8 539 Queens Quay West - Spadina Quay Marina (Marina) (Ward 24 - Downtown)

9 Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 205 Ava Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

10 Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 42 Heathdale Road - Amendment of Agreement of Purchase and Sale (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

11 Sale of Spadina Property - 153 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

12 Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation Corridor Property at 42 Darrell Avenue (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

13 Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation Corridor Property 230 Clonmore Drive (Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs)

14 Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation Property - 106 Aylesworth Avenue (Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs)

15 Request for an Encroachment Agreement - 1883 McNicoll Avenue Southwest Corner of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue, Former City of Scarborough - Part of Lot 29, Concession 4 (Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt)

16 Request for an Encroachment Agreement - 230 Meadowvale Road Southwest Corner of Meadowvale Road and Highway 2A, Former City of Scarborough - Lot 128, Registrar's Compiled Plan 9887 (Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek)

17 Request for an Encroachment Agreement - 565 Kennedy Road, Northeast Corner of Kennedy Road and Summer Drive, Former City of Scarborough - Lot 7, Plan 3507 (Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)

18 Declaration as Surplus - the Closed Public Lavatory Located Beneath the Public Lane Known as Mayfair Mews at Bloor and Bay Streets (Ward 23 - Midtown)

19 Declaration as Surplus - Proposed Sale of a Portion of a Public Lane Situated Between Premises Nos. 71 and 75 Elmer Avenue (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

20 Use of a Portion of 53 Strachan Avenue by Homes First Society for Community Market Garden Project (Ward 20 - Trinity Niagara)

21 Goulding Estate - Lease between the Centre for Creative Ministries and the City of Toronto

22 John Street Roundhouse - TrizecHahn Corporation - Proposal Report (Ward 24 - Downtown)

23 Renewal of Parking Lot Lease at Municipal Car park 39 (Castlefield Avenue West of Yonge Street)

24 Tax Arrears - Extension Agreement

25 Voting and Vote-Counting System - Municipal Elections

26 Administrative Modifications to Signing Authority in Clerk's Division

27 KPMG Fleet Review Update

28 Actuarial Valuation Results - The Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund

29 Attendance at the Annual General Meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women

30 Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that:

(1) the job description for Constituency Assistants outlined in Appendix 2 embodied in the report (May 7, 1999) from the Executive Director of Human Resources be adopted;

(2) the job description for Executive Assistants embodied in this Clause, headed "Revised Job Description for Executive Assistants", as amended by the Corporate Services Committee be adopted;

(3) the Executive Director of Human Resources be requested to submit a report to the next meeting of the Administration Committee on the results of the job evaluation for the positions of Constituency Assistants and Executive Assistants;

(4) the job description for the new position of Councillor's Assistant outlined in Appendix 3 embodied in the aforementioned report, and the proposed salary range relating thereto be received; and

(5) the Executive Director of Human Resources be requested to submit a report, in two months' time, to the Administration Committee with respect to job descriptions, job evaluations and salary levels of the Administrative Assistants and Clerical Assistants, after consultation with Members of Council, relevant staff , unions and COTAPSAI.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit a report to the Administration Committee:

(i) respecting staff members in the Councillors' offices who are over 65 years of age and are not receiving benefits with a view to treating them the same as the other Councillors' employees in terms of benefits; and

(ii) providing a breakdown of the difference between the "Hay" proposal for job evaluations of the former City of Toronto and what the City now has in place.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 7, 1999) from the Executive Director of Human Resources:

Purpose:

This report responds to Council's request that a review be completed of the job descriptions and salary levels for Executive Assistants and Constituency Assistants to Members of Council.

Financial Implications:

Funding of the recommended actions can be accommodated in the corporate contingency account in accordance with direction from the Treasurer.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the job descriptions for Executive Assistant and Constituency Assistant to Members of Council be adopted;

(2) the job description for Councillor's Assistant be adopted and be used to hire new employees performing such duties and responsibilities into the Councillor's Office;

(3) the salary range for these positions be set at $42,200 to $52,300;

(4) those individuals whose salary is below the minimum of $42,200 be immediately placed at $42,200 retroactive to January 1, 1998 or their date of hire, whichever is later;

(5) funding for salary reviews for council staff members be derived from the corporate contingency account for 1999;

(6) the salary levels for the positions of Executive Assistant, Constituency Assistant and Councillor's Assistant be reviewed once the complete job evaluation system under the new compensation program is implemented; and

(7) staff be authorized to take whatever steps necessary to implement the foregoing.

Background/History:

Council, at its meeting of November 25, 26, and 27, 1998, requested that a review of the job descriptions and salary levels of the Executive Assistants and Constituency Assistants be completed by the end of February 1999. The timing was to be in parallel with the recommendations of the Compensation Review for Non-Union staff. Although the Compensation Review will not be before Council until July 1999, the recommendations reflected in this report are consistent with the recommendations that will be presented in the upcoming report from the consultant.

Comments:

(1) Job Descriptions:

Up-to-date job descriptions were completed for the Executive Assistant (EA) and Constituency Assistant (CA) positions in consultation with a representative group from these classifications. The recommended job descriptions are appended as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

From the information gathered in this consultation, it became clear that there is a great deal of overlap in the duties and responsibilities of the EA and CA positions. The degree of overlap varies from office to office. In order to provide Councillors with optimal flexibility, a third job description has been prepared which combines the two positions. It is titled "Councillor's Assistant" and is appended as Appendix 3. It is recommended that new employees hired by Councillors be hired under this new job description and title.

(2) Compensation:

Based on the factors contained in the job description, salary levels were reviewed in light of (1) the City's current interim salary ranges and (2) the ranges that will be proposed to Council by the consultants who are completing the compensation review.

Given the similarity in the duties and responsibilities between the EA and CA positions, the point factors upon which the salary level is determined are relatively equal and, thus, the positions fall within the same salary level.

The interim salary range for the two positions and the recommended position of Councillor's Assistant is $42,925 (minimum) to $50,500 (job rate maximum). The upcoming recommendations on the full compensation review from the external consultant would derive a salary range of $42,200 (minimum) to $52,300 (job rate maximum). Since the recommendations will be before Council in the next few months on the full compensation review, it is appropriate to use the latter salary range even if it is in advance of full implementation.

The majority of the Executive Assistants and Constituency Assistants are currently within the recommended salary range and there would be no upward adjustment in salary as a result of this recommendation. It is recommended that, assuming Council adopts the recommendations of this report, the salary be adjusted to the new minimum of $42,200 for those Constituency Assistants whose salary is currently below the minimum of the salary range. Council had previously determined that any adjustments to the salary levels for these positions would be retroactive to January 1, 1998, or to their date of hire if it was after January 1, 1998.

It is appropriate to review again these salary levels when the complete job evaluation system is implemented for all non-union staff.

Conclusion:

This report has recommended job descriptions and salary ranges for Executive Assistants and Constituency Assistants to Members of Council. It has also recommended that the salary levels be reviewed once the new compensation program is fully implemented.

Contact:

Brenda Glover

Executive Director of Human Resources

397-9802

(1) Assumes primary responsibility for the management of general operations of the Councillor's office. Includes ensuring that the Councillor is relieved of all administrative detail as it relates to the day-to-day running of the office if delegated by the Councillor.

(2) Ensures that other Members of the Councillor's staff are completing, to the Councillor's satisfaction duties required of them; that the EA's hires, trains and supervises Members of the Council staff or assist in those projects if delegated by the Councillor.

(3) Ensures that constituent related concerns, problems, and inquiries are resolved either personally or through delegation to another member of the Councillor's staff or to appropriate City staff. Assists the Councillor and Councillor's staff in handling inquiries, concerns, and complaints from constituents and the public. Provides constituency outreach, strategic planning and monitoring of current issues if delegated by the Councillor.

(4) Monitors and maintains records on Committee recommendations and Council decisions regarding matters of interest to the Councillor and his/her constituents. Pays special attention to those matters of importance to the Councillor and problematic issues.

(5) Reviews, analyses and makes recommendations to Councillor on content and appropriateness of reports by City staff. Reviews and analyses agendas for Council, Committees, Task Forces, Agencies, Boards and Commissions, identifying items that will affect the Councillor and his/her constituents. Recommends and initiates necessary action to respond to these matters.

(6) Undertakes research and analysis for the Councillor with respect to policy matters and departmental initiatives. Reviews and analyses agendas for Council, Committees, Task Forces, Agencies, Boards and Commissions. Researches, initiates, assists with formulation and discusses feasible policy options with appropriate City staff for recommendations to appropriate Council Committees, Task Forces, Boards and Agencies.

(7) Prepares motions on behalf of the Councillor for Council, committees, Agencies, Boards and Commissions, as it pertains to issues of interest to the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(8) Ensures that records are maintained and follows up on requests and inquiries made by the Councillor to City Staff.

(9) Provides advice and comment to City staff on matters of interest to the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(10) Liaises between the Councillor, the Mayor, and other Members of Council and his/her staff, as well as the various Commissioners, directors, managers and other City staff with respect to corporate initiatives, operational issues, and issues affecting the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(11) Answers inquiries and provides and explains Councillor's position on issues to City staff, members of the public and the media, if delegated by the Councillor.

(12) Anticipates and initiates responses for the Councillor. Reviews correspondence of importance with Councillor, advises on or determines the course of action if required, and organizes replies for signature where appropriate. Arranges and delegates for preparation of responses by appropriate staff as required. May be required to sign on behalf of the Councillor if delegated by the Councillor.

(13) Prepares and co-ordinates general presentation material and speeches for the Councillor when necessary.

(14) Prepares articles, columns, and letters to the editor for local and mainstream print media.

(15) Maintains a thorough and continuous awareness of corporate initiatives and Council policies in order to keep the Councillor and his/her constituents informed and up-to-date on issues.

(16) Ensures the Councillor is prepared with the required briefing material for meetings of Council, Committees and other meetings.

(17) Liaises with other Councillors for support on issues of importance as required.

(18) Monitors the Councillor's office budget and ensures that expenditures are controlled and maintained within approved limits. May be required to approve expenditures if delegated by the Councillor.

(19) Undertakes or delegates special assignments as required by the Councillor.

(20) Assists in organizing and publicizing community meetings.

(21) Represents the Councillor at meetings with City staff, constituents, community organizations and associations, and special event functions. Communicates the Councillors' position and obtains support for that position at these meetings if necessary. Also accompanies the Councillor to required meetings providing assistance and advice.

(22) Maintains sound awareness of local and city-wide municipal matters, and other matters affecting the municipality, which affect the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(23) Maintains confidentiality on issues involved in the executive function and matters of confidentiality relating to issues of importance to the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(24) Develops and ensures maintenance of Councillor's contacts either by way of electronic database or other means. May be required to develop and maintain Councillor's profile by way of web page development and maintenance and development of constituency newsletters.

Job Description: Executive Assistant

Major Responsibilities:

(1) Monitors and maintains records on Committee recommendations and Council decisions regarding matters of interest to the Councillor. Attends to those matters of importance to the Councillor and/or problematic issues.

(2) Reviews and analyses agendas and reports for Council committees, boards, task forces, and agencies. Identifies items that may impact the Councillor and his/her ward. Recommends and initiates necessary action to respond to these matters.

(3) Undertakes research and analysis for the Councillor with respect to policy matters and departmental initiatives. Discusses same with City staff for recommendations to appropriate committees, task forces, boards, and agencies.

(4) Prepares motions on behalf of the Councillor for appropriate committees, boards, and agencies as required.

(5) Ensures that records are maintained and follows up on requests and inquiries made by the Councillor to City staff.

(6) Provides advice and comments to City staff on matters of interest to the Councillor and his/her ward.

(7) Provides liaison between the Councillor, the Mayor, and other members of Council and his/her staff, as well as City staff with respect to corporate initiatives, services, programs and issues affecting the Councillor and his/her ward.

(8) Prepares and coordinates general presentation material and/or speeches for the Councillor when necessary.

(9) Ensures the Councillor is prepared with the required briefing material for meetings of Council, Committees, and other meetings.

(10) Liaises with other Councillors on issues of importance as directed by Councillor.

(11) Monitors the Councillor's office budget and ensures that expenditures are maintained within approved limits. May be required to approve expenditures.

(12) Maintains awareness of ward, community and city-wide municipal matters, and other matters affecting the municipality, the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(13) Maintains confidentiality with respect to issues involving the City and the Councillor, and adheres to the City's Conflict of Interest Policy.

(14) Undertakes special assignments as requested by the Councillor.

Job Description: Constituency Assistant

Major Responsibilities:

(1) Provides constituency outreach and strategic planning. Monitors current issues that may have impact on the constituency.

(2) Undertakes research and analysis for the Councillor with respect to policy matters and departmental services/programs as they relate to constituency/public inquiries and concerns. Discusses same with City staff for appropriate actions and response. Prepares responses. May be required to sign on behalf of the Councillor.

(3) Ensures that inquiries/concerns are addressed and records are maintained. Follows up on requests/inquiries made by the Councillor to City staff.

(4) Provides liaison between the Councillor, the Mayor, and other members of Council and his/her staff, as well as City staff with respect to corporate initiatives, services, programs and issues affecting the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(5) Prepares and coordinates general presentation material and/or speeches for the Councillor when necessary.

(6) Ensures the Councillor is prepared with the required briefing material for meetings of Council, Committees, and other meetings.

(7) Develops and ensures maintenance of Councillor's contacts through electronic database or other means. May be required to set up and maintain Councillor's web page.

(8) Prepares, processes printing and distribution of constituency newsletters. Prepares articles, columns, and letters to the editor for local and mainstream print media.

(9) Arranges public meetings, meetings with constituents and other community events. Assists and/or represents the Councillor at meetings/events.

(10) Assists Councillor or represents Councillor at public hearings and appeals (e.g., Committee of Adjustment, Ontario Municipal Board, Workplace Safety Insurance Board, etc.) acting on behalf of constituents.

(11) Monitors the Councillor's office budget and ensures that expenditures are controlled and maintained within approved limits. May be required to approve office expenditures.

(12) Maintains awareness of ward, community and city-wide municipal matters, and other matters affecting the municipality, the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(13) Maintains confidentiality with respect to issues involving the City and the Councillor, and adheres to the City's Conflict of Interest Policy.

(14) Undertakes special assignments as requested by the Councillor.

Job Description: Councillor's Assistant

Major Responsibilities:

The employee in this position may be required to perform some or all of the following:

(1) Prepares responses to inquiries, concerns and complaints from constituents and the public. May be required to sign on behalf of the Councillor. Provides constituency outreach, strategic planning and monitoring of current issues.

(2) Ensures that inquiries/concerns are addressed and records are maintained. Follows up on requests/inquiries made by the Councillor to City Staff.

(3) Monitors and maintains records on Committee recommendations and Council decisions regarding matters of interest to the Councillor and his/her constituents. Attends to those matters of importance to the Councillor and/or problematic issues.

(4) Reviews and analyses agendas and reports for Council committees, boards, task forces, and agencies. Identifies items that may impact the Councillor and his/her ward. Recommends and initiates necessary action to respond to these matters.

(5) Undertakes research and analysis for the Councillor with respect to policy matters and departmental initiatives. Discusses same with City staff for recommendations to appropriate committees, task forces, boards, and agencies.

(6) Prepares motions on behalf of the Councillor for appropriate committees, boards, and agencies as required.

(7) Provides advice and comments to City staff on matters of interest to the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(8) Provides liaison between the Councillor, the Mayor, and other members of Council and his/her staff, as well as City staff with respect to corporate initiatives, services, programs and issues affecting the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(9) Prepares and coordinates general presentation material and/or speeches for the Councillor when necessary.

(10) Ensures the Councillor is prepared with the required briefing material for meetings of Council, Committees, and other meetings.

(11) Liaises with other Councillors on issues of importance as directed by Councillor.

(12) Develops and ensures maintenance of Councillor's contacts through electronic database or other means. May be required to set up and maintain Councillor's web page.

(13) Prepares, processes printing and distribution of constituency newsletters. Prepares articles, columns, and letters to the editor for local and mainstream print media.

(14) Arranges public meetings, meetings with constituents and other community events. Assists and/or represents the Councillor at meetings/events.

(15) Assists Councillor or represents Councillor at public hearings and appeals (e.g., Committee of Adjustment, Ontario Municipal Board, Workplace Safety Insurance Board, etc.) acting on behalf of constituents.

(16) Monitors the Councillor's office budget and ensures that expenditures are maintained within approved limits. May be required to approve office expenditures.

(17) Maintains awareness of ward, community and city-wide municipal matters, and other matters affecting the municipality, the Councillor and his/her constituents.

(18) Maintains confidentiality with respect to issues involving the City and the Councillor, and adheres to the City's Conflict of Interest Policy.

(19) Undertakes special assignments as requested by the Councillor.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following communication (May 20, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River:

I have reviewed the job description for Executive Assistants produced by staff for today's agenda. I want to assure you that it is not an adequate description of the work done by the Executive Assistant in my office.

My Executive Assistant is routinely involved in the hiring, firing, discipline direction and co-ordination of staff in my office. He is also responsible for the management of students and volunteers in my office. At times, my Executive Assistant is co-ordinating eight people doing work in my office.

My Executive Assistant is also routinely involved in the development of policy. I would never suggest that political staff are or should be the major source of policy for the City. However, it is a fact that I propose policy to Council and Committee and that policy is developed by myself and my staff and it is inaccurate to suggest that my staff do not develop policy.

It has always been my assumption that job descriptions should accurately describe the job that is being done. If that is the case, then any job description that applies to my Executive Assistant should include hiring, firing, co-ordination and supervision of staff, as well as policy development.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

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

- Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional, Supervisory Association Inc. (COTAPSAI);

- Ms. Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79;

- Councillor Michael Prue, East York; and

- Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber.

(Councillor Kelly declared his interest in the foregoing matter, in that his wife is employed by the City of Toronto as his Executive Assistant.)

(Councillor Mahood declared his interest in the foregoing matter, in that his daughter is employed by the City of Toronto as his Administrative Assistant.)

(The following Members of Council, at the meeting of City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, declared their interest in the foregoing Clause, in that a member of their family is an employee in their office:

- Councillor Cho;

- Councillor Gardner;

- Councillor Kelly;

- Councillor Li Preti;

- Councillor Mahood;

- Councillor Pantalone; and

- Councillor Shiner.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report (April 29, 1999) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, subject to:

(i) amending Recommendation No. (1) by adding thereto after the word "law", the words "and sound labour relations principles", so that Recommendation No. (1) shall now read as follows:

"(1) City Council affirm its commitment to ensure that there is open and fair competition with respect to construction work performed on behalf of the City of Toronto in a manner consistent with its obligations in law and sound labour relations principles and to provide the citizens of the City of Toronto with high quality and affordable public service;"; and

(ii) amending Recommendation No. (2) to read as follows:

"(2) the Executive Director of Human Resources be requested to seek further clarification from the Province of Ontario regarding Bill 31 along the lines they have identified;"; and

(2) that the Executive Director of Human Resources be requested to submit a report to the Administration Committee on:

(i) the results of the discussions as outlined in Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the aforementioned report; and

(ii) a pre-qualification process that would ensure that contractors have a demonstrated history of compliance with health and safety standards, employment standards, the fair wage (where applicable) and respect for employees' right to join a trade union.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 9, 1999, on:

(i) the accident rate for union versus non-union contract workers for the City of Toronto as well as the Workers Compensation Board claims in the past five years;

(ii) the number of employees in each category of construction trade since January 1, 1998;

(iii) the status of appeal of Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision in relation to the Toronto Dominion Bank;

(iv) the status of application to OLRB by the City of Sault Ste Marie;

(v) the impact of an application under Bill 31 where no employee is in the category of construction trade; and

(vi) the implementation date for the new purchasing procedures.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (April 29, 1999) from the Executive Director of Human Resources:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to set out the legal framework regarding the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, 1998 ("Bill 31"), and its applications to the City of Toronto, to report on the results of those consultations with trade unions and employer representatives of the construction industry which were undertaken with a view towards better understanding the parties' concerns regarding the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, 1998 ("Bill 31") with the objective of ensuring fair competition with respect to construction work performed on behalf of the City of Toronto, and to make recommendations which will support and lead to the achievement of this objective.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council affirm its commitment to ensure that there is open and fair competition with respect to construction work performed on behalf of the City of Toronto in a manner consistent with its obligations in law and to provide the citizens of the City of Toronto with high quality and affordable public services;

(2) staff report back to Council with recommendations on possible communications to the Government of Ontario regarding Bill 31 and its stated goal of ensuring fair and open competition in public tendering for construction work; and

(3) staff continue to meet with construction trade unions and employer representatives of the construction industry for the purpose of ensuring open and fair competition within the context of the current legislation and that all possible approaches be considered in achieving this goal including but not limited to issues that have arisen out of the City's construction trade union affiliations.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the Corporate Services Committee meeting of December 7, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee adopted a recommendation that staff enter into discussion with trade unions and with representatives of the construction industry in order to better understand their concerns regarding Bill 31, with a view toward ensuring fair competition with respect to construction work performed on behalf of the City of Toronto.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Legal Framework:

Bill 31 amended the Labour Relations Act and established a test for employers who meet certain criteria to be declared "non construction employers" and to be released from existing construction trade union obligations.

The following legal preconditions must be met prior to the Ontario Labour Relations Board issuing such a declaration.

(1) The Employer must prove that they were in a bargaining relationship with a construction union on August 24, 1998;

(2) The Employer must prove that it is "not engaged in a business in the construction industry" or must prove its only engagement in such a business is "incidental" to its "primary business";

(3) On the day the Employer makes the application to be declared a non construction employer for any particular union affiliation, there must be no employees employed at the Employer performing work of the affected union; and

(4) The Employer must not have eliminated construction employees solely for the purposes of the application, as this may be an unfair labour practice. Note that the Employer may, however, reduce employees where there exist sound business reasons to do so.

The City was in a bargaining relationship with construction trade unions on August 24, 1998 and therefore meets the first precondition.

The City does not consider itself to be engaged in a business in the construction industry and, if this is the case, any such engagement is incidental to its primary business as a municipal government.

The City currently does employ individuals to perform work, both construction and maintenance, which may prevent or hinder it in bringing an application at this time. In this regard, it must be noted that the legislation does not clarify what is "construction work" and what is maintenance and this may result in further disputes arising under the third precondition. The Board considers "repair" to be construction work within a construction trade union's jurisdiction and "maintenance" is considered to be distinct. In the absence of some clarification, the Board determines in each instance whether or not an employee is performing construction repair or non-construction maintenance.

There has not yet been a decision of the Board providing any interpretation to these provisions and it is expected that the first significant application will proceed no earlier than the end of July, 1999. The Labour Board has indicated that the delay is a result of its currently reduced staffing levels. In the pending applications construction trade unions are arguing that retailers, financial institutions and a municipal government are, in fact, engaged in a business in the construction industry. The outcome of these decisions is likely to have a significant impact on future applications.

Results of the Consultative Process:

Extensive consultations have taken place with the construction trade unions and various construction employers and associations representing employers over the past several months. A listing of these groups with whom there have been direct consultations are set out in the attached "Appendix A".

In addition, the deputations, both oral and written that were presented for the consideration of the Corporate Services Committee at its meeting on December 7, 1998 were taken into consideration within the context of the consultative process.

A number of options were presented and considered by the parties with a view towards finding an approach and/or method of ensuring that there would be fair and open competition with respect to construction work performed on behalf of the City that would be acceptable to the parties concerned. And, while a solution has not yet been found, all of the parties now have a much better understanding and appreciation of the issues and complexities from the perspective of the City and the practical and legislative difficulties in attempting to find such a solution.

In our view, the construction trade unions now fully appreciate the public concern over what is seen by many as restrictive tendering practices for construction work within the public sector.

Although much has been accomplished in terms of increasing the level of understanding with respect to the issues and concerns of the parties involved, further discussions must be undertaken in a manner that will focus on common interests and goals rather than on the specific rights, both legal and otherwise, that the parties may currently have in order that the City's objective of ensuring fair and open competition may be achieved.

Conclusions:

The consultative process, while creating a higher and perhaps common level of understanding of the issues, has also served to bring to light the nature and depth of the complexities involved in finding an acceptable solution.

At this time, while there is no clear path, either in a practical or legislative context, we are optimistic that should these recommendations be adopted, it will create a climate within which an acceptable solution will be found that will ensure open and fair competition regarding construction work performed on behalf of the City in a manner consistent with the City's legal obligations and sound labour relations principles.

Contact Name:

Harold Ball

Director, Employee and Labour Relations

392-8727

Consultation List

- Toronto Independent Contractors Association

- Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario

- Electrical Contractors Association

- Environment Sheet Metal Association

- Ontario Masonry Contractors Association

- Mechanical Contractors Association

- Ontario Painting Contractors Association

- Canadian Federation of Independent Business

- Independent Contractors Group

- Christian Labour Association of Canada

- Ontario General Contractors Association

- Toronto Construction Association

- Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council

- Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications:

(1) (Undated) from the Independent Contractors Association, forwarding a copy of a communication dated January 4, 1999, addressed to the Mayor from Mr. A. Bruce McKelvey, Chair, and Ms. Elyse Allan, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, urging the City of Toronto to secure the access of non-unionized contractors to the City's construction work by ensuring that any agreement it reaches with the construction trades does not contain any clause which would restrict or prevent the participation of non-unionized contractors; advising that should the City not act to ensure the access of non-unionized contractors, Toronto would be the only municipality in Ontario, and with Montreal one of two in Canada, which has such restrictive bargaining relationships with the construction trades; and that the City of Toronto should act immediately to restore fairness and promote healthy competition in the municipal construction work market; and

(2) (May 17, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, advising that the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, 1998, allows non-construction employers to decertify union agreements under specific conditions; that at the December, 1998, meeting of the Corporate Services Committee, many trade unionists expressed their surprise and disappointment at the City's interpretation of the Act and that the City would jeopardize the good labour relations that have existed for so many years; that the Corporate Services Committee recommended that discussions take place with representatives of trade unions and the construction industry; that consultations have now been held with three labour organizations and eleven contractors' associations and it would appear that all participants understand the issues but there is little agreement; that in their view there is no need for further consultation on this matter; that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has made a clear decision regarding the bargaining rights of unions and has recognized eight trades in the construction area; and stating that the City should respect the bargaining rights and maintain the agreements and should not be using the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act as an excuse to destroy longstanding labour relations in Toronto.

