It is difficult to accurately project staff requirements particularly when viewed in relation to potential audit projects brought about by the unprecedented amalgamation of seven municipalities. This level will be constantly evaluated over the next 12 to 18 months, particularly in the context of project requirements. It should be noted that internal audit costs as a percentage of the Municipal Operating Budget will be amongst the lowest in North America at 0.03 per cent.

Budgetary Impact of Restructuring:

As indicated earlier, the 1998 budget of the Audit Department has been prepared on the basis of the recommendations of the Transition Team. The 1998 budget, however, includes costs relating to the completion of the 1997 audits of the amalgamating municipalities so is not representative of a normal year's operating expenditures. In this context, the budgetary impact has been based on a projected 1999 budget. A comparison of costs between 1997 and 1999 is as follows:

1997 Total estimated audit costs of amalgamating municipalities including

local boards, agencies and commissions $4,750,000.00

1999 Estimated attest audit costs of the new City $1,000,000.00

Estimated attest audit costs for local boards, agencies and commissions $750,000.00

Internal audit costs $1,747,000.00

Estimated Total Audit Costs of the new City $3,497,000.00

Reduction in audit costs (26 percent) $1,253,000.00

It is difficult to accurately estimate attest audit costs which are generally affected by:

(a) The complexity and size of the operations;

(b) The number of individual audit opinions that must be issued;

© The materiality level used in designing the audit work;

(d) The adequacy of management and procedural controls; and

(e) The assistance provided by an internal audit function.

(1) The Complexity and Size of the Operations:

From a mandated audit standpoint, complexity relates to how many revenue, expenditure and other accounting systems and sub-systems exist within the organization. In the case of the New City, the expenditure and revenue process will have a number of major aspects which will require individual attention. These will include for example, the Police Services Board, the administration of General Welfare Assistance, the issue and control of parking tags, the collection and control of parking tag revenues, tax revenue including the collection thereof, and other fees and services charges. The magnitude of certain of the revenue items is significant. The total taxation revenue, for example, will be almost $2.7 billion. In the case of fees, service charges, investment income and miscellaneous income, the total revenue is almost $1.3 billion.

(2) The Number of Individual Audit Opinions that must be Issued:

The extent of audit work must be designed specifically to ensure that the financial statements are not materially misstated. Consequently, when an individual audit opinion is required on any component of the organization, additional audit work over and above work on the organization as a whole has to be done, as well as specific work related to the actual production of the audit opinion. Because of the City's size and range of programs, far more individual opinions will be required than for other governments.

The extent of the required audit opinions at the New City of Toronto is an issue that requires resolution. This area is currently being reviewed.

(3) The Materiality Level Used in Designing the Audit Work:

One of the most significant and least understood issues relating to the audit process is the materiality level used in an audit. A definition of materiality in an audit context is as follows:

"The magnitude of an omission or misstatement or the aggregate thereof that, in the light of surrounding circumstances, makes it probable that the judgement of a reasonable person relying on the financial statements would have been changed or influenced by such omission or misstatement or the aggregate thereof."

In performing audit work, auditors have to ensure that they have done sufficient work to ensure that financial statements are not materially misstated. A determination of what is material in a financial statement audit context is not an entirely straightforward process and is dependent on a number of issues such as audit risk and the size and complexity of the organization.

The lower the materiality level used, the more audit work has to be performed. This does not mean simply extending the test processes but also involves reviewing more areas of the operation.

(4) The Adequacy of Management and Procedural Controls:

The extent of audit work is also governed by the adequacy of management and procedural controls. An initial evaluation of such controls is important prior to a determination of the extent of audit testing. Additional audit work will be required if internal controls are weak. This will be a critical issue during the early stages of the New City particularly as new controls are introduced to the administrative processes. The City Auditor is currently conducting ongoing control reviews at various locations throughout the City.

(5) The Assistance provided by an Internal Audit Function:

Cooperation and coordination between the external and the internal auditor are essential in order to avoid duplication and reduce the overall costs of both types of audits. Specific assistance can be provided by the internal auditor during the attest audit. The extent of the assistance provided would be mutually agreed between both parties in consultation with the audit committee. The cooperation between the two groups can be mutually beneficial provided the internal auditing function is not viewed as an extension of the attest audit and the internal auditor is not viewed as a permanent resource of the external auditor.

Proposed Timetable:

It is anticipated that all 1997 attest audits will be completed by June 30, 1998, and that the restructuring of the audit function will be in place by that time. The 1998 budget of the department has been compiled on this basis.

A specific timetable relating to the proposal process is as follows:

Council Approval of Report April 15

Issue of Request for Proposal April 20

Response to Request for Proposal May 1

Selection of Attest Auditors May 15

Council Approval of Attest Auditors June 3

Outsourcing of the Internal Audit Function:

While the outsourcing of the financial attest audit is by far the most common method of service delivery for the majority of municipalities in Canada and the US, the outsourcing of the internal audit function to the best of our knowledge, has not occurred in any municipality in Canada. In addition, we are not aware of any significant outsourcing in the US. The US National Association of Local Government Auditors has over 250 municipalities as members which would seem to indicate that the vast majority of US major municipalities have a significant internal audit resource. However, it should also be noted that municipalities which do not have an internal audit function contract out specific audit projects on an as needed basis. This, however, is not a substitute for an effective internal audit function which includes an ongoing evaluative audit process, particularly in the case of an organization, the size and complexity of the new City of Toronto.

Current audit staff at the new City of Toronto have significant municipal experience and a unique perspective gained through their ability to see all parts of the municipality. It is this broad integrational view that gives audit staff its uniqueness and enhances its ability to effectively add value to the organization - whether that value be in the improvement of controls or through the identification of operational risks and potential solutions. These advantages would be lost if an internal audit process was contracted out to a third party. Further, there would be significant new start up costs to bringing new employees up to speed to perform internal auditing in the municipality.

There is also an argument that outsourcing providers will command an ever increasing premium for their services. It is possible that the outsourcing municipality will become dependent on the service of the outsourcing provider. As the dependency increases, the municipality becomes vulnerable to pricing increases as the outsourcer assumes more of a monopoly position especially if the provider gains more "institutional" knowledge about the municipality. The counter argument is that:

(a) there are other outside providers; and

(b) long term pricing agreements can be reached.

Nevertheless, in spite of the above, there may be instances where it makes sense to "partner" with an outside provider, particularly when outside expertise is required on technical issues such as EDP security for example. In actual fact, the department is currently working with an external consultant in relation to security issues pertaining to the Client Identification Benefits System in the Social Services Division of Community Services. Rather than staff the department with a wide range of technical expertise, the outsourcing of specific audit related functions may be more appropriate, and in fact, should be accepted practice.

Proposed Contract with the Attest Auditor:

The Municipal Act provides that the contract term relating to the hiring of an attest audit should be no longer than five years. In view of the significant up front investment required by the attest auditors in an organization as complex and as large as the City of Toronto, it is suggested that consideration be given to awarding a contract for a five-year period. This practice is not unusual in the municipal sector in regard to the awarding of audit contracts. In addition, it is likely that the annual fee for a term of five years would be less than a term of say three years.

The Audit of the Auditor:

A frequently asked question relating to any internal audit function is "Who audits the Auditor?". This is a valid question as the auditor should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny/accountability as the entities audited.

The Audit Department would be subjected to the same attest audit process as other departments at the City. However, as indicated previously, attest audits by external public accountants are conducted at a high level and depending on the scope of the audit, little specific work would be conducted on many of the smaller departments, including the Audit Department. In order to compensate for this, it is suggested that the City Auditor be subjected to a peer review process.

The City Auditor is a member of the Canadian Municipal Comprehensive Auditors Association (CMCA) and the US based National Association of Local Government Auditors (NALGA). An important component of each organization is a formalized peer review process which encourages members to participate in an arrangement whereby different audit organizations review the operations of other member organizations. The CMCA has prepared guidelines for the Professional Practice of Municipal Internal Auditing, pertaining to independence, professional proficiency, scope of audit work, performance of audit work and management of the internal audit office. In addition, NALGA has prepared a quality control review guide and members have been organized and trained to conduct peer reviews of audit organizations.

It is anticipated that the City of Toronto Auditor would participate in the peer review process of either the CMCA or NALGA.

In addition, in the early 1980's, the members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario approved the introduction of a program whereby every member practicing public accounting in Ontario would be inspected.

The main purpose of practice inspection is to ensure that all members in the practice of public accounting maintain an appropriate level of professional standards. Primarily, the practice inspection program is intended to be educational - to help practitioners improve their professional standards, where necessary. Essentially, through a review of current accounting and audit engagement files, practice inspection identifies where a practicing member may require assistance in maintaining prescribed professional standards. The practice inspection program does not set new standards. Rather, the standards that a member is expected to maintain are those prescribed by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Handbook and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ontario Handbook.

Where the City Auditor is engaged in the practice of public accounting, the City Auditor should be subject to Practice Inspections.

Conclusions:

The restructuring of the audit function will result in a reduction of staff from 50 to 20. Assuming the estimate of fees of $1,750,000.00 relating to the outsourcing of the attest audit is reasonable, the restructuring will also result in an annualized savings of approximately $1,253,000.00 from the audit function that existed prior to amalgamation. In addition, the new City of Toronto will have an audit resource 100 percent devoted to value added projects, a situation which did not exist in all of the individual amalgamating municipalities.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Jeffrey Griffiths, 392-8461

Wanda Liczyk, 392-8773

This report proposes changes to the Audit Department. It recommends that the attest audit responsibilities be contracted out and that the rest of the audit functions be carried out by managerial staff only.

This is a disappointing and shocking statement about the new City's view of the value and worth of its 25,000 front-line staff. CUPE Local 79 represents unionized employees from the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the former City of Toronto. Our members have been carrying out attest and internal audits for both former Corporations for over fifty years. These employees are part of a long tradition of neutrality and independence which has ensured an open and democratic process.

The proposed internal audit budget will be the lowest in Canada (on a percentage basis). But the new City is bigger and more complicated than ever before. We know that each former municipality has widely differing policies and procedures which must be integrated. There are necessary and unavoidable costs when undertaking such an enormous task for the first time. The budget must reflect these realities, otherwise the value -- and integrity -- of the audit process is at risk, as is our responsibility to the taxpayer.

The new work plan for the remainder of the audit functions is disturbingly vague. It would appear that only certain areas will be audited. The extent and adequacy of management and procedural controls throughout the City are unknown. During this period of change and attempted harmonization, decisions about these important matters should be made by City staff who understand the Corporation. It makes no sense to reduce the department by sixty percent before the true extent of the work level has been determined.

Only 20 staff will be left in the department and they will all be excluded from union membership. At a time when the Corporation is emphasizing the need to flat-line and decrease management levels, there will be no front-line workers in this department. Confidentiality is not a reason to exclude them: their integrity and respect for the confidentiality required to perform this independent function have never been in question.

It is proposed that the new Audit Department will employ only those with professional designations, such as CA (Chartered Accountant) or CGA (Certified General Accountant). There has always been a practice that combinations of education, training and experience are considered as equivalencies. There are front-line employees who have the technical expertise and experience gained from working on the job. Some have been with local government and Audit for more than twenty years. The lack of recognition of their acquired skills is an insult to the commitment they have made to the Corporation. The introduction of credentialism is a step backwards in achieving employment equity in the City.

Local 79 urges Audit Committee members to reject this report. The contracting out of the attest audit, exclusion of union members from the new Audit Department, and introduction of credentialism are serious issues, whose impact will have far-reaching implications on the City's finances and labour relations. Instead, we ask you to affirm your support of union and management staff working together to provide responsible and sufficient audit services to the City.

Recommendation:

It is recommended:

(1) That City Council confirm the following responsibilities, which have been duties of the City Auditor of the City of Toronto prior to amalgamation, shall continue to be responsibilities of the City Auditor (and not responsibilities of external auditors hired to report on the Corporation's financial statements) for 1998 and future years:

(a) the receipt of confidential minutes of third party organizations which have agreed to provide minutes of their board meetings to the City Auditor;

(b) the accessing and examination of the books, records and other information of third parties providing goods or services to the City, who have agreed in their contracts with the City to make such information available to the City Auditor; and

(c) the audit for compliance with the terms and conditions of licences and permits issued by the City, or persons or organizations which have received such a licence or permit.

Background:

In accordance with the recommendations of the Transition Team, as adopted by City Council, the City is to have both an internal audit services function headed by a City Auditor, and to have external auditors appointed by City Council to audit the annual financial statements of itself and its local boards.

