TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on May 13 and 14, 1998

CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 5

1 Metro Toronto Housing Authority Assessment Appeals - Proposed Settlement

2 Re-Employment Policy for Former Members of Council and Former Staff of Members of Council

3 Remuneration for Toronto Hydro-Electric Commissioners

4 Provision of Food Services at Metro Hall

5 1998-1999 Property Insurance Program

6 Sale of Surplus Property at182 Clonmore Drive, City of Toronto(Formerly City of Scarborough) (Scarborough Bluffs - Ward 13)

7 Sale of 548 Front Street West and 10 Portland Street (Municipal Carpark 96)

8 Sale of Density from 29 Lorraine Drive to 15-27 Lorraine Drive, File No. 98 (North York Centre - Ward 10)

9 Acquisition of CN Lands East of Main (Trent and Luttrell Avenues) (East Toronto - Ward 26)

10 Expropriation of Property Interests,Sheppard Subway Project,Don Mills Station

11 Expropriation of Property Interest - Sheppard Subway Helen Phillips, 4822 Yonge Street, North York

12 Surplus Subway Land - Block 81 Northeast Corner of Bloor Street Westand Dufferin Street, 1011 Dufferin Street (Davenport - Ward 21)

13 Sunshine Centres for Seniors - 60 Lakeshore Avenue Toronto Islands Licence Agreement - 1998 Season (Downtown - Ward 24)

14 146 Crescent Road - Rosedale-Moore ParkAssociation, Extension to Lease (Midtown - Ward 23)

15 Worksite Lease AgreementSheppard Avenue Subway - Bayview Station Owner: Vincenzo and Vincet Picano577 Sheppard Avenue East (North York Centre South - Ward 9)

16 Tender for Diesel Fuel for the Period June 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998

17 Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 5

OF THE CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on April 27, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Dick O'Brien, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on May 13 and 14, 1998

1

Metro Toronto Housing Authority

Assessment Appeals - Proposed Settlement

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April14, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; and, further, that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to develop a strategy for municipal service reductions and/or user fee increases on selected provincially-owned properties other than residential, in the City of Toronto, to recover the equivalent of the property tax revenues lost from the provincial under-funding :

Purpose:

This report is to recommend to Council a position with respect to a proposed settlement of assessment appeals for a number of Metropolitan Toronto Housing Association (MTHA) units across the City. MTHA operates the units on behalf of the Ontario Housing Corporation (OHC) which owns the units.

Source of Funds:

If the Provincial settlement is accepted on account of deficient payments-in-lieu for 1991-1997, the City would be writing off $6.14 million, with no charge back to, or refund from the School Boards for their share of $3.46 million.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council reject the proposed MTHA settlement from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the basis that the Province of Ontario should pay its fair share of taxes for MTHA properties for 1991-1997;

(2)Council request the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to make full payment for MTHA payments-in-lieu outstanding for the years 1991-1997, based on the assessments confirmed by the Ontario Municipal Board; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Metro Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) is a division of the Ontario Housing Corporation which is an agency of the Province of Ontario. As a crown agency, the MTHA does not pay realty taxes on its properties, but makes payments-in-lieu of full residential taxes under the provisions of the Housing Development Act. The Province of Ontario, while not required to pay full residential taxes, had as a practice, paid its fair share through a pyament-in-lieu of taxes on all owned properties, save and except for MTHA properties for 1991-1997.

Comments:

The MTHA filed appeals in 1991 and subsequent taxation years against the assessment of its properties in Metropolitan Toronto. In 1995, the MTHA attempted to withdraw the appeals on some of its properties which, upon further investigation, were found to be under-assessed and would have actually resulted in assessment increases had they proceeded at the Assessment Review Board (ARB).

The Area Municipalities, together with the Metro Toronto School Board, filed a motion with the ARB, opposing the appeal withdrawals by the MTHA. The ARB held that the MTHA did not have a unilateral right of withdrawal and the appeals could not be withdrawn. In October 1997, counsel for the Regional Assessment Commissioners, the Metro Toronto School Board and the MTHA agreed at the OMB to the withdrawal of all the MTHA appeals. The assessments of all properties were fixed by the OMB in the amounts returned on the rolls for the tax years under appeal and the appeals of the former municipalities were dismissed.

MTHA makes payments-in-lieu of taxes under the provisions of the Housing Development Act. The Act is permissive in that it states that the Province "may agree to pay annually ... a sum of money calculated on any basis whatsoever but not in excess of the amount that in the opinion of the Minister of Revenue would have been payable to the municipality as taxes."

Since 1991, the MTHA has withheld portions of its payments-in-lieu (PILs) to Metro Area Municipalities for the tax years involved in the assessment appeals, based on an arbitrary 10percent reduction in amounts somewhat related to assessment values. The former area municipalities treated the PILs shortfall slightly differently but essentially the amount of PILs withheld was either accrued or written-off. The School Boards continued to receive their full, unreduced share of PILs, except in the cities of York and North York. York treated the school share as an allowance deficiency and included the school share in its annual allowance figures. North York reduced the shares to be paid to the School Boards annually.

In mid-January 1998, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued separate cheques payable to each of the former Area Municipalities. The cheques represent the School Board portion of MTHA PILs (with the exception of North York), based on a settlement reached between the Ministry of Finance and the MTHA. The settlement, to which no Area Municipality was party to, is not based on assessment reductions as the assessments were confirmed at the original level by the OMB.

In his letter which accompanied the cheques, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing stated that by accepting and negotiating the cheques, the municipality would be agreeing that it had been paid in full in respect of the "reduced" PILs made by the MTHA and OHC for the taxation years 1991 to 1997. Accordingly, the municipality would also be agreeing that it would make no charge backs to the School Boards, nor request a refund, in respect of these PILs for their share. The former City of North York has deposited its cheque from the Ministry but has subsequently written to the Minister informing him that although the funds were deposited, that action did not constitute acceptance of the Minister's offer of settlement.

Schedule 1 sets out the amount of MTHA PILs in each of the former municipalities that is currently in dispute and the amount of PILs offered as a settlement in January. The total amount in dispute for all the former Area Municipalities is $16.5 million and the amount offered by MTHA as a settlement in January was $9.15 million. It appears that the intent of the settlement amount is to reimburse the former municipalities for the full share of School Board MTHA PILs already paid by them to the School Boards. From 1991 to 1997, the School Boards had use of these revenues, while the former municipalities had to absorb the total reduction PILs revenue pending resolution of the dispute.

From 1991 to 1997, although MTHA was not paying the full amount of PILs, the Area Municipalities (with the exception of York and North York) paid over to the School Boards their full share of PILs. York treated the PILs withheld as tax allowance deficiences and charged back $622,000.00 to the School Boards. North York reduced the PILs paid annually to the School Boards for the years 1991-1996, but paid the School Boards their full share of the 1997 PILs. If Council agrees to the terms set out in the Assistant Deputy Minister's letter, the new City of Toronto would have to reimburse the School Boards the $622,000.00 previously withheld by York and the $313,324.00 previously withheld by North York. In total, the City would have to reimburse the School Board $935,324.00 as part of the settlement, so the net amount that would be retained by the City is $8.22million. As noted in Schedule 1, if the Province intended to make full reimbursement for the School Board share, the settlement amount should have been $10.09 million.

The cheques in hand would offset monies already paid to the School Boards (with the exception of York and North York), but PILs of $6.41 million that should have been paid by the Province to the Metro and the old local municipalities are still left unpaid. If Council agrees to the settlement, the City would have to absorb both the Metro and old local municipal shares of the MTHA PILs for the tax years 1991 to 1997. The former municipalty of North York wrote off the outstanding PILs annually. However, the former municipalities of East York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, Toronto and York accrued the outstanding MTHA PILs. As a result, the outstanding accrued amounts, totalling $6.14million, would be required to be written-off.

The proposed settlement will result in the City absorbing the total loss in revenue of $6.41 million. It is equivalent to a 37percent decrease in assessment, without the benefit of being able to recover the revenue from the School Boards. Under normal circumstances, the former municipalities would be able to charge back approximately 54percent of the revenue lost to the School Boards, or $3.46million.

The new CVA figures for these properties for the 1998 tax year reflect a decrease of only $2,258,986.00 or 3.89percent decrease from full PILs of $58,142,757.00. As part of the provincial downloading, social housing costs (i.e., MTHA) will be borne by municipalities and shared across the GTA, so the decrease in assessment values due to reassessment would result in overall lower taxes for these properties across the GTA.

It should be noted that the legislation under which the MTHA makes payments-in-lieu is permissive. The legislation states that the MTHA "may" make payments, and may calculate the amounts to be paid on whatever basis it wishes. Council may therefore wish to accept the MTHA settlement since refusal of the settlement does not guarantee that the Province will make full payment of the outstanding MTHA PILs. However, in principle, the only situation where Council should accept a PILs payment that is lower than that levied by the municipality is where the property has received an assessment reduction. As noted above, this is not the case with the MTHA properties.

