City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules

City of Toronto Council and Committees

All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999

STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 2

1Office Space Consolidation - Concept Plan and Proposal for Phase 2 Work

2North York Performing Arts Centre (Ford Centre)1999 - 2000 Concert Series

3Proposed 1999 Operating Budget Process and Schedule

4Official Flag for the City of Toronto

5Environmental Task Force Budget for 1999

6Final Report - Task Force on Community Access and Equity

7Sponsorship Agreement with Molson Breweries to Launch"Toronto's Own Beer"

81999 Interim Operating Budget Estimates

9Settlement of Claim - Contract No. T-51-93, Don Valley Parkway at Chester Hill Road, Slope Stabilization and Soldier Pile Retaining Walls(Don River - Ward 25)

10Yonge/Dundas Redevelopment Project ,Settlement of Expropriation Claims, Salvation Army, Governing Council of Canada,259 Victoria Street, Toronto (Downtown - Ward 24)

11Authority to Issue Debentures During 1999

12Temporary Borrowing Pending Receipt of Tax Revenues and the Issuance of Debentures During 1999

13Establishment of a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the Social Housing Reserve Fund

14Referral from the School Tax Sub-Committee Status Report - School Board Mutual Service Master Agreement

15Consolidation of Records Storage Facilities and Services

16Community Policing Partnership (CPP)Program Grant Agreement

17Donation for Caribana

18Citizen Appointments to the Committee on the Status of Women

19Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan Status Report for December 1998

20Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on January 26, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Case Ootes , Acting Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999

Office Space Consolidation - Concept Plan and

Proposal for Phase 2 Work

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1)in accordance with the following recommendations embodied in the confidential report dated February 2, 1999, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Recommendation No. (4) of the report dated January 25, 1999, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services (as embodied in the Clause), be amended by deleting the words 'and 5151 Yonge Street'; and

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report further on the future disposition of 5151 Yonge Street following consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the Toronto Parking Authority and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.";

(2)to provide that a customer service strategy which includes the implementation of "One Stop Shopping" public service facilities in all former City Halls be established by the year 2000, and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit a further report in this regard through the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee; and

(3)by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to:

(i)make every effort to minimize the amount of leased space required for the temporary relocation of staff displaced during the office consolidation process by utilizing office space under the ownership of the City of Toronto, or currently being leased by the City, and, if new leased space is required, the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee be so advised;

(ii)consult with the respective Ward Councillors, prior to the submission of a report to a Community Council or Standing Committee on any proposed sale of property in their Ward;

(iii)submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, through the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee, on the leasing of temporary office space, outlining the cost, location and number of square feet leased, prior to the signing of any lease; and

(iv)review, as part of the process of office space consolidation, multiple access points for citizens, such as facilitating the application for permits at libraries, and consult with affected stakeholders, such as the Library Board, in this regard; and

(b)the following motion be referred to the Commissioner of Corporate Services for a report thereon to the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee:

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is further recommended that any surplus space be offered to the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions, in order to permit them to reduce their leased space.' " )

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, embodied in the communication (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk, viz:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services be adopted;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services clarify in a report to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, that the building at 277 Victoria Street forms part of the Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment Project and has been declared surplus, and as such, should be considered as a temporary location building; and

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services provide a progress report on this matter to the Sub-Committee - Relocation of all Members of Council to City Hall every three months."

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

(i)to submit a confidential report to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on February 2, 1999, respecting the property located at 5151 Yonge Street, including information on:

(a)current lease extensions;

(b)the appraised value on today's market;

(c)the impact on neighbouring land assembly; and

(d)the future potential value; and

(ii)to report to the meeting of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee scheduled to be held on February 23, 1999, on a process for issuance of an RFP to the private sector which would include all of the following elements:

(a)the sale of Metro Hall and other non-former City Hall buildings;

(b)the building of an adequate building structure(s) on City-owned lands to the North of City Hall or purchase of a connecting building, to permit the relocation of centrally-required City staff from Metro Hall;

(c)better connections to the subway from City Hall; and

(d)a net return to the City.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Sub-Committee - Relocation of all Members of Council to City Hall recommends that:

(1)the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services be adopted;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services clarify in a report to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee - Relocation of all Members of Council to City Hall, that the building at 277 Victoria Street forms part of the Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment Project and has been declared surplus, and as such, should be considered as a temporary location building; and

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services provide a progress report on this matter to the Sub-Committee - Relocation of all Members of Council to City Hall every three months.

Background:

The Sub-Committee - Relocation of all Members of Council to City Hall, on January 25, 1999, had before it a report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting Office Space Consolidation - Concept Plan and Proposal for Phase 2 Work.

During consideration of the foregoing matter, the Sub-Committee also had before it the following reports:

-Clause No. 5 of Report No. 15 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, titled "Objectives and Principles of Office and Civic Space Consolidation Project, which was amended and adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998; and

-Clause No. 13 of Report No. 26 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, titled, "City Hall Renovations", which was amended and adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998.

The Sub-Committee's recommendations are noted above.

(Report dated January 25, 1999, from the

Commissioner of Corporate Services)

Purpose:

To present a corporate Office Consolidation Concept Plan for Council's consideration, along with a proposal and funding request for the Phase 2 work of reconfiguring City Hall's lower East Tower and for Project Start-up including a Detail Plan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Office consolidation is an integral part of the amalgamation process as well as an opportunity for the City to reduce its ongoing real estate costs.

Approval of $6,980,000.00 from Transition Funding is requested now for Project Start-up costs and for Phase 2 implementation. Budget estimates for future phases of the Office Consolidation Project will be available from the proposed estimates in the 1999-2003 capital budget when the Detail Plan is completed in May. Under this report's "fast-track" implementation proposal, the full amount will be required before the end of 2000.

Once office consolidation is completed by late 2000 or early 2001 it will have reduced the City's total office space by more than 16 percent, providing annual savings of at least $6 million. In addition, one-time revenues from sale of surplus office properties in 1999 or 2000 are expected to be in the range of $8 - 10 million.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Office Consolidation Concept Plan as set out in this report be endorsed in principle as the basis for completion of a Detail Plan, to be submitted for Council approval in May together with budget estimates for complete implementation by the end of 2000;

(2)funds in the amount of $4,580,000.00 be provided immediately from Transition Funding as part of the 1999 capital budget, to cover project start-up costs including design work, establishment of a project team, and leasing of temporary office space for the relocation of staff displaced during the office consolidation process;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to proceed immediately with Phase2 implementation work as set out in this report, specifically reconfiguration of the lower half of City Hall's East Tower, and that funds in the amount of $2,400,000.00 for Phase 2 be provided from Transition Funding as part of the 1999 Capital Budget;

(4)the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be requested to advise all civic departments, agencies, boards and commissions of the City's intention to dispose of the following City-owned properties unless they are required for municipal purposes: 590JarvisStreet, 951 Wilson Avenue and 5151 Yonge Street;

(5)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to enter into a one-year lease, with a one-year renewal option, for up to 75,000 square feet of office space to provide for the temporary relocation of staff displaced during the office consolidation process;

(6)the Sub-Committee on the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, which (based on Council's decision in July, 1998) was reconstituted effective January 1, 1999, as a sub-committee of the Corporate Services Committee, be renamed the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee;

(7)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit reports through the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee to the Corporate Services Committee on an ongoing basis with respect to the Plan and its implementation;

(8)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report through the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee to the Corporate Services Committee within the next two months on options for realizing cost savings from space that will be no longer needed in Metro Hall; and

(9)the Chief Administrative Officer and other appropriate officials be requested to explore with officials from Toronto Hydro and the Toronto Board of Education the potential availability of surplus office space that might assist in meeting the City's needs.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council adopted the December 14 "Interim Report on Corporate Office Space Planning and Related Issues" (Clause No. 13 of Report No. 26 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee). Its recommendations called for various issues to be addressed in a further report to be submitted in January 1999, including the following proposals from the Budget Committee:

(1)that no part of the organization be allowed to purchase furniture for at least one year until a complete review of the furniture situation has been conducted, unless such furniture is required to accommodate the needs of a physically challenged person;

(2)that consideration be given to relocating the senior staff, i.e. the Chief Administrative Officer and the six Commissioners, to the lower floors of City Hall, as close as possible to the link, and that the cost of painting, carpeting and other renovations required to facilitate this move be reported to the Sub-Committee - Relocation of Members of Council to City Hall; and

(3)that there be no further expenditures on Toronto City Hall beyond those necessary to complete the originally authorized renovations until all requested reports from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services are delivered.

City Council added two further recommendations, that:

(1)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioners be located at City Hall in the immediate proximity of the Members of Council; and

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit a report to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, through the Sub-Committee on the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, and the Corporate Services Committee, on the actual location of the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioners within the first few floors of City Hall.

This report addresses the foregoing requests. It is submitted to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, rather than the Corporate Services Committee, as directed by Council, because of the timing required to reach the February meeting of City Council. It is, however, being reviewed by the Sub-Committee on the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall immediately prior to its consideration by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

The report sets out for Council's consideration an Office Consolidation Plan for the City at the concept level, and makes specific proposals for Phase 2 implementation (Phase 1 being the relocation of the Councillors' offices to City Hall). Later reports to the Corporate Services Committee and the Sub-Committee will provide more information and request input on key issues as the Detail Plan is developed.

The report draws on a major analysis of the City's office buildings carried out by NORR Ltd. Architects and Engineers during the second half of 1998, the main components of which were a comprehensive building condition analysis and real estate analysis. It also reflects more recent work by City staff, in consultation with the IBI Group, on the office space available within each building and the future office space needs of the City's six departments.

Comments:

(1)Scope of Concept Plan:

This report deals with the City's need for general purpose office space - a need that is now met through offices in City Hall, Metro Hall, the five civic centres, other City-owned office buildings and various leased premises.

It does not address the use of office space to deliver services in the community, such as public health centres and welfare offices, except where such services might potentially be relocated to a civic centre or City-owned office building.

It also does not deal with the office space located in other City-owned buildings, such as service yards, recreation centres and fire stations. All of these buildings are under review through other studies, but preliminary indications are that the results will not significantly increase or reduce the City's overall office space needs.

This report focuses on the office space needs of the City's staff. It recognizes, however, that significant areas of City-owned buildings that might otherwise provide staff office space are dedicated to other uses, and flags several policy issues in this regard.

The Office Consolidation Concept Plan is intended to meet the City's office space needs over the next ten years, while recognizing that a high level of flexibility will be required as departmental and program delivery needs evolve.

(2)The Plan's Objectives:

City Council set the objectives for office consolidation at its meeting of December 16 and17, 1998, when it adopted Clause No. 5 of Report No. 15 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. They are:

(a)to consolidate the office and civic space based on the needs of the new organizational structures of the City of Toronto;

(b)to reduce the overall office space inventory to lower operational costs;

(c)to align the use of the office and civic space with City of Toronto service delivery goals;

(d)to update work space strategies to provide improved productivity;

(e)to implement accountability for space utilization at the Department and Divisional level;

(f)to facilitate the transition into an amalgamated City through the use of space; and

(g)to ensure community access with particular reference to individuals with specific accessibility needs.

The Concept Plan now before you is staff's best advice on how to achieve these objectives while realizing the benefits of amalgamation and enabling the City to begin reducing its ongoing real estate costs. Direction from Council is now required, with particular reference to the continued use of the Civic Centres, so that staff can proceed to prepare the Detail Plan for Council approval in May, 1999.

(3)The Challenges of Office Consolidation:

On January 1, 1998, when the new City came into existence, it had close to 45,000 employees. More than half of these were in programs that were already amalgamated, such as police, TTC and social services. Of the remaining 21,000 who were directly affected by amalgamation, about 7,000 were office workers or field workers who used office space in the Civic Centres, City Hall, Metro Hall and other general purpose office buildings or leased office space. The number of such workers is expected to drop to about 6,000 by the time amalgamation is completed at the end of 2000.

Office consolidation is a critical part of amalgamation that will directly affect most of these six thousand employees. Some will have only minor moves within their existing space, while others may have to change buildings more than once before it is completed. While the process will be very complex and will require up front funding, it will deliver ongoing benefits and savings to the taxpayer.

There are four major challenges for the Office Consolidation Project:

(a)Getting the right people into the right places is the first challenge:

For the departments affected, amalgamation has meant a complete organizational restructuring along with significant downsizing. At this point, the organization is largely restructured but many office workers, in particular, find themselves in the wrong location. People who should be working side by side are in different parts of the City. Some supervisors are spending significant travel time to visit people whose work they should be overseeing on a daily basis. For amalgamation to be completed - and its potential savings and efficiencies realized - this must be rectified.

(b)Capturing the real-estate savings of amalgamation is the second challenge:

By the end of 1999 the City's workforce is expected to be about 2,500 less than it was at amalgamation, with many of the reductions having come from among office workers.

Current estimates are that by the year 2000 the City will need office accommodation for just over 6,000 of its departmental staff. (This number does not include office staff in the City's Agencies, Board and Commissions, nor those who work out of service yards or community offices). This number is significantly smaller than the number of office staff in 1997, before amalgamation, which means the City can reduce its real estate costs by renting less office space and selling surplus buildings. These savings will be realized once the necessary moves have taken place.

(c)Reconfiguration is the third challenge:

Different groups of office workers have different needs when it comes to workspace. Perhaps a plan storage area is required, or a computer room, or larger workstations to accommodate drafting staff. Or some of the staff may be field workers who are only in the office part time and can manage with smaller workstations. The use of demountable partitions reduces the cost of such changes, but some reconstruction is almost always required.

The benefits of teamwork have been widely demonstrated over the past decade or so, and many organizations have reconstructed office areas to facilitate it. The hallmarks of efficient team space are generally a more open plan with fewer private offices, but plenty of meeting rooms and areas for general interaction. Reconfiguration will allow the City to provide the staff groups who need them with improved teamwork environments that will achieve significantly improved performance.

(d)Levelling standards, the fourth and final challenge facing the Office Consolidation Project, is in many ways the most difficult:

The City's Civic Centres and office buildings vary widely in the quality of office environment they provide. Staff throughout the City should have comparable and efficient working conditions, regardless of what building they happen to work in.

The City's challenge is to create a reasonable level of equity in accommodation while still reducing costs through reduced space standards. This may require improvements to building systems, such as air circulation. It may lead to construction of serveries, or central file rooms where floor loadings permit. While the City will redeploy existing workstations and chairs to the maximum degree possible, standards for future procurement must ensure that all acquisitions are ergonomically sound.

Office consolidation is essential for the City to realize amalgamation savings. The Concept Plan below outlines how this can be done.

(4)Responding To The Challenges:

The Principles which guided this Concept Plan appear in Appendix A. They were initially developed by staff, then reviewed, refined and adopted by the Sub-Committee on the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall and adopted as amended by City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, (Clause No. 5 of Report No. 15 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team).

Consultants and staff have now thoroughly documented both the existing supply of City office space and the future needs of municipal office staff.

Development of a Concept Plan involves:

(1)deciding which buildings the City needs to keep in the short to medium term; and

(2)fitting the staff, group by group, into the buildings where they can function most effectively.

To meet its needs, the City needs office space in efficient, cost-effective buildings of a reasonable size, both downtown and strategically located in its various districts. Based on these considerations and advice from NORR, various City-owned office buildings were excluded from the space allocation process, specifically: 590 Jarvis St., 951 Wilson Ave., 5248 Yonge St., 5151 Yonge St. and Old City Hall (see Appendix C for details). 75-81 Elizabeth St., which is sub-standard and seen as only a short-term resource, was also excluded from space allocations but is expected to continue providing office accommodation in the short to medium term.

The buildings included in the space allocations are shown on Chart 1. They include all five Civic Centres, subject to whatever further direction City Council may provide, plus City Hall, City-owned office buildings on Victoria Street and in Don Mills, and (in the short term) Metro Hall. One leased property is also included: 112 Elizabeth St., close behind City Hall, where the City's lease runs to 2007. Chart 1 proportionally represents both the total building size and the office space available in each one. Metro Hall accounts for exactly one-third of the office space available for City staff. (Detailed building floor area information appears in Appendix D).

Based on its preliminary assignment of staff groups to these buildings, the Concept Plan can provide five important outcomes:

(i)The Concept Plan is designed to improve public service by providing "one stop shopping" in the Civic Centres:

People expect to come to their local Civic Centre and get information and services about everything the City does.

Every public service provided by the City will be accessible through friendly public service counters conveniently located in the Civic Centres and at City Hall. There should be help for the person wanting a building permit or a parking permit, the one who needs advice on starting a small business as well as the person wanting to make a film in Toronto. Perhaps someone is planning an event in a park, wanting to know more about plans for the empty lot across the street, or simply wanting to pay their taxes. Whatever it is, information or a public service, they should get it here quickly and easily.

The Concept Plan envisages allocating equally prominent space for such "one stop shops" on the main level of City Hall and at the Civic Centres.

The City will continue to maintain more localized offices providing public health, library, welfare, fire protection and other services in the heart of its communities, as well as an extensive network of community centres, all of which should be electronically linked to City Hall and the Civic Centres.

(ii)The Concept Plan is designed to rationalize and reduce the City's office space in a cost-effective way:

One of the Concept Plan's most important deliverables is a reduction in the City's use of office space, with associated cost savings.

Chart 2 tells the story. Before amalgamation, the seven municipalities used 1.76 million square feet of office space for their staff. By the year 2000, the Concept Plan expects this to have dropped below 1.5 million square feet, including a 5 percent vacancy allowance (which is the industry norm for a large organization like the City where there will be ongoing moves and special projects to respond to changing needs and priorities). Further declines, perhaps to as low as 1.4 million square feet, can be expected during the next two years with the winding down of major special projects such as Y2K and the new Financial Information System team.

Post-amalgamation office space reductions have already started to generate financial savings for the City. Since December 1997, six office leases have been terminated and the staff moved into City-owned buildings, providing annual operating savings of nearly $1.8 million. Under the Concept Plan five other leases would also end, eventually bringing the annual savings to more than $3 million (See Appendix B for details).

Surplus City-owned office buildings are another source of savings. Four buildings of various ages and sizes are considered surplus because they cannot contribute cost-effectively to meeting the City's office needs. They include the former police headquarters building at 590Jarvis Street, an office condominium on Wilson Avenue that the City acquired through a tax sale, and two small office buildings on Yonge Street near the North York Civic Centre (see Appendix C for more details). 5248 Yonge Street has recently been put into use as a shelter and may be needed long term by the City for this purpose. Sale of the other three is estimated to realize $8 - 10 million.

There can also be savings from a reduced need for more costly downtown office space. Once the Concept Plan had assigned staff groups to City Hall, the five Civic Centres, the City's office building in Don Mills and other downtown offices on Victoria and Elizabeth Streets, those staff groups not yet allocated (all of which needed to be close to City Hall) had to be provisionally assigned to Metro Hall. They required about 73 percent of the building; however, depending on some other factors discussed below, there may eventually be further reductions.

The City has a range of options in choosing how to capture its Metro Hall savings. It may lease out the surplus space, sell the building but remain as a tenant in the short term, purchase another smaller building closer to City Hall, or rely on leased space in one or more downtown properties. These and other alternatives will be the subject of a further report following investigations and analysis over the next few weeks. However the City chooses to take these savings, they should amount to over $3 million per year.

The buildings retained by the City will each continue to require ongoing capital maintenance. The NORR study's Building Condition Surveys identified a total of about $37 million in capital repair costs for the Civic Centres, City Hall and the other office buildings over the next ten years, only a small part of which would be carried out as part of the Office Consolidation Plan (Appendix E).

The chart below summarizes preliminary estimates of the City's anticipated financial real estate benefits from Office Consolidation. It uses the working assumption that 27 percent of Metro Hall's office space is vacant and temporarily accommodates displaced staff groups in 2000, then is leased out commercially.

There will also be one-time investments required to implement the Plan. A majority of the six thousand office workers will experience at least minor moves. Space will need to be vacated, reconfigured and re-wired to meet the needs of incoming workers. Given the ten year horizon of the Plan, it will be more cost effective for the City to carry out tasks such as carpet replacement now, when the space is vacant. All such decisions will be subject to cost-benefit analysis on a case-by-case basis.

The scale of the Office Consolidation Project is far beyond the normal year-to-year municipal requirements for facility planning. It will require establishment of a special team for the next two years, working in conjunction with the City's regular facilities planners, telecom and IT staff. This is included in the Plan's cost estimates.

The Office Consolidation Plan is expected to cost between $40 - 50 million to implement, based on the preliminary information now available. Associated savings on the real estate side alone will allow the City to recover its costs within about six years. In addition, it allows the City to realise efficiency benefits from staff consolidation. The follow-up Detail Plan report in May will provide solid overall budget estimates and request funding for future phases. In the meanwhile, this report requests $6,980,000.00 for Project Start-Up costs and Phase 2 implementation (see Appendices G and H for details).

The above budget estimates are based on a "no-frills" approach to office consolidation. Reconfigurations will be the minimum needed to provide cost-effective functional space for each staff group, recognizing the ten-year required life span. An estimated 95 percent of work stations used will be existing ones owned by the City.

(iii)The Concept Plan will enable staff who manage district operations to be located in the districts they serve:

The largest municipal government in Canada must stay in close touch with the communities in its various districts to ensure that its services provision meets their varying needs.

The Plan deals with this issue by creating strong district offices for line departments. This is equally true of planners and engineers, parks and buildings staff, revenue collectors and public health managers.

To provide a working model for its very preliminary assignments of staff groups to buildings, the Concept Plan is based on all five of the existing Civic Centres being retained in at least the short term. The question of how many Civic Centres the City will retain in the long term is linked to decisions about the future structure of community councils, which is a policy issue well beyond the scope of this report. A further report on the costs and benefits of retaining individual buildings can be provided if Council wishes to pursue this issue. Obviously City investment in any building should be linked to the anticipated retention period.

Under its working model the Plan places district staff in all five Civic Centres. When assigning space in North York Civic Centre, for example, the Plan treats North District headquarters as its highest priority. Similarly, it ensures that all West District office staff are placed in either Etobicoke or York Civic Centre, while East District staff are based in Scarborough or East York or both. For South District, staff are either in City Hall or another downtown building.

This placement ensures that the staff delivering service in each district will remain in the community and be able to respond to local needs.

(iv)The Concept Plan proposes to fully utilize the Civic Centres as hubs of community activity.

The Concept Plan defines clear roles for the Civic Centres that can keep each as the service hub of its community.

Under its working model, each of the five existing Civic Centres can:

(a)continue as the home of the local community council;

(b)be given a prominent local role through "one stop shopping" centres;

(c)be recognized as the locus of district operations management and service delivery for that part of the City;

(d)house one or more corporate operations; and

(e)be reconfigured to align its office areas with corporate standards.

The presence of other corporate operations is a key component of the Plan. One of its working assumptions was that no staff group that did not need to be downtown would be located there. This both reinforces the importance of the Civic Centres in the life of the City, and helps to maximize savings by reducing the need for downtown office space.

Each Civic Centre would be assigned at least one major corporate function. Under the initial assignments, which are preliminary and may need to be adjusted, Scarborough would become home to most of the City's Information Technology staff, and the newly consolidated Housing Corporation would be relocated to York Civic Centre. Several divisions of Finance would go to North York, while Fleet would be in East York and Facilities and Real Estate in Etobicoke. Appendix F details the Plan's preliminary assignment of staff groups to buildings.

The overall impact of these changes would be to clarify and reinforce the Civic Centres' role in the life of the new City.

(v)The Concept Plan brings together staff who need to work together:

The Mayor and Councillors need ready access to the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioners, and vice versa. The Plan will provide this by moving the entire corporate senior management team to City Hall within the next six months.

In order to function effectively, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioners require proximity to their immediate support staff, key policy advisors, and (depending on the nature of their operation) all or part of their departmental senior management team.

All these people need to be in the same tower, with each departmental team together. The Plan achieves this, designating the East Tower of City Hall as "Corporate HQ" for the City.

Other staff units which need five minute access to the senior management or councillors have also been provisionally assigned to City Hall, either in the West Tower or in space remaining in the East Tower. (South District staff would be either in one of the City Hall towers or another downtown building, depending on what fits best for their department).

Not everyone who needs to be readily accessible to Councillors and senior managers can fit into City Hall, so other staff would be in nearby downtown office buildings. The rule of thumb here is "the closer the better", with an upper limit of about fifteen minutes walk. The Legal Division, for example, could not be accommodated within City Hall under the Concept Plan, but must be close by. The staff who oversee and provide central support to operational divisions of Works and Community and Neighbourhood Services need similar proximity; they must be close to City Hall, but not necessarily in the building.

Over the past year each of the merging departments and divisions has reorganized to maximize its efficiency and realise whatever savings it can from amalgamation. The Plan would accommodate this regrouping, ensuring that each cluster of staff who need to be together are located together, adjacent to other groups they interact with frequently, whether in City Hall or another municipal building.

(5)Implementation and Next Steps:

(a)Need for a Fast-Track Timetable:

The City has two basic options for implementing its Office Consolidation Plan:

(i)it can spread implementation over a three to five year period, or

(ii)it can fast-track implementation within two years.

The second option is recommended. It is the fastest way to achieve the real estate savings of office consolidation. More importantly, it is key to getting municipal staff operating smoothly and efficiently under their new post-amalgamation structure.

(b)Project Start-Up and Phase 2 Implementation should Proceed Immediately:

Starting immediately is critical to achieving the fast-track timetable. It is also important to the day-to-day functioning of the City. Council has already recognized the urgency of getting senior management over to join it in permanent quarters at City Hall.

The Plan places senior management in the East Tower of City Hall - Corporate HQ. With the resources now available and the strong desire to get work done by mid-year, staff believe that only half the Tower can be reconfigured at this time. Council has expressed a strong wish for the Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioners to be as close as possible to the second floor, so the lower half of the Tower has been chosen: specifically floors 4 - 12, which lie immediately below the two mechanical floors at level 13. Dividing the Tower in this way has the advantage of minimizing noise and other disruption for those on the upper floors.

Those to be moved into the lower East Tower in Phase 2 include the Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer along with the Budgets, Treasury and Policy groups, the Communications group, Human Resources head office, and the other five Commissioners each with a small group of central policy and administrative staff. The budget for this work includes costs for carpet replacement, painting, and a small amount of construction and reconfiguration of the space. No new work stations will be purchased in Phase 2, but the budget includes re-assembly costs and an allowance for new parts, which are required with almost any reconfiguration (see Appendix H for budget).

Those currently in the lower East Tower who must be relocated include staff from Parks and Recreation, Information Technology, Facilities and Real Estate and Urban Planning. They also include several other groups: the Task Force on Homelessness (whose work is now presumably winding down), ICLEI (the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) which is a long-term tenant of the City, and the Polish Congress, which occupies a very small amount of space.

Additional office space will need to be rented to accommodate those who are displaced throughout the Consolidation Project. Although the City has vacant workstations, they are widely scattered and cannot accommodate the 350 relocated staff along with their ancillary facilities (such as the Planning Library and IT server rooms) in any other effective way. The leased space will be no more than 75,000 square feet, and the term of the lease should extend for a year, with the possibility of a one-year renewal (though this may not be needed, since by then blocks of consolidated space should be coming available within City-owned buildings). In 1999, the cost of such leased space will not exceed $1,875,000.00.

