of Councillors on the Board is best considered in the context of the discussion regarding the permanent Board.

(Report dated December 22, 1997, headed "Interim Boards of Directors

for the Municipal Housing Companies; Appointment Process; and Passing of

Special Resolutions and Confirmation of By-laws", from the General Manager,

Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company and the General Manager,

City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation.)

Purpose:

To summarize the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team and the Boards of Directors of the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation and The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited respecting an amalgamated Toronto Housing Company, and to seek the authority for the steps necessary to implement such recommendations if adopted, including the designation by Council of the councillor members whose appointments to the interim Boards of Directors will take effect once the citizen members have been appointed, the putting in place of a nomination process for such citizen members, the passing of special resolutions by Council (to enable the issuance of Articles of Amendment for each of the housing companies) and the confirmation by the Council of amending by-laws already passed by the two Boards of Directors which will harmonize the provisions in the companies' by-laws respecting directors with the intended structure and make-up of the interim Boards once the Articles of Amendment are in place.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that, subject to adoption of the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team and of the Boards of Directors of the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Cityhome) and The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) as to the amalgamation of those two housing companies and the appointment of identical "interim" Boards of Directors:

(1) the existing chairs of the Boards of Directors of MTHCL and Cityhome be requested jointly to provide to Council for its consideration, in accordance with a process developed and implemented by those chairs, a list of nominees from among the current membership of those Boards, for appointment as the citizen and tenant members to serve on the interim Boards of Directors;

(2) two councillors be appointed, effective on appointment of the citizen and tenant members, to the interim Boards of Directors;

(3) special resolutions of the City of Toronto in its capacity as sole shareholder of Cityhome and of MTHCL, authorizing in each case an amendment to the articles thereof, be passed in accordance with the wordings which are appended to this report;

(4) the Cityhome and MTHCL amending by-laws passed by their respective Boards of Directors and appended to this report be confirmed;

(5) the matter of confirmation of any other Cityhome and any MTHCL by-laws for which the process of such confirmation has been initiated by either of their respective Boards of Directors be taken to have been adjourned, without amendment or rejection, to the Council meeting for which such confirmation has been properly scheduled to be dealt with as an agenda item; and

(6) the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (3) and(4) and to the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team and the Cityhome and MTHCL Boards of Directors.

Background:

The Toronto Transition Team has recommended the amalgamation of MTHCL and Cityhome into one Toronto Housing Company. In order to facilitate the amalgamation process, the Transition Team has also recommended as an interim measure that the Board of Directors of each housing company be reduced in size to seven (from Cityhome's current nine and MTHCL's current 17) and the same seven individuals -- two councillors and five citizens -- be appointed to the two Boards. In this way, a single group would oversee the amalgamation and also manage both companies during the transition, anticipated as a six- to nine-month period.

The two Boards of Directors met on December 8, 1997, and recommended that the interim Boards be increased to a membership of nine by the addition of one tenant from each of the current Boards. The Board resolutions are set forth in the attached communications from the Metropolitan Clerk and Cityhome's General Manager.

A reduction in MTHCL's Board of Directors will require amendment of its existing articles, which provide for precisely 17 directors. While Cityhome's Board is already nine, the Cityhome articles must also be amended if only one of its tenants is to sit on it in this interim Board, since those articles currently require that one-third of its directors be tenants. The Business Corporations Act requires Articles of Amendment to be authorized by a "special resolution" of its shareholders (i.e., one that is approved by a two-thirds majority at a meeting called for the purpose); in the case of a sole corporate shareholder such as the City, an ordinary resolution of its governing body -- the Council -- will necessarily result in a special resolution. Once so authorized, the Articles of Amendment must be submitted in a prescribed form, with the prescribed fee, to the Provincial Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for certification.

The processes for making the councillor and citizen appointments to the interim Boards of Directors need to be established.

Discussion:

The wordings for the Cityhome and MTHCL special resolutions appended to this report have been prepared in each case by legal staff familiar with the companies' affairs. The MTHCL resolution provides for a minimum of 5 directors and a maximum of 20 to match what has been in Cityhome's articles since 1990. As soon as the special resolutions are passed, the two sets of Articles of Amendment will be engrossed, signed and forwarded to the Ministry for certification on the same date.