Over the past years there have been put in place by the former City of Toronto, arrangements or conditions which refer to the City Auditor, providing for that person to receive confidential information on a regular basis, or to have access to the books and records of specific persons or organizations. In addition, relating to permits and licences issued by the City as part of municipal governance, it had been found useful for the City Auditor on occasion to audit for compliance with the terms and conditions of such permits and licences.

This report suggests it would be appropriate and useful for City Council to determine publicly how those kinds of responsibilities shall be exercised this year and in future. This is because the external auditors will be appointed in accordance with legislative provisions, set out in the Municipal Act, requiring municipalities to appoint auditors. In the absence of a clear determination by City Council that "City Auditor" in such agreements refers to the head of its internal audit services unit, a concerned organization might choose to deal only with the legislatively appointed external auditors. This might be onerous for such auditors, and perhaps costly and of uncertain effect for the City.

Comments:

Where the City has continuing interests in the plans and operations of third party organizations, such as the Toronto Arts Council or the Toronto Harbour Commission, such that the parties have made binding arrangements to provide their minutes of meetings to the City Auditor but not for publication, it would be best for this information to continue to be provided to an official within the municipal corporation having continuing high level knowledge of the City's affairs. The information does not have to be accessed in the course of auditing the City's financial statements, so there is no problem for external auditors if this kind of arrangement is continued with the City Auditor.

Where it is standard practice in every consultant agreement and every grant agreement with the City to provide for the City Auditor to have access to books and records of the signators to such agreements, it would clearly be most practical and most economical to continue to understand such references are to the City Auditor and not to the external auditors. Similarly, where leases include rents based on gross receipts or other factors and provide for the City Auditor to have access to lessee's books and records, it will be most practical and economical to continue to understand the leases referred to the City Auditor and not the external auditors.

In the many cases where the City might like to have a third party audited for compliance with the terms and conditions of permits to hold activities on City owned property, or for compliance with terms of other licences, then again it is most practical and economical to ask the City Auditor to do such checking, rather than external auditors.

However, there are cases where there are trust funds held by the City, which it is appropriate to audit and report on, at least once a year. Those would be attest auditors, certifying the accuracy and completeness of financial records maintained by the City itself. Here it is best and most certain to have the external auditors include such trust funds in their audits of City financial statements. No suggestion is made in this report to do otherwise.

Because the City intends to appoint external auditors for certain purposes, and these auditors could reasonably be understood to be, when appointed, the auditor of the city, this report recommends that City Council make a clear-cut decision on three areas of responsibility, to have them continued by the head of the City's internal audit services unit.

Respectfully submitted for your information and consideration.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following communication (April 6, 1998) from Mr. Denis Casey, Acting President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79:

This report recommends that the attest audit responsibilities of the Audit Department be contracted out and that the rest of the audit functions be carried out by managerial staff only. At its meeting of March 24, 1998, the Audit Committee supported the contracting-out of the attest audit.

This report is a disappointing and frightening signal to the 25,000 unionized employees in the new City of Toronto. At a time when the Corporation is proclaiming its goal of decreasing management levels in all areas, this department will have no front-line workers.

CUPE Local 79 represents union employees from the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the former City of Toronto. Our members have been carrying out attest audits for both former Corporation for over 50 years. Their integrity and respect for the confidentiality required to perform this independent function have never been questioned.

We are opposed to the contracting-out of the attest audit. We believe that its importance and value to the City are under-estimated. City staff who understand the complexities of municipal government should be carrying it out. Having experienced staff ensures compliance with municipal procedures, by-laws, City policies and federal and provincial regulations.

The extent and adequacy of management and procedural controls throughout the City are still unknown. Presently there are seven separate systems in place. There are no uniform standards. In the former City and Metro, front-line staff carry out attest audits and document and evaluate internal controls. But the range of internal controls in five of the former municipalities is unclear. If these controls are weak then the report acknowledges that "additional audit work will be required". It also confirms that even with the introduction of outside auditors, much assistance by City staff will be needed.

Yet all the expertise of the front-line staff who carried out this valuable work in the former City of Toronto and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto will be lost as a result of the recommendation to contract-out. Instead, unionized staff will be replaced with more highly paid managers, without the same level of familiarity and experience in field work.

The auditing of the agencies, boards and commissions is not being included in this proposal. This work generated $1.2 million in recoveries in 1997. It is not clear will be left to carry it out in the future.

During this period of change and attempted harmonization, Councillors should be wary of having the cheapest internal audit budget in Canada (on a percentage basis). The new City is bigger and more complicated than ever before. There are necessary and unavoidable costs when undertaking such an enormous task for the first time.

The City has knowledgeable staff who are experienced in dealing with the complexities of municipal audits. Local 79 urges Members to reaffirm the Corporation's commitment to the value and worth of its front-line staff. We ask you to reject the recommendation to contract-out the attest audit function.

Mr. Denis Casey, Acting President, CUPE Local 79, appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on April 7, 1998, in connection with the foregoing matter:

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 15, 1998) from the Acting President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, (CUPE) Local 79, expressing concerns regarding the contracting out of audit services.)

(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. 11 of Report No. 4A of The Strategic Policies and Priorities 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. 12 of Report No. 4A of The Strategic Policies and Priorities 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. 13 of Report No. 4A of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.)

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

"It is further recommended that City Council request the Provincial government to integrate all GO Transit Board functions within the mandate of the Greater Toronto Services Board.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 2, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend a formal Toronto City Council response to the provincial government's draft legislation for the establishment of a Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations in this report have no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council support the establishment of a GTSB as constituted in the Proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act released by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on March 12, 1998 subject to the following recommendations and comments;

(2) The provincial government be requested to amend Part I of the Proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act to vest authority in the GTSB to do any or all of the following:

(a) prepare a GTA urban structure plan and master plans for major inter-regional infrastructure, for example, sewer, water, and transportation;

(b) allocate Provincial funding to GTSB member municipalities for inter-regional projects and programs consistent with the GTA urban structure and infrastructure master plans;

(c) approve, or appeal to the approval authority, environmental assessments for major inter-regional infrastructure based on consistency with the GTA urban structure and infrastructure master plans; and

(d) support or appeal land use decisions to the approval authority, including the Ontario Municipal Board, based on consistency with the GTA urban structure and infrastructure master plans;

(3) the provincial government be requested to review the relationship of GT Transit to the GTSB with a view to ensuring that their respective responsibilities and powers in regard to the design, construction and operation of the regional transit system are clearly defined and distinct. This review should include consideration of the option of increasing the City of Toronto's representation on GT Transit to 50 per cent;

(4) Council inform the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the City of Toronto opposes the method of levy apportionment based on weighted assessment, as set out in clause 19 (2) of the Proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act, and request the provincial government to work with City staff to identify alternative approaches to levy apportionment by the GTSB;

(5) that the provincial government amend the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act by removing the GTSB's power to directly access financial markets;

(6) this report be forwarded to Mr. Alan Tonks, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, all Regional and Area Municipal Councils in the GTA and the Council of the Regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth as the City of Toronto's response to the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In February, 1995 the previous provincial government established the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Task Force with a mandate to make recommendations on a wide range of matters including governance of the GTA. The Task Force released its final report in January, 1996, in which it recommended the elimination of the Metro and regional governments and the establishment of a GTA authority.

A provincial review panel, chaired by Libby Burnham, reported on May 6, 1996 that there was very little consensus on the GTA Task Force recommendations other than on the need for co-ordination in the GTA. Subsequently, on May 30, 1996, the provincial government established the Who Does What Panel, chaired by David Crombie. The Panel reviewed the distribution of responsibility for delivery and funding of the full range of municipal services and examined municipal finance and governance. The Panel submitted its recommendations to the Minister of municipal Affairs and Housing in a series of letters throughout the summer and fall of 1996. With respect to GTA governance, the Panel recommended the creation of a Greater Toronto Services Board, elimination of the regional municipalities and consolidation of member municipalities into strong cities including a strong urban core for the GTA.

The provincial government responded to these recommendations with the introduction of Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, on December 17, 1996. At the same time, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced the appointment of Mr. Milt Farrow as Special Advisor on the formation of a Greater Toronto Services Board. Mr. Farrow was asked to undertake consultation and advise the Minister on: the GTSB's powers; how it should be governed; what types of services it should concern itself with; how it should be funded; and what relationship it should have with municipalities, the public and the province.

Mr. Farrow released his final report, entitled "Getting Together," on June 18, 1997. Mr. Farrow proposed that a GTSB be set up as a statutory corporation. All upper, lower and single tier municipalities in the GTA would be members. Hamilton-Wentworth would be a member only with respect to the GTSB's involvement in GO Transit. The GTSB's decision-making and executive arm would be a 28 member Executive Committee, half of whose membership would initially be drawn from the new City of Toronto. Three representatives from Hamilton-Wentworth would be added to the Executive Committee when issues relating to GO Transit were on the agenda. The Executive Committee would receive input from and link to the GTSB's membership through an Urban Issues Advisory Committee and a Rural Issues Advisory Committee. All member municipalities would sit on one of these two committees.

Mr. Farrow recommended that, initially, the GTSB should have four primary roles. These would be:

(1) development of a comprehensive, long-term Infrastructure Co-ordination Strategy for the GTA;

(2) provision of a discussion forum and liaison with all levels of government;

(3) resolution of inter-regional servicing issues when consensus among municipalities cannot be reached in areas such as water and sewage treatment, inter-regional transit and watershed management. The GTSB would implement decisions and allocate costs; and

(4) operation of GO Transit and development of a long-term, post collection waste management strategy for the GTA.

On December 11, 1997 the Toronto Transition Team released its Final Report, in which it recommended that the new Toronto City Council, "recognizing that Greater Toronto is one economic, social and environmental region, should impress on the Province the importance of creating the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) as soon as possible to provide a forum for building a strong city-region in partnership with other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area."

The Transition Team proposed that the GTSB should have a mandate "to coordinate city-region growth and infrastructure investments and take joint action on such shared interests as watershed planning and development of a solid waste strategy."

On March 12, 1998, the provincial government published draft legislation to provide for the establishment of a GTSB. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced that the government intends to introduce a Bill for First Reading in the spring sitting of the Legislature. An information bulletin from the CAO, enclosing a message from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, a news release announcing the draft legislation, and a backgrounder describing the highlights of the draft legislation, was circulated to all Members of Council on March 13, 1998.

The province has appointed Mr. Alan Tonks, former Chair of the Toronto Transition Team and Metro Council, to moderate a review of the draft legislation. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has requested all municipalities in the GTA to provide comments on the draft legislation to Mr. Tonks.

This report recommends a formal Toronto City Council response to the draft legislation.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under the proposed legislation, the GTSB is established as a corporation without share capital. It is not a municipality and is explicitly stated not to be a local board The objects of the GTSB are two-fold:

(i) to promote co-ordinated decision making among municipalities in the GTA; and

(ii) to supervise the management of the Greater Toronto Transit Authority ("GT Transit") and allocate the costs of that authority, in accordance with the Act.

The powers of the GTSB in respect of these two roles are summarized in the Appendix to this report.

Establishment of a Greater Toronto Services Board:

The GTA Task Force, Burnham Review Panel, Who Does What Panel, Milt Farrow Final Report and the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team all concluded that there is the need for an institution to deal in a unified and coordinated way with the problems facing the GTA. Legislation to create the GTSB is a step in the right direction.

Other forums to discuss GTA issues do exist. These include the GTA Mayors' and Regional Chairs' Committee and the Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee under the auspices of the provincial Office for the Greater Toronto Area. These forums have generally only been successful where the Councils of the affected municipalities could reach a mutually beneficial agreement, often with provincial subsidies provided as an incentive. They have failed to resolve major issues related to growth management in the GTA. In addition, they lack formal powers or even the formal accountability structures to be persuasive.

The GTSB will provide a more balanced forum for the debate of GTA issues. Its representative structure and legislated mandate will provide a more accountable means for setting and addressing the region-wide agenda than groups such as the GTA Mayors' and Regional Chairs' Committee. It is recommended that Council support the establishment of a GTSB as constituted in the Proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act released by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on March 12, 1998 subject to the following comments.