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

- Mr. Ray Pennings, Christian Labour Association of Canada, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Hugo Powell, Central Ontario Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall and Allied Workers, Carpenters Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America;

- Mr. Joe Fashion, Local Union 353, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. William Nicholls, District Council No. 46, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades;

- Mr. John Cartwright, Construction Trades Council;

- Mr. Bob O'Donnell, Electrical Contractors Association of Toronto;

- Mr. Joe McPhail, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 30;

- Mr. Arthur Potts, The Toronto Independent Contractors;

- Mr. Dave Clarke, United Association of Plumbers and Steam Fitters, Local 46 Toronto, accompanied by Mr. Bud McWatters, Mechanical Contractors Association of Toronto, and Mr. Paul Murray, Black and McDonald, and filed a submission in regard thereto; and

- Mr. Jim Hazel, President, Maintenance and Construction Skills Trades Council, Local 3219, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, accompanied by Mr. Chris Hinkson, a former worker with the independent contractors.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 28, 1999) from the Executive Director of Human Resources:

Purpose:

To report to Council as requested by the Corporate Service Committee regarding various matters arising out of the report submitted to the Corporate Services Committee at its meeting of May 20, 1999 by the Executive Director of Human Resources regarding the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, 1998 ("Bill 31")

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

That the following report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the Corporate Services Committee meeting of May 20, 1999, the Corporate Services Committee requested that the Executive Director of Human Resources submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to held on June 9, 1999, on:

(i) the accident rate for union versus non-union contract workers for the City of Toronto as well as the Workers Compensation Board claims in the past five years;

(ii) the number of employees in each category of construction trade since January 1, 1998;

(iii) the status of any appeal of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision in relation to the Toronto Dominion Bank;

(iv) the status of the application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board by the City of Sault Ste. Marie;

(v) the impact of an application under Bill 31 where no employee is employed by the City in the category of a construction trade; and

(vi) the implementation date for the new purchasing procedures.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(i) Information on accident rates and Workers Compensation claims for union versus non-union contract workers in Toronto is not available.

The following organizations were contacted:

(a) Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB)

(b) Construction Safety Association of Ontario (CSAO)

(c) Construction Health & Safety Program, Ministry of Labour

None of the above contacts were able to provide statistics by union/non-union status. The WSIB and CSAO explicitly stated that they do not track injury rates by union affiliation or membership.

(ii) As of May, 1999 the City employed the following numbers of employees who are represented by various construction trades unions with which the City has a collective bargaining relationship:

(a) Bricklayers 1

(b) Carpenter 38

(c) Electricians 41

(d) Glaziers 1

(e) Plumbers 42

(f) Sheet Metal Workers 2

(g) Painters 14

(h) Insulator Mechanics 0

TOTAL 139

(iii) An application for judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding the Toronto Dominion Bank is currently being considered but no application has been filed.

(iv) With respect to the application of the City of Sault Ste. Marie under Bill 31 one (1) day of hearing has taken place. Further hearing dates have been scheduled to commence in August 1999.

(v) In order to file an application under Bill 31, there must be no employee in the employ of the City performing the work of the affected union on the day the application is made.

(vi) If an application were successful, the City would be declared a non-construction employer and the bargaining rights of the trade union named in the application would be terminated and the City would no longer be bound by the applicable construction industry collective agreement.

(vii) The new guidelines for prospective bidders for construction work performed on behalf of the City setting out the current labour trades contractual obligations in the construction industry will be included in all tenders and quotations beginning Monday, June 14, 1999.

Conclusion:

N/A

Contact Name:

Harold Ball, Director, Employee & Labour Relations

Tel. No. 392-8727

Alison Anderson, Director, Employment Services

Tel. No. 392-5028)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (June 7, 1999) from Mr. David McDonald, General Superintendent, Kenaidan Contracting, Member, Board of Directors, Construction Safety Association of Ontario, submitting comments regarding construction safety in the City of Toronto, and expressing opposition to the guidelines for perspective bidders for construction work set out by the Toronto and District Skilled Trades Council.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 6, 1999.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 10, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek authority to enter into an agreement with Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (hereinafter referred to as "Sun Life"), for the provision of Administrative Services Only (ASO) and Underwriting Services with respect to Group Life, Long Term Disability (LTD), Extended Health Care and Dental Care benefit coverage for the City of Toronto under the terms and conditions outlined in an RFP issued in November, 1998.

Authority is also being sought to terminate existing agreements with the 13 insurance carriers who currently provide ASO and underwriting services for City of Toronto benefit plans.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding of benefits coverage is contained in Departmental budgets. Savings resulting from the consolidation to a single benefits provider will be realized in the Employee Benefits Reserve to offset the City's total unfunded liabilities.

The benefit plans covering Group Life, LTD, Extended Health Care and Dental Care are currently administered for the City of Toronto by 13 external organizations, under contractual agreements for specified annual administrative fees. Administrative fees for 1998 were approximately six percent of claims costs ($82.0 million), amounting to $4.9 million. It is estimated that the City will realize approximately $1.3 million in annual savings or 26.5 percent in administrative fees by entering into an agreement with Sun Life for the provision of ASO and underwriting services. The estimated administrative fees of $3.6 million represents 4.17 percent of the claims costs. In addition, Sun Life has offered three full time staff members to work in the City of Toronto Finance Department, as employee contacts and administrative assistants to help ease the burden of administrative duties on City employees particularly during the transition phase.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor exercise the City's rights to terminate existing agreements which provide for 30 days written notice for termination, with the present benefit plan carriers;

(2) the City enter into an agreement with Sun Life (subject to Y2K compliance), in a form satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor, for the provision of underwriting and administrative services with respect to the Group Life, Long Term Disability, Extended Health Care and Dental Care benefit plans of the City on the terms and conditions outlined in this report and the Request for Proposals issued on November 27, 1998;

(3) the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be formally requested to amend the Municipal Act to reflect the Ministry's current policy concerning municipal self-insurance of staff group health plans, by conferring an express power on municipalities to provide direct group accident and group sickness benefits with respect to employees without being subject to the Insurance Act, and in the interim the City continue to maintain and apply for its intended purpose, under the control of the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, an appropriate reserve (currently approximately $100,000,000.00) to fund employee long-term disability benefits;

(4) the term of the agreement with Sun Life, be for a one-year period effective August 1, 1999, with options to extend for additional one year terms but for no more than five years with administration fees guaranteed for a three year period; and

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

Background:

Prior to amalgamation, an intermunicipal team (the Pensions and Benefits Working Team), comprised of staff from each of the former seven municipalities, was formed to analyze issues related to amalgamation and create a consolidated plan with respect to benefits administration.

The Team's mandate was to provide the framework and strategies necessary to enable the new City to achieve a process for the fair and equitable transition of Benefits and Pension into the new amalgamated City of Toronto.

A consulting firm, Morneau, Sobeco, Coopers & Lybrand, was engaged to review employee benefit plans across the seven municipalities. Their recommendations included:

(i) consolidating providers while maintaining current benefit levels;

(ii) maintaining current benefit levels in the short term pending the outcome of Collective Bargaining;

(iii) continuation of traditional benefit programs in the short term to ensure that no employee perceived a decrease in benefit levels due to amalgamation; and

(iv) consider implementation of a flexible benefits plan in the future to allow employee flexibility, combat future escalation costs, provide a progressive image, and ensure employees' ability to continue pre-amalgamation coverage levels.

In 1998, the consulting firm of William M. Mercer Limited, was engaged to provide ongoing support to the City in benefit matters including the development and issuance of an RFP for ASO and Underwriting Services for benefit plans, the development of an implementation strategy for the selected single carrier and the development of a flexible benefit framework.

The rationale for consolidating the provision of benefits services under one provider include:

(i) consistent claims assessment for all covered individuals;

(ii) Improved and consistent communication to employees;

(iii) opportunities for savings resulting from more advanced technology-including the ability to support smart-card technology;

(iv) Improved management information for decision-making purposes;

(v) reduced adjudication fees; and

(vi) reduced "stop loss" charges (risk avoidance premium).

A team which included the external consultant (William M. Mercer Limited) and representatives from the Finance Department, released a duly advertised RFP for ASO and underwriting services for Employee Benefit Plans in November, 1998.

Discussion:

Extended Health and Dental:

Most benefits are adjudicated by a third party since the coverage is being provided on an Administrative Services Only (ASO) basis. Under an ASO agreement, the employer self-insures benefits using a third-party adjudicator to pay claims on its behalf. Under this method, the employer bears financial responsibility for the entire cost of claims and expenses. To minimize the risk to the employer, third-party adjudicators establish a risk "ceiling" in exchange for a small premium (Stop-Loss). With Stop Loss, the portion of claims exceeding a pre-determined maximum are removed from the ASO plan and become the third party's liability. This helps protect the plan from catastrophic claims.

ASO was the most common funding method used by the former seven municipalities for Extended Health and Dental coverage and it is recommended that this underwriting method be adopted as the underwriting method for the new City.

Group Life Insurance:

All of the former municipalities used an insurance company to adjudicate and process life insurance claims. The most common underwriting method for Group Life Insurance was Refund Accounting with Stop Loss.

Under this underwriting method, a premium is paid throughout the year and an accounting of the surplus/deficit position is conducted at year end.

It is recommended that the Group Life Insurance plans continue to be administered under the Refund Accounting with Stop Loss underwriting method with pooling on the Accidental Death and Dismemberment provision. Pooling allows experience of a larger group to determine overall premium rate and adjustments, if any.

Long Term Disability:

The most common funding method for Long Term Disability benefits is on an ASO basis where a licensed insurance company is engaged to act as claims adjudicator only, and does not accept any of the risk associated with a claims-over-deposits shortfall.

The City Solicitor has expressed the opinion that ASO funding arrangements for Long Term Disability benefits are contrary to the Municipal Act and the Insurance Act, which require that these benefits be provided by a licensed insurer. However, in discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry has confirmed that the provisions contained in this legislation are outdated. Five of the seven former municipalities operated the LTD plan as ASO. The former East York and York operated their LTD plans as true insurance.

In order to insure the LTD benefits, it would now be necessary to transfer reserves to Sun Life in the amount of approximately $100 million. It is the recommendation of the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, that it would be fiscally more prudent to continue to hold our own reserves and benefit from their investment and proceed with an ASO policy.

Metro Council considered the issue of the transfer of $61.0 million in reserves in October, 1997 and referred the matter back to the Corporate Administration Committee with a request for assurances of protection in the event of insolvency of the insurer and proposals for alternatives to transferring the $61.0 million. On December 10/18, 1997, Metro Council directed that no further action be taken with respect to the transfer of funds at that time. Long term disability claims have been processed on an ASO basis even without a duly signed contract with Sun Life. The practice with former Metro's long term disability claims, adjudicated by Sun Life during the past 2 ½ years.

It is therefore recommended that the contract with Sun Life for the provision of Long Term Disability benefits be on an ASO basis and that the Minister be formally requested to amend the legislation to be consistent with the widespread practice of municipalities in this field.

Comments:

The RFP Context and Requirements::

Staff of William M. Mercer Limited confirmed that ASO agreements are commonplace in large organizations like the City of Toronto which require professional, state-of-the-art claims management processes, as well as impartial claims adjudication. Under an ASO agreement, the employer bears total financial responsibility for the cost of claims and expenses. This is why sophisticated adjudication systems and low administration fees are necessary. Sophisticated computer technology has significantly changed the design and administrative procedures of benefit plans in many organizations.

The consultants identified the need for the City to investigate and assess cost management options and strategies to help control rising benefit costs. The technology required by the City utilizes real time claims processing on-line. This provides for electronic data interchange (EDI) between the direct provider of benefits services (e.g., the dentist or pharmacy) and the company that adjudicates claims under the benefit plans on behalf of the City. Other cost management measures, already in effect in many of the municipalities include concurrent drug utilization review, coordination of benefits, positive enrolment and managed health care. These are all reliant on state-of-the-art technology.

The RFP Process:

The RFP was prepared by City staff and released on November 27, 1998, through the offices of the City's Purchasing and Materials Management Division of the Finance Department. The following schedule of events was followed as described in the RFP:

(i) RFP Information meeting, December 18, 1998;

(ii) viewing of City's Various Benefit Contracts, November 30-December 11, 1998 (extended to January 8, 1999);

(iii) proponents' Questions Deadline (Written), December 10, 1998;

(iv) confirmation of Proponents' of Intent to Submit, December 21, 1998;

(v) deadline for Submissions of Proposal, January 22, 1999;

(vi) interviews with Short-listed Proponents, March 3, 1999;

(vii) visit Short-listed Proponents' sites, March 5-18, 1999; and

(viii) selection of Preferred Proponent, April, 1999.

Throughout the RFP process, due diligence was exercised in ensuring fairness, integrity and confidentiality of the RFP process. Specific illustrations include, for example, the requirement for each of the proponent's questions to be documented, responded to in writing and sent to all proponents as formal Addenda for the RFP document.

Evaluation of Submissions:

In total, four submissions to the RFP were received and accepted within the specified deadline. Submissions were received from the New Millennium Dental Group, CUMBA Health Network, Manulife Financial and the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. Representatives of the City's Finance Department, the Corporate Services Department (Human Resource Services and Information Technology), and Internal Audit undertook a three-stage evaluation of the Submissions. Technical advice and assistance for the first stage was provided by William M. Mercer Limited.

Stage 1 Evaluation - Assessment of Submissions against the mandatory RFP Criteria was undertaken in order to eliminate proponents who did not conform to or meet, the requirements of the City. Four of these criteria were deemed to be mandatory - General, Underwriting/Financial, Reporting and Client Services.

The criteria were grouped into 10 categories utilizing Technospecs software supplied by William M. Mercer Limited. Technospecs is William M. Mercer's proprietary software and allowed the team to objectively identify a shortlist of insurers; to obtain a quicker initial evaluation of the submissions, provide consistent cost effective unbiased preliminary ranking of insurers who were able to meet the terms of reference and provide a level playing field for all proponents. Rankings were dependent on the insurers' answers to specified questions.

The four companies were then assessed in detail to determine the degree to which each conformed to the RFP mandatory criteria.

Some of these items included:

(i) the right to audit all claims payments;

(ii) access to raw claims data;

(iii) adherence to plan design, administration services and underwriting/financial arrangements;

(iv) ability to provide toll free telephone line(s) for City employees and retirees;

(v) implementation and ongoing assistance with a dedicated team;

(vi) successful completion of a government or public sector contract of comparable scope, size and nature described in the RFP;

(vii) supplied references of satisfactory performance relevant to this;

(viii) produced recent evidence of Proponent's ability (knowledge, skill, means, and resources) to perform the work (i.e., administer a benefit plan of similar size, level and scope to the City of Toronto as described in the RFP); and

(ix) demonstrated technical, administrative capabilities, financial stability and relevant expertise.

The 10 categories assessed in the Stage 1 evaluation process were:

(i) Administration;

(ii) Claims Adjudication;

(iii) Client Service;

(iv) Cost;

(v) Cost Containment;

(vi) Disability Management;

(vii) Flex Benefits;

(viii) General;

(ix) Reporting; and

(x) Underwriting.

Administration:

Some of the items included under this category were:

(1) ability to provide a PC-based administration program or an on-line facility whereby the client could tap into the insurer's mainframe in order to:

(i) change records on line;

(ii) track claims experience;

(iii) check claims payments;

(iv) produce census reports; and

(v) produce utilization trend reports;

(2) downloading capability between City's and insurers systems; and

(3) E-mail communication.

Claims Adjudication:

This category requested information regarding the claims dispute process; adjudication with or without a drug card; adjudication based on dispensing fee cap; ability to adjudicate electronically submitted dental claims; ability to deny dental claims submitted on assignment; adjudication of out of pocket maximums on health and dental claims; ability to adjudicate separate co-insurance for periodontics and endodontics; full use of dependant enrolment data and many other claims adjudication issues.

Client Service:

This section asked for confirmation of willingness to enter into a performance standards agreement; availability of a toll-free/local phone number for employee enquiries; cost of providing employee booklets; ability to execute preparation of employee announcement letters; written confirmation for quoted rates; ability to issue administration manual; and, ability to prepare policy booklets, issue claims forms and issue ID cards.

Cost:

This section asked for confirmation of the establishment of disabled life reserves and their inclusion in annual renewals. Confirmation of rates for Life, AD&D and LTD to be guaranteed for three years was to be required. Guarantee of expense formula and constant charges for 36 months was to be confirmed. Insurers had to indicate their willingness to draft a financial services agreement.

Cost Containment:

This section asked for guarantees that systems were in place to ensure that provincial government health and dental benefits are first paid by government programs. Insurers were asked to detail their experience with Managed Care initiatives.

Disability Management:

Proponents were asked to confirm their willingness to extend regular review meetings to develop mutually agreed upon action plans to return employees to work. Various questions dealt with administration and philosophy regarding Rehabilitation and Return to Work.

Flex Benefits:

This section assessed the insurer's experience and ability with flex benefits and their handling of Health Spending Accounts.

General:

This section dealt with confirmation of quoted fees, the insurance company's financial stability and bond rating. It also dealt with the willingness of the insurer to allow an independent claims audit to determine adherence to the terms of the contract.

Reporting:

This section asked questions regarding the insurer's ability to report data in a variety of formats and by various data elements.

Underwriting:

This section dealt with underwriting issues, mostly related to policies regarding pre-existing medical conditions, evidence of insurability, conversion to individual policies, Living Benefits for Group Life, etc.

At the end of Stage 1, Sun Life and Manulife were very close in ranking with Sun Life being first, Manulife second and CUMBA third.

CUMBA's responses to the categories dealing with Cost Containment, Flexible Benefits, General and Underwriting were much lower than the responses provided by Sun Life and Manulife.

At the end of Stage 1, one proponent (New Millennium Dental) had been eliminated from further consideration. Their proposal did not address all of the mandatory criteria specified in the RFP but rather identified an alternate proposal for dental care only.

Stage 2 Evaluation - Interviews of the three short-listed proponents was undertaken by a City panel. The panel members included the Director of Pension, Payroll and Employee Benefits, the Manager of Benefits and Employee Services, the Director of Audit, the Director of Applications Technology and the Director of Human Resources, Employee Services. Formal questions were asked of each proponent and the responses rated by the individual interview team members against pre-determined, minimum expected responses using weighted evaluation criteria.

The categories covered in the Stage 2 Evaluation included:

(i) implementation plan;

(ii) implementation experience;

(iii) transition (enrolment, questions);

(iv) managing disabilities;

(v) handling changes in adjudication;

(vi) call centre-increased volumes;

(vii) provider audits;

(viii) help in dealing with various groups;

(ix) claims resolution dispute process;

(x) coordination of initiatives;

(xi) who to call;

(xii) Y2K compliance; and

(xiii) partnership/ongoing service.

Implementation Plan:

Sun Life was the only insurer to provide a detailed implementation plan including a time-line and detailed task list which indicated that they had given serious consideration to the enormity of the task and broken it down into manageable segments.

Implementation Experience:

Sun Life's experience with major public sector implementations includes the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Federal Government and the City of Montreal.

Transition:

Sun Life presented the most feasible transition plan, based on previous public sector experience. This plan included awareness of the difficulties of administering multiple plan designs, the need to have fully trained staff in their Call Centre and on-site at City locations (to be determined by the City), communications issues to minimize impact of employees and re-enrolment issues.

Managing Disabilities:

CUMBA does not provide LTD coverage.

Sun Life and Manulife both demonstrated experience and ability in this area, however Sun Life's disability management philosophy was more in tune with the City's efforts to develop an integrated disability management approach emphasizing early intervention.

Handling Changes in Adjudication:

Both Sun Life and Manulife have state-of-the-art adjudication systems capable of handling multiple plan designs and changes in plan design. This will become increasingly important as collective bargaining progresses and benefits changes occur as a result.

CUMBA's systems are still in the testing stages for Health and their Dental adjudication system is not anticipated to be ready until late 1999.

Call Centre-Increased Volumes:

Sun Life had the most realistic expectation regarding increased demand on their Call Centre. This was based on their experience with the former Metropolitan Toronto plan transition which saw volumes increase by 25 percent in the first month. Sun Life was criticized for this and quickly resolved the problem in the case of the Metro plan. They have already made plans to increase staff accordingly based on their previous experience.

Sun Life relocated their Call Centre in 1997 to allow for expansion and have work stations fully equipped to accommodate increased staff.

Provider Audits:

Both Manulife and Sun Life have sophisticated claims adjudication systems and skilled examiners capable of detecting possible fraudulent practices being conducted by providers. The ability of the insurance company to identify fraud helps keep claims costs down by recouping lost dollars and preventing further fraud.

Helping Deal with Various Groups:

Proponents were asked to detail how they would work with City Staff in dealing with employees, retirees, the Unions and elected officials. Sun Life proposed a governance model which is detailed under "Value Added".

Claims Resolution Dispute Process:

Both Manulife and Sun Life had formalized methodologies for dealing with disputes arising from claims adjudication which involved both City and insurer staff.

Coordination of Initiatives:

Sun Life presented the most comprehensive overview of a coordination plan. They will provide a dedicated "install coordinator" who will work exclusively on the City of Toronto transition. This idea was not contemplated by the other carriers whose installation team will have other clients to deal with while trying to install the City plan.

Who to Call:

Sun Life clearly identified the team to be assigned to the City of Toronto account. Many of the team members will be assigned exclusively to the City of Toronto account due to its size and complexity.

Y2K Compliance:

Sun Life and Manulife both have detailed strategies to have all their systems Y2K compliant by the end of 2nd quarter of 1999.

Partnership/Ongoing Service:

The City of Toronto will need an insurer who is responsive to its needs during the transition from 13 existing carriers. In addition, the City will require an insurer who can provide ongoing service in terms of providing reports, responding to plan changes and providing good customer service.

Right Team:

This category gave panel members an opportunity to assess the "fit" of the insurer's staff with City staff.

Sun Life presented their front-line staff at the interview who were extremely knowledgeable regarding all facets of the their existing book of business with the City of Toronto and also on the contracts currently held with other carriers.

Supplementary Questions:

Various points of clarification were required to address items arising from the presentation. The panel members were able to judge how well the presenters could answer ad hoc questions.

Value Added:

Major items presented by Sun Life were:

(i) addition of three Sun Life staff members to work on site with City staff to aid in quicker claims resolution and assist with administrative tasks;

(ii) a Blueprint for Implementation which presented a detailed task list of all items that needed to be addressed -- no other proponent supplied such a detailed plan;

(iii) Data Warehouse - where statistics and financial information would be housed allowing us to run ad hoc reports;

(iv) access to the Assure Database through the internet: this feature was comparable to Manulife's partner for drug claim handling; and

(v) a proposal by Sun Life of a Governance Model whereby a committee comprised of representatives from several areas within the City of Toronto meet on a regular basis to proactively address issues as they arise, share concerns and constructively discuss common approaches and solutions. Such a committee would be comprised of members of the Finance Department, Human Resources and the Unions.

The Governance Model:

This committee would ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the level of coverage under the plan, and are informed about plan changes as they are negotiated and implemented. It would ensure that there is a common understanding of these issues and a common message to the employees of the City.

The committee could also have as possible objectives:

(i) Safeguarding the plan: identifying suitable cost management initiatives to ensure that the plan continues to provide a solid level of benefits protection to members.

(ii) Quality Service - a common definition: the definition of quality service may vary slightly depending on the perspective of the stakeholder. Shaping a common definition helps to find the right balance between claims adjudication philosophy, claims turnaround time, customer service levels, effective disability management, etc.

(iii) Resolving Plan Member Complaints and Disputes: higher profile and more involved claims disputes can be resolved through an open discussion to ensure consistent resolution of issues and to consider the best interest of both the plan and the plan members.

(iv) A Forward Looking Vision: a forum such as this helps to shape the future vision and direction of the plan.

Provision was also made for members of the interview panel to rate their individual assessment of the proponents on:

(i) presentation of the right team;

(ii) answers to supplementary questions; and

(iii) presentation of value added items.

The ranking for the Stage 2 Evaluation was Sun Life first, Manulife second and CUMBA a distant third.

Sun Life was the only insurer to provide a detailed implementation plan and dedicated staff. They were also the only insurer that included in their proposal three on-site staff to supplement Finance staff involved in benefit delivery.

Stage 3 Evaluation - Site visits were made to each of the three short-listed proponents as specified in the RFP.

The Evaluation Team ranked the proponents in five areas:

(i) Systems;

(ii) Business related systems operations;

(iii) Audit;

(iv) Call Centre capacity; and

(v) Rehabilitation .

The ranking for the Stage 3 Evaluation was Sun Life first, Manulife second and CUMBA a distant third.

Outcome of the RFP Evaluation:

The final evaluation ranking was based on the total score results of each of the stages and components of evaluation, as presented above, as well as the reference checks subsequently undertaken by the Finance Department. The outcome clearly indicated that Sun Life was the preferred proponent. Sun Life is best able to meet the requirements of the City of Toronto in terms of its overall capabilities including:

(i) satisfying the RFP Mandatory Criteria for each of the Group Life, LTD, Extended Health and Dental Care benefit plans;

(ii) satisfying the other criteria contained in the RFP (namely, Y2K compliance, provision of rehabilitative services and internal controls for audit purposes);

(iii) meeting, or exceeding the RFP other requirements;

(iv) offering exceptional on-site availability with the provision of three on-site staff;

(v) articulating a strong transition implementation plan;

(vi) possessing a solid and extensive public sector client base;

(vii) possessing in-house medical and dental staff;

(viii) offering home visits to facilitate LTD claims management;

(ix) providing performance standard agreements and benchmarking reports. These can be evaluated after one year to determine possible renewal of the contract or other courses of action; and,

(x) providing cost effective coverage in accordance with the terms of a specified benefit plan.

Sun Life offers specific financial benefits to the City including the guarantee of very competitive administration fees and claims charges for a three year period. In addition, they will also provide the services of three staff members to supplement existing City staff, a value of approximately $123,000.

Sun Life is the incumbent carrier for over one third of the City of Toronto and, in addition to this, administers some of the largest and most complex group benefits plans in the country, e.g., the City of Montreal (11,000 employees) and the Federal Civil Service (470,000 employees).

Attached as Appendix I is a schedule which illustrates the City's current situation as well as the benefits of moving to one carrier, Sun Life.

The Metro Experience:

Sun Life was engaged as the insurer for the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto commencing January 1, 1997. The resulting reduction in Extended Health and Dental claims costs from 1996 to 1997 was in the amount of $3.6 million. This was largely attributable to two factors including consolidation of all benefit coverage under one provider and Sun Life's more diligent adjudication of the benefits contract.

It is clear from the savings achieved in their first year as insurer for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto that Sun Life's adjudication methods followed the corporate specific directions on level of service allowing the municipality to benefit from savings on claims costs as well as reduced administration fees.

