1 Economic Benefits of Pedestrianisation for Toronto

2 Implementation of Council Decisions on Heritage Governance

3 Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts (Downtown - Ward 24)

4 Appointments to Boards of Management for Business Improvement
Areas (BIAs) and Amendments to the (Former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, BIAs (Various Wards)

5 Appointments to Boards of Management for Business Improvement
Areas (BIAs) and Amendments to the (Former Toronto)
Municipal Code Chapter 20, BIAs

6 Extension of High Park Trackless Train Contract (High Park - Ward 19)

7 Economic Development Partnership Program Grants

8 Update Report on TradeLink Toronto

9 Proposed Permitting of Vending Carts in City Parks (All Wards)

10 Business Improvement Areas Operating Budget

11 Process for City of Toronto Endorsement of Community Events or Initiatives

12 Increase in Membership - Board of Directors of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority

13 Circle of Trees - A Time Piece Millennium Art Project

14 Fort York Annual Events (Trinity-Niagara)

15 Extension of City's Agreement with the Toronto Arts Council

16 Pilot Project for Ferry Service to the Portlands Area (Ward 24 - Downtown, Ward 25 - Don River)

17 Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (March 8, 1999) from the Pedestrianisation Working Group be adopted; and

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to meet with the Co-Chairs of the Pedestrianisation Working Group to discuss the coordination of the Working Group's work plan.

The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (March 8, 1999) from Councillor Pitfield, Chair, Pedestrianisation Working Group:

Purpose:

This report examines the economic benefits of pedestrianisation for Toronto, at the request of the Economic Development Committee. It was written under the guidance of the Pedestrianisation Working Group, assembled as recommended by the Economic Development Committee.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1) that the Economic Development Committee endorse the Pedestrianisation Working Group and request the Group to continue its work and develop a Pedestrianisation Policy, based on this report, by May 1999;

(2) (a) that the Pedestrianisation Working Group develop a Pedestrianisation Policy for commercial and residential city streets of Toronto;

(b) that this work be done in consultation with: Urban Planning and Development, Works and Emergency Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Toronto Police Service, TTC, ratepayers' associations, TABIA, Business Associations, historical societies, cycling groups, Green Tourism Association, and other stakeholders; and

(c) that the Pedestrianisation Policy form part of the Official Plan, and draw from the work of the Environmental Task Force, Garrison Creek Plan, the Green Economy Group, and Moving the Economy Action Plan for Sustainable Transportation.

Background:

On November 16, 1998, one of the Co-chairs of the Pedestrian Committee (PC) made a presentation on the economic benefits of pedestrianisation to the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Three recommendations were adopted by EDC and later endorsed by City Council:

(1) that EDC work with the Pedestrian Committee, local BIAs, and other business groups to ensure the safety and enjoyment of pedestrians by developing retail and pedestrian friendly streets throughout the City of Toronto;

(2) that EDC immediately establish a small working group with the PC to accomplish this with the help of appropriate staff;

(3) (a) that EDC requests its staff, in conjunction with PC staff, to prepare a report on the importance of pedestrianisation to the economic development of Toronto before March 1999. This report should draw upon the Moving the Economy Conference (its Action Plan and International Inventory of Success Stories) and the work of the Green Tourism Association; and

(b) that this report form the basis of a vigorous City Council policy as a tool for Toronto's economic growth so that Councillors may help Toronto become a world leader in this field.

The Pedestrianisation Working Group was assembled and met four times. Joan Doiron chaired the meetings. Group members included Councillor Pitfield, and representatives from the Pedestrian Committee, Works and Emergency Services, Economic Development Department, Moving the Economy Action Plan, Skills Development Programme for Sustainable Transportation (SDPST), Green Tourism Association, TABIA, and Kensington Market Action Committee. Also in the Group was Mr. Tom Prokai, Master of Landscape Architecture student whose thesis is on Toronto streetscapes. The report was written under the guidance of the Working Group.

Comments and Discussion:

Pedestrianisation is a concerted effort to make city streets walkable, i.e., designed for the safety and comfort of pedestrians (see Appendix 1 for definitions). For example, widening of sidewalks, improvements to intersections, streetscaping, traffic calming, and narrowing of road allowances enhance walkability. Pedestrianisation projects can be tailored to any retail or residential neighbourhood and implemented gradually or all at once. A good example of pedestrianisation is a pedestrian mall, created by closing a commercial street to car traffic, permanently or over certain hours each day.

This report highlights the economic benefits of pedestrianisation (see Appendix 2 for detailed analysis). Because the economic impact of improvements to pedestrian facilities in Toronto is poorly documented, research from all around the world is presented here, with these justifications:

- Toronto is the city with the largest proportion of immigrants, many of whom came from countries where walking is a prevalent transport mode (Urban Planning and Development Services 1998¹);

- use of public or non-motorised transport in Toronto is roughly half that in European cities, but nearly double the rate for American urban centres (1996 Transp. Tomorrow, Newman 1998); and

- Toronto has a substantial, and rising, downtown resident population (Tor. Econ. Devel. Off. 1999). This is more indicative of European cities than American centres.

European pedestrian malls have enjoyed great success. However, many American malls, in their current form are not economically viable, especially those frequented only during office lunch hours. Failures of American pedestrian malls are traceable mostly to:

- lack of complete commitment by all stakeholders;

- poor planning of retail and transportation;

- poor walkability outside the mall; and

- lack of residential neighbourhoods near the mall.

¹ References are listed in Appendix 3.

Sources: USDT Fed. Hway Admin. (1989), Beatley & Manning (1997), Zuckermann W (1991).

Merchants' opposition to pedestrianisation often stems from common misconceptions.

- Car drivers are seen as having greater buying power than pedestrians. In reality, households that who do not own cars save money - about $ 7000 per year in southern Ontario (Pollution Probe 1992) - and may have more money to spend than households with cars.

- There is a theory that car traffic is good for retail. However, in Leicester, UK, the greater the level of car traffic, the greater the number of vacant shops (Newby et al. 1992).

- Merchants and planners, most of them car users, tend to vastly overestimate car use while underestimating pedestrian numbers (Hall & Hass-Klau 1985).

- The distance people are willing to walk is greater than merchants think, even for car-borne shoppers (Hall & Hass-Klau 1985, Newby et al. 1991).

- The perceived importance of street parking in front of shops can be exaggerated. Car drivers interviewed in Leicester mention parking close to the shops as unimportant (Newby et al. 1991).

Opposition usually drops once merchants realize the benefits of pedestrianisation.

- Pedestrian traffic tends to increase dramatically after a pedestrian friendly area is created (TEST 1989). Shoppers are drawn to pedestrian malls by the pleasant shopping experience, safety, improved air quality and low noise levels (Newby, et al. 1991, Forest 1981).

- In the early 1960s, Munich City Council decided to redesign the old city primarily for pedestrians. Before the redesign, an estimated 70,000 people visited the area each day. Nowadays, 400,000 people go there daily. Munich's walking areas are connected with transit stops and train stations to encourage walking and leaving the car at home (Zuckermann 1991).

Greater pedestrian traffic usually leads to increased sales.

- World-wide, far more pedestrianisation schemes have had a positive effect on retail turnover (49%) than a negative on (2%); other projects have had a neutral effect (TEST 1989).

- The town of Hasselt (Belgium) made its streets friendly to pedestrians and introduced free transit for residents. This improved business, thereby increasing municipal revenue and allowing the city to reduce it business taxation rates (CNN 1998).

Pedestrianisation and reduction of car traffic can improve shop occupation rates and rents.

- In France, shop occupancy increases after pedestrianisation, as do property values and shop rents, because of increased competition for storefronts (Forest 1982). This can be followed by the displacement of weaker businesses by stronger ones, notably chain stores and luxury goods stores (Forest 1982).

Office rental rates benefit from pedestrian friendly surroundings.

- In Dallas, Texas, office buildings with landscaping and good pedestrian amenities tend to have higher occupancy rates than others (Goldsteen 1989).

- In Toronto, the underground PATH network is very popular among local workers (Goodman 1984). Buildings connected to the PATH charge twice the annual rent per square foot and have lower vacancy rates than comparable buildings that are not on the PATH (Campbell 1999). Similar pedestrianisation efforts are needed at ground level.

Improvements to pedestrian safety can lead to significant savings.

- In 1996, collisions killed 31 pedestrians and injured an estimated 1700 others in Toronto (OMOT 1996, Tor. Data Ctr and Safety Bur. 1998). The ensuing health care cost was at least $30M (Couture 1999).

- When streetscaping measures improved pedestrian safety in a number of Toronto streets, accident rates went down and pedestrian traffic increased, as did local business (Rosenblatt Naderi 1998).

- In Montréal, improvements to 12 dangerous intersections, made at a cost of $ 115,010, reduced collisions by 27% and casualties by 53% (Couture 1997). The project saved $1.6M in costs to society, i.e., each dollar invested by the city translated into a saving of $14.20. These savings will recur each year but the cost of the improvements will not be repeated.

Around the world, cities where people mostly walk, cycle or use public transit, have greater wealth (gross regional product per capita) than cities with heavy car use (Newman 1998).

- Newman (1998) attributes the negative impact of heavy car use on city wealth to: (1) greater road expenditure, (2) greater percentage of wealth spent on commuting, (3) reduced transit cost recovery, (4) increased transportation deaths, and (5) increased pollution from vehicle emissions.

There are creative ways to fund improvement to pedestrian amenities.

- The system of signs for tourists in the City of London (UK) links more than 300 places of significance. New plates have recently replaced the old ones, which were auctioned or sold to the public. This raised £120,000, over a third of the total cost of the project (Hines 1998).

Conclusions:

Toronto is now at a turning point, with all the plans being rewritten and transportation being a key issue for economic growth and urban planning. This is a good time to improve Toronto's economic growth by developing and implementing a Pedestrianisation Policy. This Policy can lead the way by decreasing the cost of car congestion in Toronto. The Policy should form an integral part of the new Official Plan and the imminent report of the Toronto Environmental Task Force.

The Policy should be a city-wide document and reflect the diversity of Toronto's neighbourhoods. The Policy should guide all aspects of pedestrianisation projects: visioning, consultation process, consensus building, planning, funding, implementation, maintenance, and post-implementation monitoring. It should also recommend suitable indicators of pedestrianisation success for Toronto (e.g., retail sales, property values, pedestrian traffic), and identify ways to record such data when projects take place. A list of potential focal points for pedestrianisation in Toronto should also be drafted.

The Policy should be developed by the Pedestrianisation Working Group, in consultation with: Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, police, TTC, ratepayers' associations, TABIA, Business Associations, historical societies, cycling groups, Green Tourism Association, and other stakeholders.

The Policy should draw from existing planning guidelines, and the work of Green Economy Group, Garrison Creek Plan, and Moving the Economy Action Plan for Sustainable Transportation.

Contact Names:

Joan Doiron, Co-chair of Toronto Pedestrian Committee

Rhona Swarbrick, Co-chair of Toronto Pedestrian Committee

Writers:

Lucie Maillette, Ph.D., Coordinator, Skills Development Programme for Sustainable Development

Tom Prokai, BA (Economics) and Master of Landscape Architecture student at the University of Guelph

What is Pedestrianisation?

In this report, pedestrianisation is defined as a concerted effort to make a city walkable. This definition provides a broader platform for urban planning, than defining pedestrianisation solely as the removal of vehicular traffic from some city streets, a definition used by others (Hall and Hass-Klau 1985).

Pedestrianisation is a tool for street development. Its premise is very simple: if you make the streets more walkable, pedestrians will use them more, street-level business will improve, and so will the overall quality of life. The definitions below explain the terminology used in the report.

Pedestrians:

Pedestrians are persons moving by foot from place to place, or at a walking pace (e.g., users of mobility devices, children on bicycles) (Toronto Pedestrian Committee 1998).

Walkability:

Walkability is a quality of place. Walkable streets have the characteristics listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of walkable streets

Sources: Applied Science Associates (1989), Polk County Planning Division (1991), Bradshaw (1993), LWRD Urban Parks Institute (1999), Feet on the Streets (1998)

Why pedestrianise?

Pedestrianisation promotes economic growth (see detailed analysis in Appendix 2).

Walkable streets promote face-to-face interactions essential to the excitement of urban life (Beatley and Manning 1997, Engwicht 1993). They encourage social interactions by providing a public forum (Gehl J 1987). In addition, people take pride and assume ownership of walkable city centres that are interactive and lively.

Walkable streets invite walking, an excellent way to stay fit and healthy (Health Canada 1998). Increasing the percentage of trips made on foot in Toronto by making its streets more walkable would help the city meet its target of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% early in the next century.

Pedestrianisation improves air quality and reduces noise levels.

- After a traffic ban in Cologne, Germany, concentrations of carbon monoxide dropped from 8 ppm to 1 ppm, in Gothenburg (Sweden), they dropped from 35 ppm to less than 5 ppm (Brambilla and Longo 1977).

- Copenhagen (Denmark) experienced noise reduction by 10 to 15 decibels at street level (note: a 6-decibel cut is equivalent to a 50% drop in perceived noise) (Brambilla and Longo 1977).

A broad-based international movement to make streets and roads better for pedestrians is pushing governments and local authorities to act:

- Oregon, Florida, and other American states have implemented policies to provide safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian facilities (Technical Services Branch 1993, Oregon Department of Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation 1992).

- The United Kingdom is developing a National Walking Strategy, to be linked to the National Cycling Strategy and the Road Traffic Reduction Act (Department of Transport 1998, Traffic Reduction Act 1998). Together, these measures are aimed at increasing the number of trips made by foot and bicycle, while reducing car use, in order to improve public health and safety, and environmental sustainability.

What are the tools of pedestrianisation?

Pedestrianisation projects typically combine a number of tools that enhance walkability, like the ones listed below (Applied Science Associates Inc. 1989, Bradshaw 1993, LWRD Urban Parks Institute 1999, Polk County Planning Division 1991):

- Wide and level sidewalks with adequate lighting, good visibility, and no obstacles (newspaper boxes, shop displays, parked cars).

- Planting strips between the curb and the sidewalk act as a barrier between people and cars and add to the enjoyment of the street. This also allows curb cuts to be placed away from the sidewalk which then remains level. In addition, mature trees provide welcome shade in the summer time.

- Streetscaping enhances the appearance of the street. In Toronto, streetscape improvements (planters, decorative lighting, raised central medians, etc.) have also significantly reduced mid-block collisions between pedestrians and vehicles (Rosenblatt Naderi and Brafman Bahar 1997).

- Narrow entrances for driveways reduce the speed of cars driving across the path of pedestrians on the sidewalk.

- Good signage clearly indicates the way to popular destinations. For example, the system of signs for tourists in the City of London (UK) links more than 300 places of significance. New plates have recently replaced the old ones, which were auctioned or sold to the public. This raised £120,000, over a third of the total cost of the project (Hines 1998).

- Pedestrian friendly intersections are narrow and easy for pedestrians to cross safely and conveniently. Signals provide sufficient time for crossing to elderly or disabled pedestrians.

- Traffic calming devices slow down car traffic, increase pedestrian safety and reduce noise. In 1994, the City of Toronto adopted a Traffic Calming Policy.

- Traffic Demand Management (Table 2) reduces car traffic.

Source: Moore and Thorsne 1994.

- Elimination of traffic lanes results in more uniform traffic flow and fewer collisions, without increasing overall trip times (Burden and Lagerwey 1998). St. George Street in Toronto was converted from four lanes to two in 1997 but still carries the same capacity as before.

- Well organized, affordable, and convenient public transit.

- Safe and convenient network of bicycle lanes and cycling facilities.

- Roadside construction sites do not sacrifice pedestrian right-of-ways for the benefit of car traffic. The City of London (UK) pioneered in 1987 the Considerate Contractor Scheme which encourages contractors working adjacent to the City's streets to carry out their operations in a safe and considerate manner, with due regard to passing pedestrians and road users (The City's Engineer Department 1995).

How are pedestrianisation tools combined in projects?

- Pedestrianisation projects typically involve combining landscaping, traffic reduction measures, sidewalk improvements, and other pedestrianisation tools to suit local needs. For example:

- Dutch residential yards or woonerfs (living-courts) are residential neighbourhoods in which vehicles move at a walking pace as a result of traffic calming devices and landscaping. Children's safety was greatly increased by the creation of woonerfs (Wiedenhoeft 1981).

- Temporary street closings are inexpensive measures and increase pedestrian safety (USDT Federal Highway Administration 1989). Many festivals in Toronto rely on temporary street closings for their success. In New York City, play streets are closed to traffic during specified hours to permit a supervised program, and have increased child safety (Institute of Transportation Engineers 1994).

- Continuous or exclusive pedestrian malls allow only emergency vehicles and small cleaning vehicles. Truck deliveries and pick-ups are relegated to off-hours, rear alleyways or back streets.

- Interrupted pedestrian malls allow vehicles on cross streets but not within the mall.

- Transitways allow operation of transit vehicles, and emergency service vehicles on a narrow right-of-way within mall space.

No single combination of pedestrianisation tools works well everywhere. Each scheme has to suit the circumstances of the local community, and can be implemented in stages. A number of faltering American pedestrian malls have been reopened to limited car traffic with some success. Nonetheless, many cities around the world have closed off streets to vehicles with great prosperity.

What makes the success of a pedestrianisation scheme?

Pedestrianisation success for a city comes from a number of factors, including:

- design on a human scale, with welcoming ground level frontage of buildings;

- network of continuously linked walkways, fully accessible to people with disabilities;

- residences in the downtown so it is possible to walk to work;

- several streets turned over completely to pedestrians;

- transit centres to facilitate the use of buses and / or light rail to the suburbs;

- good cycling networks;

- pedestrian friendly intersections;

- no cars backing out of parking spots in the path of pedestrians;

- central business district where vehicle traffic is restricted to specific spaces or times;

- residential neighbourhood stores with safe pedestrian access;

- safe walking route to schools, located away from arterial roads;

- pedestrian access to public buildings independent from vehicle access.

Source: Florida Department of Transportation State Safety Office (1993)

Successful pedestrian malls have these attributes:

- narrow street right-of-way;

- concentrated shopping and commercial land uses within walking distances;

- traffic generators, often large department stores, at opposite ends of the mall;

- good pedestrian amenities (benches, street maps, displays, activity programs);

- outdoor activities like parades, street fairs, and other similar public events to encourage pedestrian activity and establish an area identity;

- nearby concentration of residential or office uses;

- continuity of uses along the length of the mall;

- diversity of sights and sounds;

- presence of people on the sidewalk;

- open space areas;

- activities that extend beyond normal office hours. Mixed-use zoning promotes a balanced use of the area's resources over extended periods of time;

- good accessibility by public transit, bicycle and by private automobile. The great success of German pedestrian malls is linked to excellent public transit systems built during post-war reconstruction (Hall and Hass-Klau 1985);

- agreement of commercial interests and local residents, from the start, is essential for the success of the project. Merchants often oppose pedestrianisation schemes until they hear of the economic benefit. Another factor is the perceived importance of car drivers as customers which can be over-estimated by merchants (Hall and Haas-Klau 1985);

- historical interest adds to the interest of the area. For example, the historical district of Québec City, restored with great success, has become a UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and a favourite destination among tourists. Its pedestrian-only areas are linked to a large urban park by a boardwalk that offers spectacular views of the St. Lawrence River.

Sources: USDT Federal Highway Administration (1989), Halifax Development and Planning Department (1991).

Finally, inner cities should not be regarded only as shopping centres; they are far more complex than that. Their great attraction comes from the mix of activities that they offer. Pedestrianisation efforts should nurture this diversity.

Why do merchants oppose pedestrianisation?

Understandably, local merchants fear for their trade when plans are announced to re-design the street where their business is located. Some of their fears are based on common misconceptions.

- Car drivers are seen as having greater buying power than pedestrians. In reality, households that do not own cars save money - about $ 7000 per year in Southern Ontario (Pollution Probe 1992). Car-less households may have more money to spend than those with cars.

- People are often willing to walk longer distances than previously thought (Hall and Hass-Klau 1985). Less than 400 m is considered a walking distance in the US (USDT Federal Highway administration 1989). However, in Essen, pedestrians walked on average 1,200 m., Dusseldorf 1,550 m. Car users walked shorter distances than pedestrians in Essen ( 724 m for car users, 1,625 m for pedestrians) and Dusseldorf (1,050 m. for car users, 2,475 m. for pedestrians.

- There is a theory that car traffic is good for retail. However, in Leicester, UK, the higher the level of car traffic, the more shops are likely to be vacant (Newby et al. 1992).

- The perceived importance of street parking in front of shops can be exaggerated. Car drivers interviewed in Leicester mention parking close to the shops as unimportant and readily walk some distance to where they want to shop (Newby et al. 1991). The interviews also revealed that they almost never notice a store window while driving and then decide to stop; instead, they look at store windows while walking (Newby et al. 1991).

Merchants tend to endorse pedestrianisation once they realise its benefits.

- In Essen, traders held up the pedestrianisation of Kettwigerstrasse for two years fearing loss of trade. Following closure, trade increased by 15-30%, and 72% of traders came round to supporting the scheme (OECD 1978).

Why have some pedestrian malls failed?

European pedestrian malls were planned to conserve the urban fabric and improve downtown residential conditions (Robertson 1993). They are very successful economically and socially.

Many US cities have also developed pedestrian malls in downtown areas, to try and revitalise them (more than 200 such malls have been created) (Beatley and Manning 1997) after their citizens left for the suburbs. Many American malls, in their current form are not economically viable, especially those frequented only during office lunch hours.

Failures of pedestrian malls are traceable mostly to:

- lack of complete commitment by all interests affected by the mall development;

- poor transportation planning;

- poor walkability outside the pedestrian mall;

- inadequate financing;

- poor retail planning;

- catering only to tourists or carriage trade while ignoring the needs of local residents (e.g., no corner stores, no grocery stores, no affordable hairdresser in the mall);

- lack of residential neighbourhoods near the mall; and

- lack of true city mix of people and businesses in the mall.

Sources: USDT Federal Highway Administration (1989), Zuckermann W (1991).

If the mall is being implemented to reverse downtown decay, the timing of the project is essential to its success. If the project is implemented too late, when major shopping facilities have already left, then the remaining facilities may be unable to reverse the trend (e.g. Riverside, CA and Kalamazoo, MI).

What are good examples of pedestrianisation?

Hundreds of large urban centres, small towns, and villages around the world have pedestrianised their streets to enhance economic development. The following examples illustrate concerted efforts to make cities more walkable.

In the early 1960s, Munich City Council decided to revitalise the central district by making the streets easier to walk around in. The old city was redesigned primarily for pedestrians. Before the redesign, an estimated 70,000 people visited the area each day. Nowadays, 400,000 people go there daily. Munich's walking areas are connected with transit stops and train stations to encourage walking and leaving the car at home (Zuckermann 1991).

