Other Items Considered by the Committee

(a)Membership - Policy and Finance Committee.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having received the following communication:

(May 25, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, in adopting, as amended, Clause No.1 of Report No. 6 of The Striking Committee, entitled "Appointment of Members of Council to Standing and Other Committees of Council, Various Boards and Special Purpose Bodies", appointed the following Members of Council to the Policy and Finance Committee, for a term of office commencing the effective date of the new governance structure, i.e., June 14, 1999, and expiring November 30, 2000:

1 Member of each of the following 5 Standing Committees, who is not the Chair of that Committee:

Moeser, Ron(Administration Committee)

Kelly, Norman(Community Services)

Brown, Elizabeth(Economic Development and Parks)

Pantalone, Joe(Planning and Transportation)

Disero, Betty(Works)

4 Members who are not Members of any Standing Committee of Council or of the Audit Committee:

Chong, Gordon

Jakobek, Tom

Nunziata, Frances

Rae, Kyle

(The Mayor, as Chair, and Councillor C. Ootes, Deputy Mayor, are also Members of the Committee.)

(b)City of Toronto Development Charges By-law,

Claims for Credit Pursuant to the

Development Charges Act.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following reports and communications (with the exception of the report (June 17, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Proposed Development Charge By-law"), to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, together with all the submissions made by the deputants appearing at the June 24, 1999, meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee, for report thereon to the meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee scheduled to be held on July 20, 1999, such report to be prepared in consultation with appropriate Department Heads;

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report to the July 20, 1999, meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee:

(a)on additional tax assessment revenue that the City will obtain from each of these Developments;

(b)on the cost of providing services;

(c)examining and reporting on the area specific charges used in Richmond Hill as opposed to a City-wide charge;

(d)in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the City Solicitor, on a recommended approach to development charges that maintains the City policy that would lower the cost for the construction of affordable rental housing;

(e)in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(i)on the development projects, by former municipalities currently in the Development approval process., e.g., OPA, re-zoning, site plan etc.;

(ii)on the amount of development charges that would be payable by project;

(iii)on the amount of tax revenue that would accrue to the City on an annual basis;

(iv)on the costs associated with servicing these projects;

(v)on an explanation of the rationale used to determine the costs; and

(vi)providing a comparison in development activity between the former municipalities that had Development Charges and those that did not, particularly in the former City of York where said Charges were waived during the past two or three years; and

(f)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to submit a report to the July 20, 1999, meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee:

(i)in consultation with other City officials, on ways of simplifying and clarifying the application of Section 37 Agreements;

(ii)as to whether there are any specific agreements related to Development Charges within the former Municipalities, i.e., Port Union Agreement Village Area (Port Union Road and Lawrence Avenue);

(iii)on the programs and facilities that can be funded through the new Development Charges Act as well as what may be funded by Section 37 and restrictions to each; and

(iv)on the regime to be put in place so that the development industry would have certitude in being able to measure the City's expectations;

(3)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to submit a report to the July 20, 1999, meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee on the economic impact on residential development if Development Charges were imposed; and

(4)concurred with the Recommendations embodied in the following report (x) (June 17, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, viz:

"(1)this report be received for information; and

(2)this report, together with the proposed Development Charge By-law, be forwarded to Planning and Transportation Committee for its review in accordance with Council's direction.":

(i)(June 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the City Solicitor recommending that:

(1)Council endorse the recommended decisions presented in this report with respect to the section 14 credit applications;

(2)the applicants for credits be advised in writing of Council's decision prior to September 1, 1999; and

(3)where a credit is being recognized, the applicant be advised that the amount of the credit will not exceed the amount of the development charge to be otherwise paid.