The provisions in MTHCL's by-laws dealing with the appointment of directors are geared to the number of 17 called for in its articles. Similarly, the provisions in Cityhome's by-laws dealing with the appointment of directors are geared to the requirement in its articles for one-third of its directors to be Cityhome tenants. These provisions will have to be modified to permit the interim Boards of Directors to be constituted as proposed, and so each Board has passed an appropriate amending by-law, expressed to come into force when appropriate Articles of Amendment are certified effective in each case. Those amending by-laws, copies of which are appended to this report, require shareholder confirmation as per Recommendation No. (4). The amending by-laws also deal with incidental matters; for Cityhome, the terminology of its general By-law No. 9 will be made consistent with the existence of the new City, and for MTHCL, the quorum for directors' meetings will be set at 2/5's (rather than 7) and the size of its Finance Committee reduced to three (from five).

Other MTHCL by-laws dealing with terminology according with the existence of the new City, and with the Tenant Benefit Fund will also require confirmation but this may conveniently be deferred to a subsequent Council meeting (such as the one at which the citizen appointments to the interim Boards will be made) as long as Recommendation No. (5) is adopted to avoid the termination of those other by-laws by reason of the non-confirmation rule under the Business Corporations Act.

To avoid delay in the steps toward amalgamation, and to ensure continuity, Recommendation No.(1) calls for the existing Cityhome and MTHCL chairs to prepare a list of nominees for Councils citizen appointments to the two interim Boards of Directors from among the existing citizen directors of both Boards in accordance with a process to be devised by them. It is envisioned that such appointments can be made at a Council meeting in the near future.

Ordinarily, councillor appointments to Agencies, Boards and Commissions made at the beginning of the term of each new Metropolitan Council have included the four councillor directorships on MTHCL's current 17-member Board by way of adjournment from, and as the concluding matter of, the prior years annual shareholder meeting. MTHCL's by-laws stipulate the continuation in office of all directors until their successors are appointed, so this postponement has not resulted in vacancies. If a forthcoming interim MTHCL Board is to have only two councillors, it would serve no practical purpose for City Council to make four councillor appointments at this time, and so Recommendation No.(2) calls for only the two appointments to the interim Boards be made, to become effective concurrently with the citizen appointments; the incumbent "Metro" councillor directors, all of whom were elected to the new City Council, can continue in office in the meantime.

________

SPECIAL RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO

in its capacity as sole shareholder of

THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING COMPANY LIMITED

Authority is hereby granted for an amendment to the constating articles of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited, being Articles of Amendment certified effective, pursuant to the Business Corporations Act, as of the 15^th day of September, 1993, so as to replace the stipulation for 17 directors in section 3 thereof with a stipulation for a minimum of 5 directors and a maximum of 20 directors.

SPECIAL RESOLUTION OF THE SHAREHOLDER

OF

CITY OF TORONTO NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION

Resolved as a Special Resolution of the Corporation that Section 12 of the Articles of the Corporation added by the Articles of Amendment effective on June 3, 1994 be deleted.

Dated at Toronto this day of , 1998.

CITY OF TORONTO

Name:

Title:

c/s

Name:

Title:

BY-LAW NO. 18

CITY OF TORONTO NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION

A By-law to amend By-law No. 9 with respect to the transition period prior to

amalgamation with Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited

Whereas:

A. The City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 1) provides for the incorporation of the City of Toronto on January 1, 1998 in place of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and its area municipalities being, the Borough of East York, the City of Etobicoke, the City of North York and The Corporation of the City of Toronto incorporated by the City of Toronto Act, 1834;

B. It is intended that the corporation and Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited will amalgamate on a date to be fixed after the incorporation of the new City of Toronto.

C. It is necessary to amend By-law No. 9, as amended, with respect to the transition period prior to such amalgamation of the corporation and Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited;

Therefore, be it enacted as a By-law of the corporation as follows:

(1) By-law No. 9, as amended, of the corporation is further amended by:

(a) adding "or any corporate successor thereto" after "The Corporation of the City of Toronto" in section 1.01(x);

(b) deleting "executive vice-president" in section 2.03;

(c) deleting "the executive vice-president" in section 2.04.2;

(d) deleting the first sentence of section 3.05.1 and substituting the following therefor:

"Subject to section 3.05.2, directors shall be elected for a term of one (1) year."