Growth Management Issues:

Ensuring that growth proceeds in a manner that respects the natural environment and provides for efficient, cost effective use of infrastructure and public resources is a primary challenge for the GTA. Effective growth management in the GTA requires coordinated decision making in the provision of infrastructure and services and development of land. This, in turn, requires that problems be identified and addressed in the context of the GTA as a whole and that there be authority to implement the recommended actions.

Under Part I of the draft legislation, the powers of the GTSB (other than in respect of GO Transit) are advisory in nature. The GTSB will have the power to "promote", "advise", "act as a liaison", "facilitate" and "provide a mechanism", but not to implement or compel implementation of its decisions. Therefore, the extent to which decisions of the Board relating to growth management are implemented will be dependent on the adoption of the decisions by the affected municipalities.

To some degree, this inherent weakness in the GTSB may be mitigated if decisions or other strategies of the Board are recognized in other processes, for example, provincial policy statements or consideration of planning issues by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Because of its legislated mandate, this is more likely to occur with resolutions by the GTSB than other existing ad hoc committees. However, it is not certain to happen.

The GTSB's powers under Part I need to be enhanced to make it more likely that the decisions of the GTSB will result in coordinated growth management, including greater coordination in infrastructure use and investments and economic development in the GTA. It is recommended that the provincial government be requested to amend Part I of the Proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act to vest authority in the GTSB to do any or all of the following:

(a) prepare a GTA urban structure plan and master plans for major inter-regional infrastructure, for example, sewer, water, and transportation;

(b) allocate Provincial funding to GTSB member municipalities for inter-regional projects and programs consistent with the GTA urban structure and infrastructure master plans;

(c) approve, or appeal to the approval authority, environmental assessments for major inter-regional infrastructure based on consistency with the GTA urban structure and infrastructure master plans; and

(d) support or appeal land use decisions to the approval authority, including the Ontario Municipal Board, based on consistency with the GTA urban structure and infrastructure master plans.

GT Transit Authority:

The draft legislation proposes the creation of an initial seven member GT Transit Authority as a separate but subsidiary body to the GTSB. The legislation sets out the respective roles of each with respect to the operation of GO Transit. Although the GTSB clearly has authority in regard to budget matters, the draft legislation appears to assign almost identical responsibilities to both boards, with respect to the operation of GO Transit. This leads to a concern that the distinctions between their responsibilities in regard to design, construction and operation of the regional transit system may become blurred in practice.

While many of their responsibilities are similar, the proposed composition of the GTSB and the GT Transit Authority are very different. For matters related to GO Transit, the GTSB will have 31 members, 14 from the City of Toronto, 14 from the 905 Regions, 2 from Hamilton-Wentworth, and a Chair. Initially, the GT Transit Authority will comprise seven members, one each from the City of Toronto, the four GTA regional municipalities and Hamilton-Wentworth and a Chair. After its initial term the Authority may consist of six or seven members depending on the election of the Chair. In either case the City of Toronto will have only one vote on the Authority.

The different composition of the two agencies creates a significant potential for political conflict. There may be a number of substantive issues on which the City and the 905 Regions adopt different positions. Based on their respective membership composition, the Transit Authority may vote in favour of 905 interests and the GTSB in favour of City interests. For example, the 905 Regions may support increased express train service with fewer stops within the City. However, as the City is responsible for almost 50 percent of the operating deficit it may support the opposite position. It would be appropriate for City representation on the GT Transit Authority to be proportional to its representation on the GTSB.

It is recommended that the provincial government be requested to review the relationship of GT Transit to the GTSB with a view to ensuring that their respective responsibilities and powers in regard to the design, construction and operation of the regional transit system are clearly defined and distinct. This review should include consideration of the option of increasing the City of Toronto's representation on GT Transit to 50 per cent.

Financing Issues:

The draft legislation's provisions concerning the GTSB's ability to finance its proposed responsibilities give rise to several issues. These issues include the manner in which the GTSB apportions costs and is able to levy a charge against member municipalities, and implications for the management of debt.

Ability to Levy the Member Municipalities:

While the draft legislation does not provide the GTSB with the authority to tax directly, it proposes that the GTSB would levy against the Regions of Durham, Halton, Peel and York and the City of Toronto an amount sufficient to pay the estimated operating costs of the GTSB. These levies would be apportioned among the GTA municipalities in accordance with the legislation and the monies owed by the GTA municipalities under this levy would constitute debt of the municipalities.

With respect to GT Transit, the GTSB would be able to impose two levies on its member municipalities (including the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth):

(i) to cover the amount by which the cost of operations and non funded liabilities exceed revenues; and

(ii) for the cost to the GTSB of capital borrowing for GT Transit.

These levies would constitute debt of the member municipalities.

Levy Apportionment:

The method of levy apportionment, as set out in clause 19(2) of the draft legislation, would be based upon the total weighted assessment of each of the member municipalities in proportion to the total weighted assessment of the GTA. This method bears no relation to the issue of affordability and ability to pay or to the amount of service that would be utilized by the residents of a municipality. If this method is used to apportion debt obligations and debt charges, it could have negative implications for Toronto's could impair credit rating since the City could be responsible for a level of debt that is in excess of its capacity and impair the City's ability to issue debt for other projects.

In time, if the GTSB's role evolves to encompass a broader range of responsibilities, the balance of whose benefits are broadly distributed across the GTA, including the City of Toronto, a system of levy apportionment based on weighted assessment may make sense. At present such an approach is not in the City's best interest. It is recommended that Council inform the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the City of Toronto opposes the method of levy apportionment based on weighted assessment, as set out in clause 19 (2) of the Proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act, and request the provincial government to work with City staff to identify alternative approaches to levy apportionment by the GTSB.

Borrowing for Capital Purposes:

The draft legislation provides for the GTSB to be permitted to borrow for GT Transit's capital requirements (not including operating) with the passage of a by-law by a 2/3 majority of the Board. Clause 47 (c) establishes that the GTSB has the power to borrow money to fund the capital requirements of GT Transit and issue debentures, subject to the Ontario Municipal Board Act. Under clause 47 (d), the GTSB also has the authority to direct one or more member municipalities to pay money to GT Transit in respect of its capital requirements and it is assumed that these municipalities will probably be issuing debt to finance these contributions. Thus, it appears that the legislation is contemplating a two-stage procedure whereby the GTSB will require its members to issue debt to provide some initial start-up capital and will then enter the financial markets on its own behalf in the future after it has had an opportunity to establish some credibility with potential investors and the credit rating agencies.

Until it becomes clearer how the GTSB's role within the GTA is going to evolve, it should not have direct borrowing powers as these could bring instability to financial markets and impair the flexibility of member municipalities with respect to the issuance of debt. Therefore, it is recommended that the provincial government amend the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act by removing the GTSB's power to directly access financial markets. Instead, the Board should determine its capital financing requirements and request funding from the member municipalities which would have the flexibility to raise the funds from reserves, current operations or the issuance of debt. This method could create more flexibility for the members who would not be subject to paying future debt charges which they cannot control and could substitute various forms of capital depending upon their individual circumstances. This would require the GTSB to have some "levying powers" as provided for in the draft legislation..

Conclusions:

Numerous studies have concluded that there is a need to recognize that the GTA is an integrated and inter-dependent social and economic city-region. These studies have pointed to the need to coordinate the planning and development of infrastructure across the GTA. The proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act represents the culmination of many years of research and much debate. The debate has been punctuated by many disagreements, some of them profound.

Milt Farrow attempted to reconcile these disagreements in his 1997 proposal for a GTSB. The draft Act provides for a more modest version of the GTSB than that proposed by Mr. Farrow. Comments by some municipalities suggest that even this compromise model goes too far for them.

The proposed GTSB may not be perfect, but it is a starting point and should be supported. It presents a window of opportunity to establish a representative political body that has a legislated mandate to begin to deal with GTA issues. It has taken many years to reach this stage. If the opportunity to create the GTSB is not grasped now, it may not be available for many more years. Yet the problems of uncoordinated growth and inefficient investment in the GTA and their implications for the City of Toronto and, ultimately, the entire city-region, will not disappear.

It is recommended that this report be forwarded to Mr. Alan Tonks, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, all Regional and Area Municipal Councils in the GTA and the Council of the Regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth as the City of Toronto's response to the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act.

Under the legislation, the Board is established as a corporation without share capital. It is not a municipality and is explicitly stated not to be a local board. While it is a corporation, only certain provisions of the Corporations Act (for example, relating to retention of documents and the keeping of records and accounts) apply. The objects of the Board are two-fold:

(a) to promote co-ordinated decision making among municipalities in the GTA, and

(b) to supervise the management of the Greater Toronto Transit Authority ("GT Transit") and allocate the costs of that authority, in accordance with the Act.

The Board's Powers other than in respect of the GT Transit:

As the explanatory notes to the draft legislation indicate, it is not intended that the Board be another level of government and it would not have direct taxation authority. Its powers in respect of the first object stated above, as enumerated in the draft Act, would be to:

(a) promote coordinated decision-making among and develop advisory strategies for municipalities within the GTA with respect to the provision of infrastructure and the optimal use of infrastructure;

(b) advise municipalities within the GTA with respect to making major infrastructure investments;

(c) act as a liaison among the municipalities within the GTA and between municipalities within the GTA and other municipalities, the Government of Ontario or the Government of Canada;

(d) facilitate the efficient and cost-effective resolution of matters of intermunicipal concern within the GTA, if asked to do so by the affected municipalities;

(e) provide a mechanism for the co-ordination of economic development within the GTA; and

(f) promote co-ordinated decision-making among and develop advisory strategies for municipalities within the GTA with respect to the administration and costs of their social assistance and social housing programs.

In general, as is clear from the list of enumerated powers, the powers are advisory or in the nature of facilitation and there is no ancillary approval function nor any other governmental by-law making or directory power which can implement any decision of the Board. While it is stated that the Board has the powers of a natural person for the purpose of carrying out its objects and authority (allowing it, for example, to enter into contracts relating to the above), this would not extend to any governmental power mandating actions to be taken by others. By explicit provisions, the natural person power is stated, among other matters, not to include the ability to incur a debt or to impose fees or charges unless specifically provided for.

The extent to which the Board's advisory strategies could be implemented, therefore, would be dependent on the extent to which such strategies are given recognition under other processes (for example, within Provincial policy statements or planning considerations by the OMB under the Planning Act).

The exceptions to the lack of any governmental by-law making powers of the Board are the statutory directives that the Board must pass by-laws relating to remuneration of the chair, reimbursement of members and a levy by-law against the City of Toronto and the Regions of Durham, Halton, Peel and York ("GTA municipalities") sufficient to cover the Board's operating costs. The levy is apportioned among the GTA municipalities and is separate from any levy in respect of GT Transit.

Certain provisions in the Municipal Act, Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are made applicable to the Board. Examples are:

(a) powers to be exercised by by-law;

(b) the requirement for open meetings;

(c) delegation of administrative matters to committees or employees;

(d) fixing the fiscal year;

(e) retention of documents; and

(f) provision for issuance of debentures, making of investments and maintaining reserve funds.

In respect of the last example, the Board is by a specific provision deemed a municipality for the purpose of any the pertinent financial restrictions made by regulation under the Municipal Act.

Given the nature of the enumerated powers given to the Board under this part of the legislation, it is questionable why its powers must be exercised by by-law as opposed to resolution.

GT Transit and the Board:

Under Part II of the draft legislation, a two tier system for operation and supervision of the regional transit system is established. GT Transit is established by the proposed Act. Its powers are operational (for example, to acquire equipment and construct the system). The Board's powers are supervisory (for example, approving routes, frequency of service and establishing fares) as well as financial (e.g., approving GT Transit budgets, issuing debentures, levying the necessary funds from member municipalities).

The objects of GT Transit are listed as:

(a) To operate a regional transit system serving the regional transit area and serving other municipalities from time to time by agreement.

(b) To operate local transit systems within the regional transit area, or parts of such systems, under agreements between the Board and the municipality within which each local transit system is operated.

(c) To exchange information on operational and design matters and integrate services with other transit systems.

(d) To perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred on GT Transit under this or any other Act.