The terms of the Metro contract with Sun Life were established by Metro based on negotiated and Council approved benefit levels. Fee guidelines and normal and customary limits on all benefit items were set by Metro. Savings on claims costs can only be achieved by the carrier paying claims in accordance with the contract terms.

The degree to which Metro was to realize significant savings was largely dependant upon the diligence of the carrier in its claims adjudication process. Sun Life has shown itself to have superior adjudication and claims dispute resolution mechanisms than those provided by the previous carrier.

Benefit coverage levels changed as a result of collective bargaining in 1996 just prior to the start of the Sun Life contract. These changes were perceived to be reductions in benefit levels on the part of Sun Life rather than negotiated plan design changes.

The financial agreement with CUMBA, Metro's previous benefit carrier for drug claims was, in fact, based on a percentage of claims paid rather than a flat fee per prescription based on drug identification number (DIN) as is the case under the Sun Life contract. CUMBA's 1996 proposal would have resulted in higher costs to Metro in administration fees.

Concerns were expressed over the quality of Sun Life's contract performance. There were some initial problems in the transition from the previous carrier relating to volumes of claims and inquiries not anticipated by Sun Life to the degree required. These have been addressed and resolved. There were complaints that claims adjudication was stricter. After careful review, it has been determined that Sun Life is interpreting benefit levels for the Metro plan in accordance with collective agreements. A recent analysis was performed to review the number of errors Sun Life was making in adjudicating claims. During the one year period from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998, Sun Life received 25,215 calls. Of those, 20 processing errors were discovered: 12 medical and eight dental - an error rate of .07 percent.

With over 2,500 identified tasks to be completed in a benefits provider transition, a variety of problems should be anticipated and plans made to minimize their impact on employees. It is our view that Sun Life has demonstrated that they can handle the needs of different employees; they can meet the required service standards and internal audit standards and can deliver on their commitments. They have demonstrated their ability to work with a large organization and respond to its needs.

No plan changes will occur coincident with the changeover to a new benefits provider. The benefits coverages included in the RFP are according to current plan levels. This will alleviate confusion for employees who often, as in the Metro experience, perceived that plan changes were attributed to the carrier rather than to the benefits plan.

Management, employee groups and Sun Life will work together to administer the benefit programs while adhering to the terms of the collective agreements. The health and well-being of the City's employees will not be compromised in attaining this objective.

Next Steps:

The consolidation of all existing benefit plans under one carrier is the first step towards realizing cost management of benefits coverage. Additional options and strategies are available but require the advanced technology of a company such as Sun Life for successful implementation. The City should anticipate creating an environment where such strategies are possible in the future so that any new strategies can be incorporated into the agreement as required.

Conclusion:

Significant savings can be achieved by consolidating providers while at the same time maintaining current benefit levels pending the outcome of consolidated plan design. Accordingly, the City issued a Request for Proposal to this end in November 1998.

This report outlines the context and requirements of the Request for Proposal, the process undertaken by City staff from several departments and, the evaluation criteria, steps and methods employed to assess the submissions received from four interested proponents. Having reached their conclusions, staff is recommending to Council that a new agreement is entered into with the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. The availability of departmental funds to support the payment of annual administration fees and claims costs has been confirmed. An agreement with Sun Life will provide the City of Toronto with approximately $1.3 in cost avoided fees for the year 2000.

Contact Name:

Ivana Zanardo, Director, Pension, Payroll and Employee Benefits, 397-4143.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications:

(i) (April 9, 1999) from the President, Toronto Civic Employees Union, CUPE Local 416, advising that CUPE Local 416 is supportive of CUMBA as the benefit carrier for their members; that the City will be debating which carrier will be ultimately chosen very shortly; that the choice of carrier is critical to their members; and seeking the Committee's and Council's agreement that no decision be made respecting this issue until the Union(s) have had the opportunity to negotiate this matter at the bargaining table; and

(ii) (May 17, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, advising that CUPE Local 79 has written to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer requesting that decisions regarding the selection of a benefit carrier for the City of Toronto be deferred until the conclusion of collective bargaining; that this is a very important issue because of its impact on members and negotiations; that in their view the recommendation is a violation of the Collective Agreements and they will be pursuing this aspect in another forum; that the report comments that issues regarding Sun Life's poor customer service have now been resolved; that unfortunately this is not the case and members are receiving a lower level of coverage and service than they were receiving under the CUMBA plan; and urging the Committee to defer discussion of this matter until the conclusion of negotiations.

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

- Ms. Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79; and

- Mr. Peter Leiss, CUPE Local 416, and submitted a brief in regard thereto.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (February 16, 1999) submitted by Councillor Moscoe, Clause No. 4 of Report No. 11 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Benefits Package - Sun Life Insurance Company Limited", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998;

(ii) (June 7, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79, requesting that Council defer consideration of entering into an agreement with Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada for the provision of employee benefits until the conclusion of negotiations; and

(iii) (June 9, 1999) from Mr. Brian Cochrane, President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, CUPE Local 416, requesting that Council defer consideration of the selection of a carrier for an employee benefit plan until the collective bargaining has been completed.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Administration Committee for further consideration.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report (May 6, 1999) from the City Clerk subject to:

(i) amending Recommendation No. (2) (a) and (2) (b) to read as follows:

"(2) (a) the item involves a last-minute emergency public health or safety matter that must be addressed within the current Committee-Council meeting cycle; or

the item involves an urgent public policy issue that in the opinion of the Committee must be addressed within the current Committee-Council meeting cycle;";

(2) (b) the item involves a contractual, judicial, administrative tribunal or statutory deadline that must be achieved within the current Committee-Council meeting cycle or places the Corporation at financial or legal risk;";

(ii) amending Recommendation No. (4) by adding after the words "Committee Chair" the words "or Members of the Committee"; and deleting the words "subject to a majority vote of the committee to consider such matter" after the words "onto the meeting agenda", so that Recommendation No. (4) shall now read as follows:

"(4) any supplementary communications or staff reports, or new business staff reports meeting the criteria set out in Recommendation No. (2) above, submitted to the City Clerk within two (2) business days before the meeting, will be held by the City Clerk and, subject to consultation with the Committee Chair or Members of the Committee brought to the meeting by the Clerk for introduction onto the meeting agenda;";

(iii) amending Recommendation No. (8) (a) and (8) (b) to read as follows

"(8) (a) the Notice of Motion involves a last minute emergency public health or safety matter that must be addressed within the current Council meeting cycle; or

The Notice of Motion involves an urgent public policy issue that in the opinion of Council must be addressed within the current Council meeting cycle;

(8)(b) the Notice of Motion involves a contractual, judicial, administrative tribunal or statutory deadline that must be achieved within the current Committee-Council meeting cycle or places the Corporation at financial or legal risk;";

(iv) striking out Recommendation No. (12);

(2) that all staff reports be required to clearly identify any financial implications including:

(i) the source of funding;

(ii) the amount of expenditures and revenues; and

(iii) any in-year financial implications beyond the approved budget or future year financial impacts;

and that financial/budgetary reports clearly identify any policy implications and the relevant committee approval received or required for the policy change; and that these requirements be incorporated into the new staff report guidelines currently in preparation by the City Clerk and the Chief Administrative Officer;

(3) that the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, City Solicitor and the Chief Administrative Officer, be requested to develop a protocol, and report to the next meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee, for dealing with staff reports, Standing Committee and Community Council recommendations to City Council, and Notices of Motions introduced at City Council, which have financial implications, beyond the approved annual budget or legal implications, such that staff can identify any financial or legal implications and bring such information to the attention of Committee or Council for its consideration;

(4) that any communication from a Member of Council to a Committee or Community Council, for a staff report be placed on the agenda and by vote, be referred to staff for a report to be presented to the next meeting;

(5) that no items be placed on the agenda for a Committee or Community Council meeting without an accompanying staff report;

(6) that Members of Council be requested to consult with the City Clerk in the preparation of their Notices of Motions prior to their submission to Council; and

(7) the implementation of this revised policy take effect in September, 1999, for a six month trial period.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 6, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

This report addresses the causes and implications of late agenda items being introduced into the Council legislative process. Recommendations, including guidelines for trial implementation over a six month period, are made for dealing with late agenda items for Standing Committees, Community Councils, other committees reporting directly to City Council, and City Council.

Financial Implications:

There are no direct funding implications from the report recommendations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Committee and Community Council Agenda:

(1) the closing deadline for regular meeting agendas for Standing Committees and other committees, be changed from 12:00 noon, 10 business days prior to the meeting, to 12:00 noon, nine (9) business days prior to the meeting, and the closing deadline for Community Council meeting agendas remain at 12:00 noon, 10 business days prior to the meeting due to the large volume of planning business requiring advance notice;

(2) the City Clerk be authorized not to accept any staff reports or communications, pertaining to new business, for a Standing Committee, any other committee or Community Council meeting, after the regular agenda closing deadline, unless one of the following conditions is met:

(a) the item involves a last-minute emergency public health or safety matter that must be resolved within the current committee-council meeting cycle;

(b) the item involves a contractual, judicial or statutory deadline that must be achieved within the current committee-council meeting cycle or places the Corporation at financial or legal risk; or

(c) the item has been referred by City Council, a Standing Committee, other committee or a Community Council after the agenda closing and the referral relates to one of the criteria listed above;

(3) the City Clerk continue to accept staff reports and communications, for inclusion on the meeting agenda, that are supplementary to an item already properly on the regular meeting agenda and received by the Clerk up to three (3) business days before the meeting, and that the supplementary agenda be distributed to Members and affected senior officials two (2) business days prior to the meeting;

(4) any supplementary communications or staff reports, or new business staff reports meeting the criteria set out in Recommendation No. (2) above, submitted to the City Clerk within two (2) business days before the meeting, will be held by the City Clerk and, subject to consultation with the Committee Chair, brought to the meeting by the Clerk for introduction onto the meeting agenda, subject to a majority vote of the committee to consider such matter;

(5) when a motion is introduced at a meeting of a Standing Committee, any other committee, Community Council or City Council for a further staff report on an item under consideration, the meeting Chair be permitted to request the Chief Administrative Officer or responsible Commissioner (or appropriate staff) to speak to the motion as to whether a formal staff report or informal response (e.g., verbal report, presentation) is appropriate given the nature of the request and the time frame contemplated by the motion, before the motion is voted upon;

(6) the committee and Community Council meeting agenda management guidelines, attached to this report as Appendix "A", to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (1) through (4) above, be adopted;

City Council Agenda:

(7) the closing deadline for the Council meeting agenda be confirmed at 12:00 noon, five (5) business days prior to the Council meeting;

(8) the City Clerk be authorized not to accept any late Notices of Motions from Members of Council, after the Council meeting agenda has closed, unless one of the following conditions is met, and unless the Notice of Motion is received before 12:00 noon the business day before the meeting:

(a) the Notice of Motion involves a last-minute emergency public health or safety matter that must be addressed within the current Council meeting cycle;

(b) the Notice of Motion involves a contractual, judicial or statutory deadline that must be achieved within the current Council meeting cycle or places the Corporation at financial or legal risk; or

(c) the Notice of Motion relates to the passage or extension of an interim-control by-law;

(9) any late communications and staff reports, pertaining to items already on the Council agenda, and received up to 12:00 noon on the business day before Council will be placed on the Council supplementary agenda and distributed at the beginning of the meeting of Council, and any further communications and staff reports received after the deadline will be filed by the City Clerk and a listing of all late communications and staff reports received after the deadline be distributed to Members, for their information during the Council meeting, with the update of the Council Reference Table;

(10) the City Clerk be authorized not to accept any late Bills after the meeting agenda has closed, unless one of the following conditions is met, and unless the Bill is received before 12:00 noon the business day before the meeting:

(a) the Bill involves a last-minute emergency public health or safety matter that cannot wait until the next Council meeting;

(b) the Bill involves a contractual, judicial or statutory deadline that must be achieved by the current Council meeting or places the Corporation at financial or legal risk; and/or

(c) the Bill relates to the passage or extension of an interim-control by-law;

(11) a supplementary Council agenda, including all late Notices of Motions, communications and staff reports meeting the criteria, be prepared and distributed to Members at the start of the Council meeting, together with a final Bills List;

(12) after the City Council meeting has started, no new additional information be distributed to Members during the meeting, unless authorized by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Mayor, in extraordinary circumstances;

(13) the City Council meeting agenda management guidelines for late items, attached to this report as Appendix "B", to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (7) through (12) be adopted;

Implementation:

(14) the staff recommendations and guidelines set out in this report be implemented on a trial basis for a six month period, and the City Clerk be requested to report back to the Administration Committee on the status and results of managing late agenda items for Committee and Council meetings, and any further recommendations deemed necessary; and

(15) the City Clerk prepare and distribute to City staff and interested persons an information package containing the guidelines outlined in this report and a schedule showing the respective agenda deadlines recommended in this report.

Background:

Late agenda items for Committee and Council meetings have been identified by a number of Members of Council, staff and the public as a specific area of concern. Late items include staff reports and communications (from the public, Members and other committees) which do not form part of and are not distributed with the regular meeting agenda, and typically result from:

(i) missing deadlines for new business (e.g., Member Notices of Motions, reports by staff and communications from Members and the public);

(ii) accommodating supplementary business for items already properly placed on the regular agenda;

(iii) responding to Council/Committee requests for additional information; and

(iv) accommodating the existing committee-council procedural system and meeting schedule.

Generally speaking, the concern with late agenda items is more acute for new business staff reports at Standing Committee and Community Council meetings as compared to City Council meetings.

This report examines the current agenda management process at the Committee and Council meetings and makes recommendations for better implementing firmer agenda deadlines to reduce the prevalence of late items. It is the first in a series of reports to be presented to Committee addressing issues identified during the legislative process review underway through the City Clerk's Office.

Discussion:

The City Clerk is responsible for supporting the Council legislative process and, in so doing, must maintain its integrity and ensure due public process is followed in accordance with governing legislation. This means balancing the interests of Members of Council, City staff and the public so that the municipal process is open and accountable. Late agenda items disrupt the legislative process as Members are not afforded sufficient time to review meeting materials, and staff and the public do not have the information for review prior to the meeting. There are, however, circumstances when late agenda items are necessary and unavoidable, including emergency health and safety matters and contractual, judicial and statutory deadlines.

New Committee or Council Requests for Information from Staff:

Committee and Council requests to staff for reports within very limited time lines do result in late staff reports, since these requests sometimes involve significant work and resource commitment. A response in the form of a formal staff report may not always be necessary, where a verbal report from the affected Department may be more appropriate. However, in circumstances where further recommendations for action are contemplated, a written staff report is necessary. It is recommended that when a motion is introduced at a Committee or Council meeting for a further staff report on an item under consideration, an allowance be made for the meeting Chairperson to consult with the Chief Administrative Officer or responsible Commissioner or appropriate staff as to whether a formal staff report or informal response (e.g., verbal report, presentation) is appropriate within the time frame contemplated by the request.

Late Agenda Items for Meetings of Community Councils and Committees Reporting Directly to City Council:

Current Situation:

Currently, the Committee meeting agenda closing deadline is 10 business days prior to the meeting date, when a staff report (signed original and electronic copy in the corporate format) is submitted to the Committee Administrator for inclusion on the meeting agenda. A supplementary agenda is prepared, if necessary. This two-week time line is very compressed, given the work required to prepare for the meeting.

The prevalence of late agenda items at the Committee level really depends on the Committee or Community Council in question and the agenda management style of the Chair. Some Committee Chairs prohibit late items outright, while others tend to be very accommodating in accepting late agenda items. A consistent approach is required. Based on the first two committee cycles of this year (January and February meetings), 15 to 20 percent of the items considered by most Standing Committees and Community Councils (except for the Budget Committee and Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee) were late agenda items.

Late Communications and Staff Reports:

The Council Procedural By-law does provide some direction for dealing with late agenda items submitted for Standing Committee and Community Council meetings. Generally, any matter for which notice is not given shall not be considered at a meeting unless a majority of Members vote to consider it. For the purpose of agenda management at the Committee level, communications in the Procedural By-law are interpreted to include staff reports and Member and public communications. For late communications, those received by the City Clerk prior to a meeting, but not in time for inclusion on the regular agenda, are reviewed by the Chair and/or Committee Administrator and:

(i) if it pertains to a matter on the regular agenda, it is submitted to the meeting as part of a supplementary agenda item;

(ii) if it does not pertain to a matter listed on the regular agenda, it is included on the agenda for the next meeting (unless the Chair directs that it be placed on the supplementary agenda and the Committee shall determine if it is to be considered at the current or next meeting);

(iii) if the communication requires further review and report, it shall be placed on the next meeting agenda, unless the Chair is of the opinion that urgency requires that it be placed before the Committee as part of the supplementary agenda.

While an outright prohibition of late staff reports and communications regarding new business is an option, it is impractical given the need to accommodate unforseen circumstances. Also, with the monthly meeting cycle adopted by Council, the time line between meetings requires some flexibility for dealing with late items, since the next Committee meeting is another four weeks away.

Criteria are needed to manage late agenda items consistently. The criteria should be time-driven rather than being used to accommodate policy or financial matters which are not subject to last-minute deadlines. Following a criteria-based approach, it is recommended that, after the closing of the regular meeting agenda, the City Clerk not accept late staff reports or communications pertaining to new business for a Standing Committee or Community Council meeting, unless one of the following conditions are met:

(i) the item involves a last-minute emergency public health or safety matter that must be resolved within the current Committee-Council meeting cycle;

(ii) the item involves a contractual, judicial or statutory deadline that must be achieved within the current Committee-Council meeting cycle or places the Corporation at financial or legal risk; or

(iii) the item has been referred by City Council, a Standing Committee or a Community Council after the agenda closing and the referral relates to one of the criteria listed above.

This approach places responsibility for gate-keeping the meeting agenda with the Committee Administrator. They will use the criteria to determine if a new staff report or communication is to be placed on the supplementary meeting agenda. Any late staff reports or communications pertaining to new business which do not satisfy these criteria would be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting.

To assist staff and Members to meet this firm deadline, it is recommended that the closing deadline for the regular meeting agenda for Standing Committees and other committees reporting directly to City Council be shortened from 10 business days to nine (9) business days to allow more time for preparing and finalizing reports in time for the regular agenda closing. It is not recommended that the agenda closing deadline be changed from 10 business days for Community Council meetings, at this time, owing to the large volume of planning and development business received by Secretariat staff and the amount of additional work required to produce the agenda and notify interested persons about the meeting agenda.

Supplementary Meeting Agenda:

Allowances do need to be made for late staff reports and communications supplementing an agenda item that is properly part of the regular meeting agenda. It is recommended that the Secretariat staff continue to accept staff reports and communications (from the public and staff), for inclusion on the regular meeting agenda, that are supplementary to an item already on the agenda. However, Secretariat staff will no longer reserve "place-holders" on the meeting agenda for items that are promised after the regular agenda closing date for inclusion on the supplementary agenda. The practice of releasing additional agendas (e.g., supplemental, "added-starters", etc.) prior to the meeting has tended only to encourage late agenda items covering new business since it is acknowledged that there exists "another deadline".

Only one further meeting agenda, if necessary, should be prepared prior to the meeting after the regular agenda has been distributed. A supplementary agenda, containing:

(i) supplementary staff reports and communications relating to an item already on the regular meeting agenda; and

(ii) new business staff reports and communications which meet the criteria;

would be prepared for distribution to Members and affected senior staff two business days prior to the meeting. The supplementary agenda would need to be closed the third business day prior to the meeting to allow for compilation and printing for distribution the next business day. It is recommended that any supplementary communications or staff reports, or new business staff reports meeting the criteria set out above, received by the Clerk up to three business days before the meeting, be distributed to Members and affected senior officials as a supplementary agenda two business days prior to the meeting. It should be noted that a drawback to this approach, and a current problem, is that the supplementary agenda materials will not be widely distributed to staff and the public prior to the meeting. The Secretariat will attempt to make supplementary agenda information available to staff and the public (hard copy and via the Internet) prior to the meeting.

Late agenda items received too close to the meeting date do not allow enough time for the Secretariat to properly research and distribute copies to Members (hard copy or e-mail). Therefore, it is recommended that any staff reports or communications supplemental to items properly on the regular agenda, and any staff reports pertaining to new business that satisfy the criteria noted above, and received within two business days of the meeting, should be held by the Committee Administrator, in consultation with the Committee Chair, for introduction to the meeting on the affirmative vote of the majority of Members of the Committee or Community Council prior to it being placed on the meeting agenda. If the Committee or Community Council does not accept the late item, it is placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting (except for supplementary communications which would be automatically placed in the communications package for the Council meeting if the subject matter referred to a Committee Clause is before Council). The Committee Administrator will bring copies of the subject late item to the meeting for distribution, in the event the Committee or Community Council chooses to consider the item.

Figure No. 1 summarizes the agenda process for managing late items discussed above. The same approach for handling late agenda items would also apply to confidential staff reports.

Implementing a means to deal with late agenda items can be achieved in a number of ways, including legislating rules and a formal process through the Council Procedural by-law, issuing a protocol/guidelines for what and how late agenda items are be addressed, and through education of Members of Council, staff and the public as to the legislative process. Given the need to establish ground rules for the benefit of all parties involved and the need to allow some flexibility in the process, it is recommended that the approach for managing late agenda items outlined in this report be implemented through guidelines and on a trial basis over a six month period. This will allow some flexibility in dealing with late agenda items and give the recommendations time to be tested before any commitment is made to further entrench agenda management rules in the Procedural By-law.

It is recommended that the staff recommendations set out in this report be implemented on a trial basis for a six-month period, and that the City Clerk report back to the Administration Committee on the results of this trial.

The recommended interim guidelines for managing late agenda items for meetings of Community Councils and committees reporting directly to City Council is attached to this report as Appendix "A".

Late Agenda Items for City Council Meetings:

Current Situation:

Currently, the Council meeting regular agenda closing deadline is 12:00 noon, five business days before the meeting (except for Notices of Motion). The regular agenda is then finalized by the City Clerk, sent to the printer and distributed to Members on the third business day before the Council meeting. Any additional material received by the City Clerk after the closing of the regular agenda is compiled into a supplementary communications agenda package that is distributed to Members at the start of the meeting. The time line available to prepare, coordinate and distribute the Council meeting agenda is very tight.

Late agenda items for the Council meeting typically include:

(i) Committee and Community Council Reports;

(ii) Notices of Motion;

(iii) communications;

(iv) new staff reports directly to Council which have been requested by a Committee, Community Council or Council; and

(v) Bills.

Late items distributed during the Council meeting disrupt the flow of the meeting and cannot be effectively considered by Members. Where possible, the distribution of new information during the meeting should be avoided. A final deadline for the receipt and distribution of new information before the meeting needs to be established to ensure that once the meeting begins, Members understand no new information will be distributed to them.

Late Committee Reports:

Late Committee and Community Council Reports typically result from the current procedural system where the turnaround time to prepare and print a Report in time for the Council agenda deadline is very compressed. The new schedule adopted by City Council for June 1999 to November 2000 provides a week between the last standing committee meeting and the Council meeting to allow for Committee Reports to be prepared in time for inclusion with the regular Council agenda. City Clerk's staff are also continuing to improve the Council legislative process and its supporting documents, and current investigations into the form and content of the Committee Report may also reduce the amount of time required to prepare the Committee Report.

In addition, emergency or special committee meetings outside the regular meeting schedule may result in a late Committee Report not being distributed with the regular agenda. This is acknowledged to be an exception and should be accommodated by Council when it occurs.

Late Notices of Motions:

Late Notices of Motions submitted by Members are also an issue as they prevent appropriate research by the City Clerk and review by staff and the public. The Procedural By-law provides that Notices of Motions for inclusion on the regular agenda must be submitted to the Clerk before 4:30 p.m. five business days prior to the meeting. This deadline should be changed to be consistent with the deadline for other regular agenda material (12:00 noon five business days before the meeting). The City Clerk reviews all Notices of Motions and does not accept those not conforming to the rules of Council. New staff reports (not vetted through a Committee) may be added to the regular agenda if a Notice of Motion to introduce the report is properly on the regular agenda. Notices of Motion shall not be considered by Council unless notice was given at the last Council meeting or if a majority of Members consider the matter to deal with:

(i) matters of emergency health or safety or legal deadline;

(ii) matters requested by Council previously to be reported directly to a specific meeting of Council; or

(iii) passage or extension of an interim-control by-law.

The Procedural By-law also provides that a Notice of Motion for a subject not on the Council agenda can be submitted by a Member to the City Clerk up until 2:00 p.m. on the first day of the Council meeting. Also, any Notice of Motion, the subject of which is within the mandate of a Committee, agency, board or commission shall be referred directly to it by the City Clerk, unless for reasons of emergency health and safety, or legal deadline (as set out above), the Notice of Motion cannot be first considered by the committee, agency, board or commission. It is then placed on the Council agenda.

More rigour is required to manage Member Notices of Motions so non-emergency notices are submitted early enough for inclusion in the regular agenda. It is recommended that the same criteria-based approach established for late staff reports and committee agendas be used for managing late Notices of Motions, such that the City Clerk will not accept for the agenda a Notice of Motion on new Council business, after the regular agenda closing deadline (12:00 noon five business days prior to the meeting) unless one or more of the following conditions are met:

(i) the Notice of Motion involves a last-minute emergency public health or safety matter that must be addressed within the current Committee-Council meeting cycle;

(ii) the Notice of Motion involves a contractual, judicial or statutory deadline that must be achieved within the current Committee-Council meeting cycle or places the Corporation at financial or legal risk; or

(iii) the Notice of Motion relates to the passage or extension of an interim-control by-law.

It is recommended that the City Clerk not accept any further Notices of Motions, regardless of the criteria, after 12:00 noon the business day before the Council meeting. It is acknowledged that Condolence Motions should not be subject to the approach outlined in this report.

Late Communications from the Public and Members:

Late communications for the Council agenda result from the fact that many people do not realize that a particular issue is on the meeting agenda until after its distribution and posting on the City's web site. Only communications relating to a matter properly on the Council agenda are considered for inclusion on the agenda. As with other agenda materials, a final deadline for receiving new information for the agenda must be established before the meeting starts. It is recommended that any communications received after the regular agenda closing pertaining to items already on the Council agenda, and received up to 12:00 noon the business day before the meeting, will be placed on the supplementary agenda and distributed at the meeting of Council. Any communications received by the City Clerk after this deadline be filed by the City Clerk, and a listing of all late communications received after the deadline be distributed to Members, for their information, with the update of the Council Reference Table.

