1 Toronto Transit Commission's 2000 Service Plan
2 Staffing Resources, Urban Planning and Development Services, Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, Common Area Apartment Re-Inspection Programme
3 Terms of Reference - Licensing Sub-Committee
4 Comprehensive Review of the Licensing By-law
5 Tenant Defence Fund
6 Other Items Considered by the Committee
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that:
(1) the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to consider enacting a proactive program for extending bus services, especially on routes with revenues over 60 percent; and
(2) as the inconvenience of increased waiting time on a number of routes is an important consideration to transit users, the Toronto Transit Commission be requested, in future, to document the number of customer trips that would be inconvenienced by each reduction in headway.
The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (September 10, 1999) from A. J. Chocorlan, Interim General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC):
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the TTC's 2000 Service Plan.
This report contains recommendations for transit service improvements in 2000. These service changes are designed to make transit service in Toronto better by reducing people's walking distance and travel time when using the TTC. The proposals for the service changes originated with City Councillors, TTC customers, and TTC staff. The report also contains: a financial review of every TTC service, evaluations of proposals for service changes which could not be recommended, and post-implementation reviews of service changes which had been on trial.
The Commission has established a period of 10 weeks for consultation by City Councillors on the recommendations in the 2000 Service Plan. We have sent a copy of the report to every City Councillor, so that they may have any discussions they wish within the neighbourhoods they represent. We have asked the Councillors to provide their comments to the TTC by no later than November 10, 1999.
The Commission will consider this report again, along with the results of the consultation, at its meeting of December 8, 1999 and will, at that time, make final decisions on whether the recommended service changes will be made.
The foregoing is forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Committee and City of Toronto Council for information.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Commission:
(1) approve the recommended service changes described in the attached 2000 Service Plan report and summarised on the attached page, noting that:
- the service changes would improve service for customers and attract new customers to the TTC;
- the service changes would improve the financial situation of the TTC by increasing revenues with no net increase in operating costs; and
- approval will initiate a 10-week consultation period, the results of which will be reported to the Commission if concerns are raised regarding any of the recommended service changes; and
(2) forward this report to Members of City Council, with a request for them to provide comments on the service change recommendations by November 10, 1999.
Funding:
Introduction of the service changes recommended in the 2000 Service Plan would not change the overall operating costs of the TTC. Four of the changes would be funded using resources made available from service reductions on routes with poor financial performance. All of the other changes have no cost implications. Overall, the service improvements would increase fare revenue by approximately $80,000.00 per year, at no net additional cost to the TTC.
Background
Each year the TTC produces a service plan which recommends changes to routes to improve service for TTC customers. The service plan forms part of the TTC's service standards process, and is based on an evaluation of suggestions for improvements made by customers, Councillors, and TTC staff.
Reductions in the subsidy provided for public transit by the municipal and provincial governments have made large-scale expansion or improvement of the TTC network impossible. With decreasing subsidies for transit, the only changes in transit service which can be considered are those which improve the financial situation of the TTC, and any new services must be funded through a combination of increased fare revenues and cuts in service elsewhere in the system. TTC ridership is increasing gradually, and service improvements to accommodate those increases, and to promote further increases, must be made without any additional subsidy. Because of this reduction in public funding for the TTC, and because such a high proportion of transit revenue comes from the fares paid by customers, meeting customers' travel needs has become, more than ever, the key to success for public transit in Toronto.
As has been the case in recent years, because of the constraints on the TTC's budget, the focus of the 2000 Service Plan has been on the improvement of current services, within the current budget and without increasing peak-period bus requirements. Changes can often be made at little or no cost which will improve service for customers, attract new customers to the TTC, and thus increase fare revenue and improve the TTC's overall financial performance.
Discussion:
Service standards process:
In the preparation of the annual service plan, proposals are received from Councillors, from TTC customers, and from TTC staff members. These proposals are evaluated using pre-set, objective standards, policies, and criteria. The process and standards are described in the Service Standards Process report, dated May 1990. The process and standards are also summarised in Section 1 of the 2000 Service Plan.
A public meeting was held at the Toronto Reference Library on May 20, 1999, to receive comments from TTC customers on the proposals that had been made by councillors and TTC staff, and also to receive other suggestions for service changes from TTC customers. Of the suggestions that were made at the meeting, all were reviewed, five were evaluated in detail in preparing the 2000 Service Plan, and two have led to recommendations for service changes.
Recommended service changes:
A total of 32 proposals have been evaluated in preparing the 2000 Service Plan. The recommended service changes are listed on the attached page, and described in detail in the 2000 Service Plan report.
The recommended service changes include one new route, routing changes on four routes, the introduction of service during new periods of the day on three routes, and a change to two overnight routes.
These changes would improve service for approximately 300,000 customer-trips each year by reducing the distance that customers need to walk to or from their nearest bus stop, by reducing the numbers of transfers they need to make, or by reducing their travel time. It is expected that these service changes would attract approximately 55,000 new customer-trips to the TTC each year, and thus increase revenue by approximately $80,000.00 each year.
The recommendations increase the costs of operation on one new route and on three present routes. These increased costs would be borne without changing the overall cost of operation of the TTC system, by using resources made available be service reductions on routes with low ridership, which have not met the TTC's financial performance standard. The changes on the routes which do not meet the financial standard are described in Section 3 of the 2000 Service Plan report. The net effect of all of these changes would be to improve the financial performance of the TTC system.
The TTC's service standards process includes a consultation period between approval of the changes of the Commission and the introduction of the changes, during which time comments are requested from Councillors. If requested, TTC staff will attend public meetings or provide additional information regarding the recommendations. At the end of the consultation period, if no suggestions have been made to change the proposals, then arrangements will be made for the service changes to begin early in 2000. If changes are suggested, TTC staff will review these suggestions and report to the Commission before changes are made to the service.
The consultation period for the 2000 Service Plan would begin upon the adoption of this report, and would continue until November 10, 1999. A report would subsequently be presented to the Commission outlining the results of the consultation.
All of the recommended service changes would be introduced for a trial period of at least six months, and would be subject to a post-implementation review, to ensure that they achieve the benefits that are expected. The results of the post-implementation reviews will be presented to the Commission. The 2000 Service Plan report also includes post-implementation reviews of seven previous service changes.
Justification:
The service changes recommended in the 2000 Service Plan report would improve service for approximately 300,000 customer-trips each year by making service more convenient, more direct, and faster. The recommended service changes should be introduced, to attract new customers to the TTC and thus generate increased fare revenue, and to improve service for customers without increasing operating costs.
The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the report titled "2000 Service Plan" from A. J. Chocorlan, Interim General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), appended to the foregoing report, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting of October 4, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that:
(1) any licencing program include a requirement that such licences be posted in a common area in all multi-residential buildings;
(2) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on sanctions that can now be imposed on non-compliant owners under the current Municipal Act; on the sanctions that would be desirable, but cannot now be imposed, due to the restrictions of the Municipal Act; and on what amendments to the Municipal Act would, therefore, be desirable; and
(3) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to:
(a) submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, on a quarterly basis, on the number of multi-residential properties that are licensed relative to the number of such properties that exist in the City of Toronto; and
(b) submit an annual report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the issue of enforcement.")
