(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

(See Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3A of The Corporate Services Committee.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

(See Clause No. 2 of Report No. 3A of The Corporate Services Committee.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the confidential report dated April 9, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, headed 'Sale of City-Owned Property Known Municipally as 1900 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Ward 19 - High Park)', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the Offer to Purchase from 1260093 Ontario Inc., (In Trust) on behalf of a corporation to be incorporated, to acquire 1900 Lake Shore Boulevard West, in the amount of $2,300,000.00, including a deposit of $230,000.00, be accepted;

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing of the transaction or otherwise;

(3) the City Surveyor furnish the necessary legal description;

(4) the net proceeds from the sale be directed to the reserve fund, Toronto Harbour Commissioner Properties - Environmental Liabilities;

(5) the deposit cheques be returned to the unsuccessful prospective purchasers; and

(6) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary.' ")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the confidential communication (March 30, 1998) from the City Clerk, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit a further confidential report to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998, respecting the sale of the captioned property.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, which was previously submitted under confidential cover:

Purpose:

To provide City Council with information on the offers received for the sale of 1900 Lake Shore Boulevard West, and to recommend that the Offer to Purchase submitted by 1260093 Ontario Inc., (In Trust) in the amount of $2,300,000.00 be accepted.

Financial Implications:

The sale of this property for the amount of $2,300,000 will result in a net amount of approximately $2,226,170.00 ($2,300,000.00 minus commission of $69,000.00 plus GST) being deposited to a reserve fund established for environmental monitoring, control and remediation of properties acquired from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners for municipal purposes.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Offer to Purchase from 1260093 Ontario Inc., (In Trust) on behalf of a corporation to be incorporated, to acquire 1900 Lake Shore Boulevard West, in the amount of $2,300,000.00, including a deposit of $230,000.00, be accepted;

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing of the transaction or otherwise;

(3) the City Surveyor furnish the necessary legal description;

(4) the net proceeds from the sale be directed to the reserve fund, Toronto Harbour Commissioner Properties - Environmental Liabilities;

(5) the deposit cheques be returned to the unsuccessful prospective purchasers; and

(6) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary.

Background:

As part of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners transfer of lands, title to the lands at 1900 Lake Shore Boulevard West, subject to a ground lease, was transferred to the City of Toronto on February 21, 1995. The head lessee abandoned its leasehold interest on August 23, 1996 and the City gained ownership of the 20,000 square foot commercial building and possession of the property. The property is approximately 51,657 square feet (1.185 acres) in size and is located at the northwest corner of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Ellis Avenue. The easterly portion of the site is asphalt paved and used for access and vehicular parking purposes. The westerly portion of the site is developed with a two-storey building of brick and concrete construction which is separate but connected to the adjoining hotel complex. The building is now vacant, boarded up and in need of major capital repairs.

At its meeting held on December 8, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council declared the property at 1900 Lake Shore Boulevard West surplus to its requirements and directed the Director, Property Services to report to the Board of Management on an appropriate method of sale together with a recommended asking price. To maximize the exposure on the open market, it was concluded that it would be prudent to list the property with a real estate broker previously qualified from the City's proposal call for the retention of real estate brokers and thus, in late December, 1997, the Board of Management authorized the retention of J.J. Barnicke to market 1900 Lake Shore Boulevard West at an asking price of $2,600,000.00. The firm of Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc. prepared an appraisal of the site as of December 1, 1997.

Comments:

Information on the property is set out below:

Property: 1900 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Legal Description: Parts of Blocks 5 and 6, Plan D1409 and designated as PARTS 3, 4 and 5 on Plan of Survey 64R-14145

Tax Ledger No.: 01-01-060-0120

Land Size: A irregular rectangular shaped parcel of land:

Frontage on the north side of Lake Shore Blvd W of approximately 388.5 feet

Flankage on the west side of Ellis Ave of approximately 143.5 feet

Area of approximately 51,657 square feet (1.185 acres)

Improvements: A two-story building of brick and concrete construction containing approximately 20,000 square feet of gross floor area.

Zoning: CR T2.0 C2.0 R1.0

Official Plan Designation: Open Space in the City's Part I Official Plan.

(It is noted that Planning staff have advised that this designation reflects the fact that this site is surrounded by open space but that the site has not specifically been targeted to become open space.)

Three Offers to Purchase were received by the original deadline of 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 1998. In view of the significant price difference between the offers and unacceptable conditions in two offers, the Director, Property Services directed J. J. Barnicke to advise the three prospective purchasers that they had an opportunity to submit their highest and best replacement offer by 2:00 p.m on Friday, March 20, 1998. Should the prospective purchasers choose not to submit a replacement offer, their original offer would continue to be considered.

By the deadline of March 20, 1998, two of the prospective purchasers had submitted replacement offers and the third chose to have their original offer considered. The amounts of the three Offers to Purchase received ranged from $1,750,000.00 to $2,300,000.00. The highest offer which was submitted by 1260093 Ontario Inc., (In Trust) and the lowest offer both contained conditions that were unacceptable and created a significant risk that the transaction could not be completed. The second highest offer contained no conditions. The results of the process were reported to Corporate Services Committee, in-camera at its meeting on March 30, 1998.

Corporate Services Committee directed the Commissioner of Corporate Services to negotiate the conditions contained in the Offer to Purchase from 1260093 Ontario Inc., (In Trust) with a view to removing the conditions and submit a report to Council for its meeting on April 15, 1998 with the results of the negotiations. As a result of questions which were raised at the Corporate Services Committee meeting, the real estate broker was requested to provide a full review of the sale process. It was decided that it would be appropriate to provide both the purchasers who submitted the highest and second highest offer with an opportunity to submit their final highest and best offer by 12:00 noon on April 9, 1998. This information was conveyed to the prospective purchaser who submitted the second highest offer by the broker on April 2, 1998. On April 3, 1998, representatives of 1260093 Ontario Inc. and their engineer inspected the property together with a broker and City staff and were requested to submit their highest and best offer by 12:00 noon on Thursday, April 9, 1998.

By 12:00 noon on April 9, 1998, only one submission was received. That submission was from 1260093 Ontario Inc. wherein they agreed to waive the conditions which had previously been included in their offer. The result is that three offers ranging from $1,750,000.00 to $2,300,000.00 have been received. Both the highest and second highest offers have been submitted on the basis of the City's unamended Offer to Purchase form and the lowest offer contains several conditions which are unacceptable. Accordingly, I am recommending that the highest offer as set out below be accepted.

Recommended Offer:

Term Sheet:

Purchaser: 1260093 Ontario Inc., (In Trust for a Corporation To Be Incorporated)

188 Pearl Street

Toronto, Ontario M5H 2L5

Purchase Price: $2,300,000.00

Deposit: $230,000.00

Intended Use: Continued Restaurant Use

Solicitor: Adam Vassos

150 York Street, Suite 800

Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

GST. No.: To be provided

Irrevocable Date: May 17, 1998

Closing Date: 15 days after waiver

Disposition of Funds:

City Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting on October 11, 1994 [ECR #23(61)] gave consideration to a joint report entitled Transfer of Various Properties from Toronto Harbour Commissioners to the City of Toronto and TEDCO - Due Diligence Review, and approved, amongst others, a recommendation that directed the Commissioner of Finance to maintain City accounts for revenues and expenses related to the properties being acquired for municipal purposes so that the net revenues, or such lesser amount as necessary to subsidize the port operations of the THC, can be made available on an annual basis. Council further directed the Commissioner of Finance to establish a reserve fund for these properties to enable annual net revenues in excess of those required to subsidize port operations of the THC, and for proceeds from any subsequent property transactions related to these parcels to be utilized for environmental monitoring, control and remediation for the parcels. Accordingly, the net proceeds from this sale should be deposited to this reserve fund.

Conclusion:

The Director, Property Services is of the opinion that the Offer to Purchase received from 1260093 Ontario Inc., (In Trust) on behalf of a corporation to be incorporated in the amount of $2,300,000.00 is acceptable. The other offers received should be declined and the deposit cheques returned.

Contact Name:

Peter Aziz, 392-1856, Fax: 392-1880, paziz@city.toronto.on.ca, (cn98051.wpd).)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, confidential reports (March 12, 1998 and March 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act .)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (March 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "Sale of City-owned Property known municipally as 23 Fraser Avenue (Ward 20 - Trinity Niagara); which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, confidential reports (March 13, 1998 and March 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the North York Community Council for consideration.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To declare the lands surplus to the needs of the City and that the appropriate notice be given that the City intends to sell the property.

That the City accept the "Offer To Purchase" from 12008128 Ontario Limited, attached as Appendix "B".

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The "Offer to Purchase" provides for the sale of City lands at a purchase price of $30,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council declare that the subject lands are surplus to the needs of the City and the appropriate notice be given that the City intends to sell this property;

(2) the City accept the "Offer to Purchase" from 12008128 Ontario Limited, attached as Appendix "B" and the Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Deputy Treasurer and the City Clerk be authorized to execute same;

(3) proceeds from the sale be credited to account No. 007-435-000-8340; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized to do all things necessary to finalize this matter.

Background:

The owner of 325 Eddystone Avenue (the adjoining industrial property), in July 1993, requested to purchase or lease 18,062 square feet of the adjoining parkland. In order to accommodate extra truck loading and turning, existing parking needed to be relocated, resulting in the request for land.

On October 6, 1993, by Resolution No 93-36, Council recommended a 30 year lease at a rent of $12,400.00 per annum along with fencing and buffering; all of which was conditional upon approval of a minor variance. On October 20, 1993, by Resolution No. 93-37, Council approved a $30,000.00 up front payment, an annual rental of $10,416.00, no rental payments for the first three years and a maximum leased area of .32 acres (13,939 square feet).

On May 12, 1995, the Ontario Municipal Board found in favor of the City, concerning the minor variance to the Official Plan as required to implement the proposed lease. Approval was conditional upon (i) site plan approval, (ii) a 1.0 metre high chain link fence along the perimeter at the expense of the company.

The owner approached staff with a view to purchase a substantially reduced area, from 13,939 square feet to 2,230 square feet. Parks and Recreation staff indicated a preference to selling the reduced area rather than leasing the larger area.

Comments:

Based on recent sale transactions for industrial land in this area, the valuation of this land is $10,000.00. However, given the strategic importance of this parcel to the purchaser he has offered to pay $30,000.00. A portion of the purchase price, approximately $2,800.00, will be use to fence the site.

We are of the opinion that the purchase price is fair and above the market value of the land.

Contact Name:

Rudi Pestl, Telephone: 395-6846, Fax: 395-6703 (cs98026.wpd)

(A copy of Appendix B referred to in the foregoing report, the location map and schedule A attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the acquisition of property interests for the construction and operation of the Sheppard Subway.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financing has previously been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No. TC-392.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted to enter into an agreement with National Gym Clothing Limited pursuant to Section 30 of the Expropriations Act on terms and conditions detailed herein; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The previous Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of The Financial Priorities Committee on September 25 and 26, 1996, (as amended) approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway Project.

Metropolitan Council authorized the initiation of expropriation procedures for property interests required for the construction and operation of the Sheppard Subway at Yonge Station by its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Administration Committee at its meeting May 8, 1996.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the construction of the Sheppard Subway, the City requires numerous property interests from Willowdale Plaza. The construction of the southeast WYE tunnel will necessitate the removal of 100 parking spaces from the plaza parking lot and the construction hording for the WYE construction will be approximately eight feet from the main entrance to the National Sports (National Gym Clothing Limited) store entrance. As a result of negotiations with National Gym, the TTC, and the City of Toronto, an agreement has been reached whereby the main entrance will be relocated south of the existing entrance, signage will be relocated, and additional parking will be provided at the rear of the store on lands leased from Seneca College.

The TTC and National Gym estimate the cost of these works in the amount of $157,500.00. An agreement has been reached whereby National Gym will be advanced $157,500.00 to undertake the remedial works to a maximum amount of $157,500.00 and will repay any excess advance which has been made by the City.

National Gym has agreed not to seek additional costs as part of its compensation from the City in relation to the costs of the remedial works and has agreed to accept the payment as an undertaking in accordance with Section 11 of the Expropriations Act which allows the City to undertake mitigation measures to reduce injurious affection.

The terms and conditions of the agreement have been reviewed by the TTC and are considered fair and reasonable.

Conclusion:

The terms and conditions of the Section 30 agreement as detailed herein are fair and reasonable.

Contact Name:

Mr. Douglas F. Warning

Acting Director of Real Estate (392-8165)

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To acquire an Easement for the operation, maintenance and reconstruction of an existing trunk sewer located within 600 Queens Quay West, Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted to acquire easement rights for nominal consideration from the owner of the land designated as Part 4 on Registered Plan 63R-4555 (Part 4), within the land municipally described as 600 Queens Quay West, for the purpose of operating, maintaining, reconstructing or enlarging the existing trunk sewer located within the property in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in this report and any additional terms and conditions the City Solicitor or I consider necessary; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

N/A

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

By letter dated January 21, 1998, the City was given notice by 600 Queens Quay Limited that it had applied to have its property registered under the Land Titles Act. The City was served with the application pursuant to a statutory requirement that abutting land owners be notified when land is to be entered into the Land Titles system.

In reviewing the application, it was discovered that the City never acquired a Transfer of Easement from the owner of the property for the trunk box sewer constructed by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners in 1918, located within Part 4 as indicated on the Sketch Plan No. EAS-491. This trunk box sewer forms part of the outlet for the Garrison Creek Sewer System. In order for the City to carry out future operation, maintenance, reconstruction, or enlarging of the sewer, it is necessary that easement rights be acquired from the owner of the property.

In preliminary discussions initiated by the City Solicitor, the owner of the property has indicated that it is prepared to grant an Easement to the City over Part 4.

Accordingly, I request that authority be given to acquire a Transfer of Easement from the owner of Part 4 for the maintenance, repair, reconstruction, or enlarging of the existing trunk box sewer, containing the following terms and conditions and any others that the City Solicitor or I may determine to be necessary:

(1) the City shall have the right of access to the easement lands at any time to operate, inspect, maintain, reconstruct, or enlarge the sewer;

(2) no buildings or structures shall be constructed within or over the easement lands without the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, except for buildings and structures existing or approved prior to the execution of the easement agreement;

(3) no utilities shall be located within the easement lands without the prior written approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, except for any utilities that existed prior to execution of the easement agreement; and

(4) every time the City exercises its easement rights, the lands shall be restored to a condition as close as possible to the condition existing prior to the work.