(ii)(June 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor describing the past and current implementation of Section 37 of the Planning Act; outlining the anticipated future relationship of the use of Section 37 to the Development Charge By-law; advising that the use of Section 37 and the imposition of development charges are separate and distinct tools available to the City; that in the future use of Section 37 across the City, after adoption of a city-wide Development Charge By-law, it is intended that both tools be implemented concurrently, but in a coordinated manner and with a clear separation between the two; that a fundamental principle regarding the future relationship of Section 37 agreements to development charges is that there will be no duplication of charges; that Section 37 public benefits will be those facilities, services or matters which cannot be, or have not been, funded through development charges, those which satisfy an existing community need or deficiency, and those representing the municipal share of funding for services or facilities only partially funded through development charges; that Section 37 agreements will also avoid duplicating charges under Section 42 of the Planning Act (parks contributions), and under any future Education Development Charge By-law; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(iii)(June 15, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer reporting on the status of the Development Charge Reserve funds for the fiscal period ending December 31, 1998, and the purpose for which these funds are held; advising that under the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA, 1997) all existing development charge by-laws enacted under the old Act will expire on August 31, 1999; that to that end, the City is in the process of implementing a new City-wide development charge by-law to replace all existing by-laws; providing a summary of the development charge by-laws in place in each of the former municipalities; further advising that upon the expiry or repeal of the existing development charge by-laws, the reserve funds established under the old Act will be rolled into the development charge reserve funds under the DCA, 1997 or a general capital reserve fund if none exist; that the money in the reserve fund established for a service may be spent only for capital costs determined under paragraph 2 to 8 of subsection 5(1) of the DCA, 1997; that it is anticipated that a number of these projects will evolve over time in response to the specific needs of new development; that as a result, the cost, timing and nature of such projects may be altered as part of the City's annual capital budgetary process; that it is intended that development charge draws will be made for such projects based on the development-related percentages which have been identified in the Background Study; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(iv)(June 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism advising that the purpose of this report is to review the expected impact of implementing harmonized development charges in the City of Toronto; and recommending that:

(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Policy and Finance Committee on July 20, 1999, on options for reducing the impact of development charges on non-residential development in the City of Toronto; and

(2)the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, which is charged with developing comprehensive tax policies for the next municipal reassessment in 2001, be requested to review the municipal fiscal impacts of land use by property type;

(v)(June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee on June 1, 1999, during its consideration of a report (May 26, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Development Charge Background Study - Capital Program Review", amongst other things, recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (May 26, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, subject to adding the following:

"That City Council request the Province to amend the Development Charges Act to allow the City to factor into the City's calculation of the development charge the provincial expenditure of capital dollars for child care over the past 10 year period".;

(vi)(June 17, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Children and Youth Action Committee on May 28, 1999, during its consideration of oral reports from the General Manager, Children's Services, Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, and the Manager City-Wide Policy and Programs, Urban Planning and Development Services, on Child Care Capital Needs and possible mechanisms in the Official Plan which could be used to fund those needs, recommended that City Council request the Province to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997, to permit a municipality to take into account, for the purpose of determining the "average level of service" referred to in paragraph 4 of subsection 5(1) of the Act, previous provincial expenditures in providing a service if the cost of providing the service has been transferred from the Province to the municipality;

(vii)(June 15, 1999) from Mr. Howard Cohen, President, Context Development Inc., requesting an opportunity to appear before the Policy and Finance Committee respecting the New Development Charges for the City of Toronto; and forwarding comments in regard thereto;

(viii)(June 18, 1999) from Mr. Gordon F. Willcocks, McCarthy Tétrault, advising that the Canadian Pacific Properties Inc. and Southtown Inc. (collectively "CPPI"), the owners of the Railways Lands, have entered into "Precinct Agreements" under the authority of Section 16 of the City of Toronto Act; that the issue of both hard and soft services for the CPPI lands, including social service requirements, had been comprehensively addressed in these agreements; that the agreements also acknowledge that the provision of hard and soft services in the Railway Lands by CPPI will be treated as the provision of services in lieu of the payment of all or any development charges; and further that in view of these existing agreements, including a comprehensive scheme for the provision of services to the Railway Lands, the Development Charge By-law now proposed by the City of Toronto should not be applied to the Railway Lands, generally, and the CPPI Lands in particular;