The fundamental issue at stake is one of fairness. Although the payment of PILs by the Province is permissive, taxpayers should not have to subsidize Provincially-owned properties and the Province should pay their fair share for municipal services. Should the Province refuse to pay their fair share based on the confirmed assessments, Council may wish to raise the issue with respect to the subsidization of MTHA properties by all taxpayers of the City of Toronto as it sets a precedent for other PILs activities. Other properties that are liable to pay PILs, such as Ontario Hydro, the Federal Government and Crown Corporations, may in turn consider the arbitrary and unilateral withholding of PILs as Ontario Housing Corporation has done, with Toronto taxpayers being required to subsidize a much larger segment of similar properties eligible for payments-in-lieu of taxes.

Conclusion:

The MTHA proposal from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would appear to satisfy it, the MTHA and the School Boards. The proposal is a cash settlement and cheques totalling $9.15million were provided with the written offer from MMAH. All assessments for the MTHA properties under appeal have been confirmed by the Assessment Review Board and Ontario Municipal Board. Acceptance of the cash settlement would result in the new City of Toronto having to make an immediate write-off of $6.14 million in tax-related revenues with no charge back or refund from the School Boards for the proportionate shares.

The only situation where Council should accept a lower PILs payment is where the MTHA has received an assessment reduction at either the ARB or OMB. It should be noted that at this point, it appears that the School Boards tax write-offs for all years will be fully covered by the Province without specific penalty or incursion into the funding formula for the operation of the School Boards.

If the Province refuses to pay their fair share of the payments-in-lieu of taxes on the MTHA properties, Council should raise the issue with respect to the subsidization of MTHA properties by all taxpayers of the City of Toronto as it sets a precedent for other PILs activities.

Contact Name:

Audrey Birt, 392-7820

Ed Desousa, 397-4226

2

Re-Employment Policy for Former Members of

Council and Former Staff of Members of Council

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration and report thereon to the next meeting of Council to be held on June 3, 1998; and the Executive Director of Human Resources was requested to submit a confidential report to the Committee, for consideration therewith, on staff who have signed contracts with former municipalities which have subsequently been broached, such report to also address the issue of former employees of Members of Council having the option of deferring acceptance of their severance packages should they obtain employment with the City.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that the following report (April4, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer be received:

Purpose:

This report will respond to a directive by Council that the Chief Administrative Officer review the policy implications where former Members of Council or former staff of Members of Council are seeking re-employment by the City of Toronto.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council determine if former Members of Council or former staff of Members of Council should be restricted from being re-employed by the City of Toronto; and

(2)any restriction, if applied, be limited to the period of time that the former Member of Council or former staff of a Member of Council is in receipt of severance or separation pay.

Background:

At its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, City Council considered a report and policy with respect to the re-employment of staff who have received an exit or retirement package from either the current City of Toronto, its Agencies, Boards or Commissions or one of the former seven municipalities. A policy was implemented which restricted such staff from re-employment by the municipality or any of its Agencies, Boards, and Commissions for a period of two years.

Council directed the Chief Administrative Officer to consider the application of this policy to former Members of Council or to former staff of Members of Council and to report to the Corporate Services Committee.

Discussion:

The philosophy behind a decision to restrict re-employment is that an individual should not be in receipt of a severance payment or separation package from the municipality while he/she is also collecting salary. This is perceived to be "double-dipping".

In accordance with the harmonized policies from the former municipalities which now constitute the City of Toronto, Members of Council are eligible to receive a severance payment of one month for every year of service on Council, to a maximum of six months. Should Council decide to restrict a former Member of Council from being employed by the municipality in a "staff" capacity, it is appropriate that this restriction apply to the period of time the individual is in receipt of severance (i.e., up to a maximum of six months).

Former staff of a Member of Council would also have been in receipt of an exit or retirement package, or would have had exit provisions by virtue of an employment contract. It is also appropriate, should Council decided to restrict such staff from being re-employed by the municipality, that such restriction apply to the period of time the individual is in receipt of severance or separation pay.

Further, should Council now decide to implement a policy, the restrictions should be implemented on a going-forward basis so that individuals currently in the employ of the municipality, who were former Members of Council or former staff of a Member of Council, would not be adversely affected.

Contact:

Brenda Glover, Executive Director of Human Resources

397-9802

3

Remuneration for Toronto Hydro-Electric Commissioners

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April4, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources:

Purpose:

To recommend remuneration for members of the Commission.

Funding Sources:

Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that salaries be set at $18,200.00 annually for the Acting Chair, and $9,300.00 for citizen members on an interim basis, retroactive to January 1, 1998, pending further review as determined by Council.

Background:

At its meeting held on January 2, 6, 8, and 9, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of the Striking Committee, which confirmed the continuation of the interim Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission. Councillors Layton, Disero and Mahood were appointed to the Commission at that time. In addition, the Chairs of the public utilities commissions of the former municipalities were confirmed as citizen members until such time as a by-law establishing the new Commission was enacted. One of these citizen members is now the Acting Chair of the Commission.

Under the Public Utilities Act, members of the Commission are entitled to a remuneration, to be set by Council, and the Commission has requested that a remuneration be set for members.

Comments:

There was a wide range in the remuneration received by the former members of the public utilities Commissions. The remuneration paid to board members of the City's various Agencies, Boards and Commissions will be reviewed by a committee of Council in the near future. Since the matter of board remuneration is under review, it is appropriate to set an interim amount for citizen Commission members until this review is complete. Based on the interim compensation program for non-union employees approved by Council at its meeting of February 4, 1998, the interim salary level for the regular members would be $9,300.00 annually, and for the Acting Chair would be $18,200.00 annually.

Conclusion:

Since employee salaries for new positions are being set on an interim basis pending full review, it is appropriate to follow the same approach for citizen members of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission until a Committee review is complete.

Contact Name:

Brenda Glover, Executive Director of Human Resources

397-9802

4

Provision of Food Services at Metro Hall

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the confidential report dated May 13, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled 'Provision of Food Services at Metro Hall', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted, subject to the Commissioner of Corporate Services being requested to submit to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee, if available, any or all of the report which was to be prepared for submission in December, in accordance with Recommendation No. (2):

'It is recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto be authorized to finalize an interim agreement to provide food services at Metro Hall with Canada Catering Ltd., in a smoke-free environment occupying approximately 50 percent of the original space, for the period of April 1, 1998, until December31, 1998, and then on a 60-day basis thereafter;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to report back to Council, in December of 1998, on the status of food services agreements at Metro Hall and other corporately-owned and operated facilities; and

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

(2)the confidential joint report dated May 13, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor, entitled 'Main Floor Cafe - City Hall (Ward24)', be referred to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration at its next meeting.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the confidential communication (May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk respecting the Provision of Food Services at Metro Hall, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to submit a report to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on May 13, 1998, respecting the foregoing matter.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential communication (May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Corporate Services Committee, at its in-camera meeting on April 27, 1998:

(1)recommended to Council:

(a)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (2) to (4) embodied in the confidential report (April 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(b)that Option 2, respecting the Provision of Food Services at Metro Hall, be approved as the option that the Commissioner of Corporate Services should proceed with; and

(c)that no provision be made for a smoking area in the cafeteria; and

(2)requested the City Solicitor to submit a report to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on May 13, 1998, on the legal ramifications respecting the aforementioned Recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee. (Clause No. 4 of Report No. 5 of The Corporate Services Committee.)

Background:

The Corporate Services Committee on April 27, 1998, had before it a confidential report (April24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services recommending that:

(1)the Corporate Services Committee recommend which food service option the Corporate Services Department should proceed with for an interim agreement with Canada Catering for the continued provision of food services at Metro Hall;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report directly to Council on the proposed terms and conditions of the agreement with Canada Catering to reflect its choice of options;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to report back to Council, in December 1998 on the status of food service agreements at Metro Hall and other corporately-owned and operated facilities; and

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

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential report (May 12, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To respond to a request for a report on the legal ramifications of the recommendations adopted by the Corporate Services Committee at its meeting on April 27, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background/History:

The Corporate Services Committee at its meeting on April 27, 1998, selected Option No. 2 in a confidential report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting the operation of food services in Metro Hall. This option involves the reduction in size of the cafeteria from the current approximately 10,000 square feet to approximately 5,190 square feet. The Committee also determined that "no provision be made for a smoking area in the cafeteria."

The Committee requested the City Solicitor to report to Council on the "legal ramifications" of the recommendations adopted by Committee.

Comments:

In seeking advice on the legal ramifications, the Committee, I understand, was concerned about the implications, if any, involved in determining whether or not smoking should be permitted in the cafeteria.

Smoking may be regulated in the cafeteria both by contract and by local by-law.

The cafeteria, being "a portion of a building used for the sale of food or drink or both food and drink to the public for consumption on the premises" is a restaurant as defined in the applicable by-law (of the former City of Toronto).

Under the by-law, the proprietor of a restaurant (i.e., the proposed tenant, Canada Catering) may establish a smoking area comprised of "10 percent or less of contiguous usable indoor seating area". Alternatively, a proprietor may establish a "designated smoking area" which is defined under the by-law to be fully enclosed, not more than 50 percent of the size of the usable indoor seating area and ventilated directly to the outside with minimum exhaust rates. The cafeteria, I am informed, does not at present have a designated smoking area so defined.

