TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 9

1Project Proposal, Financial and Human Resources/Payroll Systems

2110 Lombard Street - Possible Purchase

3871 Queen Street WestPayment of Awarded Damages Pantev vs. Dominelli

4Surplus Property Within the"Spadina Coridor" and "Scarborough Transportation Corridor"

5Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at114 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

6Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 123 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

7Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 141 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

8Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 569 Arlington Avenue (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

9Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 34 Heathdale Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

104800 Yonge Street - Sheppard Subway, Acquisition of Property -Supplementary Report, Owner: OMERS Realty Corporation and Canadian Pacific Properties Inc. Leased to: 4800 Yonge Street Limited (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

114736 - 4750 Yonge Street, Sheppard Subway, Acquisition of Property Interests Colonia Life Holdings Limited and 971203 Ontario Limited (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

12Partial Property Acquisition - Ontario ConferenceSeventh Day Adventist Church Portion of 3846 Ellesmere Road (Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek)

13Partial Property Acquisition from Canada Lands Company (Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek)

14Old City Hall - Lease Agreement (Ward 24 - Downtown)

15Proposed Leasing of Parking Spaces in McCowan Road "RT" Lot to Adason Properties Ltd., (Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)

16Lease Renewal of Space at 1900 Dundas Street West,Social Services Division, Community and Neighbourhood Services Department - (Ward 19 - High Park)

17Former Porter Landfill Site -Site Risk Assessment - Request for Authority to Enter into License Agreements (Ward 27 - York Humber)

18715 Runnymede Road -Declaration as Surplus (Ward 21 - Davenport)

1940R Wells Street -Declaration as Surplus (Ward 23 - Midtown)

20141 Weston Road and a Residual Portion of Keele Street Closed, Declaration as Surplus (Ward 21 - Davenport)

21North Side Aylesworth Avenue - Former Scarborough Transportation Corridor, Declaration as Surplus (Scarborough Bluffs - Ward 13)

22Borough Drive - (Closed) Between ProgressAvenue and Town Centre Court - Declaration As Surplus - (Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)6287

23Expropriation of Additional Property Requirements -Sheppard Subway - Yonge Station West Side Yonge Street Johnston Avenue to Poyntz Avenue (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

24Request to Purchase Property Abutting 169 Hopedale Avenue

255182 and 5200 Yonge Street - Extension Request, (North York Centre - Ward 10)

26Proposed Installation of a Pole,Antenna and Monitoring Equipment atthe West Side of the Don Valley Parkway and Beechwood Drive Road (Ward 1 - East York)

27Proposed Installation of a Pole, Antenna and Monitoring Equipment at the East Side of the Don Valley Parkway and Spanbridge Road (Ward 11 - Don Parkway)

28Renovations to Trinity Community Recreation Centre155 Crawford Street - Project No. 950016PR Tender No. 10-1998 (Trinity-Niagara)

29Approval of Funding for Real Estate Consulting Firm

30Provision of Food Services at City Hall

31Appointments to the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust

32Records Retention Schedule - Board of Governors of Exhibition Place

33Increased Court Costs for Parking Tag Convictions

34Natural Gas Supply to the City of Toronto

35Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Fee Increases

36Pro-Active Inspections, High Rise Apartment Buildings

37Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 9

OF THE CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on June 22, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Dick O'Brien, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

1

Project Proposal, Financial and

Human Resources/Payroll Systems

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 29, 1998.)

The Corporate Services Committee:

(1)recommends the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) and (3) embodied in the joint report (June 10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources; and

(2)reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the aforementioned report; and having requested the Budget Committee to report thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998, when this matter is being considered.

The Corporate Services Committee further reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)referred the following motion to the City Solicitor for report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998:

Moved by Councillor John Adams:

"That City Council adopt the following policy:

"(i)if any director, officer, employee, agent or other representative of a proponent/respondent, including any other parties that may be involved in a joint venture or a consortium with the respondent, makes, from and after Council's decision on July 8, 1998, any representation or solicitation to any elected representative or employee or agent of the City of Toronto, with the exception of the contact person designated by the Chief Administrative Officer with respect to the respondent's proposal or any other respondent's proposal, City Council is entitled to reject the proponent/respondent's proposal;

(ii)a representation can be considered to be anything said or written to any Member of Council, employee or agent which provides information advancing the interests of a proposal;

(iii)this requirement does not extend to representations made to the designated official or to any public deputation made to a Committee of City Council in accordance with the Procedural By-law;

(iv)should a respondent desire that any information be presented to Members of Council, the Respondent may request the Designated Official to do so and that official shall distribute such information to all Members of Council and appropriate staff;

(v)should Members of Council wish to receive information from any respondent(s), then the request shall be made through the Designated Official, and if any Member of Council directly approaches a respondent for information, the respondent is at jeopardy if he or she does make any representation to any Councillor in response; and

(vi)in the event of any alleged breach of the foregoing protocol, City Council shall be the arbiter of the effect of such a breach to the process";

(2)requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to submit a joint report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998, providing recommendations respecting the inclusion of all Agencies, Boards and Commissions, including the Toronto Hydro Commission, in the FIS/HRS system being proposed; and

(3)requested the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the outside independent consultant from LGS Inc., to submit a written brief to all Members of Council, as quickly as possible, respecting the risks involved regarding this project and the concerns expressed by Members of the Corporate Services Committee.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following joint report (June 10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources:

Purpose:

To recommend the acquisition of financial and human resource systems essential to the operation of the City and the effectiveness of amalgamation.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the acquisition of financial and human resource/payroll systems from SAP be approved in principle, as outlined in this report;

(2)funds not to exceed $6.1 million be authorized for expenditure in 1998, $3.4 million in 1999, $6.5 million in 2000, $6.5 million in 2001, and $3.8 million in 2002 with total capital expenditures for the financial and human resources/payroll systems not to exceed $26.3million for the necessary hardware, software and project implementation; and

(3)the appropriate city officials be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with SAP for the supply of financial and human resource/payroll systems.

Funding Implications:

The 1998 requested capital expenditures of $6.1 million have been included in the ranked list of transition projects envelope of $40 million in a separate report to the Budget Committee. Future year's requests are also included in that report with other city transition projects. Given that the minimum required investment for financial and human resources/payroll systems is $19 to $20 million, the total requested capital expenditure of $26 million represents the greatest financial and operational benefit to the City.

Background Summary:

Upon amalgamation, each of the seven municipalities entering the new City had their own systems for managing financial and human resource information and administration. Payroll, purchasing, position management, salary and benefits administration, time and attendance reporting, payment of accounts, budgeting, staffing, collective agreement administration and many other administrative tasks are handled by these systems. For the most part, the existing systems are still functioning independently. In these interim months, summary financial information is being consolidated in the former Metro system, but financial detail is only available from the systems in the previous municipalities, which continue to require maintenance and support.

It is essential that the City's administrative systems be consolidated as soon as possible, for several reasons:

(i)it is impossible to exercise appropriate financial and staffing control when the necessary information is distributed among several systems;

(ii)most of the existing systems are not year 2000 compliant, and will not function properly when this issue begins to arise in 1999;

(iii)administrative efficiencies for 1999 and beyond cannot be achieved without the benefits of consolidated systems, and savings potentially associated with amalgamation become unattainable without the necessary investment in systems; and

(iv)it is essential that a single system be in place to support activity based costing and charge-back of the costs of administrative systems, as this capacity is required in order to achieve administrative savings

The City has also received expressions of interest in outsourcing of administrative systems, through partnership with private-sector organizations. While these possibilities have not yet been subject to full analysis, it is clear that installation of effective administrative systems serving all of the new City will enable the City to realize significant savings itself. Once these immediate benefits have been realized and internal efficiencies achieved, it may be appropriate to entertain proposals for alternate service delivery arrangements.

Movement to a single system, or set of systems, is a massive and difficult undertaking. In an organization the size of the City, a normal time-frame for implementation of a new suite of business systems would be a minimum of two years, from approval of the project and selection of vendors to full functionality. Because the City does not have a single set of administrative systems in place, and consequently does not have the necessary mechanisms to support management accountability or to achieve the available administrative efficiencies, it is necessary to move much more quickly.

In late 1997, RFIs were issued requesting information from vendors on the supply of systems to support the City's financial and human resource requirements. Several vendors were asked to provide product demonstrations. Separate staff groups evaluated the proposals for financial and human resource/payroll systems, using systematic criteria determined in advance.

Both the HR/Payroll and Finance groups reviewed detailed information on the functional capabilities of the various products, and the cost structures proposed by the vendors. Extensive presentations were conducted by each of the vendors for each of their products (when a single vendor proposed both financial and human resource/payroll products, each was presented separately). In addition, extensive presentations by each vendor were made to City technical staff, focusing on the technical features and support requirements for the products.

During February and March of 1998, there were extensive discussions with vendors, and a number of site visits were conducted. Also during March, the separate financial and human resource/payroll systems projects were consolidated under the FIS/HRP Steering Committee. The Committee reviewed the staff recommendations, and the financial impact of the proposals. In light of the City's financial circumstances, and the need to ensure that the most cost-effective solutions to the City's requirements be identified, the Committee directed that further review of all options be conducted.

Technology and management consultants LGS Group were retained to assist in the evaluation of options. LGS Group has wide experience in the application of technology to the business needs of both private and public sector organizations, including municipalities.

Subsequent analysis included detailed consideration of the financial impact of the most viable options, including estimates of the impact of each on the staffing requirements of the City over the next few years. Reports were also obtained from the Gartner Group, consultants specializing in analysis of technology companies and products, on the financial status and viability of each of the "qualified" vendors, and on the strengths of each product line

The results of this extensive evaluation process are summarized in this report. A minimum investment of $19 to $20 million is required to meet the basic needs of the City. The recommended additional investment of $6 million brings the total required investment to $26 million. This will generate additional savings of almost $6 million per annum, and will position the City well for future reengineering and efficient operations.

What is a Financial Information System (FIS)?

A Financial Information System is the set of computerized business tools used by organizations to perform a variety of finance-related tasks, and to track and control expenditure and revenue. It provides essential support to an organization's operations. Even the smallest businesses make use of automated accounting systems; all large organizations require the support of sophisticated and integrated financial systems in order to conduct business efficiently and with appropriate financial control. At the City of Toronto, this system will track $5.6 billion of annual expenditures and revenue. The very wide variety of FIS components has an impact on virtually all areas of the City's operations, as can be seen from the following FIS component summary.

General Ledger (G/L):

The G/L is at the core of any financial system, and is central to all accounting operations. All revenues and expenditures are recorded in the G/L, and the structure of its Chart of Accounts allows these to be tracked at any required level of detail. It is through the G/L that budgets can be assigned to operating units, authority for expenditures assigned to individuals, financial reports produced, and so on. All of the financial transactions accomplished through other modules of the FIS are reported to the G/L, requiring that all of these be integrated with the G/L in a single system.

Budgeting:

Financial information systems provide budget development support, allowing for the systematic preparation and modeling of budgets. Managers can model and prepare their budget proposals on a decentralized basis, and these are consolidated and subject to analysis, with necessary amendments made prior to final submission. Once the budget is adopted, the final figures are loaded into the G/L, allowing funds to be expended within the budget parameters.

Purchasing:

The purchasing applications provide for the specification of product requirements, the sourcing of supply, vendor management and the preparation and management of tender processes (including the creation and management of Requests for Information and Requests for Proposals). When goods are to be purchased or otherwise obtained, these systems provide for requisitioning, and the subsequent issuing of purchase orders. In an effective integrated system, requisitions are created, approved, and submitted for action electronically. Purchase orders may also be forwarded to vendors electronically. Under normal circumstances, a requisition will not be allowed unless funds are available, and the appropriate approval obtained. Available funds are determined by looking up the necessary information in the G/L, which will have the up-to-date available balances (which include any previous requisitions, even if the goods have not yet been received or paid for). This is all accomplished electronically.

Accounts Payable:

The accounts payable system is closely linked to the purchasing system. When goods have been received after a purchase order is issued, their receipt in good order is documented electronically. Invoices are matched with the purchase order and the receiving information, and payment scheduled to optimize the City's interests. Once payment has been made, the expenditure is recorded in theG/L.

Accounts Receivable:

When the City provides goods or services to individuals or other organizations, payment or reimbursement is accomplished through the A/R application. Examples include program registration, license fees, property rentals, etc. The A/R module ensures that appropriate amounts are charged, and that the revenues get properly posted to the general ledger.

Fixed Assets:

An organization's property (including real estate, buildings, equipment and other tangible items) is tracked and managed through the fixed assets module of an FIS. Where appropriate, depreciation is recorded, and all transactions reported to the G/L.

Inventory:

Closely linked to fixed assets and purchasing, the inventory module of an FIS allows tracking of the current status of goods that are stocked, for instance, in a warehouse or store-room, and to document distribution of the goods. When a critical level is reached, re-ordering of the product is accomplished automatically. It is essential that an inventory system use standardized coding systems, and support tools such as bar code identification. An inventory system will also be closely linked to any future fleet and equipment maintenance system used by the City.

Project Management:

An effective project management component allows the creation of project budgets (e.g. capital), and the tracking of expenditures over a multi-year period against the budgeted amounts. This allows the early identification of potential cost overruns and of delays in the completion of projects. To be effective, a Project Management component requires efficient links to the information generated by or contained in Human Resource/Payroll systems.

Cost Accounting:

In some instances, tracking costs across organizational units is necessary in order to identify program costs, where programs involve more than one department or other organizational unit. As well, a cost accounting module provides the mechanism through which the costs associated with an activity can be tracked, and subsequently charged to a purchasing department or outside organization. As in Project Management, effective Cost Accounting requires an efficient link to the HR/Payroll system.

Performance measures:

Tracking the effectiveness of an organization requires that activities be monitored and costed, and that comparisons be made to external standards. The performance measures component of an FIS provides the mechanism through which this is accomplished.

Fleet Management:

Fleet Management is sometimes included as part of an FIS, and provides for acquisition control, cost tracking, maintenance, assignment and disposition of fleet assets. Although several of the vendors reviewed here can provide a Fleet Management application, it was not included in our original specifications, and has not been explicitly evaluated.

What is a Human Resource Information and Payroll System (HR/P)?

Human resource and payroll systems are the mechanisms through which an organization's human resources are managed. Payroll costs are by far the largest single component of the budgets of municipal organizations, and efficient allocation of those resources, and tracking and control of payroll costs, are essential.

There are several functions within an HR/P system, which fall logically into two categories - those related to attendance and compensation, and those related to the management of positions and employees. There are complex relationships among the various elements of the HR/Payroll system, and between HR/Payroll and the financial systems of the organization.

Payroll:

The payroll module collects information about employee salary rates (taking into account overtime and special rates), time worked, sick time used, etc., and pays employees appropriately. Payroll staff throughout the organization use the payroll system, in order to record necessary data. The system must interact with the general ledger in the finance system, in order to post salary expenses to the appropriate chart of accounts features, in order that both total expense and detail relating to projects and programs is reflected properly.

Pensions and Benefits:

Pension and benefits administration ensures that appropriate pension contributions are made and recorded, and that benefit options are implemented correctly for each employee. Where there are benefit systems allowing for wide choice (e.g. "cafeteria" or flexible arrangements), the benefit system provides the mechanism through which the choices are exercised.

Time and Attendance:

Recording work time and attendance is an essential element of the overall payroll system. It is this system which provides data to the payroll system, triggering employee pay. It is also this system that records absences and bank balances (sick time, vacation time, lieu time), according to the multiple variations on employment terms. Attendance management systems rely on the time and attendance module for information on absence patterns. The Time and Attendance system is also closely linked to project management and fleet and property maintenance systems.

Position management:

Most public sector organizations control staffing levels and expenditures through a position management system. Positions are created, each of which has an authorized number of employees who may be assigned to it, and a salary range. Hiring more employees into a position than the "authorized establishment" is not allowed by the system unless an exception is approved by someone in an appropriate position of authority. The position management module provides the mechanism through which positions are defined and created, and through which control of staffing levels is achieved.

Compensation and Salary Administration:

Job Evaluation programs allow for the description and rating of jobs according to a defined set of criteria. Salary rates have to be administered, including provision of mass increases, stepping of employees through salary levels, etc. Together, the compensation and salary administration functions of an HR/Payroll system support these functions.

Staffing:

The staffing module supports all the recruitment and promotion activities of the organization, and is the first point through which information about employees enters the system. Information from résumés and applications is captured electronically, and entered into employee or applicant databases. Movement of employees through jobs is tracked.

Grievance Tracking:

In a large organization, managing grievances, tracking each one individually and recording outcomes, is essential if the organization is to exercise proper control. An effective HR/P allows labour relations staff to enter information and associate the data with employees and workplaces. Pattern analysis allows problem areas to be anticipated and addressed before the grievance problems become unmanageable.

Training and Organizational Development and Competency Management:

Training strategies are supported by HR/P systems in several ways, including scheduling of employee attendance at courses, and the generation of information about organizational structure and operations. Employee skills and competencies can be recorded and tracked, and the information used in the identification of individuals with skills suitable to particular assignments.

Health/Safety/WSIB:

Every employer has statutory responsibilities with respect to the health and safety of employees, and must record and process information about any incidents involving injury. As well, workers' compensation claims must be recorded, processed and managed. Data can be entered initially from the field, with all follow-on events recorded as part of the same record. The HR/P is essential to these processes.

Existing FIS and HR/P Installations (Former Municipalities):

All seven of the former Toronto municipalities have functional systems for management of financial and human resource/payroll processes. These systems represent a wide diversity of vendors and installation types, with very little overlap. Many of the systems would have had to be replaced in order to address problems associated with the "Year 2000" (Y2K) issue - these systems would likely become non-functional on January 1, 2000. In other cases, the applications provide relatively limited functionality, not appropriate for a large organization.

Table 1 shows the products in use in the various organizations, as well as the date of installation and Y2K status.

There has been concern that the recent substantial investment in business systems at the former City and Metro will all have to be "written off". Both organizations were very large, with many complex operational needs. However, at the same time as the new systems were installed, a great deal of technical infrastructure was also put in place. This included networks, servers and desktop computers. The infrastructure was necessary to support the modern business systems being installed, but was also necessary to support electronic mail, geographical information systems, etc. At the time that decisions were made to install these business systems, the amalgamation of the seven municipalities into a new City of Toronto was not yet even under consideration. Most of the technical infrastructure will remain in place after the business systems are replaced, and will be utilized with any new installation, as well as the other technical requirements of the organization. It is expected that most of the infrastructure components implemented within the last two or three years at the City and Metro will be Y2K compliant, or readily made Y2K compliant, although final analysis has not yet been completed.

The total cost of the installations at the City and Metro are shown in Table 2, along with the amounts attributable to the business systems themselves and the amounts that represent a reusable investment.

--------

¹ "Yes" indicates existing system is already Year 2000 compliant. "No" indicates existing system requires a version upgrade or significant rework in the case of an internally developed system to become Year 2000 compliant.

Evaluation Process

The City's requirements for business systems were determined by a thorough analysis of the City's business needs and amalgamation-support requirements. Detailed business analyses conducted by Metro, the former City of Toronto, North York and Etobicoke were also reviewed.

Separate Requests For Information (RFIs) were issued for the FIS and HR/P software were issued in late November, 1997.

The FIS RFI was issued to seven vendors after a survey of municipalities and the financial systems in use. Four of these vendors' financial systems are currently in use at four of the former seven municipalities. These are SAP (former Etobicoke), Computron (former Metro), SCT Government Systems (former Toronto) and American Management Systems (former North York). SCT and AMS declined to respond, indicating that they were not in a position to address the requirements of the new City. Submissions were received from SAP, Computron, J. D. Edwards, PeopleSoft and Oracle. Oracle later withdrew from the process when it could not comply with the timetable for presentations.

The HR/P RFI was issued to five vendors, three of whose systems are currently in use within the seven former municipalities. These are Cyborg (former Metro HR/P and Scarborough payroll only), SCT Government Systems (former Toronto) and PeopleSoft (former Scarborough HR only). SCT declined to respond. Submissions were received from SAP, PeopleSoft and Cyborg.

Information about the responding vendors and their products is outlined in Table 3.

Evaluation teams composed of business and information technology staff were assembled, and detailed evaluation criteria were prepared for each of the two separate (FIS and HR/P) processes. Product demonstrations were conducted by vendor representatives during December, 1997, following demonstration scripts prepared by the evaluation teams. Follow-up requests for information were forwarded to the vendors, and responses considered in determination of ratings. Further discussions were held with each vendor to investigate implementation strategies and to refine software, hardware and implementation costs.

After the formal evaluation was completed, contact was made with several client sites to assess the level of product and vendor satisfaction. Site visits were conducted for the FIS systems by a team of accounting, information technology and library representatives.

Functional and Technical Analysis:

Data on the current business and product status of each of the vendors was obtained from the Gartner Group, a consulting organization that produces widely used analyses of technology companies and products.

A summary analysis of each of the products is provided in Table 4.

System Integration:

There are two approaches possible to installation of Financial and HR/Payroll systems. The first is the "best of breed" strategy, which separately identifies the best available options (all things considered) for the Finance and for the HR/Payroll systems. Excellent functionality can be obtained, but appropriate interfaces must be built between the Financial and the Human Resource/Payroll systems. In most cases, this means that the FIS and HR/P will come from different vendors.

The alternative approach see the Financial and HR/Payroll systems fully integrated, and that they share data seamlessly without the necessity for building interfaces. This can only be provided by a single vendor supplying both HR/Payroll and Financial systems.

The initial intention was to adopt a "best of breed" strategy, and to separately evaluate and acquire the financial and human resource/payroll systems. The original project structure reflected this intent, with separate project teams conducting separate product evaluations.

Over time, however, it became clear that integration issues would have to be considered in the evaluation. In particular, analysis from the Gartner Group, and from LGS Group, the consultants retained to assist the City in the decision process, indicated that substantial benefits would accrue from an integrated system. The LGS analysis, attached as Appendix B, concludes:

"We strongly recommend that the City pursue the integrated alternative as the target solution for the City's administrative system. This path will help the City maximize the benefits of amalgamation, transform its administrative operations and provide the City with a solution flexible to sustain future business improvements and technology advances."

Of particular concern was the likelihood that non-integrated systems would require either cumbersome multiple-entry of data into the financial and human resource/payroll systems, or the expense of creating and maintaining electronic interfaces among the products. In either case, real efficiencies are difficult to achieve. Specific issues revolve around the need to obtain financial information for certain human resource actions (e.g., funds availability for position creation), and the need to obtain payroll information for financial transactions (e.g., time worked on a project, for billing purposes). These are more fully documented in Appendix B.

A careful review of the issues led to the conclusion that substantial additional savings would be achieved by an integrated solution, relative to a "best of breed" solution. These savings will come through the elimination of multiple data-entry functions, and greater efficiency of transaction processing. While it is not possible at this stage to identify specific positions which would be effected, we are confident that savings in the affected administrative areas will exceed 15percent relative to non-integrated solutions, and this analysis is supported by industry experience.

Ranking and Short-Listing of Products:

All available information was reviewed in order to determine which applications or combinations of applications could serve the City's needs, so that detailed financial and implementation analyses could be conducted. The issues were complex and many variables entered into the analysis. Ultimately, four factors were considered in short-listing products for detailed analysis, and in determining the ultimate recommendations:

(a)relative scores on the functional and technical evaluation, as determined by the original evaluation teams

(b)ability of the vendors to support an implementation on the scale required by the City and within the required timeframe;

(c)degree of functional integration available across financial and human resource/payroll functions; and

(d)the presence of existing installations at the City, which could provide a base for a new installation, as well as staff with familiarity with the products.

An investment has been made in the Computron/Cyborg installation at Metro, as documented in Table2, of which approximately 50percent is infrastructure investment necessary to support the new City and is reusable, subject to year Y2K compliance. In any event, it is essential that future costs and benefits be a significant criteria on which the evaluation is conducted.

It is not possible to simply add additional data or hardware to the existing Computron/Cyborg installation to support the new organization. Entirely new financial structures must be created, a multitude of new business rules implemented, new hardware installed and a vast amount of existing data converted to the new system from the seven existing municipalities (including Metro, whose existing data will have to be converted to the new standard necessitated by amalgamation). As a result, all software including both current and new modules would have to be reinstalled (or installed for the first time) and appropriately configured. It would be necessary to treat the implementation of Computron and/or Cyborg as a new installation, at a capital cost of $10.5 million.

Neither Computron nor Cyborg ranked high in the head-to-head evaluation. In particular, Cyborg was identified as lacking the minimum functionality necessary to support the City's Human Resource and Payroll needs. Its Payroll module is unable to support sufficient earnings categories to support the complex operational and labour relations realities at the City. Position Management could not be successfully demonstrated, or otherwise evaluated, as it was still in development without any implementations. Employee self service capacity was very limited, and the company has no apparent plan to move toward web-enablement, which would facilitate ease of access with a standardized web browser user interface through either the internal intranet or remotely via the internet. The Cyborg product cannot be used by the City, and was not included in the final short-listed analysis. As a result, the minimum investment required in FIS and HR/P systems by the City is $19 million because of the need to completely replace the HR system.

Computron did not evaluate well relative to the other products, but not quite so dramatically as Cyborg. It has been determined that Computron could be acceptable for the City's financial systems needs, at least for the short term. Because of the existing installation at the former Metro, and the possibility that implementation of Computron financials could be accelerated as a result, this product was included in the final implementation and cost/benefit evaluation.

PeopleSoft provided both Financial and HR/Payroll systems for evaluation. It is clear that PeopleSoft is committed to production of an integrated suite of business systems, and will likely be very competitive in the integrated systems market in the future. However, our evaluation suggests that the version of the PeopleSoft financial systems product submitted for evaluation does not yet meet the City's needs, and therefore an integrated PeopleSoft system is not possible.

However, the PeopleSoft Human Resource and Payroll applications are clearly "state-of-the-art", and provide a very good fit relative to our needs in those areas. PeopleSoft HR/Payroll systems were included in the implementation and cost/benefit evaluation.

Although J. D. Edwards financials were evaluated highly, the absence of either an integrated HR/Payroll system or an existing installation at the City on which to build a new implementation were significant factors in the decision not to pursue the JDE applications. In addition, Gartner Group analyses have identified J. D. Edwards as a niche player, with strength in AS400-based smaller organizations, but with limited capacity to service organizations the size of the City.

Only the SAP product line provided the potential for achieving an integrated solution across the Financial and HR/Payroll applications. Both of the SAP products were rated highly in the separate evaluations, just slightly behind the 'best of breed" leader in each category. Because of the very good quality of the individual products, along with the integration factor, both SAP Financials and SAP HR/Payroll were shortlisted in their respective categories.

Implementation and cost/benefit analyses have been conducted on the financial systems products from Computron and SAP, and on the HR/Payroll products from SAP and PeopleSoft, in various combinations, as follows:

(a)SAP Integrated Systems: SAP Financials and SAP HR/Payroll, implemented together, with the Etobicoke installation of SAP Financials as the base.

(b)Computron Financials with SAP Human Resource/Payroll: Computron Financials would be implemented by building on the existing Metro implementation where possible, although significant reworking would be required. SAP Human Resource/Payroll would be implemented as a new installation. If it were decided at a later date to implement SAP financials, this would allow migration to a fully integrated solution.

(c)Computron Financials and PeopleSoft HR/Payroll: As in b) above, but with PeopleSoft HR/Payroll instead of SAP.

(d)Computron interim Financials to SAP Financials/Human Resource/Payroll: The Computron Financial system and SAP HR/Payroll is implemented initially, to allow for reduced risk of delays in availability of the necessary financial systems. The full suite of SAP financial products would be implemented after the initial Computron implementation was completed.

Implementation and Cost Analysis:

With the assistance of consultants LGS Group, a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits associated with each of the options was conducted. The results of the analysis are shown in the table "Cost and Benefit Analysis, Financial/HR Systems", attached as Appendix A.

Cost analyses are based on information provided by the vendors for licensing and implementation, and upon additional information generated by staff.

Benefits through staffing efficiency have been calculated using conservative assumptions. All products will provide similar levels of benefits (primarily through staff reductions) within the Finance and HR/Payroll organizations. It is anticipated that reductions of about 80 positions can be achieved within these organizations as a function of implementation of the new systems across the organization.

Additional savings have been identified from within the Operating organizations, primarily as a function of integration of Finance and HR/Payroll applications. As outlined previously and in Appendix B, an integrated system will provide significant gains in efficiency. We have calculated that about 90 positions (out of a total of about 600 positions involved in these kinds of administrative activities) should be eliminated upon full implementation of an integrated solution. Of the vendors with products providing acceptable functionality, only SAP is able to provide this high level of integration. These savings are shown only in the figures for SAP implementation.

Net present value uses discount rates appropriate for the products involved. In general, discount rates are higher where risk is higher, and lower where risk is lower. For instance, the initial discount rate for installations involving Computron is relatively low, because the risk of being unable to implement on the projected time-frame is low. The initial discount rate for SAP installations, on the other hand, is moderately high, because of increased on-time risk. However, the long-term Computron risk is high, because of the uncertain future of the company and its product line, and potential associated difficulties obtaining support and upgrades, while the corresponding SAP risk is low.

Net present value and internal rate of return calculations show that installation of SAP products for the FIS and the HR/P provide by far the best financial return over the life-cycle for product installations of this type. Even though initial capital cost is relatively high, net present value and internal rate of return favor this combination as early as the third year.

The recommended solution, SAP Financials with SAP Human Resource and Payroll, has the most favorable bottom line over both three and seven year terms. Total capital investment for the SAP solution will be $26.3 million, with operating costs to 2005 of $10.7 million. Total benefits and savings to 2005 will be about $89 million, including reduced staff requirements in the core administrative functions (finance, human resources, payroll) and about a 15percent reduction (90positions) in staff requirements for administrative functions in the operating departments. Over the life of the average installation (seven years), we expect an SAP installation to produce net savings of about $52million.

An installation of Computron financials with SAP human resource/payroll would have lower capital and operating costs ($19 million and $4.3 million respectively), but would also have significantly lower downstream benefits ($54.8 million) as a consequence of the reduced efficiencies in administrative systems. The net savings over the life of a Computron/SAP installation are expected to be about $32 million.

Figures for an installation of Computron financials with PeopleSoft human resource/payroll are similar to those for Computron/SAP, except that costs for PeopleSoft are somewhat higher. An interim installation of Computron financials, with SAP financials and human resource/payroll as the target installation, has significantly higher costs and somewhat lower benefits than a "pure" SAP installation.

All analysis is predicated on an aggressive implementation schedule, which focuses on implementation of the essential financial components by early in 1999. Supplementary financials would be fully implemented by September of 1999, as would be the full suite of HR/Payroll products. Complete installation is required by the end of the third quarter in 1999, in order to avoid Y2K problems in the period leading up to the millennium.

Degree of product integration has some effect on the implementation scheduling. Meeting the third quarter 1999 deadline for complete installation is most achievable using an integrated system on an accelerated and closely vendor-coordinated schedule. While use of an existing system such as Computron will make achievement of the financial systems target in early 1999 more readily achievable, the creation of custom interfaces to any HR/P product will be difficult to achieve within the target timeframes.

All vendors have undertaken to meet this schedule. Schedule definition will be an important element of the contracting process with the selected vendor(s).

Future Partnering Issues:

It has been anticipated that many of the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions will make use of the new business systems to be implemented. In particular, the Toronto Police are in the process of considering options to address the inadequacies of their existing systems relative to the Year 2000 issues. We have been advised that the Police do not believe that Computron can adequately address their complex needs. The Police are prepared to work closely with the City, towards a joint system, if SAP is selected.

The police have just recently implemented PeopleSoft products for their HR and Payroll needs, and will have to re-evaluate this strategy if they partner with us on financial applications. They may choose to continue with PeopleSoft HR/Payroll for the time being, pending an evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with migration to an SAP HR/Payroll installation, in partnership with the City.

In addition, the Toronto School Board has recently opted to pursue a contract with SAP for installation of financial systems. It is anticipated that synergies could be obtained through collaboration with the Board, and initial discussions have been held. In particular, it is possible that joint training ventures could be set up, significantly reducing costs for both parties.

It is also possible that broader administrative efficiencies could be obtained through partnership with these and other public sector organizations jointly or with an outside agency. Such partnerships are more likely to be possible when the organizations share a systems infrastructure. However, it is felt that such a proposal should be considered once the initial implementation period is complete and when the City has captured the maximum savings itself.

Conclusions:

The absolute minimum financial investment required is $19 to $20 million in order to provide a basic solution for the City. After review of the all of the data (functional evaluation, third-party assessments of the companies and applications, cost analysis and partnering possibilities), it has been concluded that SAP applications for Financial and Human Resource/Payroll systems, with a financial investment of $26 million, provide the greatest functionality, best cost/benefit analysis (i.e., most opportunities for staff efficiencies) and most opportunities for partnering, and are the recommended solution. The company is a leader in the field, and is very stable with a well-articulated vision for its product line. In addition, affiliated organizations such as the Toronto Police and the Toronto School Board will be able to partner with the City most effectively if SAP is implemented as the City's business systems. The additional investment of $6 to $7 million will generate savings of almost $6million per annum on an ongoing basis.

