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

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 8

1The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure

2Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended Actions in Response to Committee and City Council Motions and Additional Phase One Budget Requirements

3Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION TEAM

(from its meeting on June 26, 1998,

submitted by Councillor David Miller, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

1

The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils

in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure

(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 Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the report (June 13, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to:

(1)amending Recommendation No. (3) (c) (ii) to read as follows:

"(3)(c)(ii)the matter shall be considered to be of local interest and shall be processed through the Community Council unless identified by Council as having a City-wide interest;";

(2)amending Recommendation No. (4) to include a requirement that local residents be notified of any application for permission under ravine, fence and tree by-laws and be informed that local Councillors can have the matter called for a hearing before Community Council on request;

(3)amending Recommendation No. (5) by adding thereto the following:

"(5) (a)that in accordance with the process for determining protocols for planning and transportation:

(i)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report on a protocol for the processing of matters relating to Parks and Recreation to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for information and comments to the Special Committee; and

(ii)the Special Committee forward the aforementioned report and its comments to the Community Councils for information and comments directly to the next meeting of Council;

(b)in developing the protocol for the processing of matters relating to Parks and Recreation, the following principles be followed:

(i)the guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation yet allow for flexibility in application;

(ii)the matter shall be considered to be of local interest and shall be processed through the Community Council unless identified by Council as having a City-wide interest";

(iii)decisions regarding how issues should be routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible; and

(iv)Community Councils should continue to have input into matters of City-wide interest;";

(4)amending Recommendation No. (6) to read as follows:

"(6)(a)Council pursue legislative amendments to enable Community Councils to make final decisions on local matters;

(b)until the Province has passed such legislation, Council enact an enabling by-law delegating power to Community Councils, on local matters, either directly, or by delegating to staff authority to make decisions on the approval of the relevant Community Council;

(c)that the City Solicitor be requested to report to the Special Committee on the best method of achieving that delegation of authority;

(d)that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Special Committee on methods of assigning limited budgetary authority to Community Councils, including the authority to redirect funds within its envelope and the ability to administer a modest 'Community Priorities Fund'; and

(e)that the Community Councils continue to have a significant role in the creation of the City Budget;";

(5)striking out Recommendation No. (8) viz:

"(8)to reflect their geographic focus and status within the overall Council-Committee structure, the Community Councils be renamed so that they will now be known as the East York Committee, Etobicoke Committee, North York Committee, Scarborough Committee, Toronto Committee and York Committee;"; and

(6)amending Recommendation No. (10) to specifically direct the Chief Administrative Officer to include in his forthcoming report recommendations relating to the provision of resources to Citizen Assemblies, Residents' Associations and Tenants' Associations, including support currently provided through the Healthy City Office.

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

(1)referred the following motion to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998, particularly on the impact of such a policy on Social Services:

Moved by Councillor Anne Johnston on behalf of Councillor PamMcConnell:

"That the Special Committee recommend to Council that the principles embodied in Recommendations Nos. (1) (a) and 3 (c) (ii), as amended, apply to all areas of City decision-making;

(2)requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 8, 1998, commenting on some of the points raised by the deputants; and

(3)referred the communication (May 21, 1998) from the City Clerk to the City Clerk and the City Solicitor for report thereon to the meeting of the Special Committee scheduled to be held on July 17, 1998.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (June 13, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

(1)describe the outcome of the public consultations on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils;

(2)recommend specific actions to clarify the roles of Community Councils within the current Council-Committee structure and enhance the way in which Community Councils carry out their responsibilities;

(3)emphasise the importance of considering Community Councils within the context of the overall review of political governance structures in the City;

(4)advise Council not to consider changes to the relative authority and responsibilities of Council and the Community Councils in the short term that could preclude consideration of innovative, made-in-Toronto, citizen-centred options for the overall organisation of governance structures in the City;

(5)emphasise the importance of citizen involvement as a fundamental organizing principle for the City's political governance structures; and

(6)describe the parameters for a review of the City's political governance structures.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The actions recommended in this report can be accommodated within current budget allocations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Clarification of Community Councils' Roles within the Current Council-Committee Structure:

Transportation:

(1)to simplify the political decision-making process and enable Community Councils to deal with matters related to the former Metropolitan roads in addition to community roads:

(a)Council endorse the principle that, once Council adopts a consolidated road classification system and traffic operations policies, responsibility be delegated to Community Councils to deal with matters related to all roads within their area of jurisdiction, except for policies and matters delegated to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC);

(b)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services give priority to the preparation of a road classification system and associated traffic operations policies, for review by the UEDC and adoption by Council; and

(c)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to the UEDC on how the Transportation Services Division will phase in the delegation of these responsibilities;

(2)the UEDC continue to be responsible for policies and matters related to the road system which are of City-wide significance, such as the road classification system, traffic operations policies, road maintenance policies, right-of-way use and occupation policies, budgets prepared with input from the Community Councils, and all matters related to expressways;

Planning and Development:

(3)in response to Council's request of June 3 and 4, 1998, that the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Special Committee on a protocol for the processing of planning matters, and to ensure that there is input from both the UEDC and the Community Councils:

(a)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the protocol for the processing of planning matters to the July 13, 1998, meeting of the UEDC for information and comments directly to the Special Committee meeting scheduled to be held on July 17, 1998;

(b)the Special Committee forward the report and its comments to the July 22, 1998 meetings of the Community Councils for information and comments directly to the July 29, 1998 meeting of Council; and

(c)in developing the protocol, the following principles be considered:

(i)the guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation, yet allow for flexibility in application;

(ii)if a City-wide interest cannot be established, then the matter should be considered a local interest by default and be processed through a Community Council;

(iii)decisions regarding how planning matters are routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible;

(iv)Community Councils should continue to have input in planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest; and

(v)only one Committee of Council should make recommendations to Council on any given planning matter;

Delegation:

(4)to streamline Community Council and City Council agendas:

(a)Council delegate final decision-making authority to:

(i)the Chief Planning Official with respect to applications for permission under site plan control and ravine by-laws;

(ii)the Director, Municipal Standards with respect to applications for permission under fence by-laws; and

(iii)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with respect to applications for permission under tree by-laws,

with the provision that ward Councillors will be notified about the applications and, if the applicant or a Member of Council is not satisfied with the proposed staff decision, staff will refer the matter to the appropriate Community Council to hear deputations and make a decision; and

(b)the City Solicitor, in consultation with the City Clerk and the Commissioners of affected departments, submit a report to the Special Committee on additional matters, currently within the purview of the Standing Committees and Community Councils, that can be delegated to staff under current legislation;

Parks and Recreation:

(5)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions on options for stakeholder and volunteer input to the Parks and Recreation Division;

Relationship of Community Councils to City Council:

(6)because City Council is the municipality's "legislature" and should have the exclusive authority to legislate via the enactment of by-laws, Council not approve proposals to:

(a)pursue legislative changes to empower committees of Council, including Community Councils, to pass by-laws; and

(b)provide Community Councils with discretionary funding authority independent of City Council;

(7)to explore Council's options to delegate to Community Councils certain prescribed categories of final decisions involving the application of some discretion, the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioners, submit a report to the Special Committee on the feasibility and legality of the delegation of the following responsibilities to another level within the legislative structure:

(a)licensing and extension of boulevard cafes;

(b)special occasion LLBO permits;

(c)street name changes;

(d)parking pad issues;

(e)temporary road closures for special events;

(f)installation of stop signs on local roads;

(g)installation of speed bumps;

(h)changes to parking prohibitions on local roads;

(i)preliminary evaluation reports for planning applications;

(j)regular contract awards to the lowest bidder where funding for the project has already been approved in the budget; and

(k)appointments to local BIAs and recreation centre boards;

(8)to reflect their geographic focus and status within the overall Council-Committee structure, the Community Councils be renamed so that they will now be known as the East York Committee, Etobicoke Committee, North York Committee, Scarborough Committee, Toronto Committee and York Committee;

Community Council Boundaries:

(9)to assess alternative approaches to ensuring that the City's government has an effective geographic focus, the Special Committee's examination of Council's political decision-making structure should include consideration of:

(a)the appropriateness of the current Community Council boundaries;

(b) the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

(c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the UEDC;

Citizen Involvement in Government:

(10)the Chief Administrative Officer's forthcoming report on citizen involvement in municipal governance explore more fully the experience of other jurisdictions in this regard and comment further on the potential of Citizens' Assemblies;

Council-Committee Structure and Procedures:

(11)to develop a made-in-Toronto, citizen-centred, political governance structure to come into effect for the second eighteen months of the Council term:

(a)the Chief Administrative Officer report to the Special Committee by October 1998, on new political decision-making structures and procedures of Council and its Committees that will:

(i)ensure that Council's decision-making structures are sensitive to, accommodate and protect the diverse needs of all members of the community and unique character of all areas of the City;

(ii)recognise the value of a geographic focus in the consideration of Council business;

(iii)provide a visible, accessible and meaningful process for members of the community, Members of Council and City staff to participate in and respond to Council's deliberations and decision-making process;

(iv)ensure that the role, function, policies and decisions of Council and its Committees are clear and communicated effectively throughout the organisation and to the community;

(v)assert Council's policy direction and financial control over all parts of the organisation and its Agencies, Boards and Commissions; and

(vi)facilitate the efficient management of Council's workload; and

(b)a small workgroup of Members of the Special Committee, including the Chair, act as a reference group to staff in the review of the political decision-making structures and procedures of Council and its Committees;

(12)Council not establish any new committees or task forces until the Special Committee brings forward its recommendations on political governance structures for the City, unless there are exceptional circumstances that cannot be accommodated within the existing Committee structure;

General Recommendations:

(13)authority be granted for the introduction of any Bills necessary to effect the foregoing; and

(14)the appropriate City officials be authorised to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

Council adopted the Special Committee's workplan and Terms of Reference on February 4, 5 and6, 1998. The workplan listed the definition of the role of Community Councils and their relationship to the rest of the Council structure as a priority item for the Special Committee.

On February 23, 1998, Members of the Special Committee and the Chairs of the Community Councils attended a half-day workshop on the context of legislative parameters and governance principles and objectives affecting the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils. Following the workshop and public deputations at its meeting on February 26, 1998, the Special Committee submitted a public consultation plan and a discussion paper on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils to City Council. Council adopted the public consultation plan on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.

This report describes the outcome of the public consultations on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and their relationship to the rest of the Council political governance structure.

Staff of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services Departments contributed directly to the development of recommendations respecting their specific functions. Comments have been received from senior staff across the organisation on early drafts of this report.

Discussion:

The Consultation Process:

The discussion paper and a short questionnaire requesting comments were sent to everyone on the Special Committee's mailing list and made available to the public through the City's Civic Service Centres and public library branches. Electronic versions of the discussion paper and questionnaire were posted on the City's website on the Internet. Efforts were made to give staff an opportunity to comment on the discussion paper.

The Special Committee hosted three issue-specific discussion groups on April 6, 7 and 8, 1998, in which participants discussed:

(i)the role of Community Councils in recreation services;

(ii)the role of Community Councils in planning and development control; and

(iii)the definition of community and the concept of neighbourhood reporting.

The Special Committee also sent the discussion paper to the six Community Councils for their consideration and community input. The Community Councils held public meetings in April and May1998, and have forwarded their comments to the Special Committee.

Seventy-six people participated in the Special Committee's three discussion groups. Thirty-five people mailed, faxed or e-mailed written comments in response to the discussion paper. A further 66 people made deputations or submitted written comments to the Community Councils. All of this input was reviewed and taken into consideration in the preparation of this report.

What People Said:

Although everyone had a unique way of expressing their opinions, the following common themes characterise the public input:

(a)local government should have a visible, tangible local presence and the process of local government should be located throughout the city instead of confined to a downtown building- Council has a responsibility to reach out and engage the public through a variety of means, including decentralized service centres, community meetings, access to Council agendas in libraries and on the Internet, etc.;

(b)access and communication are central to local government - local government should be approachable and citizens should have a forum in which they can easily contact councillors; this forum should make citizens feel comfortable;

(c)dialogue between citizens and their local government must be meaningful - citizens do not want to speak to Councillors who are not interested in their particular concern; they also do not want to speak to Councillors who have no say in the resolution of their issues;

(d)local forums are needed so that issues that are important to the community but less important on a city-wide scale get the attention they deserve - local facilities and resources are an important source of local identity but may not mean much to Councillors from other parts of the City;

(e)local government needs to be understandable and visible to be accountable - citizens should know who is responsible for what and how local and city-wide issues are dealt with; it should be easy for the public to scrutinize Council spending and the process by which spending priorities are determined;

(f)access, accountability and authority are linked - citizens should be able to access those who are accountable for the issues that concern local communities, but accountability does not mean much unless authority to act on the issues goes with it;

(g)ensuring that local concerns are addressed is more important than trying to match the structure to defined community boundaries - the City is made up of many geographic communities much smaller than the current Community Council boundaries and of many non-geographic communities as well; we cannot segregate the city into air-tight geographical boxes; and

(h)we are a city made up of various communities, not a city made up of former municipalities.