(ix)(June 18, 1999) from Mr. Paul J. Peterson, McCarthy Tétrault, advising that they are acting on behalf of The Canada Life Assurance Company, the owner of the majority of Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre located within the Sherway Centre Secondary Plan area; that the Secondary Plan identified infrastructure elements including expressway ramps and intersection improvements that are to be included within a development levy or development charge; that his client has proceeded to fund the environmental assessment study due to be finalized for approval in July and is cooperating with other area landowners in the construction of at least one of the area road improvements identified in the Secondary Plan; expressing concern that these road have not been sufficiently identified in the development charge by-law and background study; and requesting confirmation that the design and construction of these works will be recognized as services in lieu of development charges and will be eligible for development charge credits;

(x)(June 17, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer providing information with respect to the public meeting to be held under the Development Charges Act and of the terms and conditions of the proposed development charges by-law; and recommending that:

(1)this report be received for information; and

(2)this report, together with the proposed Development Charge By-law, be forwarded to Planning and Transportation Committee for its review in accordance with Council's direction;

(xi)(June 21, 1999) from Robin Campbell, Executive Director, Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, expressing concern about the affordable housing situation in this City and throughout the province; stating that if the City of Toronto enacts a new Development Charges By-law, there is a need for an exemption for affordable rental housing targeted to housing which can demonstrate long term affordability; and requesting that the City consider a rebate approach to the development charges only for private sector developers and allow exemptions for non-profit developers who meet the affordability criteria;

(xii)(June 18, 1999) from Mr. Myron Swartz, Chair, Industrial Advisory Committees, advising that the West Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee (WTIAC) represents a range of industries and businesses in the central City west of the downtown core; that the Committee includes representation from such companies as Nestle Canada, Irwin Toy, Quality Meats, Cadbury and the Toronto Carpet Factory; that after reviewing and discussing the Finance Department's report proposing new development charges, the Committee is very concerned that charges on industrial and commercial development in the City will have a serious negative impact on area businesses and the City's economy and identifying specific areas where the Development Charges would have an adverse impact; and that the Industrial Advisory Committee unanimously adopted the following motion:

"The West Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee believes that development charges on industrial and commercial development in the City will be another tax on business and will have a serious negative impact on area businesses and the City's economy. The West Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee opposes any industrial or commercial development charges and strongly urges that City Council not impose charges on industrial or commercial development.";

(xiii)(June 22, 1999) from Mr. John M. Alati, Davies, Howe Partners, advising that their client (Orchid Hills Developments Limited) are the proponents of a 375 unit condominium development on Merton Street in the City of Toronto; that this matter has been with the Ontario Municipal Board since September, 1997; that the City Planning Department had delayed submitting its final position to Council, postponing further action on this matter; that once Council reviewed the Planning Department's submission, Council then adopted their client's development proposal at the March 2, 1999, Council meeting; that their client is presently waiting for the City to finalize its Section 37 agreement; that the resulting delays occasioned by the City meant that their client may be subject to development charges that it would otherwise not have had to pay had its proposal been disposed of in a more timely manner; and requesting an opportunity to appear before the Policy and Finance Committee on June 24, 1999, to make submissions on the imposition of the new development charges as it affects their client's land;

(xiv)(June 22, 1999) from Mr. John M. Alati, Davies, Howe Partners, advising that their client (Graywood Developments Limited) had a development proposal for 29.2 hectare parcel of land in the former City of Scarborough approved by the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to a decision issued on December 7, 1998; that after the decision was issued, the City sought leave to appeal the OMB decision to the Court and also a Section 43 review of the OMB's decision; that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the request for the Section 43 review was denied; and requesting an opportunity to appear before the Policy and Finance Committee on June 24, 1999, respecting the proposed new Development Charges as it affects their client;

(xv)(June 22, 1999) from Mr. John M. Alati, Davies, Howe Partners, advising that their client (Jasamax Holdings Inc.) had a residential plan of subdivision comprised of 61 lots approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on March 11, 1998, for lands it owns in the Governor's Bridge area in the former Borough of East York; that delays to their client's efforts at finalizing and registering its development proposal have been contributed to as a result of the municipality's efforts at undertaking certain storm sewer modifications and improvements which were preconditions to proceeding; and requesting an opportunity to appear before the Policy and Finance Committee on June 24, 1999, respecting the proposed new Development Charges as it affects their client;