It is therefore recommended that the City contract with SAP for supply of Financial and Human Resource/Payroll systems.

Other options have been considered, and are potentially viable. In particular, Computron financials could be implemented more quickly than the SAP application, with a somewhat lower capital and operating cost. However, functionality and potential returns through staff savings would be lower, and it will be more difficult to implement a non-integrated HR/Payroll system within the target timeframe. It is also possible that this option would not allow the Police or the School Board to partner with the City.

Either SAP or PeopleSoft HR/Payroll applications could be used in association with Computron for a cost of $19 to $20 million. Our analysis suggests that SAP implementation would provide slightly lower costs, and would allow future consideration of an integrated solution, with the associated benefits. These options should be considered only if medium-term net costs are the principle deciding factor.

A third option (the most expensive at $30 million) is an interim installation of Computron, with SAP Financial and HR/Payroll systems as the target product line. The single advantage of this strategy is that it would somewhat reduce the risk of delayed implementation of the financial applications, relative to an SAP installation. However, costs would be significantly higher, and it is likely that the risk associated with the alternatives can be managed successfully. This option will also preclude involvement by the Police and the School Board, at least until the SAP applications were installed. This option should be considered only if short-term risk reduction is the principle deciding factor.

Contact Names:

Alan Deans, Ron Myhr, Al Shultz, Lana Viinamae, Stephen Wong, Ivana Zanardo

--------

Appendix A: Cost and Benefit Summary Analysis

Financial/HR Systems

The figures for Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return are indicators for how favourable an investment is - the higher the positive numerical value, the more favourable the investment.

Assumptions:

(1) Transition plans:

(a)the business cases use either the transition strategies, plans and resource requirements provided by the software vendors with respect to their products; or the estimates provided by the City staff for "internal" activities such as conversion, internal training, interfaces, etc.; and

(b)the distribution of the costs and benefits for each alternative over the cost benefit period is consistent with the corresponding transition plan for this alternative.

(2) Cost benefit period:

(a)the life cycle of administrative software is approximately seven years; and

(b)the cost benefit models demonstrate the financial impact of the transition alternatives not only after seven years (2005), but also after three, five and nine years to demonstrate a shorter-term (capital) expenditure impact and a longer term impact as some "target" solutions are likely to last beyond 2005.

(3)Capital costs:

(a)Capital costs can be grouped into three broad categories - hardware, software, and HR costs;

(b)HR costs include software / hardware configuration, enhancements, conversion, training, etc. The cost benefit models assume that City staff (IT and business) be used whenever possible during the transition; and

(c)all transition costs except internal HR costs are considered capital.

(4) Hardware costs:

(a)hardware requirements are essentially the same for all alternatives; and

(b)all cost benefit models use the same transition (capital) and ongoing annual (operating) costs of $4,570,000.00 and $75,000.00 respectively, the estimates provided by Sun Systems.

(5)Software costs:

(a)the business cases use software costs, both licensing and maintenance, as per software vendor quotations; and

(b)the software licensing costs of SAP and PeopleSoft are accrued once the software is in production, and are capitalised over three years. These vendors have indicated that they will be flexible with respect to this issue, but there is no official proposal from either vendor at this time.

(6) HR costs:

(a)the business cases use external consulting costs as per software vendor quotations;

(b)conversion and training costs are essentially the same for all alternatives;

(c)the estimates for conversion, training and other "internal" costs were based on analysis of the former City's SCT Banner experience, and extrapolated to the other cost benefit models; and

(d)the business cases use the following City staff rates to calculate the operating HR costs:

(i)$1,000.00 per diem for IT staff; and

(ii)$500.00 per diem for business staff.

(7) Benefits:

(a)the business cases include only additional savings resulting from implementing the considered alternatives, but do not include the projected amalgamation savings; and

(b)in addition to staff efficiency gains attributed to implementing any of the solutions, the business cases for the SAP alternatives include the following "integrated solution" benefits:

(i)additional $160,000.00 per annum, or 15 percent of IT support, as per Gartner Group research; and

(ii)additional $5,400,000.00 per annum in the Operating organizations resulting from the reduction in the HR/Finance data capture duplication and the management information preparation.

(8) Risk Factors:

(a)the business cases consider key risk factors associated with the transition to, and the ongoing maintenance of each alternative by applying variable rates of discount to the cash flows in the Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. Higher risks mean higher discounts; and

(b)the following are the three risk groups and associated discount rates used in the business cases:

(i)Low - 7.5 percent;

(ii)Medium - 19 percent; and

(iii)High - 30 percent.

(9) Transition risks:

(a)the risk assessment of various transition paths is based mainly on the ability to meet successfully the transition constrains (see Assumption 1 above), and, thus, reflects such factors as:

(i)use within the City;

(ii)availability of experienced resources; and

(iii)scalability.

(b)the following is the relative risk assessment of the transition alternatives as used by the business cases:

(i)Computron / Cyborg - Low;

(ii)Computron / PeopleSoft - Medium; and

(iii)SAP - Medium.

(10) Ongoing risks:

(a)the assessment of ongoing risks of maintaining various software products reflects such factors as:

(i)vendor's viability;

(ii)vendor's commitment to the City and to the municipal market;

(iii)product's viability;

(iv)product improvement; and

(v)availability of support.

(b)Gartner Group research suggests that:

(i)"best of breed" products are likely to lose their market share to integrated solutions;

(iii)Computron customers "watch" the vendor closely and conduct an annual re-assessment of their relationship and potential buyers consider other alternatives;

(iv)Cyborg is a small vendor with a limited product line, and is high risk; and

(v)SAP leads the integrated solution vendor race.

(c)the following is the relative risk assessment of the ongoing maintenance of the target solutions considered in the business cases:

(i)Cyborg / Computron - High;

(ii)PeopleSoft HR / Computron - Medium;

(iii)SAP - Low; and

(iv)SAP HR / Computron - Medium.

--------

Appendix B

City of Toronto

Administrative Systems Evaluation

"Best of Breed" vs. Integrated Applications

Introduction:

The new City of Toronto is working on a complex and pressing task of consolidating its administrative services and systems, a critical element of its overall amalgamation effort. The City is faced with two fundamentally different alternatives in its application system evaluation- an integrated HR/Payroll/Financials and a "best of breed" package. The "best of breed" solution is a combination of HR/Payroll and Financials. Normally, these products are developed (but not necessarily distributed) by different vendors, and are chosen for their relative strength in their respective functional areas, in this case, HR/Payroll and Finance. On the other hand, the integrated solution is a product which is comprised of tightly integrated modules with a common underlying data base and a common access tool set. The functional superiority of "best of breed" components, unquestionable a few years ago, has practically disappeared as leading ERP (enterprise resource planning) vendors have dramatically improved the functionality of their products in all areas, while maintaining their integration focus.

In this document, we review the business needs of the City and analyze the impact of the aforementioned alternatives on its business operations. We highlight the principal differences between these solutions and illustrate them with a few examples representing some typical City needs. Finally, based on this analysis, we make a recommendation.

City of Toronto Business Needs:

The City has aggressive improvement targets for its administrative services with respect to both staff efficiency and quality. In order to achieve the expected results, the City should consider a holistic approach to change. While technology is a necessary and very important element of change, its alignment with business processes, organization, and culture are extremely important.

Therefore, prior to reviewing the aforementioned technology alternatives, we consider the business environment the technology solution will have to be aligned with.

The administrative services will need to reduce cost of transaction processing, and focus on value-added activities (e.g., analysis, planning). According to Gartner Group, the following are some strategic imperatives in transforming these services:

(1)Finance - in addition to traditional general accounting, should focus on cost and management accounting and treasury issues; its analytical capabilities should span the entire enterprise, not just focus on financial metrics.

(2)Procurement - in addition to processing user requests and contracting with vendors, should focus on negotiating deeper discounts, reducing transportation and other carrying costs; influencing the vendor's R and D, yield and production capacity, and watching operational, decommissioning and disposal costs of capital goods.

(3)HR/Payroll - in addition to administering the organization and its employees, should focus on HR planning which is becoming increasingly complex with the proliferation of business process outsourcing/insourcing options and project-based organizations.

This shift in focus encourages capturing (with edits and controls), and ensuring quality of information at the source. Capturing information at the source also strongly suggests it should be done once. The fact of (re-)entering the same information into loosely connected systems for different purposes was not obvious before, as it was done by different administrative areas (often based on colourful multi-part documents produced by the originating department), but pushing the activities to the source has exposed the problem. Gartner Group expects 1999 investments in data capture and sharing technologies to deliver a 50 percent better return on investment than those in refreshing transaction-processing capabilities.

The strategies described above are consistent with the direction the City is taking (New City New Opportunities, Transition Team, December 1997):

(a)benchmarking against private sector;

(b)move budgets for support services to operating departments;

(c)responsibility for results; and

(d)balance centralized and decentralized functions.

Integrated vs. non-integrated HR/Payroll/Financials:

In this section, we discuss how these technology options would function in the business environment described above. There are several key areas of the City's business operations where the alternatives will result in a strikingly different impact on the business users.

Integrated Applications "Best of Breed" Applications

Data Capture:

The integrated alternative enables information capture and validation at the source while the non-integrated alternative requires either re-entry of the same information into the software components or maintenance of interfaces which would simulate this re-entry. The interfaces are normally specified and controlled by vendors and represent compromise solutions aimed at satisfying their user group needs.

The following are a few examples of how the alternatives would impact the City's operations.

(1)Create a Position:

Normally, creating a new position using a HRMS (HR Management System) first requires checking if the organizational unit has sufficient budget, and, if it does, adjusting the budget upon creation of the position. The integrated alternative allows on-line real time validation, position creation and budget adjustment while the non-integrated alternative, at best, will validate the position budget against financial information captured at some point in the past (FIS-to-HRMS interface) and upon creation of the position will create a transaction to revise the budget (another interface, HRMS-to-FIS). As the validation was not real time, this transaction may be rejected and thus may trigger a manual process of reversing the creation of the position.

(2)Process a Salary Increase:

Processing a salary increase first requires checking to see if the G/L salary account has enough money in its free balance, and, if it does, adjusting the free balance and salary encumbrance according to the increase.

The integrated alternative allows on-line real time validation, salary increase processing and free balance adjustment, while the non-integrated alternative, at best, will validate the increase amount against financial information captured at some point in the past (FIS-to-HRMS interface) and upon increasing the salary will create a transaction to revise the free balance budget (another interface, HRMS-to-FIS). This validation will be impossible to perform in the latter case at all if the funds checking rules include both the salary budget and the bottom line budget of the organizational unit. As the validation was not real time, this transaction may be rejected and may trigger a manual process of reversing the salary increase.

(3) Time and Activity Reporting:

An employee working on a project /program(s), reports his/her Time and Activity information to his/her project manager as well as to HR/Payroll for payroll, vacation, benefit and other purposes.

The integrated alternative allows on-line real time validation and updates both the project/program information and HRMS. On the other hand, very few project management systems have interfaces with HR/Payroll systems and vice versa. Therefore, this example is likely to result in duplication of data entry (following with reconciliation).

Operational Management Information:

The integrated alternative provides an integrated information view and allows the end-user relatively easy access to up-to-date cross-modular (e.g. HR and Financials) operational management information. The non-integrated alternative requires development and maintenance of a data warehouse which would serve as a repository for gathering and synchronizing information from various software components, e.g. HRMS and Financials, for reporting and analytical purposes. This information is historical and may not be current enough for tactical purposes. This data warehouse would likely be a product from a niche vendor, and would have a tool set different from the tools supplied by the main software products.

The following are examples of enquiries which could be satisfied by an integrated solution, but not by a non-integrated one:

(a)ability to view departmental salary budget (maintained in FIS) and to "click" on it to view the positions (maintained in HRMS) comprising the budget;

(b)ability to view summary payroll actuals (FIS) and to zoom into corresponding employee-by-employee payroll detail (HRMS);

(c)ability to view overtime summary payment (FIS) and to see, employee-by-employee, what it is comprised of; and

(d)ability to view project/program information (FIS-Project Management) and to view HR costs (regular salaries, overtime, benefits) for the project/program or, with proper access clearance, by project member (HRMS);

The previous example is just an indicator of the value of the integrated project/program and HR information. HR planning (skills, training, competencies) can be driven by project plans, schedules and required skills; and, conversely, employee competency always includes his/her project experiences.

Workflow:

Workflow plays a critical role in implementing business processes by gluing operational units and administrative services together. While workflow permeates all functions by enabling employee self-service, routing purchase requisitions, purchase orders and other electronic objects for approval and further processing in all business areas, workflow roles are driven by organizational structure maintained in HR. According to Gartner Group, "If HR is integrated, common workflow definitions ¼ should be part of the integrated design. To reach the same level of functionality, best-of-breed HR implementations must create interfaces to share and manage responsibility information beyond the HR application, across workflow for applications in other business areas. Few HR vendors have made provisions for exporting this information. Conversely, few outside workflow systems (particularly those produced by enterprise application vendors) have facilities for importing such information. This makes interfaces difficult and often leads to dual data entry and maintenance with no reconciliation of differences in organization structure representations in competing systems. The more cross-business-area-workflow is a requirement, the greater the appeal of an integrated system."

Further Integration Opportunities:

Selecting the integrated HRMS/Payroll/FIS/Project Management alternative now will pave the way for further integration. If in the future the City chooses to acquire software to support its fleet and equipment maintenance operations, and implements the modules of the integrated solution that are designed for this purpose, the City will reap further benefits of integration. Imagine preventative maintenance programs triggering automatic ordering of parts, work order information concurrently affecting equipment records and mechanics' HR/Payroll, resource planning capabilities, etc. This list can go on and on. Clearly, the more encompassing the integration is, the more beneficial it becomes, the more interface maintenance and dual data entry headaches can be avoided.

City Staff Efficiency Gains:

In addition to the qualitative benefits described above, selecting the integrated HRMS/Payroll/FIS/Project Management alternative should result in significant staff efficiency gains in various areas of the City. The single most important benefit in this area is the virtual disappearance of the role of "information broker". This role does not easily translate into a position or positions, full- or part-time, on the City's organizational chart. The role includes everyone who is presently involved in:

(a)preparation, capture and reconciliation of cross-functional information and/or information required by multiple systems (e.g. HRMS and FIS);

(b)packaging and "massaging" the information above to support operational managers; and

(c)maintaining system interfaces described above.

This change should affect HR, Finance, IT and especially operational departments.

Moreover, IT staff complement dedicated to multi-vendor systems (support and help desk) is expected to be 15 - 20 per cent. higher than for an integrated solution.

Conclusion:

We have reviewed a number of advantages, both short-term and longer-term, of proceeding with the integrated alternative. Based on this analysis, our understanding of the City's circumstances and business needs, our experience in the application of technology to the business needs of private and public organizations, we strongly recommend that the City pursue the integrated alternative as the target solution for the City's administrative system. This path will help the City maximize the benefits of amalgamation, transform its administrative operations and provide the City with a solution flexible to sustain future business improvements and technology advances.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Mina Wallace, Vice President and General Manager, PeopleSoft Canada Inc., and filed a submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Tim Conroy, and Mr. John Nye, Computron Software, and filed a submission in regard thereto; and

-Mr. Yakov Matusevich, Management Consultant, LGS Group Inc.

The Chief Financial Officer gave an overhead presentation to the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a copy of her presentation material.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 26, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, recommended that:

(1)consideration of the Project Proposal, Financial and Human Resource/Payroll Systems, be deferred to the meeting of Council to be held on July 29, 1998;

(2)the Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, the Chair of the Budget Committee, and the Executive Director of Information Technology, be requested to:

(a)select a third party, who is not associated with any software-related companies, to review the financial analyses of the total capital expenditure of $26.3 million; and

(b)report to a joint meeting of the Budget Committee and Corporate Services Committee, for a recommendation directly to Council on July 29, 1998, together with the recommendations adopted by the Corporate Services Committee on June 22, 1998; and

(3)the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report on the number of computer consultants that have been selected recently, how much money the City is spending on them and whether there was any type of tendering process, including expressions of interest.

Background:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, had before it the following:

(a)Transmittal Letter (June 22, 1998) from the Corporate Services Committee;

(b)Communication (June 23, 1998) from Mr. Jeffery S. Lyons, Q.C., Morrison, Brown, Sosnovitch, Barristers and Solicitors;

(c)Communication (June 24, 1998) from Mr. Peter J. Smith, Vice President, Sales, PeopleSoft Canada;

(d)Facsimile (June 24, 1998) from Mr. Gennaro Vendome, Vice President, Computron Software; and

(e)Communication (June 19, 1998) from Mr. Tim Conroy, Sales Manager, Computron Software.

Mr. Peter J. Smith, Vice President, Sales, PeopleSoft Canada, appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(Letter of Transmittal dated June 22, 1998 addressed to the

Budget Committee from the

City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Corporate Services Committee on June 22, 1998, recommended to the Budget Committee, and Council, the adoption of Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the joint report (June 10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources; and requested the Budget Committee to report thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998, when this matter is being considered.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of the Budget Committee, having:

(1)recommended to Council the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) and (3) embodied in the joint report (June 10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources;

(2)referred the following motion to the City Solicitor for report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998:

Moved by Councillor John Adams:

"That City Council adopt the following policy:

"(i)if any director, officer, employee, agent or other representative of a proponent/respondent, including any other parties that may be involved in a joint venture or a consortium with the respondent, makes, from and after Council's decision on July 8, 1998, any representation or solicitation to any elected representative or employee or agent of the City of Toronto, with the exception of the contact person designated by the Chief Administrative Officer with respect to the respondent's proposal or any other respondent's proposal, City Council is entitled to reject the proponent/respondent's proposal;

(ii)a representation can be considered to be anything said or written to any Member of Council, employee or agent which provides information advancing the interests of a proposal;

(iii)this requirement does not extend to representations made to the designated official or to any public deputation made to a Committee of City Council in accordance with the Procedural By-law;

(iv)should a respondent desire that any information be presented to Members of Council, the Respondent may request the Designated Official to do so and that official shall distribute such information to all Members of Council and appropriate staff;

(v)should Members of Council wish to receive information from any respondent(s), then the request shall be made through the Designated Official., and if any Member of Council directly approaches a respondent for information, the respondent is at jeopardy if he or she does make any representation to any Councillor in response; and

(vi)in the event of any alleged breach of the foregoing protocol, City Council shall be the arbiter of the effect of such a breach to the process";

(3)requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer to submit a joint report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998, providing recommendations respecting the inclusion of all Agencies, Boards and Commissions, including the Toronto Hydro Commission, in the FIS/HRS system being proposed; and

(4)requested the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the outside independent consultant from LGS Inc., to submit a written brief to all Members of Council, as quickly as possible, respecting the risks involved regarding this project and the concerns expressed by Members of the Corporate Services Committee.

Background:

The Corporate Services Committee on June 22, 1998, had before it a joint report (June10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Commissioner of Corporate Services, and the Director of Human Resources, recommending that:

(1)the acquisition of financial and human resource/payroll systems from SAP be approved in principle, as outlined in this report;

(2)funds not to exceed $6.1 million be authorized for expenditure in 1998, $3.4 million in 1999, $6.5 million in 2000, $6.5 million in 2001, and $3.8 million in 2002 with total capital expenditures for the financial and human resources/payroll systems not to exceed $26.3 million for the necessary hardware, software and project implementation; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with SAP for the supply of financial and human resource/payroll systems.

The following persons appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Mina Wallace, Vice President and General Manager, PeopleSoft Canada Inc., and filed a submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Tim Conroy, and Mr. John Nye, Computron Software, and filed a submission in regard thereto; and

-Mr. Yakov Matusevich, Management Consultant, LGS Group Inc.

The Chief Financial Officer gave an overhead presentation to the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a copy of her presentation material.

(Communication dated June 23, 1998 addressed to

Councillor Tom Jakobek, Chair, Budget Committee from

Mr. Jeffrey S. Lyons, Q.C., Morrison, Brown, Sosnovitch

Barristers and Solicitors

One Toronto Street, P.O. Box 28, Suite 910, M5C 2V6)

I understand that the aforesaid matter is on the budget Committee Agenda for Thursday, June 25th next.

I am enclosing the response of Computron Software Inc. who made a deputation at the Corporate Services Committee on April 22nd last.

I have been asked by Computron Software Inc. to put forward their response to the Staff Report for your consideration.

(Communication dated June 24, 1998 addressed to

Mr. Tom Jakobek, Chair, Budget Committee, City of Toronto from

Mr. Peter J. Smith, Vice President, Sales, PeopleSoft Canada

181 Bay Street, Suite 769, M5J 2T3.)

As you know, the Year 2000 problem is the single most significant challenge facing business and government today. These systems will be crucial to the success of your initiatives. Many businesses have solved their problems already by acting early and minimizing their risks. your decision is being made at the last minute. They had time. You do not.

The recommendation that is before you, has the City investing its entire future in a single software system for Financial, material management, Procurement, human Resources, Time and Attendance and Payroll. this effectively puts all of your Year 2000 eggs in one software basket.

By investing its entire future in a single software system, the situation is analogous to an investor putting all of his/her savings in the stock of a single company. It is a high-risk venture and an inadvisable investment strategy in any and all circumstances, regardless the track record of the stock. No financial advisory would advance such a strategy.

Staff have recommended a higher cost, integrated Financial and Human Resources solution that they believe presents a higher Internal Rate of Return. Your decision is not whether "integration" is better than a "best-of-breed" solution for Financial and Human Resources/Payroll. That could have been your decision months ago and indeed, under the circumstances, it is probably a decision to be made in a more rational environment in the months after the year 2000 has passed.

Your decision is how to approach and move through the very small window of opportunity. Do you really want to take a chance on a unproven payroll system? There is an axiom that says, "Go with proven technology." A beta version of software, even a version 1.0, simply allows a vendor into the marketplace. It does not prove capability, nor does it provide any assurance of deliverability. We were there once, many years ago.

PeopleSoft has a proven track record, with scores of public sector installations in Canada and the USA. Our Canadian references are large Human Resources and Payroll implementations in unionized public sector environments, like you. During the Corporate Services Committee meeting, staff referenced the recommended solution as having been implemented AT&T Canada in 9 months. We do not believe that a non-union, private sector implementation of 2,000 employees who have been using the system since January 1998 can be extrapolated to predict success at the City. Our Human resources/Payroll software applications are state-of-the-art and have been in-production at our customers in Canada since 1992.. Recently PeopleSoft was proud to release

"PEOPLESOFT CANADA PAYROLL REACHES MILESTONE

More than 500,000 Canadians now paid by industry-leading payroll system

TORONTO, Ontario - (May 1st, 1998) - PeopleSoft Canada, a leading provider of enterprise application software, today announced that more than half a million Canadian employees are now paid using PeopleSoft Payroll - making PeopleSoft payroll the top enter prise payroll application suite in Canada. Available in Canadian-specific form since 1992, PeopleSoft Payroll is licensed by more than 100 of Canada's largest companies and public sector institutions including bell Canada, Canadian Airlines International, the Province of British Columbia, AlliedSignal Aerospace Canada, Metro Toronto police, Ontario Hydro, Air Canada, CIBC Wood Gundy, Bombardier, and Bank of Montreal.

Even your staff agree that we are the industry leader. We are the only solution that can guarantee delivery on time and within budget.

PeopleSoft suggests that the City minimize its risk by "risk averaging" much as an investor would dollar average an investment. We recommend that the City utilize the very best, proven technology available for Human Resources and Payroll.

Getting over the Year 2000 obstacles is the issue. you have two different, core systems, so use two equally capable, stat-of-the-art applications to solve the problem. Make the decision on integration at a point after the problem has been solved. We have many customers who are successfully running combined PeopleSoft and SAP systems such as the City of Mississauga, the City of Edmonton, the Canadian Federal Government and Bell Canada.

PeopleSoft has innovative ways to allow you to do this, including "Catalyst", our year 2000 postpone option, which allows you to rent a solution for 3 years and the make a long term strategic decision that is right for the City.

At the outset of this project you issued for two separate RFP's to help solve your financial problems and human resource/payroll problems. Integration does not solve any of your problems; indeed, if an unproven product line fails to deliver then an integrated solution may cause even more problems.

Select the very best technology on the market at the very best prices.

Select PeopleSoft to be your Human Resource/Payroll system partner.

Attached to above letter:

PEOPLESOFT CANADA LTD. LAUNCHES NEW SOLUTION TO

BRIDGE YEAR 2000 CHALLENGE

PeopleSoft Catalyst delivers rapidly implemented, low-risk alternative for organizations to

replace legacy computer systems and build future competitiveness

TORONTO, Ontario - (January 13, 19998) - PeopleSoft Canada Ltd., a leader in enterprise business management software, today announced an innovative strategy for companies that have not begun to replace legacy computer systems in time for the year 2000 deadline. Available immediately, PeopleSoft Catalyst features a complete bundle of software, hardware and services in an IT outsourced environment that will allow organizations to postpone the decision of full replacement while solving year 2000 issues quickly. PeopleSoft Catalyst lowers the business risk of the decision -- organizations avoid incurring high up-front financial costs, don't have to compete in the market for scarce technical resources, and do not pay until the software is ready for use.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To respond to the request from the June 22, 1998 meeting of the Corporate Services Committee that a written brief be submitted to Council regarding the risk assessment performed by the external consultants LGS Group and other questions raised by members of the Committee.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report and the attachments be received as information.

Background:

First, as a matter of context, the Steering Committee feels that it is important to state that the recommended solution meets three objectives: (1) it allows for the benefits of an integrated solution without sacrificing the functionality of a "best of breed" solution; (2) it is implementable within the required time frames for the FIS and HRIS system i.e., by the year 2000; and (3) it will serve as the foundation for the efficient operation of the City's financial and human resources administration for the future.

Discussion:

In March 1998, when the separate Financial and Human Resources/Payroll projects were merged into a single project, the City requested quotations from several consulting companies to provide assistance in completing the evaluation process. LGS Group, an independent consulting firm with no alliance with any of the software vendors under consideration, was selected. Their role in the process is described in detail in Attachment A titled "On LGS Role".

The Project Steering Committee and the staff evaluation team considered the various options, determined the best solution, and made the recommendations in the report to the Corporate Services Committee. LGS provided research and analytical assistance. They tested our recommendations and also reached an independent opinion that an integrated SAP Financial and Human Resources/Payroll solution is the best solution for the City (see Conclusion in Attachment A). This as well, formed part of staff's analysis and final recommendations.

Risk assessment was an integral part of our analysis in formulating the business case. AttachmentB titled "Risk Assessment" is a detailed discussion of the analysis done by LGS Group for the various options considered.

In order to mitigate risks associated with the tight implementation timeframe, a formal risk management methodology is being incorporated into the overall project management. The recommended solution is feature rich. Implementation of the features will be prioritized and phased-in as necessary and possible. It is however, intended to fully utilize all applicable features as quickly as possible to achieve the noted benefits.

On the FIS side, the City's projected implementation date is April 1999. The City, in the meantime, will be reducing the number of operational FIS systems over the next 6 months, being in a position of having year 2000 compliant system left for final conversion. It is important to note that in implementing the SAP FIS that we are building on an already successfully implemented FIS in the former City of Etobicoke. The final cutover to SAP would not occur until adequate testing of operations is complete.

On the HRIS side, the City's projected implementation date is September 1999. The City, in the meantime, is reducing the number of HRIS systems in operation for many reasons, not the least being, maintaining good internal controls. Already, there are only 5 systems operating today. The shut-down of two systems occurred over the period of one month. Planning is underway to reduce the City's risk of project implementation by continuing to reduce the number of HRIS system by year end. Since none of the existing systems is year 2000 compliant, the HRIS implementation will require significant resources - regardless of which product is chosen. Having the vendor as the prime implementer, and taking responsibility directly, as SAP is prepared to do, is critical to the City's success.

As noted, significant to minimizing the risk in the recommended solution is the "prime" or "lead" role that the vendor SAP is prepared to take with the City. Generally the vendors considered by the City in all the business cases only sell their software and then "contract out" the project implementation to third party consultants - some who are certified by the vendor and others who are not. SAP has agreed to mutually share the risk associated with our implementation by taking responsibility for project implementation. They will put together the necessary team to deliver results as expected by the City. SAP, the recommended vendor and the City will therefore jointly manage implementation risks. A separate document has been prepared to address issues associated with the recommended vendor and its solution.

Conclusion:

Staff have completed an intensive and extensive evaluation process. The independent analysis supported staff's own recommendations (and extensive findings of the external consultant who assisted in the process.) It is essential that project approval be expedited to maximize the available time for implementation before the Year 2000, to achieve appropriate financial and staffing control, and to attain administrative efficiencies associated with amalgamation. I am confident that based on the work performed to date by staff, the work of the independent consultant, the vendor, it products and track record, that the recommended solution of a SAP Financial and Human Resources/Payroll System will not only assist the City in achieving these goals but will also position the City well for future re-engineering efforts and efficient operations. The staff resources from all the former municipalities are dedicated to implementing the recommended solution on time and within budget and bring a significant track record of successful implementation skills.

Contact Name:

Stephen Wong,

Phone: 394-8135.)

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

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 7, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to comment on the motion by Councillor Adams pertaining to adoption of a policy pertaining to lobbying by proponents in the above-noted proposal call.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on June 22, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee, in consideration of the matter of the acquisition of financial and human resource/payroll systems, referred a motion by Councillor Adams (set out in Appendix 1 to this report) to the City Solicitor for a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled on July 8, 1998 (see Clause No. 1 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee).

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The motion would adopt a policy to prevent (given the potential consequences to a proponent) the lobbying of Councillors and staff and would require that the "flow" of information to and from proponents and Councillors, including staff, occur through a designated staff person or in public by deputations to Committee. Failure to adhere to the process would result in the discretion of Council to reject a proponent's proposal.

The policy is in effect a repetition of the policy that was adopted for the Proposal Call issued in 1995 by the former Metropolitan Toronto for disposal of Metro's residual solid waste (the "SWRFP"). That policy was in turn modelled on that contained in the proposal call for the National Trade Centre (the "NT RFP").

In the prior processes, the policy was incorporated within the issued SW RFP and NT RFP and the instructions to proponents. In particular, the fact that a proposal could be rejected based on contravention of this "anti-lobbying clause" was set out in the calls together with other relevant grounds for rejection and the criteria that would be used in recommending the successful proponent. As an example, the relevant clause used in the SW RFP is set out in Appendix 2. This was in keeping with essential principles of tendering law that the bidding rules for rejection and award, including evaluation, be set out for the bidders in the bid documents and be adhered to.

Should Councillor Adams' motion be adopted, there is a concern that this could be considered the adoption of other criteria (in so far as rejection of a proposal is concerned) not initially disclosed to bidders.

Conclusions:

Adoption of the motion would initiate a process for the distribution of information not contemplated in the information given to respondents at the time proposals were requested. Given that the adoption of the policy at this stage in the process could result in the rejection of a proponent's proposal and was not shown as a basis of rejection in the proposal call, I would recommend against its adoption in this case. Any provision against lobbying should be undertaken in the context of explicit instructions to bidders in the bid call, if deemed appropriate for that call, or in the context of an overall policy adopted by City Council on lobbying.

Contact Name:

J. Anderson392-8059

Appendix 1

Motion by Councillor Adams:

"That City Council adopt the following policy:

(i)if any director, officer, employee, agent or other representative of a proponent/respondent, including any other parties that may be involved in a joint venture or a consortium with the respondent, makes, from and after Council's decision on July 8, 1998, any representation or solicitation to any elected representative or employee or agent of the City of Toronto, with the exception of the contact person designated by the Chief Administrative Officer with respect to the respondent's proposal or any other respondent's proposal, City Council is entitled to reject the proponent/respondent's proposal;

(ii)a representation can be considered to be anything said or written to any Member of Council, employee or agent which provides information advancing the interests of a proposal;

(iii)this requirement does not extend to representations made to the designated official or to any public deputation made to a Committee of City Council in accordance with the Procedural By-law;

(iv)should a respondent desire that any information be presented to Members of Council, the Respondent may request the Designated Official to do so and that official shall distribute such information to all Members of Council and appropriate staff;

(v)should Members of Council wish to receive information from any respondent(s), then the request shall be made through the Designated Official, and if any Member of Council directly approaches a respondent for information, the respondent is at jeopardy if he or she does make any representation to any Councillor in response; and

(vi)in the event of any alleged breach of the foregoing protocol, City Council shall be the arbiter of the effect of such a breach to the process."

Appendix 2

Clause contained in Metro's Request for Proposals for the Disposal of Residual Solid Waste

"Solicitation:

If any director, officer, employee, agent or other representative of a respondent, including any other parties that may be involved in a joint venture or a consortium with the respondent, makes, from and after November 10, 1995 (the Closing Date of the RFP), any representation or solicitation to any elected representative or employee or agent of Metro or the media, with the exception of Mr.ShaunHewitt of Metro Treasury or his designate, with respect to the Respondent's Proposal, Metropolitan Council will be entitled to reject or not accept the Respondent's Proposal. This requirement does not extend to any public deputations that may be made to any Metro committee in accordance with Metro's Procedural By-law.")

