1 Year 2000 Priority One Business Functions Status Report and Communication Plan

2 Toronto Port Authority Draft Letters Patent and Subsidy Agreement (Ward 24 - Downtown) (Ward 25 - Don River)

3 Establishment of a Trust Fund for Children

4 Arts and Culture Grants Service Area Review

5 Legislative Process for Grants Policy and Administration

6 Bill C-440 - Penalties Under the Criminal Code - Use of Motor Vehicle to Evade Police

7 Municipal Voting Day - Year 2000

8 Proposal to Provide $185,000.00 in the Capital Budget Year 2000 Allocation for Clerk's Year 2000 Related Issues

9 Bingo Task Force Terms of Reference

10 Funding for 761 Community Development Corporation

11 Capital Accounts Closing

12 Status Report - Evaluation of Standardized Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for the Toronto Fire Services

13 City of Toronto Olympic Task Force (Possible Audit of the 1996 Olympic Games Bid)

14 Business Reference Group

15 Maintenance of "Frozen Assessment Listing" - Capped Property Classes

16 Other Items Considered by the Committee

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan Status Report (March 1999) outlines the following information as requested by Council at its November 1998 meeting:

(i) status report of each priority 1 year 2000 function;

(ii) status report on the ABC's and their state of readiness;

(iii) status report on expenditures for priority 1 year 2000 functions; and

(iv) change requests.

In addition, this report includes the Year 2000 Communication Plan for the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources:

No additional funding required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Communication Plan be approved; and

(2) the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee refer this report to Council for approval.

Comments:

Key to the success of the City of Toronto's Year 2000 Project is communicating the progress that the City is making to ensure a smooth transition from 1999 into 2000. The Year 2000 Project Office, working with Corporate Communications, recommends a pro-active public communications approach to inform all interested parties about the City's state of readiness.

The document attached in Appendix 1 proposes a communications strategy to support the Year 2000 readiness efforts of the City of Toronto. It provides both a broad framework to guide all Year 2000 communications and a foundation for the detailed planning and implementation of a comprehensive public awareness campaign in the months leading up to January 1, 2000.

This is a strategy to inform and educate the public on the Year 2000 issue in general, and to explain what the city is doing to ensure essential public services function normally on January 1, 2000 and beyond. It is not designed to advise or dissuade any member of the public from taking personal action of any kind.

The fundamental objective is to instill and maintain public confidence and illustrate what the City is doing to ensure that it will be "business as usual" for Toronto's public services on January 1, 2000. The City's plan to ready its systems is on track and on target. We plan to deliver this message proactively and creatively by informing Toronto's communities of the city's plans for business continuity into the new millennium.

Status report on Priority One business functions:

Departmental Critical One Business Functions:

All Departments are on track. The remediation phase is to be completed by the end of April 1999 as the Project Office critical milestone. The Project Office continues to meet with the members of the Senior Management Team to provide them with information relevant to each of their business functions. The chart in Appendix 2 has been modified to show the percentage complete of project phases for each business function. The assessment of the contingency plans for each business function is complete. The proposed plans, an estimated budget and the key dates are being reviewed. Subject to approval from each Commissioner, this information will be reported in the next status report.

The Traffic Control Business Function within the Works and Emergency Department is nearing completion.

Status Report on Agencies, Boards and Commissions (ABCs):

The ABC Management Team delivered an "ABC Support Report" to the Year 2000 Steering Committee. This report contains the processes needed to establish City responsibilities for ABC's Year 2000 preparedness to enable the City to execute its responsibilities to ABCs selectively, yet consistently, with appropriate knowledge and consideration.

Meanwhile, the Year 2000 Project has proceeded to address Priority One business cases of the ABCs, and to identify Priority 2 and 3 business cases of ABCs, along with associated Department Business Cases. The table in Appendix 3 lists the 110 ABCs and identifies how the City's business cases relate to these ABCs.

Status report on the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) March 11, 1999:

Summary:

Project plans to remediate business applications, technology infrastructure and embedded systems are in place. Seven major teams reporting to the TTC Year 2000 Project Office have been created and staffed with technical resources. User resource requirements for testing have been identified and commitments made. The seven teams, supporting approximately 45 project areas, include:

(i) Financial;

(ii) Transportation;

(iii) Work Order Maintenance and Materials;

(iv) Engineering;

(v) Corporate;

(vi) Technology Infrastructure; and

(vii) Embedded Systems.

The Detailed Assessment Report was finalized and distributed internally. The inventory of applications to be remediated was updated, and some fine-tuning of initial project plans is underway.

Current TTC remediation efforts are scheduled and expected to be completed by September 1999. Exceptions to this include a small number of replacement business applications, such as Scheduling, Timeline, and Engineering Document Control. Individual project plans are being tracked closely, and no critical delays are expected.

Contingency and continuity planning is well underway, to accommodate both IT application failures and external problems related to power supply, communications, and water which could significantly impact service. The TTC Year 2000 Project Office is working closely with TTC business units, as well as with the City's Year 2000 Office and Police in support of a consolidated Emergency Services planning effort.

Higher than expected costs are being realized, due to the scope of application and infrastructure concerns. The technology infrastructure in particular is quite obsolete and a greater replacement than initially budgeted will be required to create a stable and compliant environment. Current projections over the lifetime of the project show a budget shortfall of approximately $2.1 Million. An internal review of project costs and sources of funding is underway, and a full report to the Commission with a request for additional funding is being written. An overview of estimated project costs is attached in Appendix 4.

A communications strategy is currently under development at TTC. The TTC's Communication team will work closely with Corporate Communications to ensure the provision of accurate and consistent information.

Progress:

Details on progress by group, project, and project phase are represented in the Year 2000 Progress Chart (Appendix 5). The chart is updated on a weekly basis in concert with the update of the individual project plans. The chart represents the seven major phases of the TTC Year 2000 Project: Initiation, Inventory, Assessment, Remediation or Replacement, Testing, Implementation, and Post Implementation. The Y2K Compliant Date represents the forecast Implementation or Production completion date. The percentage complete is based on the amount of work accomplished. The column on the left lists the projects by team. Under each team are the high-level project areas. Many of these areas include multiple related applications. It is not unusual for an area to be in multiple phases at one point in time - for example, some applications are being tested, while other applications in the same project area are still being fixed. By reading left to right, one can determine the percent of work accomplished by project phase, and when the project is expected to be complete.

Highlights of Accomplishments:

Embedded Systems:

(i) Subway revenue vehicles, SRT cars, most subway work cars (RTs) and the Building Control System (METASYS) have been tested and are compliant;

(ii) No date functionality found in surface revenue vehicles;

(iii) Wilson CNG plant failed Y2K test, and required vendor upgrade. Subsequently re-tested and found compliant; and

(iv) System Management Centre for the Scarborough RT (SMC): Y2K tested, and date is incorrectly recorded on event logs after Jan 1, 2000. No impact to system. Technical Requirements for replacement have been written and are going to the April Commission meeting.

Financial:

(i) General Ledger system has been upgraded to most current version. Final testing for Y2K compliance is 50 percent complete;

(ii) Payroll and Interfaces: remediation completed, and testing is 75 percent complete;

(iii) Metropass Discount Plan: upgraded system goes into production by the end of March; and

(iv) Job Based Cost System: remediation has been completed except for final documentation, and testing is 75 percent complete.

Transportation:

Focus: Security (which includes the Security Occurrences database) and Service Planning applications (which includes Stops Administration and all the Counts) are remediated and unit tested.

Maintenance:

Maximo: Streetcar Way in production at Wilson and Greenwood.

Engineering:

The following systems have been identified as needing replacement:

(i) Time Keeping System (ETS and EMM);

(ii) Document Management;

(iii) Project Management; and

(iv) Drafts of requirements for replacement of these systems have been created.

Corporate and Other:

(i) Wheel Trans: Y2K Code Remediation has been completed. Testing started;

(ii) Wheel Trans IVR: RFP sent to Materials and Procurement;

(iii) Claims (Riskmaster): New application software installed on upgraded server; technical training taking place;

(iv) Timeline: detailed technical specs for 'full-blown' replacement written; management decision to install 'bare bones' system; and

(v) Corporate Client-Server applications: MADITUC (scheduling) replaced, tested, implemented into production, and Y2K certified.

IT Infrastructure:

(i) Desktop rollout completed in 12 of 26 departments: 1999 - Chief General Manager's Office (3), General Secretary's Office, Property Management, Pension Fund Society, Support Services, and Revenue Operations; 1998 - IT Services, Wheel Trans, Finance and Marketing.

(ii) Voice: Bell Station CM software replaced; and

(iii) Mainframe: VSE Y2K Test environment created; upgraded to VM/ESA 2.3 operating system in production.

Budget:

(i) Current Actual/Probable shows $2.1M over budget;

(ii) Variance as per overheads to Steering Committee:

(iii) Y2K Technical Assistance: 2.3M;

(iv) IT Infrastructure: 1.2M;

(v) Internal Backfill: 620K; and

(vi) Will be bringing forward detailed budget report to April Commission meeting.

Contingency Planning:

(i) Business Operations: underway;

(ii) IT Applications: underway;

(iii) Y2K Contingency Planner now on board and reviewing plans created to date; and

(iv) Will bring overall structure and coordination.

Conclusions:

(1) expected to meet target of all level 1 and 2 applications Y2K ready by end of September 1999, with a few exceptions; and

(2) exceptions are all replacement projects: Timeline, SMC for SRT, Trapeze, and Engineering's Document Management system.

Status report from Toronto Police:

In the last update provided by Toronto Police, the Service indicated that they had formulated work teams to address three areas: Emergency Preparedness, Information Technology and Facilities. The following summaries have been prepared for each area to provide the City with the Services most recent accomplishments.

Emergency Preparedness:

Progress is continuing in the development of operational plans including critical contingencies. The Service is in the process of approaching Council for the authorization to purchase gas powered generators to provide electrical power to all operational divisions in the event of power interruptions.

A more accurate estimate of the time frame for completion of the Operational Plan and related contingencies is June to September 1999 and not at the end of the first quarter as previously reported.

Information Processing:

The Service is on track in converting and testing its information systems in keeping with system prioritization: A(Critical); B(Significant Impact); C(Noticeable Problems); and, D(Limited Impact). The status is as follows:

(i) Priority A: 95 percent of the remediation work for applications in this category is complete. They have not all been implemented as several are dependent on the deployment of the NT desktop operating system which will take place over the next five months;

(ii) Priority B: 5 of the 22 systems in this category are complete; the rest are expected to meet their target date.

(iii) Priority C: 3 of the 30 systems in this category are complete; the rest are expected to meet their target date; and

(iv) Priority D: the systems in this category have still not been addressed, due to their relative low priority.

During the next quarter, system owners will be developing Information Processing contingency plans to enable the Service to continue with the collection, recording and storage of information in the event of system failures.

Funding:

$1.2 million allocated to make the necessary information technology changes in 1998 has been expended. It is anticipated that the remaining funding of $1.35 million included in the Service's 1999 budget request to Council will be sufficient to complete the remaining aspects of priority A-C technology systems. Other funding may be required to address equipment updates such as video equipment and stand-alone unit-specific applications.

Facilities and Equipment:

An inventory of Service assets, which may not be Year 2000 compliant, is being prepared. Unit Commanders have been asked to identify equipment in their inventory, which will require updating. Remedial plans are to be implemented by Unit Commanders to ensure that the necessary modifications are made.

Y2K Leadership:

Future Y2K leadership within the Service will be guided by an Executive Management Committee comprised of senior level representatives of the Service including the Chief of Police.

In conclusion, the Service's planning activities are well underway and are on schedule.

Status report on the City of Toronto's expenditures:

Attached is a status report on the $149.6 million allocated to the Y2K project to remedy all Priority 1 business functions. As of February 28, 1999, a total of $21.2 million has been committed/spent. For February itself, $7.2 million has been committed. The majority of this expenditure is for resources, software licenses, hardware, servers, and network equipment. The current balance remaining is $128.3 million. See attachment 6.

Change requests:

The Steering Committee approved the following change requests at its March 24, 1999, meeting. Funds will be drawn from the Project Contingency Fund.

City Clerks - Request from Budget Committee:

The Budget Committee requested the Year 2000 Project Office to provide funds in the amount of $185,000.00 in the Capital Budget for the Year 2000 Project to cover the cost of three IT support resources to adequately address the Year 2000 and related issues in delivering the required level of IT support. The Y2K Steering Committee received the request for information at their meeting of March 24, 1999.

Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Library has completed the first phase of user acceptance testing for the Integrated Library System. This has revealed that the amount of year 2000 testing is greater than was first assumed when the original budget was created and that testing requires a fully operational and independent platform. In addition, the original estimate did not include funding for both external and internal staff. Funding in the amount of $496,143.00 was requested to cover the above.

Economic Development Cultural and Tourism:

Zoo:

Additional funds are required for a year 2000 coordinator for the Zoo to be able to provide quality assurance of the project plans and to report on the status of the Y2K remediation and testing to the Project Office. Previously, funds were allocated for the infrastructure, which included desktops, server, network and printers, however no staff was included to monitor and report on the status. Funding in the amount of $190,000.00 is requested for the coordinator and for minimal remediation of maintenance management, admissions and financial software upgrades as well as additional training, testing and data conversion.

Exhibition:

A request for additional funding in the amount of $153,200.00 to replace 183 Desktop PC's which are not year 2000 ready. These were not included in the original business cases.

External Partnership and Agreement:

Funding in the amount of $115,200.00 was requested to hire four Junior Analysts to complete a review of 2,000 vendors of information systems for the External Partnership and Agreement area of the project. It is projected that these analysts will review 50 vendors per week per person.

Conclusion:

The City of Toronto's Year 2000 readiness program is moving forward as anticipated. Council will continue to receive program reports as requested.

1.0 Introduction:

This communications strategy supports the Year 2000 readiness efforts of the City of Toronto. It provides a framework to guide all Year 2000 communications and a foundation for the planning and implementation of a comprehensive public awareness campaign in the months leading up to January 1, 2000.

This is a strategy to inform and educate the public on the Year 2000 issue in general, and to explain what the city is doing to ensure essential public services function normally on January 1, 2000 and beyond. It is not designed to advise or dissuade any member of the public from taking personal action of any kind.

The city will act responsibly to foster understanding of the Year 2000 issue One of the greatest Year 2000 threats comes from the fear that could be generated by irresponsible and/or alarmist statements made in the public domain. The city will provide a steady flow of sound information throughout 1999 informing residents of the work being undertaken to ensure a smooth transition into the new century.

At the same time residents and other interested parties will want to make decisions near the end of the year appropriate to their own circumstances. Other government organizations, e.g. EMO, have or plan to have information regarding emergency preparedness, available for distribution if requested. The City will support and cooperate in these distributions.

There may be those who attempt to generate fear or profit by calling on Toronto residents to take specific action. The city can only ask residents to assess the credibility of these sources and act as they see fit.

Our fundamental objective is to instill public confidence and illustrate what the city is doing to ensure that it will be "business as usual" for Toronto's public services on January 1, 2000 and beyond. The city's plan to ready its systems is on track and on target. We plan to deliver this message proactively - by informing Toronto's communities of the city's plans for business continuity into the new millennium.

2.0 The Approach:

The City will take the following approach in carrying out a proactive public information program that encompasses all ongoing developments associated with the city's preparedness efforts:

(a) implement a broad, sustained communications program to establish and maintain awareness and momentum;

(b) undertake targeted communications projects that will address the specific needs and concerns of key audiences;

(c) highlight Toronto's commitment to creating and carrying out one of the most comprehensive Year 2000 preparedness efforts in all of North America; and

(d) establish Toronto as a forward-thinking city that has been aggressively undertaking Year 2000 preparations since the new city's formation.