Accordingly, under the by-law smoking may be permitted in up to 10 percent of contiguous usable indoor seating area.

Smoking may also be regulated in the contract or lease between the parties. The lease with Puffin Innovations Inc. only required the tenant to comply with the by-law. It was not initially negotiated to require a total ban on smoking and this requirement could not be unilaterally imposed subsequently by the landlord. However, since Council has not yet approved a lease in favour of Canada Catering, it is open to Council, as landlord, to impose non-smoking requirements which are more stringent than the by-law, including a ban on smoking, as a condition in the lease.

If Council concurs with the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee that no provision be made for a smoking area in the cafeteria, it should direct that the lease with Canada Catering specifically so provide.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential reports, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with Section 55(9) of the Municipal Act:

-(May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

-(May 13, 1998) joint report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor.)

5

1998-1999 Property Insurance Program

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April14, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to provide all Members of Council with the current insurance protection that continues from former Councils as it relates to accidental death, business travel and out of country travel.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (April14, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To report on the development of a property insurance program for the City of Toronto for the period June 1, 1998, to June 1, 1999.

Source of Funds:

The proposed property insurance program which includes coverage for property damage or loss to buildings, facilities and electronic data processing equipment, boiler and machinery insurance has a total cost of $895,320.00 ($829,000.00 plus $66,320.00 PST). Funds have been requested in various 1998 Operating Budgets for these costs. Since the beginning of the year, it has been necessary to extend the property insurance programme for some of the former municipalities to allow a proper proposal process to occur as well as create one coverage date for all of the former municipal policies. These extensions and costs were identified as part of the information in Schedule 'A' which was submitted to the last Corporate Services Committee meeting.

In total, the property insurance program premiums including PST from June 1, 1998, to June 1999, are $895,320.00 resulting in savings of $982,924.20 over the combined premiums paid in 1997 of $1,878,244.20.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the insurance program proposed for property damage or loss including electronic data processing equipment be approved for the period June 1, 1998, to June 1, 1999, at a total cost of $788,400.00 ($730,000.00 plus $58,400.00 PST); and

(2)the boiler and machinery program be approved for the period June 1, 1998, to June 1, 1999, at a total cost of $106,920.00 ($99,000.00 plus $7,920.00 PST).

Background:

We have previously reported that the Comprehensive, General Liability, Automobile, Garage Automobile, Medical Malpractice, Excess Public Officials Errors and Omissions Liability and Excess and Umbrella Liability policies had been placed.

This report covers the property insurance component of the 1998 - 1999 program.

Discussion:

Staff from the former municipalities and J and H Marsh McLennan, Limited, have met to develop a comprehensive insurance program for property coverage. This coverage will be extended to the buildings and facilities occupied by the City, some of the Agencies, Boards and Commissions such as the Library and Police Services Board, but excluding the Toronto Transit Commission and Hydro. Further reports will follow as necessary for accidental death and business travel, user group liability coverage and the balance of the insurance program.

A Request for Proposals was made to twenty-one (21) markets dealing with this type of property insurance coverage. We received comprehensive proposals from nine (9) firms. A similar Request for Proposals was made to four (4) firms specializing in boiler and machinery coverage. All four (4) firms responded to the proposal call.

Schedule 'A' outlines the status of the coverages and Schedule 'B' provides information on the 1997policies which were in effect in the former municipalities.

The components of the insurance program are identified as follows:

(1)Property Damage and Loss:

This coverage is extended to all of the City's facilities, buildings and contents to a total value of $8,578,640,175.00 and carries a deductible of $100,000.00. In addition, there are various sublimits in place for matters such as zoological specimens, valuable papers and accounts receivable.

The insurers for this coverage on a prorated basis are:

Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company;

Commonwealth Insurance Company;

AXA Pacific Insurance Company; and

Reliance Insurance Company.

The cost of coverage is $788,400.00 ($730,000.00 plus $58,400.00 PST). The 1997 comparative cost was $1,649,770.00 ($1,527,565.00 plus $122,205.00). The savings in premium are due in part to the combining of the assets of the former municipalities into one body for insurance purposes as well as the creation of a common deductible.

(2)Boiler and Machinery:

This coverage is extended for losses which may occur from the failure of any boiler or machinery located within a facility and carries a $100,000.00 deductible.

The cost of coverage is $106,920.00 ($99,000.00 plus $7,920.00 PST). The 1997 comparative cost for the former municipalities was $228,474.20 ($211,550.00 plus $16,924.20 PST).

The insurer for this coverage is Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company.

In 1998-1999 the total premiums are $895,320.00 ($829,000.00 plus $66,320.00 PST), or a total of 52.3percent less than the combined premiums paid by the former municipalities in 1997. The former municipalities had various deductibles ranging from $5,000.00 to $250,000.00. The proposed program provides for deductible amounts of $100,000.00 for both policies.

These limits are recommended as a result of a comprehensive financial analysis which has considered the City's ability to carry higher deductibles, the combined value of the facilities and the potential of any major losses at more than one site. The deductible amounts identified above are considered to be the levels offering the greatest savings to the City.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the insurance program identified for property damage and loss including contents and boiler and machinery as described above be approved.

Contact Name:

Report prepared by:Glenn Kippen

Telephone:778-2063

Facsimile:778-0109

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

--------

Schedule A

Insurance Premiums Comparison

(PST not included)

6

Sale of Surplus Property at

182 Clonmore Drive, City of Toronto

(Formerly City of Scarborough)

(Scarborough Bluffs - Ward 13)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 182 Clonmore Drive, City of Toronto as per attached sketch.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $160,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, is anticipated. The property is currently vacant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the Agreement of Purchase and Sale in the amount of $160,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of The Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. OCP300J56043;

(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to complete the transaction on behalf of the City and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City of Toronto is the owner of 182 Clonmore Drive. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of The Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, the property was listed with The Prudential Properties Plus Realty on March 27, 1998, at an asking price of $164,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. As a result, the following offer was received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Joey N. Bordieri Jr. and$10,000.00$160,000.00 non-conditional

Bronwen O'Hara(bank draft)

This offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:182 Clonmore Drive, City of Toronto

Legal Description:Plan 3653, Lot 2; Now RP64R-13411, Parts 5, 6 and 7

Approximate Lot Size:10.45 metres (34.3 feet) fronting onto Clonmore Drive

98.68 metres (323.75 feet) depth

Location:North side of Clonmore Drive, west of Warden Avenue

Improvements:Detached stucco bungalow

Recommended Sale Price:$160,000.00

Deposit:$10,000.00

Purchaser:Joey N. Bordieri Jr. and Browen O'Hara

Closing Date:June 12, 1998

Terms:Cash on closing, subject to usual adjustments

Listing Broker:Prudential Properties Plus

Selling Broker:Prudential Properties Plus

Commission Payable:Five (5) per cent.

Conclusions:

Completion of the transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Mr. Douglas F. Warning

Acting Director of Real Estate (392-8165)

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 27, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Sale of 548 Front Street West and

10 Portland Street (Municipal Carpark 96)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April14, 1998) from the President, Toronto Parking Authority:

Purpose:

To sell the above-noted property while maintaining some public parking, and use the proceeds from the sale of the property to acquire an alternative site in order to better meet the parking demands of the King/Spadina area. The City will retain ownership of a portion of the site, on which the Purchaser must construct 35 public parking spaces to be operated by the Parking Authority.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The net proceeds (excluding sales commission, legals, and environmental consultation) to the Toronto Parking Authority will range between $3.86 million to $4.1 million depending upon the amount of environmental remediation required. The proceeds will be used to purchase an additional property in order to meet the remaining parking shortfall in the area. In addition, the Toronto Parking Authority will own 35 parking spaces valued at approximately $420,000.00 ($12,000.00 per space).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated March 13, 1998, and an associated Amending Agreement for the sale of 548 Front Street West and 10 Portland Street to Cityscape Niagara Corp. at a purchase price of $4,100,000.00 which will be subject to an adjustment for environmental remediation costs to a maximum of $240,000.00. These funds will be placed into an environmental reserve fund which can be used by the Purchaser to deal with environmental issues relating solely to Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) located in the ground water at the northwest portion of the site. Following remediation, any unused amount will be transferred to the Parking Authority. The agreement requires the Purchaser to construct a 35 space parking garage, the cost of which is included in the purchase price;

(2)the Purchase and Sale Agreement be satisfactory in form to the City Solicitor; and

(3)the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take the necessary steps to implement the foregoing.

Council Reference/Background History:

At its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, City Council gave consideration to Clause No. 83 of Report No. 23 of The Executive Committee, titled "Sale of 548 Front Street West and 10 Portland Street, (Ward 5)". At that meeting, Council took the following action:

(1)authorized the City and the Parking Authority to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the sale of 548 Front Street West and 10 Portland Street at a purchase price not to be less than $4.6 million which includes cost adjustments for remediation, subject to ratification by the Parking Authority of Toronto Board of Commissioners;

(2)directed that the Purchase and Sale Agreement be satisfactory in form to the City Solicitor;

(3)authorized the appropriate Civic officials to take the necessary steps to implement the foregoing; and

(4)instructed that, should the Parking Authority of Toronto propose to incorporate surface parking at this location, they would be required to seek further approval from City Council at the time of application for site plan approval.