The Project Start-Up funds now being requested cover the first moves into temporary space, which are needed now to allow Phase 2 to proceed on schedule, along with incidental moves to other buildings in accordance with the Plan. They also include design services for the lower East Tower and for various other high-priority components of the Plan - notably the One Stop Shopping areas at City Hall and the Civic Centres. Finally, they include setting up a temporary Implementation Team of facility, IT and telecom staff whose job will be to turn the Plan into reality and to look after all the practical details of a series of major moves. (See Appendix G for budget breakdown).

It is therefore recommended that funds be now provided for Project Start-up and for Phase 2 implementation, both as outlined above. Additional funds will be required in 1999 for later phases of the Office Consolidation Project, based on budget estimates to be provided in the Detail Report in May. This is consistent with the 1999capital budget submission for Facilities and Real Estate, which requests a total of $50.5 million for two projects: City Hall renovations ($15 million in 1999; $15million in 2000; $10 million in 2001) and for office consolidation elsewhere ($10.5 million in 1999). This report proposes to treat office consolidation as a single corporate-wide project, including the necessary reconfiguration of City Hall, to be carried out at a total cost of $40 - 50 million in 1999 and 2000.

(c)Next Steps towards a Detail Plan:

The Plan presented in this report is a high level Concept Plan. It provides a solid framework within which the City can begin the office consolidation process, but further work must be done to settle many of the details.

Over the next few months the outstanding matters must be addressed so that firm budget estimates for the Detail Plan can be provided to Council before the summer.

Final Council direction on the future of the Civic Centres is a particularly critical at this point. As requested by City Council, senior City staff have held informal discussions with both the Board of Education and Toronto Hydro about surplus office space that might be made available for the City's use. Potential sites are all well away from the downtown area. This means they may provide suitable cost-effective offices for district staff or those corporate units that are locationally flexible - both now assigned to the Civic Centres - but may not reduce the City's need for downtown office space. Use of such space is, however, an option that should be further explored.

Appendix I provides historic perspective on the municipal need for downtown office space and compares it to the space now available in City Hall.

There are other, less high-profile policy issues that can be addressed through periodic reports to the Sub-Committee on the Relocation of Council Members to City Hall. Last summer this Sub-Committee's mandate was extended to include "all Phase 2 and3 issues including renovation and maintenance items" and its reporting relationship changed to make it a sub-committee of the Corporate Services Committee starting in 1999 (Report No.10 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, adopted as amended by City Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998). In recognition of its wider mandate, we recommend that it be renamed the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee.

Among the issues to be settled in the Detail Plan are a corporate space standard, policy and practices about other occupants of potential office space, and various amenity-related issues. Preliminary assumptions about all these were made for the Concept Plan, but they should be re-visited in the next phase of the planning process.

Space Standard:

For purposes of the Concept Plan a general corporate space standard of 225 square feet of rentable office area per workstation was used, with additional allowances for out-of-the-ordinary needs such as libraries and plan storage areas, and a half-workstation allocation for each field staff worker. This proposed standard is below the current corporate average but above what previously prevailed in some of the former municipalities. It is important that there be further review and consensus around the new standard, since it will impact on such factors as working conditions, flexibility to accommodate change, and cost savings.

Non-Staff Uses:

Not all the office and potential office areas in City Hall and the Civic Centres are available for staff office use. Some are assigned to non-profit tenants and related uses such as credit unions, wedding chapels and daycare centres while some are used for councillors' offices. Any reduction in the space used for these purposes would increase potential savings from office consolidation, but such matters can only be resolved with political input. Specific issues include:

(i)whether all councillors should be assigned space in their local Civic Centre or whether other solutions, such as a constituency office elsewhere within the ward, might have both operational and economic advantages;

(ii)whether space in Civic Centres should be leased to politicians from other levels of government for their constituency offices (there is already at least one such request);

(iii)whether the City should reduce the amount of municipal space assigned to non-profit tenants; and

(iv)the future of the Urban Affairs Library; this is currently under review by the Library Board, but City Council should also consider it in context of the corporate Office Consolidation Plan.

Amenities:

The level of amenities currently available to staff in City buildings varies quite dramatically, with some having daycares, fitness centres, serveries, lunch rooms, and purpose built file rooms.

These and other policy issues will be addressed in preparing the Office Consolidation Project's Detail Plan.

(d)Other Questions:

As noted in the Background section of this report, City Council has made a series of requests for information. Two specific requests that have not been addressed in this report were for:

(i)"solid cost estimates on the longevity of any renovations" and

(ii)"how many persons have been relocated to date, and what was the cost per person".

On the first point, the Concept Plan is based on the assumption that any physical alterations should serve the City for at least ten years. This means that staff would avoid alterations that reduce flexibility - for example, working wherever possible with demountable rather than fixed partitions. And they would specify a high standard of durability in all carpeting, finishes and any new workstations required, all within the Plan's general constraint of doing only work that is absolutely necessary. The advice of consultants and the experience of City staff suggests this is the most cost-effective strategy and in the best long-term interests of the taxpayers.

It is impossible to give a definitive answer on the number of moves. With respect to costs, the City's first large-scale move was when Council members and their staff went to City Hall, where the moving cost per person was $600.00. This figure is for the move itself, and does not include any design or alteration costs nor the very substantial amount of time spent by the City's own facilities, IT and telecom staff to make the move happen.

(6)Conclusions:

Office consolidation is an essential part of the amalgamation process and a way for the City to save money.

Office consolidation is a complex undertaking that will affect a great many of the City's six thousand office staff. It will require funding, both for the moves themselves and for the office reconfiguration that needs to take place at the same time. Even with fast-track implementation, as proposed, it will take until the end of 2000 to complete and will cost approximately $40 - 50 million. But once it is completed, the amount of office space used by the City will be reduced by more than 16 percent since amalgamation began, saving more than $6.5 million per year. Even before implementation is over, the City can realize up to $10million through sale of surplus capital assets. Already, it is saving $1.8 million per year because of leases which have been cancelled as staff have moved into City-owned space.

The Office Consolidation Concept Plan presented in this report is designed to:

(i)improve public service by providing "one stop shopping" in the Civic Centre;

(ii)rationalize and reduce the City's office space in a cost-effective way;

(iii)enable staff who manage district operations to be located in the districts they serve;

(iv)fully utilize the Civic Centres; and

(v)bring together staff who need to work together.

Based on Council's direction on the continued use of the Civic Centres, staff will work with the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee between now and May to refine the Concept Plan into a Detail Plan with final cost estimates and final space allocations. In the meanwhile, funds are requested for Project Start-up and for Phase 2 - alterations to the lower East Tower of City Hall to accommodate the CAO, the Commissioners and their immediate staff.

Contact Name:

Simon Chamberlain, Project Director, Office Consolidation, Facilities and Real Estate

Phone No. 392-9697, Fax No. 392-4828, E-Mail: schamber@toronto.ca

Susanne Borup, Executive Director, Facilities and Real Estate, Phone No. 397-4156.

List of Appendices:

APrinciples for Office Space Consolidation;

BAnnual Cost Savings from Office Lease Terminations;

CCity-Owned Office Buildings not included in the Plan;

DFloor Area Details for Buildings in the Plan;

EFuture Capital Repair Costs;

FPreliminary Assignment of Office Staff Groups to Buildings;

GBudget for Project Start-Up;

HBudget for Phase 2 Work; and

IPast Use of Downtown Office Space by Metro and Toronto.

________

Appendix A

Principles for Office Space Consolidation:

(a)convenient service delivery to the public is a key tenet of the office and civic space consolidation;

(b)the consolidation will be achieved in an efficient, effective and cost-beneficial manner;

(c)to reduce costs and advance the implementation, a key tenet will be to move people not furniture;

(d)the space consolidation will be achieved with a minimal number of moves for staff;

(e)space and furniture are corporate resources to be managed by the Corporate Services Department in accordance with the City's priorities;

(f)functional space standards will be utilized to meet project objectives;

(g)Departments are accountable for their use of space;

(h)leased space will be rationalized and reduced wherever possible;

(i)environmental and social objectives will be a key consideration in space planning;

(j)the provision of space for community use will continue to be made a high priority; and

(k)the provision of public space for community use will be considered in the City's program of space consolidation.

The above Principles are contained in a report dated December2, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services. They were endorsed by the Sub-Committee for Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, and by the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in Clause No. 5 of its report No. 15. The final two principles were added by City Council when it adopted the Principles at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998.

At that meeting, City Council also recommended "that the City of Toronto work co-operatively with the Toronto District School Board in its civic and space consolidation, with a view to co-ordinating space consolidation in ways that may be mutually beneficial, including the exchange of space and properties where merited."

Council also adopted four further recommendations contained in the report. That:

(i)the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, report to the Corporate Services Committee, as quickly as possible, on the Phase One and Two Review;

(ii)staff be requested to report back to the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, as quickly as possible on a review timetable, and process, which shall include all Civic Centres;

(iii)the Commissioner of Corporate Services review the Access Points at City Hall and the cost of additional furniture for visitor seating; and

(iv)the Commissioner of Corporate Services canvass the Councillors who have received requests for a Citizen's Room; and report back on the status of this process to the Sub-Committee and the Corporate Services Committee.

Appendix B

Annual Cost Savings from Office Lease Terminations:

End Date Address
User
Square Feet Annual Savings

May '98 188 Eglinton Av.W. Public Health Offices * 7,087 160,082

? 65 Hartsdale Road Etobicoke Fire Prevention 1,200 80,370

Sept.'98 700 Lawrence W. Children's Services 3,922 113,230

July '98 5160 Yonge St. North York Transportation 10,480 250,624

July '98 2238 Dundas St. W. Parks and Recreation 3,273 92,277

Mar. '99 939 Eglinton Av. E. Licensing Staff 32,657 1,079,456

Sub-Totals - Implemented or Committed: 58,619 1,776,039

Dec. '00 590 Jarvis** Special Needs (Comm. Ser.) and Training (Soc. Ser.) 6,423 0

Feb. '01 5150 Yonge St. North York Health Clinic 1,971 105,765

Aug. '99 5150 Yonge St. Children's Services Office 3,103 122,700

Oct. '05 55 Town Centre Ct. Scarborough Health Office* 13,115 160,108

July '03 300 Consilium Dr. Scarborough Works Offices* 32,783 878,644

?# 1530 Markham Rd. Scarborough Fire Prevention 10,535 7,640

Sub-totals - Savings to be Achieved: 67,930 1,274,857

Total Savings: 126,549 3,050,896

* Because of existing lease terms, savings will be delayed after Plan implementation at these locations unless the City can find sub-tenants or other ways to realize savings.

** This is not a lease. It represents the office space used by City staff in a City-owned building which the Plan proposes to sell. It is included in this table to ensure that the need to find accommodation for the displaced staff is not overlooked.

# Revised information on Markham Road to come.

Once the above leases are terminated the only remaining City lease of general office space will be at 112 Elizabeth Street (20,000 square feet; cost - $834,306.00 per annum). Since this is a commitment until August 2007 and since it is strategically located close behind City Hall, the Plan has assumed its continuation in at least the medium term, and included it in office space assignments.

________

Appendix C

City-Owned Office Buildings not included in the Plan:

The NORR study examined several other City-owned buildings which were not included in the office space assignments of this report:

(a)590 Jarvis Street is a 1953 office building, just south of Bloor Street, that contains approximately 68,000 square feet of office space and was formerly the headquarters of the Metro Toronto Police. The building is currently about one-third occupied by various non-profit organizations as tenants of the City. It is in a deteriorated condition and would require an estimated $6 million in capital expenditures to bring it up to the standards of a modern office building. From a municipal office needs perspective it is poorly located, being neither close to City Hall nor highly accessible to it or to any of the civic centres. While it may play a short term role in the City's office consolidation process during the rest of 1999, it should then be sold following the City's normal circulation process to verify that none of the departments has a requirement for it.

(b)951 Wilson Avenue is a 1989 office condominium of 72,000 square feet, located between Keele and Dufferin Streets, where the City owns fifteen of eighteen units as a result of a tax sale. None of these units are currently used for municipal purposes, and the City has no obvious need for the property. Again, it is proposed that the property, or at least all unrequired units, be sold following the City's normal circulation process.

(c)5248 Yonge Street is a seventy year old 2,800 square foot office building one block north of the North York Civic Centre. This building is too small to be of any real value to the City as a general office building, and would require an outlay of almost $300,000.00 to bring it up to modern office standards. The City has no immediate need of this building for office purposes, but has recently assigned it for use as a temporary shelter for the homeless. If this is a necessary and acceptable ongoing use for the property, the City may wish to retain it; otherwise, it should be sold following the City's normal circulation process.

(d)5151 Yonge Street is a seventy year old 3,500 square foot building at the corner of Yonge Street and Empress Avenue, across from and slightly north of the North York Civic Centre. This building is also too small to be of any real value to the City for general office purposes, and should be sold following the City's normal circulation process.

(e)Old City Hall at 60 Queen Street West is well-located beside City Hall but has been adapted for use as a courthouse and is under lease to the Province of Ontario. It is therefore not currently available for the City's use, and would not provide efficient or cost-effective general office space if it were.

(f)75-81 Elizabeth Street is a fifty-four year old office building immediately behind City Hall that provides 14,000 square feet of office space. Although the building was renovated in the early 1980s, it is seriously substandard and would require an outlay of about $400,000.00 to bring it up to the general level of municipal office space. This building was acquired ten years ago to provide land for construction of a third office tower adjacent to City Hall.

Since 75-81 Elizabeth Street is a substandard building and has no long-term life expectancy, no permanent staff have been assigned to it in the Office Consolidation Concept Plan. It is proposed instead to use the building as a short-term "relief valve" for City Hall, pending a final decision on its future in the context of the next phase of this Plan.

Appraisals conducted for the City last September by CB Richard Ellis (as part of the NORR study) indicated that the City could realistically expect one-time revenue in the $8 - 10 million range from sale of the first three properties.

________

Appendix D

Floor Area Details for Buildings in the Plan:

(all areas in square feet)

Table 1 of 2

Building Gross Floor Area Ceremonial Space Ancillary Space Rentable Office

City Hall W Tower 116,204 3,894 87,636

City Hall E Tower 217,098 4,100 174,345

City Hall Podium 387,392 50,928 153,147 143,210

Metro Hall 706,947 76,764 40,736 538,388

Don Mills 133,266 17,307 107,999

277 Victoria St 121,666 14,442 100,798

77-79 Elizabeth St 14,771 13,778

112 Elizabeth St n/a 20,000

Scarborough CC 371,116 34,300 76,641 187,126

Scarborough Health Centre 16,735 920 14,459

North York CC 376,611 26,336 27,314 202,151

East York CC 69,268 7,404 5,117 52,581

Etobicoke CC 146,708 5,911 12,352 119,185

York CC 69,562 3,953 5,514 56,575

Totals: 2,747,345 205,597 361,483 1,818,230

Gross Floor Area includes shaft space, atria at each floor level, etc. Once these are subtracted a building's floorspace comprises Ceremonial Space, Ancillary Space and Rentable Office Space.

Ceremonial Space includes Council Chambers, Council Committee Rooms and other "ceremonial" type floor area that would not normally be found in a commercial office building.

Ancillary Space includes the building's common space, such as mechanical rooms, parking and loading areas and all basement areas without natural light.

Rentable Office space includes all space within designated office areas, including corridors, washrooms, boardrooms, serveries and other common space. It corresponds to the Building Owners and Managers' Association definition of "net rentable floor area" in the situation where a commercial landlord is renting one or more floors of an office building. It includes potential office areas that are in use for non-office purposes.

________

Floor Area Details for Buildings in the Plan

(all areas in square feet)

Table 2 of 2

Building Rentable Office Occupied by Others Available for Staff

City Hall W Tower 87,636 3,365 84,271

City Hall E Tower 174,345 9,285 165,060

City Hall Podium 143,210 90,584 52,626

Metro Hall 538,388 20,103 518,285

Don Mills 107,999 21,298 86,701

277 Victoria St 100,798 5,677 95,120

77-79 Elizabeth St 13,778 895 12,883

112 Elizabeth St 20,000 0 20,000

Scarborough CC 187,126 70,314 116,812

Scarborough Health Centre 14,459 0 14,459

North York CC 202,151 11,475 190,676

East York CC 52,581 7,115 45,466

Etobicoke CC 119,185 10,843 108,342

York CC 56,575 11,566 45,009

Totals: 1,818,230 262,520 1,555,710

Less 77-79 Elizabeth Street: 12,883

Available for Staff: 1,542,827

This table shows the portion of rentable office area in each building used for purposes other than staff offices, and the remaining area available for staff use.

The "Others" occupying space in City buildings that might otherwise be available for staff offices include Councillors' offices, daycare centres, credit unions and a variety of other non-profit tenants. A complete list by building can be provided if required.

________

Appendix E

Future Capital Repair Costs:

Ten year estimates of total future capital repair costs at City office buildings, as provided by NORR Ltd. study (December 1998), showing adjustment for work that would be undertaken as part of the Office Consolidation Project.

Building Total O.C. Items Balance Explanation O.C. Items

Buildings in the Plan's Office Space Allocations

City Hall 11,721 1,280 10,441 Carpet (99-00) and painting (00)

277 Victoria 1,313 1,313 None

703 Don Mills 2,770 2,770 None

Etobicoke CC 3,921 120 3,801 Carpet, painting, ceiling (99-00)

East York CC 844 510 334 Carpet (00) and painting (99-01)

North York CC 3,776 550 3,226 Carpet (01), wall painting & repairs (001-01)

Scarboro CC and HC 6,134 1,003 5,131 Carpet (99) and ceilings (00-01)

York CC 1,599 165 1,434 Carpet and acoustic tile (00)

Metro Hall 5,480 5,480 None

Totals: 37,758 3,628 33,930

Other Buildings

75 Elizabeth 394 Shows cost of capital maintenance that the City would need to undertake if it retained these buildings over the next ten years.

590 Jarvis 5,809

951 Wilson 623

5151 Yonge 47

5248 Yonge 289

All amounts are thousands of dollars (1998)

O.C. (Office Consolidation) Items include all work included in NORR estimates for capital repair costs in the period 1999 - 2002 which Facilities staff expect would be carried out as part of the Office Consolidation Project and thus eliminated from the capital maintenance budget.

Total: shows NORR's estimate of ten year cost for capital maintenance.

O.C.Items:shows the portion of this work to be done under Office Consolidation Project.

Balance: shows reduced ten year capital maintenance cost.

Appendix I

The Commissioner of Corporate Services gave a presentation to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee respecting the foregoing matter, and filed a copy of her presentation material.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre;

-Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway Humber; and

-Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (February 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act.

(Extract from the confidential report

dated February 2, 1999

from the Commissioner of Corporate Services)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Recommendation No. (4) of the report dated January 25, 1999, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services (as embodied in the Clause), be amended by deleting the words "and 5151 Yonge Street"; and

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following document (undated) entitled, "Notes on the Need for Displacement Office Space", from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Office Consolidation Project

NOTES ON THE NEED FOR DISPLACEMENT OFFICE SPACE

Questions were raised at the Strategic Policies & Priorities Committee about the cost and need for swing space" to temporarily accommodate staff displaced from the lower East Tower in Phase 2, and from other areas in future phases of the Office Consolidation process.

Since that meeting staff have carried out further detailed work on the amount of displacement space needed, the availability of such space in City-owned premises and the likely cost of leasing such space.

Amount of Space Required:

The amount of space needed will vary at different times during the project. With Phase 2, there will be an immediate need for 72,000 square feet to accommodate 275 staff displaced directly and indirectly from space in the lower East Tower, plus up to 44 staff who will be carrying out the Office Consolidation Project. The requested 75,000 square feet provides a small amount of necessary leeway. Depending on the rate of downsizing among office staff and the project's logistics, additional displacement space may be needed later in 1999.

Availability of Space in City-owned Premises:

Throughout 1998 and 1999 the City has worked hard to end its dependence on commercial leases of general office space and to accommodate the staff in City-owned buildings. By the end of March this will have brought in nearly 300 staff. At the same time, it has found space for about 175 staff displaced by renovations to the second and first floors of City Hall. Altogether, the City has emptied more office space than it has in Scarborough Civic Centre. Meanwhile the Y2K project has needed space for more than 160 people, which has taken care of any remaining vacant space in Metro Hall. Taken together, all this activity has eliminated potential swing space from City-owned buildings.

During the past few days staff have updated their records of space available in existing City buildings. This has confirmed the initial conclusion that displaced staff cannot be accommodated without renting swing space. The following table lists all space currently vacant in blocks of 1,000square feet or larger, and summarizes plans for their occupancy in the near future.

Square Feet Location Occupancy Plans

2,425
City Hall: 10 W Clerks Protocol moving in early March

6,559 Scarboro CC: 2 To be occupied by Licensing in March

4,779 112 Elizabeth: 1 To be occupied by Licensing in March

5,020 112 Elizabeth: 3 Revenue Services to take 1,100 sf in March

6,960 Metro Hall: 7 To be assigned to Shelter, Housing & Support

1,142 York CC: 1 To be determined

1,417 North York CC: L To be determined (windowless space, fit-up needed)

28,302 TOTAL - of which currently uncommitted is only 6,479 square feet

During the Committee meeting specific reference was made to the former offices of the City Manager and Mayor in the Etobicoke Civic Centre. Fire Prevention staff displaced from leased space moved into those areas last week.

The only other vacant City-owned office space is in two of the buildings to be declared surplus. 951Wilson Avenue would be a highly inefficient location for downtown staff; in any event, the units are entirely unfinished (base concrete) and could not be cost-effectively converted into swing space. About 4,100 square feet of vacant space on the third floor at 590 Jarvis Street could be made available, but there are several reasons not to do this:

(i)poor location relative to City Hall access;

(ii)small size of area available;

(iii)Fire Code concerns;

(iv)designated substance concerns;

(v)wiring and other preparation costs; and

(vi)potential delay to sale of property.

In short, suitable displacement space is not available in City-owned buildings.

Cost of Leasing Displacement Space:

In the past few days Facilities & Real Estate staff have explored a range of options for displacement space. This search has confirmed that the City will likely have to pay a premium since it will be leasing for such a short (one- to two-year) term. The average gross asking rent (including occupancy costs and taxes) of the ten locations surveyed is $30.00 per square foot; the lowest cost location is asking $17.60 and the next lowest $26.40. When this is added to the City's fit-up costs (mainly computer and telecom wiring etc.) of about $4 - 7 per square foot, depending on the premises, it appears that the City will be doing well to come within the $30 per square foot estimated in the Office Space Consolidation report.

Conclusion:

Based on further work carried out in the last week, the need for displacement office space and its cost will be as previously reported.)

North York Performing Arts Centre (Ford Centre) -

1999 - 2000 Concert Series

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication dated February 4, 1999, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Budget Committee recommends to City Council that the report dated February3, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be adopted, subject to adding thereto additional Recommendations Nos. (5) and (6), so that the recommendations embodied in such report shall now read as follows:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the revised maximum net requests for $351,800.00 in 1999 and $1.396 million for 2000 be adopted and that the 1999/2000 concert series be approved;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism review the operations of the two galleries (Art Gallery of North York and the St. Lawrence Market Gallery) and the details of their amalgamation/operating structure be subject to a further report as soon as possible;

(3)the combined 1999 Operating Budgets of both galleries be reduced by a total amount of $236,000.00;

(4)a report on the results of the Request for Proposal process for a private sector operator and recommended operating structure for the Centre be provided to Council by June 1999;

(5)a full staff review be undertaken and a report be provided to the Policy and Finance Committee in October, 1999, on the status of the 2000-2001 Concert Series; and

(6)upon City Council approval of the additional funding for the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation (Ford Centre):

"that prior to funds being expended by the North York Performing Arts Corporation, the North York Performing Arts Centre Emergency Committee be satisfied that the said funds are being spent in accordance with the approved budget".';

(2)in the event that the NYPACC Emergency Committee is not satisfied that the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation is spending said funds in accordance with its approved budget, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer shall, upon the direction of the NYPACC Emergency Committee, not approve the release of any further monies from the approved budget;

(3)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Executive Manager of the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation (NYPACC) be requested to report to the Budget Committee, through the NYPACC Emergency Committee:

(a)on a monthly basis, providing an update on the operating and administration status of the Ford Centre, on a monthly basis; and

(b)on any other matter relating to NYPACC as may be determined by the Emergency Committee;

(4)the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to make every effort to integrate the two staff members who where displaced through the closure of the Art Gallery, into the City of Toronto workforce; and

(5)Ms. Elizabeth Bradley and the staff from the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts be thanked for their outstanding volunteer efforts in this regard.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having:

(1)referred the issue of the North York Performing Arts Centre (Ford Centre) 1999 - 2000 Concert Series, to the Budget Committee for report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on February 2, 1999, on the full costing of all options; and

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

(a)on the status and the prospect of the RFP review;

(b)on the operational models that are envisioned;

(c)respecting a business plan on the transition period and beyond; and

(d)respecting quarterly financial reports being submitted to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation (NYPACC) Emergency Committee on January23, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council that the operation of the Ford Centre be continued for 1999 and the first six months of 2000, including a 65 concert series at the George Weston Recital Hall and community and commercial rentals in the Apotex Theatre and Studio Theatre, at a cost not to exceed $1.1 million in 1999 and $1.9 million in 2000.

Background:

The North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation (NYPACC) Emergency Committee heard verbal presentations from the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation Management Team relating to the 1999 - 2000 Concert Series. The information discussed at the meeting on January23,1999 has been incorporated into the attached joint report (January 25, 1999) from the Executive Manager and the Treasurer, North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation.

________

(Joint report dated January 25, 1999, from the Chief Financial

Officer and Treasurer and the Executive Manager,

North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation, entitled

"Sustaining Operations at the Ford Centre: 1999 - 2000 season".)

Purpose:

To seek approval for funding to sustain operations at the Ford Centre for the Performing Arts while the Centre continues through a restructuring phase. The urgent need for this approval is dictated by the necessity of solidifying contracts with artists for the 1999 -2000 Concert Season in the George Weston Recital Hall. Failure to commit to a 1999 - 2000 Concert Season immediately would result in Canadian and international artists withdrawing their planned Toronto dates in favour of other cities and would devastate the surrounding business community. This outcome would abort the 1999- 2000 season, effectively erasing the subscriber, patron and sponsor base achieved for the Centre to date. The complete loss of ongoing activity at the Ford Centre will undermine the efforts of the NYPACC Board to attract private sector partners essential to the ongoing viability of the Centre. This critical timing has budget implications for the City and other arts organizations.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, Impact Statement:

The financial resources and reserves of the Board are being deployed to stabilize the Centre while it seeks private sector partnerships and a new private sector manager to replace Livent. The Board anticipated a funding shortfall of $1.66 million in the 1999 operating year to sustain operations. This included a capital maintenance reserve fund contribution to be funded at traditionally prescribed levels. The Board, working with the Emergency Committee was able to reduce expenses and rationalize a different approach to the reserve fund contribution which reduced the current funding request to $1.1 million. This amount is consistent with the previous report to Council on Dec.16th/17th 1998 which projected an operating deficit of $1.12 million for a 1998 - 1999 series only but now includes a continued 1999 - 2000 concert season.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the mounting of a 1999 - 2000 Concert Season in the George Weston Recital Hall and the continued operation and accessibility of the Centre for community and commercial renters be approved;

(2)funding for operating the Centre at a cost not to exceed $1.1 million in 1999 be approved and, because the operating cycle for the Concert season and community rentals straddles the 1999 and 2000 fiscal years, the 2000 budget for $1.9 million be approved in the event that the Board is unable to attract and secure private sector management or any significant commercial use of the Centre; and

(3)the detailed budget as reviewed and approved by the NYPACC Board and amended by the Emergency Committee be forwarded to the City's Budget Committee.