The city of Bordeaux (France) instituted in 1988-1989 a policy to restrict car traffic in most of the old city's road network. The idea is not to ban cars totally but to make it difficult for them to gain access to the area. This is accomplished by a combination of street modifications, speed limits, traffic light controls, and parking policy; residents are urged, for instance, to share their nighttime places with daytime shoppers. The project's aim is not a one-time modification but an ongoing program, coordinated by a team consisting of an economist, an architect, an urban planner, a landscapist, a transportation specialist, a traffic safety expert, and a psychologist to make sure the program sits well with the local people (Zuckermann 1991).

Under the strong leadership of its mayor, the town of Hasselt (Belgium) made its streets friendly to pedestrians and introduced free transit for residents. This improved business, thereby increasing municipal revenue and allowing the city to reduce it business taxation rates. Business people in Hasselt are delighted: they get more revenue and pay less taxes, thanks to the visitors who come to Hasselt because it is free of congestion (CNN 1998).

Scope of the Review

Most literature on the economic benefits of pedestrianisation refers to European cities where pedestrianisation schemes enjoy great popularity. Despite cultural, logistic, and physical differences, European examples are useful as a basis for further research and analysis of a pedestrianisation model for Toronto for several reasons:

- Toronto has a very diverse, multicultural population and should not necessarily be regarded as a typical North American city. It is the city with the largest proportion of immigrants in the world (Urban Planning and Development Services 1998). Many come from countries where walking, cycling, and public transit are well established ways of getting around, compared to car-dominated American cities.

- Research by Newman (1998) indicates that Canadians use less energy per capita on private passenger vehicles (Figure 1). The proportion of Canadian workers using public or non-motorised transport is roughly half of their European counterparts, but approximately twice the rate of United States workers (Figure 2). Toronto residents make 22% of all trips using public transit and 8% by walking and cycling (1996 Transportation Tomorrow Survey).

- Unlike almost all large North American cities, Toronto has a substantial downtown resident population. This is more indicative of European cities with healthy downtown cores sustained by a large residential population than American urban centres, depleted by the movement of citizens to the suburbs. In addition, Toronto's population is increasing, especially in the downtown core, in contrast to a number of other cities in the region (Table 3). This trend should continue, based on the increasing numbers of residential building issued by the City between 1996 and 1998 (Toronto Economic Development Office 1999).

¹ Toronto's Central Area is bounded by Bathurst, the Don River, Rosedale Ravine Road, Yonge, CPR line and Lake Ontario

Sources: Canadian Urban Institute (1990), Statistics Canada (1999), Kids Count Data Online (1997), Toronto Urban Development Services (1997)

Though conclusions can not be made, the data indicate that a model of pedestrianisation for the City of Toronto must draw upon research internationally.

Economic Review

Using correlation analysis, Newman (1998) examined the relationship between car use and gross regional product per capita (GRPP). His results show that, after the level of car use has risen in a city, the initial extra mobility appears to have "negative consequences on the city's economic performance". Newman identifies several parameters that help to explain the negative impact:

(1) increase in road expenditure;

(2) greater percentage of GRP spent on commuting;

(3) reduction in transit cost recovery;

(4) increase in transportation deaths; and

(5) increase in transportation emissions (pollution).

Newman (1998) concludes that good pedestrianisation schemes are dependent upon good public transit systems, and vice versa.

Numerous economic reasons justify improving outdoor spaces. According to Goldsteen and Elliot (1994), aside from aesthetic, physical, social, and psychological reasons, the redevelopment or change in outdoor spaces can "create new jobs, stabilise business cycles and unstable economies, increase wages through competition of new employers, increase tourism, increase retail sales, increase tax revenues; (and) create higher property values for owners". Goldsteen and Elliot (1994) associate property values and adjacent outdoor surroundings and conclude: "Buildings that have well landscaped surroundings have higher demand, therefore higher value."

Goldsteen (1989) determined that the land use and aesthetic character of a development area play a larger role in rental rates than developers first thought. His study focused on office buildings and their immediate neighbourhoods in two major office concentrations in Dallas, Texas. The research team recorded vacancy rates and measured thirty architectural and urban design variables. Their results show that outdoor pedestrian amenities are the most strongly correlated to higher occupancy rates (Table 4).

Table 4. Selected variables affecting office occupancy rates in Dallas, Texas

Source: Goldsteen (1989)

Brambilla and Longo (1977) suggest that retail vacancy rates are the first sign of a pedestrianised area's success or failure. Once a pedestrian development is announced, vacancy rates are likely to drop. For example, downtown Ponoma (California) and Knoxville (Tennessee) had 25% vacancy rates before pedestrianisation, and within one year of development, the vacancies dropped to 0%.

Land values generally increase after the implementation of pedestrian areas. (Brambilla and Longo, 1977). Due to increases in land values, property tax assessments increase, as do rents. Even though rent increases appear to conflict with small business owners, increased sales have been shown to offset these increases.

The direct economic impact of pedestrianisation can best be analysed by looking at urban retail areas. Robertson (1993) sees pedestrians as "indispensable" to the vitality of urban life. He feels that an urban area that encourages pedestrians will see pedestrian levels rise.

Overall, retail turnover increases in pedestrianised European areas:

(1) pedestrian flows increase by at least 50%;

(2) pedestrians are freed from the stress of driving and therefore are in a better shopping mood; and

(3) walkers are more likely to comparison shop (Robertson, 1993).

Hall and Hass-Klau (1985) identify pedestrian counts as the most obvious indicator of pedestrianisation success. The biggest pedestrianised areas show the largest increases in pedestrian traffic (Figure 3), based on Monheim 1980). Monheim (1980) states that there is a direct positive relationship between retail turnover and the number of pedestrians. Hall and Hass-Klau (1985) agree with Monheim (1980) and conclude that the majority of pedestrianised areas in Europe have resulted in positive changes in retail turnover.

Research by TEST (1989) is one of the few comprehensive analyses on the economic effects of pedestrianisation. TEST researchers attempted to prove the hypothesis that a good physical environment is a good economic environment.

TEST (1989) research agrees with several known concepts:

- pedestrianisation benefits a majority of retailers;

- the number of pedestrians tends to double after a pedestrian friendly area is created; and

- the physical environment for pedestrians radically improves after pedestrianisation.

TEST researchers concluded that:

- traffic restraint has contributed to economic improvements; and

- the most effective variable to gauge this is retail turnover. Retailers in the pedestrianised area experienced a notable increase in sales.

Retail shop owners find a direct link between their improved sales and the physical improvements to the designated area, but TEST researchers are careful to point out that, given macro economic factors, it is probable that pedestrianisation plans "contribute" to the economic revitalisation of the subject area.

The most notable findings of TEST's analysis are summarised below:

- public transportation usage increased in every case study city, vice-versa, car usage stabilised or decreased. In Vienna for example, after a thorough pedestrianisation plan was implemented, the city saw a 34% increase in rail transit users and a 53% increase in bus passengers;

- in London, after a decrease in public transit fares called 'Fares Fair', the city saw a decrease of 6% in rush hour car travellers, a 13% increase in bus use and a 7% increase in subway use;

- rental rates of commercial stores are a strong indicator of market demand for an area. TEST research indicates that store owners realize the economic benefits of a pedestrianised area, as shown by increases in rental rates as high as 625% after pedestrianisation. In York, UK, the boom in retail sales led to rent increases of up to 400% (Chartered Surveyor Weekly 1987); and

- a survey of cities around the world, concerning their pedestrianisation schemes, revealed environmental improvement closely related to the removal of traffic (OECD 1978). The survey also showed that 49% of all the pedestrian areas developed experienced an upward trend in retail turnover, while only 2% experienced a decrease (Table 5).

Source: TEST (1989)

Copenhagen's success with its pedestrianisation scheme was obvious (Thomson 1977). Retail turnover and store rentals had risen, and high levels of vacant properties were replaced by prosperous specialty shops.

Forest (1982) examined pedestrianised areas in five French cities; Metz, La Rochelle, Rouen, Grenoble and Strasbourg. His findings are summarised below:

- there was increased demand for storefronts;

- rental rates of retail stores increased, which led to the displacement of weaker business by stronger ones, notably, chain stores, and luxury good stores;

- sales of goods increased 10 - 20% per year; and

- 49% of local merchants reported and increase in the number of customers and income, 33% did not notice a difference, and 17% saw a reduction in business.

Newby, Spencer-Wort and Wiggins (1991) studied the economic impact of pedestrianisation in Leicester, UK. They conducted a number of interviews with local shop owners and shoppers. These are some of they key findings:

- statistical analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between vehicular traffic levels and vacancy rates - correlation coefficient of 0.76, with only a 5% chance that this result was coincidental. In other words, the greater the car traffic, the greater the likelihood of finding vacant shops;

- bus riders were the largest group of shoppers who came to the City centre, hence the limited importance of car-borne shoppers;

- City centre shops gained little benefit, if any, from parking spaces located close to them because car-borne drivers were prepared to walk over some distance to where they wanted to shop;

- surveying shoppers revealed that the quality of shopping and of the shopping environment was more important to them than the ability to drive past shops. Walking past shops by chance was also a strong factor in trade generation; and

- 88% of total respondents preferred some level of traffic restriction, either a wholly pedestrianised shopping environment, or one in which traffic is restricted. Only 10% of car users preferred the unrestricted traffic option.

The authors of the Leicester study concluded that the theory that car traffic is good for business was refuted and that pedestrianisation is more than environmentally beneficial and popular with the public. It makes a vital contribution to the well being of Leicester City Centre (Newby et al. 1991).

Cost of Pedestrian Collisions

Urban congestion is such that pedestrians are often victims of collisions. Intersections are particularly dangerous to senior pedestrians who rarely have enough time to cross safely (US Department of Transportation 1987). Young children darting into the street are also at risk. The price of fear is the restriction of children under 6 on vehicular streets in Australia (Gehl 1987). Hardly any children are allowed to roam freely on the sidewalks of trafficked areas, while on pedestrian areas, almost no children are constrained to walk hand in hand with their parents (Gehl 1987).

In Canada, 43% of pedestrian collisions occur at intersections, 21% where traffic signals exist: auto-dominant arterial streets represent the most serious hazard to pedestrians (Atkinson 1984). In the US, about 6,000 pedestrians are killed each year in collisions with motorised traffic, and about 110,000 are injured (Dickinson 1996). The cost to American society is about US$312,000 per pedestrian-motorist crash. In Florida alone, the cost of pedestrian collisions and injuries in 1986 was US$278,738,688 (Florida Department of Transportation 1989).

In London (UK), collisions to pedestrians went down on High Street after pedestrianisation but went up in the whole study area because bus access to the street had deteriorated and people used their cars more than before to reach the area (London Transport 1980).

Since 1990, the city of Montréal has worked to improve pedestrian safety at signalled intersections, pedestrian crosswalks, and on sidewalks. Consequently in 1996, there was a 23.4% reduction in the number of pedestrian collisions, compared to 1986-1990 (Lavallée 1997). Among other measures, improvements to twelve dangerous intersections in Montréal, made at a cost of $ 115,010, reduced the annual number of collisions by 27% (from 407 down to 298) and number of injured persons by 53% (257 down to 122) (Couture 1997). Since the average material cost of a collision in Québec is $ 6,736 and health cost per injured person is $18,060, the project saved $1.6M in costs to society, i.e., each dollar invested by the city at those intersections translated into a saving of $14.20. These savings will recur each year but the cost of the improvements will not be repeated.

A survey by to the U.S. Department of Transportation (1994) suggests that proper pedestrian and cycling amenities would yield an increase in mass transit users of approximately 100%. Research by the U.S. Department of Transportation (1994) indicates that the number of commuters who drive alone would change their habits. Approximately 30% of these commuters would find an alternate method of transportation if proper pedestrian and cycling facilities existed. Pedestrian and cycling facilities are less expensive to build and maintain than roads for cars.

Toronto

Toronto is unique and diverse in nature. Pedestrianisation projects for Toronto can draw upon international research but need to incorporate the unique features that make up its urban fabric.

Many Toronto households do not own a car, especially in the former City. In addition, a large portion of the general population - kids, the poor, the elderly, disabled - do not drive cars. They rely on walking, cycling or public transit to get around. Table 6 gives an idea of the number of pedestrians along busy Toronto streets.

Source: iTrans 1999

The market potential for pedestrianisation has yet to be tapped. A 1991 survey indicated 59% of the respondents would walk, or walk more, if there were safe secure designated paths or walkways (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1994). Figure 4 shows transportation habits and preferences of commuters if there were adequate facilities. Based on these survey results, and the research of Newman (1998), pedestrianisation in Toronto could at least double the proportion of workers using non-motorised transport.

As early as 1959, the Toronto Planning Board recognized that nobody becomes a shopper until he or she becomes a pedestrian and recommended pedestrian-only streets to lessen the conflicts between pedestrians and cars, as well as wider sidewalks, shade, shelters and seats (City of Toronto Planning Board 1959). Other reports have recommended improving the physical comfort of pedestrians and pedestrian access to public areas of the City (City of Toronto Planning and Development Department 1991, Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department 1991, Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg 1991). Provincial and international reports underline the importance of good pedestrian amenities to support public transit (IBI Group 1992, Morris 1996). The 1994 City of Toronto Official Plan includes provisions for the benefit of pedestrians.

In the past, calls to close Kensington Market (Appendix 4.1), and parts of Queen Street to car traffic did not materialise due to funding problems and lack of public or commercial support.

More recently, significant pedestrian improvements have been made to St. George Street, Yorkville and Queen Street West, and more projects are being considered, (City of Toronto Planning Board 1962, City of Toronto Planning and Development Department 1980, Cooly 1991, Hume 1998, Layton and Amer 1990). Plans are under review to redevelop Bloor Street in a more pedestrian friendly way (Appendix 4.2).

One of the busiest pedestrian-oriented commercial space in Toronto is the underground PATH network linking City Hall, Metro Hall, Union Station, and a number of large office towers in the financial district (Goodman 1984). The PATH has become very popular among workers in the core; it includes food and clothing, theatre, fitness clubs, and so on. Developers have promoted a "quality image" to attract a higher class of tenants and higher rent. However, PATH corridors are mostly deserted outside business hours. Buildings that are connected to the PATH charge twice the annual rent per square foot and have lower vacancy rates than comparable buildings that are not on the PATH (Campbell 1999).

Pedestrian Safety

Toronto, at 6.5 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, has less than half the traffic fatalities found in US cities, perhaps due to its good transit system which reduces the number of cars on the road (Newman 1998). Nonetheless, walking in Toronto can be dangerous (Table 7). Pedestrian fatalities account for about half of all collision fatalities in Toronto; by comparison, in 1996, pedestrian fatalities accounted for 15.5 % of total collision deaths in Ontario, and 12% in the USA (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 1998, Surface Transportation Policy Project 1998). In 1998, more than half (19) of pedestrians killed in Toronto were seniors. Heavy pedestrian fatalities seem to be an urban phenomenon.

Source: Toronto Data Centre and Safety Bureau (1998)

There is no recent information available on the number of pedestrians injured annually in Toronto. In 1996, there were 144 pedestrians killed and 5336 reported injured provincially, i.e. 37 pedestrians injured for each pedestrian fatality in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 1996). If we multiply 1996 Toronto pedestrian fatalities (46) by 37, we get an estimated 1702 pedestrians injured in the city that year. If we multiply that number by $18,060 (average health cost per injured person in a collision in Québec, Couture 1999), we get a very crude estimate of $30M in health costs alone. This number is probably an underestimate because collision injuries to pedestrians tend to be more severe than injuries to vehicle drivers or passengers, as shown in Table 8. The total cost of pedestrian collisions is far greater because it includes items like: emergency services, police work, insurance costs, repairs to vehicles, repairs to municipal and private property, lost wages, long term disabilities, lost productivity, legal fees, and much human suffering.

Source: Ontario Ministry of Transportation 1998, Swarbrick 1999

When recent streetscaping measures were implemented to enhance the appearance of a number of Toronto main streets, pedestrian safety also happened to improve (Rosenblatt Naderi 1998). Accident rates went down, pedestrian traffic increased, as did economic benefits to local businesses (Rosenblatt Naderi 1998). Therefore, pedestrianisation could improve pedestrian safety, result in significant savings for individuals and governments, and improve business in Toronto.

Conclusions

The research presented here has given proponents the tools needed to do an in depth analysis of the effects of pedestrianisation in the City of Toronto. Several indicators can be used to judge the success of pedestrian developments (Table 8).

North America's cities have grown up with the automobile. As a result, they have also grown outward, with people travelling increasingly long distances to everyday destinations such as work, school, and shopping. These greater distances have been made possible by and, in turn, have helped fuel the need for more automobiles and for more roadways. As a result, travel by foot has become a less desirable and often infeasible option. In many situations it has also become more dangerous. This does not have to be the case in the City of Toronto.

A copy of the following material attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 29, 1999 and April 6, 1999 agenda of the Economic Development Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- Appendix 3. References;

- Appendix 4, 4.1. Sketch of Kensington Market Mall Project, Baldwin Street (City of Toronto Planning Board 1962); and

- Appendix 4.2. Photographs of Bloor Street Transformation (Project of Van Nostrand Dicastri Architects, Brown and Storey Architects, Corban and Goode Landscape Architects, Toronto 1998).

Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, Toronto, appeared before the Economic Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause by amending the action taken by the Economic Development Committee to provide that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report jointly with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, so that the action of the Economic Development Committee shall now read as follows:

"The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a joint report to the Economic Development Committee on:

(1) an internal staff panel reporting procedure; and

(2) a proposed process for dealing with funding and staff deployment for the management of preservation.")

The Economic Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (March 19, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be adopted subject to:

(a) requiring that the transition process for implementation be reviewed after six months; and

(b) a six month review of the membership structure of the new Board of Heritage Toronto (Section 1(b) of the report refers) being undertaken and that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Economic Development Committee on this review; and

(2) Council recognize the need for stability and continuity of service during the period of transition, including the continuation of the Toronto Historical Board and the other existing management boards.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report further to the Committee on:

(1) an internal staff panel reporting procedure; and

(2) a proposed process for dealing with funding and staff deployment for the management of preservation.

The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (March 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for the implementation of Council's decisions of December 16 and 17, 1998 with regard to the governance of heritage services and the establishment of the new Heritage Toronto. This report replaces the report to Economic Development Committee dated February 11, 1999 entitled "Implementation of Council Decisions on Heritage Governance".

Source of Funds:

Council decided in December 1998 that all staff of Heritage Toronto and the Scarborough Historical Museum Board are to become staff of the City. The relative costs associated with the implementation of this decision will be reviewed during the current budget process.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be adopted as the implementation plan for Council's decisions of December 16 and 17, 1998 for the delivery of heritage services across the new City of Toronto;

(2) an arm's length body called "Heritage Toronto" be established as defined in Section 1 of this report;

(3) the development of the Heritage Master Plan will be the subject of a future report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to the Economic Development Committee;

(4) the City Solicitor be asked to prepare the necessary by-laws; and

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

Council Reference:

At its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council set out the framework for heritage governance in the City by adopting Clause No. (3) of Report No. (15) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. As part of that report, Council directed the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to consult selected individuals and report to the Economic Development Committee on the implementation of the selected governance structure. In addition, the Commissioner was directed to further elaborate the relative roles of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Museum Management Boards with respect to staffing, as part of the consultation process.

The Commissioner was further directed, in consultation with a number of interested organizations, to report on the steps required for the further development of the Heritage Master Plan. Council also directed the CAO, in consultation and partnership with select individuals, to develop a plan to determine the future composition of the new Heritage Toronto.

Discussion:

(1) New Heritage Toronto:

Council's directives create a new body, called "Heritage Toronto" with arm's-length staff to deal with global issues, advocacy, major fundraising, publicity and public programs such as awards. Recognizing the importance of obtaining financial support from the private sector, Council also determined that an arms-length foundation be established by the new Heritage Toronto to promote public awareness of Toronto's heritage and to solicit charitable donations.

A Working Group of Citizens and some Board Chairs developed a proposal for the new Heritage Toronto, which was further refined through discussions with City staff and the Chairs of LACACs and Museum Boards. The following proposal is agreed to by all parties:

(a) Mission:

The Mission Statement dated 10/02/99 and drafted by Sheldon Godfrey has general support. (Attached as Appendix 'A'). It is recommend that it be adopted as a working document to be reviewed by the Board of the New Heritage Toronto, once that Board is created. The Board to report back to Council not later than December 2000.

(b) Structure of the Board:

It is recommended that the Board of the new Heritage Toronto be comprised of up to 26 individuals, as follows:

- Chairs or representatives of each Community Museum Management Board (9);

- Chairs or representatives of each Community LACAC Panel (6);

- six Members appointed by the City (6), at least one of whom must represent the area of natural heritage;

- one representative from Toronto Historical Association (1);

- one representative of the Aboriginal Community (1); and

- up to three members of City Council (3).

The importance of geographic representation across the new City is recognized. This can be achieved through the representatives of the Community Museum Management Boards and the Community LACAC Panels. It can also be achieved by asking that the Council appointments be made on the recommendation of the Community Councils.

The nominating process for the City's many Boards, Agencies and Committees is being reviewed by the City Clerk's Division. Further information is required on the appropriate process for the new Heritage Toronto.

(c) Roles and Responsibilities:

The following were agreed to as the roles and responsibilities of the new Heritage Toronto:

(i) primary focus of this Board should be advocacy and fundraising;

(ii) delivery of public programs of a city-wide nature;

(iii) host major events such as the Awards program;

(iv) liaison with broad heritage community;

(v) serve as a focal point for volunteer sector groups; and

(vi) major role in the development of the Heritage Master Plan.

There has been considerable discussion of the potential for overlap of the mandates of the New Heritage Toronto with the mandates of the Community Museum Management Boards, the Toronto Museums Board, the Toronto Preservation Board and the Community LACAC Panels. There is agreement on the following approach:

(i) Heritage Toronto will not impinge, dictate to or otherwise interfere with the work of the Museum Boards or the Community LACAC Panels / Toronto Preservation Board;

(ii) Heritage Toronto will conduct only those programs offered in a concerted fashion;

(iii) Heritage Toronto is not to be a co-ordinating body for the work of the other Boards; and

(iv) the autonomy of the Community Museum Boards is to be respected as Heritage Toronto defines its role.

(d) Charitable Foundation:

The outstanding issue of the charitable foundation needs to be addressed. The charitable objects of the new Heritage Toronto will have to be clarified for Revenue Canada to provide a ruling on the charitable status. This may require a separate board within Heritage Toronto for fundraising. The Toronto Historical Board is working on this and advises that it will take 8 months to resolve. The City's Legal Department is also seeking resolution of this issue.

(e) Review:

To be reviewed in three years.

(2) TACAC and Community LACAC Panels:

There have been many discussions among City staff, the Chairs of LACACs and the Chair of the Toronto Historical Association with regard to the implementation of Council's decisions with regard to the new Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and the Community LACAC Panels.