The Board's powers for the purpose of supervision are to:

(a) approve, with the modifications it considers appropriate, the annual operating and capital budgets submitted to it by GT Transit;

(b) apportion the costs of GT Transit, including the Board's cost of borrowing for the purposes of GT Transit, among the member municipalities;

(c) borrow money for, and pay such money to, GT Transit in respect of its capital requirements and issue debentures for the debt, subject to the Ontario Municipal Board Act;

(d) direct one or more member municipalities to pay money to GT Transit in respect of its capital requirements;

(e) provide for the design, construction and operation of the regional transit system;

(f) study, or cause to be studied,

(i) the design and operation of the regional transit system,

(ii) the fare structure and service schedules of the regional transit system, and

(iii) the operational integration of the regional transit system with local transit systems within or outside the regional transit area;

(g) approve the approximate location, routes and frequencies of the transit services to be provided;

(h) approve the fares that shall be charged for transit services;

(i) approve the fees that shall be charged for the provision of parking;

(j) enter into agreements with municipalities in the regional transit area with respect to the operation of local transit systems, or parts of such systems, within those municipalities; and

(k) enter into agreements with upper tier and single tier municipalities outside the regional transit area for the provision of transit services by GT Transit to those municipalities;

The power of the Board to apportion among the member municipalities, to issue debentures and to direct any member municipality to pay money to GT Transit in respect of its capital requirements requires a two-thirds vote of those present at a meeting.

For the purpose of carrying out its object, the Board may also:

(a) facilitate the operational integration of the regional transit system and local transit systems in the regional transit area; and

(b) facilitate the resolution of conflicts with respect to transit issues between GT Transit, municipalities and operators of local transit systems.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following resolution (March 11, 1998) addressed to The Honourable Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario, from the Regional Clerk of The Regional Municipality of Durham:

Honourable Sir, at their meeting held on March 11, 1998, the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham passed the following resolution:

"That the following resolution passed by the previous Council (1994-1997) of the Regional Municipality of Durham on July 2, 1997, be reaffirmed by the 1997 - 2000 Council:

(1) That the Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, be advised that:

(i) The Region of Durham does not support the establishment of a Greater Toronto Services Board for the purpose of managing, delivering or generating capital for service infrastructure and, in essence, functioning as a form of government;

(ii) if the Province creates the Board, the Region of Durham recommends it be solely limited to providing long-term strategic planning; co-ordinating inter-regional servicing; providing a forum for discussion with all levels of government; and, resolving inter-regional disputes through facilitation and mediation. Accordingly, the Board's mandate must be directed to deal with inter-regional issues and not be involved with decision-making on the provision of local infrastructure;

(iii) if established, representation on the Executive Committee of the Board should be limited in number and include active involvement of the Province; and all GTA municipalities should be represented on the associated Advisory Committees;

(iv) Any proposed changes to a Greater Toronto Services Board's mandate and related enabling legislation must be subject to public consultation and due process;

(v) if established, the Region of Durham be assigned one additional member on the Executive Committee of the Greater Toronto Services Board; and

(2) that a copy of Joint Report No. 97-J-9 be sent to the Honourable Mike Harris, the Honourable Al Leach, all Durham MPP's, the Area Municipalities in the Region of Durham, the Regions within the Greater Toronto Area, and AMO."

Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of Report No. 97-J-9 as previously sent to you.

(A copy of the Report No. 97-J-9, referred to in the resolution dated March 11, 1998, from The Regional Municipality of Durham, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting on April 7, 1998, and a copy thereof is also on file with the City Clerk.)

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 6, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

This report gives Council a preliminary overview of the Province's proposed new legislation on municipal referendums and requests Council to urge the Province to extend its 30-day public consultation period.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Transportation, be requested to extend the 30-day time limit for public consultation on the government's proposed new legislation on municipal referendums; and

(2) the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Solicitor, report further on the proposed legislation to the May 13, 1998, Council meeting through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

Background:

On March 16, 1998, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Transportation, released a consultation paper on municipal referendum legislation, and announced that for the next month he will tour the Province and consult with citizens about the government's proposal.

The consultation paper sets out a framework for municipal referendums, including:

(1) Procedures for the initiation of binding referendums by both municipal councils and their voters.

(2) Criteria for referendum questions.

(3) Rules to encourage full and accurate disclosure to the voters of the costs of implementing each referendum proposal.

(4) Designation of municipal clerks as having over-all responsibility for administering municipal referendums.

(5) Provisions to allow clerks access to the advice and expertise of the provincial Referendum Commission in making their decisions.

(6) Opportunities for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board on any decision restricting the initiation or implementation of a referendum.

(7) Rules regarding spending and contribution limits, financial reporting and audit powers in order to equalize the public's access to referendums and to prevent referendums being abused by persons with unlimited financial resources.

(8) Requirements for municipalities to implement the results of binding referendums where at least 50 percent of eligible voters have cast ballots and at least 50 percent of the votes cast are in favour of the result.

(9) Requirements for municipalities to implement the results of a binding referendum only to the extent of the estimated cost which was set out on the ballot.

The proposed referendum legislation has major implications on municipal governance and the role of elected officials. Referendums may be held on their own or at the same time as a municipal election. There is a significant cost to administer each referendum. In addition, a number of issues and questions pertaining to the procedures, criteria and rules need to be addressed. Staff have only recently received the consultation paper and have not had an opportunity to undertake a full review. Council is requested to urge the Province to extend its 30-day consultation period. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is currently reviewing the proposed legislation and has also requested the Province to extend its time line for consultation.

Conclusion:

This report gives a preliminary overview of the Province's proposed new legislation on municipal referendums. The proposed legislation has significant political, administrative and cost implications. This report recommends that City Council urge the Province to extend its 30-day consultation period to give municipalities sufficient time to respond; and requests the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Solicitor to report further on the proposed legislation to the next meeting of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. A copy of the Consultation Paper entitled "Municipal Referendum Framework" is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Contact Name:

Denis Kelly, Interim Lead, Elections and Legislative Services, 392-8019.

I am chairing a task force at AMO which is reviewing both the draft Municipal Act and the proposed Referendum legislation. Members of the task force have many concerns about municipal referendum and have recommended that the Board of AMO not support the proposed Municipal Referendum Framework. For your information, I am enclosing the material that was before the task force.

I am also including the letter which I sent to Minister Tony Clement.

As a member of Council in the City of Toronto and as Vice-President of AMO, I am very concerned with the time frame you have given for the public consultation process for the Municipal Referendum Framework Consultation Paper.

The next scheduled meeting of the City of Toronto Council is April 16, 1998. There is insufficient time to prepare a report for Council.

I urge you to reconsider the thirty day deadline for comments concerning the referendum issue with a request that the deadline be extended.

(The material referred to in Councillor Joan King's communication, which was before the task force at AMO, was forwarded to all Members of Council under separate cover on April 8, 1998, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 15, 1998) from Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights, advising that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's (AMO's) Municipal Act Task Force has spent considerable time discussing the draft Municipal Referendum Framework; and submitting a document (April 3, 1998) entitled "Draft Provincial Referendum Act and the Proposed Municipal Referendum Framework", which outlines the Task Force's preliminary comments on the implications of municipal and province-wide referenda.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Works and Utilities Committee for further consideration.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 6, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to consider all the issues related to adjusting the current Solid Waste Management (SWM) fees at the transfer station and landfill facilities operated by the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The City of Toronto currently charges a SWM fee for the disposal of Industrial Commercial Institutional (ICI) private sector waste of $70.00 per tonne at seven transfer stations and $50.00 per tonne at the Keele Valley landfill.

It is estimated that if the City of Toronto implements the recommended fees structure the net annual revenue for the City will increase by approximately $770,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the solid waste management fee at the Keele Valley landfill be increased to $53.59 per tonne effective November 1, 1998;

(2) the solid waste management fee at all seven City of Toronto transfer stations be reduced to $65.00 per tonne effective May 1, 1998;

(3) the Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management report back to the Works and Utilities Committee by May 1, 1999, on the implementation of the fees structure in recommendation numbers 1 and 2; and

(4) the Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to the Budget Committee and the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee by August 1, 1998, on the funding of 3Rs initiatives through the use of solid waste management fees and the creation of a solid waste management reserve fund.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On March 8, 9, and 10, 1994, the Metropolitan Toronto Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Joint Report No. 2 of the Management Committee and The Works Committee establishing SWM fees of $50.00 per tonne at the landfill, and $70.00 per tonne at transfer stations.

On December 18, 1996, Metro Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 30 of the Financial Priorities Committee authorizing execution of an agreement with Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) for the haulage and disposal of solid waste from the City of Toronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto).

On February 11, 1998, the Works and Utilities (WU) Committee requested the Interim Functional Lead for SWM to report on increasing the current SWM fee at the Keele Valley Landfill to cover costs.

The WU Committee on March 25, 1998, referred the report entitled, "Solid Waste Management Fees," dated March 20, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management to the Strategic Policies and Priorities (SPP) Committee for consideration at its meeting on April 7, 1998, for submission to Council for consideration at its meeting on April 16, 1998.

The WU Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a further report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on:

(1) the following motions:

(i) that the solid waste management fee at the Keele Valley Landfill site be increased to $53.59 per tonne;

(ii) that the solid waste management fee at the Bermondsey and Scarborough Transfer Stations be reduced from $70.00 to $65.00 per tonne; and

(iii) that such fees become effective immediately, and be implemented initially for a six-month period, with an interim report to be submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee.

(2) the issue of transfer station fees and the means by which the City will enforce measures to prevent illegal dumping;

(3) the status of utilization of transfer station capacities; and

(4) the capacity of the Keele Valley Landfill site.

Discussion:

Extending the Life of the Keele Valley Landfill Site

The City of Toronto has entered into an agreement with BFI for the transport and disposal of a minimum of 250,000 tonnes of waste annually from the City of Toronto to a private landfill in Michigan. The City pays BFI $53.59 per tonne (GST exempt) for this service. The rationale for entering into the BFI contract was to extend the life of the landfill by one year, until the year 2002, in order to allow time for our Environmental Assessment (EA) process to provide long-term disposal solutions for the City.

Transfer Station Utilization:

In a previous report on the capacity and utilization of the transfer station network presented to the former Metro Toronto Environment and Public Space Committee on June 7, 1995, Works Department staff wrote that, "In the future, we project higher utilization of transfer stations for mixed waste..." and, "Increases in the diversion of waste from landfill will represent new challenges for transfer stations, but not a significant decline in utilization." The amount of mixed waste transferred through the transfer stations network in 1997 (941,871 tonnes) was up 10.5 percent over 1995 (842,853 tonnes). In addition, the amount of diversion materials transferred through the network in 1997 (202,723 tonnes) was up 11.5 percent over 1995 (179,505 tonnes). We are projecting that the tonnes of mixed waste and diversion materials managed through our transfer stations will continue to grow in the future. We estimate that we have capacity within our transfer stations to manage the small amount of tonnes projected to be received in any of the six pricing scenarios presented later in this report. The marginal cost for managing any additional mixed waste materials at our transfer stations is approximately $2.00 per tonne (excluding haulage costs) therefore further utilization of our transfer facilities makes good business sense at this time.

Alternative Pricing Structures for SWM Fees:

The City of Toronto currently charges Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI) sources a SWM disposal fee of $50.00 per tonne for waste received at the Keele Valley Landfill and $70.00 per tonne at the seven transfer stations. The estimated allocation of waste tonnes for 1998 based on maintaining the status quo for SWM fees is shown on Table 1. The estimated revenue generated from all SWM fees for waste, wood chips and clean fill that has been included in the 1998 operating budget submission is $35,879,000.00.

The following pricing alternatives have been considered for the SWM fees:

(i) Alternative No. 1 - Increase only the landfill SWM fee for ICI sources to $53.59 per tonne. Rationale: Match the fee the City is paying to BFI.

(ii) Alternative No. 2 - Increase the landfill SWM fee for ICI sources to $53.59 per tonne, plus decrease the SWM fee for ICI sources to $65.00 per tonne at the Bermondsey and Scarborough transfer stations in order to export all additional tonnes of waste received at those transfer stations to Michigan through the use of the BFI agreement.

Rationale: The BFI agreement limits the shipment of City waste to Michigan through the use of only the Scarborough and Bermondsey transfer stations.

(iii) Alternative No. 3 - Increase the landfill SWM fee for ICI sources to $53.59 per tonne, plus decrease the SWM fee for ICI sources to $65.00 per tonne at all 7 transfer stations. All additional tonnes of waste received by the City's facilities would be disposed of at the Keele Valley landfill.

Rationale: Match the fee the City is paying to BFI by adjusting the landfill SWM fee and offset any lost revenue from the increased landfill fee by lowering the SWM fee charged at transfer stations.