At that time we informed City Council that the Purchase and Sale and Agreement with Lakeshore Toolworks Limited previously approved by Council at its meeting of July 14, 1997, (Clause No. 32 of Report No. 18 of the Executive Committee) was terminated because of the Purchaser's inability to satisfy its conditions. We believed that the property was very marketable and we were seeking a new purchaser. We proposed that Council authorize the Parking Authority to sell the property when it found a purchaser, provided that any agreement entered into was for a price not less than $4.6million. This was the amount that we felt that the City could obtain in the market that existed six months ago. However, since that time there has been an increase in the number of residential proposed developments and as a result land values have declined. We have received an appraisal report dated April 13, 1998, from The Morassutti Group, real estate appraisers, and they have determined that the appraised value of the land is $3.8 million without cost adjustments for remediation.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Subsequent to City Council's approval to continue to proceed with the sale of the property, the Toronto Parking Authority directed its agent, CB Real Estate Group Canada Inc., to re-list the property. A potential Purchaser has come forward and an agreement has been negotiated, subject to certain conditions, such as approval from the Parking Authority Board of Directors and City Council. The Parking Authority's Board of Directors have approved the transaction.

Summarized below are the basic terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and the associated Amending Agreement with Cityscape Niagara Corp.:

(1)Purchase Price: The purchase price of $4,100,000.00 is payable as follows:

(i)$150,000.00.00 by certified cheque payable to CB Commercial Real Estate Group Canada Inc., in trust together with the Offer;

(ii)$250,000.00 by certified cheque payable to the agent in trust together with the execution of the amending agreement;

(iii)$250,000.00 by certified cheque payable to the agent in trust on July 10, 1998;

If we receive approval from City Council, the deposits noted above are non-refundable;

(iv)The balance of the purchase price of $3,450,000.00 will be paid to the Parking Authority on closing of which $240,000.00 will be placed in an environmental reserve fund (see point 5 re: details).

(2)The closing of this transaction will take place on August 28, 1998.

(3)Parking Garage: Cityscape Niagara Corp. will construct 35 parking spaces at no cost to the Parking Authority and will deliver ownership to the TPA upon completion of the spaces. The parking spaces will be designed in accordance with TPA's specifications including pedestrian and disabled access and signage as mutually agreed upon by TPA and Cityscape. The Toronto Parking Authority must be satisfied with the preliminary design of the garage within 30 business days following waiver or satisfaction of the Purchaser's conditions.

(4)Purchaser's Conditions: In the Amending Agreement, the Purchaser is waiving all conditions related to the agreement.

(5)Environmental Reserve Fund: It has been determined by both parties that there is an environmental issue relating to Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) located in the ground water at the northwest portion of the property. In the event that the issues relating to the VOC contamination have not been resolved prior to closing, the sum of $240,000.00 will be deducted from the purchase price and placed in an environmental contingency fund on closing. This money will be available to the Purchaser to the extent that remediation of the VOC contamination is required. The Toronto Parking Authority will have the approval rights regarding the expenditure of these funds as they relate to the cleanup of the VOCcontamination. If the environmental costs, once remediation has been completed, are below $240,000.00, the Parking Authority will receive all excess proceeds. In the event that the remediation costs are above $240,000.00, all financial risks and costs will be borne by the Purchaser. Furthermore, Cityscape will assume all financial risks and environmental liability for any other contaminated soil which is contained on the property. It is expected that remediation will be concurrent with the commencement of the project construction.

The Purchaser's environmental consultant and our consultant, Water Earth & Associates, have determined that there are certain environmental issues that must be dealt with prior to any development occurring on the site. There are two main issues of concern. One issue relates to the contamination level of the soils. It has been agreed by both the Toronto Parking Authority's consultant and the Purchaser's consultant that the cost to remediate the soils will be approximately $200,000.00. As a result, we have negotiated an adjustment to the purchase price reducing it from $4.2 million to $4.1 million, the Purchaser having assumed 50percent of these costs. In addition, there is an issue related to the VOC contamination. It has been estimated by our consultant that the cost to remediate the VOC contamination is approximately $145,000.00. The Purchaser's consultant estimates the cost to be $300,000.00. Since there is such a large discrepancy between the two consultants' estimated costs, the Purchaser and the Parking Authority have agreed to set up an environmental contingency reserve in the amount of $240,000.00 which will be deducted from the purchase monies and held in trust until remediation has been completed. It is expected that the expenditure of these funds will occur at the time the Purchaser commences construction of the residential development. In the event that the cost to remediate the VOC contamination is less than $240,000.00, then the balance of the proceeds from the fund will be returned to the Authority. In the event that the cost to remediate is more than $240,000.00 all remediation costs above this amount will be the sole responsibility of the Purchaser.

Our consultant has determined that the source of the VOC contamination is from the adjacent property. We are obtaining a legal opinion from outside counsel of the possible courses of action that we may take in order to recover the environmental costs. No course of action will be undertaken before consulting with the City Solicitor.

Purchaser's Background:

The principals of Cityscape Developments are John Berman, Matthew Rosenblatt, David Jackson and James Goad. These principals are successful developers of in-fill housing in the west area of downtown Toronto. Their projects include the Wellington Worx building on Wellington Street West and The Movie House on College Street, both of which are fully sold out. They are now developing Cityscape Terrace, a 106 unit development at Richmond and Augusta.

David Jackson and James Goad have additional experience in the development of in-fill residential having developed a number of smaller projects throughout the west area of Toronto over the past six or seven years including One Columbus and 200 Clinton Street. The proposed development on this site will be in-fill housing which is similar to their other development projects.

Conclusions:

The Parking Authority staff have determined the supply of public parking spaces in this location exceeds the demand with the exception of when Skydome has events. Being located between Bathurst and Spadina on Front Street, there is little short term parking generated. The proceeds from the sale of the property will be used to acquire an alternative site in order to better meet the parking demands of the King/Spadina area. It is estimated that the Parking Authority will only require approximately 60 spaces in the area of which 35 spaces can be accommodated on the Portland site with the remainder on another site yet to be identified.

We believe that this is a good business decision for both the City and the Toronto Parking Authority. The net proceeds (excluding the sales commission, legals and environmental consultation) to the Parking Authority will range between $3.86 million to $4.1 million depending upon the amount of remediation required. In our previous report to Council, we obtained approval to sell the property for not less than $4.6 million. At the time of receiving that approval, we had not negotiated a final agreement and we believe as stated before, land values since that time have declined.

Given a current appraised value of $3.8 million which does not include remediation costs, we have negotiated a deal in excess of this amount. In addition, we will retain ownership of 35 fully constructed spaces. As indicated below, the total value of this arrangement is $4,280,000.00.

Sale Price$4,100,000.00

Value of 35 Public Spaces$ 420,000.00

Less: Potential Remediation Work$ 240,000.00

Total Value Received$4,280,000.00

Also, in the previous agreement, there were outstanding issues regarding surface parking which have been resolved in this agreement as the public parking component will be located within a garage.

Contact Names:

Maurice J. Anderson

President

Telephone:(416)393-7276

Facsimile:(416)393-7352

Lorne Persiko

Director, Real Estate and Development

Telephone:(416)393-7294

Facsimile:(416)393-7352

8

Sale of Density from 29 Lorraine Drive to

15-27 Lorraine Drive, File No. 98

(North York Centre - Ward 10)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the North York Community Council for consideration and report thereon to City Council, through the Corporate Services Committee.)

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following communication (April 24, 1998) from Councillor Norman Gardner, North York Centre, without recommendation; and reports having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the City Solicitor, to submit a report thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on May 13, 1998:

Normally I would not write to you with a request to have an item "walked onto" the Committee's agenda, unless I felt that it was urgent, however, I received a call from the applicant concerning the above matter.

The problem arose as a result of a technical problem in transferring the attached report to staff of the Corporate and Human Resources Department. As a result, receipt of the report did not meet the deadline for inclusion into the April 27, 1998 agenda.

The matter concerns Symphony Square, a development located within my ward. The former City of North York purchased the property at 29 Lorraine Drive as part of a parks acquisition program. Symphony Square has made an offer to purchase the density from 29 Lorraine Drive, and have it transferred to their development located across the street at 15-27 Lorraine Drive.

The offer is conditional upon receiving approval from City of Toronto Council by May 20, 1998. From what I have been advised, the applicant is in the process of constructing the development, and the actual plans for the development must be finalized by May 20, in order to be able to continue the construction process. I have also been advised by the applicant, that by not resolving the issue within this time frame may lead to the construction process being stalled for a six-month period, and the possible layoff of construction staff.

My staff have spoken to the Parks Department at North York Civic Centre about this matter. The sale and transfer of density is permitted within North York's City Centre Secondary Plan. The Parks Department have given their approval to the transfer of this density which is confirmed by the attached letter. If the transfer of this density is not approved within the necessary time frame, the applicant may have the option of purchasing other density from a non-municipally owned site, thereby leaving the City with surplus density.

I would appreciate if you could allow this item to be dealt with by the Committee at its April 27, 1998 meeting.