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July3, 1998) from the Vice-President, Sales, PeopleSoft Canada Co., providing an outline of issues with respect to the Financial and Human Resource/Payroll systems project proposal and enclosing background material in this regard.)

2

110 Lombard Street - Possible Purchase

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated July 8, 1998, from the City Solicitor, entitled '110 Lombard Street - Possible Purchase by Gilda's Club Greater Toronto (Ward24- Toronto)', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)should City Council approve the sale of 110 Lombard Street to Gilda's Club on the terms recommended by the Corporate Services Committee at its meeting held on June 22, 1998, the appropriate method to implement Committee's recommendation is to require Gilda's to grant to the City an option (for nominal consideration), to repurchase the property at the amount paid by Gilda's to the City; and such option should be in effect for a ten-year period, be registered prior to any mortgage or other financing instrument, and be in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to give effect to the foregoing.' ")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee contained in the confidential communication (June 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting the possible purchase of 110 Lombard Street, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (June 17, 1998) from Ms. Lorna Rosenstein, President Gilda's Club Toronto, and President Lotus Development Canada, advising that the City is aware of their serious and long-standing desire to acquire the Old Firehall at 110 Lombard Street as the location for Gilda's Club in Toronto; that on the advice of City officials they engaged a reputable, independent appraiser to perform a full appraisal of the Old Firehall; that the approximate fair market value of the property is $600,000.00 and they are in the process of submitting a "clean" cash offer for this amount; that Gilda's Club is a benefit to the Toronto community and 110 Lombard Street is the ideal location; and that they are prepared to pay fair market value for the site.

--------

Mr. Gordon McClellan appeared before the Corporate Services Committee,on behalf of Gilda's Club, in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To provide City Council with advice as how best to implement recommendations made by the Corporate Services Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)should City Council approve the sale of 110 Lombard Street to Gilda's Club on the terms recommended by the Corporate Services Committee at its meeting held on June 22, 1998, the appropriate method to implement the Committee's recommendation is to require Gilda's Club to grant to the City an option (for nominal consideration), to repurchase the property at the amount paid by Gilda's Club to the City; and such option should be in effect for a ten-year period, be registered prior to any mortgage or other financing instrument, and be in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Corporate Services Committee at its meeting on June 22, 1998, recommended to City Council that the offer from Gilda's Club to purchase 110 Lombard Street in the amount of $600,000.00 be accepted, conditional on Gilda's submitting a formal offer within 30 days with terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and conditional upon the City being offered a "first refusal" at the price of $600,000.00 should Gilda's Club decide to sell the property at any time in the future.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The recommendation to provide the City with entitlement to reacquire the property, if it chooses, at the price at which it is to be sold to Gilda's, is best embodied in an Option to Purchase at the same price at which it was sold. To do so for an indefinite period of time would be difficult to validly document and enforce. Real Estate staff is of the view that a period of ten (10) years is considered to be a period of time that is more reasonable and reflective of market conditions.

Conclusions:

Should the City proceed with the sale of 110 Lombard Street to Gilda's Club in the amount of $600,000.00, the agreement should also provide that the City's right, for nominal consideration, is an Option to Purchase at the price at which the property was sold to Gilda's Club, such Option to be in effect for a period of ten years. In order to give the intended priority to the City's interest in the property pursuant to such Option, the further requirement should be stipulated that the Option be registered prior to any mortgage or other financial instrument.

Contact Name:

M.A.Fischer, 392-8054.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (June 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwardidng a confidential report dated June8, 1998, from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of Section55(9) of the Municipal Act.)

3

871 Queen Street West

Payment of Awarded Damages

Pantev vs. Dominelli

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that:

(1)City of Toronto Council, in acknowledgement of the former City of Toronto Council decision respecting this matter, absorb 50 percent of the awarded damages, plus pre-judgement interest and cost, up to a net maximum to the City of Toronto of $30,000.00; and

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

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (June 5, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To provide updated information.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on June 2 and 3, 1997, City Council adopted Councillor Mario Silva's motion that the City participate in a Court action between the owners of 871 and 869 Queen Street West, and adopted Clause 14 of Executive Committee Report No. 16, as amended.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On August 16, 1985, a permit was issued to the owner of 871 Queen Street West to demolish an attached building. The demolition was completed on December 11, 1986.

In July, 1991, the owner of 869 Queen Street West commenced an action against the owner of 871Queen Street West alleging that as a result of the demolition, he had experienced peeling paint, loose plaster, water damaged plaster and cracking of the walls in the basement, first and second floors. He also alleged that his expenses for heating the building had dramatically increased. The trial was held during 1996 and a Decision released December 24, 1996. The trial judge held that the owner of 871 Queen Street West was liable to the owner of 869 Queen Street West and awarded damages of $15,701.50, plus pre-judgment interest and costs. The trial judge held that as a result of the demolition, the common interior wall had been changed into an exterior wall of the building at 869 Queen Street West. In failing to insulate and waterproof the wall, the owner of 871 Queen Street West created a nuisance for which he was liable in law.

The owner of 871 Queen Street West filed an appeal from the Trial Judgement to the Court of Appeal.

Pursuant to Clause 14 of Executive Committee Report No. 16, as amended by City Council at its meeting on June 2 and 3, 1997, an Application was made before the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario on December 15, 1997, for an Order granting leave to the City to intervene in the Appeal between the two owners. By an endorsement issued on December 16, 1997, the Associate Chief Justice granted leave to the City to intervene as a friend of the Court for the purpose of rendering assistance by way of argument, subject to certain conditions.

By order issued April 28, 1998, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the owner of 871 Queen Street West on the basis that it had not been perfected in time. The City's involvement has therefore come to an end.

The owner of 871 Queen Street West has now written to me suggesting that the City must take responsibility for some part of the award he must now pay and his legal costs on the basis that the "work [was] done under the direction of a responsible City representative". If the owner of 871Queen Street West wanted to bring an action against the City for contribution, he was required to do so by December 25, 1997. He has not done so and therefore the matter is now statute barred.

Furthermore, the Trial Judge was not critical of the conduct of the City inspectors during the demolition. Based on a review of part of the trial transcript provided by the solicitor for 871QueenStreet West, of the evidence of the building inspector at the time of the demolition, there is nothing to suggest that he made any statements upon which the owner of 871 Queen Street West could rely with respect to his obligations vis-a-vis the owner of the adjoining building.

Conclusions:

The owner of 871 Queen Street West cannot bring an action against the City as any claim is now statute barred. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any basis upon which the City could have been found liable to him, if an action had been brought in time. Therefore, there is no legal basis upon which the City should contribute towards the award that the owner of 871 Queen Street West is required to pay to the owner of 869 Queen Street West.

Contact Name:

Andrew A. Weretelnyk, (416) 392-7248, (416) 392-1199

(Clause No. 14 of Report No. 16 of the Executive Committee

of the former City of Toronto Council entitled, "Appeal in the Case of

Pantev vs. Dominelli - 871 Queen Street West (Ward 4)".)

The Executive Committee submits the report (May 21, 1997) from the City Solicitor to City Council at the request of Councillor Mario Silva.

The Executive Committee advises that it received this matter.

The Executive Committee submits the report (May 21, 1997) from the City Solicitor:

Subject: Request by the owner of 871 Queen Street West that the City "participate" in the Appeal in the Case of Pantev vs. Dominelli

Origin: City Solicitor (p:\1997\ug\cps\leg\pvic\EX970054.leg)-JO

Recommendation: That this report be received for information.

Comments: On April 8, 1997, the Executive Committee considered a communication from Councillor Martin Silva [March 20, 1997] concerning an Appeal in the case of Pantev vs. Dominelli. The Executive Committee also had before it a Judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) [December 24, 1996] and a communication from Fred Dominelli [April 7, 1997]. Mr.Dominelli also addressed the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee deferred the matter to its next meeting on May 5, 1997 and requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with other appropriate officials, to report to that meeting. On May 5, 1997, the matter was further deferred to the meeting on May 27, 1997.

Mr. Dominelli is the owner of premises known as 871 Queen Street West. Mr. Pantev is the owner of the adjoining premises at 869 Queen Street West. On August 16, 1985, a permit was issued to Mr.Dominelli to demolish the attached building situate on 871 Queen Street West. The demolition was completed on or about December 11, 1986.

In July, 1991, Mr. Pantev commenced an action against Mr. Dominelli alleging that as a result of the demolition, he had experienced peeling paint, loose plaster, water damaged plaster and cracking of the walls in the basement, first and second floors. He also alleged that his expenses for heating the building had dramatically increased. The Trial Judge held Mr. Dominelli liable to his neighbour on the basis of nuisance. Prior to the demolition, Pantev and Dominelli were the owners of a common interior wall. The Court held that the common ownership implied a common intention that neither would do anything to detract from the wall's suitability as an interior common wall. If either demolished his building, he nevertheless had to do whatever was necessary to maintain the wall so that it would be as useful to the other as it had been prior to the demolition. By demolishing his building, Mr. Dominelli turned what had been a common interior wall into an exterior wall for Mr.Pantev's building. Mr. Dominelli was obliged not only to insure that the wall was waterproof against rain and ground water but also to insulate it. The Trial Judge held that Mr. Dominelli knew or ought to have known that unless he did so, Mr. Pantev would suffer the damages which he suffered. In failing to insulate and waterproof the wall, Mr. Dominelli created a nuisance for which nuisance he was liable in law. I understand that Mr. Dominelli has filed an appeal from this Decision to the Court of Appeal. Mr. Dominelli, through Councillor Martin Silva, asked me to consider whether the City ought to "participate" in the Appeal filed by Mr. Dominelli.

The City does not have a right to "participate" in Mr. Dominelli's Appeal. It would have to apply for Leave to Intervene either as an added party or as a friend of the Court. Such leave may be granted only by a panel of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of Ontario or the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario. Leave to Intervene is granted so as to permit a person to protect an interest that might be adversely affected by a Judgment in the proceedings. There is nothing in the Reasons of the Trial Judge that adversely affects the City's interest.

The Executive Committee also submits the communication (March 20, 1997) from Councillor MartinSilva:

Recommendation: That the Executive Committee recommend to Council that the City enter into an appeal in the case of Pantev -vs- Dominelli; and,

That this decision be made after the hearing of deputations.

Comments: The above legal case was recently in court. Mr. Fred Dominelli claimed that he had done the demolition of a building and the fixing of a common wall according to the directions of the city inspectors.

The Judge ruled against Mr. Dominelli. He believes that the case undermined the authority of the city inspectors to determine what the minimum code requirements should be for these cases. I asked the Legal Department to comment on the case. As the response was negative, my constituent asked to be heard by the Executive Committee.

I am hereby, requesting that the Executive Committee hold a deputation hearing on this matter.

The Executive Committee also had before it the following communications, which are included in the additional material and is on file with the City Clerk:

-(April 7, 1997) and (May 26, 1997) from Fred Dominelli

-(April 21, 1997) from Metro Councillor Pantalone

(Council Action - June 2 and 3, 1997)

While considering this Clause, Council had before it the following report from the Director of Inspections and Chief Building Official (May 29, 1997):

Subject: Civil Action Appeal Process - 869 & 871 Queen Street East

Origin: Director of Inspections and Chief Building Official (P:\1997\ug\uds\bld\cn970029.bld-bs)

Recommendation: I recommend that City Council not participate in this civil matter with the understanding this decision will not undermine the authority or integrity of the Ontario Building Code building permit and inspection processes.

Comments: The City of Toronto Executive Committee, at its meeting of May 27th, 1997, considered whether it is appropriate or reasonable for the City of Toronto to take up a role in the litigation between the owners of these two premises where the demolition of a building (871) was undertaken in such a way that allegedly caused damage to the neighbouring property (869).

The owner of 871 Queen Street West alleges that he followed the instruction of the building inspector who inspected the demolition and construction to finish the newly exposed wall of 869 Queen Street West. It has also been suggested that the authority of the Building Inspector would be undermined if the City did not become involved in the appeal of this matter.

Before deciding on this matter, I provide the following information for your consideration:

-One inspection (Sept. 3, 1985) was conducted during the demolition and no notes were taken regarding any discussion which may have occurred.

-One further inspection (Sept. 28, 1985) was conducted during construction of the wall and capping of the new exterior wall of 869 Queen Street West. A note was made on the permit card advising that the inspector had been told of water seepage into the basement of 869, and indicating that he passed this advice on to the property owner. No further notes were made concerning this matter.

-The inspector who conducted the inspections retired and did not testify in the civil proceeding; the inspector (E. Yunger) who testified read from the notes of the original inspector but had not attended the site.

-The matters which are at issue in this court proceeding may be the result of faulty design, faulty construction, or other factors, all of which are unknown since we were only on site for a brief time during the demolition, and we have no notes detailing the demolition or construction processes which occurred almost 7 years ago.

I have reviewed this matter with John Morand, Commissioner of Urban Development Services, who supports this recommendation.

----

Councillor Mario Silva moved that the Clause be amended by adding:

(1)That the action taken by the Executive Committee to receive this matter not be confirmed.

(2)That City Council participate in the civil matter between the owners of 869 and 871Queen Street East.

which Council adopted:

----

Mayor Hall moved the following motion of Council Tabuns redundant:

That the action taken by the Executive Committee to receive this matter be confirmed.

----

Council adopted the Clause, as amended.

Mr. Fred Dominelli, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity-Niagara, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the communications (April 7, 1997) from Mr. Dominelli; (April 21, 1997) from Councillor Joe Pantalone; and (May 21, 1998) from Mr. Dominelli , attached to the foregoing report, were forwarded to All Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Surplus Property Within the

"Spadina Corridor" and

"Scarborough Transportation Corridor"

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated July 6, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that, in the event Council adopts the amendments of the Corporate Services Committee to my report (May 13, 1998), then in order to allow for implementation while, at the same time, comply with the financial agreement with the Province of Ontario:

(1)the specific properties to be appraised for market value as at the date of expression of interest be those listed in Schedule "A" hereto;

(2)independent appraisals of those Schedule "A" properties be commissioned, to have the effective date as set out in Schedule "A";

(3)all properties, including but not limited to those in Schedule "A", be offered at the appraised value to the tenant/owner on terms and conditions acceptable to the City Solicitor for a period limited to fourteen (14) days after which time the property be listed for sale through the T.R.E.B. Multiple Listing Service;

(4)in order to establish the value used to calculate the Province's share of the proceeds, with respect to those Schedule "A" properties, independent appraisals acceptable to the Province be commissioned, estimating the fair market value of such properties determined as at the time the agreement of purchase and sale is negotiated and entered into, and the Province's share of proceeds be based on such market value appraisals;

(5)only the properties listed in Schedule "A" that are sold to Schedule "A" purchasers at market value determined as at the date of expression of their interest should be subject to such option to purchase; that said option to purchase be registered on title; that the necessary restrictions and conveyancing documents be in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor, that the Option to Purchase be registered prior to any mortgage or other financing instrument, and the funding source for the various expenditures shall be from the City's share of the sale proceeds, except that future budgets include such amounts as would be necessary to fund the repurchase;

(6)then the arbitrator should be chosen by the Commissioner of Corporate Services who shall provide the terms of reference to said arbitrator; and the City's costs associated with each arbitration will be restricted to the cost of the arbitrator and the City's legal and appraisal costs; and the purchaser to be responsible for their own costs (i.e., solicitor, appraiser, and any other supporting consultants); and

(7)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to give effect to the foregoing.' ")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, subject to the following amendments with respect to the properties located in the Spadina Corridor, that:

(1)City Council affirm the former Metro Council's position that those tenants who had declared a willingness to purchase their rented properties, be allowed to purchase their homes at the market value determined at the time of declaring their interest (documented by either the tenant or Metro); and, should the property be offered for resale within a period of 24 months from the date of closing of the purchase by the tenant, the property be first offered back to the City of Toronto at the original purchase price, in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(2)in cases where the City and the tenant cannot reach an agreement, a third party arbitrator be assigned to bring parties to an agreement; and

(3)for tenants not wishing to purchase their rented properties, a financial incentive to vacate the properties be offered as follows:

(i)two months rent for tenants with less than three years occupancy; and

(ii)three months rent for tenants with more than three years occpancy.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee respecting those properties identified by the deputants where difficulties had arisen in finalizing negotiations.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To recommend a process for the disposition of the remaining "Spadina Corridor" and "Scarborough Transportation Corridor" residential properties.

Funding:

Expenses incurred will be charged to the cost account established for the surplus properties, eventually to be paid from the sale proceeds.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authorization be granted for the disposal of the properties declared surplus by the Council of (former) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, along the former Spadina and Scarborough Expressway Corridors, in the manner detailed in the body of this report;

(2)all negotiations with former owners and/or current tenants with respect to the purchase of these properties be conducted on the basis of the market value applicable at the time of current negotiations;

(3)those tenants not wishing to purchase the property occupied by them be offered a financial incentive to provide vacant possession of the property, as detailed in the body of this report;

(4)authority be granted to the City Solicitor to take the steps necessary to secure vacant possession of any properties in the circumstances referred to in the body of this report including the execution of any Agreements to Terminate Tenancies;

(5)costs associated with the valuation, financial incentives, and sale of the properties be deducted from the proceeds of the sale; and

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

Background/History:

By its adoption as amended, of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 23 of The Corporate Administration Committee on December 4, 1996, the Council of (former) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto approved the principles as set out in such report of a settlement with the Province of Ontario relating to the disposition of the Spadina Corridor properties, and the sharing of the sale proceeds. The financial arrangement is that out-of-pocket expenses, together with direct staff costs (plus a 20percent administration fee on staff costs) were to be deducted from the total sale proceeds and retained by the Municipality. Of the remaining sale proceeds, up to the $30 million dollar level, the Municipality was to receive two-thirds of the proceeds, with the remaining one-third going to the Province; and those sale revenues in excess of the $30 million dollars would be shared equally between the Municipality and the Province.

By its adoption as amended, of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee, on February 12 and 13, 1997, the Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto authorized the following:

(1) the properties listed in Schedules "A" ("Properties to be declared surplus and sold") and "B" ("Properties identified for re-purchase entitlement") contained in the Appendix to the report, (January 9, 1997) from the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources, be declared surplus to the municipality's requirements, subject to the reservation of any property rights that may need to be protected in respect of the Spadina Subway Line or existing facilities;

(2) Council waived Metropolitan Toronto's obligation pursuant to Section 42 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E26, to offer the various properties back to the owners from whom they were expropriated; and that the appropriate Metropolitan Officials be available to answer enquiries from the public regarding financial and real estate offers which may come to their attention;

(3) the properties listed in Schedule "B" (as revised to move "48 Heathdale Road" from Schedule"A" to Schedule "B") to the aforementioned report be offered to the former owner and the existing tenant, in that order, at market value;

(4) where an existing tenant of a property listed in Schedule "A" to the report indicated a desire to purchase one of the homes, Metropolitan Toronto staff were to negotiate with the tenant in good faith, with a view to concluding an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the tenant;

(5) with respect to the existing tenants of the properties listed on Schedule "B", where the former owners have elected to purchase residences, these tenants be offered an opportunity to purchase a vacant house at market value;

(6) in the event that the tenants elect not to acquire one of the vacant houses, then these houses be offered for sale through the multiple listing service of the Toronto Real Estate Board;

(7) when the actions referred to in Recommendations Nos.(3),(4) and (5) as noted above had been taken and no remaining acceptable offers were forthcoming, the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources and the General Manager, Housing Division, Community Services Department, were to submit a status report thereon to the Corporate Administration Committee and seek further instructions;

(8) the General Manager, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited, be requested to assist in the re-location of existing tenants who may need to find alternative housing; and

(9) all steps necessary for compliance with By-Law No. 56-95 be taken.

At its meeting held on February 12 and 13, 1997, Council also had before it two reports from the Metropolitan Solicitor in response to requests made by the Corporate Administration Committee at its meeting held on January 20, 1997, for those reports to be submitted directly to Council. One of those reports addressed the issue of whether or not the approval of the Financial Advisory Board appointed pursuant to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 was required for the implementation of the proposed authority contained in the report before Council on February 12 and 13, 1997. In addition, the Metropolitan Solicitor also submitted a report, as requested, relating to the issue of the placement of "restrictive covenants" on the title to the subject properties.

Council also had before it on that date a report (January 9, 1997) from the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources, entitled "Supplementary Report on the Disposition of the Former Spadina Expressway Properties", reporting directly to Council, as requested by the Corporate Administration Committee, on the appropriateness of including in the appraisal of the subject properties, the cost of improvements made to same during the respective rental periods, i.e., with the view to reducing the appraised value by such amount; and (in light of the request made to the Metropolitan Solicitor to report on the question of placing restrictive covenants on the titles), on the appropriateness of reducing the price (i.e. upon any re-purchase based upon the operation of such restrictive covenant), the costs of improvements made during the period of ownership by those currently acquiring the properties.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The steps outlined in Nos. (3), (4) and (5) noted above having been partially completed, the purpose of this report is to submit a status report in accordance with Item (7) set out above, and to seek further instructions on the process for the disposition of these properties.

Of the properties authorized to be sold in accordance with the foregoing, forty-seven (47) properties (37 of which were tenanted and 10 of which were vacant) became the subject matter of Agreements of Purchase and Sale, and have been successfully completed. One (1) property continues to be the subject matter of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale but has not yet closed. Staff will continue to implement step No. (3) outlined above. With respect to the remaining properties, there were either no responses to the communication to the tenants canvassing whether or not they were interested in purchasing the property, or, in those cases where an interest was expressed, no satisfactory Agreements of Purchase and Sale were concluded with the tenants.

In sum, although the initial process resulted in considerable success where vacant properties were involved, tenanted properties pose different issues. First, while offering the tenants an opportunity to purchase the houses they live in at market value is considered appropriate and fair, some of the tenants appear to believe that the 1997 appraised values are open for acceptance by them at any time, despite the general increase in real estate values in the area since that time. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council specifically affirm that all negotiations are to be conducted on the basis of the market value applicable at the time of the current negotiations. Further, all negotiations with tenants should be conducted on the basis that there exists a limited "window of opportunity" comprised of a fourteen calendar-day period from receipt of notice from the City of the appraised value of the property, during which the tenant may submit an acceptable Offer to Purchase at that appraised value. Staff are preparing standard form documents to remove many of the potential disagreements as to acceptable terms, and such documentation will provide that the transactions are conditional upon ultimate Council approval. This process is recommended as being fairest to all parties, including those tenants who paid market value for their properties last year.

If any tenant declines to make an Offer at the appraised value, the City will then list the property for sale as soon as practicable thereafter. Any tenant who believes the appraised value was too high, may make an Offer to Purchase the property on the open market once it is listed. Once a property is to be listed, a determination must be made as to how the existence of a tenancy in the property is to be dealt with. Generally, the two approaches are to either sell the property as vacant, or, alternatively, sell it subject to the existing tenancy. As most potential purchasers are seeking to purchase homes to actually live in themselves, they are generally less interested in properties which may not immediately be available for that purpose. Accordingly, tenanted properties tend to sell at prices lower than comparable properties where vacant possession is available.

In order for the City to covenant to a purchaser to provide vacant possession on closing, the City would have to be certain that it could fulfill that covenant. The law provides limited categories as to when a tenancy may be terminated, one of which is that the landlord requires possession of the rental premises, for the purpose of occupation by himself, his spouse or child or the parent of the landlord or the landlord's spouse. The City is not in a position to terminate on that basis.

One method available to secure vacant possession, under both the existing and proposed landlord and tenant legislation, is the termination of a tenancy by agreement. It permits the landlord and tenant to agree to terminate a tenancy on a specific date in the future. If a tenant fails to deliver up vacant possession on the specified date, the landlord may apply to obtain a writ of possession. The tenant has the right to set aside such a judgment if reasonable grounds for dispute are found to exist. If set aside, a hearing on merits would then result. Again, if the City proceeds on this basis, because of the potential delay and uncertainty of the proceedings, it would be preferable to obtain vacant possession of the property prior to entering into a binding Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

In order to assist tenants who are unable or unwilling to purchase the properties they live in, and to increase the attractiveness of these houses on the market, it is recommended that a financial incentive be provided to those tenants who voluntarily provide vacant possession. This incentive is recommended to be the equivalent of two months rent (excluding utilities) for tenants who have been in place for at least three years, and one month's rent (excluding utilities) for tenants of shorter tenure; such payment only to be made once vacant possession has actually been provided. However, since there is no actual guarantee that the tenant will physically leave as agreed, it would be unwise for the City to enter into binding Agreements of Purchase and Sale requiring the City to deliver vacant possession upon closing until such time as the facts allow the City to provide that covenant. Accordingly, in those circumstances where a tenant has agreed to vacate the property, the property may be listed for sale as vacant, but staff will not bring forward offers for Council's consideration before first securing vacant possession, whether because the tenant has departed as agreed, or, if a tenant fails to depart as agreed, as a result of staff having taken the necessary steps to enforce the agreement to vacate.

In those circumstances where the tenant declines to accept the financial incentive, such properties would be sold subject to the tenancies, in which circumstances it would be up to the purchaser to determine whether he wishes to use the premises for himself and if so, to take the necessary steps to secure vacant possession.

Accordingly, the following process is recommended for the sale of houses in the "Spadina Corridor" previously declared surplus by Metro Council:

(1)staff will arrange for each property to be appraised by an outside appraisal consultant as well as by a local Realtor, staff to reconcile the value estimates and, if necessary, obtain a third opinion from another appraisal consultant;

(2)the tenants will be provided with the option to purchase the property in a personally-delivered letter from the Commissioner of Corporate Services or her designate enclosing a notice of appraised value, and within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of appraised value from the City, the Tenant may deliver an Offer to Purchase the property at the current market value (as determined in accordance with step No. (1) above) acceptable in form to City staff, subject to Council approval;

(3)properties not sold to tenants are to be listed for sale on the Toronto Real Estate Board's Multiple Listing Service;

(4)those tenants not purchasing pursuant to step No. (2)(a) above will be offered a financial incentive to provide vacant possession of the property, such incentive to be the equivalent of one month's rent (excluding utilities) for tenants of less than three years and two months' rent (excluding utilities), and if the tenant provides notice that they are accepting the incentive and agreeing to vacate the property, an agreement to terminate the tenancy on a date acceptable to City staff will be executed, the payment as described above to be made upon the provision of vacant possession;

(5)those properties where the tenant does not enter into an agreement to provide vacant possession, will be sold subject to the existing tenancy;

(6)in any situation where the tenant has agreed to vacate the premises and fails to do so, all steps necessary to enforce the agreement to obtain vacant possession will be taken;

(7)all costs associated with the valuation, marketing and disposal of the properties will be deducted from the sale proceeds; and

(8)all satisfactory Offers to Purchase by the tenants at current market value and the best acceptable offer for each property having been listed will be presented to Council for consideration and approval.

Conclusions:

Proceeding in the manner described above enables the City to dispose of a number of surplus properties in a manner which is sensitive and recognizes relationships with existing tenants, some of whom have occupied these houses for many years. Further, the process makes efficient use of staff resources and external consultants, to provide the greatest net return to the City.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

--------

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

(i)(June 18, 1998) from Ms. Maria Vertolli, registering concern respecting the delays in her attempt to purchase the property located at 27 Gloucester Grove; and requesting that the City reconsider her offer to purchase the aforementioned property;

(ii)(June 16, 1998) from Mr. Anthony Harrison, registering concern respecting the sale of surplus property within the Spadina Corridor i.e., there being no option for tenants to continue to rent their homes and the matter of financial incentives;

(iii)(June 11, 1998) from Ms. Judy Everson, registering concern respecting the long delay in finalizing the sale of the property located at 139 Everden Road, Toronto; and forwarding additional information in regard thereto;

(iv)(June 21, 1998) from Mr. Henry N. Lowi, forwarding information, amongst other things, respecting the decision made by the former Metro Council on October 8, 1997, respecting the disposition of the Spadina Expressway properties;

(v)(June 22, 1998) from Ms. Eleanor Lavender, expressing her views respecting the disposition of the Spadina Expressway properties; and

(vi)(June 22, 1998) from Mr. Garbiel Heti, registering concern respecting the sale of surplus property within the Spadina Corridor.

The Corporate Services Committee viewed a video tape of the portion of the former Metropolitan Toronto Council meeting of October 8, 1997, when the issue of the Spadina Properties was considered.

The following persons appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Gilbert Zamonsky, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Gabrielle Heti;

-Ms. Eleanor Lavender, Spadina Residents Association; and

-Mr. Charles Acker.

Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To provide clarifications as to how the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee should be implemented, should Council concur in the Corporate Services Committee's amendments to my report (May 13, 1998) respecting the disposal of surplus properties along the Spadina Expressway Corridor.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that, in the event Council adopts the amendments of the Corporate Services Committee to my report (May 13, 1998), then in order to allow for implementation while, at the same time, comply with the financial agreement with the Province of Ontario:

(1)the specific properties to be appraised for market value as at the date of expression of interest be those listed in Schedule "A" hereto;

(2)independent appraisals of those Schedule "A" properties be commissioned, to have the effective date as set out in Schedule "A";

(3)all properties, including but not limited to those in Schedule "A", be offered at the appraised value to the tenant/owner on terms and conditions acceptable to the City Solicitor for a period limited to fourteen (14) days after which time the property be listed for sale through the T.R.E.B. Multiple Listing Service;

(4)in order to establish the value used to calculate the Province's share of the proceeds, with respect to those Schedule "A" properties, independent appraisals acceptable to the Province be commissioned, estimating the fair market value of such properties determined as at the time the agreement of purchase and sale is negotiated and entered into, and the Province's share of proceeds be based on such market value appraisals;

(5)only the properties listed in Schedule "A" that are sold to Schedule "A" purchasers at market value determined as at the date of expression of their interest should be subject to such option to purchase; that said option to purchase be registered on title; that the necessary restrictions and conveyancing documents be in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor, that the Option to Purchase be registered prior to any mortgage or other financing instrument, and the funding source for the various expenditures shall be from the City's share of the sale proceeds, except that future budgets include such amounts as would be necessary to fund the repurchase;

(6)then the arbitrator should be chosen by the Commissioner of Corporate Services who shall provide the terms of reference to said arbitrator; and the City's costs associated with each arbitration will be restricted to the cost of the arbitrator and the City's legal and appraisal costs; and the purchaser to be responsible for their own costs (i.e., solicitor, appraiser, and any other supporting consultants); and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the meeting held on June 22, 1998, Corporate Services Committee considered a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services (May 13, 1998) entitled "Surplus Property within the Spadina Corridor and Scarborough Transportation Corridor" outlining a process for disposing of the surplus tenanted properties along the former Spadina Expressway Corridor. Amendments by the Committee to the recommendations in that report were intended, inter alia, to permit tenants along the Spadina corridor who expressed an interest in purchasing the property they occupied in 1997 to do so now, at a price reflecting the fair market value of the property as at the date of their earlier expression of interest. Although not specifically considered by the Corporate Administration Committee, the same rationale would presumably apply to the properties along the Spadina Corridor previously identified by Council for repurchase entitlement by former owners.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Corporate Services Committee amendments to the recommendations in my May 13 1998 Report impact other aspects of this project which Council should consider.

Firstly, the Committee did not specifically address the form of interest that had to have been expressed by tenants. To ensure fair, and orderly implementation, Council should stipulate that the specific properties to be so appraised should be those set out in Schedule "A" for the reasons set out following.

By adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee, as amended, on February 12, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared certain Spadina properties as surplus and directed that they be offered to the tenants at market value. On or about February 19, 1997, a letter soliciting interest in purchasing their rented property was sent by Metro staff to all such tenants. The letter requested the tenants to advise the Manager of Real Estate in writing whether they wanted to buy the property and advised them that should they indicate such interest the property would be appraised by staff and by an independent appraiser after which they would be provided with an offer to purchase at fair market value.

Schedule "A" lists the remaining properties where the tenant responded to said letter which resulted in the former Metro having such properties appraised and sending offers to them. The offers were not proceeded with for the most part because the parties could not agree on the value of the property, or in some cases on the terms and conditions of the offer. It does not include tenants who have concluded or are in the process of concluding their purchases; or those who subsequently advised that they were no longer interested in purchasing. Staff records indicate that there have been no further written expressions of interest received from tenants to date.

By adoption of the aforementioned Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee, as amended, on February 12, 1997, Metropolitan Council also identified 4 properties for repurchase entitlement by former owners who had previously indicated an interest in repurchasing their land. Schedule "A" also includes the 3 remaining properties so identified for repurchase entitlement all of whom should be deemed to have expressed interest as of the date of adoption by Council of the February 12, 1997 Report, the fourth property identified for repurchase entitlement having advised on November 27, 1997 that they were no longer interested in buying 48 Heathdale Road.