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that the report (September 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to:
(1) deleting Recommendations (2) and (3) and substituting therewith the following:
"(2) that multi-unit rental residential buildings be licensed using the classification and fee formula outlined in Appendix A of the report (September 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services which proposes three classes of licence as follows:
Class A Licence - a five year licence with a fee of 40 cents per suite per month
Clause B Licence - a three year licence with a fee of 60 cents per suite per month
Class C Licence - a one year licence with a fee of 70 cents per suite per month;
(3) that this licensing program be implemented on a cost-recovery basis;" and
(2) adding the following additional recommendation:
"(4) that the City Solicitor be requested to prepare the necessary by-laws to give effect thereto."
The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (September 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
In a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, considered by Council at its meeting on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services advised as follows:
Given the amount of work still outstanding to respond to the initial direction for the merger and staffing of these two activities, and given the high priority to implement successfully the taxi reform package by the end of the year, it is unrealistic to expect senior management to prudently manage the addition of more staff to this organization in this year. Moreover, until the merger is complete, it is difficult to advise on where the greater need for additional resources will be, or indeed, if they will be necessary. I recommend that staff be given the opportunity to implement the outstanding changes and then report to Council on the outcomes and impact on service.
The final structure for the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division has now been established. Although some work remains with respect to staffing of Supervisory positions, the potential for certain improved practices has been identified which may have a budget impact in the year 2000. The purpose of this report is to advise Committee of the improved practices and related impacts.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
If no cost sharing for the programme is available, the potential annual cost, staffing and resources (travel costs, information technology etc.) over the next five years is in the order of $1.35 million.
Recommendations:
(1) that the Committee recommend to Council that it endorse the concept of a pro-active inspection programme for common areas of all multi-unit rental residential accommodation;
(2) that the Committee recommend to Council that it request that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing co-fund the programme with the City; and
(3) that the Committee recommend to Council that it request the Province to amend the Municipal Act or provide special legislation to permit the City of Toronto to license multi-unit rental residential accommodation.
Background:
The Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of Urban Planning and Development Services is responsible for the enforcement of by-laws, many of which address property maintenance issues. One of the primary areas of enforcement concerns the maintenance of commercially-operated multi-residential apartment buildings.
One of the consequences of amalgamation has been the need to re-align staff to accommodate new ways of doing business. Notwithstanding staff were re-deployed in a number of ways, no front line inspection positions have been deleted. For example, in the former City of Toronto inspection staff carried out inspections required by the Ontario Building Code for properties which were the subject of a building permit. The same staff carried out reactive inspections in response to general by-law complaints, including property standards (lack of maintenance) complaints. These functions have been re-defined thus enabling us to focus more clearly on how to best use the resources available to us. Within the present structure, there are discrete responsibilities for Building Code matters within the Building Division of UPDS as well as discrete responsibilities for property maintenance within the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of UPDS. This approach is consistent with the Department's three divisional structure being: Planning, Building and Municipal Licensing and Standards--which, in turn, is also consistent with how the business we are in is done; i.e.--you plan, you build it and you maintain it.
Staff reassignment was carried out on the basis of the proportion of Building Code files relative to the proportion of Municipal Standards files. Thus, while it may appear on the basis of staff numbers that there are fewer staff assigned to municipal standards in the South District than immediately prior to amalgamation, there are, in fact, an equivalent number of person hours available for municipal standards issues.
Discussion:
With respect to the maintenance of commercially-operated multi-residential apartment buildings, this function has been managed differently in each of the former municipalities. In North York, Scarborough and East York there was, and continues to be, a "Pro-active Common Area Inspection Programme" for such buildings. Essentially, an audit (of varying degrees of detail in each former municipality) is carried out for each building scheduled to be audited. Buildings that have a history of poor maintenance are given priority on the schedule of buildings to be audited.
We believe that there is value in introducing this system city-wide. Experience with the audit programme in the former municipalities has demonstrated that a programme such as this is a useful tool that can be used to ensure that a reasonable degree of maintenance is performed in commercially-operated apartment buildings to the benefit of all concerned. For tenants, it demonstrates that the City is committed to working with them to ensure their building is being maintained. It also removes the concern that tenants may be reluctant to complain fearing reprisal from the landlord. Landlords also benefit from a thorough inspection whereby deficiencies are identified within a defined period of time rather than randomly over a period of months or even years. This approach to inspections affords the landlord an opportunity to co-ordinate maintenance staff and organize repair work thus maximizing effectiveness and minimizing costs. For the City, there is no reliance on complaints from tenants to initiate action about common areas. A fully operational pro-active programme makes it certain that violations will be identified. The City also benefits from not having to utilize limited resources investigating multiple complaints concerned with the same deficiencies. Furthermore, the City is able to establish a benchmark by which the condition of the building can be measured.
While it is important to note that a pro-active programme cannot be applied to individual suites, there is some indication that the number of en-suite complaints decreases, as landlords come to believe that the City can and does act. It should also be noted that existence of the programme would not mean that inspections are only pro-active. We would continue to respond to complaints about common areas as well as individual units.
There are, of course, staffing and, therefore, cost implications. It should also be recognized that as problem buildings are identified in the audit process, remedial action is begun. The same "audit programme" inspection staff will have to do multiple follow-up inspections to ensure deficiencies have been rectified and, where landlords fail to comply, initiate legal action and give evidence in court. Accordingly, given the scope of the programme, we recommend that a Manager and eight full-time inspectors be employed to manage the programme; four of the eight full-time staff could be placed, at no additional cost to the City, from within the existing complement of strength. For the first five years of the programme, an additional 12 inspectors would also be required on a contract basis. This should allow us to audit approximately 3,500 buildings in the first five years after which analyses of our findings would determine the resources needed to sustain a balanced programme.
Programme Funding:
As a longer-term goal, the concept of licensing rental residential accommodation is worthy of serious consideration. Since it is not currently permitted by provincial legislation, it would require that the City request and receive changes to provincial regulations. Appendix A outlines how such a programme might operate. On the basis of an average licence fee in the order of 60 cents per suite per month, and with an estimated 450,000 rental residential units within multi-unit buildings in the City, the licence fees raised would be in the order of $3.25 million per year. This could allow property standards regulations as a condition of licence maintenance to be managed on a full-cost recovery basis, with the current cost being eliminated from general tax revenue. As a percentage of the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom unit (estimated at $700.00), 60 cents, even passed through to a tenant, would be equivalent to less than 0.1 percent.
While the potential for legislative change to allow for licensing is being investigated, there would be value in approaching the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for funding to carry out the initial audit. The basis for the request would be that the information obtained through an audit of all multi-family rental residential accommodation in the largest Canadian city would provide a valuable database for future planning for those agencies.
Conclusion:
Property Standards programmes for multi-unit residential properties have been managed differently in each of the former municipalities. The most detailed service delivery model is that used in the North District (former City of North York). In order to provide equitable and, we believe, cost effective service delivery across the City, a pro-active programme of inspections for the common areas of all multi-family residential accommodation should be developed, based on that used in the former City of North York. The potential for change to provincial legislation to allow for the licensing of multi-unit residential rental accommodation should be investigated. This could provide for full cost recovery associated with Municipal Licensing and Standards enforcement of issues relating to multi-unit residential rental accommodation. While the potential for legislative change is being pursued, the potential for cost sharing for the initial audit between the City of Toronto, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing should also be explored.