The following approach is agreed upon by all parties:

(a) The Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee is to be known as the Toronto Preservation Board. A Community LACAC Panel will be established for each Community Council area.

(b) Council directed that preservation staff will be City staff of either the Urban Development and Planning Department or the Culture Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, seconded to the Preservation Board. Once the principles outlined in this report have been adopted, the Commissioners of these Departments and their respective staffs will meet to develop options for the City administration and identify the appropriate Departmental links.

(c) A Memorandum of Understanding will be necessary to clarify the relative roles and responsibilities of all parties. It is recommended that a Memorandum of Understanding be developed between the City and the Toronto Preservation Board that will include the following provisions:

(i) the approach to the hiring of the senior preservation staff person. The Commissioner holds ultimate responsibility for the hiring, firing and performance of staff. However, given the importance of the working relationship between the senior preservation staff person and the Board, the Commissioner, Human Resources and the Board will work jointly to select that person. Similarly, the Board would be asked to provide written input to the performance appraisal of the senior preservation staff person;

(ii) the mechanism by which the Board will provide input to the Department's budget process, identifying the budget requirements of the Community LACAC Panels, budget impact of program plans, suggested budget priorities and recommendations for budget reductions if those are required;

(iii) budgets for the Community LACACs will be provided by the City. The Toronto Community LACAC's budget will be provided through the Toronto Preservation Board;

(iv) the means to establish reserve funds to secure monies raised through fundraising as dedicated funds;

(v) the means by which the Toronto Preservation Board and the Community LACAC Panels will access support services;

(vi) the establishment of performance measures;

(vii) the requirement of the Preservation Board to annually create a work plan and an annual report;

(viii) access to Committees. The Preservation Board Chair or designate will appear with the Department Head at Standing Committees of Council;

(ix) the specific roles and responsibilities of the Toronto Preservation Board, the Community LACAC Panels, and the Preservation Staff, as outlined in Appendix B; and

(x) the review period for the Memorandum of Understanding will be every 3 years.

It was further agreed that the goal is to fully integrate heritage into the business of the City. In addition to Culture, the City's responsibility for heritage crosses many Divisions and Departments: Planning, Clerks, Archives, Legal, Building, Inspections, Real Estate, Forestry, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, and Works.

(d) Composition of Toronto Preservation Board and Local LACAC Panels:

It is recommended that each of the six Community LACAC Panels be comprised of a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of nine (9) citizen members plus one or two Councillors at the discretion of Community Council. Desired qualifications for those members would be set out in the Terms of Reference, to be developed.

It is further recommended that the Toronto Preservation Board be comprised of the Chair or designate of each Community LACAC Panel plus five (5) additional citizens to be appointed by City Council plus up to three (3) Councillors who may be members of Community LACAC Panels. The five additional citizens would be individuals who possess special interests and /or knowledge that would assist the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities. At least one of these additional citizens should be knowledgeable with regard to natural heritage.

(e) The roles and responsibilities of the Toronto Preservation Board are those prescribed in the Ontario Heritage Act. Other roles may be assigned by Council. The specific responsibilities of the Board and the LACAC Panels will be articulated in the Memorandum of Understanding as described above.

(3) Museum Services:

City staff met with the Chairs of Museum Boards, the Chair of the Friends of Fort York and the Chair of the Toronto Historical Association on several occasions to build consensus around the implementation of Council's decisions on the governance of museums. All agree to the following approach:

(a) Community Museum Management Boards:

It is recommended that nine (9) Community Museum Management Boards be created. The appropriate Community Council will nominate the membership of the following sites or combination of sites:

(i) Todmorden Mills Museum (East York);

(ii) Montgomery's Inn (Etobicoke);

(iii) Gibson House / Zion Schoolhouse (North York);

(iv) Scarborough Historical Museum (Scarborough);

(v) Spadina / Mackenzie House / Colborne Lodge (Toronto);

(vi) York Museum (York);

(vii) Fort York;

(viii) The Pier; and

(ix) 98 Atlantic Avenue.

Community Museum Management Boards identified as (i) through (vi) above should be nominated by the appropriate Community Council. Recognizing the regional scope and nature of Fort York and the Pier, and the collection at 98 Atlantic Avenue, it is recommended that City Council appoint the membership of these Management Boards.

(B) Memoranda of Understanding:

Museum staff supporting the Community Museum Management Boards will be City staff, and as such are accountable to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism. It is recommended that a Memorandum of Understanding be developed between the Commissioner and each Community Museum Management Board to clarify the relative roles and responsibilities of the Department and the Board It is understood that these Memoranda may differ from site to site, but all would include the following provisions:

(i) the approach to the hiring of the site's senior staff person. The Commissioner holds ultimate responsibility for the hiring, firing and performance of staff. However, given the importance of the working relationship between the site's senior staff person and the Board, the Commissioner, Human Resources and the Board will work jointly to select that person. Similarly, the Board would be required to provide written input to the performance appraisal of the site's senior staff person;

(ii) the mechanism by which the Board will provide input to the Department's budget process, identifying the budget impact of program plans, suggested budget priorities (both operating and capital) and recommendations for budget reductions if those are required;

(iii) the specific roles and responsibilities of that site's Management Board; and

(iv) access to support services.

Four sites will operate as more independent management boards than the others: Fort York, The Pier, Montgomery's Inn and the Scarborough Historical Museum. For these sites, the following will be reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Board.

(v) with regards to staff, the Commissioner holds the administrative responsibility for the adherence to human resource policies and ethical conduct of the senior museum staff person. The Community Museum Management Board is responsible for ensuring that the professional standards and expertise of the senior museum staff person are of the highest quality; and

(vi) each of these Community Museum Management Boards will be funded by a budget envelope through the Department's budget. The budget envelopes will require annual reporting and will be tied to the achievement of specific performance measures. It is recognized that, in the first instance, the remaining five boards may not be able to assume the same level of responsibilities, and will need additional assistance and support form the Commissioner's department and other museums in order to become fully operational as specified above. These needs will be identified and accomplished, as required, through the memorandum of understanding for each site.

(c) 98 Atlantic Avenue:

The 98 Atlantic Avenue collections storage facility will be managed by a management board and will operate on a fee for service basis with the City and the other boards of management. Human resources for museum-specific support services such as marketing, exhibit design and collections care that are not allocated across the community museums, will be attached to this operation.

(d) Salary and Job Descriptions:

It is recognized that salary and job description harmonization will be an early issue for the Department, Human Resources and the Toronto Museums Board.

(e) Role of the Community Museums Boards and the Toronto Museums Board:

It is agreed that the Toronto Museums Board will co-ordinate global museum issues and general museum policy. It will also co-ordinate cross-promotion and cross-programming opportunities among the sites.

It is important to ensure the autonomy of the local Community Museum Boards. Budgets will be negotiated directly between the Community Museum Boards and the City.

(f) Deployment of Support Services:

Support services include marketing, exhibit design, volunteer co-ordination, common training for staff and volunteers, and administrative support for the Boards. The City will provide non-museum support services such as administration, legal services, budget and financial support, and human resources. Other support resources will be allocated across the community museums. There will be an allocation of funds to permit the purchase of services from 98 Atlantic Avenue or elsewhere by the Community Museum Management Boards. Support services staff directly related to the operation of the museums that are not assigned to a site will be attached to the 98 Atlantic Avenue operation.

Each site will be responsible for the management of its own collection. Technical support such as conservation would be the responsibility of the management board of 98 Atlantic Avenue.

(g) Management of Built Assets:

The management of built assets includes specialized staff for technical support, building conservation, and the co-ordination of the capital works program. All agree that specialized staff are required for these functions and that the City has responsibility for the stewardship of the heritage assets. All agreed on the following approach to their management:

(i) the City is responsible for the care of the museum buildings as well as the non-museum heritage buildings such as Dempseys, Jolly Miller, Stanley Barracks, and Lambton House;

(ii) the City will work with the Community Museum Management Boards and in consultation with the Toronto Museum Board and Heritage Toronto to develop and implement the capital works program;

(iii) these functions entail built assets only and do not extend to the collections held by the sites or at 98 Atlantic Avenue.

(4) Development of the Heritage Master Plan:

Council requested that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Toronto Historical Association and other interested organizations, submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on the steps required for the further development of the Heritage Master Plan. To date, our consultation process has placed as a priority the creation of the new Heritage Toronto, Toronto Preservation Board, Community LACAC Panels, Toronto Museums Board and Community Museum Management Boards. It has been agreed that the new Heritage Toronto will play a major role in the development of the Heritage Master Plan, but that role needs further clarification in relation to the role of the City and other organizations.

The development of the Heritage Master Plan will be the subject of a future report, once the appropriate consultation has taken place.

Summary

These recommendations are the result of an extensive consultation by City staff with the Chairs of Museum Boards and LACACs, the Chair of the Friends of Fort York, and the Chair of the Toronto Historical Association. They provide a workable framework for the implementation of Council's decisions and address the fundamental principles adopted by Council in December 1998. Approval of these recommendations will allow the City to begin the process of establishing the new Boards defined by Council and to begin to build the relationships, partnerships and agreements necessary to make this work.

Endorsement

This implementation plan has been endorsed by the following persons who have participated in the consultation process as prescribed by Council. Their signatures are an indication of the spirit of co-operation and partnership that will make this proposal work. See Appendix C.

Earl Jarvis, Etobicoke Historical Board;

Marion Joppe, for "New Heritage Toronto" Working Group;

Rick Schofield, Scarborough LACAC;

Lawrence Leonoff, North York Heritage Committee;

Mary Louise Ashbourne, York LACAC;

Joe Kennedy, Scarborough Historical Museum Board;

John Bertram, Todmorden Mills Museum Board; and

Bernard Thompson, York Museum.

Name:

Beth Hanna, Culture Division, 392-5225

Preamble:

Toronto's heritage is more than the uniqueness of its physical setting, its places of natural beauty, of historic interest of design, more than its important buildings and structures, more than its artifacts and historical documents.

These are merely the tangible expressions, the living reminders, of the intangible elements of our heritage: the ideals, the creativity and the diversity that have shaped our experience. It is these intangibles that have given us our shared values and our soaring spirit. By reflecting on the past, we recall that we have all come from someplace else and have participated in the growth of a new kind of city that is a model for the world to come. By reflecting on the past, we reaffirm our identity as people with a common interest and take the measure of ourselves as citizens of a free and democratic place.

Toronto has always been composed of people of diverse backgrounds. Toronto's first mayor, William Lyon Mackenzie, called the inhabitants of this city "a mixed race" almost a hundred and seventy-five years ago. Toronto grew to celebrate the inclusiveness of its people, not just their diversity. In the words of one of our legislators in 1851, we were inhabited by "persons from all creeds and from all nations, equally entitled to the favour and protection of the government."

We must save Toronto's treasures - whether places of natural beauty or interest, whether important buildings, whether artifacts or documents - but we must also remember that the importance of the treasures is determined by the values that they represent. The worker's cottage should be treasured along with the mill owner's mansion. Laces and quilts, made labouriously by women by firelight, share an equal place with men's hand forged tools. The traditions of the aboriginal peoples who lived here over the millennia, the songs of the runaway Black slaves who came here seeking freedom, the stories of the hardships and triumphs of the diverse peoples who followed, enrich our collective memory along with the accounts of the Loyalists who came to build a new town in the wilderness.

The heritage treasures of the areas that make up the City of Toronto are the gift of all its people to the generations that follow.

Mission:

Heritage Toronto exists to ensure that the City of Toronto meets the challenge of making all its citizens proudly aware of the past we share, celebrating both tangible and intangible expressions of its heritage.

Methods:

Heritage Toronto will perform its work, among other means, through:

- continuing to develop the vision of Toronto's heritage and strategies for its implementation;

- advocating Toronto's heritage values and issues to all levels of government;

- facilitating the work of the Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and the Toronto Museums Historical Board in pursuance of Heritage Toronto's mission;

- promoting programs to increase public awareness and a civic museum to showcase our heritage;

- soliciting gifts of Toronto's heritage treasures as well as donations of funds to support telling the story of the City's heritage, through an arms' length charitable foundation if necessary;

- encouraging the integration of heritage preservation with city planning to ensure that future developments take maximum advantage of heritage for the benefit of citizens and tourists alike;

- stimulating the raw energy and common sense of volunteers in all aspects of Toronto's heritage and reminding us that some of the City's best museums and sites are not in public ownership; that some of the City's best heritage enterprises and events are generated outside City Hall: that they all deserve broad public support;

- reminding us that Toronto grew through the absorption of hundreds of smaller municipalities and settlements, which should not be forgotten, whose stories deserve to be told; and

- supporting people of diverse backgrounds in the research and publication of the histories of their communities in Toronto.

Preservation Services:

Roles and Responsibilities of Toronto Preservation Board and Community LACAC Panels:

(A) Toronto Preservation Board is the City's official Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC). Its statutory role is defined by the Ontario Heritage Act as: to advise and assist municipal council on all matters relating to Part IV (Conservation of Buildings of Historic and Architectural Value, Designation of Properties by Municipalities) and Part V (Heritage Conservation Districts of the Act). Council is required to consult with the Committee on the following:

- designation of individual properties or districts;

- applications to alter, demolish or remove designated properties;

- applications to repeal designation by-laws; and

- heritage easements or covenants.

TPB (in consultation with Community LACAC Panels) should also provide advice to Council on:

- identification and inventory of heritage properties;

- clarify the listing criteria and process to develop uniformity across the new City;

- reviewing heritage studies;

- commenting on heritage aspect of zoning by-laws;

- commenting on heritage aspect of OP amendments;

- commenting on heritage aspect of sign by-laws;

- monitoring of Section 37 agreements;

- inspect or have inspections done on heritage property;

- archaeological issues;

- provide input with respect to natural heritage, heritage landscapes and view corridors;

- provide input with respect to municipal heritage preservation policy, including incentives for preservation and maintenance by owners of heritage property;

- recommend grants for preservation; and

- advocacy.

TPB may also have responsibility for:

- coordination of city-wide inventory that is consistent (data-base);

- providing public programming on preservation issues (shared responsibility);

- provide for public awareness and promotion of built and natural heritage issues, in cooperation with the new Heritage Toronto and other heritage groups, as required;

- advice to citizens on the care and maintenance of privately owned heritage properties (shared responsibility); and

- inventory of buildings at risk (shared responsibility with Community LACAC Panels).

TPB reports to the Urban Development Committee on city-wide issues, recommendations on preservation policy and the Official Plan, and on any matters related to the Ontario Heritage Act.

(B) Community LACAC Panels responsible for, but not limited to: (from working group)

- recommend properties within the local community for designation consideration by TPB;

- list heritage properties for review and discussion by TPB;

- research;

- provide for public awareness and promotion of built and natural heritage issues, in cooperation with new Heritage Toronto and other heritage groups, as required;

- promote neighbourhood heritage/history;

- arrange to erect plaques and/or markers on community sites of local interest;

- provide for local community recognition activities;

- coordinate related heritage activities with local museums, societies, Boards of Education and similar organizations within the community (shared); and

- advocacy.

Community LACAC Panels report to TPB on all issues related to Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act. They report directly to Community Council on other local preservation issues.

Roles and responsibilities of Preservation Staff:

- Manager of Preservation Services is responsible to the Department of administrative issues related to budget and staff. Responsible to the Toronto Preservation Board for preservation issue;

- the Commissioner holds the administrative responsibility for the adherence to human resources policies and ethical conduct of the senior preservation staff person. The Preservation Board is responsible for ensuring the professional standards and expertise of the senior preservation staff person are of the highest quality; and

- Preservation staff take direction from the Manager of Preservation Services.

Responsible for:

- routine monitoring and review (shared with Community LACAC Panels);

- monitoring and review of major projects;

- coordination of the inventory;

- research (shared with Community LACAC Panels);

- community outreach programs (shared with Community LACAC Panels);

- secretarial and administrative support to the Board and the Community LACAC Panels (shared with Department); and

- inspection of major projects (shared with Community LACAC Panels and Board).

Notes:

- responsible for but not limited to these functions.

The Economic Development Committee also submits the following report (February 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for the implementation of Council's decisions of December 16 and 17, 1998 with regard to the governance of heritage services.

Source of Funds:

Council decided in December 1998 that all staff of the Toronto Historical Board and the Scarborough Historical Museum Board become staff of the City. The relative costs associated with the implementation of this decision will be reviewed during the current budget process.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee be known as the Toronto Preservation Board and that a Local LACAC Panel be established for each Community Council area;

(2) a Memorandum of Understanding be developed between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Preservation Board which would include the provisions outlined in this report;

(3) each of the six Local LACAC Panels be comprised of a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of nine (9) citizen members, plus one or two Councillors at the discretion of each Community Council;

(4) the Toronto Preservation Board be comprised of the Chair or designate of each Local LACAC Panel plus five (5) additional citizens to be appointed by City Council plus up to three (3) Councillors who may be members of the Local LACAC Panels; and at least one of these additional citizens should be knowledgeable with regard to natural heritage;

(5) eight (8) Community Museum Management Boards be created:

(a) Todmorden Mills Museum (East York);

(b) Montgomery's Inn (Etobicoke);

(c) Gibson House / Zion Schoolhouse (North York);

(d) Scarborough Historical Museum (Scarborough);

(e) Spadina / Mackenzie House / Colborne Lodge (Toronto);

(f) York Museum (York);

(g) Fort York; and

(h) The Pier;

(6) Community Museum Management Boards identified as (a) through (f) above be nominated by the appropriate Community Council and, recognizing the regional scope and nature of the other two sites, City Council appoint the membership of a Community Museum Management Board for each of Fort York and The Pier;

(7) Memorandum of Understanding be developed between the City of Toronto and each Community Museum Management Board which would clarify the relative roles and responsibilities of the Department and the Board and would include the provisions outlined in this report;

(8) that support services for all of the sites be provided by the City;

(9) the Toronto Museums Board be established as a co-ordinating body, to provide advice on global museum issues and general museum policy, as identified in Mr. Schofield's '3H Model' of December 1998, and further that this Board provide advice on priorities for capital and operating budgets;

(10) the report from the Chief Administrative Officer on the plan to determine the composition of the new advisory body to be called Heritage Toronto be the subject of a report to the next meeting of the Economic Development Committee;

(11) the steps necessary for the development of the Heritage Master Plan will be the subject of a future report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to the Economic Development Committee, as requested by Council; and

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

Council Reference:

At its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council set out the framework for heritage governance in the City by adopting Clause No. 3 of Report No. 15 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. As part of that report, Council directed the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to consult selected individuals and report to the Economic Development Committee on the implementation of the selected governance structure. In addition, the Commissioner was directed to further elaborate the relative roles of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Museum Management Boards with respect to staffing, as part of the consultation process.

The Commissioner was further directed, in consultation with a number of interested organizations, to report on the steps required for the further development of the Heritage Master Plan. Council also directed the CAO, in consultation and partnership with select individuals, to develop a plan to determine the future composition of the new Heritage Toronto.

Discussion:

TACAC and Local LACAC Panels:

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism met with Heritage Toronto, the Chairs of LACACs and the Chair of the Toronto Historical Association on January 25, 1999 and February 9, 1999 to discuss the implementation of Council's decisions with regard to the new Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and the Local LACAC Panels. Significant steps were taken toward reaching consensus. The following items are agreed upon by all parties:

The Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee is to be known as the Toronto Preservation Board. A LACAC Panel will be established for each Community Council area.

Preservation staff will be City staff of either the Urban Development and Planning Department or the Culture Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, as per Council's resolution. The Commissioners of these two Departments will resolve this issue. Staff will be seconded to the Preservation Board.

A Memorandum of Understanding will be necessary to clarify the relative roles and responsibilities of all parties. It is recommended that a Memorandum of Understanding be developed between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Preservation Board that will include the following provisions:

- the approach to the hiring of the senior preservation staff person. The Commissioner holds ultimate responsibility for the hiring, de-hiring and performance appraisal of staff. However, given the importance of the working relationship between the senior preservation staff person and the Preservation Board, the Commissioner, Human Resources Division and the Board will work jointly to select that person. Similarly, the Board would be asked to provide written input to the performance appraisal of the senior preservation staff person;

- the mechanism by which the Board will provide input to the Department's budget process, identifying the budget requirements of the Local LACAC Panels, budget impact of program plans, suggested budget priorities and recommendations for budget reductions if those are required; and

- the specific roles and responsibilities of the Toronto Preservation Board and the Local LACAC Panels and of the City's seconded staff.

It is the Department's intention to assign the equivalent of ten full-time positions to support the Preservation Board in 1999, with administrative support provided through the Department. Staff allocations will be reviewed annually as part of the budget.

Composition of Toronto Preservation Board and Local LACAC Panels:

It is agreed that each of the six Community LACAC Panels be comprised of a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of nine (9) citizen members plus one or two Councillors at the discretion of Community Council. Desired qualifications for those members would be set out in the Terms of Reference, to be developed.

It is further agreed that the Toronto Preservation Board be comprised of the Chair or designate of each Local LACAC Panel plus five (5) additional citizens to be appointed by City Council plus up to three (3) Councillors who may be members of Local LACAC Panels. The five additional citizens would be individuals who possess special interests and /or knowledge that would assist the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities. At least one of these additional citizens should be knowledgeable with regard to natural heritage.

The roles and responsibilities of the Toronto Preservation Board are those prescribed in the Ontario Heritage Act. Other roles may be assigned by Council, including the co-ordination of inventories and databases. The specific responsibilities of the Board and the LACAC Panels will be articulated in the Memorandum of Understanding.

Museum Services:

The Commissioner met with the Chairs of Museum Boards, the Chair of the Friends of Fort York and the Chair of the Toronto Historical Association on January 25, 1999 and February 10, 1999 to begin to build consensus around the implementation of Council's decisions on the governance of museums. Although further refinements will be necessary, consensus was reached on the following items:

Community Museum Management Boards:

It is agreed that eight (8) Community Museum Management Boards be created. The appropriate Community Council will nominate the membership of the following sites or combination of sites:

(1) Todmorden Mills Museum (East York);

(2) Montgomery's Inn (Etobicoke);

(3) Gibson House / Zion Schoolhouse (North York);

(4) Scarborough Historical Museum (Scarborough);

(5) Spadina / Mackenzie House / Colborne Lodge (Toronto);

(6) York Museum (York).

Recognizing the regional scope and nature of the other two sites, it is recommended that City Council nominate the membership of a Community Museum Management Board for:

(7) Fort York; and

(8) The Pier.

As per Council's directive, Museum staff supporting the Community Museum Management Boards will be City staff, managed and directed by the Boards but accountable to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism. It is recommended that a Memorandum of Understanding be developed between the City of Toronto and each Community Museum Management Board to clarify the relative roles and responsibilities of the Department and the Board. It is understood that these Memoranda may differ from site to site. The following provisions would be common to all:

- the approach to the hiring of the site's senior staff person. The Commissioner holds ultimate responsibility for the hiring, de-hiring and performance appraisal of staff. However, given the importance of the working relationship between the site's senior staff person and the Museum Board, the Commissioner, Human Resources Division and the Board will work jointly to select that person. Similarly, the Board would be asked to provide written input to the performance appraisal of the site's senior staff person;

- the mechanism by which the Board will provide input to the Department's budget process, identifying the budget impact of program plans, suggested budget priorities (both operating and capital) and recommendations for budget reductions if those are required;

- the specific roles and responsibilities of that site's Management Board; and

- access to support services.