(xvi)(June 21, 1999) from Mr. Murray H. Chusid, Q.C., Blaney, McMurtry, Stapells, Friedman, advising that they act for Graywood Developments Inc. with respect to the Maple Leaf Foods Brownfield Site on St. Clair Avenue West between Gunns Road and CP Spur Line; expressing concern with regard to the imposition of development charges generally and specifically relating to this proposed development; advising that when their client assessed the purchase of this property it did not factor in development charges; enclosing a report prepared by Clayton Research Associates Limited dated June 1999 entitled "Economic Implications of the Proposed New Development Charges in the City of Toronto" with respect to the Maple Leaf Foods Brownfield site; and requesting an opportunity to appear before the Policy and Finance Committee on June 24, 1999, respecting the proposed new Development Charges as it affects their client;

(xvii)(June 23, 1999) from Mr. H. Scott Rutledge, President, Rutledge Development Corporation, forwarding reasons why they are very concerned at the prospect of development charges being imposed; and respectfully recommending that the Committee do not impose development charges on new commercial/industrial projects in Toronto;

(xviii)(June 23, 1999) from Mr. Marc Hewitt, Senior Vice President, Development, Concord Adex Developments Corporation, writing to confirm that they are in support of the recommendation to exempt the lands referred to in Schedule "B" of the Development Levy Agreement from the proposed Development Charge By-law, as detailed in the joint report (June 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor;

(xix)(June 23, 1999) from Mr. Mark Noskiewicz, Goodman Phillips and Vineberg, advising that they are the Solicitors for Leisureworld Inc. ("Leisureworld"), an experienced provider of long-term care facilities (nursing homes) and retirement services in the Province of Ontario; writing on behalf of Leisureworld requesting that nursing homes be exempt from the proposed City of Toronto Development Charges By-law; and submitting reasons why nursing homes should be exempt;

(xx)(June 22, 1999) from Mr. John M. Alati, Davies, Howe Partners, advising that they are Solicitors acting on behalf of Gerrard-Clonmore Developments Inc., the owners of lands located at Gerrard and Clonmore; that the property was previously owned by Runnymede Development Corporation and there is a lengthy history involving efforts to obtain approvals for the redevelopment of the subject lands; requesting an opportunity to appear before the Policy and Finance Committee respecting the proposed Development Charges By-law; and further advising that it is their client's submission that the subject lands be exempt from the payment of any new charges or in the alternative subject to a credit for the pre-paid charges adjusted with accrued interest since the time of payment, which were paid in accordance with the terms of an agreement entered into pursuant to Section 50 of the Planning Act;

(xxi)(June 23, 1999) from Shelly Jamieson, Vice President, Eastern Operations, Extendicare (Canada) Inc., advising that it is unclear from the draft by-law whether nursing homes or long-term care facilities are exempt from development charges, and that nursing homes should be exempt from development charges for the following reasons:

(1)nursing homes or long-term care facilities provide essential services that are badly needed in Toronto at this time;

(2)long-term care facilities are subsidized by the Ministry of Health, and the funding assistance provided by the Ministry does not factor in development charges of this magnitude; and

(3)the major component (over 65 per cent) of the proposed non-residential charge is in respect of roads and transit services and that long-term care facilities place virtually no load on such services;

(xxii)(June 23, 1999) from Mr. Bill Davis, Director, Government Relations Committee, The Toronto Automobile Dealers' Association, on behalf of the 117 dealers who reside within the City of Toronto and are members of the Association, expressing their grave concern with the Development Charges Act; that the industry believe that the indiscriminatory usage of development charges will act as a disincentive to new growth and development in the City of Toronto, will cause the business community to look to other locations for development and may impact on employment opportunities in the near future as development will go to other communities, and requesting that the Committee seriously consider the impact of these new directions on development and jobs in the city;