Contact Name:
Frank Weinstock, 12th Floor, East Tower, City Hall
fweinst@toronto.ca; 392-0404 (tel.); 392-8805 (fax)
Appendix A
Much as with any other licensing, the process initially would be an "up front" check that the proposed activity meets the general applicable law, and will be carried out "in accordance with the law (and) with honesty and integrity". Further, there would, as with other businesses, be ongoing checks that the business continues to be carried out "in accordance with...., etc." The most critical element of applicable law in this case would be the Property Standards By-law.
There could be several classes of licence. For example, where a company demonstrates, through provision of a five-year maintenance management plan, and a check of past enforcement history, a certain level of competence and experience, they could be issued a "Class A" licence, with a fee for an initial application and an annual fee of 40 cents per suite per month. Such licences could have, say, a five-year life and be subject to inspection of all common areas once per two and one-half years. "Class B" would perhaps have no plan but a clear history regarding enforcement activity, be of shorter term, say, three years, be subject to annual inspections and have a slightly higher per suite per month fee; say 60 cents/suite/month; "Class C" buildings may or may not have a plan, but have a poor enforcement history, would be licensed for one year at a time, be subject to inspections once per six months and have the highest per suite per month fee, at about 70 cents/suite/month.
At any time, subject to provision of a plan, and with a two-year history clear of any enforcement activity, a company could apply to be upgraded by one class. "Clear" of enforcement history would have to be structured in a way to accept that even a good operator could miss occasional items. Conversely, we would retain the right to downgrade a building or company to a lower licensing class.
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that Section 105(2), and other relevant sections of Council's Procedural By-law No. 23-1998 where applicable, be waived to authorize the appointment of the future non-Council member of the Taxi Advisory Committee (when established) to the Licensing Sub-Committee as a non-voting member and that this person not be counted for quorum purposes.
The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:
(1) approved the Terms of Reference, mandate, scope and organization of the Licensing Sub-Committee, established by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting on June 14, 1999, as outlined in the report (September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services; and
(2) maintained the current membership of the Sub-Committee at four members of Council, but noted that the Planning and Transportation Committee would give consideration to increasing the Sub-Committee's membership to five members at a future date.
The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
This report makes recommendations for the terms of reference, staffing resources and funding for the newly created Licensing Sub-Committee of the Planning and Transportation Committee.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The Licensing Sub-Committee will be administered by staff from City Clerk's and no additional funding is required as administrative costs such as mailing, reproduction of agenda material and refreshments are available within existing resources in City Clerk's.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
(1) the Sub-Committee's mandate, scope, organization, and procedures as outlined in the terms of reference below be adopted;
(2) the Planning and Transportation Committee establish the membership of the Sub-Committee to be five members, and that a fifth member be appointed; and
(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
This report is prepared in response to Committee's request for a staff report on the terms of reference, staffing resources and financial implications for a Licensing Sub-Committee.
The Planning and Transportation Committee, at its June 14, 1999 meeting, established a Licensing Sub-Committee. Council, at its July 6, 7 and 8, 1999 meeting, adopted Clause No. 3 of Report No. 1 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, which recommended that City Council waive Section 105(2) of the Procedural By-law in order to permit the Committee the authority to appoint the Licensing Sub-Committee beyond the membership of the Planning and Transportation Committee.
The report also recommended that the Licensing Sub-Committee report to the Planning and Transportation Committee by way of a consent agenda with a mandate to deal with matters related to municipal licensing. Furthermore, four members of the Planning and Transportation Committee were selected to make up the Sub-Committee and a Chair was appointed from among these members.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Terms of Reference
The Planning and Transportation Committee has established a Licensing Sub-Committee. This Licensing Sub-Committee will meet to consider issues pertaining to licensing policy matters, or procedures and processes directly related to licensing activity and report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on these matters. The proposed terms of reference, including the Sub-Committee's mandate, scope, organization, and procedures, were developed following a meeting with the Chairs of the Committee and Sub-Committee and staff where the minutes of the June 14th meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee were reviewed.
Mandate and Scope
Clause No. 3 of Report No. 1 establishes the mandate and scope of the Sub-Committee. Upon review of the mandate of the Sub-Committee, it is recommended that the mandate be to: hear public deputations on licensing policy matters; review public submissions on licensing policy matters; report on licensing matters to the Planning and Transportation Committee with or without recommendations; and liaise with The Taxicab Advisory Committee and any other licensing advisory committees that may be established. It is further recommended that the scope of the Licensing Sub-Committee be to consider matters pertaining to licensing policy, procedures and processes. The Sub-Committee will not consider matters pertaining to individual licensees, zoning and the official plan. Nor will it consider matters within the jurisdiction of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal.
Organization
In keeping with the procedures followed to appoint the initial members and Chair of the Sub-Committee, it is recommended that all members and the Chair be nominated/selected by the Planning and Transportation Committee as a whole. It is also recommended that the Licensing Sub-Committee be composed of five members. Terms of appointments to the Sub-Committee will be as specified in Council's Procedural By-law.
In keeping with Council's Procedural By-law, the Mayor will be an ex-officio member of the Sub-Committee.
Committee Procedures
Clause No. 3 of Report No. 1 included recommendations that the Sub-Committee report to the Committee by way of a consent agenda. It is recommended that items to be considered by the Licensing Sub-Committee be referred to the Sub-Committee by either the Executive Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards (MLS), the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee, the Planning and Transportation Committee, or Council. The agenda for the Sub-Committee will be set by the Chair of the Sub-Committee in consultation with both the Executive Director, MLS, and the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee.
The schedule of meetings will coincide with the Planning and Transportation Committee schedule such that items considered by the Sub-Committee will become a regular item on the Committee's agenda. The Sub-Committee will meet prior to agenda closing of the Planning and Transportation Committee, as time will be required for the Sub-Committee's secretary to prepare the minutes and reports arising from the Sub-Committee's meetings.
Duties of the Chair of the Sub-Committee
It is further recommended that in addition to the usual duties, the Chair meet semi-annually with the Taxicab Advisory Committee, and any other licensing advisory committee, to discuss licensing policy matters or procedures and processes directly relating to licensing activity and report back to the Sub-Committee on these matters.
Deputations:
It was suggested that with the establishment of the Sub-Committee, deputations on licensing-related matters could be limited to the Sub-Committee without further deputation to the Committee as a whole. Section 129 of Council's Procedural By-law states that any person may make deputations at Committee. It would appear that the desired limitation is not possible under Council's current procedural by-law. A further report from the City Solicitor would be required to discuss this issue in detail.
Conclusions:
This reports outlines the funding and financial considerations for the administration of a Licensing Sub-Committee of the Planning and Transportation Committee, and proposes terms of reference for the Sub-Committee for Council's approval.
This report was prepared in consultation with the City Clerk.
Contact Name
James Ridge, Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services
12th Floor, East Tower, Toronto City Hall;
Tel: 397-4154; Fax: 397-4088
The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it a communication (October 2, 1999) from Stan Steiner, Member of the Taxicab Advisory Committee, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services.