(e) deleting "(a)" in section 3.07.1;

(f) deleting sections 3.07.1(b) and 3.07.1(c);

(g) deleting "(a)" in section 3.09;

(h) deleting sections 3.09(b) and 3.09(c);

(i) deleting "the executive vice president or, if the executive vice president is not present" in the first sentence of section 3.17.2 and deleting "the executive vice president or" in the second sentence of section 3.17.2;

(j) deleting "the executive vice president or" in section 3.18;

(k) deleting section 3.21;

(l) (i) deleting "an executive vice-president" in the first sentence of section 5.01.1;

(ii) deleting "the executive vice-president and the general manager shall not be directors" in the second sentence of section 5.01.1 and substituting therefor "the general manager shall not be a director"; and

(iii) deleting "the executive vice-president" in the third sentence of section 5.01.1.

(m) deleting section 5.04;

(n) deleting "or the executive vice-president" in sections 5.05, 5.06 and 5.07;

(o) deleting "at the City Hall in the City of Toronto" in section 7.03 and substituting therefor "at such place in the City of Toronto as determined from time to time by the directors".

(2) This By-law shall come into force upon the certification of the effectiveness, pursuant to the Business Corporations Act, of Articles of Amendment for the corporation providing for the deletion of Section 12 of the corporation's Articles enacted by Articles of Amendment effective on June 3, 1994.

Passed by the Board the day of December, 1997.

President Secretary

The foregoing By-law is hereby confirmed by the sole shareholder of the corporation pursuant to the Business Corporations Act, effective the day of , 1998, as evidenced by the corporate seal of the sole shareholder under the hands of its duly authorized signing officers.

CITY OF TORONTO

Per:

Name:

Title:

c/s

Per:

Name:

Title:

THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING COMPANY LIMITED

By-law No. A-17

BE IT ENACTED as a By-law of the Company as follows:

1. Section 3 of By-law No. A-1 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

3. (1) The Board of Directors shall have full power and authority to manage and control the affairs and business of the Company.

(2) The number of Directors shall be as determined by special resolution of the City from time to time or by such stipulation of the Business Corporations Act as may otherwise be applicable.

(3) Each Director shall have a term of office of One (1) Year, until the annual meeting next following his/her election or appointment and until his/her successor is elected or appointed.

2. (1) Subsection 5(8) of By-law No. A-8 is amended by striking out "7" at the end thereof and substituting therefor "Two-fifths (2/5) of the number of directors as determined from time to time by special resolution of the City of Toronto or by such stipulation of the Business Corporations Act as may otherwise be applicable".

(2) Subsection 12(1) of By-law No. A-8 as amended by By-laws Nos. A-11 and A-15 is further amended by striking out "5 Directors" in the second line and substituting therefor "Three (3) Directors".

3. This by-law shall become effective only upon the certification of effectiveness, pursuant to the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, of Articles of Amendment for the Company in accordance with that Act, providing for a minimum and a maximum number of directors.

ENACTED this 8^th day of December, 1997.

WITNESS the Corporate Seal of the Company.

PRESIDENT SECRETARY

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, reports for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (January 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, in adopting, as amended, Clause No.1 of Report No. 1 of the Striking Committee directed, in part, the Special Committee to review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to give consideration to expanding the number of Members of Council to be appointed to the amalgamated Housing Company, and that Councillors Layton, Mammoliti and Sinclair be considered for appointment in the event the membership is expanded.

(A copy of the attachments to the report (January 26, 1998) from the General Manager, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited and Interim Functional Lead, Housing, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (January 28, 1998) from the President, City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation and Marvin Sadowski, President, The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited:

Purpose:

This report, for consideration simultaneously with the communication dated December 22, 1997, from the General Managers of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited and Cityhome, which was before Council at its meeting on January 2, 6,8 and 9, 1998 and which was referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, submits the nominations for the non-Councillor directorships on the "interim" Boards of Directors contemplated by that communication and will enable the Council to put both such Boards in place at the end of March, subject to appropriate Articles of Amendment, and to discontinue the honorarium and meeting attendance fees for members of the Cityhome Board of Directors.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be considered by Council simultaneously with communication dated December22, 1997, from the General Managers of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited and Cityhome, which was before Council at its meeting held on January2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998 and referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration;