Secondly, the Committee has recommended that if properties are offered for resale within 24months from the date of closing, the property first be offered back to the City of Toronto at the original purchase price. Given the underlying rationale for this motion, Council should clarify that this option to purchase is applicable only with respect to those properties set out in Schedule "A" that are sold to Schedule "A" purchasers at market value determined as at the date of expression of their interest. Also, Council should be mindful that while technically it may be possible to structure such a buy-back by way of an option to purchase, any benefit to the City that such a short option might provide should be weighed against the several practical difficulties and costs involved, including such issues as the necessity to register such option, the requirement to pay land transfer tax to register each option at the time of registration, funding to cover the purchase if the option is exercised and the need to register the option agreement prior to the registration of any mortgage or other financing instrument required to purchase the property in order to safeguard the City's option. Also, since one-third of the proceeds (market value) are to be payable to the Province, the City would have to fund that portion of any repurchase from other sources, and future budgets would have to include such amounts as would be necessary to fund the re-purchase. Attached for your information is a copy of a report (January 30, 1997) from the Metropolitan Solicitor entitled "Proposed Imposition of Restrictive Covenant on Spadina Properties", submitted at the time the marketing of Spadina properties was first being considered.

Thirdly, the Spadina properties are owned by the Province. The financial arrangement with the Province of Ontario requires the Province's share of the sale proceeds be calculated on the fair market value of the property determined as at the time the agreement of purchase and sale is negotiated and entered into, and not at the date of expression of interest as determined by City Council. In order for the City to comply with the financial agreement with the Province, independent appraisals, acceptable to the Province should be commissioned estimating the fair market value of the properties determined as at the time the agreement of purchase and sale is negotiated and entered into.

Fourthly, should Council adopt the Committee recommendations, a timeframe needs to be established, within which the Schedule "A" purchasers must respond to the City's offer. Otherwise, they will have a virtual open-ended option to purchase at those 1997 values. This could also frustrate future attempts to dispose of the properties. To ensure closure to the entitlement of the Schedule "A" parties to acquire Schedule "A" properties, in addition to the time limitation of the recommended 14 day period to accept the offer, the requirement should be included that the offer be on terms and conditions acceptable to the City Solicitor.

Fifthly the commissioning of further independent appraisals effective with the date of expression of interest as set out in Schedule "A" and the offering of the properties to Schedule "A" purchasers at such appraised value should eliminate the need for an arbitration mechanism to reconcile differing opinions of "fair market value" as has been recommended by the Corporate Services Committee. The tenants who expressed interest in purchasing the homes in 1997 were provided with an "offer" based on appraisal reports prepared for the former Metro. In some instances the tenants commissioned their own appraisals, which at times differed significantly from the municipality's. When the parties could not agree on the value of the property based on their respective appraisals, negotiations generally ceased because of the large number of requests and limited staff resources.

If Council decides in favour of a third party arbitrator as recommended by the Corporate Administration Committee, then the arbitrator should be selected by the Commissioner of Corporate Services who will provide the terms of reference to the arbitrator, and the City's costs associated with each arbitration should be restricted to the cost of the arbitration and the City's legal and appraisal costs. Potential purchasers should be responsible for their own costs including legal, appraisal and any other supporting consultants. The funding source could be from the proceeds of the sale of the property involved.

Conclusions:

In considering whether to sell the properties at 1997 values Council should ensure the process is clear and give direction as to: which properties are to be included; how long potential purchasers have to respond to the City's offer; a mechanism for resolving differing opinions of value, if necessary; and what action is to be taken in those instances where the Schedule "A" party does not wish to buy or does not respond to the City's offer.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241

rmayr@city.scarborough.on.ca.

SCHEDULE "A"

Tenants Who Received Offer to Purchase from Former Metro

AddressTenantDate Of Interest

106 Everden RoadElizabeth HarringtonJuly 22, 1997

121 Everden RoadAndrew McLean; Linda SnefjellaAugust 28, 1997 *

132 Everden RoadGabriel HetiFebruary 25, 1997

134 Everden RoadEleanor LavenderJune 23, 1997

139 Everden RoadJudith EversonFebruary 26, 1997

149 Everden RoadGilbert ZamonskyMarch 6, 1997

AddressTenantDate Of Interest

153 Everden RoadFrank DyerMay 20, 1997

19 Gloucester GroveDavid Wheeler; Kathleen DunningMarch 30, 1997 **

22 Gloucester GroveSandor KerekesMarch 3, 1997

23 Gloucester GroveHenry Lowi; Yasmine MerriJune 9, 1997

27 Gloucester GroveMaria VertolliFebruary 27, 1997

28 Gloucester GroveJohn KirchoffMay 12, 1997

40 Gloucester GroveBrad McDonaldMarch 4, 1997

42 Gloucester GroveAnne-Marie Kopp; Alice KoppJuly 2, 1997

38 Heathdale RoadEllen MacDonaldFebruary 27, 1997

48 Heathdale RoadJohn FennFebruary 12, 1997

300 Spadina RoadDavid CobdenFebruary 28, 1997

222 Strathearn RoadStephane GrenonFebruary 25, 1997

* May have vacated on June 30, 1998. ** Have given notice that they will vacate July 31, 1998.

Owners of Properties Identified for Repurchase Entitlement

50 Heathdale RoadJerome CooperFebruary 12, 1997

200 Ava RoadAlice ModelFebruary 12, 1997

179 Strathearn RoadJ. and R. BerensteinFebruary 12, 1997

(Report dated January 30, 1997 from the

Metropolitan Solicitor, headed "Proposed Imposition

of Restrictive Covenant on Spadina Properties".)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on January 20, 1997, the Corporate Administration Committee had before it a Report (January 9, 1997) from the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources entitled "Supplementary Report on the Disposition of the former Spadina Expressway Properties", and, among other actions, referred to the Metropolitan Solicitor, for a report to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on February 12, 1997, various motions relating the imposition on title to those properties of a "restrictive covenant", providing that, upon resale, the Metropolitan Corporation would be entitled to repurchase the property at the price initially paid to Metro/the Province. The Report was also to make comment upon an appropriate term for such restrictive covenant, suggestions, respectively, of two (2) and tn (10) years, having been made by members of Committee.

Comments and/or Discussion:

Generally, where a property is bought at full market value, the purchaser expects to acquire all attendant rights of property ownership along with that purchase (often legally referred to as the entire "bundle of sticks"), one of which is the entitlement to enjoy any increase in the value of the property over time due to market forces. Conversely, what a purchaser also buys is the risk of a decrease in that value, again due to market forces.

Accordingly, if the properties are to be sold at fair market value, it would be inconsistent with normal sales and conveyancing practices to impose on title to such lands an entitlement for the Metropolitan Corporation to re-purchase the properties at a stipulated value, which may be less than that which the open market might disclose at the time of the re-sale. The corollary, of course, is that should Council determine to proceed with such a restriction, since the purchaser would not then be acquiring the entire "bundle of sticks" referred to above, such decision will have a significant downwards influence on the initial selling price, (i.e., as the purchaser would be precluded, during the term, from realizing any potential capital appreciation). That is, the purchaser would not pay "full price" as the "stick" representing the normal entitlement to sell the property at increased market value would not form part of the bundle of entitlements being purchased.

The term "restrictive covenant" generally refers to a registered restriction as to how a particular property may or may not be used. In the situation at hand, rather, it appears that the various motions have been made for the purpose of precluding speculation and windfall gains on the re-sale of the subject properties. Accordingly, a different form of documentation would be used for such purpose. The most suitable form of document would be an Option to Purchase, to be triggered upon the receipt by the owner of a bona fide arm's length Offer to Purchase from a third party which the owner otherwise would have accepted. However, this type of arrangement is fraught with practical difficulties and costs. The very existence of the arrangement may deter the very offers which crystallize Metro's entitlement to re-acquire. This could operate unfairly to owners attempting to sell their property. The arrangement is difficult to enforce, as it is only triggered by an event in which the Metropolitan Corporation has no involvement. If Metro determines to proceed with this type of arrangement, Metro will incur a not-insubstantial cost (even apart from the staff time and cost of the individual registration of each such document), in that Land Transfer Tax is payable at the (i.e., initial) time of registration of the Option. In the event that Metro ultimately determines not to re-acquire the property (i.e., due, for example, to a downward turn in market values at the relevant time), those amounts are not recoverable, and simply become money "thrown away". A further cost implication is that for properties registered in the Land Titles system, the title registration of the Option has to be renewed annually, at a registration cost to Metro on each occasion. It is also my opinion that the imposition of this type of restriction may inhibit or deter mortgage lenders from becoming involved with the acquisitions. Any who do wish to become involved in spite of such arrangement will undoubtedly wish to negotiate different terms in light of the potential to have to later market a property under power of sale, or following a foreclosure.

Such documentation would need to stipulate the length of time for which the arrangement would bind the title to the property (i.e., the number of years during which it is in effect). Apart from the issue of perpetuity law, the determination as to the length of the arrangement is purely a question of Council's preference. Same would presumably take into account whether or not full value had been paid in the first place. If full value had been paid, a shorter period would obviously be appropriate. If not, then some longer period would not be unfair. In order to effect the desired result, the obligation should also be stipulated to bind any subsequent purchasers/transferees during the stipulated period.

The restriction contemplated in the motion provides that the repurchase by Metro would be at the price originally paid to it (except for the issue of improvements on which question the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources is reporting separately). The risk inherent in that arrangement, in the event that there had been a downturn in market values, is that if Metro proceeds to re-acquire the property, Metro would pay more for the property than what the open market would offer, thereby providing an unintended windfall to the initial purchasers; and depending on Metro's intention as to further municipal use of the land or not, upon a resale by Metro at that time, a loss would in all likelihood be suffered.

It should also be noted that the proposed arrangement does not form part of the agreement previously reached with the Province, as approved by Council by its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of The Corporate Administration Committee on December 4, 1996. That agreement contemplated that the sales were to be made at prices reflecting fair market value. Since one-third of the proceeds are to be payable to the Province, this would mean that Metro would have to fund that portion of any re-purchase from other sources; and that future budgets will have to include such amounts as would be necessary to fund the re-purchases.

Conclusion:

If Council determines to proceed with this arrangement, the authorization should provide that the necessary restrictions and conveyancing documents be in a form and content satisfactory to the Metropolitan Solicitor; and should stipulate the funding source for all the various expenditures referred to above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

M.A. Fischer - 392-8054)

5

Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at

114 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to include recent sale comparables in any future reports respecting the sale of City-owned lands.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 114 Everden Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $222,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the highest offer in the amount of $222,000.00 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 percent 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. CP300J56140;

(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation, 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 Province of Ontario is the owner of 114 Everden Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, 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 February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Savvy Realty Corp. on April 27, 1998, at an asking price of $229,900.00. As a result, the following offers were received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Zubaria Bukhari and Imran Bukhari$12,000.00 (bank draft)$205,000.00

(non-conditional)

Laurence Alexander$12,000.00$222,000.00

($2,800.00-certified cheque)(non-conditional)

($9,200.00-bank draft)

Sharon Attias$11,000.00(certified cheque)$218,600.00

(non-conditional)

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:114 Everden Road, City of York.

Legal Description:Lot 97, Plan 2339, City of York designated as Part 8, on Plan No.7777, City of York.

Lot Size:7.62 metres (25 feet) fronting onto Everden Road

0.2 metres (132 feet) depth.

Location:East side of Everden Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West.

Improvements:Detached, bungalow.

Occupancy Status:Vacant.

Right of Way:Subject to a mutual right-of-way.

Easement:Title to the property will be conveyed subject to an easement in favour of the City of Toronto substantially as shown on Plan 64R-7314 for subway/sewer and other related municipal purposes.

Recommended Sale Price:$222,000.00.

Deposit:$12,000.00.

Purchaser:Laurence Alexander.

Closing Date:August 27, 1998.

Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker:Savvy Realty Corp.

Selling Broker:Century 21 Heritage Group Ltd.

Commission:Four (4) per cent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416)396-4930, Fax No.: (416)396-4241, E-Mail Address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

6

Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property

at 123 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 123 Everden Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $252,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No.25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence, that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the Agreement of Purchase and Sale in the amount of $252,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 percent 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. CP300J56148;

(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation 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 Province of Ontario is the owner of 123 Everden Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, 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 February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Wakefield Realty Corporation on May 11, 1998, at an asking price of $256,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. As a result, the following offer was received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Colette Z. Weinberg and$15,000.00 (bank draft)$252,000.00 (non-conditional)

Arman Kasaci

This offer is being recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:123 Everden Road, City of Toronto.

Legal Description:Plan 2339, Lot 112, City of Toronto.

Approximate Lot Size:7.62 metres (25 feet) fronting onto Everden Road,

40.23 metres (132 feet) depth.

Location:East side of Everden Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West.

Easements:Subject to an easement in favour of the City of Toronto for subway/sewer and other related municipal purposes identified within Part 9 on Plan 64R-7314.

Improvements:Detached, two storey, brick dwelling.

Occupancy Status:Vacant.

Recommended Sale Price:$252,000.00.

Deposit:$15,000.00 (bank draft).

Purchaser(s):Colette Z. Weinberg and Arman Kasaci.

Closing Date:July 27, 1998.

Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker:Wakefield Realty Corporation.

Selling Broker:Sutton Group Assoc. Realty Inc.

Commission:Four (4) per cent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416)396-4930, Fax No.: (416)396-4241, E-Mail Address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy the location maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 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 Surplus Spadina Project Property

at 141 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June8, 1998) from the Corporate Services Committee:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 141 Everden Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $281,600.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence, that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the Agreement of Purchase and Sale in the amount of $281,600.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 percent 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. CP300J56157;

(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation 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 Province of Ontario is the owner of 141 Everden Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, 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 February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Prudential SadieMoranis Realty on May 8, 1998, at an asking price of $274,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. As a result, the following offer was received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Benny Tal and Alisa Siegel $15,000.00 (bank draft) $281,600.00 (non-conditional)

This offer is being recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:141 Everden Road, City of Toronto.

Legal Description:Plan 2339, Lot 25, City of Toronto.

Approximate Lot Size:7.62 metres (25 feet) fronting onto Everden Road,

40.23 metres (132 feet) depth.

Location:East side of Everden Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West.

Improvements:Detached, two storey, brick dwelling.

Occupancy Status:Vacant.

Recommended Sale Price:$281,600.00.

Deposit:$15,000.00 (certified cheque).

Purchaser(s):Benny Tal and Alisa Siegel.

Closing Date:August 17, 1998.

Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker:Prudential Sadie Moranis Realty.

Selling Broker:Forest Hill Real Estate Inc.

Commission:Four (4) percent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416)396-4930, Fax No.: (416)396-4241, E-Mail Address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at

569 Arlington Avenue (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 569 Arlington Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $166,800.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the highest offer in the amount of $166,800.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 percent 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. CP300J56113;

(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation 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 Province of Ontario is the owner of 569 Arlington Avenue, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, 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 February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Forest Hill Real Estate Inc. on May 5, 1998 at an asking price of $156,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. As a result, the following offers were received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Liana Butt and

Madeline oy-san Butt$8,400.00 (bank draft)$166,800.00 (non-conditional)

Vongphasouk Thammachack$9,000.00 (certified cheque)$161,251.00 (conditional)

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:569 Arlington Avenue.

Legal Description:Plan 2339, Part Lots 190 and 191, Registered Plan 64R-15549 Parts 3 and 26.

Approximate Lot Size:9.90 metres (32.50 feet) fronting onto Arlington Avenue,

31.98 metres (104.93 feet) depth.

Easement:Subject to a sewer easement over Part 3, Instrument No. CA505491.

Location:East side of Arlington Avenue, west of Strathearn Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West.

Improvements:Detached, brick bungalow.

Occupancy Status:Vacant.

Recommended Sale Price:$166,800.00.

Deposit:$8,400.00 (bank draft).

Purchaser(s):Liana Butt and Madeline oy-san Butt.

Closing Date:July 31, 1998.

Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker:Forest Hill Real Estate Inc.

Selling Broker:Trustmark Realty Inc.

Commission:Four (4) percent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416)396-4930, Fax No.: (416)396-4241, E-Mail Address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy the location maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

9

Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at

34 Heathdale Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 34 Heathdale Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $410,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence, that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the highest offer in the amount of $410,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 percent 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. CP300J56185;

(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation 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 Province of Ontario is the owner of 34 Heathdale Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, 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 February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Forest Hill Real Estate Inc. on September 16, 1997 at an asking price of $429,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. No acceptable offers were received at that time. Subsequently, on April 27, 1998, the property was listed with Paul Slavens Real Estate Inc. at an asking price of $409,900.00. As a result, the following offers were received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Sandor Ambrus$20,000.00 (certified cheque)$410,000.00 (non-conditional)

Michal Fischler$20,000.00 (bank draft)$405,000.00 (non-conditional)

Steven Plant$19,000.00 (certified cheque)$381,000.00 (non-conditional)

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:34 Heathdale Road.

Legal Description:Lot 176, Plan M367, designated as Lot 18, Plan MX-75.

Approximate Lot Size:15.24 metres (50.0 feet) fronting onto Heathdale Road,

39.5 metres (129.72 feet) depth.

Location:North side of Heathdale Road, east of Glencedar Drive.

Status:Vacant Site.

Recommended Sale Price:$410,000.00.

Deposit:$20,000.00 (certified cheque).

Purchaser(s):Sandor Ambrus.

Closing Date:July 28, 1998.

Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker:Paul Slavens Real Estate Inc.

Selling Broker:Paul Slavens Real Estate Inc.

Commission:Four (4) percent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416)396-4930, Fax No.: (416)396-4241, E-Mail Address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy the location maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

4800 Yonge Street - Sheppard Subway, Acquisition of Property -

Supplementary Report, Owner: OMERS Realty Corporation and

Canadian Pacific Properties Inc.

Leased to: 4800 Yonge Street Limited (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To advise Council of the status of an acquisition previously approved by Council at the southwest corner of Sheppard Avenue East and Yonge Street as part of the property requirements for the construction of the Sheppard Subway.

Funding Source, 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 City Council confirm its decision to enter into an agreement with OMERS Realty Corporation, Canadian Pacific Properties Inc., and 4800 Yonge Street Ltd., including environmental indemnification of the owner, for the property in its present condition.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council, at its meeting held on February 4, 1998, adopted Clause No.3 of Report No. 1 of The Corporate Services Committee, as amended, approving the acquisition of the above referenced property in connection with the Sheppard Subway project. The purpose of this report is to provide clarification with respect to the requirement of the owners for environmental indemnification which was not addressed in the report to the Corporate Services Committee on January 20, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the Sheppard Subway, Yonge Station construction, the TTC requires a subsurface fee interest through the property known municipally as 4800 Yonge Street for the southwest WYE which will link the Yonge line to the Sheppard line. The TTC also requires the property as a worksite from January 1, 1998, to June 30, 2001, which will also provide for detours of Sheppard Avenue West and Yonge Street during the station's construction. The property is leased to 4800 Yonge Street Ltd., which is a holding company owned by Omers Realty Corporation as to an undivided 75 percent interest and Canadian Pacific Properties Inc., as to the remaining undivided 25 percent interest. The agreement provides for a lease with a term commencing January 1, 1998 and terminating June 30, 2001, with the City having the right to extend the term for two further six-month periods. The owners have also agreed to transfer the subsurface fee interest required for the WYE tunnel at no cost to the City.

The agreement is made pursuant to Section 30 of the Expropriations Act which allows the owner to apply for determination of additional compensation as if the lands were expropriated.

The owners, in finalizing the agreement, have demanded that during the term of the lease the City assume any and all risks related to the physical condition of the property and that the City is to accept the property in its present condition, and that the City shall indemnify the owners in respect of the corresponding City and TTC activities during the term of the lease.

The TTC has undertaken environmental investigations of the site through Golder Associates and, although there have been traces of petroleum hydrocarbons identified on the site, it is considered low level and a low risk. The environmental indemnification clause is, therefore, not of concern to the TTC.

The alternative to entering into the Section 30 agreement would be to expropriate the lands and assume the same risk with respect to any environmental contamination of the lands. Any increased costs in construction related to the removal of any contaminated material would be considered by the OMB in making any award.

Conclusion:

Notwithstanding the requirement that the City take the property in its present state and be responsible for any environmental contamination, whether pre-existing or not, and indemnify the owners in respect of its activities during the term of the lease, the acceptance of the Section 30 Agreement by the City of Toronto will ensure the possession of the property interests required for the Sheppard Subway construction project in a timely manner and provide a similar risk to the City and the TTC as if the lands were expropriated.

Contact Name:

Mr. Robert K. Johnston, Project Manager (416) 392-8143 Fax No. (905) 501-0455 E-Mail Address:jdassoc@interlog.com

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

4736 - 4750 Yonge Street, Sheppard Subway,

Acquisition of Property Interests

Colonia Life Holdings Limited and

971203 Ontario Limited (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To authorize the execution of a Section 30 Agreement pursuant to the Expropriations Act securing the property requirements for the Sheppard Subway project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to enter into an agreement with Colonia Life Holdings Limited and 971203 Ontario Limited pursuant to Section 30 of the Expropriations Act on terms and conditions detailed herein; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The former Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Administration Committee on May 8, 1996, authorized the initiation of the expropriation of lands required for the Yonge Station construction, Sheppard Subway project. Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 9 of Report No. 2 of The Corporate Administration Committee, at its meeting held on March 4, 5, and 6, 1998, approved the expropriation of the subject lands owned by Colonia Life Holdings Limited and 971203 Ontario Limited.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the Sheppard Subway construction, the TTC requires a widening of Yonge Street described as Parts 1 and 2 on draft Reference Plan No. 94-21-413-38 prepared by J. D. Barnes and dated September 29, 1997, and requires a worksite lease for a term of 36 months over lands described as Lots 756 to 761, inclusive, excluding the Yonge Street road widening.

The Expropriation Plan was scheduled to be registered on June 5, 1998. However, a Section 30 Agreement was negotiated with the owners prior to registration of the Plan. The terms and conditions of the agreement are as follows:

Site Areas:Road widening - 164.5 m² (1,771 sq. ft).

Worksite lease - 1684.8 m² (18,136 sq. ft).

Purchase Price of Road Widening:$200,000.00.

Rent for Worksite Lease:$176,000.00 net for the three year term.

Additional Compensation:The City agrees to pay the owner's reasonable legal and appraisal fees in the course of its negotiations with the City and the sum of $20,000.00 with respect to a management agreement respecting the lands.

Reinstatement:The City agrees to reasonably restore all disturbed areas of the leasehold lands after completion of construction.

The agreement is made pursuant to Section 30 of the Expropriations Act which allows the owner to apply for determination of additional compensation as if the lands were expropriated.

Conclusions:

Acceptance of the Section 30 Agreement by the City of Toronto will ensure possession of the property interests required for the Sheppard Subway construction project in a timely manner. The compensation recommended herein is considered fair and reasonable.

Contact Name:

Mr. Robert K. Johnston, Project Manager (416) 392-8143 Fax No. (905) 501-0455 E-Mail Address: jdassoc@interlog.com.

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

12

Partial Property Acquisition - Ontario Conference

Seventh Day Adventist Church

Portion of 3846 Ellesmere Road

(Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

Property acquisition to accommodate the re-naturalization of the Centennial Watercourse, north of Ellesmere Road, Scarborough.

Funding:

The land acquisition to be charged to Capital Account No. 57837-00000-85040-481 and funded from the following sources: 1994 to 1997 Projects: No. 8504-0, No. 8549-0, No. 8505-0 and No. 8559-0.

Sources:No. 72394 Capital Levy Reserve Fund $1,710,000.00

No. 70293 Development Fees - residential$1,270,000.00

No. 70294 Development Fees - non-residential$ 430,000.00

(a) Approved $3,410,000.00 (b) Spent to Date $2,766,810.00, (c) Pending Approval $110,000.00, (d) This Request $120,000.00 (d) Balance $413,190.00

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve the acquisition of the 39 m X 38 m (128 ft X 125 ft) parcel shown as Part 1 on the attached sketch at the price of $120,000.00;

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction and pay any costs incidental to the closing for land transfer tax or otherwise;

(3)the City pay the owner's reasonable legal fees to complete this transaction; and

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

Background:

In 1994 - 1997, the City of Scarborough initiated a program to bring into public ownership lands within the valley of the Centennial Creek, a small watercourse which extends from Lake Ontario to Highway 401, between Port Union Road and Morningside Avenue (see attached sketch). For much of its course the stream is unregulated by conservation authority regulations, and therefore the valley was in danger of being destroyed by filling to facilitate development. In 1996 Scarborough Council authorized negotiations with the owners of nineteen properties to acquire a 20 metre wide corridor centred upon the watercourse. These properties were targeted for acquisition from a significantly larger number, based upon their proximity to development and their environmental sensitivity. To date all or part of ten properties have been purchased. A summary of the status of the acquisitions is attached as Appendix 1.

Comments:

The owner of the subject property is The Ontario Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist church. It is rectangular with frontage of 39m (128 ft.) on the north side of Ellesmere Road and a depth of 122.5m (402 ft.). Total area of the property is 4,818m² (51,858 ft²). The rear portion, which the City requires, has an area of 1,482m² (15,952 ft²), leaving a residual of 3 336 m² (35,908 ft²). The property is improved with a 146 m² (1,572 ft²) bungalow.

The Official Plan designation for the property is Low Density Residential, with an area adjacent to the watercourse as Environmental Impact Zone. The Official Plan, which was revised in 1997, contains a policy statement indicating that the City will negotiate the acquisition of lands within the E.I.Z. as though the old Official Plan Designation, which permitted development of the watercourse area, remained in place.

The subject property is Zoned S - Single Family Residential, with development standards permitting the construction of one single-family dwelling per parcel of land with a minimum of 15m (49.21 ft.) frontage on a public street, and a minimum area of 696 m² (7,492 ft²).

The property the City wishes to acquire was appraised by an independent appraiser at $120,000.00. Subject to the approval of Council, the owners have agreed to sell the property to the City for the appraised value. In addition, the municipality will be responsible for the owner's reasonable legal costs.

Conclusion:

The purchase of the rear portion of this property for the appraised value will enable the City to protect the Centennial watercourse, and approval of the transaction is recommended.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca (cs98080.wpd)

--------

Appendix 1

Acquisitions Approved

Pending Negotiations

13

Partial Property Acquisition from

Canada Lands Company

(Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

Property acquisition to accommodate development of the Port Union Village Common.

Funding:

Cost of the acquisition in the amount of $151,150.00 plus closing costs to be charged to Capital Account No. 67035 and funded by a transfer from Parks five percent Reserve Account Fund No.70490.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve the acquisition of the 1.11 ha parcel shown as Part 1 on the attached sketch (Part of Lot 35, Range 1, Township of Pickering) from Canada Lands Company at a price of $151,150.00;

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction and pay any costs incidental to the closing for land transfer tax or otherwise; and

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

Background:

On March 7, 1995, the Ontario Municipal Board approved the Port Union Village Secondary Plan for lands located south of Lawrence Avenue on both sides of Port Union Road in the former City of Scarborough. Identified in the Secondary Plan is a significant public land component referred to as the Village Common. The Village Common is intended to straddle Port Union Road from LawrenceAvenue south to the C.N.R. tracks. Also identified in the Secondary Plan is an Open Space connection between the Village Common and the Rouge Hill GO Station, located a short distance to the east.

An important component of the Village Common was secured in October of 1997 with the acquisition of the "Laskey Hotel" property, on the east side of Port Union Road, just north of the C.N.R. tracks.

In March of 1998, City Council authorized tax sale procedures for the former Johns Manville property, part of which is also located within the Village Common area.

Scarborough Community Council authorized negotiations with the owners of the other properties required for the Village Common in March of 1998.

Canada Lands Company owns a 1.11 ha (2.75 acre) parcel which extends from Port Union Road east to the GO station. It forms an irregularly shaped, long narrow strip, and was until recently the site of several disused railway spur lines, and the original Port Union Station. This property would be ideal for the Open Space connection between the Go Station and the Village Common.

Comments:

A tentative agreement subject to Council approval, has been negotiated with the Canada Lands Company to purchase the property for $151,250.00. This is equivalent to $135,900.00 per ha ($55,000.00 per acre) for the 1.11 ha (2.75 acre) property. Given the shape and location of the property, the purchase price is considered to be below market value.

This portion of the former City of Scarborough was annexed from Pickering in 1974, and the Pickering Township Zoning by-law remains in effect. Under the by-law, the property is zoned RWY-Railway, which permits only the operation of rail facilities. The Official Plan designates part of the property for Open Space Uses, and a smaller portion for Village Common Uses.

The Vendor has provided a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessment, which indicates only a very small area of stained soil. Laboratory analysis indicates the staining is the result of a Petroleum product, likely the result of a leak from a rail tank car parked on the siding a number of years ago. While C.L.C.'s consultants have estimated the cost of removing the soil to be $3,750, Environmental Services staff have indicated the removal could await the development of the connection between the Village Common and the GO Station. Remediation undertaken at that time would have lower costs since equipment necessary would already be on site.

Were the City to decline to purchase this property, significant portions of it would likely be sold for development in conjunction with ongoing development immediately to the north.

It is noted we have confirmed with Parks staff the requirement to acquire these lands and a summary of the real estate acquisition program is set out below:

Conclusion:

The Village Common concept was the product of a lengthy planning process for this community.

Acquisition of these lands would be another important step in the ongoing process of creating the Village Common.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax Number (416) 396-4930

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca (cs98084.wpd)

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

Old City Hall - Lease Agreement

(Ward 24 - Downtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration at such time as the report in regard to the increased court costs for Parking Tag Convictions is submitted to the Committee by the Mayor in October, 1998.)

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

Purpose:

To seek direction from City Council relating to the renewal of the lease of Old City Hall as per the attached location and site maps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to commence negotiations with the Ontario Realty Corporation to extend the term of the lease and report to Council on the negotiated terms and conditions; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By the adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 8 of The Metropolitan Executive Committee on March1,1989, and Clause No. 2 of Report No. 16 of The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee on November 7 and 8, 1990, the former Metropolitan Council authorized the lease of Old City Hall to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario for a term of ten (10) years. The gross square foot rates for the first five (5) years were similar to those rates paid at the time by former Metropolitan Toronto to the former City of Toronto for the tower space in the new City Hall which were set as follows:

April 1, 1989 to December 31, 1989 $24.00 per square foot per annum

January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990$25.00 per square foot per annum

January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991$29.50 per square foot per annum

January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992$32.00 per square foot per annum

January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993$32.50 per square foot per annum

For the years 6 to 10, the rental rates were adjusted according to the annual Consumer Price Index for Metropolitan Toronto. It was also agreed that the rent will be paid monthly, in advance, on a gross basis, subject to an escalation clause under which the landlord may charge up to the amount of $0.50 per square foot in each and every year of the agreement, payable commencing April 1, 1989, such additional charges being accumulative to cover increases in such operating costs and charges over the base year of 1986.

By further agreement, in the event that the aforementioned escalation provisions were found by Metropolitan Toronto, in any year or years within the lease term, to be insufficient to cover the actual costs of operation of Old City Hall, the Municipality shall provide to the Province a statement of the operating costs and charges actually incurred for the immediately preceding twelve (12) month period and upon presentation to the Province of such statement, the Province shall forthwith pay to The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, such deficient amount.

The initial total rentable area of 181,107 square feet and the maintainable area is 206,000 square feet on which any additional escalation charge is applied.

By the adoption of Clause No. 13 of Report No. 19 of The Corporate Administration Committee , the former Metropolitan Council, on June 14, 1995, authorized an amendment to the lease to provide for additional space. Old City Hall which has been absorbed by the Attorney General's Department as a result of changes to the interior of the building brought about by the recent Life-Safety Upgrade. The net additional area is 3,318 square feet. Therefore, the total rentable area was increased to 184,425 square feet from 181,107 square feet and the total maintainable area is increased to 209,318square feet from 206,000 square feet. The 1998 rent for the Old City Hall is $6,447,473.00 and Maintenance Adjustment is $1,046,590.00.

By the adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transit Team as amended, the Council of City of Toronto, on February 4, 5, and 6, 1998, approved the following recommendations:

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

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

By a letter dated March 12, 1998, the Ontario Realty Corporation has been notified according to the recommendations as adopted by the Council of City of Toronto. Subsequently, the Ontario Realty Corporation has responded by a letter dated March 20, 1998, and indicated the following:

"The Province is willing to work with you to achieve an orderly transition in vacating the Old City Hall. The logistics involved in relocating such a specialized use make it impossible for us to facilitate the relocation within the time frame that you have proposed. The Courts must continue to operate until new premises are ready for occupancy.

To ensure an orderly transition, we would require a minimum four-year extension and would prefer for planning purposes, five years. We are working diligently to minimize the time frame and intend to vacate as soon as the new premises are ready. During the extension period, the Province would of course pay fair market rental and we would work with you to arrive at a mutually acceptable rate.

The former Police Headquarters, in ORC's opinion, would not meet our client's requirement. However, we are prepared to have our technical staff conduct a review of that facility."

Subsequently, I was further advised by the Ontario Realty Corporation that the Attorney General's Department is not interested in the property at 590 Jarvis Street.