3.0 Situation:

In Toronto, the Year 2000 bug will have an impact on communities and businesses of virtually every size, even if their computer systems are fully prepared. Readying the city for Year 2000 requires two equally important streams of activity - - readying the systems and communicating this readiness to Toronto's residents, businesses, daily commuters and visitors.

In the months ahead, major business and public sector agencies will begin announcing changes to their normal operations around the date change. At times, public concern could grow or abate. Since few, if any, organizations can state with 100 percent certainty at this time that there will not be some form of problem, it is important to plan and execute communications strategies with care.

According to media reports and correspondence, there is some fear among people that the "millennium bug" may cause a crisis because they don't know what to expect. The "unknown" and "change" factors represented by the turn of a new millennium are enough to give certain audiences reason for panic. Such fears may be irrational and unjustified, but they are nonetheless real.

People need to know that the city is hard at work to ensure a smooth transition. They need assurance that the city is concerned about their well-being, and taking steps to inform the public about Year 2000 issues that may affect them as the clock ticks down.

At the same time many different stakeholders -- both individuals and organizations -- will be putting Year 2000-related messages into the public domain. These stakeholders include:

(a) Toronto's essential services providers - the organizations that bring power, heat, and the ability to communicate to homes and businesses (e.g., Ontario Hydro, Bell Canada, Enbridge Consumers Gas, Cable companies);

(b) emergency preparedness units - the organizations that provide and protect public order, stability, and safety (e.g., police, health care providers, courts);

(c) other levels of government - federal, provincial;

(d) corporate Toronto - the businesses that people will use to benchmark Year 2000 readiness (e.g., financial institutions, the TSE, etc.);

(e) grassroots organizations - from religious assemblies to community organizations to advocacy groups; and

(f) Media - television, radio and print outlets and individual journalists -- providing and amplifying both objective and subjective commentary.

These stakeholders will influence the success of this plan, because their views, public commentary and involvement will shape the public's perception of the Year 2000 challenge in general and the city's initiatives in particular.

In the meantime, the city has not been idle, and has built a strong foundation for Year 2000 communications.

It is worth noting that just a few weeks after the new city was formed in January 1998, Toronto began one of the most comprehensive Year 2000 preparedness efforts in all of North America. (This combined effort built on the work already started in the former municipalities.)

First steps included identifying the plan's five key components:

(a) taking inventory of all priority systems;

(b) assessing their state of readiness;

(c) remedying them where necessary;

(d) testing the new systems; and

(e) implementing them.

The allotment of $150 million to tackle these key components and the establishment of a full-time Year 2000 Project Team were critical milestones. Today, Toronto finds itself in the midst of remedying and testing systems, and expects to be in full implementation mode this fall.

In addition, the city's participation and proactive communications surrounding the recent Ontario Hydro test aided our Year 2000 communications effort. The test was both successful (i.e., there was no interruption of power) and a good case study in responsible precautions and public communications.

In summary, while the sheer scope of this project is a significant challenge for the city, the opportunities for successful communications are abundant.

4.0 Audiences:

(a) Councillors;

(b) residents;

(c) residents with special communications needs (e.g., some seniors, people with disabilities, people with language barriers, the homeless);

(d) alarmists - i.e., those who could raise undue public concern about the impact of the millennium bug on the city;

(e) business owners and managers;

(f) employees of the city and its Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(g) non-resident workers who come to the city for business; and

(h) Visitors to Toronto.

The media (as a means of reaching key audiences):

(a) electronic media - - Local television and radio stations ;

(b) English language daily newspapers (Star, Globe, Post, Sun);

(c) multilingual media;

(d) community newspapers;

(e) technology trade publications;

(f) specialty publications that serve key audiences (e.g., seniors, the homeless).

5.0 Key Messages:

(a) overall message - Our goal is business as usual for all city services on January 1, 2000.

(b) What we're doing - Just a few weeks after the new city was formed in January 1998, Toronto began one of the most comprehensive Year 2000 preparedness efforts in all of North America. Our plan has five components:

(i) taking inventory of all priority systems;

(ii) assessing their state of readiness;

(iii) remedying them where necessary;

(iv) testing the new systems; and

(v) implementing them.

(c) Our plan is extremely comprehensive - covering all city services and coordinating closely with other service delivery agencies such as the police, Toronto Hydro and the TTC. We're confirming the Year 2000 readiness of all city suppliers. We're training all staff. We're looking at both information systems and embedded chips in non-IT systems.

(d) This program is a high priority for the city. We have a full-time Year 2000 team that reports directly to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, a Standing Committee of Council. All city Commissioners have direct responsibility for implementing the program within their sectors.

(e) The city's program is on track and on target. We are remedying and testing other systems, and look forward to full implementation in the fall of 1999.

(f) Communication: The City of Toronto has a responsibility to communicate with and educate the public on this important issue. We already have a dedicated telephone hotline to handle public enquiries. In the months ahead, we will implement a proactive communications plan to ensure public awareness of our plans for business continuity in the City of Toronto.

Note: Communication activities will also include information on the City's Emergency Preparedness Plan - a plan that exists to address any extraordinary phenomenon - as well as preparedness advice from other government agencies.

6.0 Goals:

Business goals:

(i) to maintain business continuity on January 1, 2000 and beyond, and to plan for contingencies; and

(ii) to be recognized as a forward-thinking city that has been tackling Year 2000 concerns in a proactive manner since the new city's formation.

Communications goals:

(i) to develop awareness among audiences of the city's efforts to prepare for the Year 2000;

(ii) to create further understanding of the Year 2000 issue - i.e., it may cause inconveniences, but not emergencies;

(iii) to build and maintain confidence in the city's plan and those responsible for its implementation;

(iv) to be a key educator on policies and plans in place to deal with Year 2000 issues; and

(v) to cultivate relationships with an expanding network of community leaders and journalists.

7.0 Strategy:

(1) Broad public communications: The first information most audiences receive about the city's state of readiness should come from the city itself. Communications will be ongoing and interactive, giving members of the public opportunities to ask questions and offer input. While communications will be ongoing, our efforts will be heightened during the following times:

(1) Spring 1999 - when we will begin to get information out to the public on a broad scale;

(2) September , 1999 - when the public is likely to display more focused interest about the millennium bug;

(3) December, 1999 - when interest/concern is expected to reach its peak; and

(4) January 2000 - whether problems occur or not.

(2) Communications partnerships: To build awareness, understanding and confidence among audiences, the city will use the expertise of city staff and enlist the aid of organizations with substantial contact with residents, workers, tourists, etc.

(3) Communicate success, build confidence: Build public confidence by promotion of successful tests, key achievements, and milestones in the city's preparations. Demonstrate that elected officials and staff (a) consider Year 2000 readiness a top priority, and (b) have a plan to ensure business as usual on January 1, 2000.

(4) Address "alarmist" communications: In a city of Toronto's size, we may encounter any number of challenges between now and the end of the year - i.e., doomsday prophecies and unfounded rumours from alarmists or Y2K profiteers. We will strive to anticipate and contain such issues with responsible, factual information.

(5) "Special needs" communications: City staff and organizations will be enlisted to help reach those who may be more difficult to contact through standard communications channels. These individuals may include, but are not limited to the disabled, people with language difficulties, some seniors and the homeless.

(6) December 31, at midnight: City staff will be available through the media to inform and reassure audiences about the status of city services. Telephone lines that handle public inquiries are planned to be staffed overnight and on New Year's Day.

8.0 Tactics:

Broad public communications:

(1) Year 2000 Information Line: Maintain a telephone line, answered by city staff, to respond to public inquiries and obtain public input and comments. Access Toronto staff will also be equipped to handle general inquiries on Year 2000 issues.

(2) Year 2000 Website: The city's website will be updated frequently to highlight progress and build confidence.

(3) Briefings for City Councillors: Equip councillors with detailed information about Year 2000 issues and the city's activities by:

(i) scheduling opportunities for councillors to receive group briefings - at which Year 2000 staff will convey information and discuss any local issues; and

(ii) developing Year 2000 material that councillors can use in their newsletters.

(4) Media briefings: Brief journalists covering city affairs and Year 2000 issues.

(5) Public information sessions/information fairs: Held at City Hall and the civic centres; each could be hosted by the local community council chair and ward councillors, with senior staff on hand to answer questions. It is recommended that there be three rounds of meetings: May, September and December. This proposal refers to meetings the city would organize proactively. In addition city staff would be available to attend third-party meetings throughout the year that may require a city spokesperson(s) on Year 2000 preparedness.

(6) Use "Year 2000: Business as Usual" on city mailings, postage metre messages, etc.

(7) Community liaison: Employing the expertise of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, assign a dedicated liaison to community groups with questions about Year 2000 issues.

(8) 'Year 2000 Householder' - Information brochure to Toronto households: Distribute brochures to households and businesses -- focusing on general awareness, explaining the city's preparations and providing contact information. Initial distribution would take place in the following ways:

(i) by mail to all residents and businesses;

(ii) available at councillors' offices;

(iii) available at City Hall, Metro Hall and all civic centres through Access Toronto; and

(iv) at city-sponsored events, libraries, community centres, LCBO outlets, Beer Stores, etc.

(9) Information kits: Citizens and businesses could obtain more detailed information available through Access Toronto, by mail, upon request via the Year 2000 information line or the Internet site. Elements would include:

(i) an introductory letter describing the city's Year 2000 activities;

(ii) a compendium of the city's news releases and fact sheets on the Year 2000 initiative;

(iii) copies of information from other government agencies;

(iv) public reports identifying the city's 84 priority systems and reporting their status.

(10) Awareness Leaflet - Insert with water bills and other city mailings: A simple leaflet promoting awareness of the city's Year 2000 plans, inviting recipients to call for more information or to visit the Website.

(11) Transit advertising: Investigate the costs/benefits/necessity of TTC ads.

(12) Explore opportunities for a city-sponsored information exchange forum with major service providers (public and private sector).

(13) Coordinate the flow of information with other jurisdictions and municipalities in the GTA: The City of Toronto's Year 2000 plan compares favourably to similar organizations in North America. Our objective here is to coordinate communications strategies with the province, agencies and other GTA municipalities.

(14) Media communications surrounding key events: After key events that relate to the readiness of Toronto's public services (e.g., Ontario Hydro test in March), the city would alert the media, highlighting the significance of the test in ensuring that it will be "business as usual on January 1st."

(15) Promotion of success stories: Invite Toronto businesses, organizations and service providers to share their Year 2000 success stories.

(16) First Night: Staff charged with implementing Year 2000 communications will collaborate with organizers of celebratory activities (e.g., the city's "First Night" New Year's Eve party) to ensure incorporation of the city's "business as usual" message.

(17) Year 2000 response letters and fact sheets: It's important that public inquiries - especially those that are alarmist in nature - be addressed promptly. The city will develop targeted responses and special fact sheets that will assist staff in their telephone, e-mail, and mail responses.

(18) Internal communications: As the year unfolds, regular communications with city staff continues to be essential - to update them on the city's preparedness efforts and to update them on procedures to deal with public inquiries.

(19) Rapid response: If required, city spokespeople will respond quickly to public statements by others regarding the city's state of Year 2000 readiness.

(20) Media monitoring: Monitor media coverage for any Year 2000 issues on a daily basis

(21) Research: The city will monitor phone calls, E-mails, inquiries to Access Toronto staff, correspondence, media reports, existing research, the results of potential focus group tests and Year 2000 activities in some comparable jurisdictions. The city will also explore opportunities to conduct public opinion research to identify and gauge Year 2000 questions/concerns. The results would inform public communications, help equip the city to anticipate problems before they occur and form a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of this strategy. Research could be conducted in two phases -- first in the spring (to identify baseline awareness and concerns) and again in the fall.

"Special needs" communications and community liaison:

The city plans to designate a liaison to community organizations and groups representing individuals with special needs.

This liaison will be supported by the provision of multilingual materials, multilingual media relations, materials in alternative formats, e.g., for vision and hearing impaired.

Seniors:

Seniors are a key group that may have more health risks, mobility challenges and lack of familiarity with technology. A variety of additional tactics will be employed to ensure that the necessary information reaches them. These will include:

(i) Seeking the advice of seniors' organizations;

(ii) briefings for seniors' publications and TV programs;

(iii) special distribution of information flyers at drugstores, health clinics and seniors' homes.

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

- Mr. Bob Olsen; and

- Mr. Eric Hellman.

(Copies of Appendices 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 7, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and copies thereof are also 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, as a prelude to the subsidy agreement, the Toronto Harbour Commission be requested to submit its 1999 budget proposal as part of the City's Operating Budget process, such budget proposal to be presented to the Budget Committee for its meeting to be held on Friday, April 16, 1999.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (March 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and reports having referred the matter of the membership of the proposed Mayor's Committee to the Striking Committee for consideration and report thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on April 13, 1999, with the following suggested membership:

Councillor Gordon Chong, Don Parkway;

Councillor Michael Feldman, North York Spadina;

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River;

Councillor David Miller, High Park; and

Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown.

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

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential communication (April 7, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (March 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and reports having referred the matter of the membership of the proposed Mayor's Committee to the Striking Committee for consideration and report thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on April 13, 1999, with the following suggested membership:

Councillor Gordon Chong, Don Parkway;

Councillor Michael Feldman, North York Spadina;

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River;

Councillor David Miller, High Park; and

Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown.

Background:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on April 7, 1999, had before it a confidential report (March 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that:

(1) City Council advise the Toronto Harbour Commissioners that their latest proposal for eliminating the Subsidy Agreement is unacceptable;

(2) City Council request the Minister of Transport to withhold approval of the Letters Patent for the Toronto Port Authority until the City has had a full and fair opportunity to review and comment on an official draft of the Letters Patent;

(3) the Mayor appoint a Committee of Council and other authorized representatives of the City to:

(a) investigate further with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners the current and future needs of the Port; and

(b) investigate with the Federal and Provincial Governments, affected agencies and private landholders in the area, the possibility of establishing a land management partnership for lands in the port and immediate vicinity, in connection with the elimination of the Subsidy Agreement;

(4) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in cooperation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services, support the work of the Mayor's Committee; and

(5) the Mayor's Committee seek further Council direction as necessary.

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

Purpose:

- to provide an update on the status of negotiations with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) concerning a proposal for eliminating the City's obligation to provide an annual subsidy;

- to provide information on the draft Letters Patent being developed for the Toronto Port Authority;

- to explain how the negotiations around the elimination of the Subsidy Agreement and Letters Patent are interconnected; and

- to recommend that a Committee be established by the Mayor to investigate with the Federal and Provincial Governments and affected agencies, the possibility of establishing a land management partnership for lands in the port and immediate vicinity.

Source of Funds:

There are no immediate funding requirements arising from the recommendations of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council advise the Toronto Harbour Commissioners that their latest proposal for eliminating the Subsidy Agreement is unacceptable;

(2) City Council request the Minister of Transport to withhold approval of the Letters Patent for the Toronto Port Authority until the City has had a full and fair opportunity to review and comment on an official draft of the Letters Patent;

(3) the Mayor appoint a Committee of Council and other authorized representatives of the City to:

(a) investigate further with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners the current and future needs of the Port; and

(b) investigate with the Federal and Provincial Governments, affected agencies and private landholders in the area, the possibility of establishing a land management partnership for lands in the port and immediate vicinity, in connection with the elimination of the Subsidy Agreement;

(4) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in co-operation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services, support the work of the Mayor's Committee; and

(5) the Mayor's Committee seek further Council direction as necessary.