Conclusions:

Approval should be given to acquire easement rights and enter into an easement agreement as described above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

W. Wichmann, P.Eng., City Engineer

Former City of Toronto

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416)392-7703

Fax (416)392-0816

E-Mail "wwichman@city.toronto.on.ca

(A copy of Sketch Plan No. EAS-491 attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To secure City Council approval to have the City's condominium interest in approximately 95 percent of 180 Duncan Mill Road declared surplus to the City's requirement and authorize the sale of this interest on the open market.

Financial Implications:

No financial implications at this stage of disposal, but, if sold, revenue will be generated for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council, by by-law, declare as surplus the 95 percent condominium interest the City has in the real property known municipally as 180 Duncan Mill Road;

(2) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed, in accordance with City of North York Procedural By-law No. 32512, to give notice to the public of the proposed disposition of the lands declared surplus;

(3) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to market the City's interest in 180 Duncan Mill Road, through a real estate broker for a listing price to be determined in consultation with the listing broker; and

(4) the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing recommendations, including if appropriate introducing the necessary bill in Council.

Background:

In February, 1996, a 95 percent condominium interest in 180 Duncan Mill Road was offered for sale by public tender pursuant to the Municipal Tax Sales Act. The reserve bid, comprised of tax arrears, interest and penalty was $3,745,000.00. No bids were received and the ownership of the 95 percent condominium interest in 180 Duncan Mill Road, was vested to the City of North York on March 4, 1996, registered as Instrument No. D490872.

The entire property is legally described as, Lots 88 to 90, Registered Plan 7607. The 95 percent interest is described as being all units and common elements comprising the property included in Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Plan (MTCP) 988, being the common elements and General Index and property parcel registered for MTCP 988 save and except Units 10-17, Level 6 and Units 31, 32 and 33, Level A, MTCP 988 in the City of North York in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The other 5 percent condominium interest in the property is owned by The Ontario Association for Community Living and is described as YCP 988, Level 6, Units 10-17 and Units 31, 32 and 33, Level A.

The site area of the entire property is 2.339 acres with a frontage of 340.16 feet on the north side of Duncan Mill Road by irregular depth. It is zoned M2 (Industrial Inside Storage Zone) and is designated as O-1 Office Industrial in the Official Plan.

The property is improved with a 7-storey, 109 unit, office building, comprising a gross floor area of approximately 130,536 square feet. It is approximately 23 years old and was converted to condominium offices in 1991. There is an 18,256 square foot, 2-storey annex which is linked to the main building via the main lobby. There are two multi-level parking garages underneath the 7-storey building containing 153 spaces. To the east there is surface and underground parking consisting of 210 spaces. The previous assessment was $1,344,140.00 for the 7-storey portion and $77,360.00 for the annex portion.

The subject property has been held under interim management since acquired by the City. The buildings are vacant and deteriorating and constantly being repaired because of vandalism. Testing of the sprinkler system was delayed because of sub-level flooding which was pumped out by the North York Public Works Department. Currently, the various outstanding work orders are being attended to as requested by the Fire Department.

Comments:

The availability of this property for municipal purposes was circulated to the Interim Functional Leads for the New City of Toronto and no interest was expressed in retaining the property for municipal purposes. Accordingly, the City's 95 percent condominium interest in this property should be declared surplus and sold on the open market.

The provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994 (Bill 163) respecting the sale of real property, by the City, its Agencies, Boards and Commissions, took effect January 1, 1995. In order to comply with this legislation, City Council:

(i) must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public;

(ii) notice to the public of the proposed sale; and

(iii) must obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempted by regulations passed under the legislation.

In preparation for the marketing of this property a feasibility study was completed in November 1997, by Fish Marks which covers a number of items. The main points of the report are as follows:

(1) Immediately list the property for sale.

(2) If the property is not sold within a short time frame, i.e., one to two months from date of listing, arrange to have the buildings demolished. Preliminary demolition cost estimates range between $400,000.00 and $720,000.00.

(3) Once demolished, list the vacant land for sale.

(4) It is also recommended that a Phase I - Environmental Audit be conducted prior to advertising.

Also in preparation for the sale of the City's 95 percent condominium interest in this property discussions have been conducted with The Ontario Association for Community Living. The Association has tentatively agreed that its 5 percent condominium interest in this property could be marketed at the same time as the City's interest and the Association is prepared to accept 5 percent of the net sale proceeds for its interest. We are currently awaiting the final approval of the Association's Board of Directors to this joint marketing initiative. Given the nature of this property it is prudent to market both interests simultaneously.

Conclusion:

The City's 95 percent condominium interest in the property at 180 Duncan Mill Road should be declared surplus and sold as soon as possible, using the services of a broker to help expedite the sale.

Contact Name:

Stan Babiarz, Telephone (416)395-6849, Fax (416)395-6703, (cs98022.wpd)

(A copy of the location map attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

(a) Approval of a potential public/private partnership to market a remnant parcel of municipally owned land.

(b) Declaration of City property as surplus.

Funding:

Not required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council declare the property, legally described as Part of Lot 9 Plan 4087, shown in heavy outline on the attached sketch, surplus and that the City intends to sell the lands;

(2) public notice of the proposed sale be given by publication of this report in the Council agenda;

(3) staff negotiate an agreement with the abutting owner, with a view to the joint marketing of the property shown on the attached sketch and report back to Council on the agreement, including the proposed minimum sale price;

(4) if satisfactory arrangements cannot be made for the joint marketing of the property, that the City invite offers to purchase its property; and

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

Background:

In the 1950s, the then Township of Scarborough subdivided a large parcel of land to create an industrial subdivision in the Birchmount Road/Eglinton Avenue area. A rail spur line was later installed. A curve in the spur line created a small, roughly triangularly shaped parcel of land at the corner of Thermos Road and Ashtonbee Road. The size and shape of this remnant property made it difficult to develop, and the Township retained it.

In 1994, the spur line was declared surplus by C.P. Rail, in accordance with a Canadian Transport Board order. As part of an agreement to purchase another part of the rail spur where it abutted Massey Creek, the City of Scarborough acquired the portion of the rail spur adjacent to the remnant industrial site, for the nominal sum of $2.00. Although still roughly triangular, the City property now has an area of .247 ha (.61 acres).

The zoning of the property is MG - General Industrial, with Performance Standards permitting a maximum gross floor area of 75 percent of the lot area. The Official Plan designates the property for Industrial Uses.

The former City of Scarborough Real Estate Disposal Procedure By-law requires the City, when proposing to dispose of a parcel of land:

(a) to publicly declare the property to be surplus;

(b) to provide notice to the public of the proposed sale in a manner determined by Council;

(c) to obtain at least one written appraisal of the fair market value before entering into an agreement of Purchase and Sale; and

(d) if the recommended method of disposal is by Public Auction or Public Tender, the conditions of sale and the reserve amount, if applicable, are to be set out in the by-law declaring the property surplus.

Comments:

Although significantly disadvantaged by its shape, the property is of sufficient size to support a small industrial or quasi-industrial building, and the property could be sold on its own, although the estimated value would be much less than a similar sized rectangular property.

Staff approached Informco, the abutting owner to the north, to determine if they were interested in purchasing the property. Although Informco did not wish to proceed with a purchase, subsequent discussions resulted in a proposal to jointly market a portion of their property, together with the City's lands. To accomplish this, Informco will require a severance of their property. The combined property will be rectangular, have an area of approximately .81 hectares, and will have frontage both on Ashtonbee Road and Thermos Road. The sale price will be divided between the parties based upon the area of their respective holdings, as will the costs of the sale, including any real estate commission.

In order to proceed with the joint marketing of these public/private lands, Council must first declare the land to be surplus. Staff can then negotiate a tentative agreement with Informco to market the combined property and report back to Council seeking approval of the terms of the agreement with Informco, and the appraised value of the City's surplus lands.

Conclusions:

By working co-operatively with the abutting owner, the City will increase the value of its surplus property.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone No. (416) 396-4930, Fax No. (416) 396-4241, mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca, (cs98023.wpd)

(A copy of the sketch referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The redevelopment of a property at 2890 Kingston Road has presented an opportunity to close and dispose of an unnamed lane. Authority is sought for the closing of the lane.

Funding:

Not required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) road closing procedures be initiated to close the portion of the lane, extending east of Harewood Avenue, as shown on the attached sketch;

(2) Council declare the laneway as shown, surplus and that the City intends to sell the lands;

(3) public notice of the proposed sale be given by including a notation to that affect with the advertising of the road closing;

(4) staff be directed to report back to Council on the offering of the lane to the abutting owners immediately after the lane is closed; and

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

Background:

In 1995, City of Scarborough Council directed the Director of Real Estate to investigate the possibility of closing a laneway which extended east from Harewood Avenue, just north of Kingston Road, in the McCowan Road/Kingston Road area. The instructions to the Director of Real Estate emanated from a rezoning application in which one of the abutting owners sought approval to construct a denture clinic. The clinic is currently under construction at 2890 Kingston Road, and the owner has indicated an interest in purchasing the laneway.

The lane is 4.5m (15 feet) wide from Harewood Road easterly for a distance of approximately 22.8m (75 feet). It then widens to a width of 15m (50 feet). There is no indication that this lane was ever maintained by the City.

As noted on the attached attached (Schedule "A"), a small portion of the lane close to Harewood Avenue must remain open to serve as an access for the owner of 2886 Kingston Road. However, the remainder is surplus to the operational needs of the City.

The zoning of the lane is S-Single Family, with development standards permitting one house per lot with a minimum frontage of 12m (39.4 feet) and a minimum lot area of 464m^2.. The Official Plan Designation is Low Density Residential.

To the north of the lane is an approximately 50 year old single family residence; to the south is a commercial property recently redeveloped as a denture clinic; to the east a funeral home. The owner of the single family residence has encroached upon a significant portion of the lane for many years, quite possibly since the house was constructed.

There are dozens of lanes throughout this area of Scarborough which have never been improved as public thoroughfares, and which have been occupied by the abutting owners for decades. In many cases substantial improvements, such as large sheds and garages, have been constructed on the lanes. To deal with the issue, the City of Scarborough evolved a policy whereby owners of residential property could purchase lanes which added no frontage to their properties for a nominal sum, provided they were responsible for the necessary survey costs. Owners of properties where their frontage was to be increased, or non-residential property owners, were required to pay market value.

Comments:

Preliminary discussions have been held with the owners of the three abutting properties, who have generally agreed that they have no objection to the closing and sale of the lane in accordance with the City's policy. The owner of 2888 Kingston Road indicated no objections to the proposal, provided the lane remains open to the east limit of his property.

The Municipal Act requires the lane be closed as a public highway prior to sale. Advertisements in local newspapers are required as part of the road closing process.

The former City of Scarborough Real Estate Disposal Procedure By-law requires the City, when proposing to dispose of a parcel of land:

(a) to publicly declare the property to be surplus;

(b) to provide notice to the public of the proposed sale in a manner determined by Council;

(c) to obtain at least one written appraisal of the fair market value before entering into an agreement of Purchase and Sale; and

(d) if the recommended method of disposal is by Public Auction or Public Tender, the conditions of sale and the reserve amount, if applicable, are to be set out in the by-law declaring the property surplus.

As newspaper advertisements will be required as part of the road closing process, the public notice requirements can be met by including a notation to that effect in the road closing advertisements. Another report recommending the lane be offered to the abutting owners in accordance with the Municipal Act and City policy will follow as soon as the road closing process is completed.

Conclusions:

The abutting owners are in agreement with proposed closing and sale of the lane which will assist in the orderly redevelopment of the property at 2890 Kingston Road for commercial purposes, thereby increasing the City's tax base.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Telephone: (416) 396-4930 Fax: (416) 396-4241 mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca (cs98019.wpd)

(A copy of the sketch referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To dispose of the section of surplus lane designated as parts 1 to 16 inclusive, on the survey plan attached as Appendix "C" being approximately 416 square metres of vacant residential land.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City accept the offer to purchase made by the abutting property owner at 541 Woburn Avenue for their allotted portion of the subject lane. The general terms, $1.00 per square foot of land plus all costs associated with the transaction and subject to utility easements;

(2) the City accept the offers to purchase made by the other abutting property owners for their allotted portions of the subject lane. The general terms, $2.00 per square foot of land plus all costs associated with the transactions and subject to utility easements;

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute the offers to purchase in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(4) the proceeds from the sales be credited to Account No. 007-430-000-8340; and

(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to finalize this matter.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The former City of North York over the years has attempted to close and dispose of the many unimproved lanes within the subject neighbourhood.

These lanes were created on plans of sub-division in around 1900 to provide rear yard access. To date, only a small number of abutting owners utilize the lanes for that purpose. In most instances they have become a maintenance problem for the City and a security concern for abutting home owners.

In order to realize the disposition of significant sections of lane, the former City of North York has sold them to abutting property owners for nominal sums.

On July 9, 1997, North York Council, in considering the report, "Closure of a portion of rear lane between Bedford Park Avenue and Woburn Avenue", recommended closure and sale of the subject section of lane and directed staff to negotiate settlements with the abutting property owners and report the outcome to the development and economic growth committee.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Settlements have been now reached with all 16 abutting property owners for the closure and sale of the subject section of lane. The general terms of settlement are $2.00 per square foot of land (value in contribution to the abutting property), plus all costs associated with the transactions and subject to utility easements. The only exception to the price per square foot sum is for the owner of 541 Woburn Avenue, as the land they are acquiring is encumbered with a large concrete culvert. They have agreed to pay $1.00 per square foot of land.

Conclusions:

The subject section of lane be disposed of in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified in this report.

Contact Name:

Wayne O'Brien, (416) 395-6847, Fax (416) 395-6703 (cs98021)

(A copy of Appendices A, B and C attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To rescind a previous Council authority that authorized the leasing of the above captioned lands as per the attached location map.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Clause No. 21 of Report No. 25 of The Corporate Administration Committee, as amended, and adopted by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on December 10 and 18, 1997 be rescinded; and

(2) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be authorized and directed to take such action as may be required to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Bell Mobility Cellular Inc. is upgrading their existing wireless network and, in this regard, had identified a site at the southwest corner of the Beare Road Landfill as a possible location. An agreement was reached that would have generated approximately $85,000.00 over five years, to licence this parcel which was amended and adopted by the above mentioned Council report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The approved location was at the southwest corner of the facility and was selected so it would blend in with the adjacent Ontario Hydro corridor. However, this site was reached by a long access road which crossed over lands that were under a previous lease to Energogen Ltd., a company that recycles methane gas from the Landfill to produce electric power. In a letter dated March 16, 1998, Chris Bouchard, Manager of Leasing, for Bell Mobility advised that the timing for the construction of their wireless network was such that they decided to build two smaller wireless sites on private property and would not require the Beare Road location.