Many of the comments received address the role of Community Councils because that is how the discussion paper was written and the questionnaire phrased. However, the comments also speak to the governance of the City in general, its relationship to the public and the public's involvement in it. People described their needs and expectations with respect to the overall governance of the City. They want the City government to be visible, accessible, meaningful and sensitive to them. They want it to engage them and they want to have the opportunity, as well as the right, to participate in it. In short, they want a citizen-centred City government structure.

As discussed later in this report, these comments will help to guide the next phase of the Special Committee's workplan, which will focus on a review of the overall political decision-making structure in the new City. While staff intend to submit recommendations on the Council-Committee structure to the Special Committee by October, implementation is likely to take several months following Council adoption of a new structure. Furthermore, in adopting Report No. 1 of the Striking Committee on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council appointed membership of the interim Standing Committees for a period of eighteen months, or the first half of this term of Council. It may reinforce the stability of Council if any major changes to the Council-Committee structure that result from the Special Committee's review of governance be implemented effective the second eighteen months of the Council term.

In the interim, there are a number of ways to improve the functioning of Community Councils immediately within the current Council-Committee structure

Clarification of the Roles of Community Councils within the Current Council-Committee Structure:

The following proposals draw on ideas generated at the discussion groups and have been developed in consultation with the affected Commissioners and the City Solicitor.

Role of Community Councils with Respect to Roads:

A variety of approvals from City Council are required to plan, design, construct and operate the road system. These include:

(a)traffic by-laws;

(b)parking control by-laws;

(c)traffic control signals;

(d)stop signs;

(e)pedestrian crossovers;

(f)permit parking;

(g)boulevard leasing/encroachments;

(h)vending;

(i)construction by-laws;

(j)environmental assessments (Class "C" and Individual);

(k)capital/operating budgets; and

(l)contract tender awards.

In order to determine how reports seeking these approvals are routed, that is, either through the UEDC or the Community Councils, it is important to clarify the types of roads within the road system and to understand their respective functions.

Elements of the City's road system can be classified into five basic types: expressways; major arterials; minor arterials; collector roads and local roads. These classes can be aggregated into two main components, "main roads" and "community roads."

Main roads are roads for which there is a City-wide interest and include the expressways and most of the former Metropolitan arterials, plus other arterials and major roads, such as those which carry streetcars, formerly under local municipal jurisdiction. The main road system provides for the connection between major land uses in the City, facilitates transit use and provides for adequate emergency access on a City and regional basis. The most important feature required to maintain the integrity and the proper operation of a main road network is that of continuity, whereby the nature of the road and especially its vehicular carrying capacity, do not change from community to community.

Community roads are all other roads that are not classified as main roads and include minor arterial, collector and local roads. Minor arterial and collector roads provide the necessary connection between individual communities and the main road system. Traffic generated within neighbourhoods generally follows collector roads within those neighbourhoods to the main road system from where it can be distributed on a regional basis. While it is important to have uniform guidelines for the operation of these community roads, there can be exceptions as these roads serve specific districts or communities and tend to serve a particular local need that does not usually affect the City as a whole.

Currently, the Community Councils deal with all community roads within their respective area of jurisdiction. The UEDC deals with the former Metropolitan roads and all policy matters. The UEDC can refer items to affected Community Councils for a response back to the UEDC as appropriate.

At present, the decision-making process related to the implementation and administration of road system policies can be cumbersome and confusing to the interested public. It would be simpler if either the Community Councils or the UEDC dealt with all roads. Within the framework of a set of clear, harmonised policies, developed by the UEDC and adopted by Council, Community Councils should be able to deal with both main roads and community roads. The policy framework will guide the Community Councils with respect to the range of possible actions that they may take.

It is recommended that to simplify the political decision-making process and enable Community Councils to deal with matters related to the former Metropolitan roads in addition to community roads:

(a)Council endorse the principle that, once Council adopts a consolidated road classification system and traffic operations policies, responsibility be delegated to Community Councils to deal with matters related to all roads within their area of jurisdiction, except for policies and matters delegated to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC);

(b)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services give priority to the preparation of a road classification system and associated traffic operations policies, for review by the UEDC and adoption by Council; and

(c)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to the UEDC on how the Transportation Services Division will phase in the delegation of these responsibilities.

In order to achieve consistency in the operation and maintenance of roads throughout the City of Toronto, it is important that the UEDC continue to be responsible for the development of harmonised and uniform policies and practices for all roads within the City. This will ensure that standards for construction, operation, maintenance, etc., are similar for roads of the same classification across the new City. These policies would be approved by City Council and would provide a uniform framework to which politicians and staff can refer in decision making and public consultation processes.

It is recommended that the UEDC continue to be responsible for policies and matters related to the road system which are of City-wide significance, such as the road classification system, traffic operations policies, road maintenance policies, right-of-way use and occupation policies, budgets prepared with input from the Community Councils, and all matters related to expressways.

Role of Community Councils with Respect to Planning and Development:

The land use planning matters facing the City range from strictly local issues to wholly City-wide issues. Somewhere in the middle of this range are planning issues of interest to both the local community and entire City. Each point along the range can be characterised in the following manner:

(a)Strictly City-wide Issues include:

(i)major policy/research initiatives providing context/framework for community planning implementation (e.g., developing a new Official Plan, establishing a comprehensive zoning by-law);

(ii)thematic issues affecting the entire City (e.g., use of industrial lands, household and housing stock issues such as condominium conversion, infrastructure master planning, issues arising from planning research and monitoring);

(iii)inter-governmental issues related to planning (e.g., legislative changes, GTSB, GTA Transportation Plan);

(iv)administrative matters (e.g., applications and fees, best practices, budgets/work program); and

(v)cross-community issues (e.g., matters straddling Community Council boundaries, DonRiver watershed, urban design awards);

(b)Issues With Both a City-wide and Local Context, include:

(i)key structural elements of the City impacting more than one community (e.g.,establishing a waterfront corridor, major infrastructure elements);

(ii)features/areas/issues of city-wide significance (e.g., Exhibition Place, Union Station, Rouge Park); and

(iii)pioneering/precedent setting issues and areas (e.g., contaminated sites protocol);

(c)Strictly Local Issues are:

(i)all other planning matters.

In general, strictly City-wide issues are routed through the UEDC, with Community Council input as appropriate, and strictly local issues, which constitute the majority of planning matters, are routed through the Community Councils. In most instances, it is clear how the matter should be routed through the Committee structure to Council. However, in some cases, specifically those involving both City-wide and local contexts, there is potential for confusion and uncertainty over which Committee has jurisdiction over a planning matter.

A good illustration of such uncertainty was provided during Council's consideration of Clause No.13 of Report No. 5 of the Scarborough Community Council (Morningside Heights Land Use Study) on June 3 and 4, 1998. In the course of the debate over a motion to strike out the Community Council's recommendations and refer the item to the UEDC, concern was raised over the lack of clear guidelines to determine that there was a City-wide interest in the matter. Consequently, Council requested the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services "to develop a protocol for the processing of planning matters and submit a joint report thereon to the Special Committee."

Council's request is consistent with the Transition Team's proposal that a set of guidelines should be developed to assist in understanding what planning issues may have City-wide implications and should therefore be dealt with by the UEDC. Guidelines would provide the Chief Planning Official with a consistent mechanism to screen planning issues prior to forwarding them to the appropriate Committee of Council.

Staff in the Urban Planning Division have indicated that they are in the process of finalising recommendations for guidelines and a protocol for their use. It is recommended that, in response to Council's request of June 3 and 4, 1998, that the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Special Committee on a protocol for the processing of planning matters, and to ensure that there is input from both the UEDC and the Community Councils:

(a)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the protocol for the processing of planning matters to the July 13, 1998 meeting of the UEDC for information and comments directly to the Special Committee meeting scheduled to be held on July 17, 1998; and

(b)the Special Committee forward the report and its comments to the July 22, 1998 meetings of the Community Councils for information and comments directly to the July 29, 1998 meeting of Council.

Guidelines for the development review process and for addressing policy/research planning matters should simplify the political decision-making process as it pertains to planning matters. To this end it is recommended that, in developing the protocol, the following principles be considered:

(i)the guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation, yet allow for flexibility in application;

(ii)if a City-wide interest cannot be established, then the matter should be considered a local interest by default and be processed through a Community Council;

(iii)decisions regarding how planning matters are routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible;

(iv)community Councils should continue to have input in planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest; and

(v)only one Committee of Council should make recommendations to Council on any given planning matter.

A more detailed description of these principles is contained in Appendix 1 at the end of this report. Establishing guidelines and a protocol for their use, based on the principles outlined above, should help to clarify the respective roles of the Community Councils and the UEDC in regard to planning and development issues.

As noted above, the majority of planning matters have been local interest issues and have been reported to Council by the Community Councils. At the City Council meetings on February 4, 5and6, March 4, 5 and 6, April 16 and May 13 and 14, 1998, the Community Councils reported on almost 1,100 items that they had considered. Council's action differed from that recommended by the Community Councils in just 36 cases, or approximately three times out of every hundred. The process appears to be working satisfactorily.

Delegation of Final Decision-Making Authority:

What does appear to be problematic, however, is the volume of business before the Community Councils. Some agendas can run to hundreds of pages. Many of the reports that appear on Community Council agendas deal with routine administrative matters, including applications for exemptions to fence, tree and ravine by-laws, and applications for site plan approval. The City of Toronto, Planning and Municipal Acts permit delegation of decisions on administrative matters to staff, a Committee of Council or another Council appointed committee.

Various administrative responsibilities are already delegated to staff (e.g., plan of subdivision approvals and routine condominium approvals), Committees of Council (e.g., holding statutory public meetings, recommending citizen appointments to other committees), and other committees (e.g.,Committee of Adjustment). Further delegation would help to streamline Community Council and City Council agendas. It would also address the frustration that some Councillors have expressed with having routine administrative matters compete with more substantive issues for consideration at Community Council meetings.

It is recommended that Council delegate final decision-making authority to:

(i)the Chief Planning Official with respect to applications for permission under site plan control and ravine by-laws;

(ii)the Director, Municipal Standards with respect to applications for permission under fence by-laws; and

(iii)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with respect to applications for permission under tree by-laws,

with the provision that ward Councillors will be notified about the applications and, if the applicant or a Member of Council is not satisfied with the proposed staff decision, staff will refer the matter to the appropriate Community Council to hear deputations and make a decision.

It is further recommended that the City Solicitor, in consultation with the City Clerk and the Commissioners of affected departments, submit a report to the Special Committee on additional matters, currently within the purview of the Standing Committees and Community Councils, that can be delegated to staff under current legislation.

Role of Community Councils with Respect to Recreation Services:

At present the Community Councils consider matters related to:

(i)local planning, development, maintenance and issuance of permits for the use of parks;

(ii)gardening/greenhouse, garden plot and arborist services and administration of the Weed Control Act;

(iii)maintenance and operation of recreational facilities, including administration of concessions;

(iv)delivery of local recreation activities including participant registration and liaison with non-profit community, recreation and sports groups; and

(v)the establishment of local capital budget priorities as input to City Council's capital budget process.

The Standing Committee deals with City-wide and system-wide matters including:

(i)structures for service delivery;

(ii)strategic and long range planning;

(iii)establishment of overall standards for buildings, facilities, pricing, program registration, conservation and environment, preventive maintenance and parks maintenance;

(iv)public park policy;

(v)uniform by-law;

(vi)marketing and communication;

(vii)grants policy;

(viii)golf courses; and

(ix)liaison with City-wide agencies such as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

The current division of responsibilities between the Community Councils and Standing Committee for matters related to parks and recreation services appears to work well. The delegation to staff of responsibility for decisions on applications under the tree by-laws, as recommended in this report, will relieve some of the agenda pressure, particularly at the Toronto Community Council.

The discussion group on the role of Community Councils in recreation services identified the need for a mechanism to provide input and advice to senior staff in the Parks and Recreation Division. Each of the former municipalities had some form of advisory arrangement and found them to be quite useful and an appropriate means for volunteer and stakeholder involvement without the statutory formality of formal board.

The Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions is examining the role of recreation centre advisory committees and boards of management as part of its mandate. It is recommended that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions on options for stakeholder and volunteer input to the Parks and Recreation Division. No other changes are recommended at this time.

Community Councils within the Context of the Overall Council-Committee Structure:

The City of Toronto Act, 1997 defines Community Councils as committees of Council. As such it is important that they be considered within the context of the overall Council-Committee structure. Under Section 102.1 of the Municipal Act, the Council of a municipality may delegate to a committee or an employee various powers, duties or functions to implement the decisions of Council. However, the Act does not authorise the delegation of powers, duties and functions that are legislative or non-administrative in nature. Only City Council, not Committees of Council, has the power to pass by-laws, adopt estimates, levy taxes, or hire and fire staff.

Statutory limitations like these are what distinguish Community Councils from City Council and reinforce their status as committees of Council. In law, Community Councils, like other Standing Committees of Council, are part of the Council decision-making structure. They are neither equal to nor an alternative to the City Council.

Some respondents to the discussion paper proposed that this relationship should change and that the Community Councils should be more like the former area municipalities. They suggested that Community Councils should be empowered to pass by-laws, should have independent budgets, discretionary spending authority and hire their own staff. The Toronto Community Council proposed that increased delegation of responsibilities to and greater empowerment of Community Councils along these lines would reduce the burden of issues at City Council.