Comments:

1. Background

In 1994, the former City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) entered into the THC Subsidy Agreement II (Subsidy Agreement), whereby the THC accepted as adequate compensation for the transfer of part of its lands to the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) and the former City of Toronto, the right to receive an annual subsidy. The lands currently owned by the THC are shown on Map 1. Since the signing of the agreement, the City has provided the THC with an annual operating subsidy of approximately $2.8 million per year. The THC would like to terminate the Subsidy Agreement relationship with the City, provided they are fairly compensated.

Although there have been some negotiations between City staff and the THC concerning the dismantling of the Subsidy Agreement, further direction is needed from Council because the THC's current position is not in keeping with the negotiating mandate authorized earlier by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council.

Further complicating negotiations around the Subsidy Agreement is the pending issuance of Letters Patent which will set out the mandate and powers of the new Port Authority being established under the Canada Marine Act. The Canada Marine Act repeals the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Acts of 1911 and 1985 which have defined the relationship between the City and the THC for many years.

These two issues are connected because the new Port Authority will have broad powers to plan and develop whatever lands it owns.

2. Update on the Subsidy Agreement Negotiations

In 1994, the former City of Toronto and THC entered into a Subsidy Agreement which provides for an annual operating subsidy to the THC and, commencing in the year 2000, an annual capital subsidy. The subsidy is in consideration of the transfer of approximately 245 hectares (600 acres) of land from the THC to the City and TEDCO. Under the terms of the agreement, City Council has provided the THC with an annual operating subsidy of approximately $2.8 million for the past three years.

Most of these funds come from revenue generated through the management of the City and TEDCO owned lands in the Port. However, there will be pressure on Council to increase the amount of the subsidy because, beginning in the year 2000, the THC can apply for a subsidy for capital improvements. While the City's potential capital subsidy obligations are not clear at this time, TEDCO spends between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00 per year on inspecting and repairing the dockwall abutting their lands as part of a long term maintenance program.

At its meeting held on July 29 and 30, 1998, City Council authorized staff to pursue options for eliminating the City's obligations to provide the THC with an annual subsidy. On September 24, 1998, the Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee adopted the following negotiating mandate:

- that under no circumstances shall all the land in the Port area currently held by TEDCO and the City or the City-owned land at the airport be transferred back to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners;

- that potential options may include any combination of land, money, and/or deferral of grants-in-lieu of property taxes;

- that the value of any option shall not be greater than the present value of the current subsidy payment; and

- that any arrangement for the elimination of the City's obligation under the Subsidy Agreement shall not be finalized until City Council has reviewed and consented to the Letters Patent.

Since that time, staff have discussed a number of options with the THC including any combination of land, money, and/or deferral of grants-in-lieu of taxes but have been unable to come up with a settlement which could be considered in the City's best interest. The details of the THC's current position are set out below and illustrated on Map 2 .

- all the dockwall in the former City of Toronto is to be transferred to the THC;

- all lands currently owned by the City and TEDCO within the central waterfront area of the former City of Toronto are to be transferred to the THC including the City Centre Airport lands, Queen Elizabeth Docks, Keating Channel, the railway lands north of the Gardiner Expressway, east of Cherry Street and all lands in the Port area west of Leslie Street;

- a minimum $20 million cash payment;

- exemption from all future payments in lieu of property tax;

- a brownfield agreement to permit the expeditious approval of contaminated land for development; and

- the designation of the Port area as a community improvement area under the Planning Act.

The request for all the City and TEDCO owned land within the waterfront is beyond the negotiation mandate granted by Council and this point was made clear to the THC from the onset of discussions. There is also an important connection between the Letters Patent of the new Port Authority and the transfer of any lands back to the THC or Port Authority. This issue is discussed below.

3. Draft Letters Patent and Their Connection to the Subsidy Agreement

Although the Canada Marine Act (the Act) is now law, there are a number of issues related to the Act that need to be resolved before the new Port Authority can be proclaimed and that are of importance to the overall planning of the area. Among these are the Letters Patent which set out the mandate and powers of the new Authority.

Section 8 of the Act requires the Minister of Transport to issue Letters Patent of incorporation which set out amongst other matters:

- the Port Authority's jurisdictional boundaries;

- Federal Government lands to be managed by the Port Authority;

- the property the Port Authority will hold or occupy;

- the extent of the activities of the Port Authority or any wholly owned subsidiary; and

- any other provisions the Minister considers appropriate.

While the power of the Port Authority is generally limited by Section 28(2)(a) of the Act to engagement in port activities related to shipping, navigation, transportation of passengers and goods, handling and storage of goods, the Letters Patent will specify the extent to which these activities and others are deemed to be necessary to support port operations. To date, the City has not received an official draft of the Letters Patent from the Federal Government. We are however in receipt of draft Letters Patent for Toronto dated January, 1999, which were provided by THC officials.

Section 7.1 of the draft Letters Patent confers upon the new Port Authority the power to develop and apply rules, orders or by-laws and issue permits respecting use, occupancy or operation of the lands within their jurisdiction. It also confers the power to plan and develop world trade centres, conference, commercial and industrial facilities, public works, parks, playgrounds, amusement and other recreational and tourist-related grounds and facilities. The extent to which the powers of the new Port Authority conflict with traditional powers of City Council will need to be explored in detail once staff are in receipt of the official draft Letters Patent.

More importantly, the powers of the new Port Authority as set out in the Letters Patent will extend only to those lands it will hold or manage. Schedule 'C' of the draft Letters Patent identifies lands that are currently owned by the City of Toronto or TEDCO and the City Centre Airport as falling within the mandate of the new Port Authority. These lands make up a substantial part of the City's central waterfront (see Map 2). However, it is important to realize that these lands cannot fall within the mandate of the new Port Authority, unless Council chooses to transfer lands to the Port Authority in order to get out of its Subsidy Agreement obligations. Appendix 'A' compares the current powers and jurisdiction of the THC with those of the new Port Authority.

In order to examine how interconnected the Subsidy Agreement and Letters Patent are, one only has to look at the City Centre Airport. The THC has indicated that it wants the City-owned lands transferred to them as part of the renegotiation of the Subsidy Agreement. Section 7.1(s) of the draft Letters Patent authorizes the Port Authority to make regulations respecting airports including "regulations prohibiting the landing or taking off of aircraft of a certain type of aircraft exhibiting a certain characteristic". Clearly, if the City were to give up its lands on the airport and the draft Letters Patent were approved as is, the current airport operating framework as set out in the Tripartite Agreement would be irrelevant and the City would lose any regulatory control it currently has over such matters as hours of operation, noise levels and type of aircraft that could land there.

It is expected that the draft Letters Patent will be finalized in June so that the new Port Authority can be operational in early summer.

4. New Directions: Investigation of a Land Management Partnership

Since the passing of the Canada Marine Act was first announced, there has been speculation that the federal government, in concert with its new agency, the Toronto Port Authority, would somehow force the takeover of the waterfront lands currently owned by the City and TEDCO. However, the Federal Government has made it clear that this is not the purpose or direction of the Canada Marine Act. Nevertheless, there has been some confusion centred around the respective mandates of the new Port Authority and the City regarding planning control over the City's waterfront.

The Canada Marine Act does not provide for the transfer of any lands to a new Port Authority. Lands can only be transferred to the new Port Authority if Council chooses to do so through a renegotiation of the Subsidy Agreement. While, as explained above, it would not be in the City's interest to transfer these lands to the new Port Authority, the dilemma for the City is that as long as it continues to own the lands which are the subject of the Subsidy Agreement, it must continue to consider the annual requests for a subsidy from the THC, including, beginning in the year 2000, a capital subsidy.

A transfer of land from the City to the Port Authority also does not address the fundamental jurisdictional problems that have plagued the Port and for that matter much of the waterfront area for years - that is the ability to balance the legitimate needs of a functional Port with the City's desire to attract appropriate development to this area and to achieve broader City objectives. As the new City enters a new millennium, a co-operative approach by all levels of government and their agencies must be pursued if the waterfront is to accommodate the legitimate interests of the City, the Port, industry, other businesses and the general public.

Since the current discussions involving the Subsidy Agreement and the Letters Patent both have consequences for land ownership and control, the direction recommended is to investigate the possibility of a land management partnership. Such an new approach could be based upon the following principles:

- the new Port Authority has to be able to run a viable commercial port, now and in the future;

- the City wants to attract appropriate investment that takes advantage of the area's strategic location on the waterfront, close to the central city;

- the citizens of Toronto are the single biggest stakeholder in the area and future planning should address the broad interests of the citizens of Toronto;

- the City must maintain land use planning controls over matters not directly related to port operations; and

- the City must maintain its regulatory control over airport operations as set out in the Tripartite Agreement.

The concept of a land management partnership needs further investigation, but it is envisioned that it would be a coming together of existing jurisdictions and agencies under a master operating agreement and would not be another level of government.

It is expected that the Greater Toronto Area population will grow to 7 million people over the next 20 years. The City's central waterfront and Port Lands are an important land resource in the GTA and their revitalization is important from both an economic and city building point of view. A collaborative approach to the revitalization of the area is an option worth pursuing for the benefit of all the citizens of Toronto.

Contact Name:

Michael Major

Telephone: (416) 392-0760; Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: mmajor@toronto.ca

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

"It is recommended that:

(1) Council approve a donation of $50,000.00 to the Trust Fund for Children, such funds to be provided through a one-time allocation of $50,000.00 to the Grants budget;

(2) Ms. Fiona Nelson be requested to assist in determining the Terms of Reference of this Trust Fund for Children;

(3) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on a policy that would assist Council in celebrating legacies and lives of individuals that have contributed greatly to the City of Toronto; and

(4) Councillors Anne Johnston and Joan King and other interested Members of Council be consulted in the development of this policy.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having requested Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown, to submit a report to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on April 13, 1999, providing more detailed information respecting the proposed trust fund referred to in the confidential communication (March 30, 1999) from the City Clerk. Details of the foregoing request was forwarded to all Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential communication (March 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on March 29, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:

(1) the adoption of the confidential communication (March 28, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown; and

(2) that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to open the Grants envelope to accommodate the aforementioned request, subject to City Council approval.

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a confidential communication (March 28, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow recommending approval of a one time allocation of $50,000.00 to the Grants Budget in order to establish a Trust Fund for Children.)

(The confidential communication dated March 28, 1999, from Councillor Olivia Chow, which was appended to the foregoing communication, is to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council on also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (April 12, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Children and Youth Action Committee on March 25, 1999, endorsed the establishment of a Toronto Children's Fund and requested that Council authorize Ms. Fiona Nelson to assist in its implementation.

Background:

The Children and Youth Action Committee discussed the establishment of a Toronto Children's Fund.

The Committee's recommendation is noted above.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out Recommendation No. (1) embodied in the report dated February 19, 1999, addressed to the Municipal Grants Review Committee, from the President, Toronto Arts Council, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1) the Toronto Arts Council undertake a Service Area Review that will assess the grants needs of the arts and culture communities across the City beyond 1999, make recommendations on the grants programs required to meet those needs, and provide a cost analysis for the funding and delivery of those grants programs;".)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Municipal Grants Review Committee contained in the following communication (March 4, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on March 4, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee the adoption of the attached report dated February 19, 1999, from Ms. Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council, respecting the Arts and Culture Grants Service Area Review.

Purpose:

This report recommends a needs assessment be undertaken to determine appropriate funding levels for City-wide arts and culture grants programs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Toronto Arts Council undertake a Service Area Review that will assess the needs of the arts and culture communities across the City beyond 1999, make recommendations on the programs required to meet those needs, and provide a cost analysis for the funding and delivery of those programs; and

(2) the Toronto Arts Council be directed to report the results of this Service Area Review to the appropriate committee by December 1999.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In March 1998, City Council approved the formation of the Municipal Grants Review Committee to oversee the development of a Municipal Grants Policy, including Service Area Reviews. A preliminary report on the Arts and Culture Grants review process was provided to the Municipal Grants Review Committee at its meeting of July 27, 1998, along with progress reports on other Service Area Reviews.

At its meeting of October 26, 1998, the Municipal Grants Review Committee approved a report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism which recommended, among other things, deferral of the Committee's review of arts and culture grants policy until Council had given final consideration to the structure for the delivery of cultural services through the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council approved the clause embodied in Report No. 15 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team regarding the Administrative Structure for Arts Grants, which, among other things, approved the Toronto Arts Council as the City-wide arm's length administrative body in relation to the funding of the arts and cultural organizations and artists in the City of Toronto.

Comments:

The Arts and Culture Grants Program Review undertaken jointly in 1998 by the Toronto Arts Council and the City's Culture Division was never completed. Prior to the October 26, 1998, deferral of the process, the Review concentrated mainly on the structure of the delivery process, because this was a central issue in the Arts and Culture Grants Service Area. Now that that issue has been resolved, a comprehensive needs assessment must be done to determine the service enhancement and levelling up needs of arts and culture groups across the whole City. The scope of the Toronto Arts Council's report to the October 26, 1998, meeting of the Municipal Grants Review Committee regarding service levelling was limited to one program area - individual artists programs - and reflected the bare minimum to extend those programs City-wide. It did not address the broader and longer term needs of the arts and culture service area, which includes the levelling up required to extend the former City of Toronto's Cultural Facilities Grants Program City-wide and the service enhancement required to raise the level of cultural grants service delivery across the City to that of the former City of Toronto.

An Arts and Culture Service Area Review should be initiated to determine the program needs of arts and culture organizations across the City and the cost of meeting those needs. The six former cities that now comprise Toronto all supported arts and culture groups, but the level of funding and the types of programs offered varied widely. The Toronto Arts Council, as the City's arm's length arts and culture grants funding body, should undertake this needs assessment to determine the level of funding required to cover the service levelling and service enhancement needs of the arts and culture grants program beyond 1999.

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Municipal Grants Review Committee, embodied in the following communication (March 4, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on March 4, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee the adoption of Option No. 4 - Sub-Committee of Policy and Finance (limited mandate), and Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3) contained in the attached report dated February 22, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services.

Purpose:

To provide options with regard to committee reporting procedures for grants policies and programs.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Municipal Grants Review Committee identify a preferred option for recommendation to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee;

(2) the recommended reporting procedure be put into effect on June 1, 1999, in conjunction with the implementation of the revised Council-committee structure; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

On March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council approved a report entitled "Municipal Grants Review Committee" which established a Council Committee to oversee the development of a City of Toronto Grants Policy and to review and recommend allocations reports for Council consideration. This Committee reported to Council through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

At the end of 1998, the Municipal Grants Review Committee had successfully carried out its mandate with the completion of the 1998 allocations cycle and Council approval of the "City of Toronto Grants Policy".

A key element of grants policy development has been a discussion of grants and the legislative process relating to them. The Municipal Grants Review Committee considered a report, entitled "Grants and the Legislative Process" at its meeting on October 20, 1998. This report recommended that grants responsibilities be split between appropriate standing committees and the Municipal Grants Review Committee. Upon further Committee discussion, and consideration of the revised Council/Committee structure, the Municipal Grants Review Committee requested that staff revisit the relative roles for standing committees and a special purpose committee with respect to City grants processes.

Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure:

Council recently approved a report (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team) adopted, as amended, by Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999) recommending a number of changes to the Council committee structure. One of the key issues identified was the need to reduce the number of special purpose committees given the challenges of supporting and scheduling a significant number of Council committees. The breadth of the Standing Committee mandates was intended to accommodate the range of issues that might come before Council. This report also set out a number of guiding principles, including: "Standing Committees are where policies should be developed for recommendation to Council and where the implementation of policies should be monitored."

