TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

EMERGENCY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 9

1Public Access Defibrillation Program

21999 Licence Fees

3Seizing and Impounding of Vehicles used by Persons Charged with Prostitution Offence

4Organization of the Toronto Licensing Commission

5Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 9

OF THE EMERGENCY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on September 8 and 11, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

1

Public Access Defibrillation Program

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee:

(1)reaffirms its support of a Public Access Defibrillation Program; and

(2)recommends that the renovations to the Toronto City Hall incorporate the installation of automatic defibrillators in appropriate locations in City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square; that the appropriate staff be trained in the use of automatic defibrillators; and that this program be implemented by January 1, 1999.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back to the Committee on:

(a)the feasibility of a Public Access Defibrillation pilot project in some City buildings;

(b)statistics on the number of people who would have benefitted had this equipment been available; and

(c)the issue of appropriate medical control.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following communication (August 19, 1998) from Mr. Steven Ellis, Physio-Control Canada Corporation, Richmond Hill, addressed to Councillor Fotinos:

I would like to thank you for your time and interest in meeting with me on August 17th to discuss automatic external defibrillators. Metro's endorsement of a Public Access Defibrillation Program could potentially have extensive implications for Toronto, for Ontario, and for all of Canada in raising public awareness on the effectiveness of early defibrillation in treating victims of cardiac arrest.

"...an initial tachyarrythmia causes 80-90% of nontraumatic adult cardiac arrests. The goal of early defibrillation is to get a defibrillator to these patients before they deteriorate into a nonviable rhythm, which takes only a few minutes." "...defibrillation is the single most important intervention in adult emergency cardiac care". JAMA, 1992;268:p.2215.

This concept, clearly endorsed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation, is fairly new in Canadian pre-hospital care. Metro's commitment to a highly respected emergency medical service via universal 911 and tiered response has provided a formidable link in the chain of survival. But in the event of sudden cardiac arrest, time is of such critical issue that fire and ambulance response (equipped with defibrillators) are only marginally effective. Chance of survival decreases by 7-10% for every minute a person waits for treatment.

The current technology used in the automatic external defibrillator has provided an extremely effective and safe method for non health care professionals to deliver this life saving care.

As per our discussion, I would appreciate the opportunity to provide a brief presentation to your committee on the potential benefits of a Public Access Defibrillation program for the citizens of Metro.

_______

Mr. Steven Ellis, Physio-Control Canada Corporation, Richmond Hill, appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Councillor John Adams, Midtown, also appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

2

1999 Licence Fees

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the report dated September 28, 1998 from the City Solicitor, entitled '1999 Licence Fees', be adopted, wherein it is recommended that:

'If City Council anticipates that it may change the licence fees for taxicab owners, drivers and brokers during the 1999 calender year, it is recommended that:

(1)licences issued to taxicab owners, drivers, and brokers for the 1999calendar year be issued for a term of 8 months; and

(2)the licence fees for the 8-month licence term be calculated by prorating the licence fee currently calculated on a 12-month licence term.'; and

(2)the following motion be referred to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for consideration at its next meeting scheduled to be held on October 6, 1998, with a request that the Committee report thereon to City Council at its next regular meeting scheduled to be held on October 28, 1998:

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is recommended that a fee stabilization reserve be established and that a surcharge of 2 percent be added to each licence to kick-start the reserve, such reserve to be established in such a manner as to protect it from the Budget Committee.' ")

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (August 25, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission;

(2)that in the future the Toronto Licensing Commission publish an annual report which includes its audited statements for the information of the public; and

(3)that, if additional funding is required as a result of any recommendations arising from the Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry, an additional mid-term levy on taxicab owners and drivers be utilized.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the following additional information be provided to Council when it considers this matter on October 1, 1998:

(a)the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, to submit:

(i)a copy of the last yearly report submitted to the former Metropolitan Toronto Human Services Committee by the Metro Auditor reporting on the results of the audit of the Metro Licensing Commission; and

(ii)a revised Appendix 1 to include the 1996 and 1997 figures for comparison purposes; that where the figures show a dramatic increase, a rationale for the increase be included in the report; and that any decreases be flagged; and

(b)the City Solicitor to report advising whether the City can apply an additional mid-term levy in situations where licences are issued for a 12-month period.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following report (August 25, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(i)The Committee approve the attached proposed schedule of licence fees (Appendix 1);

(ii)The By-law amendment implementing the new schedule of fees be effective January 1, 1999; and

(iii)By-law 20-85 be amended to require an annual check of the exhaust emissions of Taxicabs, Livery Cabs and Driving School Vehicles, such By-law to be effective January 1, 1999.