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to propose a full review of the City's Licensing By-law. The review would be conducted in the next 12-18 months and recommendations would be forwarded to Planning and Transportation Committee through the Licensing Sub-Committee. The initiative would fully review the categories of businesses currently licensed, emerging businesses that should be considered for licensing, the fee-setting methodology, and opportunities to use licence fees to fund a broader range of city services to licensed businesses.
Financial Implications:
There are no short-term financial implications. The project includes a review of fees charged to various licence categories and may, therefore, have longer-term implications for licensing revenues.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Planning and Transportation Committee:
(1) endorse a comprehensive review of the Licensing By-law and direct the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to prepare a detailed workplan for the first meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee; and
(2) endorse a change to the Municipal Act to allow for refusal or revocation of a business licence when the operation of a business is willfully detrimental to the quality of life in a community, similar to those set out in the Liquor Licence provisions.
Background:
The Municipal Act permits municipalities to license certain types of businesses, trades and occupations (BTOs), and to set licence fees to recover the cost of administering and enforcing those licences. The Municipal Act and case law restricts licensing and requires that it be for the purposes of protecting the public interest. More specifically, a municipality can license to protect public health and to ensure that the business operates within the law, and operates with honesty and integrity. The former Metro Licensing Commission administered the licensing of businesses until 1998, when the Commission was disbanded and licensing restructured. As a result of amalgamation, there now exist a number of pressures for a full review and rationalization of the city's licensing regime.
The value of licensing, where there is a legitimate public interest, is straightforward: the public can be reasonably assured that checks have been carried out that a business is operated by persons legally entitled to work and that the proprietors have no record of criminal or other behaviour that calls into question their ability to properly serve their clients. It also ensures that business operators hold appropriate qualifications to operate the business, operate in an area where the business is permitted to operate, and are aware of any other conditions imposed by the Licensing By-law or other relevant legislation. Further, the public should also be assured that there is a reasonable degree of monitoring that the business continues to operate in accordance with these conditions, and that there exists sufficient force of regulation to limit or remove the right to operate from businesses which fail to comply with all required conditions.
The Act sets out the conditions for the revocation or refusal of a licence; however, both are seriously restricted by the Municipal Act, and often require that the city prove that the holder of the licence has personally committed criminal acts, other violations of statute, or has acted without honesty or integrity. The Act severely limits the use of evidence associated with the business' impact on the community. It is therefore difficult or impossible for the city to revoke a licence for a business that has, through inaction or negligence, become a serious irritant to a community (although the city is currently attempting to do so in three instances). There are, however, community impact provisions related to liquor licences that could be emulated in the Municipal Act for businesses.
Toronto licenses a wide range of businesses, trades and occupations. The licensing requirements are set out in by-law. Toronto's Licensing by-law (20-85) has not been subject to full review and rationalization in many years, although recent studies have recommended such a review. As a result, it has grown gradually over the years by the addition of certain categories of licence and the occasional deletion of others. There is now a need to do a comprehensive review of the by-law including a review of the types of businesses currently licensed and new businesses that might be licensed. The need for a review is driven by the following:
(a) the by-law includes some licence classes that have received no applications in years;
(b) the by-law includes some licence classes where the public interest in licensing is no longer clear;
(c) some licensed businesses have subsequently been subject to additional regulation by other levels of government that may have reduced or eliminated the need for municipal licensing;
(d) the by-law does not address new types of business where there may be legitimate public interest in licensing. At least two former municipalities had stand-alone licensing programmes that must be re-examined in the context of the amalgamated city (Scarborough licensed adult video stores and Toronto licensed rooming houses);
(e) the by-law sets out specifics of renewals that are administratively inefficient to administer (most renewals are the same time each year, rather than spread over the year, creating significant fluctuations in intake and processing); and
(f) because licensing can operate on a cost-recovery basis, it may be timely to simultaneously restructure licence fees to recover a broader range of city costs associated with licensing, such as health inspections of licensed businesses.
Discussion:
A number of cities across North America, most notably Indianapolis and New York, have carried out major revisions to their licensing regimes, limiting the classes of BTOs licensed to those where there is clear public benefit, and where there is no other agency with greater or more appropriate authority. These reviews are typically conducted to reduce red tape for low or no-risk businesses, and have been driven by a growing body of research suggesting that business licensing is typically excessive in many cities, and can be an impediment to small business growth. The reviews are also means to re-focus limited enforcement resources on those businesses that must be licensed because they present a real risk to the public.
One example of a business worth re-examining is barbers. Barbers are covered by Provincial Health regulations, whether licensed or not. Beyond the health interest, it is not clear that there is a significant consumer protection role for the city. The city currently does not require a skills test for this trade as part of the licensing process. Therefore, anyone who meets health and zoning requirements can cut hair. However, it is reasonable to believe that a bad barber would be subject to a rapid and complete market correction. A bad haircut may cause some short term trauma, but is unlikely to cause lasting personal or financial harm to the consumer. On the other hand, tattoo parlours are unlicensed in Toronto, and while subject to health provisions, there may be broader public and consumer protection interest issues that recommend licensing, in light of the permanent nature of the service.
It is also timely to re-examine the costs defined and collected through the licensing process. Not all departmental costs (i.e. Departments other than Urban Planning and Development Services) are recognized and accommodated in the fee estimation model. Although some licensed businesses are subject to health and other inspections, those costs are not recovered through licence fees.
The administration of Licensing has also been restructured within a Municipal Licensing and Standards Division. Now is an opportune time to revise the by-law to reflect the realities of the new organization, the new city, entering a new century.
Process:
It is recommended that if the review is approved, a detailed workplan be developed and presented to the Licensing Sub-committee at its first meeting. The Licensing Sub-committee would oversee the review and would hear industry and public deputations. Reports and recommendations would be made to the Planning and Transportation Committee from the Licensing Sub-committee.
As a first step, staff would conduct a review of licensing regimes for a number of other major cities in Canada and the USA, in order to develop a comparison of what BTO's are and are not the subject of licensing, and the rationale for so doing. Staff would then compare the conditions to those existing in Toronto, giving consideration to the questions listed below.
The Licensing Sub Committee would initially review all currently licensed categories and would apply the following tests:
(a) Is there a clear definition of the municipal/public interest?
(b) Is the BTO regulated by other city regulations, other agencies or other levels of government? Can and should the regulation of the BTO be done another way or by another agency?
(c) Is licensing the best regulatory option, the only regulatory option, or are others better or complementary (zoning, health)?
(d) What is a reasonable degree of monitoring? Is it annual inspection, intermittent inspection, a full re-check at the time of licence renewal, or complaint-based review?
(e) How can we best cross-reference other applicable law within a licensing by-law to ensure that actions are complementary, not duplicative, nor unnecessarily complicated?
(f) What is an appropriate cycle for licence renewal for each class of licence? (e.g. should there initially be annual licences, and after a three-year probation, licence periods extending to three years, or should certain licences be annual renewal, others two, three or even five-year renewals?
(g) Which costs can legally be collected through licence fees under current legislation? Are all such costs being collected?
(h) Should all costs be collected through the fee structure, or should a portion of the cost of the licensing process be raised through general taxation?
(i) What would the impact on fee revenues be under a significantly revised licensing regime?