Council Reference /Background/ History:

In the wake of the Livent default and termination of the management agreement at the Ford Centre, the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation (NYPACC) has worked diligently to stabilize operations. The NYPACC Board, with the assistance of the Emergency Committee, has assumed interim control of the Centre with the aim not only of protecting the City's interest in this capital asset but also safeguarding the cultural legacy of the Centre. These accomplishments include a 10,000 member subscriber base to the George Weston Recital Hall, and annual attendance of up to 850,000 visitors. Restoring partial programming minimized the negative impact on many local businesses and arts organizations in 1998 -1999.

The Board and the Emergency Committee rigorously reviewed the implications of incremental shutdown of the Centre. If all operations ceased in June of 1999, no funding subsidy would be required to close out the 1999 fiscal year, but close to $1 million would still be required to maintain closure for the year 2000 and every year thereafter. Appendix A attached summarizes the expenditures and revenue for 1999 and 2000.

The Board is strongly convinced that the best opportunity to attract a private sector operator is predicated on continuing animation of the Centre. The continuance of the wide spectrum of cultural activities currently embraced by the Centre is vital to the financial health of countless local and City wide organizations who view the Ford Centre as their performance home. Even with a reduced scope of operations, there is significant contribution to the Toronto economy. Activities at the Ford Centre have triggered several hundreds of millions of dollars into the Toronto economy over the past five years.

Council, on December 16 and 17, 1998, endorsed the Board's plan to rescue a number of Livent cancelled concerts for incorporation into a "Reclaimed Concert Season" made possible by the unique partnership of performers, stage hands union, media and the City. This initiative enabled the Centre to keep together the operating infrastructure as well as gave it the ability to honour all community rental obligations. Council, as part of the endorsement mentioned above, authorized the Board spending $1.5 million from NYPACC's own resources. (By statute the Board needs Council approval for expenditures over $500,000.00). Current estimates indicate that the Relaimed Concert Series is on track and net expenditures are reduced by $100,000.00 since reporting to Council.

Conclusion:

Interim financial support of this important cultural institution reflects the City's commitment to the arts and recognizes the importance of the arts in contributing to the economic health of the City. It is also consistent with the City's desire to encourage commercial partnerships as a way to fund the needs of the arts community.

Contact Name:

Glenn GarwoodNYPACC395-7424

Ken ColleyFinance395-6715

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, communications from the following persons in support of the continuation of the Ford Centre for the Performing Arts:

(a)a petition (January 24, 1999) signed by residents of the Yonge-Sheppard area;

(b)(January 25, 1999) from Ms. Pamela Shapiro, President, North York Chamber of Commerce;

(c)(January 25, 1999) from Mr. Bernard Rasch, Rasch Architect Ltd.;

(d)(January 25, 1999) from Nelly and Tony Mazzone, Mazzone Antipasti Ristorante;

(e)(January 25, 1999) from Ms. Lillian Ing; and

(f)a petition (January 25, 1999) signed by residents in the York Region area.

________

The following persons appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Jim McGuffin, Chair, North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation;

-Mr. Tom Hill, representing Local 58, on behalf of Mr. Bill Nalepka, Acting Business Agent, IATSE, Local 58;

-Mr. Peter Webb, General Manager, Classical 96 and 103 FM;

-Mr. Eric Friesen, Host CBC Radio 2 In Performance;

-Mr. Kerry Stratton, Conductor and Music Director, North York Symphony;

-Ms. Gail Vanstone, Chair of the Art Gallery Committee;

-Ms. Liz Bradley, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, The Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts;

-Mr. Glenn Garwood, Executive Manager, North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation; and

-Mr. Ken Colley, Finance Division.

The following Members of Council also appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown;

-Councillor Blake Kinahan, Lakeshore Queensway; and

-Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (February 4, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee at its special meetings held on February 1 and 3, 1999, recommended to City Council that the report (February 3, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be adopted, subject to adding the following recommendations:

"(5)A full staff review be undertaken and a report be provided to the Policy and Finance Committee in October, 1999 on the status of the 2000-2001 Concert Series.

(6)Upon City Council approval of the additional funding for the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation (Ford Centre):

'that prior to funds being expended by the North York Performing Arts Corporation, the North York Performing Arts Centre Emergency Committee be satisfied that the said funds are being spent in accordance with the approved budget'."

The Budget Committee also reports, for the information of Council, that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Budget Committee:

(a)on a monthly basis providing an update on the operating and administration status of the North York Performing Arts Centre; and

(b)in October, 1999, provide an update on the status of the negotiations with Ford Motor Company of Canada (Ford), pertaining to the naming of the facility and in the event Ford is not interested in retaining its name on the theatre, serious consideration be given at that time to having the name revert back to the North York Centre for the Performing Arts.

Background:

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of Council, having had before it a communication (January 27, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on January 26, 1999 referred the issue of the North York Performing Arts Centre (Ford Centre) 1999 - 2000 Concert Series, to the Budget Committee for report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on February 2, 1999, on the full costing of all options.

The Budget Committee further reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following attached reports:

-(February 3, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Revised 1999/2000 Preliminary Budget North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation;

-(February 1, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "North York Performing arts Centre 1999/2000 Concert Series; and

-Confidential (January 29, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting the Ford Centre for the Performing Arts (forwarded under separate cover).

________

The following members of Council appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mayor Lastman;

-Councillor Maria Augimeri, Black Creek;

-Councillor Milton Berger, North York Centre South;

-Councillor Mike Feldman, North York Spadina;

-Councillor John Filion, North York Centre; and

-Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights.

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

-Ms. Gail Vanstone, Chair, Art Gallery Committee;

-Mr. Glenn Garwood, Executive Manager, North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation; and

-Mr. Jim McGuffin, Chair, North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation.

(Report dated February 3, 1999,

addressed to the Budget Committee

from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

Purpose:

To present a revised net expenditure budget for the North York Performing Arts Centre.

Financial Implications:

The revised net expenditure budget incorporates further expenditure reductions, cost recoveries and additional revenue generating activities reducing the 1999 net expenditures from $1.1million in 1999 to $351,800 and reducing the 2000 net expenditures from $1.656 million in 2000 to 1.396million. The total net request has decreased from $2.776 million for 1999 and 2000 to $1.748million or a 37% net decrease.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the revised net requests for $351,800 in 1999 and $1.396 million for 2000 be adopted and that the 1999/2000 concert series be approved;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism review the operations of the two galleries (Art Gallery of North York and the St. Lawrence Market Gallery) and the details of their amalgamation/operating structure be subject to a further report as soon as possible;

(3)the combined 1999 Operating Budgets of both galleries be reduced by a total amount of $236,000; and

(4)a report on the results of the Request for Proposal process for a private sector operator and recommended operating structure for the Centre be provided to Council by June 1999.

Discussion:

At its meeting of February 1, 1999, the Budget Committee requested that further expenditure reductions and revenue enhancements be made to the previously submitted net expenditure requests tabled at that meeting for 1999 and 2000 for the North York Performing Arts Centre.

Staff have reviewed the preliminary business plan that was attached to the February 1, 1999 report and have incorporated the revenue generating and cost reduction proposals that were proposed in the Preliminary Business Plan.

Cost reductions are incorporated for both the concert series and community rentals and include the following:

(1)Concert Series

-Reduction in artist fees$ 35,000

-Increased revenues 100,000

-Decreased advertising 25,000

-Decreased marketing 15,000

-New donor campaigns 80,000

$ 255,000

(2)Community Events

-Rental fee increases$ 20,000

-Higher volume of Recital Hall rentals45,000

-Higher volume of Apotex rental150,000

-Rentals of rehearsal hall and recording studio50,000

-Cost recovery of front of house operations and

Box office, subscription series management40,000

$305,000

Total 1999 Reductions$560,000

As a result of a meeting of the Mayor; Budget chair, Councillor Tom Jakobek; the chair of the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation, Jim McGuffin; the chair of the Council Emergency Committee, Councillor Filion; and Councillor Feldman on Wednesday, February 3, 1999, the following recommendations are also incorporated in this revised presentation:

Rationalizing and utilizing the current Art Gallery space for alternate revenue producing activities saving of $236,000 in 1999 and a further savings of $160,000 in 2000, and reinstating $40,000 in 1999 advertising and marketing costs and the following recommendations are noted for approval.

This further increases the 1999 reductions by $196,000 to $756,000 and the 2000 reduction from $100,000 to $260,000 for a total of $1.016 million.

Conclusion:

Total reductions of $756,000 represent a 21% decrease in the 1999 request. A further $260,000 has been applied to the 2000 request. A 37% decrease for the 1999 and 2000 budget years has been presented.

(Report dated February 1, 1999,

addressed to the Budget Committee

from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

Purpose:

To provide additional information to the Budget Committee with respect to the report before Strategic Polices & Priorities Committee on January 26, 1999.

Financial Implications:

Approval of this report will result in a maximum net expenditure request to the City of $1.1 million in 1999 and $1.6 million in 2000 during the North York Performing Arts Centre's (NYPAC) restructuring phase. The preliminary business plan attached to this report identifies that the net expenditure requests can be further reduced by $295,000 to $695,000 if the Centre continues to operate in 1999 and 2000 under various scenarios.

NYPACC's request compares favorably with the net expenditures provided by the City for Exhibition Place (1998 actuals - $2.5 million; 1997 actuals - $3.2 million, 1996 actuals - $1.8 million); grants provided to the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts - 1998 - $1.1 million, 1997 - $1.1 million, 1996-$1.1 million); and the various grants given to the Toronto Symphony (1998 - $773,600); National Ballet (1998 - $767,670); Canadian Opera Company (1998 - $854,970).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the request from the NYPAC Corporation embodied in their report dated January 25, 1999 be considered with the additional information contained in this report and be adopted to provide maximum funding of $1.1 million in 1999 and $1.6 million in order to allow the booking of the 1999/2000 concert series;

(2)the Emergency Committee of Council review the preliminary business plan attached and forward its recommendation on further reducing the maximum 1999 and 2000 expenditures referred in recommendation no. 1 to the March meeting of the Budget Committee, including a review of information requested of the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at its January 26, 1999 meeting;

Background:

Council, at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, received a confidential report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor with respect to various matters concerning the City and Livent. Contained within that report was an estimate of the net deficit/expenditure of the reclaimed 1998/1999 concert series at $3.3 million in 1999, which if financed by use of 1998 surplus and a draw from the Center's Operating Reserve Fund would be reduced to a $1.1 million potential expenditure by the City. An extract of the financial picture contained in that report is attached.

This report provides additional information for the Budget Committee in order to determine whether to recommend to Council, the staging of a 1999/2000 concert series, which would not add to the previous expenditure estimate in December 1998, and would require a maximum requirement for 2000 of $1.6 million before recognition of any additional revenue generating activities.

Discussion:

Attached are various schedules providing additional information on the cost of operations of the NYPAC Corporation.

Appendix 1Costing of options requested by Strategic Policies and Priorities

January 26, 1999

Appendix 2Detailed supporting schedules to Options requested by Strategic Polices and Priorities

-Theatre operations

-Art Gallery

-Facility and Corporate Operations

Appendix 3Analysis of NYPAC reserve funds since inception

Appendix 4Preliminary business plan outlining additional revenue generating opportunities to mitigate the expenditures requested for 1999 and 2000.

NYPAC Corporation is actively working to release an RFP to secure a new private sector operator. It is expected that the RFP should be released by early March and to remain open for responses to early April. Evaluation will require approximately one month taking to early May. Recommendations on the future operational structure of NYPAC Corporation can be expected to be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee in June with final Council approval in July 1999. Contract negotiations can be expected to be completed by September 1999 with the new operator on board by January 1, 2000 at the latest - prior to any decisions required for any further concert series (i.e. 2000/2001) or further community and commercial programming.

If the City would prefer to re-establish a public/private partnership that reduces, if not totally eliminates City funding of the Centre, booking the 1999/2000 concert series will add to the attractiveness of the Centre to a potential new manager.

The preliminary business plan attached to this report as Appendix 4, when finalized will serve as an important benchmark in evaluating the financial impact of a new private sector manager.

The preliminary business plan also demonstrates the potential to offset the City's net expenditure in 1999 and 2000 by $295,000 to $695,000 through various revenue generating opportunities such as:

-additional 20-30 additional rental dates in the George Weston Recital Hall - $45k

-additional Apotex theatre bookings - $50-$450k

-donation and membership campaigns - $50k

-better than expected subscription sales - $150k

Even if the business plan is not fully realized, the net request from the City should be considered in the context of other arts, cultural and community facilities and organizations that the City provides financial assistance to:

e.g	Exhibition Place	1998 - $2.5 million; 1997 - $3.2 million 1996 - $1.8 million
	St. Lawrence Centre of the Arts	1998 - $1.1 million
	Toronto Symphony	1998 - $773,600
	National Ballet	1998 - $767, 670
	Canadian Opera Company	1998 - $854,970

Conclusion:

NYPAC Corporation has operated since inception at no cost to the taxpayer. The Ford Centre for the Performing Arts, a $48 million asset of the City, provides significant community and commercial programming opportunities in the north end of the City. The results provide economic and cultural benefits to all taxpayers of the City and the Greater Toronto Area. During this short term period of restructuring (expected to continue to September 1999), it is important to maintain and operate this valuable city asset in order to maximize all revenue generating possibilities. It is recommended that establishing a 1999/2000 concert series will better position the Center for private sector involvement through managing to sponsoring operations.

Contacts:

Glenn Garwood

Executive Manager, NYPACC395-7424

Ken Colley

Manager, Accounting395-6715

________

NORTH YORK PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE CORPORATION

PROJECTED IMPACT ON 1998 AND 1999 OPERATIONS

19981999

$000$000

BUDGETTED REVENUES

(Excl. Artwork donations)2,252 2,461

Deduct:

Loss in management fees250 1,500

Loss in gala obligation- 500

Shortfall in ticket surcharges213 448

Add: Letter of Credit recovery(350)-

113 2,448

2,139 13

Production revenues (Note 2)4 17

Sponsorships (Note 1)0 0

Bars and concessions4 21

Merchandise0 0

House program0 0

Community group rentals13 66

REVISED REVENUES2,160 117

BUDGETTED EXPENDITURES2,227 2,227

Deduct:

Funds for purchase of artwork- (250)

Add:

Non-recoverable portion of utility costs28 120

2,255 2,097

Production expenses134 535

Front of House6 28

Insurance2 8

Recital Hall overheads

Box office 13 59

Mktg. Publicity, communications, admin25 63

Programming and administration- 105

Facility management- 169

Cleaners- 98

Stagedoor security- 75

Accounting and settlement services- 40

Box Office ticket replacement subsidy (Note 3)36 106

Other facility expenses63 47

REVISED EXPENDITURES2,533 3,430

REVISED NET EXPENDITURES373 3,313

OPENING SURPLUS1,021 (648)

Draw down from Stabilization Reserve- (1,545)

CLOSING SURPLUS(DEFICIT)648 (1,120)

NOTES:

1Revenue projections for the 1998-1999 Recital Hall series do not include any funds from sponsorships.

2Recital Hall revenue projections have been discounted for the ticket exchange offer currently in place.

There is an estimated further gross revenue potential of $525,000 should our legal action succeed.

There is also an estimated $215,000 from future sales for the 34 concerts.

3The planned subsidy to Community Groups and Studio Theatre groups ($142,000) for ticket sales prior to Livent's receivership could be recovered if our current legal action is successful.)

(A copy of each of the following is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-documents respecting the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation's 1999 Current Budget, which were appended to the foregoing report (February 3, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; and

-schedules, referred to in the foregoing report (February 1, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.)

(A copy of the confidential report (January 29, 1999) from the City Solicitor, referred to in the communication (February 4, 1999) from the City Clerk, is to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a joint communication (January 29, 1999) from Ms. Jane Greenwood, Administrator, Ms. Linda Beaupre, Conductor, and Ms. Margie Alexander, President, Bach Children's Chorus, regarding the cancellation of performances at the Ford Centre for the Performing Arts.)

Proposed 1999 Operating Budget Process and Schedule

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the report dated February 1, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted, subject to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee scheduled to be held on Monday, April 26, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., being rescheduled to Monday, April 19, 1999, at 2:00 p.m., in order to accommodate the Special Meeting of City Council to consider the 1999 Operating Budget:

'It is recommended that the proposed amended 1999 Operating Budget Process and Schedule, as detailed in Appendix A, be approved.'; and

(2)the following motion be referred to the Budget Committee with a request that the Committee attempt to adhere to the requests outlined therein:

Moved by Councillor Mihevc:

'It is recommended that:

(a)the Budget Committee and City staff working on the budget, be requested:

(i)to distribute the agendas for currently scheduled meetings of the Budget Committee, five business days in advance, in accordance with the normal practice for the distribution of Standing Committee agendas;

(ii)when calling meetings of the Budget Committee which are in addition to those meetings currently scheduled, to provide 48hours notice of such meeting, with the notice period starting at the time of the distribution of the agenda; and

(iii)to circulate any additional agenda items to all Members of Council 48hours in advance of meetings: and

(b)the Budget Committee not consider reports which are "walked-in" or have not been distributed 48 hours in advance of any meeting.' ")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

(1)recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication (January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk; and

(2)reports having requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to meet with the Community Council Chairs to establish dates for presenting the Operating Budget to the Community Councils.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on January 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the joint report (January 18, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, subject to providing that the proposed April 20, 1999, Special Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee meeting to hear deputations pertaining to the 1999 Operating Budget, shall be a joint meeting of Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee.

The Budget Committee reports for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council having requested that the Chief Administrative Officer to report directly to Council at its meeting scheduled to be held on February 2, 1999, providing alternate dates for the Council Strategy Sessions scheduled for February 25 and 26, 1999.

________

(Joint Report dated January 18, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Chief Administrative Officer

and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

Purpose:

To propose the 1999 Operating Budget process and schedule.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the proposed Operating Budget process and schedule be approved.

Discussion:

1999 Operating Budget Process:

Overview:

The 1999 Operating Budget process has been designed to facilitate the continued decision-making needs of Council regarding the allocation of resources for City services. To that end, the 1999Operating Plan and Budget submission for each City Program and Agency will focus on the following information:

(i)Services provided to the public;

(ii)Service plans and priorities;

(iii)Performance measures, benchmarks;

(iv)Resources (human and financial) required to provide services;

(vi)Service delivery options; and

(vii)Major issues.

In conjunction with the above, each Program Area/Agency will be required to prepare detailed budget submissions for each service delivered by a program. The Budget Services Division of Finance will identify salient issues and provide advice, to the Chief Administrative Officer for review and recommended action. The Chief Administrative Officer will present a recommended 1999 Operating Budget to the Budget Committee for its consideration and subsequent consideration of Standing Committees of Council.

The preparation of the 1999 Operating Budget is two-staged: the Preliminary Operating Budget Forecast and the 1999 Operating Plan and Budget Submission.

(Stage 1)Preliminary Operating Budget Forecast and Review

The preliminary Operating Budget forecast is intended to provide the Chief Administrative Officer with an overview of the Corporation's financial outlook for the upcoming year.

This stage of the process, completed in the Fall of 1998, identified high level changes from the 1998 Approved Budget, including annualized impacts of 1998 reductions/revenue enhancements; fiscal impacts of capital budgets; changes in services approved by Council during 1998 as well as the identification of budget pressures resulting from wage settlements, downloading, service levelling etc., as well as savings to be realized from amalgamation/restructuring,

An analytical review of these submissions, undertaken by the Budget Services Division of Finance for the Chief Administrative Officer, resulted in the issuance of operating budget targets. Amalgamating program areas were given 1999 restructuring targets for the second installment of the City's continuing restructuring program to achieve the $150 million savings target over three years. Amalgamating Program areas were requested to reflect the restructuring target reductions in their 1999 Operating Budget requests.

The preliminary operating budget forecast also identified pressures that required all Program Areas, Agencies, Boards and Commissions to submit, together with their 1999 Operating Budget requests, proposals for reducing up to 10 percent of their net 1998 Approved Operating Budgets.

The findings of this stage of the Operating Budget process were reported to City Council in the presentation "1999 Preliminary Operating Budget Outlook" made by the Chief Administrative Officer on November 25, 1998.

(Stage 2)1999 Operating Plan and Budget Submission and Review:

The second phase of the process focuses on the preparation, analysis and approval of the 1999 Operating Plan and Budget Submission. 1999 Operating Budget instructions, guidelines, process and timetable have been developed to enable the following:

(i)development of a 1999 Operating Budget for Council consideration in April, 1999;

(ii)identification of current City services and service levels, service plans, resource allocations and service delivery options;

(iii)identification of impacts of previously approved Council decisions, including capital programs, on the operating budget;

(iv)inclusion of a preliminary outlook for the following fiscal year;

(v)the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer to review program/agency submissions, identify issues and provide recommendations, strategies and alternatives to the Budget Committee; and

(vi)Budget Committee, Standing Committees and City Council to review the Operating Budget requests for service and funding priorities.

The 1999 Operating Budget Schedule:

Administrative Review:January/Early February, 1999

Each Program Area/Agency was required to develop a formal 1999 Operating Plan and Budget Submission for each Program and its Services for final submission to the Budget Services Division by January 8, 1999. Once consolidated, an administrative review will take place in two phases:

(1)Finance Review:

At this stage, the Budget Services Division will undertake a detailed analytical review of program submissions, meeting with Program staff to clarify issues and negotiate recommended adjustments to the Operating Budget submissions. Budget staff will then bring forward issues and recommendations to the Chief Administrative Officer respecting each Operating Budget submission.

(2)Chief Administrative Officer Review:

After a review of each Operating Budget submission in early February, the Chief Administrative Officer will present a CAO-recommended Operating Budget for each Program and Agency to be submitted to the Budget Committee for its review commencing February 19, 1999.

It should be noted that the Chief Administrative Officer will be updating his November 25, 1998 "1999 Operating Budget Outlook" presentation to City Council on February 2, 1999 to provide current Operating Budget submission estimates.

Committee Reviews:

Preliminary Budget Committee Review:February 9, 19 to 27, 1999

Once the CAO-recommended Operating Budget is presented to the Budget Committee, the Committee will begin its review of the CAO-recommended budget for each Program and Agency. These meetings will begin February 19th through to the 27th, with the exception of the TTC, Police, Zoo, Exhibition Place, Conservation Authority and TEDCO budgets which will receive their respective reviews on February 9th, 1999.

During these sessions, the Budget Committee will consider each operating budget, identifying issues and requests for further information towards the resolution of those issues to assist the Budget Committee in determining funding priorities.

Standing Committee Review:March 22 to 31, 1999

Each Standing Committee will receive for review the CAO-recommended budgets for their respective Program Areas and Agencies and associated motions from Budget Committee's preliminary review meetings to assist Standing Committees in recommending service priorities.

These meetings will occur the week of March 22nd to the 31st, 1999. These meetings will also provide an opportunity for committee members to hear public deputations on their particular operating budgets.

Budget Committee Wrap-Up:March 29, April 6 to 9, 1999

Standing Committee recommendations will be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its consideration during a series of wrap-up meetings commencing March 29th and April 6th to the 9th, 1999. Any other outstanding matters arising from the Budget Committee preliminary meetings will also be resolved at this time.

Political Approval:

Special Budget Committee Meeting:April 16, 1999

Once Budget Committee deliberations have been completed, the Budget Committee-recommended budget for each Program and Agency will be consolidated and the final 1999 Operating Budget document will be submitted to Budget Committee for final consideration at a special meeting to be scheduled for April 16, 1999.

Special Strategic Policies and Priorities Meeting:April 20, 1999

The Budget Committee will forward the final Budget Committee-recommended 1999 Operating Budget to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for consideration at a special meeting to be scheduled for April 20, 1999.

It is proposed that public deputations on the 1999 Operating Budget be held at this special meeting rather than Council of the Whole, as was done in 1998. The Budget Committee would meet subsequently (April 22, 1999) to respond to issues raised from deputants and report directly to City Council.

Special Meeting of City Council:April 26 and 27, 1999

It is proposed that a special meeting of City Council to consider the 1999 Operating Budget be scheduled for April 26 and 27, 1999.

It should be noted that special meetings are required to meet the deadlines of the 1999 workplan. A draft calendar of Committee and Council meetings highlighting the proposed Operating Budget meetings has been attached as Appendix A. As well, a detailed meeting schedule has been attached as Appendix B.

Contact Name:

Josie LaVita, Manager, Operating Budget: 397-4229.

Appendix B

1999 Operating Budget Process

Proposed Meeting Schedule

Special Pre-Council Meeting:

Tuesday February 2, 1999 - 8:3 0 am to 9:30 am

1999 Operating Budget Update - Submission Overview

Preliminary Budget Committee Reviews:

Tuesday February 9, 1999 - 9:00 am to 9:00 pm

9:00 - 1:30Police

1:30 - 2:00Lunch (brought in)

2:00 - 6:30TTC

6:30 - 7:00Dinner (brought in)

7:00 - 7:30TEDCO

7:30 - 8:00Conservation Authority

8:00 - 8:30Zoo

8:30 - 9:00CNE

Friday, February 19, 1999 - 2:00 pm to 9:00 pm

2:00 - 4:001999 Operating Budget Presentation (CAO/CFO)

4:00 - 5:00Urban Planning and Building

5:00 - 5:30Licensing Commission

5:30 - 6:30Grants

Monday, February 22, 1999 - 9:00 am to 9 pm

To be scheduled - Community and Neighbourhood Services

Childrens' Services

Homes for the Aged

Shelter, Housing and Support

Toronto Housing Company

Social Services

Social Development and Administration

Public Library

Public Health

Tuesday, February 23, 1999 - 2:00 pm - 9:00pm

To be scheduled - Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and associated ABCs

Parks and Recreation

Arts, Culture and Heritage/Heritage Toronto

Economic Development

Special Events

THC

Theatres and Galleries

St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts

Hummingbird

North York Centre for the Performing Arts

Arena Boards of Management

Wednesday, February 24, 1999 - 9:00 am - 9:00 pm

To be scheduled - Works and Emergency Services and associated ABCs

Solid Waste Management

Transportation

Fire

Ambulance

Water/Waste Water

Parking Authority

Thursday, February 25, 1999 - 9:00 am - 9:00 pm

To be scheduled - Corporate Services:

Audit

Legal

Human Resources

Information Technology

Facilities Management and Real Estate

Fleet and Equipment

Clerks

Friday, February 26, 1999: - 9:00 am - 6:00 pm

To be scheduled:

Chief Administrative Officer

Council

Mayor's Office

Finance

Non-Program Expenditures and Revenues

Any budget revisits

Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 10:00 am - 5:00 pm

Available for any budget revisits.