Late Staff Reports:

Late new staff reports appear on the Council agenda as a result of requests from a Committee or Community Council for a report directly to Council to be considered with an item already properly on the agenda. This issue is addressed earlier in this report under the heading "New Committee or Council Requests for Information from Staff". However, to ensure Members of Council receive all information prior to the meeting, it is recommended that any requested staff report which is to be presented directly to Council must be received by the City Clerk by 12:00 noon the business day before the meeting for inclusion on the supplementary agenda to be distributed at the Council meeting. Any late staff reports received after the deadline will be filed by the City Clerk, and a listing of all late staff reports, received after the supplementary agenda deadline, be distributed to Members with the update of the Council Reference Table.

Late Bills:

Bills, for adoption by Council at its meeting as by-laws, are often late for a variety of reasons, including the time and research required to prepare a Bill, the tight turnaround time between Committee and Community Council meetings (where Bill authorities originate), and the fact that a Council authority is sometimes only granted (or amended) at the same meeting (e.g., interim control by-law). Bills are no longer distributed by hard copy directly to all Members in the agenda package. Instead, a Bills List, identifying the Bill number, title and authority, appears on the regular and supplementary agendas, and a final Bills Listing is distributed to Members during the Council meeting so that they are aware of what actions they are taking at the meeting. Sometimes, however, the Bills List cannot be finalized until late in the Council meeting (often the third day) as Bills are still being submitted to the City Clerk throughout the meeting. Greater control and management of the Bills process is needed to ensure the Bills List can be finalized earlier in the meeting so that Members, staff and the public can review the final Bills List. Members need the time to review the Bills before them in case they need to declare a conflict of interest.

It is recommended that the deadline for inclusion on the Council agenda be set at 5 business days before the meeting (regular agenda closing). Any Bills received after this deadline and up to 12:00 noon the business day before the meeting, must meet the following criteria for inclusion on the Council supplementary agenda:

(i) the Bill involves a last-minute emergency public health or safety matter that cannot wait until the next Council meeting;

(ii) the Bill involves a contractual, judicial or statutory deadline that must be achieved by the current Council meeting or places the Corporation at financial or legal risk; and/or

(iii) the Bill relates to the passage or extension of an interim-control by-law.

Supplementary Meeting Agendas:

Only one supplementary agenda for the Council meeting should be prepared and distributed after the regular meeting agenda is released. The supplementary agenda would include:

(i) late Committee and Community Council Reports;

(ii) the following information received up to the 12:00 noon deadline the business day before the meeting:

- late Notices of Motions satisfying the specified criteria;

- late staff reports and communications pertaining to items already on the Council agenda; and

(iii) the final Bills List, showing all Bills received up to the 12:00 noon deadline the business day before the meeting.

No additional information should be distributed to Members during the Council meeting unless authorized by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Mayor, in extraordinary circumstances.

Figure No. 2 summarizes the agenda process for managing late items for the Council meeting.

As discussed in the previous section dealing with late items for Committee meetings, implementation of this approach should be on a trial basis first, through guidelines, to allow flexibility to accommodate unforseen circumstances and to allow for an evaluation of this agenda management approach.

Appendix "B" sets out the recommended interim guidelines for dealing with late agenda items for the City Council meeting agenda.

Conclusions:

The issue of late agenda items for Committee and Council meetings needs to be better managed for the benefit of Members of Council, staff and the public. A trial approach and guidelines are recommended in this report to begin addressing late agenda items on a consistent and uniform basis.

Contact Name:

Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Division, Telephone: (416) 392-8668 E-mail: pfay@toronto.ca

Attachments:

Appendix "A" - Recommended Interim Guidelines for Managing Late Agenda Items for Meetings of Community Councils, Standing Committees and Other Committees Reporting Directly to City Council

Appendix "B"- Recommended Interim Guidelines for Managing Late Agenda Items for City Council Meetings

Appendix "A"

Recommended Interim Guidelines for Managing Late Agenda Items for Meetings of Community Councils, Standing Committees and Other Committees Reporting Directly to City Council

Recommended Interim Guidelines for

Managing Late Agenda Items for City Council Meetings

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (May 17, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, registering concern respecting the proposal for dealing with late agenda items introduced at Committee and Council meetings; advising that the recommendation that letters and petitions not received one business day before Council and Committee meetings not be distributed to Councillors is a very disturbing concept; that the essence of municipal government is the accessibility and accountability of elected politicians to the taxpayers; that not every communication is pleasant and trouble free, but councillors have a responsibility and an obligation to consider the views of all interested parties as part of their deliberations; that the need for an accessible Council is greater than ever in this new huge City and in the interest of open and democratic system, there should be no deadline and no restrictions on the distribution of the public's letters to Committees or Council.

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

- Mr. Denis Casey, 1st Vice-President, CUPE Local 79; and

- Mr. Vance Latchford, Senior Partner, Latchford Associates.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 6, 1999.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the confidential communication (May 21, 1999) from the City Clerk which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover, such communication to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Budget Committee to submit a report directly to Council respecting the foregoing matter.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following communication (March 2, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting held on February 17, 1999, referred the request by the Scarborough Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (L.A.C.A.C.) to the Corporate Services Committee for its consideration; and requested that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to submit a further report thereon to the Committee.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council had before it a report (January 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, advising that the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee has requested that the City consider the acquisition and preservation of the W. J. Morrish Store because of its historic significance, concluding that no further action should be taken at this time due to the considerable difference of opinion as to the value of this property between the owner and Real Estate Division staff, and recommending that this report be received for information.

The following persons appeared before the Scarborough Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Richard Schofield, Chairman, Scarborough L.A.C.A.C.; and

- Mr. William A. Dempsey, Honorary Secretary, Centennial Community and Recreation Association.

The Scarborough Community Council also received a communication in support of the potential acquisition from Mr. Clancy Delbarre, President, Highland Creek Community Association, a copy of which is appended hereto.

Purpose:

The Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee has requested the City consider the acquisition and preservation of the W.J. Morrish store because of its historic significance.

Financial Implications:

Not required at this time.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for the information of Scarborough Community Council.

Background:

At the November 10, 1998 meeting of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, (LACAC), the Committee directed the President of LACAC to "seek Council's support in asking staff to develop an acquisition strategy in order to preserve this historic site." A copy of the President's letter is attached.

The W.J. Morrish store is located at the northwest corner of Meadowvale Road and Kingston Road in the eastern part of the former City of Scarborough. The main portion of the building was constructed about 1891, with an addition built about 1906. The building contains a hand-operated elevator of historic significance. The building is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The building was operated as a retail store until approximately ten years ago, but has been vacant since. Although the building is structurally sound, considerable renovations and remodelling are required to make it suitable for any use today. In addition, the building needs to be connected to storm and sanitary sewers, which have been made available since the building was vacated. The building is not heated during the winter, and its condition is deteriorating. Vandalism is also a constant concern.

The property owner has listed the property for sale on several occasions over the last few years, and has had discussions with a number of prospective purchasers. Some of these have indicated a desire to renovate the structure and possibly convert it to another purpose. Uses as a residence, bed and breakfast, restaurant, or retail store have been suggested.

Recognizing the historic importance of this building, in 1996 the former City of Scarborough Council directed staff to discuss the acquisition of the property with the owner. For more than two years, staff discussed a variety of options with the owner in an attempt to acquire the building. No agreement was reached.

Comments:

Although the owner willingly entered into discussions with Real Estate staff, no agreement was possible because of the considerable difference of opinion as to the value of the property. A staff report to Scarborough Council in 1996 indicated a $200,000.00 variance in our respective value estimates.

Staff also explored a number of alternatives to an outright purchase, including a land exchange for several building lots in the same neighbourhood as the store, the acquisition of the building only for a nominal sum, with the City providing a tax receipt and being responsible for relocation and a combination of one or more building lots plus cash. No agreement was reached, because of the owner's expectations regarding the property's value.

Staff have remained in regular contact with the owner, in order to renew negotiations should the situation change. As recently as early December of 1998 the owner acknowledged that he was continuing in his efforts to market the property for $550,000.00, the same amount as he was seeking previously, when negotiations with the City of Scarborough broke down.

Given this background, the City's options appear to be limited to the following:

(1) To continue to monitor the situation, and continue to encourage the owner and/or prospective purchasers to convert the property to another use. Unfortunately, as time passes further damage may occur because of vandalism, and the continued deterioration of the structure due to the elements.

(2) The City may agree to pay the owner's purchase price either in cash or as part of a land exchange.

(3) The City may expropriate the property. While this action would obtain the property for the City, it would also require the City to pay the owner's reasonable legal, appraisal and other costs to determine the compensation payable. This may include the costs of a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board, if necessary. Such costs vary widely, but $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 would not be out of the question.

While it would be desirable for this historic building to be under the control of the City, purchasing it for significantly more than what is considered market value would set a poor precedent for other negotiations. It is therefore considered appropriate for staff to continue to monitor the situation closely and co-operate with the owner should a proposal to convert the building to another use be forthcoming.

Conclusion:

While staff should maintain contact with the owner to ensure that the owner is aware of the City's continuing interest in this property, no further action should be taken at this time.

Contact Name:

Warren Poole, Telephone No. (416) 396-4930,

Fax No. (416) 396-4241, poole@city.scarborough.on.ca.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it:

(1) a confidential report (April 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting the possible acquisition of the W. J. Morrish Store; and

(2) a communication (May 14, 1999) from Mr. Rick Schofield, Chairman, Scarborough Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (L.A.C.A.C.) advising that the Scarborough Historical Society has offered to assume staffing and ongoing operating costs of the W. J. Morrish Store as an Archives for the Scarborough region, if the building is acquired by the City and brought up to minimum property standards; that currently the Society shares facilities with the Toronto District School Board's Archives facilities and while this arrangement is quite satisfactory at present, the Society is looking for more long-term facilities; that the Society is prepared to actively seek partnerships with the School Board, local community associations and the public and private sector which will make this building completely self-sustaining with no annual staffing or operating costs for the City of Toronto; that a similar arrangement currently exists between the City and the Ontario Historical Society (John McKenzie House) in North York and between the City and the Scarborough Arts Council (Harrison Estate) in Scarborough; that fund raising to repair the structure needs to begin as soon as various grant opportunities are available as we approach the new Millennium; and that unless a decision concerning this historic building is made in the very near future, many of these grant opportunities will disappear and funding will go elsewhere.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential communications, such communications to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act:

(i) (May 21, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee from its meeting held on May 20, 1999; and

(ii) (May 26, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Budget Committee from its meeting held on May 25, 1999.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (May 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act, save and except the recommendations embodied therein.

(Extract from the confidential report dated May 19, 1999

from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

addressed to the Corporate Services Committee.)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to proceed to negotiate a formal purchase agreement substantially consistent with the core business-terms detailed in this report;

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the Administration Committee on the structure and financing of the acquisition of TTR's assets; and

(3) City staff be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to give effect thereto.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report (May 19, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report responds to Committee's request for a report outlining who has the powers to expropriate TTR's interests at Union Station.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999 Council adopted two confidential reports, as amended, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing status reports on negotiations with Toronto Terminals Railway Company ("TTR") for the potential acquisition of the assets of TTR by the City. Corporate Services Committee requested further reports from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development and the City Solicitor with regard to the powers to expropriate TTR, employment issues raised by the potential purchase by the City and the legal ability of TTR to pursue a sale of its assets with a third party. Further reports on the latter two issues will be forthcoming to a subsequent meeting.

Discussion and/or Justification:

TTR is a federally regulated railway company, wholly owned and operated by Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railway, also federal railways, for railway purposes. As such they would be classified as federal undertakings.

By virtue of the Constitution Act, 1867, the powers of a municipality are limited to those which are expressly delegated to it from the provincial legislature. It is a basic principle of constitutional law that each level of government is supreme within its jurisdiction and in cases of conflict, federal law is paramount.

Section 191 of the Municipal Act grants the power to expropriate or acquire land required "for the purposes of the corporation" to the Council of every municipality. However, this does not necessarily include the ability to expropriate lands owned by other levels of government. The power to expropriate, a forcible taking of another's property rights, is not an action that is taken lightly by the Courts. The expropriation of "public property" or property subject to the jurisdiction of another level of government or other public body is subject to very strict construction and special principles apply. The constitutional order noted above is hierarchical and must be followed. Generally speaking, expropriation case law will not permit one public authority to expropriate lands owned by another public authority where the lands are devoted to the owning authority's public purposes (in this instance a railway) or if the property itself was acquired by the owning authority through expropriation.

Therefore, in the situation at hand, because the land is being used as an operating railway under federal jurisdiction, the only authority with the power to expropriate TTR's interests at Union Station would be the federal government.

Contact Name:

Patricia H. Simpson, Senior Solicitor

Telephone: 392-8057 E-mail: patricia_h._simpson@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 20, 1999) from Mr. Ross Snetsinger, Rail Ways to the Future Committee, submitting comments with respect to the negotiations for the purchase of Union Station.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the confidential report (May 18, 1999) from the City Solicitor, respecting a potential litigation claim against the City of Toronto, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover, such communication to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the confidential communication (May 21, 1999) from the City Clerk, respecting 539 Queens Quay West - Spadina Quay Marina, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover, such communication to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following:

(i) communication (May 19, 1999) from Mr. William J. S. Boyle, Harbourfront Centre, forwarding information respecting 539 Queens Quay West - Spadina Quay Marina; and

(ii) confidential communication (May 20, 1999) from Mr. Gary F. Reid, General Manager, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, respecting 539 Queens Quay West - Spadina Quay Marina.

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

- Mr. William J. S. Boyle, Harbourfront Centre; and

- Mr. Gary F. Reid, General Manager, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 3, 1999) from Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto:

HARBOURFRONT CENTRE

Fact Sheet

Harbourfront Centre:

- Operates 10 key acres of central Toronto waterfront lands and buildings, owned by the City of Toronto and leased to Harbourfront Centre under a renewable 99 year lease executed in 1997.

- Is a non-profit charitable organization governed by a 26 person volunteer Board of Directors including appointees from all levels of government and those elected from the community. Toronto City Council appoints three Councillor representatives to the Board (currently Councillors Johnston, Chow and Moeser).

- Attracts more than 3 million visitors each year to 4,000 cultural, educational and recreational events organized in conjunction with more than 450 community organizations.

- Contributes more than $126 million in economic impact annually to the local economy.

- Has a current annual operating budget of $16.4 million which includes $3 million Federal contribution, $750,000 from City of Toronto, $1.1 million of special programme assistance from all levels of government, with the remainder of approximately $11 million from private sector sources and earned revenue.

- In 1995 was threatened with closure when the Federal Government decided to end its contribution. An outpouring of public support from the GTA and across the country caused the Federal Government to reverse its decision. However, Federal support has decreased from $8.8 annually in 1995 to $3 million in 1999.

- Is currently operating under the five year Monahan financial Plan signed by the City and Federal Governments which ends on April 1, 2001.

- Now receives only 29 percent of revenues from government support, reduced from 57 percent in 1995.

- Has maintained its level of public activities and its deficit free status through the aggressive pursuit of private sector income and new sources of revenue including $5 million from parking and site operations, $3.8 million from corporate sponsorships and individual donations, and $2 million in ticket sales.

- Operates several profitable businesses to support the free public site and activities including six parking lots and garages (3,800 spaces) for both the Federal Government and the City of Toronto.

- Is responsible for the marine areas surrounding the 10 acre site including a large number of charter vessel moorings, visiting ships, seasonal and transient mooring at its Nautical Centre Marina, as well as overseeing the operation by a third party of another marina on site.

- Proposes to assume the current City License for the operation of Marina Quay West by purchasing the current business operation. A purchase agreement was reached in January 1999 with the current operator after several months of negotiation. The License change requires City approval.

- Was assured by City officials throughout the negotiation that approval would be forthcoming, until early May 1999 when the Toronto Harbour Commission suddenly declared an interest in purchasing the business.

The Marina operation is an essential part of Harbourfront Centre's continuing revenue diversification plan and is part of the 10 year revenue strategy for the non-profit organization to maintain its public service and activities. We urge Toronto City Council to approve the License for Harbourfront Centre to assume the operation of Marina Quay West.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the report dated April 6, 1999, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, as amended by the report dated May 6, 1999, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be adopted, viz.:

'(1) the offer to purchase the property at 205 Ava Road submitted by Ms. Francine-Deena Cooper in the amount of $300,000.00, not be accepted;

(2) authority be granted for either of the Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate to sign back and submit a counter-offer to Ms. Cooper at a sale price of $330,000.00, which counter-offer shall be irrevocable by the City until June 21, 1999, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the offer made by Ms. Cooper, save and except that:

(a) the condition related to financing shall be struck out;

(b) a condition be included that Ms. Cooper provide on or before June 28, 1999, an acknowledgement, agreement and release (in a form satisfactory to and provided by the City Solicitor), recognizing that the City is entitled to restore the fence at the rear of the property to its proper lot line as shown as Part 3 on Plan 64R-15564, and quitting claim as of the closing date to any right, title or interest she may have in any lands adjoining or adjacent to Part 3 on Plan 64-15564; and

(c) the closing date be amended to July 21, 1999;

(3) if Ms. Cooper accepts the City's counter-offer, then it is further recommended that:

(a) the requirement embodied in Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, regarding the minimum required deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price, be waived;

(b) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. OCA700CA2470; and

(c) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable;

(4) in the event Ms. Cooper does not accept the City's counter-offer, the property be listed for sale through the Toronto Real Estate Board Multiple Listing Service subject to the existing tenancy; and

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

(2) Mr. Jack Cooper be added as a purchaser of 205 Ava Road, if deemed necessary for financing purposes; and

(3) the report dated April 16, 1999, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be received.")

The Corporate Services Committee submits, without recommendation, the reports dated April 6, 1999, April 16, 1999, and May 6, 1999, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting the Sale of Surplus Spadina Property located at 205 Ava Road.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (April 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To recommend a process for the sale of 205 Ava Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue in the minimum amount of $330,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996, will be realized from the sale of this property if the recommendations in this report are approved.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the offer to purchase the property at 205 Ava Road submitted by Ms. Francine-Deena Cooper in the amount of $300,000.00, not be accepted;

(2) authority be granted for either of the Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate to sign back and submit a counter-offer to Ms. Cooper at a sale price of $330,000.00, which counter-offer shall be irrevocable by the City until May 21, 1999 but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the offer made by Ms. Cooper save and except that the condition related to obtaining financing shall be struck out;

(3) if Ms. Cooper accepts the City's counter-offer, then it is further recommended that:

(a) the requirement embodied in Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994 regarding the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent of the purchase price, be waived;

(b) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. OCA700CA2470;

(c) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable;

(4) in the event Ms. Cooper does not accept the City's counter-offer, the property be listed for sale through the T.R.E.B. Multiple Listing Service subject to the existing tenancy; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Province of Ontario is the owner of 205 Ava Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no easement is required.

By its adoption of Clause No. 24 of Report No. 23 of The Corporate Services Committee on October 8 and 9, 1997, Metropolitan Council authorized the sale of this property to the then existing tenant (since July 30, 1996), Francine-Deena Cooper, for $290,000.00, conditional for 7 banking days for the arrangement of satisfactory mortgage financing. While several extensions to this 7 day period were granted, on November 6, 1997, Ms. Cooper's solicitor advised that she considered the agreement to be at an end as she could not obtain satisfactory first mortgage financing to complete the transaction. On December 29, 1997, Ms. Cooper executed a full Release and her deposit monies were returned. The Release included within its scope any option or entitlement she may theretofore have had or at the date thereof may have had as a tenant to purchase the property from the Metropolitan Corporation.

By its adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Toronto Council authorized that the properties listed in Schedule "A" to the Clause be sold to sitting tenants at market value determined as at the date of their earlier expression of interest (i.e., in consideration of perceived delays in reaching agreement on the value of the various properties). In light of the fact that agreement had already been reached with Ms. Cooper in 1997, and it was she who subsequently chose not to proceed with the purchase of the property, this property was not considered for inclusion in Schedule A. On August 10, 1998, Ms. Cooper once again indicated that she was interested in pursuing the purchase of the property. Accordingly, in accordance with Council directive to offer properties to tenants on the basis of market value applicable at the time of current negotiations, the tenant was provided with the August 10, 1998 appraisal estimating the fair market value of this property at $345,000.00, together with the approved form of Offer document.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The tenant, Ms. Francine-Deena Cooper, rejected the City's appraised value, and requested that the matter of market value be referred to arbitration in conformance with Council's directive to have a third party arbitrator attempt to bring the parties together. (Clause No. 4 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee adopted as amended by Council at the meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998). An arbitration hearing was held on February 9, 1999, and in a written decision, the arbitrator, Ms. Patricia Dunn stated that $330,000.00 would be the reasonable market value of the property.

Subsequent to the arbitrator's decision, Ms. Cooper submitted an offer to purchase in the amount of $300,000.00. A summary of the property and the terms and conditions in Ms. Cooper's offer to purchase are as follows:

Property Address: 205 Ava Road.

Legal Description: Part of Lots 951 and 952, Registered Plan 1870, City of Toronto (formerly City of York), designated as Part 3 on Reference Plan No. 64R-15564.

Lot Size: 13.11 metres (43 feet) fronting onto Ava Road,

26.36 metres (86.5 feet) depth.

Location: South side of Ava Road, east of Everden Road.

Improvements: Detached, brick 2-storey dwelling.

Occupancy Status: Tenanted.

Date Interest Expressed: August 10, 1998.

Amount of Offer: $300,000.00, conditional for 3 banking days for the arrangement of satisfactory mortgage financing.

Deposit: $15,000.00 (bank draft).

Purchaser: Francine-Deena Cooper.

Closing Date: June 25, 1999.

Terms: Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments and registration of an option to purchase.

This offer does not conform with the Council directive of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, to offer the property to the tenants on the basis of market value applicable at the time of current negotiation. It is therefore recommended that Ms. Cooper's offer not be accepted and that the City submit a signed back counter-offer in the amount of $330,000.00, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the offer made by Ms. Cooper except for the financing condition which would not form part of the City's counter-offer; which counter-offer shall be irrevocable until May 21, 1999. In the event that Ms. Cooper does not accept this counter-offer within the time frame specified, the property should then be listed for sale subject to the existing tenancy.

This is a proposed sale to an existing tenant and is based on market value as at August 10, 1998. Council directed that comparable sales data be provided for property sales in the Spadina corridor. Appendix "A" identifies three comparable sales located in the vicinity of the subject.

Conclusion:

The sale of this property at $330,000.00 is considered fair and reasonable, reflecting market value as at August 10, 1998 in accordance with Council directives.

Contact Name:

S. Badin, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services, (416) 392-8142, Fax No. (416) 392-4828 E-Mail Address: sheryl_badin@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

The following three addresses represent recent comparable sales of properties that are similar to the residence which forms the subject matter of this report. These three properties consist of brick 2-storey dwellings located in the vicinity of the subject property. The subject property backs on to a park/ravine.

Approximate Backs on to

Address Lot Size Park/Ravine Sale Price Date of Sale

171 Strathearn Road 30 x 136 No $342,100.00 June 4, 1998

183 Glen Cedar 30 x 105 No $335,018.00 August 14, 1998

623 Rushton Road 30 x 179.78 Yes $376,000.00 July 30, 1998

The Corporate Services Committee also submits the following Supplementary report (April 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To provide a supplementary report with respect to the sale of 205 Ava Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

As set out in my April 6, 1999 report to the Corporate Services Committee.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the report from Commissioner of Corporate Services dated April 6, 1999 entitled "Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 205 Ava Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)" be amended by deleting recommendation (2) set out therein and substituting therefor the following:

"(2) authority be granted for either of the Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate to sign back and submit a counter-offer to Ms. Cooper at a sale price of $330,000.00, which counter-offer shall be irrevocable by the City until May 21, 1999 but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the offer made by Ms. Cooper, save and except that:

(a) the condition related to financing shall be struck out; and

(b) a condition be included that Ms. Cooper provide on or before May 28, 1999 an acknowledgement, agreement and release (in a form satisfactory to and provided by the City Solicitor), recognizing that the City is entitled to restore the fence at the rear of the property to its proper lot line as shown as Part 3 on Plan 64R-15564, and quitting claim as of the closing date to any right, title or interest she may have in any lands adjoining or adjacent to Part 3 on Plan 64R-15564."

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

My report entitled "Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 205 Ava Road (Ward 28-York Eglinton)" is currently before your Committee. In preparation for the eventual transfer of 205 Ava Road, staff have become aware that an existing fence is not on the boundary line of the lands to be conveyed pursuant to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale recommended in the above-noted report. It is considered appropriate and necessary to relocate the fence before finalizing an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with an intended purchaser.

Accordingly, in order to clarify the boundary of the property being sold, it is considered appropriate to include in the counter offer to Ms. Cooper an acknowledgement and agreement that the City will restore the fence at the rear of the property to its proper lot line as shown as Part 3 on Plan 64R-15564 and requiring Ms. Cooper to release any right, title or interest she may have in any lands adjoining or adjacent to Part 3 on Plan 64R-15564.

Conclusion:

It is reasonable and fair that the recommended sale by way of counter offer be based upon the rear fence being installed on the lot line.

Contact Name:

Ms. Sheryl Badin, Real Estate Services, (416)392-8142, Fax No.: (416)392-4828, E-Mail Address: sheryl_badin@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

The Corporate Services Committee also submits the following Supplementary Report No. (2) (May 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To provide a further supplementary report with respect to the sale of 205 Ava Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

As set out in my April 16, 1999 report to the Corporate Services Committee.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the report (April 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services entitled "Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 205 Ava Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)" be amended by deleting recommendation (2) set out therein and substituting therefor the following:

"(2) authority be granted for either of the Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate to sign back and submit a counter-offer to Ms. Cooper at a sale price of $330,000.00, which counter-offer shall be irrevocable by the City until June 21, 1999 but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the offer made by Ms. Cooper, save and except that:

(a) the condition related to financing shall be struck out;

(b) a condition be included that Ms. Cooper provide on or before June 28, 1999 an acknowledgement, agreement and release (in a form satisfactory to and provided by the City Solicitor), recognizing that the City is entitled to restore the fence at the rear of the property to its proper lot line as shown as Part 3 on Plan 64R-15564, and quitting claim as of the closing date to any right, title or interest she may have in any lands adjoining or adjacent to Part 3 on Plan 64-15564; and

(c) the closing date be amended to July 21, 1999."

(2) the report (April 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services entitled "Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 205 Ava Road Supplementary Report (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)" be received; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to give effect to the foregoing.