The industry and public would be allowed appropriate opportunities to present their views at the Licensing Sub-committee. The review would not re-open the issue of Taxi Licensing. The reforms to the taxi industry will continue as directed by Council.
A series of reports would be presented to Planning and Transportation Committee recommending phased changes in the Licensing By-law and implementation plans.
Conclusion:
It is timely to conduct a full review of the city's Licensing By-law. The review should be conducted in the next 12-18 months and recommendations should be forwarded to Planning and Transportation Committee through the Licensing Sub-committee. The initiative should fully review the categories of businesses currently licensed, emerging businesses that should be considered for licensing, the fee-setting methodology, and opportunities to use licence fees to fund a broader range of city services to licensed businesses.
Contact Name:
James Ridge, Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services
12th Floor, East Tower, Toronto City Hall
tel: 397-4154; fax: 397-4088.
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that:
(1) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services and/or the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services be authorized to request the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal for adjournments of hearings for above-guideline rent increases for tenants where they feel it is essential; and
(2) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to conduct a comprehensive property standards inspection of 521 and 523 Finch Avenue West and coordinate inspection of unit interiors through the tenants' associations.
The Committee reports having:
(1) received the report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services for information;
(2) endorsed the following action taken by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting on September 13, 1999:
"The Toronto Community Council:
(1) endorsed the recommendations for a Tenant Defence Fund presented to the Planning and Transportation Committee, at its meeting held on September 13, 1999; and
(2) supported the recommendations of the Sub-Committee to Restore Rent Control, including its request for a meeting with the Honourable Steven Gilchrist, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.";
and forwarded notice of its endorsement in this respect to the November 4, 1999 meeting of the Community Services Committee;
(3) forwarded the action taken by the Toronto Community Council, as outlined above, to the other Community Councils with a request that they consider this matter and provide comment back to the Community Services Committee; and
(4) requested the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services to report to the November 4, 1999 Community Services Committee meeting and to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee to Save Rent Control:
(a) on the feasibility of funding the Tenant Defence Fund using 1/5th of 1% of all taxes paid by rental buildings in the City of Toronto; and
(b) an indication of the tenant groups which are currently in need of experienced assistance by the City.
Recorded Votes:
Recommendation No. (1) respecting a request for adjournments of hearings before the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal moved by Councillor Moscoe, carried unanimously on the following division of votes:
Yeas: Councillors Flint, McConnell, Berger, Filion, Lindsay Luby and Moscoe.
Recommendation No. (2) respecting authorization to conduct property standards inspections of two properties, moved by Councillor Moscoe, carried unanimously on the following division of votes:
Yeas: Councillors Flint, McConnell, Berger, Filion, Lindsay Luby and Moscoe.
The Committee's advice No. (1) respecting the receipt of the report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, moved by Councillor McConnell, carried unanimously on the following division of votes:
Yeas: Councillors Flint, McConnell, Berger, Filion, Lindsay Luby and Moscoe.
The Committee's advice No. (2) respecting endorsement of Recommendation (1) of Toronto Community Council, moved by McConnell, which reads as follows:
"The Toronto Community Council:
(1) endorsed the recommendations for a Tenant Defence Fund presented to the Planning and Transportation Committee, at its meeting held on September 13, 1999; and"
carried on the following division of votes:
Yeas: Councillors McConnell, Filion, Flint, Moscoe, Lindsay Luby
Nays: Councillor Berger
The Committee's advice No. (2) respecting endorsement of Recommendation (2) of Toronto Community Council, moved by Councillor McConnell, which reads as follows:
"The Toronto Community Council:
(2) supported the recommendations of the Sub-Committee to Restore Rent Control, including its request for a meeting with the Honourable Steven Gilchrist, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing."
carried on the following division of votes:
Yeas: Councillors Filion, Berger, McConnell and Moscoe
Nays: Councillor Flint and Lindsay Luby
The Committee's advice No. (3) whereby the Committee forwarded the above-noted Toronto Community Council's action to Community Councils for consideration, moved by Councillor Lindsay Luby, carried on the following division of votes:
Yeas: Councillors Berger, McConnell, Filion and Lindsay Luby
Nays: Councillors Flint and Moscoe
The Committee's advice No. (4)(a) requesting the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services to report to the November 4, 1999 Community Services Committee and to the Sub-Committee to Save Rent Control on the feasibility of the Tenant Defence Fund using a percentage of taxes paid by City buildings, moved by Councillor Moscoe, carried on the following division of votes:
Yeas: Councillors Flint, McConnell, Moscoe and Filion
Nays: Councillors Berger and Lindsay Luby
The Committee's advice No. (4)(b) requesting the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services to report to the November 4, 1999 Community Services Committee and to the Sub-Committee to Save Rent Control with an indication of which tenant groups require assistance by the City, moved by Councillor Moscoe, carried unanimously on the following division of votes:
Yeas: Councillors Flint, McConnell, Berger, Filion, Lindsay Luby and Moscoe.
The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services:
Purpose:
To respond to the Committee's request that staff provide a review of the proposed Tenant Defence Fund for the October 4 meeting. To inform the Committee of work that is already underway to define the city's role in providing information and support services to tenants that is directly relevant to this request, and that a report will be forthcoming to the November meeting of Community Services Committee.
Financial Implications:
None.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Council Reference:
At its meeting September 13, 1999, Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to a report (August 24, 1999) from Councillor Michael Walker, Chair, Sub-Committee to Restore Rent Control, respecting a Tenant Defence Fund. The report included a request that the Planning and Transportation Committee endorse a recommendation to establish a Tenant Defence Fund, in principle, to assist tenants and tenant associations in opposing unreasonable "above-guideline" rent increases.
The Planning and Transportation Committee referred the report to the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, with a request that the Commissioner report back to the Committee in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services on October 4, 1999.
As a result of issues raised this past spring related to eviction prevention programs and the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations (FMTA) Tenant Hotline service, consultants were hired in July to consult with the tenant and landlord community and to recommend a role for the city in providing information and support services to tenants. We expect to receive the findings in October and I will be reporting to the Committee in November. As this work is directly relevant to the proposed Tenant Defence Fund, it would be premature to comment on the Fund before I have the results of this work. I will have consulted with the Commissioner of Planning and the Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer who concur with this approach.
Background:
The province's Tenant Protection Act (TPA) which is administered by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, has made significant changes to the rules for allowing landlords to increase rents above the rent control guideline. Although it is still necessary for landlords to make an application for an increase above the guideline, and to prove the need for this increase, the process and grounds have changed.
Tenants receive less notice of the landlord's application for an above guideline increase than under prior rent regulation laws. Under the TPA, the landlord need only give notice to the tenants ten days before the hearing, as opposed to prior legislation which require the landlord to provide a copy of the application to all tenants at least 80 days before the first date of the application. As a result, under the TPA tenants have very little time to examine the above guideline application and to organize a response. Preparing the response may also be costly if technical assistance is required, such as a lawyer, accountant or person with expertise in matters of capital work.
In addition to changes in the process, the grounds upon which the tenants may argue against the above guideline increase have been substantially reduced. Under previous legislation, tenants could argue that the proposed increase should be offset because of other maintenance problems, reduced or withdrawn services and facilities, or because the capital expenditure work claimed on the landlord's application was required because of ongoing neglect of the problem by the landlord. These tenant arguments are no longer considered as part of the landlord's application. Instead, tenants would need to file their own application where there has been a breach of maintenance obligations and/or loss or reduction of services or facilities.