(xxiii)(June 21, 1999) from Mr. David P. Smith, P.C., Q.C., Fraser Milner, urging members of Council to vote against the proposed development charges by-law as this proposal will inevitably make the City's central area less competitive, will push considerable economic activity to the 905 area and expressing concern with regard to the effect this will have on the downtown core;

(xxiv)(June 22, 1999) from Mr. James W. Harbell, Stikeman, Elliott, on behalf of a number of developers of residential condominiums in the former City of Toronto, an area that has no current development charges, expressing their concern that the draft by-law as currently worded, may inadvertently penalize the condominium form of tenure vis a vis other forms of tenure, in the instance where the landowner has secured a building permit prior to the end of the year, having met the submission deadline of September 1, but has not received draft condominium approval and requesting that the Committee direct staff to make the necessary amendments to the transition provisions of section 38(a) of the draft by-law to provide that it will not apply to application for draft plan of condominium for which a building permit has been issued by the end of this year in the former municipalities of East York, Toronto and York;

(xxv)(June 23, 1999) from Mr. Stephen H. Diamond, McCarthy Tétrault, advising that they are the solicitors for the Urban Development Institute, the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association and the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, expressing their opposition to the implementation of development charges as they are currently proposed; requesting that the Committee defer this matter to its July 20, 1999, meeting; and stating that the fundamental concerns that the industry has regarding the implementation of development charges are as follows:

(1)the basis for the quantum of the development charges for both non-residential and residential development has been overstated;

(2)the manner and time frames in which the charges are proposed to be implemented;

(3)the economic impact of development charges on the viability of both non-residential and residential development generally and particularly as it relates to development in the City's core; and

(4)the additional financial burdens that the City may continue to impose with respect to Section 37 contributions, public art contributions, potential stormwater charges etc. that need to be eliminated in their current application;

(xxvi)(June 24, 1999) from Mr. Patrick Berne, E.E.M. Financial Corporation, Woodbine Humber Developments Inc., and Belridge Investments Limited, stating that there should be consistency for the entire City, not the differential phase in, as currently proposed; that there needs to be a transition period to phase in these charges across the City with the option to the developer of selecting to grandfather agreements within the transition period, to maintain both economic and subdivision/development agreement integrity; and that the definition of "bedroom" in the draft by-law requires amendment to reflect a building code definition;

(xxvii)(June 23, 1999) from Mr. R. Blazevski, M.C.I.P., Senior Manager of Development, Tridel, advising that Tridel currently has 4 condominium projects under construction in the old City of Toronto; that the proformas and updated construction numbers have indicated that very modest returns are expected for these projects and that if development charges would have been required for these sites, most like they would not have proceeded with these developments; and that the implementation of development charges in Toronto's downtown will make market affordable housing a virtually impossible development option and will force their company to re-evaluate future projects and land offerings in the City Centre; and requesting that the Committee see its way clear not to support such a detrimental impact on residential development;

(xxviii)(May 28, 1999) from the Chair and the President and Chief Executive Officer, The Toronto Board of Trade, expressing concern regarding the City of Toronto proposed development charges by-law; advising that the new charges will occur at a time when the development and construction industries are beginning to recover from a lengthy downturn; that the City should be pursuing initiatives that reduce the cost of doing business in the City rather than increasing it; that high development charges will serve as yet another added incentive to locate outside of Toronto where land values, municipal taxes, and development costs are lowers;

(xxix)(June 24, 1999) Ms. Jane Doyle and Mr. Von Palmer, Toronto Real Estate Board, advising that the Board believes that development charges have been a significant barrier to housing affordability and economic development for several years; these charges ultimately affect the affordability of resale homes since these costs are passed on in the form of an increased sale price; that the impact of charges on the business sector would be the loss of jobs and investment to other jurisdictions with lower costs; that the by-law contain transitional and grandfathering provisions and provide for some type of exemption for commercial and industrial properties and that relief for the rental and affordable housing market should also be considered; and stating that the Board does not dispute that these charges are needed to pay for new growth services but that it has a problem with the level of these charges; and suggesting that the costs of new growth services must be contained by establishing reasonable and sustainable levels of services and by basing development charges on the actual benefits related to new growth;