Conclusions:

The previously approved Council report should be rescinded so that other proposals can be considered for this site.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio

Manager of Property Services (392-8155)

(A copy of the location map attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the execution of a Worksite Lease required for the construction of the Sheppard Subway.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financing has been previously approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No. TC-392.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted for the Commissioner of Corporate Services to accept the Worksite Lease and execute it on behalf of the Corporation; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Management Committee (as amended) on March 8 and 9, 1994, and subject to a further report regarding funding, Metropolitan Council approved construction of the Sheppard Subway to Don Mills Road. By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Management Committee (as amended) on April 20, 1994, Metropolitan Council authorized the debenture funding to commence the project. Finally Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of The Financial Priorities Committee on September 25 and 26, 1996, as amended, approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway Project.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the construction of the Sheppard Subway, a lease agreement is required from the property at 579 Sheppard Avenue East for the temporary relocation of the driveway in order to facilitate the construction of the Bayview Station. The lands for the construction have been previously acquired. The lease is required for a three year period, commencing on January 1, 1998 with an option to renew for a further one year period. The demised area is described as follows:

(a) an irregular shaped strip of land across the subject property's entire Sheppard Avenue East frontage, shown cross-hatched on the sketch attached.

Copies of the draft survey plan, prepared by J. D. Barnes Limited and sketch are on file with the City Clerk.

Negotiations have been conducted with the owner and an agreement has been reached as to compensation. The particulars of the property and the property requirements are summarized as follows:

Owner: Michael and Norma Tinti.

Location: The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Sheppard Avenue East and Barberry Place, east of Don Mills Road and known municipally as 579 Sheppard Avenue East.

Legal Description: Part of Lot 15, Concession 2 E.Y.S., in the City of Toronto (formerly City of North York)

Property Description: A single family residential holding, improved with a detached brick residence, with 57 feet of frontage on Sheppard Avenue East.

Area of Requirements: The demised area covers 66 square metres (710 square feet) and is shown cross-hatched on the attached sketch.

Rent: $1680.00 for the three year term; $560.00 for the one year option plus reasonable legal fees and other costs.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, the terms and conditions of the lease as detailed herein is fair and reasonable.

Contact Name:

Mr. Douglas F. Warning

Acting Director of Real Estate (392-8165)

(A copy of the sketch referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the execution of a Worksite Lease required for the construction of the Sheppard Subway.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financing has been previously approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No. TC-392.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted for the Commissioner of Corporate Services to accept the Worksite Lease and execute it on behalf of the Corporation; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Management Committee (as amended) on March 8 and 9, 1994, and subject to a further report regarding funding, Metropolitan Council approved construction of the Sheppard Subway to Don Mills Road. By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Management Committee (as amended) on April 20, 1994, Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of The Financial Priorities committee on September 25 and 26, 1996, as amended, approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway Project.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the construction of the Sheppard Subway, a lease agreement is required from the property at 589 Sheppard Avenue East for the temporary relocation of the driveway in order to facilitate the construction of the Bayview Station. The lease is required for a three year period, commencing on January 1, 1998, with an option to renew for a further one year period. The demised area is described as an irregular shaped strip of land across the subject property's entire Sheppard Avenue East frontage, shown cross-hatched on the sketch attached.

Copies of the draft survey plan, prepared by J. D. Barnes Limited and sketch are on file with the City Clerk.

Negotiations have been conducted with the owner and an agreement has been reached as to compensation. The particulars of the property and the property requirements are summarized as follows:

Owner: Fu-Mei Lin, Wu-Shin Lin and Shu-Chen Huang Su

Location: The subject property is located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue East, east of Barberry Place and known municipally as 589 Sheppard Avenue East.

Legal Description: Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan No. 4797 in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of North York).

Property Description: A single family residential holding, improved with a 2 storey brick residence with 67 feet of frontage on Sheppard Avenue East.

Area of Requirements: The demised area covers 41 square metres (442 square feet) and is shown cross-hatched on the attached sketch.

Rent: $1,050.00 for the three year term; $350.00 for the one year option, plus reasonable legal fees and other costs.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, the terms and conditions of the lease as detailed herein is fair and reasonable.

Contact Name:

Mr. Douglas F. Warning

Acting Director of Real Estate (392-8165)

(A copy of the sketch referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, subject to the necessary funds being available in the 1998 Operating Budget:

Purpose:

To renew the captioned Land Lease Agreement with the Toronto Transit Commission for a Child Care Centre at 1125 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, as per attached location map.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the expenditures identified in this report are part of Children's Services 1998 Operating Budget Request.

The Commissioner of Finance, in accordance with Provincial regulations, has certified that financing for these expenditures in the amount of $174,062.00 is within the Updated Financial Debt and Obligation Limit.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) financing in the amount of $174,062.00 be approved;

(2) authority be granted to renew the Land Lease Agreement with the Toronto Transit Commission for a term of five years commencing April 1, 1998, and expiring on March 31, 2003, on the terms and conditions herein below and in a form acceptable to the Toronto Solicitor; and

• the appropriate Toronto officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 3 of Report No. 11 of The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee on September 29, 1993, authorized the renewal of the Lease for two parcels of land at the above-noted location, having a combined area of 2,340 square metres (25,183 square feet), for a term of five years commencing April 1, 1993, and expiring on March 31, 1998, at a rental of $1.00 per annum, net, plus estimated operating costs of $190,000.00 over the term of the Lease. All other terms and conditions are to remain the same as or similar to those in the current Lease.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

By a letter dated November 19, 1997, Community and Neighbourhood Services Department has informed me that it wished to renew the Lease on the same terms and conditions, but with a 60-day notice to terminate.

Negotiations were conducted with Mr. Graham H. Tulett, Superintendent of Property Management, Toronto Transit Commission, 1900 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4S 1Z2, and agreement has been reached to renew the captioned Land Lease Agreement for another five-year term, commencing April 1, 1998, and expiring on March 31, 2003, with Tenant's option to terminate the Lease on a 60-day notice. All other terms and conditions are to remain the same as or similar to those in the current Lease, including the rental of $1.00 per annum, net. The estimated operating costs over the term of the Lease is estimated at $174,062.00.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, these terms and conditions are fair and reasonable and I have been advised that they are acceptable to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No.: (416)392-8155; Fax No.: (416)

392- 4828; E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(A copy of the location map attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The licensee, Leaf Confections Limited., now known as Oak Leaf Confections, wishes to exercise an option to renew the parking license for a further term of five (5) years. This report summarizes the tentative agreement.

Funding:

The proceeds of license fee to be credited to Account No. 30000-26500-48350-816, Real Estate Rentals.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City authorize the renewal of the license agreement requested by Oak Leaf Confections for a five year term commencing May 1, 1998, on the same terms and conditions as per the existing agreement including the annual license fee at $2,912.80 plus G.S.T.; and

(2) appropriate City officials be authorized to execute the relevant renewal document.

History:

Oak Leaf Confections, formerly Leaf Confections Limited, is located at the northwest corner of Comstock Road and Sinnott Road.

Oak Leaf Confections leased a strip of land on the east side of Sinnott Road for employee parking as well as a portion of the road allowance on the west side of Sinnott Road for executive parking. The agreement which is for a period of five years expires April 30, 1998.

The strip of land on the east side of Sinnott Road measures 20 feet by 330 feet of which 12 feet is owned by the City and the remaining 8 feet forms part of the Sinnott Road road allowance. The second part of the license includes a portion of a road allowance at the main entrance of the manufacturing facility. It measures 22 feet by 31 feet. A total of 39 parking spaces can be accommodated within the licensed area. A sketch showing the dimensions of the licensed area in cross-hatched lines is attached.

Comments:

The license agreement between the former City of Scarborough and Oak Leaf Confections as successor to Leaf Confections Limited, expires on April 30, 1998. A provision in the agreement gives the licensee an option to renew for a further term of five (5) years at a rent to be negotiated. The licensee, now known as Oak Leaf Confections has advised they wish to renew the license.

Subject to Council's approval, a tentative renewal agreement has been reached for another five years commencing on May 1, 1998, on the same terms and conditions including the annual license fee at $2,912.80 plus G.S.T. The Works and Environment Department of Scarborough Office have no objection to the proposed license renewal.

Conclusion:

To permit parking within the licensed area will alleviate the parking problem experienced by employees of Oak Leaf Confessions. The road allowance that is licensed for parking will not affect the travel path of Sinnott Road which is a sub-arterial road with limited vehicular traffic. The agreed annual fee reflects fair market rent based on land value and existing use of the land.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241, mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(cs98029.wpd)

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To renew the licence agreement between the City and Ontario Hydro for the use of land for allotment garden purposes. See Map in Appendix A.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Parks and Recreation Department (North York Region), Southeast District, confirmed that the funds for the renewal agreement are available.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Licence Agreement between the City and Ontario Hydro be approved; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute the documentation and take any necessary action.

History:

The former City of North York operated allotment garden sites in several locations on land licensed from Ontario Hydro for nominal sum. One of these licences, on Jonesville Crescent, expired on October 31, 1997. The term of the agreement was for five years for $1.00 (One Dollar) per annum.

Comments:

Our Parks and Recreation Department indicated they wish to renew for a further term of five years and Ontario Hydro provided us with new licence agreements.

The new term commences November 1, 1997, to October 31, 2002, and continuing thereafter on a month to month basis. All terms and conditions remain the same as in the previous agreement.

Contact Name:

Vicky Papas Telephone: 395-6843, Fax: 395-6703 (cs98018.wpd)

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (February 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998, on whether it is likely that a school or park will ever be built at this location.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (February 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To approve the 1998 Operating Budget of the multi-tenant industrial complex at 705 Progress Avenue owned jointly by the City and the Board of Education.

Funding:

Not applicable.

The net income derived from the operation of this project is deposited into Account No. 58130 Non-Departmental (705 Progress Avenue Project).

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council approve the Operating Budget for 705 Progress Avenue subject to approval by the Toronto School Board, Scarborough District.

Background:

In response to changing development trends in the City Centre area of Scarborough in the early 1990's the then City and Board of Education purchased the property at 705 Progress Avenue for a future park and school, each acquiring a 50 percent interest.

705 Progress consists of 151,000 square feet of leasable industrial space on a site of approximately 4.86 ha. (12 acres). The six buildings are generally divided into units of 1000 sq.ft. or multiples thereof. Approximately eleven thousand square feet of office space is concentrated at the front of the most easterly building.

The day-to-day operation and management of the property was contracted to Sun Life of Canada under the direction of the City's Director of Real Estate. The management contract with Sun Life expires on December 31, 1998. A condition of the management contract requires Sun Life to prepare an annual operating budget which is presented for approval.

Comments:

At the time of writing, about 36,000 sq.ft. are vacant. Twelve leases come due for renewal during 1998. Lease rates range from $3.50 to $3.75 per annum per square foot for the industrial space and $4.00 to $5.00 for the office, on a triple net basis Operating costs for 1998 are estimated at $4.89 per square foot for the industrial space and $7.69 for the office space.

Conclusions:

Approval of this budget will permit the property manager to continue with the operation and ongoing maintenance of this project.

The projected net revenue for 1998 is $217,049.00 half of which will accrue to the Board of Education.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-424, mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(cs98028.wpd)

(A copy of the Budget Worksheet attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration, and Council directed that the Council Strategy Committee for Persons Without Homes be offered the opportunity to provide input on the sale of properties when such matters are considered by the Committee.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by adding thereto the following words, "such report to include, at that time, recommendations with respect to delegation of authorities to such Committee", so that Recommendation No. (2) shall now read as follows:

"(2) authority for the approval of real estate/property matters be delegated in accordance with the chart attached to this report as Appendix 1, subject, however, to the matters shown for delegation to the Property Management Committee continuing to reside with Council until such time as the report referred to in Recommendation No. (1) is submitted and considered; such report to include, at that time, recommendations with respect to delegation of authorities to such Committee;".

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit the job description and scope of responsibilities for the new position of Executive Director for Facilities and Real Estate, to the Corporate Services Committee.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (March 25, 1998 ) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To recommend the delegation of authority for the approval of various types of property and real estate transactions.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report on the establishment of a staff Property Management Committee comprised of senior staff from across the corporation, the functions of which Committee are to include the coordination of property asset management and the approval of certain real estate matters;

(2) authority for the approval of real estate/property matters be delegated in accordance with the chart attached to this report as Appendix 1, subject, however, to the matters shown for delegation to the Property Management Committee continuing to reside with Council until such time as the report referred to in Recommendation No. (1) is submitted and considered;

(3) this authority supersedes and replaces any authorities, policies or procedures previously existing in any of the seven "old" municipalities in relation to the subject matter hereof;

(4) leave be granted for the introduction of any Bills necessary to give effect to the foregoing; and

(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to give effect to the foregoing.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Transition Team, in its report, "New City, New Opportunities", recommended that early in 1998, City Council should enact by-laws for delegating routine real estate transactions to staff. City Council supported this approach in approving the recommendation of the Special Committee to request a report on the delegation of authority for the approval of real estate transactions.

Discussion:

Various types of real estate/property matters, often routine in nature and/or insignificant in dollar amount, end up unnecessarily lengthening Committee and Council agendas which, in turn, results in a lengthier period of time to implement the desired/necessary transaction and/or documentation. Staff have accordingly turned its mind to assessing which of the wide array of property matters (transactions and documentation) should be delegated for approvals from Council, to staff, at a series of levels, depending on the nature of the transaction and the dollar value in question.

The chart attached as Appendix 1 to this Report, reflects a proposed series of delegations of the authority to approve various property transactions and/or documentation. The formulation of same has been based on a combination of the actual practices of the former municipalities and staff's experience in processing such transactions. The Real Estate Group, comprised of representatives of the former municipalities, has reviewed these proposed delegations and supports the proposal, the current form of which also reflects the Legal Department's input. The chart is arranged such that the type of property transaction/documentation is listed down the left hand column, by category. The various possible "levels" (e.g., Council, Commissioner, etc.) for the approval or proposed delegation are listed across the top of the chart, forming columns. For each of the matters listed, there is a corresponding shaded area in one of the columns. That shading reflects the recommended level for the delegation of the approval-power for that type of matter.