There was some discussion of the establishment of a different management board structure for Fort York and The Pier. All were in agreement that although this may be desirable in the future, it is premature. It was agreed that the special needs of these sites can be addressed within the proposed model, through the Memoranda of Understanding. The principle of keeping staff together to provide for co-ordination of services and to achieve a critical mass was strongly supported.

Support services for the sites in the areas of marketing, exhibit design, volunteer co-ordination, common training and administrative support for the Boards, will be provided by the City. This approach ensures the well-planned, cost effective use of resources and allows for the sharing of scarce resources among sites.

Toronto Museums Board:

Council determined that a Toronto Historical Museum Board would be created, composed of representatives of each Community Museum Management Board and reporting to Economic Development Committee. There are ongoing discussions about how this could evolve. The Toronto Museums Board should be established as a co-ordinating body, providing advice on global museum issues and general museum policy as identified in Mr. Schofield's 'Model 3H'. This Board would also be in a position to provide valuable advice on priorities for capital and operating budgets.

The New Heritage Toronto:

Matters relating to the composition of the new advisory body to be called Heritage Toronto, as delegated to the Chief Administrative Officer, will be the subject of a future report. Further consultation is necessary with both internal and external stakeholders, before a recommendation can be brought forward for Council's consideration.

Development of the Heritage Master Plan:

Council requested that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Toronto Historical Association and other interested organizations, submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on the steps required for the further development of the Heritage Master Plan. To date, our consultation process has placed as a priority the creation of the new Toronto Preservation Board, local LACAC Panels, Toronto Museums Board and Community Museum Management Boards. The development of the Heritage Master Plan will be the subject of a future report, once the appropriate consultation has taken place.

Summary:

These recommendations are the result of much discussion with the Chairs of Museum Boards and LACACs, the Chair of the Friends of Fort York, and Chair of the Toronto Historical Association. They provide a workable framework for the implementation of Council's decisions and address the fundamental principles adopted by Council in December 1998. Approval of these recommendations will allow the City to begin the process of establishing the new Boards defined by Council and to begin to build the relationships, partnerships and agreements necessary to make this work.

Contact Name:

Beth Hanna

392-5225

The Economic Development Committee also submits the following communication (February 23, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding action taken by the York Community Council at its meeting on February 17, 1999:

Recommendation:

The York Community Council recommended that the Economic Development Committee be advised that:

(1) it endorses the report (February 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to the Economic Development Committee; and

(2) it reaffirms the decision of the former City of York Council that the York Museum be staffed by a full-time curator.

Background:

The York Community Council on February 17, 1999 had before it the following communications:

(i) report (February 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing a framework for the implementation of Council's decisions of December 16 and 17, 1998 regarding the governance of heritage services; and

(ii) (Undated) from Mr. Bernie Thompson, Chair, Historical Committee, advising of matters to be discussed, such as the Community Council's position on the museum and heritage in general; the selection of members to Community Museum Management Boards; conservation; exhibits; collection; research; interviewing and hiring of staff; communication; marketing; duties related to the curator and the museum; collection management; data base consolidation; new larger location; budget preparation and control; signing authority; staff assistance; the Board's responsibilities under the new structure; membership and evaluation; and stating the objectives established by the museum (York) in 1998.

Mr. Bernie Thompson appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Economic Development Committee also had before it the following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- Appendix C, endorsements by persons who have participated in the consultation process as prescribed by Council, attached to the report (March 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and distributed to all Members of Council with the March 29, 1999 and April 6, 1999 agenda of the Economic Development Committee;

- (February 9, 1999) from Linda Wells, Kidding Awound Wind Up Toys, opposing Heritage Toronto becoming a City Department;

- (February 10, 1999) from Sheldon J. Godfrey, Toronto, forwarding a Mission Statement created as the result of wide consultation and endorsed by the Working Group chaired by Marion Joppe;

- (February 11, 1999) from Stephen Otto, supporting the Mission Statement endorsed by the Working Group;

- (February 11, 1999) from Jane Beecroft, Chair, CHP Heritage Centre, The Society of Heritage Associates, Toronto, urging Council to adopt the Mission Statement endorsed by the Working Group;

- (February 12, 1999) from John Carter, Chair, East York LACAC, not in support of the Mission Statement, but supporting the recommendations of the report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

- (February 11, 1999) from John S. Ridout, President, Town of York Historical Society, supporting the Mission Statement endorsed by the Working Group;

- (February 11, 1999) from John S. Ridout, President, East York Historical Society, supporting the Mission Statement endorsed by the Working Group; and

- (March 19, 1999) from U. Ernest Buchner, Heritage Coordinator, forwarding a copy of a response of E. E. Jarvis, Chair, Etobicoke Historical Board and proposing that:

(1) sites should perform all Museum functions for which they have a critical mass;

(2) museum support services should be shared in a cost-effective manner only for the functions each museum can't support on its own;

(3) non-museum support services, such as administration support, finance/budget, Human Resources, legal, etc., should be provided by the City;

(4) the proposal doe not reflect true secondment of the preservation employees;

(5) the existing work groups active in each of the three (3) areas be recognized and authorized to work in partnership with City staff to design and implement the necessary interim procedures;

(6) nothing in the proposal from the Commissioner should preclude or limit the mandate of the "New" Heritage Toronto;

- (Undated) from Joe Gill, The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common, advising that they have formed an Interim Board which will consider transitional issues on behalf of the Fort until such time as Council formally appoints a Board, and that they will be available to work with Heritage Toronto and the City to help plan a smooth transfer of the operations of the Fort to the new Fort York Management Board; and

- (Undated) from Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage, requesting that they be given an arms' length structure to enshrine and assure a proper place for our natural and cultural heritage.

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

- Earl Jarvis, Chair, Etobicoke Heritage Board;

- Sheldon Godfrey, on behalf of Marion Joppe, New Heritage, Toronto;

- Richard Schofield, Scarborough Community LACAC;

- Joe Gill, Friends of Fort York, Toronto;

- Terry Russell, Toronto Historical Association;

- Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage;

- Carole Stimmell, Heritage Toronto; and

- David Hannah, Toronto.

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (March 18, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be adopted; and

(2) the Toronto District School Board be requested to set aside the $45,000 funds for demolition of the former Toronto Island School for a period of two years and, in the event that the building is determined to be demolished after that period, that the City assume any additional demolition costs.

The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (March 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To consider a proposal by Toronto Artscape Inc. to establish the Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts ("GPCA") at the former Toronto Island School.

Source of Funds:

The proponent would assume all costs associated with operation and maintenance of the Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts along with required renovation and tenant improvement works. There are funding issues related to the contractual arrangements between the Toronto District School Board ("School Board") and the contractor for the new school, respecting the demolition of the former school which are discussed in the report to follow.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council authorize an amendment to the Agreement dated August 29, 1997 between the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the former Board of Education for the City of Toronto which calls for demolition of the former Toronto Island School, to allow for retention of the main school building and demolition of some, all or none of the surrounding buildings, fencing and other exterior structures;

(2) Council approve in principle that the former Toronto Island School be leased to Toronto Artscape Inc. ("Artscape") for $1.00 per annum plus operating costs and taxes, to be operated as an arts centre;

(3) authority be granted to enter into negotiations with Artscape for a long term lease of the former Toronto Island School property on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the City Solicitor, with the result of such negotiations to be the subject of a further report to Committee and Council; and

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

Council Reference:

The Toronto Island School is a combination public and natural science school, located on City of Toronto parkland on the Toronto Islands. The school has been operated by the Toronto District School Board since the early 1900s. In 1995, the school board decided to build a new the facility on lands adjacent to the old school to meet their programme needs for a day and nature school, which was approved by the former Metropolitan Toronto Council, at its meeting on April 5, 1995.

A new island site was made available for the construction of a new facility by lease agreement dated August 29, 1997. This agreement provided that the existing school would be demolished, and the grounds restored to parkland condition acceptable to the Commissioner. The new school is expected to be completed in early 1999 with demolition scheduled later this spring.

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has received a proposal from Toronto Artscape Inc., working in cooperation with the Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts Committee, proposing the establishment of an arts centre at the existing Toronto Island School to be called the "Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts". The centre is envisioned as a multi-use, not-for-profit arts facility at which artists of different disciplines would rent affordable studio, rehearsal and performance space. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has since been presented with a business plan and renovation programme for the existing school as well as a request that demolition of the school be delayed until the proposal is considered by the Toronto City Council. Details of this proposal and issues associated with it are described in the body of this report.

The proponent for the proposal has changed from what was originally a group of Toronto Island residents to Toronto Artscape Inc., following Artscape's full endorsement of the project. Toronto Artscape Inc. is a not-for-profit organization that enables artists and arts organizations to secure low cost work and live/work space in the city. The organization has been operating since 1985 and is considered a model for pioneering new modes in art facility development in Canada. Artscape is renowned for championing community-driven arts facility development. Artscape manages a portfolio of five properties including 98 workspace studios and 130 work and live/work studios in downtown Toronto.

Discussion:

The proposed Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts will be a year-round facility that will make use of the entire former Island School (including the portables, for a total of approximately 26,000 square feet). With the intention of operating much like a small-scale version of the Banff Centre for the Arts, the centre will strengthen the arts community in Toronto by providing workspace, which may be rented for studio time, forums, workshops, rehearsals, retreats, conferences and special events. At the same time, this facility will provide an environment in which communities and ideas come together.

Artscape has a proven record of accomplishment in arts facility development and is committed to creating a self-sustaining operation on the island. Other sites operated by the agency are filled to 100% capacity and collectively have a waiting list of more than 100 artists. There is a strong support for the creation of the centre among island and other artists who have already expressed interest.

Artscape has proposed a governance model similar to one of their existing properties (1313 Queen St. West) which is also owned by the City. Artscape proposes that the Centre will be governed by a 12-person advisory board, made up of at least six island residents and two Artscape board members. The proponent has expressed an interest in Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff representation on such a board.

This proposal also includes a business plan which indicates that the GPCA operate at a surplus after the first half-year of operation (July to December, 1999) and thereafter. This is based on calculations incorporating occupancy rates (75% occupancy during the start up phase, 90% occupancy during the first full year of operations) and a one-time capital grant of $75,000 from the Trillium Foundation. Space will be rented hourly, weekly or by the square foot on an annual basis, depending on the function and size of space desired.

Artscape believes that their estimates for grant monies, operating budget and occupancy are quite conservative, and that it is very likely that actual revenues will be higher than estimated. We have also been informed that Artscape has been encouraged by the Trillium Foundation to apply for $75,000 more than is reflected in the budget. Moreover, other funding sources (e.g., corporate, Ontario Arts Council, Canada Arts Council) are likely over time, given the unique nature of this project.

Expenses for the Centre have been projected based on actual costs incurred in the operation of the old school. The annual cost to operate the Centre including two full time staff is projected at $252,370 during the first full year of operations. This amount includes property taxes, maintenance and repairs beyond the initial investment, contribution to a capital reserve account and contribution to Artscape overhead. The Centre's revenues are expected to grow to $306,164 by the end of its third full year of operations.

Artscape's proposal and complete financial projection is attached for further review (Appendix A).

Artscape's leading role in this project certainly heightens the centre's opportunity for success and sustainability. Having reviewed their proposal we believe it presents a number of exciting opportunities. The arts facility would meet an apparent demonstrated need for low-cost studio space in a unique and stimulating environment, allow for re-use of an existing building, further educational opportunities for island school students and the public, provide a unique public attraction, and increase off-season use of the Toronto Islands. Most importantly, the centre would promote arts and culture in the City of Toronto.

While the Toronto Island presents a number of important opportunities, it also presents several challenges. These include environmental concerns, the structural integrity of the buildings, and the obtaining of adequate security by the proponent.

Issues for Consideration:

Impact of Amending Board's Agreement with the City.

It should be noted that the amending of the School Board's lease without the benefit of any credit from the School Board or its contractor nor security posted by the proponent leaves the City potentially responsible for 100% of the cost of demolishing the former Toronto Island School unless the City enters into a new lease for the building.

Environmental Impact.

There are environmental and natural heritage concerns associated with the continued presence of a building on this site. The location of the proposed arts centre is located adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA #115, Hanlan's Area). The ESA is noted for its beach strand and willow beach communities and is the largest naturally vegetated area on the Toronto Islands. The ESA designation information is attached for further review (see Appendix B).

We are in receipt of an unsolicited letter from the president of the Toronto Ornithological Club stating that the proposal should not be considered due to the environmental sensitivity of the site (see Appendix C).

The former island school is also within an area that is subject to erosion. Earlier studies by engineering consultants have indicated this is not an immediate problem but will be in the 50-100 year period.

We have discussed this matter with the proponents and have their assurance that they are aware of the sensitivity of the site. They are prepared to work with Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and others to ensure that their activities will be compatible with the ESA, the dynamic shoreline, and the natural setting of this area of the island. Artscape has stated that they would like to naturalize their building surroundings and work to integrate the building into the natural setting.

Structural Integrity of the Building.

The structural soundness of the building raises several concerns. Further to requesting additional information relating to analysis of the existing building condition, likely repairs, conformance to codes etc., the department was supplied with three reports (a Structural Assessment, Architectural Inspection, and Heating and Ventilating) from the proponent. This information generally confirmed that the building could be retrofitted but would require certain work immediately and other work phased in over time (3 years). Some of the most pressing concerns with the condition of the building are:

- wood rot evidenced in the 1909 section of the building, which has resulted in settlement;

- possible asbestos in piping insulation;

- no supply ventilation and no air conditioning; and

- perceived immediate need for conversion of heating system from oil to natural gas.

Toronto Artscape has estimated that the cost to address all the repairs and purchase necessary items and supplies is $71,350 in the start-up phase (July to December 1999), $18,000 in the second year of operation, and $28,600 in the third year of operation.

The cost of repair work and timing of such repairs may not be sufficient or soon enough. The submitted reports, although helpful, contain some qualifiers (e.g., visual inspection, no destructive testing, no life-cycle costing) which have prompted our request for more detailed information from the authors or other experts. Details of structure, architectural and other costs should be confirmed before entering a lease agreement with Artscape. It is essential to have accurate estimates, as this will relate directly to the level of financial security the proponent must provide before undertaking repairs.

Sewer Capacity.

Given that the former school building was supposed to be demolished, it has not been assessed whether the capacity exists for servicing the two buildings, particularly with respect to sewer capacity. An engineering study needs to be carried out to make this determination. The School Board has been approached concerning this matter, recognizing the work carried out by their consultants in investigating sewer requirements for the new school.

Winter Conditions.

Winter weather and harbor ice conditions are also a matter of concern. The ferries to and from the Island operate on a restricted schedule during the winter and only go to Ward's Island and Hanlan's Point. Harbour ice conditions may also effect ferry service schedules and in some cases, cause cancellations. The proponents have been made aware of our concerns in this regard and are willing to acknowledge that the ferry schedule may be somewhat unpredictable during the winter.

Distance from Ferry Terminal.

Once having arrived on the Island, the Centre's visitors would then be required to travel to the school, which is approximately 2.5 km from Ward's Island docks. The proponent informs us that they are strongly committed to finding a solution and have identified options to make arrangements with school bus or marina shuttle operators, minimizing as much as possible any additional vehicle presence on the island.

Cost Security.

Equally significant are the ramifications regarding the possibility that the project proves unsuccessful. The City of Toronto as owner of a building would then be faced with an asset that in all likelihood would have to be demolished. While it may be possible for the City to obtain some credit back from the School Board through their contract, there will still be escalation and remobilization related costs. This would have to be secured from the proponent at its expense. To date, the school board notes that they will not postpone the demolition unless another group assumes full responsibility for the demolition costs. However, there may be opportunities for credit from the school board, which have yet to be explored.

Conditions of Agreement.

Recognizing the nature of the proposal, it is critical that the City be protected and not be required to assume any costs of renovations or in a worst case scenario, demolition of the existing facility. Accordingly, one condition of approval will be the requirement for Artscape to provide a Letter of Credit in an amount and on terms suitable to the Commissioner, the Treasurer and the City Solicitor. This requirement will be reduced as the project evolves and a stable and successful program emerges. The City Solicitor may have other issues that need to be addressed in an operating agreement.

Given Artscape's proven record of accomplishment, its partnership with the GPCA Committee, and the current demand for affordable, unique studio space, it is reasonable to expect long-term success. In conclusion, we believe that the proposal to create an arts facility that is in need and provides nurturing space for arts community, makes use of existing buildings and promotes arts and culture for the City is positive and one that should be embraced and supported.

Contact Names

Beth Hanna Frank Kershaw

392-5225 392-8199

John Macintyre Teresa Bosco

397-4451 392-8810

A copy of the following material was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 29, 1999 and April 6, 1999 agenda of the Economic Development Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- Appendix A - Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts Proposal and Executive Summary;

- Appendix B - Environmentally Significant Areas Study;

- Appendix C - (February 22, 1999) from Don Barnett, Conservation Committee, Toronto Ornithological Club;

- (February 12, 1999) from Councillor Bussin, East Toronto - Ward 26;

- (March 29, 1999) from Jessica Fraser, Executive Director, Toronto Theatre Alliance, requesting the Committee to endorse Artscape's request for the Gibraltar School for the purpose of turning into an arts and conference centre;

- (April 6, 1999) from Susan Serran, Project Coordinator, Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts, forwarding a sampling of letters in support for Artscape's proposal to transform the former Island Public School into the Gibraltar Centre for the Arts;

- Julie Stone, Toronto Islands, submitting three letters in support for the proposed Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts; and

- Toronto Artscape submitting three sketches.

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

- Tim Jones, Executive Director, Toronto Artscape;

- Jini Stolk, President, Board of Directors, Toronto Artscape;

- Julie Stone, Toronto Islands; and

- Michael C. Jones, Design Services, Toronto Board of Education.

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 8, 1999) from Ms. Gail Nyberg, Chair, Toronto District School Board, advising that the Board cannot assume any extra costs pertaining to the retention of the former Toronto Island School.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Changes to membership of Boards of Management for Business Improvement Areas require Council approval and a by-law amendment. Attached is Schedule A detailing the amendments to (former Toronto) Municipal Code, Chapter 20 and Appendix 1 listing the names of the nominees to be appointed.

Source of Funds:

No funds required. Business Improvement Area operating budgets are raised by a special levy on members.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) amendments be made to Schedule A Individual Boards of Management, of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas as set out in the attached Schedule A. These changes are specific to Number of Members and Members Needed for Quorum and are highlighted by "Changes From and To";

(2) Council appoint the nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report to the Boards of Management for Kingsway and Old Cabbagetown Business Improvement Areas;

(3) the term of office is to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended;

(4) leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

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

Comments:

The Board of Management of the Kingsway Business Improvement Area recommends Ms. Daniela Gatti and Ms. Maria Pater for appointment to the Board following the resignation of Ms. Rosalie Lahey.

The Board of Management of the Old Cabbagetown Business Improvement Area recommends Mr. Daniel Mayer, Mr. Calvin Combdon and Mr. Doug Chow for appointment to the Board following the resignations of Mr. Ian Adams and Ms. Maria Pedrosa. The quorum should remain at five.

Conclusions:

These amendments should be reflected in Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas.

As per Council's resolution at it's meeting of February 5 & 6, 1998, attached in Appendix 1 are the nominations for appointments to other Business Improvement Areas Boards of Management in the former area municipalities.

The nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report should be appointed to the Business Improvement Area, Boards of Management. The terms of office are to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended.

Contact Name:

Ingrid Girdauskas,

392-1134

Name of By-law Members

Business Which Number Council Members Needed

Improvement Designates of For

Area Area Members Number Ward Quorum

Changed Changed

From To From To

Old

Cabbagetown 1-82 9 10 1 Don River 5 5

Daniel Megley Daniel et Daniel

246/248 Carlton St.

Toronto, ON M5A 2L1

Calvin Combdon Carlton Hair

484 Parliament St.

Toronto, ON M4X 1P2

Doug Chow Shoppers Drug Mart

467 Parliament St.

Toronto, ON M5A 3A2

Daniela Gatti Scotiabank

2954 Bloor St. W.

Toronto, ON M8X 1B7

Maria Pater Dr. Thomaz Pater

2991 A Bloor St. W.

Toronto, ON M8X 1C1

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Changes to membership of Boards of Management for Business Improvement Areas require Council approval and a by-law amendment. Attached is Schedule A detailing the amendments to (former Toronto) Municipal Code, Chapter 20 and Appendix 1 listing the names of the nominees to be appointed.

Source of Funds:

No funds required. Business Improvement Area operating budgets are raised by a special levy on members.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) amendments be made to Schedule A Individual Boards of Management, of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas as set out in the attached Schedule A. These changes are specific to Number of Members and Members Needed for Quorum and are highlighted by "Changes From and To";

(2) Council appoint the nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report to the Boards of Management for Bloor/Bathurst-Madison, Bloorcourt Village, Corso Italia, Danforth by the Valley, Eglinton Way, Junction Gardens, Kennedy Road, Kingsway, Mimico by the Lake, and Mimico Village Business Improvement Areas;

(3) the term of office is to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended;

(4) leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

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

Comments:

The Board of Management of the Bloor/Bathurst-Madison Business Improvement Area has requested that the size of their Board be decreased from twelve to ten due to the resignations of Martin Sone and Julie Pelenyi. The quorum should be changed from six to five.

The Board of Management of the Bloorcourt Village Business Improvement Area recommends Mr. Doug Simms for appointment to the Board following the resignation of Mr. Jeff Long.

Neither the size of the Board of Management of the Bloorcourt Village Business Improvement Area or the quorum are affected by this appointment.

The Board of Management of the Corso Italia Business Improvement Area has requested that the size of their Board be decreased from ten to nine following the resignations of Mr. Mauro Del Rosso, Ms. Fulvia Mrusek and Mr. Damiano Racco. The Board also recommends that Mr. Mario Capo and Ms. Connie Lamanna be appointed to the Board. The quorum should remain at five.

The Board of Management of the Danforth by the Valley Business Improvement Area has requested that the size of their Board be decreased from ten to nine following the resignations of Ms. Pat Hughes, Mr. Richard Parrot and Ms. Lily Starasts. The Board also recommends that Ms. Lillian Adamakis and Mr. Tony Sabherwal be appointed to the Board. The quorum should remain at five.

The Board of Management of the Eglinton Way Business Improvement Area recommends Mr. Pat Iourio and Mr. Wayne Smith for appointment to the Board following the resignations of Ms. Trish Stuebing and Mr. Robert Williams.