Budget Review by Standing Committees:

Emergency and Protective Services Committee - March 23, 1999

Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee - March 24, 1999

Works and Utilities Committee - March 24, 1999

Corporate Services Committee - March 25, 1999

Economic Development Committee - March 26, 1999

Urban Environment and Development Committee - March 31, 1999

Budget Committee Wrap-Up Meetings:

Monday, March 29, 1999* - 2:00 pm - 9:00 pm

*Regular meeting of Budget Committee scheduled for this day - could start at 9:00am if wish to cancel regular meeting agenda

Tuesday, April 6, 1999 - 2:00 pm - 9:00 pm

Wednesday, April 7, 1999 - 9:00 am - 9:00 pm

Thursday, April 8, 1999 - 9:00 am - 9:00 pm

Friday, April 9, 1999* - 9:00 am - 6:00 pm

* This is Good Friday (Orthodox) but available, if necessary.

Special Budget Committee Meeting:

Friday, April 16, 1999 - 9:30 am - 12:30 pm - consideration of the final 1999 Operating Budget

Special Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee Meeting:

Tuesday, April 20, 1999 - 9:00 am - 9 pm - consideration of the 1999 Operating Budget and Deputations *

*It is proposed that public deputations on the 1999 Operating Budget be received at this special meeting of Strategic Policies and Priorities rather than Council of the Whole. The Budget Committee would meet subsequently to respond to the issues raised from deputants and report directly to the Special Meeting of City Council on these matters.

Special Budget Committee Meeting:

Thursday, April 22, 1999 - 2:00 pm - 9:00 pm - to respond to deputations forwarded from Strategic Policies and Priorities meeting of April 20, 1999.

Special Meeting of City Council

Monday, April 26, 1999 and Tuesday April 27, 1999.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To submit an amended 1999 Operating Budget Process and Schedule which includes Community Council meeting dates to consider the 1999 Operating Budget.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the proposed amended 1999 Operating Budget Process and Schedule, as detailed in Appendix A, be approved.

Background:

At its meeting of January 26, 1999, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee requested the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to meet with the Community Council Chairs to establish dates for presenting the Operating Budget to the Community Councils.

Discussion:

Meeting dates have now been incorporated into the 1999 Operating Budget schedule to provide Community Councils with an overview of the 1999 CAO-Recommended Budget and to hear deputations on the same. Meetings have been scheduled as follows:

Scarborough and York Community Councils March 25, 1999

North York and Etobicoke Community Councils March 29, 1999

Toronto and East York Community Councils March 30, 1999

The 1999 Operating Budget schedule now provides for public input at Standing Committee meetings the week of March 22 as well as at these newly-scheduled Community Council meetings.

In view of the above, deputations are no longer required at the special Strategic Policies and Priorities meeting of April 20, 1999, as originally contemplated. The special meeting of Budget Committee scheduled for April 22, 1999 to address matters arising from the deputations of April20th can now be eliminated.

Appendix A, the attached calendar of Committee and Council meetings for the 1999 Operating Budget process, has been amended to reflect the above changes.

Contact Name:

Josie LaVita, Manager, Operating Budget: 397-4229)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (January 29, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

At its meeting of January 19, 1999, the Budget Committee requested the CAO to submit a report directly to the February 2, 1999, meeting of Council on alternate dates for the first Strategic Planning plenary session in light of scheduling conflicts on February 25-26, 1999.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comment:

Tentative plans for the first Strategic Planning plenary session on February 25-26, 1999, are now in conflict with the recommended schedule for Budget Committee meetings. Staff canvassed Members of Council for their availability on Monday, March 1, 1999, as an alternate date for the first plenary session. Canvassing indicates that almost all Council Members are available the afternoon of March 1, 1999.

Few alternate dates exist in Council's crowded legislative calendar. Monday, March 1, 1999, from noon to 5:00 p.m. is being held for the first plenary session for the Strategic Planning Process.)

Official Flag for the City of Toronto

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out Recommendation No. (1) of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)that Council endorse an open competition among professional designers of the City of Toronto and invite the submission of designs for the new official flag of the City of Toronto by May 1, 1999, to the City Clerk's Protocol Office; and that Protocol and Communications staff be requested to:

(a)review the submissions and forward them to the Chairs of the Community Councils for further review and recommendation of several design options to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, using a process similar to that used for the selection of the City logo and Coat of Arms; and the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee be requested to develop a short-list of design options and submit recommendations thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on June 9, 1999; and

(b)implement a method whereby Toronto school children are included in the final selection of the flag design;".)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:

(i)that Option 3(b) (gold background with a blue "T" bar and blue crest) be approved as the official flag of the City of Toronto ; and

(ii)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (2) to (9) embodied in the report (January 19, 1999) from the City Clerk:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (January19,1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To approve a design for the official flag of the City of Toronto, the policies for flying flags on municipal property and procedures for half-masting.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for a standard flag measuring 3 feet x 6 feet is $30.00. Operating Departments will phase in the installation of the official flag as existing flags require replacement and as budgets permit. The Purchasing and Materials Management Division of Finance will be requested to issue a request for proposal for a supplier of the official flag for City Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions in order that the City may take advantage of bulk buying and consistent quality.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Strategic Polices and Priorities Committee review the official flag design options submitted at Committee on January 26 by staff and recommend one design to Council for approval as the official flag of the City of Toronto;

(2)except as provided in Recommendation No. (5) below, all existing former municipal flags be phased out by July 1, 1999, and replaced by the new City flag as Operating Budgets permits;

(3)the existing courtesy flag poles will fly the flag of nations recognized by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, on its national day or on the anniversary of a special occasion for up to two weeks, upon written request;

(4)the flag of a non-profit or charitable organization will be flown on a courtesy flagpole for up to two weeks upon the written request of the group or organization;

(5)the former municipal flag be displayed along with the official City of Toronto flag in the Council Chamber of each respective Civic Centre with the exception of Toronto City Hall which will only display the official City of Toronto flag since it is the seat of the new City government;

(6)the Chief of Protocol be delegated authority to approve all flag raisings in accordance with Council policy and that Toronto Protocol, Clerk's Division, Corporate Services Department be responsible for administering the flag raising policies and for the coordination of all flag ceremonies and related events;

(7)City Council approve the guidelines in Appendix A for half-masting flags at all City of Toronto properties;

(8)the recommendations in this report supersede any previous flag policies adopted by the former municipalities or this Council; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee Report No. 21, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, requested that the Chief Administrative Officer report to Council on the possibility of incorporating the approved Coat of Arms as the Flag of the City. This report, on behalf of the Chief Administrative Officer, fulfills this request.

The Clause embodied in Report No. 2 of the Scarborough Community Council, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, and the Clause embodied in Report No. 9 of the East York Community Council, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, recommended that the flags of the former City of Scarborough be the flag of the Community of Scarborough and the Borough of East York be the flag of the Community of East York.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The official flag design options have been developed by the Creative Services Unit of Corporate Services in consultation with the Chief Herald of Canada. The Chief Herald has advised that the entire Coat of Arms cannot be used on an official flag but elements of the Coat of Arms can be incorporated if desired by Council. In keeping with the development of the design of the Coat of Arms, the Community Council Chairs were also consulted on the preliminary design options for the flag.

Adopting an official flag is an important means of achieving a clear, coherent identity for an organization. The recommendations provide a timetable for replacing the former municipal flags on the City's outdoor flagpoles while allowing for the continued display of these flags in the Council Chamber of each Civic Service Centre, with the exception of Toronto City Hall which is the seat of government of the new City.

In the past, the former municipalities were requested to raise flags recognizing other nationalities, charities and non-profit groups in recognition of specific dates and events. These flag raising ceremonies have celebrated significant events and activities in the community. The City of Toronto should continue this practice of using the courtesy flag poles at City Hall and the Civic Centres for these objectives. However, the use of the courtesy flag pole neither implies nor expresses support for the politics or policies of these nations and/or organizations, but raises the flag in recognition of those citizens or members that have made the request.

The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs was consulted to ensure the City's guidelines are not in conflict with national flag protocol when flying flags of other countries. Requests to use the courtesy flagpole at Toronto City Hall will be accepted on a first come first served basis. In the event that an additional request for a flag raising is received, preference will be given to the first written request received. The second request will be given the option of flying their flag on a courtesy flag pole at a Civic Centre located nearest to their intended audience. Requests for the flag raisings at a location other than Toronto City Hall will be considered and approved on a first come first served basis.

No other flag should be flown on the same pole as the City flag. Toronto Protocol will provide advice to Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions on the display and flying of the Toronto flag in other locations throughout the city.

Appendix A details the procedures for half-masting of flags at City of Toronto properties. It was developed to provide assistance to the Mayor, Members of Council and City Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions and to present a consistent and appropriate response to a work related death of a civic employee, or death of an elected official. Toronto Protocol will be responsible for communicating the procedures to the appropriate City of Toronto staff. These guidelines for half-masting City flags were compiled taking into account the size of the organization and the operational challenges the procedure presents.

Conclusions:

The policies and guidelines contained in this report are based on the experiences and guidelines of the former municipalities. Provincial and Federal flag guidelines and policies have been consulted during development of these guidelines. The recommendations outlined in this report recognize the combined "best practices" of the municipalities, the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada.

The adoption of an official flag for the City of Toronto is an important symbol for the City. The corporate standards and procedures for flying the official flag are necessary to ensure consistency within the organization, to prevent diplomatic incidents and as a public relations tool to profile the City in a positive manner.

The Chief Administrative Officer has been consulted and concurs with the recommendations in this report.

Contact Name:

Daphne Gaby Donaldson, Chief of Protocol, 392-4273.

________

Appendix A: Guidelines regarding half-masting flags at the City of Toronto

Toronto City Hall & Civic Services Centres Additional Location(s) - to be determined in consultation with Toronto Protocol and the Department Head

Mayor

(in office)
Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral. All Department, Agency, Board & Commission headquarters

Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral.

Member of Council

(in office)
Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral Protocol to make recommendations on additional sites.

eg. civic properties in that Councillor's ward

Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral.

Former Mayor or Chairman Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral. Protocol to make recommendations on additional sites.

eg. civic property named after that Mayor or Chairman

Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral.

Former Member of Council Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral. Protocol to make recommendations on additional sites.

eg. civic property named after that Councillor

Half-masting will occur from sunrise to sunset on the day of the funeral.

City of Toronto Employee

(in a work related incident) including Agency, Board or

Commission Employees
Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral. Department headquarters if different from the seat of government

Employee work site if applicable

Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral.

Toronto City Hall & Civic Service Centres Additional Location(s) - to be determined in consultation with Toronto Protocol and the Department Head

Toronto Member of Federal or Provincial Government in office Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral Protocol to make recommendations on additional sites.

eg. civic facilities named after that member of government

Half-masting will occur immediately upon notification of a death until sunset on the day of the funeral.

Notes:

-Flags should be half-masted on Remembrance Day, November 11th at the seat of government, Civic Service Centres and all Department, Agency, Board and Commission headquarters.

-The Mayor or in his absence the Deputy Mayor, has final approval on half-masting the flag for individuals not included in above.

-Due to operational considerations, it is not the intention of these guidelines to direct every work location to half-mast their flags.

-All the flags on University Avenue are excluded from these guidelines and are not to be half-masted.

January 1999

(A copy of the flag design options distributed to Members of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at its meeting on January 26, 1999, will be provided to each Member of Council at the meeting of Council to be held on February 2, 1999, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(February 2, 1999) from Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre, submitting an alternative design for the official flag;

(ii)(February 2, 1999) from Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights, submitting an alternative design for the official flag; and

(iii)(February 2, 1999) from Mr. Wayne Adam, Jr., Toronto, commenting on the proposed design of the official flag for the City of Toronto.)

Environmental Task Force Budget for 1999

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation embodied in the report (January 21, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair of the Environmental Task Force, viz:

"It is recommended that the Environmental Task Force be allocated $16,000.00 for its activities until May, 1999, and that these funds be provided on a prior approval basis.".

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the report (January 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair of the Environmental Task Force, entitled "Environmental Task Force Budget for 1999", to the Budget Committee for report thereon to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (January 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Environmental Task Force:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request approval from City Council for the 1999 budget for the Environmental Task Force.

Source of Funds:

The source of funds identified in this report should be determined in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)an Environmental Task Force Operating Budget of $93,000.00 for 1999 as described in this report be approved; and

(2)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as co-chairs of the Toronto Interdepartmental Environment (TIE) team, ensure that the approved funds for the Environmental Task Force budget are included in the appropriate 1999 operating budget requests.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Environmental Task Force was established by City Council at its meeting on March 4, 5 and6, 1998. The terms of reference for the Task Force estimated an eighteen month time frame. The first meeting of the Task Force was held in April, 1998. One of the primary roles of the Task Force is to bring stakeholders together to develop an Environmental Plan for the City. This work is underway and the Task Force will be releasing a draft Environmental Plan report for review in the summer of 1999 and reporting to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in the fall of 1999.

Background:

The terms of reference for the Environmental Task Force which were approved by City Council in March 1998, included a budget request for $65,000.00. That request was referred to the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services for a further report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

Comments:

At its meeting on December 18, 1998, the Environmental Task Force reviewed its Operating Budget requirements for 1999 and requested that this report be submitted to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

Since its inception, the Environmental Task Force has spent $21,072.91. The funds were provided through existing accounts within Works and Emergency Services, City Clerk's and Public Health. The funds supported a range of activities including: a one and a half day Vision and Priority Setting Workshop (September, 1998) for over one hundred participants including members of Council, senior city staff, and stakeholders; collaborative research projects through a graduate and senior undergraduate program at the University of Toronto; public opinion research report; meeting expenses and printing.

The Environmental Task Force has determined its budget requirements for 1999 to be $93,000.00. A breakdown of the proposed budget is presented in Attachment A. The majority of the budget requested for 1999 is for communication related activities including writing, editing, printing and distribution of reports and newsletters. A smaller amount is requested for Task Force activities, including $2,500.00 for Task Force and work group meeting expenses and $17,000.00 to support the work of the four workgroups that have been established by the Task Force on sustainable transportation, sustainable energy use, green economic development and education/communication/awareness. In addition to the small amount of funds requested here for work group research, Task Force staff will be working with City staff and Task Force members to identify opportunities and develop proposals for external funding where appropriate.

The total amount spent in 1998 and funds requested for 1999 would bring the total budget for the Task Force to $114,072.91 over an 18 month time frame, not including "in kind" staff support from City departments. This total budget is similar to or less than that allocated to two other City Task Forces in 1998.

In addition to the funds spent in 1998, the Task Force has received generous 'in kind' staff support from a number of department/divisions within the City. During 1998, the level of staff support was equivalent to approximately 3.5 full time equivalents (FTE's). The staff resources that will be provided to the Task Force during 1999 are currently being examined by City departments in the context of budget and operating requirements. In order for the Task Force to complete its planned work within the 18 month time frame, Task Force staff have estimated the need for a level of staff support equivalent to approximately 4.5 FTE's during 1999. This level of staff support is comparable to that provided to one other Task Force during 1998.

Conclusions:

The 1999 budget requested in this report will assist the Environmental Task Force in carrying out its important task of developing and recommending the first Environmental Plan for Toronto.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Jane Weninger, Project Manager, Environmental Task Force, Phone (416) 392-6788;

Fax (416) 392-7418.

________

Attachment A

Environmental Task Force - 1999 Draft Budget

Communication Activities$73,500.00

Photocopying (e.g., workgroup materials)1,000.00

Graphic Design2,000.00

Printing Vision report (1,000 copies)2,000.00

Printing Work Group Fact Sheets (4) (1,000 copies)1,000.00

Printing draft Work Group reports (4) (1,000 copies)5,000.00

Printing draft Environmental Plan (10,000 copies)10,500.00

Printing draft Environmental Plan summary (10,000 copies)1,000.00

Writing/Editing Environmental Plan10,000.00

Printing final Env. Plan report and summary (10,000 copies)25,000.00

Printing Newsletter (1 issue - 8500 copies)5,000.00

Printing Newsletter (11 issues - 2500 copies)10,000.00

Postage1,000.00

Task Force Activities$19,500.00

Workgroup meeting expenses500.00

Task Force meeting expenses2,000.00

Task Force/Workgroup Research17,000.00

1999 Total Budget Request$93,000.00

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following report (January21, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Environmental Task Force:

This is to clarify that the Environmental Task Force (ETF) Budget request that is before the Committee is not for prior approval of $93,000.00. This is a request for consideration of our budget through the normal processes of the Budget Committee and Council.

The Environmental Task Force does require approximately $16,000.00 to meet needs within the first four months of this year and would request prior approval of funds at this time.

Visit of Professor William Rees (Ecological Footprint)1,000.00

Printing the Vision Report1,000.00

Writing and Editing the Environmental Plan2,500.00

Workgroup Research8,500.00

Printing two newsletters2,500.00

Workgroup Meeting Expenses 500.00

Total16,000.00

Recommendation:

That the ETF be allocated $16,000.00 for its activities until May 1999 and that these funds be provided on a prior approval basis.

________

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Final Report - Task Force on Community Access and Equity

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends that the mandate of the Task Force on Community Access and Equity be extended for three months.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the report dated January 22, 1999, from the Chair of the Task Force on Community Access and Equity, to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee respecting the financial implications in regard thereto.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (January22,1999) from Councillor Joe Mihevc, Chair, Task Force on Community Access Equity:

Purpose:

To extend the mandate of the Task Force on Community Access and Equity by three months to allow the Chief Administrative Officer to prepare an options report on administrative structures to be considered in the finalization of the Report.

Financial Implications:

None. Each of the former municipalities allocated resources for the implementation of programs and services to support achieving access and equity for all human rights designated groups facing barriers and for the participation of representatives of these groups on municipal advisory committees on equity issues. The Chief Administrative Officer's report regarding the implementation plan for the Final Report of the Task Force will address resource requirements.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to prepare a report for the end of March, if possible, for consideration by the Task Force on Community Access and Equity and that the report address the following:

(a)administrative options to support this Action Plan which includes community advisory committees; an Aboriginal Affairs Office, a Disability Issues Office, a Human Rights Office; and an Access and Equity Centre with geographic sites;

(b)an external evaluation mechanism for conducting an Access, Equity and Human Rights Audit every 3 years for each term of Council on the implementation of Council's policies on access, equity and human rights; and

(c)the level of resources required for the harmonization and leveling up of the access, equity and human rights programs and policies of the former municipalities.

(2)the mandate for the Task Force on Community Access and Equity be extended by 3months to provide the time required by the Chief Administrative Officer to prepare the options report outlined in Recommendation No. 1; and

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

Council Reference:

At its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Toronto City Council established the Task Force on Community Access and Equity to address the ways in which the City can:

"(i)strengthen civic society and in particular empower those members of the community who face barriers to full participation in the life of the community;

(ii)take a more effective role in addressing the barriers faced by women, people of colour, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and transgendered, immigrants/refugees, different religious/faith communities;

(iii)strengthen community involvement and public participation in the decision-making processes of the municipality, particularly for equity seeking communities;

(iv)continue the City's pro-active role in linking and partnering with other institutions and agencies, as well as with the community, in engaging in initiatives in support of access and equity;

(v)ensure that the contributions, interests and needs of all sectors of Toronto's diverse population are reflected in the City's mission, operation and service delivery; and

(vi)continue the City's leadership in the community as a model employer with a workforce that reflects the diversity of its residents and which follows fair and equitable employment practices".

Council also authorized the continuation of the existing advisory committees of the former municipalities; the filling of vacancies using Task Force selection criteria; and the continuation of all the access and equity policies and programs of these municipalities. Council requested the Task Force to submit its final report in January, 1999 and to remain in place until the end of March to advise on implementation.

Comments:

The Task Force Members were appointed in April, 1998. The Task Force has met monthly and held a number of consultations with a wide range of community organizations at many different locations across the City.

Many people who participated in the consultations were pleased that the Task Force consulted them about access, equity and human rights issues, but were anxious about whether the consultations meant that the City of Toronto was no longer committed to the previous policies and programs of the former municipalities.

Community members stated over and over again, that despite their personal and group situations, the strong voice with which the City has spoken on many issues has made the City a better place to live. However, members of the community are mindful of the increase in hate motivated activities against many of the human rights protected groups. Many members of these groups have found that lack of recognition of non-Canadian work experience, difficulties with gaining Canadian work experience, lack of accommodation, inadequate child care and transportation barriers continue to be problems. During consultations, they reported that downloading is negatively affecting members of their communities and that their organizations, faced with budgetary cuts, are unable to respond to need.

Members of the groups have very positive feelings about the past and ongoing efforts of the City to be an advocate to other levels of government and to respond to the diverse service needs of its population. Community members also stressed that the assembly of people from all corners of the world living and working in the City has created a social fabric that is the envy of many.

The Task Force also found that the feelings of "ownership" and "belonging", were fostered by the presence of the community advisory committees established by the former municipalities, both at the City wide and departmental levels. Through these committees, groups who face barriers were able to give advice on policy issues to their Councils and to provide input to Departments about specific service needs.

However, the Task Force also heard very clearly from the Aboriginal community that there is a failure to recognize, respect or value their distinct status within society.

The Task Force also noted that there was a wide variation among the former municipalities regarding the policies, programs, resource allocation and administrative structures with respect to access, employment equity, service equity and human rights. In particular, the Task Force noted in its review of reports prepared for the Toronto Transition Team that 38 of the 44 staff positions specifically dedicated to the delivery of access, service equity, human rights and employment equity programs were staff of either the former Metro Toronto or the former City of Toronto.

Task Force Preliminary Conclusions:

The Task Force members are beginning to conclude that:

(1)there is a continuing need for community advisory committees regarding access and equity resulting from the barriers faced by human rights protected groups and lack of access to full participation in all aspects of social, cultural, economic and political life;

(2)there is a continued advocacy role which City Council must play with other levels of government, institutions and the community at large;

(3)the City can assist the Aboriginal people of Toronto who are working towards "self determination";

(4)the City must maintain its corporate leadership role in implementing employment equity and human rights programs, and in providing services which respect the unique needs of human rights protected groups;

(5)the City must continue to build community capacity through grants and other resource supports; and

(6)the pro-active stance taken by the former municipalities and the new city on these issues have helped to foster a spirit of mutuality and trust among the people of Toronto and has contributed to the City's reputation for its ability to embrace and nurture its diverse communities.

(A copy of the draft report dated January, 1999, from the Task Force on Community Access and Equity entitled "Diversity Our Strength - Access and Equity Our Goal", was provided to all Members of Council under separate cover, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

________

Councillor Joe Mihevc, York Eglinton, appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

Sponsorship Agreement with Molson Breweries to Launch

"Toronto's Own Beer"

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1)to provide that the agreement with Molson Breweries:

(i)include a termination clause (i.e., with 90 or 120 days notice); and

(ii)stipulate that Molson Breweries undertake not to utilize water parks or other facilities funded through this contract for any promotional purposes;

(2)by inserting the words "except when the event is sponsored by another brewery", after the words "beverages are available" in the fifth paragraph under the section entitled "Comments", of the report dated January 25, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, so that such paragraph shall now read as follows:

"In exchange for receiving the promotional fee from Molson's, the agreement will require the City to participate in the marketing, advertising and promotion of 'Toronto's Own Beer'. The agreement will require the City to make 'Toronto's Own Beer' available at all City functions where alcoholic beverages are available, except when the event is sponsored by another brewery. However, it will not require the City to promote the product at such functions, nor will it restrict the City's ability to make other products available, including products from other breweries. Also, the agreement will not restrict the City from promoting Molson's or any other competitor brewery in other types of economic development ventures or as good corporate citizens."; and

(3)by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the report dated February 4, 1999, from the City Solicitor, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'That appropriate officials be authorized to enter into an agreement with Molson Breweries for the promotion of "Toronto's Own Beer" containing the terms set out in this report and otherwise in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.'; and

(2)City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission that it is aware of the Molson Breweries Quality Booth Tasting Area at Mel Lastman Square, to be held on February 12, 1999, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00p.m., February 13, 1999, from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and February 14, 1999, from 1:00p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that the City has no objections to it taking place.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January25,1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization for City to enter into an agreement with Molson Breweries for the endorsement of "Toronto's Own Beer".

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, and Impact Statement:

The details on the projected revenues that would accrue to the City will be specified in the agreement. The proposal involves a minimum of $150,000.00 to be paid annually by Molson Breweries to the City during the term of the agreement for promotional fees for the City's endorsement of the "Toronto's Own Beer" product.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City staff be authorized to enter into an agreement with Molson Breweries regarding the matter set out in this report, in a content satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Economic Development Committee on how the funds accruing from the sponsorship agreement for the "Toronto's Own Beer" product will be spent on water parks or other park and recreational projects in the City of Toronto; and

(3)the launch of "Toronto's Own Beer" take place at the City's Winterfest Carnival on February12, 13 and 14, 1999.

Background:

At its meeting of November 16, 1998, the Economic Development Committee received a presentation from Mayor Lastman on the proposed partnership with Molson Breweries. The presentation respecting the launch by Molson Breweries of "Toronto's Own Beer" was well received by the Committee. The Committee requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the Economic Development Committee with details of the proposed agreement with Molson Breweries as it relates to the provision of funding for the construction of new water parks in the City of Toronto.

Comments:

As has been reported through the Economic Development Committee, Molson Breweries has approached the City with a proposal for a beer product that is "Toronto's Own". In return for the City endorsing "Toronto's Own Beer", Molson Breweries will contribute a percentage of the profit made on the sale of the beer to the City as a promotion fee, to be used by the City as it sees fit.

Molson Breweries requires the City to enter into an agreement with it setting out this arrangement. It is hoped that "Toronto's Own Beer" can be launched at the City's Winterfest Carnival which takes place on February 12, 13 and 14, 1999. It is, therefore, important that City Council authorize entering into the necessary agreement at its next meeting of February 2, 1999.

It is proposed that the agreement be for a maximum term of 5 years and provide the City with a right to terminate without cause on reasonable written notice.

Under the agreement, Molson's will provide the City with an initial payment of $150,000.00 upon signing the agreement which will then be credited toward the fee to be paid to the City for the sale of the product. Molson's will pay the City a fee equal to $1.00 per 12 bottles of "Toronto's Own Beer" for the first 150,000 twelves sold in each year. A fee of $.75 per 12bottles will be paid on each of the next 50,000 twelves sold and a fee equal to $.50 per 12bottles will be paid in excess of 200,000 twelves sold in a year. An equivalent payment formula will be used for the sale of any "Toronto's Own Beer" draught beer product.

In exchange for receiving the promotional fee from Molson's, the agreement will require the City to participate in the marketing, advertising and promotion of ":Toronto's Own Beer". The agreement will require the City to make "Toronto's Own Beer" available at all City functions where alcoholic beverages are available. However, it will not require the City to promote the product at such functions, nor will it restrict the City's ability to make other products available, including products from other breweries. Also, the agreement will not restrict the City from promoting Molson's or any other competitor brewery in other types of economic development ventures or as good corporate citizens.

The City's participation in the promotion and marketing of the product will require the City's prior approval, which will include the approval of the Mayor or any Councillors or City officials involved in such a promotion.

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be the City's principal contact, subject to the foregoing comments respecting promotional activities, for the purposes of this agreement.

With respect to the request by the Economic Development Committee that a report be submitted detailing how the money will be spent for the construction of new water parks, a further report will be submitted on how this money will be spent once the agreement is signed by the City and Molson Breweries. It is important that the City not be bound by the agreement as to how the funds are allocated to water park or other types of park and recreation facility projects.