Where documentation is required to implement the transaction(s) in question, same will be prepared in accordance with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services (including, where appropriate, relevant indemnities, both environmental and otherwise, and standard insurance provisions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Finance), and in a form satisfactory to the Solicitor. Also, of course, where the matter involves the needs of, or property under the jurisdiction of, an operating department, terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner in question, will also be included. Dollar figures on the chart represent only "base" amounts and are not intended to include relevant taxes, operating costs, etc.

At the February 16, 1998, meeting of the Corporate Services Committee, certain Members requested that when a proposed policy for the new City of Toronto is brought forward, staff should, where possible, include information as to the policies/practices of the seven "old" municipalities. The chart reflects, by a symbol assigned to each of the seven old municipalities, the level at which the authority for approving the listed transactions had rested. (It should be noted, however, that due to the various methods of how transactions were characterized by each of the seven municipalities and/or differences in delegated "size" of transactions, the information as to those practices/policies may not be exhaustive, but it at least certainly represents the core types of transactions.)

The matter of the approval of various types of encroachment agreements (on City property, including roads, parks, etc., and by the City onto private property) will be the subject matter of a future report once pre-existing policies and practices have been rationalized; and the jurisdiction of the Community Councils in these matters is clarified.

The former City of Toronto's Board of Management exercised certain delegated property authorities. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto had instituted a Land Management Committee comprised of various Department Heads which Committee was mandated to, among other things co-ordinate the planning of Metro's land requirements and the land disposition function, including the making of recommendations as to the methods of disposition of Metro property. A formal body, such as a Property Management Committee, has not yet been established for the new City. It is anticipated, however, that a report on the formation of a similar type committee will be submitted shortly. Pending Council's consideration of the establishment of a Property Management Committee, those items, the delegation for which are reflected on the chart to go to such Committee, should continue to reside with Council. The proposal also provides for the delegation of certain functions to an Executive Director, a position which has not yet been filled. Accordingly, those delegations may only be exercised once that position has, in fact, been filled.

If, in any particular circumstance, a transaction otherwise having been delegated to staff for approval is of such special interest that same should receive the consideration of Committee and Council, a determination may be made to return such item to the Committee/Council approval process for political consideration.

Conclusions:

The proposed delegation of authority to approve various real estate matters as reflected in the appended Chart will relieve Committee/Council Agendas of unnecessary items, expedite approval of the proposed transactions and/or documentation, while, at the same time, ensuring that Council retains decision-making control over significant property matters.

Contact Names:

Cathie Macdonald, Interim Lead, Real Estate

Phone: 392-0449

Fax: 392-0029

Margaret Fischer, Legal

Phone: 392-8054

Fax: 397-5624

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To amend the existing energy services contract between Rose Technology and the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in order to save the City of Toronto unnecessary expenditures.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the contract between the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Rose Technology be amended as outlined in this report subject to agreement of the City Solicitor; and

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

Background:

The former Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 8 of Report No. 2 of The Management Committee on January 12, 1994, authorized Metro to enter into an energy service agreement with Rose Technology to undertake energy efficiency improvements in Metro's Homes for the Aged. An agreement was entered into in May 1996, to complete energy efficiency improvements in six of the Homes.

Through this agreement Rose Technology provided a "turnkey" energy management package which included all engineering, installation, project management and training of Metro staff. Rose Technology undertook the construction of the project at its expense and guaranteed to recover all capital costs through actual energy savings being realized from the project over a contract term of 72 months. In other words all savings being realized from the project would be used to pay down the cost of the project over a six year period. Financing of the project following construction was to be arranged through a third party or by Metro.

Rose Technology has completed energy saving installations in four of the Homes. (Two Homes had to be deleted from the project due to high payback periods). The energy saving installations have been successful and the energy savings are higher than anticipated.

Discussion:

Since the project is performing better than anticipated there is no need for the savings guarantees provided for in the contract and therefore could be deleted. The contracted savings guarantees will cost approximately $125,000.00 out of a total project cost of approximately $1,358,000.00. Eliminating the savings guarantees and the associated guarantee premiums effectively releases Rose Technology from further obligations on this project, other than the usual construction and equipment guarantees. The savings guarantees were included in this project as an insurance against an under performance in the amount of savings being achieved. In addition, post construction costs of approximately $44,000.00, associated with monitoring and administrating the contract, included in the total project cost above, would also be avoided.

The annual energy savings from the project were anticipated to be $233,000.00. Based on results to-date, the annual savings will amount to approximately $260,000.00. Once the energy savings have been established there is no reason why the savings cannot be sustained. If the saving guarantee premiums and the post construction costs are eliminated the payback period will be reduced from 5.2 years to 4.5 years. The City's energy management program, residing in the Corporate Services Department, will monitor and provide ongoing oversight of the project to ensure that savings are maintained.

Discussions have taken place between Rose Technology, Homes for the Aged and Corporate Services' Manager of Energy Management and it was agreed that eliminating the guarantee premiums and releasing Rose Technology from the contract would be to the benefit of the City of Toronto.

Financing of the project will be arranged by the Finance Department and the actual savings realized will be used to pay down the financing.

The Finance Department has reviewed the existing contract and does not see any problems in making the amendments. The General Manager of the Homes for the Aged concurs with the recommendations in this report.

Contact Name:

Jim Kamstra, Tel: 392-8954, Fax: 397-0825

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 30, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, subject to adding to condition No. (1) contained in the Policy Statement before the word "priority", the words "commitment of the highest", so that such condition shall now read as follows:

"(1) Protecting the health and safety of all employees is a commitment of the highest priority;"

Purpose:

This report proposes a new Corporate Occupational Health and Safety Policy for the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the new Corporate Occupational Health and Safety Policy be endorsed; and

(2) this policy be implemented across all City departments and posted in a conspicuous location in each workplace.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of February 16, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee referred back to the Executive Director of Human Resources a report recommending a new corporate Occupational Health and Safety policy. The Executive Director was to provide the Committee with the previous policies existing in each of the former municipalities. This report includes those policies and explains how the recommended policy was developed.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act requires an employer to "prepare and review at least annually a written occupational health and safety policy and develop and maintain a program to implement the policy" and to "post at a conspicuous location in the workplace, a copy of the occupational health and safety policy".

While each of the former municipalities comprising the new City had corporate health and safety policies in place and posted, the new City must develop and post one uniform policy in its various workplaces.

The attached Policy (Appendix 1) was developed by senior health and safety representatives from all seven of the former municipalities. The process was initiated by collecting and reviewing the corporate policy statements from each of the municipalities (Appendix 2). Several brainstorming sessions led to the completion of a first draft incorporating common key phrases and philosophies taken from the various municipal documents. Subsequent meetings of the group resulted in a recommended draft to the Human Resource Directors Team. The approved draft was shared with all unions for purposes of input, and there was no indication of opposition to the policy's contents.

Comments:

The Policy is the first formal step towards implementation of a new health and safety program for the City. However, there have been a number of activities undertaken jointly over the past year by the various health and safety representatives of the former seven municipalities to ensure the ongoing safety and well-being of all staff. These include:

(1) The continuing operation of one hundred and sixty-nine joint health and safety workplace committees, in workplaces exceeding twenty staff, and fifty-eight health and safety representatives in workplaces of less than twenty employees. The committees and representatives will continue to review workplace hazards and make recommendations to improve health and safety.

(2) An introductory information meeting between health and safety representatives from the former municipalities with representatives from all municipal unions in September of 1997.

(3) Identification and examination of all existing health and safety programs for the purpose of recommending unified programming throughout the City.

(4) The sharing of health and safety resources and expertise among the seven former municipalities for the purpose of saving the costs of engaging external consultants. For example, those former municipalities without internal occupational hygiene, health and safety training, and ergonomic expertise are sharing these resources with those organizations who have them in-house.

(5) Liaison between City health and safety representatives and representatives of the City's Purchasing division to ensure that health, safety and ergonomic factors are considered as part of the purchasing process.

The new Policy, once approved by Council, will be communicated to all employees. Procedures defining roles and responsibilities arising from this Policy will be included in a comprehensive Corporate Health and Safety Manual which is under development.

Conclusion:

Adoption and posting of a Corporate Health and Safety Policy fulfills the dual objectives of demonstrating commitment to the well-being of staff as well as the legislated requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Such a policy is merely the context for further development of a complete health and safety program, which development is underway.

Contact Name:

Patrick Kelly

Senior Director of Human Resources

York Civic Service Centre

394-2598

January 1998

The City of Toronto will provide and maintain safe and healthy working conditions for all employees in keeping with the legislative requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. To fulfill this commitment the city will:

(1) meet or exceed required health and safety standards by following the best practices;

(2) recognize the importance of consulting and cooperating with health and safety committees and representatives when developing and implementing programs and procedures; and

(3) provide training and education specific to job requirements.

Application:

This policy applies to all City of Toronto employees.

Conditions:

The following conditions will guide the development and implementation of all health and safety programs and procedures:

(1) Protecting the health and safety of all employees is a priority.

(2) Management will take an active leadership role in promoting a safe and healthy work environment.

(3) Management and employees share the responsibility for reducing accidents and absenteeism by performing their jobs in a safe and healthy manner.

(4) Good management systems and practices will be developed with employee involvement and cooperation to minimize injuries and costly property damage losses.

(5) Health and safety practices will be based on scientific principles and acceptable standards.

(6) Information about health and safety programs will be made accessible to employees.

(7) Employees will be informed of any known safety or health hazards.

(8) Programs and practices will be monitored on a regular basis to ensure they are in keeping with required standards.

Implementation:

The policy statement is intended to provide direction for the development of all health and safety programs and procedures.

References:

Occupational Health and Safety Act

Approved by:

Date Approved:

Date Revised:

(A copy of the previous health and safety policies existing in each of the former Municipalities referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 30, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 13, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To release the City's easement interest from all of Block "A", Plan 4457 North York.

Sources of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the easement (Instrument No. NY257596) and notice of claim (Instrument No. TB995075) be released from all of Block "A", Plan 4457 North York; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Legal Department (North York) received a letter dated September 29, 1997, from Coutts, Crane, Ingram, solicitors representing the owners of 26 Farrington Drive, North York. This letter requested confirmation of the City's easement claim on their clients' property.

The City acquired a sewer and water services easement over all of Block "A", Plan 4457 by Instrument No. NY257596 registered on June 7, 1957. A notice of claim was subsequently registered by the City as Instrument No. TB995075 on November 28, 1996.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Public Works Department (North York) advises that an investigation of the subject easement reveals that there are no municipal services at this location and that, therefore, it has no reason to maintain the easement.

Conclusions:

In consideration of the Public Works Department's advice, it would be prudent to release the City's easement interest over Block "A", Plan 4457 North York.

Contact Name:

George M. Dixon Lorie Weatherson

City Solicitor, North York Law Clerk

Telephone: 395-7055 Telephone: 395-7068

Facsimile: 395-7056 Facsimile: 395-7056

George@city.north-york.on.ca Lorie@city.north-york.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 20, 1998) from the City Solicitor, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by adding thereto the following words, "to report back to the Corporate Services Committee on the position recommended to be taken by the City in the Application, prior, if possible, to filing court material, or as soon thereafter as is practicable", so that Recommendation No. (1) shall now read as follows:

"(1) the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City of Toronto in the Application for Judicial Review, and to report back to the Corporate Services Committee on the position recommended to be taken by the City in the Application, prior, if possible, to filing court material, or as soon thereafter as is practicable;":

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise that an Application for Judicial Review has been brought against the City of Toronto and the TTC by six individuals who claim they have been denied the right to use the Wheel-Trans public transit system.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City of Toronto in the Application for Judicial Review; and

(2) this report be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

By Application dated February 6, 1998, Elio Cannella, Kelly-Ann Kennedy, Anita Patel, Irma Siciliano by his litigation guardian Massimo Siciliano, Monica Wright and Paul Yhap, (the "applicants") commenced a proceeding in the Divisional Court and are seeking the following relief from the Court:

(a) an Order quashing the decisions of the TTC denying the applicants the right to use the Wheel-Trans public transit system;

(b) an Order reinstating the applicants' right to use Wheel-Trans permanently or, in the alternative, reinstating this right until the applicants are granted hearings to determine their eligibility for Wheel-Trans, which hearings are conducted in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice;

(c) a declaration that the failure to accommodate the applicants in the municipal public transit service and the policy criteria for determining eligibility to use Wheel-Trans in the City of Toronto are discriminatory against the applicants, who are unable to use the conventional public transit system in the City of Toronto and have also been declared ineligible to use Wheel-Trans on the basis of these policy criteria;

(d) a declaration that the failure to accommodate the applicants in the transit service and the policy criteria for determining eligibility to use Wheel-Trans specifically violate the rights of the applicants under sections 15 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justifiable under section 1 of the Charter; and

(e) an Order granting leave for the Application to be heard on an urgent basis by a single judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) or, in the alternative, an Order that the matter be heard on an expedited basis by the Divisional Court on a fixed date.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The applicants received Wheel-Trans service for several years prior to 1996 when they had to re-apply for the service and meet the eligibility requirements for accessible transit.

Eligibility for Wheel-Trans service is based upon an individual's physical functional mobility in the home, within the area immediately surrounding the home and in the community at large. In addition, the permanency of disability is considered.

The applicants failed to meet the eligibility requirements and, after an appeal process, were all denied the service between March-July, 1997.

In the Application the applicants are challenging the policy criteria used by the TTC and the questions and scoring system used. They also take the position that their disabilities must be accommodated by the TTC and that their rights have been violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The relief sought by the applicants is primarily directed at the TTC. However, the applicants take the position that should the Court find a Charter violation has occurred, the Court should make an Order against the City as well as the TTC.

The TTC has retained counsel to represent it in the Application. It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City of Toronto in the Application.

Conclusions:

(1) It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City of Toronto in the Application for Judicial Review.

(2) It is further recommended that this report be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its information.

Contact Name:

Jane E. Egan

Phone: (416) 392-8703

Fax: (416) 392-3848

(Councillor Anne Johnston declared her interest in the foregoing matter in that she has been identified in the material that has been filed for judicial review.)