Neither the size of the Board of Management of the Eglinton Way Business Improvement Area or the quorum are affected by these appointments.

The Board of Management of the Junction Gardens Business Improvement Area has requested that the size of their Board be decreased from twelve to ten following the resignations of Mr. Steve Mifsud and Ms. Catherine Woodbyrne with no appointments being recommended. The quorum should be changed from five to four.

The Board of Management of the Kennedy Road Business Improvement Area recommends Mr. Aized Ali, Mr. Rick Cartwright, Ms. Vira Persichilli, Ms. Donna Ryce, and Mr. Philip Serdaridis for appointment to the Board following the resignation of Mr. Jim Stravropolous.

The Board of Management of the Kingsway Business Improvement Area recommends Mr. Eugene Zalucky for appointment to the Board following the resignations of Mr. Sandy Bayzat and Mr. Biri Sodhi.

Following the elections held at the Annual General Meeting for the Mimico by the Lake Business Improvement Area and as per Council's resolution at it's meeting of February 5 and 6, 1998, the following are the nominations for appointments to the Mimico by the Lake Business Improvement Area Board of Management. Ms. Graciela Conde, Ms. Marion MacGarvie, Mr. Rod McManhon, Ms. Mary Abbale, Mr. Domenic Platsis, and Mr. T. Sartzetakis.

The Board of Management of the Mimico Village Business Improvement Area recommends Mr. Dave Carr for appointment to the Board following the resignation of Mr. John Baggs.

Conclusions:

These amendments should be reflected in Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas.

As per Council's resolution at it's meeting of February 5 and 6, 1998, attached in Appendix 1 are the nominations for appointments to other Business Improvement Areas Boards of Management in the former area municipalities.

The nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report should be appointed to the Business Improvement Area, Boards of Management. The terms of office are to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended.

Contact Name:

Ingrid Girdauskas

(tel.) 392-1134

Business Improvement Areas

Individual Boards of Management

Name of By-law Members

Business Which Number Council Members Needed

Improvement Designates of For

Area Area Members Number Ward Quorum

Changed Changed

From To From To

Bloor/ 1995-0688 12 10 2 Downtown, 6 5

Bathurst Midtown

Madison

Corso Italia 807-83 10 9 1 Davenport 5 5

Danforth by 611-86 10 9 1 Don River 5 5

the Valley

Junction 8-73 12 10 3 Davenport 5 4

Gardens

Doug Simms Bloorcourt Pet Food

856 Bloor St. W.

Toronto, ON M6G 1M2

Mario Capo International Sports Bar

1248 St. Clair Ave. W.

Toronto, ON M6E 1B7

Connie Lamanna Ontario Textiles

1356 St. Clair Ave. W.

Toronto, ON M6E 1C4

Pat Iuorio TD Bank

313 Eglinton Ave. W.

Toronto, ON M5N 1A1

Wayne Smith Bank of Nova Scotia

438 Eglinton Ave. W.

Toronto, ON M5N 1A2

Aized Ali Humza Group Inc.

2300 Lawrence Ave. E.

Toronto, ON M1P 2R2

Rick Cartwright The Office Place

2251 Lawrence Ave. E.

Toronto, ON M1P 2P5

Vira Persichilli Snow City Cycle

1255 Kennedy Rd.

Toronto, ON M1P 2L4

Donna Ryce Royal Bank

1421 Kennedy Rd.

Toronto, ON M1P 2L6

Philip Serdaridis National Bank of Greece (Canada)

2290 Lawrence Ave. E.

Toronto, ON M1P 2R2

Graciela Conde Hair Rage

2370 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Toronto, ON M8V 1B6

Marion MacGarvie I Dream

2469 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Toronto, ON M8V 1C5

Rod McManhon Maximum Music DJ Services

4 Mimico Ave.

Toronto, ON N8V 1C9

Mary Abbale Canada Trust

2472 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Toronto, ON M8V 1C9

Domenic Platsis Canadiana Restaurant

2454 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Toronto, ON M8V 1C9

T. Szrtzetakis Hail's Home Hardware

2404 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Toronto, ON M8V 1C4

Dave Carr Bank of Nova Scotia

406 Royal York Rd.

Toronto, ON M8Y 2R5

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his son is the President of the Kennedy Road Business Improvement Area.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To ensure unbroken delivery of concession services to this park pending a more comprehensive

City-wide review of concession services.

Source of Funds:

None.

Financial Impact:

No financial impact.

Recommendations:

(1) that the current agreement between the City and Carla Construction and Maintenance Ltd. to operate the Trackless Train Concession in High Park be extended for one year; and

(2) that the operation of the Trackless Train continue subject to the same conditions and terms as set out in this report in the form acceptable to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

Background:

On July 2, 1996 City Council of the former City of Toronto adopted Clause No. 11 of Executive Committee Report No. 17, entitled "Tenders - Letting of the Right to Operate a Trackless Train Concession in High Park". The approval granted the proposal submitted by Mr. G. C. Jain, President of Carla Construction and Maintenance Ltd. ("Carla Construction") be accepted, granting Mr. Jain an extension from a five year term to a seven year term (from May 15, 1992 to October 31^st, 1998). This extension was granted to Mr. Jain's request, in order that he could meet the Trackless Train modification requirements (including installation of a scrubber for the exhaust system, rain curtains, a p.a. system and wheelchair accessibility to the train, at a cost to Mr. Jain estimated at $10,000.00 per train), and recover the expenditures involved. Mr. Jain also agreed to a rate schedule (not to increase rates by more than $0.50 in any calendar year), which also includes one stop over privilege for the riders.

Given the scope of the modifications noted above, Mr. Jain was not required to pay annual rent nor a percentage of his gross sales to the City. He is responsible, however, for the maintenance and repair of the trains (which he owns) as well as the repair and maintenance of the service building, located adjacent to the High Park Greenhouse, where the trains are stored and repaired during each operating season. Mr. Jain must also pay all utility charges (including all gas, water, telephone and hydro-electric rates) as well as all realty and business taxes charged on the concession operation or the lands on which the service building is located. Mr. Jain is requesting an extension for the upcoming 1999 season, subject to the same terms and conditions.

Comments:

The contract has now expired and does not explicitly provide for an extension. Mr. Jain is proposing to operate the Trackless Train operation for the upcoming 1999 season. Carla Construction and Maintenance Ltd. has been successfully operating the Trackless Trains in High Park for many years and has provided an excellent means of transportation and recreation for park patrons. The Department is supportive of this extension and the service being provided should continue without interruption at this site.

Further, the Department is initiating an extensive review of concessions under the jurisdiction across the new City. This review will examine both internally provided concessions and contracted concessions. Further, comprehensive, standardized by-laws relating to concessions and other goods and services agreements need to be established.

Carla Construction and Maintenance Ltd. has provided a unique and enjoyable experience in operating the Trackless Train to people visiting High Park, and given the time line for the full harmonization of concession revenues, staff believe that the extension of this particular contract is appropriate.

Contact Name:

Mario Zanetti, Director of Parks and Recreation, South District,

Tel. No. 392-7252

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

(a) provide information on the results of the grant allocations under the Economic Development Partnership Program (EDP Program), as requested by Council at its meeting of November 25, 26, 27, 1998;

(b) respond to the request made by Economic Development Committee on February 12, 1999 for a report to its meeting of March 26, 1996 meeting reviewing the Economic Development Partnership Program to determine if the Riverdale Tourism Initiative can be supported in the future;

(c) recommend a course of action to manage the EDP Program in 1999; and

(d) advise Committee members of the Economic Development Division's plans to evaluate the objectives and delivery of the EDP Program in the context of the City's emerging Economic Development strategy, and report on recommended refinements to the program at the September, 1999 meeting of the Economic Development Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee and the Budget Committee have recommended that an amount of $337,000 from the 1999 Economic Development Grants budget be allocated to the Economic Development Partnership Program. This amount is equal to the 1998 Economic Development Partnership Program funding.

This amount is subject to approval by Council in the 1999 budget process.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the EDP Program be available to eligible applicants across the City of Toronto;

(2) the 1999 EDP Program application contain standardized performance indicators for the purpose of evaluating program outcomes;

(3) applicants be advised, in writing, that the program will undergo a review in 1999 that will include ensuring consistency with the City's emerging economic development strategy and that any changes effecting the program in the year 2000 will be communicated to client groups prior to December 1999;

(4) Economic Development Division staff be directed to consult with previous grant recipients while undertaking the review, and other key departmental client groups to determine the most effective and equitable means of delivering the EDP Program;

(5) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report in September 1999 to the Economic Development Committee on the outcome of the consultations and recommendations for restructuring the program; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 Council directed the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on the results of grant allocations under the Economic Development Partnership Program over the past few years.

On February 12, 1999 the Economic Development Committee heard a deputation from the Riverdale Community Business Centre concerning the a tourism initiative that was funded by the Economic Development Partnership Program. At that meeting the Committee directed staff to report back on March 26, 1999 with a review of the former grant programs which were made in the past to determine if the deputants would be eligible for support in the future.

This report responds to both requests for information and has been prepared in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer.

Comments:

The Economic Development Partnership Program was established in 1995 by the former City of Toronto to provide seed funding to facilitate the start-up or expansion of projects that would provide substantial long term economic benefits to the City. The program provides for two categories of support: one time only projects; and developmental projects that are eligible for support for a maximum of five years, with the maximum support in the fourth and fifth year set at 50% and 25% respectively of the level of support provided in the third year.

Priority was given to projects with a strong potential of becoming self sustaining within the five year time frame of the program and which involved substantive partnerships with the private sector or other levels of government. Applicants were required to submit a business plan and detailed budget demonstrating an ability to attract corporate support for the initiative.

Summary of the Results of EDP Program Grants:

Since its inception in 1995, the EDP Program has provided grants to more than 30 organizations covering a broad range of interests, including, but not restricted to: the Toronto International Film Festival Industry Centre, Toronto Dragon Boat Race, Canadian Music Week, Heritage Skills Co-op Bakery, Contact Photography Association, the Canadian Aboriginal Festival, and the Riverdale Tourism Marketing Initiative. A full list of organizations that have received funding is attached as "Appendix A" to this report.

Given the diversity of purposes for which funds were used by each organization and the diverse nature and maturity of the organizations funded, the outcomes and method of reporting results varied from recipient to recipient. While the former City of Toronto staff and Council were diligent in their efforts to evaluate each application, there were no formal performance measures in place that would provide a meaningful comparative evaluation of the results achieved.

In an effort to collect information for this report, Economic Development staff selected 13 of the previously funded programs at random and conducted telephone interviews with the staff from these organizations. Interviewees are shown on the list provided in "appendix A". While much of the information is anecdotal, the interviews confirmed that in each instance the City's broad objectives in providing the funds were met. Applicants used the funds for the purpose intended and advanced the goals of their organizations as stated in their requests for funding.

Interviewees consistently report that:

- seed funding provided by the EDP Program allowed the organization to test or launch new initiatives;

- City participation helped groups leverage additional senior government and private sector support;

- existing activities or events were expanded to reach larger audiences; and

- community partnerships were established, new community networks were developed.

It should be noted that in most instances the applicants had ongoing client relationships with the former City of Toronto Economic Development Office and the program for which grant funding was requested was aligned with the office's strategic priorities. The organizations were, for the most part, well known to the staff and the proposals were evaluated and approved in the context of their ongoing activities with the City.

The absence of standardized performance indicators for the grants program makes it difficult to provide the Committee with additional details of the outcomes of the program. Staff have identified this matter as a weakness of the program and have ensured that performance criteria will beset out in the 1999 program guidelines.

1999 Economic Development Partnership Program Delivery:

The Economic Development Division is currently undergoing a process that will lead to the development of an Economic Development Strategy for Council's consideration in the spring of 1999. While the EDP Program in it's current form is a valuable tool for the Division, it is anticipated that findings of the strategy may lead to some changes in the grant program to better support the priorities of the strategy.

Given that there are 15 applicants that are eligible for funding under the previous program guidelines, many of which have time sensitive funding requirements, staff are recommending that the 1999 EDP Program continue on the same basis as in 1998 subject to the following refinements:

(a) the program be available to applicants across the new City of Toronto;

(b) two application deadlines be set; one in April, 1999 and one in September 1999;

(c) new program funding be aligned with the key sectors that are served by the Division i.e., Medical/Biotechnology, Food Processing, Information Technology / Telecommunications / New Media and Tourism;

(d) applications include a requirement to monitor projects through standardized performance indicators dealing with matters such as, but not restricted to, number of jobs created, number of local suppliers used, funds leveraged, long term benefits of the project; and

(e) at least $50,000 of the program budget be reserved to fund new initiatives submitted by new applicants to the program.

With the 1998 guidelines in place, groups such as the Riverdale Tourism Initiative would be eligible to apply for funding in 1999, however , as in previous years the projects funded are determined by the quality of the proposal as well as the number of applications received. A copy of the 1999 application form has been attached as "Appendix B" to this report.

The EDP Program for 2000 and Beyond:

The EDP Program has been a useful economic development initiative for the former City of Toronto and every effort will be made to ensure that the program continues to support the economic development priorities of the amalgamated City of Toronto in the future.

The current staff in Economic Development have had limited experience with the EDP program thus far, however, several questions have emerged and will be answered as part of the ongoing program review in 1999, for example:

(a) What elements of the program might be revised to prove closer linkages with the ongoing sector development work being conducted by the Economic Development Division. For example, currently there are no projects being supported in the Medical/Biotechnology or New Media/Information Technology or Telecommunications Sector.

(b) Should greater emphasis be placed on funding projects that have measurable city-wide benefits, as opposed to local community economic development initiatives?

(c) What are the most appropriate performance measures for the program?

(d) Should the maximum eligibility of 5 years for each applicant be reduced to 3 years, in order to accelerate and promote self sufficiency of the organizations?

(e) Should private organizations continue to be eligible for funding under this program? Currently there are no private organizations being funded, however, under the current guidelines they would be eligible.

(f) What is the best process for evaluating applications? In the former City of Toronto, a sub-committee of the Economic Development Committee reviewed applications and made recommendations to Council. In 1998, applications were reviewed internally by staff. Should there be a process of peer review or should existing sector networks (TBI, Smart Toronto, FILC etc.) be asked to provide input and guidance?

(g) Should the program be restructured to allow ongoing funding for organizations? The EDP Program was established to provide seed monies to get projects off the ground and provide the opportunity for other revenue sources to be developed. However, there are some organizations in the program, such as the Toronto International Film Festival, Cinematheque Ontario, and the Toronto Theatre Alliance that provide pivotal activities to the City and warrant ongoing funding.

(h) What are the most appropriate application deadlines? In 1998 there was a spring and fall funding cycle, with limited resources to manage the program. It may be prudent to limit the application deadline to once per year.

(i) What are the most effective means of marketing the program city-wide?

To effectively answer these questions staff propose that consultations be conducted with Economic Development Division clients representing a wide range of sector associations as well as past and potential future applicants. The findings will be reported to the Economic Development Committee to ensure that any revisions to the program can be made in ample time for past recipients to be notified of changes and to communicate the program to organizations city-wide prior to the 2000 funding cycle.

Conclusions:

The review of the results of the Economic Development Partnership Program has confirmed that the funds provided by the City were used for their proposed purpose and the Economic Development Division believe that the program has been useful.

In the short term, for 1999, Economic Development Division staff recommend that the existing program requirements remain in effect, subject to additional reporting requirements by applicants on the results of initiative for which they have received funding. In the coming year further analysis will be conducted on the program to determine how best to align it with the City's new economic development objectives.

The Chief Administrative Officer has been consulted in the development of this report.

Contact Name:

Eva Pyatt

Manager, Sector & Strategic Partnerships

Economic Development

Telephone: 392-3378

(A copy of Appendix A and Appendix B attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 29, 1999 and April 6, 1999 agenda of the Economic Development Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the Economic Development Committee, in one year's time, on the status of TradeLink Toronto; and

(2) the following motion be referred to the Economic Development Committee for consideration in the development of performance indicators and performance measurement:

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is further recommended that, if TradeLink Toronto is not financially self-sustaining by September, 2000, it be dismantled, and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on a process for dismantling TradeLink Toronto should it not prove to be profitable by that date.' ")

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report reviews the various activities of the Economic Development Division (EDD) and its partners, Centennial College and the National Trade Centre, in the development and delivery of the TradeLink Toronto initiative at the National Trade Centre (NTC), and outlines activities planned for 1999. The attached TradeLink Business Plan is the work plan and operating agreement by which the partners will operate TradeLink at the NTC.

TradeLink Toronto (also referred to as "TradeLink" throughout this report) is an economic development initiative combining:

(1) physical space at the NTC;

(2) a series of programs focussed on increasing exports from Toronto businesses; and

(3) a Community Development Corporation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No immediate financial implications. In accordance with Economic Development's 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the business plan outline for TradeLink for 1999 be approved in principal and forwarded to the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place for consideration;

(2) Economic Development staff enter into negotiations with the Interim General Manager of National Trade Centre and the Interim General Manager of Exhibition Place to formalize an operating agreement for TradeLink to include appropriate allocation of costs and revenues;

(3) the 1999 budget for TradeLink be presented to Economic Development Committee once the operating agreement has been formalized; and

(4) the City Solicitor be instructed to advise on the restructuring of TradeLink Corporation's Board of Directors.

Background/History:

EDD fulfils its mandate by working across a number of strategic industry sectors in partnership with a variety of outside organizations. Promoting trade and export development has always been a focus of our efforts; however, with the opportunities afforded to the City by the National Trade Centre, this area has become an increasingly important element in EDD's activity mix.

The TradeLink initiative was formulated under the former Metro and "TradeLink" was adopted as an official mark of Metro. A Community Development Corporation has been formed, the business has been registered as TradeLink Toronto, and TradeLink is now a strategic and integral component of the Business Development and Retention unit of the amalgamated EDD.

The mission for TradeLink remains unchanged: "TradeLink, a unique combination of Economic Development space and programming within the National Trade Centre, will maximize wealth creation through the growth of trade and investment within Toronto Region's economy.

The strategic objectives supporting this mission are:

- growing trade, exports and investment;

- developing international business;

- accessing key markets; and

- linking the regional economy with the world economy."

The TradeLink program is an extension of EDD's current activities. It is a set of programs designed both to support the mandate of the Division and the NTC, while at the same time generating some new revenues in a more entrepreneurial fashion outside those traditionally funded by the taxpayer.

Update:

In the past year, TradeLink has been formally promoted to trade organizations, consulates, and trade-related programs of the federal and provincial governments, as a prime facility for hosting trade-related events. Proposals for joint funding, joint programming, and ongoing in-kind support were developed, and presented both to groups such as Trade Team Ontario and to individual organizations.

Working with the organizers of selected trade shows at the NTC, TradeLink has offered space, programming and information services during several trade shows. These services highlighted Toronto as an international business centre, to offer advice and information to export-ready businesses represented at the shows, and to assist both NTC and the show organizers in enhancing the shows through value-added programming and services.

TradeLink has also provided information on international markets, export support programs, financing options, trade show opportunities, and other export-related opportunities, to Toronto Region businesses. Enquiries have been triggered by promotion and public relations efforts (including a presentation review which appeared in the Silicon Valley North newspaper), by referrals from Small Business Centres and other EDD activities, by referrals from the Canadian Technology Network, and by TradeLink's activities during trade shows at the NTC.

TradeLink's programming partner, Centennial College Centre for Entrepreneurship (subsequently referred to in this report as "Centennial"), has offered a number of trade-related seminars and workshops at the TradeLink facility, both as part of trade show programming and independently, and these have also served to highlight the City's support to local businesses in areas of export-readiness, trade logistics and financing, and international marketing.

Preliminary negotiations were held with potential sponsors and suppliers for the additional equipment required to bring the facility to state-of-the-art. The DX-Net proposal by the Design Exchange, which would use the TradeLink facility as a network site for co-ordinating international design bids, has received funding.

To a certain extent, these TradeLink activities have contributed towards achieving one of the benefits anticipated of the National Trade Centre: "help Metro become a focal point for trade in the northeast, and assist Canadian business in reaching the international market more effectively and economically".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The incorporating documents for the TradeLink Corporation set appointments to the Board based on official positions that no longer exist ie. Chairman of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. With amalgamation, amendments are necessary to the by-law of the Community Development Corporation defining the composition of the Board of Directors. This represents an opportunity to include on the board of directors representatives from all TradeLink partners: from the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, Economic Development Committee, management from the National Trade Centre, Centennial College. Representing the business community, a representative from the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada would also be desirable. The legal process for accomplishing this change must be determined.

A single staff member has been assigned to TradeLink by EDD, and part-time Centennial staff at TradeLink include a highly qualified trade consultant, and clerical staff for marketing activities. This staff complement, and the fact that, as a self-funding initiative, only $16,500 of City funds has been allocated to the service, will necessarily restrict the proposed work plans for TradeLink during 1999.

TradeLink activities in 1999

(1) TradeLink Information Service

TradeLink provides a "one-stop-shop" for information about trade, exporting, export financing and foreign markets. Clients of this service include EDD staff and their clients, participants in TradeLink training programs, show exhibitors and visitors, and local businesses. The service also provides information research to the marketing unit of the NTC, and to show organizers. For example, TradeLink & EDD staff assisted NTC's Marketing Department in attracting the new InterMed '99 trade show to the NTC, and are also working with the show organizer on marketing and programming.

This service directly supports EDD's goal to enhance the capacity of local firms to grow and compete nationally and internationally. It increases the appreciation among Toronto businesses, of the City's support for exporters. Through intelligence gathering and information sharing, it increases EDD's knowledge of the export-readiness of local businesses. The service also assists the NTC and show organizers to attract and enhance trade shows, thereby increasing the contribution of the NTC to the local economy.

(2) International Trade Training Programs

Centennial College Centre for Entrepreneurship, TradeLink's programming partner, has established relationships with a number of significant players in the export training area, and as their agent offers export training programs at the TradeLink facility. These programs are offered on behalf of the Forum for International Trade Training, Team Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Canadian Importers Association. Centennial also delivers programs on effective marketing at trade shows with private sector trainers. As appropriate, the programs may also be hosted by the City's Gateway Office and Small Business Centres.

These sessions will be promoted widely by Centennial and the program sponsors, and will be held at TradeLink regularly throughout the year. Both the promotion and the seminars will increase awareness among businesses of the roles that TradeLink and the NTC play in increasing international trade from Toronto.

(3) Trade Show Programs

Centennial continues to work with trade show organizers and the NTC to develop and offer programs to complement show themes. For example, TradeLink was the venue for "featured country" activities during the CNE, enhancing the business-to-business component of an otherwise consumer-oriented show.

Other TradeLink initiatives add an exporting component to the shows, thereby increasing the awareness among show organizers and exhibitors of the support and encouragement that the City and the NTC give to exporters.

Both the trade training and the trade show programs will be offered by Centennial on a fee-for-service basis. EDD will provide in-kind support, including market research assistance, tailored information services during the programs, and audio visual and office facilities.