Background:

In 1985 Metropolitan Council directed the Licensing Commission to operate at cost recovery. As a result a cost recovery model was developed with the objective of allocating the costs associated with administering and enforcing the licensing by-law to the various categories of licences. These costs were to be recovered in the form of a licence fee or user fee where applicable.

The cost recovery model was in use until 1993, when at Council's direction it was reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto who reported that "In general terms it [the model] appears to be a reasonable procedure of estimation of unit cost by licence category on a full cost recovery basis."

The report also made the suggestion that general administrative costs should be distributed in a manner that is more reflective of the actual time and resources spent by management, administration and accounting activities which support specific classes of licence. Further, it was recommended that administrative and accounting expenditures related to human resources management be charged to divisions based on the number of staff.

Discussion:

1999 Model - General Comments

The following have been taken into account in preparing the model:

(i) An increase of $200,000.00 in Tribunal costs reflecting the anticipated cost of providing separate legal services to the Tribunal. This is as a result of the separation of the Tribunal functions from the administrative functions as approved by Council on May 13, 1998;

(ii)An increase of $165,000.00 in enforcement salaries representing an annualization of an increase in establishment of strength of six Enforcement Officers, approved in the 1998 budget on condition that Toronto Licensing is given access to the Provincial ICON system which will enable Licensing to collect fines.

Toronto Licensing has been given authorization to access the Provincial system and is currently in discussion with the information technology staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General on the process for implementation.

(iii)An amount of $25.00 has been included in the cost of each Taxicab Owners, Livery Cab Owners, Driving School Owners and Instructors' (with cars) licences to reflect the cost of an annual basic exhaust emission check in accordance with Council's direction that "the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, in consultation with the appropriate officials, be requested to investigate the possibility of adding to the inspections, at this stage, the testing of exhaust emissions using the new technologies available for such testing."

The current service provider of mechanical inspections Reg Quinn Ltd. was asked to provide information on the possibility of including exhaust emissions testing in the current inspections and the cost and time requirements for such testing. In a letter to the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, (Appendix 2) Reg Quinn Ltd. indicated that the technology is available at a cost of between $20.00 to $30.00 per inspection requiring between 15 to 22 additional minutes per inspection.

For the purpose of the 1999 Fee calculation it was assumed that if Council approves the inclusion of exhaust emission testing there would be one emission test per year as this would probably be the standard that would be used by the Province if and when Provincial testing is introduced.

If annual exhaust emission testing were approved the following actions will be required:

(a)The By-law be amended to include testing exhaust emissions as part of a mechanical inspection of taxicabs and that the failure of an exhaust emission test be defined as a failure due to a major mechanical defect. The definition of exhaust emissions as a major mechanical defect may result in an increase in the number of failures and in turn the number of Tribunal Hearings. A similar amendment should be made in the schedule relating to Driving School Vehicles.

(b)Licencees in the affected categories should be advised of the increased time required for an inspection and be given information on the benefits of clean emissions.

(iv)Council at its meeting July 8, 1998 amended By-Law 20-85 requiring that vendors of alcoholic beverages be licenced effective January 1, 1999. The fees were set at $500.00 per year. No data is available on the costs of enforcing these regulations or on related costs, therefore, no changes are recommended.