The increased challenge faced by tenants in responding to a landlord's application for a rent increase above the guideline illustrates the growing amount of activity and calls for action by the tenant community in response to changes made by the TPA. Since the TPA became law on June 17, 1998, various City departments have been required to respond to a range of issues, such as:
- establishing a rental property tax notification program because of new provisions in under the TPA which require the City to send notices of tax decrease annually to tenants and landlords (Finance);
- passing a vital services by-law in response to new provisions under the TPA (Buildings);
- passage of a demolition and conversion control by-law based on the City's powers under the Planning Act, rather than the enhanced provisions under the Rental Housing Protection Act which was repealed by the TPA (City Planning);
- requesting party status on a landlord application to evict several tenants on the grounds that their units were being "demolished" rather than "renovated" or "reconfigured" (Legal); and
- increased funding to programs which provide information and assistance to tenants, in particular those facing evictions (Shelter Housing and Support).
These actions are in addition to our ongoing concerns about condition of the rental housing stock, affordability, and supply.
While the TPA is adding to the city workload, it is also putting stress on community organizations, particularly those who support tenants and small landlords. According to landlord and tenant organizations, requests for assistance have increased because the legislation is new and more complex than previous laws.
The level of financial support from the province to assist tenants and landlords has decreased. During the 1980s the (then) Ministry of Housing made grants to tenant and landlord organizations to provide education and information services. In the first half of the 1990s, funding was provided by the province to support the FMTA Tenant Hotline as well as general tenant information, advocacy and organizing activities. In 1996, provincial funding for the FMTA and other tenant advocacy organizations was eliminated. In 1997 Metro Tenants Legal Services ceased operations. There has also been increased pressure on the system of evictions in the past few years due to the 22 percent decrease in social assistance rates.
While the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal does produce information brochures about the new law, there has been much less communication and outreach under the Tribunal than under previous rent regulation laws. In addition, the information from the Tribunal does not offer the same type of advocacy or legal advice that is available from community organizations.
Comments:
As a result of the above changes and the city's own shift away from emergency responses to homelessness towards eviction prevention and protection of affordable stock, we began a process earlier this summer to inventory what services are available and where, to identify gaps and overlaps, and to clarify what supports are (or should be) provided by the province and by the city. This review, in combination with a concurrent review of FMTAs Tenant Hotline Service and consultation with other city departments, is intended to form the basis for an overall service strategy for the provision of information and advice to tenants and landlords. This results of this review and recommendations will be provided in a report by the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services to Community Services Committee in November.
The Tenant Defence Fund as outlined is one of many possible approaches which can be taken to assist tenants. I am unable to comment on the merits of this approach at this time, without the results of the broader review.
I have specifically asked the consultants and staff to consider the Tenant Defence Fund idea as part of the service review. The following aspects of the review are directly relevant in evaluating the Tenant Defence Fund proposal:
- the review underway is consulting with tenants and the agencies who support them on the nature of their need and the best ways for the city and others to provide support. There may be other supports that tenants require beyond tenant organizing and technical advice. Landlords, particularly those with smaller buildings, may also require support to better understand their rights and obligations under the TPA;
- the review examines the role of the city vis a vis that of the province, and particularly the services provided by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal and Community Legal Clinics. This is relevant in consideration of whether the city should provide services that the Tribunal or Legal Clinics are not providing;
- the city needs to carefully consider the extent to which it should provide direct help to tenants appearing before the Tribunal, or whether it should help in other ways. To a certain extent, this is a question of whether such a role is in the municipal interest. I have asked for an opinion from Legal Services on this matter. We are consulting with Buildings Division and City Planning about the impact the program may have with respect to issues of property standards and condition of rental housing stock; and
- it is clear that the need to support both tenants and landlords is large and without careful consideration of the city's role, a large amount of funding could be expended without effective results. In addition, there should be a fair way to allocate a limited amount of city funding to different buildings and different areas of the city. This cannot be done without an understanding of the need.
The Tenant Defence Fund concept is one of many possible approaches which can be taken to assist tenants. Others may include enhancing the telephone hotline service, funding additional eviction prevention projects, and improving the delivery of information and advice in other languages and using other media (e.g. a video) besides print matter to convey information. Small landlords also require assistance, especially with respect to languages and access to advice. We intend to include consideration of a Tenant Defence Fund along with other potential responses.
Conclusion:
The Shelter Housing and Support Division is currently undertaking a process to examine the service needs of both tenants and landlords and to make recommendations regarding the role the city may have in providing support to landlords and tenants. The process includes a review of the services available in the community, those that are missing, and options for delivery of required services. The process also includes consulting with other city departments involved in landlord and tenant matters. I will be reporting to Community Services Committee on the results of this review and with recommendations this November.
Contact Name:
Joanne Campbell
General Manager, Shelter, Housing & Support
Phone: 392-7885
Fax: 392-0548
The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding action taken by Toronto Community Council at its meeting held on September 14, 1999:
Community Council's Actions:
The Toronto Community Council advises the Planning and Transportation Committee that it:
(1) endorses the recommendations for a Tenant Defence Fund presented to the Planning and Transportation Committee, at its meeting held on September 13, 1999; and
(2) supports the recommendations of the Sub-Committee to Restore Rent Control, including its request for a meeting with the Honourable Steven Gilchrist, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, on September 14, 1999, had before it a report (April 13, 1999) from the City Solicitor submitting draft zoning by-law respecting No. 103 West Lodge Avenue (High Park).
The Toronto Community Council also had before it the following reports/communications:
- (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Final Report on Application No. 197024 To Amend Site Specific By-law 22037 To Permit A Reduction In The Number of Parking Spaces Required For 103-105 West Lodge Avenue;
- (May 13, 1999) from Ms. Anna Thacker;
- (May 21, 1999) from Ms. Marian Y. MacGregor, Parkdale Community Legal Services Inc.;
- (Undated) from Ms. Ann-Marie Rechier;
- (May 25, 1999) from A. Lynch;
- (May 24, 1999) Petition with 31 signatures in opposition;
- (April 26, 1999) from Mr. Robert B. Levitt on behalf of the Parkdale Tenants' Association;
- (Undated) from Ms. Shirley Woods;
- (Undated) from Ms. Anna C. Thaker;
- (Undated) - 139 Identical Letters in opposition;
- (June 3, 1999) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, forwarding the Community Council's actions of May 26 and 27, 1999;
- (September 10, 1999) from Mr. Anthony Lynch;
- (September 12, 1999) from Mr. John Dorion;
- (September 13, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services;
- (September 14, 1999) from Mr. Marko Lavrisa;
- (September 13, 1999) Petition signed by 72 persons;
- (September 13, 1999) Petition signed by 75 persons;
- (September 14, 1999) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and Councillor David Miller;
- (September 12, 1999) from Mr. Vilko Zbogar;
- (September 14, 1999) from Ms. Anna C. Thaker;
- (September 14, 1999) from Dr. Harpreet Singh Chaggar; and
- (July 30, 1999) from Ms. Sookranie Lucknauth.
Notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on May 26, 1999 and September 14, 1999, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:
On May 26, 1999:
- Mr. Vilko Zbogar, Parkdale Community Legal Services;
- Mr. Bart Poesiat, Common Front in Defence of Poor Neighbourhoods;
- Mr. Bob Levitt, Parkdale Tenants' Association;
- Dr. Harpreet Chaggar;
- Mr. Suk Tumsee;
- Mr. A. Lynch;
- Ms. Anna Thaker, Westlodge Tenant Association;
- Mr. David Drake, EMC Group Ltd.;
- Ms. Daramdeo Sukdeo; and
- Mr. Paul Wynn;
On September 14, 1999:
- Mr. Paul Wynn, Trustee;
- Mr. Jeff Wynn, Property Manager;
- Mr. Bart Poesiat, Parkdale Community Legal Services;
- Mr. Vilko Zbogar, Toronto, Ontario;
- Ms. Shirley Woods, West Lodge Tenants' Association;
- Ms. Marian MacGregor, Parkdale Community Legal Services;
- Ms. Anna C. Thaker, Parkdale Tenants' Association;
- Ms. Sookranie Lucknaut, Toronto, Ontario;
- Dr. Harpreet Chaggar, Audiologist;
- Mr. Chris Wilsack, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. John Connor, West Lodge Tenants' Association;
- Ms. Desiree Rose, Jameson Tenant Association;
- Mr. Jeff Phillips, Phillips Consultant;
- Ms. Kham Nguyen, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Marko Lavrisa, Levitt-Goodman Architect Association;
- Ms. Thu Nguyen, Statistics Canada;
- Ms. Evelyn Simpson, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Ngoc Le, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Peter Romanov, Toronto, Ontario; and
- Mr. Karuna Karan, Toronto, Ontario.
The Toronto Community Council recommended to City Council for its meeting to be held on September 28, 1999, that:
(1) City Council not approve the draft by-law appended to the report (April 13, 1999) from the City Solicitor;
(2) the Director, Municipal Standards and Licensing be requested to withhold approval of any remaining outstanding orders until the meeting with Parkdale Community Legal Services and representatives of the West Lodge Tenants' Association occurs, and issues resolved (as requested by the Toronto Community Council), provided that such meeting is held on an expedited basis; and
(3) the Director, Municipal Standards and Licensing and the Deputy Chief Building Official ensure that work orders are in 100% compliance before they are cleared.
The Toronto Community Council also:
(1) invited the Director of Parkdale Community Legal Services and representatives of the West Lodge Tenants' Association to meet with the Deputy Chief Building Official and the Director, Municipal Standards and Licensing to review all building standard and building code issues that are of concern to the tenants and their representatives;
(2) referred the following communications to the Deputy Chief Building Official, the Director, Municipal Standards and Licensing and the City Solicitor:
- (September 14, 1999) from Mr. Marko Lavrisa;
- (September 12, 1999) from Mr. Vilko Zbogar; and
- (September 14, 1999) from Dr. Harpreet Singh Chaggar.
The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the following communications and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:
- (October 4, 1999) from Brad Butt, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Apartment Association;
- (October 4, 1999) from Harry Hakomaki, Building & Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario;
- (October 4, 1999) from Rosala Robbins;
- (October 4, 1999) from Anne Ritchie, Chair, Tenants' Assocation;
- (October 1, 1999) from Brook Physick, Community Legal Worker, Flemingdon Community Legal Services; and
- (October 4, 1999) from Peter Gabor, Chair, Board of Trade Planning and Development Committee.
The following persons appeared before the Planning and Transportation Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Brad Butt, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Apartment Association;
- Harry Hakomaki, Building and Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario;
- Grant Cowan;
- Dale Ritch;
- Roslyn Oslender;
- Mary Hopkins;
- Paul York;
- Abbas Kolia, Thorncliffe Park Tenants' Association;
- Anne Ritchie, Chair, 111 Davisville Tenants' Committee;
- Nessa Kouchuer;
- Rosala Robbins;
- Councillor Walker; and
- Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski.
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)
(a) Vital Services Programme
The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having:
(1) received the following report (September 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services for information; and
(2) requested the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the implementation of a 24 hour telephone service operated by a person, not a machine, where a Councillor could get immediate service on behalf of constituents on matters relating to vital services.
(September 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, reporting on the success of the Vital Services programme for the heating season of 1998/99, and recommending that this report be received for information.
(b) Regulation of Hours of Operation - Body Shops/Automobile Service Centres
The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having received the following report (September 9, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services for information.
(September 9, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, updating the Committee on the status of the matter of the regulation of hours of operation of body shops/automobile service centres and recommending that the Committee receive this report for information.
(c) Retirement and Lodging Homes
The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having received the following report (September 21, 1999) from the City Solicitor for information.
(September 21, 1999) from the City Solicitor, reporting on the legal status of the former City of Toronto and City of Etobicoke Rooming House/Lodging House by-laws and the enforcement of these by-laws outside the boundary areas of these former area municipalities and recommending that this report be received for information.
(d) New Practices for the Review of Development Applications
The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having:
(1) deferred consideration of the following report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, and related material, to the Committee's next meeting on November 1, 1999; and
(2) noted the following motions which were tabled by Councillor Moscoe and requested that they be brought forward to the Committee's next meeting for consideration with this matter:
"That the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by:
(1) amending Recommendation 2(i) by adding at the end thereof the words:
"but only after consultation with Councillor(s) in accordance with practices presently in use in the former City of North York;"
so as to read:
"(2)(i) delegation of authority to staff, as permitted by statute, to approve applications for site plan control approval, various classes of consents, draft condominium approval (except for conversion of rental housing) and authority to execute, amend and release site plan agreements on behalf of the City but only after consultation with Councillor(s) in accordance with practices presently in use in the former City of North York;"
(2) amending Recommendation (2)(ii) by adding at the end thereof the words:
"and that the planner in charge of a project have available specific expertise that may be required, in particular urban planning design and landscape planning resources;"
so as to read:
"(2)(ii) a case management system which provides for a continuity of planning staff assignment from the beginning to the completion of any project and that the planner in charge of a project have available specific expertise that may be required, in particular urban planning design and landscape planning resources;"
(3) adding the additional recommendation:
"(2)(viii) prior to preliminary reports being written, Councillors be given the opportunity to hold a community meeting if they so require so that the planners have the benefit of community input at an early stage before preliminary evaluation;"
(4) amending Recommendation (3)(ii) by deleting the words "intensity of" and replacing with the words "criteria to be applied to", so as to read:
"(3)(ii) to establish areas of site plan control on a consistent basis across the City, establishing appropriate thresholds defining the criteria to be applied to development or redevelopment which would require the submission of an application for site plan approval as detailed in this report:"
(5) amending Recommendation (3)(vi) by adding the words "after consultation with local Councillor(s);", so as to read:
"(3)(vi) to delegate authority to execute, amend and release agreements, as required, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s) after consultation with local Councillor(s);"
(6) Adding the following additional Recommendations:
"(11) that all studies related to a project over a certain threshold be commissioned by the City of Toronto at the expense of the applicant and that staff be requested to report further on a suitable threshold;
(12) that the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report further on a policy that would require the removal of signage related to planning practices at the specific steps in the planning process;
(13) that planning policies prohibit the erection of a sales office for any project prior to all planning approvals having been made;
(14) that pre-application meetings include Councillors, or their staff, if they so request;
(15) that Councillors be immediately notified upon receipt of an application;
(16) that informal consultation meetings be held with the community prior to a preliminary evaluation report;
(17) that notification of planning applications be sent to persons in the area including residential and business tenants and property owners;
(18) that all telecommunication applications be forwarded to the Telecommunications Steering Committee for information;
(19) that industrial applications be exempt, unless requested by the Ward Councillor(s);
(20) that the following not be exempted:
townhouses;
additions to commercial parking lots;
school portables; and
telecommunication equipment;
(21) preliminary evaluation reports not include staff comments which may prejudice the final staff recommendation;
(22) Members of Council continue to chair planning community meetings, and planning staff chair these meetings only if requested by the Ward Councillor(s); and
(23) certificates of inspection be commissioned by Urban Planning and Development Services and paid for by the applicant.