(iv) Alternative No. 4 - Increase the landfill SWM fee for ICI sources to $53.59 per tonne plus decrease the SWM fee for ICI sources to $65.00 per tonne at all seven transfer stations. The equivalent of all additional tonnes of waste received by the City's facilities would be disposed of at the BFI landfill by redirecting collection vehicles carrying municipal waste away from the five transfer stations to the Bermondsey and Scarborough transfer stations without impacting collection costs.

Rationale: Do not impact the existing life expectancy of the Keele Valley landfill.

(v) Alternative No. 5 - Decrease the SWM fee for ICI sources to $65.00 per tonne at all 7 transfer stations. All additional tonnes of waste received at all seven of the City's transfer stations would be disposed of at the Keele Valley Landfill.

Rationale: Maximize the net revenue received by the City.

(vi) Alternative No. 6 - Decrease the SWM fee for ICI sources to $65.00 per tonne at all seven transfer stations. The equivalent of all additional tonnes of waste received by the City's facilities would be disposed of at the BFI landfill by redirecting, as required, collection vehicles carrying municipal waste away from the five transfer stations to the Bermondsey and Scarborough transfer stations without impacting collection costs.

Table 1 shows a summary of all the pricing alternatives considered including the financial and operational impacts that arise out of each alternative.

We are recommending the implementation of pricing alternative No. 3 for the SWM fees at landfill and transfer stations for the following reasons:

(1) The landfill SWM fee matches the price the City pays BFI to export its waste to Michigan.

(2) It has virtually no impact on the life expectancy of the Keele Valley landfill site.

(3) It creates minimal traffic impact on the streets surrounding our transfer stations as the additional 75,000 tonnes of waste materials entering our transfer station network will be spread out amongst the seven stations as opposed to going to two stations as is the case in alternative No. 2.

(4) With the exception of alternative No. 5 it results in the largest benefit to the net budget ($769,680.00).

(5) The relatively small (7 percent) increase of the landfill SWM fee will have no impact on illegal dumping within the City of Toronto. This clandestine practise might actually be lessened with the decrease of the SWM fee at our seven transfer stations which are all located within the boundaries of the City of Toronto.

In our opinion alternative No. 3 is the preferred option for generating revenue and maintaining the present level of disposal at the Keele Valley landfill site. However, if the SPP Committee would like to maximize the net annual revenue received by the City, alternative No. 5 could be considered. A negative consequence of choosing alternative No. 5 is that the life expectancy of the Keele Valley landfill is decreased by approximately 1.4 months. Should the SPP Committee wish to maximize the life of the Keele Valley landfill, alternative No. 2 could be considered. A negative consequence to choosing this alternative is that our net budget could be increased by approximately $1,760,000.00 annually since 70,000 tonnes of waste disposal is redirected from the Keele Valley site to the BFI landfill in Michigan.

We believe that our present SWM fees are competitive with the marketplace; consequently, it is difficult to predict with precision what impacts the restructuring of our SWM fees will have on the City's finances and operations, and the waste management marketplace as a whole. As a result, we have been conservative in determining the impact on our net budget. The former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto made a commitment to the Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee that six months notification of a pricing structure change would be given. Therefore, the increase in the landfill SWM fee should not be implemented until November 1, 1998, whereas the decrease in the transfer station fee could be made effective May 1, 1998 to allow the private sector to take advantage of our reduced fee immediately. During the next 12 months we will converse with the solid waste management industry on the impact the City's SWM fee changes have had on the private sector. We propose to forward a report to the WU Committee by May 1, 1999, providing all the relevant details to allow further consideration of this issue at that time.

We are also recommending that consideration be given to placing any net expenditure/revenue surplus that is generated in the disposal operations sub program in the Solid Waste Management budget for 1998, and in subsequent years, in a waste management reserve fund, with accruing interest, to finance waste diversion programs and lessen the impact of the increasingly higher cost of disposal in the future. Details for the establishment and contribution to the fund would be developed with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and a subsequent report would be sent to the Budget Committee and the SPP Committee by August 1, 1998, for its consideration.

Conclusions:

Increasing the SWM fee from $50.00 per tonne to $53.59 per tonne at the Keele Valley landfill will match the price paid by the City of Toronto to BFI Ltd. to dispose of a minimum 250,000 tonnes of waste annually in Michigan. It is anticipated that this marginal price increase, while increasing the revenue received for each tonne of ICI waste disposed at Keele Valley, will result in a diversion of private ICI paid waste away from the landfill. Decreasing the SWM fee from $70.00 per tonne to $65.00 per tonne at the transfer stations is estimated to attract an additional 75,000 tonnes of ICI waste annually to the transfer stations. The additional tonnage received at the transfer stations will be offset by the reduced ICI tonnage at the Keele Valley landfill site, however, the net financial impact will be an increase in revenue of approximately $770,000.00 annually and virtually no impact on the life expectancy of the Keele Valley landfill.

There should be no impact on illegal dumping within the City of Toronto as a result of the SWM fees restructuring. A waste management waste reserve should be implemented to fund waste diversion programs to lessen the City's dependence on disposal.

Contact Name:

Angelos Bacopoulos, P. Eng., Director - Solid Waste Management Division, Metro Hall, Phone: (416)392-8831, Fax: (416) 392-4754, E-Mail: angelos_bacopoulos@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

*L/F = Landfill **T.S. = Transfer Station

(1) compared to status quo 20,000 tonnes come from Keele Valley landfill.

(2) compared to status quo 20,000 tonnes go to City transfer stations and 50,000 tonnes go to private sector facilities.

(3) compared to status quo 50,000 tonnes come from the Keele Valley landfill and 25,000 tonnes come from new ICI customers and go to the Scarborough and Bermondsey transfer stations.

(4) compared to status quo 20,000 tonnes go to private sector facilities and 50,000 tonnes go to the Scarborough and Bermondsey transfer stations.

(5) compared to status quo an additional 75,000 tonnes go from the Scarborough and Bermondsey transfer stations to the BFI landfill.

(6) compared to status quo 50,000 tonnes come from the Keele Valley landfill and 25,000 tonnes come from new ICI customers and are spread evenly throughout the seven City transfer stations.

(7) compared to status quo 20,000 tonnes go to private sector facilities and 50,000 tonnes go to the City's seven transfer stations.

(8) compared to status quo 25,000 tonnes come from Keele Valley and 50,000 tonnes come from new ICI customers.

(9) compared to status quo 25,000 tonnes go to the City's transfer stations.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following transmittal letter (March 25, 1998) from the Works and Utilities Committee:

Recommendation:

The Works and Utilities Committee on March 25, 1998, referred the report dated March 20, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for consideration at its meeting on April 7, 1998, for submission to Council for consideration at its meeting on April 16, 1998.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a further report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on:

(1) the following motion by Councillor Shiner:

"(I) That the solid waste management fee at the Keele Valley Landfill Site be increased to $53.59 per tonne;

(ii) that the solid waste management fee at the Bermondsey and Scarborough Transfer Stations be reduced from $70.00 to $65.00 per tonne; and

(iii) that such fees become effective immediately, and be implemented initially for a six-month period, with an interim report to be submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee.";

(2) the issue of transfer station fees and the means by which the City will enforce measures to prevent illegal dumping;

(3) the status of utilization of transfer station capacities; and

(4) the capacity of the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Background:

The Works and Utilities Committee on March 25, 1998, had before it a report (March 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management respecting the solid waste management fees charged at landfill sites and transfer stations; and recommending that:

(a) the solid waste management fee at the Keele Valley Landfill Site be increased to $53.59 per tonne; and

(b) the fee change become effective six months following approval of Council.

Mr. Lenny Campitelli, President, J and F Waste Systems Inc., appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to report on increasing the current Solid Waste Management (SWM) fee at the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The City of Toronto currently charges a fee for solid waste disposal of $70.00 per tonne at transfer stations, and $50.00 per tonne at the Keele Valley Landfill Site. In 1998, the expected revenue from SAM fees is $31.3 million. If the City of Toronto marginally increases the fee at Keele Valley by $3.59 to match the Browning Ferris Industries Ltd. (BFI) fee of $53.59 per tonne, the increase in revenue resulting from the fee increase will probably be offset by a loss of revenue in the Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) customer base at Keele Valley.

It is estimated that this new fee structure will decrease net revenue for the City by $775,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(a) the solid waste management fee at the Keele Valley Landfill Site be increased to $53.59 per tonne; and

(b) the fee change become effective six months following approval of Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On March 8, 9, and 10, 1994, the Metropolitan Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Joint Report No. 2 of The Management Committee and The Works Committee establishing SAM fees of $50.00 per tonne at the landfill, and $70.00 per tonne at transfer stations.

On December 18, 1996, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 30 of The Financial Priorities Committee authorizing execution of an agreement with BFI for the haulage and disposal of solid waste from the City of Toronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto).

On February 11, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee requested the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management to report on increasing the current SAM fee at the Keele Valley Landfill to cover costs.

Discussion:

The City of Toronto currently charges ICI sources a SAM disposal fee of $50.00 per tonne for waste received at the Keele Valley Landfill and $70.00 per tonne at the seven transfer stations. The estimated allocation of waste tonnes for 1998 based on maintaining the status quo for SAM fees is shown on Sketch No. 1.

Extending Life of Keele Valley Landfill Site:

The City of Toronto has entered into an agreement with BFI for transport and disposal of waste from the City of Toronto to a private landfill in Michigan. The City pays BFI $53.59 per tonne (GST exempt) for this service. The City has entered into this agreement with BFI to reduce the waste tonnage entering the Keele Valley Landfill. This is a short-term solution to increase waste disposal capacity and to extend the life of the Keele Valley Landfill until a long-term disposal arrangement is in place. In 1997, the estimated cost for disposal of waste at the Keele Valley Landfill was approximately $16.00 per tonne, which includes operating costs, capital costs and perpetual care costs.

The rationale for entering into the BFI contract was to extend the life of the landfill by one year to allow time for our Environmental Assessment (EA) process on alternative disposal mechanisms. Therefore any change in fees should not add to the amount of material going to the Keele Valley Landfill.

It is worth noting that two other Regional Municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area with landfill sites discourage the ICI sector from using their facilities by charging high SAM fees. Peel currently charges $80.00 per tonne and Halton charges $133.00 per tonne.

A marginal fee increase at the Keele Valley Landfill to match the BFI fee of $53.59 may cause ICI waste generators to seek out lower priced private sector SAM facilities for the disposal of their waste. This may effectively offset revenues resulting from the fee increase of $3.59 per tonne. However, a diversion of any amount of waste from the Keele Valley Landfill increases the site life and hence allows additional time to select alternative disposal options. Based on this scenario, the estimated allocation of waste tonnes on an annual basis is shown on Sketch No. 2.

Increasing Revenue to the City:

The City receives revenue from the SAM fees it charges the ICI sector at its facilities. Since there are private sector alternatives, raising our rates may decrease the volume of ICI tonnage received and hence our revenue will decrease.

We estimate that reducing the SAM fees at the transfer stations will attract additional tonnage, and will compensate for the reduced revenue as a result of increasing the landfill SAM fee, thereby allowing for an overall increase in SAM fee revenue. This would result in an increase in tonnage going to the Keele Valley Landfill via the transfer stations.

The additional tonnage could be diverted from Keele Valley to Michigan through the use of the BFI contract, however, this will require considerable system adjustment since BFI only hauls from two of the seven transfer stations.

The best option for generating revenue and maintaining the present level of disposal at the Keele Valley Landfill is to combine an increase in the fee at the Keele Valley Landfill with a reduction in the fee at the transfer stations.

It is estimated that lowering the SAM fee at the transfer stations to $65.00 per tonne will attract 50,000 tonnes of ICI waste originally destined for Keele Valley and an additional 25,000 tonnes of new ICI waste. The increased ICI waste at the transfer stations will approximately offset the reduced tonnage expected at Keele Valley due to the SAM fee increase at the landfill. Under this scenario the additional 5,000 tonnes received at our facilities will be shipped to Michigan through the BFI contract. It is estimated that net revenue will increase by approximately $1.2 million on an annual basis. Based on this scenario the estimated allocation of waste tonnes on an annual basis is shown on Sketch No. 3.

In order to change our pricing structure, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto made a commitment to the Solid Waste Management Industry Consultation Committee (SWMICC) that six months notification of a pricing structure change would be given. In view of this commitment, it is recommended that the fee increase to $53.59 be made effective six months following authorization by Council.