(Councillor Johnston, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, advised that she had obtained legal advice and was informed that she does not have to declare an interest in this matter, and accordingly, requested that her previously declared interest be withdrawn.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 6, 1998) from the City Solicitor.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on the delegation of authority to the City Solicitor on minor property damage claims up to $10,000.00, and the reporting of the results of these claims to the Corporate Services Committee annually.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (March 6, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To recommend that the City Solicitor be authorized to continue legal proceedings seeking recovery of the cost of repair to Metropolitan property which was damaged in a motor vehicle accident.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Transportation Department account receivable in the sum of $9,471.21.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Solicitor be granted authority in this case to commence any court action where he deems it appropriate to do so, to appeal any decision where warranted, to discontinue or settle any such claim, action or appeal where he concludes that it is reasonable to do so, to execute any documents required in such action or appeal or to effect such settlement, and that any steps taken to date in this matter be ratified.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On February 1, 1995, a vehicle collided with crash cushions, owned by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which were located on the northbound Don Valley Parkway at the exit ramp to southbound Don Mills Road. The driver of the vehicle failed to remain at the scene of the accident. However, during the clean-up and repair operations, a front licence plate registered to J.M. was recovered from the crushed cushions.

As a result of this accident, the Metropolitan Corporation incurred expenses in the sum of $9,471.21, which represented the replacement cost of the crash cushions.

J.M. has ignored demands for payment and has not paid anything towards the replacement cost of the crash barrels.

Due to an impending limitation date, it was deemed advisable to commence a court action in order to protect the interests of the Metropolitan Corporation. The action was commenced in 1997 and a Statement of Claim has been served upon J.M. This court action requires ratification by Council. It is therefore requested that this action be ratified and authority given to prosecute this action through to its conclusion, either in the courts or by way of a settlement between the parties.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Interim Functional Lead of Transportation concurs with this report.

Conclusion:

The requested authorization be granted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Jacqueline P. Wigle: 392-3912.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To recommend that the City Solicitor be authorized to commence legal proceedings seeking recovery of the cost of repair to Metropolitan property which was damaged in a motor vehicle accident.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Transportation Department account receivable in the sum of $7,271.10.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Solicitor be granted authority in this case to commence any court action where he deems it appropriate to do so, to appeal any decision where warranted, to discontinue or settle any such claim, action or appeal where he concludes that it is reasonable to do so, and to execute any documents required in such action or appeal or to effect such settlement.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On November 21, 1996, K.C. was involved in a motor vehicle accident which caused damage to traffic signal equipment, owned by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, at Lakeshore Blvd. W. and Yonge St. in the former City of Toronto. As a result of this accident, the Metropolitan Corporation incurred expenses in the sum of $7,271.10, which represented the cost of repair to the traffic equipment. Despite demands for payment, K.C. has not paid anything towards said repair costs.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Interim Functional Lead of Transportation concurs with this report.

Conclusion:

The requested authorization be granted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Jacqueline P. Wigle: 392-3912.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Wednesday, April 29, 1998, such Clause to be considered with the 1998 Operating Budget.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 14, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

(1) to submit a report directly to Council, for its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998:

(a) providing a list of what the Province intends to prohibit municipalities, by regulation, from informing the taxpayers about on the Property Tax Bill;

(b) identifying on the Property Tax Bill the portion for education as determined by the Province; and

(c) providing coloured mock-ups of the new Property Tax Bill, brochure and envelopes; and

(2) in consultation with the Access and Equity Centre, to review the proposed Realty Tax Bill for plain language and accessibility purposes.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (March 14, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report outlines the design of the new property tax bill which will be sent to all taxpayers in early June of this year. It will also address the regulatory requirements outlining what shall or shall not appear on a tax bill in accordance with Bill 164.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

Funding for the design, printing and mailing of the tax bills have been budgeted for in the Operating Budget. The financial implications in any delays in the approval of the final bill design are substantial considering the City will bill more than $2.5 billion on the final tax bill.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council approve the attached tax bill design and content. Please note that the attached tax bill has been reduced to approximately 7" X 14" and the actual bill will be 7" X 17"; and

(2) any message or communication that Council deems necessary be included in a separate brochure and/or mailing envelope.

Background:

With the amalgamation of the former municipalities, the implementation of a new property tax software system, a new assessment system and Bill 164, a new tax bill has been designed. The new tax bill takes into consideration the new legislated requirements including those set out in Bill 164. The Bill (Tax Credits to Create Jobs Act) received Royal Accent on December 18, 1997, with the section pertaining to the information permitted on property tax bills effective January 1, 1998.

The Act authorizes the Minister to prescribe what mandatory information is required to appear on a tax bill. It goes on to state that, where the Minister has approved the form of the notice (i.e., tax bill), a municipality shall not include other information on a tax bill unless expressly authorized to do so by the Minister. Information which is included with the accompanying tax bill, such as a brochure, is not subject to the legislation and Council may state what it wishes. As part of the regular final tax bill mailing, there is usually an accompanying brochure which incorporates communication from Council it deems necessary to all its taxpayers.

Council at it's meeting held on February 12, 1998, passed a motion that the final tax bill include a separate line item entitled "New Mike Harris Property Tax". If the Minister was to exercise his power to the fullest, then this would likely not be permitted on the actual tax bill, but it can be placed on the accompanying brochure previously mentioned, if Council so wishes. To date, no regulations have been filed by the Minister and Ministry staff advise that regulations in this respect are not expected at this time. The risk of placing it on the tax bill, in possible contravention of the regulations, is that the tax bill may not be legally considered a tax bill and therefore our statutory lien may not be valid.

When the regulations are passed, they may be retroactive to January 1st, which may put the Treasurer in a legal dilemma because of her statutory duties as Tax Collector. Under the Municipal Act, the Tax Collector is required to levy and collect taxes as set out in the legislation. The Tax Collector also collects for the school boards and they are required, under legislation, to be paid a specific amount by a specific date. If the Treasurer/Tax Collector can not fulfill her duties in the collection of taxes, the issue of liability needs to be addressed.

We have spoken to the City Solicitor on the issue of not conforming to Bill 164 and they concur with the legal ramifications identified above regarding the legal status of the tax bill.

An early resolution by Council on the design and content of the tax bill is important so that the final tax bills can be mailed in early June. There is a significant amount of lead time required for computer programming, printing preparation, and other related steps in the bill production and mailing. Any delays will result in reduced cash flow in June and an associated loss in investment income.

Conclusions:

It is our intention to mail out the tax bills in early June in order to meet our financial commitments. It is necessary to finalize the bill design and content now, to enable the work to be completed to meet this objective. Any delay in the design or its conformity to the existing legislation will have serious consequences on our cash flow. The liability issue as its pertains to the Treasurer/Tax Collector and her statutory duties needs to be addressed if Council instructions do not comply with the legislation.

Contact Name:

Ed DeSousa Audrey Birt

Phone: 397-4226 392-7820

Fax: 392-3649 392-0364

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 15, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the motions made at the March 30, 1998, Corporate Services Committee meeting, regarding what the Province intends to prohibit municipalities from placing on the tax bills, identify on the property tax bill the portion for education as determined by the Province and mock-ups of the tax bill, brochure and envelopes.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

Funding for the design and printing of the tax bill, administrative brochure and envelopes have been budgeted in the operating budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the design of the tax bill, and particularly the identification of the "New Mike Harris Property Tax", be deferred to the special meeting of Council beginning April 28, 1998, regarding the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets;

(2) the attached list (Appendix I) of what the Province intends to prohibit municipalities from placing on their tax bill be received as information;

(3) the education portion of the tax bill be clearly identified as "Provincial"; and

(4) the colour of the final tax bill and brochure be green, with the mailing envelope being beige as presented.

Background:

With the amalgamation of the former municipalities, a new property tax bill needs to be designed and sent to taxpayers across the new City. At a special meeting of Council held on February 12, 1998, it was requested that the final tax bill be amended and include a line which reads "New Mike Harris Property Tax" and that such tax bill be prepared and submitted to the Corporate Services Committee for approval. A report was submitted, along with a sample of the new property tax bill design, which outlined various cautions on placing such wording on the tax bill. Attached (Appendix I) is a general description, provided by the Province as a draft, of what is permitted on a tax bill as may be prescribed by regulation. The list is general because we have had no final information on the components of the legislation or when the legislation may be passed but, regulations may be passed retroactive to January 1, 1998.

Taking into consideration the regulations which may be imposed on the contents of the tax bill, it is recommended that the education portion of the tax bill be clearly identified as "Provincial". This does not appear to contravene the proposed regulations at this time which state that a municipality must indicate the total amounts of taxes payable for local, upper tier and education purposes.

Coloured mock-ups of the new property tax bill and mailing envelope will be circulated for Council=s consideration. Staff are recommending the green colour for the tax bill and brochure due to its visual ease and ability to be photocopied. Some of the other colours, like blue, may be mistaken for other bills such as water. The final billing usually includes two brochures, one which is administrative, including such things as payment options, payment methods, assessment appeals, etc., and an additional accompanying brochure which incorporates communication from Council it deemed necessary to all its taxpayers. The brochures do not fall under the provincial regulations. We have not yet started to prepare our administrative brochure because there are still many decisions that need to be made by Council (i.e., due dates, tax policy, etc.), before we can begin designing it. It is anticipated that the brochure will be the same colour as the tax bill. The Council communication brochure may be any colour that Council decides.

Staff are recommending the mailing envelope be beige in order to ensure that it contains over 50 percent recycled paper, including 10 percent post consumer fibre. This will allow the Environment Canada certification stamp to be placed on the envelope.

The property tax bill has been designed in consultation with the Access and Equity Centre and has been reviewed for plain language and accessibility . We will be adding messages in various languages on the brochure instructing the public on how to get more information and clarification.

Council will be considering the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets beginning April 28, 1998. Depending on the decisions of Council, there may or may not be a need to identify the tax bill with the phrase "New Mike Harris Property Tax". As such, it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the decision on the tax bill design to the special meeting of Council, once the final decisions are made on the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets.

Conclusions:

We will need to finalize the design and content of the final tax bill, brochure and envelope in order to allow staff sufficient time to implement all the computer programs, artwork, ordering of supplies, etc., to meet our objectives. Any tax bill design will need to conform to possible legislation to ensure there are no legal ramifications. The tax bill design should be considered at the special meeting of Council pertaining to the 1998 budgets, beginning April 28, 1998.

Contact Name:

Ed DeSousa, Phone: 397-4226, Fax: 392-3649.

The first part of the proposed legislation refers to items which must appear on a tax bill. This would include the basic information and refers to such items as:

1. Name of taxpayer;

2. Assessment roll number;

3. Assessed value of property;

4. Property class;

5. Applicable tax rate;

6. Total taxes payable for local, upper tier and education purposes; and

7. Due dates; etc.

The second part refers to items which must appear on the tax bill, if applicable;

1. Amount of taxes phased-in, canceled, deferred or for which other relief has been given; and

2. Items which have been authorized to be added to the tax bill such as utility charges, snow removal, weeds, etc., or special area rates such as local improvements or BIA levies.

The third part refers to items which must appear on the tax bill or on an attachment such as;

1. All property class tax ratios;

2. Statement that the tax liability is on the owner; and

3. Places where taxes may be paid.

The fourth part refers to items which are permissive and may appear on the tax bill such as;

1. Payment options;

2. Tax calculation formula;

3. Mortgage number;

4. Tax inquiry phone numbers; and

5. Municipal policies such as NSF cheques, receipts, ownership changes, etc.

The fifth part prohibits any items which are not listed from appearing on the tax bill unless expressly authorized to do so by the Minister.)

(A copy of the facsimile transmission (February 10, 1998) from the Province's Municipal Finance Branch respecting the placement of items on a Tax Notice, which was attached to the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Wednesday, April 29, 1998, such Clause to be considered with the 1998 Operating Budget.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 12, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998:

(1) on other methods of payment of realty taxes including the use of credit cards;

(2) on what it would mean to have five realty tax installments for the remainder of 1998; and

(3) on the financial implication of having eleven realty tax installments in 1999.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (March 12, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report sets out the proposed tax bill payment options, which are recommended to take effect beginning with the 1998 Final Realty Tax Bill.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

The payment options included in the recommended tax payment plan will improve customer service due to the expansion of the Pre-authorized Tax Payment plan (PTP). This would improve Finance Department tax processing efficiency with resulting savings dependent on the degree of participation by taxpayers in the PTP plan.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council approve two payment plans for payment of realty taxes whereby all Toronto taxpayers will have the option of:

(i) paying their taxes by instalment, with final taxes being payable in three instalments beginning in 1998, and interim taxes being payable in three instalments beginning in 1999, or

(ii) through a Pre-authorized Tax Payment plan.

Council Reference/Background/History:

All of the former Area Municipalities allowed the payment of realty taxes in instalments. However, the number of instalments differed for each of the Interim and Final billings, from four instalments in the former City of Toronto to two instalments in the former City of Scarborough.

Due to timing constraints for the 1998 interim tax bill, each of the former municipalities issued their own interim tax bills and the number of instalments for the payment of interim taxes continued as had previously been the case. However, the installation of the new tax system will enable the City to have a combined billing for the 1998 final realty tax bill. This report recommends a harmonization of tax instalments for the payment of realty taxes for Council's consideration.

Comments:

The former Area Municipalities billed realty taxes in two phases - an interim and a final bill. Each billing allowed for payment of taxes by instalment which varied by municipality. Appendix 1 outlines the previous schedule of tax instalments. The cities of North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, York and East York also offered taxpayers the option of paying their taxes through a PTP plan. (Approx. 2,500 East York taxpayers took advantage of this program). However, in the fall of 1997, the contract with their outside service provider expired and was not renewed due to the impending amalgamation. As a result, East York temporarily discontinued its PTP plan. The former municipality of Toronto did not offer the option of paying their taxes through a PTP plan. With the installation of the new tax system, a PTP plan will now be available to all taxpayers across the new City. Approximately 64,400, or 16.7 percent, of taxpayers in these municipalities are currently enrolled in a PTP plan.

To encourage taxpayers to use the monthly Pre-authorized Tax Payment plan, it is recommended that realty taxes be required to be paid in six instalments, with 1998 final taxes paid in three instalments and in 1999 and thereafter, in two billings with three instalments each (See Figure 1). This combination of tax payment options is consistent with the payment plans offered by the surrounding GTA municipalities, where interim and final realty taxes are paid in either in two or three instalments, or monthly through a PTP plan. In the former municipalities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York, the implementation of their PTP plan coincided with changes to the number of instalments available for payment. These combined changes resulted in a substantial number of taxpayers enrolling in the pre-authorized tax payment plan.