On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 17 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, entitled "Status of Special Committees and Task Forces." In adopting the clause, Council approved the following guidelines to the establishment of ad hoc committees:

Before creating a special committee or task force, Council should ensure that:

(1) the work cannot be undertaken by an existing standing committee of Council;

(2) the mandate of the new special committee or task force is time limited by a sunset date and Council approval is required for continuation beyond the sunset date;

(3) the special committee or task force will report to Council through a standing committee where appropriate; and

(4) the staff and other resources required to support the work of the special committee or task force are identified and available within existing resources.

Given the direction taken by Council with respect to the creation of special committees and task forces and the fact that the Municipal Grants Review Committee has successfully completed the tasks assigned to it by Council, the Committee should either disband or report to Council regarding a revised mandate and purpose.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Although the initial mandate of the Municipal Grants Review Committee approved by Council was discrete, in practice, almost all grants related matters before Council were referred to the Grants Committee for consideration prior to Council consideration. In addition to the defined mandate, the Grants Committee received and reviewed all grants service area review reports, dealt with any miscellaneous grants issues, and provided direction regarding the development of the 1999 consolidated grants budget request.

Prior to amalgamation, while there was communication between municipal grants programs on an ad hoc basis, there was no overall co-ordination. The changes in grants program design and administration during the first year of the New City have been significant. Major changes include the development of the "City of Toronto Grants Policy" which provides the foundation for the development of corporate-wide grants administration standards. Existing grants programs have been rationalized and funding criteria clarified to ensure that the same community purposes are not funded through two or more programs. The majority of "line item" grants have been assigned to the appropriate department for increased accountability.

While there has been notable consolidation and standardization, there are a number of key issues yet to be addressed. Now that Council has a Grants Policy, a process for reviewing grants programs to ensure that they are in compliance with the policy is required. An outstanding area of work is the development of an appeals process that facilitates effective communication between Committee members and those organizations appealing their allocations. Bench marking with respect to grants administration practices has begun, however, further work is required in this area.

Committee Level Grants Responsibilities:

Committee level grants responsibilities can be grouped into two broad categories: program responsibilities including program design, priority setting within programs, allocations, and program monitoring; and corporate responsibilities including the outstanding corporate policy issues noted above, priority setting between programs, budget development, and other miscellaneous issues. For the past year, the Municipal Grants Review Committee has had both the program and corporate level responsibilities. The question now before Committee is how these responsibilities should be assigned in the future.

Options for the Assignment of Program and Corporate Grants Responsibilities:

Option 1: Special Purpose Grants Committee:

This option would see the existing Municipal Grants Review Committee re-established with the initial committee mandate broadened to reflect the actual work of the Committee over the past year.

The Municipal Grants Review Committee structure has allowed for a more in-depth study of grants matters, placing an emphasis on the mechanics of grants. It has allowed for the review and consideration of different approaches to grants administration and the initial development of grants best practices. This review resulted in the development of the City of Toronto Grants Policy, a unique policy that did not exist in any of the former municipalities.

Having all programs report through a special purpose grants committee has also provided Committee members with a broad overview and understanding of the various grants made by the City and the outcomes resulting from those allocations. In a relatively short period of time, Committee members have acquainted themselves with a range of grants programs and the community needs they are designed to address. This has also facilitated a holistic approach to considering the 1999 consolidated grants budget request.

However, having a special purpose grants committee has deprived standing committees of the opportunity to review important issues under their jurisdiction. It has led to having some policy issues debated at the Municipal Grants Review Committee and at other Council Boards and Committees, such as Community and Neighbourhood Services or the Board of Health. The revised Council/committee structure was designed, in part, to address these kinds of issues. The maintenance of a special purpose grants committee would be in direct contradiction of the Council approved revisions to the Council/committee structure to take effect on June 1, 1999.

Option 2: Standing Committee:

Standing committees allow for grants programs to be developed in the context of related policy instruments. While deputations associated with allocations reports may be time-consuming, they do provide committee with an opportunity to interact with members of the public with an interest in the committee's mandate.

However, some grants matters will transcend more than one standing committee, while others may not be easily categorized. Corporate level grants responsibilities could be assigned to the Policy and Finance Committee. This approach would be consistent with the Council approved revisions to the Council/committee structure.

Option 3: Sub Committee of Policy and Finance:

A third approach would be to establish a time limited sub-committee of the Policy and Finance Committee to deal with grants related matters. Under this approach the sub-committee would essentially act as the current Municipal Grants Review Committee has with responsibility for both program level and corporate level grants responsibilities, as defined above. The assignment of program level responsibilities to such a sub-committee would result in the same challenges as noted above under the special purpose grants committee section.

Option 4: Sub-Committee of Policy and Finance (limited mandate):

Under this option the sub-committee mandate is limited to corporate level grants issues as described above. The establishment of a sub-committee of the Policy and Finance Committee to deal with corporate level grants issues only could be viewed as a transition step from the special grants committee arrangement to the standing committee approach. Should this approach be taken, a report should be submitted to the Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee with a proposed sub-committee work plan with a sunset date. Upon completion of the work plan, the sub-committee should make a recommendation with regard to the continuation of the sub-committee or the reassignment of corporate level grants issues to the Policy and Finance Committee.

Conclusion:

Council has expressed its desire to maintain a broad range of strategic grants programs both through the 1998 and 1999 budget process and its adoption of the City of Toronto Grants Policy. Three approaches to the assignment of grants responsibilities at the committee level have been identified for consideration.

Contact Name:

Chris Brillinger, Tel: 392-8608.

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

"It is further recommended that the City of Toronto also communicate its support for this Resolution to all Members of Parliament.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following motion by Councillor Norman Gardner, North York Centre and Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre:

Moved by: Councillor Norman Gardner

Seconded by: Councillor Brad Duguid

Whereas motor vehicles are increasingly being used to evade police and pose a threat to public safety and place police officers and members of the public at risk, as evidenced by the growing number of incidents in the Greater Toronto Area which have caused injuries and killed innocent bystanders;

Whereas earlier this year, the Provincial Government, through the Solicitor General, released the Suspect Apprehension Pursuits Report which recommended that amendments be made through the Highway Traffic Act to allow for tougher penalties for motorists who flee police, as well as tighter supervision of chases and more thought to alternatives to motor vehicle chases;

Whereas until now, the Provincial Solicitor General has not yet implemented the recommendations contained within this report, and those who commit such acts are seldom prosecuted as there is currently no provision in the Criminal Code for evading police and for causing injury or death to others in the process;

Whereas considerable amount of effort has already gone to address the issue of how police should handle chases, and that tougher amendments to the Highway Traffic Act and other laws will not completely prevent persons from using vehicles for the sole purpose of evading police;

Whereas City of Toronto Council previously adopted the motion to call upon the Federal Government to introduce legislation to provide for applicable amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada "to give effect to an indictable offence provision, with attendant penalties, for unlawful flight from police;

Whereas it is important that our laws not diminish such reckless action and disregard for the lives of innocent bystanders and police officers, but also have value as a deterrent and failing this, provide appropriate penalty;

Whereas Bill C-440, a Private Members' Bill sponsored by Dan McTeague, M.P., has been selected for Second Reading in the House of Commons, and provides a specific provision within the criminal code, along with severe penalties for any individual who commits the act of using a motor vehicle to evade police is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, and imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years when injury is caused and imprisonment for life when death is caused;

Therefore Be It Resolved that the City of Toronto communicate to the Federal Justice Minister its support of Bill C-440 and its intent, and request the Minister to support and preferably to immediately introduce strong legislation in the spirit of Bill C-440 which would provide stiff and consecutive penalties and sentencing for all indictable offences under the Criminal Code of Canada for any individual who operates a motor vehicle for the purpose of evading a peace officer in the performance of his duties;

Be It Further Resolved that the City of Toronto communicate its support of this resolution to the Association of Municipalities (Ontario), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities with a request that this resolution be adopted by these organizations and its members.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following communication (April 6, 1999) from Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre:

Attached please find some background material relevant to the Motion by Councillor Gardner and myself.

This material includes:

(1) a copy of my motion passed by Council last fall calling on the Federal Government to make vehicular flight from police a Criminal Code offence with strong penalties and calling on the Province to amend the Highway Traffic Act to strengthen the penalties for vehicular flight from police;

(2) copies of letters which I sent in October to the Federal Minister of Justice and the Provincial Minister of Transportation urging a strengthening of the Highway Traffic Act as it relates to vehicular flight from police and the creation of Criminal Code Offence for vehicular flight from police;

(3) the response from the Minister of Justice regarding my original request to amend the Criminal Code to make vehicular flight from police a Criminal Offence.

The motion before you today endorses a Private Members Bill that would accomplish the Council's previously expressed and approved objectives. Your support for this motion would be appreciated.

(The background material referred to in the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 7, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and copies thereof are also 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, in the event the municipal voting day conflicts with religious holidays, the City Clerk be requested to seek the necessary amendment to the Municipal Elections Act to hold additional advance polls.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 26, 1999) from the City Clerk; and further, that the City Clerk be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee in September, 1999, providing an update on the status of the request to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing:

Purpose:

This report responds to a request from the Striking Committee on March 22, 1999, to report to the next meeting of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on whether the Province of Ontario plans to change the date of the City of Toronto municipal election in the year 2000 to the third Monday in October.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, Section 5, to enable municipalities to pass a by-law to provide for a voting day as approved by the municipality. The amendment should limit the choice of dates to a day no later than the second Monday in November and no earlier than the Thursday after Thanksgiving in October;

(2) in the event the Minister is not in favour of Recommendation No. (1) above, the Minister be requested to institute a Province-wide municipal election date of the Thursday after Thanksgiving in an election year;

(3) Council indicate their support for the City of Toronto municipal election to be held on the Thursday after Thanksgiving in an election year; and

(4) Council request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, Subsection 6(1), to enable municipalities to pass a by-law to provide for the beginning date for a new council. Such date to be no more than two weeks after the date of the election.

History:

Municipal voting day is presently the second Monday in November of every third year. This wasn't always the case. In the early part of the century, voting day was the first Monday in January. However, during this period, special legislation was granted to a number of municipalities to allow them to have an earlier voting day. In 1946, the Municipal Act was amended to permit municipalities to establish a voting day between November 15 and January 2. This was the case until the Select Committee on Election Laws mandated uniformity in 1972. At this time, the first Monday in December was fixed as the regular voting day. In 1977 the legislation was amended again to set the second Monday in November as voting day. This date has remained unchanged.

The following excerpts are from Provincially appointed committees that have dealt with the voting day issue in the last twelve years. I have also included responses from the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

(1) The Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, February, 1987, recommended the following:

"Voting day be the third Tuesday in October".

The Municipal Elections Act was not amended to reflect the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections.

(2) In his report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, August, 1996, David Crombie, Chair, 'Who Does What Panel', recommends the following:

"Municipal Government voting day be changed from the second Monday in November to the Thursday after Thanksgiving".

(3) In their response to the 'Who Does What Panel' Recommendations, October, 1996, the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario made the following recommendation regarding voting day:

"AMCTO is supportive of the day of the week and the time of the year proposed".

(4) In their response to the 'Who Does What Panel' Recommendations, September, 1996, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario provided the following:

"The recommendation recognizes voters' needs for accessibility and convenience. However, it also may have an adverse impact on candidates in rural Ontario whose primary/secondary occupation is farming".

The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 was not amended to reflect the recommendation of the 'Who Does What Panel'. However, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing did indicate in press releases he would give further consideration to moving voting day for the 2000 municipal election.

Comments:

Three issues arise from this debate; which month would present the best option, does changing the day in the week have significant consequences, and should all municipalities be bound to the same day. When considering these alternatives our primary objective should be increased voter turnout.

Which month would be best?

A review of other municipal jurisdictions indicates that in Alberta, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and the Yukon, municipal elections are held in October. November is the preferred choice in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, while New Brunswick holds its municipal elections in May and Newfoundland in September.

While comparing the second Monday in November to the Thursday after Thanksgiving in October during the last five municipal election years we find;

Weather Statistics

October clearly provides better weather and more daylight.

Other advantages associated with an October election include:

(a) electors that go south each year would be able to participate without using proxies;

(b) candidates would benefit by not having to replace the signs they traditionally lose during Halloween;

(c) having council in place earlier in the year would permit earlier involvement in the budget preparation process;

(e) electors could vote in warmer weather with more daylight available; and

(f) cottage country municipalities could have advance voting over the Thanksgiving weekend, thereby permitting their non-resident electors to easily vote without using proxies.

Disadvantages would include:

(a) campaigns generally gather speed after Labour Day, the period would be reduced by approximately four weeks;

(b) harvest periods would be affected in the rural communities; and

(c) gaming and fishing seasons would be affected in the rural communities.

Which day would be best?

It should be noted that provincial elections are traditionally on Thursdays. Municipal clerks have expressed a preference for any day other than Monday in order that they can make last minute preparations for voting day on days other than a weekend. This has the potential to reduce overtime costs.

A review of other municipal jurisdictions indicates that Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, Ontario and the Yukon conduct municipal elections on Mondays. Wednesday is preferred by Saskatchewan and Manitoba with British Columbia and Nova Scotia voting on Saturdays. Quebec conducts municipal elections on Sundays, while Newfoundland prefers Tuesdays.

Mondays and Fridays historically have the weakest work attendance figures. This is an important fact to consider when the election depends on 10,000 people being hired for one day. Any day other than Monday would reduce the number of last minute cancellations on voting day, thereby reducing the cost of hiring standby personnel. It should also be noted that Federal Elections in the United States have been conducted on Tuesdays since 1845.

Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday appear to be the most acceptable days.

Provincial wide voting day?

Advantages of a province wide municipal election day include:

(a) media spotlight across the province is focused on one date. The hype of the Toronto Media may cause confusion in neighbouring municipalities that select a different date;

(b) process is clearer for those voters with a franchise in more than one municipality;

(c) Ministry media can be delivered more effectively, this is done on such a small scale the impact in the City of Toronto would be negligible; and

(d) school Board elections would be impacted, particularly where electoral districts include more than one municipality. This could affect the French Language voters in Toronto.

Advantages of each municipality choosing their own municipal election day include:

(a) sharing of resources between municipalities, significant cost savings and revenues would be available through the sharing of technology and human resources;

(b) strategic dates would increase voter turnout, better weather, more daylight, this would eliminate the conflict between rural and urban municipalities and provide Council with the opportunity of choosing an effective day for the City of Toronto based on the many needs of Toronto voters';

(d) City of Toronto residents with voting rights in other municipalities would have more opportunities to vote; and

(e) an earlier date would permit Council to have earlier involvement in the budget preparation process.

With only one piece of legislation to govern one voting day throughout the Province, it becomes very difficult to design an election to serve the best interests of the City of Toronto voters. Each municipality has unique interests, ranging from religious and cultural considerations to harvest periods and gaming and fishing seasons. Residents and non-residents also present unusual circumstances. If each municipality was empowered to pass a by-law choosing a voting day best suited to their needs, elections would be conducted with greater ease, which would result in a better turnout and less expense.

Conclusions:

An election in October would provide voters with a better environment in which to exercise their franchise. By following Thanksgiving, you could take advantage of a holiday which brings families home by providing advance voting the weekend prior to voting day.

The administration would benefit if voting day was moved from Monday. Thanksgiving appears to be the best time of the month for including as many voters as possible. Thursday following Thanksgiving would be the best day to guarantee maximum preparation time for the election administrators.

One of the guiding themes behind the rewriting of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 was to provide more flexibility and local decision-making to municipalities to design their elections to suit their particular local needs. The ability to select a voting day is a logical extension of this flexibility.

Contact:

John Hollins, Director of Elections, 392-8019.