(2) a special resolution of the City of Toronto in its capacity as the sole shareholder of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) authorizing a Board of Directors of nine members (to be effective as provided for therein) be passed in accordance with the wording appended to this report;

(3) effective on the date of effectiveness specified in the special resolution referred to in Recommendation No. (2);

(i) the existing Directors of MTHCL, other than Councillors Michael Walker and Michael Feldman, be removed; and

(ii) the following individuals be elected to fill the seven MTHCL Board vacancies created by the combined operation of such removal and the said special resolution:

arvin Sadowski (President, MTHCL);

Madeleine Fleming (President, Cityhome);

John Alleyne;

Catherine Bertucci-Menchetti;

John Metson;

David Monk; and

Wayne Stickley;

(4) effective on the date of effectiveness specified in the special resolution referred to in Recommendation No. (2), the following individuals be elected to the Board of Directors of the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Cityhome) in the place and stead of the seven (7) existing Directors thereof who have continued in office after the end of the last term:

Marvin Sadowski (President, MTHCL);

Madeleine Fleming (President, Cityhome);

John Alleyne;

Catherine Bertucci-Menchetti;

John Metson;

David Monk; and

Wayne Stickley;

(5) an expression of thanks for their public service to the persons whose directorships will terminate pursuant to Recommendation No. (4) and Part (i) of Recommendation No. (3) be recorded, and conveyed to them following such termination;

(6) By-law No. 1997-0305 of the former City of Toronto providing for payments to Cityhome Directors be repealed and authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bill effective on the date of effectiveness of the appointments referred to in Recommendation No. (4); and

(7) the appropriate officials of the City be authorized to take all steps necessary to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (2) to (6).

Background:

The Toronto Transition Team recommended that The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) and the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Cityhome) be amalgamated into one company and that as an interim facilitating step both Boards of Directors be reduced in size and the same seven individuals (two Councillors and five citizens, including the existing chairs) be appointed to each.

At their concurrent meetings of December 8, 1997, the two Boards of Directors resolved to recommend to Council that the interim Boards be expanded by the appointment of one residential tenant from each of the two companies.

At its meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, City Council had before it as Communication13(a)(v), a report dated December 22, 1997 from the General Managers of both Cityhome and MTHCL transmitting and summarizing the recommendations of the Transition Team and the Boards and recommending, inter alia, that Council:

(i) request the Board chairs to provide nominations for the citizen and tenant directorships;

(ii) appoint the two interim City Councillor Directors;

(iii) pass special resolutions as drafted by the Companies' legal advisers authorizing Articles of Amendment for the two Companies that would permit implementation of the Transition Team and Boards' recommendations; and

(iv) confirm related amending by-laws passed by the Boards.

At that meeting, Council referred Communication 13(a)(v) to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team (the Special Committee) for consideration. It also made the 1998 Councillor appointments to both Boards of Directors, Michael Feldman and Michael Walker, to both the existing and interim Boards of each, and Frances Nunziata and Michael Prue to the existing MTHCL Board pending appointment of the interim MTHCL Board.

The Current Status:

A communication has been sent to the Special Committee to be considered at its meeting on January28, 1998 (from the MTHCL General Manager, dated January 26, 1998) providing some background information about Communication 13(a)(v) and requesting that the Special Committee approve the recommendations contained in it. This report is intended to be considered by Council at the same time as Communication 13 (a) (v) and the subsequent communication to the Special Committee. In the event that the Special Committee has not reported to Council on Communication13(a)(v) by the time this report is first placed before Council, consideration of this report by Council should be deferred accordingly.

Citizen/Tenant Nominees:

Existing Cityhome and MTHCL Directors were asked by their respective Chairs to indicate if they were interested in participating as members of the interim transitional Boards. Individuals who were interested met with those Chairs to discuss their qualifications and the expertise which they felt that they could bring to the interim Boards. There were 12 candidates, including three Cityhome tenants, three MTHCL tenants, one Cityhome citizen member and five MTHCL citizen members. In conducting the interviews and formulating the list of nominees, the Board Chairs sought to take into account the specific operational requirements of the eventual amalgamated company, and the need for diversity of skills, knowledge and experience. There was also an interest in establishing a reasonable balance in expertise, including those with background in community and social services and the non-profit sector as well as those with private sector experience in the areas of finance, change management, property management and housing development.