--------

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it:

(i)an unsigned report (April 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting the sale of Density from 29 Lorraine Drive to 15-27 Lorraine Drive, File No. 98 (North York Centre - Ward 10); and

(ii)a communication (April 24, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner, Parks and Recreation, North York, in full support of the sale of density from 29 Lorraine Drive.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To recommend that the City accept the "Agreement of Purchase and Sale" from Symphony Square Ltd., the owners of 15-27 Lorraine Drive, for the purchase of surplus density from City owned land at 29 Lorraine Drive. (See maps attached).

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The purchase price of $294,900.00 provides cash flow in the 1998 fiscal year in support of the City's initiative to enhance revenue generation through the sale of density surplus to the municipality's needs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council accept the "Offer to Purchase" from Symphony Square Ltd. in a form and on terms satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor and the Treasurer and the City Clerk be authorized to execute same;

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

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take all actions necessary to finalize this matter.

Background:

The City of North York purchased 29 Lorraine Drive on October 6, 1997, as part of a Parkland Acquisition Strategy, at a price of $300,000.00. A further $15,000.00 was paid for disturbance allowance, and an additional $9,000.00 for moving costs, legal fees, Land Transfer Tax on replacement property and legal fees on replacement property. The site has an area of 7,562 square feet and the floor space index is 2.6 allowing a total gross floor area of 19,660 square feet. The total acquisition cost of $324,000.00 reflects a rate of $16.48 per square foot of gross floor area.

The owner of 15-27 Lorraine Drive has approached staff in order to purchase all of the density from the City's property and transfer it to the proposed apartment building development. The project has been approved to a maximum height of 20 storeys, with a maximum of 304 dwelling units and a maximum total density of 313,886 square meters.

In order to add the extra density, the owner is anxious to have a decision by City Council quickly, and has provided May 20, 1998, as the irrevocable date in his offer. The potential purchaser is presently constructing the building at 15-27 Lorraine Drive and requires an early decision by Council.

The transfer of density from public land is permitted by the Official Plan (Part D3, Sections 3.3 and 3.4).

Parks Department Comments:

The Parks and Recreation Department fully supports the sale. The density assigned to the property is not required for the park use. Since it was always the City's intention to sell the density, this sale is a timely opportunity to recover most of the original acquisition cost.

City Solicitor's Comments:

The City's approved Uptown Secondary Plan and the City's new City Centre Plan (OPA 447), which has not yet been approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, both contain provisions permitting and even encouraging the transfer of density from City owned parcels so that:

"to the greatest extent possible, new developments pay for the costs of infrastructure and facilities, needed to support or serve new development and that the general tax rate not be used to support development.

Accordingly, when the City or Metropolitan Toronto has purchased land for public purposes, the gross floor area attributable to the land may be transferred by the City or Metropolitan Toronto subsequent to that purchase." (OPA 447, clause 3.4.2 (b))

The sale of this density will enable the City to acquire more than 7,500 square feet of parkland at a net price of less than $30,000.00. This proposal is in conformity with the approved and adopted Official Plans for this area.

Summary of Agreement of Purchase and Sale:

Purchaser:Symphony Square Ltd.

Donor Site:29 Lorraine Drive

Receiving Site:15-27 Lorraine Drive

Net Density:19,669 square feet

Purchase Price:$294,900.00

(based on a net density of 19,660 square feet at a purchase price of $15.00 per square foot of gross floor area)

Deposit:$73,725.00

Balance:Due on closing

Irrevocable Date:May 20, 1998

Closing Date:30 days after zoning by-law allowing net density to be transferred to the development site is in full force and effect

Conditions:Receiving an appropriate zoning by-law amendment, allowing the net density to be transferred to the development site;

Density transfer shall be implemented by rezoning the donor site and the development site, as required by the Official Plan;

If the above two conditions are not met within six months, then the Purchaser has the right to extend the closing date for a further six months.

Schedules:Schedule "A" - Map of "Donor Site"

Schedule "B" - Map of "Development Site"

Schedule "C" - Subscribed form of "Letter of Credit"

Conclusion:

I recommend the City accept of the "Agreement of Purchase and Sale" in the amount of $294,900.00.

Contact Name:

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

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

9

Acquisition of CN Lands East of Main (Trent and

Luttrell Avenues) (East Toronto - Ward 26)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain City Council approval to amend a former City of Toronto Council approval respecting the acquisition of two CNR-owned parcels of land shown as Parts 4 and6 on Plan 64R-14771 for future highway use.

Financial Implications:

Funds for payment of the nominal consideration of $2.00 and legal fees and other associated closing costs are provided in Works and Emergency Services Account FOAPAL 296001-39273-75010-296601-A101.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)approval be given to accept conveyance from Canadian National Railway Company ("CN") of Part 6 on Reference Plan 64R-14771 and shown on the attached sketch, for nominal consideration of $2.00 free of encumbrances other than utility poles, and pay all reasonable legal fees incurred by CN in completing such conveyance;

(2)the conveyance of Part 4 on Reference Plan 64R-14771 from CN to the City be made one of the conditions of any future severance of CN's adjacent lands;

(3)the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, furnish the required legal descriptions;

(4)the lands be placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Corporate Services until required for public highway purposes; and

(5)the appropriate civic officials take the necessary actions to implement the above recommendations.

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council adopted on June 5 and 6, 1995, Clause No. 9 of Report No. 8 of The City Services Committee, and on May 21, 1996, Clause No. 26 of Report No. 15 of The Executive Committee, thereby authorizing the acquisition of two parcels of land at the southern end of Trent Avenue and Luttrell Avenue identified as Part 1 on Reference Plan 64R-14766 and Parts 4 and 6 on Reference Plan 64R-14771 and shown on the attached sketch. The requirement to convey these lands to the City was imposed as a condition of severance approval by the Committee of Adjustment and were to be acquired by the City free and clear of encumbrances for the nominal consideration of $2.00.

Comments:

CN owns a large parcel of land in the area of Trent Avenue and Luttrell Avenue and obtained a consent of the Committee of Adjustment to sever such land. As a condition of giving its consent, the Committee of Adjustment required the conveyance of Parts 4 and 6, Reference Plan 64R-14771 and Part 1, Reference Plan 64R-14766 to the City for nominal consideration free of encumbrances.

Shortly before the severance expired, the City was advised of the existence of a lease affecting the northern portion of Part 1 between CN and Danforth Shoppers World Limited ("Shoppers World"). CN was unable to secure a surrender of this lease and, as a result, title could not be given to the City free of encumbrances and the severance permission expired.

It is now proposed by Shoppers World to redevelop the shopping centre adjoining Part 1 and to acquire Part 1 from CN for parking purposes as part of the redevelopment. Shoppers World's proposal requires an amendment to the prior City/CN arrangement which would entail the conveyance from CN to the City of a smaller Luttrell parcel, comprised of Part 6, on 60 days' notice from the City. Part 4 would be conveyed to the City as one of the conditions of severance of CN's adjacent lands, subject to existing utility poles and a right-of-way in favour of CN until the parcel is dedicated as a public highway. The solicitor for CN has confirmed that CN will convey Part 6 on 60 days' notice and that Part 4 will be transferred to the City as one of the conditions of severance of CN's adjacent lands and that an application for severance will be submitted following approval of this report. Works and Emergency Services has advised that there are no immediate plans to extend Luttrell or Trent Avenues. In any case, Luttrell Avenue could not otherwise be extended without acquisition of the lands lying immediately to the north of Part 1 and which are owned by Shoppers World's landlord. With the proposed redevelopment of the shopping centre, it is unlikely that these lands would come to the City except through expropriation.

A Phase 1 environmental audit has been undertaken by Shaheen & Peaker Limited, an outside consultant retained by the City. The audit concludes that it is unlikely that the property has been environmentally impacted by its current usage or by the current activities on the adjacent properties. While noting that the historic commercial/industrial usage of the adjacent properties may have environmentally impacted the property, the consultant takes the view that the potential contamination does not pose a risk to the future use of the properties as roadways and parking lots.

Parts 4 and 6 are occupied by the Variety Club, a charitable organization and used for parking purposes. Their lease expired in May, 1997 and Variety Club's solicitor has advised that his client has either a monthly tenancy or a tenancy terminable at will. Property Services staff have received a request from Variety Club to continue to lease Part6 and Part 4 (if acquired by the City) for parking purposes. This request is currently being processed and, accordingly, the conveyance of Part6 subject to the occupation of the Variety Club is acceptable.

Conclusion:

The acquisition of Parts 4 and 6 on Reference Plan 64R-14771 as set out in the body of this report is acceptable.