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (March 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on March 29, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the joint report (March 18, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, wherein it is recommended that funds in the amount of $185,000.00 be provided with the Year 2000 Capital Budget allocation to address the Clerk's Division's Year 2000 and related issues.

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a joint report (March 18, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, providing details of funding for the Clerk's Division to adequately address Year 2000 and related issues in delivering the required level of Information Technology support.

Purpose:

This report provides details in response to a request by the Budget Committee to report back on providing funds, in the amount of $185,000.00 in the Capital Budget Year 2000 allocation, so that the Clerk's Division may adequately address Year 2000 and related issues in delivering the required level of IT support.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds are available within the Year 2000 budget contingency.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that funds in the amount of $185,000.00 be provided with the Year 2000 Capital Budget allocation to address the Clerk's Division's Year 2000 and related issues.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

During the 1999 Operating Budget Preliminary Review, the Budget Committee requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Executive Director of Information and Technology to report back on providing funds, in the amount of $185,000.00 in the Capital Budget Year 2000 allocation, so that the Clerk's Division may adequately address Year 2000 and related issues in delivering the required level of IT support.

The Clerk's Division identified a reduction of three (3) FTE's in Information and Technology support as part of their strategy to achieve the 1999 Budget reduction target with the consequence of a slower response for the end-users.

Clerk's has attempted to arrange its Information and Technology resources to minimize the long term impacts on end-user support; however, it is becoming evident that the Clerk's/Council IT resources will become increasingly involved in the Year 2000 project as the year progresses.

Therefore, in order to allow the Clerk's Division to provide adequate IT support for Clerk's/Council, it is recommended that funding, in the amount $185,000.00, be provided within the Capital Budget Year 2000 allocation for 1999. This funding will allow Clerk's to maintain the existing end-user support levels for the remainder of 1999 and prepare the software and hardware infrastructure for Year 2000.

Conclusions:

In order to allow the Clerk's Division to maintain adequate end-user information and technology support to the Division and Members of Council, it is recommended that the sum of $185,000.00 be allocated from the Year 2000 Capital Budget as a one-time cost to support the demands placed upon the IT support staff to support the Year 2000 rollout in 1999.

Contact Name:

Jim Andrew

Information and Technology Division

392-8421

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, embodied in the communication (March 23, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the joint report (March 8, 1999) from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor to provide that funds in the amount of $10,000.00 be provided to the Bingo Task Force; and that such funds be drawn from the Corporate Contingency Account.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (March 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on March 29, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:

(1) that the Terms of Reference for the Bingo Task Force, as amended by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee at its meeting on March 23, 1999, be forwarded to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, for consideration; and

(2) that the joint report (March 8, 1999) from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor, be amended by striking out Recommendation No. (2) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(2) That no additional funding be allocated to the 1999 Clerk's Operating budget to cover the Bingo Task Force expenses."

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a report (March 23, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on March 23, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of Recommendation No. (2), which reads: "That $20,000.00 be added to the 1999 Clerks Operating budget to cover the Bingo Task Force expenses." of the joint report dated March 8, 1999, from the City Clerk and City Solicitor; and that the Terms of Reference for the Bingo Task Force be forwarded to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, for consideration.

Recommendation:

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee on March 23, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the attached joint report dated March 8, 1999, from the City Clerk and City Solicitor respecting the Terms of Reference for the Bingo Task Force, subject to the following amendments to the joint report:

(a) amending the objectives of the Bingo Task Force, under the heading "Task Force Mandate," to read as follows:

"(1) To establish principles for the location of bingo halls within the City of Toronto.

(2) To establish policies that will provide charitable non-profit organizations with access to bingo revenue.

(3) To provide access to people who want to play bingo.

(4) To establish locational policies to ensure equitable distribution of bingo halls across the City.

(5) To establish administrative processes and procedures to support recommended policies and procedures.

(6) To develop a broad based consensus of public and political support for these bingo initiatives.

(7) To review, in addition to provincial requirements, possible additional City of Toronto criteria for access to bingo revenue within the City of Toronto.";

(b) amending the composition of the Bingo Task Force, under the heading "Membership Selection," as follows:

- Councillor Frances Nunziata, Chairperson;

- Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Community Council;

- Councillor Michael Prue, East York Community Council;

- Provincial representative from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO):

- Janet Feasby, Manager Gaming Policy;

- Provincial Bingo Charitable Activities Association (PBCAA):

- Lynne Cassidy, Executive Director;

- Representatives from charitable, non-profit organizations:

- Michael Stacey, York Bingo Association;

- Mary Wilton, Sport for Disabled Ontario;

- Barbara Morrow, Ontario Water Polo Association;

- Representative from the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling:

- Morri Bhermann, Director of Information Services;

- Representative from the Registered Gaming Supplier of Ontario (RGSO);

- Jack Weinstock, bingo hall owner;

- Representative from Business Improvement Areas:

- Barry Lowe, business person;

- Representative from the Ratepayers:

- Fulvio Sansone;

- Internal staff:

- Glenn Vollebregt, Director, Legislative Services;

- Irvin Shachter, Legal Counsel;

- Planning and Development representative;

- Transportation representative;

- Information Technology representative; and

- Grants Division representative; and

(c) amending No. (5) under the heading "Internal Staffing and Resources" to read as follows:

"(5) Clerk's Legislative Services Unit."

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to present Terms of Reference for the Bingo Task Force as directed by Council at the meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statements:

The Task Force will require sufficient resources to cover meeting expenses including printing and mailings, advertising of public consultation meetings, and preparation of a final report.

Staffing requirements will be accommodated from within the budgets of the departments supporting the Task Force, however, the Task Force will require the addition of $20,000.00 to the 1999 Clerk's Operating Budget to cover the above-noted expenses (see Appendix 1).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Bingo Task Force Terms of Reference, as outlined in this report, be approved;

(2) $20,000.00 be added to the 1999 Clerk's Operating Budget to cover the Bingo Task Force expenses; and

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

Council Reference:

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council adopted the Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommendation that a task force chaired by Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, be established with a mandate to report back to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee within six months on a City-wide bingo hall policy; and that Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber, also be appointed to the task force.

Background/History:

The Province of Ontario has the largest bingo industry in North America. It is estimated that in Ontario, the total monies wagered in charitable gaming is approximately $2 billion annually, of which $1.2 billion is wagered in bingo alone. There are 18 bingo halls in the City of Toronto. On any one given day or night approximately 4,500 patrons attend the 18 bingo halls to play bingo. Bingo players attend a particular bingo hall for different reasons; to support a particular sponsor organization; the halls provide better non-smoking rooms; to socialize with friends; the superjackpot is higher than at other halls, to name a few.

More than 160,000 people play bingo in the City of Toronto, spending an average of $40.00 to $50.00 dollars each time they play; $22.00 (bingo) $6.00 (superjackpot) $5.00 (break-open-tickets) $6.00 (superstar) and $8.00 (snackbar). Means of travel to bingo halls in Toronto is 75 percent by car, 19 percent public transit and 6 percent walk or take a taxi.

Bingo issues are important to bingo players, sponsor charities, hall owners and the people who live in Toronto. They are concerned with all aspects of bingo issues such as the locations of halls within their communities; hours of operation of the halls; impact of parking and traffic flow on their neighbourhoods and the level of services provided by the charitable and non-profit organizations.

The 600 charitable and non-profit organizations raising funds through bingo within the 18 bingo halls range from seniors, arts, cultural, sports, health, education and religious groups. The City of Toronto currently has a waiting list of over 120 organizations which have been displaced due to several bingo hall closures in the past two years. The most recent hall closed in August 1998. There are other organizations, which have not had the opportunity to access the bingo marketplace.

Over $10 million (net) annually are raised through bingo events by these organizations. The dollars raised provide health, education, sports, housing, equipment for special needs and social assistance services to our communities. This allows the organizations to be more self-sufficient and are, therefore, not relying on the City's grant program.

The City of Toronto raises approximately $4.5 million annually in lottery licensing revenues. Bingo licensing revenues alone account for approximately $3.3 million of the $4.5 million it receives in lottery revenues.

As a regulator of gaming, the City of Toronto is committed to take a lead role to ensure that the bingo industry remains a growing, viable industry. Growth and viability of the bingo industry provide charitable and non-profit organizations the vehicle to generate bingo revenues so that they can continue to deliver their valuable and worthwhile services to the general public of this great City. The City of Toronto is committed to working with all the stakeholders within the bingo industry to ensure that we foster the growth and viability of bingo. The charitable and non-profit organizations look to the regulators for direction, leadership, assistance and guidance.

The formation of the Bingo Task Force presents a unique opportunity for the City of Toronto to take the lead to develop a shared vision for the viability and growth of the bingo industry into the millennium and beyond.

Task Force Mandate:

The objectives of the Bingo Task Force are:

(1) to establish guiding principles, objectives, targets and recommendations for the viability and growth of bingo;

(2) to establish strategies and policies that will provide access to the bingo gaming marketplace for all charitable and non-profit organizations wishing to conduct bingo events within the City of Toronto; and at the same time provide access to bingo player consumers wanting to play bingo and support their local charitable and non-profit organizations within their own community;

(3) to establish strategies and policies that will distribute future new bingo halls and relocations of existing bingo halls evenly among communities within the City of Toronto;

(4) to explore the options of establishing a charitable foundation, within the bingo industry, in the City of Toronto, which would operate similar to a grant program for the benefit of charitable and non-profit organizations not able to access the bingo marketplace;

(5) to establish administrative processes and procedures to support recommended policies and procedures; and

(6) to develop a broad based consensus of public and political support for these bingo initiatives.

The final recommendations will provide general policy direction and specific strategies to make the City of Toronto a leader as a bingo partner and regulator. The Task Force will identify short term and long term actions and initiatives that will improve the viability and potential growth of the bingo industry within the City of Toronto while recognizing the diversity of community interests.

The Task Force will involve citizens and stakeholders in the development of the policies.

Membership Selection:

The Task Force will be composed of City Councillors (three have already indicated their willingness to join the Task Force), any other Councillors who are interested, and citizens representing the bingo industry with knowledge, experience and an interest in bingo. The Task Force will therefore be composed of:

- Councillor Frances Nunziata, as appointed by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, will chair the Task Force;

- Councillor George Mammoliti; and

- Councillor Michael Prue.

The Chairperson, in consultation with staff and community members, will select appropriate community bingo representatives and submit the proposed names to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for approval.

- Provincial representative from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO);

- Two representatives (one will be an alternate) from the Provincial Bingo, Charitable Activities Association (PBCAA);

- Representatives from charitable, non-profit organizations;

- Representatives from the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling;

- Representative from the Registered Gaming Suppliers of Ontario (RGSO);

- Representative from Business Improvement Areas;

- Representatives from the Ratepayers; and

- Internal staff.

Internal Staffing and Resources:

Administrative and professional staff will sit on the Task Force. The Director of Legislative Services has been assigned as the staff team leader. In addition, staff will need to be assigned from the following areas:

(1) Legal Services

(2) Planning and Development

(3) Transportation;

(4) Information Technology; and

(5) Clerk's Legislative Services and Secretariat.

Task Force Process and Workplan:

(1) Present the Terms of Reference to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for approval March 23, 1999.

(2) Staff presentation to the full Bingo Task Force to review the detailed workplan, background overview and a current status of the bingo industry (April).

(3) Staff presentation to the Bingo Task Force of provincial Criteria and Procedures for Establishing Bingo Halls (May):

- Bingo Task Force to review the guiding principles set out in the provincial criteria for the process for establishing new bingo halls; relocation of existing bingo hall and re-opening bingo halls that have closed.

- Bingo Task Force to review and consider location size, smoking by-laws, parking, etc.

- Identify issues and recommendations.

(4) Staff presentation to the Bingo Task Force on the current access status that charitable and non-profit organizations have to the bingo marketplace (June):

- Bingo Task Force to review bingo operations, i.e., number of halls, number of sessions, profit sharing of bingo proceeds.

- Bingo Task Force to review issues and identify recommendations allowing improved access to charitable non-profit organizations into the bingo marketplace.

(5) Staff presentation of the first draft report to the Bingo Task Force (July).

(6) Convene a focus group of politicians, staff, stakeholders and citizens to review all the recommendations of the Bingo Task Force (September).

(7) Staff presentation of final draft based on focus group input to the Bingo Task Force (October).

(8) Bingo Task Force presentation of final report to the Planning and Transportation Committee (November).

(9) Final report to City Council (December).

Contacts:

Glenn Vollebregt, Director of Legislative Services (392-4373)

Teresa Tedesco, Gaming Consultant (392-4382)

John Hollins, Director of Elections (392-8019)

Irvin Shachter, Legal Department (392-1219)

Public meetings (printing, mailing, etc.) $ 1,000.00

Advertising for public meetings 14,000.00

Final Report 5,000.00

Total $20,000.00

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

"It is recommended that:

(1) the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication dated March 30, 1999, from the City Clerk, be adopted; and

(2) the supplementary report dated April 12, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled '761 Community Development Corporation - Use of City Funding', be received.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (March 30, 1999) from the City Clerk, to Council without recommendation; and reports having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on April 13, 1999, respecting the concerns raised by the Committee regarding the use of the requested funds:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on March 29, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of report (February 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1) funding in the amount of $83,750.00 be provided to the 761 Community Development Corporation;

(2) the funding in Recommendation No. (1) be provided from the following grants programs, Economic Development Partnership, Homeless Initiatives Fund, Community Services Grants Programs, and the grants contingency once the 1999 Operating Budget has been approved;

(3) the recommended funding be administered by the Shelter, Housing and Support Division of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department;

(4) staff work with the Board of 761 Community Development Corporation to develop alternative sources of funding for the Executive Director's position; and

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

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a report (March 4, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Municipal Grants Review Committee on March 4, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee and the Strategic Policies and Procedures Committee the adoption of report (February 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services on this matter.

Recommendation:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on March 4, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee, and the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the adoption of the attached report dated February 25, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting funding for 761 Community Development Corporation.

Purpose:

This report confirms the City of Toronto support for the 761 Community Development Corporation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations contained in this report will pre-commit $83,750.00 of the 1999 consolidated grants budget request of $45,133,300.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

• -funding in the amount of $83,750.00 be provided to the 761 Community Development Corporation;
• -the funding in Recommendation No. (1) be provided from the following grants programs, Economic Development Partnership, Homeless Initiatives Fund, Community Services Grants Programs, and the grants contingency once the 1999 Operating Budget has been approved;
• -the recommended funding be administered by the Shelter, Housing and Support Division of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department;
• -staff work with the Board of 761 Community Development Corporation to develop alternative sources of funding for the Executive Director's position; and
• -the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The 761 Community Development Corporation (761 C.D.C.), developed with the assistance of the former City of Toronto, actively seeks out and develops business and employment opportunities for persons experiencing long-term poverty. It operates from a building jointly renovated by the former City and the United Church, and legally dedicated by way of a ten-year agreement to serve as a community action centre for this purpose.

For the past four years, a staff person from Urban Planning and Development Services has been assigned full-time to assist in the establishment of the 761 Community Development Corporation as an innovative vehicle to develop economic approaches to the issue of long-term poverty. In addition, the City provided grants totalling $35,000.00 in 1998. The total value of the staff secondment and grant allocations was approximately $100,000.00.

The Municipal Grants Review Committee approved a report, entitled "City of Toronto Support for 761 Community Development Corporation," at its meeting of July 20, 1998. This report recommended that a consultant be retained to conduct a review of the financial and administrative relationships with the 761 C.D.C. and to recommend a sustained and long-term financial and administrative structure for the 761 C.D.C.