Conclusions:

Increasing the SAM fee from $50.00 per tonne to $53.59 per tonne at the Keele Valley Landfill will match the price paid by the City of Toronto to BFI to dispose of 250,000 tonnes of waste annually to Michigan. It is anticipated that this marginal price increase, while increasing the revenue received for each tonne of ICI waste disposed at Keele Valley, will result in a diversion of private ICI paid waste and will reduce net revenue to the City by an estimated $775,000.00.

Decreasing the SAM fee from $70.00 per tonne to $65.00 per tonne at the transfer stations is estimated to attract an additional 75,000 tonnes of ICI waste to the transfer stations. The additional tonnage received at the transfer stations will be offset by the reduced ICI tonnage at the Keele Valley Landfill Site and an additional shipment of 5,000 tonnes to Michigan through the BFI contract. Therefore there will be no effect on the remaining life of the landfill.

It is estimated that by increasing the SAM fee at Keele Valley to $53.59 per tonne and lowering the SAM fees at the transfer stations to $65.00 per tonne will increase net revenue by approximately $1.2 million for the City.

Given that the rationale for entering into the BFI contract was to extend the life of the Keele Valley Landfill Site by one more year, we are reluctant to recommend any option that increases the annual tonnage to the landfill.

Contact Name:

Angelos Bacopoulos, Director - Solid Waste Management, Metro Hall, Phone: (416) 392-8831, Fax: (416)392-4754, E-Mail: angelos_bacopoulos@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca .

I am advised, not for the first time, that fees at private transfer stations have risen. However, the fees at City of Toronto transfer stations and the Keele Valley Landfill Site have not risen in recent memory.

This should be of concern for two reasons: The City's landfill will grow full faster than preferable; the City is missing out on revenues.

I would ask that staff responsible for landfill report on the rates currently charged elsewhere and make recommendations for adjustments of the City's fees. I acknowledge that, at Metro, there was an agreement with the waste hauling industry that Metro would not hike its deposit fees at short notice.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also had before it a communication dated April 6, 1998, from Mr. Arthur Potts, Municipal Affairs Consulting, which has been circulated to all Members of Council under separate cover on April 8, 1998, 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 Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter (March 27, 1998) from the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

Recommendations:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

(1) the adoption of Recommendation No. (1), embodied in the attached report (March 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services, subject to striking therefrom all the words following the words "City of Toronto"; so that such Recommendation shall read as follows:

"(1) It is recommended that Council seize this opportunity to develop its new Official Plan for the City of Toronto.";

(2) that, should the estimated funding of $250,000.00 not be provided as part of the 1998 Transition Costs, the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee demonstrating how these funds will be accommodated within the budget process;

(3) that, in addition to "capital works, height, form and density of buildings, use of land and provision of transportation services", the new Official Plan for the City of Toronto should include social and environmental goals and criteria to create a comprehensive framework for planning;

(4) that the following Council-appointed Task Forces and Committee be requested to forward to the Urban Environment and Development Committee their recommendations regarding the proposed new Official Plan and the Official Plan work plan:

- Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, and Ethno-Canadian Issues Task Force:

- Homeless Strategy Task Force;

- Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

- Environment Task Force;

- Children's Action Committee; and

- Task Force on Community Safety;

(5) that the consultation process be modified:

(a) to reflect the need to address social and environmental issues in the new Official Plan;

(b) and expanded to allow sufficient access to the public; and

(c) to give the Council-appointed Task Forces and Committee, referred to in Recommendation No. (4), above a formal role in the consultation process to focus the public input on critical social and environmental issues;

(6) that the "ambitious" one-year work plan and schedule be extended to a two-year timeframe in order to allow for more thorough analysis and public consultation;

(7) that a Task Force, comprised of Members of Council, be established to oversee Phase One of the new Official Plan development and the consultation process; and

(8) that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, having requested the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services to submit a report directly to Council on April 16, 1998, should there be any further considerations with respect to the new Official Plan for the City of Toronto.

Purpose:

To present a proposal for producing a new Official Plan for approval.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds of $250,000.00 have been requested by the Department as part of the 1998 Transition Costs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council seize this opportunity to develop its new Official Plan for the City of Toronto and adopt the work plan and schedule outlined in this report; and

(2) the Urban Environment and Development Committee endorse this report and refer it to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for consideration.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In its report, entitled "New City, New Opportunities", the Toronto Transition Team recommended that "An early priority of the Urban Environment and Development Standing Committee should be the preparation of a new Official Plan for the City for adoption during the first term of Council."

The Toronto Area Planning Commissioners, in their brief to the Transition Team, recommended that the new Council adopt a new Official Plan within its first term of office.

Why Do We Need a New Plan?

A new Council in a new City needs its own vision and blueprint for the future. This is an opportunity to begin a new city with a new and clear direction to guide city development and to set Council's priorities.

The initial benefit is for Members of Council, the community and staff to become involved together in a city-building process that will help to develop a common purpose and identity. The experience of defining a new City collectively is almost as important as the resulting product itself.

The new Official Plan will permit Council to provide consistent direction to the corporation. It will focus on goals and the policies and the means required to achieve them. It will identify features of the City which are to be enhanced, problems which need to be overcome, and the opportunities which are available.

The Toronto urban region is the pre-eminent economic engine in Canada. We compete with Boston, Montreal, Chicago, Atlanta, Barcelona, Munich and other world cities. Now Members of Council and the administration can work together to produce innovative ideas which will improve our ability to deal with problems and opportunities.

The seven existing Official Plans were adopted in a different political situation and the assumptions and policies of these plans would need to be reviewed in any case in light of the changes brought about by amalgamation. This provides the opportunity for the new City Council to provide clear and consistent policy directions. Matters of City-wide importance need to be distinguished from those of more local or community concern. A clear policy initiative needs to be determined to deal with Greater Toronto Area issues.

The New Official Plan:

The new Official Plan must identify and build on the City's strengths. It must seize the opportunities provided by a new single City administration. It must focus on the physical structure, built form, design and beauty of the City. The Plan can be a vehicle to incite civic interest and passion and to create pride in the manner in which the city develops.

The new Official Plan must be policy-driven. Policies should be meaningful and deal with the real choices and decisions that Council must make. The new policies should be relevant; they should deal with matters within the scope and power of City Council. They must be useable and facilitate Council's decision-making regarding infrastructure improvements: capital works, height, form and density of buildings, use of land and provision of transportation services.

The new Official Plan will provide the context for dealing with development applications and local plans. It will help to guide capital budget spending in accordance with the preferred vision for the new City.

The new Official Plan will complement work being undertaken by the City in a variety of disciplines. It will be guided by policy directions emanating from the Social Development Strategy and the Environmental Task Force while at the same time providing input to these projects. Collectively, these different initiatives will provide a comprehensive set of policies to guide the decisions of Council and to direct the activities of the City departments.

The Planning Process:

Existing local Official Plans are essentially composed of three parts. The first part includes policies of what the Council wishes to achieve or to avoid. The second part contains land use regulations which are cross-referenced to a multi-coloured land use map. The third part consists of a number of site specific amendments. The proposal in this report is to deal at this time only with the first part of the local Plans and with all of Metroplan.

The new Official Plan Policies will be produced in two steps.

In step one, the overall planning framework will be produced in 1998. It will deal with the structure of the City. Areas of change, stability, and redevelopment will be identified. Priorities will be determined.

Once a new set of Objectives and Policies has been adopted by Council, the second step, undertaken in early 1999, will be to incorporate those policies into the Official Plan and to repeal Metroplan and the redundant policies in the six local Official Plans.

Land use regulations and designations in the six existing local Official Plans will be reviewed later in 1999, after approval of the overall policy framework. At that time, these designations will be simplified, integrated into a common format, and made consistent with the overall planning policies.

Work Plan and Schedule:

The schedule proposed is very ambitious and is based on providing Council with the ability to adopt new policies and to set priorities by the end of this year. The actual Official Plan amendments would be passed early in 1999. Overall, the schedule responds to the challenge of producing a new Official Plan within one year.

(a) Phase 1: Background Research:

The first phase of the work, to be completed between June and August of this year, is to collect and analyze plans, information and studies already undertaken and to update these with the latest statistics available.

Review, analyze and summarize existing Official Plan policies and other Toronto planning studies, particularly those carried out for Metroplan and CityPlan'91. We need to know who we are as a city, how we got here and where we are going, i.e., the historical dynamic.

Undertake research to document, analyze and present trends affecting Toronto, particularly spatial changes within the Greater Toronto Area. This step will include employment changes, retail trends, demographic changes, redevelopment pressures and socio-economic and ethnic patterns.

Review planning documents and processes in other comparable cities. We need to know the issues, actions, programs and success stories from other jurisdictions.

Identify Toronto's strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities and create a preliminary list of built form and land use issues.

(b) Phase 2: Consultation and Input:

The second phase of the work, to be completed by September 1998, is to gain input from the public and to consult with Members of Council and senior staff to obtain a consensus on the directions for the new Plan.

Design the public input process, which may include topic-specific groups to ensure the constructive involvement of a broad range of audiences, and begin public input as soon as Council approves the work plan. The media needs to be involved, as should various organizations and institutions.

Convene a meeting in late June or early July 1998 on the theme: "What is this thing called 'Toronto' and where is it going?" This will be an off-site, all-day meeting of interested Members of Council, senior staff, retained consultants and senior provincial officials. We will review where we are and where we are going, and determine issues, goals and values. We will also identify possible policies and directions for further work.

After the June (or July) meeting, we will consolidate the results of the meeting, the input from the public, and the review of other cities' successes and approaches. There will be a preliminary determination of the desirable city structure and the relationship between land uses and infrastructure requirements. This will include a review of the need for land for future employment purposes and possible strategies for dealing with vacant, obsolete industrial areas.

(c) Phase 3: Preparation of a Planning Framework:

The third phase is to produce the Planning Framework for the Official Plan for adoption by Council before the end of 1998.

The theme of a September, 1998 meeting will be "A draft framework for Toronto's planning policies". This will be an off-site, all-day meeting of those present at the June 1998 meeting plus, where appropriate, representatives of other cities or agencies to present alternate solutions. There will be a review of the draft policies and the planning framework and a discussion regarding the production of the public document.

A report, entitled "A Planning Framework for Toronto's Official Plan", will be sent to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998, for public comment.

A revised and final report will be sent to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, and to Council in December, 1998 for approval as Council's Policies related to the built form of the City.

(d) Phase 4: From a Planning Framework to an Official Plan--1999:

The final phase of producing a policy-driven Official Plan will be to undertake the public hearing process required by the Planning Act and to incorporate Council's policy directions as part of the City of Toronto's Official Plan.

Prepare specific amendments necessary to repeal Metroplan and to remove contrary and redundant policies from existing Official Plans. This will be undertaken in conjunction with the adoption of the new planning framework.

Public presentations of the proposed Official Plan policies will be made to Community Councils and public interest groups.

Notice will be given of the statutory public meeting to incorporate the Planning Framework as the City's Overall Planning Policies in the Official Plan. Public hearings will be held in April or May 1999 by the Urban Environment and Development Committee prior to consideration of the Official Plan by City Council.

Staffing Expenses:

The proposed work plan can be carried out with existing staff resources. A number of work plan items, previously approved by the pre-amalgamation Councils, can be incorporated into this Official Plan Review. Other items can be deferred until after the new Official Plan is approved.

Expenses associated with this work plan relate to such matters as undertaking outside studies, inviting external experts and representatives of other North American cities to Toronto, advertising and running a number of information sessions, and preparing and printing proposals and final reports.

Conclusions:

A common planning framework for making decisions concerning the built form of the City can and should be undertaken in 1998. Once completed as Council's vision for the future, the planning framework can be incorporated into the Official Plan early in 1999. Conflicting and redundant policies in the six local Official Plans and all of Metroplan can then be repealed at that time.

Contact Name:

Mr. Kenneth Whitwell, York Civic Services Office, 394-2610; fax: 394-2782.

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Municipal Grants Review Committee embodied in the transmittal letter (March 31, 1998) from the Municipal Grants Review Committee:

Recommendation:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on March 31, 1998, during discussion of its mandate, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, that its quorum be reduced from five members to four members, in the interest of pursuing the work of the Committee, and having regard to the concerns expressed by members with respect to the conflicting number of meetings that they are expected to attend.

(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. 19 of Report No. 4A of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.)

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter (April 1, 1998) from the Budget Committee:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on March 31, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, wherein it is recommended that the report (March 2, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be adopted.