As discussed earlier, at their joint meeting on December 8, 1997, both Boards felt that it was important to have tenant representatives also appointed to the interim transitional Boards. Mr.John Alleyne and Mr. David Monk have been identified as the tenant representatives. Both were selected for their past involvement in tenant-related activities. In addition, there was an interest in identifying individuals who could help to reflect the diversity of the clients who are served by Cityhome and MTHCL. Mr. Alleyne, for example, will help to bring the seniors' perspective to the Boards while Mr. Monk, who has been a Cityhome tenant for nine years, will help to represent the needs of those living in families and singles housing. As an administrative item, it should be noted that the Cityhome tenant director, although still a tenant under his lease is temporarily living away from his home. He is currently on Cityhome's transfer waiting list and is looking for an appropriate market unit. It is expected that this situation will be resolved by the time that his appointment would take effect.

Both organizations have benefited from the support and guidance of very talented and committed Board members. It was therefore very difficult to select the nominees for the interim Boards. After careful consideration, however, the following individuals were selected:

(a) John Alleyne, Tenant Director, Metro Toronto Housing Company Limited;

(b) Catherine Bertucci-Menchetti, Citizen Member, Cityhome;

(c) John Metson, Citizen Member, Metro Toronto Housing Company Limited;

(d) David Monk, Tenant Director, Cityhome; and

(e) Wayne Stickley, Citizen Member, Metro Toronto Housing Company Limited.

Further Special Resolution for MTHCL:

If the recommendations of Communication 13(a)(v) are adopted, legal staff will see to the preparation and Ministry certification of the appropriate Articles of Amendment for both companies. However, in the case of MTHCL, since such Articles will bring about a change in the size of the Board of Directors from an absolute number (seventeen) to a number which may vary (between 5 and 20), it will be necessary for the shareholder to specify that number by special resolution. The appended special resolution referred to in Recommendation No. (2) was prepared by City Legal staff and provides for a determination of nine directors in accordance with the recommendation of the Boards made at their December meetings, as of March 31, 1998, or such later time as the Articles of Amendment may be certified. That date has been chosen to permit a reasonable lead time.

Installation of Interim MTHCL Citizen/Tenant Board Members:

Because the number of interim Directors to be determined for MTHCL will constitute a reduction from the existing 17, Part (i) of Recommendation No. (3), in accordance with the requirements of the Business Corporations Act, provides for removal of the incumbents. Part (ii) of that Recommendation provides for the election of the nominees listed above effective as of the same date of the determination of the number of Directors in the special resolution covered by Recommendation No. (2).

Installation of Interim Cityhome Citizen/Tenant Board Members:

The existing Articles of Cityhome already permit shareholder determination of the number of Directors, and the determination currently in effect is nine. Accordingly, Recommendation No.(4) provides simply for replacement of the existing non-Councillor Directors as of the same date as is applicable for MTHCL.

Repeal of Former City By-law No. 1997-0305:

It is proposed that the practice of paying Cityhome Directors for Board meetings attended, as authorized by By-law No. 1997-0305, be discontinued (the former Metropolitan Corporation never had such a practice for MTHCL Directors). Recommendation No. (6) calls for the repeal of that By-law.

Conclusions:

The adoption of the recommendations made in this report will permit implementation of the recommendations made by the Transition Team and the Boards of Directors of the two municipal housing companies in the manner contemplated by Communication 13(a)(v) described above.

________

Special Resolution Of The City Of Toronto

in its capacity as sole shareholder of

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited

Effective upon the 31^st day of March, 1998, or such later date as Articles of Amendment amending the existing constating articles of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited so as to replace the stipulation for 17 directors in section 3 thereof with a stipulation for a minimum and maximum number of directors, are certified effective pursuant to the Business Corporations Act, the number of directors thereof is hereby determined to be nine (9) until such time as a superseding determination is made in accordance with that Act.)