(v)A report recommending the licensing of Complementary Care/Holistic Therapists was considered by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee at its meeting July 14, 1998. The Committee referred the report along with some motions back to the General Manager, Toronto Licensing to report thereon to Committee at its meeting in October. Among the motions to be considered was a motion that "a fee be established for Holistic Therapy Centres that reflect the licence fee for Massagists and Massage Parlours" and that the General Manager "review the licence fee after it has been in effect for a period of time so that the adjustments that may be necessary can be made". Complementary Care/Holistic Therapists have been included in the fee model in anticipation that it will be approved as a licence category and to enable the proper distribution of costs and the calculation of revenue but have not been included in the schedule of proposed fees. Fees for this category will be set when they are included in the By-law. For the purpose of the model the fees for Complementary Care/Holistic Therapists have been set at the same rate as the fees for Massagists and Massage Parlours.

Overview:

The model is an allocation of projected costs, based on the distribution of time spent in performing tasks related to the regulation and administration of specific categories of licences. These costs are classified into groups called Cost Centres which reflect a type of activity carried out in administering the by-law.

The four main Cost Centres are Administration, Issuing, Enforcement, and Commission Support Services.

Three types of costs have been identified :

(i)Direct costs - these are costs that apply to the regulation of a specific category of licence, e.g. the time spent inspecting taxicabs.

(ii) Common Costs - these are costs common to all licences, e.g. computer support.

(iii) Special Costs - these are costs incurred by specific licencees and not by others within the category, e.g. mechanical inspection re-checks. These costs are usually recovered on a pay for use basis.

Summary of Cost Allocation:

Summary of Method

(i)Salary and overhead costs are extracted from the previous year's approved budget and are amended to reflect projected inflationary and service level increases.

(ii)Data in connection with the number of licences issued and applications taken is from the previous year's year-end totals and updated to reflect foreseeable changes.

(iii)Person-hours per activity (e.g. taking licence applications) are expressed as a percentage of the total person-hours available. This percentage is applied to salary and all other overhead costs to arrive at an appropriate distribution of cost per category(ies) of licence. The unit cost is then arrived at by dividing the category cost by the number of licences within the category. For example, see Tables 8, 9 10 and 13.

(iv)Testing for reasonableness is done on selected samples from incoming data.

The model is based on the equal sharing of costs (within a category of licence) for the regulation and control of licences. This position presumes that unlicenced businesses or businesses operating in contravention of the by-law will comply or go out of business. In either case legitimately licenced businesses benefit in that a level playing field is maintained and the businesses complying now share the costs of regulation. This premise works well in categories where there is no limit to licences or where there are large numbers of licencees to spread costs. When licences are restricted to small numbers and a relatively large number of unlicenced businesses operate the cost for enforcement can prove quite expensive when attributed to these small numbers as is currently the case with Body Rub Parlours.

Information from the Enforcement branch indicates that the majority of the time spent on Body Rub Parlours was spent inspecting unlicenced premises, however, in the model all of the costs are allocated to twenty five licenced locations which is the maximum number allowed to be licenced by the By-law.

Conclusions:

The above methodology has been applied to the current model. The results are therefore consistent with the data and with the recommendations of the Chief Administrative Officer of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto report dated June 16, 1994.

Historical Data

(i)Council's position in the past has been to adjust fees within a category this was done by transferring a portion of the costs (as generated by the model) from the drivers to the owners. Council has rationalized this transfer of costs as a recognition that some of the services provided by the Commission in relation to drivers should and/or could be provided by the owners, e.g. training. Council's position was that this transfer also addresses the economic inequities within the cab industries. In the case of refreshment vehicles, Council approved this transfer of costs in an attempt to alleviate the financial burden on students working as ice-cream vendors during the summer months. The categories affected were:

• taxicabs
• refreshment vehicles
• pedicabs

The attached schedule of proposed licence fees reflects a shifting of costs within these categories in keeping with Council's past actions.