Council Reference/Background/History:

My reports entitled "Sale of Surplus Spadina Property at 205 Ava Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)" and "Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 205 Ava Road Supplementary Report (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)" are currently before your Committee. At your Committee's meeting of April 19, 1999, these reports were deferred to the next meeting of this Committee and staff were requested to report on the purchaser's submission that the structural condition of the house was not taken into consideration when establishing value. In her written decision, the arbitrator, Ms. Patricia Dunn made reference to two documents provided by the tenant at the arbitration hearing, namely, a proposal from Basement Systems Canada Inc. for the installation of waterguard and related basement repair work for a quoted fee of $8,074.22, and a home inspection report prepared by Carson and Dunlop which outlines approximately $39,000.00 worth of repair work which could be done to the dwelling. Ms. Dunn noted that when the City's appraiser was questioned whether mechanical and electrical deficiencies were taken into account, he replied that they were but he was not aware of any significant problem other than those resulting from deterioration over time. Ms. Dunn also noted that the City's appraiser acknowledged that an awareness of structural defects in the Property might have influenced his appraisal. It was indicated by Ms. Dunn that the Carson and Dunlup report noted both the original quality of the construction and the current condition of the home as "typical". The tenant's solicitor, Mr. Bram Zinman took the position that a purchaser faced with a report such as the Carson and Dunlop report would probably attempt to negotiate an abatement of purchase price and suggested that $14,175.00 would be reasonable. He also proposed that an abatement in the purchase price in the amount of $8,000.00 should be made based on the quotation obtained from Basement Systems Canada Inc.

In her recommendations, Ms. Dunn stated that while the City's appraisal at $345,000.00 more accurately reflects market value, she found Mr. Zinman's arguments for an abatement based on the findings of the home inspection report to be compelling and noted that is seems very unlikely that a potential purchaser would go beyond a home inspection report. Ms. Dunn also noted that the Carson and Dunlop report does cover the basement leakage problem and noted that therefore, it is her opinion that a Purchase Price of $330,000.00 would be reasonable in the circumstance.

It is noted that due to the deferral of this report, it is necessary to amend Recommendation No. (2) in my April 16, 1999 report to adjust the acceptance date in the counter offer and Recommendation No. (2) has also been amended to recognize a fence line adjustment which has been determined since the original report was submitted.

Conclusion:

The structural condition of the house was taken into account when establishing value, and it is therefore fair and reasonable that the process for the sale of 205 Ava Road set out in my report dated April 16, 1999, subject to the amendments recommended in this report, be approved.

Contact Name:

Ms. Sheryl Badin, Real Estate Services, (416)392-8142, Fax No.: (416)392-4828,

E-Mail Address: sheryl_badin@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (March 26, 1999) from Mr. Bram M. Zinman, Barristers and Solicitors, Kronis, Rotsztain, Margles, Cappel and Gertler, requesting an opportunity to appear before the Corporate Services Committee respecting the property located at 205 Ava Road, Toronto.

Mr. Bram M. Zinman, Solicitor acting on behalf of Ms. Francine-Deena Cooper, and Ms. Francine-Deena Cooper appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the map attached to the report (April 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 26, 1999) from Mr. Bram M. Zinman, Barristers and Solicitors, Kronis, Rotsztain, Margles, Cappel & Gertler, on behalf of Ms. Francine-Deena Cooper, respecting the property located at 205 Ava Road, Toronto.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services subject to amending term No. (2) appearing under the heading "Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification" by adding after the word "made on closing" the words "scheduled for June 30, 1999, or such other date as may be agreed upon by the parties", so that such term now reads as follows:

"(2) a further adjustment is to be made on closing, scheduled for June 30, 1999, or such other date as may be agreed upon by the parties, to include payment by Mr. Leach of an amount equal to one-half of the remaining outstanding rental arrears to closing, which will be $10,507.20 less his last month's rent deposit, including applicable interest."

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain authority to amend the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the City of Toronto and Raymond Leach for the sale of 42 Heathdale Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue in the minimum amount of $341,500.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996, will be realized from the sale of this property if the recommendations in this report are approved. As part of the settlement $10,507.20 of rent arrears, are to be forgiven.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the City and the purchaser of the above property be amended and completed on such terms as are set out herein; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action, including the execution of any necessary agreements, to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

By adoption of Clause No. 11 of Report No. 17 of The Corporate Administration Committee on July 2 and 3, 1997, Metro Council authorized the sale of 42 Heathdale Road to Raymond Leach, the existing tenant. The property was a residential rental property located in the Spadina Expressway Corridor, owned by the Province and leased by Metro, which had previously been declared surplus by Metro Council. Metro entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Mr. Leach wherein the property was to be sold to Mr. Leach for a purchase price of $375,000.00, closing on October 1, 1997.

The property adjoining 42 Heathdale Road, 44 Heathdale Road, had also been sold by Metro to the existing tenant, which transaction was completed on July 30, 1997. After closing, the new owner of that property, Jonathan Fine, commenced an action against Metro seeking an easement of accommodation over the adjacent part of the 42 Heathdale Road property, which formed part of a paved driveway between the two houses. Because Mr. Leach had already entered into the Agreement to buy the land from Metro, he was also named as a party to this action. The action was defended by Metro's insurers. Mr. Fine, however, was ultimately successful against the City (as Metro's successor) in obtaining an easement over 42 Heathdale Road to accommodate vehicular access over the driveway between the two homes to his garage at the rear. Although the Court's decision was questionable on certain points of law and as to its findings, the insurer's counsel was of the opinion that the expense of an appeal was not warranted.

The City and Mr. Leach, through their solicitors, had been extending the closing of Mr. Leach's transaction from its original date of October 1, 1997, pending resolution of the Court application. Mr. Leach remains a tenant of the purchase property under his existing lease agreement. Due to the long delay occasioned, in part, by the delay in the Court in releasing its decision and an Order ensuing after the hearing of Mr. Fine's application, Mr. Leach stopped making his rental payments of approximately $1,900.00 per month to the City after July 1, 1998. At present, his arrears of rent are in excess of $15,000.00.

In recent correspondence, Mr. Leach has asked the City to reduce the purchase price of the property because it is now subject to an easement and has thereby limited his future use of those lands. He has also asked to be compensated for his personal time spent is assisting the City in its defence of the Court application, as he is self-employed and the proceedings were lengthy. Lastly, he is requesting that the City pay his additional real estate legal fees incurred as a result of the numerous delays in closing.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The easement allowed Mr. Fine, as owner of 44 Heathdale Road, provides for a right to pass over the adjacent paved portion of 42 Heathdale Road for pedestrian and vehicular access. This use cannot be obstructed and Mr. Leach will be obligated to accommodate same.

At law, because the City is no longer able to convey title to the property free of the easement interest, as it is contractually bound to do, Mr. Leach is potentially entitled to an abatement of the purchase price and other consequential damages from the City. Mr. Leach, in his efforts to co-operate in defence of the Application, was also required to expend considerable time and funds assisting the insurer's counsel, as well as paying an additional ten months' rent to the City after the original closing date.

Although indirect benefits may have accrued to Mr. Leach as a result of the delay, Mr. Leach's position is that none of the events or delays were attributable to him and that he should be compensated accordingly.

In consideration of these various factors, and in order to avoid further delay or possible litigation, an agreement has been reached with Mr. Leach, in principle, to complete the transaction on the following additional terms:

(1) the previously approved purchase price of $375,000.00 shall be reduced by the following amounts:

(a) $8,500.00 as compensation for his time in assisting the City in its defence of the Court application over a one-year period;

(b) $1,000.00 for additional real estate legal fees incurred as a result of the delays in closing; and

(c) $24,000.00, representing the City's agreement on the diminution in the market value of 42 Heathdale Road occasioned by the easement in favour of the adjoining lands; and

(2) a further adjustment is to be made on closing, to include payment by Mr. Leach of an amount equal to one-half of the remaining outstanding rental arrears to closing, which will be $10,507.20 less his last month's rent deposit, including applicable interest.

This agreement is intended to be all-inclusive of any other claims or expenses Mr. Leach may have against the City. His legal fees incurred as a named co-defendant in the Court application by Mr. Fine will be paid by the City's insurer.

I am advised that the Province, which is entitled to a one-third share of the net proceeds of sale of all Spadina Expressway properties will agree to share in a reduction of the purchase price of $15,000.00, which was the lower of the two appraised values of the easement interest. It is of the view that any other expenses should be to the account of the City, as it managed both the property and sale and the conduct of the litigation.

Conclusions:

In the circumstances, it is fair and reasonable that the sale proceed by way of amendment to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, based upon a reduction in price.

Contact Name:

Sheryl Badin, 392-8142, Fax 392-4828,

E-Mail Address: sheryl_badin@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To recommend a process for the sale of 153 Everden Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue in the minimum amount of $200,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996, will be realized from the sale of this property if the recommendations in this report are approved.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the offer to purchase the property at 153 Everden Road submitted by Mr. Frank Dyer in the amount of $193,000.00, not be accepted;

(2) the Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to sign back and submit a counter-offer to Mr. Dyer at a purchase price of $200,000.00, which counter-offer shall be irrevocable by the City until June 21, 1999, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the offer made by Mr. Dyer including the 2 year option in favour of the City;

(3) if Mr. Dyer accepts the City's counter-offer, then it is further recommended that:

(a) the requirement embodied in Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, regarding the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent of the purchase price be waived;

(b) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. OCA700CA2510;

(c) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable;

(4) in the event Mr. Dyer does not accept the City's counter-offer the property be listed for sale through the T.R.E.B. Multiple Listing Service subject to the existing tenancy; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Province of Ontario is the owner of 153 Everden Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no easement is required.

By its adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Toronto Council authorized that properties listed in Schedule "A" be sold to sitting tenants at market value determined as at the date of expression of their interest and further, that such sale be subject to an option to repurchase at that purchase price (unadjusted) for a period of two years. Accordingly, the tenant was provided with our May 20, 1997 appraisal estimating the fair market value of this property at $215,000.00, together with an agreement of purchase and sale.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The tenant, Mr. Frank Dyer, rejected the City's appraised value, and requested the matter of market value be referred to arbitration in conformance with Council's directive to have a third party arbitrator attempt to bring the parties together. (Clause No. 4 of Report No. 9 of the Corporate Services Committee adopted as amended by Council at the meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998). An arbitration hearing was held on January 5, 1999 at which time both parties presented oral and written submissions in support of their respective estimates of market value. It is noted that the City's value was based upon the most recent appraisal in the amount of $215,000.00. In a written decision, the arbitrator, Ms. Patricia Dunn, concluded that $200,000.00 to $210,000.00 more accurately represents fair market value of the property as of May 20, 1997.

Subsequent to the arbitrator's decision, Mr. Dyer submitted an offer to purchase in the amount of $193,000.00. A summary of the property and the terms and conditions in Mr. Dyer's offer to purchase are as follows:

Property Address: 153 Everden Road.

Legal Description: North 25 feet of Lot 67, Registered Plan 1103, City of Toronto (formerly City of York).

Lot Size: 7.62 metres (25 feet) fronting onto Everden Road,

40.23 metres (132 feet) depth.

Location: East side of Everden Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West.

Easement: Subject to an easement in favour of the City of Toronto for subway purposes registered on Part 15, Reference Plan 64R-7314.

Improvements: Detached, brick 1.5-storey dwelling.

Occupancy Status: Tenanted.

Date Interest Expressed: May 20, 1997.

Amount of Offer: $193,000.00.

Deposit: $9,600.00 (certified cheque).

Purchaser: Frank George Dyer.

Closing Date: July 28, 1999.

Terms: Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments and registration of an option to purchase.

This offer does not conform with the Council directive of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, to offer the property to the tenants on the basis of market value applicable at the date they expressed written interest in purchasing, in this instance, May 20, 1997. It is therefore recommended that Mr. Dyer's offer not be accepted and that the City submit a signed back counter-offer increasing the purchase price to $200,000.00, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the offer made by Mr. Dyer, which counter-offer shall be irrevocable until June 21, 1999. In the event that Mr. Dyer does not accept this counter-offer within the time frame specified, the property should then be listed for sale subject to the existing tenancy.

This is a proposed sale to an existing tenant and is based on market value as at May 20, 1997. Council directed that comparable sales data be provided for property sales in the Spadina corridor. Appendix "A" identifies three comparable sales located in the vicinity of the subject.

The Agreement with the Province of Ontario authorized by Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee as adopted by Council on December 4, 1996 provides that the Provinces share of the sale proceeds is to be based upon current market value. An appraisal report with an effective date of October 7, 1998 estimates the value of the property at $245,000.00.

Conclusion:

The sale of this property at $200,000.00 is considered fair and reasonable, reflecting market value as at May 20, 1997 in accordance with Council directives.

Contact Name:

Michelle DeVey, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services, (416) 392-8160,

Fax No. (416) 392-4828 E-Mail Address: michelle_devey@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

The following three addresses represent recent comparable sales of properties that are similar to the residence which forms the subject matter of this report. These three properties consist of brick 1.5 or 2-storey dwellings located in the vicinity of the subject property.

Approximate

Address Lot Size Sale Price Date of Sale

123 Everden Road 25 x 132' $252,000.00 July 15, 1998

527 Rushton Road 25' x 120' $217,500.00 May 28, 1997

482 Atlas Avenue 33' x 61' $178,000.00 June 28, 1997

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 42 Darrell Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $127,000.00 less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept this offer in the amount $127,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 22 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA700CA2485;

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, to complete the transaction on behalf of the City and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City of Toronto is the owner of 42 Darrell Avenue. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of The Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 96-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, negotiations were conducted with the tenants, Betty Bedford and Patrick Ernest Wilcox and the following offer was received:

Property Address: 42 Darrell Avenue.

Legal Description: Part of Lots 46 and 47 on the north side of Darrell Avenue, Registered Plan 453E, City of Toronto.

Approximate Lot Size: 4.62 metres (15.17 feet) fronting onto Darrell Avenue,

24.61 metres (80.75 feet) depth.

Location: North side of Darrell Avenue, west of Golfview Avenue.

Improvements: Semi-detached 2 bedroom, 2 storey dwelling.

Right-of-way: Subject to a mutual right-of-way.

Occupancy Status: Tenanted.

Recommended Sale Price: $127,000.00.

Deposit: $1,000.00 (money order).

Purchasers: Betty Bedford and Patrick Ernest Wilcox.

Closing Date: July 16, 1999.

Terms: Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Conclusion:

Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Ms. Sheryl Badin, Real Estate Services, (416)392-8142, Fax No.: (416)392-4828,

E-Mail Address: sheryl_badin@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 6, 1999.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 230 Clonmore Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $165,700.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $165,700.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 22 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA700CA2479;

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in complete the transaction on behalf of the City and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City of Toronto is the owner of 230 Clonmore Drive. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of The Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, the property was listed with ReMax Hallmark Real Estate Ltd. on April 9, 1999 at an asking price of $159,000.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. The following offers were received:

Purchaser Purchase Price Deposit Terms

James D'Altroy and $165,700.00 $8285.00 (bank draft) No Conditions

Jacqueline D'Altroy

Paul D. McIntyre $165,501.00 $8200.00 (certified cheque) No Conditions

Michael Stanley Bell $159,100.00 $7,955.00 (certified cheque) No Conditions

Craig Anthony Keough $120,000.00 $6,000.00 (certified cheque) No Conditions

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address: 230 Clonmore Drive.

Legal Description: Part of Lot 8, Plan 1756, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough).

Approximate Lot Size: 10.06 metres (33 feet) fronting onto Clonmore Drive,

30.48 metres (100 feet) depth (irregular).

Location: North side of Clonmore Drive, west of Warden Avenue, north of Kingston Road.

Improvements: Detached, 3 bedroom, 2 storey dwelling.

Occupancy Status: Vacant.

Recommended Sale Price: $165,700.00.

Deposit: $8,285.00 (bank draft).

Purchaser: James D'Altroy and Jacqueline D'Altroy

Closing Date: September 16, 1999.

Terms: Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker: Re/Max Hallmark Real Estate Ltd.

Selling Broker: Re/Max Hallmark Real Estate Ltd.

Commission: Four (4) per cent., plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.

Conclusion:

Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Michelle DeVey, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services, (416)392-8160,

Fax No.: (416)392-4828, E-Mail Address: michelle_devey@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 106 Aylesworth Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $115,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $115,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 22 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. OCA700CA2471;

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in complete the transaction on behalf of the City and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City of Toronto is the owner of 106 Aylesworth Avenue. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of The Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-Law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-Law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, negotiations were conducted with the tenants, Paul and Connie Carreau, and the following offer was received:

Property Address: 106 Aylesworth Avenue.

Legal Description: Lots 3 and 4, Plan 2194, designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 64R-11446 subject to a right-of-way, City of Toronto.

Approximate Lot Size: 9.75 metres (32 feet) fronting onto Aylesworth Avenue,

40.23 metres (132 feet) depth (irregular).

Location: Northwest side of Aylesworth Avenue, east of Kennedy Road north of Kingston Road.

Improvements: Detached, 2 bedroom, stucco bungalow.

Occupancy Status: Tenanted.

Recommended Sale Price: $115,000.00.

Deposit: $1,000.00.

Purchaser: Paul and Connie Carreau.

Closing Date: July 2, 1999.

Terms: Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Conclusion:

Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Melanie Hale-Carter, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services, (416) 397-0585,

Fax No.: (416) 392-4828, E-Mail Address: melanie_halecarter@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek authority for an encroachment agreement to permit an existing canopy overhanging at the southwest corner of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue to remain.

Funding:

Revenue of $350.00 plus disbursements will be credited to Legal Services Division of the Corporate Services Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City enter into an encroachment agreement with the owner of 1883 McNicoll Avenue to permit the canopy which overhangs onto the road allowance at the southwest corner of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue to remain. The encroachment area is shown on Schedule "A" attached and will be subject to:

(a) the owner providing proof of insurance satisfactory to the City's Manager of Risk and Insurance;

(b) the owner agreeing to maintain the encroachment in good condition; and

(c) the owner paying the standard $350.00 administration fee plus disbursements and G.S.T. for the encroachment agreement; and

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

History:

The property at 1883 McNicoll Avenue is a new high-rise condominium complex with 285 residential units on the upper floors and retail stores at street level.

The L-shape building at the corner of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue has an irregular shaped steel and glass canopy wrapping around the northeast corner of the building. The canopy is about 9 feet above the street level with portions overhanging as much as 0.71 metres onto the Kennedy Road McNicoll Avenue road allowances. The owner (Bamburgh Gate Development Inc.) has requested an encroachment agreement so the existing encroachment can remain.

Comments:

A circulation to City Departments, outside agencies, utility companies and the Ward Councillors resulted in no objections to the proposed encroachment request.

The encroachment policy of the former City of Scarborough considered minor encroachment of structures such as garages, eavestroughs, steps, retaining walls, etc. to be "Specific Encroachments", subject to a one time administrative charge of $350.00 and no annual fee.

Conclusion:

The canopy structure at the building corner is an architectural feature of the building which has been sited close to the street corner at Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue. It poses no obstruction to pedestrian traffic and does not hamper street operations. Approval of the encroachment agreement will enable the applicant to maintain the existing streetscape.

Contact Name:

Neubert Li, Real Estate Administrator, (416) 396-7422, Fax No. (416) 396-4241,

E-mail Address: li@city.scarborough.on.ca.

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 21, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek authority for an encroachment agreement to permit an existing building corner, a wood deck and a concrete step, which encroach onto the Highway 2A and Meadowvale Road road allowances, to remain.

Funding:

Revenue of $350.00 plus disbursements will be credited to Legal Services Division of the Corporate Services Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City enter into an encroachment agreement with the owner of 230 Meadowvale Road to permit a portion of the existing building corner, a wood deck and a concrete step, which encroach up to 0.33 metres onto the Highway 2A and Meadowvale Road road allowances, to remain. The area of the proposed encroachments is shown on the attached sketch, Schedule "A" and will be subject to:

(a) the owner providing proof of insurance satisfactory to the City's Manager of Risk and Insurance;

(b) the owner agreeing to maintain the encroachment in good condition; and

(c) the owner paying the standard $350.00 administration fee plus disbursements and G.S.T. for the encroachment agreement; and

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

History:

The property at 230 Meadowvale Road is located at the southwest corner of Meadowvale Road and Highway 2A in the former City of Scarborough. Improvements on the site include a two-storey residence with its northwest corner and a small triangular section of a wood deck encroaching onto the road allowance for Highway 2A. In addition, a concrete step leading to the front of the house encroaches about 0.3 metres onto the Meadowvale Road road allowance; all encroachments are illustrated on the survey plan attached (Schedule "A").

Highway 2A was transferred to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto by Order in Council No.647/97. A 8-foot high chain link fence was erected along the southerly limit of the road allowance for the purpose of preventing access from abutting lands including 230 Meadowvale Road. The fence was diverted about 4 feet north into the road allowance near the rear of the building creating a small side yard and permitting access to the rear yard along the north side of the house.

Mr. Scott Magder, a solicitor acting on behalf of the owner of 230 Meadowvale Road, has requested an encroachment agreement to permit the encroachments, as revealed by the survey, to remain.

Comments:

A circulation to City Departments, outside agencies, utility companies and the Ward Councillors resulted in no objections to the proposed encroachment request.

The encroachment policy of the former City of Scarborough considered the minor encroachment of structures such as garages, eavestroughs, steps, retaining walls, etc. to be "Specific Encroachments", subject to a one time administrative charge of $350.00.

Conclusion:

The section of wood deck, building corner and the concrete step which encroach onto Highway 2A and Meadowvale Road are considered minor and do not pose a problem to the road operations. Meadowvale Road is dead-ended at its intersection with Highway 2A. Approval of the requested encroachment will enable the applicant to maintain the existing structures in a reasonable condition.

Contact Name:

Neubert Li, Real Estate Administrator, (416) 396-7422, Fax No. (416) 396-4241,

E-mail Address: li@city.scarborough.on.ca.

(A copy of the 'Plan of Survey' attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 21, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek authority for an encroachment agreement, to permit an existing 0.9 metre high stone wall which encroaches 0.55 metre onto the road allowance abutting 565 Kennedy Road, to remain.

Funding:

Revenue of $350.00 plus disbursements will be credited to Legal Services Division of the Corporate Services Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City enter into an encroachment agreement with the owner of 565 Kennedy Road to permit an existing 0.9 metre high stone wall which encroaches 0.55 metres onto the Kennedy Road road allowance to remain. The area of the encroachment is shown on Schedule "A" attached and will be subject to:

(a) the owner providing proof of insurance satisfactory to the City's Manager of Risk and Insurance;

(b) the owner agreeing to maintain the encroachment in good condition; and

(c) the owner paying the standard $350.00 administration fee plus disbursements and G.S.T. for encroachment agreements; and

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

History:

The owner of a commercial property at 565 Kennedy Road in the former City of Scarborough has made application for title conversion pursuant to the Land Titles Act. The Notice of Application for First Registration was registered as Instrument No. E224896 by Kopas Management and Development Incorporated.

A Statement of Objection was filed with the Land Registrar by the City's Legal Services Office for the purpose of protecting the City's interest as it relates to a 0.9m-high stone wall which encroaches onto the City's abutting road allowance.

The legal representative for the owner contends that the objection is one of use and occupancy not of title. However, the owner acknowledges the encroachment and has requested the City authorize its continued presence through an encroachment agreement.

Comments:

A circulation to City Departments, outside agencies, utility companies and the Ward Councillors resulted in no objections to the proposed encroachment request.

The encroachment policy of the former City of Scarborough considered minor encroachment of structures such as garages, eavestroughs, steps, retaining walls, etc., to be "Specific Encroachments", subject to a one time administrative charge of $350.00.

Conclusion:

The 0.9 metre-high stone wall along the Kennedy Road and Summer Drive serves as an enhancement at the street corner and poses no obstruction to pedestrian traffic or to street maintenance. Approval of the encroachment agreement will enable the applicant to maintain the existing streetscape.

Contact Name:

Neubert Li, Real Estate Administrator, (416) 396-7422, Fax No. (416) 396-4241,

E-mail Address: li@city.scarborough.on.ca.

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To secure authority to declare the lands comprising the closed underground public lavatory, beneath the lane known as Mayfair Mews, surplus to municipal requirements.

Financial Implications:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) to comply with the requirements of By-law No. 551-1998, the lands comprising the closed underground public lavatory be declared surplus and offered for sale to the adjacent property owners, subject to the stopping up and strata closing of the public lane and easement protection for utilities; and

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

Background:

Pursuant to an agreement entered into with the developers of 2 Bloor Street West, a public washroom was constructed at the below grade pedestrian mall connection between Nos. 2 and 60 Bloor Street West, physically situated beneath the public lane known as Mayfair Mews.

In 1988, attempts were made to lease the facility to the owners of 2 Bloor Street West for operation as a public washroom. However, the problems associated with this facility from a security and operations point of view, did not warrant the expense that would be incurred by owners of 2 Bloor Street West should they assume its operation. The former City of Toronto Council on June 17, 1991 [Executive Committee Report No.14, City Services Committee Report No. 8, Clause 48], in accordance with it's policy on public washrooms [Executive Committee Report No.35, Clause No. 50, City Council October 3, 1988] approved the permanent closure of the facility.

Comments:

The public washroom, accessed from the lower level of Cumberland Terrace shopping mall, contains a gross floor area of approximately 810.5 square feet (75.3 m²). The space can be converted and used as retail space under the existing zoning.

A poll was undertaken of the City's departments, agencies, boards and commissions to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining the public lavatory. No interest was expressed. However, City Works and Emergency Services advised that as the facility lies within a public lane, a strata closing of the public lane and easement protection for utilities is required as a condition of sale. The Property Management Committee has recommended the disposal of the property.

In order to proceed with a sale of property, the City must comply with the procedures governing disposal of property. Section 193(4) of the Municipal Act requires that, before the selling of any property, Council must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public, give notice to the public of the proposed sale and must obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempted by regulations passed under the legislation.

Conclusion:

In order to proceed with the disposal of these lands, City Council should declare the lands surplus to the City's requirements.

Contact Name:

Carla Inglis, 392-7212, Fax: 392-1880, cinglis@toronto.ca.

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To secure City Council authority to declare a portion of a public lane situated between premises Nos. 71 and 75 Elmer Avenue, proposed to be closed, as surplus to the City's requirement and to secure an Agreement of Purchase and Sale from the adjoining owner at premises No. 71 Elmer Avenue.

Financial Implications:

The sale of the subject parcel of land will generate net revenue of approximately $4,000.00.