Background:

The Budget Committee on March 31, 1998, had before it a letter of transmittal (March 24, 1998) from the Urban Environment and Development Committee advising that the Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998 recommended the adoption of the report (March 2, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding Contract No. T-23-98 for the resurfacing of roads at four locations in the City of Toronto.

Recommendations:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998, recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:

(1) the adoption of the report dated March 2, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding Contract No. T-23-98 for the resurfacing of City of Toronto roads at four locations; and

(2) that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the joint communication (March 20, 1998) from Mrs. Helen Hansen and Mrs. Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee, and the newspaper articles filed by Mrs. Hansen, to the Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee of the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee for consideration.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a report (March 2, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that:

(1) Contract No. T-23-98, for the resurfacing of City of Toronto roads at four locations, be awarded to D. Crupi and Sons Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,892,366.33;

(2) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(3) in the event that the 1998-2002 Capital Works Program is not approved by Council at its April 15, 1998 meeting, pre-budget and project financing approval in the amount of $3,227,366.33 be granted for this project in order that the project may commence in late April, 1998.

The Committee also had before it a joint communication (March 20, 1998) from Mrs. Helen Hansen and Mrs. Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee, urging, with respect to items of resurfacing of roads, new traffic control signals and other road changes, that full consideration be given to the safety of pedestrians and other non-motorized road users.

Mrs. Helen Hansen, Toronto Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Purpose:

To award a contract for the resurfacing of Toronto roads at four locations.

Funding Source:

The Department's proposed 1998-2002 Capital Works Program includes an amount of $6,523,000.00 under Project No. C-TR496, Road Resurfacing. Contract No. T-23-98 forms part of that program, and the estimated total project cost, including other costs, is $3,227,366.33, which consists of:

(1) Bid Price Amount $2,892,366.33

(2) Other Costs (estimate): 335,000.00

(a) quality control testing

(b) traffic signage and pavement markings

(c) bicycle proof catch basin frames and covers

____________

Total Project Cost $3,227,366.33

The Capital Budget for the City of Toronto, which includes this project, is scheduled to be approved by Council at its meeting on April 15, 1998. Funding will be available in Capital Account No. C-TR496, Road Resurfacing, with concurrent approval of the 1998 Capital Budget and project financing by City Council.

The Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Contract No. T-23-98, for the resurfacing of City of Toronto roads at four locations, be awarded to D. Crupi and Sons Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,892,366.33;

(2) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(3) in the event that the 1998-2002 Capital Works Program is not approved by Council at its April 15, 1998 meeting, pre-budget and project financing approval in the amount of $3,227,366.33 be granted for this project in order that this project may commence in late April, 1998.

Comments:

On February 26, 1998, the City Clerk's Department opened tenders for:

Contract No.T-23-98 Resurfacing of City of Toronto Roads at Four Locations

Number Name $ Amount

2 D. Crupi and Sons Limited $2,892,366.33

5 Gazzola Paving Limited 2,915,395.30

4 Pave-Al Limited and Orlando Corporation 2,961,253.19

7 Warren Bitulithic Limited 2,987,584,39

1 Fermar Paving Limited, Fermar Asphalt Ltd., 3,003,165.93

Fermar Crushing and Recycling Ltd.

6 Sentinel Paving and Construction Ltd. 3,294,279.30

3 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 3,342,724.87

8 Graham Bros. Construction Ltd. 3,377,623.96

The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors, and also from the Treasurer regarding the surety company which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.

Scope of Work:

This contract includes crack repairs, scarifying, grinding, concrete repairs, catch basins, and asphalt overlay on the following roads:

(1) Eglinton Avenue--Black Creek Drive to Weston Road;

(2) O'Connor Drive--Woodbine Avenue to Sandra Road;

(3) Rexdale Boulevard--460 metres west of Highway No. 27 to 320 metres west of Humberwood Boulevard; and

(4) W. R. Allen Road--Sheppard Avenue to Overbrook Place.

Conclusion:

Contract No. T-23-98 should be awarded to D. Crupi and Sons Limited who submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. R. Burlie, P. Eng., Manager of Resurfacing, Construction Branch, Metro Hall Office, 392-8322.

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter (April 1, 1998) from the Budget Committee:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on March 31, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, wherein it is recommended that the report (February 23, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be adopted.

Background:

The Budget Committee on March 31, 1998, had before it a letter of transmittal (March 24, 1998) from the Urban Environment and Development Committee advising that the Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998 recommended the adoption of the report (February 23, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding the replacement of lighting on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway, from the Humber River to the Don Valley Parkway.

(Letter of Transmittal dated March 24, 1998 addressed to the

Budget Committee from

Urban Environment and Development Committee)

Recommendations:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998, recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:

(1) the adoption of the attached report dated February 23, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding the replacement of lighting on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway, from the Humber River to the Don Valley Parkway; and

(2) that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998.

Purpose:

To obtain Council authority to carry out the staged replacement of the existing lighting systems on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway, from the Humber Bridges to the Don Valley Parkway (DVP).

Funding Sources:

The Department's proposed 1998-2002 Capital Works Program includes an amount of $65.82 million under Project No. C-TR180, F. G. Gardiner Expressway, Parkway to Humber. The replacement of the Gardiner Expressway lighting forms part of that program and the estimated total project cost is $9.0 million, of which $2.5 million is anticipated to be spent in 1998. Funding is currently available in Capital Account No. C-TR180, and the Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that, subject to the approval of the 1998-2002 Capital Works Program, authority be granted to undertake the replacement of the lighting systems on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway, from the Humber Bridges to the Don Valley Parkway, at an estimated cost of $9.0 million.

Background:

The F. G. Gardiner Expressway (FGGE) is the last Expressway link in the original Metropolitan Toronto Roads System which has not undergone a replacement of its lighting systems. Many elements of the existing lighting systems on the FGGE date from the original installations carried out in the 1960s. They, therefore, predate the lighting systems on the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) and the Allen Road, both of which have already been replaced or are in the process of being replaced. For reasons identified in this report, it is now necessary to replace the FGGE lighting systems.

The lighting systems on the FGGE service two different physical configurations. These are the "at-grade" section from the Humber River to east of Dufferin Street and the elevated, structural section from east of Dufferin Street to the proposed new termination of the Expressway approximately 200 metres east of the DVP.

In the at-grade section of the Expressway, the existing (original) system comprises conventional lighting poles located within the raised, curbed median of the Expressway between steel beam guide rails mounted on timber posts. These poles carry extended support arms and luminaries which illuminate the two directions of travel. The system in this section requires replacement for two reasons. The first is because of widespread deterioration of the underground wiring circuits. The second is the need to reconfigure the Expressway median to current highway geometric and safety standards concurrently with the resurfacing of this section of the Expressway, which is scheduled for 1999. The existing raised median configuration, with curbs and steel beam guide rails, will be replaced by New Jersey type concrete traffic safety barriers which will match the median type on the elevated portion of the Expressway. This redesign of the median will require the relocation of light poles from the median to new locations outside of the Expressway pavement. The new lighting system must be constructed and in operation prior to removal of the old lighting system.

The existing wiring feeding the at-grade section is in very poor condition. Most of the approximately 250 fixtures are still fed by the original direct buried wiring, which is rapidly deteriorating. In recent years, the maintenance contractor has been required to repair approximately 14 faults annually related to underground circuit burndowns. Because these faults can be repaired only during Expressway closures for other purposes, there have sometimes been extended periods during which some lights were not working. These repairs have become more frequent and would soon oblige us to replace the entire power feed circuits, even without the scheduled roadway resurfacing and median reconfiguration.

On the elevated section of the FGGE, east of Dufferin Street, most of the existing fixtures are still equipped with the original luminaries and replacement parts are no longer available. As a result, the entire lighting fixture must be replaced whenever there is a failure at a cost of $400.00 plus installation costs, lane closure costs and public inconvenience. In 1996 and 1997 there were approximately 100 failures of this type.

Considered separately, the existing power circuit feeds in the elevated section of the Expressway are relatively new and are not causing undue maintenance difficulties. Nevertheless, there are serious problems with the lighting systems in this section as follows:

(1) the old poles are in various stages of deterioration due to their age;

(2) the system is still fed by Toronto Hydro under the old, inefficient 120-volt distribution network;

(3) the system does not have the benefit of the available technology, hardware and shielded luminaries used in modern, effective and safe highway lighting systems; and

(4) the problems of failing and obsolete original luminaries in this section cannot be satisfactorily resolved by simply continuing to replace them with newer type heads, either one by one as they fail, or in one concentrated operation during a scheduled maintenance closure of the Expressway. The replacement lighting heads we have had to use to fit the old fixtures are different from the modern luminaire type that we are using elsewhere on our expressways and intend to use on the at-grade section of the FGGE. They do not incorporate the effective shielding features that prevent excess light spillage. They could not be transferred and refitted to the new type of pole we are bringing into service without added difficulty and extra cost of fabricating non-standard or custom hardware and fittings. This would also result in an inconsistent, ill-matched appearance and complicate future maintenance.

Discussion:

In 1996, the former Metro Transportation Department issued a Request for Proposals from consultants to conduct an Environmental Assessment Study for Replacement of the Gardiner Expressway Lighting. Six proposals were received and competitively evaluated. As a result, the firm of Fenco MacLaren Inc., Consulting Engineers, was engaged to carry out the assignment.

The F. G. Gardiner Expressway Lighting Replacement Environmental Assessment Study, as a safety-related improvement, was carried out in accordance with the requirements of Schedule "B" of The Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects (the Class EA). The Class EA describes a planning and public consultation process, which was approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) in June 1993. In due course, the Environmental Study Report is filed on the public record for 30 days according to the requirements of the Class EA. During this period, affected municipalities, members of the public, interest groups or government agencies may request that the status of the project be changed or "bumped-up" from a Class EA to an Individual Environmental Assessment. The Minister of the Environment and Energy determines whether or not to grant a bump-up request. If the bump-up is granted, the project may not proceed until an Individual Environmental Assessment is prepared by the proponent and approved by the Minister. If the bump-up is not granted, or if no objections or bump-up requests are received during the 30-day filing period, the project is automatically approved under the Environmental Assessment Act and may proceed.

The F. G. Gardiner Expressway Lighting Replacement EA Final Report was completed in early summer 1997, and, on July 19, 1997, was placed on the public record for the required 30-day review period. During this period, the Minister of the Environment and Energy received one request for a bump-up and this request was denied. As a result, this project may now proceed subject to Council approval.

The Study recommends that the new system for the at-grade section of the Expressway (except where insufficient space is available within the property corridor, as noted below), should consist of high mast poles with shielded luminaries, similar to the system in place on sections of the Don Valley Parkway. In this system, one high mast pole can replace from eight to ten conventional poles. The shielding of the luminaries effectively prevents spillage of lighting beyond limits that can be precisely adjusted and controlled. The high mast poles will be off the roadway in open space just to the south of the Expressway and will be able to light the entire Expressway from the south side. This location will also greatly simplify both the new construction and future maintenance of the high mast poles since both will be able to occur without interfering with traffic flows. In two stretches of the at-grade section, there is insufficient space within the corridor for high mast poles. These are from west of Ellis Avenue to the Humber Bridges and for approximately 350 metres west from the Jameson Avenue/Dunn Avenue Interchange. In these two areas, conventional poles will be installed on both sides of the roadway.

It is intended to proceed with Phase 1 of this project in 1998, which includes:

(a) twenty conventional poles from Windermere Avenue to Ellis Avenue;

(b) fifteen high mast poles from Ellis Avenue to approximately 350 metres west of Dowling Avenue;

(c) a group of 36 conventional poles located on both sides of the roadway from 350 metres west of Dowling Avenue to the west side of the interchange at Jameson Avenue/Dunn Avenue; and

(d) five more high mast poles at the interchange at Jameson Avenue/Dunn Avenue which will replace nearly 50 conventional poles on the FGGE and its interchange ramps at that location.

The substantial reduction in the number of poles achieved by using high mast poles will greatly reduce visual clutter and lighting maintenance operations on the Expressway around the Humber Bay. The 20 high mast poles proposed will do the work of almost 200 conventional poles that would otherwise be needed. In addition, landscaping measures have been identified to introduce plant materials around the installations to reduce their visual impact on other space users at ground level.

The design for the stretch west of Windermere Avenue to the Humber Bridges will be included in contracts of the Humber Bridges Project scheduled for implementation in 1998 and 1999.