________

Appendix 1

Proposed Schedule of 1999 Licence Fees

________

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee also submits the following report (August26, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission:

The 1999 Licensing Fee report does not include any allocation of funds for possible recommendations arising from the Task Force report. Licensing staff have a dilemma. The Taxicab licence fees must be approved at the very latest at the November 25, 1998 Council meeting so that we have time to print and process the renewal notices and have them mailed out in time for the renewals which commence February 1, 1999. If Committee anticipates that by mid October 1998 there will be sufficient information available to anticipate any additional expenditures required by the Task Force report, the portion of the fee report dealing with the Taxicab Industry could be severed from the remaining licence fees and held in abeyance until the November 3, 1998 Committee meeting. This creates a very tight time schedule and there will be no flexibility for additional meetings as the report would need to go on to the November 25, 1998 Council meeting.

If it is the preference of Committee to wait until Council has approved the recommendations of the Task Force and if there are any proposals that require additional funding, Council could recommend an additional mid-term levy on taxicab owners and drivers or Council could decide to absorb the additional costs, if any, in 1999 but include the expenditures in the year 2000 licence fees.

Submitted for your information and direction.

_______

Ms. Shawn Downey, Secretary-Treasurer, Greater Toronto Towing Association, Woodbridge, addressed the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 28, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide a legal opinion on the authority of City Council to impose an additional licence fee levy on licensed taxicab owners, drivers and brokers once the licence fees for the 1999 calendar year have been set for these businesses.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This report provides a mechanism by which licence fees for licences issued to taxicab owners, drivers and brokers may be changed during the 1999 calendar year to take into account any changes in the costs of administering and enforcing By-law No. 20-85 of the former Metropolitan Council, resulting from the implementation of the pending recommendations of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry.

Recommendations:

If City Council anticipates that it may change the licence fees for taxicab owners, drivers and brokers during the 1999 calendar year, it is recommended that:

(1)licences issued to taxicab owners, drivers, and brokers for the 1999 calendar year be issued for a term of 8 months; and

(2)the licence fee for the eight month licence term be calculated by prorating the licence fee currently calculated on a twelve month licence term.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of September 8, 1998, the Emergency and Protective Services Committee considered the reports dated August 25 and 26, 1998 from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission respecting 1999 Licence Fees. The Committee requested that I report directly to City Council on whether or not City Council may impose an additional licence fee levy on licensed taxicab owners, drivers and brokers once the licence fees for the 1999 calendar year have been set for these businesses.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under section 257.2 of the Municipal Act, City Council may require the payment of licence fees and may fix the time for which licences are in force. Under subsection 257.2(3) of the Municipal Act, in setting the amount of the licence fees, City Council must take into account the cost of administering and enforcing the licensing by-law.

All licences issued by the Toronto Licensing Commission under By-law No. 20-85 of the former Metropolitan Council are issued for a fixed period upon payment of a fixed fee, as set out in the By-law. At present, licences issued to taxicab owners, drivers and brokers are issued for a twelve month term upon payment of the prescribed fee.

It is my opinion that, once a licence has been issued upon payment of the prescribed fee, City Council lacks the authority to require the payment of an additional licence fee levy during the term of such licence. It is only upon the expiration of the term of the licence that City Council may change the licence fees.

Rather than requiring licencees to pay an additional licence fee levy during the currency of the licences issued for the 1999 calendar year, City Council may shorten the term of the licences issued, such that the licences expire at the time when City Council may wish to consider changing the licence fees.

The General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, has advised that it is her opinion that if City Council decides to shorten the term of these licences, the term should be shortened from the current twelve months to eight months. A period of eight months would provide sufficient time for staff to determine the actual cost implications of whatever changes may be made to the taxicab regulations arising from the recommendations of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry.

Upon the expiry of the licences issued for this eight month period, City Council may, if it so decides, change the licence fees for taxicab owners, drivers and brokers to reflect the changes, if any, in the costs of administering and enforcing By-law No. 20-85 of the former Metropolitan Council as it pertains to taxicabs. In this respect, the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, has advised that she will report to City Council at its meeting in June, 1999, through the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, regarding any changes in the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing by-law, and the implications thereof on the amount of the licence fees required to achieve cost recovery.

The shortening of the term of these licences to eight months is intended as a temporary measure only, to provide a mechanism by which the licence fees can be changed at the expiry of that term. As this is a temporary measure, upon the expiry of the eight month term, it will be necessary for City Council to determine the appropriate licence term for subsequently issued licences.