(4) "International Business Links" at selected Trade Shows

Based on the success of similar initiatives during 1998 such as the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, TradeLink will offer an "International Business Links" facility during selected trade shows. The service will include a Resource Centre providing information on local businesses and the Toronto economy, for both investors and foreign buyers and exhibitors. EDD will also make sector specialists available for individual consultation with foreign exhibitors and visitors.

With sufficient sponsorship, TradeLink will also be able to arrange for individual business meetings between foreign exhibitors and local businesses, and between local exhibitors and foreign buyers, in business-like surroundings immediately prior to and after the shows.

Such activities should enhance the value of the trade shows for visitors and exhibitors alike, and help to position the NTC and the City as key in fostering international business. The availability of such a unique service at the NTC should encourage trade shows to use the NTC, thereby contributing to EDD's goal to attract new business the City.

(5) Exporting assistance to Local Business

TradeLink's facilities and services, will be part of the portfolio of City services promoted to local businesses by the Economic Development Officers and Sector Development Officers of the Business Development and Retention unit, and at the Small Business Centres. EDD staff will have first-hand experience of the export training programs through attendance at Team Canada's Going Global seminars. Sector specialists, and the staff of EDD's Investment Marketing unit, will be involved in TradeLink activities as appropriate. The TradeLink information service will proactively alert EDD staff to exporting programs and market opportunities, as appropriate to their business constituents.

In this way, TradeLink will directly support the EDD goal of enhancing the capability of local firms to compete nationally and internationally.

(6) Co-ordination with other Trade-related Organizations

Throughout the year, TradeLink, EDD and Centennial staff will be in contact with trade-related organizations such as Trade Team Ontario, bilateral Chambers of Commerce, and trade associations. TradeLink will use these networking opportunities to further promote the use of TradeLink's facilities and services, and their sponsorship and joint programming potential.

This activity should enhance co-operation on export initiatives between the City and other levels of government, as well as increasing the prominence of the NTC and TradeLink as agents for export promotion within the City of Toronto.

(7) Liaison with Industry Associations

TradeLink will actively promote its facilities and services to industry associations and local business associations. Many of these hold trade shows, networking events and exporting seminars, for which the TradeLink facilities at the NTC would be an ideal venue. TradeLink's information services can also be marketed to local businesses through their industry associations, which may also sponsor the service as a member benefit. TradeLink will also provide articles, presentations and other expert services to the associations, as a way to reach their members and as a marketing and promotion opportunity for TradeLink and the NTC.

By positioning itself to industry associations as a focal point of exporting information and programming, TradeLink will enhance the City's image among association members as in ideal place to do international business. TradeLink will thus leverage the associations' national reach, and serve as a marketing channel for the City.

(8) Training and Orientation for Trade Missions

TradeLink has been successful in hosting overseas trade missions, and orientation and training for participants in such missions.

The closer involvement of other EDD staff, particularly those in Investment Marketing such as the International Alliances Coordinator, will also be an advantage in an NTC-EDD-Centennial partnership for mission-related events. We anticipate that such orientations will be funded by the hosting organization, either Team Canada or the overseas agency.

(9) Trade Show Incubation

The agreement with NTC allows TradeLink to offer trade show floor space to "incubate" or develop new trade shows, by providing no cost/low cost floor space. TradeLink will work with the NTC in evaluating opportunities for, and developing, new trade shows.

This activity will develop new customers for the NTC and will enhance EDD's services to strategic industry sectors in Toronto.

(10) Physical Space at the NTC

Three aspects of physical space require further attention.

(a) TradeLink space at the NTC is also used independently of TradeLink services, as adjunct space to shows occupying the main halls of the NTC;

(b) The agreement with the NTC allows TradeLink yearly access of up to one million square foot days of space elsewhere in the NTC; and

(c) TradeLink's windows are an ideal site for sponsorship by export-related organizations, particularly those in the public sector. Diagrams of the TradeLink space at the NTC are included in the TradeLink Business Plan, attached.

For TradeLink and its partners to fully develop the revenue and activity potential of these vertical and horizontal spaces, a cost and revenue sharing process needs to be agreed between the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, the NTC and TradeLink.

(11) Promoting TradeLink Facilities and Services

Promotion of TradeLink as a focal point for local exporters will be inherent in the marketing of the programs and services described. Networking and negotiating meetings with trade-related organizations, industry associations and show organizers will promote TradeLink to those organizations who deal directly with export-ready businesses. Presentations at association meetings, articles in their newsletters, direct mail advertising of seminars offered at TradeLink, and the client call program of EDD, will all be channels to reach export-ready businesses directly. Through close co-operation with the Marketing Department of the NTC, TradeLink will also promote its services to trade show organizers.

(12) Revenue and Cost Allocation Issues

The original concept of self-sufficiency as outlined in Report No. 27 of The Financial Priorities Committee for TradeLink as adopted by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on November 20, 1996 remains: "EDD has a goal of achieving self-sufficiency of the TradeLink program over time. It is expected that, at program maturity (year five), program costs will be fully offset by program revenues." The programs planned for 1999 were selected for their effectiveness and alternative funding options are considered so as not to compromise the quality of the services offered.

Nor have the difficulties anticipated in EDD's 1996 report changed. "It will require a significant effort on the part of EDD to generate and sustain these revenues because of the nature of the business mix of TradeLink. . . The programs which will be delivered at TradeLink, such as trade/export training or the hosting of incoming trade missions, are now typically low cost/no cost services which will have to be priced in accordance with the sensitivity of the marketplace.

Similarly, facilities such as the meeting room and the theatre are often perceived as "give-away" items to show producers and event organizers and will, therefore, demand limited revenues."

Marketing efforts in 1997 and 1998 have shown these assessments to be accurate, and it has proved hard to distinguish the high quality programming and information services offered by TradeLink, from the space that TradeLink occupies. However, the NTC's competitive position as a trade show venue lies not just on the space, but on the superiority of the services provided to show organizers, and TradeLink is one such unique service that the NTC offers.

In the same 1996 report to Council, it was proposed that an agreement be made on the appropriate allocation of costs and revenues between the various parties, and that in particular allocation of costs to the TradeLink program be phased in over a four-year period, to lessen the direct impact on the tax base. Similarly, it was recognised that revenues from TradeLink activities will accrue in several places, including the NTC in incremental revenues for parking and other services. In 1997 and 1998, revenues for TradeLink activities also accrued to EDD's partner, Centennial College for Entrepreneurship.

The agreement proposed in the 1996 report to Council has not been completed. As EDD and Centennial negotiate with other organizations for joint programming, signage and other promotions of export-related initiatives, shared access to electronic facilities such as DX-Net, an agreement between all current parties, and encompassing access, ownership, revenue sharing and cost allocation has become critical. A copy of Report No. 27 of The Financial Priorities Committee, as adopted by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on November 26, 1996 can be found in Appendix 1.

Conclusions:

The partnerships described in this report will continue to support EDD's efforts to promote international trade in Toronto, enhance the services of the National Trade Centre, and support potential exporters.

Contact Names:

Maggie Weaver, TradeLink Coordinator, Economic Development 263-3510

Brenda Librecz, Managing Director, Economic Development 397-4700

Bruce Graham, Director, Business Development & Retention 392-3381

Eva Pyatt, Manager, Sector & Strategic Partnerships, Economic Development 392-3378

(A copy of Appendix A attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 29, 1999 and April 6, 1999 agenda of the Economic Development Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Economic Development Committee for further consideration; and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism was requested to submit a further report to the Committee, following consultation with all Members of Council, such report to also address an alternative method of allocating the permits which would encourage the ownership of vending carts by small, local businesses.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism subject to the addition of the following new Recommendation (3) and that the existing Recommendation (3) be renumbered Recommendation (4):

"(3) that this permitting program be reviewed in one year's time; and".

The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report seeks Council approval of a permitting program for vending carts to conduct business in City parks. Such a program could generate new revenues of $150,000 a year while providing a value added service to park visitors.

Source of Funds:

This program would be conducted within the framework of existing permitting sections and would not result in additional costs. The program, however, could generate new revenues of $150,000 a year.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this program be approved subject to the terms and conditions contained in this report;

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism be authorized in conjunction with the Legal and Purchasing Departments to develop and execute a bid process for the award of permits; and

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

Background:

In the past, the former municipalities had various policies with regard to the permitting of vending carts in City parks. Metro in particular conducted an active program generating $50,000 a year in permit fees. A similar City wide program is now recommended with a view to addressing;

(a) revenue enhancement budget commitments and the need to generate new revenues;

(b) the benefits of having one policy/program City wide; and

(c) the desire to provide a value added service to park visitors.

Comments and Discussion:

The Department believes that the introduction of a City wide permitting program for vending carts in parks, firmly addresses the need for new revenue generation while at the same time providing a value added service to park visitors. An inventory of parks that would participate in the program is contained in Appendix I.

The following are some features of the program:

- in the spirit of a fair open competition, permits will be obtained through a minimum bid/tender process;

- all parks will be classified by the number of visitations during the peak summer months and the latter will reflect the minimum bid per permit per park (Appendix II);

- successful bidders will be governed by the terms and conditions as outlined in Appendix III;

- the program will be administered at no additional cost through the existing permitting sections within the Parks and Recreation Division; and

- he program will be implemented in time for this summer season.

Conclusion:

Acknowledging the beneficial aspects of this initiative and the aggressive timelines involved the Department seeks Council approval to proceed with the implementation of this program as soon as possible.

Contact Name:

John Macintyre

Director of Parks and Recreation , Central Services and Waterfront

Telephone: 397-4451

Park Classification Peak Period Visitations Minimum Bid

Two Carts Per Park

A 300,000 plus $5,000

B 240,000 - 300,000 $3,000

C 180,000 - 240,000 $2,000

D 120,000 - 180,000 $1,200

E 60,000 - 120,000 $ 700

F Under 60,000 $ 300

Peak Period

Mid May - Mid September

Approximately 120 days

Permits

- Permits will be issued for one calendar year (May 15, 1999 - May 15, 2000) in accordance with an established bid process.

- Permits not issued as a result of the above, will be issued afterwards on a first come, first serve basis at a fee equal to the minimum bid requirement.

- Permits, at this time, will not be issued for motorized vending vehicles.

- Permits, subject to the approval of Parks and Recreation District Staff will be issued for parks not listed in the official inventory. Said permits will be issued on a first come, first served basis, at a flat fee of $500.00.

- Permits, where and when appropriate will be issued for additional vending carts to the vendor who has the park permit. A fee of $200.00 per cart per day will be charged. Said permits must be requested when obtaining the park permit.

- All permit fees will be paid in full upon issuance of the permit.

Food and Beverage

- Food and beverage must be of high quality and reasonably priced. Price ceilings will be provided.

- Food and beverage must be stored and served under the most sanitary conditions in accordance with all public health regulations.

- Food and beverage lines associated with cooked foods prepared on premises (example hamburgers), alcohol and others so deemed by the Commissioner will not be permitted. Glass bottled products will not be allowed. A list of product lines will be provided.

Operations

- Vendors will be entitled to bring two carts into a park to be placed in an area designated by Parks and Recreation staff.

- Vending carts must not exceed ten feet in length and four feet in width.

- Vendors must ensure that their equipment is presentable and in good repair.

- Vendors carts must be removed from parks each night unless written permission is received from Parks and Recreation staff.

- Vendors must provide a clean and courteous service at all times.

- Vendors are responsible for keeping their area (ten feet around each cart) clean and for removing and disposing garbage.

- Vendors must ensure that their service compliments the park setting and as such improper attire, noisy equipment, loud music, etc. will not be allowed.

Licences, Standards and Insurance

- Vendors must be in possession of all appropriate vending licences the latter being visible for quick identification.

- Vendors must comply with all acts, regulations and standards e.g. the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

- Vendors shall provide proof of General Liability Insurance coverage with a minimum limit of liability per occurrence of $1,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage naming the City of Toronto as an additional insured, as its interests may appear.

In the event of non compliance and after appropriate notice, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism reserves the right to cancel a permit without the benefit of refund.

(A copy of Appendix I attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 29, 1999 and April 6, 1999 agenda of the Economic Development Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the reports (March 23, 1999 and April 1, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded a copy of the foregoing reports to the Budget Committee for its information.

The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (March 23, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report brings forward the Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual budgets, which have been received and reviewed to date, for approval by Council as required by Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended. Council approval is required to permit the City to collect funds through the tax levy on behalf of the BIAs. Subsequent reports will bring forward BIA budgets received after this date.

Source of Funds:

No City funding is required since Business Improvement Area budgets are raised by a special levy on members.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Economic Development Committee adopt and certify to City Council the 1999 expenditure requests of the following Business Improvement Areas:

Business Improvement Area 1999 Budget Request

($)

Bloor/Bathurst-Madison 22,000

Bloor by the Park 41,000

Bloorcourt Village 53,000

Bloordale Village 79,050

Bloor West Village 256,908

Bloor-Yorkville 1,133,500

Corso Italia 160,000

Danforth by the Valley 64,930

Eglinton Way 176,845

Gerrard India Bazaar 60,000

Greektown on the Danforth 259,396

Harbord Street 26,000

Junction Gardens 129,260

Keele-Eglinton 14,667

Kennedy Road 241,000

Kingsway 131,000

Lakeshore 31,775

Little Italy 103,210

Mimico Village 8,000

Old Cabbagetown 139,973

Roncesvalles Village 98,300

Weston 149,087

(2) the Economic Development Committee adopt and certify to City Council the 1999 expenditures of the Parkdale Village, Pape Village and St. Lawrence Neighbourhood BIAs of $110,000, $36,000 and $70,000, respectively, subject to documentation being provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer that the BIAs' budgets were duly approved by their Boards of Management and Membership at their annual general meetings;

(3) a copy of this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information; and,

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

BIA Budget Process:

The Municipal Act requires that BIA budgets be approved by the Association's general membership and Board of Management. Membership and Board of Management meetings at which the BIA 1999 budgets were approved are set out below:

Approved by Approved by

Membership Board of Management

Bloor/Bathurst-Madison October 14, 1998 October 14, 1998

Bloor by the Park November 5, 1998 November 5, 1998

Bloorcourt Village October 21, 1998 October 21, 1998

Bloordale Village October 27, 1998 October 27, 1998

Bloor West Village October 21, 1999 September 29, 1998

Bloor-Yorkville January 19, 1999 October 28, 1998

Corso Italia November 25, 1998 November 25, 1998

Danforth by the Valley November 30, 1998 November 2, 1998

Eglinton Way November 3, 1998 November 3, 1998

Gerrard India Bazaar March 2, 1999 March 2, 1999

Greektown on the Danforth December 7, 1998 December 7, 1998

Harbord Street December 15, 1998 December 15, 1998

Junction Gardens October 20, 1998 October 20, 1998

Keele-Eglinton March 16, 1999 March 16, 1999

Kennedy Road not held March 9, 1999

Kingsway October 13, 1998 September 9, 1998

Lakeshore February 3, 1999 December 30, 1998

Little Italy October 27, 1998 October 22, 1998

Mimico Village September 9, 1998 September 9, 1998

Old Cabbagetown March 9, 1999 February 22, 1999

Pape Village December 3, 1998 December 3, 1998

Parkdale Village to be held April 7, 1999

Roncesvalles Village November 25, 1998 November 25, 1998

St. Lawrence Neighbourhood yet to be held

Weston February 22, 1999 February 11, 1999

Once approved by the membership and Board of Management, BIA budgets are submitted to the BIA Office of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department for processing, after which they are reviewed by the Finance Department and reported to the Economic Development Committee for recommendation to Council. Following Council approval, the funds required by each BIA are raised by a special realty tax levy on the commercial and industrial property owners within the boundaries of the Business Improvement Area. Details of each BIA budget submission, including the net 1999 levy requirements, are set out in Appendix A. Appendix B sets out the status of BIA budget submissions.

Capital Projects:

Some Business Improvement Areas participate in capital projects, such as tree lighting, streetscaping and benches, which are 50% cost-shared with the City. Funding for the BIAs' share of cost-shared projects, and other capital projects, is contained in their budgets as set out in Appendix A.

BIA Budgets:

Most BIA budgets do not reflect major changes over 1998. However, several propose significant increases in expenditures.

The proposed 50% ($20,000) increase in the Gerrard India Bazaar BIA 1999 budget was approved unanimously at their annual membership meeting held on March 2, 1999, and reflects increases in promotion and advertising costs.

The Junction Gardens BIA 1999 budget proposes an increase of 91% ($45,260) over the 1998 budget and includes an assumed $15,000 municipal grant. The Junction Gardens BIA's budget was approved unanimously by its membership at their annual membership and Board of Management meetings held on October 20, 1998. The proposed expenditure increase will allow Junction Gardens to capitalize on the burial of overhead wiring and reconstruction of Dundas Street by Toronto Hydro and the City.

The Little Italy BIA 1999 budget reflects an increase of 29% ($23,000) over its 1998 budget. This increase includes the cost of introducing a street festival, as well as the final phase of installing tree lighting. Little Italy's budget was approved by its Board of Management and general membership on October 22, 1998.

The Parkdale Village and St. Lawrence Neighbourhood BIAs' proposed 1999 budgets have been received by City staff, but have yet to be considered at their Board of Management or annual general members meetings. To facilitate the operations of these BIAs, it is recommended that the proposed Parkdale Village and St. Lawrence Neighbourhood BIA budgets be certified by the Committee to Council subject to the provision of satisfactory documentation indicating that the proposed budgets were approved at their Board of Management and annual general membership meetings.

The net levy requirements for the BIAs are included in the tables in Appendix A.

The status of the BIA budget submissions is summarized in Appendix B. Budgets received to date have been reviewed and are included in this report. BIA budgets received after this date will be brought forward in subsequent reports.

Conclusion:

The City's Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) are self financing through a special tax levy on their membership, with no City funds required for operating purposes. BIA capital projects are considered as part of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism capital budget and are cost-shared with the BIAs on a 50/50 basis.

Council approval of the Business Improvement Area (BIA) expenditures is required pursuant to Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended, so the City may levy to collect funds on behalf of the BIAs.

BIA budgets not reflected in this report have not been received and will be reported on in future.

Contact Names:

Joe Borowiec, Budget Services Division, Finance Department, 397-4298

Ingrid Girdauskas, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, 392-1134

A - Budget Included in this Report

NA - No budget submitted

The Economic Development Committee also submits the following report (April 1, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report brings forward the proposed 1999 operating budget for the Upper Village BIA (York) Business Improvement Area (BIA) for Council's approval. This budget was received after submission of a report on the 1999 BIA budgets to the Committee at its meeting of March 29, 1999. Council approval of this budget is required by the Municipal Act to permit the City to collect funds on behalf of the BIA through a special tax levy.

Source of Funds:

No City funding is required since Business Improvement Area budgets are raised by a special levy on members.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Economic Development Committee adopt and certify to City Council the 1999 expenditures of the Upper Village (York) BIA of $55,000, subject to documentation being provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer that the BIA's budget was duly approved by its Board of Management and Membership at their annual general meeting;

(2) a copy of this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information; and

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

1999 Upper Village (York) BIA Budget:

The general membership and Board of Management meetings to consider and approve the 1999 budget of the Upper Village (York) BIA have yet to be scheduled. However, the proposed budget has been submitted so that the levy may be included on the final 1999 realty tax bill to provide their members with three instalments for payment. The BIA did not have an approved budget in 1998. The Upper Village (York) BIA's proposed 1999 budget, including the net 1999 levy requirement, is set out below.

Contact Name:

Joe Borowiec, Budget Services Division, Finance Department, 397-4298

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his son is the President of the Kennedy Road Business Improvement Area.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Millennium Task Force contained in the following report (March 5, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Millennium Task Force on February 26, 1999, recommended to the Economic Development Committee, and Council:

(1) the adoption of the report (February 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to adding the heading "Charity/Partner" on the Community Registration form.

The Millennium Task Force reports, for the information of the Economic Development Committee and Council, having requested:

(1) the City Solicitor to prepare the terms and conditions which refer to the legal conditions for use of the logo; and

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report on:

(i) ways of promoting volunteerism, including City staff;

(ii) how to utilize the use of volunteers throughout the year and beyond the year 2000, i.e., permanently built into the management of City events.

Background:

The Millennium Task Force had before it a report (February 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, submitting a City of Toronto endorsement process and criteria for Millennium community events or initiatives, including those posted on the Millennium web site.

Purpose:

To seek approval on the City of Toronto endorsement process and criteria for Millennium community events or initiatives, including those posted on the Millennium web site.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) written requests for endorsement be reviewed by the Millennium Task Force and approved according to the criteria set out in Recommendation No. (2) and staff will follow up as required to ensure accuracy of information;

(2) the proposed event or initiative shall:

(i) be located in Toronto;

(ii) be relevant to the Millennium;

(iii) be of benefit to the general public;

(iv) demonstrate a tangible community contribution; and

(v) be accessible to the public;

(3) the group shall:

(i) have a mandate which meets generally accepted community standards;

(ii) have a sound administrative structure;

(iii) support the access and equity policies of the City of Toronto; and

(iv) provide sufficient confirmed information about the initiative or event; and

(4) upon approval by the Task Force, the group will be notified in writing of the endorsement, and provided with terms and conditions, to be developed by the City Solicitor, which will protect the City's interests and permit the City's withdrawal of its endorsement at any point.

Discussion:

Many community groups will seek the City's endorsement of their Millennium activities and events leading up to, and including, the year 2000. Benefits of endorsement to the groups would include:

- non-commercial usage of the Millennium logo;

- inclusion on the City's web site and calendar of events; and

- attendance at the event of the mascot (resources and schedule permitting).

A process for accommodating the requests for City endorsement in a timely, responsible and equitable fashion is required.

Upon approval by the Millennium Task Force, the group will be notified in writing of the endorsement and provided with terms and conditions, to be developed by the City Solicitor, which will protect the City's interests and permit the City's withdrawal of its endorsement at any point. The group will subsequently be provided with logos and have its information immediately posted on the web site. Organizations funded through the Millennium Grants Program would be endorsed upon acceptance of the terms and conditions and included on the web site.

Conclusion:

The City's endorsement of millennium initiatives or events will provide significant value to community and other groups celebrating the Year 2000. The above-described endorsement process by the Millennium Task Force will ensure that requests are administered responsibly, equitably and cost-effectively. Upon approval of this report, a media release will be issued to inform groups of the endorsement opportunity. Registration information will be distributed to interested groups and be available on-line.

Contact:

Irene Bauer, Acting Project Manager, Tel: 392-4218, Fax: 392-3355

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that City Council request the Board of Directors of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to increase the membership of the City of Toronto on the Noise Management Committee to five representatives, in order to have the same representation as the City of Mississauga, and that at least two of the City of Toronto's representatives be citizens of the City.")

The Committee submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the communication (March 26, 1999) from the Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Communications, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he report directly to Council for its meeting on April 13, 1999 on this matter.