Figure 1: Recommended Instalments and Pre-authorized Tax Payments (PTP) for 1998

and Future Years

One of the future considerations for Council should be the movement towards two instalments per billing. This is the practice that the former municipality of Scarborough had and is one that other surrounding GTA municipalities have or will adopt. This can be considered as the final harmonization point. The move to two instalments would be revenue neutral to taxpayers because we would have the dates two months apart (e.g., June and August as opposed to June, July and August). Taxpayers would make a larger payment one month earlier (i.e., June), but would make the same payment one month later (i.e., August) with no July payment. The two installment method would greatly reduce the amount of manual processing (i.e., post-dated cheques for the months of March and July) which will cause financial savings and processing efficiency.

The Pre-Authorized Payment Plan Design:

The PTP plan will offer taxpayers a convenient method of paying their realty taxes, with the tax payments being spread through the year. It is anticipated that a substantial number of property owners in the City of Toronto will take advantage of the PTP plan and significant savings in postage and payment processing costs will be achieved. This has already been documented in the former municipalities who offered this plan.

Enrollment in the PTP plan for 1998 will be offered in two parts. The first part will involve PTP plan application form mailings to the taxpayers of the former municipalities of Toronto and East York in April to ensure enrollment for the final tax billing. The reason for the mailing to those two municipal sites is that Toronto previously did not offer a PTP plan and East York's plan was done by an outside service provider. The second part will involve a PTP plan application form being sent to all taxpayers as part of the final tax bill mailing in June. This will give taxpayers the option of enrolling in the plan for 1999.

Projections based on existing bank agreements in the former Area Municipalities indicate that expanding the PTP across the new City may increase bank service charges by approximately $50,000.00. However, the final amount will not be known until negotiations with banking services are completed. It is anticipated that these costs would be more than offset by savings resulting from greater efficiencies in the City's payment processing activities as well as potential increased interest income resulting from the move to three common instalment dates for the final realty tax billing.

It is proposed that taxpayers taking advantage of the PTP plan in future years would pay their taxes over eleven months with no payment being deducted from the taxpayer's bank account for the month of December. This will provide taxpayer's with a one month break that will coincide with the holiday season.

Due to the delay in receiving the assessment roll for 1998, it is proposed that the 1998 final tax bill be payable through the PTP plan over a five month period of July 1 to November 1, 1998. It is anticipated that the final realty taxes will be required to be paid in three instalments in June, July and August, starting with the 1998 final bill. However, the assessment roll for 1998 is not scheduled to be delivered until April 30, 1998. Any delay in the delivery of the assessment roll will determine whether the proposed June, July and August instalment dates are possible for 1998.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that taxpayers in the City of Toronto pay their realty taxes in six instalments by conventional payment processing. Beginning with the 1998 Final Realty Tax Bill, final taxes would be payable in three instalments (June, July and August). Starting in 1999, interim taxes would be paid in three instalments (February, March and April).

Taxpayers will also be able to use a convenient alternative to paying their taxes by instalment through the Pre-Authorized Tax Payment plan which will spread their tax payments over 11 months of the year.

Contact Name:

Ed DeSousa Audrey Birt

Phone: 397-4226 Phone: 392-7820

Fax: 392-3649 Fax: 392-0364

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 16, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the motions made at the March 30, 1998 Corporate Services Committee meeting, pertaining to other methods of tax payments such as credit cards and the financial implications of five instalments for the remainder of 1998 and 11 instalments for 1999.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

The March 12, 1998 report to the Corporate Services Committee recommended two billing and payment plans for property taxes: (I) two billings with three instalments; and (ii) two billings with 11 electronic payments. The proposed payment options are intended to improve the Finance Department tax processing efficiency with resulting savings dependent on the participation rate of customers on the Pre-authorized Tax Payment plan (P.P.).

The financial cost of using credit cards would be approximately $1 million.

The financial cost of moving from the proposed three instalment due dates on the final billing to five would be over $6 million in 1998. The financial cost of moving to 11 instalments for 1999 is over $24 million.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City not accept payment of taxes using credit cards; and

(2) the City implement two billings with three instalments each for payment of taxes for the interim and final tax billings (six per year in total). The alternative plan offered will be the Pre-authorized Tax Payment plan (P.P.), with 11 electronic withdrawals (five for the interim and six for the final).

Background:

At its meeting held on March 30, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to provide additional information on the report pertaining to tax payment options for regular instalments and Pre-authorized Tax Payments (P.P.).

Credit Card Payment:

The former municipalities had various billing and payment methods for taxes. As part of a comprehensive review of business practices and the budgetary consideration process, there was a need to make some choices as to best practices. The payment methods included a cash transaction either through cheques, cashiers, financial institutions, debit card or credit card. The former Borough of East York was the only former municipality that offered payment by credit card. A survey of municipalities surrounding the City indicates that Vaughan, Markham and Mississauga do not offer credit card payments either. The annual cost of providing this service was approximately $50,000.00, for the 6,500 accounts who used credit cards (out of 27,000 total tax accounts for the Borough). The cost related to the percentage fee charged by the financial institution for the use of the credit card service by the municipality (ranging from approximately 1.75 percent to 1.85 percent, depending on the credit card company and the volumes).

In considering this payment option for the whole City, it is important to note that the City pays the user fee based on the total amount of taxes due, including the education portion. Offering this service across the new City could cost approximately $1 million. This is calculated based on the cost per account and percentage of users to total tax accounts in East York and comparing it to the 575,000 accounts in the new City. Given our current budgetary constraints, this service is not recommended as a payment method at this time.

Instalments:

Staff have proposed that the City implement three instalment dates for the remainder of 1998 and that they be at the end of July, August and September. Previously, municipalities offered instalments ranging from two in Scarborough to four in Toronto, with the majority offering three. When payments are made under this system, predominantly by cheque, it represents a very labour intensive and costly processing method. The recommended alternate billing and payment plan for 1998 is the Pre-Authorized Tax Payment plan (P.P.) with five automatic and electronic withdrawal dates, from the first business day of August until December. The dates have been revised due to the Provincial announcement that the assessment roll would be delayed one month.

The impact of having five instalments for the remainder of 1998, not through electronic withdrawal, would be significant. The City would need to redesign its proposed tax bill to accommodate the five instalments and would represent an increase in paper costs due to the length or an additional tax bill, plus an increased weight as it relates to postage.

The increase in amount of instalments will also have a direct impact on processing costs. Currently, casual or temporary staff are brought in to assist with the processing of post-dated cheques. This involves opening each piece of mail and then manually sorting through its contents. The cheques and stubs have to be matched and sorted by the due date. In addition, many envelopes are not complete due to missing stubs and cheques, incorrect amounts and due dates, attached correspondence, staples, etc. The task is very time consuming and an inefficient use of resources. The casual staff will need to be kept on almost twice as long, plus permanent staff will be required to supervise and assist the casual staff, which will take them away from their regular duties for a longer period of time. It is estimated that 30-40 percent of payments are made through post-dated cheques. Based on 575,000 total tax accounts, it is estimated that we would process 1.2 million pieces of mail (cheque and stub) for three instalments and approximately 2 million pieces for five instalments.

The City would have a negative cash flow impact of over $6 million (i.e., lost investment income), due to the receipt of its funds much later (November versus September). The additional tax bill design, mailing and processing the post-dated cheques will place an additional strain on our financial resources.

The impact would be much greater from a cash flow and administrative perspective if we instituted 11 non-electronic instalments for 1999. The projected cost would be over $24 million, due to the timing of our cash flows, tax bill design and mailing costs, and processing of almost 4.5 million pieces of mail.

It is important to note that the City will be offering the Pre-authorized Tax Payment (P.P.) option to all taxpayers beginning with the final tax billing this year. This is a customer service enhancement and will provide our customers with a convenient way to pay their taxes, but also add to our administrative efficiency. The P.P. option will allow taxpayers to pay their taxes over five equal instalments for the final tax billing in 1998 and 11 instalments for 1999, as proposed in our current report to Council. Those taxpayers who will feel the impact of CVA and will have difficulty making payments under the three instalment plan, should be strongly encouraged to sign onto the P.P. plan.

Conclusions:

Given the current budget constraints and the various payment alternatives that are offered to our customers, the credit card option of paying taxes is not recommended at this point in time, but should be reconsidered in the future.

In 1998 and future years, all customers will have the ability to pay their taxes over 11 equal monthly instalments electronically (1998 - five). This represents a convenient and efficient payment plan that alleviates the need to write and mail cheques to the customer and negates the increase in the amount of "manual" interim or final billing instalments to the City.

Contact Name:

Ed DeSousa, Phone: 397-4226, Fax: 392-3649

(A copy of the table (April 9, 1998), headed "Cash Flow Analysis" which compares the financial implications of instalment payment plans, and which was attached to the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 19, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report addresses the uncollectable business taxes still on the Tax Collector's Roll. These business taxes can be struck from the Tax Collector's Roll under the provisions of Section 441 of the Municipal Act. R.S.O. 1990. The Section 441 process differs from other tax related adjustments because only Council can approve the strike-offs being removed from the Roll and does not include cancellation of taxes due to assessment appeals (i.e., the Section 442 process).

Financial Implications:

The amount of business taxes that require removal from the Tax Collector's Roll is $11,837,264.91 plus $102,583.84 attributable to Business Improvement Areas (BIA). Approximately $5,197,659.33 of this amount is the City's Share. Provision for the City's share has been made in the 1998 budget. The balance of approximately $6,639,605.58 is the School Board's share and will be recovered. The amount of $102,583.84 for Business Improvement Areas (BIA) for the former City of Toronto is offset by an allowance amount set aside for this purpose as part of the BIA levy and does not have an impact to the City. A breakdown of each Area District's distributions is outlined in Appendix A in summary and Appendix B in detail.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council resolve to cancel the uncollectable business taxes of $11,837,264.51 and strike them from the Tax Collector's Roll under the provisions of Section 441 of the Municipal Act; and

(2) the amount attributable to uncollectible taxes from Business Improvement Areas (BIA) in the amount of $102,583.84 be stricken off as a receivable under Section 441.

Background:

All accounts have gone through our collection process. This process includes Overdue Statements, Final Demand Letters, Bailiff Warrants and investigations, Collection Agency action and Legal action. In certain cases, payment arrangements were entered into between the taxpayers and the City. Unfortunately, due to Bankruptcies and business closures, we were unable to collect all of the total outstanding amounts. These business taxes are uncollectable in accordance with Section 441 of the Municipal Act.

Conclusions:

The list of uncollectable business taxes has been reviewed and edited by the Tax Collectors in each area district. The final detailed lists can be viewed at the Clerk's Office. All appropriate collection action has been performed and the Treasurer has ascertained the taxes to be uncollectable. It is recommended that Council cancel the uncollectable business taxes and strike them from the Tax Collector's Roll.

Contact Name:

Ed DeSousa

Director, Tax and Water - Etobicoke Division

Phone: 397-4226

Fax: 392-3649

Barbara Murray

Manager of Revenue - York Division

Phone: 394-2573

Fax: 394-2578

E-Mail: bmurr@City_of_York.Eglinton Ave.

(A copy of Appendix `A', entitled "Breakdown of 1998 Council Strike-Off by Area Districts"; and Appendix `B' entitled "Distribution of Business Taxes Owing" was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 30, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To repeal the by-laws of the former Area Municipalities and to approve the recommended adjustment pursuant to the provision of Section 443 of the Municipal Act.

Funding:

That the amount of $107,693.09 be charged to the tax write-off account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council:

(1) repeal By-law No. 31159 of the former City of North York, By-law No. 22809 of the former City of Scarborough; and No. 25-18 of the Municipal Code for the former City of Etobicoke;

(2) approve the cancellation of taxes as outlined in the attached Schedules of applications totalling $107,693.09; and

(3) enact the attached By-law appointing The Corporate Services Committee to hear all applications under this section.

Discussion:

The Councils of the former Area Municipalities of North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke enacted and passed by-laws which appointed various committees to hear all applications under section 443 of the Municipal Act, formerly section 496a. The former Toronto, East York and York did not enact by-laws, thus their Councils heard the applications. Councils of the former Area Municipalities would receive a report, similar to this, to adopt the recommendations.

Section 443 provides for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes by reason of any gross or manifest error in the preparation of the assessment roll that was an "error of fact". The attached Schedules "A" through "D"of applications have been deemed by the Assessment Commissioner to be an "error of fact" and therefore an adjustment to the tax liability is recommended. The original applications are in the offices of the various Tax Collectors. The adjustment to realty tax is $107,693.09. We will, however, recover approximately $60,300.00 in taxes relating to the education portion of this adjustment. The following table summarizes the adjustments by former municipality by tax year.

Conclusion:

That the recommendations of the Regional Assessment Commissioners be approved in the amount of $107,693.09 and that the recoverable portion be charged back to the school boards.