Conclusions:

The existing lease will expire on December 31, 1998, and contains no provision to overhold. However, the Ontario Realty Corporation by way of the Province may exercise its authority to remain if not given an appropriate time frame to relocate its Courts function. Our Facilities section has advised that the minimum time required to design, renovate and relocate to this facility for City's use is approximately three years taking into consideration its historical designation and the amount of work to be performed on the building to bring it up to standards.

In order to expedite the transitional move into Old City Hall it is anticipated that as soon as space is secured by the Province for its use, in whole or in part, an earlier phased move in may be achieved.

In view of the current use of the Old City Hall and the difficulty of such relocation to another new facility, I am of the opinion that an extension of the lease term is reasonable and should be subject to negotiation all of which when completed will be reported to Council for approval.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No. (416)-392-8155; Fax No.:(416)392-4828; E-mail Address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

15

Proposed Leasing of Parking Spaces in McCowan Road

"RT" Lot to Adason Properties Ltd.,

(Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The owners of 55 Town Centre Court, an office building in the Scarborough City Centre, have requested that the City lease 100 parking spaces in the City's "RT" parking lot at McCowan Road and Bushby Drive.

Funding:

If approved, revenues in the amount of $4000.00 per month will be credited to Account No.37900-70500-75540-868, "McCowan RT Parking Lot Fees."

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City enter into an agreement to lease 100 parking spaces in the "R.T." parking lot at Grangeway and Bushby to Adason Properties Ltd., under the terms and conditions shown in Schedule "A"; and

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

Background:

The City operates a 370 car parking lot adjacent to the McCowan Road "RT" station. Approximately 120 of these spaces are utilized by the day-to-day commuters and employees in the nearby offices. One hundred spaces are rented on a monthly basis to London Life Insurance, a tenant in one of the nearby office buildings. A.G. Simpson Limited, a large industrial employer located in the area, rents a spaces on an intermittent basis, depending on its employment at the time. Daily parkers pay $3.00per day. The companies renting on a monthly basis pay $40.00 per space, per month.

Adason Properties, manages the Canada Life Centre, an office building at Borough Drive and Town Centre Court. Adason has experienced difficulties leasing space in the building due to a lack of available on-site parking. They have asked to lease 100 spaces in the City lot on an annual basis, and have agreed to pay $40.00 per space, per month which is the same as the other monthly users. They would sublet the leased spaces in this lot to the new tenants, as required.

Comments:

The use of the parking lot by daily users has not fluctuated greatly in the past few years. The operating costs of the parking lot increase only marginally with increased usage. The additional revenue can be used in other areas.

While the other parking arrangements have been on a monthly basis, it is imperative that the spaces required by Adason Properties be leased annually, in order that they can assure prospective tenants that the additional parking will be available for at least a year.

Conclusion:

Leasing the space requested to Adason Properties would not only generate direct revenue for the City, but would also increase the likelihood of increased tax revenue from the currently vacant office space at 55 Town Centre Court, and approval is therefore recommended.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax Number (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca (cs98081.wpd)

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

16

Lease Renewal of Space at 1900 Dundas Street West,

Social Services Division, Community and Neighbourhood

Services Department - (Ward 19 - High Park)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To renew the lease with Nestle Canada Inc. at 1900 Dundas Street West, as per the attached location and site maps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the expenditures identified in this report are part of the 1998 Social Services Operating Budget estimates. The Commissioner of Finance, in accordance with Provincial regulations, has certified that financing for the expenditure in the amount of $1,089,336.00 is within the Updated Financial Debt and Obligation Limit.

As a result of the renewal, the estimated reduction in annual basic net rent payable is approximately $175,908.00 or a total of $527,724.00 over the three years of the renewal.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)financing in the amount of $1,089,336.00 be approved;

(2)the City of Toronto enter into a three-year lease renewal with Nestle Canada Inc. on the terms and conditions outlined in this report and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to give Notice to Terminate the lease, if required, in accordance to the terms and conditions and to pay the penalty as contained herein; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By the adoption of Clause 11 of Report No. 3 of The Management Committee on January 6, 1993, the former Metropolitan Council authorized a five-year lease expiring August 31, 1998, with Nestle Canada Inc. for a two-storey, 25,680 square foot building at an annual net rental rate of $12.75 per square foot plus a proportionate share of taxes and operating costs. This office building housed the Head Office of Nestle and has a municipal address of 1900 Dundas Street West.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The original lease had a renewal clause for a further five years and in a letter dated February 6, 1998, Vincent Scott, Director, Operational Support, requested that the lease be renewed for only three years to allow some flexibility in possibly moving to a City-owned building.

A Space Rationalization Team is currently dealing with various buildings brought into amalgamation and is in the process of identifying if there is any space available in these facilities that can accommodate various City of Toronto Departments that are currently occupying leased premises as tenants. As a result, a canvass has been conducted based on the criteria and catchment area established by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department. The survey revealed no suitable City-owned space to accommodate this operation at this time.

Consequently, negotiations were commenced with Mr. Jon R. Cheevers of Colliers Macaulay Nicholls (Ontario) Inc., Nestle's Representative, and an agreement was reached on the following basis. The five-year renewal period will be collapsed into three years and the minimum rent of $12.75 per square foot, net, reduced to $5.90 per square foot, net, which will result in a yearly savings of $175,908.00 per annum. There has been an ongoing problem of water discolouration due to a faulty check-valve which resulted in Nestle providing bottled water to the building. Nestle's engineers have now repaired their system but if the discolouration problem reoccurs, Nestle will supply bottled water to the tenants' satisfaction. As well, realty taxes will be allocated to the site at approximately $32,150.00 ($1.25 per square foot) per annum, which is a reasonable figure. Further it was agreed that the City of Toronto will have a one time option to terminate the lease during the Renewal Term by providing written notice to the landlord within sixty (60) days prior to the first anniversary of the Renewal Term. The Termination shall be effective twelve (12) months after the first anniversary of the Renewal Term, i.e. August 31, 2000, subject to a penalty payment of one (1) month's net rent on the date of the Termination Notice. All other terms of the lease will remain the same or similar to the existing lease.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, these terms and conditions are fair and reasonable and I have been advised that they are acceptable to Community and Neighbourhood Services Department. Another search for suitable City-owned space will be conducted prior to the expiry of the renewal term.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No.: (416)392-8155; Fax No.:(416)392-4828; E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

17

Former Porter Landfill Site -

Site Risk Assessment - Request for Authority

to Enter into License Agreements

(Ward 27 - York Humber)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize temporary license agreements with various property owners in the vicinity of the former Porter Landfill Site for the purposes of surveying, drilling and installation of monitoring wells.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for these acquisitions is available in Works Account No. CSW605R20219.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to enter into temporary license agreements, in advance of completion of permanent easement acquisitions from the registered owner(s) or other person(s) legally entitled to deal with or convey the property rights, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By adoption of Clause No. 7 of Report No. 15 of The Environment and Public Space Committee on September 27 and 28, 1995, the former Metro Council authorized further expenditures for Project No. 600, the Perpetual Care of "Landfill Sites", including a risk assessment report for the Porter Landfill site. This requires that the City enter and drill and possibly acquire easements and access routes for future monitoring purposes on the following properties; 18, 28, 44, and 50 Avon Avenue and 82, 86 and 92 Cayuga Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As monitoring is scheduled to begin as soon as possible, the use and occupation of certain affected properties will be required as soon as possible. Negotiations are being conducted with the various affected owners to enter and drill and possibly acquire easements and access routes for future monitoring purposes but final agreement has not yet been reached with respect to the purchase of these interests.

Accordingly, it is recommended that authority be granted to enter into temporary license agreements permitting the City and its contractor to enter on and occupy the required lands for the purposes of surveying, drilling and installation of monitoring wells on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor prior to the completion of the acquisition of the permanent easements.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, the above-noted actions are reasonable in order to permit the required work to proceed in a timely fashion. The details of the permanent easement acquisitions will be the subject of future reports to your Committee and Council.

Contact Name:

Mr. Victor Austin, Manager of Real Estate (416)392-8164 Fax No.: (416)392-4828 E-Mail Address: vaustin@city.toronto.on.ca

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

18

715 Runnymede Road -

Declaration as Surplus

(Ward 21 - Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To secure City Council authority to declare 715 Runnymede Road, save and except a 1.48 metre strip along the southerly limit abutting the public lane, as surplus to the City's requirements.

Financial Implications:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council declare as surplus the City-owned property known municipally as 715Runnymede Road described as being part of Lots 105, 106 and 107 according to registered Plan 539-York and identified as PART 2 on Plan 63R-3248, save and except a 1.48metre strip along the southerly limit abutting the public lane;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus; and

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

Background:

In 1979, to facilitate the reconstruction of the Runnymede Road Underpass, the City acquired several parcels of land on the east side of Runnymede Road, north of Dundas Street West. 715 Runnymede Road, located north of the underpass, was acquired for the purchase price of $75,000.00. The one-storey brick and concrete block building was demolished in 1980. The front portion of the property, containing an area of 884 square feet (82.1 m²) was dedicated for public highway purposes. The reconstruction of the Runnymede Road Underpass was completed in 1983. The residual lands are no longer required.

Comments:

715 Runnymede Road, situated north of the Runnymede Road Underpass, has an assessed frontage of 32.61 feet by a depth of 120 feet and contains an approximate area of 3,234 square feet. The property is shown on plan of survey 63R-3248 as Part 2. Given the grade differential, the property can only be accessed from Ryding Avenue. A public lane adjoins the southerly limit of the site. 715Runnymede Road is in a designated restricted industrial area and is zoned I3.

In February, 1998, a poll was undertaken of the City's Divisions, Agencies, Boards and Commissions to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining the property. Although, no interest was expressed in retaining 715 Runnymede Road, City Works and Emergency Services has advised that a 4.86 foot (1.48 m) strip of land along the southerly limit of the property should be retained for lane widening purposes and that any sale should be subject to an easement to maintain the water and sewer main located at the south-west corner of the property.

Interest has been expressed by the adjoining property owner in acquiring 715 Runnymede Road. In order to proceed with a sale of property, the City must comply with the procedures governing disposal of property. The provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994 (Bill 163) respecting the sale of real property, by the City, its agencies, boards and commissions, took effect January 1, 1995. This legislation requires that, before the selling of any property, City Council must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public, give notice to the public of the proposed sale and must obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempted by regulations passed under the legislation. An appraisal of the market value of the site has been undertaken by staff appraisers.

Conclusion:

In order to proceed with a sale of the lands, City Council should declare 715 Runnymede Road, save and except a 1.48 metre strip along the southerly limit abutting the public lane, surplus to the City's requirements.

Contact Name:

Carla Inglis, 392-7212, Fax: 392-1880, cinglis@city.toronto.on.ca, (cs98091.wpd)

(A copy the location maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

19

40R Wells Street -

Declaration as Surplus

(Ward 23 - Midtown)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To secure City Council authority to declare 40R Wells Street as surplus to the City's requirements.

Financial Implications:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council declare as surplus the City-owned property known municipally as 40R Wells Street described as being part of Lot 6 in Block "B" and part of Lot 1 in Block "C", according to registered Plan 324-York;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus; and

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

Background:

As a result of a Municipal Tax Sale held in March, 1935, title to a parcel of land, known municipally as 40R Wells Street, vested with the City of Toronto. This rectangular shaped parcel of vacant land is located between Howland and Brunswick Avenues, north of Wells Street. Over the years, area residents have made numerous complaints about the property being overgrown with brush and weeds, the intermittent habitation by vagrants and the dumping of garbage. Various attempts to lease the lands to adjoining property owners for garden purposes failed and the parcel remains vacant. Recently, the majority of the adjoining property owners expressed interest in acquiring portions of the property for the extension of their rear lot limits.

Comments:

40R Wells Street, situated at the rear of premises 40-44 Wells Street, has a north-south measurement of approximately 113 feet, an east-west measurement along the north limit of approximately 71.9 feet and contains an approximate area of 8,122.8 square feet. The parcel is accessed by way of a footpath right-of-way extending northerly between premises Nos. 38 and 40 Wells Street. The parcel is zoned R2 Z1.0.

A poll was undertaken of various former City of Toronto divisions, Boards and Agencies and the former Metro, to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining the property. The only potential interest expressed was from the former City's Parks and Recreation Division. Parks staff assessed the feasibility of establishing a Community Garden at this location. However, the proposal was withdrawn due to lack of sufficient demand and interest in the community to sustain a Community Garden.

The adjoining property owners are desirous in acquiring a portion of the City's land to extend the limits of their respective backyards. In order to proceed with individual sales of the property to the adjoining property owners, the City must comply with the procedures governing disposal of property. The provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994 (Bill 163) respecting the sale of real property, by the City, its Agencies, Boards and Commissions, took effect January 1, 1995. This legislation requires that, before the selling of any property, City Council must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public, give notice to the public of the proposed sale and must obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempted by regulations passed under the legislation. An appraisal of the market value of the site has been undertaken by staff appraisers.

Conclusion:

In order to proceed with the sale of 40R Wells Street to the abutting property owners, City Council should declare the lands surplus to the City's requirements.

Contact Name:

Carla Inglis, 392-7212, Fax: 392-1880, cinglis@city.toronto.on.ca, (cs98086.wpd)

(A copy the location maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

20

141 Weston Road and a Residual Portion of

Keele Street Closed, Declaration as Surplus

(Ward 21 - Davenport)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To secure City Council authority to declare 141 Weston Road and a residual portion of Keele Street closed by By-law No.14156 as surplus to the City's requirements.

Financial Implications:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council declare as surplus the City-owned property known municipally as 141 Weston Road, described as being part of Block T, Plan 1249Y and part of Block C, Plan 1196Y, and a residual portion of Keele Street closed by By-law No.14156;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus; and

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

Background:

In 1934, City Council passed By-law No.14156 to close a portion of Keele Street between the Canadian National Railway Company right-of-way and Weston Road South and authorized a land exchange with CN for the purpose of straightening and widening Weston Road. 141 Weston Road (Parcel A) is a residual portion of land acquired from CN that was surplus to requirements and remained in City ownership. Title to the most of Keele Street closed was transferred to CN. However, the portion (Parcel B) adjoining lands owned by Ontario Hydro was never conveyed.

Parcel A is a vacant parcel of land, triangular in shape, located on the east side of Weston Road. The parcel contains an approximate area of 2,928 square feet and is zoned IC. The lands to the north and east are owned by Ontario Hydro and are leased out. A portion of the parcel is encumbered by a shed erected by Hydro's long term tenant.

Parcel B abuts the west limit of the rail corridor. The parcel is landlocked and encumbered by overhead hydro lines. The site contains an approximate area of 4,486 square feet and is zoned IC.

Comments:

A large "box" type retail development has been proposed for the lands located on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West, between Weston Road and the rail corridor. The development site adjoins the City and Ontario Hydro lands to the south. The developer has approached both the City and Ontario Hydro to acquire certain lands for the construction of a service road to the proposed development. A portion of Parcel A would be incorporated into a new entrance/exit to enhance traffic flow at the north end of the site and Parcel B would be incorporated into the surface parking area for the proposed development. Ontario Hydro has expressed interest in acquiring that portion of Parcel A not required by the developer, as the lands are encumbered by its tenant's improvements. Discussions with both the developer and Ontario Hydro respecting the sale of these parcels are ongoing.

A poll of various City's divisions, Boards and Agencies was undertaken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining Parcels A and B. Staff from City Works and Emergency Services, together with the area planner, advised that they are desirous of having the developer provide a north access road into the development site, should the proposal proceed. No other comments were received.

In order to proceed with a sale of these properties, the City must comply with the procedures governing disposal of property. The provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994 (Bill 163) respecting the sale of real property, by the City, its Agencies, Boards and Commissions, took effect January 1, 1995. This legislation requires that, before the selling of any property, City Council must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public; give notice to the public of the proposed sale and obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempted by regulations passed under the legislation. An appraisal of the market value of Parcels A and B has been undertaken by staff appraisers.

Conclusion:

As there is no municipal interest in retaining the subject lands it is appropriate to declare these lands surplus to municipal requirements.

Contact Name:

Carla Inglis, 392-7212, Fax: 392-1880, cinglis@city.toronto.on.ca, (cs98068.wpd)

(A copy the location maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

21

North Side Aylesworth Avenue - Former Scarborough

Transportation Corridor, Declaration as Surplus

(Scarborough Bluffs - Ward 13)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain Council authority to declare surplus to City requirements the property described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council declare as surplus to City requirements the property described as Part of Lots147 and 148, Registered Plan No. 1964, Scarborough;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to offer the subject property for sale, at market value, through a public offering; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property is located on Aylesworth Avenue in the former City of Scarborough. It was acquired in connection with the Scarborough Transportation Corridor by Council's adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of the Roads and Traffic Committee on April 21, 1959, for $3,500.00. The property, which was acquired by negotiation, consisted of a parcel of vacant residential land. It has remained unchanged since.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Description of Lands:

Subject Property:Part of Lots 147 and 148, Plan 1964.

Location:North side of Aylesworth Avenue, between Birchmount Road,

and Kennedy Road, former City of Scarborough.

Dimensions:9.14 metres by 33.53 metres (30ft. By 110ft.)

Lot Area:306.6 square metres (3,300 sq.ft)

Improvements:Vacant land.

Property Canvass:

A poll was undertaken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land.

Conclusions:

This property is not required for municipal purpose and should be declared surplus and offered for sale.

Contact Name:

Dave Holland, Manager, Planning and Control; (416) 392-4827; Fax No: (416) 392-4828;

E.Mail address: dholland@city.toronto.on.ca

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

22

Borough Drive - (Closed) Between Progress

Avenue and Town Centre Court - Declaration

As Surplus - (Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee submits, without recommendation, the following report (May 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To declare the closed road allowance (Borough Drive) between Progress Avenue and Town Centre Court as surplus property. To establish a price for the property and to secure authority to offer the property for sale to the abutting owners.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Proceeds from the sale of this property in the amount of $460,000.00 will be credited to Account Number 71290 Land Development Reserve Account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the closed Borough Drive road allowance, between Progress Avenue and Town Centre Court, be declared surplus;

(2)the property be offered for sale to the abutting owners in accordance with Section 315 of the Municipal Act. R.S.O. 1990, at a unit price of $287,500.00 per acre, and the owners be given twenty-one days from receipt of the City's offer to accept same;

(3)should either of the abutting owners decline the offer to purchase the portion of the road allowance abutting their property or not respond to the offer in the specified time frame the lands be offered to any other interested parties at the same unit rate; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In early 1997, the owners of the Scarborough Town Centre shopping centre, OMERS Realty, approached the City of Scarborough to discuss aspirations to expand the mall and develop some of the surrounding vacant lands. An application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a full range of City Centre Commercial and Office Uses ensued.

At the meeting held on September 2, 1997, Scarborough Council adopted a Planning and Building Committee report recommending inter alia that staff initiate road closing procedures for the north-east portion of Borough Drive between Progress Avenue and Town Centre Court. The intent was to accommodate the future mall expansion.

The road closing was advertised in accordance with the provincial statutes and the requisite by-law presented to Council for adoption at the meeting of June 3, 1998. The advertisement also indicated it was intended that the road allowance would be disposed of after closing.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A canvass of utilities, City departments and ABC's advising of the proposed road closing, identified a need to retain easement rights over the entire length and width of the road allowance. In addition, appropriate rights to protect the aerial RT structures and Transit Road which goes under the closed Borough Drive will be required.

The road closing by-law has been approved and it is now appropriate to declare the closed road as surplus property. Statutes require that Council intending to dispose of a closed road allowance, offer half to all abutting owners, at a price established by Council. Should any of the abutting owners decline to purchase at that price, the property may be sold to any other interested parties at the same or higher price.

The road allowance has been closed. Public Notice of intent to dispose of the property has been given through advertisements in the Scarborough Mirror. The next step is to offer the lands for sale to the abutting owners at a price set by Council in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Staff appraised the property, subject to retaining easement rights for existing services and facilities at $440,000.00-$528,000.00 reflecting a unit value of $275,000.00-$330,000.00 per acre.

In preliminary discussions concerning the proposed road closing with the two abutting property owners, the Y M C A indicated no interest in acquiring any portion of the closed road allowance. OMERS Realty expressed interest in acquiring the entire area as it would permit greater flexibility in reconfiguring their parking area.

Further negotiations with OMERS Realty have culminated in an agreement in principle whereby OMERS Realty is prepared to purchase the entire area of the closed road at a price of $460,000.00, or if the Y M C A exercises its rights to purchase, to purchase the remaining lands at a proportionate price.

Conclusions:

Offering the lands to each of the abutting owners at the unit rate established by Council will fulfill the requirements of the Municipal Act. The property value agreed to by OMERS Realty is within the market value range estimated and is an appropriate value basis for offering the property to the abutting owners.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca (cs98088.wpd)

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

23

Expropriation of Additional Property Requirements -

Sheppard Subway - Yonge Station

West Side Yonge Street Johnston Avenue to Poyntz Avenue

(Ward 10 - North York Centre)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek approval for the expropriation of additional property requirements for construction of the Sheppard Subway Yonge Station on the above referenced properties as shown on the attached location map.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

(2)authority be granted to take all steps necessary to comply with the Expropriations Act (the "Act") including, but not limited to, the preparation and registration of an Expropriation Plan and the service of Notices of Expropriation, Notices of Election as to the date for compensation, and Notices of Possession;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services, Chief Administrative Officer or other appropriate staff, be authorized to sign the Notices of Expropriation and Notices of Possession, and that authority be granted to make formal offers of compensation pursuant to Section 25 of the Act in the amount of the appraised value, on behalf of the City;

(4)leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills 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:

The previous Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of The Financial Priorities Committee on September 25th and 26th, 1996 (as amended) approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway Project. Metropolitan Council also authorized the initiation of expropriation procedures for property interests required for the construction and operation of the Sheppard Subway at Yonge, Bayview and Bessarion Stations.

Toronto City Council, by adoption of Clause No. 9 of Report No. 2 of The Corporate Services Committee on March 6, 1998, approved the expropriation of property interests on various properties including those located on the west side of Yonge Street from Johnston Avenue to Poyntz Avenue. An expropriation plan was registered on June 5, 1998, expropriating subsurface utility easements and work space on these properties. Additional requirements have been identified on those properties in the form of temporary easements to relocate hydro lines and poles safely away from the worksite and to maintain vehicular access during the construction.

Notices of Application for Approval to Expropriate Land were served upon the registered owners of the properties which are identified in the Schedule, set out herein, in accordance with the Expropriations Act. Any interested party requiring a Hearing of Necessity had thirty (30) days from the date of service of the Notice to request a Hearing. The owner of the property at 4698 Yonge Street has requested a hearing of necessity, and accordingly the expropriation of the interests on that property will be dependant on settling the hearing. If no settlement is reached, that property will be the subject of the further report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Council, in order to finalize the expropriation of the property interests, must approve the expropriation and must register within three (3) months after the granting of approval, an Expropriation Plan and serve the registered owners within thirty (30) days after the date of registration of the plan with a Notice of Expropriation. Possession of the lands cannot be obtained until ninety (90) days after the Notice of Expropriation, and only if an offer of compensation is served upon the owner.

All owners have been contacted and settlements are being negotiated. However, because of the timing, the expropriations should be approved in order to ensure that there is no delay in obtaining possession of the properties. In some circumstances the owners are willing to negotiate settlements; however, to protect the interests of their tenants, they require that the expropriation be approved.

Conclusions:

The expropriation of the lands described on the schedule is considered fair, sound, and reasonably necessary and should be approved.

Contact Name:

Douglas F. Warning, Acting Director of Real Estate Division, (416)392-8165 , Fax No.:(416)392-4828, e-mail address: Douglas_F._Warning@cclink.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

--------

(A copy of the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

24

Request to Purchase Property Abutting

169 Hopedale Avenue

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the East York Community Council embodied in the following communication (May 29, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council on May 27, 1998, recommended to the Corporate Services Committee, the following:

(1)that the land abutting 169 Hopedale Avenue be declared surplus;

(2)acceptance of the offer to purchase the City-owned lands abutting 169HopedaleAvenue; and

(3)that, if the City of Toronto agrees to sell this land, any proceeds from the sale be used exclusively and uniquely to improve Arthur Dyson Parkette.

The East York Community Council reports for the information of the Corporate Services Committee that it received the report (February 2, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Operations, East York, and the communications (May 26, 1998) from Mr. Nick Antonoglou, EastYork and (May 24, 1998) from Ms. Anne Allin, East York.

Background:

The East York Community Council, at its meeting on May 27, 1998, had before it a report (February2, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Operations, EastYork, requesting input on a real estate matter concerning lands abutting 169 Hopedale Avenue.

The East York Community Council also had before it the following communications:

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Nick Antonoglou, East York; and

-(May 24, 1998) from Ms. Anne Allin, East York.

The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Alfred Lamprecht, East York;

-Ms. Anne Allin, East York; and

-Mrs. Helen Lamprecht, East York.

(Report dated February 2, 1998, from the Acting

Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Operations,

addressed to the East York Community Council.)

Purpose:

To provide opportunity for Community Council input into a real estate matter concerning lands requested for purchase abutting 169 Hopedale Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A request has been forwarded through staff and Councillor Prue to consider the sale of an additional 30.57 square metres to the abutting property owner at 169 Hopedale Avenue. These lands form part of Arthur Dyson Parkette and are shown as Part 2 in the attached reference plan. The following report will be forwarded to the Corporate Services Committee with comments from the East York Community Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The City of Toronto decline the offer to purchase city-owned lands abutting 169 Hopedale Avenue; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1992, the owner of 169 Hopedale Avenue offered to purchase an abutting parcel of land of approximately 18.6 to 27.9 square metres (200-300 square feet). Council for the Borough of East York offered these lands for sale in May 1992, but the purchaser did not complete the transaction. In April 1997, the owner of 169 Hopedale Avenue once again requested purchase of the abutting land and requested a slightly larger parcel. Based on this request, and the previous history of approval, in August 1997, the Council for the former Borough of East York declared lands in the amount of approximately 51.1 square metres (550 square feet) to be surplus and offered these lands for sale to the abutting owner. A reference plan was submitted by the surveyor retained by the purchaser which showed lands in the amount of 74.32 square metres (800 square feet). Based on concerns from the solicitor and the Parks, Recreation and Operations Department, the reference plan was revised to show Part 1 at 51.1 square metres (550 square feet) and Part 2 at 30.57 square metres (329 square feet). Part 1 was conveyed to the abutting owner on January 5, 1998.

Discussion

The Parks, Recreation and Operations Department for the community of East York cannot support the sale of this additional property. The parks planning area in which the subject property is located is significantly deficient in parkland provision (0.9 acres per 1,000 population) when compared to other planning areas within the community of East York and within the City of Toronto as a whole. Further reduction, however minor, of public greenspace as afforded by Arthur Dyson parkette is not recommended.

Support for the sale of Part 1 was provided by the Parks, Recreation and Operations Department on the basis that Council had previously approved the sale and that an existing tree would not be impacted by a relocated property line. Although not shown on the reference plan an existing tree in Arthur Dyson Parkette will be negatively impacted by a property line relocated to the boundary of Part 2.

Conclusions:

The offer to purchase Part 2 of Plan 66R-17783 should be declined by the City Council based on the lands current and future use as public greenspace. The Interim Lead for Real Estate (CathieMacDonald) has reviewed this matter and concurs with the recommendations herein.

Contact Name:

Mark Davies778-2188Fax:466-4170

Director of Facilities, Projects and Property

Community of East York

(A copy of the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

25

5182 and 5200 Yonge Street - Extension Request,

(North York Centre - Ward 10)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of:

(i)Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3) embodied in the confidential report dated June 10, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(ii)the confidential report dated June 18, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, regarding an extension request - 5182 and 5200 Yonge Street, which were forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (June 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding confidential reports (June 10 and June 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.)

(Extract from the confidential report dated June 10, 1998,

addressed to the Corporate Services Committee

from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the request for an extension to the agreement be approved;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services in consultation with the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be directed to meet with representatives of Sam-Sor Enterprises Inc. to discuss their proposal to renegotiate the density purchase agreement; and

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

(Extract from the confidential report dated June 18, 1998,

addressed to the Corporate Services Committee

from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Recommendation No. (1) in my report dated June 10, 1998, be amended to provide that the request for an extension to the agreement be approved conditional on Sam-Sor Enterprises Inc. committing to fund the costs of a daycare and community services study for the North York Centre area up to a maximum of $10,000.00.

26

Proposed Installation of a Pole,

Antenna and Monitoring Equipment at

the West Side of the Don Valley Parkway

and Beechwood Drive Road (Ward 1 - East York)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to ensure that the pole and antenna installed in this regard do not interfere with any view corridors.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To enter into a license agreement with Rogers Cantel Inc., for a wireless installation as per the attached location and site maps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This license will generate revenue of approximately $16,364.00 net, for the initial three year-term including a one time fee of $4,000.00 for landscaping.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto enter into a three year License Agreement with Rogers Cantel Inc., on the terms and conditions outlined in this report and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Cantel is updating their existing wireless network and in this regard, has identified a portion of a City of Toronto Road Allowance at the west side of the Don Valley Parkway and Beechwood Drive Road as a potential site.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Negotiations were held with Mr. Scott Metcalfe of Rogers Cantel Inc., and an agreement was reached on the following terms and conditions:

(1)License Location:

Within the City of Toronto Road Allowance at the west side of the Don Valley Parkway at Beechwood Drive, requiring an area of approximately 25 square metres, as shown on Cantel drawing 7CN08106-SLD-A.

(2)License Term:

Three (3) years from the Commencement Date.

(3)Commencement Date:

First day of the month following the approval of the license by the City of Toronto Council and the execution of a formal license agreement.

(4)Option to Extend:

Provided Cantel is not in default, Cantel shall have two options to extend for a 3-year term each, subject to the same terms and conditions, save and except the rent which shall be negotiated by both parties, six (6) months prior to the expiry date.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Division (hereinafter called the Commissioner) shall, after the initial three year term with six months written notice to Cantel, have the sole discretion to terminate this license and Cantel shall remove its equipment and restore the property to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.

(5)License Fee:

(a)An annual fee of $4,000.00, net, plus an annual escalation of 3 per cent. for the right to install up to two antennas and one (1) microwave dish no larger than two feet in diameter and/or ancillary monitoring equipment for wireless communications at the approved location as shown illustrated on Cantel site layout drawing 7CN08106-SLD-B. The Licensee, at its sole expense, shall be responsible for all applicable taxes, and any costs related thereto. The payment of the annual fee shall commence on the Commencement Date of the license agreement.

(b)A one time payment equivalent to one year's rent of $4,000.00 to allow for surrounding landscaping mitigation.

(6)Use:

The installation of the poles, antennas and/or related monitoring equipment are to be used to enhance wireless communication coverage of Cantel's wireless telecommunication services along the traffic corridor, save and except any video and/or television transmission, including pay T.V.

(7)Non-exclusive right:

Any right granted to the licensee to install such antennas and related equipment will be non-exclusive, and shall not preclude the City of Toronto from granting similar rights to other parties. Should, at any time, the signals of a subsequent wireless licensed party interfere with those of Cantel, the subsequent licensed party shall suspend its transmission and both parties shall use its best effort, acting reasonably, to resolve the problem in a timely fashion. In the event the problem cannot be corrected within three (3) months, the license of the subsequent licensed party will then be terminated for the respective location(s).

(8)Other Costs:

The Licensee shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for all initial installation/construction costs plus all costs of repair, maintenance, utilities and any operating costs, together with any costs incurred directly or indirectly related to the licensee's equipment and/or operation, as invoiced by the City of Toronto, acting reasonably. The Licensee will arrange for its own Hydro supply that is separate from any Hydro supplied to any City of Toronto Transportation Division facility.

(9)Insurance:

The Licensee, at its sole expense, shall obtain adequate insurance of all types in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and/or Financial Officer and Treasurer, with the City of Toronto shown as additional insured and with Cross Liability and Waiver of Subrogation clauses.

(10)Indemnities:

(i)The Licensee shall, at all times, indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto from and against any and all manner of claims, demand, losses, costs, charges, actions and other proceedings whatsoever (including those under or in connection with the Worker's Compensation Act or any successor legislation) made or brought against, suffered by or imposed on the Licensor or its property in respect of any damage or injury (including fatal injury) to any person or property (including without restriction, employees, agents and property of the Licensor or of the Licensee) directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or sustained as a result of the Licensee's occupation or use of, or any operation in connection with, the licensed area or any wiring, devices, equipment, fixture or chattels thereon; and

(ii)The Licensee shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the Licensor from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, charges, actions and other proceedings whatsoever under the Construction Lien Act, 1983, as amended from time to time, or any successor legislation in connection with any work done for the Licensee at or on the licensed area, and shall promptly see to the removal from the registered title to the licensed area, of every claim for lien and certificate of action having to do with such work.