Contact Name:

Diane Stevenson, 392-8692.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 4, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to more fully advise City Council of the terms of the agreement which is proposed to be entered into between the City and Molson Breweries respecting the City's endorsement of "Toronto's Own Beer".

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This agreement would require Molson to pay the City an initial payment of $150,000.00 to be credited towards a fee to be paid to the City based on sales of "Toronto's Own Beer" in exchange for the City's endorsement of the product at promotional functions, including the product launch.

Recommendations:

That appropriate officials be authorized to enter into an agreement with Molson Breweries for the promotion of "Toronto's Own Beer" containing the terms set out in this report and otherwise in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of February 2 and 3, 1999 City Council considered the report dated January 25, 1999 from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting this sponsorship agreement. Several motions were placed by City Councillors at that time respecting terms of the agreement and further information regarding the terms of the agreement was requested.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The purpose of this report is to update City Council on the terms of the agreement which is proposed to be entered into between the City and Molson Breweries. As a result of negotiations completed this morning which take into account the motions placed by Councillors yesterday, it is proposed that the agreement contain the following terms:

- Molson is manufacturing "Toronto's Own Beer" and has all right, title and interest in and to the formula and recipe of "Toronto's Own Beer";

- Molson is responsible for all advertising, promotions and marketing of "Toronto's Own Beer" as well as all packaging and labelling, and is fully responsible for all costs related to the production and marketing of the product;

- the term of the agreement will be five years from date of execution with the right of either party to terminate on 120 days' notice for any reason whatsoever;

- respecting renewal, City Council will make the determination to negotiate a renewal with Molson or to issue a proposal call or other process for future sponsorship agreements of this type;

- Molson is not purchasing exclusivity rights to sponsor City events but only the City's endorsement of a beer named after Toronto;

- the City will agree to make available "Toronto's Own Beer" at all City functions sponsored by Molson, and at other functions where the City, not Molson, chooses;

- the City is not restricted from making available beer products of any other brewery by reason of this agreement;

- any press releases, marketing or promotion of "Toronto's Own Beer" that reference the City's endorsement shall be subject to prior approval of the City and the City has the right to decline to be involved in any specific promotion for any reason whatsoever;

- initial distribution of "Toronto's Own Beer" will be limited to the geographic boundaries of the City of Toronto, and any broader distribution will require the mutual consent of the parties;

- Molson will sublicence the mark "Toronto's Own" to the City for use on wearables or in the City's economic development, promotional or revenue generating strategies if the City so desires;

- in the event that Molson ceases production of "Toronto's Own Beer", the City will be free to enter into another arrangement with Molson or with any other brewery;

- the City and Molson will evaluate the success of the venture after 2 years;

- Molson will be responsible for obtaining all government approvals for marketing, promotion and advertising of the product;

- Molson will have no rights or say whatsoever in how the moneys received by the City under this agreement are spent and will have no rights to use water parks or other facilities funded through this agreement for any promotional purposes;

- each year during the term of the agreement, Molson shall pay the following fees:

(i)Molson will pay a fee equal to $1.00 per 12 bottles of 341 ml of product sold by Molson in each year, up to a maximum of 150,000 twelves;

(ii)Molson will pay a fee equal to $0.75 per 12 bottles of 341 ml of product sold by Molson in each year for 150,001 to 200,000 twelves;

(iii)Molson will pay a fee equal to $0.50 per 12 bottles of 341 ml of product sold by Molson in each year in excess of 200,000 twelves; and

(iv)Molson will give the City $150,000 upon the signing of this agreement, which will be applied to the above-noted fees to be paid to the City;

- in the event that "Toronto's Own Beer" is sold in draft, Molson shall pay the City on the same fee basis for net sales of draft product;

- promotional fees shall be paid to the City within 30 days following the end of each Molson fiscal quarter, with the first payment being made on or before July 31, 1999;

- the City Auditor shall have the right, from time to time during reasonable business hours and upon 24 hours prior notice to Molson, to audit and inspect all accounts, records, receipts and other documents relating to the sale of "Toronto's Own Beer" and to make copies and take extracts therefrom. All costs relating to the audit shall be borne by the City; and

- Molson will fully indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all liabilities, claims, damages, expenses, costs or charges that the City could incur as a result of any matter whatsoever relating to the sale or promotion of "Toronto's Own Beer", save and except to the extent that such claims are due to the negligence of the City or its agents.

Contact Name:

Mary Ellen Bench

Legal Services

392-7245)

1999 Interim Operating Budget Estimates

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (January 5, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on December 8, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee the adoption of the report (December 7, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer regarding the 1999 Interim Operating Budget Estimates.

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a report (December 7, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer regarding the 1999 Interim Operating Budget Estimates.

________

(Report dated December 7, 1998, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

Purpose:

To provide funds to allow departments, agencies, boards and commissions to finance their normal operations until the final current budget is adopted by Council.

Financial Implications:

This request provides interim operating funds for departments, agencies, boards and commissions.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council approve the interim current budget estimates in the amount of $2,983,876,100.00.

Council Reference/Background/History:

N/A

Discussion:

The 1999 Current Budget will be presented to Council for its approval in late April. In order to allow Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions to finance their normal operations during the first part of the year, it is necessary for Council to approve interim Operating Budget estimates. The attached schedule details the interim estimates by program with the 1998 consolidated budget included for comparative purposes. Expenditures made during this period by departments, agencies, boards and commissions must be restricted to normal operating expenditures.

Except for capital projects that have ongoing approvals or are included in the interim capital estimates, no expenditures of a capital nature should be incurred prior to the approval of the capital budget.

The total recommended interim appropriation is $2,216,944,600.00 for City purposes and $766,931,600.00 for school purposes. The details of the interim operating budget estimates are contained in Schedule 1 attached.

Conclusion:

The interim operating estimates provide funding for Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions until the final budget is approved by Council in April 1999.

Contact Names

Shekhar Prasad, Director of Budgets, Tel: 392-8095; Fax 392-3649

Insert Table/Map No. 1

schedule 1

Insert Table/Map No. 2

schedule 1 contd...

Settlement of Claim - Contract No. T-51-93

Don Valley Parkway at Chester Hill Road, Slope Stabilization

and Soldier Pile Retaining Walls

(Don River - Ward 25)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (January 21, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, respecting a "Settlement of Claim, Contract No. T-51-93, Don Valley Parkway at Chester Hill Road, Slope Stabilization and Soldier Pile Retaining Walls", which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (January 21, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act.

(Extract from the confidential report

dated January 21, 1999,

from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.)

Purpose:

To provide supplemental information to the confidential report (December 1, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and to request authority to pay a further $3,000.00 to Bridgecon Construction Limited (being interest for the period December 17, 1998 to February 2, 1999).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funds associated with the claim settlement are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's Capital Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Recommendation No. (1) as contained in the report of the General Manager, Transportation Services, to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, dated December1, 1998, be amended by deleting the sum of $521,627.38 and substituting therein the sum of $524,627.38 (representing interest accrued from December 17, 1998 to February 2, 1999).)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (January 13, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the action taken by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on January 11, 1999, with respect to the Settlement of Claim, Contract No. T-51-93, Don Valley Parkway at Chester Hill Road, Slope Stabilization and Soldier Pile Retaining Walls, and submitting a confidential report (December 1, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services, in this regard, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act.

(Extract from the confidential report

dated December 1, 1998,

from the General Manager, Transportation Services,

Works and Emergency Services.)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be given to pay Bridgecon Construction Limited $521,627.38 in consideration for the settlement of all Bridgecon breach of contract claims arising out of Contract No.T-51-93; and

(2)authority be given to the appropriate City staff to take the necessary action, and execute any necessary documents, to give effect thereto.)

Yonge/Dundas Redevelopment Project,

Settlement of Expropriation Claims

Salvation Army, Governing Council of Canada,

259 Victoria Street, Toronto (Downtown - Ward 24)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the reports (January 12, 1999, and January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

(Report dated January12,1999, from the

Commissioner of Corporate Services)

Purpose:

To authorize the settlement of all claims for compensation with the owner of 259 Victoria Street resulting from the expropriation of this property as part of the Yonge/Dundas Redevelopment Project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financing has previously been approved by Council and the $2,000,000.00 settlement payment is available in Capital Account No. 216692.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a final settlement be approved with the Salvation Army, Governing Council of Canada, for total compensation in the amount of $2,000,000.00 for its interest in the property located at 259 Victoria Street, in return for a full and final release; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

259 Victoria Street is located on the east side of Victoria Street, south of Dundas Street East. The property comprises 6,402 square feet and is improved with a two-storey, above grade, commercial building containing a gross floor area of 8,148 square feet. The owner of the property is the Salvation Army, Governing Council of Canada, which uses the building as a mission, hostel, chapel, and administrative offices.

Subsequent to the favourable decision of the Ontario Municipal Board sitting as a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act, an Expropriation Plan was registered on July 28, 1998, to expropriate 259 Victoria Street. An agreement was reached with the Salvation Army whereby Notices of Expropriation and Notices of Possession and an Offer of Compensation were not required to be served by the City.

At its meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998, Council approved, as amended, Clause 26 of Report No. 10 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and thereby authorized the expropriation of the properties required for the Yonge/Dundas Redevelopment Project and directing that final financial settlements with land owners be approved by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Agreement has now been reached with the Salvation Army for an all inclusive amount of $2,000,000.00 of which $1,296,000.00 is allocated to the market value of the land and $704,000.00 is allocated in respect of other entitlements including legal costs, appraisal costs, architectural fees, special difficulties in relocation, disturbance damages and interest.

The amount of $1,296,000.00 is, in the opinion of the City's real estate appraiser, consistent with the market value of the property.

The Salvation Army's preferred alternative would have been to relocate the mission and hostel within the community served by the existing facility. After searching and investigating numerous properties within the vicinity, it was determined by the Salvation Army that a replacement property could not be acquired at this time which would provide all of the functional requirements of the existing facility. The sum of $704,000.00 for costs other than land, including special difficulties in relocation, has been reviewed by the City's experts and is considered fair and reasonable.

Although the settlement exceeds the budget estimate, City staff negotiations with the successful proponent to acquire this block have resulted in offers greater than the proponent's original offer and will exceed the $2,000,000.00 settlement amount. This increase in value is as a result of the positive effect that the Yonge/Dundas Redevelopment Project has had on property values in the vicinity.

Conclusion:

The settlement with the Salvation Army, owner of 259 Victoria Street, is considered to be fair and reasonable and should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Doug Wong, Telephone: 392-1858, Fax: 392-1880, dwong@toronto.ca (spp99010.wpd)

(Report dated January25,1999, from the

Commissioner of Corporate Services)

Purpose:

(1)To secure authority to declare 259 Victoria Street and those parcels of public road abutting 259 Victoria Street shown outlined on the attached Map 2, (subject to the road portions being stopped up and closed as public highway), surplus to the City's requirements for the purposes of s. 193(4) of the Municipal Act; and

(2)To secure authority to enter into an agreement with Senator Restaurant Ltd. for the sale of Parcel C which is comprised of 259 Victoria Street and the 5 metre strip of public road abutting to the north and a 50 year lease to permit an advertising tower and connecting pedestrian bridge to be constructed on portions of the lands outlined on Map 2.

Funding:

Revenue in the amount of $2,750,000.00 will be realized in 1999 to offset the overall cost of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project. Additional Revenues will be realized in future years (for 50 years) from the City's participation in net revenues to be generated by the advertising tower.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)for the purposes of Section 193(40 of the Municipal Act, the real property municipally known as 259 Victoria Street be declared surplus;

(2)subject to the stopping up and closing of the required portions of the public road shown in heavy outline on Map 2, these lands be declared as surplus;

(3)Council affirm that the sale of 259 Victoria Street is in accordance with and pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act;

(4)upon compliance with the requirements of By-Law No. 551-98 and the stopping up and closing of the required portions of the public road, the lands forming Parcel C, (comprised of 259 Victoria Street and the 5 metre strip of public road abutting to the north) be sold to Senator Restaurant Ltd., or such other corporation to be formed by Robert Sniderman, the owner of Senator Restaurant Ltd. (the "Purchaser");

(5)approval be granted to enter into a lease with the Purchaser on the remaining lands to be stopped up and closed, shown on Map 2, for the construction and operation of a tower and connecting pedestrian bridge development;

(6)the main terms and conditions of the sale and lease be as set out in Appendix A;

(7)the sale and lease documents be executed by the Purchaser no later than 45 days after City Council approval and to include any other terms deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

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

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council approved the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project at its meeting held on May 6, 1997. It also approved a short list of proponents from the Request for Qualifications process for a Request for Proposals for Parcels B and C as shown Map 1.

The two serious proponents for Parcel C were Senator Restaurant Ltd., who provided the City with an all cash offer and Ethan Allen, who was interested in a significant tax concessions as part of its submission. At its meeting held on October 6, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council approved the proposal of Senator Restaurant Ltd. and authorized City staff to negotiate an agreement with Senator Restaurant Ltd. to secure payment for Parcel C in an amount of not less than $1,025,000.00 and to secure conditions to ensure timely and appropriate development on Parcel C.

Negotiations were placed on hold pending the Ontario Municipal Board hearing of both the planning and expropriation related matters which were appealed by certain landowners. The Ontario Municipal Board, sitting as a Joint Board under the Consolidated Hearings Act, held its hearing between February and May of 1998. The Board's decision was favorable to the City and plans of expropriations were filed in July of 1998 to secure the necessary property interests, including 259Victoria Street, for the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project.

A report dated January 12, 1999 is currently before your committee outlining the settlement reached with Salvation Army, Governing Council of Canada, the owner of 259 Victoria Street.

Comments:

Parcel C is comprised of 259 Victoria Street, a 6,400 square foot site improved with a two storey 8,148 square foot building, and a 5 metre strip of public road allowance immediately to the north of 259 Victoria Street. Total area of Parcel C is approximately 7,740 square feet.

The Purchaser has retained the architectural firm of A. J. Diamond, Donald Schmitt and Company, and Yolles Partnership Inc. consulting engineers, to arrive at a development proposal for these lands. This proposal involves the construction of an advertising tower on the traffic island currently located between Dundas Street East and Dundas Square, on the east side of Victoria Street. The tower would have a floor plate of approximately 25 square metres (270square feet) with retail uses proposed for the ground floor. The tower would be approximately 120 feet in height and would serve as an advertising or media tower. On Parcel C, a multi-level commercial building having a total gross floor area of approximately 33,000 square feet would be constructed. Connecting the tower and commercial building would be a pedestrian bridge constructed over the existing TTC tracks which are occasionally used for streetcar detour purposes. A right of way will be maintained for TTC to permit continued detour of its streetcars.

The proposal requires the stopping up and closure as public road the required portions of road allowance shown outlined on Map 2. At this point, it is anticipated that, subject to appropriate transportation and planning considerations, the triangular parcel of land shown hatched on Map 2 will be closed as public highway and incorporated into the fabric of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project. The main development on Parcel C requires the conveyance of fee simple interest in lands forming 259 Victoria Street and the 5 metre strip to its north. The balance of the rights required for the tower and pedestrian bridge will be secured by way of a 50year lease.

Results of Negotiations:

Negotiations have been concluded with Robert Sniderman, owner of Senator Restaurant Ltd. and the Term Sheet attached as Appendix A outlines the agreed upon terms and conditions for the transaction. Main points of the business arrangement are as follows:

(a)Purchase Price of $2,750,000.00 plus participation of 20 percent of net revenues from the advertising tower development;

(b)Additional payments to the City if additional densities are approved above current permitted density for Parcel C;

(c)Sale of freehold interest in Parcel C lands including the 5 metre strip adjoining to the north; 50 year lease of lands required for construction of the advertising tower and a pedestrian bridge connecting the tower to the main building on Parcel C;

(d)Deposits of $100,000.00 upon City acceptance and an additional deposit of $175,000.00 upon waiver of Purchaser's Initial Conditions;

(e)Closing Date of September 30, 1999;

(f)Purchaser's Initial Conditions to be satisfied within 120 days after acceptance;

(g)Closing conditions include the stopping up and closing of the portions of road allowance required for the Purchaser's proposed development.;

(h)The City has the right to repurchase the lands at the Purchase Price and terminate any lease agreement if the Purchaser does not commence construction within 9 months of closing; and

(i)The Purchaser has limited assignment rights for the first 5 years after substantial completion of the development;

The offered purchase price in the amount of $2,750,000.00 with additional net income participation from the advertising tower has been reviewed by the City' real estate appraiser, Mr.Robert Robson, AACI of Robson, McLean and Associates. Mr. Robson has advised that based upon a review of the tentative details for the proposed sale supplied to date, the proposed $2,750,000.00 purchase price fairly reflects market value for the proposed density to be utilized. Further, the proposed rental participation (at 20 percent of net revenue) represents a reasonable return to the City for the value arising from the advertising opportunities on the proposed media tower that is likely to be generated by the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project.

Section 193 (4) of the Municipal Act requires that before selling any real property, a municipality must declare the property surplus. In the present instance, however, 259 Victoria Street was acquired as part of a Community Improvement Plan adopted by the City pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act. There is an apparent inconsistency in the provisions of the two Acts. This sale is not because 259 Victoria Street is surplus to the City's needs, rather the sale is to implement the City's objectives as expressed in the Community Improvement Plan. Therefore, if City Council approves this business arrangement, the lands forming 259 Victoria Street should be declared surplus solely for the purpose of and in accordance with Section 193 (4) of the Municipal Act, but at the same time, Council should affirm that 259 Victoria Street was acquired and will be disposed of in accordance with the objectives of the Community Improvement Plan and pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act.

Conclusion:

The agreement with Senator Restaurant Ltd. is considered to be fair and reasonable and should be approved, subject to the stopping up and closing of the required portions of public road.

Contact Name:

Doug Wong, Telephone: 392-1858, Fax: 392-1880, E-mail: dwong@toronto.ca (spp99016.wpd)

________

Appendix A

Term Sheet - Development Parcel C

Vendor: City of Toronto (the "City" or the "Vendor")

Purchaser/Tenant: Senator Restaurant Ltd. or a corporation to be incorporated of which Robert Sniderman will own no less than 25 percent interest (the "Purchaser")

Property Description: Freehold: Development Parcel C under Plan 1, Zoning By-law 1997-0194, including entire 5 metre strip adjoining to the north

Leasehold: Portions of road allowance required for the advertising tower and connecting pedestrian bridge

Purchaser's Proposed

Development: to be the equivalent, or generally similar, to the proposed development of Parcel C and the tower lands submitted by the Purchaser in its response to the City's Request for Proposals, including 3070 square metres of non-residential gross floor area on Parcel C, approximately 75 square metres of non-residential gross floor area (comprised of three floors) in the 120 foot high tower to be constructed on the tower lands, and a bridge between the building and the tower for a pedestrian walkway

Purchase Price:$2,750,000.00

Deposit:$50,000.00 upon submission of offer, $50,000.00 upon the City's acceptance, and $175,000.00 upon waiver of Purchaser's Initial Conditions; deposit to be held and invested by the City with interest earned credited to the Purchaser on closing

Balance of Purchase Payable on closing, subject to the usual adjustments

Price:

Additional Payments: If the Purchaser changes its proposed development and successfully applies for a rezoning of Parcel C prior to substantial completion of construction of its development, the Purchaser shall be required to make an additional payment to the City equal to the increase in the non-residential gross floor area multiplied by $60.00 per square foot; for greater certainty, this obligation will be at an end upon the Purchaser completing a development with non-residential gross floor area equal to or less than that currently proposed for the Purchaser's proposed development of Parcel C

Closing Date: September 30, 1999, subject to a right of extension for one period of 3months if the conditions of closing are not satisfied or waived by the Purchaser and subject to a further right of extension for up to an additional 3 months upon payment of interest on the purchase price at the annual rate of the CIBC "prime rate" plus 1 percent for the period of the second extension

Conditions: (1)Purchaser's Initial Conditions - to be satisfied within 120 days after acceptance, including:

(i)general due diligence including title,

(ii)environmental audit,

(iii)Purchaser satisfying itself with respect to the City's requirements for parking and loading,

(iv)Purchaser obtaining written assurances with respect to the requirements of TTC for streetcar tracks,

(v)Purchaser satisfying itself with respect to the costs of utility relocation, and

(vi)mutually satisfactory terms and conditions of bridge and tower lease to be negotiated between the City and the Purchaser;

(2)Conditions of Closing - to be satisfied by Closing, including:

(i)Purchaser making application, at its expense, for City to close and authorize the conveyance or lease (as applicable) to the Purchaser of that portion of the road allowance required for the Purchaser's proposed development;

(ii)Purchaser obtaining, at its expense, satisfactory rezoning of the tower lands (if required) and other necessary governmental approvals to permit the Purchaser's tower and proposed signage;

(iii)Purchaser obtaining, at its expense, any necessary minor variances to permit the Purchaser's proposed development on Parcel C;

(iv)Purchaser obtaining, at its expense, site plan approval for its proposed development;

(v)City delivering vacant possession of the lands on Closing (without being required to demolish the existing building);

(vi)no material delay in the development and construction schedule for, and no material change in City's policies in respect of, the "Metropolis" development and the Dundas public square ; and

(vii)City approvals for the Purchaser's proposed development shall confirm that the purchase price and additional payments specified above are "all inclusive" such that the Purchaser will be exempt from any "benefitting levy" or similar levy or charge implemented by the City in connection with the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project

(3)Covenants - The City and the Purchaser shall take all necessary steps and use reasonable efforts to satisfy conditions as soon as possible (Purchaser to acknowledge that development will be subject to all of the City's normal procedures for development proposals and the entering into of the Purchase Agreement does not fetter the City's discretion as a municipal authority);

Repurchase Option: Purchaser shall acknowledge the City's intention that the transaction is only being entered into to facilitate the Purchaser's development. If the Purchaser does not complete its working drawings, apply for a building permit and commence construction of the proposed development within 9 months following Closing or fails at any time thereafter to proceed with due diligence to complete construction, subject to force majeure, the City shall have a right to repurchase the lands and terminate any bridge license agreement upon payment to the Purchaser of the amount equal to the original purchase price paid by the Purchaser.

Bridge and Tower Lease:

Landlord: City of Toronto

Tenant: Purchaser

Term:50 years less one day

Rent:$2.00

Participation Rent: the City shall be entitled to receive 20 percent of the net revenue from the advertising tower; net revenue shall be equal to all gross revenue derived from the tower, less the operating costs, utilities, realty taxes, reasonable management fees of a third party sign management company and amortized capital costs reasonably allocated to the tower (all reasonable development and construction costs amortized on a straight-line basis over 10 years using an interest rate of 8 percent)

Use Restrictions: retail and signage uses permitted from time to time under City zoning by-laws

Net Lease: Purchaser responsible for all development and construction costs for the Purchaser's proposed development, taxes, utilities and operating costs

Other Lease General terms and conditions to be substantially based on the City's

Conditions: standard form.

Other General Terms and Conditions Applicable to both Sale and Lease:

Assignment/Sale: no assignment by the Purchaser prior to the fifth anniversary of substantial completion of the Purchaser's proposed development (except to joint venture partner(s) and lender(s) for security purposes and provided Robert Sniderman maintains a minimum 25 percent interest).

Documentation: the sale and lease documents be executed by Senator Restaurant Ltd, or such corporation to be formed, no later than 45 days after City Council approval and to include any other terms deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to protect the City's interest and in form and content satisfactory to the City solicitor

________

(Copies of the maps attached to the foregoing reports were forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 26, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Authority to Issue Debentures During 1999

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on January 19, 1999, recommended to Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 14, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted for the Mayor of the City of Toronto and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to enter into an agreement or agreements, in accordance with Section 101 of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) with a purchaser or purchasers for the sale and issuance of debentures to provide an amount in 1999 not to exceed $500 million;

(2)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect to the foregoing; and

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

________

(Report dated January 14, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer)

Purpose:

This report requests the City of Toronto Council's annual authority to enable the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to negotiate and enter into agreements for the issuance of debentures, including foreign exchange and interest rate contracts if required, as permitted by provincial legislation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Based upon preliminary forecasts of capital expenditures as well as previously approved amounts that may need to be permanently financed during 1999, debenture requirements for the City of Toronto, including the Toronto District School Board, total approximately $500 million. Although the actual timing of a proposed financing transaction is related to capital market conditions, the impact of the City's forecasted 1999 debenture requirements and debt charges will be detailed in the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program and the 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(2)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect to the foregoing; and

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

Background:

Section 101 of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) empowers the Council annually by by-law to authorize the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to negotiate and enter into agreements for the issuance and sale of debentures to finance capital expenditures previously approved, including the purposes of any former area municipality, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and a board of education, subject to such terms and conditions as the by-law specifies. Section 146(2) and 146(7) of the Municipal Act, permits municipalities as may be prescribed by provincial regulations to enter into agreements to manage any risk associated with issuing debentures in foreign currencies due to changes in exchange or interest rates.

Any such agreements must be reported to Council not later than the second regular meeting of Council after the agreement is signed and Council is required to pass all necessary money by-laws to carry out the agreement.

Discussion:

Preliminary estimates of debenture requirements for 1999 to finance capital expenditures on behalf of the City of Toronto, the former area municipalities, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Toronto District School Board total approximately $500 million. This sum may be reduced during capital budget considerations. In 1998, the preliminary amount identified was $400 million and the authority to issue up to this amount was requested and approved. Due to capital market conditions and timing considerations as well as the Province delaying approvals for the Toronto District School Board to issue debt, $250 million of debenture financing was completed during the year to finance the City of Toronto's requirements.

The proceeds from debentures issued under this authority will be used to finance capital expenditures which have been incurred or committed for fully approved projects.

Conclusion:

This report is requesting that authority be granted to the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to negotiate and enter into agreements for the sale and issue of debentures not exceeding $500 million and related financial agreements in order to manage any risk associated with foreign currency debentures as required by provincial regulations. By providing this mechanism, it is recognized by the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) that a successful debenture issue requires an ability to respond to financial market conditions in a timely manner to obtain the most advantageous rates and terms. The Act requires that a signed agreement must be reported to Council no later than the second regular meeting of Council when the required money by-laws are passed.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Len Brittain, Director, Treasury and Financial Services - 392-5380

Martin Willschick, Manager, Treasury - 392-8072

Temporary Borrowing Pending Receipt of Tax Revenues

and the Issuance of Debentures During 1999

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

Recommendation:

(1)the temporary borrowing limit to meet 1999 current expenditures, pending receipt of tax levies and other revenues, be established at $1,000,000,000.00;

(2)the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 1999 be established at $500,000,000.00;

(3)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect to the foregoing; and

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

The Budget Committee reports for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back to the Budget Committee on the cash flow of funds that the City collects on behalf of the Board of Education and any costs that the City is incurring borrowing money for that purpose.

________

(Report dated January 14, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer)

Purpose:

To provide authority to temporarily borrow funds, if required, pending the receipt of tax revenues and the issuance and sale of debentures during 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

An estimate of related costs incurred due to temporary borrowing during 1999 will be included in the 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the temporary borrowing limit to meet 1999 current expenditures, pending receipt of tax levies and other revenues, be established at $1,000,000,000.00;

(2)the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 1999 be established at $500,000,000.00;

(3)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect to the foregoing; and

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

Background:

Subsection 187(1) of the Municipal Act provides that a municipal council may by by-law authorize the Head of Council and the Treasurer of the municipality to borrow from time to time by way of promissory note or banker's acceptance such sums as the council may deem necessary to meet, until the taxes are collected and other revenues for the current year are received, the current expenditures of the corporation. The City may also undertake temporary borrowing, under individual project approvals, for capital projects pending the issuance of debentures.