Contact Name:

Margo L. Brunning

Director of Tax Revenue - North York Region

at (416) 395-6789

Fax Number (416) 395-6703

Internet Email Address:fi003mb@city.north-york.on.ca

Schedule "A"

Former City of North York

Application Assessment Tax

No. Roll No. Year Adjustment

Realty Tax:

A71 09 4 200 10500 1995 46.91

A72 09 4 200 10500 1996 46.37

A73 11 1 180 00211 1995 178.92

A74 11 1 180 00211 1996 180.89

A75 11 1 180 00211 1997 182.33

Total Realty Tax 443 Adjustment $635.42

Total 1995 $225.83

Total 1996 $227.26

Total 1997 $182.33

Total Realty Tax 443 Adjustment $635.42

Schedule "B"

Former City of Scarborough

Application Assessment Tax

No. Roll No. Year Adjustment

Realty Tax:

07 2 433 01605 1995 172.76

1996 174.59

1997 176.07

07 2 433 01607 1995 290.96

1996 294.04

1997 296.54

10 4 770 40333 1996 137.83

1997 139.01

12 5 370 09574 1995 974.13

1996 984.83

1997 992.66

12 6 080 00480 1996 593.51

12 6 080 00480 0010 1996 1,185.63

Total Realty and Business Tax 443 Adjustment $6,412.56

Total 1995 1,437.85

Total 1996 3,370.43

Total 1997 1,604.28

Total Realty Tax 443 Adjustment $6,412.56

Schedule "C"

Former City of Etobicoke

Application Assessment Tax

No. Roll No. Year Adjustment

Realty and Business Tax:

01 6 870 01500 1994 1,238.99

$1,238.99

05 4 130 00933 1995 2,347.75

03 6 575 00400 0085 1995 218.99

03 6 575 00400 0080 1995 2,805.69

03 4 195 05000 1995 262.54

02 3 020 00500 1995 4,749.71

$10,384.68

04 2 090 02200 0010 1996 2,510.74

02 6 630 00200 0210 1996 2,759.02

02 6 630 00200 0215 1996 52.06

03 4 195 05000 1996 504.42

03 2 020 00500 1996 4,803.02

$10,629.26

04 1 643 11200 1997 865.45

04 2 700 00100 0240 1997 1,702.23

04 2 700 00100 0245 1997 181.26

04 1 643 44500 1997 902.20

05 4 015 03700 1997 58.05

03 4 195 05000 1997 509.09

02 3 020 00500 1997 4,847.52

05 1 603 02000 1997 402.76

04 1 643 06500 1997 828.36

02 6 510 02390 1997 277.46

04 3 231 11600 1997 1,388.83

04 3 212 46600 1997 2,070.30

05 4 015 03700 1997 58.05

04 2 050 02700 0010 1997 9,383.29

02 6 501 01000 1997 459.07

02 6 501 01600 1997 459.07

02 6 501 02200 1997 706.03

02 6 501 02800 1997 706.03

02 6 501 03400 1997 706.03

Application Assessment Tax

No. Roll No. Year Adjustment

02 6 501 04000 1997 706.03

02 6 501 04600 1997 706.03

02 6 501 05200 1997 705.13

02 6 501 05800 1997 705.13

02 6 501 06400 1997 707.52

02 6 501 07000 1997 706.03

02 6 501 07600 1997 706.03

02 6 501 08200 1997 706.03

02 6 501 08800 1997 706.92

02 6 501 09400 1997 706.03

02 6 501 10000 1997 706.03

02 6 501 10600 1997 705.13

02 6 501 11200 1997 706.03

02 6 501 11800 1997 707.52

02 6 501 12400 1997 706.92

02 6 501 13000 1997 706.03

02 6 501 13600 1997 706.64

02 6 501 14200 1997 706.03

02 6 501 14800 1997 854.29

Total Realty Tax 443 Adjustment $40,076.58

Total 1994 1,238.99

Total 1995 10,384.68

Total 1996 10,629.26

Total 1997 40,076.58

Total Realty Tax 443 Adjustment $62,329.51

Schedule "D"

Former City Of York

Application Assessment Tax

No. Roll No. Year Adjustment

Realty Tax:

06 4 240 01700 1996 3,506.55

07 2 320 01600 1996 1,067.77

03 1 150 06600 1996 27,869.88

04 1 300 02400 1996 367.00

04 1 370 05400 1996 899.82

04 3 350 02200 1995 2,283.04

04 3 350 02200 1996 2,321.54

Total Realty Tax 443 Adjustment $38,315.60

Total 1995 2,283.04

Total 1996 36,032.56

Total Realty Tax 443 Adjustment $38,315.60

Authority: Corporate Services Committee

Report No.

Date:

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

BILL NO.

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW NUMBER

To appoint a committee to hear applications for cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes by reason of any gross or manifest error in the preparation of the assessment roll that was an error of fact

WHEREAS section 443 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chapter M.45 provides that Council may by by-law appoint a committee to hear applications for cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes by reason of any gross or manifest error in the preparation of the assessment roll that was an error of fact;

The Council of The City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

• THAT the Corporate Services Committee established by the Council of the City be and is hereby appointed for the purpose of hearing all applications under section 443 of the Municipal Act.



• By-law No. 31159 of the former City of North York, By-law No. 22809 of the former City of Scarborough and By-law No.25-18 of the Municipal Code of the former City of Etobicoke be repealed.



• Any other By-law (or part of it) and any resolution of any of the six old area municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto relating to the appointment of a committee for the purpose of hearing all application under expressly mentioned in section 2 are also repealed.

ENACTED AND PASSED THIS DAY OF APRIL, 1998.

________________________________ _______________________________

MAYOR CITY CLERK

(Corporate Seal)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

That Council approve the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes pursuant to the provisions of section 442 of the Municipal Act, for the former City of North York.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the individual appeal applications of $1,709,145.50 as summarized in Schedule "A" attached for cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes pursuant to section 442 of the Municipal Act be approved.

Funding:

That the local share of the adjustment of $1,709,145.50 be charged against the tax deficiencies.

Discussion:

Council of the former City of North York, on December 1, 1993, adopted a report rescinding the by-law authorizing the Assessment Review Board (ARB) from hearing and disposing of tax appeals pursuant to section 442 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990 ch. M45 that deals with cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes due to vacancy, out of business, demolition etc. As such, North York Council heard and disposed of these appeals. The other former municipalities used the Assessment Review Board to hear and dispose of their tax appeals and there will be a separate report recommending a similar process to the one used in the former City of North York for the new City of Toronto.

The total cancellation or refund of taxes as recommended for this period is $1,709,145.50 for 1997 and $47,187.96 for 1996. Of this periods adjustment, approximately $984,000.00 will be recovered from and the School Boards. Schedule "A" summarizes by category the number of applications and tax dollars recommended for reduction. A detailed list is in the North York Regional Tax Office.

Contact Name:

Margo L. Brunning, Director of Tax Revenue - North York Region at (416) 395-6789

Fax Number (416) 395-6703, Internet Email Address:fi003mb@city.north-york.on.ca

Reason For Appeal No. of Applications Adjustment

No longer doing business 634 1,236,798.45

Reduced Space of Premises 27 103,270.40

Commercial to Residential Conversion 1 445.97

Razed by fire or demolished 2 469.01

Gross or Manifest Clerical Error 181 400,139.84

Duplication 10 15,209.86

Total Adjustments This Period 855 $1,756,333.53

Breakdown By Year

1996 45 47,187.96

1997 810 1,709,145.50

855 $1,756,333.53

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report sets out proposed standardized charges relating to tax-related administrative services provided to taxpayers by the City of Toronto.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

The proposed standardized service charges will generate approximately $458,000.00 in additional revenue in 1998 and is part of the 1998 Finance Department Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council adopt the charges for tax-related administrative services as set out in Appendix 1 of this report effective June 1, 1998;

(2) authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council; and

(3) the appropriate civic officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to give effect to the foregoing.

Comments:

Charges for tax-related administrative services vary among the former Area Municipalities. In the context of amalgamation, fees for similar services should be harmonized across the new City.

Some of the charges relate to services provided to individual ratepayers upon request, such as the provision of tax certificates for property sale closings. Other charges relate to the recovery of the administrative costs incurred to maintain individual tax accounts, such as the charge for processing a dishonoured cheque.

All existing charges were thoroughly examined by a staff team. The proposed charges for services provided by the new City are set out in Appendix 1.

In some cases, service charges, such as charges for current year tax receipts, are being discontinued. Of note is the proposed fee of $50.00 for tax clearance certificates. The fee proposed is slightly higher than the fees previously charged by most of the former Area Municipalities and many of the surrounding GTA municipalities. However, the proposed tax certificate fee will include enhanced services for the legal community and is in line with other municipalities, such as Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Nepean and Ottawa, that provide tax certificates through an automated service. This service, which will be available in Toronto later in 1998, will provide the ability to request and receive tax certificates electronically.

In most cases, the former Area Municipalities have set the current fees to be charged with respect to tax certificates and other revenue-related service charges in by-laws or their municipal codes. To the extent that there is any conflict between the recommendations in this report and by-laws presently in place in the former municipalities, it is proposed that the provisions of the new by-law will apply.

Approximately $458,000.00 in additional revenue will be realized as a result of these standard fees if implemented on June 1, 1998, and $785,000.00 on an annualized basis.

Contact Name:

Ed DeSousa - Phone: 397-4226 - Fax: 392-3649 or Audrey Birt - Phone: 392-7820 - Fax:  392-0364

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 19, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To report on the development of an insurance program for the City of Toronto for the period January 1, 1998, to May 1, 1999. It is critical that the recommended program be approved since the current liability insurance coverages for each of the former municipalities in the discussed areas of coverage can not be extended past May 1, 1998.

Source of Funds:

The proposed liability insurance program to date has a total cost of $2,981,700.00 ($2,772,500.00 premium plus $209,200.00 PST) not including proposed reserve funding of $325,000.00 for Environmental Impairment Issues. Funds have been requested in the various 1998 Operating Budgets for these costs. This amount is approximately $3,868,149.6 or 54 percent less than the combined premiums paid in 1997.

There have been other costs incurred since the beginning of the year in the nature of bridging or transition policies and other necessary extensions, and these are identified in Schedule A. These cover new programs or extensions of existing policies which have been made necessary as a result of the creation of the new City. The transition policies total $1,784,831.22 ($1,662,692.02 plus $122,139.20 PST) of one time costs. The other policies extended total $545,867.94 ($515,787.14 plus $30,080.80 PST) for the period January 1, 1998, to January 1, 1999. [1997 costs were $821,099.40 ($772,773.00 plus $48,326.40 PST] resulting in savings of $275,231.46, or 33.5 percent.)

In total, to date, the insurance program premiums including PST amount to $5,312,399.16 (1997 total costs were $7,653,306.04 resulting in savings to date of $2,340,906.88, or 30.5 percent.) Excluding one time transition costs and the Environmental Impairment Costs, the consolidated insurance program will result in savings of $4,125,738.10 or 53.9 percent to date. The balance of the program yet to be reported on totalled $1,883,740.00 in 1997 premium costs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the insurance program proposed for Comprehensive General Liability, Automobile, Garage Automobile, Medical Malpractice, Excess Public Officials Errors and Omissions Liability and Excess and Umbrella Liability be approved for the period May 1, 1998, to May 1, 1999, at a cost of $2,981,700.00;

(2) the insurance commitments which were made from January 1, 1998 in the amount of $2,330,699.16 to the present to ensure adequate coverage for the City as identified in Schedule A be ratified; and

(3) an equivalent amount paid for Environmental Impairment Liability coverage in the approximate amount of $325,000.00 be set aside annually in a reserve fund to cover the cost of environmental engineering studies or future litigation costs and that staff review further options for coverage and report as required.

Background:

In September, 1997, Finance staff recognized the need to develop a comprehensive insurance program for the City of Toronto effective as soon as possible after January 1, 1998 which would incorporate components of all of the existing policies and coverages. Submissions were accepted from those firms which were providing insurance consulting services to the existing municipalities.

In November, 1997 J & H Marsh & McLennan, Limited were appointed as insurance consultants and broker of record to develop a comprehensive insurance program and ensure that appropriate coverages were in place for existing and new activities as of January 1, 1998.

Discussion:

Paragraphs 3 and 50 of Section 207 of the Municipal Act require the Council of a municipality to contract insurance coverage for the municipality and its employees. Coverage is extended to the majority of the municipal operations including the Library and Police Services Board, but excludes the Toronto Transit Commission as examples. To this end, staff from the former municipalities and J & H Marsh and McLennan have been meeting to develop an appropriate insurance program for the City. This report covers only the Comprehensive General Liability, Automobile, Garage Automobile and Medical Malpractice program including excess coverage as well as excess Public Officials Errors & Omissions Liability Coverage. A further report on property, boiler and machinery and other associated coverages as well as accidental death and business travel will follow shortly.

Other components of the insurance program have had to be placed in advance of this report as coverage had expired on several of the policies or new requirements were imposed as a result of the amalgamation of the former municipalities. These policies are identified in Schedule A. Schedule B outlines the status of all the coverages for the City; while Schedule C provides information on the 1997 former policies.

The components of the insurance program are identified as follows:

(1) Comprehensive General Liability:

This policy is for coverage of liability against the municipality arising out of bodily injury or property damage to third parties caused by the city operations or facilities. The liability coverage is in the amount of $5,000,000.00 with a self insured retention amount of $500,000.00

This coverage is for a one year period from May 1, 1998 to May 1, 1999, at a total cost of $2,008,800.00. The 1997 comparative cost was $4,645,416.96. However the difference in cost for this coverage and those which follow are also due in part to a change in the self insured retention levels which are higher than those carried in 1997 in the majority of the former municipalities but which is considered appropriate given the size of the City.

The insurer for this component is Liberty International Canada.

(2) Medical Malpractice:

This coverage is in respect of liability arising out of bodily injury to third parties caused by the city's medical personnel.

The coverage is for $5,000,000.00 with a self insured retention amount of $500,000.00 for a one year period from May 1, 1998 to May 1, 1999 at a total cost of $118,800.00.

The comparative cost for 1997 which was applicable for two of the former municipalities was $202,878.00.

The insurer for this component is Liberty International Canada.

(3) Automobile and Garage Automobile:

This coverage is in respect of liability arising out of bodily injury or property damage to third parties arising out of the operation of the City's approximately 5,550 licenced vehicles including physical damage to such vehicles and accident benefits to injured employees.

The second component is for liability arising out of bodily injury or property damage to third parties arising out of the operation of parking garages.

Coverage is for $5,000,000.00 with a $50,000.00 retention for direct damage and third party liability for all vehicles except fire, ambulance and police, which have a $250,000.00 retention for third party liability.

The period of coverage is one year from May 1, 1998, to May 1, 1999, at a total cost of $441,000.00. The comparative 1997 total was $1,429,601.68.

The insurer for this component is Liberty International Canada.

(4) Umbrella and Excess Liability:

This coverage provides an excess layer of protection in the amount of $95,000,000.00 which is excess of the primary $5,000,000.00 coverage provided in the Comprehensive General Liability, Medical Malpractice, Automobile and Garage Automobile policies described above. In addition, the excess coverage is applicable to the Public Officials Errors and Omissions primary policy which was placed for a one year period commencing January 1, 1998. Details of this coverage are provided in Schedule A.

The period of coverage is one year from May 1, 1998 to May 1, 1999, at a total cost of $413,100.00. The 1997 premium cost was $554,310.00, however, only three of the former municipalities previously sought this form of coverage.

The insurers for this program are Reliance Insurance Company, Scottish & York/Sovereign Insurance Company, Gerling Global Insurance Company and Royal Insurance Company.