There is little evidence to support the perception that City Council is overburdened because Community Councils lack by-law authority or discretionary budgets. As already noted in this report, Council has made amendments to only three per cent. of items in reports from the Community Councils. There is no case that can be made to further empower Community Councils based on an efficiency imperative. In fact, the pursuit of by-law authority and discretionary budgets for Community Councils or any other committees would impair the ability of Council to govern the City.

Relationship of Community Councils to City Council:

The City Council's ability to represent the interests and govern on behalf of all people in the City must not be hindered. Ward based political representation provides the basic ingredient for a system of local government that balances the unique interests and needs of local communities with the collective interests and needs of all residents of the City as a whole.

Each Member of Council is elected to perform two roles. One role is to represent a specific constituency of electors. This involves facilitating their access to the political and administrative structures, advocating on their behalf and representing their interests in the political decision-making process. The second role is to participate in the overall governance of the City.

Councillors discharge both roles through their work in policy committees, Community Councils and agencies, boards and commissions. Not being a member of a particular committee does not preclude a Councillor from playing an active role as a Member of Council in the deliberation of issues.

The committee system is a way of organising the decision-making process to make it work more efficiently, effectively and accessibly. As noted several times in this report, it is important that Community Councils be seen in this context. Like other committees of Council, Community Councils provide a forum for a sub-group of the full City Council to consider specific issues in depth, to hear deputations and engage in a dialogue with interested members of the community.

Like all committees of Council, Community Councils are in a position to provide some measure of due diligence to the consideration of issues that come before them. The uniqueness of Community Councils within Toronto's committee system is their geographic focus with membership of the committee based on representing a specific ward within the City. In other respects, Community Councils perform like other Standing Committees of Council.

The granting of by-law authority to Community Councils, or any other committee of Council, would compromise City Council's ability to deal with City-wide issues and could prevent some communities and interests from being fairly represented before their City government. Council is the municipality's "legislature." Within the municipal governance context, Council should have the exclusive authority to "legislate" via the enactment of by-laws. It is recommended that Council not approve proposals to pursue legislative changes to empower committees of Council, including Community Councils, to pass by-laws.

It is further recommended that Council not approve proposals to provide Community Councils with discretionary funding authority independent of City Council. In the interests of fairness across the City, Council must retain the ability to set spending priorities. This ability would be compromised if Community Councils or other committees of Council had discretionary spending authority independent of Council. Participants in the community definition and neighbourhood reporting discussion group and several respondents to the discussion paper cautioned that spending decisions should not be sheltered, protected or hidden. Everything should be on the table and open to public scrutiny when City Council deals with the budget.

The request for by-law authority for Community Councils may relate to another issue altogether. That has to do with the requirement to enact a by-law to put certain decisions into effect. The issue is not that Community Councils need by-law powers. It is that it may be appropriate for Community Councils to make final decisions on strictly local matters. This would be possible for some of those matters, which are currently sent to City Council for a final decision because a by-law is required. If there was no requirement to enact a stand alone by-law to effect the decision, there would be no need to require Council to make the final decision. It is possible that final decisions on a number of matters related to roads and traffic within the jurisdiction of Community Councils could be affected in this way.

The Secretariat contacts in the City Clerk's Division have identified numerous items, in addition to the matters already recommended for delegation to staff in this report, that appear consistently on the agendas of Council, Standing Committees or Community Councils and are consistently approved with minimal debate.

It is recommended that the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, in consultation with the CAO and the Commissioners submit a report to the Special Committee on the feasibility and legality of the delegation of the following responsibilities to another level within the legislative structure:

(i)licensing and extension of boulevard cafes;

(ii)special occasion LLBO permits;

(iii)street name changes;

(iv)parking pad issues;

(v)temporary road closures for special events;

(vi)installation of stop signs on local roads;

(vii)installation of speed bumps;

(viii)changes to parking prohibitions on local roads;

(ix)preliminary evaluation reports for planning applications;

(x)regular contract awards to the lowest bidder where funding for the project has already been approved in the budget; and

(xi)appointments to local BIAs and recreation centre boards.

Renaming Community Councils:

Given their role and the clear intent of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 the term "Community Council" is misleading. Community Councils are committees of Council, not councils themselves. The Toronto Transition Team recommended that City Council should consider renaming Community Councils to better reflect their role as committees of City Council dealing with local matters. This proposal has merit, as it would help to reduce any confusion about the nature of the Community Councils.

The Community Councils' mandates encompass matters specific to geographic areas. The name should reflect their focus and their status within the Council structure. It is recommended that the Community Councils be renamed so that they will now be known as the East York Committee, Etobicoke Committee, North York Committee, Scarborough Committee, Toronto Committee and York Committee.

Community Council Boundaries:

The common thread that knits together the themes coming out of the public input is the high value placed on citizen participation in municipal government. Some people stressed that maximum citizen involvement must be the central objective of municipal government rather than one desirable outcome. From this citizen-centered perspective, the principle of locally-based, inclusive decision-making must guide the structures and functions of municipal government.

It is more difficult to achieve agreement on what is meant by "local." The discussion group on the definition of community and the concept of neighbourhood reporting demonstrated that some people have a fierce sense of what local means, while others have a very unclear notion of its meaning to them. What was clear, however, was that definitions of "local" and "community" involve the issue of scale. Local tends to mean smaller than the City and smaller than the areas covered by any of the Community Councils.

To some extent, any geographic definition of community is imprecise. Nevertheless, the best starting point may well be the ward. Ward Councillors, with their dual roles as representative and governor, are the first elements of municipal governance. They are also a fundamental and essential link between citizens and the municipal government. Aggregations of wards are currently used to define Community Council boundaries. Many respondents to the questionnaire suggested that these groupings could or should change to reflect communities more appropriately. Different groupings of wards could be used for planning different services. In this way, wards and their elected representatives become the logical building blocks of City government.

Among the ideas raised in the discussion groups and public comments were the formation of civic districts linked to civic commissions on, for example, children and youth, the notion of clusters of two or three wards, the creation of anywhere from four to a dozen geographic committees of roughly equal size, and the establishment of City-wide Standing Committees that would carry out their functions through geographically distinct panels, much as the Committee of Adjustment is conceived in the new City.

There are many potential approaches to organising City governance on a geographic basis. It is important to recognise that it is the geographic focus itself that makes sense. It does not necessarily follow that the current configuration of Community Councils is the most appropriate way to effect that focus. To assess alternative approaches to ensuring that the City's government has an effective geographic focus, it is recommended that the Special Committee's examination of Council's political decision-making structure should include consideration of:

(a)the appropriateness of the current Community Council boundaries;

(b)the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and

(c)linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the UEDC.

Citizen Involvement as a Cornerstone of Local Government:

Wards also provide the logical building blocks for local democracy and citizen participation in government. Experience in some wards in the City suggests that ward-based Citizens' Assemblies can provide a valuable and inclusive way for citizens to participate in municipal governance. The Citizens' Assembly has made a successful contribution to local democracy in Ward 19 (High Park) since the fall of 1997 and is taking root in Ward 21 (Davenport).

The Ward 19 Citizens' Assembly is based on public forums such as town hall meetings that take place several times a year in different parts of the ward. The assemblies are open to all residents and are widely publicized throughout the ward. At the assemblies, ward Councillors report to their constituents about the business and issues of the City, respond to questions and concerns about municipal activities and hear community members' advice about directions to take at City Council. The agenda is set and driven by the citizens.

Residents involved in organizing the Ward 19 Citizens' Assemblies say that these forums are intended to achieve several short-term goals. They:

(i)provide regular, open forums where all local residents have a voice;

(ii)increase public reporting by elected Councillors to their constituents;

(iii)hold Councillors accountable to electors between elections;

(iv)provide a forum for community organizations to interact around issues of common concern; and

(v)stimulate community action on issues between meetings.

These goals reflect the potential of the Citizens' Assembly concept to both generate community interest and involvement in civic issues and provide linkages between ward Councillors and their constituents.

Ward 19 residents also suggest that, in the longer-term, Citizens' Assemblies can:

(i)inform communities better about issues relevant to them;

(ii)engage residents in discussion about municipal decisions and policies that affect them;

(iii)increase the visibility of and improve communication among existing local organizations;

(iv)increase participation of marginalized groups and individuals;

(v)encourage deeper thinking by residents, local organizations and politicians about solutions to problems and directions for community development; and

(vi)lead to greater empowerment of communities.

These are all-important functions, which contribute to community empowerment and informed and active participation in municipal government.

Citizens' Assemblies are not substitutes for other locally based resident and ratepayer associations or other more formal citizens' groups that exist in great numbers and varieties across the City. However, a striking feature of the Citizens' Assemblies is the way in which they have succeeded in capturing the energy of groups of citizens. Many residents in the western wards of the former City of Toronto coalesced into West Enders for Local Democracy (WELD) to voice their concerns over Bill 103 and the impending amalgamation. The Citizens' Assemblies, with their broader focus on community empowerment, local democracy, Councillor accountability and citizen-centred government structures have evolved from WELD's initial concentration on the potential impacts of Bill 103 into a continuing engagement of citizens with their City government.

Another characteristic of the assemblies is that the impetus for their creation comes from within the communities themselves and not from government. The City government cannot make Citizens' Assemblies happen or succeed. However, the City can play a valuable role in assisting community groups in wards in which there is a desire to create Citizens' Assemblies.

In some jurisdictions, the City government plays a very active role in facilitating citizen involvement. The City of Portland, Oregon has gone so far as to establish an Office of Neighbourhood Associations and is said to have one of the most effective city-wide systems of citizen participation in the United States today. Citizens of Portland began creating neighbourhood associations in the 1950s. After a series of struggles between the associations and the city government in the early 1970s, the city formally recognized the neighbourhood associations, and has since helped to build an elaborate structure to fund them, ensure open and fair participation, and give them an important role in city budgeting, crime prevention, and land use planning.

As noted in the report outlining the progress of the Special Committee's workplan, the CAO is preparing a comprehensive report on needs and issues related to citizen involvement in municipal governance. The report will be submitted to a forthcoming meeting of the Special Committee and will address the linkages between citizen involvement and governance structure. It is recommended that the CAO's forthcoming report on citizen involvement in municipal governance explore more fully the experience of other jurisdictions in this regard and comment further on the potential of Citizens' Assemblies.

Parameters for a Review of Governance Structures:

The report on the progress of the Special Committee's workplan also notes that the next phase of the Special Committee's work will focus on reviewing the City's political governance structure. The themes highlighted in the present report and the above comments on citizen involvement and Citizens' Assemblies point to some key community-generated objectives against which governance structural options must be tested.

The governance structure must also satisfy internal organizational needs. It must facilitate Council's role in setting policies and priorities and making decisions necessary to govern the City. Both community-generated objectives and internal organizational needs define the parameters for the Special Committee's review of options for the political decision-making structure.

The Transition Team's Final Report provided an interim "starter kit" for the Council-Committee structure which was adopted for the first part of this term of Council. It is now time to focus on what needs to be in place for the second half of the Council term.

To develop a made-in-Toronto, citizen-centred, political governance structure to come into effect for the second eighteen months of the Council term, it is recommended that:

(a)the CAO report to the Special Committee by October 1998, on new political decision-making structures and procedures of Council and its Committees that will:

(i)ensure that Council's decision-making structures are sensitive to, accommodate and protect the diverse needs of all members of the community and unique character of all areas of the City;

(ii)recognise the value of a geographic focus in the consideration of Council business;

(iii)provide a visible, accessible and meaningful process for members of the community, Members of Council and City staff to participate in and respond to Council's deliberations and decision-making process;

(iv)ensure that the role, function, policies and decisions of Council and its Committees are clear and communicated effectively throughout the organisation and to the community;

(v)assert Council's policy direction and financial control over all parts of the organisation and its agencies, boards and commissions; and

(vi)facilitate the efficient management of Council's workload.

It is further recommended that a small workgroup of Members of the Special Committee, including the Chair, act as a reference group to staff in the review of the political decision-making structures and procedures of Council and its Committees.

The review of political decision-making structures will consider the role of Community Councils, or alternative approaches to geographically focussed committees of Council, within the context of the overall Council-Committee structure. It will also address some of the anomalies that have become apparent within the interim structure. It will also aim to relieve the stress that the interim structure is placing on Council agendas and staff resources. It is necessary to look at the overall Council-Committee structure to understand the extent to which Council agendas may be under stress.

On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council adopted the Committee structure recommended by the Transition Team on an interim basis. To begin with, that structure included the following sixteen Committees:

(1)Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(2)Works and Utilities Committee;

(3)Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee;

(4)Emergency and Protective Services Committee;

(5)Corporate Services Committee;

(6)East York Community Council;

(7)Etobicoke Community Council;

(8)North York Community Council;

(9)Scarborough Community Council;

(10)Toronto Community Council;

(11)York Community Council;

(12)Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee;

(13)Budget Committee;

(14)Audit Committee;

(15)Striking Committee; and

(16)Nominating Committee.