6

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Council Decision Respecting the Final

Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communications to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, had before it a motion by Mayor Lastman seconded by Councillor Ootes respecting the final report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled "New City, New Opportunities"; that Council adopted the foregoing motion; and forwarding to the Committee for consideration the Council recommendations in regard thereto.

(January 26, 1998) from Ms. Lumia-Alexandra Heyno President, Lumia Evangelistic Association, respecting the inclusion of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of City Council meetings.

(January 27, 1998) from Ms. Lumia-Alexandra Heyno, President, Lumia Evangelistic Association, in opposition to Councillor Mammoliti's motion respecting the deletion of section 16.1(a) of the Council Procedural By-law.

(January 26, 1998) from Mr. Dave Roberts, President, A.B.C. Residents' Association, expressing strong support for Community Councils, and more specifically for the recommendations in the report entitled, "Community Councils in the New City of Toronto", which was recently released by Councillors Michael Walker and Pam McConnell.

(January 27, 1998) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government bringing to the Committee's attention that Draft Recommendation No. (11) in the October, 1997, Interim Toronto Transition Team Report includes a reference to a Healthy City Office and an Office of Environmental Planning and Management; noting that references to these two offices have been omitted from Recommendation No. (41) in the Toronto Transition Team Report; and recommending that consideration be given to amending Recommendation No. (41) to insert these references in order to highlight the vital importance of these offices, and to emphasize their significance in integrating strategic policy and planning support to City Council.

(January 27, 1998) from Mr. J. Craig Mather, Chief Administrative Officer, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, respecting the proposal by the Toronto Transition Team regarding the inclusion of a Strategic Directions Secretariat with the Chief Administrators Office which would include among other things, an office of Environmental Planning and Management and a Healthy City; and commenting on another important issue to the Authority being how and where the Regional Greenspace System is to be planned and managed.

(January 22, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, commenting on the Council Procedural By-law.

(January 7, 1998) from Councillor Frank Faubert, Scarborough Highland Creek, to Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South respecting comments she made regarding the proposed procedural by-law and the issue of a "corporate prayer".

(January 27, 1998) from Ms. Joan Osler, Executive Director, P.O.I.N.T. Inc., supporting the clustering concept of important social supports under an Executive Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services which was embraced in Recommendation No. (47) of the Toronto Transition Team's final Report.

(January 27, 1998) from Ms. Susan McCrae Vander Voet, City of Toronto Liaison, Metro Action Committee on Public Violence against women and children (METRAC) registering support for the clusters of services recommended by the Toronto Transition Team.

(January 27, 1998) from Ms. Liane Regendanz, Executive Director, St. Stephen's Community House, recommending that further consideration be given to the cluster under Community and Neighbourhood Services.

(Undated) from Mr. Ed Kothiringer, Acting Executive Director, Skills for Change, registering support for retaining the current structure for the Community and Neighbourhood Services.

(January 27, 1998) from Mr. Gerda Kaegi, Professor, School of Public Administration, Ryerson Polytechnic University, registering support for Recommendation No. (47) of the Toronto Transition Team.

(November 2, 1997) from Ms. Gerda Kaegi, requesting that consideration be given to moving beyond the current recommendations in the Interim Report of the Toronto Transition Team and to ultimately create from 12-15 Community and Neighbourhood "clusters" that would be responsible for planning and ensuring delivery of the full range of human services to their population.

(Undated) from Ms. Linda D. Sullivan, President, Parkdale Project Read, registering support for the recommendations made by the Community Voices of Support respecting Recommendation No. (47) of the Toronto Transition Team and their position on the policy cluster communicated to the Toronto Transition Team on October 31, 1997.

(b) Schedule of Meetings - Emergency and

Protective Services Committee.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the City Clerk for report thereon to the Special Committee:

(January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, in adopting, as amended, Clause No.2 of Report No. 1 of the Striking Committee, headed "Schedule of Meetings", directed, in part, that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, be requested to consider changing the time of the meetings of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee to 9:30a.m. on Tuesdays.