Discussion:

The amount of temporary borrowing outstanding at any one time is generally limited by the Municipal Act, unless otherwise approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, to 50 per cent of estimated annual revenues from January 1 to September 30 and to 25 per cent thereafter. Until the current year's estimates are adopted, the limitation may be calculated upon the revenues set forth in the estimates adopted in the previous year. Based upon forecasted current requirements for 1999, it is proposed that a limit of $1,000,000,000.00 be established which is less than the allowable limit under legislation but is projected to be sufficient to provide the necessary flexibility for the operation of the City's cashflow management and temporary borrowing program during 1999.

Furthermore, under Section 188(1) of the Municipal Act, temporary borrowing is allowable pending the issuance of debentures by the City for capital purposes as well as for boards of education. The $500,000,000.00 contained in recommendation (2) of this report is based upon the forecasted 1998 capital financing requirements of the City and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB).

Temporary borrowing costs incurred on behalf of the TDSB are recovered from this organization. During 1998, the City did not engage in any temporary borrowing or issue any promissory notes.

Conclusion:

It is proposed that the City of Toronto's 1999 temporary borrowing limit for current purposes be established at $1,000,000,000.00 and the borrowing limit for capital purposes for 1999 be established at $500,000,000.00. These limits will provide flexibility for the City's cashflow, investment and debt management programs while remaining significantly lower than the requirements of the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997, (No. 2).

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Len Brittain, Director, Treasury and Financial Services 392-5380

Martin Willschick, Manager, Treasury 392-8072

Establishment of a Capital Revolving Fund for

Affordable Housing and the Social Housing Reserve Fund

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on January 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:

(1)the adoption of the recommendation of the Board of Directors of the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation and the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited embodied in the attached communication (November 23, 1998) from the Corporate Secretary, viz:

(a)recommend to Council the establishment of a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing using proceeds from the Social Housing Reserve Fund which are not required by the new housing company;

(b)transfer the amount of $5,670,000.00 in the Social Housing Reserve Account to the Capital Revolving Fund when approved by City Council; any profit earned from the sale of units in the Pooled Investment Fund on the date of transfer will also be transferred to the Capital Revolving Fund;

(c)the amount of $1,100,000.00 be retained in the Social Housing Reserve Fund account currently being managed by Cityhome to be used to subsidize budget shortfalls in future years; and

(d)transfer the interest income earned on the Social Housing Reserve Fund during the year of 1998 to revenue as approved in the 1998 Operating Budget;

(2)the adoption of the attached joint report (December 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, wherein it is recommended that:

(a)the City establish a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and redesignate the Social Housing Reserve Fund of the former City of Toronto for this purpose;

(b)the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing be managed as a restricted reserve fund, consistent with the requirements of Section 37 of the Planning Act;

(c)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be responsible for making recommendations to Council about allocation of funds from the Capital Revolving Fund to non-profit organizations including Cityhome/Metro Toronto Housing Company Limited, per the management plan outlined in this report, and restricted to the following purposes:

(i)proposal development funding for affordable housing projects;

(ii)project development assistance, including forgivable loans and repayable loans;

(iii)project financing (e.g., second mortgage loans); and

(iv)other activities related to improving the quality and quantity of affordable housing supply in the City of Toronto;

(d)the $1,288,776.72 received from the Province of Ontario as partial settlement of the former City of Toronto and Cityhome's claim against the Province arising out of the cancellation of non-profit housing projects be allocated as follows:

(i)$214,186.23 to Corporate Services to cover legal costs associated with the claim;

(ii)$7,813.00 to Cityhome to cover expenses related to the claim; and

(iii)$1,066,777.49 (plus accumulated interest) to the proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing;

(e)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back on options for ongoing funding of the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing, if adopted;

(f)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back on final management guidelines for the Fund;

(g)Council write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Federal Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing advising that Council has established a Capital Revolving Fund to support Affordable Housing, and to request that the Province of Ontario and Government of Canada participate in supporting development of affordable housing in the City of Toronto by contributing to this Fund; and

(h)Council authorize and direct appropriate City officials to take the necessary actions to implement these recommendations;

(3)that prior to any expenditure of the $10.9 million Housing Reserve Fund, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Budget Committee on an implementation plan that would safeguard the City from supporting non-viable projects, and that such report provide details as to who will access projects; how the viability of projects can be guaranteed; and how projects would be monitored and evaluated; and

(4)that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report back to Budget Committee on the establishment of a permanent Endowment Fund to which the Private Sector, Agencies, Estates, and the Toronto Community Foundation, could make contributions and in turn receive a tax receipt from the City.

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to immediately review all of the recommendations contained in the Golden Report and report directly to Council on the City's costs associated with each recommendation so that City Council can review the recommendations and prioritize its funding of Homeless Persons.

(Communication dated December 3, 1998, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on December 3, 1998, recommended to the Budget Committee, and the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the adoption of:

(1)the recommendation of the Board of Directors of the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation and the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited embodied in the attached communication dated November 23, 1998, from the Corporate Secretary respecting the Social Housing Reserve Fund and the establishment of a Capital Revolving Fund;

(2)the attached joint report dated December 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Service and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer on the establishment of the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing.

________

(Communication dated November 23, 1998, addressed to the

Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee from the

Corporate Secretary, The City of Toronto Housing Corporation and

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited)

The Board of Directors of The City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Cityhome) and theBoard of Directors of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) on November 23, 1998, had before them a report (November 16, 1998) from the Chief Operating Officer, advising that in July, 1998, City Council agreed that a capital revolving fund for affordable housing should be established to provide financial support to projects that demonstrate the City's role in facilitating the creation of affordable housing; stating that this is an initiative of the City and will have no anticipated financial impact on the new amalgamated Housing Company; setting out a draft set of management principles for such fund, which will be presented to City Council in December; and recommending that the Board of Directors approve the following:

(1)recommend to Council the establishment of a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing using proceeds from the Social Housing Reserve Fund which are not required by the new housing company;

(2)transfer the amount of $5,670,000.00 in the Social Housing Reserve Account to the Capital Revolving Fund when approved by City Council. Any profit earned from the sale of units in the Pooled Investment Fund on the date of transfer will also be transferred to the Capital Revolving Fund;

(3)the amount of $1,100,000.00 be retained in the Social Housing Reserve Fund account currently being managed by Cityhome to be used to subsidize budget shortfalls in future years; and

(4)transfer the interest income earned on the Social Housing Reserve Fund during the year of 1998 to revenue as approved in the 1998 Operating Budget.

The Boards of Directors recommended to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, and Council, adoption of the aforementioned report.

________

(Report dated November 16, 1998, addressed to the

Boards of Directors, The City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation and

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited,

from the Chief Operating Officer, Toronto Housing Company)

Recommendations:

That the Board of Directors approve the following:

(1)recommend to Council the establishment of a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing using proceeds from the Social Housing Reserve Fund which are not required by the new housing company;

(3)the amount of $1,100,000.00 be retained in the Social Housing Reserve Fund account currently being managed by Cityhome to be used to subsidize budget shortfalls in future years; and

(4)transfer the interest income earned on the Social Housing Reserve Fund during the year of 1998 to revenue as approved in the 1998 Operating Budget.

Background:

In July, City Council in its meeting agreed that a capital revolving fund for affordable housing should be established to provide financial support to projects that demonstrate the City's role in facilitating the creation of affordable housing. City Council asked the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report on options for establishing such a fund and potential funding sources. Draft management principles for a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing (Appendix "A") have been prepared by staff of the Shelter Housing and Support Division, City of Toronto, and a report will be presented to Council about the Fund on December16 and 17, 1998.

Staff from both Cityhome and the City participated in the development of this report. One of the recommendations of this report requested the City to establish a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and redesignate the Social Housing Reserve Fund (SHRF) of the former City of Toronto for this purpose. The SHRF are currently kept in two separate accounts, one under the City and one under Cityhome.

The funds in Cityhome were the result of City Council adopting a report in March of 1993, entitled "Plan to Restructure the Financial Relationship between the City and the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation" (Appendix "B"). The report authorized Cityhome to use these funds to reimburse the City of Toronto for any salary and employee benefit costs shortfall of City of Toronto Housing Department employees performing work on behalf of Cityhome that is not otherwise reimbursed through other payments to the City on an annual basis; and to provide funds for Cityhome's land acquisition wherein full cost recovery including full interest carrying costs will occur and where City Council has approved such acquisitions.

For the past five years, Cityhome has withdrawn approximately $1.4 million annually from the SHRF to reimburse for salary expenses shortfall not funded through Provincial/Federal subsidy. The Cityhome reorganization plan adopted by the Board in 1997 substantially reduced the salary and benefits expenses of the corporation and our reliance on the SHRF. The 1998 Operating Budget approved by the Board included the use of only the interest portion of the SHRF, budgeted at $422,000.00, a substantial reduction from the $1.4 million in the previous year. With the amalgamation of Cityhome and MTHCL, we anticipate that further savings can be achieved in staffing costs. Our projection indicated that the retention of $1.1 million in the fund will be sufficient to provide the same budgeted contribution in 1998 of $422,000.00 over the next three years assuming investment return rate of7percent. Within these years, the new housing company will eliminate any further dependance on the SHRF.

The remaining balance of $5,670,000.00 in the SHRF is available to be transferred to the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing. The SHRF are currently invested in the Pooled Investment Fund with a market value about 11percent over the booked value. The exact amount available at the date of transfer will depend on the prevailing market condition. Alternatively, the new housing company could continue to manage the City's fund within the Pooled Investment Fund until withdrawals are required.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the Board of Directors adopt the recommendations to support the housing initiative of the City since there will be no anticipated financial impact or burden on Cityhome or the new amalgamated company.

________

(A copy of each of Appendices A, B, C and D, referred to in the foregoing report (November16,1998) from the Chief Operating Officer, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on December 3, 1998, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

________

(Joint Report dated December 1, 1998, addressed to the

Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee from the

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and

the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

Purpose:

Recognizing that Council has agreed in principle to establish a Capital Revolving Fund for affordable housing to provide financial support to projects that demonstrate the City's role in facilitating creation of affordable housing (July 1998), the purpose of this report is to:

(i)report back in response to Council's request for options to establish such a fund and potential funding sources;

(ii)recommend establishment of a Capital Revolving Fund to support partnerships with non-profit groups to develop affordable ownership, rental and transitional housing;

(iii)recommend "seeding" the proposed fund using monies in the existing Social Housing Reserve Fund of the former City of Toronto, and with funds from the partial settlement of claims against the Province relating to cancellation of non-profit housing projects for this purpose;

(iv)provide draft management guidelines for the proposed Capital Revolving Fund; and

(v)report back in response to Council's request for options to reallocate the $11.7 million which was set aside in the 1998 City Operating Budget for Social Housing Costs, and is no longer required due to the Province's decision to retain funding for 100 percent supportive housing portfolios.

Financial Implications:

This report would redesignate approximately $10 Million in existing reserve funds (not including the value of City-owned sites where proceeds must be returned to the SHRF -value to be determined), part of which was previously allocated to Cityhome for social housing purposes under a 1993 Council-approved plan (former City of Toronto) for the Social Housing Reserve Fund (SHRF), and the remainder of which is in Account No. 5210 (social housing account, former City). As these funds were acquired in exchange for negotiated increases in height and/or density, their use is restricted by agreements (as provided under Section 37 of the Planning Act) which requires that they be used for affordable housing purposes. The proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing would support affordable housing development that falls within this restricted use.

This proposal would require having Cityhome to phase out its reliance on the SHRF (the Board supports the proposal).

This report proposes that net proceeds from partial settlement of claims against the Province due to cancellation of non-profit housing projects be allocated to the proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City establish a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and redesignate the Social Housing Reserve Fund of the former City of Toronto for this purpose;

(2)the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing be managed as a restricted reserve fund, consistent with the requirements of Section 37 of the Planning Act;

(3)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be responsible for making recommendations to Council about allocation of funds from the Capital Revolving Fund to non-profit organizations including Cityhome/Metro Toronto Housing Company Limited, per the management plan outlined in this report, and restricted to the following purposes:

(i)proposal development funding for affordable housing projects;

(ii)project development assistance including forgivable loans and repayable loans;

(iii)project financing (e.g., second mortgage loans); and

(iv)other activities related to improving the quality and quantity of affordable housing supply in the City of Toronto;

(4)the $1,288,776.72 received from the Province of Ontario as partial settlement of the former City of Toronto and Cityhome's claim against the Province arising out of the cancellation of non-profit housing projects be allocated as follows:

(i)$214,186.23 to Corporate Services to cover legal costs associated with the claim;

(ii)$7,813.00 to Cityhome to cover expenses related to the claim; and

(iii)$1,066,777.49 (plus accumulated interest) to the proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing;

(5)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back on options for ongoing funding of the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing, if adopted;

(6)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back on final management guidelines for the Fund;

(7)Council write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Federal Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing advising that Council has established a Capital Revolving Fund to support Affordable Housing, and to request that the Province of Ontario and Government of Canada participate in supporting development of affordable housing in the City of Toronto by contributing to this Fund; and

(8)authorize and direct appropriate City officials to take the necessary actions to implement these recommendations.

Council Reference/Background:

At its May 1998 meeting, Council asked the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to submit a joint report regarding disposition of funds to be received as a result of partial settlement of claims against the Province related to cancellation of non-profit housing projects, and the possibility of such funds being allocated to the Social Housing Reserve Fund.

At its July 1998 meeting, Council agreed, in principle, that a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing should be established to provide financial support to projects that demonstrate the City's role in facilitating the creation of affordable housing, and asked the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report back on options for establishing such a fund and potential funding sources. As part of that report, the concept using a portion of proceeds resulting sale of City-owned surplus sites to provide ongoing funding to a capital revolving fund was put forward and, therefore, it was necessary to obtain input from the Commissioner of Corporate Services. Since we are not at this time making recommendations about ongoing funding sources, the Commissioner of Corporate Services has not been a party to preparing this report.

Also at its July 98 meeting, Council asked the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back on reallocation of $11.7million which was set aside in the 1998 City Operating Budget for Social Housing Costs, and is no longer required due to the Province's decision to retain funding for 100 percent supportive housing portfolios. Potential uses for this fund would include providing support for affordable housing demonstration projects. We are not recommending that the savings be reallocated for this purpose at this time, as we feel that there are sufficient funds available to "seed" the proposed Capital Revolving Fund should Council agree to redesignate the Social Housing Reserve Fund and allocate net proceeds from the partial settlement of claim against the Province, as recommended by this report in the September variance report. The 1998 savings have reduced the draw from the Transition Reserve Fund for Capital Projects.

At its meeting of November 23, 1998, the Cityhome Board approved turning over their share of Social Housing Reserve funds (approximately $5.67 Million) for use as part of a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing, and recommended to the Community and Neighbourhood Services (for its December 3, 1998, meeting) that the City support such a fund.

Comments:

Comments are provided under the following headings:

(1.0)Strategy for Creating Affordable Housing

(2.0)Sources of Funding for a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing Development

(2.1)Existing Social Housing Reserve Fund;

(2.2)Settlement of Claims Regarding the Non-Profit Program Cancellation;

(2.3)Savings due to "upload" of dedicated supportive social housing portfolios; and

(2.4)Additional sources of initial and ongoing funding.

(3.0)How the Fund would be Used:

(3.1)Precedents; and

(3.2)Proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing

Appendix A:Precedents; and

Appendix B:Fund Management Guidelines.

(1.0)Strategy for Creating Affordable Housing:

The interim report of the Mayor's Action Task Force on Homelessness (July, 1998) stressed the need for preventive and long-term solutions to the City's serious homeless problem. In particular, research indicates that there is a shortfall of 5,000 supportive housing units and, over and above this, there is need for an additional 2,000 to 4,000 affordable housing units annually. The interim report points out that it is significantly less expensive to provide permanent housing (about $22.00 to $30.00 rent per day for a self-contained one or two bedroom unit) than it is to provide emergency or short term shelter (about $30.00 to $43.00 per day for a hostel or shelter bed). Since cancellation of Provincial and Federal funding for new non-profit housing (in 1993 and 1995, respectively), there has been virtually no construction of permanent rental or affordable housing in the City of Toronto.

At its July meeting, Council adopted a Strategy for Creating Affordable Housing that addresses this gap and proposes a new role for the City in creating affordable housing. The strategy recognizes that the City does not have the resources or the mandate to address the causes of housing affordability problems on its own. Therefore the City's role is as a facilitator and partner in the creation of affordable housing:

"The goal of the Affordable Housing Development Strategy is to create an environment in which private sector and community partners will be willing and able to develop affordable housing for people with a range of housing needs that are not currently being met in the market."

Consistent with this facilitative role, the City of Toronto does have certain tools that can be used to make it more feasible to create affordable housing. These include policy tools related to its planning and regulatory powers that can have a major long term impact (e.g., density incentives, reduced property taxes), and a more immediate impact (such as contributing assets such as land and financing power to support specific affordable housing projects).

Research by Greg Lampert for the Metro Stakeholder Panel in 1997 suggests that a combination of tools, such as equalizing property taxes for new rental buildings with the residential and condominium rate, and reduced land costs, can make it feasible to produce rental housing. Additional measures, such as equity contributions or reduced financing costs, help make it possible to produce housing that is affordable (below market). One example, now under development, is the 30 St. Lawrence project where 10 affordable townhouses will be constructed by Dixon Hall to accommodate 40 homeless men and women.

Certain tools which would greatly increase the feasibility of new affordable housing could, and should, be provided by the senior levels of government (e.g., capital funding, rent supplement funding, reduced mortgage insurance, equitable GST policies). One goal of the proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing is to use the fund to lever financial support from other levels of government (for example, matching funds) and, potentially, the private sector.

Also at its July meeting, Council approved City facilitation of demonstration projects, through partnerships, to create affordable housing using three models:

(a)Transitional Housing Demonstration Projects: housing that provides a transition from living in emergency shelter to stable, longer term housing, and which includes appropriate community supports;

(b)Affordable Rental Demonstration Projects: affordable rental housing for target groups which do not require linked community supports; and

(c)Affordable Ownership Demonstration Projects: ownership housing that is sufficiently low-cost that it can be purchased by households (in particular, families) with moderate to low incomes.

Staff are now taking steps to identify suitable City-owned sites and community partners for demonstration projects, and will be reporting back to Council through the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes.

Another ingredient key to proceeding with these demonstration projects will be provision of financing assistance, including second mortgage loans, grants for some or all development soft costs, and project development financing. The proposed Fund would be used to provide some direct City financial assistance to non-profit organizations developing demonstration projects, but more importantly, this assistance is given to help the group to lever other sources of financial assistance whether through charitable donations, financing, government subsidies and/or other contributions.

(2.0)Sources of Funding for a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing Development:

This section discusses redesignation of the existing Social Housing Reserve Fund for use as a capital revolving fund to support affordable housing development. It also proposes using net proceeds from the partial settlement of claims against the Province related to cancellation of non-profit housing projects as additional "seed" funding for the capital revolving fund for affordable housing.

Sources of ongoing funding will need to be established. At this time, no recommendations are being made about sources of ongoing funding. Instead, this report recommends that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back about ongoing funding sources, should Council agree to establish a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing.

(2.1)Existing Social Housing Reserve Fund:

We recommend that the Social Housing Reserve Fund be redesignated as a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing, to be managed as a restricted reserve fund, consistent with the requirements of Section 37 of the Planning Act. As discussed in section3.2, and detailed in Appendix B, the proposed uses for this funding meet the requirement that the monies be used for affordable housing purposes, and would be a productive use of this capital asset.

The SHRF was established by the former City of Toronto in 1986. It was set up initially to provide a separate account for a $2 Million cash-in-lieu payment from the World Trade Centre as part of an agreement to satisfy the assisted housing obligation of this project under the Official Plan. Section37 of the Planning Act allows local municipalities to pass zoning by-laws that authorize increases in density and/or height in exchange for the provision of public benefits. These benefits may be secured by a municipality entering into one or more agreements with a developer, which may then be registered against the title of the land. The former City of Toronto successfully secured a range of facilities and/or amenities by participating in Section 37 agreements, including land and capital funds for social housing. All funds received by the City for assisted or social housing purposes through negotiated density bonuses since 1986 have been deposited in the SHRF.

Up until 1993, monies in the SHRF were used to acquire land and buildings for non-profit housing projects, and to cover fees and charges incurred up until the time that the housing provider was able to establish a mortgage. Revenues from the sale of sites to non-profit social housing providers were returned to the SHRF.

In 1993, when the SHRF balance stood at approximately $4.7 Million (not including the value of sites to be sold or developed), the former City Council made a policy change with regard to future use of the SHRF. It was determined that there were sufficient City-owned sites for non-profit housing development, and site acquisition stopped. A budget decision was made to transfer management of the SHRF to Cityhome, as part of an overall plan to restructure the financial relationship between the City and Cityhome. Under this "Cityhome Independence Plan", Cityhome was given authority to draw from the fund to cover certain operating costs, and the City's annual operating budget contribution to Cityhome was eliminated.

For the past five years, Cityhome has withdrawn approximately $1.4 Million annually from the SHRF to reimburse for salary expenses shortfall not funded through Provincial/Federal subsidies. The 1998 Operating Budget approved by the Board included the use of only the interest portion of the SHRF, budgeted at $422,000.00, a substantial reduction from the $1.4Million withdrawn in the previous year, and Cityhome staff anticipate that retention of $1.1 Million of the fund will be sufficient to provide the same budgeted contribution in 1998 ($422,000.00) over each of the next three years, and that during that period, Cityhome would be able to eliminate any further reliance on the SHRF. The Cityhome Board supports re-designation of $5.67 Million (plus interest) for a Capital Revolving Fund, as will be reported to Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on December3,1998.

Since 1993, additional monies (over and above interest earned on investing the fund) have been credited to the Fund and remain with the City in Account No. 5210 Social Housing Fund. In 1998 alone, $1.8 Million was returned to the City's share of the fund due to sales of specific properties. As of October 31, 1998, the balance in Account No. 5210 was $4,212,000.00 including interest (about $933,000.00 of this amount is already committed for social housing related capital projects).

This report proposes that the remaining balance of $5.67 Million in the Cityhome SHRF along with the remaining balance of $4,212,000.00 in the City's portion of the SHRF, including interest (and adjusted as of the transfer date), be transferred to the proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing.

(2.2)Settlement of Claims Regarding the Non-Profit Program Cancellation:

As reported in May 1998, the City has reached a partial settlement with the Province with regard to claims by the former City of Toronto and Cityhome over costs incurred as a result of cancellation of the non-profit housing program. The partial settlement relates to legal, consulting and other project development costs that had been incurred by the City relative to specific non-profit projects cancelled by the Province in 1995. The City agreed to accept the partial settlement of $1,288,776.72.

We recommend that $214,186.23 of the partial settlement be allocated to the Corporate Services Department as reimbursement for legal costs related to the claim. An amount of $7,813.00 should also be disbursed to Cityhome for the company's expenses related to the cancelled projects.

As for the remaining $1,066,777.49 (plus accumulated interest), we recommend that this amount be allocated to the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing. The settlement received on the cancelled projects was due to the City's efforts to develop affordable housing, and it is therefore appropriate that funds recovered be directed to the same purpose.

The remaining claim against the Province of approximately $56 Million, relating to costs incurred by the City in acquiring and holding land for cancelled housing projects, has yet to be settled. Negotiations have only just begun and can be expected to continue for quite some time given the magnitude of the claim. Staff will report further on these negotiations and, ultimately, will require Council approval for any settlement which is negotiated before an amount can be formally accepted. At that time, staff will make recommendations for disposition of the settlement amount.

(2.3)Savings Due to "Upload" of Dedicated Supportive Social Housing Portfolios:

As reported to Council in July, the cost of social housing portfolios which are 100 percent dedicated to supportive housing as defined by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing are no longer the responsibility of municipalities (retroactive to January 1, 1998).

For 1998, $266,278,406.00 was set aside in the City's Operating Budget for social housing costs. The Province has estimated social housing cost savings to the City for 1998 are $11,784,329.00, after being adjusted by GTA pooling. This means the City's base budget for social housing costs has been reduced for this year and all future years and the City's ongoing downloading impact is reduced from $266 Million to $254Million.

In July, Council asked the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back on reallocation of the savings. Potential uses for these savings would include providing support for affordable housing demonstration projects. We are not recommending that the savings be reallocated for this purpose at this time, as we feel that there are sufficient funds identified above to "seed" the proposed fund. This recommendation has a direct impact in terms of reducing the City's operating budget requirements in 1999 and beyond, to the extent that these funds are available. This recommendation has been reflected in the September 1998 variance report.

(2.4)Additional Sources of Initial and Ongoing Funding:

Redesignation of the SHRF and allocation of the partial settlement from the Province can provide a good start for the proposed Capital Revolving Fund. However, in comparison to the high cost of housing production and the overwhelming need for affordable housing, longer term ongoing funding will be required. This report recommends that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back on potential sources for ongoing funding, which may include options such as a portion of revenues earned on sales of surplus City-owned sites, City operating or capital budget allocations, and matching fund contributions from other levels of government or the charitable, private and corporate sectors.

(3.0)How the Fund would be Used:

This section provides an overview of how similar funds have been used before by the City and in other jurisdictions (additional information is provided in Appendix A), and proposes a management model for maintaining, accessing and using the funds (additional detail provided in Appendix B).

(3.1)Precedents:

A report by CMHC dated January 1998, "New Ways to Create Affordable Housing", looked at what community-based organizations were doing across Canada to build affordable housing without government subsidies. After surveying 186 organizations, they found that 38 percent of the groups were able to develop, or are developing, affordable housing projects without Provincial or Federal subsidies. The biggest obstacle faced by organizations trying to develop affordable housing without government subsidy was the difficulties they had in obtaining financing (followed by cost of land and site acquisition and then difficulties with development approvals).

This does not mean these groups always wanted or needed free money, although providing grants would also help reduce costs. It means that the groups needed assistance with cash flow during project development and construction, and needed help to obtain mortgage financing once the project is complete, such also provision of second mortgages in recognition of the fact that these community groups seldom have a great deal of equity at the start.

For this reason, potential uses for the proposed capital revolving fund for affordable housing include providing grants but, more importantly, providing financing assistance so non-profit groups can manage cash flow during development, and are able to secure mortgage financing.

The City already has experience with revolving funds for housing. Some examples include the Capital Leverage Fund for Homeless Initiatives, City of Toronto Loan Program, and the Contract Aftercare Program. The Capital Leverage Fund for Homeless Initiatives is most similar to the Fund being proposed in this report. In 1997, the former City established the Capital leverage fund for Homeless Initiatives to provide a means to "recycle" the funds returning to the City from projects supported under a 1996/97 "survival fund". As part of this "survival fund", $1.4 million was set aside as capital funding for the expansion or creation of facilities for homeless people. The City used the fund as leverage to obtain joint funding and in-kind supports from other parties, to secure private loans or contributions, and to encourage partnerships among community and private partners. The intent behind establishing the Capital Leverage Fund was to ensure loan repayments would be available for future projects, rather than being returned to general revenues. By September 1997, $900,000.00 was allocated to six projects (including Streetcity). Earlier this year, Council approved an additional $500,000.00 from this fund assist development of a Youth Housing Demonstration Project (for more information, see November 1998 report to Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, "Update on the Strategy to Create Affordable Housing and Demonstration Projects"). Funds are provided as a combination of forgivable loans and repayable no interest loans.