At the same meeting, Council created a further ten committees and task forces including:

(1)Economic Development Committee;

(2)Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team;

(3)Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(4)Task Force on Community Access and Equity;

(5)Homeless Strategy Task Force;

(6)Task Force to Develop a Strategy on Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

(7)Environmental Task Force;

(8)Children's Action Committee;

(9)Task Force on Community Safety; and

(10)the World City Committee,

and adopted a motion to have the Board of Health report directly to Council.

Since January, Council has established numerous additional committees and task forces. To date, Council has created at least 40 committees and task forces.

All of these committees are formally constituted and require secretariat support from the City Clerk, including formal agendas and minutes, and policy support from appropriate departments. This proliferation of committees contributes to scheduling difficulties and places significant pressure on the use of staff resources. In addition to the 40 committees, Councillors also sit on the City's agencies, boards and commissions and the boards of numerous external organisations and must also represent and respond to the needs of their constituents.

The Council of the newly amalgamated City took office in January 1998 without the benefit of a coherent transition plan. In that light, Council has accomplished a tremendous amount in its first five months, including the passage of a zero mill rate increase budget and the adoption of key recommendations on the location of the seat of government and an administrative structure.

In hindsight, though, Council established task forces and committees based on reactions to the Transition Team's recommendations and in recognition of the inheritance from seven governments. Consequently, insufficient consideration was given to the relationship between specific policy issues and the mandates of different committees. From one perspective, it may be possible to submit reports on particular issues to Standing Committees, rather than through an additional layer of task forces. For example, many of the items on the World City Committee's workplan appear to fall within the mandate of the Economic Development Committee. Similarly, the rationale for reporting policies on user fees through a task force rather than through the appropriate Standing Committee is not immediately clear.

Even the interim mandates of the Standing Committees recommended by the Transition Team are not always clearly distinct from each other. For example, both the Corporate Services and Strategic Policies and Priorities Committees deal with key resource matters, normally within the purview of an executive committee, although neither performs the role of an executive committee.

These issues will be addressed in the review of Council's political decision-making structure and procedures. It is recommended that Council not establish any new committees or task forces until the Special Committee brings forward its recommendations on political governance structures for the City, unless there are exceptional circumstances that cannot be accommodated within the existing Committee structure.

Conclusions:

This report proposes parameters for a review of the overall political governance structure in the City and stresses that Community Councils must be considered within that context. Community Councils are part of a committee system that should facilitate efficient, effective and accessible decision-making by City Council and they should not be dealt with in isolation.

In responding to proposals for greater decision-making authority to be granted to Community Councils, it is important to avoid creating a divisive system of government lacks the capacity to address City-wide issues. As ward representatives and Members of City Council, Councillors are in a position to deliberate on all aspects of an issue and consider what is best for their constituents as well as what is best for all citizens of Toronto. The structure of government should not pit communities against each other or make it difficult to achieve a broad consensus.

Community Councils, with their geographic focus, add an important perspective to the decision-making process. However, the political governance structure must not be restricted to recognition of geographic communities alone. The City's governance structure must be responsive to other definitions of community and give all self-defined communities a chance to participate in the process of government. A simplistic definition of City-wide versus local matters may not reflect the reality of a City that is made up of overlapping and interdependent communities.

Toronto is now a unified City made up of many communities. City Council must move forward and define the political governance structures of the new City in terms of the needs and interests of all citizens and communities as well as the practical requirements of a large organisation. While it is true that the current Community Council boundaries may provide an element of continuity in a period of change, they should not dictate the specific design of a citizen-centred governance structure.

This next step in the work program of the Special Committee will facilitate the movement from interim governance structures towards the development of a made-in-Toronto, by Toronto City Council, citizen-centred governance structure.

--------

Appendix 1

Principles to Guide the Establishment of a Protocol for the Development Review Process

(a)The guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation, yet allow for flexibility in application. The guidelines should provide as much guidance as possible in regard to interpretation and the consequent routing of planning matters through the political decision-making system, but should not be rigid and prescriptive. They should be able to accommodate extraordinary circumstances. The protocol should give the Chief Planning Official the authority to apply the guidelines and the discretion to determine when to use them. Developing the first set of guidelines is just a starting point representing current conventional wisdom that would be refined over time as the body of experience in their use is developed.

(b)Planning matters should be addressed at the lowest level possible unless a greater City-wide interest can be demonstrated. In developing and interpreting the guidelines, the onus should be on establishing a City-wide interest. If a City-wide interest cannot be established, then the matter should be considered a local interest by default, and subsequently processed through Community Councils.

(c)Decisions regarding how planning matters are routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible. In applying the guidelines, decisions on Committee routing should be made early. For development applications requiring a preliminary staff report, that report should identify whether there is a City-wide interest in the matter and whether the matter will be routed to City Council through the Community Council or through the UEDC. The preliminary report should always be routed through the affected Community Council(s) and, in cases where it is decided the Committee route is through the UEDC, the UEDC as well.

(d)Community Councils should continue to have input in planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest. For planning matters defined to have a City-wide interest and routed through the UEDC, provision should continue to be made for Community Councils to hear deputations (as well as UEDC) on City-wide planning matters and forward their recommendations to the UEDC.

(e)Only one Committee of Council should make recommendations to Council on any given planning matter. If a planning matter is to be routed through Community Council (based on the guidelines), then the recommendation to City Council should come from the Community Council only. If a planning matter is to be routed through the UEDC, then the recommendation to City Council should come from the UEDC only. In this latter case, any comments and recommendations received from the Community Councils should be considered by the UEDC in its recommendation and become part of the record to City Council.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (June 23, 1998) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River:

The Staff of the Miller Committee have tabled recommendations regarding the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils.

The recommendations on planning and transportation reflect the overall trend of the responses to the community consultations: matters without City-wide policy implications should be dealt with by the Community Councils. Unfortunately, many of the other recommendations do not reflect this view.

I believe that community consultation carries with it an obligation to respond to the views the community presents. But on matters like parks and recreation, by-law powers for the Community Councils and budgetary powers for Community Councils, the recommendations fall well short of the overwhelming trend of the public feedback that was received.

Deputation after deputation spoke to these issues. Three Community Councils endorsed changes in these areas. The report accepted the logic of this approach in two areas. But where Community Council powers matter most, they are not reflected in the recommendations.

City staff have accepted the need to decentralize and delegate power to make an organization as large as our new City work. If a flattened, decentralized organization makes sense for staff, why doesn't it make sense for our decision-making process as well?

When I look at the shape of the debate today, I worry that we have become locked in an old battle. The Mega-city is here. We are all in this together. Let's step out of our retrenched positions, take off the blinders of our old Mega-city battles, and look at what's best for this new City of ours. People in this City want a visible, accessible, meaningful process that reflects their unique local needs. The Special Committee recognizes that in their recommendations on planning and transportation. Let's follow the direction of the community consultations and apply that same logic to the rest of our City processes.

Motions:

(a)Motions Re: General Principles:

WHEREAS the Special Committee Recommendations adopt the principle that, if no City-wide interest can be established, all matters should be considered a local interest by default and be processed through the Community Council; and

WHEREAS the Special Committee has embodied those principles in Recommendations Nos.(1)(a) and 3(c)(ii); and

WHEREAS those principles accurately reflect the common theme of the community consultations;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Special Committee apply the principle embodied in (1)(a) and 3(c)(ii) to all areas of City decision-making.

(b)Motion Re: Delegation of Authority (Recommendation No. (4):

WHEREAS the current method of processing matters relating to site plans, fences, and trees ensures a notification of local residents who may have concerns about the issues; and

WHEREAS the current process provides residents with clear information on how they can have access to a public hearing;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Recommendation No. (4) be amended to include a requirement that local residents be notified of any application and informed that local Councillors can have the matter called for a hearing before Community Council on request.

(c)Motion Re: Processing Parks and Recreation Matters (Recommendation No. (5):

WHEREAS the Special Committee has not indicated a system for processing matters relating to Parks and Recreation; and

WHEREAS the consultations included requests that local Parks and Recreation matters be dealt with at the local level; and

WHEREAS the following process reflects the process selected by the Special Committee for the processing of Planning and Transportation matters;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with the process for determining protocols for Planning and Transportation:

(a)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report on a protocol for the processing of matters relating to Parks and Recreation to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for information and comments to the Special Committee;

(b)the Special Committee forward the report and its comments to the Community Councils for information and comments directly to the next meeting of Council;

(c)in developing the protocol, the following principles be followed:

(i)the guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation yet allow for flexibility in application;

(ii)if a City-wide interest cannot be established, the matter should be considered a local interest by default and be processed through the Community Council;

(iii)decisions regarding how issues should be routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible;

(iv)Community Councils should continue to have input into matters of City-wide interest.

(d)Motion Re: By-law Powers for Community Councils (Recommendation No. (6):

WHEREAS many of the respondents to the community consultation supported by-law powers for Community Councils; and

WHEREAS virtually no respondents to the consultations opposed such powers; and

WHEREAS the Community Councils of North York and Toronto supported by-law granting powers for Community Councils;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, Recommendation No. (6) be amended by removing the main clause and Clause (a) and replacing them with:

(a)Council pursues legislative amendments to enable Community Councils to pass by-laws;

(b)until the Province has passed such legislation, Council enact an enabling by-law delegating power to Community Councils, either directly, or by delegating to staff authority to make decisions on the approval of the relevant Community Council;

(c)the City Solicitor reports to the Special Committee on the best method of achieving that delegation of authority.

(e)Re: Budgetary Powers for Community Councils (Recommendation No. (6):

WHEREAS the Budget Process for 1998 improved the Budget by ensuring that it reflected local as well as City-wide priorities; and

WHEREAS the Community Councils' role in the 1998 Budget Process helped to provide a visible, accessible and meaningful budget process; and

WHEREAS many participants in the community consultations requested enhanced budgetary powers for the Community Councils; and

WHEREAS the Community Councils of North York, East York and Toronto all endorsed enhanced budgetary powers for Community Councils;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Special Committee on methods of assigning limited budgetary authority to Community Councils including the authority to redirect funds within an envelope and the ability to administer a modest "Community Priorities Fund".

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Community Councils continue to have a significant role in the creation of the City Budget.

(f)Re: The Names of Community Councils (Recommendation No. (8):

WHEREAS the Community Councils were established to provide local communities with a local Council structure; and

WHEREAS the Community Councils are more than simply Committees of Council; and

WHEREAS the Community Councils reflect unique and critically important geographic considerations affecting the quality of life in our City;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Recommendation No. (8) be struck out.

(g)Re: Citizen Participation (Recommendation No. (10):

WHEREAS there are many citizens' organizations already serving local residents and assisting them in influencing decision-making at Council; and

WHEREAS the most common problem for citizens involved in the public process is the lack of resources to assist in their work;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Recommendation No. (10) be amended to specifically direct the Chief Administrative Officer to include in his report recommendations relating to the provision of resources to Citizen Assemblies, Residents Associations and Tenants' Associations.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits the following communication (June 25, 1998) from Councillor Frank Faubert:

I am not able to present at Committee this Friday, but am writing to let you know my comments about one recommendation of the June 13, 1998 report of the Chief Administrative Officer to your Committee on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Councillor-Committee Structure. This relates to the recommendation under Renaming Community Councils which states that they should be renamed so they would be known as the East York Committee, Etobicoke Committee, North York Committee, etc.

While a case could be made to change their designation from "Council" to "Committee", any action to remove the "Community" designation would be a serious mistake. That would be a further removal of their function from the community's understanding and expectation of responsibility and access, for which these bodies are mandated. I believe the clear intent of the City of Toronto Act 1997 is that their role is one of community responsibility and liaison between the local electors and the central Council, as well as to assume certain roles and responsibilities as designated by the Toronto City Council itself, and any powers they exercise are ones devolved from Council. While they operate as a committee of Council, clearly their role is one of both a special and a specialized one in the governance of the new City.

If Committee wishes to recommend any change, they may wish to amend the recommendation so that it reads, "It is recommended that the Community Councils be renamed so that they will now be known as the East York Community Committee, the Etobicoke Community Committee, the North York Community Committee, the Scarborough Community Committee, the Toronto Community Committee, and the York Community Committee."

--------

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

(a)(May 15, 1998) from the City Clerk, Etobicoke Community Council, advising that the Etobicoke Community Council:

(1)referred the submissions received at a public meeting held on May 7, 1998, to hear deputations on the Role of the Community Council, to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(2)received the communication (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 2 of Report No. 3 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils".

(b)(May 11, 1998) from the City Clerk, Scarborough Community Council, advising that The Scarborough Community Council, on May 7, 1998, directed that The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be advised that the Scarborough Community Council:

(1)held a public meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 7, 1998, to obtain public input on The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils;

(2)heard deputations from the following persons:

-Ms. Doreen Lalor, Ward 13 resident;

-Mr. Andrew Schulz, The Community Resource Centre of Scarborough;

-Dr. Bob Frankford, Ward 13 resident;

-Mr. Sandy Grigg, President, Cliffcrest Community Association;

-Ms. Helen Jensen, Ward 13 resident;

-Ms. Marike Nepaszing, Ward 17 resident; and

(3)in addition to the foregoing, received written submissions from:

-Mr. Alan Carter; and

-Mr. Bob Gazey;

(4)directed that all written submissions be forwarded for the information of The Special Committee; and

(5)reiterated its previous position, taken at The Scarborough Community Council meeting held on April 1, 1998, concurring in the recommendations of The Special Committee that Community Councils:

(i)be permitted to establish sub-committees; and

(ii)be permitted to record votes at meetings.