(c) Management of BIA (Business Improvement Areas)

Programs in the City of Toronto.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communications to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 14, 1998) from Mr. Alex Ling, Chairman, Bloor West Village BIA, enclosing copies of communications dated September 2, 1998, November 12, 1998 and November 13, 1998, from the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas (TBIAs) addressed to the Toronto Transition Team; expressing extreme disappointment that TBIA's requests seem to have gone amiss in the Toronto Transition Team's final report; advising that the City of Toronto's BIA Office has been a part of the Economic Development Division since 1994; that this arrangement works well, and would like it to continue; that the needs of BIAs in the amalgamated City would best be served by a centralized BIA office within the City's Economic Development; that the continued support of the City is needed to ensure that the BIA's needs are met and further strengthened.

(January 25, 1998) from Mr. Lenny Lombardi, Chair, Little Italy BIA, registering concern respecting the Toronto Transition Team's recommendation respecting the management of BIA Programs in the City of Toronto.

(January 20, 1998) from Ms. Lois Greenspoon, Manager, The Eglinton Way BIA registering concern respecting the Toronto Transition Team's recommendation respecting the management of BIA Programs in the City of Toronto.

(d) Political Structure - East York.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 22, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that East York Community Council on January 21, 1998, recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, that:

(1) a joint evening meeting of the East York Community Council and the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be scheduled to permit the East York community an opportunity to express its views regarding political representation in East York;

(2) the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Solicitor be requested to report to the joint evening meeting on the process and legal options available to the City Council to establish a third political representative for Ward One - East York; and

(3) the aforementioned meeting be scheduled at a time which is acceptable to the Special Committee.

(e) Council Procedural By-law

and Committee Structure.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 22, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that North York Community Council on January 21, 1998:

(1) recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, and Council, that:

(a) the Council Procedural By-law be amended as follows:

(i) a 60 percent majority vote be required at City Council to overturn a Community Council decision;

(ii) Community Councils be authorized to establish special committees or working groups only on those matters that are within the jurisdiction of Community Councils; and

(iii) to permit recorded votes at Community Council meetings, as they relate to planning matters; and, in the meantime, North York staff be directed to take recorded votes on planning issues, on the request of any member of the Community Council, until such time as the Council Procedural By-law is amended;

(b) consideration be given to:

(i) the issue of Community Council responsibilities for the Parks and Recreation Department and its ability to deal with the financing of those responsibilities; and

(ii) the advantages and disadvantages of changing the committee structure to allow the By-Law Department to report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee as opposed to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(2) advised the Special Committee and Council, that North York Community Council is opposed to any centralization of By-Law Enforcement if it will lead to service delivery cuts to the residents of North York.

(f) Proposed Amendments to the

Council Procedural By-law.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 16, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons - Midtown, stating that the current Council Procedural By-law precludes the recording of votes at Standing Committees and other major committees of City Council; that a mere show of hands to count decisions of sometimes very great importance is a great lack of accountability to the public; that it is not good enough to record decisions only at the full Council meetings; that accountability should begin at the committee level; and requesting a change to the Council Procedural By-law so that, upon request by a Member of the Committee, the vote can be recorded.

(g) Salaries of Commissioners

the New Toronto Hydro Electric Commission.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the Corporate Services Committee:

(January 9, 1998) from Mr. I. Bruce MacDrum, Commission Secretary, The New Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission advising that the inaugural meeting of the New Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission was held on Tuesday, January 6, 1998; that Sub-Section 44(1) of the Public Utilities Act provides that the salary of the Commissioners shall be fixed by the Council of the City of Toronto; and that the Commission requested that the matter of the salaries of the Commissioners be addressed by Council at an early date.

(h) Cycling and Pedestrian Issues.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 13, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that The Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, amongst other things, took the following action:

" (3) recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Transition Team's Final Report that separate committees be established to deal with cycling and pedestrian issues;

(4) requested the Interim Functional Leads for Transportation and Planning to submit a joint report:

(a) to the Special Committee to Review the Transition Team's Final Report on the staffing level and other resources previously in place to support the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee and the City of Toronto Cycling Committee, including the adequacy thereof; and

(b) to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on how the proposed committees to deal with cycling and pedestrian issues will apply to all areas of the new City of Toronto."