Recommendations:

Subject to City Council approving the stopping up and closing of a portion of public lane situated between premises Nos. 71 and 75 Elmer Avenue, shown in black on the attached Schedule A, it is recommended that:

(1) the portion of public lane situated between premises Nos. 71 and 75 Elmer Avenue be declared surplus and sold to Gail Speer, the adjoining property owner of premises No. 71 Elmer Avenue;

(2) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the proposed disposition of the lands declared surplus;

(3) the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, be authorized to secure from Gail Speer, the adjoining property owner of premises No. 71 Elmer Avenue, an Agreement of Purchase and Sale, under the terms and conditions as outlined in this report; and

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

Background:

The subject parcel of land forms part of an existing public laneway situated between premises Nos. 71 and 75 Elmer Avenue. The said laneway was laid out by Plan 634 in the Township of York.

The owner of premises No. 71 Elmer Avenue, Gail Speer, has expressed an interest in purchasing a portion of the public laneway that adjoins a portion of the northerly limit of her property at the rear. Agreement has been reached for a purchase price of $7,500.00, subject to certain terms and conditions. This report deals with the particulars of the proposed sale.

Comments:

In order to proceed with the sale of the parcel of land, the City must comply with the procedures governing stopping up and closing of public highway and the disposal of property. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is reporting directly to Toronto Community Council for its May 26, 1999 meeting recommending the stopping up and closing of the affected portion of the public lane.

With respect to disposal of property, the provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994 (Bill 163) respecting the sale of real property, by the City, its agencies, boards and commissions, would apply. This legislation requires that, before the selling of any property, City Council must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public; give notice to the public of the proposed sale and obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempted by regulations passed under the legislation. An appraisal of the market value of the subject parcel of land has been undertaken by City staff.

To complete the proposed sale, an executed Agreement of Purchase and Sale, in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, is required from the adjoining property owner at premises No. 71 Elmer Avenue. The following terms and conditions would apply:

The Purchaser to:

(1) Indemnify the City, together with such other persons as the City Solicitor may require, against all loss, cost, damage or action arising as a result of the closing and conveyancing;

(2) Pay the purchase price of $7,500.00 which includes the fee in the land comprising the portion of the lane to be closed, measuring 2.1 metres x 6.4 metres for a total area of approximately 13.6 square metres (146 square feet), the estimated cost of relocating an overhead Rogers cable at $180.00 and all out-of-pocket expenses that will be incurred by the City as a result of the closing and conveyancing, estimated to be $3,500.00;

(3) Provide a cheque to cover the City's out of pocket expenses when such expenses are known to the City and agree that all out-of-pocket expenses that will be incurred by the City as a result of the closing and conveyancing will not be refunded in the event that the transaction is not completed; and

(4) Provide a Reference Plan for the portion of the lane to be closed, integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate system. It is expected that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services' report on stopping up and closing a portion of the existing public lane will be considered at the same meeting of City Council as this report is considered. The date of completion of this transaction is to be as soon as possible following City Council approval.

Conclusion:

As there is no municipal interest in retaining this portion of the public laneway, and subject to City Council approving the stopping up and closing of the required portion of the existing public highway, the parcel of land should be declared surplus to the City's requirements and sold to the adjoining property owner at premises No. 71 Elmer Avenue. The sale price of $7,500.00, inclusive of the City's out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the closing, is considered fair and reasonable.

Contact Name:

Stuart Tufts,

Telephone - 392 - 0010, Fax - 392 - 1880,

E-mail - stufts@toronto.ca.

(A copy of Schedule "A" attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the licence of a portion of City-owned land municipally known as 53 Strachan Avenue in order for Homes First Society to operate a community market garden on a rent free basis until November, 1999.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the licence for a portion of City-owned land municipally known as 53 Strachan Avenue to Homes First Society for community market garden purposes until November, 1999 be approved; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute the documentation and take any necessary action.

Background:

Homes First Society occupied a portion of the subject lands municipally known as 53 Strachan Avenue as set out on the attached sketch for the purposes of a community market garden on a rent free basis for 1997 and 1998 inclusive.

Comments:

Councillor Joe Pantalone in a letter dated April 12, 1999, has requested that Homes First Society continue to occupy the subject lands on the same rent free basis for a further year until November, 1999.

Conclusion:

I am in agreement with Homes First Society continuing to occupy the subject lands until November, 1999.

Contact Name:

Ken Willard, 392-1851, Fax 392-1880, E-mail - kwillard@toronto.ca.

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to include in the lease extension a provision that any option for a further renewal of the lease, between the Centre for Creative Ministries and the City of Toronto for the Goulding Estate property, for an additional three years, rest with the City.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the East York Community Council embodied in the following communication (April 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council on April 28 and 29, 1999, recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that the lease between the Centre for Creative Ministries and the City of Toronto with respect to the Goulding Estate be extended for a further 3 years.

The East York Community Council reports having requested:

(1) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to submit a report to the East York Community Council with respect to funding opportunities for the Goulding Estate as a Millennium project and the ultimate return of the building to the public realm; and

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, together with interested community groups, to continue to work with the Tenants towards the restoration of the Goulding Estate.

Background:

The East York Community Council had before it the following:

(i) communication (February 10, 1999) from Councillor Michael Prue, East York, respecting the Goulding Estate and submitting a proposal to designate the Goulding Estate as a possible Millennium Project;

(ii) report (April 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing, for information, a status report with respect to the Goulding Estate and advising that a report addressing capital and operating costs and timing associated with bringing the Goulding Estate into the public realm will be presented to the East York Community Council for discussion at its meeting scheduled to be held on June 23, 1999; and

(iii) extract of the lease between the Centre for Creative Ministries and the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, dated August 14, 1997.

The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Dr. Marcella H. Shields, Co-Director, Centre for Creative Ministries, East York, and submitted a written brief with respect thereto;

- Ms. Paige Souter, Toronto, and submitted a written brief with respect thereto;

- Mr. Michael Nasello, Chair of the Board, Centre for Creative Ministries, Toronto;

- Ms. Martha Arbuthnot, Toronto;

- Ms. Margaret Keogh, Centre for Creative Ministries, Toronto;

- Mr. Robert Syme, Minister, Faith Community Church, Toronto;

- Mr. John Carter, Chair, East York LACAC, East York;

- Mr. W.E. Barnett, Chairman, East York Foundation, East York;

- Mr. Terry Russell, President, Toronto Historical Association, Toronto; and

- Ms. Maureen Lindsay, East York.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "Lease Renewal of 305 Dawes Road - Goulding Estate, East York (Ward 1 - East York):

Purpose:

To renew the lease of the subject property with The Centre for Creative Ministries.

Financial Implications:

This lease will generate revenue of approximately $122,400.00 for the renewal term.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

By the adoption of Clause No.27 of Report No. 19 of The Corporate Administration Committee, as amended, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, at its meeting on August 13 and 14, 1997 approved the leasing of the subject property to The Centre for Creative Ministries for a term of two (2) years from September 1, 1997, subject to an option to renew for an additional three (3) years.

In accordance with the executed lease dated August 14, 1997, the Tenant, upon providing to the Landlord at least ninety (90) days advance notice in writing, shall have the option to renew the lease for a further term of three (3) years on the same terms and conditions, at a rent of $3,400.00 per month, net, provided that the Borough of East York or any successor municipal authorities continue to approve the Tenant's use of the Leased Property. By a letter dated April 23, 1999, the Tenant has given proper notice of its intention to renew.

Comments:

At its meeting on April 28 and 29, 1999, the East York Community Council considered a communication from Councillor Michael Prue regarding the Goulding Estate and submitting a proposal to designate the Goulding Estate as a possible Millennium Project. At this meeting, the East York Community Council recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that the lease with The Centre for Creative Ministries with respect to the Goulding Estate be extended for a further three (3) years.

It is noted that The Centre for Creative Ministries has performed substantial repairs and improvements to restore the building on the property, and has been a satisfactory tenant. The Centre for Creative Ministries has properly exercised its option to renew, and during the renewal, the rent payable represents market rent.

Conclusion:

I concur with the recommendation of the East York Community Council for the renewal.

Contact Name:

Stephen Law, Valuator-Negotiator, Facilities and Real Estate Division;

Telephone No.: (416) 392-8151; Fax No.: (416) 392-4828.

Councillor Michael Prue, East York, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the map attached to the report (May 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Council's support of the Steam Whistle Brew Pub be subject to Council approval of any terms and conditions, financial or otherwise, of any lease.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that:

(1) Council support the Steam Whistle Brew Pub concept outlined in the document, entitled "John Street Roundhouse - A Phased Reuse and Rehabilitation Strategy", prepared by the TrizeHahn Corporation; and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to work with TrizecHahn Corporation and the Steam Whistle Brewing Company to facilitate their venture as an initial phase of the John Street Roundhouse Redevelopment; and

(2) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit a report to the Administration Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 15, 1999, on the report received from TrizecHahn Corporation respecting the John Street Roundhouse.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To advise the Corporate Services Committee and City Council that a report as requested by City Council at its meeting on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 has just been received from TrizecHahn Corporation (TrizecHahn).

Financial Implications:

Not applicable at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, awarded TrizecHahn the right to study the Roundhouse property in an effort to develop for implementation a viable strategy that met the stated objectives.

TrizecHahn has just submitted its proposal. Staff have reviewed the submission on a very preliminary basis and this report is being submitted to advise the Corporate Services Committee and City Council that TrizecHahn has submitted the proposal report and to provide a brief overview of the contents of the report. A copy of the report has been filed with the City Clerk.

Comments:

TrizecHahn is proposing a phased approach to the rehabilitation and reuse of the Roundhouse.

They are proposing five phases as follows:

It is noted that the Microbrewery and Brewpub proposed use for Bays 26-32 and the machine shop is a use which appears to be consistent with the historical nature of the Roundhouse and would be compatible with the proposed Railway Museum\Interpretative Centre.

The TrizecHahn report still requires full review by staff, members of the Steering Committee and other stakeholders. Once this review has been completed and appropriate consultation with TrizecHahn has taken place, a further report on the TrizecHahn submission will be prepared. It is anticipated this report will be brought forward to the Administration Committee on June 15, 1999.

Conclusion:

Not applicable.

Contact Name:

Erlinda Bala, Telephone: 392-1852, Fax: 392-1880,

E-mail: ebala@toronto.ca.

(A copy of the document, entitled "John Street Roundhouse - A Phased Reuse and Rehabilitation Strategy" prepared by TrizecHahn Corporation, was distributed at the May 20, 1999, meeting of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his son is a partner in the law firm which is acting on behalf of the developer.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 5, 1999) from the President, Toronto Parking Authority:

Purpose:

To renew a land lease between the City of Toronto, The Toronto Parking Authority and Ronald Buildings Limited at an annual rent of $1.00 plus realty taxes in order to maintain the existing parking facility.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The City will lease the subject lands from Ronald Buildings Limited (the "Landlord") for use by the Parking Authority for a further term of 21 years on the same terms and conditions as the expiring lease, including:

(1) annual rent of $1.00 plus taxes;

(2) the Parking Authority will provide 45 free parking privileges at Car park 39 daily on a 24 hour basis to the Landlord for distribution as it sees fit to its officers, staff and tenants. The said parking privileges are not to be otherwise assigned or sublet by the Landlord, its officers, staff and tenants and will contain in-and-out privileges;

(3) the Parking Authority will use the leased lands for the purpose of operating a municipal parking lot;

(4) the lease may not be assigned or sublet without the Landlord's consent;

(5) the lease may be terminated upon giving the Landlord 30 days written notice. The Landlord has no rights of early termination, except for default; and;

(6) the lease may be renewed for successive terms of 21 years each.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1) approve the lease renewal agreement, per the terms outlined above, with Ronald Buildings Limited for a further term of 21 years, in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

(2) authorize appropriate City officials to undertake the actions necessary to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background History:

City Council, at its meeting held on October 9, 1956, passed By-law No. 19796 to acquire certain lands located on the north side of Castlefield Avenue, west of Yonge Street, for municipal parking purposes.

Ronald Buildings Limited owns an L-shaped parcel of land located along the most northerly and westerly portions of the existing lots municipally known as 567 Duplex Avenue and 12 Castlefield Avenue. An agreement was reached whereby the City would lease this property to be operated by the Parking Authority, for municipal parking purposes, for a term of 21 years with the right to renew the lease in perpetuity in segments of 21 year terms. The second renewal term which commenced in May 1978 was approved by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of March 28, 1978. The second renewal term expired April 30^th, 1999. The Toronto Parking Authority requires City Council approval for the next renewal term.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Municipal Car park 39, located near the intersection of Castlefield and west of Yonge Street, covers both the City owned lands and the leased lands, and accommodates 163 spaces. The leased lands owned by Ronald Buildings Limited are an integral part of the operation of that lot. The Parking Authority requires these lands to access the facility and, moreover, the northerly portion of the leased lands accommodates over 30 vehicles. It is essential, in order to meet the parking needs of the area, to continue this lease arrangement.

Conclusions:

The continued lease of these lands is critical to meet the long-term parking needs of the area. This transaction is beneficial for the City and the Parking Authority as the Toronto Parking Authority is only required to pay operating costs related to the premises and provide the owner with 45 parking spaces. For this reason, it is recommended that City Council approve the lease renewal with Ronald Buildings Limited on the same terms and conditions as in the previous lease, subject to some minor amendments that may result from changing the form of the lease.

Contact Names:

Maurice J. Anderson, President

Telephone: (416) 393-7276; Facsimile: (416) 393-7352

Lorne Persiko, Director, Real Estate and Development

Telephone: (416) 393-7294; Facsimile: (416) 393-7352.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 6, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To obtain Council authority to enter into an extension agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Tax Sales Act and for the introduction of a Bill and passage of a By-law authorizing the extension agreement.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted to enter into an extension agreement with Aldwyn Investments Inc. extending the redemption date to December 31st, 1999;

(2) authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council and passage of a By-law authorizing the extension agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Tax Sales Act; and

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

Background:

Aldwyn Investments Inc., the owner of the property municipally known as 501 Alliance Avenue, has requested an Extension Agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Tax Sales Act. The property has been the subject of litigation concerning Aldwyn's ownership of the lands, following a purchase in November, 1997. The litigation was only resolved on March 15, 1999, almost one and one half years after Aldwyn purchased the property.

The last date of redemption on this property is June 11, 1999. The property owner is not in a position to pay the cancellation price on or before this time. As a result of settling the litigation, Aldwyn is now in a position to move forward with leasing the property and has requested an extension of the period to pay the amount owing to December 31, 1999.

Discussion:

The Municipal Tax Sales Act allows for a Tax Arrears Certificate to be registered on title when taxes are outstanding for any part of three years. On June 12, 1998 a Tax Arrears Certificate was registered against the above property as taxes from 1995 to 1998 inclusive were outstanding.

At the time of the registration, the outstanding balance including all interest to December 31, 1997 was $1,165,059.56. The balance owing at the expiry of the one year term, being June 11, 1999, is $1,755,997.56. The proposed extension agreement requires repayment of the tax arrears in the full amount outstanding on or before December 31, 1999, which will be approximately $2,050,700.00. By this extension of time, the full 1999 tax levy will have been levied and pursuant to the Municipal Act, is due and payable, along with any additional registration costs or other charges that may be lawfully added to the taxes.

The Municipal Tax Sales Act permits a municipality to enter into an extension agreement with the property owner, subject to terms and conditions relating to payment as may be set out in it, but it cannot reduce the amount of the cancellation price, or prohibit any person from paying the cancellation price at any time. If the agreement is not fulfilled by the owners, then the lands are to be sold by the municipality.

The owner is presently negotiating with several qualified prospective tenants and anticipates that within the next few months, a bonafide lease for the majority of the building can be arranged. Following that, improvements are needed to upgrade the building to a standard acceptable to City building officials, which will take 3 to 4 months. Once the property is upgraded and leased, Aldwyn expects to be in a position to pay the cancellation price.

Aldwyn owns five other properties within the City of Toronto, with all the taxes on these other properties presently paid up-to-date.

Conclusion:

Allowing an extension of the redemption period to the owner of 501 Alliance Avenue under the present circumstances is fair and reasonable, and is in the best interest of both the city and the owner.

Contact Name:

Margo L. Brunning, Manager, Collections/Receivables, Payments and Regional Customer Services

Phone No:(416) 395-6789

Fax No: (416) 395-6703

Internet email address: mbrunnin@toronto.ca.

Authority: Corporate Services Committee

Report No.

Date:

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

BILL NO:

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The City of Toronto be authorized to enter into an agreement with Aldwyn Investments Inc., the owner of the land described as Part Lot G, Plan No. 5098, being in the City of Toronto, in the Land Registry Office, against which land the City registered a tax arrears certificate on the 12^th day of June, 1998, to extend the time period in which the cancellation price payable on this land is to be paid until December 31^st, 1999.

2. The agreement shall be substantially in the same form and contain terms and conditions, subject to such amendments as may be required by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and City Solicitor, as set out in Schedule 'A' attached hereto and forming part of this By-Law.

3. This By-Law shall become effective as of June 10^th, 1999.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of June, A.D. 1999.

MEL LASTMAN, NOVINA WONG,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

THIS AGREEMENT made in duplicate this day of June, A.D., 1999.

BETWEEN:

OF THE FIRST PART

OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the Owner is the owner of the land in the City of Toronto described as the Part Lot G, Plan 5098, in the City of Toronto (the "Owner's Land"), as set out in Instrument No. CA543908 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Registry Division.

AND WHEREAS there arrears of taxes in respect of the Owner's Land on the 31^st day of December, 1997 in the amount of $1,165,059.56 and a tax arrears certificate was registered in the Land Registry Office, as set out in Instrument No. CA 543908, on the 12^th day of June, 1998.

AND WHEREAS the arrears of taxes in respect of the Owner's Land on the 1^st day of April, 1999 were in the amount of $1,718,796.13;

AND WHEREAS under section 8 of the Municipal Tax Sales Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.60, a municipality may by by-law passed after registration of a tax arrears certificate authorize an extension agreement to be entered by the municipality with owners to extend the period of time in which the cancellation price is to be paid;

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and obligations hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows:

1. The parties agree that the period of time in which the cancellation price is to be paid shall be and is hereby extended to December 31^st , 1999, providing the Owner is not in default hereunder.

2. Despite any of the provisions of this agreement, the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, as amended, and the Municipal Tax Sales Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.60, as amended, shall continue to apply to the collection and enforcement of all tax arrears and all taxes with respect to the Owner's Land, except that the Treasurer and the collector of taxes of the City without waiving the statutory rights and powers of the City or the Treasurer, agree that the City shall not enforce collection of such tax payments by the sale of the Owner's Land, during the time that this agreement is in force, so long as the Owner is not in default hereunder.

3. The Owner agrees to pay the City the sums indicated in Appendix 1 attached hereto and forming part of this Agreement in the manner indicated thereon.

4. In the event that the Owner sells the Owner's Land prior to December 31, 1999, the balance of the cancellation price shall become immediately due and payable on the business day immediately prior to the date of closing of the sale.

5. In the event that the Owner defaults in any payment hereunder or is in default of any covenant or condition hereunder, this agreement shall cease to be considered a subsisting agreement for the purposes of Sections 8 and 9 of the Municipal Tax Sales Act.

6. Despite the provisions of paragraph 1, the Owner, or any other person, may on or before December 31^st, 1999, pay the balance of the cancellation price and, upon receipt of the said payment by the City, this agreement shall terminate and the Treasurer shall forthwith register a tax arrears cancellation certificate.

7. In the event that the cancellation price is not paid by 1:00 p.m. on December 31, 1999, this agreement shall terminate. The Owner will not object to the sale of the land by the City and shall consent to any court orders necessary to permit the City to sell the said land, and the Owner agrees to be bound by this Section 7 notwithstanding the termination of this agreement.

8. This agreement shall extend to and be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the parties and to their respective successors and assigns.

9. Any notice to be given to the parties hereto shall be sufficiently given if sent by registered or certified post to the following addresses:

to the City:

City of Toronto

Finance Department

5100 Yonge Street

North York, Ontario M2N 5V7

Attention: Ms. Margo L. Brunning

Manager, Collections/Receivables, Payments

and Regional Customer Service

to the Owner:

Aldwyn Investments Inc.

70 Wingold Avenue

North York, Ontario M6B 1P5

In WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their Corporate seals attested by the hands of their respective officers in that behalf, as of the day and the year first above written.

CITY OF TORONTO

per:______________________c/s

W.A. Liczyk

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

per:________________________

Novina Wong

City Clerk

ALDWYN INVESTMENTS INC.

per:_______________________c/s

Owner

Calculation of Payment Required

Under Extension Agreement

1. Outstanding taxes, penalty and interest

charges on Tax Arrears Certificate

(to December 31, 1997) $1,165,059.56

2. Additional taxes levied and interest charges

subsequent to tax sale proceedings (includes

1999 interim levy and estimated 1999 final levy)

(January 1, 1998 - December 31^st, 1999) $ 885,640.44

Total Amount to be Paid

Under Extension Agreement $2,050,700.00

To be Paid as Follows:

1. 1 payment to the Treasurer, City of Toronto, by certified

cheque on or before 1:00 p.m. on December 31^st, 1999 $2,050,700.00

$2,050,700.00

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the City Clerk be requested to submit a report to the Administration Committee on the types of ballots that could be utilized to more clearly identify the candidates by the equipment, including numbers or pictures beside the candidates' name, to name two.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 6, 1999) from the City Clerk; and reports having forwarded a copy thereof to the Budget Committee for its information:

Purpose:

This report responds to a request from Budget Committee and Council to report on the costs and benefits of alternative voting and vote tabulation options, both financial and other, permissible within the new legislation governing municipal elections.

Financial Implications:

The Elections Voting and Vote Tabulation System was approved as part of the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program, $1.00 million was approved for expenditures in 1999 and $12.05 million was committed for 2000.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council approve the use of voting place vote-counting machines in the City of Toronto elections.

(2) Council approve the use of touch screen voting machines in the City of Toronto for institutional voting and the advance voting program.

(3) the City Clerk report on the results of the Request For Proposal together with recommendations on the award of contract to the Administration Committee meeting in July 1999; and

(4) authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2).

Council Reference:

On March 2, 1999, City Council adopted the following recommendations in Report No. 3 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee with respect to the Elections Voting and Vote Tabulation System:

"(2) The 1999 Capital Budget for Clerk's consisting of one project, as recommended in Appendix A, totalling a 1999 cash flow of $1.00 million be approved. Commitments totalling $12.05 million are made for 2000, from the approval of this project;

(3) The Clerk's Program be directed to prepare a comprehensive report including the updated costs of a recommended voting and vote tabulation system for Council approval;

(4) The recommended 1999 expenditure of $1.00 million, be subject to Council's direction on the Election 2000 process, and approval of a specific voting and vote tabulation system;

(5) That the above-mentioned report discuss, in detail, the costs and benefits of alternative voting and vote tabulation options, both financial and other, permissible within the new legislation governing municipal elections."

This report responds to the foregoing recommendations of Council. It outlines key principles in considering any voting or vote-counting systems; discusses the pros and cons of the various options on voting and vote-counting systems and recommends an option for consideration by Council.

Background:

Municipal election legislation contemplated alternatives to the paper ballot election as early as 1976 when punch card voting was first introduced. Since 1976, the legislation has continually expanded to provide for the use of alternative voting methods, even so far as to suggest mail-in or telephone voting in the writing of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The five former municipal jurisdictions using optical scanning equipment in 1997 chose to do so because of the burden that composite paper ballot elections present. Historically, composite paper ballot elections have been prone to human error, particularly:

(a) subjective discretion applied when deciding valid votes;

(b) tallying votes when the deputy returning officer is communicating votes to the poll clerk orally; and

(c) transposition errors when carrying figures from tally sheets to final statements.

In addition, the operating costs associated with composite paper ballot elections is as much as three times that of an automated election. The increase in costs include:

(a) the requirement for more voting subdivisions with fewer voters to ensure the manageability of the counting process;

(b) the employment of staff at the voting places and additional staff to count ballots at the close of voting; and

(c) the associated recount costs.

The 1997 municipal elections were conducted in the City of Toronto using various forms of automated vote-counting equipment in five of the six former local municipalities. In all five cases, optical scanning equipment was used, including: central tabulators in Scarborough and Etobicoke (purchased in 1988); poll tabulators in North York (purchased in 1988 and 1991); and poll tabulators in East York and York (rented for 1997).

The equipment owned by the City has successfully been used for four elections, however, the central tabulators have become obsolete and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. The poll tabulators have also become increasingly more difficult to maintain. These tabulators may have a small trade-in value.

There are currently several different voting/vote-counting systems available. These include; mechanical lever machines, punchcards, optical mark reading (optical scan), direct recording electronic (touch screen), telephone and mail. Other systems being developed include the use of automated terminals or kiosks and the internet.

Considerations:

The size and scope of the 2000 municipal election will create numerous pressures that should be considered when choosing a voting/vote-counting system. The voters, approximately 1.7M will most likely be electing 57 councillors, 1 mayor, 22 English public school board representatives, 12 English separate school board representatives, 1 French public school board representative, 1 French separate school board representative, and determining the outcome of any question placed before them by the Minister, Council or the Boards of Education.

Voters will exercise their right to vote on one of the 285 differing composite ballot styles at one of the 1,850 voting place locations provided on voting day. If they wish to vote early they could attend at their local advance voting location or the continuous voting location in their ward.

Approximately 800,000 voters will vote at voting places around the city on voting day, 75 percent of them between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p. m. Of these, 100,000 will have to add their name to the voters' list at the voting location.

To accommodate the demand, 8,400 voting place staff will be hired and trained to provide effective customer service in the voting locations, including the managing of scrutineers and the accurate reporting of results.

Also, when considering any voting/vote-counting system for the City certain principles and facts need be examined. The following principles should be examined in any evaluation of a voting/vote-b counting system:

(a) system ensures the integrity of the electoral process;

(b) the system is user friendly and easy to maintain;

(c) the system is reliable and accurate; and

(d) the system is economical and affordable.

A voting/vote-counting system, in addition to satisfying these principles, should be evaluated based on its ability to satisfy the following concerns of our various stakeholder groups:

Candidates:

(1) Will candidates' names be legible?

(2) Is the audit trail thorough, including the history of the voting place?

(3) Will results be available before ballots leave the voting place?

(4) Which records will be available for recounts?

Voters:

(1) Will access be improved for those with disabilities?

(2) Will voters be protected from mechanical misreads?

(3) How will the learning curve impact the voter?

(4) Voters prefer a ballot to mark?

(5) Voters prefer a voting place to attend?

(6) Will system ensure secrecy of the vote?

Administrators:

(1) Does the system ensure the integrity of the election?

(2) How simple is the system for election workers to use?

(3) What is the impact on the existing infrastructure?

(4) Does the system possess the ability to provide 100 percent accurate results?