Although housing trusts, foundations and other types of funds have had a long history in the U.S., their emergence in Canada has been limited until quite recently, and appears to be a relatively common municipal response to cancellation of social housing programs by the Federal and Provincial governments. In some cases, municipal funds previously made available to community groups to assist them in obtaining a social housing allocation have been transferred into affordable housing funds with a wider scope, and have received additional municipal inputs.

Municipal funds which support affordable housing development and revitalization have been established or are under development in Quebec City, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary Vancouver, Surrey and Hamilton. The funds typically provide grants and loans to non-profit groups and home-owners/buyers. The amounts are small -intended to cover only a portion of costs, with the housing provider responsible for levering the remainder. In Saskatoon, for example, the maximum funding amount is a grant equal to 5 percent of total project capital costs. In Quebec City, the fund provides low-interest second or third mortgages to cover the gap between what a lender will provide to the non-profit group and the total cost of the project.

The Calgary Homeless Foundation Fund is notable in that their goal is to achieve $6 M through contributions from the province (1/3), the City (1/3) and from the corporate sector(1/3). The Province has already contributed $2 Million, the City $1 Million plus land and buildings, and an additional $2 Million will be fundraised from the corporate sector (there has already been some success in obtaining corporate donations).

(3.2)Proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing:

This section summarizes key management principles which would apply to use of the proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing. Appendix B outlines, in more detail, draft management guidelines.

Purpose:

Broadly stated, the objective of the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing is to provide assistance to non-profit groups developing approved affordable ownership, rental and transitional housing demonstration projects. Financing assistance will be given as a combination of re-payable and forgivable loans for development (capital). A small portion of the Fund may be used for research types of projects which relate to affordable housing development.

A basic principle of the Fund is that allocations are to be used to lever the greatest benefits possible, but not to pay for the entire cost of development. As with other municipal funds, the intended use is to get development started (project development financing, payment of soft costs such as architect fees, interim construction loans until a mortgage is secured, etc.), and to provide financing assistance so the non-profit housing provider can secure mortgage financing (e.g., to "bridge" the gap between the mortgage a private lender will provide and the mortgage which is required through a second mortgage). For example, CMHC will generally insure up to 85percent of the market value of the project. The Fund would provide partial assistance to the group in raising the remaining 15 percent.

Since the fund will not cover the full cost of development, and will not contribute to operating costs, non-profit groups will be required to contribute (for example, through fund-raising and obtaining mortgages from private lenders).

Eligibility:

Non-profit organizations developing approved affordable housing demonstration projects will be eligible for access to the fund, including Cityhome/Metro Toronto Housing Company Limited.

Affordable housing demonstration projects will be selected through a request for proposals process (RFP). For each RFP, a definition of what "affordable housing" means will be established based on the specifics of that RFP and the project type (i.e., ownership, rental, transitional, and target group to be housed). Some projects may include a mix of market units, below market units and units for those with the deepest need; for all projects receiving assistance at least 51 percent of the units must be affordable to households with incomes below the median. Over time, it is intended that the RFP definitions will relate to definitions established for affordable housing under the Official Plan development process.

Approvals and Reporting:

Decisions about the exact support to be provided to a project will be made as part of the RFP process and established as part of a legal agreement with the housing provider, in consultation with the City Solicitor and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Council approval would be required before any allocation is agreed upon, and will be requested within the context of a business case for each Affordable Housing Demonstration Project which is recommended for approval.

The business case will outline the full package of City support being offered to the project, and provide an assessment of feasibility and potential benefits and risks.

The agreement with the housing provider will set out exactly what contributions the City will provide as part of the partnership, as well as contribution levels to be provided by other partners, performance standards for the provider (such as the number of affordable units, how long they are to remain affordable, defining what "affordable" means for the project, and reporting) and remedies should the housing provider fail to maintain performance standards.

The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer would report annually to Council on how the Fund has been allocated, and results achieved.

Fund Management:

The Capital Revolving Fund will be managed as a restricted reserve as required under Section 37 of the Planning Act. Total annual expenditures (whether repayable or forgivable) will be limited to a maximum amount annually (to be determined). Repayments of allocations given as repayable loans will return to the fund, ensuring that it is truly a "revolving" fund. Details about how the fund would be managed will be provided as part of a report to Council in March 1999 recommending Fund Management Guidelines.

Affordable Housing Reference Group:

At its July 1998 meeting, Council also approved establishment of a "reference group" to assist with the selection of affordable housing demonstration projects. The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services was requested to work with the Chair of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes and the Mayor to establish the group, which is to include representatives of the private development community, the financial sector, support service providers, the non-profit sector, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Province of Ontario and a City Councillor. Work is underway to establish the reference group, and we expect that the group will first meet in early 1999.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that Council establish a Capital Revolving Fund to support affordable housing development. The fund would be initially "seeded" through redesignation of the existing Social Housing Reserve fund and net proceeds from the partial settlement of claims against the Province due to cancellation of the non-profit program. Sources of ongoing funding will be identified in reports to Council, and may include such things as using Official Plan provisions (density bonuses), allocating a percentage of proceeds from sales of surplus City lands, and direct annual funding from the City operating budget. This report recommends approaching both the Provincial and Federal governments for matching funds.

The proposed Capital Revolving Fund would be used to support projects developed under the Affordable Housing Demonstration projects program. The type of support provided would vary depending upon the project, but would be in line with overall management principals as set out in this report. These guidelines are currently in draft format, and a final set of guidelines will be prepared for Council approval March 1999.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell, General Manager, Shelter Support and Housing, Tel: 392-7885/Fax: 392-0548.

Len Brittain, Director of Treasury and Financial Services, Finance, Tel: 392-5382/Fax: 392-3649.

________

Appendix A: Precedents -Municipal Housing Funds

Canadian Precedents:

Since 1994, Quebec City has had a development fund for co-operative, non-profit housing which is partially funded by municipal loans ($1 Million over 10 years). The City also provides a grant of at least $1,250.00 per unit through another program targeted at home-buyers, as part of an overall effort to revitalize certain neighbourhoods. The fund provides second and third mortgages at 4percent to cover the gap between what a lender will provide to the non-profit housing group up to 100 percent of the project's capital costs. The fund also provides a mortgage guarantee, interim (construction) financing, site acquisition financing, and pays for appraisals of potential sites. The fund itself is operated by a non-profit organization.

Surrey, B.C., has an Affordable Housing Statutory Reserve Fund. Monies were provided through cash-in-lieu contributions by developers ($750.00 per lot), and by way of a 5 percent contribution from the sale of City lands. The current balance is about $5.7 million. Surrey is now updating its 1993 Affordable Housing Strategy and an Affordable Home Ownership policy is now under development. Two options are proposed: (1) partnering with a developer to reduce the sale price to 15 percent below market (similar to Toronto's Royce/Dupont ownership project) or (2) providing the subsidy directly to the first-time home-buyer purchasing a new home at a price below a certain maximum (forgivable loan, repayable interest free upon sale of the unit). The proposal includes having the City subsidize the fund each year from its operating budget (the amount to be approved annually). Only interest earnings from the fund would be used (like an endowment fund).

The City of Edmonton has a Low Income Capital Assistance Program that provides capital funds to help community groups provide new housing or upgrade existing housing for low income and special needs households. The fund was established in 1992, and each year some $300,000.00 is added to the fund from the City's past landbanking project. As with the Capital Revolving Fund proposed for Toronto, Edmonton's fund is used to leverage other funding; however, it is not a revolving fund. Edmonton's fund covers about 16 percent of total capital costs. Edmonton also has a land trust program, and is currently developing a Housing trust Fund.

The City of Vancouver established a social housing fund in the late 1970's. The fund (since re-named the Affordable Housing Fund) is used to provide capital grants to social housing projects. Ongoing funding is provided by developer penalties, a demolition fee ($1,000.00 per demolished unit), and primarily from the City's capital budget ($3.5 million for the period 1994 to 1999). Since 1991, the City has levied a development charge for replacement of affordable housing lost through re-development and requires that either 20 percent of units in larger projects are used for social housing or "cash-in-lieu" is given to the Affordable Housing Fund ("larger projects" are usually those with 400+ units but sometimes projects with as few as 100 units are considered under this policy). Recent projects funded include renovation of a 120 unit single-room-occupancy project (SRO) and development of a 50 unit youth housing project. In addition to the Affordable Housing Fund, there is a $45 million revolving fund specifically for Neighbourhood Demonstration Housing Projects.

The City of Saskatoon has a housing trust fund (Social Housing Reserve) with on-going, dedicated revenue sources, totaling about $7.2 million since inception. The fund was initially "seeded" by about $5.2 million from a land bank reserve, and receives ongoing funding through 10 percent of net proceeds from sale of City-owned land and net revenues from tax arrears sales. Annual contributions average about $350,000.00, and the general guideline is that no more than 30 percent of the fund should be spent in any one year. The fund provides 5 percent of total project capital costs (no maximum), and the grant is given at the start of the project to provide a cash flow. Saskatoon has a Social Housing Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from home builders, real estate board, CMHC, non-profit housing providers, aboriginal group, anti-poverty organization, council and the planning department. One of the functions of this group is to recommend to Council proposals from non-profit organizations which should receive support from the fund. In addition to capital funding support, the fund is used to provide development assistance to non-profit groups (the City has hired a "housing facilitator" using the fund).

Under Calgary's Housing Supply Action Plan, the City has set aside $1,000,000.00 in their 1998budget, along with an equivalent value of land and buildings, to stimulate private-sector and government participation in easing the housing crunch. The Calgary Homeless Foundation Fund has a goal of obtaining $6 Million in contributions: 1/3 from the Province, 1/3 from the City, and 1/3 from the corporate sector. The province has already contributed $2 Million, the City $1 Million plus land and buildings, and an additional $2 Million will be fundraised from the corporate sector (there has already been some success in this area).

The City of Hamilton provides zero interest loans to individuals wanting to convert space to residential use (for example, converting the upper floors of commercial buildings to apartments) or to renovate existing residential space (to bring existing apartments in commercial buildings into compliance with property standards by-laws and the fire code). The maximum loan is $20,000.00 per unit, the maximum term is 10 years, and the loan is secured by a promissory note and lien.

In addition to capital contributions, other tools commonly used by municipalities in Canada to support affordable housing development include:

(i)property tax exemptions/grants (5 to 10 years);

(ii)relaxing parking requirements and fast-tracking projects through approvals process;

(iii)long term land leases (e.g., 10 years at $1.00 per year; or 25 years to 60 years with no payments due until cash flows make payment possible) or provided free of charge; and

(iv)assuming risks associated with initial lease-up.

U.S. Precedents:

There were at least 71 known affordable housing trust funds in the U.S. according to a 1994 survey, and possibly as many as 115 based on more recent information (Richard Drdla and Associates, "Case Studies of the Municipal Role in Housing", January 1998). Although potential funding sources for U.S. funds are generally beyond those which can be accessed by the City, and the functioning of U.S. funds differ, program objectives are similar to what is being proposed for Toronto's Capital Revolving Fund.

Most funding is directed at new construction and rehabilitation, but some trusts also financed other activities and special needs. When necessary, many support capacity-building efforts to enhance local skills and resources. Only a few support rent subsidies, and even then only in very specific circumstances.

The San Diego fund, for example, established the following types of programs to address their funding allocation priorities:

(a)housing rehabilitation, including purchase of deteriorated or functionally obsolete housing through below-market loans;

(b)below-market rental housing through deferred loans, land banking, land write-downs and matching funds from government and private sources;

(c)special needs housing (same funding method as above);

(d)transitional housing through grants and loans to non-profit developers for acquisition and improvements;

(e)rental assistance to low-income residents;

(f)non-profit capacity-building through pre-development loans, technical assistance and administration grants; and

(g)funds for first-time homeowners directed primarily at neighbourhood revitalization and stabilization.

Most of these funds were used in partnership with non-profit and community-based organizations. They are also used to assist for-profit developers, local housing authorities and other providers under appropriate circumstances. Most do not support home-ownership projects, but exceptions are made for projects which target first-time buyers (these units are subject to agreements to ensure long term affordability).

Because of their limited resources, the trusts seldom finance a project on their own. They depend upon financial packages drawing from many sources, and typically their funds are used for "gap" financing: either the first funds needed to get the project underway, or the last funds needed to complete the package.

________

Appendix B: Draft Management Guidelines for

Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing

These draft management guidelines outline the purpose of the proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing, uses for the Fund and eligibility requirements. These management guidelines will be reviewed by a "reference team" of internal and external housing stakeholders, and a final version will be brought forward to Council for approval by the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services prior to Fund monies being allocated from the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing.

(1)Purpose:

The purpose of the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing is to provide financial assistance to non-profit groups in the development of approved affordable ownership, rental and transitional housing demonstration projects. The Fund is "revolving" in that a portion of financial assistance provided will be repaid to the Fund (60 percent), and used for future affordable housing projects. Financial assistance is given to support only part of the capital costs of any project. Non-profit groups developing Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects will be required to lever additional capital funds needed, and to access ongoing operational funding if required.

(2)Definitions:

(2.1)Affordability:

Affordability will be defined specifically for each affordable housing demonstration project, based on project type and target group to be housed; however, at least 51percent of units must be affordable to households with incomes below the median. In principle, affordability will be based on the following:

Ownership: Housing available for purchase by first-time homeowners with incomes below the City's median household income, with some units available at prices affordable for households with incomes at or below the average annual income for the lowest 12.5 percent of the population, depending upon the development model proposed.

Rental: Units provided at rates ranging from below average median rents to rents affordable based on the shelter allowance portion of general welfare benefits, depending upon the development model proposed.

Transitional: Rents affordable based on the shelter allowance portion of general welfare benefits, or depending upon requirements for shelter/hostel funding, depending upon the housing model proposed.

(2.2)Low income Household:

Any household that has a gross annual family income at or below 50 percent of the current city average family income for tenants as defined by Urban Planning and Development Services.

(2.3)Non-profit Groups or Non-profit Housing Providers:

Approved Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects would be eligible for funding. Organizations eligible for approval of Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects must be registered as a non-profit or charitable group in Ontario or Canada with a functioning board of directors. Other participants can be unincorporated community groups, and religious institutions.

(3)Guidelines:

The City may extend financial support to housing projects which meet the following criteria:

(3.1)General Eligibility Criteria:

(a)Financial support will apply only to Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects which have been selected through a competitive process and approved by Council (process is outlined in July 1998 Council Report "Toward a Municipal Strategy to Encourage the Creation of Affordable Housing and a Framework for Proposals to Develop Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects").

(b)Financial support must be used to deliver affordable housing units for individuals and families, as defined in section 2.1.

(c)In any project supported by the Capital Revolving Fund, at least 51 percent of the total number of units must be affordable to low-income households as defined in section 2.2.

(d)The units must be in addition to and must not replace existing subsidized housing stock.

(e)Non-profit organizations are eligible for financial support, including Cityhome/Metro Toronto Housing Company Limited.

(f)Financial contributions are subject to the project demonstrating that adequate additional financing and adequate and appropriate management and operational strategies are in place.

(3.2)Level of Assistance:

The level of assistance provided by the City shall normally be in a combination of repayable and forgivable loans, and will vary depending upon other assistance which may be provided by the City (for example, if land is provided, the level of financial assistance provided will be reduced).

(a)Transitional Housing:

Given that transitional housing demonstration projects are more likely to have higher project development costs and operating costs (due to provision of support services and/or nature of the project itself), a higher degree of financing support will be provided than is available to other project types, and transitional housing projects will receive priority treatment in the use of funds (see 3.3 below). The level of financial assistance which may be provided is:

(i)Forgivable loan of $15,000.00 per unit maximum (adjusted where housing model is not based on units);

(ii)Forgivable loan based on matching funds contributed by the housing provider at a ratio of one City dollar to every three dollars contributed by the housing provided (not to include "in-kind" contributions or funds provided by other levels of government) to a maximum of $5,000.00 per unit; and/or

(iii)Repayable loan in the form of a second mortgage, not to exceed 15 percent of the project value.

(b)Rental Housing:

(i)Repayable loan in the form of a second mortgage, not to exceed 15 percent of the project value.

(c)Ownership Housing:

(i)Repayable loan in the form of an interim (construction) loan, not to exceed 15percent of appraised value of completed project. Loan to be repaid when units sold. Financing assistance for ownership projects must include conditions to ensure long-term affordability of the units, and on re-sale, re-investment of all or part of any profit in the Capital Revolving Fund.

Financial assistance to be provided for development (capital) only. Financial assistance will not be provided for operating subsidies or rent supplements. Financial assistance may be provided for research types of projects related to affordable housing development in the form of forgivable and/or repayable loans.

(3.3)Fund Expenditures:

Total annual fund expenditures will generally be limited to:

(a)Forgivable loans: A maximum of 30 percent of the previous year end balance of the Capital Revolving Fund. Loan repayments will return to the fund to be used for future affordable housing projects; and

(b)Repayable loans: A maximum of 60 percent of the previous year end balance of the Capital Revolving Fund, of which at least 30 percent must be used to support transitional housing development projects.

Additional details about fund management to be determined.

(3.4)Approval

Financial assistance to be provided is subject to Council approval, and within the context of approving/rejecting each affordable housing demonstration project recommended by staff. Projects recommended will be selected though a competitive process. Council will be provided with a business case for each project recommended which outlines the full package of supports to be provided by the City (for example, financial and City-owned land for a specific project) and will provide an assessment of feasibility and potential benefits and risks.

(3.5)Performance Standards:

As a contributing partner to the housing development, the City has the right and obligation to ensure that public benefits are achieved in return for providing support (whether financial or in-kind). Subject to Council approval, a legal agreement between the City and the housing provider will be prepared which will set out exactly the contributions the City will provide as part of the partnership, contribution levels to be provided by other partners, performance standards for the provider (such as the number of affordable units, how long they are to remain affordable, defining what "affordable" means for the project, and reporting) and remedies should the housing provider fail to maintain performance standards.

(3.6)Reporting:

The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report annually to Council on how the Fund has been allocated, and results achieved.

(4)Responsibilities:

(4.1)Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects Reference Group

(a)Review and recommend amendments to draft management guidelines; and

(b)Review affordable housing demonstration project proposals and make recommendations to Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services about which projects should go forward and what the appropriate level of City support should be.

(4.2)Commissioner Community and Neighbourhood Services and

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

(a)Based on input from Reference Group, finalize management guidelines.

(b)Review and approve/reject recommendations for financial assistance, and other types of City supports which may be provided, and make recommendations to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes.

(c)Review and recommend future amendments to management guidelines.

(d)Monitor and prepare annual reports for Council about performance of Capital Revolving Fund.

(4.3)Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes:

(a)Review and approve/reject projects and recommendations made for financial assistance and other City support.

(b)Review and approve Fund management guidelines and future amendments.

(4.4)City Council:

(a)Review and approve/reject projects and recommendations made for financial assistance and other City support.

(b)Review and approve Fund management guidelines and future amendments.

________

(Communication dated January 18, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from Mr. Bruce Rivers, Executive Director,

Children's Aid Society of Toronto)

The Children's Aid Society (CAST) is one of the largest child welfare organizations in North America, ensuring the safety and protection of children, youth and their families for more than a century. We are writing to support the recommendations of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee (meeting of December 3, 1998) respecting the Social Housing Reserve Fund and the establishment of a Capital Revolving Fund to create new affordable social housing. We understand this fund would amount to approximately $10,000,000.00.

The Mayor's Task Force on Homelessness in it's Report released late last week recommended that the City play a key role in funding a new supply of affordable housing for many special needs groups including families. The alarming statistics painted a bleak picture of a community where children, youth and families were one of the largest growth groups living in inadequate housing and using shelters.

This data did not come as a big surprise to us. As a child welfare service, we are working with more and more children, youth and sole parents who are unable to secure the necessities of life such as adequate food, shelter and a base level of income. Our research has found that housing problems and/or homelessness is a factor in almost one in five admissions of children/youth to our care. In a city and country with so much abundance it is unacceptable to see so much child hunger and homelessness. The Task force has helped document the depth of the problem, but we need solutions to be implemented as soon as possible.

We encourage the City of Toronto to continue playing a leadership role in partnering with the provincial and federal governments to find solutions to the current housing crisis and to allocate the resources necessary to implement those solutions.

________

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

The following persons gave a presentation to the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Joanne Campbell, General Manager, Shelter Support and Housing; and

-Mr. Greg Lampert, Economic Consultant.

________

A copy of the following presentations is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-"A Capital Revolving Fund In Support of Affordable Housing: How it Can Help" by Greg Lampert, Economic Consultant; and

-"Proposed Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing, Joanne Campbell, General Manager, Shelter Support and Hosing.

Referral from the School Tax Sub-Committee

Status Report - School Board Mutual Service Master Agreement

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on January 19, 1999, recommended to Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the joint report (October 26, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)the City make remittances to the Toronto Catholic School Board at a rate of $3.70 per square foot for child care spaces used to provide child care services;

(2)payment to the Toronto Catholic School Board in the amount of $73 thousand for 1998 in respect of Recommendation (1) be made using an appropriate transfer mechanism as determined by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to a satisfactory agreement at the staff level of the basic principles laid out in this report, in particular, the security of tenancy for City programs;

(3)discussions continue with the Toronto District School Board to achieve appropriate square footage and other rates, such as permit hours and with the Toronto Catholic School Board on other rates; and

(4)staff continue to negotiate with the respective school boards to implement Mutual Services Master Agreements with the City to protect child care services and City-run recreational programs in schools, provide mutual services between the City and the boards, based on the principles laid out in this report, and report to the School Tax Sub-Committee and the Budget Committee on the progress of those negotiations.

The Budget Committee reports for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, having requested:

(a)that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer expedite the completion of the Mutual Service Master Agreement and report back to the Budget Committee in early March 1999, especially with respect to the child care portion of the Agreement;

(b)that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

(i)approach the Toronto District School Board and request that it adopt a similar cost charge as the Toronto Separate School Board; and

(ii)report back to the Budget Committee at its meeting on March 29, 1999, on the status of the timing of the payments in this regard.

________

(Communication dated December 21, 1998, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The School Tax Sub-Committee on December 7, 1998, reports having forwarded to the Budget Committee, the report (October 26, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services regarding the status of the School Board Mutual Service Master Agreements, for its consideration.

Background:

The School Tax Sub-Committee on December 7, 1998, had before it a report (October 26, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services regarding the status on School Board Mutual Service Master Agreements, previously deferred by the School Tax Sub-Committee on October 27, 1998.

________

(Report dated October 26, 1998, addressed to the

School Tax Sub-Committee from the

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

Purpose:

This report summarizes the progress to date and next steps in establishing a new Service Sharing Master Agreement between the City and the school boards and makes recommendations on payment of preliminary allowances for child care spaces in schools.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

If adopted, the recommendations in this report would result in an allocation of $73 thousand from an amount of $1.66 million included in the 1998 operating budget of Community and Neighbourhood Services, to offset space costs of the Toronto Catholic School Board for child care space used by the City. The annualized impact on the 1999 operating budget of the recommendations is $218 thousand. Further allocation of funds may be required in 1998 pending results of ongoing discussions with the school boards.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the School Tax Sub-Committee endorse the following recommendations for the consideration of the Budget Committee:

(1)the City make remittances to the Toronto Catholic School Board at a rate of $3.70 per square foot for child care spaces used to provide child care services;

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of February 4, 5, and 6, 1998, Council, in considering a report dated January 15, 1998 directed City officials to present, in conjunction with school board officials, an agreement before August 31, 1998, that "addresses the city use of daycare and school facilities for parks and recreation purposes into a new master agreement between the City and the School Boards".

Subsequently, at its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, Council requested that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the School Tax Sub-Committee on the status of negotiations with the school boards (Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee Report 5/2).

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Legislative changes contained in Bill 160 have changed the funding relationship between municipalities and school boards and between the Province and the boards. As a result, the school boards have started a process to recover the costs of space used by other entities, including municipalities.

Because of the changes, City staff has undertaken discussions with the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic School Board with respect to reciprocal sharing of services and space between the City and the school boards, for example, school based daycare and community/recreation programs.

Reciprocal Service Agreements:

Representatives of the school boards and the City have been developing inventories of reciprocal services between the City and the Boards, as a first step in establishing costing calculations and formal master agreements to govern the financing of such shared services. The City's staff team consists of representatives of Finance, Children's Services, Public Health, and Parks and Recreation.

Initial inventories of services, existing agreements (in excess of 300), space utilization statistics and preliminary costing methodologies have been developed to guide further discussions and negotiations. Work is underway on a fully detailed inventory of space and time usage within schools and municipal facilities as a foundation for more specific agreements. Some of the services that have been discussed include:

(1)daycare and community centres, swimming pools and other recreational facilities and programs within schools;

(2)seniors and children's' programs coordinated by the City within school facilities;

(3)public health services delivered within school facilities;

(4)school programs and shared facilities within the City's Parks and Recreation facilities; and

(5)grass cutting, snow clearing, garbage collection and tree services provided to certain schools by Parks and Recreation staff.

From a public service standpoint, there is a need to execute appropriate agreements which will recognize the mutual importance of these services and establish appropriate costing arrangements between the City and the school boards.

Progress to Date on Determining Costing of Space:

The Catholic School Board has adopted a square footage rate of $3.70, based on a marginal cost approach, i.e. the actual additional cost to each school facility, in aggregate, based on the space utilized by the municipality. Square footage calculations have been based on the actual space used plus common areas (e.g. hallways, stairwells, etc.), similar to the treatment that would be afforded tenants in a private lease arrangement. For child care centres located in schools, this costing amounts to $218 thousand on an annualized basis, or $73 thousand for the final four months in 1998 coinciding with the Board's fiscal year. Discussions continue, however, on the application of rates for Parks and Recreation programs which are somewhat complicated because they are, in some cases, based on permit hours and not square footage. A reciprocal agreement is still being negotiated.

It is recommended that the City transfer $73 thousand to the Catholic School Board through an appropriate mechanism as determined by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services. This recommendation is contingent upon a satisfactory agreement at the staff level of the basic principles laid out below, in particular, the security of tenancy for City programs.

Staff will continue discussions with the Toronto District School Board with the objective of developing an agreement that will help clarify the budgetary implications for both the Board and the City, and to work towards the principles discussed below.