On the elevated section of the FGGE, from east of Dufferin Street to the future termination of the Expressway east of the DVP, it is not possible to use high mast poles due to both insufficient corridor property and physical/structural constraints. Instead, the new lighting system in the elevated section will use new conventional poles mounted on the elevated structure in a similar way to the original system. The new poles and shielded heads will match those being used elsewhere on the Expressway network. Contracts for this work will be tendered in 1999 to 2000.

Conclusions:

The lighting systems on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway must be replaced, principally as a result of general deterioration and obsolescence.

The proposed upgrades to the lighting system on the FGGE are intended to achieve the same objectives pursued in similar work carried out earlier on the Don Valley Parkway and the Allen Road. These are:

(1) replacement of obsolete and deteriorated installations requiring excessive repairs and maintenance;

(2) standardization of lighting systems and hardware throughout the Expressway network for ease and economy of operation and maintenance, and assured availability and interchangeability of parts;

(3) standardization of power supply, throughout the amalgamated municipal hydro system, at a 347-600 volt, three-phase distribution network for economical, efficient, uniform and reliable service;

(4) standardization of lighting type to high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps for effective, economical illumination and proven performance;

(5) incorporation of state-of-the-art technology in providing effective, safe, and economical illumination of the Expressways with effective shielding to prevent light spillage into adjacent areas;

(6) the ability to carry out installation and maintenance of high mast poles without disrupting traffic; and

(7) reduced visual clutter along the Expressway and reduction of visual impacts of the installations at ground level by the use of strategically-placed plantings.

The study and preferred scheme should be approved and the construction of the project should be authorized.

Contact Name:

Mr. Barry I. Craig, P. Eng., Manager of Roads, Construction Branch, Metro Hall Office, 392-8312.

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter (April 1, 1998) from the Budget Committee:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on March 31, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, that the request from the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts to withdraw funds in the amount of $52,000.00 from the Centre's Capital Improvement Fund be approved.

Background:

The Budget Committee on March 31, 1998, had before it a communication (March 12, 1998) from Mr. David G. Wallett, General Manager, St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts requesting the withdrawal of funds in the amount of $52,000.00 from the Centre's own Capital Improvement Fund.

Mr. David G. Wallett, General Manager, St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Prior to 1995, the St. Lawrence Centre's operating budget carried a line item for Property and Technical Improvements. For fiscal 1995, and succeeding years, the Budget Review Committee ruled that purchases and expenses that had come under that line item should more properly be drawn from the Centre's own Capital Improvement Fund. Accordingly, we would like to request that the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts be allowed to withdraw up to Fifty-Two thousand Dollars ($52,000) from the Capital Improvement Fund in fiscal 1998 for items in this category.

The use of these funds will be for the following express purposes:

(1) an amount of up to $7,300.00 to replace the programme sound system in the Jane Mallett Theatre;

(2) an amount of up to $1,000.00 to renovate the Jane Mallett Theatre control booth;

(3) an amount of up to $6,500.00 to replace Stage Lighting fixtures in the Jane Mallett Theatre;

(4) an amount of up to $2,000.00 to replace the Closed Circuit T.V. monitoring system;

(5) an amount of up to $2,500.00 to acquire a remote control for Bluma Appel Theatre lighting;

(6) an amount of up to $3,600.00 to replace one pair of black velour stage curtains;

(7) an amount of up to $2,000.00 to acquire air tools for scenery fit-ups;

(8) an amount of up to $6,000.00 to replace Front of House staff uniforms;

(9) an amount of up to $1,500.00 to replace carpeting in the accounting offices;

(10) an amount of up to $2,600.00 to acquire additional equipment for the hard of hearing system;

(11) an amount of up to $6,000.00 to upgrade LAN (Local Area Network); and

(12) an amount of up to $11,000.00 to acquire a wireless communication system.

The accumulated balance of the Capital Improvement Fund as of December 31, 1997, is $1,312,908, a net increase of $168,983.00 over the past twelve months.

Thank you for your attention.

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following transmittal letter (April 1, 1998) from the Budget Committee:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on March 31, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, wherein it is recommended that the report (March 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be adopted.

Background:

The Budget Committee on March 31, 1998, had before it a letter of transmittal (March 24, 1998) from the Urban Environment and Development Committee advising that the Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998 recommended the adoption of the report (March 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding Contract No. T-20-98 for structural rehabilitation of the Don Valley Parkway Bridge over the Bloor Street Ramp.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998, recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:

(1) the adoption of the attached report dated March 3, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding Contract No. T-20-98 for structural rehabilitation of the Don Valley Parkway Bridge over the Bloor Street Ramp; and

(2) that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998.

from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.)

Purpose:

(1) to award a contract for the rehabilitation of the bridge on the Don Valley Parkway over the Bloor Street ramp; and

(2) to lower the speed limit on the expressway in the work zone area during construction.

Funding Source:

The Department's proposed 1998-2002 Capital Works Program includes an amount of $5,800,000.00 under Project No. C-TRO29, Don Valley Parkway Rehabilitation. Contract No. T-20-98 forms part of that program, and the estimated total project cost, including design, supervision and other costs, is $2,360,732.82, which consists of:

(1) Bid Price Amount $2,051,752.82

(2) (a) Design 64,800.00

(b) Construction supervision, 27 weeks at $5,340.00 per week (estimate) 144,180.00

(3) Other Costs (estimate): 100,000.00

(a) quality control testing

(b) traffic signage

(c) expressway closures

(d) materials supplied by Transportation ____________

Total Project Cost $2,360,732.82

The Capital Budget for the City of Toronto, which includes this project, is scheduled to be approved by Council at its meeting on April 15, 1998. Funding is currently available in Capital Account No. C-TR029, Don Valley Parkway Rehabilitation. The Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Contract No. T-20-98, for the rehabilitation of the bridge on the Don Valley Parkway over the Bloor Street Ramp, be awarded to Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,051,752.82;

(2) commencing the first day of construction on the Don Valley Parkway (expected to be May 1, 1998) and terminating on the last day of construction (expected to be September 29, 1998), the speed limit be lowered to 60 kilometres per hour at the following locations:

(a) northbound Don Valley Parkway, from a point 400 metres south of the bridge over the Bloor Street ramp to a point 550 metres north of the bridge; and

(b) southbound Don Valley Parkway, from a point 1600 metres north of the bridge over the Bloor Street ramp to a point 450 metres south of the bridge;

(3) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly;

(4) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(5) in the event that the 1998-2002 Capital Works Program is not approved by Council at its April 15, 1998 meeting, pre-budget approval in the amount of $2,360,732.82 be granted for this project in order that this project may commence in May;

Comments:

On January 22, 1998, the City Clerk's Department opened tenders for:

Contract No. T-20-98 - Don Valley Parkway Bridge over the Bloor Street Ramp Structure Rehabilitation

Number Name $ Amount

3 Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. $2,051,752.82

5 Dufferin Construction Co. $2,171,387.81

6 Bridgecon Construction Ltd. $2,183,332.26

2 Belor Construction Ltd. $2,200,273.10

4 Soncin Construction Corporation $2,286,039.58

1 G. Tari Limited $2,330,035.96

7 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. $2,473,570.36

8 Armbro Construction Ltd. $2,484,173.40

9 Underground Services Ltd. $2,966,029.30

Tenders Nos. 2 and 8 contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The revised figures are shown above. Tender No. 6 submitted by Bridgecon Construction Ltd. is considered to be informal since they did not include a price for one of the items in Schedule A of the Form of Tender.

The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors, and also from the Chief Financial Officer regarding the surety company which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.

Scope of Work:

The rehabilitation work involves the complete replacement of the concrete bridge deck and the repair of the substructure.

It is anticipated that the construction activities on this project will extend from May 1, 1998 to September 29, 1998. During this period, there will be lane restrictions within this section of the Don Valley Parkway. As a result, a lowering of the speed limit to 60 kilometres per hour is recommended to maintain a safe work zone during the construction period.

Conclusion:

Contract No. T-20-98 should be awarded to Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. L. Rach, Toronto Transportation, Metro Hall Office, 392-5344.

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends that prior approval be granted for funds in the amount of $10,000.00 to be allocated from the Parks Levy funding received in 1997 to match funds being provided by the Toronto Catholic School Board and members of the local community for improvement to St. Clare School yard.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following transmittal letter (April 3, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council:

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council requests the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee to give consideration to the following recommendation from the Toronto Community Council, and to forward its recommendation to City Council for its meeting to be held on April 15, 1998:

"That prior approval be granted for funds in the amount of $10,000.00 to be allocated from the Parks Levy funding received in 1997 to match funds being provided by the Toronto Catholic School Board and members of the local community for improvements to the St. Clare School yard."

Background:

The Toronto Community Council on April 2, 1998 had before it a communication (April 2, 1998) from Councillor Disero, respecting Use of Parks Levy Funding for St. Clare School.

City Council authorized the use of Parks Levy funds for local improvements in 1997. Subsequently, the Board of Management authorized the expenditure of these funds on a number of projects in the ward and work is proceeding on them.

The Toronto Catholic School Board is prepared to provide $10,000.00 to the improvement of the grounds/parkette at St. Clare School, 124 Northcliffe Boulevard.

This money would be contingent upon the City providing matching funds for a total budget of $20,000.00. I am proposing to use available parks levy funds for this $10,000.00, as the Board wishes to begin work on this site later this month.

Recommendation:

That funds in the amount of $10,000.00 be allocated from the Parks Levy funding received in 1997 to match funds being provided by the Toronto Catholic School Board and members of the local community for improvements to the St. Clare School yard.

(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. 25 of Report No. 4A of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.)

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation embodied in the following transmittal letter (April 6, 1998) from the Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:

Recommendation:

On behalf of the members of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force who were present on April 6, 1998, I am forwarding the following recommendation to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for consideration:

That the Province of Ontario be requested to change the legislation for public hospitals, universities and colleges, and correctional institutions so that these properties pay their fair share of Municipal Property Tax according to their assessed value, and that the Province also be requested to provide the necessary funding to these institutions.

Background:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, having regard for the fact that no quorum was present at the specified time and in view of the fact that notice had been placed in the newspaper that a public hearing would be held on the Property Assessment and Tax Policy System recently implemented by the Provincial Government, heard presentations from the public on this matter and continued to meet informally and to discuss this and other matters.

The members of the Assessment and Task Policy Task Force who were present had before them a report (April 2, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer providing information regarding the 1997 levy for public hospitals, universities and colleges and correctional institutions in the City of Toronto. The grants received by municipalities are not based on property assessment and tax rates but rather a flat rate of $75.00 per rated capacity as specified in the Municipal Act.

As Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, I am forwarding the abovementioned recommendation to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for consideration.

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is provide the Task Force with information regarding the 1997 levy for public hospitals, universities and colleges and correctional institutions in the City of Toronto. The grants received by municipalities are not based on property assessment and tax rates but rather a flat rate of $75.00 per rated capacity as specified in the Municipal Act.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments:

Public hospitals, university and colleges and correctional institutions in Ontario are exempt from paying property tax. However, Section 157 of the Municipal Act allows municipalities to annually levy up to a maximum of $75.00 for each provincially rated hospital bed (public hospitals); $75.00 for each full time student (universities and colleges); and, $75.00 for each resident place (correctional institutions). The capacity figures for these institutions which are used by municipalities for this levy are determined by the Province and forwarded to municipalities by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The grants are paid by the Provincial Government.

The total 1997 levy for these institutions in each of the former municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto was as follow:

The provisions in the Municipal Act for the levy have not been changed for 1998. As a result, the Province will continue to pay a grant to municipalities for these types of institutions based on $75.00 per rated capacity.

Staff have completed a preliminary review of the new CVA assessments but have not been able to confirm whether the data provides a complete list all of these types of properties. However, the CVA for properties identified totals $3.7 billion. The application of the 1998 preliminary residential tax rate of for municipal share only (0.78 percent of the total 1.24 percent) results in a total tax of $29 million. Since the Province does not pay grants for the education costs, that portion of the rate is excluded. As grants for these properties have never been based on their assessed values, it may be necessary to confirm the validity of the CVA figures with Ministry of Finance staff.

Since Section 157 of the Municipal Act specifically excludes grants being based on tax rates, the amount to be derived from hospitals, colleges and correctional institutions will continue to be based on the $75.00 flat levy unless legislation is amended.

This report is for information.

Contact Name:

Paul Wealleans, Phone: 392-6955, Fax: 392-0364.

(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. 27 of Report No. 4A of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.)