The firm of Ward Consultants was retained to carry out the review, which was completed in January 1999. Staff have now reviewed the consultants report and met with the Board of the 761 C.D.C. to discuss the review and the recommendations contained in this report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

"Taking Responsibility for Homelessness", the report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, identifies community economic development activity as an important prevention strategy. The report states "Traditional job creation, job readiness, and job placement approaches have not been effective in connecting socially isolated people with the mainstream economy... These (CED) businesses use the economy to create community. Social participation is at least as important as economic participation". The report also recognizes 761 C.D.C. as a primary CED provider and the need for additional City resources in this area.

Given the unique mandate of the 761 C.D.C., a number of City Departments/Divisions have an interest in the work of the agency. Staff of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, and Shelter Housing and Support, and Social Development and Administration Divisions of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department have been involved in discussions regarding the City role with 761 C.D.C. The Shelter, Housing and Support Division has an existing funding role with respect to CED and will act as the lead division, with both Economic Development and Social Development and Administration to provide additional in kind supports.

1999 Funding Level:

A total commitment of $83,750.00 is recommended. Funding at this level will maintain the funding level provided in 1998 and provide additional funds to enable 761 C.D.C. to hire an Executive Director to replace the seconded staff from Urban Planning and Development Services. Pre-commitment is required because the City staff secondment will end on March 31, 1999, and the Board of 761 C.D.C. has asked the City of Toronto for a formal commitment of support before they initiate the hiring process for an Executive Director.

Long Term Support:

There are a number of possible sources for long-term support for the core administrative costs of 761 C.D.C. City staff will work with the organization to pursue funding relationships with the United Way of Greater Toronto, foundations, and potential private sector support. However, the agency does not have the immediate resources to hire an Executive Director.

The consultant's report identified a number of strategic issues that 761 C.D.C. should address over the next year and the Board of 761 C.D.C. has adopted a workplan to address these issues. With a number of significant organization issues yet to be resolved City staff have advised the Board of 761 to consider hiring an Executive Director on a contract basis.

Conclusion:

Community economic development has clearly been identified by the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force as an important preventative strategy that should be supported by the City. 761 C.D.C. is one of the few existing community resources with the mandate and expertise to provide support to CED initiatives.

Contact Name:

Chris Brillinger

Tel: 392-8608

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information with regard to the use of the recommended allocation to the 761 Community Development Corporation.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information in conjunction with the report titled " 761 Community Development Corporation" Clause No.10, Report No.7 of the Strategic Planning and Priorities Committee, now before Council.

Background:

In consideration of the report titled "761 Community Development Corporation" referred to above, the Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee requested additional information with regard to the funding recommended for the 761 Community Development Corporation. Specifically, staff were asked to clarify the salary level of the Acting Executive Director.

Discussion:

An allocation of $83,750.00 has been recommended comprising of $35,000.00 in program administration grants and $48,750.00 to allow the organization to replace their senior staff position, previously provided through a seconded City Staff position. An annual amount of $65,000.00, including salary and benefit was established. The staff secondment ended on March 31, 1999 and therefore the agency requires nine months of salary funding for the remainder of 1999.

The salary range of the seconded staff person was $54,317.00 to $59,670.00 with benefits of 21 percent of the salary for a total maximum of $72,200.00. The current salary range for Executive Directors of City funded Community Centres is $50,613.00 to $56,042.00 plus benefits.

The 761 Community Development Corporation has set the salary level for the Acting Executive Director at $55,500.00 plus $9,435.00 for benefits. The recommended nine month allocation of $48,750.00 specific to salary and benefit costs is less than that of the seconded City Staff cost and within the range of salaries paid to Executive Directors of City funded Community Centres.

Conclusions:

The salary and benefit level established by 761 Community Development Corporation is significantly below the cost of the secondment staff and within the range of salaries paid to Executive Directors of City funded Community Centres.

Contact Name:

Chris Brillinger - 392-8608)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 9, 1999) from Ms. Sandra Guerra, President and Ms. Charmaine Frado, Community Business Developer, 761 Community Development Corporation, attaching a brief summary of the activities of 761 Community Development Corporation.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Budget Committee for further consideration, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer was requested to again circulate, to Members of Council, the list of projects to be closed and/or transferred, in order that Members can indicate items of concern.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (March 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on March 29, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (March 17, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, wherein it is recommended that:

(1) approval be given to transfer funds, as required, from unexpended funds on individual completed projects to projects that experienced over expenditures and that funds in the amount of $3,090,487.00 be transferred to an unexpended capital account to be used for future tax supported capital projects and $2,108,632.00 be transferred to a capital financing reserve for water rate capital projects, as identified in Appendix "A";

(2) any future over/under expended capital projects from 1997 and prior, when closed, be transferred; and

(3) capital financing approval in the amounts of $568,629.00 and $87,192,273.00 representing unspent capital approval in the former Borough of East York and Metro respectively, be cancelled.

The Budget Committee also reports having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services, to report to the Corporate Services Committee on a possible usage for the Old Terrace Roller Rink.

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a report (March 17, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, recommending that:

(1) approval be given to transfer funds, as required, from unexpended funds on individual completed projects to projects that experienced over expenditures and that funds in the amount of $3,090,487.00 be transferred to an unexpended capital account to be used for future tax supported capital projects and $2,108,632.00 be transferred to a capital financing reserve for water rate capital projects, as identified in Appendix "A";

(2) any future over/under expended capital projects from 1997 and prior, when closed, be transferred; and

(3) capital financing approval in the amounts of $568,629.00 and $87,192,273.00 representing unspent capital approval in the former Borough of East York and Metro respectively, be cancelled.

Purpose:

To obtain approval to transfer funding between capital projects to cover over expenditures on projects with unexpended funds from other completed projects.

Financial Implications:

Funding for future tax supported capital projects would be available in the amount of $3,090,487.00 and $2,108,632.00 would be available for future water rate capital projects.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) approval be given to transfer funds, as required, from unexpended funds on individual completed projects to projects that experienced over expenditures and that funds in the amount of $3,090,487.00 be transferred to an unexpended capital account to be used for future tax supported capital projects and $2,108,632.00 be transferred to a capital financing reserve for water rate capital projects, as identified in Appendix "A";

(2) any future over/under expended capital projects from 1997 and prior, when closed, be transferred; and

(3) capital financing approval in the amounts of $568,629.00 and $87,192,273.00 representing unspent capital approval in the former Borough of East York and Metro respectively, be cancelled.

Discussion:

The Finance Department has completed a review of capital accounts that are completed and can now be closed. A review of these accounts indicated that there are a number of projects that have experienced cost over runs. Although the interim financial control by-law did not address the issue of over expenditures and therefore by default did not allow them, departments operated early in 1998 as if the policies in place in the former municipalities still were in effect. Some of these over expenditures occurred late in 1997. There were also a number of completed projects that came in under budget. Appendix "A" details all completed projects that are either under or overspent.

The former municipalities of Etobicoke, North York, York, Scarborough and Toronto fully funded capital projects immediately upon approval of the capital project while Metro and East York funded projects on an annual basis. Where projects were funded upon approval of the budget, any excess funds could either be allocated to other capital projects or returned to a corporate account to be used for future projects. Metro and East York under expenditures are approval amounts only and cannot be transferred to other projects.

Likewise, funds are required to be transferred to capital accounts, as detailed on Appendix "A", to cover expenditures in excess of the approved budget.

Conclusion:

The capital projects detailed in Appendix "A" can be closed resulting in unused capital financing of $3,090,487.00 being available for future tax supported capital projects and $2,108,632.00 being available for water rate capital projects. In addition, there are capital approvals in the amount of $87,760,902.00 that are no longer required and can be cancelled.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

A. C. Shultz

Director, Accounting Services

Finance Department

416 397 5240

(A copy of Appendix "A", entitled "City of Toronto Capital Projects to be Closed", was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 7, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having received the following communication; and having directed that it be forwarded to Council for information:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on March 29, 1999, reports having received the joint report (March 11, 1999) from the Fire Chief and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and directed that it be forwarded to Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, for information.

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a joint report (March 11, 1999) from the Fire Chief and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, providing members of the Budget Committee with a status report on the Fire Services' project to test and evaluate various suppliers' self-contained breathing apparatus and recommending to City Council that this report be received for information.

Purpose:

To provide members of the Budget Committee with a status report on the Fire Services' project to test and evaluate various suppliers' self-contained breathing apparatus.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding implications associated with this report. Funding is contained in the 1999 Capital Budget as approved by Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council receive this report as information.

Reference/Background/History:

In August 1998, the Fire Chief established a task force to develop evaluation criteria and to conduct tests of the various vendors' SCBA offerings to identify SCBA products suitable for acquisition by the Fire Services.

The objectives of the task force were:

(a) to notify and invite manufacturers and/or agents to participate in extensive product testing;

(b) to test and evaluate each product presented; and

(c) to recommend the purchase of those models of self-contained breathing apparatus meeting the established testing and evaluation criteria.

The SCBA task force members included a cross section of staff including members of management, operations, professional development/training, mechanical, technical service, and health and safety representatives.

All decisions regarding product elimination were reached by unanimous vote. This process required tough decisions that were made with integrity and in partnership with the fire fighters' association.

The notification of all interested parties was achieved by newspaper advertising, web-site posting and "Expression of Interest" mailings to all known SCBA manufacturers or agents.

Eight out of eleven possible manufacturers or agents responded and agreed to participate in a product competition. Each was invited to present their product to task force members. In addition, manufacturers were requested to provide a list of fire departments that had recently purchased the make and model of SCBA presently being considered for purchase by Toronto Fire Services.

Fire fighters conducted field-test exercises to provide them with the opportunity to evaluate aspects of each SCBA during work-related activities and tasks. More than one hundred and thirty fire fighters, both male and female, participated in eight days of controlled field testing.

Health and safety issues were of paramount importance throughout the entire SCBA evaluation. Manufacturers were eliminated from further consideration when significant safety issues were identified and could not be resolved.

After field evaluation, the remaining three manufactures (Scott, MSA and ISI) met with task force members and Toronto Fire Service technical staff to demonstrate the design service and functional features of their respective SCBA. The purpose was to allow the task force members to focus on each product's quality, serviceability and field centre support.

Following the completion of the testing and evaluation phases of the selection process, the task force members announced that both the Scott 50 and the MSA Custom 4500 MMR met the needs and safety requirements of Toronto Fire Services as it relates to:

(a) Carbon-fiber cylinders;

(b) Fast-fill connectors;

(c) Records management database;

(d) Manufacturer's support; and

(e) Low pressure supplied air connectors.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Now that the major issues of identifying preferred suppliers of SCBA have been addressed and resolved, the next phase of this project will be to conduct a price tender via the purchasing division of the Finance Department.

Conclusions:

The SCBA evaluation and acquisition project is progressing well. Staff of the Fire Services expect to submit a further report to Council in about two month's time recommending the execution of an agreement with one of the two manufacturers/agents on our short list.

Contact Name:

Alan F. Speed

Fire Chief

Tel: 397-4300 Fax: 397-4325

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

"It is recommended that:

(a) Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3) of the Olympic Task Force embodied in the communication dated April 12, 1999, from the City Clerk, be adopted, subject to amending Recommendation No. (3) by inserting the words 'Audit Committee and' prior to the words 'Olympic Task Force', so that such recommendations shall now read as follows:

'(2) the Olympic Task Force report further to the Policy and Finance Committee once the IOC announces its reforms to the bid rules for the 2008 Olympic Games; and

(3) the City Auditor be requested to review the current Bid Company's rules, regulations, and administrative and financial practices, and submit a report thereon to the Audit Committee and the Olympic Task Force.'; and

(b) the following motion be referred to the City Solicitor and the Mayor for report thereon to the Olympic Task Force:

Moved by Councillor Walker:

'That the City Auditor be requested to work with and assist the Provincial Auditor in investigating the use of the GST-exempt Crown Agency, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, for a private sector undertaking (Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid).' ")

(Note: Recommendation No. (1) of the Olympic Task Force embodied in the communication dated April 12, 1999, from the City Clerk, was ruled out of order and, accordingly, Council took no action with respect thereto.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having concurred with the Recommendation embodied in the following communication (April 6, 1999) from Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto:

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City of Toronto Olympic Task Force be permitted to report directly to the April 13 and 14,1999, meeting of City Council, in order to present my report on the question of conducting an audit of the 1996 Olympic Games bid. The report has been prepared in conjunction with the City Solicitor and the City Auditor and addresses an outstanding motion on the April 13 and 14, 1999 Council Order Paper.

Background:

Late in 1998, City Council created the Olympic Task Force and directed that it report through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

The Olympic Task Force held its first meeting on February 24, 1999.

The Olympic Task Force will meet on April 12, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in Committee Room No. 1, City Hall. It has been impossible to hold a second meeting of the Task Force earlier due to lack of meeting space and the unavailability of the members due to the budget cycle, March break, the Official Plan reviews, the Mayor's Summit on Homelessness, Passover and Easter holidays.

The April 12 date makes it impossible for the Task Force to report (as directed by Council) to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee prior to the April 13 and 14 City Council meeting.

I believe that it is in keeping with Council rules to submit my report as a communication to Council for its April 13 and 14, 1999 meeting.

I am, therefore, requesting your Committee's approval to submit my report directly to City Council on April 13 and 14, 1999, subsequent to the Olympic Task Force April 12, 1999 meeting, when my report will be on the agenda.

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (April 12, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Olympic Task Force recommends the adoption of the report (April 8, 1999) from Councillor Anne Johnston, Chair of the Olympic Task Force, subject to adding the following Recommendation No. 3:

(3) the City Auditor be requested to review the current Bid Company's rules, regulations, and administrative and financial practices; and submit a report thereon to the Olympic Task Force.

Background:

The Olympic Task Force on April 12, 1999, had before it a report (April 8, 1999) from Councillor Anne Johnston, Chair, Olympic Task Force, respecting TOOC 1996 Inc. and International Olympic Committee Rules; and recommending that:

(1) City Council not expend scarce resources on attempting to review or audit the financial records of TOOC 1996 Inc.; and

(2) the Olympic Task Force report further to the Policy and Finance Committee once the IOC announces its reforms to the bid rules for the 2008 Olympic Games.

The Olympic Task Force also had before it the following communications:

(1) (March 10, 1999) from the City Auditor, addressed to the City Solicitor, requesting clarification of the following:

(i) the authority of the City Auditor to conduct an audit on the financial records of TOOC-96 Inc., a private corporation;

(ii) the potential location of any accounting records relating to TOOC-96 Inc.;

(iii) the obligation of former TOOC-96 Inc. Executive and staff to cooperate with the audit process;

(iv) the obligation of Ernst & Young as attest auditors of TOOC-96 Inc. To provide information to the City relating to their financial audits of TOOC from the incorporation of TOOC to its dissolution; and

(v) the obligation of the Province to provide to the City any information/ records relating to TOOC-96 Inc. and

(2) (March 12, 1999) from the Director of Municipal Law, Legal Services, responding to the aforementioned request by the City Auditor.

Mr. David Crombie, Chair of the 2008 Toronto Olympic Bid Corporation (TO-Bid), appeared before the Olympic Task Force with respect to the 2008 Toronto Olympic Bid.

(Report dated April 8, 1999,

addressed to the Olympic Task Force,

from Councillor Anne Johnston,

Chair, Olympic Task Force.)

Purpose:

To update Council concerning changes to the IOC rules for Bid Cities and to recommend against the City spending further resources on reviewing alleged improprieties in the handling of the unsuccessful 1996 Olympic bid by TOOC 1996 Inc.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding implications.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council not expend scarce resources on attempting to review or audit the financial records of TOOC 1996 Inc.