(xxx)(June 24, 1999) Ms. Nancy Singer, Design Motives, Urban Planning Services, expressing concern that there is no recommendation to exempt homeless housing initiative projects from any development charges; and urging the Committee put in place a process that facilitates and does not further impede these much needed projects from being built; and

(xxxi)(June 24, 1999) from Mr. Peter Van Loan, Fraser Milner, on behalf of Call-Net Enterprises, the owner of Sprint Canada and of a 47-acre parcel of land at Steeles Avenue and Highway, a site designated for office and industrial uses; advising that Call-Net does not wish to take a position with regard to the imposition of development charges on commercial development but that if the City chooses to impose development charges, they would fully expect that the capital works required at Steeles Avenue and Highway 404 be included as a growth-related service covered by the charge; and further that in the event the City decides not to recognize the necessary Steeles/404 improvements as a capital project to be singled out as a service under the new development charges by-law, they request that the City's portion of these improvements be paid for from the unallocated funds currently proposed for collection through development charges, or from general revenues.

________

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer gave a presentation to the Policy and Finance Committee respecting the foregoing matter, and filed a copy of her presentation material.

The following persons appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Bud Purves, Vice President of Developments, TrizecHahn Developments;

-Ms. Andrea Gabor, Toronto Board of Trade, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Steve Diamond, Mr. Randy M. Grimes and Mr. Robert W. Webb, P. Eng., on behalf of the Urban Development Institute, the Greater Toronto Homebuilders Association and CIPREC, (Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies);

-Mr. Patrick Berne, representing EMM Financial Corporation, Woodbine Humber Development Inc., and Belridge Investment Limited;

-Ms. Julie Di Lorenzo, representing Diamante Development, 1305226 Ontario Inc. and Devon International, and also on behalf of Ms. Gina De Lorenzo, Mr. Paul Butt, Coldwell Banker Terrequity Realty and Mr. Paolo Palamara, Devon International;

-Mr. Murray Chusid, Q.C., Blaney McMurtry Stapells Friedman, representing Graywood Developments Inc.;

-Mr. Nestor Repetski, Winick Realty Corporation;

-Mr. Vince Brescia, Development Promotions, Labourers Local 183;

-Ms. Carol Jamieson, Adagio Development Corporation;

-Mr. Murray Goldman, The Goldman Group;

-Mr. Peter Van Loan, Fraser Milner;

-Mr. John Alati, Davies Howe Partners, representing Jasamax Holdings Inc., Graywood Developments Inc. and Orchid Hills Developments Limited;

-Mr. Michael B. Vaughan, QC;

-Mr. Peter Jakovcic, Black Creek Business Area Association;

-Ms. Mary Flynn-Guglietti, Goodman and Carr;

-Mr. John M. Sullivan, Senior Vice President, Office Development, The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited; and

-Ms. Maureen Houlihan, Manager of Housing Administration, Neighbourhood Services, WoodGreen Community Centre, representing the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association.

Ms. Von Palmer, Toronto Real Estate Board and Ms. Jane Doyle, Director, Toronto Real Estate Board, who were unable to remain for the duration of the meeting filed a copy of their presentation material.

The following Members of Council also appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Brian Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs; and

-Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland Centennial.

(Mayor Lastman declared his interest in the foregoing matter, in that partners at the same law firm as his son, who is not a real estate lawyer and does not personally act on these files, are representing applicants and have worked on related files.)

(c)Council-Committee Structure.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having deferred consideration of the presentation from the Director, Secretariat, Printing and Reproduction, City Clerk's Division, respecting the new Council-Committee Structure, until its meeting scheduled to be held on July 20, 1999.

(d)Proposal by the Balmy Beach Rugby Club to Erect Two

Ground Signs in the City's Road Allowance Adjacent To

Ashbridges Bay Park (East Toronto).

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having received the following communication from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, having regard that this item is included in the Budget:

(April 8, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Toronto Community Council on March 30, 1999, during its consideration of a report (March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, forwarded the proposal by the Balmy Beach Rugby Club to erect two ground signs in the City's road allowance adjacent to Ashbridges Bay Park, to the Policy and Finance Committee, for consideration within the five year Capital Plan.