The Economic Development Committee submits the following communication (February 15, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding action taken by City Council at it meeting on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, respecting Clause 1 of The Striking Committee Report No. 1, headed "Appointments of Members of Council to Various Boards and Commissions":

The City of Toronto Council at its meeting held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Striking Committee, headed "Appointments of Members of Council to Various Boards and Commissions".

In adopting the Clause, as amended, City Council referred the following motion to the Economic Development Committee for further consideration, with a request that Councillor Sinclair be advised when this matter is before the Committee:

Moved by Councillor Sinclair:

"It is further recommended that City Council request the Board of Directors of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to increase the membership of the City of Toronto:

(1) on the Consultative Committee to three representatives, and that two of those representatives be citizens of the City; and

(2) on the Noise Management Committee to three representatives, and that two of those representatives be citizens of the City."

The Economic Development Committee also had before it a communication (March 26, 1999) from Steve Shaw, Vice President, Corporate Affairs and Communications, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To advise Council on the City's representation on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority's Consultative Committee and Noise Management Committee.

Financial Implications:

The recommendations of this report do not have any financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the current composition and City representation on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority Consultative Committee and Noise Management Committee remain as is and that any changes in representation be considered in due course as the terms of the current members expire.

Council Reference:

At its meeting on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Striking Committee, headed "Appointments of Members of Council to Various Boards and Commissions". In adopting the Clause, as amended, Council referred the following motion to the Economic Development Committee for further consideration, with a request that Councillor Sinclair be advised when this matter is before the Committee:

"Moved by Councillor Sinclair:

It is further recommended that City Council request the Board of Directors of the GTAA to increase the membership of the City of Toronto:

(1) on the Consultative Committee to three representatives, and that two of those representatives be citizens of the City; and

(2) on the Noise Management Committee to three representatives, and that two of those representatives be citizens of the City."

At its meeting on March 29, 1999, the Economic Development Committee forwarded Councillor Sinclair's motion to Council without recommendation and referred a communication (March 26, 1999) from the GTAA (copy attached) to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he report on this matter directly to Council for its meeting on April 13, 1999.

Comments:

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) is responsible for the management, operation and maintenance of L.B. Pearson International Airport. In accordance with the terms of its Ground Lease with the Government of Canada, the GTAA has established both a Consultative Committee and Noise Management Committee comprised of elected officials, citizen and business representatives of the surrounding municipalities and Regions. These committees provide a liaison between the communities and the GTAA.

As stated in the attached correspondence, dated March 26, 1999, from the GTAA, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Communications to the Chair of the Economic Development Committee, the City has four representatives on the Consultative Committee and three representatives on the Noise Management Committee. The City's representatives on the Consultative Committee are Councillor Holyday and Councillor Gardner (elected officials), Mr. Martin Ross (resident), and Mr. Michael Lauber (Toronto Board of Trade). The City's representatives on the Noise Management Committee are Councillor Li Preti and Councillor Brown (elected officials) and Mr. Ross Summers (resident).

The current terms of reference for the Consultative Committee and the Noise Management Committee (attached) do not preclude Council from modifying its representation to include two citizen representatives on each Committee provided one of the incumbent elected officials resigns or their term of appointment expires.

Conclusions:

It appears that the principal intent of Councillor Sinclair's motion is to facilitate additional citizen involvement on the GTAA's Consultative Committee and Noise Management Committee. As indicated in the attached correspondence from the GTAA, the current terms of reference for both committees give Council the flexibility to appoint citizen or elected officials to represent the City's interests. As Council has only recently (February 2, 3 and 4, 1999) appointed Councillor Gardner to the Consultative Committee and Councillor Brown to the Noise Management Committee, it would seem appropriate that the current composition and City representation on the GTAA Consultative and Noise Management Committees remain as is and that any changes in representation be considered in due course as the terms of the current members expire.

Contact Name:

Randy McLean

392-3397.)

(A copy of the communication (March 26, 1999) from the Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Communications, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to review the proposal for the planting of these trees, to ensure that it is compatible with the Woodbine Beach Park Plan.")

The Economic Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the proposal titled "Circle of Trees - A Time Piece" endorsed by the Millennium Task Force as contained in the report (March 5, 1999) from the City Clerk be approved as a Millennium Project; and

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

The Economic Development Committee submits the following communication (March 5, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Millennium Task Force on February 26, 1999, having endorsed the Circle of Trees - A Time Piece, Millennium Public Art Project by Laurie McGugan, Artist, directed that the said project be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee for consideration.

The Millennium Task Force reports, for the information of the Economic Development Committee, having requested the Ward Councillors, Councillor Sandra Bussin and Councillor Tom Jakobek, and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to meet with Ms. McGugan to provide assistance with the aforementioned project.

Background:

The Millennium Task Force received a presentation from Laurie McGugan, Artist, respecting a Millennium Public Art Project entitled "Circle of Trees - A Time Piece" a Millennium Art Project, being the planting of seven maple trees in a circle as a time piece for the Millennium, and requesting endorsement of same and assistance as to the location of said project.

(A copy of sketches and project details attached to the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 29, 1999 and April 6, 1999 agenda of the Economic Development Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendation No. (1) of the following report (March 12, 1999) from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred Recommendation No. (2) of this report to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for consideration and report back to the Committee.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council provide Heritage Toronto with standing authority to enter into agreements with event holders in order to enhance the public profile and revenue base for Fort York, providing that the agreements contain the following terms and conditions:

(a) the event holder shall provide insurance in a form and amount satisfactory to the City of Toronto's Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer;

(b) the event holder shall agree to indemnify the Heritage Toronto and the city of Toronto with respect to all claims, costs or liabilities which the Board or the City may suffer or incur arising from the granting of permission and the holding of the event;

(c) the event holder shall agree to pay to the Heritage Toronto the required rental fee, damage deposit, staffing and equipment costs approved by the Board's Managing Director;

(d) the event holder shall agree to release Heritage Toronto and the City of Toronto from liability in the case that the event does not proceed due to any cause including court order which is beyond the control of the board and the City of Toronto;

(e) the event holder shall agree to comply with all applicable laws and city of Toronto By-laws, including the Noise By-law; and

(f) such other terms and conditions as the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Managing Director, may be required as necessary to protect the interest of the Board and the City.

(2) That City Council authorize Heritage Toronto to enter into a 3-year agreement with Cottage Creek to allow the holding of the following events:

(i) Children's Festival, a one-day event to be held each June;

(ii) Toronto's Annual Festival of Beer, a 3-day event to be held each August; and

(iii) Chili tasting Festival (or similar event), dates to be decided.

Purpose:

To receive Council approval to host a series of annual special events at Fort York.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Background:

Each year, Heritage Toronto receives a number of proposals from persons requesting to hold events at fort York. In keeping with Heritage Toronto's strategy to provide events that are high profile, complementary to the Fort's historic interpretative programme and revenue generating, Heritage Toronto proposes to enter into agreements with event holders to host a series of annual special events such as those listed below.

Third Annual Fort York Festival - Victoria Day weekend

The Fort York Festival, hosted by the Friends of Fort York, includes military battle re-enactments, military music, encampments, country dancing, musket drill, blacksmithing.

Chili Tasting Festival (or similar festival) - Date to be decided.

Children's Festival

This is a one-day event with children's performers and other family activities.

Annual Stardust Ball featuring Blue Rodeo - July 10-11, 1999.

Guy Fawkes Celebration

Annual Event hosted by the St. George's Society.

Toronto's Annual Festival of Beer - August

This is a 3-day event that focuses around the history and traditions of beer and includes tastings from beverage recipes prepared at the Fort 200 years ago. Local restaurants will supply food using beer recipes. There will be live music, guest speakers and information sessions.

Discussion:

The Fort York Festival, Annual Stardust Ball and Annual Festival of Beer and Guy Fawkes Celebration have been held at the Fort successfully for the past 3 years. Council endorsed all of the events for 1998. Rather than asking for Council's approval each year, Heritage Toronto is now asking for standing authority to hold these types of events under the conditions described.

Heritage Toronto is also requesting permission to enter into a 3-year agreement with Cottage Creek Company to hold The Chili Tasting Festival ( or similar style event), Children's Festival and Toronto's Festival of Beer. Cottage Creek has worked successfully with Heritage Toronto as an event holder over the past 3 years to develop, promote and stage Toronto's Annual Festival of Beer. The Chili Tasting Festival and Children's Festival are two new concepts being developed by Cottage Creek Company.

Contact:

Karen Black

Director, Marketing and Programming

Toronto Historical Board

205 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1N2

(416) 392-6827, ext. 224

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism subject to amending Recommendation (1) by deleting the words "six months" and inserting the words "three months", and deleting the date "September 30, 1999" and inserting the date "June 30, 1999", so as to read:

"(1) the Grant Agreement between City of Toronto and the Toronto Arts Council to administer the City's grant program be extended for a period of three months from the expiry of the current Agreement on March 31, 1999 to expire on June 30, 1999, by which time a report on the terms of the new Agreement will be forthcoming; and".

The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To extend the City's current Agreement with the Toronto Arts Council by six months.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Grant Agreement between City of Toronto and the Toronto Arts Council to administer the City's grant program be extended for a period of six months from the expiry of the current Agreement on March 31, 1999 to expire on September 30, 1999, by which time a report on the terms of the new Agreement will be forthcoming; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council approved the Toronto Arts Council as the arm's length body to administer the City's grants program for arts and cultural organizations and artists. The terms of a new Grant Agreement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Arts Council are currently being developed.

Discussion:

The Toronto Arts Council is an incorporated, not-for-profit organization that operates under the authority of a grant agreement originally established with the former City of Toronto. The five-year term of the Agreement expires on March 31, 1999. In November, Council had suggested that the Agreement with the Toronto Arts Council be extended for a period of one year pending resolution of the long-term structural issues. In December Council provided direction on the administration of the various parts of the cultural grants portfolio. It is appropriate to extend the current Agreement by six months to provide sufficient time to complete discussions on the new Agreement. A full report with the particulars of the new Agreement, including its term, will be forthcoming at that time.

Conclusion:

Extension of the Toronto Arts Council's Agreement to September 30, 1999 will provide stability to the 1999 grants program while the new Agreement is being completed.

Contact Name:

Beth Hanna, Culture Division

392-5225

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report outlines a proposal for a pilot project to provide limited Ferry Service to the western Portlands area this summer.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

If this pilot project is to proceed, funding in the amount of $80,000 will be required. It is suggested that this be funded on a partnership basis with no impact on the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Committee and Council endorse a pilot project to provide limited Ferry service to the western Portlands area this summer, on condition that partnership funding can be secured to provide temporary docking and required infrastructure on a no cost basis to the Department;

(2) staff work in conjunction with the Toronto Harbour Commission, the Toronto Island Community and other partner groups, to develop this pilot project and explore cost sharing opportunities;

(3) the results of the pilot project be reported to the Economic Development Committee by December 1999; and

(4) appropriate City staff be authorized to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Toronto Island Ferry Service currently operates five ferries that provide year round service to the Toronto Islands for both Island residents and Park users. The Service operates from the Ferry Terminal at 9 Queens Quay. On peak summer weekends, especially during major events, there are occasions when the mainland ferry terminal becomes overcrowded and we have been examining alternatives to address this issue.

An investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of providing ferry service to the western Portlands area near the ship channel to alleviate crowding at the main dock during special events and holiday weekends.

This also may respond to a demand for service to and from the Portlands area, and provide relief from limited parking and congestion at the Queens Quay Ferry Terminal. This service may also provide improved access to the emerging parklands and greenspace that is located within the Portlands area.

Currently, 37% of the Ferry passenger traffic arrives at the Queens Quay Ferry Docks by private vehicle, with the balance via TTC, GO Transit, bicycles or on foot. This is based on specific ridership data from 1996. The TTC service to the Portlands area is very limited and currently only runs until 6 p.m. Therefore, it is likely that the majority of patrons who use this alternative will be those who arrive by car.

We have investigated the cost of a permanent docking facility which could be built in the Portlands area with a projected cost of $425,000 to $475,000. Cost sharing with the Toronto Harbour Commission would have to be investigated and they would have to approve the plans and supervise the installation. Transport Canada would also have to approve the installations.

In examining options for a pilot of this service, we have identified costs of $ 80,000. This includes a temporary docking facility at a cost of approximately $50,000, and other facility and temporary infrastructure costs of $ 30,000, to allow pilot testing of a new ferry route. This could involve hourly service, on weekends only, to the Portlands as a part of the "Belt-line" route that currently services the Wards, Centre and Hanlan's Point locations. Any other scenario on a pilot basis would remove capacity and hence reduce service to the main island park areas and would not be acceptable.

We cannot accommodate the cost of the temporary facility and the other infrastructure required to conduct this pilot within our 1999 budget without significant cost sharing. If a pilot is approved, then a funding source for the $80,000 must be found outside of the Department.

The Department is recommending that we consider a pilot this summer providing that a suitable funding source can be identified which is estimated at $ 80,000. If funding cannot be secured prior to the summer, then our staff will conduct additional surveying this summer at the Queens Quay Ferry docks to determine demand and the feasibility of an undertaking on a more permanent basis. This would also allow additional time to work with the Harbour Commission on the infrastructure requirements.

Conclusions:

If funding could be secured, then I would recommend that we undertake a pilot of Ferry Service to the western Portlands area. This must be done on a no cost basis to the City and may alleviate overcrowding at the mainland terminal, as well as improve linkages to the greenspace located in the Portlands area. Given the time constraints, if all the approvals, funding and infrastructure cannot be realized this summer, then further study and work should be completed to allow a future pilot of this project.

Contact Name:

John A. Macintyre

Director of Parks & Recreation

Central Services and the Waterfront

Tel: 397-4451

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) 1999 Operating Budget.

The Economic Development Committee reports having:

(1) forwarded the following recommendations to the Budget Committee for consideration during the 1999 Operating Budget Process:

(a) that the Chief Administrative Officer's 1999 Operating Budget recommendations with respect to:

- Customer and Business Support

- Culture and Heritage Toronto

- Special Events

be adopted;

(b) that if the Committee's recommendation for a $53.00 fee per location film permit be implemented, that the 1999 Operating Budget for Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be adjusted to reflect the corresponding revenue loss of $250,000; and

(c) that the Budget Committee be advised that the Committee does not support a reduction of $200,000 in the Department's 1999 Operating Budget for International Marketing; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the Budget Committee on:

(a) the impact of golf fees and the policy, program objectives and competitiveness on public golf courses; and

(b) the financial impact of reducing the fees to pubic golf courses to Seniors for entrance on Fridays to the same rate that is charged for other week days.

(i) (March 5, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee has completed its preliminary review of the 1999 Operating Budget and directed:

(1) that the 1999 Operating Budget, together with the communication (March 5, 1999) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, Chair, Budget Committee, be forwarded to all Community Councils and Standing Committees for consideration;

(2) that the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Committee be forwarded to the Community Councils and Standing Committees for information; and

(3) that the Community Councils and Standing Committees be requested to forward their recommendations pertaining to the 1999 Operating Budget to the Budget Committee prior to the commencement of the "wrap-up" meetings on April 6, 1999;

(ii) (March 19, 1999) from Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79, requesting that full-time permanent positions be retained so that there is a base of seasoned knowledgeable staff, and urging Members of the Committee to support budget initiatives which will provide quality services to the public;

(iii) (undated) from Mark S. Hayes, Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust, requesting that ferry fares not increase again, but if a fare increase is necessary, urging the Committee to implement the suggestions contained in this submission to alleviate the impact on those who are not the prime targets of this increase but who will be most adversely affected;

(iv) submission from the Chief Administrative Officer on the Preliminary Operating Budget; and

(v) Economic Development, Culture and Tourism 1999 Operating Budget Presentation to the Economic Development Committee.

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

- Michael Rosenberg, Toronto;

- Ken Amoroso, Membership Secretary, CUPE Local 79; and

- Mark Hayes, on behalf of users of the Toronto Island Park.

(b) Update on Activities of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

The Economic Development Committee reports having:

(1) established a Sub-Committee consisting of Councillor Ashton and Councillor Silva with a mandate to meet with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to discuss the Airport Development Plan and its implications on the airport's tenants and report back to the Committee on the outcome of the discussion; and

(2) referred the following motion placed by Councillor Giansante to the Sub-Committee for consideration:

"That the Hon. Michael Collonette, Minister of Transport be requested not to extend the deadline for fitting plans with hush kits beyond the year 2002, and that the Chapter 3 planes be accelerated by two years in line with planes coming from the United States."

(undated) from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority forwarding a submission, entitled "Airport Development Program Overview".

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

- Gerry Meinzer, Member, Board of Directors, Greater Toronto Airports Authority;

- Robert Bandeen, Member, Board of Directors, Greater Toronto Airports Authority; and

- Sharon Moss, Member, Board of Directors, Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

(c) Toronto Arts Council's 1999 Budget Submission.

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred the following recommendations to the Budget Committee for consideration during the 1999 Operating Budget process:

(1) that Recommendations (1), (2) and (5) of the report (March 26, 1999) from Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council be adopted; and

(2) that Recommendations (3) and (4) of the above-noted report, be submitted to the Budget Committee without recommendation for its consideration.

(i) (undated) from Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council, forwarding the 1999 Budget Submission for Toronto Arts Council; and

(ii) (March 26, 1999) from Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council, recommending that:

(1) Toronto Arts Council's 1999 administration grant be approved at the requested level of $655,154.00;

(2) Toronto Arts Council be granted permission to make a withdrawal in the amount of $43,000.00 from its Loan Program to address one-time costs related to Y2K issues and a major upgrading of its information systems;

(3) the Chief Administrative Officer's recommendations on the Consolidated Grants Budget be supported, including the redistribution of $1.378.8 thousand amongst the existing grant service areas to begin to address levelling up of service issues which would result in Arts and Culture Grants being increased by $99.3 thousand;

(4) the Committee endorse in principle TAC's request to phase-in a minimum of $400,000.00 to the Arts and Culture grants budget to extend programs to artists all across the City; and

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

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

- Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council;

- Albert Shultz, Street Legal; and

- Drew Huffman, Bay Consulting.

(d) Toronto Television Film Office Policy Direction and Update on Fees for Location Film Permit.

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred the following recommendations to the Budget Committee for its consideration during the 1999 Operating Budget process:

(1) that the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be adopted subject to amending Recommendation (1) by deleting the figure "$150.00" and inserting in lieu thereof the figure "$53.00" and adding the words "on a 12 month trial basis" after the word "approved", so as to read:

"(1) That, should Economic Development Committee and Council decide that fees must be collected, a fee structure be determined in keeping with the principle that revenues generated be reinvested in the Toronto Film and Television Office and its programs, that a fee $53.00 per permit be approved on a 12 month trial basis, and that the industry be notified;"

(i) (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism providing the background and principles with regard to film permit user fees and the process and budget required to implement the city-wide implementation of film permitting through the Toronto Film and Television Office, and recommending that:

(1) should the Economic Development Committee and Council decide that fees must be collected, a fee structure be determined in keeping with the principle that revenues generated be reinvested in the TFTO and its programs, that a fee of $150.00 per permit be approved and the industry be notified;

(2) the principles articulated in this report for the development of any user fee policy with regard to film permitting, be endorsed;

(3) July 1, 1999 be set as the implementation date of the amalgamated Film and Television Office and that the additional resources for city-wide permitting of $278,000.00 per annum be added to the budget (see Appendix 2) and approved to allow the implementation process to begin;

(4) all fees associated with this industry which are currently assessed by any City division, Agency, Board or Commission be collected by the TFTO as part of its customer service initiative to address the industry's need for streamlined services, and be distributed from the TFTO to the appropriate group; and that staff from the Economic Development Division work with the affected groups and the Film Liaison Industry Committee on a comprehensive plan to give effect to this proposal;

(5) the Commissioner develop a comprehensive policy related to fees charged and revenues generated with respect to filming by all City departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions in an effort to have a consistent and fair approach to supporting this important economic sector, and that no fee be levied over and above those stipulated as part of the charge; and

(6) the appropriate officials take the required actions to implement this report.

(ii) (March 8, 1999) from Alan Goluboff, Directors Guild of Canada, urging the Committee to reject the recommendation to implement a permit fee, and asking that the matter be re-examined at the Film Liaison Industry Committee;

(iii) (March 12, 1999) from Cara N. Martin, Director of Industrial Relations and Toronto Operations, Canadian Film and Television Production Association, advising that the implementation of a user fee may result in production moving away from Toronto and ending by saying that it supports the work done by the Toronto Film and Television Office but feels that it is inappropriate for the industry to fund its operation;

(iv) (March 19, 1999) from Charles Braive, suggesting that formal consultations should be undertaken with the Film Liaison Industry Committee before implementing any of the proposals and urging the Committee to use every resource at their disposal to delay or defeat this proposal until proper consultations can take place;

(v) (March 21, 1999) from Avi R. Federgreen, Film Location Manager, Federgreen Consulting Services, Inc., requesting that Toronto re-think implementing a city-wide permit fee process and suggesting that further consultation with the Film Liaison Industry Committee is needed before a city-wide process is mandated;

(vi) (March 26, 1999) from Robin Chetwynd, Chief Administrative Officer, ACTRA Toronto Performers, opposing any measures which dissuade production from locating in Toronto, and recommending the Committee consider the options proposed by the industry through the Film Liaison Industry Committee, including innovative ideas that would see industry partners effectively participate in the cost of running the film office;

(vii) (March 28, 1999) from Byron Martin, Directors Guild of Canada, Location Caucus Representative, Ontario District Council and National Executive Board, opposing the implementation of a permit user fee;

(viii) (March 22, 1999) from Myron Hoffert, DGC/ODC A.D. Caucus Representative, objecting to the potential implementation of permit fees for location use in Metro Toronto;

(ix) (March 29, 1999) from Randy Kennedy, DGC Location Manager, requesting that a fee of $50.00 be set for major productions and $25.00 for non-profit films;

(x) (March 29, 1999) from Henry Spencer, for the R.C. Harris Public Advisory Committee (PAC), recommending that:

(1) standard market rates should be charged for all commercial use of the R.C. Harris plant facility;

(2) these market rate fees (less direct costs to Metro) should be deposited in a special Heritage Reinvestment Fund, to be used for special restorations and upgrading work to the R.C. Harris plant that would otherwise not be funded out of Metro's maintenance or capital budgets. The revenue should not be used to offset any normal budgeted costs associated with the facility;

(3) expenditures from this reinvestment fund should be subject to review by the R.C. Harris Public Advisory Committee (PAC). The purpose of PAC involvement with the fund would be to advise on works which would improve the character and quality of the facility according to the Heritage Conservation Principles; and

(4) such a fund would be to the benefit of the film/photography industry, as well as to the public. It would not simply be a new source of revenue for Metro, but would provide funds for Metro to undertake work at the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant which would not otherwise be funded, and which would improve the character and quality of the facility for the direct benefit of the film/photography industry;

(xi) submission (undated) from Nicholas J. Gray, FILC Committee Member and General Manager of CAN DO, opposing the issuance of a film permit fee;

(xii) (undated) from Bonnie Taylor, FILC Committee Member and General Manager of CANDO, opposing the issuance of a permit fee;

(xiii) (March 29, 1999) from Manny Danelon, Industry Co-Chair, FILC, opposing the implementation of a permit fee;

(xiv) (March 21, 1999) from Avi R. Federgreen, Film Location Manager, opposing permit fees being charged to productions for filming in Toronto;

(xv) (March 29, 1999) from Paul E. Kenyon, Commercial Production Association of Toronto, opposing the implementation of a permit fee;

(xvi) (March 29, 1999) from Gail Thomson, Director, Location, Promotion and Services, Ontario Film Development Corporation, recommending the Committee strongly endorse the mandate of the Toronto Film and Television Office serving the amalgamated City and requesting that the Economic Development Committee find funds from within Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to fund this strategic sector;

(xvii) submission (March 29, 1999) from Ferne Downey, Past President, ACTRA Toronto Performers, opposing the implementation of a permit fee;

(xviii) (March 29, 1999) from William G. Fell, PS Production Services Ltd., opposing the implementation of a permit fee; and

(xix) (March 29, 1999) from Alan Goluboff, Directors Guild of Canada, Ontario District Council, opposing the implementation of a permit fee.