(2) That the Olympic Task Force report further to the Policy and Finance Committee once the IOC announces its reforms to the bid rules for the 2008 Olympic games.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 adopted the report from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, dated November 4, 1998 updating Council on Toronto's bid to host the 2008 Olympic games and responding to various Council motions made in March and July, 1998, as well as Community Council motions from special meetings held in September and October. (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 24 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee). In so doing, Council adopted the terms of reference for the Olympic Task Force and requested the Striking Committee to select the members of the Task Force. At its meeting of February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Striking Committee and I was subsequently appointed Chair of the Council Task Force. Among its terms of reference, the Olympic Task Force is to establish a procedure to provide further oversight and an independent assessment of the social and fiscal aspects of the 2008 Olympic bid and to review the final bid proposal as well as its underlying assumptions concerning both operating and capital revenues and expenditures.

At its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, Council had before it a motion requesting that a forensic audit be conducted of the former City's 1996 Olympic bid by the City Auditor, which motion was deferred to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on April 13, 1999. That motion states that the current IOC corruption probe has revealed that the former City of Toronto's 1996 failed Olympic bid contained some improprieties and that those improprieties have cast a shadow of doubt amongst many proponents of the 2008 Olympic games. To the extent that allegations surrounding the 1996 Olympic bid continue to cloud support for the City's 2008 Olympic bid, the Olympic Task Force should comment on any such activity.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

I have met with the City Auditor and the City Solicitor to review the information available to the City respecting allegations made in the press relating to the conduct of the unsuccessful bid for the 1996 Olympic games. TOOC 1996 Inc. ("TOOC"), was incorporated as a corporation without share capital under the laws of the Province of Ontario on September 8, 1996. It was formed to act as an agent for the City of Toronto for the purpose of organizing and preparing the City's application for the 1996 Olympic games. However, TOOC was not an agency, board, or commission of the former City. Legally, TOOC remained arms length from the City. The City Solicitor advises that the City Auditor does not have a statutory right to audit the books and records of a private corporation.

The roles and responsibilities of TOOC are set out into an agreement entered into between the City and TOOC, dated September 30, 1987. Unlike the agreement entered into between the current City of Toronto, the Canadian Olympic Association and Olympics 2008 - Toronto, respecting the City's bid for the 2008 Olympic games, the agreement the former City entered into with TOOC contained very few guidelines as to how TOOC was to operate. The 1987 agreement between the former City and TOOC did contain a right for the City Auditor to audit the books and records of TOOC, however, this right no longer exists. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations issued an Order of Dissolution under the Corporations Act, effective July 11, 1991. Prior to its dissolution, as would be expected, the Board of Directors of TOOC approved the winding up of the Corporation and the former City was aware that the Directors of TOOC intended to terminate its corporate existence. Also, notice was published in the Ontario Gazette and in the newspaper in accordance with the requirements of the Corporations Act. Consequently, the City Solicitor advises that as TOOC no longer exists, the City no longer has a contractual right to audit the books and records of TOOC.

There is no legal requirement for the books and records of TOOC to remain in existence at this date. Efforts have been made by myself and by the City Auditor to speak to various TOOC officials, to determine what records still exist and whether the City can gain access to them. These efforts have not been successful; to date we have not even been able to determine whether or not the financial records of TOOC still exist.

While the financial records of TOOC are not available, a search through the records of officials of the former City of Toronto who were involved with the bid have uncovered some draft financial statements of TOOC. A review of these financial statements does not reveal any impropriety, however, it must be noted that these statements are prepared at a very high level with little detail. Details of alleged improprieties, such as those revealed in the press, would never appear in financial statements prepared at this level. Finally, I note that following the award of the 1996 Olymic Games to Atlanta, Paul Henderson and Norm Seagram submitted a report to the IOC detailing their concerns with the bid process and with the expectations placed on bid committees and bid cities. This report has also been detailed in the media and its conclusions and recommendations have been praised by United States olympic officials in their recent investigation of the award of the Olympic Games to Salt Lake City.

In the circumstances, I would recommend to Council that efforts be made to look at the future to ensure that the City's bid for the 2008 Olympic Games is impeccably clean, rather than squandering the City's resources on the past. Given that the City has no legal right to access the records of TOOC, assuming they still exist, and given the Henderson report that was submitted to the IOC detailing concerns with the bid procedure and recommending change, I cannot see any benefit to the City pursuing an audit of TOOC. As a result of the worldwide coverage that allegations of IOC corruption, the IOC is reforming its rules, as they apply to cities bidding on the Olympic games. As has been reported in the press, the bid rules for the 2006 Olympic games now ban IOC members from visiting the cities and also forbid visits to IOC members by delegations representing bid Cities. The IOC has also changed the process; there will be a panel of fifteen members that will review all of the bids and make a short list of two Cities, from which the entire IOC Board will select the ultimate victor. To date, nothing has been specified respecting the bid rules for the 2008 Olympic games and reform of the bid rules for 2008 is not expected until the Fall of this year. The Olympic Task Force will be able to make recommendations to Council in respect of the bid process once the rules are set by the IOC.

Conclusions:

City Council should not expend its scarce resources on attempting to review or audit the financial records of TOOC, if such records even exist and if the City is given access to them. Instead, the Task Force should monitor the reform of bid rules by the IOC and report further to Council on this once the IOC has established its bid rules for the 2008 Olympic Games.)

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the Recommendations of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, embodied in the communication (April 1, 1999) from the City Clerk;

(2) that the composition of the Business Reference Group be referred to the Mayor, the Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; and

(3) that, in future, all matters respecting the Tax Assessment and Policy Task Force be referred to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (April 1, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force recommends that:

(1) the report (March 30, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be adopted; and

(2) Council consider this matter to be a major public policy issue.

The Task Force reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, having:

(1) requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, or directly to Council as necessary, on time lines, staffing and funding for this project, so that the project will be completed by December, 1999; and

(2) referred the following motions to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for consideration in her report requested above:

By Councillor Flint:

"That one full-time staff be dedicated to this project, and that sufficient funds be provided to the Finance Department in order for the task to be completed in December, 1999, including the cost of consultants, as required."

By Councillor Bossons:

"That two full-time staff be assigned to this project."

Background:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, on April 1, 1999, had before it a report (March 30, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, regarding the Business Reference Group, and recommending:

(1) That the Terms of Reference as outlined in this report be adopted as the basis for the Business Reference Group;

(2) That the Business Reference Group be formed by, and report through, a three member Steering Committee and then to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force; and

(3) That the Business Reference Group be composed of at least 3 major panels - commercial, industrial and multi-residential - with further subgroups to be determined by the main panel following its first meetings.

The following persons appeared before the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. David R. Carefoot, Hudson's Bay Company; and

- Mr. Frank S. Zinner, Current Chairman, Ontario Chapter, Canadian Property Tax Association.

The Task Force's recommendations are noted above.

Purpose:

To provide recommendations regarding the establishment of a Business Reference Group to assist in the development of comprehensive tax policies for business properties for the next municipal property tax reassessment in 2001 in Ontario to be based on 1999 Current Value Assessment.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

(1) that the Terms of Reference as outlined in this report be adopted as the basis for the Business Reference Group;

(2) that the Business Reference Group be formed by, and report through, a three member Steering Committee and then to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force; and

(3) that the Business Reference Group be composed of at least 3 major panels - commercial, industrial and multi-residential - with further subgroups to be determined by the main panel following its first meetings.

Background:

At its meeting of July 21 and 23, 1998, City Council had before it Clause No. 4 of Report No. 13 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee entitled "Commercial and Industrial Property - Tax Policy Options". Among others, Council adopted the following recommendation:

"a work plan be developed to formulate comprehensive tax policies in advance of the return of the 1999 current value assessment, including the establishment of a Business Reference Group to assist in the process."

It is recommended that the Business Reference Group report through the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force.

The implementation of Current Value Assessment in Ontario in 1998 has subsequently resulted in numerous pieces of legislation being enacted by the Provincial Legislature to provide municipalities with options to deal with the impacts of CVA. The City of Toronto carried out significant research and analysis of this impact on all property classes in Toronto prior to Council's adoption of its tax policies in July 1998.

For the years 1998 to 2000, City Council adopted a capping mechanism to mitigate the impacts of CVA on multi-residential, commercial and industrial properties, and in particular, to provide protection for "small business" operators facing large tax increases. The capping provisions also resulted in limiting tax decreases due to CVA to meet legislated requirements that the any capping program within each class be revenue neutral. The capping extends to charitable and non-profit organizations located in the commercial and industrial classes.

A variety of tax relief mechanisms were made available to Ontario municipalities to offset CVA impacts, including:

(a) limit tax increases resulting from tax reform to no more than 2.5 percent per year for the next three years (1998 to 2000) and would be funded by limiting the amount of tax decreases;

(b) phase-in of tax increases and decreases up to a maximum of eight years;

(c) graduated tax rates;

(d) creation of new property classes: office buildings, shopping centres, parking lots and vacant land as well as large industrial properties; and

(e) tax rebate program.

The City's analysis recommended that, of all the options available for tax relief, and given the tight time frame available for a Council decision in 1998, a capping program would be the most effective option for the next three years. Council adopted the capping program for 1998 to 2000. It is, however, an interim step toward comprehensive tax policy development for the commercial and industrial classes. A similar program was later imposed by the Ontario Government on other municipalities to ensure that business properties do not experience a property tax increase greater than 10 percent in 1998 and 5 percent in both 1999 and 2000.

The purpose of the Business Reference Group is to provide input to the Task Force with potential recommendations to the province for legislative changes.

Comments:

This report concentrates on the issues relating to business properties, particularly in the commercial and industrial classes in preparation for the next reassessment in 2001. Multi-residential properties will also be included in the analysis.

Long term tax policies to be developed by the City require input from the commercial and industrial sectors as well as business associations and other stakeholders. A key component will the establishment of a Business Reference Group.

Structure of Business Reference Group:

The Group should be directed by a Steering Committee. To ensure continued focus for the Group, it is recommended that a three member Steering Committee be struck comprised of the Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force (or designate) who would chair the Committee, the Mayor (or designate) and one non-elected representative from a stakeholders group. The Group would report to the Steering Committee and then the Task Force. The chair of the Group should be the City Treasurer (or designate).

The Steering Committee would develop broad guidelines under which the Business Reference Group would operate and would develop a process to appoint members to the Group. To best review the various sectors, it is recommended that the Business Reference Group be composed of various panels, each with a specific forum. For example, the Business Reference Group could be structured along the following lines:

Commercial Industrial Multi-residential

- small retail - small - landlord representative

- office towers - large - tenant representative

- shopping centres

- non-profit

- banks

- anchor stores

Each of the three panels could be further categorized to review specific sectors, such as shopping centres, small strip retail or office sector. In addition, provincial assessment and finance officials should be invited to take part. Each panel would develop sector specific recommendations and then combined for overall consistency.

Business Reference Group - Membership:

Representatives from the following groups should be considered for inclusion: Toronto Board of Trade, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Shopping Centres (tenant and landlord), Toronto Office Tower Coalition, Toronto Association of BIAs (TABIA), Retail Association (such as the Ontario and Toronto Automobile Dealers Association, small retailers), representative of a charitable and non-profit organization (such as the United Way), large and small industrial groups, Canadian Bankers Association, Toronto Real Estate Board, department stores, restaurant and hotel association, and at large qualified property assessment specialists.

The Group will need to be supported by City staff resources and possible special funding to obtain specialized reports from outside expertise. It is expected that expertise from various City Departments will be utilized, including Finance, CAO, Economic Development, Facilities and Real Estate of Corporate Services and Shelter, Housing and Support Division. Membership of the Group from outside the City should be limited only to the degree such that the Group does not become too large and unwieldy to reach consensus or debate. It is recommended that total membership of the Group not exceed fifteen. Ample opportunity, however, must be provided to interested persons or organizations to permit input through open meetings.

Terms of Reference:

Specific detail of the Group's work plan should be developed by the group itself, but general Terms of Reference for the Group should be established and adopted by the Task Force. It is recommended that the following be considered as Terms of Reference:

(a) development of a comprehensive tax policy to provide an equitable tax burden for various sectors included in both the commercial and industrial property classes;

(b) review of options, including a reduction of tax rates of the commercial and industrial classes, to reduce the tax burden of these classes relative to the residential/farm class;

(c) review the effects of the Income Tax Act and the Corporations Tax Act to establish true tax burden relationships between residential properties and business properties including multi-residential properties.

(d) review and model Provincially established tax policy tools, either separately or in combination, as alternatives to the current capping policy. Such tools to include: phase-in, capping, separate property sub-classes, graduated tax rates, tax rebate, etc;

(e) recommend legislative change in advance of 2001 including a demonstration to the Province of the need for change;

(f) develop a definition of "Small Business" and determine whether it can be utilized in the development of tax policy;

(g) review of different tax rates for different types of business properties;

(h) education tax burden;

(i) report regularly to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force with a final report no later than December 1999; and

(j) to ensure a streamlined and effective result, membership of the Group be limited to no more than fifteen, excluding staff support.

Conclusion:

To ensure that long term comprehensive tax policies for the commercial and industrial property classes are developed for the City of Toronto, City Council has directed that a Business Reference Group be created to assist in policy formulation. The Business Reference Group should be composed of at least 3 major panels - commercial, industrial and multi-residential - and possibly a number of smaller subgroups to be determined following the initial meeting of the Business Reference Group. It is recommended that these panels report to a three member Steering Committee and then to the Task Force.

It is also recommended that the general Terms of Reference for the Business Reference Group, as outlined in this report, be adopted as the basis for a work plan.

Contact Names:

Paul Wealleans, 397-4208

Bill Wong, 392-9148

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

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, embodied in the following communication (April 1, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force recommends that the report (April 1, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be adopted.

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

(1) to submit the report previously requested by Council on methods to ameliorate the impact of unfair taxes on new businesses in Toronto to the Task Force at its meeting to be held on May 3, 1999; and

(2) to brief Councillor Chong on this matter, and request him to attend the meeting of the Task Force to be held on May 3, 1999.

Background:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, on April 1, 1999, had before it a report (April 1, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer regarding Maintenance of "Frozen Assessment Listing" - Capped Property Classes, and recommending that, if the Province/OPAC is not prepared to provide the City of Toronto with a "fresh" updated frozen assessment listing by May 15, 1999, that the Province commit to financial reimbursement to the City of all costs incurred in maintaining the listing.

The Task Force also had before it communications (March 26, 1999) from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and (March 17, 1999) from J. Williams, Nesbitt Burns.

The Task Force's recommendations are noted above.

Purpose:

This report provides information regarding the changes to be made to the frozen assessment listing as required by the Municipal Act. Changes in Current Value Assessment between 1998 and 1999 or between 1999 and 2000, will impact on how taxes will be calculated for some individual properties in the capped property classes.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that, if the Province/OPAC is not prepared to provide the City of Toronto with a "fresh" updated frozen assessment listing by May 15, 1999, that the Province commit to financial reimbursement to the City of all costs incurred in maintaining the listing.

Background:

At its meeting of July 21 and 23, 1998, City Council adopted a capping program for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes. As a result, for 1998, 1999 and 2000, the City must maintain a Frozen Assessment Listing.

Section 447(5) of the Municipal Act requires any municipality that implemented a cap for the business property classes to maintain a Frozen Assessment Listing (the Listing). The Listing for 1998 was based on the "assessment roll as most recently revised" and was received from the Province in May 1998.

The 1998 Listing reflected assessment information as of December 1997 for each property in the business property classes. The information included on the Listing for each property was the total 1997 assessment, commercial assessment, business assessment, vacant commercial assessment and non-business assessment. For the 1999 and 2000 tax years, the Act requires that the Frozen Assessment Listing to be maintained and updated to reflect changes in CVA assessment as shown on the annual assessment roll.