(c)(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council, advising that The East York Community Council on April 20, 1998:

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

(I)that a list of municipal functions/responsibilities be established by the Special Committee which reflect city-wide or broad municipal interest including the following:

(a)the authority to pass by-laws;

(b)the authority to restructure Community Council boundaries, alter ward boundaries or change councillor representation;

(c)the authority to levy taxes;

(d)the ability to issue debentures;

(e)the power to expropriate land;

(f)the power to enter into agreements, or to sue or be sued;

(g)the ability to hold title to property;

(h)the power to appoint municipal officers or to hire and fire staff; and

(i)the authority to make grants;

(ii)that any other municipal functions/responsibilities be deemed residual which shall be dealt with by the community councils;

(iii)that Community Councils be granted the authority to carry out any policy or by-law adopted by City Council whereby the discretion shall be vested with the community council;

(iv)that Community Councils be consulted during the standardization and consolidation process of all municipal by-laws;

(v)that general acceptance of the recommendations and comments in Appendices1 and 2 of the aforementioned report of the Special Committee with the exception of the following recommendations from Appendix 1 whereby concern was expressed:

(a)Recommendation No.(2)(c) regarding many functions previously handled at the Metro level which could and should be devolved to the community councils, including many former Metro roads and all Metro parks and requesting Council to continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum local delivery of service;

(b)Recommendation No.(2)(d) regarding the linkage of functions into the existing community service infrastructure to allow citizens to enjoy cost savings and service integration;

(c)Recommendation No.(2)(e) regarding community councils retaining responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan;

(d)Recommendation No.(4) in its entirety regarding how community councils set and spend their budgets; and

(e)Recommendation No.(5)(c) regarding the premise that all staff serving the functions managed by community councils would report to the community council;

(vi)endorsement of the principle that a two-thirds majority vote by City Council be required to overturn recommendations made by community councils;

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to the Special Committee on the feasibility of granting discretionary funds to Community Councils; and

(3)received the report (March 1998) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team with respect to the draft discussion paper on the roles and responsibilities and requesting the East York Community Council to report to the Special Committee after receiving community input.

(d)(May 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, advising that The Toronto Community Council:

(1)recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team that the City's delegates to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) national convention, particularly the FCM Board Members from the City of Toronto, urge the FCM to develop a comprehensive position and strategy to accomplish a constitutional amendment which will provide for municipalities to be autonomous orders of government within Canada's governance structure;

(2)urged the Special Committee to insist on the broadest possible interpretation of the powers which may be actually or essentially delegated to Community Councils and to be as creative as possible to provide for achieving these objectives. For example the following tools should be developed: a framework for a community council budget; a by-law delegating significant planning approvals to the Community Council; and

(3)recommended to the Special Committee that staff be requested to assist the Working Group on Community Consultation in drawing up a list of specific responsibilities (including specific by-law making powers and specific budgetary powers) which would be delegated to Community Councils, in keeping with the proposal from the Working Group endorsed by Toronto Community Council, and that this list be forwarded to the Special Committee as a model for the delegation of powers.

The Toronto Community Council also:

(1) adopted the following motion from Councillor Pam McConnell:

"WHEREAS the report of the Working Group on Citizen Participation called for the delegation of by-law powers, limited budgetary authority, staff direction and service management to the Community Councils; and

WHEREAS the Toronto Community Council has already endorsed the report of the Working Group; and

WHEREAS the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team will quickly be developing final, concrete proposals regarding the powers of Community Councils;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Toronto Community Council strongly encourage the Special Committee, and through it, City Council, to actively pursue the power to delegate by-law making authority to Community Councils, and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Toronto Community Council strongly urge the Special Committee, and through it, City Council, to reduce the burden of issues at Council by fully delegating matters that are clearly local in scope to the Community Councils;

(2)received the report titled, "Roles and Responsibilities of the Community Councils -A Discussion Paper (March 1998)" and thanked the members and Chair of the Special Committee for their efforts in this regard.

(e)(June 2, 1998) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council, advising that The North York Community Council on May 27, 1998, recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that:

(1)the Ontario Legislature be petitioned on an urgent basis to amend Bill 103 by deleting the current subsection 8(4) and substituting a provision substantially as follows:

8(4)The City Council may, by by-law, assign to a Community Council, with respect to the part of the urban area that it represents, any function that City Council may carry out in respect of that part of the urban area; and

8(4.1)Without limiting the generality of subsection (4), the City Council may assign to a Community Council the authority to make recommendations for by-laws which recommendations, subject to subsection (7), oblige the City Council to act under subsection (6); and

this resolution be circulated to the other Community Councils in the City of Toronto;

(2)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to develop a model whereby the Community Councils would have budgets which could be used for discretionary spending to reflect local priorities, such budgets to be calculated on a per capita population basis;

(3)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on how heritage issues such as the designation and preservation of heritage properties can be dealt with by Community Councils;

(4)there be staff from the Clerk's Department on site to service the Community Council exclusively;

(5)responsibility for the payment of Councillors' office expenses be transferred from the Clerk's Department to the Finance Department;

(6)a model be implemented whereby the City Council will deal with major issues such as of waste disposal, sewage treatment, water treatment, police, fire, etc., and that Community Councils be left to deal with community issues; and

(7)Community Councils determine their own procedural by-laws.

(f)(May 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, enclosing for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No.1 contained in Report No. 6 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Preliminary Revisions to the Interim Procedural By-law", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto on May 13 and 14, 1998, such Clause embodying the following recommendation:

"It is further recommended that:

(a)the following procedure for hearing deputations from the public and from Councillors at Committee meetings who are not members of the Committee be forwarded to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for consideration:

'(i)introduction by the Chair of the subject matter. (Ward Councillors are informed in advance of the meeting by the Committee Secretary with regard to items on the Agenda relating to his/her Ward to which requests have been communicated to the Clerk to appear before Committee.);

(ii)deputant(s) appear before Committee on the subject matter;

(iii)Committee Members and non-Committee Members may ask questions of deputant(s) through the Chair of the Committee;

(iv)Non-Committee Members who wish to address the Committee are then permitted to speak as deputants;

(v)subject matter is then considered and debated by Committee Members only and decision made; and

(vi)public informed of Committee decision."

(g)(April 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council, advising that the North York Community Council on April 1, 1998, requested that the Special Committee consider the matter of City Council referring back to Community Councils planning items on which public hearings have been held and whether City Council has the authority to refer such items back to Community Councils.

(h)(May 6, 1998) from Mr. William Roberts, Director Swansea Area Ratepayers Association, forwarding comments respecting the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils.

Mr. Phillip Abrahams, Senior Corporate Policy Analyst, gave an overhead presentation to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team respecting the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils and filed a copy of his presentation material.

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

-Mr. Brian Maguire, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Bob Barnett, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Ms. Carol Fripp, Leaside Property Owners Association; and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Ms Joan Miles;

-Mr. Gary Collver, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Forrest Lunn;

-Mr. William Phillips;

-Mr. Colin MacLeod;

Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Social Planning Council;

-Ms. Rita Luty;

-Mr. William Roberts; and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. David Vallance, Chair, CORRA;

-Ms. Jennifer Penny;

-Mr. Charles Crawford;

-Mr. Michael Kerr; and

-Ms. Marjorie Sutton.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River; and

Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity - Niagara.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 29, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report comments on points raised in deputations to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team during its consideration of the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils on June 26, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial impacts.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council receive this report for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On June 26, 1998 the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team considered a report from the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), entitled "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council Committee Structure." Several members of the public made deputations to the Special Committee in connection with this item. The Special Committee requested the CAO to submit a report to Council for its meeting on July 8, 1998 commenting on some of the points raised by deputants.

The Special Committee also requested the CAO to report to the July 8, 1998 meeting of Council on the impact, particularly on Social Services, of applying the principles embodied in Recommendations Nos. (1) (a) and (3) © (ii), as amended, in the aforementioned report on the roles of Community Councils to all areas of City Council decision-making.

This report responds to both of the above requests.

Comments on Points Raised by Deputants:

Do the recommendations ignore public input?

Some deputants suggested that the recommendations in the report fly in the face of everything that was said during the public consultations. As noted in the report, 177 people submitted their opinions:

-76 people participated in the Special Committee's three discussion groups;

-35 people sent written comments in response to the discussion paper; and

-66 people made deputations or submitted written comments to the Community Councils.

All of this input revealed a great diversity of opinions on the role of Community Councils. Some people clearly think that Community Councils should be as powerful as municipal governments in their own right and should be the main focus for all City decision-making and citizen input. Others think that Community Councils are divisive, will perpetuate inequities and should be strictly curbed or eliminated. The specific recommendations about the roles and authority of Community Councils are based on a review and analysis of all the input received and represent an effort to balance the diversity of views.

On the other hand, the public submissions showed considerable consensus around the opinion that all parts of the City government structure have to be accessible and citizen-centred. Therefore, the report places emphasis on setting parameters for the review of the overall governance structure that will help achieve these objectives.

Are Community Councils the only points of access to City government?

Some deputants suggested that if a decision is not made by a Community Council, then the process leading to the decision is not accessible to the public.

The report stresses a citizen-centred value as an underlying principle for the entire governance structure. A citizen-centred governance structure implies that every part of the structure is accessible to citizens and their input, including the parts of the structure that set City-wide policies.

There appeared to be an assumption, implicit in some of the deputations to the Special Committee, that citizens need only have access to Community Councils and that the rest of the governance structure is somewhere else, remote and inaccessible. Unless Council can ensure that all parts of the structure are accessible, there is a risk that Community Councils, or any form of geographic committee, can become "gatekeepers" to Council business and prevent the kind of accessible government that people want. It is important to recognize that citizen-centred government is not limited to citizen access to Community Councils.

Does the ability to set City-wide policies imply the centralization of service delivery?

Points raised by some deputants suggest some confusion over the distinction between the political decision-making system and the administration of service delivery. The report discusses the former. It considers the balance between City-wide policies and the geographic decentralization of political decision-making. That balance does not affect service decentralization. Service delivery is decentralized now. In most instances, front line services are organized into much smaller geographic units than any of the Community Councils. In some instances, departments have defined service areas that do not coincide with Community Council boundaries. The fact that the Urban Environment and Development Committee develops and Council approves a City-wide policy for traffic operations or for processing development applications need have no bearing on how decentralized or otherwise front line services are.

Are Citizens' Assemblies substitutes for Community Councils?

No. Some deputations reflected confusion about how citizens engage with the governance structure versus how they engage generally with civic issues. The Citizens' Assembly approach addresses the latter. Citizens' Assemblies represent an approach to local democracy that gives citizens an opportunity to hold their elected representatives accountable between elections. Citizens' Assemblies are processes. They are not agencies of the municipal government. They are not substitutes for any other form of citizen organization or any part of the government structure. Where they have the potential to add value is in heightening citizens' awareness of and interest in civic issues and the life of the City. The citizens set the agenda for the Assemblies. The concept of Citizens' Assemblies is consistent with the consensus view in the public input that there need to be opportunities, as well as rights, for citizens to engage their City government and play a role in influencing the City's agenda.

Does the report recommend centralizing all power in the hands of a few bureaucrats?

The greatest confusion amongst some deputants appears to be over the report's recommendation to delegate decision-making authority to staff for applications under a small number of by-laws. The delegation recommendation is almost a sidebar to the rest of the report, whose focus is on accessible, citizen-centred decision-making. All of the delegated functions are, to some extent and in some parts of the City, already delegated. All involve routine decisions related to the administration of City policies. Most decisions are not controversial and all will be subject to appeal to the Community Council.

Comments on the Impact on Social Services of Processing all Council Business Through Community Councils:

The report, entitled "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure" includes the following two recommendations as endorsed by the Special Committee:

(1) (a)Council endorse the principle that, once Council adopts a consolidated road classification system and traffic operations policies, responsibility be delegated to Community Councils to deal with matters related to all roads within their area of jurisdiction, except for policies and matters delegated to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(3) (c) (ii)the matter shall be considered to be of local interest and shall be processed through the Community Council unless identified by Council as having a City-wide interest.

Councillor McConnell recommended that the principles embodied in these recommendations should be applied to all areas of City decision-making.

Recommendations Nos. (1) (a) and (3) (c) (ii) above apply respectively to roads and local development control. It is possible to identify roads that serve specific districts and communities or particular local needs that do not affect the City as a whole. Similarly, local development applications deal with matters that affect specific communities or areas exclusively. However the same is not true for program areas that respond to individual and family needs and more broadly support the social and economic health of the overall community.