(11)Licensee's Improvement:

(a)The Licensee shall, at its sole expense, be responsible to install all necessary equipment for its operation, including but not limited to all costs incurred by the City of Toronto. Prior to the commencement of work, the Licensee shall, at its sole expense, submit detailed plans and specifications of all installation and/or construction and the exact location within the site area for the written approval of the Commissioner. The Licensee shall not commence any work and/or operation without first obtaining all necessary permits/approvals from all appropriate authorities, and shall save the City of Toronto harmless from all appropriate authorities, and shall save the City of Toronto harmless from any liability or cost as a result of the Licensee's failure to so comply. Upon the expiry of the license or any renewal thereof, the licensee shall, at its expense, remove all its equipment, repair all damages, and restore the licensed area, all to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commissioner, except normal wear and tear. In any event, the Licensee, shall not commence any work prior to the execution of the license. In the event that the installation of the Licensee's equipment requires any land beyond City of Toronto road allowance, the Licensee shall, at its sole expense, be responsible to make such arrangement(s);

(b)all Cantel antennas, antenna supports, exposed conduits, exposed lines, microwave and monopole are to be painted flat black; and

(c)the construction of the underground conduits to the monopole and hydro connection must be staked and supervised by a City of Toronto arborist if within three metres of an existing tree.

(12)Maintenance:

(i)The Licensee shall, at its expense, repair, replace and maintain its own equipment, including any costs incurred by the City of Toronto;

(ii)The Licensee shall, at its expense, be responsible for any repair and/or replacement of any damage to City of Toronto's equipment associated with the installation and/or its operation;

(iii)The Licensee shall obtain the necessary permit approval from the Commissioner prior to any work commencing and be responsible for any cost incurred by the City of Toronto;

(iv)In the event that Cantel's equipment and/or its operation interfere with any existing and/or future City of Toronto equipment, the Commissioner may elect to have Cantel suspend its transmission until Cantel, at its sole expense, rectifies the situation to the sole and unfettered satisfaction of the Commissioner, failing which, the Commissioner may, at its sole discretion, require Cantel to remove the offending piece of equipment or all of the equipment, if necessary until such time that the problem may be rectified to the sole satisfaction of the Commissioner. Should Cantel not be able to rectify the problem, they will have the sole right to terminate the terms and conditions of the License Agreement as it relates to the specific Licensed Property upon thirty (30)days written notice to the Commissioner, and any prepaid fees shall be refunded pro rata to the date of termination;

(v)In the event that the Licensee's equipment becomes a suspected source of interference to any existing and/or future City of Toronto equipment and operation, the Licensee shall provide its full co-operation with City of Toronto in determining the source. If the source of interference is caused by the Licensee's equipment, the Licensor may take all action in accordance to subclause (iv) herein;

(vi)All City of Toronto Transportation Division's maintenance/access will take precedence over the Licensee's repair; and

(vii)In the event that any or all of the licensed location(s) is required for road maintenance and/or construction, the Commissioner, upon giving six months' written notice, at its sole discretion, may relocate, if possible, the respective location(s), and Cantel shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for all costs of relocation(s); failing to find any suitable relocation(s) within six months of the notice, at the sole discretion of the Commissioner, such licensed location(s) shall be deemed terminated immediately and Cantel shall, at its expense, remove all its equipment thereof expeditiously.

(13)During the term of the license, renewal or option to extend thereof, the Licensee, at its sole expense, shall be responsible for compliance with all current Municipal, Provincial and Federal laws, by-laws, rules, building code(s) and regulations and shall obtain all necessary permits and licenses that may be required for the use of the licensed property and its operation and shall save the Licensor harmless from any liability or cost suffered by the Licensee or the Licensor as a result of the Licensee's failure to so comply. At the request of the Licensor, the Licensee shall be required to submit proof of such compliances. More specifically, the Licensee shall not commence work or operation without receipt of permits, licenses or approvals from proper authorities.

(14)The Licensee shall not be permitted to install, erect any fence(s), sign(s) structure(s) and/or fixture(s) on the licensed property without prior written approval of the Commissioner and/or Commissioner of Corporate Services.

(15)The Licensee shall not make any changes in surfacing, grading, landscaping to the licensed area or remove tree(s) without the prior written approval of the Commissioner and/or Commissioner of Corporate Services.

(16)The Licensee shall not be permitted to store or use any hazardous materials, or conduct any act which may cause soil contamination.

(17)The Licensee shall protect all public works' services and/or utilities easement(s) that may encumber the property, and shall be liable for any damage to such by its action(s) or omission(s).

(18)The Licensee shall, at its expense, keep the licensed area in a clean and well-ordered condition, and not to permit any rubbish, refuse, debris or other objectionable material to be stored, or to accumulate, thereon.

(19)The Licensee shall ensure that nothing is done or kept at or on the Licensed area which is or may be a nuisance, or which causes disturbance, damage to or interference with normal usage of any adjoining property.

(20)The Licensee, shall not install any equipment or carry on any operation at the licensed area in such way as to increase the insurance risk.

The construction of this Microcell shall not begin until all parties have executed the lease agreement.

(21)The Licensee shall not sublet or assign without the written consent from the Licensor; such consent may be arbitrary withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Cantel may, upon given notice to City of Toronto, assign sublet or license to a parent, subsidiary or affiliated Corporation provided the purpose and use remain the same.

(22)In the event the License is not executed by the Licensee within 6 months from the date of City of Toronto Council's approval, this agreement, at the Licensor's sole option, may become null and void.

(23)The City of Toronto will not pay any real estate commissions associated with this transaction. Both parties warrant that there are no commissions due and payable under this agreement.

(24)All documentation shall be in Licensor's standard form and notwithstanding any terms and condition contained or not contained in this proposal, shall be in a form and content including administrative costs, mutually satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, these terms and conditions are fair and reasonable and I have been advised that they are acceptable to the City of Toronto's Transportation Division.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No.: (416)392-8155; Fax No.:(416)392-4828; E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

27

Proposed Installation of a Pole,

Antenna and Monitoring Equipment at

the East Side of the Don Valley Parkway

and Spanbridge Road (Ward 11 - Don Parkway)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to ensure that the pole and antenna installed in this regard do not interfere with any view corridors.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To enter into a license agreement with Rogers Cantel Inc., for a wireless installation as per the attached location and site maps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This license will generate revenue of approximately $16,364.00 net, for the initial three year term including a one time fee of $4,000.00 for landscaping.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto enter into a three year License Agreement with Rogers Cantel Inc. on the terms and conditions outlined in this report and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Cantel is updating their existing wireless network and in this regard, has identified a portion of a City of Toronto Road Allowance at the east side of the Don Valley Parkway and Spanbridge Road as a potential site.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Negotiations were held with Mr. Scott Metcalfe of Rogers Cantel Inc., and an agreement was reached on the following terms and conditions:

(1)License Location:

Within the City of Toronto Road Allowance at the east side of the Don Valley Parkway at Spanbridge, requiring an area of approximately 25 square metres, as shown on Cantel drawing 7CN10156-A01.

(2)License Term:

Three (3) years from the Commencement Date.

(3)Commencement Date:

First day of the month following the approval of the license by the City of Toronto Council and the execution of a formal license agreement.

(4)Option to Extend:

Provided Cantel is not in default, Cantel shall have two options to extend for a 3-year term each, subject to the same terms and conditions, save and except the rent which shall be negotiated by both parties, six (6) months prior to the expiry date.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Division, (hereinafter called the Commissioner) shall, after the initial three year term with six months written notice to Cantel, have the sole discretion to terminate this license and Cantel shall remove its equipment and restore the property to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.

(5)License Fee:

(a)An annual fee of $4,000.00, net, plus an annual escalation of 3 per cent. for the right to install up to two antennas and one (1) microwave dish no larger than two feet in diameter and/or ancillary monitoring equipment for wireless communications at the approved location as shown illustrated on Cantel site layout drawing 7CN10156-A02. The Licensee, at its sole expense, shall be responsible for all applicable taxes, and any costs related thereto. The payment of the annual fee shall commence on the Commencement Date of the license agreement.

(b)A one time payment equivalent to one year's rent of $4,000.00 to allow for surrounding landscaping mitigation.

(6)Use:

The installation of the poles, antennas and/or related monitoring equipment are to be used to enhance wireless communication coverage of Cantel's wireless telecommunication services along the traffic corridor, save and except any video and/or television transmission, including pay T.V.

(7)Non-exclusive right:

Any right granted to the licensee to install such antennas and related equipment will be non-exclusive, and shall not preclude the City of Toronto from granting similar rights to other parties. Should, at any time, the signals of a subsequent wireless licensed party interfere with those of Cantel, the subsequent licensed party shall suspend its transmission and both parties shall use its best effort, acting reasonably, to resolve the problem in a timely fashion. In the event the problem cannot be corrected within three (3) months, the license of the subsequent licensed party will then be terminated for the respective location(s).

(8)Other Costs:

The Licensee shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for all initial installation/construction costs plus all costs of repair, maintenance, utilities and any operating costs, together with any costs incurred directly or indirectly related to the licensee's equipment and/or operation, as invoiced by the City of Toronto, acting reasonably. The Licensee will arrange for its own Hydro supply that is separate from any Hydro supplied to any City of Toronto Transportation Division facility.

(9)Insurance:

The Licensee, at its sole expense, shall obtain adequate insurance of all types in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and/or Financial Officer and Treasurer, with the City of Toronto shown as additional insured and with Cross Liability and Waiver of Subrogation clauses.

(10)Indemnities:

(i)The Licensee shall, at all times, indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto from and against any and all manner of claims, demand, losses, costs, charges, actions and other proceedings whatsoever (including those under or in connection with the Worker's Compensation Act or any successor legislation) made or brought against, suffered by or imposed on the Licensor or its property in respect of any damage or injury (including fatal injury) to any person or property (including without restriction, employees, agents and property of the Licensor or of the Licensee) directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or sustained as a result of the Licensee's occupation or use of, or any operation in connection with, the licensed area or any wiring, devices, equipment, fixture or chattels thereon; and

(ii)The Licensee shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the Licensor from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, charges, actions and other proceedings whatsoever under the Construction Lien Act, 1983, as amended from time to time, or any successor legislation in connection with any work done for the Licensee at or on the licensed area, and shall promptly see to the removal from the registered title to the licensed area, of every claim for lien and certificate of action having to do with such work.

(11)Licensee's Improvement:

(a)The Licensee shall, at its sole expense, be responsible to install all necessary equipment for its operation, including but not limited to all costs incurred by the City of Toronto. Prior to the commencement of work, the Licensee shall, at its sole expense, submit detailed plans and specifications of all installation and/or construction and the exact location within the site area for the written approval of the Commissioner. The Licensee shall not commence any work and/or operation without first obtaining all necessary permits/approvals from all appropriate authorities, and shall save the City of Toronto harmless from all appropriate authorities, and shall save the City of Toronto harmless from any liability or cost as a result of the Licensee's failure to so comply. Upon the expiry of the license or any renewal thereof, the licensee shall, at its expense, remove all its equipment, repair all damages, and restore the licensed area, all to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commissioner, except normal wear and tear. In any event, the Licensee, shall not commence any work prior to the execution of the license. In the event that the installation of the Licensee's equipment requires any land beyond City of Toronto road allowance, the Licensee shall, at its sole expense, be responsible to make such arrangement(s);

(b)all Cantel antennas, antenna supports, exposed conduits, exposed lines, microwave and monopole are to be painted flat black; and

(c)the construction of the underground conduits to the monopole and hydro connection must be staked and supervised by a City of Toronto arborist if within three metres of an existing tree.

(12)Maintenance:

(i)The Licensee shall, at its expense, repair, replace and maintain its own equipment, including any costs incurred by the City of Toronto;

(ii)The Licensee shall, at its expense, be responsible for any repair and/or replacement of any damage to City of Toronto's equipment associated with the installation and/or its operation;

(iii)The Licensee shall obtain the necessary permit approval from the Commissioner prior to any work commencing and be responsible for any cost incurred by the City of Toronto;

(iv)In the event that Cantel's equipment and/or its operation interfere with any existing and/or future City of Toronto equipment, the Commissioner may elect to have Cantel suspend its transmission until Cantel, at its sole expense, rectifies the situation to the sole and unfettered satisfaction of the Commissioner, failing which, the Commissioner may, at its sole discretion, require Cantel to remove the offending piece of equipment or all of the equipment, if necessary until such time that the problem may be rectified to the sole satisfaction of the Commissioner. Should Cantel not be able to rectify the problem, they will have the sole right to terminate the terms and conditions of the License Agreement as it relates to the specific Licensed Property upon thirty (30)days written notice to the Commissioner, and any prepaid fees shall be refunded pro rata to the date of termination;

(v)In the event that the Licensee's equipment becomes a suspected source of interference to any existing and/or future City of Toronto equipment and operation, the Licensee shall provide its full co-operation with City of Toronto in determining the source. If the source of interference is caused by the Licensee's equipment, the Licensor may take all action in accordance to subclause (iv) herein;

(vi)All City of Toronto Transportation Division's maintenance/access will take precedence over the Licensee's repair; and

(vii)In the event that any or all of the licensed location(s) is required for road maintenance and/or construction, the Commissioner, upon giving six months' written notice, at its sole discretion, may relocate, if possible, the respective location(s), and Cantel shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for all costs of relocation(s); failing to find any suitable relocation(s) within six months of the notice, at the sole discretion of the Commissioner, such licensed location(s) shall be deemed terminated immediately and Cantel shall, at its expense, remove all its equipment thereof expeditiously.

(13)During the term of the license, renewal or option to extend thereof, the Licensee, at its sole expense, shall be responsible for compliance with all current Municipal, Provincial and Federal laws, by-laws, rules, building code(s) and regulations and shall obtain all necessary permits and licenses that may be required for the use of the licensed property and its operation and shall save the Licensor harmless from any liability or cost suffered by the Licensee or the Licensor as a result of the Licensee's failure to so comply. At the request of the Licensor, the Licensee shall be required to submit proof of such compliances. More specifically, the Licensee shall not commence work or operation without receipt of permits, licenses or approvals from proper authorities.

(14)The Licensee shall not be permitted to install, erect any fence(s), sign(s) structure(s) and/or fixture(s) on the licensed property without prior written approval of the Commissioner and/or Commissioner of Corporate Services.

(15)The Licensee shall not make any changes in surfacing, grading, landscaping to the licensed area or remove tree(s) without the prior written approval of the Commissioner and/or Commissioner of Corporate Services.

(16)The Licensee shall not be permitted to store or use any hazardous materials, or conduct any act which may cause soil contamination.

(17)The Licensee shall protect all public works' services and/or utilities easement(s) that may encumber the property, and shall be liable for any damage to such by its action(s) or omission(s).

(18)The Licensee shall, at its expense, keep the licensed area in a clean and well-ordered condition, and not to permit any rubbish, refuse, debris or other objectionable material to be stored, or to accumulate, thereon.

(19)The Licensee shall ensure that nothing is done or kept at or on the Licensed area which is or may be a nuisance, or which causes disturbance, damage to or interference with normal usage of any adjoining property.

(20)The Licensee, shall not install any equipment or carry on any operation at the licensed area in such way as to increase the insurance risk.

The construction of this Microcell shall not begin until all parties have executed the lease agreement.

(21)The Licensee shall not sublet or assign without the written consent from the Licensor; such consent may be arbitrary withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Cantel may, upon given notice to City of Toronto, assign sublet or license to a parent, subsidiary or affiliated Corporation provided the purpose and use remain the same.

(22)In the event the License is not executed by the Licensee within 6 months from the date of City of Toronto Council's approval, this agreement, at the Licensor's sole option, may become null and void.

(23)The City of Toronto will not pay any real estate commissions associated with this transaction. Both parties warrant that there are no commissions due and payable under this agreement.

(24)All documentation shall be in Licensor's standard form and notwithstanding any terms and condition contained or not contained in this proposal, shall be in a form and content including administrative costs, mutually satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, these terms and conditions are fair and reasonable and I have been advised that they are acceptable to the City of Toronto's Transportation Division.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No.: (416)392-8155; Fax No.:(416)392-4828; E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(A copy the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the June 22, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

28

Renovations to Trinity Community Recreation Centre

155 Crawford Street - Project No. 950016PR

Tender No. 10-1998 (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 15, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the Tender issued for the renovations to Trinity Community Recreation Centre at 155 Crawford Street, in accordance with specifications as required by the Corporate Services Department and to request the authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Funding Sources:

The 1998 Capital Budget provided financing authority for this project in the amount of $4,285,000.00 with $1,735,000.00 being allocated as 1998 cash flow with the balance to be provided in 1999. Additional sources of funds to cover the full amount of this contract of $4,542,000.00 are provided from the previously approved 1997 Capital Budget in the amount of $257,000.00 which is available in Account 216-424.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Project No. 950016PR, Tender No. 10-1998 for the renovations to Trinity Community Recreation Centre be awarded to the lowest bidder, Bondfield Construction Company (1983) Ltd., in the amount of $4,542,000.00 including all taxes and charges.

Background:

The former City of Toronto Tender Committee, at its meeting held on April 8, 1998, opened the following tenders for Project No. 950016PR, Tender No. 10-1998, for the renovations to Trinity Community Recreation Centre at 155 Crawford Street as summarized below:

Tender Price

Including All

TendererCharges and Taxes

Bondfield Construction Company (1983) Ltd.$ 4,542,000.00

Maystar General Contractors Inc.$ 4,740,000.00

M.J.Dixon Construction Ltd.$ 4,833,000.00

Bradscot (MCL) Ltd.$ 4,891,000.00

The Atlas Corp.$ 4,940,000.00

Torcom Construction Inc.$ 5,096,000.00

Comments:

The Tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and was found to be in conformance with the Tender requirements. The Commissioner of Corporate Services concurs with the recommendation made.

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

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the renovations to Trinity Community Recreation Centre at 155 Crawford Street, in accordance with specifications to Bondfield Construction Company (1983) Ltd., being the lowest Tender received.

Contact Name:

Lou Pagano

Director, Purchasing and Materials Management Division

Telephone: 392-7312

29

Approval of Funding for Real Estate Consulting Firm

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To request Council authority for expenditures on real estate services provided by Johnston Donald Associates to complete approved contracts for the Sheppard Subway that are currently under way.

Financial Implications:

Funding for the contracts is included in the capital budget of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC); a portion of the cost will be recovered through Provincial transit subsidies.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council approve expenditures in the amount of $75,000.00 for the completion by Johnston Donald and Associates of approved contracts respecting the Sheppard Subway; and

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

Background:

At its meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, City Council approved the retention of Johnston Donald and Associates for the provision of real estate services for various projects.

Existing contracts with Johnston Donald were to be continued until June 30, 1998, except for work relating to the Sheppard Subway, which was to be continued until such time as the contracts currently under way are completed. No new files were to be given to Johnston Donald and no funds in excess of amounts included in the report were to be expended without the approval of City Council.

Council also requested that issues related to the contract with Johnston Donald and Associates be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Solicitor, for a report back to the Corporate Services Committee. The Solicitor is preparing a report outlining the process under which the original contract with Johnston Donald was negotiated.

Discussion:

The estimated amounts for completion of existing contracts were set out in the report requesting Council approval of the retention of Johnston Donald, based on projections available at the time. For non-Sheppard Subway matters, the amount was $30,000.00. These contracts will be completed within this budget ceiling by June 30, 1998.

The amount for the Sheppard Subway work, as requested by the TTC was estimated in the report to be $85,000.00. On June 9, 1998, the TTC advised that approval for an additional $75,000.00 is required in order for existing contracts to be completed, in accordance with Council's approval. Of this amount, $33,500.00 is for negotiations relating to existing property files, $16,000.00 is for support of existing agreements under Section 30 of the Expropriation Act and a further $16,000.00 is for the completion of agreements for properties previously negotiated by Johnston Donald but not yet requisitioned. A sum of $9,500.00 is included as a contingency against these estimates. The TTC estimates that the work required for the 67 properties involved will be completed by June 1999.

As City real estate staff are facing a substantial workload at this time to undertake and manage major property disposal projects and rationalization of leased space, external services are required to conduct work for the Sheppard Subway project. The funding for the required work is already provided in the TTC budget. The TTC has strongly requested that the services of the firm of Johnston Donald be continued, as they are satisfied with the work done to date, the firm is already knowledgeable about the negotiations regarding these properties, and the use of this firm is the most cost effective and efficient way to provide the needed services.

Approval is therefore now sought for expenditure of these additional funds, which are available within the capital budget of the TTC and are in part recoverable through Provincial transit subsidies. As noted above, these funds are anticipated to cover all the additional real estate work related to the Sheppard Subway construction. Approval of the additional funds is urgently required to meet the scheduling demands of the construction.

Contact:

Cathie Macdonald: Interim Lead, Facilities and Real Estate: Phone: 392-0449, Fax 392-0029

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following communication (June 19, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission:

This letter is to indicate our strong support for the extension of Johnston Donald and Associates' contract for the acquisition of Sheppard Subway property as outlined in the report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services to its meeting of June 19, 1998. To date, Johnston Donald have been instrumental in the acquisition of over 50 properties on budget and on schedule. We are supportive of their continued work on the project as the most cost-effective and efficient way to conclude "the approved contracts".

It should be emphasized that there are also some 21 properties that need to be requisitioned by TTC and obtained by City Real Estate staff. Some of these are schedule-critical and we will require a plan, estimate and schedule from the City how this will be undertaken. If City Real Estate staff, due to workload, cannot acquire these 21 properties, outside consultant resources will be required. The TTC estimates that an additional $60,000.00 worth of consultant work is involved. The decision how to best obtain these additional 21 properties on schedule and on budget rests with the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

Our Mr. A. G. Bertolo, Chief Project Manager - Sheppard Subway, will be present to address any questions.

(A copy of the communication (June 9, 1998) from Mr. J. A. Sepulis, General Manager, Engineering and Construction, Toronto Transit Commission, forwarding an estimate of the work that needs to be performed by Johnston Donald beyond June 30, 1998, which was attached to the foregoing report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To respond to the request of Council at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, with respect to issues related to the retention of the services of William R. Donald.

Funding Sources and Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, City Council authorized the further retention of the consulting firm of Johnston Donald and Associates on the terms and conditions outlined in the report (March 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services as amended by Council. Council also requested that I, in consultation with the Solicitor, report on issues related to the contract with respect to the retention of the services of William R. Donald, as identified by Council at its in camera meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The thrust of that in camera discussion of Council was concern about the initial process utilized with respect to the retention of the services of the former employee. Having now reviewed the history of this matter, I am in a position to advise that the Council of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, by its adoption of Clause No. 3 of Report no. 12 of The Corporate Administration Committee, at its meeting on May 7 and 8, 1997, adopted, without amendment, the confidential report (April 23, 1997) from the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources, entitled "Request to Engage a Former Employee within One Year of Their Termination Date" which recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources, in order to permit various projects to be completed, be authorized to finalize a contract with the firm with which the employee was intending to pursue a career as a real estate consultant in partnership.

That report stipulated that the relevant funds were available within the Division budget or in the budget capital program in question. During 1997, amounts paid on account of the services of the former employee total approximately $96,000.00. The Solicitor advises that this amount was within the authority of a department head pursuant to former Metro By-law No. 146-90 which provided authority to department heads to authorize expenditures up to the amount of $100,000.00.

Conclusions:

The Corporate Services Committee requested further details on the issues related to the retention of William R. Donald. This information request advises Committee that Metropolitan Council approved, on May 7 and 8, 1997, the retention of the firm with which the former employee was to become a partner.)

30

Provision of Food Services at City Hall

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause, by striking out the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be instructed to finalize the lease previously negotiated and signed by Mr. Palermo on behalf of 1158093 Ontario Limited; and

(2)the lease include a provision that the operator be granted the right to exclusivity in terms of catering services for City Hall functions, except in those cases where religious dietary restrictions, such as Kosher or Hallal, are involved for special events.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To secure authority to issue a proposal call, substantially as outlined in this report, to select an operator to design, construct and operate a café on the main floor of Toronto City Hall, and to provide catering services within Toronto City Hall.

Financial Implications:

It is anticipated that the proposals will result in no net capital or operating costs to the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to issue a Proposal Call, substantially as outlined in this report, to select an operator to design, construct and operate a café on the main floor and associated basement space of Toronto City Hall, and to provide catering services within Toronto City Hall;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized, to establish a Selection Committee chaired by the Acting Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate and including representatives of Facilities and Real Estate, Public Health, Finance, Protocol and Legal to review submissions received and to develop recommendations on the selection of an operator; and

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back to the Corporate Services Committee on the results of the proposal call process.

Background:

The basement cafeteria at Toronto City Hall currently operates under a Management Contract with Versa Services Ltd., on a month-to-month basis. This operation is subsidized by the City. Although larger when originally opened, the current cafeteria compromises the area shown on Appendix 1.

In 1995, a food services consultant, R.I. Wade & Associates Ltd., was retained by the City Property Department to examine the scale and viability of a main floor café as an alternative to the basement cafeteria. The food services consultant determined that a main floor café would be viable. The principal recommendation contained within the consultant's report was the closure of the existing basement cafeteria service areas and replacement with a main floor café which would utilize the existing food preparation facilities and kitchen equipment located in the basement.

The proposed main floor space allocated for café purposes was comprised of approximately 3,550square feet plus a common area of approximately 628 square feet as shown on Appendix 2. In addition to this main floor space the consultant proposed the utilization of the existing food preparation area located in the existing cafeteria and a ware washing facility of approximately 718square feet located below the main floor space and shown on Appendix 3.

The former Toronto City Council at its meeting held on December 18 and 19, 1995, adopted Executive Committee Report No. 3, Clause No.12, with amendments to authorize the Acting Commissioner of City Property to develop a proposal call for food services in City Hall, including provision of a new café on the main floor, closing of the cafeteria in the basement and to eliminate any requirement for ongoing subsidy. In addition all proponents were requested to indicate their intention with respect to offering employment to the existing cafeteria staff.

A public proposal call was prepared and required that the services include the design, construction and operation of a main floor café as well as provide catering services for City Hall functions. The provisions of these services were to be at no cost to the City of Toronto, in terms of capital and operating costs, with the exception of the demising walls and mechanical systems to the limit of the leased space.

As a result of the proposal call process, three submissions were received and the Selection Committee unanimously recommended 1158093 Ontario Limited as the preferred proponent subject to certain issues being resolved. Negotiations were conducted with Mr. Tony Palermo, the principal of 1158093 Ontario Limited and ultimately a lease acceptable to the Commissioner of Corporate Services, was negotiated and recommended to the former Toronto City Council. Due to operating cost factors, the proponent decided the café would be comprised of the main floor space, the 718sq.ft. space and a 162 sq.ft. staff change room as shown on Appendix 3 but not the existing kitchen. As the terms required by 1158093 Ontario Limited differed from their original submission, including the requirement that the City provide substantial funds towards the capital costs, Council at its meeting of December 6, 1996, Executive Committee Report No. 3, Clause No. 3 decided not to proceed with the lease with 1158093 Ontario Limited and directed that the proposal call be reissued.

Due to the pending decision with respect to the long-term use of Toronto City Hall, the former Toronto Board of Management instructed staff to postpone a proposal call. As a result of the decision to locate the seat of government at the Toronto City Hall, it is now appropriate to issue a new proposal call for an operator to design, construct and operate a café on the main floor and associated basement space of Toronto City Hall.

Comments:

Main Elements of Proposal Call:

(1)the main food service facility would be located on the main floor of City Hall in the space identified on Appendix 2. In addition, the areas identified as staff change room and storage room set out on Appendix 3 will be made available. Also, the existing food preparation area located in the basement will be made available;

(2)the proponents will be requested to provide comments on a coffee/muffin type service to be located on the second floor during limited time periods during the day. The location of such a portable service is still to be determined;

(3)a patio area comprising 580 sq. ft. directly outside the cafe space, and as indicated on Appendix 2, will also be made available for the proponent's use;

(4)the lease will be for a term of ten years in order to permit the proponent sufficient time to recover capital costs. The lease will also include an option for a further five years, pending satisfactory performance by the operator as determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(5)the successful proponent will be responsible for all metered utility costs, taxes, repairs and maintenance to the leased area and the equipment;

(6)the proponent will be required to provide these services at no cost to the City of Toronto, in terms of both capital and operating costs. The exception will be the provision of utility services, which will be brought to the limit of the leased space in the form of a single connection. The proponent will be responsible for the cost of distributing the services. While certain work may be required to be completed by the City the proponent will be responsible for the cost;

(7)the successful proponent would be granted the right to exclusivity in terms of catering services for City Hall functions, subject to review after one year of operation by the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(8)the proponents will be required to submit designs for the space they propose to comprise the food service facility in order to ensure the proposal will be clear and is functionally and operationally acceptable;

(9)the proponent will be required to offer employment to the existing cafeteria employees which was a requirement of the former Toronto Council; and

(10)the proposal call will indicate to proponents that if they are not interested on the foregoing basis, then alternative proposals may be considered, including the provision by the City of capital funds to assist with the initial capital cost of constructing the facility.

Proposed Timelines:

Subject to City Council authorization, the proposal call would be advertised in Toronto daily newspapers. A deadline for responses would be approximately August 15, 1998. The Selection Committee would evaluate responses shortly thereafter and report to the Commissioner of Corporate Services with its recommendations. The Commissioner of Corporate Services would table a report with recommendations on selection of a potential operator to the Corporate Services Committee on September 14, 1998, and Toronto City Council on October 1, 1998.

Selection Criteria:

A Selection Committee would be formed, chaired by the Acting Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate Division with representative from Facilities and Real Estate, Public Health, Finance, Protocol and Legal.

The proposals would be evaluated based on the criteria contained in the proposal call document, including the following items:

(a)Proposed Financial Arrangements:

(i)the ability of the operator to demonstrate adequate funding;

(ii)reasonableness of financial assumptions and analysis including projected revenues from the café and catering service; and

(iii)financial return to the City.

(b)Protection of City's interests:

(i)enhancements of City's assets by the proposed improvements; and

(ii)guarantees to limit City liability in defaults in operation or against general liability.

(c)Proponent's Previous Experience:

(i)the ability to operate a food service operation of the nature envisioned as a viable business including the proponent's ability to obtain all necessary licensing; and

(ii)previous experience of the proponent as it relates to the submission.

(d)Compliance of Terms and Conditions:

(i)ability to meet the City's schedule for assuming operation; and

(ii)ability to comply with the proposed terms and conditions under a lease agreement with the City.

Proposal Requirements:

Each proponent would be required to submit a business plan for the operation of a new café and provision of catering services to City Hall including the following information:

(i)goals for food service operation including marketing analysis and planning;

(ii)proposed operation including organizational structure, staffing and proposed salary range of staffing positions involved;

(iii)description of all proposed capital improvements including the design of the café and upgrades to be carried out, together with an estimate of the cost of the improvements;

(iv)financial analysis and projections over the term of the proposed lease agreement including funding sources, projected sources and extent of revenues and expenses;

(v)proposed financial return to the City;

(vi)proposed method of providing security for financial obligations;

(vii)attributes of proponent corporation, including experience and financial statements;

(viii)proposed menu and pricing including the manner in which the requirement for a multi-ethnic menu mix shall be met.

(ix)confirmation that:

(A)Toronto City Hall is a designated historical building and all work carried out on the subject premises must be approved by the Commissioner of Corporate Services in consultation with the Toronto Historical Board; and

(B)the proponent accepts the terms and conditions included in the Proposal Call Package.

Other Food Service Contracts:

The City has a month-to-month lease for the operation of the snack bar on the square. This concession should be dealt with separately in context with the overall review of the proposed civic complex. The City also has a contract with a vending company for the provision of four vending machines located in the basement of Toronto City Hall. This contract also deals with vending machines at other locations and accordingly, should also be dealt with separately. It is noted that as a result of the more intensive use, there may be a need to place vending machines on the second floor to accommodate late night demand for refreshments.

Conclusion:

It is anticipated that the issuance of a public proposal call would provide the City of Toronto with an improved food service facility to meet the needs of Toronto City Hall as the new seat of government. In addition, the City would realize the elimination of an annual subsidy to the current operator under the existing Management Agreement and capital improvements to City Hall.

Contact Name:

Rhonda Anderson, telephone: 392-1854, fax: 392-1880, Email: randerso@city.toronto.on.ca. (con98044.wpd)

--------

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

(1)a confidential report (May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting the Main Floor Cafe at City Hall; and

(2)a communication (June 19, 1998) from Mr. David P. Smith P.C., Q.C., on behalf of Mr.TonyPalermo, advising that Mr. Palermo is prepared to proceed to operate the facility in accordance with the terms in his previous bid; and recommending that the Corporate Services Committee instruct staff to neogtiate with Mr. Palermo an acceptable package and report back to the Committee.

Mr. Ted Graham, and Mr. Tim Peters, Versa Services Limited, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed information respecting the services provided by Versa Services Limited.

Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

31

Appointments to the Toronto

Islands Residential Community Trust

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (June11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and, further, that CouncillorOliviaChow, Downtown, be appointed to the Board of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998, on the responsibility for management of in-file housing on vacant Island lands.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (June11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To report on the Board structure of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust as recommended to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing by the Trust. The structure includes three representatives from the City of Toronto.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications to this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(a)Council endorse the structure recommended by the Board of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust, comprising ten Toronto Island community representatives, three City of Toronto representatives and one provincial representative for a one-year term of appointment;

(b)Council recommend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and one member of Toronto City Council from the Downtown Ward be appointed to the Board of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust;

(c)Council consider the future structure of the Board before the terms of the recommended appointees expire; and

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

Background:

On December 15, 1993, the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993 (the "Act") came into force. The goal of the Act was to recognize the unique nature of the Island community and normalize the situation in terms of ownership, by-law enforcement, and other community issues. In 1996, the new Provincial government introduced the Toronto Islands Amendment Act, 1996, certain provisions of which came into force July 22, 1996 and August 12, 1996. As result of this legislation, the Toronto Island residential community lands (being the Ward's Island and Algonquin Island residential communities) were placed under the stewardship of a body known as the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust Corporation (the "Trust") and leased to the Trust for 99 years for the purpose of subleasing the residential lands to their present occupants and developing housing on vacant land.

The objects of the Trust are to manage the lands described in the Act, including the houses and other buildings and structures on the land, for the benefit of the residential community on the Island and the public and for such other objects as prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The particular duties of the Land Trust include:

(a)the sales of 99-year land leases to those persons determined to be the owners of the existing houses;

(b)the management of all transactions relating to the Island and the distribution of lease proceeds to the Trust and the City;

(c)the management of in-fill housing on vacant Island lands;

(d)the re-sale of leases on behalf of owners; and

(e)the management of certain public buildings for the benefit of the community and the public

The existing avenues, walkways and vacant parklands were vested in the City of Toronto, which is required under the Act to maintain municipal services to the Island lands.

In the original 1993 Act, the affairs of the Trust were to be managed by a Board of Directors which was to consist of fifteen members, of which at least two thirds were to be residents of the Toronto Island's residential community as nominated by the community. The other five members on the board were two provincial representatives, a City representative, a Metro representative and one other person from the greater Toronto community to be determined. All persons nominated as candidates for the Board are appointed by an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council for Ontario.

The Commissioner of City Property or designate was originally nominated by Toronto City Council to be the City's representative on the Trust's Boards of Directors.

As a result of amendments to the original Act in 1996, the requirement for a majority of Island residents on the Trust's Board of Directors was removed. The Board was subsequently reduced on the recommendation of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to include four Provincial representatives and two Islanders. The purpose of the Province taking control of the Trust at that time was to eliminate any Provincial liability and this was achieved when the debt was retired through the sale of 12 in-fill housing lots by the Trust.

The terms of the existing Board members expire on July 22, 1998 and the Trust is seeking the endorsement of the City for a list of nominees to be recommended to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In view of the tight time-table, it is understood that the Province may extend the terms of the existing six Board members for a short period to ensure that the Trust can continue to function while new appointments are made.

The last time the City Council of the former City of Toronto considered this issue, it supported the Trust's proposal that a majority of the Board continue to be Islanders. This position was based upon the concern that a Board which did not have a majority of Islanders would lose the confidence of the community. The importance of control over the Trust Board lies in its role, as landlord, to potentially assist the City with respect to the enforcement of by-law standards for Island properties and other municipal initiatives and its responsibility for the collection and remittance of lease proceeds and charges under the Act which are payable to the City.

Discussion:

The Toronto Island community representatives have recommended to the Minister and to the City that the board be composed of 14 members, broken down as follows:

ten Toronto Island community representatives

three City of Toronto representatives; and

one provincial representative.

The community has elected ten new representatives for consideration as appointees to the Trust board. They have suggested that the City representatives should be one member of City Council and two senior staff of the City. It is proposed that the latter be the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism. This would ensure that City Council is represented directly on the Trust and that, from an operational standpoint, the property and parks functions would also be represented at a senior level. Formerly, the only City representation was senior staff appointees. A Councillor from the Downtown Ward would be most appropriate as the City Council representative.

Conclusions:

These recommendations provide a sound basis for governance of the Trust, which will be strengthened in terms of accountability by the inclusion of a City Councillor. In view of the short time frame to have the Order in Council appointments confirmed, it is recommended that Council approve the proposed structure and also approve the Councillor and staff appointments for a one-year term of appointment. Council should consider the future structure of the Board of the Trust before the terms of the recommended appointees expire.

Contact Name:

Michael Brown, Commissioner's Office, Tel: 392-8654

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To report as requested by the Corporate Services Committee to City Council for its meeting of July8, 1998 with respect to the status of the Trust's management of in-fill housing in the Toronto Islands Residential Community.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council receive this report for information.

Background:

At its meeting of June 22, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee had before it my report (June11, 1998) entitled "Appointments to the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust" (Agenda Item No. 25). In the course of its consideration, the Committee adopted the motion of Councillor Ootes that staff be requested to report directly to City Council with respect to the status of the Trust's management of in-fill housing on vacant island lands and any potential conflict of interest issues.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993, the Trust has the ability to sell up to 12 land leases with respect to lands that were vacant at the time the Act came into force (December 15, 1993). These 12 lots were identified as in-fill lots and were, in accordance with the Act, offered to people whose names were on the list of purchasers established under the Act.

As previously indicated by the City Solicitor's representative to the Committee, the Trust has now confirmed that the leases for these 12 lots were sold last year, subject to the condition that houses must be constructed within three years of purchase. Houses have now been constructed on 4 of the lots and are occupied. Of the remainder, one house is under construction and the owners of the other 7 lots are currently going through the building permit process, with construction expected to be completed in the fall. Construction is being regulated in accordance with the Building Code and the former City of Toronto's zoning regulations.

Conclusion:

Given that the process of the sale of the lots is complete and construction of the houses is to be completed in accordance with the City's normal building permit process and zoning regulations, it would not appear that the constitution of the Trust Board is a concern.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Cathie Macdonald,

Interim Lead, Facilities and Real Estate Division,

Tel. No. 392-0449.)

32

Records Retention Schedule -

Board of Governors of Exhibition Place

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 5, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council authority for the destruction of unneeded records of Exhibition Place.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds for records destruction are included in the Exhibition Place operating accounts.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that authority be granted for the introduction in Council of a Bill in the form of the draft by-law, Attachment A, to provide a one-time destruction authority for the records listed therein.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council is required by statute to authorize the destruction of all records of departments and special purpose bodies by enacting a by-law which must then be approved by the City Auditor.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Approximately 750 cubic feet of inactive Exhibition Place records are stored in the Stadium which is scheduled for demolition this Fall. These records have no further administrative, fiscal, legal or archival value. This destruction recommendation is based on assessments by staff of Exhibition Place, the City Clerk's Division, Records and Archives Section and the City Auditor.

At its meeting of April 24, 1998, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place approved the destruction of Exhibition Place records, listed in Attachment A.

A secure re-cycling method will be used for disposal of these records.

Conclusions:

Approval of a one-time disposal authority for Exhibition Place records that have no further administrative, fiscal, legal or archival value is in keeping with good business practices and is in compliance with records retention laws.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Michael Moir, Director of Corporate Records Systems and City Archivist, 392-9673

--------

ATTACHMENT "A"

CITY OF TORONTO

D R A F T BY-LAW

To amend further By-law No. 2561 of the former Municipality of

Metropolitan Toronto respecting schedules of retention for records

of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

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

1.Section "A" to By-law No. 2561, of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto being a by-law "To establish schedules of retention periods for records of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto", as amended, is amended further by inserting in Columns 1, 2 and 3 of the said Schedule the following:

(In(In(In

Column 1)Column 2)Column 3)

Local BoardRecordsDue for

Destruction

Board ofAdministration Division

Governors of- Treasury Department

Exhibition- Accounting Unit

PlaceBudget files1984-1990Immediately

Budget reports1979Immediately

Budget analysis/sales reports1981-1986Immediately

Budgets - operating1988-1989Immediately

Centennial Square files1981-1987Immediately

Daily summary sheets - CNE1988-1989Immediately

Detail journals (duplicates)1978-1979Immediately

Encumbrance report1988Immediately

Foreign exchange forms1941-1950Immediately

Material control1975Immediately

Petty cash1989-1990Immediately

Purchase orders (duplicates)1987-1990Immediately

Purchase requisitions (duplicates)1987-1990Immediately

Revenue book1976Immediately

Restaurant percentage 1938-1940Immediately

Restaurant revenue1984-1988Immediately

Suborders (duplicates)1986-1990Immediately

Superintendents manuals1986-1989Immediately

Ticket receipts1958-1962Immediately

Transaction journal (print out)1988Immediately

Trial balances1946-1955Immediately

Administrative Division

- Treasury Department

- Controller

General correspondence files1949-1989Immediately

Ambulance calls1981-1987Immediately

Typewriter rentals1981-1990Immediately

Administrative Division

- Treasury Department

- Cost Accounting Unit

Accounts distribution 1970-1984Immediately

Central stores (gas/diesel1986-1990Immediately

receipts)

Central stores issues 1986-1989Immediately

Central stores transferno date Immediately

ledger - electrical

Central stores MSR forms1985-1990Immediately

Equipment inventory1955-1975Immediately

Fixed assets 1986-1989Immediately

General account/ledger cheques1987-1990Immediately

(In(In(In

Column 1)Column 2)Column 3)

Local BoardRecordsDue for

Destruction

Board ofAdministrative Division

Governors of- Treasury Department

Exhibition- Cost Accounting Unit (contd)

PlaceInventory cards - discontinued1981-1989Immediately

R & S ledgers1987-1989Immediately

R & S forms 1986-1987Immediately

R & S forms (duplicates)1986-1990Immediately

Reconciliation reports1987Immediately

Third party billing1987-1990Immediately

Work charged out1976-1981Immediately

Work order ledgers1987-1990Immediately

Administrative Division

- Treasury Department

- Accounts Payable Unit

Bank reconciliations1988-1990Immediately

Cheques & cheque stubs1977-1990Immediately

Cheques - Can/U.S. (copies)1980-1990Immediately

Cheque distribution sheets1984-1989Immediately

Cumulative transaction journal1986-1988Immediately

(January-November only)

Energy invoices1980Immediately

Invoices1980-1990Immediately

Journal vouchers1970-1990Immediately

Paid requisitions1981Immediately

Payroll distribution1984-1990Immediately

Payroll distribution recaps1986-1987Immediately

Payroll cheques1965-1986Immediately

Prize cheques1979-1980Immediately

Prize accounts1989-1990Immediately

Purchase orders1987Immediately

Purchase requisitions1987Immediately

Rill Foods1982-1987Immediately

Space invoices1972-1980Immediately

Vouchers1986-1990Immediately

Voucher backups1984-1987Immediately

Voucher register1970-1988Immediately

U.S. dollar cheques1989-1990Immediately

Administrative Division

- Treasury Department

- Accounts Receivable Unit

Cash reports1936-1990Immediately

Cashier/Sellers returns1985-1986Immediately

Credit notes1980Immediately

Invoices1980-1987Immediately

Ledger cards1970-1989Immediately

User fees1988Immediately

(In(In(In

Column 1)Column 2)Column 3)

Local BoardRecordsDue for

Destruction

Board ofAgriculture contracts1982-1988Immediately

Governors ofSpace contracts1983Immediately

ExhibitionBuilding rentals contracts1984Immediately

PlaceCleaning contracts1984Immediately

Miscellaneous contracts1984Immediately

Concessions licences1983Immediately

Administration Division

- Treasury Department

- Payroll Unit

Clock cards1986-1990Immediately

forms1981-1990Immediately

General files1983Immediately

Job tickets1987-1990Immediately

Job ticket listing1988Immediately

Record of Employment 1979-1990Immediately

Recap reports1982-1990Immediately

Time cards 1986-1987Immediately

T4s1974-1975Immediately

TD1s1983-1990Immediately

Administrative Division

- Purchasing Department

Purchase orders 1981-1990Immediately

Purchase sub-orders1986-1990Immediately

Purchase requisitions1986-1990Immediately

General files1952-1990Immediately

Invoices1981Immediately

Quotations1987-1990Immediately

Record books1989-1990Immediately

Administration Division

-Corporate Secretary

Metropolitan Toronto -1975-1989Immediately

Council Minutes

Correspondence (duplicates)1950-1985Immediately

Reports (duplicates)1950-1985Immediatley

Administration Division

-Archives Department

-Assistant Archivist

General files1991Immediately

Administration Division

-Contracts Department

Expired insurance policies1953-1970Immediately

ACH Building insurance files1971Immediately

(In(In(In

Column 1)Column 2)Column 3)

Local BoardRecordsDue for

Destruction

Board of Administration Division

Governors of-Pass Department

ExhibitionGeneral files1971-1988Immediately

PlaceRequest files1981-1984Immediately

Record of passes - CNEA1960-1975Immediately

Administration Division

-Human Resources Department

Applications - summer staffing1995Immediately

Operations Division

-Capital Works Department

-Manager, Capital Works Department

Purchase orders, requisitions1982-1987Immediately

and vouchers (duplicates)

Operations Division

-Cleaning Department

General files1982-1988Immediately

Show/event files1982-1989Immediately

Purchase requisitions1984-1988Immediately

R & S forms1984-1987Immediately

Work orders1987-1988Immediately

Time sheets1981-1987Immediately

Clock cards1984-1987Immediately

Job tickets1987-1988Immediately

Photo identification badges1988-1993Immediately

Operations Division

-Cleaning Department

-Supervisor

General files1982-1990Immediately

Operations Division

-Maintenance Department

-Manager

General files (duplicate 1950-1986Immediately

work orders, purchase requisitions)

Change forms1981-1982Immediately

Operations Division

-Maintenance Department

-Physical Plant Unit

General files (duplicate1979-1981Immediately

work orders, purchase requisitions)

(In(In(In

Column 1)Column 2)Column 3)

Local BoardRecordsDue for

Destruction

Board ofOperations Division

Governors of-Maintenance Department

Exhibition-Labour Unit

PlaceBudget reports1976-1978Immediately

Budgets (computer print-outs)1973-1977Immediately

Account distribution (monthly)1978-1979Immediately

Detail journals (duplicates)1978-1979Immediately

Labour distribution1972-1978Immediately

Purchase requisitions (duplicates)1978Immediately

Work orders (duplicates)1977-1981Immediately

Union files1958-1970Immediately

Correspondence (duplicates)1950-1985Immediately

Reports (duplicates)1950-1985Immediately

Operations Division

-Maintenance Department

-Security Unit

Service reports1981-1984Immediately

Lost and found forms1982Immediately

Operations Division

-Exhibition Stadium

(formerly Exhibition Stadium Corporation

1975-1983)

-Accounting Unit

Accounts receivable1977-1981Immediately

Bank reconciliation1982-1983Immediately

Budget files1979-1981Immediately

Budget ledger1976-1982Immediately

Cheques and cheque stubs1979-1983Immediately

Correspondence (duplicate)1975-1987Immediately

Disbursements1982-1983Immediately

Event billing1979-1989Immediately

General files1977-1983Immediately

Invoices1977-1982Immediately

Paid receipts1976-1980Immediately

Purchase orders1977-1980Immediately

Revenue1977-1982Immediately

Work order binders1984-1987Immediately

(In(In(In

Column 1)Column 2)Column 3)

Local BoardRecordsDue for

Destruction

Board ofOperations Division

Governors-Exhibition Stadium

of Exhibition(formerly Exhibition Stadium Corporation

Place1975-1983)

-Payroll Unit

Change forms1987Immediately

Job applications1987Immediately

Job tickets1980-1983Immediately

Time cards1980-1986Immediately

T4s/T4As1982Immediately

Operations Division

-Exhibition Stadium

(formerly Exhibition Stadium Corporation

1975-1983)

-General Manager

Job applications1977Immediately

CNEA minutes1980-1988Immediately

Board of Governors of Exhibition

Place minutes 1980-1986Immediately

RV show ticket stubs1983Immediately

Correspondence (duplicate)1975-1987Immediately

Reports (duplicate)1975-1987Immediatley

Operations Division

-Exhibition Stadium

(formerly Exhibition Stadium Corporation

1975-1983)

-Operations Manager

General files1977-1985Immediately

Invoices 1978-1988Immediately

Purchase orders (duplicates)1978-1988Immediately

Correspondence (duplicate)1975-1987Immediately

Reports (duplicate)1975-1987Immediatley

Stock car tickets 1990Immediately

Operations Division

-Exhibition Stadium

(formerly Exhibition Stadium Corporation

1975-1983)

-Cleaning Unit

General files1981-1982Immediately

Operations Division

-Exhibition Stadium

(formerly Exhibition Stadium Corporation

1975-1983)

-Event Coordinators

General files1984Immediately

(In(In(In

Column 1)Column 2)Column 3)

Local BoardRecordsDue for

destruction

Board of Operations Division

Governors-Exhibition Stadium

of Exhibition(formerly Exhibition Stadium Corporation

Place1975-1983)

-Event Coordinators (cont)

Work orders (duplicates)1984Immediately

R & S forms (duplicates)1984Immediately

Operations Division

-Exhibition Stadium

(formerly Exhibition Stadium Corporation

1975-1983)

-Security Unit

Base station reports1983Immediately

Shift reports1977-1986Immediately

CNE Division

-Program Department

-Agriculture Unit

Horse show entry forms 1982Immediately

Livestock entry forms1982Immediately

Prize cheques (duplicates)1972Immediately

CNE Division

-Program Department

-Feature Country

Contest ballots (valid/spoiled)1993-1996Immediately

CNE Division

-Concessions Department

-CNE Hospital

Hospital files1930-1985Immediately

Accident forms1980-1986Immediately

List of patients1965-1981Immediately

CNE Division

-Program Department

-Sports Coordinators

Correspondence (duplicate)1962-1980Immediately

Reports (duplicates)1962-1980Immediately

Work orders (duplicates)1962-1980Immediately

Purchase requisitions (duplicates)1962-1980Immediately

CNE Division

-Women's Department

Correspondence (duplicates)1948-1980Immediately

Reports (duplicates)1948-1980Immediately

Work orders (duplicates)1960-1980Immediatley

Purchase requisitions (duplicates)1960-1980Immediately

2.This By-law shall come into force upon receiving the approval of the City Auditor.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D.1998.

MayorCity Clerk

33

Increased Court Costs for Parking Tag Convictions

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be instructed not to pay the additional $9.00 in court costs until the Mayor has met with the Minister of Government Services and reported thereon to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee, in October, 1998;

(2)the following motion be referred to Mayor Lastman:

Moved by Councillor Johnston:

'It is recommended that Councillors Jakobek, Moscoe and O'Brien be requested to accompany the appropriate staff to the next round of negotiations and that they be requested to meet with the Minister of Government Services and report thereon to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee.'; and

(3)consideration of the following motion be deferred pending receipt of the report requested of Mayor Lastman:

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is further recommended that, until such time as these matters have been resolved, the City advise the Ontario Realty Corporation, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the City of Toronto is not prepared to extend the lease for the Courts beyond December, 1998.' ")

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)granted approval respecting Recommendations Nos. (1) to (7) and Recommendations Nos. (10) and (11), embodied in the report (June 10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, having regard for the scheduled implementation date of July 1, 1998, for the provincial legislation in this regard; and having recommended that City Council concur with the action taken by the Corporate Services Committee; and

(2)recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (8) and (9) embodied in the aforementioned report; and having requested the Budget Committee to report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to describe recent amendments to Provincial regulations requiring municipalities to collect a $9.00 increase in court costs effective July 1, 1998, and to remit same to the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario (MTO). It is also to obtain approval to negotiate and sign an agreement with MTO for the provision of vehicle plate owner name and address information for parking infractions.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funding to implement and continue the administration associated with the $9.00 in increased court costs authorized by Ontario Regulations 945 and 949 received on June 3, 1998, from the Province of Ontario should be obtained from the administration fee retained by the City after remittance of the data access fees to the Ministry of Transportation. However, should the administration fee not be sufficient to cover the additional operational expenditures of the Parking Tag Operations Unit resulting from the implementation of the above regulations, a draw from corporate contingency may be necessary.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)because of the scheduled implementation date of July 1, 998, and the resultant time sensitivity of this issue, the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, request the Government of Ontario to reconsider the regulated increase in court costs and examine alternative methods of collection and reimbursement of the operating costs incurred by MTO to provide the name and address information required by Provincial legislation to the City;

(2)the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, request the Government of Ontario to provide a justification as to the $9.00 increase in court costs in light of the fees charged to Ontario municipalities by other jurisdictions for the same type of information;

(3)the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, request the Government of Ontario to delay the implementation of the increased court costs from July 1, 1998, to October 1, 1998, in order to allow the City sufficient time to negotiate an 'Authorized Requester Agreement' with the Ministry of Transportation and to make the appropriate changes to the Parking Tag Management System;

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorised to negotiate and enter into an 'Authorized Requester Agreement' between the City and the Ministry of Transportation for the provision of name and address information of vehicle plates for which parking tags have been issued subject to the agreement being in a form and terms acceptable to the Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer;

(5)the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, request the Government of Ontario to contribute 50 per cent of the City's start-up costs associated with the implementation of the additional $9.00 in court costs and the remitting of the data access fees to the Ministry of Transportation;

(6)the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, urgently communicate with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and major cities and regions within Ontario advising them of the City's position in this matter;

(7)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Corporate Services Committee on the responses of the Government of Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to the above communications;

(8)the revenue from the administration fees be used to offset the additional ongoing operating expenditures incurred by the Parking Tag Operations Unit;

(9)the existing Parking Tag Management System server, software and peripherals be upgraded at an estimated maximum cost of $350,000.00 with funding from corporate contingency to accommodate the additional users required and for the recording and collection of the $9.00 in increased court costs, and that the initial and ongoing costs be included in the calculations related to cost recovery;

(10)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to the Corporate Services Committee as soon as feasible as to the status and financial implications of the implementation of the additional $9.00 in court costs;

(11)the necessary City officials be authorized to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In the late 1980's the Government of Ontario began implementing administrative fees for certain judicial and quasi-judicial activities for parking infractions. These fees included costs for processing convictions, driver's licence suspensions and vehicle plate denials. The fees were sometimes implemented as new or increased administrative fees and sometimes as court costs. In 1993, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto started issuing the Notice of Impending Conviction document to persons who did not pay their parking fines. When convicted, a portion of the court costs ($2.00 out of $7.00) was allocated to Metro Toronto to cover the additional costs incurred in issuing the notices. In 1995, Metro Toronto commenced issuing the Notice of Fine and Due Date for which an additional $2.00 in court costs was provided. Appendix 'A' shows the implementation dates and amounts of the various fees collected by the City for itself and for various government ministries.

The Ministry of Transportation for Ontario has, in the past, always provided vehicle plate ownership information to municipalities and the Ministry of the Attorney General court offices on a "no charge" basis. This ownership information is required under Provincial legislation and is, therefore, vital to the process whereby persons who do not pay their parking fines are convicted and eventually denied the privilege of renewing their vehicle plate.

In April, 1997, Management Board of Cabinet approved a new MTO $3.00 per transaction data access fee on the condition that the fee only be applied to the conviction categories "fail to respond" and "deemed not to dispute". Up to this time, this fee has not yet been implemented. A meeting was held in October 1997, with representation from Metro Toronto, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of Transportation. Two subsequent meetings were held in January and March attended only by representatives from MTO, City Legal and City Finance (Parking Tag Operations). At these meetings the MTO representatives described how they intended to implement the new fee structure. City staff presented their concerns regarding the proposed changes, but at no time was the City requested in writing to provide input into the proposed implementation plan and time frame. In fact, at each meeting a different approach was presented by MTO. No agreement was ever reached and a time frame for implementation was never announced.

We recently received a letter dated June 1, 1998, from the Assistant Deputy Minister of MTO advising that Ontario Regulation 945 has been amended to increase court costs by $9.00 effective July1, 1998, and that Ontario Regulation 949 has been amended to assign these court costs to the municipalities. The $9.00 amount is derived from the Province's assumption that the municipality's Parking Tag Operation accesses MTO to obtain name and address information 3 times per case ($3.00 times 3accesses equals $9.00). In 99 per cent of the cases the City requests name and address data from MTO only 2 times per case. Based on the Province's own formula the court costs should be increased only $6.00.

The Province's recent announcement requires the City to sign an agreement with MTO in order to receive the plate owner information required by the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) to obtain convictions on parking infractions. Without the certified ownership information, the integrity of the parking enforcement program in the City of Toronto would be severely jeopardized.

Under the MTO imposed regulations and the proposed agreement, the City will collect the additional court costs and forward the costs to MTO, with the City retaining a $0.25 or 2.7percent administration fee. Using 1997 statistical information and applying the new court costs to payments received for the conviction categories "fail to respond" and "deemed not to dispute", the City would collect approximately $4 million annually in additional payments of which $3.9 million would be given to MTO and $109.0 thousand retained by the City as an administration fee.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

With less than one month to implement the required system and staffing changes, the implementation schedule being imposed by MTO is impracticable. As well, we expect that the proposed administrative fee allocated to the City will not cover the additional expenses that the City will incur collecting MTO revenue. Staff will be monitoring the impact of the additional court costs on operational expenditures.

The change to Ontario Regulation 949 assigns the $9.00 in additional court costs to the municipality. MTO now requires that an 'Authorized Requester Agreement' between MTO and the City be signed before name and address information will be provided to the City. Part of that agreement will include the payment of $8.75 of the additional court costs to MTO. However, a far simpler method for MTO to recover its costs of providing information would be for MTO to collect the fee from the offender at the time of plate denial. In the eyes of the public, and possibly other ministries of the Ontario Government, it will appear that the City, along with other Ontario municipalities, is making a 'cash grab'. This perception may also affect the ability of the City to successfully implement enhanced revenue collection processes which are currently under consideration.

Based on preliminary information and research it is estimated that the additional operational expenditures resulting from the implementation of the $9.00 in additional court costs could be up to $490.6 thousand. As well, there will be start up costs for computer system changes, furniture and equipment of up to $381.9 thousand. Assuming a recovery of the start up costs over a three year period, the annualised budgetary shortfall in the Parking Tag Operations Unit could amount to over $500thousand unless the administration fee is increased.

It is estimated that the number of reopenings, appeals, extensions of time to pay and trial requests could increase by up to 30 percent which would mean an additional 30,000 personal appearances at the City's First Appearance Facilities. These personal appearances are required to Request a Trial, obtain conviction information in order to obtain a reopening or extension of time to pay, otherwise dispute the charge or make payment. As well, the additional reporting and account reconciliation required will increase the work load of the Finance and Administration Section. This increase in volume, will also affect the most labour intensive area of the Unit, Court Liaison Section. This section consolidates all the paper associated with a parking infraction from the time the Certificate of Parking Infraction is filed to the time a conviction is entered. Court Liaison also processes all Trial Requests and all reopenings, appeals and extensions of time to pay.

In order to maintain current service levels, assuming this increase in work load, and to protect and ensure the integrity of the parking enforcement process, an additional nine staff could be required in the Parking Tag Operations Unit to provide the additional counter services, telephone services, accounting and reporting and other mandated responsibilities as a result of the implementation of the increase in court costs.

Staff of the Information Technology Division of the Corporate Services Department confirm that the existing PTMS server is inadequate to handle the additional nine users. A larger server will have to be either purchased or leased. As well, the PTMS application will have to be modified to capture and process the additional court costs and provide for the necessary reporting requirements along with the accounting transactions associated with remitting the funds collected to MTO.

The $0.25 administrative fee proposed by MTO will not begin to cover the additional expenses that will be incurred as a result of the implementation of the $9.00 increase in court costs. It is necessary that any negotiations with MTO relating to the 'Authorised Requester Agreement' include negotiations to increase the administration fee allotted to the City. It is anticipated that the cost to administer and account for the additional $9.00 in court costs could require an administration fee of $1.50 per fine collected rather than the $0.25 offered by MTO.

Conclusions:

The $9.00 in additional court costs for which MTO is imposing the responsibilities for collection on Ontario municipalities, is exorbitant. While the concept of 'offender pays' is commendable, the fee is unusually high when compared to fees charged by other Provincial Governments and by state governments in the United States. For example, using the same three access algorithm used by MTO, the Province of Quebec charges at least one Ontario municipality only 36 cents for the same information provided by MTO at a soon to be cost of $9.00. It is important to note again that the City accesses MTO for name and address information only two times per case. MTO has decided unilaterally to implement the proposed additional court costs without considering the concerns and recommendations of municipal staff. It is therefore recommended that because of the time urgency involved with implementation that the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, request that the Government of Ontario reconsider the regulated increase in court costs and examine alternative methods of collection and reimbursement of the operating costs incurred by MTO to provide the name and address information required by Provincial legislation to the City. It is also recommended that the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, request that the Government of Ontario provide a justification as to the $9.00 increase in court costs in light of the fees charged to Ontario municipalities by other Provinces for the same type of information.

City staff were advised of the July 1, 1998, implementation date in a letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister of MTO dated June 1, 1998. This time frame does not even allow for Council approval to authorize staff to negotiate an agreement for the provision of name and address information. As well, the required systems and staffing changes cannot be made within the allotted time. A more appropriate implementation date would be October 1, 1998. This would allow enough time for making the necessary changes and negotiate an agreement. It is therefore recommended that the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, request that the Government of Ontario delay the implementation of the increased court costs from July 1, 1998, to October 1, 1998, in order to allow the City sufficient time to negotiate an 'Authorized Requester Agreement' with the Ministry of Transportation and to make the appropriate changes to the Parking Tag Management System.

MTO has traditionally provided the name and address information required to obtain convictions for parking infractions at no cost to the municipality, however, this is about to change. Without the name and address of the vehicle plate owner, no further enforcement can take place. MTO is now stating that without an 'Authorized Requester Agreement', no owner information will be provided, thus jeopardizing the existing revenue stream. It is accepted that such an agreement must be signed. In order to protect the City's revenue base from further erosion it is recommended that the appropriate City officials be authorised to negotiate and enter into an 'Authorized Requester Agreement' between the City and the Ministry of Transportation for the provision of name and address information of vehicle plates for which parking tags have been issued subject to the agreement being in a form and terms acceptable to the Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

With the anticipated additional work load resulting from the implementation of the $9.00 in additional court costs, the City will face up to $381,900.00 in one-time start-up costs related to computer programming and analysis and furniture and equipment. Given that MTO is imposing this extra effort on the City to collect revenue for MTO, it is only appropriate that MTO contribute to the start-up expenses incurred by the City. It is therefore recommended that the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, request that the Government of Ontario contribute 50 per cent of the City's start-up costs associated with the implementation of the additional $9.00 in court costs and the remitting of the data access fees to the Ministry of Transportation;

The Ministry of Transportation has unilaterally imposed these additional responsibilities on the municipalities who have similar responsibilities to the City related to the processing of Parking infractions. Parking Tag Operations staff conducted an informal survey of large municipalities and found that although the concept of user pay is generally accepted, the manner in which the new regulations are being imposed with little or no consultation and opportunity for municipal input is considered unacceptable. It is therefore recommended that the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on behalf of Council, communicate with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and to the major municipalities in Ontario advising them of the City's position in this matter and requesting that a united front be put forward to the Government of Ontario. It is also recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Corporate Services Committee on the responses of the Government of Ontario, the major municipalities in Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to the above communications;

Funding for the additional expenditures (estimated at up to $490.6 thousand annually with a possible $381.9 thousand one-time expenditure) associated with the $9.00 increase in court costs is not available within the Parking Tag Operations Unit budget. The anticipated change in volumes of work is based on past experience of City staff familiar with the situations that affect parking tag payment rates along with requests for trial and other disputes. While it estimated that this increase will occur, the workload will be monitored. It is therefore recommended that the revenue from the administration fees be used to offset the additional ongoing operating expenditures incurred by the Parking Tag Operations Unit. It is also recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to the Corporate Services Committee in 3 to 6 months as to the status of the implementation of the additional $9.00 in court costs.

Due to the increased number of transactions processed, the additional number of online users and additional reporting requirements, the PTMS server and application must be upgraded. It is therefore recommended the existing Parking Tag Management System server, software and peripherals be upgraded to accommodate the additional users required and for the recording and collection of the $9.00 in increased court costs, and that the initial and ongoing costs be included in the calculations related to cost recovery, but in the interim, that maximum funds in the amount of $350,000.00 be allocated from corporate contingency to allow the appropriate software changes to be made.

Contact Name:

Bryan Kerr, Manager, Parking Tag Operations

Telephone:392-5880; Fax:397-9577

E-mail:bryan_a._kerr@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

--------

Appendix 'A'

Administration Fee and Court Costs Recent History

DateFee TypeAmountRecipientComments

Dec 92Administration Fee$20.00Attorney GeneralIncreased from $10

July 93Court Costs$ 2.00Metro TorontoMailing Notice of Impending Conviction

Jan 95Court Costs$ 2.00Metro TorontoMailing Notice of Fine and Due Date

July 98Court Costs$ 9.00City Collects$8.75 remitted to MTO for access fees

--------

Appendix 'B'

Allocation of Fines, Costs and Fees Received

AmountRecipient

$15.00set fine amountCity of Toronto

$ 3.00court costsMinistry of the Attorney General

$ 4.00court costsCity of Toronto

$ 8.75 court costsMinistry of Transportation

$ 0.25administration feeCity of Toronto

$20.00administration feeMinistry of the Attorney General

______

$51.00total

City of Toronto share = $19.25

Ministry of the Attorney General share = $23.00

Ministry of Transportation share = $8.75

--------

Appendix 'C'

Increase in Operating Costs Due to Implementation of Additional $9 Court Costs

* Salaries include benefits

**Tax included

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 26, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, concurred with the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the transmittal letter (June 22, 1998) from the City Clerk wherein it recommended the adoption of the following Recommendations Nos. (8) and (9):

(8)the revenue from the administration fees be used to offset the additional ongoing operating expenditures incurred by the Parking Tag Operations Unit; and

(9)the existing Parking Tag Management System server, software and peripherals be upgraded at an estimated maximum cost of $350,000.00 with funding from Corporate Contingency to accommodate the additional users required and for the recording and collection of the $9.00 in increased court costs, and that the initial and ongoing costs be included in the calculations related to cost recovery.