In general, the Municipal Act requires changes to the frozen listing under four major categories: (1) new construction; (2) improvements; (3) property class changes; and (4) year end changes due to vacancies. The different methodologies and calculations that are required for the various scenarios noted above are set out in this report.

Key Terms:

There are four key factors used to calculate changes to the frozen assessment listing. They are:

(a) Municipal Factor: Prescribed by Provincial regulation, the municipal factor is used to determine the equivalent 1997 realty assessment for new construction on vacant land. The municipal factor is also used in the calculation for newly constructed buildings on previously improved land where the increase in CVA assessment attributable to the new building is greater than 50% of the total CVA assessment of the property prior to construction. The municipal factors for Toronto are:

The municipal factor represents the City-wide ratio of old realty assessment to Current Value Assessment for that property class.

(b) Property Factor: Where the CVA assessment has increased due to the alteration, enlargement or improvement of an existing building, the frozen assessment is increased using the property factor. The calculation is property-specific, with the factor being the ratio of old realty assessment for that property to its Current Value, which is calculated by dividing the frozen realty assessment by the property's CVA.

(c) Average Business Factor: The average business factor is used to calculate the equivalent 1997 business assessment that would be applicable to occupied commercial or industrial property. The average business factors for Toronto are 42.6654% for the commercial property class and 52.008% for the industrial property class. The average business factors represent the average ratio of business assessment to commercial realty assessment in that property class.

(d) Property Business Factor: The property business factor is to calculate the equivalent 1997 business assessment that should be removed from the frozen assessment listing where an increase in vacancies occurs. The property business factor represents the ratio of business assessment to commercial realty assessment for an individual property.

Changes in Assessment - Pre CVA:

The changes to the frozen assessment listing due to new construction, additions, and changes in vacancies are similar to the methodologies used to calculate assessment changes prior to the implementation of Current Value Assessment.

For example, where new construction occurred, or when an addition was added to a property, the value of the new construction or addition would be added to the assessment roll. The market value of the new construction or addition was determined by the Regional Assessment Office (now the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation, or "OPAC") using standard appraisal methodologies. Since Metro Toronto was not on a full market value base, the market value was then factored back to reflect an equivalent 1940's based assessment.

The calculation for changes in vacancy on the frozen listing is also similar to the calculation that would have occurred prior to CVA. In 1997 and prior years, the Regional Assessment Office would assess a new commercial tenant and returning the new occupancy on the following year's assessment roll. Where the unit was previously vacant, the realty assessment would be changed to commercial and the appropriate business assessment would be added.

Prior to 1998, the Regional Assessment Office would track business occupancy changes and issue supplementary assessments for new commercial occupancies, retroactive to the day they moved in. Municipalities would calculate the taxes based on the effective date of the supplementary assessment, and tax the new commercial tenant directly for business taxes. The property owner would also receive a supplementary tax bill, for the change in taxes due to the change in realty assessment, from commercial to residential.

There are three differences in the calculation for post CVA changes in vacancies. First, instead of using the applicable business percentages as previously set out in the Assessment Act, the equivalent business assessment is determined using the average business rate of 42.6654% for commercial and 52.008% for industrial.

Second, individual business occupancies are no longer tracked. Under Ontario Regulation No. 282/98 made under Section 22 of the Assessment Act, the property owner must apply to the Assessment Office by November 1st of each year to have their property, or a portion of their property, included in the vacant units/excess land subclass. If no application is received, the property is returned on the assessment roll as fully occupied for taxation in the following year.

Third, new commercial tenants that move in part way through the year are no longer assessed through the supplementary assessment process. A property is assessed as occupied or vacant for the entire tax year with no in-year changes due to supplementary assessments or tax adjustments relating to vacancies. This process provides a benefit to property owners that have tenants move in through the year to occupy previously vacant space. Conversely, property owners that have commercial tenants move out mid-way through the year are at a disadvantage as they will have been assessed and taxed as occupied for the full year.

Property Change Categories:

Changes to the frozen assessment listing are done in situations where a property's physical attributes, character or use has changed, and this change has resulted in a change in property's CVA assessment. These changes include construction of new buildings, or the addition or renovation to an existing building. The purpose of the changes to the frozen assessment listing are to create a "new" or notional 1997 assessment from which to calculate "new" 1997 taxes that reflect the changes made to the property. The "new" 1997 taxes are not the actual taxes levied, but are calculated to reflect what the taxes would have been if the new building or addition had been there in 1997.

A description of the frozen assessment calculations and the types of changes included in the four general categories are set out below. Examples of specific calculations are attached as Appendices 2 through 6 of this report.

Category 1: New Construction

(See Appendix 2 for sample calculation)

(a) New construction relates to the erection of a new separate structure on a property.

(b) For new construction on vacant land, the municipal factor is used to calculate the frozen realty assessment.

(c) If the new construction is on a property with an existing building and the CVA of new construction is less than 50% of the existing CVA, the property factor is used to calculate the frozen realty assessment.

(d) If the new construction is on a property with an existing building and the CVA of new construction greater than 50% of the existing CVA, the municipal factor is used and the frozen assessment for the entire property is recalculated.

(e) Under each new construction scenario, the average business factor is used to calculate the applicable frozen business assessment.

Category 2: Improvements/Additions/Renovations

(See Appendix 3 for sample calculation)

(a) Improvements or additions must be attached to an existing building on the property.

(b) The property factor is used to calculate the frozen realty assessment. The applicable business assessment is calculated using the average business factor for the class.

Category 3: Property Class Changes

(See Appendix 4 for sample calculation)

(a) The municipal factor is used to calculate frozen assessment for a change from an uncapped property class to a capped property class (i.e., property class changed from residential to multi-residential, commercial or industrial). The applicable business assessment is calculated using the average business factor for the class.

(b) If a property changes from the commercial to the industrial class, no adjustment is made to the assessment on the frozen listing. However, the CVA tax change, and resulting cap or clawback must be recalculated based on the tax rate in the new class.

(c) Changes in property class, from a capped class to an uncapped class (i.e., commercial to residential) results in the property being taxed at full CVA with no phase-in.

Category 4: Vacancy Changes

(See Appendix 5 and 6 for sample calculation)

(a) Section 447.12 of the Municipal Act directs the recalculation of vacancy changes.

(b) For a decrease in vacancies, change frozen realty assessment from residential to commercial. The applicable frozen business assessment is added using the average business factor.

(c) For an increase in vacancies, change frozen realty assessment from commercial to residential. Delete business assessment using property business factor.

Number of Properties Affected:

Based on preliminary analysis of the 1999 assessment tape, the estimated the number of properties in the four categories of assessment changes noted above are:

As noted under "Issues", there is currently insufficient information on the assessment roll to accurately identify why an assessment has changed from the previous year.

Impact of New Construction Calculation:

The Municipal Act sets out how the frozen assessment is to be recalculated where the CVA of a property increases due to new construction. The legislated calculation for new construction, using the municipal factor to calculate the new frozen realty assessment, results in the new taxes being nearly equivalent to the full CVA.

Using the municipal factor to calculate the new frozen assessment moves the effective tax rate for new construction to the municipal average for that property class. The average effective tax rate for the all properties in the commercial property class is 7.5 percent. Therefore, properties where the existing effective tax rate is less than 7.5 percent are severely impacted, while those with effective tax rates of more than 7.5 percent benefit from the municipal factor calculation for new construction. The CVA impact study showed that the existing effective tax rates for office buildings, medical/dental, department stores were higher than the 7.5 percent commercial average. These properties would benefit from the new construction calculation. However, the impact study also showed that the effective tax rate on vacant land was 1.58 percent, significantly less than the 7.5 percent average. Therefore, new construction on vacant land is severely impacted by the municipal factor calculation. Preliminary analysis of the 1999 assessment tape shows there are 54 properties City-wide that can be identified as new construction. The average existing effective tax rate for these properties is 1.596 percent.

As noted above, prior to the reassessment, the market value of the new construction or addition was determined by the Regional Assessment Office and then factored back to reflect an equivalent 1940's based assessment before it was added to the assessment roll. Set out below are the estimated taxes that would have resulted from new construction for a sample property. The table shows the estimated taxes that would have been levied if there had been no reassessment, compared to the estimated taxes due to new construction using the legislated calculation.

The table shows for the sample property, that the calculation for new construction under the capping legislation results in a higher tax burden than may have occurred under the old assessment system. However, a significant tax increase would have been experienced due to the new construction, whether there had been a reassessment or not. It demonstrates that under the "old" system, taxes would have increased by $31,696 while CVA causes the increase to be $43,528, a difference of $11, 832 or 33.12 percent.

Issues:

The information contained on the year-end assessment tape is not sufficient for municipalities to identify the reasons why a CVA assessment has changed for a property. In particular, where a CVA assessment has increased, no data is available on the tape to identify whether the CVA increase is due to new construction, or due to an addition or alteration. The calculations as set out in the Municipal Act require different factors to be used in calculating the equivalent frozen assessment. The use of municipal factor versus the property factor can dramatically affect the resulting tax impact for an individual property.

It should be noted that changes to the frozen assessment listing are only done in situations where a property's physical attributes, character or use has changed, and this change has resulted in a change in CVA assessment. However, in some circumstances, the CVA assessment may also be changed by OPAC to correct an error in the CVA value shown on the previous year's assessment roll. In these circumstances, where no physical change has occurred to the property, no change is to be made to the frozen assessment. However, as noted above, municipalities do not currently have sufficient information on the assessment roll to identify these properties, and must rely on OPAC for information on which properties should have their frozen assessment changed, and which should not.

One solution to this problem would be for OPAC to identify on the assessment tape, the reason for the change to the property's CVA. Better coding on the assessment tape is needed to identify the application of specific section of the capping legislation (improvement, new construction, etc) and how the frozen assessment should be calculated. While this data is not available on the assessment roll for 1999, staff have had discussions with OPAC in Toronto and have requested that these codes be defined in conjunction with municipal staff, for inclusion on the assessment tape for taxation in 2000.

As noted above, O. Reg 282/98 requires landlords to apply annually to OPAC to ensure their property, or a portion of their property, is included in the vacant units/excess land subclass. If no application is received, the property is returned on the assessment roll as fully occupied for taxation in the following year.

The original deadline for vacancy applications was November 1, 1998 for changes relating to the 1999 tax year. However, on January 14, 1999, the Minister of Finance extended the deadline for vacancy applications to February 28, 1999. As a result, municipalities do not currently have accurate CVA totals that reflect the results of these applications. For 1999, the amount of decreases that will be allowed in the commercial and industrial property classes cannot be calculated without having these changes reflected. Initial discussions with OPAC have indicated that they will treat vacancy changes as "one offs" under the appeal process, which may delay the claw back calculation and/or cause individual property owners a delay in obtaining correct records and a correct tax bill.

The lack of business occupancy updates presents another problem for municipalities when it comes to maintaining an accurate frozen assessment listing. Any changes due to successful assessment or tax appeals that affect the 1997 tax year, must also be reflected on the frozen listing and all taxes levied subsequent to 1997 must be recalculated. Situations will occur where a tax appeal reduces the 1997 taxes due to a business vacancy and an omitted assessment adds a new business tenant. For many properties, it will be difficult, without the assistance of OPAC, to determine whether the tax adjustment (vacancy) or the omitted assessment (new occupancy) should be reflected on the Listing. A similar situation arises when an assessment appeal reduces the 1997 business percentage and/or business assessment.

Due to the issues noted above, it is clear that significant input is required from OPAC records to accurately reflect assessment changes and maintain the Frozen Assessment Listing. It is therefore recommended that the Province/OPAC be requested to provide the City of Toronto with a "new" updated frozen assessment listing for 1999 and 2000. Since the City of Toronto currently pays almost $25 million for assessment services provided by OPAC, if the Province/OPAC is not prepared to provide the City with an updated frozen listing in time to issue the 1999 final tax bills (i.e., by May 15th), the Province should reimburse all of the costs incurred by the City in maintaining the listing.

Conclusion:

Since Bill 79 requires all other Ontario municipalities to implement some sort of tax relief mechanism (capping at 10 percent, 5 percent and 5 percent for 1998 - 2000), the ability for most municipalities to maintain a Frozen Assessment Listing, except for the very large ones, is limited and requires Provincial assistance in the form of either the Province or OPAC maintaining the Listing.

Since the frozen listing maintenance requires access to the reasons why a CVA assessment has changed or updated, OPAC is in a better position to maintain the Listing as they have the individual property data necessary to ensure an accurate Listing. This transfer of responsibility is particularly important in light of the fact that all other Ontario municipalities are required to maintain the Listing, likely without proper resourcing and access to information regarding assessment updates.

In his letter of March 23, 1999, to all municipalities, the Minister of Finance indicated that the Province will support the centralized management of the frozen assessment listing for 1998, 1999 and 2000. Due to serious concerns of municipalities across Ontario regarding the issues surrounding the maintenance of the frozen listing, a municipal liaison group has been established, with representation from the Ministry of Finance, Municipal Affairs and Housing, AMO, MFOA, AMCTO, AMTCO, OPAC, as well as staff from the City of Toronto. An initial meeting took place on March 29, 1999, and additional meetings are scheduled over the next two weeks in order to clarify the Province's plans to assist municipalities in the frozen listing maintenance.

A further report will be submitted to the next meeting of the Task Force, to update the Task Force on any further developments with respect to the centralized management of the frozen listing.

Contact Names:

Lynne Ashton, 397-4203

Paul Wealleans, 397-4208

Bill Wong, 392-9148

(Copies of the appendices and attachments to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 7, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee; and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

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

(a) Task Force on Community Safety - Membership.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Striking Committee for consideration:

(March 22, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, during its consideration of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 5 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed "Final Report of the Task Force on Community Safety", amended Recommendation No. (35) of the report (February, 1999) from the Task Force on Community Safety, entitled "Toronto. My City. A Safe City. A. Community Safety Strategy for the City of Toronto.", to provide that five Members of Council, representing all areas of the City, be appointed to such Task Force.

(b) Identification and Evaluation of Policy Areas Within the Various Departments.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports have received the following report; and having forwarded a copy thereof to the Budget Committee for its information:

(March 9, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, commenting on the transition team's proposed Strategic Directions Secretariat as requested by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee; describing the policy functions now being undertaken by staff and their location within the City's departments and the staff roles and responsibilities for policy development in the future, as requested by the Budget Committee; and recommending that this report be received for information and that a copy of the report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information.

(c) Policy on Interest Paid on Assessment Appeal Refunds.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Budget Committee for consideration; and having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report to the Budget Committee on the financial implications in regard thereto:

(April 6, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on April 1, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee that:

(1) the City of Toronto pay interest of 1 percent on assessment appeal refunds, retroactive from January 1, 1998 until the date the new by-law is enacted;

(2) the rate of interest to be paid on assessment appeal refunds be set at the average of the prime rate of interest by the six major Canadian chartered banks, at the beginning of the calendar year for which the rate applies;

(3) By-law No. 29097 of the former City of North York which allows for the payment of interest on assessment appeal refunds for properties in the former City of North York, be repealed;

(4) the former City of Toronto's Municipal Code be amended to provide that any overpayments made on or after the date of the by-law being enacted by Council, which are eligible for assessment appeal refunds, shall have the interest applied from the day the overpayment is made;

(5) the City Solicitor be requested to submit the necessary by-law to give effect to these recommendations; and

(6) the former City of Toronto continue to pay interest on assessment appeals that relate to tax years 1997 and prior based on the rates as adopted by the former City of Toronto.

Respectfully submitted,

MEL LASTMAN

Chair

Toronto, April 7, 1999

(Report No. 7 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.)