(e)Ontario Hydro Corridor Lands South of Highway No. 401

Wards 14 and 15 - Scarborough Wexford and Scarborough

City Centre.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following communication and motion until its meeting scheduled to be held on July 20, 1999:

Moved by Councillor Disero:

"That the Recommendation embodied in the following communication be amended by adding thereto the following words "subject to the Agreement of the vendor", so that the Recommendation shall read as follows:

"The Scarborough Community Council directed that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee be advised that the Scarborough Community Council reaffirms its previous position regarding the acquisition of land in the Hydro Corridor north of Ellesmere, south of Highway 401, subject to reducing the amount of land to be acquired to two acres, as opposed to the entire corridor; funding for such acquisition to be taken from the Scarborough Parks Reserve Fund, subject to the Agreement of the vendor."; and

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report to the aforementioned meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee respecting the Scarborough Parks Reserve Fund:

(i)(June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Scarborough Community Council on May 26, 1999, during its consideration of a communication (May 5, 1999) from the City Clerk respecting the possible acquisition of Ontario Hydro Corridor Lands South of Highway 401, amongst other things, directed that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee be advised that the Scarborough Community Council reaffirms its previous position regarding the acquisition of land in the Hydro Corridor north of Ellesmere, south of Highway 401, subject to reducing the amount of land to be acquired to two acres, as opposed to the entire corridor; funding for such acquisition to be taken from the Scarborough Parks Reserve Fund.

(ii)(June 24, 1999) from Mr. Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, providing information and outlining reasons why funding for the acquisition of additional green space within the Hydro lands in Ward 14 should be provided from a source other than the Beare Road Landfill Reserve Fund.

________

Ms. Linda Wheeler, appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter and filed a copy of a map of the area.

(f)External Firms Retained for Insurance Claim Defence.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee:

(June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Audit Committee on May 25, 1999, during its consideration of a communication from the City Clerk, entitled "External Firms Retained for Insurance Claim Defence", recommended that Ernst and Young provide a cost evaluation of the report requested by Councillor Lindsay Luby to the Policy and Finance Committee.

(g)Contracting of Consulting Services in 1998.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having:

(1)received the following report; and

(2)requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a further report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee providing an objective to reduce the amount of outside consultants by either providing these services in-house or a better justification for the use of said consultants:

(June 14, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, providing a summary of the consulting services contracted by City Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions in 1998; advising that a report on contracting and consulting services will be submitted on an annual basis; and recommending that this report be received for information.

________

Councillor Brian Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs, appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(h)John Street Roundhouse - TrizecHahn

Corporation Proposal Report.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having:

(1)requested the City Solicitor to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999, for consideration with Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of the Administration Committee, on whether there should be a new RFP issued or whether the existing RFP can stand given the new financial arrangement proposed; and

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 6, 1999, for consideration with the aforementioned Clause:

(I)respecting the Capital Funding required for this project, and

(ii)respecting the report (June 23, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer.

(i)(June 15, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Administration Committee on June 15, 1999, during its consideration of a report (June 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "John Street Roundhouse - TrizecHahn Corporation Proposal Report", amongst other things, approved the following Recommendation No. (6) embodied in the aforementioned report:

"(6)this report be referred to the Policy and Finance Committee for a report on capital funds directly to City Council;".

(ii)(June 23, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, recommending that:

(1)the net Capital Funds required for Bays 1-11 and all other related services in the amount of $1,412,920.00 be approved subject to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer reporting on the provision of funds; and

(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary actions.

(iii)(June 22, 1999) from Mr. Cameron Heaps, President, Steam Whistle Brewing, advising that the funds requested are essential in making the Roundhouse unusable by any tenant and will allow the site to be transformed into one of this City's greatest attractions.

(Mayor Lastman declared his interest in the foregoing matter, in that the applicants solicitor is a partner at the same law firm as his son, who is not a real estate lawyer and does not personally act on these files, are representing applicants and have worked on related files.)