(5) Can election day be recreated in a court room?

(6) What is the strategy when a mechanical failure occurs?

(7) How does this impact customer service?

(8) How quickly does the system generate results?

(9) What safeguards are in place to ensure that the voter knows exactly how they have cast their ballot?

Discussion:

Voting/Vote-Counting Systems:

1.0 Mechanical Lever Machines:

On mechanical lever voting machines, the name of each candidate or question choice is assigned a particular lever in a rectangular array of levers on the front of the machine. A set of printed strips visible to the voters identifies the lever assignment for each candidate and question choice. The levers are horizontal in their unvoted positions.

The voter enables the machine with a lever that also closes a privacy curtain. The voter pulls down selected levers to indicate choices. When the voter exits the booth by opening the privacy curtain with the handle, the voted levers are automatically returned to their original horizontal position. As each lever returns, it causes a connected counter wheel within the machine to turn one-tenth of a full rotation. The counter wheel, serving as the "ones" position of the numerical count for the associated lever, drives a "tens" counter one-tenth of a rotation for each of its full rotations. The "tens" counter similarly drives a "hundreds" counter. If all mechanical connections are fully operational during the voting period, and the counters are initially set to zero, the position of each counter at the close of the polls indicates the number of votes cast on the lever that drives it. Interlocks in the machine prevent the voter from voting for more choices than permitted.

The first official use of a lever type voting machine occurred in Lockport, New York in 1892. By the 1960's well over half of the United States voted on lever machines. These machines however, are no longer made and the trend is to replace them with more up-to-date computer based optical scan or touch screen systems. It is believed that there are presently no jurisdictions utilizing these machines in Canada, however, 18.6 percent of registered voters (28.6M) in the United States still used these machines in 1998, a decrease of 8.4 percent from 1994.

Toronto would require an average of four machines for each of its 1,850 voting places. This would provide one machine for every 216 voters, with a 50 percent turnout that would give us 108 voters per machine. Generally, 75 percent of these voters will vote between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximate time required to process a voter would be 2 minutes. The approximate cost per machine would be $4,000. Total capital investment required would be $33,600,000.

Advantages:

(a) reliable method of counting votes;

(b) results are quickly available;

(c) complete ballot appears in front of the voter at one time; and

(d) ballots can be produced from memory packs.

Disadvantages:

(a) large, cumbersome machines - difficult to transport and store;

(b) speed of operation - can be very slow and time consuming;

(c) technology outdated and becoming obsolete;

(d) no physical ballot - makes recounts difficult;

(e) no longer in production - only possibilities would be to acquire second hand; and

(f) very expensive method of vote-counting.

To the best of our knowledge these machines are no longer being manufactured. If chosen as the direction the City of Toronto wishes to pursue, second hand machines would have to be sought.

2.0 Punchcards:

Punchcard systems employ a card (or cards) and a small clipboard-sized device for recording votes. Voters punch holes in the ballot cards (with a supplied punch device) opposite their candidate or question choice. After voting, the ballot card is placed in the ballot box, or the ballot may be fed into a computer vote tabulating device at voting place.

Two common types of punchcard are the "Votomatic" card (formerly used in the Borough of East York) and the "Datavote" card. With the Votomatic card, the locations at which holes may be punched to indicate votes are each assigned numbers. The number of the hole is the only information printed on the card. The list of candidates or question choices and directions for punching the corresponding holes are printed in a separate booklet. With the Datavote card, the name of the candidate or description of the question choice is printed on the ballot next to the location of the hole to be punched.

Although many jurisdictions are switching from punchcard systems to more advanced optical scan or touch screen systems, in the United States some variation of the punchcard system was used by 34.3 percent of registered voters (53.9M) in the 1998 election, this represents a decrease of 1.8 percent from 1994. The City of Mississauga (1997) and Borough of East York (1994) were the largest municipalities in Canada utilizing this system.

However, it should be noted that the Borough of East York abandoned this system in favour of optical scan for its 1997 municipal elections. The City of Mississauga is currently looking to move to an optical scan system for its 2000 municipal elections.

Toronto would require an average of four voting booths for each of its 1,850 voting places, and one counter for each of its 57 wards. This would provide one voting booth for every 216 voters, with a 50 percent turnout that would give us 108 voters for each voting booth. Generally, 75 percent of these voters will vote between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximate time required to process a voter would be 2 minutes. The approximate cost per voting booth is $300 and per counter is $15,000. Total capital investment required would be $3,375,000.

Recounts using these counters have historically had difficulty which is associated with the ballot. Ballots dry out and chads drop out of the ballots making them impossible to count.

Advantages:

(a) inexpensive materials (i.e., ballots) required to operate election;

(b) results are quickly available; and

(c) most cost effective method of vote-counting.

Disadvantages:

(a) voters find it difficult to visually confirm choice(s);

(b) election preparation is very labour intensive and costly;

(c) no ballot with names associated - recounts become very difficult (exception is Datavote);

(d) technology is being phased out - other voting systems are more advanced;

(e) ballots tend to dry out causing voting areas to fall out making it difficult to count the ballots after they've been transferred to a counting centre; and

(f) recounts are difficult for the same reason as presented in e).

The City of Toronto would not be well served using the punchcard system considering the age of the technology, the risks associated with recounts, the fact that it is becoming obsolete in most jurisdictions and voters have difficulty visually confirming their choices.

3.0 Optical Mark Reading (Optical Scan):

Optical scan systems employ a ballot card on which candidates and question choices are preprinted next to an empty rectangle, square, oval or an incomplete arrow. Voters record their choices by filling in the rectangle, square, oval or by completing the arrow. After voting, the ballot card is either placed in a sealed box or fed into a computer tabulating device at the voting place. The tabulating device reads the votes using "dark mark logic," whereby the computer selects the darkest mark within a given set as the correct choice/vote. Optical scan technology has existed for decades and been used extensively in such areas as standardized testing and statewide lotteries.

Optical scan has a long history of use in the Canadian market, some of the jurisdictions presently using or having used optical scan voting systems include; the former cities of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough; Burlington, Hamilton, Ottawa, Gloucester, Kanata, Nepean, Kingston, London, Kitchener, St. Catharines, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. In the United States, some variation of optical scan voting systems were used by 27.3 percent of registered voters (42.1M) in the 1998 election. Optical scan voting is the fastest growing form of electronic voting systems.

The advantages of optical scan technology are primarily its ease of use and its similarity to the current paper ballot environment. Using optical scan allows the voter to visually verify the choices made prior to submitting their ballot. Further, errors (overvotes, undervotes or ballot problems) can be immediately identified at the voting place and the voter can make the necessary changes to ensure that their vote has been cast successfully. Also optical scan has proven to be far more accurate and reliable than most other forms of voting systems. Although the initial capital investment may be substantial, the resulting costs savings (primarily in labour costs) made up over the span of the life of the equipment will more than make up for the investment.

3.1 Optical Scan - Central Tabulators:

Toronto would require one tabulator for each of 57 wards. This would provide a tabulator for every 28,070 eligible voters. All ballots would be transported from the voting places after the close of the voting places to a central location for counting. The approximate cost per tabulator would be $75,000. Total capital investment required would be $4,275,000.

Recounts using this system have proven to be accurate to 99.9 percent.

Advantages:

(a) very similar to a paper ballot election for the voters;

(b) voters can visually confirm choice(s);

(c) results are very accurate;

(d) recounts are accurate; and

(e) cost comparative - cost of equipment can be recovered within two elections, based on manual elections.

Disadvantages:

(a) security issues of transporting ballots prior to them being counted;

(b) ballot errors are not detected until they reach the counting centre;

(c) an election official is left with the responsibility of interpreting the marks on these ballots; and

(d) large initial capital investment required.

In the past, Scarborough and Etobicoke had bad experiences with central count. Candidates were uncomfortable with ballots being transported prior to being counted. Judges are uncomfortable that election officials are remaking ballots rejected by the tabulators. This system was a fad in the eighties because it was so cost effective. Since then it has lost the interest of municipalities who are drawn to the voting place vote-counters.

3.2 Optical Scan - Voting Place Tabulators:

Toronto would require one tabulator for each of its 2,100 voting places. This would provide a tabulator for every 865 voters, with a 50 percent turnout that would give us 432 voters per tabulator. Generally, 75 of these voters will vote between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximate time required to process a voter would be 24 seconds. The approximate cost per tabulator would be $5,400 per tabulator. Total capital investment required would be $11,340,000.

Recounts using this system have proven to be accurate to 99.9 percent.

Advantages:

(a) ease of use for voter - voters in Toronto most familiar with this type of ballot;

(b) voters can visually confirm choice(s);

(c) results are available immediately after election;

(d) ballots are counted at the voting place;

(e) results are very accurate;

(f) recounts are accurate and fairly easy to conduct; and

(g) cost comparative - cost of equipment can be recovered within three elections, based on manual elections.

Disadvantages:

(a) cost of materials can be higher than other voting systems (i.e., ballots); and

(b) large initial capital investment required.

Optical scan voting place tabulators are the most logical choice for the City of Toronto. Its similarity to the paper ballot system, the voter's familiarity with it (based on the fact that East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York all utilized optical scan systems for the 1997 municipal elections), technological advances in optical scan and relative cost comparative make this the best alternative for a vote-counting system for the City of Toronto for the next five elections.

4.0 Direct Recording Electronic (Touch Screen):

The most recent configuration in the evolution of voting systems is known as direct recording electronic, or touch screen. They are an electronic implementation of the old mechanical lever systems. As with the lever machines, there is no ballot; the possible choices are visible to the voter on the front of the machine. The voter directly enters choices into electronic storage with the use of a touch-screen, push buttons or similar device. The voter's choices are stored in these machines via a memory cartridge, diskette or smart-card and added to the choices of all other voters.

As this is the newest type of voting systems, few jurisdictions have introduced this form of voting. The City of Barrie experimented with touch screen technology during its 1997 municipal election and the Town of Oakville utilized it for advance voting. In 1998, 9.1 percent of the registered voters in the United States (14.1M) used some type of touch screen voting system.

Toronto would require an average of four machines for each of its 1,850 voting places. This would provide one machine for every 216 voters, with a 50 percent turnout that would give us 108 voters per machine. Generally, 75 percent of these voters will vote between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximate time required to process a voter would be 2 minutes. The approximate cost per machine would be $3,000. Total capital investment required would be $22,200,000.

Recounts using these machines have proven to be one of the closest systems to 100 percent.

Advantages:

(a) easiest of all voting systems for the voter;

(b) results are quickly available;

(c) no extra costs for materials (i.e., ballots);

(d) recounts have proven to be extremely accurate; and

(e) most technologically advanced form of voting in the marketplace.

Disadvantages:

(a) notable large capital investment required; and

(b) new voting method for voters - could result in long lineups.

The touch screen voting system is clearly the most technologically advanced voting system available at the current time. However, given the capital allocation that the City of Toronto has provided for election voting systems, a full touch screen voting system is not financially feasible. There may be some use for a touch screen system as an alternative in a limited variety; advance voting and institutional voting may be well served by utilizing this technology.

This technology offers three very attractive benefits. One is the ability to program the election into the voting system immediately following withdrawal of nominations, thereby allowing election officials to provide continuous and advance voting immediately. The second benefit lies in the portability, this asset accommodates election officials working in institutions on voting day that go room to room and bed to bed. The third benefit is that it provides the best solution presently available to assist physically challenged.

To accommodate continuous and advance voting strategies and institutional voting on voting day would require 100 touch screen voting systems. Physically challenged voting would best be served by 28 touch screen voting systems, specially designed and available at each of the Ward Centres for advance voting and on election day.

5.0 Telephone:

Telephone voting is a variation on the direct recording electronic (touch screen) system, where the telephone is used by the voter to record his/her vote. This system removes the need for voting places. By calling a specific phone number, the voter authenticates his/her identity by entering a Personal Identification Number (PIN) on the key pad of the telephone. The PIN is used to confirm the voter's eligibility and presence on the voters' list. Prompted by a computer-synthesized voice, the voter enters his/her choice by pressing a key corresponding to the candidate or option they wish to vote for. Once this step is completed, the computer asks the voter to confirm his/her choice. The voting results are stored in a computing device (or multiple devices) linked to the telephone network. Results can be instantly counted once voting closes.

Telephone voting is a relatively new phenomenon and has been utilized in the former City of North York during its 1997 Referendum and the Town of Gravenhurst, Town of Severn and Township of Tiny during their 1997 municipal elections.

Telephone voting provides for some significant pros over other forms of voting systems. The ease of use and the ability for the voter to vote at any time, from anyplace make this an attractive method. The capability to customize vote-counting features include: languages, 24 hour voting and voting periods. Further, the cost savings that telephone voting provides are notable - no voting places or election day staff. Telephone voting generates and produce results immediately.

The cons identified with telephone voting center on the fact that it is unsupervised voting. Presently there is no positive mechanism in place to be assured of who has actually voted a particular PIN number. The potential for abuse could seriously jeopardize the integrity of the whole election process. Other problems exist in large urban areas like Toronto where many of the phone lines in older established areas are still based on rotary dial technology making for difficult transmission issues. As well, the size and scope of an election this large would put enormous strain on the telecommunication industry in Toronto and quite probably would not be possible at this time.

Advantages:

(a) ease of use for voter - can vote at any time from any place;

(b) voting can be offered in a variety of languages more economically;

(c) very significant cost savings - no voting places or election day personnel;

(d) results are immediately available; and

(e) relatively inexpensive method of vote-counting.

Disadvantages:

(a) integrity of election cannot be assured - unsupervised voting, no secure way of indicating who has voted;

(b) recounts untested with this type of election - no paper ballot, may make this difficult; and

(c) technology not currently advanced enough - City of Toronto (size 1.6 M voters) is too large to utilize this voting method.

Two very significant realities make the telephone voting system unsuitable for the City of Toronto. The inability to provide a secure method of assuring the integrity of the election make this system totally inadequate. Secondly, the size of the City of Toronto combined with the current state of telephone technology would not be advanced enough for us to provide an election of this nature.

6.0 Mail:

Mail-in voting is a form of voting using a standard paper ballot and utilizing the local mail delivery service. Ballot cards are prepared with all candidates and question choices preprinted on them. Based on the voters' list, every eligible voter is mailed a ballot with appropriate instructions on how to mark the ballot and how and when to return the ballot. A prepaid self-addressed envelope is included in the package sent to the voter for the return of the ballot. Based on the jurisdiction and the information maintained by the administration, the voter may be asked to sign either the return envelope, the ballot (not in Ontario) or a corresponding form. Once the ballot is returned the signature of the voter will be checked against a preregistered copy of the voters' signature. Eligible voters' ballots will then be processed through either a manual count or an automated computer tabulating device.

Mail-in voting was used in the former City of Toronto during its 1997 Referendum. Almost all U.S. jurisdictions use some form of mail-in ballot for their absentee voting.

Advantages:

(a) ease of use for voter - can vote at any time from any place;

(b) voting can be offered in a variety of languages more economically; and

(c) significant cost savings - no voting places or election day personnel.

Disadvantages:

(a) unsupervised voting brings into question the integrity of the election;

(b) logistics problems - valid ballots not delivered within specified time frames;

(c) significant labour costs to count ballots - the resultant manual count introduces inconsistent interpretations of marks and votes; and

(d) recounts and administrative problems currently are unproven in courts.

The use of mail as an option for the City of Toronto would present some of the same difficulties as described with the telephone system. Unsupervised voting, the inability to ensure who actually votes a ballot seriously jeopardizes the integrity of any election operating this type of system. For this reason and the several logistical and philosophical dilemmas presented by a mail system, the City of Toronto would not be well served to adopt a mail voting system.

7.0 Automated Terminals or Kiosks:

Increasingly, kiosks are being used by all levels of government to better serve Canadians in terms of quality, access, efficiency and convenience. There is the potential to use kiosks or automated technology to allow voters to cast their vote during elections. These kiosks could also be used between elections to support other government functions, such as tourism, providing government information, applying for different government services, or in conjunction with private sector partners in the delivery of services.

Kiosks are currently in use by a number of provincial governments and are extensively used at the federal level by Human Resources Development Canada for business purposes.

Advantages:

(a) accessibility to the electorate; and

(b) results are quickly available.

Disadvantages:

(a) unsupervised voting - similar problems to telephone and mail;

(b) cost to develop new method of voting - not currently used for electoral purposes; and

(c) ownership of technology, do we own? or do we contract, costs not known at this time.

8.0 Internet:

With the explosion of the Internet combined with the advances in cryptographic techniques, the design and implementation of a practical, secure and private system for conducting elections over computer networks is a challenge that has been taken up by a number of different organizations around the world. Electronic voting over the Internet can be convenient for voters with easy access to networked computers, even if the voters are geographically dispersed. As well, electronic voting can provide much faster results and be inexpensive to administer.

While no government to date has actually conducted an official vote over the Internet, the Republic of Costa Rica, Bosnia, Macedonia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Russia are currently proposing incorporating this method into their current voting system.

Advantages:

(a) easy to use for those with Internet access - can vote from anywhere at any time;

(b) results can be immediately available; and

(c) inexpensive method of counting votes.

Disadvantages:

(a) unsupervised voting - similar problems to telephone and mail;

(b) not universally available to the electorate - not currently practical; and

(c) not currently developed to an acceptable workable standard.

A system has not been developed at this time. Do enough homes have access to a computer to make this worthwhile in the next five years?

Conclusion:

After reviewing all of the current voting/vote-counting systems available to the City and examining them in relationship to the principles established, it is recommended that the best voting/vote-counting system for the City of Toronto would be a combination of optical scan - voting place tabulator and direct recording electronic (touch screen). The optical scan - voting place tabulator provides the best practice available given its reliability, integrity and similarity to paper ballot. The electorates' familiarity and acceptance with this type of vote-counting equipment ensures the greatest likelihood of continued success utilizing this type of system.

The advancement in technology makes direct recording electronic (touch screen) a viable alternative in a limited variety. Its portability provides greater flexibility to employ these units for specialized needs (i.e., institutional voting, physically challenged voting and an advance voting program). By employing the use of these units the advance voting program could support an additional 500 potential advance voting locations.

Request for Proposal:

In order to comply with Council's request to provide updated costs of a recommended voting and vote tabulation system, and to ensure sufficient lead time for the delivery of the system in time for Election 2000, a Request for Proposal (RFP No. 3412-99-01464) was issued for an Optical Scan Voting System and Touch Screen Voting System in February 1999. The purpose of this Request For Proposal was to provide updated figures for the Capital Works Program and determine the most effective Optical Scan Voting System and Touch Screen Voting System in the marketplace.

Subject to the approval by Council of this report, the results of the Request For Proposal together with recommendations on the award of contract will be forwarded to the Administration Committee for consideration in July, 1999.

Contact Name:

John Hollins, Director, Elections, City Clerk's Division, Telephone: (416) 392-8019,

E-Mail: jhollins@city.north-york.on.ca.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 5, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to update the delegation of signing authority previously granted by By-law No. 354-1998, being a by-law "to provide authority for certain officials employed in the office of the Clerk to sign documents and affix the corporate seal on behalf of the City of Toronto".

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising out of the recommendations in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the following officials named under Column I below be authorized to sign documents and affix the corporate seal on behalf of the City of Toronto in respect of the matters described opposite each such official's position under Column II below:

(2) By-law No. 354-1998 be repealed; and

(3) leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

Background:

The City Clerk is assigned a variety of duties under statute, including the duty, under section 73 of the Municipal Act to record, without note or comment, all resolutions, decisions and other proceedings of Council; to preserve and file all accounts acted upon by Council; and, to keep the originals of all by-laws of Council and of the proceedings of Council. In addition section 74 of the Municipal Act requires the Clerk to furnish certified copies of records under the Clerk's control. The Clerk may also be required to certify documents under other statutes, and is a designated signing officer for City contracts and other documents which must be executed under seal.

In a large municipal organization such as the City of Toronto, it is practical, indeed necessary, that a variety of individuals under the supervision of the City Clerk be authorized to execute certain types of documents for the City on the Clerk's behalf.

Comments/Discussion:

While many of the duties delegated to the City Clerk by statute are assigned by the Clerk to various subordinates within the division without specific direction or authorization by the Council, in the circumstances where the duty to be assigned involves the use of the corporate seal it is appropriate that the sanction and authority of Council be obtained.

Since the functions of the Clerk's Secretariat are carried out in each civic centre as well as at City Hall, the existing signing authority by-law distributes the authority to include staff working out of those locations. That authority is continued and in addition, since staff of the Division's Legislative Services unit are in close proximity to Secretariat staff in the civic centres, it is recommended that signing authority be granted to management staff in those units to ensure that sufficient staff are available to sign and seal documents when necessary.

In summary, the amendments proposed in this report update the provisions of the existing by-law on the basis of staffing and organizational changes which have taken place since its enactment.

Contact Name:

Jeffrey Abrams, Director, Secretariat, Printing and Distribution,

Clerk's Division, Tel. 392-8670; E-Mail Address: jabrams@toronto.ca.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by adding thereto to the following "and a special briefing for interested Members of Council be held prior to final recommendations being formulated", so that Recommendation No. (2) shall now read as follows:

"(2) information and consultation sessions be undertaken with Fleet Management Services' clients, unions and the Finance Department, prior to presenting implementation recommendations to the new Administration Committee at its meeting of July 13, 1999, and a special briefing for interested Members of Council be held prior to final recommendations being formulated."

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To provide an update on the status of the KPMG Fleet Review.

Source of Funds:

There are no financial implications in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be received for information; and

(2) information and consultation sessions be undertaken with Fleet Management Services' clients, unions and the Finance Department, prior to presenting implementation recommendations to the new Administration Committee at its meeting of July 13, 1999.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In June 1998, KPMG began a comprehensive review of fleet management and maintenance operations of the former municipalities with the following objectives:

(i) identifying opportunities for savings and efficiency improvements;

(ii) best practices for fleet management and maintenance;

(iii) developing an organizational design for a centralized fleet management service; and

(iv) development of an implementation plan.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On April 30, 1999, KPMG submitted a draft report of the Fleet Review. The following steps will be undertaken prior to presenting the report, together with implementation recommendations to the new Administration Committee at its meeting of July 13, 1999.

(i) Fleet Management Services will review the report to assess its recommendations for impact on public service, implementation potential and compliance with the terms of reference;

(ii) the Fleet Review Steering Committee will consider acceptance of the report and approve next steps;

(iii) information and consultation sessions will be undertaken with Fleet Management Services clients, unions and the Finance Department;

(iv) information and consultation sessions will be scheduled for members of the Administration Committee and the new Policy and Finance Committee.

Concurrent with the presentation of the KPMG review, Fleet Management Services staff will make recommendations on implementation priorities, garage closures, and key policy directions on fleet replacement and procurement based on consultations with key client departments and union representatives.

The implementation of the approved recommendations will be led by a Project Manager with the assistance of a Steering Committee to include Fleet Management Services clients, and staff from Fleet Management Services, Finance and the Chief Administrative Officer's office. This Steering Committee will report back on a regular basis on the status of the implementation.

Contact Name:

Stan Burrows

Director, Fleet Management Services

Telephone: 392-7791

Fax: 392-7301.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out and referring Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3) embodied in the report dated May 11, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to the Toronto Police Services Board for consideration and report thereon to Council, through the Administration Committee, viz.:

"(2) an employee and employer contribution holiday be granted in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund for the period January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2000, with the plan to review and report annually on the feasibility of extending the contribution holiday; and

(3) the basic percentage for spousal survivor pensions in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent for all active members, effective July 1, 1998;".)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; and

(2) the amendment of By-law No. 15-92 and By-law No. 181-81 in accordance with the draft amending By-laws appended to this Clause:

Purpose:

To comment on the recommendations of the Actuary relating to the actuarial valuation as at December 31,1998, of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund. In addition to report that the consultation process with the Police Services Board regarding the request from the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund to improve survivor benefits and contribution rates in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund has been completed.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the December 31, 1998, actuarial reports be received and the recommendations to increase pensions be approved;

(2) an employee and employer contribution holiday be granted in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund for the period January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2000, with the plan to review and report annually on the feasibility of extending the contribution holiday;

(3) the basic percentage for spousal survivor pensions in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent for all active members, effective July 1, 1998; and

(4) the existing contribution holiday in the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan be extended to December 31, 2000.

Background:

(1) Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund:

The Corporate Services Committee had before it at its April 19, 1999 meeting, a request from the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund recommending that:

(1) the plan should be converted to a non-contributory plan subject to annual review, effective January 1, 1999;

(2) the basic percentage for spousal survivor pensions be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent for all active members, effective July 1, 1998; and

(3) the authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendation No. (1).

As these improvements affect active police officers and could be deemed to fall within the collective bargaining process, the recommendations were deferred originally from the May 25, 1998, Corporate Services Committee until such time as consultation with the employer, the Police Services Board took place.

Staff and the Board of Trustees met with the Police Services Board and received their concurrence with the proposed changes.

The Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund at their meetings on April 30, 1999, considered recommendations made by the plans' Actuary arising out of the plans' annual actuarial valuations as at December 31, 1998.

The pension plan experienced actuarial gains in 1998 that contributed to an increase in the "Indexation Reserve". The Reserve represent the difference between actuarial liabilities and actuarial assets. These gains were generated by variations from actuarial assumptions in three areas:

(i) lower wage growth;

(ii) lower inflation; and

(iii) higher investment returns.

The actuary's recommendations relating to this actuarial gain are as follows:

For Active Members:

(i) the full contribution holiday for the employers and employees be continued for the calendar year 2000; and

(ii) the mortality table be updated from the 1983 Group Annuity table to the 1994 Group Annuity table.

For Retired Members:

(i) the mortality table be updated from 1983 Group Annuity table to the 1994 Group Annuity table;

(ii) an increase of 0.09 percent be granted on pension, effective January 1, 1999, to pensioners on benefit for more than one year with proportionate increase of .075 percent for each month of pension payment made in 1998 be granted for pensioners who retired during 1998;

(iii) effective January 1, 2000, an increase be granted to pensioners on benefit for more than one year equal to the increase in the Consumer Price index during the period from October 1,1998 to September 30, 1999

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund at their meeting concurred with the Actuaries recommendations and forwarded them to the Corporate Services Committee with one amendment being that the increase on January 1, 2000 equal to the Consumer Price Index be limited to 6.0 percent.

(2) Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan:

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan at their meeting on April 30, 1999, considered recommendations made by the plans' Actuary arising out of the plans' annual actuarial valuations as at December 31, 1998.