In total the 1998-1999 insurance premiums are $3,850,506.64 including taxes or 56 percent less than the combined premiums paid by the municipalities in 1997 for the above noted policies. Of these cost reductions 40.3 percent of the savings are a result of increased self insured retentions while 59.7 percent are the result of greater purchasing power and consolidation of policies. The former municipalities had various self insurance or deductible amounts ranging from $10,000.00 to $500,000.00 and for 1998 - 1999, the recommended self insured amounts are:

Comprehensive General Liability $500,000.00

Medical Malpractice $500,000.00

Automobile/Garage Automobile $ 50,000.00/$250,000.00

These limits are recommended as a result of a comprehensive financial analysis on the capability of the City to carry increased self retention amounts and the potential impact on the City of claims exceeding certain limits. In addition, the analysis includes a study of various amounts and the cost/benefits impact of the alternatives. It is proposed that the $500,000.00 level is the most appropriate amount as it offers savings to the City over the 1997 amounts paid and will provide a comfort level to the insurers for the upcoming year.

Environmental Impairment Liability:

Staff have reviewed an insurance program for Environmental Impairment Liability (EIL) coverage. At this point we are not prepared to recommend that the City enter into such a program and we will be allowing various coverages for the former municipalities to lapse.

A more comprehensive analysis of the information for EIL coverage after a City-wide examination of locations is required. In the meantime it is recommended that the premiums paid by the former municipalities in the approximate amount of $325,000.00 be set aside in a reserve fund to improve loss prevention efforts or as a means of funding future litigation costs associated with such claims.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the insurance program for Comprehensive General Liability, Automobile, Garage Automobile and Medical Malpractice, Excess Public Officials Errors and Omissions Liability and Umbrella and Excess Liability coverage as described above be approved. It is also recommended that the costs incurred to date to ensure continued coverage be approved for payment. Details are provided in Schedule A.

Finally it is recommended that EIL funding in the approximate amount of $325,000.00 be set aside in a reserve fund to fund studies or provide a source of funding for litigation expenses in claims in this area.

Contact Name:

Report prepared by: Glenn Kippen

Telephone: 778-2063

Facsimile: 778-0109

E-Mail: gkippen@borough.eastyork.on.ca

(1) Crime Coverage

Crime coverage ceased as of December 31, 1997, with the amalgamation of the seven municipalities.

This coverage is for loss of money, securities or other property due to employee dishonesty or loss of money and securities due to theft.

Details are as follows:

Insurance Company: Protection Mutual Company

Coverage period: January 1, 1998, to January 1, 1999

Limit of Insurance: $25,000,000.00

Deductible: $10,000.00

Cost: $84,510.00 ($78,250.00 plus $6,260.00 PST)

1997 Cost: $112,004.64 ($103,708.00 plus $8,296.64 PST)

Note: Credits have been provided for previous policies which were cancelled as at January 1, 1998.

(2) Owned Aircraft Hull and Liability Insurance Coverage

Aircraft Hull and Liability coverage was required as of January 1, 1998, with expiration of the previous policy which had been in the name of Metropolitan Toronto.

This coverage relates to liability arising out of bodily injury or property damage to third parties arising out of the use of owned aircraft, as well as loss due to physical damage of the aircraft itself.

Details are as follows:

Insurance Company: British Aviation Insurance Co. Ltd.

Coverage period: January 1, 1998, to January 1, 1999

Limit of liability coverage: $10,000,000.00 (combined)

Deductible: $1,000.00 for hull damage

Cost: $2,980.80 ($2,760.00 plus $220.80 PST)

1997 Cost: $3,504.60 ($3,245.00 plus $259.60 PST)

(3) Consolidated Public Officials Errors and Omissions Liability Coverage

As of January 1, 1998, we were required to provide errors and omission coverage for the new City Officials.

Coverage is extended for wrongful acts committed by the City's elected or appointed officials, members of commissions, boards, etc., lawyers, architects, engineers, or accountants, etc.

Details are as follows:

Insurance Company: Liberty International.

Primary Liability

Coverage period: January 1, 1998, to January 1, 1999.

Limit of Coverage: $5,000,000.00.

Deductible: $100,000.00.

Cost: $318,600.00 ($295,000.00 plus $23,600.00 PST).

1997 Total Cost: $536,897.16 ($497,127.00 plus $39,770.16 PST).

(4) Marine Hull and Machinery Coverage

Coverage is provided from January 1, 1998 for physical damage to the marine fleet of both the former Metropolitan Toronto and City of Toronto.

Details are as follows:

Insurance Company: 11 different companies with various interests.

Coverage period: January 1, 1998, to January 1, 1999.

Limit of coverage: Fleet value-$21,164,500.00.

Deductibles: Various between $5,000.00 and $15,000.00 depending on the vessel.

Cost: $88,943.85.

1997 Cost: $117,644.00.

(5) Protection and Indemnity

As of February 20, 1998, this coverage was renewed for a further year. Coverage relates to the marine fleet for the former Metropolitan Toronto and City of Toronto.

Details are as follows:

Insurance Company: Shipowners' Mutual.

Coverage period: February 20, 1998, to February 20, 1999.

Limit of coverage: $500,000,000.00.

Deductible: $1,000.00 to $5,000.00.

Cost: $50,833.29.

1997 Cost: $51,049.00.

(6) Extension of Former Metropolitan Toronto Coverages (Transition Policy)

A significant part of the insurance program for the former Metropolitan Toronto expired on December 31, 1997. It was necessary to extend the existing policies for Comprehensive General Liability, Medical Malpractice, Automobile and Umbrella and Excess Liability to May 1, 1998, which is the expected date for the implementation of the new insurance program.

Details of the program are as follows:

Insurance Companies: Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Scottish & York Insurance Co.

American Home Assurance Co.

Reliance Insurance Co.

CIGNA Insurance Co. of Canada

Coverage period: January 1, 1998, to May 1, 1998.

Limit of coverage: Extension of the existing policies.

Deductibles: Extension of existing conditions as at December 31, 1997.

Cost: $607,216.66 ($566,704.00 plus $40,508.66 PST).

(7) Excess Public Officials, Liability Errors & Omissions (Transition Policy)

This coverage relates to Item number 3 and provides additional liability limits in excess of the above noted Public Officials Errors and Omissions primary coverage.

Coverage period: January 1, 1998, to May 1, 1998.

Limit of coverage: $95,000,000.00.

Cost: $29,274.48 ($27,106.00 plus $2,168.48 PST).

(8) New Exposures Coverage (Transition Policy)

As of January 1, 1998, there were certain activities of the former municipalities which were not covered as part of the new city. As an example, any vehicle acquired in the name of the City of Toronto required coverage under a new insurance policy.

Details are as follows:

Insurance Company: Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Scottish & York Insurance Co.

American Home Assurance Co.

Reliance Insurance Co.

CIGNA Insurance Co. Of Canada

At various excess levels

Coverage period: January 1, 1998, to May 1, 1998.

Limit of coverage: Extension of existing coverages to the assets and activities of the new City to the former Metropolitan Toronto limits as described above.

Deductibles: Various.

Cost: $5,859.00 ($5,425.00 plus $434.00 PST).

(9) City of Scarborough-Excess Limits of Liability (Transition Policy)

As of January 1, 1998, the former City of Scarborough coverage for liability purposes was less than that of the other municipalities. This coverage increased their coverage by $40,000,000.00.

Details are as follows:

Coverage period: January 1,1998, to May 1, 1998.

Limit of coverage: $40,000,000.00 of excess liability coverage.

Cost: $1,620.00 ($1,500.00 plus $120.00 PST).

(10) Difference in Conditions Coverage-Property (Transition Policy)

This policy is intended to raise the coverage for all of the former municipalities to the level of the City of North York for property and business interruption if there were some policies which were more restrictive. It is also a means of ensuring that coverage would be extended in certain situations where coverage may have been deficient or questioned as to responsibility.

Details are as follows:

Coverage period: January 1, 1998, to May 1, 1998

Limit of coverage: Transitional coverage to former City of North York limits.

Cost: $8,999.64 ($8,333.00 plus $666.64 PST).

(11) Bridging Coverage-Liability (Transition Policy)

This policy provides coverage in the former municipalities where differences in conditions or in limits may have existed. This would ensure that any claim that may have been rejected because of an uncertainty of coverage or ownership of the claim will be honoured by the insurer.

Details are as follows:

Coverage period: January 1, to May 1, 1998.

Limit of coverage: Increase in limits and conditions.

Cost: $5,859.00 ($5,425.00 plus $434.00 PST).

(12) Extension of Property, Boiler and Machinery and User Group Coverages (Transition Policy).

The policies from the former municipalities for purposes of property, boiler and machinery and user groups have different expiration dates. In order to protect the assets of the City, we have extended the expiration dates to May 1, 1998.

Details are as follows:

Coverage period: Various starting dates to May 1, 1998.

Limits of coverage: Extension of existing policies.

Cost: $25,067.40 ($23,211.00 plus $1,856.40 PST).

(13) OMEX Extension of Coverage (Transition Policy)

At December 31, 1997, the municipalities were faced with the need to identify any potential claims which would occur under each of their municipal errors and omissions policies. OMEX, the insurer for the former Borough of East York and the cities of Toronto, York and Etobicoke provided an extension of the reporting period to January 31, 1998. The cost was $1,100,935.04 ($1,024,988.02 plus $75,947.02 PST)

(A copy of Schedule `C' entitled "1997 Insurance Policies - Former Municipalities" was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 30, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report (March 12, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; and having directed that such report be submitted to Council for information:

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received and forwarded to Council for information.

Background:

Section No. 247 of The Municipal Act provides that the Treasurer of every municipality shall submit to the Council of the municipality, before February 28, in each year, a statement of the remuneration and expenses paid in the preceding year to each Member of Council in respect of his/her services as a Member of Council or as an officer of the municipal corporation and also to each Member of Council or other person appointed by the Council to a local board or other Special Purpose Body.

My report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, dated February 6, 1998, noted that, given the current schedule of Council meetings and other administrative issues related to the amalgamation, a report respecting the above would be forwarded to the Corporate Services Committee meeting on March 30, 1998, and, subsequently, to Council on April 15, 1998.

Given the differing remuneration and expense indemnity policies and practices that were in place in the former Metropolitan and Area Municipalities in 1997, the submission of separate, individual reports in respect of each former municipality is more appropriate in these circumstances.

This report is in respect of the remuneration and expenses of Members and Appointees of the former Metropolitan Toronto Council.

(a) Members of Council:

The attached statement, Appendix A, summarizes the remuneration and expenses of Members of Council for the period January 1, to December 31, 1997, based on expenses actually paid or reimbursed during the period. Appendices B and C include a breakdown, by expense component, of each Member's office expenses and Appendix D provides details of the business travel costs for each Councillor.

Authority: Remuneration and expense indemnity of Members of Council were authorized by Metropolitan Council By-law No. 1-93.

(b) Council appointees to Local Boards and other Special Purpose Bodies:

The remuneration and expenses summarized below have been paid by the respective local board or other Special Purpose Body.

Remuneration

as Member of Local Board

or Other Special Purpose Body Expenses

$ $

Metropolitan Licensing Commission:

C. Archibald 18,170.04 -

G. Shan 12,345.04 1,633.20

D. Shimski 12,345.04 1,474.57

D. Thomas 12,345.04 -

Board of Trustees, Municipality of

Metropolitan Toronto Pension Fund:

M.D. Jory 7,499.00 -

Board of Trustees, Municipality of

Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund:

M.D. Jory 7,499.00 -

Sinking Fund Committee:

A.E. St. Marie 4,913.00 -

J.T. Sinclair 2,456.50 -

J. Claydon 4,913.00 -

J.A. Black 4,913.00 -

M. Bulford 2,456.50 -

Metropolitan Toronto Housing

Company Ltd.:

M. Sadowski 7,498.00 353.85

W. Stickley - 205.75

S. McKeown - 128.75

S. Gulaid - 178.75

W. Stojanovic - 8.00

Metropolitan Toronto Convention

Centre Corporation:

J. Demeroutis 750.00 -

T. Wells 2,250.00 -

Board of Governors of

Exhibition Place:

J. Pantalone - 3,450.76

Metropolitan Toronto Library Board:

D. Pikilis - 51.80

Toronto Police Service:

N. Gardner - 222.75

Toronto Transit Commission:

P. Christie - 6,553.21

B. Kinahan - 2,492.13

Authority: Remuneration and expenses of Metropolitan Council appointees to local boards and other bodies were authorized by Metropolitan Council By-law No. 1-93.

(c) Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:

Under the terms of Section No. 250 of The Municipal Act, a conservation authority is responsible for establishing and paying the remuneration and expenses of the members of

the conservation authority appointed by the participating municipalities, unless the conservation authority passes a resolution transferring the responsibility for establishing remuneration and expenses to the participating municipalities.

The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has passed no such resolution. However, for the information of Council, the following remuneration and expenses were reported to me as having been paid by the Conservation Authority to members appointed by Metropolitan Council for the year 1997.

Remuneration Expenses

$ $

Members of Council:

M. Augimeri 1,625.00 424.50

I. Bossons 975.00 234.00

R. Cho 845.00 333.60

S. Edit 650.00 93.00

B. Harrison 260.00 96.00

N. Kelly 780.00 -

C. Ootes 1,300.00 369.00

R. O'Brien 11,450.00 961.50

B. Salmon 1,105.00 306.00

Citizen Appointees:

P. Abtan 1,170.00 387.00

V. Carley 1,105.00 -

P. Raina 1,365.00 576.00

D. Sword 1,105.00 205.20

Contact Name:

Ivan Araujo - 416-392-8427 - Fax Number - 416-397-0835.

* Includes $2,500.00 for each Member of Council for advertising and communication, updating the general public on the activities of the Metro Consultation Committee on the New City Government (Clause No. 6 of Report No. 12 of The Corporate Administration Committee, adopted, as amended, by the Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on May 7 and 8, 1997).

Notes: (1) The Corporate Business Travel reported herein includes any travel:

(a) on association business, by a Member of Council elected or appointed to the Executive, Board, Section Executive, Task Force or Committee of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, International Union of Local Authorities, or World Association of Major Metropolises; or

(b) to participate in study or inspection tours, visits or meetings when specifically directed by Council.

(2) The following Councillors travelled on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto Chairman in 1997, funding in respect of which was provided from the Chairman's departmental appropriation:

Councillor S. Cavalier - Stockholm, Sweden, June 1 - 8, 1997 - $2,712.92

Councillor R. Cho - Seoul, South Korea, January 9 - 12, 1997 - $3,292.90

Councillor H. Moscoe - Yellowknife, North West Territories, September 3-7, 1997 - $1,899.08