Contact Name:

Ting Ng, Telephone - 392-1857, Fax - 392-1880, E-mail - tng@city.toronto.on.ca (cs98048.wpd)

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 27, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Expropriation of Property Interests,

Sheppard Subway Project,

Don Mills Station

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on June 3 and 4, 1998.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek approval of the expropriation under the Expropriations Act of property interests required for the construction and operation of the Sheppard Subway in the vicinity of Don Mills Station.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financing has previously been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account Number TC-392Sheppard Subway Project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council, as approving authority, approve the expropriation of certain leasehold interests detailed herein;

(2)authority be granted to take all steps necessary to comply with the Expropriations Act including, but not limited to the preparation and registration of a plan of expropriation and service of Notices of Expropriation, Notices of Election as to the Date for Compensation and Notices of Possession;

(3)authority be granted to the Commissioner of Corporate Services to sign the Notices of Expropriation and Notices of Possession on behalf of the City;

(4)leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto;

and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Management Committee (as amended) on March 8 and 9, 1994, and subject to a further report regarding funding, Metropolitan Council approved construction of the Sheppard Subway to Don Mills Road. By the approval of Clause No.2 of Report No. 14 of The Management Committee (as amended) on April 20, 1994, Metropolitan Council authorized the debenture funding to commence the project. Finally, Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of The Financial Priorities Committee on September25 and 26, 1996, as amended, approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway Project.

Metropolitan Council, at its meeting on April 23, 1997, by the adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No.11 of The Corporate Administration Committee, authorized the Application for Approval to Expropriate all interests in land required for the construction of the Sheppard Subway in the vicinity of the Don Mills Station. At its meeting held December 10 and 18, 1997, Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 25 of The Corporate Administration Committee authorized a settlement with C.F. Realty Inc., and Cambridge Shopping Centres Limited, the owners of Fairview Mall, whereby the property interests required from these owners for the subway at this location, more specifically described as Parts 1 through 70 on Reference Plan 66R-17849, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk ("the required lands") would be acquired voluntarily without the need to proceed to an expropriation.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the construction of the Sheppard Subway - Don Mills Station and related facilities property interests are required from Fairview Mall ("Fairview"), a two level regional shopping centre located at the northeast corner of Sheppard Avenue East and Don Mills Road. Fairview contains 262commercial retail units (CRUs) and is anchored by four major tenants, including Sears Canada Inc. ("Sears"), Hudson Bay Company ("The Bay"), Loblaws and a Cineplex Odeon Theatre. It has been determined that, in addition to the owners of Fairview, by virtue of their leases Sears and The Bay have an interest in the required lands. Satisfactory arrangements have been made with TheBay and Sears to allow the construction to proceed.

While it is unlikely that the CRU tenants have an interest in the required lands that would be compensable at law, because of the complicated title situation for the Fairview property, it was considered advisable to provide notice and expropriate their leasehold interest, if any, in the required lands pursuant to the Expropriations Act and the April 23, 1997, Metro Council authority noted above. Accordingly, Notices of Application for Approval to Expropriate were served on all the CRU tenants. No requests for a Hearing of Necessity have been received and the time period prescribed for doing so has now elapsed. As the required lands are necessary for the Sheppard Subway Project, it is appropriate for Council to approve the expropriation and authorize City staff to take the necessary actions prescribed in the Expropriations Act to give effect thereto.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, there having been no requests for a Hearing of Necessity relating to the proposed expropriation of certain leasehold interests (if any) in the lands described as Parts 1 through 70 on Reference Plan 66R-17849, it is fair and reasonable for Council to approve same.

Contact Name:

Doug Warning - 392-8165.

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 27, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Expropriation of Property Interest - Sheppard Subway

Helen Phillips, 4822 Yonge Street, North York

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Previous Metropolitan Council by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of the Financial Priorities Committee on September 25 and 26, 1996, (as amended) approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway project. Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 19 of Report No.25 of The Corporate Administration Committee, at its meeting on December 10 and 18, 1997, authorized the initiation of expropriation procedures for a tie-back easement required from the owner of the property at 4822 Yonge Street. Notices of Application for Approval to Expropriate Land were served upon the registered owners and a Hearing of Necessity was requested by Helen Phillips, the owner of the property. The hearing was scheduled for March 17, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the preparation for the Hearing of Necessity, an agreement was reached with the solicitor for the owner whereby Helen Phillips would enter into an Agreement pursuant to Section 30 of the Expropriations Act whereby she accepts the sum of $3,400.00 as compensation for the easement plus her reasonable legal fees. It is also a condition of the Agreement that the adjacent public laneway be repaired upon completion of the Yonge Station construction and that parking spaces immediately adjacent to the laneway be resurfaced in 1998.

The TTC has agreed to repair the laneway as it is required for construction vehicles and it is part of the Yonge Station contract that the laneway be resurfaced upon completion of construction.

The parking spaces will be resurfaced upon completion of the Harlandale Vent Shaft construction which is scheduled to be completed this year and the owner has agreed to accept the resurfacing as an undertaking in accordance with Section 11 of the Expropriation Act which allows the City to undertake mitigation measures to reduce injurious affection.

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

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. Douglas F. Warning, Acting Director of Real Estate (392-8165)

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 27, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

12

Surplus Subway Land - Block 81

Northeast Corner of Bloor Street West

and Dufferin Street, 1011 Dufferin Street

(Davenport - Ward 21)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek authority for the City of Toronto to acknowledge and consent to the mortgaging of a leasehold interest in a long term ground lease of property owned by the City of Toronto as per the attached location map.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to execute an acknowledgement/consent to the granting of security from Maor Developments Inc. and 716719 Ontario Limited to President Asian Enterprises Inc.; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Metropolitan Council on November 14, 1972, by the adoption of Clause No. 48 of Report No.52 of The Metropolitan Executive Committee, approved the lease of approximately 1390.53square metres (14,968 square feet) of land at the northeast corner of Bloor Street West and Dufferin Street to Fel-Sab Developments Limited at a rental of $11,000.00 per annum for a term of 33 years with rights to renewal for two similar terms, upon rentals to be negotiated or failing agreement to be arbitrated.

On January 24, 1978, the Metropolitan Council, by adoption of Clause No. 30 of Report No. 1 of The Metropolitan Executive Committee, authorized an amendment to the lease with respect to the type of development to be constructed on these lands which resulted in a three-storey building known as 1011 Dufferin Street being constructed thereon.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Council on June 9, 1987, by the adoption of Clause No. 8 of Report No. 17 of The Metropolitan Executive Committee approved the assignment of the lease from Oswanda Investments Limited (formerly Fel-Sab Developments Ltd.) to 481691 Ontario Limited, subject to the assignee assuming all of the obligations under the lease and amendments thereto.

Subsequently, on September 15, 1987, the Metropolitan Council, by the adoption of Clause No. 10 of Report No. 24 of the Executive Committee, authorized a further assignment of leasehold estate from 481691 Ontario Limited to Maor Developments Inc., and 716719 Ontario Limited, along with a consent to the mortgage of the leasehold estate from these companies to the Prudential Assurance Company Limited.

Most recently on May 17, 1995, Metropolitan Council, by the adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 16 of The Corporate Administration Committee granted authority to the Commissioner of Corporate Services to execute a consent/acknowledgement to the granting of security from Maor Developments Inc. and 716719 Ontario Limited to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC") and standing authority to the Commissioner of Corporate Services to provide consent on behalf of the Metropolitan Corporation to mortgages of leasehold interests in Metropolitan-owned property by way of assignment or sublease in favour of a bank, trust company or other registered financial institution.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A letter has now been received from Daniel Weinryb, Solicitor for the owners of 1011DufferinStreet, advising that his clients, Maor Developments Inc., and 716719 Ontario Limited requires a consent to the granting of security of the leasehold estate from these companies to President Asian Enterprises Inc. President Asian Enterprises Inc. is neither a bank, trust company or a registered financial institution and subsequently, does not qualify under the standing authority. To accomplish this a form of Consent/Acknowledgement must be executed by the City of Toronto confirming the status of the lease and the City's consent to the grant of security. As of the date of this report, the Finance Department has confirmed that the rental of the ground lease dated January31, 1973, between Fel-Sab Developments Limited and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and amendments thereto have been complied with and the Toronto Transit Commission have stated that to the best of its knowledge all covenants in the lease have been complied with.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, the granting of consent to execute the Consent/Acknowledgement is fair and reasonable.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services (392-8155).

13

Sunshine Centres for Seniors - 60 Lakeshore Avenue

Toronto Islands Licence Agreement - 1998 Season

(Downtown - Ward 24)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize a Licence Agreement with the Sunshine Centres for Seniors for the period April 15, 1998, to November 15, 1998.

Financial Implications:

There are no funding implications. Sunshine Centres for Seniors will be responsible for all payments of operating and maintenance costs for the building.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Licence Agreement with the Sunshine Centres for Seniors be approved as set out in the body of this report;

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare in a form satisfactory to him, the necessary documentation; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute this documentation and take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the above.

Background:

The former City of Toronto, by way of a Licence of Occupation with the former Metropolitan Toronto, acquired the right to use the Ward's Island Beach facilities, 60 Lakeshore Avenue (the Parsonage) and 102 Lakeshore Avenue (the Rectory) for parks and recreation use at a fee of $1.00 per annum from December 18, 1981, until July 31, 2005.

Since 1981, the City entered into a seasonal Licence Agreement with the Sunshine Centres for Seniors in each year for the use of the Parsonage and the Rectory at a nominal sum of $1.00 per annum. The Sunshine Centres utilized the building for a summer program for isolated seniors and for persons with disabilities. The Parsonage was built by Metropolitan Toronto specifically for this purpose and has been utilized for this summer program for approximately 26 years.