Principles and Objectives for a new Master Agreement:

City staff is currently discussing options for the costing of reciprocal services. Principles and objectives which will guide these discussions from the City's standpoint are:

(1)the City acknowledges the need to appropriately cost space used for municipal programs within schools and school programs within the City's facilities;

(2)the City will not accept the principle of simply offsetting a share of Provincial downloading to school boards;

(3)the agreements must be in the best interest of the taxpayer - from a service standpoint, there is usually a very sound rationale for the sharing of services between the two entities. Child care programs, recreation programs and community activities are naturally linked between municipal and education services. As well, simply transferring one organization's fiscal pressure to the other does not result in net taxpayer savings;

(4)shared facilities need security of tenancy. The establishment of municipal programs within schools and school programs within municipal buildings often requires substantial up-front investments and new facilities require significant lead-time to locate and construct. Where critical operational requirements mean that space must be vacated, adequate notice provisions should be in place to allow an orderly transition to a replacement site. Similar to most private sector lease agreements, there should be no obligation on behalf of the tenant (in most cases, the City) to return the leased space to its original condition, for example, for classroom use;

(5)costs should be established on a mutually agreed to marginal cost basis. For example, the additional cost to a specific school for a daycare centre should be based on the space directly used for that centre plus a reasonable share of joint use areas, and not arbitrarily allocated costs for the balance of the school or for the education system in total. Similarly, costs of community centre space provided to schools by the City should be calculated on a similar basis;

(6)efficiencies and cost reduction strategies should be looked at from the broader City-wide context. There may be significant cost savings by, for example, having the grass at specific schools cut by Parks and Recreation, which is already in that "business" and establishing proper costing and service agreements to govern such services; and

(7)the ultimate overall objective of reciprocal service agreements should be, if possible, a zero sum game for the City and the boards of education, whereby the total cost of services provided in kind by the City to the school boards should equal the space costs for municipal facilities in the schools.

Next Steps:

The City's staff team will continue to meet and negotiate with representatives of the school boards to:

(1)complete the detailed inventory of existing space and reciprocal services and validate the information;

(2)evaluate potential additional City services which could be provided to the school boards to balance the cost to the school boards of services provided to the City and vice-versa;

(3)establish and verify costing methodologies and budgetary implications for space usage and services; and

(4)examine language for a draft master agreement, which would incorporate the objectives, indicated above.

The primary timing factors from both the school boards' and the City's standpoints are the next budget cycles and notices of eviction which have been issued to certain child care centres located in schools. This latter issue is being reported on separately, but clearly indicates one of the most important premises of any new master agreement, which is recognition of the appropriate linkages between schools and municipal facilities and the need for longer term arrangements between the City and the boards.

The schools' new fiscal year began on September 1, 1998 and the City's 1999 budget process will be well underway by this fall. As such, staff will continue to work toward resolving the critical issues as soon as possible. Because of the complexity of the issues, more specific costing and the negotiation of a more comprehensive master service agreement may take longer. The intent is to provide the basis for an agreement in principle to clarify the roles and responsibilities and establish security of tenancy as soon as possible.

Conclusions:

Staff will continue to negotiate master service agreements with representatives of the respective school boards. The City's position will be to attempt to implement an agreement that will be of benefit to both the City and the school boards and will place both parties in a more traditional landlord-tenant relationship.

Contact Name:

Len Brittain, Director, Treasury and Financial Services

Phone: (416) 392-5380; Fax: (416) 392-3649; E-mail: lbrittai@toronto.ca

Consolidation of Records Storage Facilities and Services

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (January21,1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on January 19, 1999, recommended to Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 15, 1999) from the City Clerk, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)inactive records of the City of Toronto and its agencies, boards, and commissions that do not require long-term retention be consolidated into a single records storage facility;

(2)as directed by the Budget Committee, the City's Real Estate unit continue to negotiate a lease with TEDCO, and report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee and the Budget Committee on the terms of the lease and its impact upon the operating budget for the City Clerk's Division in future years;

(3)in the event that negotiations are not satisfactorily concluded with TEDCO, the City Clerk with the assistance of Real Estate staff be authorized to issue a proposal call for a storage facility to be financed by the private sector on city-owned property for lease with a buy-back option;

(4)the 1999 Operating Budget target for the Corporate Records and Archives unit be adjusted to reflect a one-time expenditure of $389 thousands to meet service requirements associated with project delays as discussed in this report; and

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

The Budget Committee reports for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to:

(a)give the subject project a higher prioritization and try to conclude the negotiations with TEDCO before the end of February, 1999; and

(b)report back to the Budget Committee as soon as possible respecting the Toronto Transit Commission's reported awarding of a contract for storage of records and archives.

________

(Report dated January 15, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Purpose:

This report discusses the status of the consolidation of the city's inactive records storage requirements by way of a design build leased warehouse facility, with the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) as a lessor, as directed by the Budget Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in the amount of $1659.0 thousands were allocated for a Transition Project involving the consolidation of records storage facilities and services. In 1998, twelve positions were deleted in anticipation of the consolidation of records storage facilities by early 1999. Delays in implementing the consolidation, however, require a one-time adjustment to the 1999 operating budget target for the Corporate Records and Archives unit of the City Clerk's Division. This expenditure will allow the unit to deal with a growing backlog of records destructions, and will fund a reduced program of microfilming the records of building permit applications so that the original records may be destroyed to achieve interim space savings in facilities that are presently filled beyond their capacity. Approval of this transition project will incur operating costs for the lease and maintenance beginning in the Year 2000. A further report will be submitted on the impact on the operating budget as soon as negotiations with TEDCO are finalized.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)inactive records of the City of Toronto and its agencies, boards, and commissions that do not require long-term retention be consolidated into a single records storage facility;

(4)the 1999 operating budget target for the Corporate Records and Archives unit be adjusted to reflect a one-time expenditure of $389 thousands to meet service requirements associated with project delays as discussed in this report; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Prior to amalgamation, 12 records storage locations were used to store inactive and archival records. During 1998, records storage was consolidated into 10 locations. While the largest and most efficient facility operates at a ratio of 1 staff to 10,000 -15,000 boxes, smaller facilities operate with a ratio as low as 1 staff to 1,500 boxes.

Initially staff planned to reduce the storage locations to four facilities, which included the conversion of a city-owned two-storey office building at 160 Duncan Mill Road into a single-storey warehouse. Further analysis and more precise estimates from consultants, however, indicated that the renovation would cost more than the expense of constructing a new warehouse. In view of this analysis, the Duncan Mill project was stopped and other options were investigated throughout 1998.

A review of space requirements within the approved funding level of $1.659 thousands determined that it would be possible to consolidate inactive records that do not require long-term retention into a single facility of approximately 30,000 square feet. This records centre would meet the storage needs of City departments and municipal agencies, boards, and commissions well into the future. Archival records, vital records, and departmental records requiring permanent retention due to legal requirements will be housed at 255 Spadina Road. This building was constructed in the early 1990s with environmental controls that meet national standards for the long-term preservation of records, as well as a dedicated research area that allows public access to the records in an inviting and yet very secure setting. This building is one of a very few purpose-built archival repositories in Canada.

At the Budget Committee meeting of November 11, 1998, the City Clerk's Division presented a proposal for entering into a five-year renewable lease for space in a commercial warehouse to store the inactive records of the City and its special purpose bodies. Staff were directed to discuss the feasibility of a long-term storage solution with TEDCO. At the Budget Committee meeting of December 15, 1998, the City Clerk's Division was directed to report back in January 1999 with recommendations regarding a leased storage facility for inactive records. Negotiations with TEDCO are ongoing, and staff with the City's Real Estate unit are working to resolve some key outstanding issues regarding terms of the lease.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Records Storage Options:

The City has four options for storing inactive records. First, it can purchase the service from the private sector. This alternative was used to manage part of the storage requirements in the former cities of North York, Scarborough, and Toronto. North York terminated this arrangement in 1998 due to problems with service delivery. Second, the city can renovate an existing building. Third, the city can lease warehouse space from the private sector. Fourth, the city can build its own facility or seek a developer to finance the construction under a lease buy-back arrangement.

The first issue is whether or not the city should be in the records storage business. The rates charged to the former cities of Toronto and Scarborough for commercial storage services have been compared to the storage costs for the proposed commercial leased space, as well as to the unit costs for transactions (such as records retrieval, re-filing, accessioning, disposal, and delivery) that were provided from the former Metro records centre program at 255 Spadina Road. In other words, the most efficient transaction costs in the amalgamating programs, combined with commercial warehouse lease costs, have been used for the comparison with alternative service delivery. This comparison showed that the storage costs are comparable, with a slight advantage to the public sector as GST is not charged by the City. In addition to storage, 12 units of service were used to compare transaction services. Former Metro pay and benefits rates were used as the basis for the City's labour costs. A City-operated records storage facility provides savings for transaction services ranging from a low of 43 per cent to a high of 93 per cent when compared to current private sector contract costs. This comparison shows that it is in the financial interest of the City to operate its own inactive records storage service.

Real Estate identified a number of potential city-owned properties for conversion to a records centre. None were suitable for this purpose due to concerns over floor-loading capacities, suitability of floor plans and the height of interior space to accommodate maximum storage densities, building facilities such as loading docks and mechanical systems, and ease of access to the sites.

TEDCO is interested in developing an 85,000-square-foot warehouse in the Portlands, which would meet the City's storage requirements for inactive records and would provide space to other tenants. While this option is attractive to the City Clerk's Division, it is not possible to make a specific recommendation in favour of TEDCO at this time as negotiations are still in progress. To ensure that the outcome of the negotiations reflects the current market, it is recommended that if negotiations are not successful, a proposal call be issued for a design built facility to be leased with a buy-back option.

Impact of Project Delays:

The original transition project approved in 1998 anticipated that a facility would be operational by early 1999. Reduced staffing associated with consolidation of storage facilities for inactive and archival records were realized in 1998. Implementation of the unit's organizational design was based on the assumption that a new records centre would be ready for occupancy by January 1999.

The physical consolidation is now delayed approximately one year, creating significant pressures upon available space as well as short-term service delivery problems. Plans to end microfilming services in early 1999 must now be partially deferred for a year. Continuing a reduced microfilm service in 1999 to alleviate the space shortage and service demands requires 5 person years at a cost of $219 thousands. Investing in this project will ensure that information from building permit application records are available to staff and the public, while conserving space for storage through the destruction of the paper-based records.

The other space impact relates to a backlog of records eligible for destruction. Due to decreased staffing, it is no longer possible to process destructions on a timely basis. The backlog from 1998 and the planned destructions for 1999 are in excess of 10,000 cartons. Processing these destructions and integrating box descriptions from the seven former records centre programs into a single system will require four person years at a cost of $170 thousands. Investing in this project will mean that only those records that require retention will be moved to the new facility, and that all boxes will be moved with accurate content descriptions, retention information, and standard bar code labels. This is important to maintain the continuity of retrieval services during a very large and complex move. The move will involve 100 to 125 tractor trailer loads of inactive boxes and will require a 24-hour operation for records relocation in order to maintain retrieval services as records are being moved.

Benefits of Consolidation:

Working out of two locations rather than ten makes locating requested records easier for Records Centre staff. Distribution of files through the corporate mail hub is simpler, and file circulation management is facilitated and more easily controlled. Routing of records back to the Records Centre for re-filing is simplified and will result in fewer misfiles, or lost-in-transit problems. The standards for automation are more easily implemented in one facility than in a multitude of locations with little staff supervision, making on-line requests for records more reliable and more convenient. Accountability for retrieval and circulation is simple and clear to customers. Staff absences and after-hours emergency retrievals are more easily covered, which will improve service delivery for the Records Centre program.

Conclusions:

At the direction of the Budget Committee, negotiations are proceeding with TEDCO for a records storage facility which meets the needs of the City Clerk's Division. The Real Estate staff will be reporting to the Corporate Services Committee and the Budget Committee once negotiations are finalized. In the event that negotiations with TEDCO are not satisfactorily concluded, it will be necessary to issue a Request for Proposal for a privately financed, constructed and managed leased facility with a buy-back option.

Delaying the move into a records storage facility for approximately a year presents operational problems for the Corporate Records and Archives unit of the City Clerk's Division. Staff reductions in 1998 were based on the early availability of a new facility. In order to offset the service impact of a one-year delay, it is necessary to continue a reduced microfilming program and to expedite a backlog of records disposals. This results in a one-time expenditure of approximately $389thousands. The operating budget target for the Corporate Records and Archives appropriation should be adjusted accordingly.

Contact Name:

Michael Moir, Director, Corporate Records Systems and City Archivist, Tel: 392-9673;

Fax: 392-9685; e-mail: mmoir@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

Community Policing Partnership (CPP)

Program Grant Agreement

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January26,1999) from Councillor Norman Gardner, Chairman, Toronto Police Services:

Purpose:

This report provides the details related to the Community Policing Partnership (CPP) Program Grant, introduced by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, and its impact on the Toronto Police Service's (TPS') uniform staffing levels, and on the TPS' operating budget over the next several years.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The CPP Program is a cost-sharing partnership between the Province of Ontario and the municipalities, designed to enhance community safety and increase police visibility by hiring approximately 1000 new uniformed front-line officers (as defined by the Province, and in the attached report) across the Province.

Entering into this program with the Province will provide the City of Toronto with grant funding to off-set some of the costs of the 193 new officers committed to by Council during 1998 Operating Budget deliberations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council enter into this agreement with the Province; and

(2)the Mayor of Toronto be granted authority to sign any documents related to the CPP Program agreement.

Background and Discussion:

The attached report, prepared for the January 28, 1999 Police Services Board meeting, describes the grant and its impact on the Service, in detail.

Conclusions:

The CPP grant funding will provide a relief to the Toronto Police Service's salary budget, and does not require the City to provide any more funding than what would be required to meet Council's commitment to hire an additional 193 officers. The grant provides only a 5-year relief for the extra 193 officers that Council has committed to. Service staff will begin discussions with City Treasury staff to determine how the City will fund these salary requirements after the grant funding ceases.

The Ontario government will be requiring signed agreements from the Police Services Board and from the City of Toronto. Many of the documents are required immediately, and cannot wait for regular Council meetings. It is requested that Council grant the Mayor the authority to sign all documents related to the CPP Program Grant Agreement, on behalf of the City of Toronto.

Entering into this agreement with the Province does not commit the City to any additional expenditures. Although it does commit the Municipality to match any funds provided by the Province, these expenditures must be incurred if the Service is to maintain its HR strategy.

Contact Names:

Angelo Cristofaro808-7113

Elizabeth Hewner808-7117

________

(A copy of the attachment referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 26, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Donation for Caribana

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (December22,1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To inform Council of the proposed donation of $7,000.00 from the Oland Specialty Beer Company in support of Caribana and, upon receipt and deposit, to request approval for the disbursement of these funds to the Caribbean Cultural Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, Impact Statement:

The Oland Specialty Beer Company wishes to donate $7,000.00 to the City in support of Caribana Festival. Upon the receipt and deposit of this donation, funds in an equivalent amount would be disbursed to the Caribbean Cultural Committee.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the donation of $7,000.00 from the Oland Specialty Beer Company be deposited when received;

(2)a receipt which can be used for income tax purposes, be issued to the Oland Specialty Beer Company; and

(3)a cheque for $7,000.00 be issued to the Caribbean Cultural Committee in respect of the Caribana Festival.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on April 16, 1998, City Council adopted, as amended, Report No. 5 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, entitled "Financial Support to the Caribbean Cultural Committee and Caribana". This report included a report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that if any donations to the City are received with the request that the City use such monies to support Caribana, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to Council for instructions on the disbursement of such donations.

Under income tax legislation, authority to issue receipts for income tax purposes is granted to specific types of organizations including all Canadian municipalities. Authority to issue income tax receipts is not available to the Caribbean Cultural Committee. The $7,000.00 donation to the City allows the City to issue a receipt for income tax purposes and provides Council with the opportunity to direct the funds for use by the Caribbean Cultural Committee for the Caribana Festival.

Conclusions:

The allocation of this donation to the Caribbean Cultural Committee reflects the City's continuing commitment to the Caribana Festival.

Contact Name:

Ken Colley, Finance Department, Tel: 395-6715.

Citizen Appointments to the Committee on the Status of Women

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January19,1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Chair, Committee on the Status of Women:

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the following persons be appointed to the Committee on the Status of Women for a term to expire on November 30, 2000, and/or until their successors are appointed: Farhia Ahmed, Susan Holmes, Gerda Kaegi, Carol Mark, Raheel Raza, Rupert Ritchie, and Terry Winston.

Background:

City Council at its meeting on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted, as amended, Clause No. 6 of Report No. 3 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Terms of Reference for the City of Toronto Task Force on Community Access and Equity" wherein it is recommended, in part, that:

"(3) (a)the existing municipal committees on Access and Equity be continued and be authorized to fill vacancies using the Task Force selection criteria."

Comments:

A flyer advertising vacancies on the Committee on the Status of Women was distributed widely to community organizations across the City of Toronto. The Nominating Subcommittee of the Committee on the Status of Women interviewed applicants for the Committee.

The Nominating Subcommittee recommends that the above noted persons be appointed to the Committee on the Status of Women. With these appointments, the Committee will include 2 persons from the former City of North York, 2 persons from Etobicoke, and one person from Scarborough.

________

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a brief biographical profile of each candidate which was forwarded to all Members of Council, under separate cover, with the January 26, 1999 agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of City Clerk.

Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan Status Report

for December 1998

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to:

(1)develop a public communication strategy that outlines:

(a)the current status of the City of Toronto's progress with respect to its Year2000 compliance; and

(b)the preparations, if any, that the citizens of the City of Toronto may need to make for the Year 2000; and

(2)include the development of this communication strategy in the report to be submitted to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the Year 2000.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having concurred with the Recommendations embodied in the following report (January12,1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to update the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the status of the Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan for the City of Toronto and to provide the following:

(1)Status report of each priority 1 Year 2000 function;

(2)Status report on all ABC's and their state of readiness;

(3)Status report on expenditures; and

(4)Change requests.

Funding Sources:

No funding is requested at this time.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee receive this report for information; and

(2)the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee forward this report to Council for information.

Comments:

Background:

At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, Council directed the Program Office to report monthly to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the progress of the Year 2000 plan. At its meeting of November 17, 1998, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee adopted the Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan to remedy the 84 critical business functions of priority 1, in which $149.6 million was requested. The report was forwarded to Council at its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, and was adopted.

Status report on priority 1 business functions:

You will find in Attachment 1 the updated status of each of the business functions as of the end of December 1998. Currently all projects are on schedule and on budget.

The Year 2000 problems in the embedded chips associated with critical process control systems have now been confirmed in the 4-6 percent range. This is lower than anticipated.

Currently opportunities for sharing solutions for systems such as maintenance management and work orders across operating departments are being investigated.

Year 2000 Project Communications :

A Year 2000 Project Office intranet site is available for sharing information with staff across the amalgamated City of Toronto. Staff have been notified of the location of the site (insideto.toronto.city.on.ca) via the city staff newsletter, Inside TO.

Year 2000 "Fact sheets" are being developed to respond to queries sent to the Year 2000 office regarding the City of Toronto's readiness for Year 2000. These packages cover topics such as Water Supply, Traffic Lights, etc Legal and the appropriate operating departments will review these packages before they are released. The internet site for Public access to information is complete but is awaiting approval from Legal and the Corporate Communications manager. The draft of a mail insert to be distributed to city residents, as per Council's request on November 25, 1998, is also ready for review and approval. A report outlining the costs and methods of distribution has been prepared for the Year 2000 Steering Committee.

Meetings have been held with the Toronto Emergency Management Committee which include members such as Toronto Hydro, Bell Canada, Consumers Gas, etc. All parties agreed that there is a need for pro-active consistent communication to the Public regarding Year 2000 readiness. The Corporate Communications manager will co-ordinate the communication to the public associated with the Year 2000 and will participate on the communication sub-committee for the Toronto Emergency Management Committee.

Benchmarking with Other Cities:

In December, the City of Toronto met with the Year 2000 Program Directors for the other cities in the GTA. It has been agreed that regular meetings will be held to facilitate the sharing of information and experiences. The next meeting is scheduled for the end of January 1999.

In December, the Project Director and the Executive Director of Information and Technology have been exchanging information with the City of New York on the Year 2000 programs for each City and to investigate opportunities for sharing information.

External Board Review:

An external review board was established by the Mayor's office, consisting of senior executives from Bell Canada, Rogers and the Royal Bank of Canada to work with the City's Year 2000 Program and to provide suggestions to the Year 2000 Steering Committee. The objective is to provide an opportunity for the City to leverage the knowledge and experience gained by private organizations of similar size and complexity on issues, strategies and solutions regarding the Year2000. The first meeting was held in December and was deemed valuable by all parties. The board members will be invited on a monthly basis to participate in the Year 2000 steering committee meeting to continue to information exchange.

Status report on the Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC):

TTC has completed the initiation and inventory phases. The initial assessment has been completed and many initial plans have been developed. Final assessment is currently underway and is expected to be completed by the end of February 1999. Remediation is underway, although the bulk of the work is expected to be completed in the January to April 1999 timeframe. The testing phase overlaps and runs from February to June 1999. The Implementation Phase is planned for completion by the end of September 1999. The post-implementation phase is currently scheduled for October 1999 to March 2000. During this phase, completed work will be reviewed, further testing will be conducted and work will continue on low priority issues as time permits. A qualified team will be available to address any issues arising after December 31, 1999.

Toronto Hydro:

Toronto Hydro had planned to complete their Inventory and Analysis phase of the Year 2000 program by the end of October. Of the seven groupings that they have used to identify various parts of the Company (Corporate Services, Telecommunications, Facilities, Customer and Energy Services, Meter, Electrical Distribution, and Systems Infrastructure), two were completed on time. Two others were completed in November, two more in December, and the last is anticipated in January, 1999.

While they would have preferred that all reports were completed within the scheduled timeline, none of the areas requires a change in the target date for readiness of critical elements, June 30, 1999. In most cases, work on the next steps has been already proceeding, while the inventory and assessment were being completed. The next steps involve completing the detailed planning for remediation and testing, and carrying out those plans.

There have been no major new issues arising from their inventory and assessment activities.

Inventory reports and classifications ('A' items are those that significantly impact on Hydro's Year2000 goals: safety, power delivery, and critical business processes) have been provided to the responsible Executive Committee member for confirmation of completeness and categorization. Future work to ensure Hydro that all 'A' items are addressed by June 30, 1999, will be based on the confirmed inventories and classifications. Items classified as 'B' or 'C' will be left for handling through the normal course of business, and will not be monitored for remediation by the their Year2000 Project office.

A Testing Policy has been proposed and approved. All 'A' items will require the responsible Hydro Executive Committee member to approve the acceptance of test results, or exemption from further testing.

Many of their customers, both large and small, have called to inquire about their Year 2000 readiness. Hydro has begun to provide them with an approved Year 2000 Statement.

After discussion with the Electrical Distribution division, Hydro has now agreed to begin initial work on contingency plans immediately. The expected completion date continues to be June 30, 1999. They will seek input, both on the scenarios chosen for planning, and on the plans that have been formulated to address those scenarios, through their contacts on the CEA Year 2000 Working Group and within Ontario Hydro.

Toronto Hydro is in frequent communication with Ontario Hydro, and continues to receive assurances that Toronto Hydro's progress is satisfactory. They have jointly inspected nine of the transformer stations feeding Toronto, as a representative sample of the various ages and technologies in their system.

Status report on City expenditures :

Attached you will find a status report on the $149.6 million allocated to the Year 2000 project to remedy all critical 1 business functions. As of December 31, 1998, $4.8 million had been committed/spent. The majority of these expenditures were for resources, desktop computers, test servers, mainframe conversion services and network equipment required to support the priority 1business functions.

Change requests:

Payroll and Benefits:

The existing Banner Payroll system will be upgraded to a Year 2000-ready version. This requires the implementation of a Year 2000-ready server that corresponds to the City of Toronto standards. Definition of contingency planning alternatives for the Cyborg payroll system (which runs the payroll for the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and City of Scarborough) is required in the event that the conversion to SAP in 1999 is not successful. An amount of $57,200.00 is requested primarily for staffing and will be taken out of the contingency funds.

Integrated Disability Management and Claims Processing:

The original submission for this business case identified funds for the Disability Management and Employee Assistance. Funds are required for the Workers Compensation Board Claims Management portion of this business case. WCB Claims Management is an integral part of the Integrated Disability and Claims Management process.

The Human Resources Division is requesting additional funds in the amount of $383,838.75 for this added functionality. These funds will be drawn from the Project Contingency Fund.

The Year 2000 Steering Committee has approved the above change requests as well as the funding from the contingency funds.

Conclusion:

The City of Toronto's readiness is moving forward as scheduled and monthly updates will be provided.

Contact:

Lana Viinamae, Director Year 2000.

(A copy of the attachment to the foregoing report, entitled "Status of Business Cases for Year 2000 Priority 1 Project as of December 31, 1998," was forwarded to all Members of Council with the January 26, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Toxics/Pollution Prevention, Land and Air/Climate Change Actions.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the following report to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

(January12,1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Environmental Task Force, recommending that:

(1)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as co-chairs of the Toronto Inter-departmental Environmental (TIE) Team, be requested to coordinate responses to the actions listed below and described in this report and provide a monthly status chart to the Environmental Task Force commencing in January, 1999;

(2)the Commissioner of Finance submit the Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy that is being prepared to City Council as soon as possible and submit it to the Environmental Task Force for information en route to Standing Committee;

(3)the Medical Officer of Health be advised that the Environmental Task Force supports the establishment of a Toronto-based Children's Environmental Health Network that will gather and disseminate information on protecting children from environmental risks to their health;

(4)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Environmental Task Force on actions that are currently being taken to reduce the release of household hazardous waste into the environment and suggestions for actions that could be taken by the Environmental Task Force or City Council;

(5)the City of Toronto's new seat of government have, as a pilot project, a drop-off spot in a visible location for disposal of batteries used by City employees;

(6)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prepare a report regarding the setting-up of hazardous waste drop-off sites for the public in places such as fire stations;

(7)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as co-chairs of the Toronto Inter-departmental Environmental (TIE) Team, be requested to prepare a plan for disposal of pesticides whose use will be eliminated;

(8)City Council endorse a program to encourage and recognize employee suggestions that bring environmental, social and financial benefits to the City's operations and request the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services to bring forward a report on such a program;

(9)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on how the City could achieve reductions in emissions from mobile and stationary diesel sources owned by the City and its Agencies, Boards and Commissions which are not included in the Provincial 'Drive Clean' Program;

(10)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as co-chairs of the Toronto Inter-departmental Environment (TIE) Team, be requested to report on how reports to City Council could include carbon dioxide accounting information;

(11)City Council request the Toronto Licencing Commission to ensure that fuel burning vehicles licensed by the Commission meet Provincial emission control specifications and that there is a mechanism for recognizing and encouraging compliance with provincial emission control specifications; and

(12)City Council indicate its support for efforts to make employer provided transit passes tax-exempt and its intention, as an employer, to review offering the transit pass as an employee benefit.

(b)Utilization of Revenues from First Aid/CPR Programs.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having received the following communication:

(January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee on January19, 1999, directed that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, be advised, during its consideration on February 2, 1999, of ClauseNo.1 of Report No. 1 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, that the Budget Committee:

(1)received the transmittal (January 12, 1999) from the City Clerk respecting Utilization of Revenues from First Aid/CPR Programs; and

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report back to the Budget Committee at an appropriate time on a policy with regard to the dedication of funds for excess revenues and new one time revenues.

(c)Renewal of Lease - Welfare Office - 1860 Wilson Avenue (North York Humber-Ward6).

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having received the following communication:

(January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee on January19, 1999, requested that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee advise City Council, for its information, that Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber, has certain concerns regarding the subject property.

________

Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber, appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d)1999-2003 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Program.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having directed that the 1999-2003 Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Program, and the recommendations of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in regard thereto, be submitted to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 2, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

CASE OOTES,

Acting Chair

Toronto, January 26, 1999

(Report No. 2 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links