(i) Planning Issues that Require

Resolution/Recommendation to Council.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 26, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity Niagara forwarding a communication (January 26, 1998) from the Lead Executive Commissioner of Urban Development Services, listing three substantial matters which the Special Committee's guidance to Council is required, namely:

(1) additional delegation of public meetings to Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(2) additional matters requiring hearing which should be delegated to a committee of council; and

(3) empowering community councils to determine the corporate position on appeals from minor planning matters.

(j) Action Taken by the Emergency

and Protective Services Committee.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having received the following communication:

(January 20, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on January 13, 1998, received briefings from the Acting Executive Commissioner of Emergency and Protective Services and the Interim Functional Leads reporting to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee regarding programs and services under the responsibilities of the Committee; informing the Committee of the action taken by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee; and further advising that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee directed that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be informed of the foregoing action.

(k) Development and Implementation of an

Environmental Master Plan Recommendation

No. (42) of the Toronto Transition Team.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 22, 1998) from Mr. Gord R. Weeden, General Manager, Rouge Park stating that the concept of the development and implementation of an Environmental Master Plan is an important initiative for the City of Toronto to pursue; and encouraging the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to endorse and recommend to City Council the adoption of Recommendation No. (42) of the Toronto Transition Team respecting the development and implementation of an Environmental Master Plan.

(l) Development of a Social Development

Strategy Recommendation No. (47)

of the Toronto Transition Team.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communications to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 26, 1998) from Ms. Catherine Rooney, Regional Services Co-ordinator, South Central Region Easter Seal Society advising that the Easter Seal Society, a charitable organization supporting children with physical disabilities, strongly supports Recommendation No. (47) of the Toronto Transition Team; and supports the Community Voices of Support position on the policy cluster communicated to the Transition Team on October 31, 1997.

(January 26, 1998) from Ms. Sarah Garner on Behalf of the Board of Directors, College Montrose Children's Place writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of College Montrose Children's Place in support of Recommendation No. (47) of the Toronto Transition Team respecting the creation of a Community Neighbourhood Services policy cluster; and supporting the Community Voices of Support position in their communication dated October31, 1997, to the Toronto Transition Team; and urging the Committee to adopt the aforementioned recommendation of the Toronto Transition Team.

(m) Briefing Material - Board of Health.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having received the following communication:

(December 4, 1998) from the Medical Officers, Board of Health forwarding briefing material respecting the Board of Health, such material including information regarding the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA), sections of Bill 148 dealing with the Board of Health; the Composition of the Board of Health; providing samples, for information and review, of the procedural by-laws for the current Board of Health in Metro; and commenting on the draft By-law Governing the Proceedings of the Council for the City of Toronto (1998) and the Committees thereof.

(n) Delegation of Work - Community Councils.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee at the appropriate time in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 27, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that The Toronto Community Council on January 21, 1998:

(1) requested the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to recommend to City Council that Recommendation No. (19) be amended to allow panels or sub-committees, to assist in the timing, administration and processing of agenda items before Community Councils; and

(2) referred the following motions from Councillor Johnston to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

"(1) that all traffic, parking and sidewalk matters on all City streets be considered by the Community Councils; and

(2) that all policy setting matters be considered by the appropriate Standing Committee, but with the input of the Community Councils."

(o) Possible Assignment of Additional

Functions to Community Councils.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate officials for report thereon to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's workplan:

(January 27, 1998) from Mr. George M. Q. Bartlett, Solicitor, York advising that solicitors have been asked to review existing legislation to develop a list of additional functions and responsibilities which might legally be delegated to the Community Councils if that were the wish of the City of Toronto Council; that while they have not yet completed the review of this matter, they have identified the following three hearing functions which Council may wish to assign to Community Councils at an early date:

(1) the public meeting required by section 28 of the Planning Act before Council adopts a community improvement plan;

(2) the public meeting required by subsection 51(20) of the Planning Act and O.Reg.196/96 before the approval of a plan of subdivision; and

(3) the hearing required by section 300 of the Municipal Act of persons who claim that their land will be prejudicially affected by a by-law proposed to be passed pursuant to section 297 of that Act to stop up, alter, widen, divert, sell or lease a highway or establish or lay out a highway.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID MILLER,

Chair

Toronto, January 28, 1998

(Report No. 1 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on February 4, 5 and6,1998.)