Prorating of the licence fees:

The proposed licence fees for taxicab owners, drivers and brokers contained in the General Manager's report dated August 25, 1998 are based on a calculation of the costs of administering and enforcing the by-law for a twelve month period. If City Council decides to reduce the term of these licences to eight months, it is my opinion that the licence fees should be prorated accordingly. Such prorating would more accurately take into account the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing by-law, as required by subsection 257.2(3) of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, it is recommended that these licence fees be prorated, such that the fee is calculated on the eight month term rather than on the twelve month term, as set out in the table below:

Other options:

A further option available to City Council in respect of this matter is to defer the setting of the licence fees until such time as the 1999 budget of the Toronto Licensing Commission has been approved by City Council. Members of my staff have discussed this option with the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, who advises that such deferral of the setting of licence fees would result in considerable administrative difficulties. The General Manager advises that the current process for the setting of licence fees prior to the approval of the Toronto Licensing Commission's budget is the result of various reviews and reports over the years. This current process takes into account both the need for administrative efficiency and the requirement that the licence fees be set having regard to the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing by-law.

Conclusions:

If City Council anticipates that it may change the licence fees for taxicab owners, drivers and brokers during the 1999 calendar year, it is recommended that licences issued to taxicab owners, drivers, and brokers for the 1999 calendar year be issued for a term of 8 months and that the licence fee for the eight month licence term be calculated by prorating the licence fee currently calculated on a twelve month licence term.

Upon the expiry of the licences issued for this eight month period, City Council may, if it so decides, change the licence fees for taxicab owners, drivers and brokers to reflect any changes in the costs of administering and enforcing By-law No. 20-85 of the former Metropolitan Council as it pertains to taxicabs. As the shortening of the term of these licences to eight months is intended as a temporary measure only, upon the expiry of the eight month term, it will be necessary for City Council to determine the appropriate licence term for subsequently issued licences.

The General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, concurs with this report.

Contact Name:

Ansuya Pachai, 392-9074.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission:

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference\Background\History:

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee on September 8, 1998 directed the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission to submit:

(1)a copy of the last yearly report submitted to the former Metropolitan Toronto Human Services Committee by the Metropolitan Auditor reporting on the results of the audit of the Metropolitan Licensing Commission; and

(2)a revised Appendix 1 to include the 1996 and 1997 figures for comparison purposes; that where figures show a dramatic increase, a rational for the increase be included in the report; and that any decreases be flagged.

Discussion:

Changes in fees are caused by the following:

Changes in the projected budget used by the model are not approved. The model is prepared in advance of budget approval, and uses a projected budget that is comprised of the previous approved budget plus anticipated increases in service levels or costs. In the budget process these changes may not be approved. This results in an overcharging of fees. This fact is corrected the next time the fees are prepared and usually results in a lowering of some fees.

Changes to the number of licenses issued. Increases in the number of licences issued will impact on the cost of licences. Generally speaking, all else being equal, increases in the number of licences tend to decrease the cost per unit while decreases do the converse.

Changes to the amount of resource used in regulating a category. This usually reflects enforcement priorities problems associated with a category in previous years might have been rectified or problems occurring in another category may be given higher priority and enforcement resources might be shifted from lower priority categories. This problem is also caused by the lag between the need for a solution to the problem and the ability to increase resources which can only be done through the budget process.

A more discreet identification of processes and costs. Improved systems and automation allows a more discreet reporting of processes. For example, in earlier versions of the model the costs of processing an application was estimated manually and all applications were handled as one category. In subsequent years, improved reporting due to automation has allowed the groupings of costs into more discreet categories and as a result costs have changed for initial licences.

Changes in any of the above factors will result in changes to fees. A combination of factors may offset changes or in some cases worsen the change. Generally, changes are most obvious in categories where there is a small number of licences to spread the costs of changes, e.g. Body Rub Parlours, Tow Truck Industry , Livery Vehicle Industry and Pedicabs.