The Sunshine Centres has been responsible for the payment of operating costs and maintenance.

Effective December 15, 1993, the Provincial Government took possession of the Lands under Bill61, an Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands representing the Stewardship of the Toronto Island Residential Community on the Toronto Islands and a new Provincial Government amended the Act under Bill 38, the Toronto Islands Amendment Act, 1996 which was proclaimed effective July 22, 1996.

Under Bill 61, the Toronto Island Residential Community Trust was given jurisdiction over the Rectory and the Sunshine Centres for Seniors to occupy a portion of that building under a separate agreement with the Trust. Section 3 of Bill 38, which amends Section 4 of the Act legislates a long term lease to the City for the Parsonage which ends on December 15, 2092.

City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting held on April 14, 1997, adopted a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services (ClauseNo. 15 of Report No. 13 of The Executive Committee) recommending the approval of a Licence Agreement for the Sunshine Centres for Seniors for the 1997 Season.

Comments:

The Sunshine Centres wish to renew the Licence Agreement with the City for the 1998 season commencing on April 15, 1998, and ending on November 15, 1998, on the same terms and conditions. The Sunshine Centres is to be responsible for all payments of operating costs and maintenance with the exception of structural repairs.

Given the historical nature of the utilization of this facility by the Sunshine Centres and the beneficial aspects of their summer program for isolated seniors and for persons with disabilities, this request should be accommodated.

Conclusion:

The Sunshine Centres for Seniors request to utilize 60 Lakeshore Avenue for the 1998 season for their summer program is reasonable and should be accommodated.

Contact Name:

Rhonda Anderson, 392-1854, Fax 392-1880, E-mail-randers@city.toronto.on.ca (cs98045.wpd).

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 27, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

146 Crescent Road - Rosedale-Moore Park

Association, Extension to Lease

(Midtown - Ward 23)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To provide the Corporate Services Committee with additional information regarding the report submitted by Councillor John Adams, Midtown, on the lease extension to Rosedale-Moore Park Association.

Financial Implications:

A lease extension to April 30, 2007, will result in a commitment from Rosedale-Moore Park Association to invest $200,000.00 in capital improvements over the term of the lease. The City, pursuant to the terms of the lease, would continue to be responsible for realty taxes. The 1997 realty taxes were $22,856.67 and based upon the current value assessment of $3,858,000.00 and the projected residential/farm mill rate of 1.243403, the 1998 realty taxes are projected at $47,970.49.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)an extension to the lease with Rosedale-Moore Park Association to April 30, 2007 for 146Crescent Road, under the same terms and conditions as the current lease and conditional on Rosedale-Moore Park Association fulfilling its commitment to undertake and complete certain improvements to the property in the minimum amount of $200,000.00, over the term of the lease, be approved;

(2)the lease extension be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

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

Background:

The Rosedale-Moore Park Association has leased 146 Crescent Road since 1949 for use as a non-profit community centre. In 1997, the Association advised it wished to invest in capital repairs to the buildings but, in order to justify the expenditures, required a lease extension from April 30, 1999, the then expiry of the lease, to April 30, 2007. At is meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council approved a lease extension to April 30, 2007, subject to the Association committing to a $200,000.00 investment in capital repairs over the term of the lease and subject to Financial Advisory Board approval.

The Financial Advisory Board approved the request for an extension, but limited the extension to April 30, 2002. The Association, through Councillor John Adams, has requested City Council to reconsider its request for a lease extension to April 30, 2007.

Comments:

As set out in my report to the former City of Toronto Council, the City is responsible for capital repairs. Due to budgetary constraints, repairs to the structures at 146 Crescent Road have been deferred over the last number of years and the Rosedale-Moore Park Association has invested approximately $310,000.00 in capital repairs since 1989.

The Association which operates a needed community service in this facility at no cost to the City other than the taxes and capital repair requirements in the lease, is prepared to formally agree to invest $200,000.00 in capital repairs provided the lease is extended to April 30, 2007. This capital investment will assist the City's budgetary process and allow the Rosedale-Moore Park Association to undertake needed repairs to the facility with assured security of tenure.

Conclusion:

Concurrence to the Rosedale-Moore Park Association's request for a lease extension to April 30, 2007 will result in a firm commitment from the tenant to invest in needed capital repairs to this City-owned facility.

Contact Name:

Vinette Brown 392-7138, Fax No. 392-1880. vbrown @ city.toronto.on.ca (cs98050.wpd)

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following communication (February17, 1998) from Councillor John Adams, Midtown:

Purpose:

The purpose of this letter is to resolve the matter of a lease extension, given that the Financial Advisory Board did not approve an extension for ten years as requested and approved by the former City of Toronto Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council recommend that an extension to the lease with Rosedale-Moore Park Association to April 30, 2007, for 146 Crescent Road, under the same terms and conditions as the current lease and conditional on the Association fulfilling its commitment to undertake and complete certain improvements to the property in the minimum amount of $200,000.00, over the term of the lease, be approved;

(2)the lease extension be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(3)the appropriate officials be authorized to execute the documentation and take the necessary actions to implement the foregoing; and

(4)this item be scheduled for public deputations.

Background:

At its meeting on September 22, 1997, the then City of Toronto Council adopted recommendations in a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services dated September 8, 1997, providing this ten year lease extension, subject to approval from the Financial Advisory Board. The Board limited the extension to a period of three years from the end of the existing lease.

The Association has reiterated its request for the ten year lease and indicated its desire for security of tenure for this period of time if it is to honour its commitment to raise $200,000.00 of private capital to improve the City-owned building which it occupies.

I attach the relevant Council clause which includes the staff report, a recent letter from the Association dated February 13, 1998, and a City letter dated December 2, 1997, reported the three-year-only extension approved by the Financial Advisory Board.

(A copy of the sketch attached to the report (April 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and the attachments to the report from Councillor John Adams, Midtown, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 27, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

15

Worksite Lease Agreement

Sheppard Avenue Subway - Bayview Station

Owner: Vincenzo and Vincet Picano

577 Sheppard Avenue East

(North York Centre South - Ward 9)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Management Committee (as amended) on March 8 and 9, 1994, and subject to a further report regarding funding, Metropolitan Council approved construction of the Sheppard Subway to Don Mills Road. By the approval of Clause No.2 of Report No. 14 of The Management Committee (as amended) on April 20, 1994, Metropolitan Council authorized the debenture funding to commence the project. Finally, Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of the Financial Priorities Committee on September25 and 26, 1996, as amended, approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway Project.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the construction of the Sheppard Subway, a lease agreement is required from the property at 577 Sheppard Avenue East for the temporary relocation of the driveway in order to facilitate the construction of the Bayview Station. The lands for the construction have been previously acquired. The lease is required for a three year period, commencing on January 1, 1998, with an option to renew for a further one year period. The demised area is described as follows:

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

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

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

Owner:Vincenzo and Vincet Picano

Location:The subject property is located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue East, between Kenaston Gardens and Barberry Place, immediately east of Don Mills Road and known municipally as 577 Sheppard Avenue East.

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

Property Description:A single family residential holding, improved with a detached brick sidesplit, with 58 feet of frontage on Sheppard Avenue East.

Area of Requirements:The demised area covers 71 square metres (765 square feet) and is shown cross-hatched on the attached sketch.

Rent:$1,810.00 for the three year term; $603.00 for the one year option plus reasonable legal fees and other costs.

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. Douglas F. Warning

Acting Director, Real Estate (392-8165)

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 27, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

16

Tender for Diesel Fuel for the Period

June 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April9, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the tender issued for the supply and delivery of Diesel Fuel used in various fleet vehicles, heavy equipment and emergency power generators, by various former City of Toronto, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Departments and Borough of East York, for the period June 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998, and to request authority to award a contract to the recommended bidder.

Funding Sources:

Funds estimated at $1,415,240.61, including all current taxes and charges, are provided in the 1998 current accounts of the Departments concerned.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the tender submitted by Shell Canada Products Limited for the supply and delivery of approximately 4,440,875 litres of Diesel Fuel, (approximately 1,905,943 litres of Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel used in various fleet vehicles and approximately 2,534,932 litres of Coloured Diesel Fuel used in heavy equipment and emergency power generators), be accepted at the tendered price of $0.1998 per litre for Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel and $0.1948 per litre for Coloured Diesel Fuel, exclusive of all taxes, subject to escalation or de-escalation as of June 5, 1998, being the lowest tender received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Thirteen (13) firms were invited to submit tenders and an advertisement was placed in the daily press for this requirement. Four (4) tenders were received for the supply and delivery of diesel fuel used in various fleet vehicles, heavy equipment and emergency power generators by various former City, Metro Departments and Borough of East York as summarized below.

It should be noted that this requirement is only for a seven month period to allow for amalgamation of requirements of other former municipalities once all their existing contracts expire within the next seven months. The next tender call for this item will be for a one year period and will include requirements for all former municipalities.

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firm recommended.