The pension plan experienced actuarial gains in 1998 that contributed to an increase in the "Indexation Reserve". The Reserve represent the difference between actuarial liabilities and actuarial assets. These gains were generated by variations from actuarial assumptions in three areas:

(i) lower wage growth;

(ii) lower inflation; and

(iii) higher investment returns.

The actuary's recommendations relating to this actuarial gain are as follows:

For Active Members:

(i) the full contribution holiday for the employers and employees be continued for the calendar year 2000; and

(ii) the mortality table be updated from the 1983 Group Annuity table to the 1994 Group Annuity table;

(iii) discount rate is changed from 7 percent to 6 percent, salary scale from 6 percent to 5 percent and the YMPE scale from 5 percent to 4 percent.

For Retired Members:

(i) the mortality table be updated from 1983 Group Annuity table to the 1994 Group Annuity table;

(ii) an increase of 1.0 percent be granted on pension, effective January 1, 1999, to pensioners on benefit for more than one year with a proportionate increase of .083 percent for each month of pension payment made in 1998 be granted for pensioners who retired during 1998;

(iii) effective January 1, 2000, an increase be granted to pensioners on benefit for more than one year equal to the increase in the Consumer Price index during 1999; and

(iv) the discount rate be changed from 7 percent to 6 percent.

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan at their meeting concurred with the Actuaries recommendations except for the increase on January 1, 2000. They chose to recommend all recommendations on to the Corporate Services Committee except for the increase on January 1, 2000. This increase will be reviewed after the 1999 actuarial valuation has been completed.

Discussion:

As at December 31, 1998 the Indexation Reserve Account for the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan had increased to $216,596,000 from $154,434,000 a year earlier. For the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund the amount is up to $80,182,000 from $68,706,000 a year earlier.

As can be seen these funds are in good actuarial shape. The recommendations for the use of these Indexation Reserve amounts are for two different improvements.

The recommendation to update the mortality table from the 1983 Group Annuity Table to the 1994 Group Annuity table and the changes to the discount rate, salary scale and YMPE scale will control the risk of experience losses in the future.

Recommendations for pension increases for 1999 are slightly different between the two funds. The Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund has taken the step this year to change the method of calculating increases to be the same as OMERS. The increase of 0.9 percent was the rate of inflation for the period December 31, 1998 to September 30, 1999. They also requested that the increase for 2000 be approved at this time.

The Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan has chosen not to change at this time and to continue to calculate pension increases based on the Consumer Price Index change from December 31, 1997 to December 31, 1998, which was 1.0 percent. They have, like the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, requested that the increase be effective January 1, 1999.

The draft by-law prepared by City Legal Services to implement the recommend changes for the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan is appended to this report. Section 1 of the draft provides for several "housekeeping" amendments to eliminate inconsistencies in the wording of the prior amendments. Section 2 provides for same-sex spousal benefits in accordance with another report by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to your Committee on that topic for consideration at the same meeting at which this report is to be considered. Section 3 expands the existing provision for the 1999 contribution holiday to include the year 2000. Section 4 puts in place the recommended pensioner increases for 1999, and Section 5 stipulates the dates of coming into force of the various amendments.

A draft by-law prepared by City Legal Services to implement the recommended changes to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund is also appended to this report. These recommended changes include a contribution holiday for 1999 and an increase in spousal benefits to 66 2/3 percent with respect to members who have not yet retired. Section 1 of the draft provides for two "housekeeping" amendments to eliminate inconsistencies in the wording of the 1997 and 1998 amendments implementing the pensioner increases for those years. Section 2 provides for same-sex spousal benefits in accordance with a separate report by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to your Committee for consideration at the same meeting. Section 3 puts in place the recommended pensioner increases for 1999 and 2000. Section 4 stipulates the dates of coming into force of the various amendments.

Conclusion:

The Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund are in good actuarial shape as at the end of 1998. The use of the Index Reserve Fund to give pensioner increases for the years 1999 and 2000 is appropriate and the changes in actuarial assumptions provide a greater degree of conservatism which will serve to stabilize the funds actuarial experience in the future.

The contribution holiday and survivor benefit improvements for active members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund are now similar to the OMERS plan provisions. This would now bring the provisions of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund in line with those approved by Council for the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, the Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund and the Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund.

Contact Name:

Ivana Zanardo

Director

Pension, Payroll and Employee Benefits

397-4143

D R A F T

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend further By-law No. 15-92

of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

respecting pensions and other benefits.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. (1) Section 6 of By-law No. 80-92 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To further amend By-law No. 15-92 respecting pensions and other benefits", is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"6. (1.1) Subsection 22(3) of said By-law No. 15-92 is amended by striking out "(2)(b)" in the first line thereof and substituting therefor "(2)(c)"."

(2) Section 1 of By-law No. 74-97 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To amend further By-law No. 15-92 respecting pensions and other benefits" is amended by striking out the text "1996" at the end of subsection 42.6(1) of said By-law No. 15-92 as enacted by said section 1 and substituting therefor "1995".

(3) By-law No. 279-1998, a by-law "To amend further By-law No. 15-92 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto respecting pensions and other benefits", is amended by

(a) inserting the text "per cent." in the second line of clause 4(2)(a) thereof, immediately following the text "66" and preceding the closing quotation marks;

(b) striking out the text "1997" at the end of subsection 42.7(1) of said By-law No. 15-92 as enacted by subsection 5(1) thereof and substituting therefor "1996".

2. Clause 1(1)(ee) of By-law No. 15-92 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To provide pensions for employees, their spouses and children of the Metropolitan Corporation and other participating employers", as such clause was amended by By-law No. 279-1998, is further amended by

(a) striking out the words "a man and woman" in the first line thereof and substituting therefor "two persons";

(b) adding at the end of subclause (ii) immediately following item (B) thereof the text "provided that this subclause shall apply with respect to a member and a person of the same sex only if the member has died on or after the 5th day of June, 1998"

3. Subsection 13(1.2) of said By-law No. 15-92, as such subsection was enacted by By-law No. 892-1998, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"Contribution Holiday 1999 and 2000

13. (1.2) During the calendar years 1999 and 2000, subsection (1) shall be interpreted as if the contributory rates specified therein were all zero."

4. The said By-law No. 15-92, as heretofore amended, is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

"General Pensioner Increase (1999)

42.8 (1) Save and except for those pensions increased pursuant to subsection (2), the amount of pension payable under this By-law is hereby increased by 1.0 per cent effective the 1st day of January, 1999, in respect of

(a) each pensioner in receipt of a pension; and

(b) each employee member entitled to a deferred pension under clause 28(1)(a) and, if applicable, clause 28(4)(b), or predecessors thereof,

on or before the 31st day of December, 1997.

Adjusted Pensioner Increases (1999)

Effective the 1st day of January, 1999, the amount of pension

(a) payable

(i) to each employee pensioner in receipt of a pension; and

(ii) to each pensioner under section 29 or a predecessor thereof in respect of a deceased employee member who died prior to retirement; and

which commenced on a date shown in Column I;

(b) payable to each pensioner under section 31 or any predecessor thereof in respect of a deceased employee pensioner whose retirement commenced on a date shown in Column I;

(c) payable to each employee member entitled to a deferred pension under clause 28(1)(a) and, if applicable, clause 28(4)(b), as a result of termination of employment which took place after December 1, 1997, on a date shown in Column I, treating any such termination which occurred on any day of a month other than the first as if it had occurred on the first day of the next following month,

is hereby increased by the percentage set out opposite such date in Column II:

Column I Column II

January 1, 1998 1.000 per cent.

February 1, 1998 0.917 per cent.

March 1, 1998 0.833 per cent.

April 1, 1998 0.750 per cent.

May 1, 1998 0.667 per cent.

June 1, 1998 0.583 per cent.

July 1, 1998 0.500 per cent.

August 1, 1998 0.417 per cent.

September 1, 1998 0.333 per cent.

October 1, 1998 0.250 per cent.

November 1, 1998 0.167 per cent.

December 1, 1998 0.083 per cent."

5. (1) Subsection 1(1) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of January, 1992.

(2) Subsection 1(2) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 18th day of June, 1997.

(3) Subsection 1(3) and section 2 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 5th day of June, 1998.

(4) Sections 3 and 4 shall come into force on the date of enactment and passing of this by-law.

ENACTED AND PASSED by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Members of Council present and voting this th day of June, A.D. 1999.

__________________ _____________________________

Mayor City Clerk.

D R A F T

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend further By-law No. 181-81

of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

respecting pensions and other benefits.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. (1) Section 1 of By-law No. 73-97 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To amend further By-law No. 181-81 respecting pensions and other benefits", as such section was amended by By-law No. 149-97 of that Municipality, is further amended by striking out the text "1996" at the end of subsection 32r(1) of said By-law No. 181-81 as enacted by said subsection 1(1) and substituting therefor "1995".

(2) Subsection 2(1) of By-law No. 278-1998, a by-law "To amend further By-law No. 181-81 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto respecting pensions and other benefits", is amended by striking out the text "1997" at the end of subsection 32s(1) of said By-law No. 181-81 as thereby enacted and substituting therefor "1996".

2. Clause 1(1)(z) of By-law No. 181-81 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To provide pensions and death benefits to members of the Metropolitan Police Force", as such clause was re-enacted by By-law No. 86-89 of that Municipality, is amended by adding immediately following subclause (ii) thereof the text "provided that this clause shall apply with respect to a member and a person of the same sex only if the member has died on or after the 5th day of June, 1998".

3. The said By-law No. 181-81, as heretofore amended, is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

"General Pensioner Increase (1999)"

32t. (1) Save and except for those pensions increased pursuant to subsection (2), the amount of pension payable under this By-law is hereby increased by 0.9 per cent. effective the 1st day of January, 1999, in respect of

(a) each pensioner in receipt of a pension; and

(b) each member entitled to a deferred pension under section 18 or a predecessor thereof,

on or before the 31st day of December, 1997.

Adjusted Pensioner Increases (1999)

(2) Effective the 1st day of January, 1999, the amount of pension

(a) payable

(i) to each member in receipt of a pension; and

(ii) to each pensioner under section 17 or a predecessor thereof in respect of a deceased member who died prior to retirement; and

which commenced on a date shown in Column I;

(b) payable to each pensioner under section 17 in respect of a deceased pensioner member whose retirement commenced on a date shown in Column I;

(c) payable to each member entitled to a deferred pension under section 18 as a result of termination of employment which took place after December 1, 1997, on a date shown in Column I, treating any such termination which occurred on any day of a month other than the first as if it had occurred on the first day of the next following month,

is hereby increased by the percentage set out opposite such date in Column II:

Column I Column II

January 1, 1998 0.900 per cent.

February 1, 1998 0.825 per cent.

March 1, 1998 0.750 per cent.

April 1, 1998 0.675 per cent.

May 1, 1998 0.600 per cent.

June 1, 1998 0.525 per cent.

July 1, 1998 0.450 per cent.

August 1, 1998 0.375 per cent.

September 1, 1998 0.300 per cent.

October 1, 1998 0.225 per cent.

November 1, 1998 0.150 per cent.

December 1, 1998 0.075 per cent.

Adjusted Pensioner Increases (2000)

(3) Save and except for those pensions increased pursuant to subsection (4), the amount of pension payable under this By-law shall be increased effective the 1st day of January, 2000, in respect of

(a) each pensioner in receipt of a pension; and

(b) each member entitled to a deferred pension under section 18 or a predecessor thereof,

on or before the 31st day of December, 1998, by the percentage increase, not in excess of 6 per cent., in the Consumer Price Index for Canada (All Items) between September, 1998, and September, 1999.

Adjusted Pensioner Increases (2000)

(4) Effective the 1st day of January, 2000, there shall be increases in the amounts of certain pensions in the manner described in subsection (2), as if that subsection had been re-enacted with the following modifications:

(a) replacement of the text 1997? in the fourth line of clause (c) thereof with ?1998?;

(b) replacement of the two lines of text immediately following clause (c) thereof with ?is hereby increased case by the percentage pension increase provided for in subsection (3) multiplied by the adjustment factor set out opposite such date in Column II:?; and

(c) replacement of Columns I and II thereof with the following:

Column I Column II

January 1, 1999 1.0000

February 1, 1999 0.9167

March 1, 1999 0.8333

April 1, 1999 0.7500

May 1, 1999 0.6667

June 1, 1999 0.5833

July 1, 1999 0.5000

August 1, 1999 0.4167

September 1, 1999 0.3333

October 1, 1999 0.2500

November 1, 1999 0.1667

December 1, 1999 0.0833

4. (1) Subsection 1(1) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 18th day of June, 1997.

(2) Subsection 1(2) and section 2 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 5th day of June, 1998.

(3) Section 3 shall come into force on the date of enactment and passing of this by-law.

ENACTED AND PASSED by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Members of Council present and voting this day of June, A.D. 1999.

____________________ __________________

Mayor City Clerk.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications:

(i) (April 30, 1998) from the Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, advising that the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan on April 30, 1999, had before it the Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate for the Fund as at December 31, 1998, submitted by Mr. Robert Camp, William M. Mercer Limited, and setting out full details of the Fund's financial position on the valuation date, making recommendations as to the utilization of the experience gains, and illustrating the effect of the recommendations on the funded position; and that the Board of Trustees:

(A) recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that:

(1) for active members:

(a) the full contribution holiday for the employers and employees be continued for the calendar year 2000 for which the cost is expected to be $485,000;

(b) the mortality table be updated from the 1983 Group Annuity table to the 1994 Group Annuity table for which the cost is $350,000;

(c) the discount rate be changed from 7 percent to 6 percent salary scale from 6 percent to 5 percent and YMPE scale from 5 percent to 4 percent for which the cost is $3,390,000;

(2) for retired members:

(a) an increase of 1.0 percent be granted on pensions, effective January 1, 1999, to pensioners on benefit for more than 1 year with a proportionate increase of 0.083 percent for each month of pension payment made in 1998 be granted for pensions who retired during 1998 for which the cost is $5,452,000;

(b) the mortality table be updated from the 1983 Group Annuity table to the 1994 Group Annuity table for which the cost is $9,150,000;

(c) the discount rate be changed from 7 percent to 6 percent for which the cost is $45,414,000; and

(3) the authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendations No. (1 and 2);

(B) requested the City Solicitor to draft the appropriate amending by-law respecting Recommendations No. (1 and 2), and submit such draft by-law directly to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration with this matter; and

(ii) (March 12, 1999) from the Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and Pension Plan, advising that the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund on February 26, 1999, recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that:

(1) the plan should be converted to a non-contributory plan subject to annual review, effective January 1, 1999;

(2) the basic percentage for spousal survivor pensions be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent for all active members, effective July 1, 1998; and

(3) the authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendation No. (1).

(iii) (April 30, 1999) from the Board Secretary Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, advising that the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund on April 30, 1999, had before it the Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate for the Fund as at December 31, 1998, submitted by Mr. Robert Camp, William M. Mercer Limited, and setting out full details of the Fund's financial position on the valuation date, making recommendations as to the utilization of the experience gains, and illustrating the effect of the recommendations on the funded position; and the Board of Trustees:

(A) recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that:

(1) for active members:

(a) the full contribution holiday for the employers and employees be continued for the calendar year 2000 for which the cost is expected to be $1,555,000;

(b) the mortality table be updated from the 1983 Group Annuity table to the 1994 Group Annuity table for which the cost is $736,000;

(2) for retired members:

(a) an increase of 0.9 percent be granted on pensions, effective January 1, 1999, to pensioners on benefit for more than 1 year with a proportionate increase of 0.075 percent for each month of pension payment made in 1998 be granted for pensions who retired during 1998 for which the cost is $5,276,000;

(b) effective January 1, 2000, an increase be granted to pensioners on benefit for more than 1 year equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index during the period from October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999 with a proportionate increase for each month of pension payment made in 1999 be granted for pensioners who retire during 1999 for which the cost is $11,750,000, subject to the maximum guaranteed inflation increase in any one year is capped at 6 percent;

(c) the mortality table be updated from the 1983 Group Annuity table to the 1994 Group Annuity table for which the cost is $8,208,000; and

(3) the authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendations No. (1 and 2); and

(B) requested the City Solicitor to draft the appropriate amending by-law respecting Recommendations No. (1 and 2), and submit such draft by-law directly to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration with this matter.

(A copy of the Actuarial report and Cost Certificate with respect to the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan as at December 31, 1998, and the Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate with respect to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund as at December 31, 1998, prepared by William M. Mercer Limited, dated April, 1999, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 20, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee; and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 22, 1999) from the Chair, Committee on the Status of Women:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Committee on the Status of Women's participation at the annual general meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women be confirmed as outlined in this report; and

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

Comments:

At its meeting on February 25, 1999, the Committee on the Status of Women decided to continue its participation in the annual general meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women which will be held in Hull, Quebec from June 4 to 6, 1999.

Participation in this conference will provide the Committee with an opportunity for information exchange with other women's organizations working on similar issues across Canada. Participation will also enhance the advisory role which the Committee provides to Council.

Transportation and accommodation costs for two participants based on last year's attendance are estimated at $750.00. The Committee on the Status of Women's budget is included within the Access and Equity Unit, Human Resources Division.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Municipal Elections.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having endorsed the recommendations embodied in the following report:

(May 6, 1999) from the City Clerk, reporting on the process for Election 2000; and recommending that:

(1) the attached background report, " Election 2000", be received for information at this time;

(2) a copy of this report be circulated to all Members of Council; and

(3) the City Clerk be authorized to undertake consultations with Members of Council, and through focus groups consisting of candidates, voters and other stakeholders, on the issues and draft proposals contained in the report and report on any necessary legislative amendments, policies and procedures to Council in July and December, 1999.

(b) City of Toronto Administrative, Professional, Supervisory Association, Inc. (COTAPSAI).

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(April 30, 1999) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, updating the Committee and Council on the results of ongoing meetings and discussions between the management of the City of Toronto and its management association, the City of Toronto Administrative, Professional, Supervisory Association, Inc. (COTAPSAI); advising that COTAPSAI, as a voluntary association of exempt and management employees, can be a useful, representative body to provide input on issues affecting this group of employees and can be helpful in surfacing employees concerns and suggestions to senior human resources management; that staff will continue to work with COTAPSAI, providing opportunities for communication, input and consultation with respect to issues that will directly impact on the City's exempt and management employees; and recommending that this report be received.

(c) Project Atlas Update (SAP - FIS/HR/Payroll System).

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following joint report:

(May 7, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Executive Director of Human Resources, and the Executive Director of Information and Technology, reporting on the implementation progress of the Financial, Human Resources and Payroll system project covering the period January to April, 1999; advising that the technical implementation in configuring the new Financial and Human Resources and Payroll system has progressed on schedule; that to-date, the FIS Stage 1 and HR/P Stage 1 milestones have been delivered on time; that, however, due to complexities associated with amalgamation, deployment activities for FIS Stage 1 system go-live require additional time to complete; that the Steering Committee has recommended approval and implementation of the modified deployment strategy and the associated new go-live dates to ensure the successful delivery of Stage 1 of the financial system; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(d) Quotations for Sixteen Truck Chassis and Conventional Cab with Refuse Packer Body.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having concurred with the recommendations embodied in the following joint report in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:

(April 30, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that the quotation submitted by Freightliner Mid-Ontario Ltd. be accepted for the supply and delivery of Sixteen Truck Chassis and Conventional Cab with refuse packer body used for residential garbage collection throughout the City, in accordance with specifications, as required by the Department of Corporate Services, Fleet Management Services Division, at a total price of $2,464,123.40 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest quotation received meeting specifications.

(e) External Legal Firms Retained for Insurance Claim Defence.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(i) received the following joint report;

(ii) forwarded a copy thereof to the Budget Committee for information; and

(iii) requested the appropriate staff to review the RFP criteria in more detail prior to issuing the RFP and report to the Administration Committee, for approval, on the results of the RFP, including its terms and conditions and recommended successful legal firms:

(May 11, 1999) joint report from the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Solicitor, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, providing specific information relating to the hiring of external legal firms retained by the City of Toronto for insurance claim defence purposes; and recommending that this report be received as information and forwarded to the Budget Committee for information.

(f) City Pension Plans - Same Sex Spousal Benefits.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report as information; and having conveyed its appreciation to staff for the work they have done respecting this matter:

(May 6, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, reporting as to the status of Same Sex Spousal Benefits for beneficiaries of the City Pension Plan; advising that all employees and retirees of the City of Toronto regardless of the pension plan they are a member of will now have equal access to survivor pension benefits; that this amendment is effective December 8, 1998, for OMERS and June 6, 1998, for all non-OMERS plans; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(g) Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund Respecting By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation), Section 24 Refund, Proposed Widening of Entitlement.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report and communication until the meeting of the Administration Committee scheduled to be held on June 15, 1999, and having forwarded a copy thereof to the Toronto Police Services Board, and the Toronto Police Association for their information:

(i) (May 5, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, commenting on the recommendations of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund in regards to the proposed widening of the entitlement to a refund of contributions to members who retire with more than 30 years of service; and recommending that the Corporate Services Committee refer these recommendations to the Toronto Police Services Board for their concurrence.

(ii) (March 12, 1999) from the Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and Pension Plan, advising that the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund on February 26, 1999, had before it a report dated February 13, 1998 from the City Solicitor, respecting By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation), Section 24 Refund, Proposed Widening of Entitlement; and recommending that this report be received for information; and that the Board of Trustees:

(A) recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that it:

(1) amend Section 24 of By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation) to allow the payment as described in subclause (b)(i) thereof to all currently retired members who at the time of retirement had 30 years of service and were at least 50 years of age, without the requirement to receive an actuarial reduced pension under section 19; and

(2) grant the authority for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendation No. (1); and

(B) requested the City Solicitor to draft the appropriate amending by-law respecting Recommendation No. (1), and submit such draft by-law directly to Corporate Services Committee for consideration with this matter.

(h) Community Based Affordable Housing Demonstration

Project 647-657 Lawrence Avenue West at Allen Road

(Ward 8 - North York Spadina).

The Corporate Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee and Council the adoption of the joint report (May 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services subject to:

(1) amending Recommendation No. (2) by deleting the words "on a long term basis at an initial" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "for a term of 49 years", so that such Recommendation now reads as follows:

"(2) vacant lands at 647-657 Lawrence Avenue West previously withheld from sale be leased to the not-for-profit corporation to be established jointly by Out of the Cold and Congregation Darchei Noam for a term of 49 years at a rate of $2 per year, subject to terms and conditions which are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services and Community and Neighbourhood Services and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor;"

(2) amending Recommendation No. (9) by adding before the word "advancement" the words "lease commencement date, the" so that such Recommendation now reads as follows:

"(9) the lease commencement date, the advancement of the capital grant and second mortgage from the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing be conditional upon the not-for-profit group obtaining a first mortgage commitment within six months of the zoning by-law for the lands coming in to force.":

(May 4, 1999) joint report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that as a result of a request for proposals issued by the City of Toronto for City-owned land at 647-657 Lawrence Avenue West, and with the advice of the Reference Group for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing:

(1) the business case from Out of the Cold and Congregation Darchei Noam for below market rental housing be accepted as an Affordable Housing Demonstration Project.

(2) vacant lands at 647-657 Lawrence Avenue West previously withheld from sale be leased to the not-for-profit corporation to be established jointly by Out of the Cold and Congregation Darchei Noam on a long-term basis at an initial rate of $2 per year, subject to terms and conditions which are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services and Community and Neighbourhood Services and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor;

(3) the continued provision of below-market rental units by the not-for-profit group be secured through the review provisions in the land lease agreement with the City;

(4) subject to the final approval of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, that the following funds be provided from the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing:

(a) a capital grant of $10,000 per unit to a maximum of $240,000; and

(b) a no-interest, second mortgage of up to $600,000, for a maximum of 35 years, to be repaid to the Capital Revolving Fund from net cash flow;

(5) the final amount of the second mortgage from the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing be adjusted by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to reflect the budget reductions from the use of innovative building technologies, budget refinements, or other cost-saving measures;

(6) in order to reduce the cost of private construction financing, City officials are authorized to disburse the capital grant from the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing to the not-for-profit corporation as soon as possible after the building permit is issued;

(7) Council agree in principle that all planning, development and building permit fees and charges for 647-657 Lawrence Avenue West, should be waived or forgiven and that:

(a) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services waive all application fees or costs of giving notice under The Planning Act;

(b) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, report by September 1999 on the measures required to exempt this development from building permit fees and the payment in lieu of parkland; and

(c) Toronto Hydro be requested to waive or forgo any required connection fee or charge;

(8) the cost of the 22-metre centre median on Lawrence Avenue West required as a condition of previous site plan approval be provided for in the 2000 Works and Emergency Services capital budget. The current estimated construction cost is $8,000;

(9) the advancement of the capital grant and second mortgage from the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing be conditional upon the not-for-profit group obtaining a first mortgage commitment within six months of the zoning by-law for the lands coming in to force; and

(10) City officials be authorized to take such actions as are required to implement these recommendations.

(i) Housing First Policy for Surplus City-Owned Property.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee and Council the adoption of the following joint report:

(May 3, 1999) joint report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that:

(1) a Housing First policy, as outlined in the Appendix 'A', be adopted;

(2) a target of levering the development of a minimum of 900 affordable housing units on City-owned sites within the next three years be adopted, and staff report back on a quarterly basis on the progress of the Housing First policy;

(3) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, develop a five year capital program for housing and report back on the financing of such a program including the use of the Capital Revolving Fund and the method of obtaining future contributions to this Fund; and

(4) the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take the steps necessary to give effect to these recommendations.

(j) Tax Adjustments - Municipal Act, Sections 442 and 443.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1) approved the following report in accordance with By-law No. 8-1999 a By-law to amend further Council Procedural By-law No. 23-1998, being a By-law "To Govern the Proceedings of the Council and the Committees thereof"; and

(2) requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report to the Administration Committee on the submission of a request to the Province of Ontario to amend the Municipal Act to allow the City of Toronto to exercise discretion in paying interest to taxpayers:

(May 10, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, seeking approval for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes pursuant to the provisions of sections 442 and 443 of the Municipal Act; and recommending that:

(1) the individual appeal applications made pursuant to Section 442 of the Municipal Act totalling $2,408,267.43, as summarized in Schedule "A", be approved; and

(2) the individual appeal applications made pursuant to Section 443 of the Municipal Act totalling $141,330.49, as summarized in Schedule "B", be approved.

(k) Legal Challenge - City of Toronto and Toronto Transit Commission - Status Update.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received, for information, a confidential report (May 5, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting a legal challenge against the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

DICK O'BRIEN

Chair

Toronto, May 20, 1999

(Report No. 6 of The Corporate Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999.)