Tow Truck Owners

The increases in the 1996-1997 fee over the 1994 - 1996 fee was due to increased enforcement costs caused by a shifting of priorities, it should be noted that in 1996, the model called for a much larger increase than was approved, the Commission and Council decided to restrict the increase in fees to 25 percent (attached). The increase in costs was a direct result of an increase in resources needed to regulate the Industry. The increase in regulatory activity was caused by the introduction of towing from private property (starting in about 1994) and an increase in consumer complaints (which led to capping of tow truck rates). The adjustments were made in the following year, 1997-1998.

The reduction in the initial licence for 1999 is due to the fact that the projected unit application costs for vehicle owners was reduced from $129.00 in 1998 to $79.00 in 1999. This reduction was due to a reduction in the resources/allocated costs used to process a vehicle owner's licence in the 1998 versus. the 1999 model, a result of new data related to the time spent on processing applications. This reduction ($50,000.00) is spread over a relatively small number of applicants (1,000) producing a significant reduction per application.

Public Garage

Prior to the 1999 model, the cost of regulating public garages was included in the cost of regulating all businesses. These costs were spread over 25,000 licences. In 1998 the Commission's computer system was enhanced to allow more discreet reporting of enforcement activities. The resources dedicated to enforcing public garages indicated that this category should be separated from the rest of the businesses. The cost for this category is now spread over 4,000 licences.

Body Rubs

Between 1985 (when the model was first used) and 1994, there were no requests for body rub parlour licences. The fees were set at the same rate as a business premises (e.g., restaurant, variety store) which was $172.00 for an initial licence and $60.00 for a renewal. From 1994 to 1997, Body Rub Parlours and Adult Entertainment Parlours were grouped together for the purpose of distributing costs. However, in this period there was rapid growth in the industry and resources were shifted from other categories to deal with this problem. As a result of the information captured during this period Body Rubs were separated from Adult Entertainment in 1998, with costs being spread over 25 licences. The small number of licences in this group results in significant changes in the cost of licences, every increase/decrease of $1,000.00 results in a $40.00 change.

Electrical Contractors

Prior to the 1999 model, business and trade licences were combined in the calculation of the cost of processing an application. However, recent enhancements to the computer system has allowed staff to identify costs associated with processing trades applications. These costs are now separated and spread over 3,500 licences where previously it was spread over 11,000 licences. This has resulted in an increased cost of $6.00. In addition, the cost of the examination has been reassessed and resulted in an increase of $8.00, $3.00 reflects the costs of additional support for the Tribunal.

Livery Owners/Drivers

The reduction in livery owners initial licences is caused by a reduction in the cost of processing applications (as in tow truck owners). This reduction is offset by an increase for the cost of exhaust emissions test.

The lowering of cost in drivers is due to the shifting of enforcement resources from this category to others. Due to the relatively small number in this category (300), changes have more impact.

Driving Schools

This category of licence until 1996 was restricted by Provincial legislation to a maximum license fee of $50.00, the difference in the cost of regulation was paid for out of the tax base of the of the then Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The changes between 1997 and 1998 reflects shifting priorities, while the change in 1998 -1999 reflect an increase of $25.00 for an exhaust emission test, and an increase of enforcement costs due to the annualization of Licensing Enforcement Officers and the increased costs for additional Tribunal support. This category experienced a reduction in the number of driving licences issued. This category (like Body Rub, Tow Trucks) has a relatively small number of licences and is sensitive to changes in costs or number of licences. These changes are reflected in the increases in both initial and renewal fees, the cost of the initial licence being modified by a reduction in the cost of processing owners' applications.

Building Renovator

Until 1996 this category of licence was restricted by Provincial legislation to $10.00. The difference in the cost of regulation was paid for out of the tax base of the then Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. 1997 reflects the first time fees were cost recovered in this category. Increased costs in subsequent years are caused primarily by a reduction in the number of licences renewed and by increased operating costs e.g., additional Tribunal support.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Carol Ruddell-Foster, General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission

Tel: (416) 392-3071.

Appendix 1

Proposed Schedule of 1999 Licence Fees (Format Revised per EPS)