Comments and/or Discussions/or Justification:

Summary of Prices:

Supply and delivery of diesel fuel for the period June 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998:

TenderersBaseFederalProvincialGoods & Total

PriceExciseRoad TaxServicesPrice

Per LitreTax Per LitreTax Per Litre

Per LitrePer Litre

Low Sulphur Diesel

Shell Canada

Products Limited*$0.1998$0.04$0.1430$0.0268$0.4096

Petro Canada**$0.2078$0.04$0.1430$0.0274$0.4182

Sunoco Inc.***$0.2177$0.04$0.1430$0.0280$0.4287

Big K Fuels Inc.***$0.2510$0.04$0.1430$0.0304$0.4644

Coloured Diesel

Shell Canada

Products Limited*$0.1948$0.04not applicable$0.0164$0.2512

Petro Canada**$0.2015$0.04not applicable$0.0169$0.2584

Sunoco Inc.***$0.2129$0.04not applicable$0.0177$0.2706

Big K Fuels Inc.***$0.2440$0.04not applicable$0.0199$0.3039

*Base price firm until June 5, 1998, after which price may be adjusted monthly during 1998 based on Shell Canada's Canadian unbranded rack price for Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel and Coloured Diesel Fuel in Toronto as published in Bloombergs Oil Buyers' Guide, a price index published weekly and used by all bidders who submitted a tender for this requirement. This ensures that the City will receive the lowest pricing available for the term of the contract.

**Base price firm until June 4, 1998.

***Base price firm until June 1, 1998.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to award the contract for the supply and delivery of Diesel Fuel used in various fleet vehicles, heavy equipment and emergency power generators, by various former City of Toronto, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Departments and Borough of East York, for the period June 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998, to Shell Canada Products Limited, being the lowest tender received.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Lou Pagano, Director - Telephone: 392-7312.

17

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Conditions of Employment - Council Staff Members.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following report back to the Executive Director of Human Resources for further discussion with the affected employees, and report thereon to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee:

(April 14, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, respecting conditions of employment for Council staff members; advising that there will be financial implications in terms of the salaries and benefits for those individuals in these positions; that funding for these positions is accommodated in the Councillor's 1998 salary budgets; and recommending that Council staff members (Executive Assistant, Constituency Assistant, Administrative Assistant and Clerical Assistant) employed:

(1)on or before December 31, 1997, as permanent or temporary employees remain as permanent or temporary employees with the City of Toronto;

(2)on or before December 31, 1997, as contract employees be employed under the terms and conditions of the respective employment contract attached as Appendix "A" except for those employees of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto who may choose to remain on their existing contract;

(3)on or after January 1, 1998, be employed under the terms and conditions of the respective employment contract attached as Appendix "A".

(b)Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following report, together with the following motions, to the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the Chief Administrative Officer, for report thereon to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee scheduled to be held on May 25, 1998:

Moved by Councillor Adams:

"that Appendix 'A' embodied in the following report be amended as follows:

"(1)that Section 2(f) be amended to read as follows:

"Councillors cannot exceed their annual global office budget. Any over-expenditure would be recovered from the next years budget allocation subject to the Councillor being personally responsible for any over-expenditure at the end of the three year term of office.";

(2)that Section 11 (b)(i) be amended to read as follows:

"That Councillors and the Mayor shall notify the City Clerk in advance of plans to attend an event and shall seek Council approval for conference/seminar events exceeding $3,500.00 (Canadian funds), inclusive of registration, travel, accommodation and all related expenses.";

(3)that Section 11 (ii), entitled "Business Travel", be amended to provide that travel as a delegate to annual or general meetings to organizations such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the International Union of Local Authorities, the World Association of Major Metropolis and the Ontario Good Roads Association, be charged to the Council Business Travel Budget;

(4)that the Section entitled, "Overtime by Administrative Assistants", be amended to provide that compensation for overtime worked be included in the General Council Budget, subject to a limit; and the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Clerk be requested to report to the Corporate Services Committee on a reasonable limit."; and

(5)that vacation replacement cost be paid for from the General Council Budget up to the City's standards for vacation."

Moved by Councillor Rae:

"that Appendix 'A' embodied in the following report be amended as follows:

(1)that Section 2 (i) be amended by deleting all of the words after the words "supported expense report", so that such section read as follows:

"(2)(i)Purchases made by Members of Council will be paid directly to the supplier by the Corporation. Incidental expenses may be reimbursed to Councillors through petty cash or upon submission of a completed and supported expenses report"; and

(2)that Section 11 (c) be amended by deleting therefrom reference to the use of the services of a Corporate Travel Agent.

Moved by Councillor Mihevc:

"That Section 1 of Appendix 'A' embodied in the following report, entitled 'Global Budget Expenses', be amended to include "business use of personal automobile."

Moved by Councillor Augimeri:

"That Section 1, entitled 'Global Budget Expenses' of Appendix 'A' embodied in the following report be amended by deleting from the item listed as 'Tickets for community and other events (limit of two (2) per event)', the following words '(limit of two (2) per event)', so that such item read as follows:

'Tickets for community and other events' ".

Moved by Councillor Miller:

(1)"That Section 11 (i), entitled 'Conference/Seminar', be amended by adding after the word 'seminar', the words 'to respond to invitations to speak', so that such Section read as follows:

'attendance at a seminar, to respond to invitations to speak, which is a compact program of not more than five working days, not necessarily offered through an approved academic institution or professional body, for an individual's professional development;' and

(2)that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on a specific criteria related to invitations to speak."

Moved by Councillor Johnston:

"That Appendix 'A' be amended to provide that when a Member of Council is travelling, they also advise the Clerk, in writing.":

(April 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, establishing consistent policies and procedures with respect to office administration and expenses of Members of Council; advising that this report has no immediate financial implications; that implementation of the proposed policies will clarify corporate and Councillor expenditures and will be addressed as part of the regular budget process; and recommending that:

(1)the policies and procedures as outlined in Appendix "A" entitled "Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council" be adopted, and that all Members of Council and their staff comply with the policies; and

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

(c)Parking Tag Issuance.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report and presentation:

(April 14, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, providing a geographic breakdown showing locations where parking tags were issued in 1997, based on the six former Area Municipalities as requested by the Corporate Services Committee on February16, 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information purposes.

--------

Mr. Bryan Kerr, Manager, Parking Tag Operations, gave a presentation to the Corporate Services Committee providing:

(1)information on past, present and future Parking Tag Operations (PTO);

(2)PTO statistics;

(3)PTO Revenue;

(4)Parking Tags unpaid;

(5)PTO Payment Processes; and

(6)Parking Enforcement Statistics.

(d)1998 Parking Tag Issuance - March.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(April 6, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, advising that Metropolitan Council, on February 17 and 18, 1993, adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 9 of the Management Committee, as amended, wherein it is recommended "that the Metropolitan Treasurer submit a monthly report to the Management Committee on the operational results of Parking Tag Operations regarding the number of tags issued and collected, staffing and expenditures and revenue and deviations thereof, together with a projected total year position"; that this report reflects parking enforcement and collection activities of the Corporation for the period ending March 31, 1998; attaching the following schedules:

Schedule 1Monthly Tag Issuance, Collection Rate and Revenue for 1998;

Schedule 2Collection Rate Activity for Tags Issued in Prior Years (1989-1997);

Schedule 3 Parking Tag Receivables (1989-1997);

Schedule 4Summary of Trial Request and Conviction Rates; and

Schedule 5Summary of Expenditures for Parking Tag Operations; and

recommending that this report be received for information.

(e)Bus Garage Replacement Project - Property Acquisition.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having requested further confidential reports from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Toronto Transit Commission respecting the following communications; and having forwarded a request in regard thereto to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(i)(April 9, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission entitled, "Bus Garage Replacement Project - Property Acquisition"; and

(ii)(April 24, 1998) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto, and CouncillorTomJakobek, East Toronto, respecting the Bus Garage Replacement Project.

--------

Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(f)Transitional Investments - City Clerk's Department.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following joint report; noting the action taken by the Budget Committee on April 20, 1998, respecting further reports from the Chief Administrative Officer on a project-by-project basis to the appropriate Standing Committee outlining the source of funding and identifying the related savings and budget reductions respecting all transition projects:

(April 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and City Clerk, seeking funding approval for City Clerk's Department transitional investments required from 1998 to 2000 in order to achieve proposed 1998 and future year Operating Budget reductions; and recommending that:

(1)the City Clerk's proposals for transitional investments, as outlined in this report, be approved and implemented in 1998;

(2)total funds in the amount of $2,729,000.00.00, phased over three years, be approved for the Clerk's Department requested transitional investments, with funds in the amount of $1,585,000.00 to be provided in 1998, in accordance with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer's report (April 17, 1998) respecting Transition Projects - Financing Strategy; and

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

(g)"Rosenberg" Decision Respecting the

Provision of Benefits to Same-sex Partners.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having requested the City Solicitor to submit a report to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee scheduled to be held on May 25, 1998, on the implications of the "Rosenberg" decision made by the Ontario Court of Appeal respecting the provision of benefits to same-sex partners.

Respectfully submitted,

DICK O'BRIEN,

Chair

Toronto, April 27, 1998

(Report No. 5 of The Corporate Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adodpted, as amended, by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998.)