In areas such as social assistance, social housing, public health and the other social services, the policies and practices must be viewed from a City-wide perspective to ensure that all residents, regardless of where they happen to live in the City, have fair and equitable access to services. In these program areas, what may seem desirable to a local community may not in fact be fair to certain groups of people in the City as a whole. One of the main reasons social services were amalgamated 31 years ago was the discrepancy in service levels and policies between communities. The risk of creating ghettos of poverty and the impact on the health of the City as a whole was recognized then and remains relevant today. The pooling of social assistance and social housing costs across the GTA and the provisions of the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board Act reinforce the reality that these program areas are best viewed from a City-wide or regional perspective.

Even in planning and development, local community decision-making can have negative consequences for particular segments of the population. For example, if zoning by-laws in one Community Council area prohibit basement apartments or other affordable housing options, lower income families would be excluded from that area and be concentrated in areas with a less restrictive by-law. Clearly, planning policies such as these have a significant impact beyond the particular geographic districts to which they apply.

The reason that responsibility for local planning, roads and recreation matters was delegated to Community Councils lies in the ability to clearly identify matters of strictly local interest and impact within these portfolios. It does not follow that the same kinds of distinctions can be found in other program areas. In fact, attempting to do so in the human services would have negative impacts on the individuals who require those services and more broadly on the City as a whole.

Conclusions:

A number of points were raised during deputations to the Special Committee on June 26, 1998. The points suggest that there was some confusion over a few of the concepts and recommendations included in the report, entitled "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure". This report clarifies the parts of the report on Community Councils that some deputants had difficulty understanding. The report also comments on the implications for Social Services if all Council business was processed through Community Councils. It is recommended that Council receive this report for information.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (June26, 1998) from Mr. Arthur Lofsky, Toronto, commenting on the report (June 13, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer.)

2

Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended

Actions in Response to Committee and City Council

Motions and Additional Phase One Budget Requirements

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the transmittal letter dated July 8, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

"The Corporate Services Committee on July 8, 1998, recommended the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication (June26, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to striking out Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and inserting in lieu the following:

'(3)$314,000.00 for two copy centres, two central serveries and two informal meeting rooms to serve members of City Council and for the City Clerk's office area and Mayor's support area to meet their business needs, be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing;',

so that the recommendations embodied in the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services shall now read as follows:

'(1)$5.2 million, approved by City Council on February 4 and 5, 1998, for the renovations to Toronto City Hall be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund, as recommended in the report of the Chief Administrative Officer, entitled "Transition Projects", before the Budget Committee on June 25, 1998;

(2)$1.14 million, approved by City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998, for improvements, be provided from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City-Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto;

(3)$314,000.00 for two copy centres, two central serveries and two informal meeting rooms to serve members of City Council and for the City Clerk's office area and Mayor's support area to meet their business needs, be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing; and

(4)$240,000.00 for improved lighting on the second floor and improved wayfinding, be provided from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City-Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto, if approved by City Council when it considers the report of the Commissioner of Corporate Services, "Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended Actions in Response to Committee and City Council Motions and Additional Phase1 Budget Requirements", dated June 16, 1998, submitted to the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall for its meeting of June 23, 1998.'; and

(2)the communication dated July 6, 1998, from the City Clerk, entitled 'Window Improvement Project - Toronto City Hall', forwarding the recommendations of the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund from its meeting held on July6, 1998, in this regard, be referred to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration." )

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits, without recommendation, the following communication (June 25, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, on June 23, 1998, recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that:

(1)action Nos. (1) to (13) pertaining to the City Hall renovations, listed in Appendix A and discussed in the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be endorsed;

(2)the budget schedule in Appendix B of the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, showing the additional costs associated with the Phase One renovations to City Hall, be endorsed;

(3)the Sub-Committee be authorized to approve the finishes such as carpets, wood in the Councillors' desks, and wall paints, upon the recommendations of the architect;

(4)the Sub-Committee be provided with a schedule of tasks to ensure that work need not be done by staff during year-end holiday season; and

(5)the report (June 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, titled "Old City Hall - Lease Agreement", as outlined in Appendix C of the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be amended by adding the following words at the end of Recommendation No. (2):

"and report back through the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall",

and that the report as amended be adopted.

Background:

The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall on June 23, 1998, had before it the following report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended Actions in response to Committee and City Council motions and additional phase 1 budget requirements.

The Sub-Committee's actions are noted above.

(Report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of

Corporate Services, addressed to the Sub-Committee for

the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, entitled

"Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended Actions in

Response to Committee and City Council Motions and

Additional Phase One Budget Requirements.)

Purpose:

To recommend actions to be taken in Phase One of the City Hall renovations project and in other phases, in response to motions which were referred to or adopted by the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and City Council, and to identify additional budget requirements for the Phase 1 renovations.

Source of Funds:

$554,000.00 to be approved by the Budget Committee in addition to amounts already approved by City Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Action Nos. (1) to (13) pertaining to the City Hall renovations, listed in attached AppendixA and discussed in this report be endorsed; and

(2)the budget schedule attached in Appendix B, showing the additional costs associated with the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall, be endorsed.

Background:

The Relocation Sub-Committee and Special Committee adopted motions requesting that I report further on various aspects of the City Hall renovations project. Most of these matters were addressed in the design concept plans for the Phase I renovations to City Hall approved by City Council, at its June 3 and 4, 1998 meeting.

At that time, City Council adopted motions requesting that I, in consultation with the Project Architect review and report further on certain design modifications Council requested for Phase 1 of the project. City Council also requested that I report back, through the Corporate Services and Budget Committees, on the source of funding over and above the $5.2 million previously approved by Council to accommodate all additional items requested.

Discussion:

The Project Team and Project Architect studied the additional project design modifications requested by City Council, in terms of whether they are technically feasible and can be accommodated in the Phase 1 renovations and what the cost implications are. These issues are discussed below, along with recommended actions (see Appendix A for a consolidated list) and additional budget requirements above the 5.2 million (see Appendix B). Also discussed are certain other items referred by the Relocation Sub-Committee and Special Committee for me to report on to the Relocation Sub-Committee.

(1)Design Ideas Raised in City Council Motions

(1.1)Council Chamber Floating Wall and Councillors' Seating

Motion:That the Project Architect be requested to investigate the cost of moving back the wall in the Council Chamber in order to:

(a)allow for two rows of Councillors' seats;

(b)maintain, as close as possible, the size of the Councillors' desks in the Council Chamber to the size of the desks currently in use in the Council Chamber at Metro Hall.

Comment:

The floating wall in its current location is a major design feature. The narrow steps beside the wall are part of the design and not to be used as stairs. The Historical Board does not support the relocation of the wall. The technical feasibility of moving the wall has been explored in detail. The wall contains major mechanical systems and would cost at least $750,000.00 to demolish and rebuild. Mechanical air balancing may be difficult to achieve with the wall in a new position (i.e., getting air to the centre of the room).

The floating wall cannot be moved more than five feet without requiring rebuilding of the stairs to the Members' Lounge, and creating structural stability problems with the "mushroom" which could be costly to resolve. Moving the wall up to five feet will still not permit two rows of seats nor will it maintain functional breaks in the rows, public deputation podium and staff seating locations.

The proposed desk is three feet wide and designed to be more efficient than the four foot wide Metro desk. The current City Hall desks are only 2.5 feet wide. The proposed new desks will incorporate technology in a space saving way, including keeping the desk surface free of any computer screens.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (1):That the floating wall in the Council Chamber be retained in its current location.

Action No. (2):That the Project Architect's proposed design for the Council Chamber to accommodate three rows of Councillors' seating be reaffirmed.

(1.2)Media Accommodation:

Motion:That the Project Architect be requested to review the issue of accommodation for the media, including the possibility of the installation of glass partitions and a second level to provide a total of 20-24 seats; and the permanent office space for the media on the first floor be completed in Phase One.

Comment:

Proposals for office accommodation for the media at City Hall are being developed by the Project Team in consultation with the media.

Adding a glass separation in front of the media space in the Council Chamber is possible and will add to the overall costs by $20,000.00. Consultation on this proposal will take place with the media.

Temporary seating at the top of the Council Chamber can be added when there is demand, as is the current practice. Under the new plan, part of the space is proposed to be allocated for wheelchairs. Only about 10 to 15 additional permanent seats can be added under the limits of the Ontario Building Code for occupancy of the Chamber. The amount of additional funding needed will depend on whether the space is to be used for the media or the public, with media space requiring greater additional funding because of the need to add communications systems.

The Project Architect does not support the creation of a second tier Press Gallery seating area at the top of the Council Chamber, given that the additional space would block continuous pedestrian movement at the upper level of the Chamber and would have to be raised substantially to achieve adequate sight lines. Also, it would become a dominant feature in the Chamber and detract from the integrity of the space.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (3):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services consult with the media and report further on the plan for media office accommodation at City Hall and on the feasibility and cost implications of adding a glass partition in front of Press Gallery space in the Council Chamber.

Action No. (4):That no further consideration be given to creating a second tier Press Gallery seating area at the top of the Council Chamber.

(1.3)Projection Screen and Corporate Logo in Council Chamber:

Motion:That the Project Architect be requested to incorporate, in his reconsideration of this project, a projection screen which is not fixed and which can be hidden when not in use, so that the corporate logo can be seen prominently on the back wall.

Comment:

The Project Team has investigated sources for a motorized, retractable projection screen for the Council Chamber and has been advised that this type of screen, at the size required for the Chamber, cannot be obtained. The Project Team is, therefore, exploring other options for an appropriate screen

and logo installation for the Council Chamber.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (5):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back on options for the projection screen and corporate logo installations in the Council Chamber, together with the associated costs.

(1.4)Microphone Light on Councillors' Desks in Council Chamber:

Motion:That the Project Architect be requested to ensure that a light is installed on the microphone on the Councillors' desks to indicate when the microphone is 'live'.

Comment:

This is included already in the plan.

(1.5)Equity in Size of Second Floor Offices:

Motion:That the Project Architect be requested to re-examine the second floor layout to ensure more equity in office space.

Comment:

There are only two Councillors' offices that are significantly larger than the rest - at the northwest and northeast corners. These offices are existing configurations and due to their location, they are difficult to reduce in size. Any space removed from these areas would go to increasing the area of exit stairs. The design already makes adjustments to the extent possible to create offices of the same size in response to the unavoidable changes in the floor plate and the need to line up partitions with window mullions.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (6):That the size and configuration of the Councillors' offices, as shown on the design concept plans approved by City Council, be reaffirmed.

(1.6)Humanizing Outside Podium Level:

Motion:That the Commissioner of Corporate Services, together with the appropriate staff, be requested, as soon as possible, to develop plans to "humanize" the outside roof area surrounding the Council Chamber, especially the area to the north of the proposed links to the East and West Towers.

Comment:

Although this is already part of Phase 2, interim improvements will now be explored by staff.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (7):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back in September, 1998 on interim measures and proposals for Phase 2 of the City hall renovations project, to "humanize" the outside roof area surrounding the Council Chamber.

(1.7)Toronto City Centre Project:

Motion:That the Commissioner of Corporate Services, together with the appropriate staff, be requested, as soon as possible, to develop plans for the Civic Centre, such plans to be submitted as soon as possible to Council, through the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

Comment:

This is part of Phase 3 of the project and a report on the proposed process will be submitted by staff next month.

(1.8)Aesthetic Lighting for Council Chamber, First and Second Floors and Sound Proofing Office Windows:

Motions:That the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to consider aesthetic lighting for the Council Chamber and second and main floors, as well as additional sound barriers for the offices facing Nathan Phillips Square.

That sound proofing of windows for offices overlooking Nathan Phillips Square, to ensure that the affected offices are useable, be added to the project.

Comment:

Improvements to lighting are part of the current proposals for the Council Chamber. Additional funds will be required for the second floor. The main floor lighting improvements, including improvements to the Hall of Memory will be part of Phase 2, but some improvements should be made this year as part of ongoing operational improvements to the building.

Sound-proofing office windows facing Nathan Phillips Square is possible and would cost an additional $80,000.00. This work should be incorporated into the scheme currently being explored by the Project Team, in consultation with the Energy Efficiency Office, to replace all City Hall windows with more energy efficient windows. The window replacement scheme would be undertaken in stages to coincide with the phased renovations of City Hall, beginning this year with the second and first floors and the other floors accommodating the offices of the CAO and Commissioners and their support staff. The Project Team, in consultation with the Energy Efficiency Office, will explore mechanisms for funding which may include support from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (8):That the lighting on the second floor of City Hall be upgraded as part of Phase1 of the project and additional funds in the amount of $200,000.00 be allocated for this purpose.

Action No. (9):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on a staged program to replace the existing windows at City Hall with more energy efficient windows as part of the City Hall renovations project, including sound proofing the windows for Councillors' offices overlooking Nathan Phillips Square during the Phase 1 renovations, and report on mechanisms for funding which may include support from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund.

(1.9)Podium Level Meeting Rooms in Phase 1:

Motion:That plans for the additional podium floor to house new committee rooms, media offices and other needed facilities be moved forward to Phase 1 from Phase 2 and that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report thereon, through the Mayor's office, to the Budget Committee.

Comment:

There is insufficient time to make this major change by the end of the year. A proposal for the scope of Phase 2 will be submitted to the Relocation Sub-Committee and Budget Committee shortly.

Recommended Actions:

Action No.(10):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on the proposals with associated costs to construct new committee meeting rooms on the podium level of City Hall, as part of the Phase 2 renovations to City Hall.