The Budget Committee reports having requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on July 8, 1998 on the ability to bill the Province for police court services costs and offset the $9.00 court fee with the municipal costs for court services.

Background:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter (June 22, 1998) from the City Clerk regarding increased court costs for parking tag convictions.)

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

Purpose:

This report is in response to the Budget Committee's request that the City Solicitor report on the ability to bill the Province for police service costs and offset the $9.00 court fee with the municipal costs for court services.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications of this report's recommendation.

Recommendation:

This report is for the information of Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, in considering a transmittal letter (June 22, 1998) from the City Clerk regarding increased court costs for parking tag convictions, requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on July 8, 1998 on the ability to bill the Province for police services costs, and offset the $9.00 court fee with the municipal costs for court services.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The statutory authority for a municipality or local board to impose fees or charges for services or activities is section 220.1 of the Municipal Act. While the section provides that the Crown is generally subject to fees or charges established by a municipality, subsection (13) of the section provides that the Minister may make regulations restricting or limiting the authority of a municipal council or local board to impose fees or charges under this section.

Ontario Regulation 26/96 was the first regulation made under subsection (13) of section 220.1. It provides that a municipality or local board does not have the power under section 220.1 to impose fees or charges on the Crown for ensuring court security under section 137 of the Police Services Act or otherwise. Section 137 of the Police Services Act is the section which requires the Police Services Board to provide court security.

Conclusion:

Neither the City nor the Police Services Board may bill the Province for police court service costs.

Contact Name:

George McQ. Bartlett, Director of Prosecutions

Telephone: 392-6756, Fax: 392-0005.)

34

Natural Gas Supply to the City of Toronto

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 29, 1998.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To enter into a new natural gas supply arrangement for the City of Toronto facilities.

Financial Implications:

Cost of natural gas is included in existing operating budgets of the City's various operating departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions. It is expected that this purchasing arrangement will provide the least cost arrangement to the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be given to appropriate City staff to negotiate and enter into a three year agreement for the period November 1, 1998 to October 31, 2001, with yearly renewal clauses, with Coral Energy Canada Inc. to arrange a natural gas supply for the City of Toronto facilities including Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(2)authority be given to appropriate City staff to enter into an Agency Billing Collection and Transportation agreement with Consumers Gas related to the direct purchase of natural gas;

(3)the Energy Management office in the Corporate Service Department administer the agreements through the Finance Department;

(4)all administrative costs, including outside consulting costs, be included as part of the costs to be passed on to all the City's natural gas end users;

(5)in the event that a gas supply arrangement is not successfully negotiated, the City would elect to return to a system gas supply through Consumers Gas; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take any action necessary to give effect thereto, including the execution of any required agreements with the Supplier and Consumers Gas, in respect of the direct purchase arrangements, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor.

Background:

The former City of Toronto, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the former City of Scarborough, the former City of York and the former City of Etobicoke have, since 1987/88, been purchasing natural gas through a direct purchase program. Direct purchase programs have been available to natural gas end users since the natural gas industry began to deregulate in 1985. Cumulative savings of approximately $14 million have been realized by the City of Toronto participants through the direct purchase program.

By adoption on July 5, 1995, of Clause No. 36 of Report No. 20 of The Corporate Administration Committee of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and by adoption on June 26 and 27, 1995, of Clause No.15 of Report No.17 of the Executive Committee of the former City of Toronto and by adoption on August 21, 1995, of Item 20-2 of the Administration Committee of the former City of Scarborough, authority was given to enter into a three year natural gas supply contract with Suncor Energy Inc. This contract expires on October 31, 1998. The former City of Etobicoke and the former City of York have contracted with ECNG Inc. to arrange their gas supplies and these contracts also expire on October 31, 1998.

Discussion:

Since the current natural gas supply contracts are expiring and since the direct purchase of natural gas has provided savings in comparison to the Consumers Gas's cost of gas, it would be to the City's benefit if the direct purchase arrangements can be renewed.

Current direct purchase arrangements are based on a "buy-sell" arrangement whereby the City purchases natural gas from the supplier at an agreed upon price. Consumers Gas then purchases this gas from the City at the Ontario Energy Board regulated Western buy-sell reference price (WBSRP). Consumers Gas takes title to the gas at an agreed upon junction point on the TransCanada Pipeline in Western Canada. The City continues to purchase gas from the distributor at each location under current rates and continues to receive the same level of service. The savings to the City are realised from the difference between the price at which it bought gas from the supplier and the higher price at which the City sold the gas to the distributor, Consumers Gas. This buy-sell arrangement provides the City with a guaranteed savings since the City purchases gas at a price below the WBSRP.

A request for proposals for the supply of natural gas to the City of Toronto, Cityhome and the Town of Markham was issued on April 21, 1998 by the Purchasing and Materials Management Division. Proposals were received from the following firms by the May 7, 1998 closing date: Comsatec Inc., Consumersfirst Ltd., Coral Energy Canada Inc., Direct Energy Marketing Ltd., ECNG Inc., El Paso Energy Marketing Canada, Engage Energy Canada, L.P., Enron Capital & Trade Resources Canada Corp., Suncor Energy Inc., and TransCanada Gas Services.

All proposals were reviewed by the City's Manager of Energy Management, the Purchasing and Materials Management Division and the City's natural gas consultant A.E. Sharp Limited.

Following a detailed analysis of the proposals and the natural gas market, it was concluded that the proposal submitted by Coral Energy Canada Inc., offered the City the greatest opportunity to minimize natural gas costs. Coral Energy Canada Inc. is offering the City an indexed price with the flexibility to choose, on a monthly basis, any combination of fixed, floating or indexed pricing. An analysis of the proposals, prepared by the natural gas consultant, A.E. Sharp Limited, is on file with the City Clerk.

The natural gas business and natural gas pricing has seen many changes in the last few years and especially in the past year. The buy-sell pricing arrangement, whereby the City could realize guaranteed savings, is no longer being offered by natural gas suppliers. It should be noted that over 80 percent of Consumers Gas' Commercial/Industrial customers purchase their natural gas through some type of direct purchase program. It is also expected that Consumers Gas will be exiting the merchant gas business, (the actual buying and selling of natural gas) within the next few years.

The direct purchase arrangement recommended for the City is the Consumers Gas' Agency Billing Collection and Transportation service (ABC-T). Under this arrangement gas is supplied to the City by the supplier at an agreed upon Alberta based price (the unit price). Consumers Gas transports the City's gas through the TransCanada Pipeline to Toronto. The unit price would appear on the Consumers Gas invoices, for each gas-using City facility, which are to be paid in the usual manner. Consumers Gas will forward funds to the City, on a monthly basis, equal to the amount of gas shipped by the supplier to the City at the agreed upon unit price and this money in turn will be used to pay the natural gas supplier. All transactions are reconciled at the end of each contract year. This payment arrangement is very similar to our current payment arrangement under the buy-sell agreement.

Experience and history has shown that a direct purchase based supply price, has almost always been lower than the Consumers Gas based supply price. A direct purchase program will also allow the City to better manage its natural gas costs. Consumers Gas, historically, has had to change its rates through the year to account for changing gas costs. At times this has meant retroactive charges going back a number of months. A rate increase effective May 1, 1998 increased the gas supply charge by almost 20 percent for an overall rate increase of over 10 percent. The recommended direct purchase arrangement will avoid these retroactive charges and rate increases related to the gas supply charge. Based on forecasted pricing by A.E. Sharp Limited, and the forecasted Consumers Gas pricing for natural gas for the period November 1, 1998 through October 31, 1999, savings to the City could amount to over $500,000.00 (after expenses noted in the following paragraph are deducted). However, due to ongoing fluctuations in the natural gas market, the price from our recommended supplier is not guaranteed to be lower than the Consumers Gas' gas supply charge.

The Energy Management office in the Corporate Services Department has been arranging and administering the direct purchase program for the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and would administer this direct purchase program, in consultation with its natural gas consultant, on behalf of the City's natural gas using departments, agencies, boards and commissions. The cost to administer this program would include some staff time, Consumers Gas' ABC-T fees which would amount to approximately $5,000.00 annually and some outside consulting services which would amount to approximately $20,000.00 annually. These costs would be recovered proportionally from each of the City's gas using locations through the unit price put on the Consumers Gas bill.

The total value of the contract, for a one year period, based on current market pricing and volumes, is estimated to be $7.2 million.

It should be noted the City's total cost of natural gas, invoiced each month by Consumers Gas is comprised of two main components, commodity and distribution, which amounts to approximately $14.4 million. The distribution charge is regulated by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB). This report relates to the commodity portion only. Natural gas is used at some 700 city facilities.

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

Conclusions:

Through deregulation of the natural gas industry, end users, such as the City of Toronto, must adapt their purchasing strategies to obtain the best available, market sensitive pricing for this commodity. Using the purchasing arrangement outlined in this report will allow the City to obtain the best available price for its natural gas requirements.

Contact Name:

Jim Kamstra, Manager, Energy Management, Corporate Services Dept., Tel: 392-8954,

Fax: 392-4828

35

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Fee Increases

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources:

Purpose:

This report addresses a new Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (formerly Workers' Compensation Board) funding policy, which imposes significant financial obligations on the City of Toronto, and suggests a response to the policy change.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The change in workers' compensation policy to require Schedule 2 employers, such as the City of Toronto, to financially support the operation of the safe workplace associations will cost the city an estimated $441,000.00 per year. This cost is part of a substantial increase in Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) administration fees, from 14.5 percent to 19.5 percent. The total increase in administration fees payable by the city for 1998 will be $1,046,000.00, based on current workers' compensation experience.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council advise the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of the City of Toronto's opposition to the change in funding policy to require Schedule 2 employers to financially support the safe workplace associations;

(2)Council support the efforts of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) to have this policy rescinded; and

(3)Council advise the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of the City of Toronto's objection to the imposition of a significant administration fee increase, and the lack of advance notice of this increase.

Council Reference/Background/History:

This matter has not previously been before Council. Councillor King, through her involvement with AMO, has requested information on the impact of these changes on the City of Toronto.

Discussion:

In February, 1998, the City was advised that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's administration fee had increased from the 1997 rate of 14.51 percent to 19.49 percent for 1998workers' compensation costs. Based on current workers' compensation cost experience, this 34percent increase will cost the City of Toronto an additional unbudgeted $1,046,000.00 in 1998 and brings the total administration fees paid annually to the WSIB up to $4,100,000.00. The WSIB attributes the increase to the following changes:

(a)real increases in WSIB administrative costs;

(b)legislative changes which transfer costs from the Ministry of Labour to the WSIB, which is in turn transferring these costs to employers; and

(c)a fundamental change in Schedule 2 funding policy, such that the WSIB is now requiring Schedule 2 employers to help fund the Safe Workplace Associations, or SWA.

This latter change is particularly problematic as it will result in a new administrative cost of $441,000.00 per year to support safety associations. This change in policy applies the collective liability principles of Schedule 1 to the traditionally self-insured Schedule 2, without allowing Schedule 2 employers, such as the city, to reap any of the benefits of collective liability. Because there is insufficient justification for this change in policy, and given the magnitude of the cost involved, it is recommended that the city challenge this change in WSIB policy.

As a self-insured employer, the city has recognized the importance of reducing and controlling injury costs and has invested in internal occupational health, safety, claims management and rehabilitation programs, which have been successful in both preventing injuries and minimizing their impact. Internal resources and expertise are substantially greater than that available through the safe workplace association assigned to the city. It is unlikely that the Safe Workplace Association will be able to respond to the increase in demand for its services from Schedule 2 employers in general. It is not expected to be able to meet the needs of the city in a timely, focused manner. While it is recognized that the Safe Workplace Associations provide a useful service for small employers, because it is not needed by the City of Toronto we are in result subsidizing other employers.

Another concern is that the WSIB provided no warning of the significant increase in 1998administration fees, resulting in no opportunity to budget for the increase. This contrasts sharply with the treatment accorded Schedule 1 employers, (primarily businesses, rather than government), whose assessment rates are buffered against any rapid increases.

Various representatives of the Schedule 2 employer community have already formed a coalition to lobby against these WSIB changes. Groups involved include the Schedule 2 Employers Group, the Municipal WSIB Users Group, the Ontario Municipal Human Resource Association, the Ontario Municipal Health and Safety Representatives Association and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. City staff are actively involved in these efforts. In support of the coalition's initiatives, individual Schedule 2 employers are being asked to express their views to the WSIB. It is therefore recommended that the City of Toronto advise the WSIB that the city actively opposes the administration fee increase, particularly that portion of it which will be used to fund the Safe Workplace Associations, and that the city support AMO's efforts to have the safe workplace association funding policy rescinded.

Conclusion:

The WSIB has acted unilaterally in imposing significant new fee increases on Schedule 2 employers. The City of Toronto should state its opposition to these fee increases to senior WSIB officials, and should support the efforts of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to have the safe workplace association funding policy revoked.

Contact Name:

Alison Anderson

Director, Employment Services, Human Resources

392-5028

36

Pro-Active Inspections, High Rise Apartment Buildings

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report (June 15, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, and in accordance with the direction of Council from its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, submits such report to Council for its information:

Purpose:

To report as requested on the inspection team for high rise buildings.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There has been no budget impact as the programme has not changed.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the Council meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, I was asked to report to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on July 8, 1998, through the Corporate Services Committee, on the inspection team for high rise buildings that was not reconstituted and whether or not it should be reconstituted through the budget process.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The pro-active inspection program for apartment buildings which exists in three of the districts was identified as a potential budget adjustment in the budget process. However, I did not recommend that adjustment, and there has been no change to the programs.

Conclusions:

There has been no change to the inspection programs for apartment buildings. The budget adjustment was not recommended.

Contact Name:

Harold Bratten

Director, Municipal Standards

Metro Hall (392-8768)

Reviewed by: Virginia West, Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services

37

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause, for information, subject to striking out and referring Item (f), entitled "City of Toronto Year 2000 Project - Action Plan", embodied in the foregoing Clause, back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration.)

(a)Acquisition and Disposal of Real Property.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following joint report and communications to its meeting scheduled to be held on July20, 1998, noting the following technical amendment by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to Item 3 (a) and (b) contained in Appendix "D" embodied in the following joint report: "deleting the figure of $250,000.00 and inserting in lieu thereof the figure of $500,000.00", making the funding level for delegation of authority to the Chief Administrative Officer for acquisitions, consistent with that set out in Appendix"A" contained in the aforementioned report:

(i)(May11,1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor recommending that:

(1)the processes for the acquisition and disposal of real property, as set out in this report, be endorsed and supersede and replace any authorities, policies and procedures of the seven former municipalities that relate to these matters;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on policies for approval by City Council on the allocation of property assets to meet objectives of the City, such as promotion of affordable housing and cultural initiatives;

(3)authorization be granted for the delegation of real estate/property matters in accordance with the particulars set out in Appendix A-1 of this report;

(4)the procedures governing the sale of real property as set out in the draft Bill attached to this report as Appendix B-1 be adopted;

(5)the administrative procedures governing the sale of real property attached as Appendix B-2 to this report be received for information;

(6)for the marketing of:

(a)commercial and special purpose properties, authorization be granted for a prequalification process to establish a roster of real estate brokers, such roster to be used on a rotational basis; and

(b)residential real estate, the Commissioner of Corporate Services or her designate be authorized to select real estate brokers active in residential listings, in accordance with the criteria listed in this report;

and the Commissioner of Corporate Services or her designate be authorized to execute the relevant listing agreements with the real estate broker;

(7)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to negotiate a commission fee, at her sole discretion, for any professional services from Real Estate Brokers;

(8)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on:

(a)the appropriate roles and responsibilities of City Council and staff with respect to real estate matters for the ABC's;

(b)how applications for encroachment can be most effectively dealt with; and

(c)the effectiveness of the processes recommended in this report in one year's time;

(9)upon enactment, the disposal by-law proposed in this report shall supersede and replace the by-laws of the seven previous municipalities governing the sale of real property;

(10)authority be granted for the introduction of any Bills necessary to effect the foregoing; and

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

(ii)(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council at its meeting on April16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 19 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Delegation of Authority to Approve Various Real Estate Matters"; and that Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration, and further directed that the Council Strategy Committee for Persons Without Homes be offered the opportunity to provide input on the sale of the properties when such matters are considered by the Committee.

(iii)(May 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, on May 11, 1998, considered the recommendations, as contained in Clause No. 19 of Report No. 3 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Delegation of Authority to Approve Various Real Estate Matters"; and that The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes recommended:

(1)that the Commissioner of Corporate Services, as part of her report to the Corporate Services Committee regarding disposition of surplus lands, give consideration to the following:

(a)a mechanism needs to be created which will ensure that lands are evaluated for their potential to meet housing needs prior to their final disposition by the City of Toronto; and

(b)monies generated from the sale of surplus lands be held in a special fund, and that Council prioritize the disbursement of the said funds by targeting initiatives which assist currently homeless people, prevent people from becoming homeless, assist children living in poverty and provide assistance for housing initiatives;

(2)that the Corporate Services Committee consider the noted recommendations in conjunction with the said report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and that the report and any subsequent recommendations also be considered by the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes; and

(3) that the Corporate Services Committee also be advised that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes has reviewed the recommendations, as embodied in Clause No. 19 of Report No. 3 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Delegation of Authority to Approve Various Real Estate Matters", and advises of its concerns with regard to the lack of clarity contained in the recommendations and the accompanying tables.

(iv)(June 8, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, during its consideration of Clause No. 28 of Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue Registered Plan M-108 (Ward 9 - North York Centre South)", amongst other things, directed that:

"(3)the following motion be referred to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee to be held on June 22, 1998, for consideration with the report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services on the processing of real estate transactions:

Moved by Councillor Flint:

'It is recommended that:

(1)real estate matters under $500,000.00, that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at that Councillor's request;

(2)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;

(3)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services Committee; and

(4)the Council Procedural By-law be amended accordingly.' "

(v)(June 22, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, recommending that:

(1)the property review panel identify sites in the City's surplus property portfolio suitable for affordable housing;

(2)City staff be directed to delay the sale of surplus properties identified by the review panel for a period of 30 days; and

(3)the property review panel and the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes report to the next Corporate Services Committee meeting on the following:

(a)the properties identified for potential affordable housing purposes and the rational used in the identification process; and

(b)a business plan for the utilization of these properties including:

-type of project being contemplated for each site;

-funding mechanisms to be used in development;

-potential end users;

-timelines for expeditious development; and

-opportunity costs to the City for the targeted use of each property.

--------

Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Expediting the Disposal of Property and Reduction of Leased Space.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report and communication to its meeting scheduled to be held on July 20, 1998:

(i)(May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, describing the various programs underway to expedite the disposal of land and reduction of leases; and recommending that:

(1)the programs described in this report be endorsed;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report to the Corporate Services Committee every six months on the implementation of the programs; and

(3)this report be referred to the Budget Committee for information.

(ii)(June 2, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, amongst other things, recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that the Community Councils be informed of the subject properties that are for sale in order that they may address any concerns.

(c)Sale of "Property Houses"

(Multiple Wards - Former City of Toronto).

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report and requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

(i)to report further thereon to the Corporate Services Committee no later than October 9, 1998;

(ii)in consultation with the local City Councillors, to explore a mutually beneficial arrangement for all of the subject properties;

(iii)to review the Current Value Assessments (CVAs) respecting these properties; and

(iv)to identify clear guidelines as to what the City's specific criteria are for subsidized housing; and

(2)directed that a copy of the aforementioned report be forwarded to the Homelessness Action Task Force, Chaired by Dr. Anne Golden , for comment thereon to the October 9, 1998 meeting of the Corporate Services Committee:

(i)(June 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, seeking City Council authority to declare the "property houses" in the former City of Toronto on attached Appendix I (save and except for those five properties currently leased to community based housing providers and also identified on attached Appendix I) as surplus to the City's requirements and authorize the sale of these properties on the open market; advising that the issue of allocation of funds will be addressed in a separate joint report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Community Services recommending policies on the use of property assets to meet social objectives; that the total of the current value assessment for the 55 property houses recommended to be declared surplus in this report is $10,955,845.00; that pending sale of the properties, a loss in rental revenue will be incurred in the amount of approximately $10,000.00 per month as at July 1, 1998; and recommending that:

(1)subject to the Board of Cityhome passing a resolution to do so, the existing leases between Cityhome and the Corporation of the City of Toronto, for the property houses be terminated in the manner described in this report;

(2)City Council, by By-Law, declare that, upon the leases having been terminated, the 55 houses owned by the City of Toronto, as set out on the attached Appendix I are surplus;

(3)notice to the public of the proposed disposition of the lands declared surplus be given;

(4)prior to offering the properties for sale on the open market, the first right to purchase be given to the previous owners and/or current tenants, on the terms set out in the body of this report;

(5)the Commissioner, Corporate Services, be authorized to market those properties which the previous owners and/or tenants do not wish to purchase through a real estate broker for a listing price to be determined in consultation with the listing broker;

(6)the funds from the sale of the houses subject to the 25 year lease be deposited into an account to be used to satisfy the mortgage at maturity;

(7)the City Surveyor, in consultation with the Director, Development and Support, Parks and Recreation, be directed to prepare a survey of the north portion of 144 Balsam Avenue and that this portion of the property be retained by the City, in fee simple or by way of an easement, and placed under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Division for parks purposes;

(8)City Council endorse the tenant relocation plan as outlined in this report;

(9)the five properties currently being leased to community based housing providers, as identified within this report on Appendix I, be retained by the City to allow the current use of these properties to continue and the Commissioners of Corporate Services and Community and Neighbourhood Services determine the appropriate leasing arrangement for these five properties and report back thereon to the Corporate Services Committee;

(10)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services advise social housing providers and the non-profit housing sector of the City's intention to dispose of the 55 properties set out in Appendix I and to report back if any of these groups are interested in acquiring any of these properties at market rates;

(11)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, review any particular needy or hardship situations and report, in consultation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services, on these situations;

(12)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services submit a joint report recommending policies governing the use of property assets to meet social objectives; and

(13)the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.

(ii)(May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, seeking City Council authority to declare the "property houses" in the former City of Toronto on attached Appendix I (save and except for those four properties currently leased to community based housing providers and also identified on attached Appendix I) as surplus to the City's requirements, and authorize the sale of these properties on the open market; advising that the total of the current value assessment for the 56 property houses recommended to be declared surplus in this report is $11,134,845.00; and submitting recommendations in regard thereto.

(iii)(May 25, 1998) from the Corporate Secretary, Board of Directors of the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Cityhome) and the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL), advising that the Board of Directors of the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Cityhome) and the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) on May 25, 1998, during its consideration of a report (May 11, 1998) addressed to the Corporate Services Committee from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, headed "Sale of Property Houses", recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that it:

(1)defer consideration of the report (May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(2)request the General Manager, Cityhome and the General Manager, MTHCL, to submit a joint report to the Corporate Services Committee, on alternative methods to retain these property houses for Social Housing purposes; and

that the Board of Directors also requested the General Managers to submit the aforementioned report to the Boards' Asset Management Committee for comment, prior to its submission to the Corporate Services Committee, if the Corporate Services Committee approves the foregoing Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2).

(iv)(June 18, 1998) from Ms. Peggy Birnberg, Executive Director, Houselink Community Homes, advising that as a housing provider in the City of Toronto, they are greatly disappointed to learn that the Corporate Services Committee will be considering a proposal to sell selected City-owned residential properties; and stating that it is not in the interest of the citizens of Toronto to have a municipal government that treats a precious few units of housing as a revenue generating commodity and that it is in everyones interest that the municipal government demonstrates a willingness to fight against the trend of simple, short-term, money saving solutions, and to work with groups and organizations struggling to make this city more humane.

--------

Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity - Niagara, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d)Number of New City of Toronto Management Hires.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)received the following report; and

(2)requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit a report to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee scheduled to be held on November9, 1998, providing an employment profile of all new hires, layoffs (both permanent and temporary workers) with a comparison between December, 1997 and September, 1998:

(June 22, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, providing information on the number of management employees hired to date; advising that this report will be generated for a period of six months; that there were 58 management staff hired into the New City of Toronto as of May 1998; that these jobs were staffed within the targeted time frames; that in addition to the Chief Administrative Officer, the six commissioners are in place, which completes Phase I of restructuring; that Phase II is well underway; that a number of the executive director/general manager and director positions have been filled and several are currently in the process of being filled; that some departments have started filling manager positions as well; that the staffing of these key leadership positions facilitates the movement towards stabilizing our new organization and strategic restructuring; that the next report will include management hires into the City for the month of June 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(e)Days of Religious Observance to be

Considered in Setting Schedules for Meetings.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(May 20, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, providing information regarding various religious observances to be considered when preparing the Schedule of Meetings for Council, the Community Councils, the Standing Committees and other Committees; and recommending that the attached schedule of 1998 and 1999 religious holidays, as well as observances by the aboriginal and first nations, be received.

(f)City of Toronto Year 2000 Project - Action Plan.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, and Council, the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) to (12); and having endorsed Recommendation No. (13):

(i)(June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that in order to continue and intensify the City's efforts to become Year 2000 ready:

(1)the general strategy outlined in this report be approved;

(2)the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to declare the Year 2000 issue a top priority of the City after delivery of existing services, including the suspension of activities deemed non-critical, in order to free up resources for deployment on Year 2000 initiatives, if and when necessary;

(3)the creation of the Year 2000 Office be approved to co-ordinate the inventory, assessment, remedy, testing and compliance of critical business, operational and IT systems, agreements and partnerships for the City of Toronto Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(4)the Year 2000 Office be directed to implement the necessary financial controls for managing this project;

(5)the Year 2000 office be authorised to establish a communications strategy aimed at raising the level of awareness of the Year 2000 issue and what the City can do to address it;

(6)the goal of City-wide compliance with the International Standards Organization standard ISO 8601 for the formatting of dates and times in all electronic and printed material by the end of the year 2003 be approved;

(7)the City Solicitor, with the assistance of the City Treasurer, bring forward a report in camera on the possible liabilities of the City, Council and the executive management resulting from the Year 2000 issue and the insurance protection available to cover these liabilities;

(8)the City Treasurer establish a policy that the purchase and acquisition of all goods and services by the City of Toronto and its Agencies, Boards and Commissions be contingent on the supplier demonstrating that both the supplier and its products are Year 2000 compliant;

(9)the City Treasurer bring forward to the Budget Committee a report on financial options for funding the Year 2000 program including initial funding for the establishment and ongoing operation of the Year 2000 office over the next two years in the amount of $5 million dollars, and for establishing an initial reserve of $80 million dollars to be administered jointly by Finance and the Year 2000 Office to begin addressing the critical Year 2000 issues as identified jointly by the business areas and the Year 2000 Office recognizing that significant additional funds will be required once detailed plans are created at the departmental level;

(10)the Chief Administrative Officer be granted one-time extraordinary authority to act on behalf of Council to acquire the necessary goods and services to remedy the Year 2000 problem given the critical timeframe with reporting back to the Corporate Services Committee at the earliest possible opportunity;

(11)the accountability for Year 2000 compliance rest with the Chief Administrative Officer, Commissioners, and heads of Agencies, Boards and Commissions for their respective program mandate;

(12)the Year 2000 office be directed to work with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services Department to develop and test an emergency preparedness plan specifically for Year 2000 failures; and

(13)the Corporate Services Committee forward this report to the Budget Committee for review and approval of the financial requirements to address the Year 2000 issue.

(ii)(May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Audit Committee on May 21, 1998, directed:

(1)that the report prepared by the City Auditor dated March 4, 1998, related to the Year 2000 be forwarded to the Corporate Services Committee and that the concerns expressed in the report by the City Auditor be conveyed to the Committee;

(2)that the Corporate Services Committee be advised that there are end of year 1998 time critical issues with respect to Year 2000 and the Audit Committee is concerned that the Corporation is not moving quickly enough to address these issues; and

(3)that the Budget Committee be advised that funds may be required to address Year 2000 issues in a timely fashion.

(g)King-Parliament Community Improvement Plan

(Ward 25 - Don River) - Report and Resolutions

from the 1st Old Town Assembly.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to monitor this issue and submit a report thereon to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee, on any new developments in regard thereto; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee updating the Committee on any progress with respect to the historical importance of this site:

(i)(June 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, reporting, as requested by the Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, on the real estate aspect of the King-Parliament Improvement Plan, including the status of the negotiations with the owners of 265 to 271 Front Street East and 25 Berkeley Street; advising that staff of the Facilities and Real Estate Division met with the owners of 265 to 271Front Street East and 25 Berkeley Street in late 1997 and early 1998 to discuss the feasibility of the City acquiring these properties; that the owners of 25 Berkeley Street and271Front Street East, has advised they are not in a position to divest these sites; that the owner of 265 Front Street East, has advised that they are open for negotiation and felt the cost of the acquisition is approximately $10,231,000.00; that in view of the responses received, it was agreed that staff would not proceed further with this project at this time and each of the owners of the properties were advised accordingly; that until such time as a decision has been made by City Council to proceed with the project, including the provision of funds to acquire 265 to 271 Front Street East and 25 Berkeley Street, that no further action be taken by staff of the Facilities and Real Estate Division; and recommending that this report be received for information purposes.

(ii)(May 25, 1998) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, attaching a report for a municipal project that has no budget or Council approval; advising that he is concerned that staff could be pursuing an expropriation that has no authority and that is not financially achievable; and requesting the Corporate Services Committee to give consideration to this matter and clarify the City's position.

--------

Mr. Ron Bressler appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(h)1998 Parking Tag Issuance - May

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(June 4, 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 May 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.

(i)Ultra Vires Motion.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following communication:

(May 15, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration:

Moved by:Councillor Bossons

Seconded by:Councillor Chong

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Solicitor be requested to draft a by-law which would ensure that no natural, Federal or Provincial law shall apply except by permission of Toronto City Council."

(j)Consulting Contracts for the Design f he City's

Corporate Information and Communications Functions.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Corporate Services for report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee:

(June 10, 1998) from Councillor Norm Kelly - Scarborough - Wexford, advising that he would like to make a motion at the Corporate Services Committee on June22, 1998, asking for a list of consulting contracts to date for the design of the City's corporate information and communications functions including:

(1)the dollar amount of the contract;

(2)the company to which the contract was given; and

(3)the service that specific company provided.

(k)1801 Eglinton Avenue West.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Corporate Services for report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee:

(June 12, 1998) from Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton, forwarding a communication (May 14, 1998) from Mr. Sedwick Hill, requesting assistance in regaining title to the property located at 1801 Eglinton Avenue West.

(l)Business Travel Budget for Members of Council.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, and Council, the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2); and concurred with Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the following report:

(June 18, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, reporting as directed by City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, respecting Business Travel by Members of Council; advising that based on responses received from Members of Council regarding their intent to attend the annual meetings of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities ( FCM), the International Union of Local Authorities ( IULA), World Association of Major Metropolis (WAMM), Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) and the International Council for Local Environmental Issues (ICLEI) this year, remaining funds in the Council Business Travel Budget are sufficient to cover the cost of such expenditures for 1998; that no additional funds are required from the Corporate Contingency Account at this time; and recommending that:

(1)for Members of Council who are not elected or appointed to the executive, board, section executive, task force or committee, the cap to attend the annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), World Association of Major Metropolis (WAMM), Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA), International Council for Local Environmental Issues (ICLEI) be limited to a total of $5,000.00 per Member on an annual basis, in recognition that international destinations may require the incurring of additional costs, subject to sufficient funds being available from the Council Business Travel Budget;

(2)the Clerk be requested to survey Members of Council in the Fall of each year to ascertain their travel requirements for the following year, in order that the business travel estimates can be included in the operating budget submission of Council for consideration as part of the annual budget review process; and

(3)the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee and this report be submitted to the Budget Committee for consideration.

(m)Bus Garage Replacement Project - Property Acquisition.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, and Council, the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (4), and endorsed Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the following confidential report (June22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, respecting the Bus Garage Replacement Project:

(i)(June 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

(ii)confidential communication (June 17, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, respecting the Bus Garage Replacement Project.

(n)Union Station Negotiations.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the verbal presentation from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to its meeting scheduled to be held on July 20, 1998.

Respectfully submitted,

DICK O'BRIEN,

Chair

Toronto, June 22, 1998

(Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.)