(i)Toronto Police Service - Costs of Policing

the Serbian Demonstrations in Toronto.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having:

(1)received the following report; and

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to meet with the Chief of Police and his Administrative staff, as soon as possible, to review the Police Budget, particularly their discretionary funding, to ensure compliance with the approved Budget, and report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee:

(June 15, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, providing a status report of the impact of the costs of policing the Serbian demonstrations in Toronto on the Toronto Police Service's Operating Budget; advising that the financial implications of the Serbian demonstrations on the Toronto Police Service's Operating Budget have yet to be determined and will be reported through the September Operating Budget variance report; and recommending that this repot be received for information.

(j)Request to Increase the Voluntary and

Set Fine Provisions for Parking Meter

Violations - City of Toronto By-laws.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following communication until its meeting scheduled to be held on July 20, 1999; and

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer, the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and any other appropriate officials, to submit a report to the aforementioned meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee:

(i)on the level of enforcement in residential areas especially on Sundays and what revenues are generated;

(ii)on a process whereby the City can repeal the by-law that prohibits parking in a space where there is a broken meter;

(iii)on the change-over days for alternate side street parking;

(iv)on whether the enforcement issue addresses where there may be some grace period allowed so that there is no over-zealous enforcement; and

(v)on the different enforcement by-laws and procedures of each of the former Area Municipalities:

(April 30, 1999) from the President, Toronto Parking Authority, advising that the Board of Directors of the Toronto Parking Authority on April 6, 1999, adopted a staff memorandum (March 30, 1999) from Mr. N. Spensieri, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)the Board adopt the position that the Voluntary Fine/Set Fine provisions for parking meter related violations in the City of Toronto be increased from the current level of $10.00 and $15.00 respectively, to $20.00 and $30.00 respectively;

(2)the City of Toronto Council request the City Solicitor to examine the feasibility of increasing the Voluntary Fine and Set Fine provisions for parking meter related violations from the current level of $10.00 and $15.00 respectively, to $20.00 and $30.00 respectively; and

(3)subject to the Board's approval of the foregoing recommendations, the Board forward this decision to the City of Toronto Clerk for distribution to Council and the appropriate City officials.

(k)Response to the Provincial Request for Proposal for Additional

Long-Term Care Beds for a New City Home for the Aged.

The Policy and Finance Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following communication and report until the meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee scheduled to be held on July 20, 1999, in order to afford more time for a thorough review;

(2)requested the Provincial Government to extend the July 30, 1999, deadline for response to the Province of Ontario's Request for Proposal respecting additional long-term care beds; and

(3)requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to submit a report to the July 20, 1999, meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee on:

(i)how the City's exposure can be reduced;

(ii)a policy of projecting what the City's future role should be respecting long-term care;

(iii)what the City's participation within the ratio of a balanced service delivery system should be;

(iv)what number of beds should be provided in the future; and

(v)whether there is an opportunity to submit a co-operative bid with the private sector.

(i)(June 17, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Community Services Committee on June 17, 1999:

(A)recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee that:

(i)City Council be requested to direct the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to respond to the Province of Ontario's Request for Proposal for additional long-term care beds for a new City Home for the Aged prior to the July30, 1999, deadline; and

(ii)City Council be requested to endorse maintaining the same level of operating service for both the existing and expanding Homes for the Aged portfolio; and

(B)requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report to the Policy and Finance Committee for its meeting on June 24, 1999, on the budgetary implications of building a new Home for the Aged; and

(ii)(June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, recommending that:

(1)should City Council adopt the recommendation of the Community Services Committee directing staff to respond to the RFP for new long term care beds by the deadline of July30, 1999, City Council recognize and endorse in principle the multi-year cost implications of this decision in both the capital and operating budgets for the fiscal year, starting in 2000 (as outlined in this report); and

(2)if a proposal is submitted to and approved by the Ministry of Health, staff report back with a more detailed financial impact analysis, prior to signing any agreement with the Ministry of Health.

Respectfully submitted,

MAYOR MEL LASTMAN,

Chair

Toronto, June 24, 1999

Patsy Morris

Tel. (416) 392-9151