(1.10)Adding Second Floor Meeting Rooms:

Motion:That:

(1)the space on the second floor currently proposed for the City Clerk's staff be relocated to the first floor;

(2)the space on the second floor currently proposed for the Mayor's support staff, as shown on the sketch in a separate area away from the Office of the Mayor, be relocated to the first floor below the Mayor's office, and an interior connecting staircase be incorporated into the layout; and the space made available on the second floor, as a result of this change, be used for additional committee rooms of various sizes;

(3)in the event that Recommendation No. (2) above fails, the space on the second floor currently proposed for the Mayor's support staff be reduced to the same size as the space allocated to the Councillors' support staff, thereby reducing the space from 2650 sq. ft. to 1700 sq. ft., and the remaining 950sq.ft. of space be used for additional meeting rooms for Councillors.

Comment:

The proposal is to continue to use meeting rooms at Metro Hall until additional meeting rooms are added at City Hall as part of Phase 2.

The allocation of second floor office space for the City Clerk's support staff is based on the City Clerk's program needs related to the operation of City Council. It may be possible to reallocate this space for meeting rooms in the future, once the City Clerk's overall space needs are assessed in the context of the corporate space planning strategy currently being developed to determine "who goes where" at City Hall and the other civic centres. In the meantime, it is advisable to proceed with the plan to locate this function on the second floor.

The Mayor's Office is above both the main entrance to City Hall and an adjacent space that is potentially allocated for a cafe, and thus relocation to the main floor is not possible. In any case, the functionality of the main floor of City Hall, including the provision of services to the public and necessary renovations will be examined as part of Phase 2.

The Project Team and Project Architect discussed the office space requirements for the Mayor's support staff with the Mayor's Office and are satisfied with the proposed space allocation.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (11):That the allocation of office space on the second floor of City Hall for the City Clerk's staff be reaffirmed.

Action No. (12):That the allocation of office space on the second floor of City Hall for the Mayor's support staff be reaffirmed.

(1.11)Demountable Partitions for Councillors' Offices

Motion:That interior walls of the Councillors' offices be constructed of demountable partitions.

Comment:

This approach is preferred for cost and flexibility reasons and is one of the options available to Councillors. The additional cost for all offices ($314,000.00) has been added to the project budget.

(1.12)First Floor Escalator:

Motion:That the provision of an escalator between the ground and second floors to allow easy and proper access to the second floor also be approved.

Comment:

This is possible and will be looked at in Phase 2. The additional cost for an escalator is approximately $150,000.00. Alternatively, the Project Architect suggests constructing another curved stair that would be a strong architectural element more in keeping with the existing character of the rotunda. It would also utilize less ground floor space than an escalator. The stair together with the necessary structural supports would cost approximately $95,000.00.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (13):That the Commissioner of Corporate Service explore mechanisms such as an escalator or additional curved stair to provide better access from the first floor to the second floor of City Hall, as part of the Phase 2 renovations to City Hall, and report on this matter in September, 1998.

(1.13)Countdown Clocks in Council Chamber:

Motion:That a countdown clock be installed in the Council Chamber in a location visible to all Members of Council.

Comment:

Two countdown clocks are included in the plan.

(2)Other City Council Motions

(2.1)Allocation of Councillors' Offices

Motions:That Councillors presently located in offices at City Hall can remain in their offices if they so choose, and that those Councillors who choose to remain in their offices be excluded from the lottery.

That a lottery take place at Council on June 4, 1998 and Members of Council be given the opportunity to select their own ballot.

That Members of Council be permitted to negotiate an office trade with another Member of Council and that such trades take place within one week of the lottery for offices.

Comment:

The lottery on allocating Councillors' offices at City Hall took place on June 4, 1998, followed by the Project Team surveying all Councillors on the layout design they want for their offices. The lottery results and the outcome of the office layout survey will be the subject of a separate report to the Relocation Sub-Committee.

(2.2)Additional Budget Requirements:

Motion:That the Budget Committee be requested to report to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee, on the source of funding over and above the budget of $5.2million previously approved by Council, to accommodate all of the additional items requested.

Comment:

The budget schedule attached in Appendix B provides a breakdown of the cost estimates to accommodate new items in the Phase 1 renovations, over and above the $5.2 million approved by City Council. Additional funds in the amount of $1.7 million are needed as a result of recent program adjustments, additional needs identified by Councillors and staff, emerging design refinements unforeseen in the original budget submission, and design modifications to implement the additional items recently requested by City Council.

As an example, Council Chamber costs were increased to better accommodate all Councillors and senior staff, create a better public deputation area, and provide an adequate separation between the Council Chamber floor and public gallery seating areas. The IT costs were increased to accommodate additional needs identified by the City Clerk and Councillors and are the result of further modifications to the Councillors' seating areas. Cost increases are also attributable to lighting upgrades on the second floor, new wayfinding signage, elevating the two pedestrian links for better accessibility, and adding washrooms on a new 3^rd floor mezzanine level.

The additional costs related to the final design concept for the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall can be accommodated with funds from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City Owned Buildings Account and Transition Reserve Fund, as recommended in a separate report to the Budget Committee. Funding included in the Operations Budget can be adjusted to cover such matters.

Recommended Actions:

Action No. (14):That the budget schedule attached in Appendix B, showing the additional costs associated with the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall, be endorsed.

It should be noted that the motion adopted by City Council at its June 3 and 4, 1998 meeting, to include the $314,000.00 for the Councillors' offices as part of the $5.2 million was required in order that work on the Councillors' offices could begin as soon as possible. The enclosed office option means a different demolition plan. The budget proposal in this report supersedes this motion.

(3)Items Raised by Relocation Sub-Committee and Special Committee:

(3.1)Councillors' Parking at City Hall:

The Relocation Sub-Committee requested that the Chair and I review the security and parking issues related to the underground parking garage at City Hall with the Toronto Parking Authority. The Sub-Committee also requested that consideration be given to the possibility of an additional parking space being made available for Councillor's staff. The security needs at City Hall, including the underground parking garage will be assessed in a separate building security study now underway. At the completion of the study, I will report on a security plan for City Hall together with recommendations on any security improvements necessary and the budget implications. A corporate strategy to allocate parking spaces to City officials (in addition to Councillors) will also be recommended and will be the subject of a report in the near future.

(3.2)Relocation of Urban Affairs Library:

The Relocation Sub-Committee and Special Committee requested that I, in consultation with the appropriate officials of the Urban Affairs Library, report on the issue of relocating the Urban Affairs Library from Metro Hall to support the new City Council at City Hall. Discussions have been held with the Chief Librarian who advised that the Toronto Public Library is reviewing its programs, including assessing the functionality of both the Urban Affairs Library and City Hall Public Library and their accommodation needs at City Hall. The amount of ground floor space that can be allocated for library purposes will be considered in proposals for the ground floor in Phase 2 of the project. I will continue to consult with the Chief Librarian and will report further on this matter in September of this year.

(3.3)Status of Old City Hall Negotiations:

The Relocation Sub-Committee and Special Committee requested that I report on discussions to date respecting the lease of Old City Hall. Attached in Appendix C, for the Sub-Committee's information, is a separate report titled "Old City Hall - Lease Agreement", dated June 11, 1998, which has been submitted to the Corporate Services Committee in order to seek City Council's direction on renewal of the lease of Old City Hall.

Conclusions:

Establishing a fully functional seat of government at Toronto City Hall is a multi-phase project to be undertaken over the next few years. City Council's recent approval of the final design concept plans for the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall will enable renovations to begin on schedule, so that Councillors' offices and City Council operations can be relocated to City Hall by the end of 1998.

Many of the issues raised by the Relocation Sub-Committee and Special Committee have been addressed in the design concept for Phase 1 approved by City Council. As discussed in this report, many of the additional items raised by City Council either require additional funding for implementation in Phase 1 of the project or will be reported on in connection with the work plans for Phases 2 and 3 of the project.

Contact Name:

Cathie Macdonald, Project Executive and Interim Lead, Facilities and Real Estate, phone 392-0449, fax 392-0029

--------

Appendix A

List of Recommended Actions for City Hall Renovations Project

Action No. (1):That the floating wall in the Council Chamber be retained in its current location.

Action No. (2):That the Project Architect's proposed design for the Council Chamber to accommodate three rows of Councillors' seating be reaffirmed.

Action No. (3):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services consult with the media and report further on the plan for media office accommodation at City Hall and on the feasibility and cost implications of adding a glass partition in front of Press Gallery space in the Council Chamber.

Action No. (4):That no further consideration be given to creating a second tier Press Gallery seating area at the top of the Council Chamber.

Action No. (5):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back on options for the projection screen and corporate logo installations in the Council Chamber, together with the associated costs.

Action No. (6):That the size and configuration of the Councillors' offices, as shown on the design concept plans approved by City Council, be reaffirmed.

Action No. (7):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back in September, 1998 on interim measures and proposals for Phase 2 of the City hall renovations project, to "humanize" the outside roof area surrounding the Council Chamber.

Action No. (8):That the lighting on the second floor of City Hall be upgraded as part of Phase1 of the project and additional funds in the amount of $200,000.00 be allocated for this purpose.

Action No. (9):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on a staged program to replace the existing windows at City Hall with more energy efficient windows as part of the City Hall renovations project, including sound proofing the windows for Councillors' offices overlooking Nathan Phillips Square during the Phase 1 renovations, and report on mechanisms for funding which may include support from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund.

Action No.(10):That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on the proposals with associated costs to construct new committee meeting rooms on the podium level of City Hall, as part of the Phase 2 renovations to City Hall.

Action No.(11):That the allocation of office space on the second floor of City Hall for the City Clerk's staff be reaffirmed.

Action No.(12):That the allocation of office space on the second floor of City Hall for the Mayor's support staff be reaffirmed.

Action No.(13):That the Commissioner of Corporate Service explore mechanisms such as an escalator or additional curved stair to provide better access from the first floor to the second floor of City Hall, as part of the Phase 2 renovations to City Hall, and report on this matter in September, 1998.

Action No.(14):That the budget schedule attached in Appendix B, showing the additional costs associated with the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall, be endorsed.

--------

Appendix B

Budget Schedule

Revised Costs Above $5.2 million for Phase One City Hall Renovations

--------

Appendix C

Report from Commissioner of Corporate Services, titled "Old City Hall - Lease Agreement", dated June 11, 1998, to Corporate Services Committee

"Purpose:

To seek direction from City Council relating to the renewal of the lease of Old City Hall.

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 The Metropolitan Executive Committee Report No. 8, Clause No. 4, on March1,1989 and The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee Report No. 16, Clause No. 2 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 The Corporate Administration Committee Report No. 19, Clause No. 13, 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 209,318 square 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"

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

Recommendation:

The Corporate Services Committee on July 8, 1998, recommended the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication (June 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to striking out Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and inserting in lieu the following:

"(3)$314,000.00 for two copy centres, two central serveries and two informal meeting rooms to serve members of City Council and for the City Clerk's office area and Mayor's support area to meet their business needs, be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing;",

so that the recommendations embodied in the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services shall now read as follows:

(1)$5.2 million, approved by City Council on February 4 and 5, 1998, for the renovations to Toronto City Hall be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund, as recommended in the report of the Chief Administrative Officer, entitled "Transition Projects", before the Budget Committee on June 25, 1998;

(2)$1.14 million, approved by City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998, for improvements, be provided from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City-Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto;

(3)$314,000.00 for two copy centres, two central serveries and two informal meeting rooms to serve members of City Council and for the City Clerk's office area and Mayor's support area to meet their business needs, be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing; and

(4)$240,000.00 for improved lighting on the second floor and improved wayfinding, be provided from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City-Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto, if approved by City Council when it considers the report of the Commissioner of Corporate Services, "Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended Actions in Response to Committee and City Council Motions and Additional Phase 1 Budget Requirements", dated June 16, 1998, submitted to the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall for its meeting of June 23, 1998.

Background:

The Corporate Services Committee on July 8, 1998, had before it a communication (June 26, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, recommended to the Corporate Services Committee, the adoption of the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services wherein it is recommended that:

(1)$5.2 million, approved by City Council on February 4 and 5, 1998, for the renovations to Toronto City Hall be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund, as recommended in the report of the Chief Administrative Officer, entitled "Transition Projects", before the Budget Committee on June 25, 1998;

(2)$1.14 million, approved by City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998, for improvements, be provided from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City-Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto;

(3)up to $314,000.00 for enclosed offices for Councillors' Executive Assistants, be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing; and

(4)$240,000.00 for improved lighting on the second floor and improved wayfinding, be provided from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City-Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto, if approved by City Council when it considers the report of the Commissioner of Corporate Services, "Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended Actions in Response to Committee and City Council Motions and Additional Phase 1 Budget Requirements", dated June 16, 1998, submitted to the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall for its meeting of June 23, 1998.

The Corporate Services Committee also had before it a report (July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services adjusting the sources for the $314,000.00 required for the Phase 1 renovations to Toronto City Hall to be completed by the end of 1998; and recommending that Recommendation No. (3) contained in the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services to the Budget Committee, titled "Funding Sources for Renovations to Toronto City Hall", be deleted and replaced with the following recommendation:

"(3)$314,000.00 for two copy centres, two central serveries and two informal meeting rooms to serve members of City Council and for the City Clerk's office area and Mayor's support area to meet their business needs, be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing;".