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

- Manny Danelon, Co-Chair, Film Liaison Industry Committee (FLIC);

- Alan Goluboff, Directors Guild of Canada, Ontario District Council;

- Byron Martin, Location Manager, Directors Guild of Canada, Toronto;

- Nicholas Gray, Member, FLIC, Toronto;

- Paul Kenyon, on behalf of Commercial Production Association of Toronto;

- Keith Cole, Toronto;

- Deborah McInnes, Liaison of Independent Filmakers of Toronto;

- Peter Lucas, Shoreline Limited, Toronto;

- Avi Federgreen, Location Manager, Toronto;

- Gail Thomson, Ontario Film Development Corporation, Toronto;

- Bonnie Taylor, c/o CAN DO, Toronto;

- Henry Spencer, Advisory Centre of the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant;

- Ferne Downey, ACTRA;

- Conrad Dowling;

- David Plant, Silicon Graphic Canada;

- Mimi Wolch, Business Agent, IATSE Local 873;

- John Kiru, Weston Business Improvement Area;

- William Fell, Production Services Ltd.; and

- Ranald Kennedy, DGC Location Manager, Toronto Locations.

(e) Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks (Including North Toronto - Ward 22 and North York Centre South - Ward 9).

The Economic Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its June 18, 1999 meeting as the first item of business, and requested that resident associations and other affected parties be provided with notification of this meeting.

(i) (March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism providing additional information as requested by City Council at their meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and recommending that:

(1) all existing off-leash areas in the former City of Toronto, North York and Etobicoke, with the exception of Sherwood Park, continue for the present time. In the former City of Toronto only 4 out of 23 existing sites meet the new guidelines. It is therefore recommended that a site by site review be conducted during the next 12 months involving local residents and Councillors, with a report back to Toronto Community Council;

(2) in keeping with the recommendation from North York Community Council, the existing off-leash area at Sherwood Park be discontinued as a result of on-going concerns of neighbouring residents and park visitors;

(3) potential new off-leash areas that conform to the new off-leash guidelines, the following sites be further considered in association with the community and Councillors:

North York -- fenced in dog runs at Sunnybrook Park, Earl Bales Park and Downsview Dells Park

Etobicoke/York -- West Deane, Ravenscrest, Bloordale, Smythe, Cruikshank and Coronation Parks.

If there is support for these sites, a final decision would be made by the appropriate Community Council;

(4) the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report to the Board of Health and the Economic Development Committee, at a future date, regarding a policy and costs for more effective enforcement of existing bylaws regarding stoop and scoop and dogs off leash;

(5) at sites where problems with compliance to the bylaw are persistent, the Parks and Recreation Division be granted authority to suspend the off-leash areas and submit a report to the appropriate Community Council for review; and

(6) appropriate City staff be authorized to give effect thereto;

(ii) (March 16, 1999) from Nancy Mueller, Chair, Community Standards (Sub-Committee of), Crime S.C.O.P.E. Etobicoke Office, opposing leash-free zones;

(iii) (March 17, 1999) from the Beacon Hill Tenants Association opposing leash-free zones;

(iv) (March 24, 1999) from Councillor David Miller, High Park-Parkdale, requesting the Committee to add Sorauren Park in his Ward to the new park sites to be considered for off-leash dogs;

(v) (March 24, 1999) from Gail S. Gibson, President, Sherwood Park Dog Owners Association, requesting that the recommendation to discontinue the off-leash area in Sherwood Park be cancelled or deferred until the park users and area residents can hold a public meeting, obtain information and express their views on this matter;

(vi) (March 25, 1999) from Jeffrey Y. Herman requesting that Sherwood Park be kept an off-leash park and that more off-leash parks be added;

(vii) (March 26, 1999) from Vancy K. Kasper opposing eliminating the off-leash area and requesting deferral of this matter until the neighbours have had time to meet with their elected representatives;

(viii) (March 26, 1999) from F.M. Kasper suggesting privatizing the policing and ticketing of the parks and deferring this matter until the issue can be properly solved;

(ix) (March 26, 1999) from Naomi Kanc, Former President of the Sherwood Park Dog Owners Association, requesting that the fine be increased for failure to stoop and scoop to $1,000.00; raise the cost of a dog license to $50.00 per year, $75.00 for non-neutered and use that money to hire professional poop scoopers; make more off leash areas available in the area to reduce the congestion in Sherwood Park; and postpone decision until there has been community input;

(x) (undated) from Mike and Angel LeClair recommending institution of a fine for offences against a Stoop and Scoop by-law;

(xi) (March 29, 1999) from Diane Barker recommending the retention of off-leash areas and requesting that a proper study be conducted before closure of any off-leash area;

(xii) (undated) from Norman Steinhart and Pam Halpern opposing the recommendation of the North York Community Council to remove or reduce the off-leash areas of various parks and urging the Committee to defer the vote in order to explore a mutually agreeable solution;

(xiii) (undated) from area residents requesting that the owners who do not poop and scoop be fined;

(xiv) (undated) from Carla Hoyer requesting that the Committee not punish owners of domesticated pets by removing the minimal freedom they enjoy;

(xv) (undated) from Dr. Robertson objecting to eliminating the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park;

(xvi) (March 28, 1999) from Lars and Madeleine Henriksson opposing eliminating the off-leash area in Sherwood Park and restricting Sunnybrook to a fenced dog run;

(xvii) (undated) from D. Ross MacKinnon opposing the recommendations made by North York Community Council and not in opposition to fines for offences against On-Leash and Stoop and Scoop By-laws;

(xviii) (March 27, 1999) from Marissa Richmond and Stacey Curtis requesting that the existing off-leash areas continue and deferral of this matter for community input;

(xix) (undated) from Dr. Betty Kershner objecting to the elimination of the off-leash area of Sherwood Park;

(xx) (March 28, 1999) from Robert F. Brooks requesting the Committee to defer any decision without community input;

(xxi) (March 28, 1999) from Dr. D. Wilson requesting deferral until a public meeting and consultation can be arranged;

(xxii) (undated) from Ed Timermanis recommending that the Committee not alter the area available for dogs to run free; poop and scoop regulations be enforced but not at a $1,000.00 fine; and a public meeting be held before any changes are made;

(xxiii) (March 21, 1999) from S.B. Manley requesting that the Committee ban people who leave litter everywhere, particularly teenage kids and stating a fine of a $1,000.00 is ridiculous. Leash-free dogs are more dangerous than cars going through a red light; restrict thee area in spring/summer months (May to September) when the park is more populated; do not spend money establishing fences - just name an area that is leash-free; and make the issue know to all and not just special interest groups so that the community can decide the future of its parks, its dogs and its people;

(xxiv) (March 27, 1999) from Lucienne Watt requesting the retention of the leash-free area;

(xxv) (March 28, 1999) from Barbara Judges opposing the recommendations made by North York Community Council to eliminate the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park and requesting that this matter be deferred until community input is received;

(xxvi) (March 26, 1999) from Fionna Barrington opposing the recommendations made by North York Community Council to eliminate the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park and requesting that this matter be deferred until community input is received;

(xxvii) (March 26, 1999) from P.N. Wesson opposing the recommendations made by North York Community Council to eliminate the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park and requesting that this matter be deferred until community input is received;

(xxviii) (March 26, 1999) from M.Y. Barrington opposing the recommendations made by North York Community Council to eliminate the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park and requesting that this matter be deferred until community input is received;

(xxix) (March 26, 1999) from P.N. Wesson Opposing the recommendations made by North York Community Council to eliminate the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park and requesting that this matter be deferred until community input is received;

(xxx) (undated) from Paul Clark opposing the elimination of the off-leash area of Sherwood Park;

(xxxi) petition (undated) from 7 area residents opposing the recommendation of North York Community Council for the elimination of the off-leash area of Sherwood Park;

(xxxii) (March 26, 1999) from Mrs. Sheila Kennedy suggesting that until the Committee chooses to address all inappropriate park behaviour and assign reasonable fines, exclusions and/or other penalties to each offence equally, no group be singled out and objecting to eliminating the no-leash zones and restricting dogs in parks;

(xxxiii) (undated) from Jennifer A. Gough and Michael B. Ayoub opposing the recommendations of North York Community Council to eliminate the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park, to restrict Sunnybrook to a "fenced dog run" and Earl Bales Park and Downsview Downs; plus the $1,000.00 fine for offences against on-leash by-laws;

(xxxiv) (March 28, 1999) from Gina Grant and Paul Schiratti requesting that this matter be deferred until the community can hold a public meeting and consult the constituency regarding the future of Sherwood Park;

(xxxv) (undated) from Kathy Mackie requesting the retention of the off-leash area in Sherwood Park;

(xxxvi) (undated) from Jill Bridge opposing the elimination of the off-leash area in Sherwood Park;

(xxxvii) (March 28, 1999) from Suzanne Mackie opposing the elimination of the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park; the institution of a $1,000.00 fine for dog owners who do not "stoop and scoop" and/or do not have their dogs on a leash; and providing fenced dog runs at Sunnybrook, Earl Bales Park and Downsview Dells Park which will be the only public places in the Megacity where it is permissible to have a dog off-leash;

(xxxviii) (undated) from Birgitta Sigfridsson supporting the fine respecting the Stoop and Scoop By-law;

(xxxix) (March 29, 1999) from John A. Sloane, M.D., opposing the recommendations of the North York Community Council to eliminate the off-leash area for dogs in Sherwood Park and to institute a $1,000.00 fine for offenses against on-leash by-laws;

(f) Parks Yard Revitalization Study.

The Economic Development Committee reports having recommended the adoption of the following report and, pursuant to Recommendation (8) therein, referred notification of its action in this respect to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

(i) (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism providing an update on the status of the Yard Rationalization study, and advising that the following recommendations replace those stated in the report dated January 29, 1999 to the Economic Development Committee:

(1) that the Edenbridge Yard, located in the West District, be closed and staff relocated to other yard facilities in the District and that the property be declared surplus;

(2) that the staff working from the Bermondsey Yard, located in the East District, be relocated to Northline Road Yard and that the Bermondsey Yard be designated for Works Department staff only;

(3) that the staff working from the G. Ross Lord Park Yard, located in the North District, be relocated to the Alness Yard and the facility in G. Ross Lord Park be used as a seasonal location;

(4) that the staff working from the Morningside Yard located in Morningside Park, in the East District, be relocated to the Morningside Works/Parks yard located at 891 Morningside Avenue, and that the Morningside Parks Yard be used as a seasonal location;

(5) that Phase 2 of the Yard Study consider the consultant's report commissioned by the former City of Toronto to renovate the Chaplin Yard, located in the South District, which is currently vacant;

(6) that the staff working from the Humber Bay Yard, located in the West District, be relocated to the Kipling Yard and that the Humber Bay Yard be used as a seasonal location;

(7) that the Bathurst Street Yard, located in the South District, continue to be occupied by Toronto Forestry crews until construction of the fixed link bridge, at which time the yard would be closed and staff relocated to other yards; and

(8) that this report be submitted, with subsequent recommendations from the Economic Development Committee to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; and

(ii) (January 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism providing an update on the status of the yard rationalization study and a listing of Parks Yard locations that are surplus to the Department's operating requirements and recommending that this report be received for information.

(g) Community Internet Access Program, Phase III.

The Economic Development Committee reports having received the following report for information.

(March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism forwarding this report for the information of members of the Economic Development Committee which describes the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department's receipt of a grant in the amount of $750,000.00 from Human Resources Development Canada for implementation of Phase III of the Community Internet Access Program and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h) Proposed Lease of Parks Works Boat (Downtown - Ward 24).

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred the following report back to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he approach other boat operators to ascertain their interest in this proposal and report further to the Committee on his findings.

(March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism forwarding a proposal from the Parks and Recreation Division to lease the work boat, P & P1 to Toronto Tours Limited from May 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999, and recommending that:

(1) staff negotiate a lease agreement for the Parks work boat "P and P1" with Toronto Tours Limited for the period May 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999; and

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

(i) Mayor's Youth Employment Summit - Status Report.

The Economic Development Committee reports having received the following report for information.

(March 8, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 2 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, headed "Mayor's Youth Employment Summit - Status Report", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999 and recommended, inter alia, that the joint report (January 27, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee for information.

(j) Garden Awards.

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred the following report to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he report back to the Committee by its May 21, 1999 meeting.

(February 24, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding action taken by Etobicoke Community Council on February 17, 1999, and recommending that a friendly competition be instituted between the neighbourhoods of the new City of Toronto, similar to the Communities in Bloom concept, and that Terms of Reference for such competition be brought forward as quickly as possible.

(k) Financial Benefits of International Partnerships - City to City Alliances - 1999 Program and Resource Requirements.

The Economic Development Committee reports having :

(1) referred its recommendation to adopt the joint report (March 5, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the City Clerk subject to amending Recommendation (1) to read:

"(1) that the approach outlined in this report be approved and recommend that the figure for new resources to be added to the 1999 Operating Budget of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department as identified in Appendix B be increased from $151,245 to $275,000, and the addition of new resources to Budget of the City Clerk's as identified in Appendix D".

to the Budget Committee for consideration during the 1999 Operating Budget process; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report further to the Committee on the inclusion of Taipei, Frankfurt and Seoul, and any other cities, into the City to City Alliance program.

(i) (March 8, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding action taken by the World City Committee on March 5, 1999 and recommending to the Economic Development Committee and Council that:

(1) the joint report dated March 5, 1999 from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the City Clerk, headed "City to City Alliances - 1999 Program and Resource Requirements", be received; and

(2) the recommendations embodied in the report dated March 5, 1999 from Councillor George Mammoliti, Chair, headed "The Financial Benefits of International Partnerships", be adopted;

(ii) (March 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism providing staff recommendations on a responsible, but scaled back, international partnerships program developed in the context of the City's present budget pressures, outlining the resource requirements of managing six economic alliances, six community alliances and eleven technical partnerships and indicating how it is intended to manage these relationships within the emerging priorities, as well as providing available comparative date on expenditure levels for three international partnerships in other cities, and recommending:

(1) the World Cities and Economic Development Committees approve the approach outlined in this report and recommend the addition of new resources as outlined in Appendix B and D;

(2) the World Cities Committee, taking into consideration Tables 1 and 3, recommend the twelve cities for formal relationships (six economic development and six community alliances); and

(3) City Clerk's Protocol undertake the responsibility of coordinating and organizing the logistics, itinerary management, and hospitality associated with the international partnerships; and

(iii) (March 5, 1999) from Councillor Mammoliti, Chair, World City Committee, summarising the key policy recommendations made by World City Committee with respect to the City of Toronto's thirty-seven international partnerships, describing the potential benefits which the City of Toronto can derive from the successful management of these international partnerships and recommending:

(1) the Economic Development Committee endorse the policy decisions of the World City Committee as summarized in section 3.1 - 3.5 of this report;

(2) the Economic Development Committee endorse the proposed 1999 resource allocation for the management of international partnerships for a total of $615,185; and

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

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

- Philip Leong, Vice President of Chinese Canadian Intercultural Association, Toronto; and

- Donald Y. Chen, Commissioner, Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission; President, Chinese Community Centre of Ontario, Canada; and Audit Manager, Revenue Canada.

(l) National Ballet of Canada.

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred the following report to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he report in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Solicitor, to the Committee on this matter and that he also review the 1997 and 1998 minutes of the Board of Directors of the National Ballet.

(March 2, 1999) from Councillor Nunziata advising that policies and procedures of the Board of the National Ballet of Canada prevents any Board member from discussing or reporting on any issue that has been discussed, and notwithstanding the financial support provided by the City of Toronto, this would prevent the City Council appointee to report to Council on any matters pertaining to the National Ballet, and recommending that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism review this issue and report further as to whether the National Ballet of Canada is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the City's grant.

(m) Breach of the City Tree By-laws: Penalties (Ward 23 - Midtown).

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred the following report to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he report, in consultation with the City Solicitor, back to the Committee on this request.

(February 5, 1999) from Councillor Bossons, Midtown - Ward 23, requesting that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the City Solicitor, report to the next meeting of the Economic Development Committee on a process for the determination of penalties for breaches of City tree by-laws and the appropriate fines for each type of breach.

(n) Proposed Billboard Advertising on City-owned/Maintained Properties (All Wards).

The Economic Development Committee reports having received the following report for information.

(March 10, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding action taken by City Council at its meeting on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999 respecting Clause 6 of Report No. 3 of the Economic Development Committee, titled "Other Items Considered by the Committee", and referring Item (h) therein back to the Economic Development Committee for further consideration, Item (h) being a report (January 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism recommending that:

(1) this report be received for information;

(2) the project team established to examine issues related to outdoor advertising at City parks and recreation facilities include in its scope of study the feasibility, planning criteria and revenue potential of billboard advertising on city owned or maintained properties; and

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

(o) City of Toronto Arts and Culture Grants - January to December 1998.

The Economic Development Committee reports having received the following report for information.

(February, 1999) from Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council, forwarding a report covering the full 12 months of 1999 and describing the economic impact of the City's financial investment in arts community and the impressive array of new work, creativity and community animation which resulted.

(p) Appreciation to the Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Economic Development Committee reports having received the following communication for information.

(February 2, 1999) from David Baile, Managing Director, The Factory Theatre, expressing appreciation to all staff of the City of Toronto, in particular, Irene Bauer of the Culture Division, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for support and hard work.

(q) List of Outstanding Items - Economic Development Committee - 1998.

The Economic Development Committee reports having received this list for information.

(r) Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreements (All Wards).

The Economic Development Committee reports have referred to the Works and Utilities Committee its recommendation that the following report be adopted.

(i) (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advising the Committee of the various impacts which would result from a unilateral termination of all existing industrial waste surcharge agreements by January 1, 2000, requesting that the Economic Development Committee provide comments on the report to the Works and Utilities Committee, and recommending that:

(1) the City not proceed with the unilateral termination of all existing industrial waste surcharge agreements by January 1, 2000;

(2) subject to approval of Recommendation (1), the current Compliance Program with Monetary Concession Policy be expanded to include not only new surcharge companies and existing surcharge companies facing substantial increase in surcharge but also existing surcharge companies wishing to reduce or eliminate their surcharge assessments; and

(3) also subject to approval of Recommendation (1), Committee adopt the recommendations contained in the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report (November 20, 1998), entitled "Industrial Waste Surcharge Agreement - Pizza Pizza Limited, 58 Advance Road", with terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(ii) (March 26, 1999) from Ferg Devins, Director, Corporate Affairs, Molson Breweries Ontario Division, requesting a meeting with the Committee, Vic Lim and any other interested members of the Toronto Works and Emergency Services in order to discuss the foregoing matter.

(s) Toronto Bombardier and the Third Millennium (North Toronto - Ward 22).

The Economic Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting on April 23, 1999.

(March 23, 1999) from Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto - Ward 22, forwarding a copy of a report regarding production of the new Bombardier CRJ-700 and BRJ-X commercial aircraft and recommending that the Committee develop an initiative aimed at understanding Bombardier's needs regarding these new aircraft and ensuring that they select Toronto as the location for production of a major portion of the CRJ-700 and BRJ-X aircraft.

(t) Relocation of Advertising Sign from High Park Area to Exhibition Place (High Place and Trinity-Niagara).

The Economic Development Committee reports having adopted the report (February 7, 1999) from the Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place, and, pursuant to Recommendation (3) therein, advises that its recommendations in this respect will be submitted to City Council at the same time that the Toronto Community Council submits its action with respect to Recommendation (4) of the appended report (February 1, 1999). Council is advised that Toronto Community Council, at its meeting on March 30, 1999 deferred consideration of the matter until its meeting on April 28, 1999.

(i) (February 7, 1999) from Dianne Young, Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place, recommending that:

(1) recommendations (1), (2) and (3) of subject report be submitted to the City's Economic Development Committee;

(2) recommendation (4) of subject report be submitted to the Toronto Community Council; and

(3) the reports of the Economic Development Committee and Toronto Community Council related to this sign be submitted to City Council at the same time.

and forwarding the appended report (February 1, 1999) recommending:

(1) the Board enter into an Agreement with Gallop and Gallop Advertising, Inc. ("Gallop") to construct, install and maintain a billboard advertising sign on Exhibition Place grounds subject to the approval of City Council and the coming into force of any amendments which may be required pursuant to Recommendation (4);

(2) the Board approve of the Term Sheet attached as Appendix "A" hereto as the basic terms and conditions to be included in any agreement between the Board and Gallop;

(3) the City of Toronto Council authorize the Board to enter into an agreement with Gallop for an initial term of 9 years, with an option to negotiate an additional 8 years;

(4) the City Solicitor be requested to prepare a draft sign by-law amendment in substantially the form attached as Appendix "B" hereto to be forwarded by the Board to City Council with its request for approval, and further that the City of Toronto Council approve any amendment to the Toronto sign by-law as outlined in Appendix "B" of this report, that may be necessary to permit the relocation of the sign to Exhibition Place;

(5) as required in the Term Sheet set out in Recommendation (2) the City Solicitor be requested to inform the Board when a final settlement of the litigation between the City, Stelco and Gallop is reached that is satisfactory to the City; and

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

(ii) (April 1, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding the action of the Toronto Community Council, on March 30, 1999, in which Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on April 28, 1999 and requested:

(1) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report at that time; and

(2) the City Solicitor to submit the draft by-law(s) at that time; and

(iii) (March 18, 1999) from Councillor Pantalone requesting that this matter be considered at the Committee's second meeting day (April 6, 1999).

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN ASHTON

Chair

Toronto, March 29, 1999 and April 6, 1999

(Report No. 6 of The Economic Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.)