(Communication dated June 26, 1998 from the City Clerk,

addressed to the Corporate Services Committee.)

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, recommended to the Corporate Services Committee, the adoption of the report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

Background:

The Budget Committee on June 25, 1998, had before it a report (June 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, regarding the funding sources for the renovations to Toronto City Hall.

(Report dated June 16, 1998 addressed to the

Budget Committee from the

Commissioner of Corporate Services)

Purpose:

To approve funding sources for Phase 1 of the renovations to be completed by the end of 1998.

Source of Funds:

As recommended below.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)$5.2 million, approved by City Council on February 4 and 5, 1998, for the renovations to Toronto City Hall be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund, as recommended in the report of the Chief Administrative Officer, entitled "Transition Projects", before the Budget Committee on June 25, 1998;

(2)$1.14 million, approved by City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998, for improvements, be provided from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto;

(3)up to $314,000 for enclosed offices for Councillors' Executive Assistants, be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing; and

(4)$240,000 for improved lighting on the second floor and improved wayfinding, be provided from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto, if approved by City Council when it considers the report of the Commissioner of Corporate Services, "Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended Actions in Response to Committee and City Council Motions and Additional Phase 1 Budget Requirements", dated June 16, 1998, submitted to the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall for its meeting of June 26, 1998.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On February 4 and 5, 1998, City Council approved $5.2 million for renovations to City Hall to accommodate the seat of government by the end of the year. On June 3 and 4, 1998, Council approved an additional amount of $1.14 million for improvements, and $314,000 for the provision of enclosed offices for the executive assistants of Councillors. Council also requested that the Commissioner of Corporate Services report through the Corporate Services Committee to the Budget Committee on the sources of funding over the $5.2 million to accommodate additional items requested.

The Budget Committee is also considering the recommendations of the report from the Chief Administrative Officer on the funding of various matters from the Transition Reserve Fund, including part of the costs associated with the City Hall renovations.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(1)Budget Requirements for Phase 1

The budget requirements for Phase 1 of the renovations are summarized in the budget schedule attached in Appendix A. These are in four steps.

(a)City Council approval of the Toronto City Hall as the seat of government

When City Council decided at its meeting in February that the Toronto City Hall should be the seat of government for the new City Council, it approved funding of $5.2 million. This amount was based on the proposals at that time for the necessary renovations to add Councillors' offices, increase the seating for Councillors in the Council Chambers, add walkways from the Council Chambers to the office towers at the podium level, upgrade meeting rooms and improve technology. The $5.2 million is to be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund, as recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer in his report to your Committee.

(b)Improvements to the original proposals

City Council, at its meeting of June 3 and 4, 1998 approved improvements to the original proposals to better accommodate Councillors and staff and to replace the proposed walkways with bridges to improve accessibility to the Chamber. These changes were a result of review of operational needs by the Mayor, councillors, and staff, and of design improvements, and were incorporated into revised plans by the Project Architect, Kuwabara, Payne, McKenna and Blumberg. These changes added $1.14 million to the budget, and this addition was approved by City Council in June. The Equity Program and Access Improvements for City Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto is available to cover this increase by adjusting the allocation of funding so that accessibility and equity improvements to the City Hall building renovations, including increased washroom capacity and improved access by the bridge links. Therefore, $1.14 million is to be provided for the Phase 1 renovations from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City Owned Buildings Account.

(c)Enclosing the offices for executive assistants within the Councillors' offices

City Council, at its June 3 and 4, 1998 meeting also approved the option of enclosing of the offices of the Councillors' executive assistants, at an additional cost of $314,000. The original plans were for open offices. This additional funding should come from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing. It should be noted that the motion made at the June City Council meeting to include this amount in the base $5.2 million budget was required at that time, because it would allow for the spending of funds for this purpose prior to the additional funding being approved. This early approval was needed so that the special demolition plan required for the enclosed offices could proceed in a cost effective way in advance of Budget Committee approval of the additional funding, in order to meet the tight schedule for construction.

(d)Additional items proposed at the meeting of City Council in June

At the June 1998 Council meeting, a number of motions were made to propose changes to the approved plans and further enhancements, which were referred to the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Project Architect for further reports. The subsequent report to the Relocation Sub-Committee, "Toronto City Hall Renovations - Recommended Actions in response to Committee and City Council Motions and Additional Phase 1 Budget Requirements," dated June 16, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, which recommends additional items to be funded in Phase1, will be before the Sub-Committee on June 26, 1998 and therefore that report is submitted to your Committee for information in conjunction with this report. The June 16, 1998 report recommends adding two items to the Phase 1 renovations - the increased lighting on the second floor and the improvements to wayfinding, which will cost an additional $240,000. If Council approves this additional work at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 funding should come from the Equity Program and Access Improvements Account.

(2)Additional Items

The June 16, 1998 report to the Relocation Sub-Committee lists a number of matters with associated costs that will be reported on further, including:

- a glass partition for the Press Gallery space in the Council Chamber, at a cost of approximately $20,000;

- a projection screen at the front of the Council Chamber and installation of a corporate logo, with costs to be determined;

- improvements to the outside roof area surrounding the Council Chamber, with the cost still to be determined; and

- an escalator or curved stair to provide better access from the first floor to the second floor of City Hall, with approximate costs of $150,000 and $95,000 respectively.

Funds are already requested in the Transition Reserve Fund report to the Budget Committee of June25, 1998 to cover certain costs associated with establishing the seat of government at City Hall, and a further $1 million for additional staff relocations throughout city buildings.

Conclusions:

The basic cost of renovating the Toronto City Hall to accommodate the seat of government of $5.2million has increased as a result of improvements to the original proposal to better accommodate Council and its operations, at the cost of $1.14 million and approved by City Council. The additional funding of $554,000 required to meet the needs of City Council as a result of further proposals by Council and Councillors, is recommended to come from the Transition Reserve Fund or debt financing, and from the Equity Program and Access Improvements for City Owned Buildings Account of the former City of Toronto. The normal capital maintenance budget for this building will also contribute to improving the building, as well as special funds such as for energy efficiency, if available.

Contact Name:

Cathie Macdonald, Project Executive and Interim Lead, Facilities & Real Estate: Phone 392-0449, fax 392-0029 (bc98097.wpd)

Appendix A

Revised Costs Above $5.2 Million for Phase 1 City Hall Renovations

(Report dated July 7, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate

Services, addressed to the Corporate Services Committee.)

Purpose:

To adjust the funding sources for the $314,000.00 required for the Phase 1 renovations to Toronto City Hall to be completed by the end of 1998.

Source of Funds:

As recommended below.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Recommendation No. (3) contained in the report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services to the Budget Committee, entitled "Funding Sources for Renovations to Toronto City Hall", dated June16, 1998, be deleted and replaced with the following recommendation:

"(3)$314,000.00 for two copy centres, two central serveries and two informal meeting rooms to serve Members of City Council and for the City Clerk's office area and Mayor's support area to meet their business needs, be provided from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing."

Council Reference/Background/History:

On June 3 and 4, 1998, City Council adopted, among other things, a motion that $314,000.00 required to provide enclosed offices for the Councillors' executive assistants be included within the $5.2million previously approved by City Council for the Phase 1 renovations to Toronto City Hall. City Council also requested that I report on the sources of funding over the $5.2million to accommodate additional items requested.

This matter was addressed in my report to the Budget Committee dated June16, 1998, entitled "Funding Sources for Renovations to Toronto City Hall" which the Budget Committee adopted, including Recommendation No.(3) that recommended up to $314,000.00 for enclosed offices for Councillors' executive assistants be allocated from the Transition Reserve Fund or from debt financing.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As requested by City Council, my June16, 1998 report identified additional budget requirements for Phase1 of the renovations, including an additional $314,000.00 to accommodate the option of enclosing the offices of Councillors' executive assistants. The report noted that the motion made at the June 1998 City Council meeting to include this amount in the base $5.2million was necessary at that time, in advance of Budget Committee approval of additional funds for this purpose, so that the special demolition work related to the Councillors' offices could proceed in a cost effective way to meet the tight construction schedule.

The result of incorporating this new work valued at $314,000.00 into the original base budget of $5.2million is that there is now a corresponding shortfall in funds available for other important items originally included in the budget. To address this technical problem, additional funding is now requested to enable previously planned work to proceed on schedule, given that demolition work to accommodate these items has been completed and construction work is to commence by the middle of July.

This additional $314,000.00 should be allocated from the Transition Reserve Fund to cover costs associated with constructing two copy centres, two central serveries and two informal meeting rooms on the second floor to serve all Members of City Council and for the City Clerk's office area and Mayor's support area on the second floor to meet their business needs.

Conclusions:

Incorporating $314,000.00 for enclosed offices for Councillors' executive assistants into the original base budget of $5.2 million to renovate Toronto City Hall has meant that other significant items originally included in the base budget cannot be accommodated without the allocation of additional funds as recommended in this report.

Contact Name:

Cathie Macdonald, Project Executive and Interim Lead, Facilities and Real Estate: Phone392-0449, fax 392-0029 [bc98126.wpd].)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 6, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund at its meeting on July 6, 1998:

(1)approved, in principle, the provision of a repayable loan to the City of Toronto for a window improvement project during the Phase I renovations at Toronto City Hall, subject to an acceptable interest rate being negotiated for the loan and subject to a repayment plan and agreement from City Council that interest on the loan as well as capital will be repaid in accordance with the terms of the loan;

(2)requested that City Council forward its approval to the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund so that the legal required notice can be given for a meeting of the Board for final approval;

(3)requested that full accounting of the energy and CO2 emission savings of the project be calculated; and

(4)indicated a preference for Option A - High Efficiency Windows as described in the report (June 26, 1998) from the Commissioners of Corporate Services and Works and Emergency Services.)

3

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Amendment to the Terms of Reference of

the Sub-Committee for the Relocation

of All Members of Council to City Hall.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having deferred consideration of the following report and communication until its meeting scheduled to be held on July 17, 1998:

(i)(June 25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, clarifying the reporting structure and future roles of the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall and the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team pertaining to Phases two and three of the Toronto City Hall renovations project, including the City Centre project; and recommending that:

(1)the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall continue to report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall, until the end of 1998;

(2)the Corporate Services Committee deal with Phases 2 and 3 of the City Hall project and other City Hall maintenance and renovation matters on an ongoing basis, and determine whether it wishes to establish a sub-committee for this purpose; and

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

(ii)(May 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, recommended to the Special Committee that the Terms of Reference of the Sub-Committee be amended to permit the Sub-Committee to review the long term options for the Civic Centre proposal and its process.

(b)Progress Report on the Special Committee's Workplan.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting scheduled to be held on July 17, 1998:

(May 13, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, recommending that:

(1)the Special Committee take no further action on the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team that deal with administrative and public policy matters, listed in Appendix A to this report;

(2)the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team that deal with administrative and public policy matters, listed in Appendix A to this report, be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioners for information and consideration, if appropriate, in their respective areas of responsibility;

(3)the Special Committee's mandate continue for the remainder of 1998 to enable it to complete the outstanding items on its workplan;

(4)the major focus for the Special Committee's work in the coming months be on the review of governance, including the interconnected and complex issues related to citizen involvement and governance structures; and

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

(c)Procedural By-law Amendments -

"Presiding Member of Council".

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following report back to the City Clerk and the City Solicitor for a further report thereon to the Special Committee:

(May 19, 1998) from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor, responding to the request of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of Toronto Transition Team, that the City Solicitor and City Clerk report on a proposal of Councillor Faubert concerning the use of a "presiding member of Council", and report further on a reference to be made in the Procedural By-law for unprovided cases; and recommending that:

(1)the status quo, recognizing the Mayor as the Chair of Council and appointing a Deputy Mayor as provided for in the Municipal Act, be maintained and that references to Second Deputy Mayor and Third Deputy Mayor in the Procedural By-law be deleted; and

(2)the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be used in unprovided cases.

(d)Procedural By-law Amendment to Permit

Request for Recorded Votes at Meetings of

Standing Committees and Committees of Council.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its meeting scheduled to be held on July 17, 1998:

(June 14, 1998) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government, advising that the "request for a recorded vote" has recently been incorporated into the procedures for meetings of Community Councils; that what remains now is to amend the Procedural By-law to include the provision for a call for a recorded vote at all political meetings; and that the amendment to the Procedural By-law clarify that the results of recorded votes be included in the reports that go to Council as well as in the minutes of the committee meetings.

(e)Transition Team's Recommendations

Respecting Environmental Issues.

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

(June 10, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, responding to the request from the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that the Chief Administrative Officer report on how the new city should handle environmental issues from an administrative point of view; advising that the report is a progress report on the steps that the corporation is taking to implement the relevant parts of Recommendation No. (42) of the Final Report of the Transition Team; that there are no financial implications to this progress report; and recommending that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team receive this report for information.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID MILLER,

Chair

Toronto, June 26, 1998

(Report No. 8 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of The Toronto Transition Team, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.)