(i) (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that:
(1) this report be referred to the Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its October 4, 1999 meeting;
(2) Council endorse the following principles as the foundation for new practices in City Planning:
(i) delegation of authority to staff, as permitted by statute, to approve applications for site plan control approval, various classes of consents, draft condominium approval (except for conversion of rental housing) and authority to execute, amend and release site plan agreements on behalf of the City;
(ii) a case management system which provides for a continuity of planning staff assignment from the beginning to the completion of any project;
(iii) a one-window review and comment process which is streamlined to the essential agencies and which establishes time frames for responses;
(iv) use of preliminary evaluation reports, for applications to amend the official plan or zoning by-law, to identify issues, set up a community consultation process and to establish a target for delivery of a final recommendation report and statutory public meeting;
(v) provision for roundtable meetings between applicants and empowered staff from City departments to identify issues, technical studies needed and other relevant matters early in the review process;
(vi) use of plain language and common formats in reports to Council, notices to the public and agreements related to development approvals;
(vii) use of informal and formal dispute resolution throughout the approval process to avoid appeals and referrals to the Ontario Municipal Board;
(3) the City Solicitor be directed to prepare by-laws for presentation to and approval by City Council as follows:
(i) to delegate authority to approve applications for site plan control approval to the Chief Planner or delegate(s), subject to a provision for the Ward Councillor(s) to request a "bump-up" to City Council for approval;
(ii) to establish areas of site plan control on a consistent basis across the City, establishing appropriate thresholds defining the intensity of development or redevelopment which would require the submission of an application for site plan approval as detailed in this report;
(iii) to delegate authority to grant draft condominium approvals except for applications involving the conversion of rental housing, and exemptions from draft approval as appropriate, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s);
(iv) to delegate approval authority for the creation of new lots by consent to the Committee of Adjustment as permitted under Section 54 of the Planning Act;
(v) to delegate approval authority for all consents, other than the creation of new lots, to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment or delegate(s) in accordance with Section 54(2) of the Planning Act;
(vi) to delegate authority to execute, amend and release agreements as required, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s);
(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to prepare and present for Council approval, standard form agreements as required and authorized by the Planning Act and any other statutes to replace standard form agreements currently in use;
(5) Council request the Province of Ontario to amend the Planning Act to delete the requirements for a public meeting in conjunction with plans of subdivision;
(6) staff be authorized to accept certificates of completion from Provincially registered professionals as proof of compliance with City requirements and Provincial statutes with regard to site plan approval and condominium registration;
(7) staff be directed to bring forward any amendments to the Official Plans of the former municipalities required to implement the findings of this report;
(8) staff be directed to bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending a new structure for the Committee(s) of Adjustment;
(9) staff be directed to bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending new practices for harmonizing the Committee of Adjustment function; and
(10) staff in the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, Corporate Services Department, Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department, and Works and Emergency Services Department, be authorized to undertake necessary actions to give effect to these recommendations;
(ii) (July 30, 1999) from Councillor John Filion, forwarding suggested amendments to the Planning Process together with a brief rationale for each;
(iii) (September 17, 1999) from the City Clerk, Scarborough Community Council, forwarding action taken by the Scarborough Community Council, and recommending that:
(1) the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to:
(i) send by First Class Mail, notification of planning applications to tenants and owners within 400 feet of an application; and
(ii) send by Third Class Mail, at the applicant's expense, notification of planning applications to tenants and owners beyond the 400 foot boundary, as may be determined by the local Community Council;
(2) site inspections on Site Plan Applications be continued in the East District, as previously carried out by the former City of Scarborough, and that the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to continue to review internal operations to provide this service City-wide;
(3) telecommunications equipment not be exempted from the Site Plan Control process; and
(4) Recommendation No. (6) in the report of the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be amended to read as follows:
"(6) staff be authorized to accept, as an alternative where site inspection resources are limited, certificates of completion from Provincially registered professionals as proof of compliance with City requirements and Provincial statutes with regard to site plan approval and condominium registration;";
(iv) (September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding action taken by Toronto Community Council and recommending that recommendation Nos. 2-10 of the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted;
(v) (September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, York Community Council, forwarding the action taken by the York Community Council and recommending that:
(1) with respect to the process for community consultation, that the community meetings be chaired alternately by the Ward Councillors if the process is implemented during this current term of Council;
(2) the Ward Councillor be responsible for chairing the community meetings, during the next term of Council; and
(3) regarding the Proposed Site Plan Approval Process, the Ward Councillors notify planning staff of their absences or unavailability, to allow the Councillors to submit comments on their return and to "bump-up" the issue to the Community Council, if necessary.
The York Community Council also:
(a) requested the Ward Councillors to submit their individual comments to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its October 4, 1999 meeting; and
(b) held a public meeting regarding this matter;
(vi) (September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk, Etobicoke Community Council, forwarding action taken by the Etobicoke Community Council and recommending that:
(1) Members of Council continue to chair community meetings and that staff of Urban Planning and Development Services only do so if requested by the local Councillor(s); and
(2) the notification to Ward Councillors of site plan approval applications contain a 'response box' for completion by Councillors requesting a "bump-up".
The Etobicoke Community Council also requested the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on October 4, 1999, clarifying the statement regarding the recovery of costs from the Councillor's budget if a request is made to exceed the requirements of the Act with respect to the area of notice for community and public meetings;
(vii) (September 17, 1999) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council, advising that North York Community Council deferred consideration of this matter to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. and requested that:
(1) the City Clerk notify all members of the public who attended the North York Community Council meeting of September 14, 1999, of the continuation of the public meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999, at 2:00 p.m.; and
(2) the Planning and Transportation Committee defer consideration of this matter which is expected to be considered by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting scheduled for October 4, 1999, in order to allow the North York Community Council an opportunity to hear all deputations scheduled for the continuation of the public meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999, and to subsequently forward its comments and/or recommendations regarding this issue;
(viii) (September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council, forwarding the action taken by the East York Community Council and recommending that consideration of this matter be deferred until such time as the report from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services with respect to the organizational structure for the new Committee of Adjustment is considered;
(ix) (October 1, 1999) from Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79; and
(x) (October 4, 1999) from Peter Gabor, Chair, The Toronto Board of Trade Planning and Development Committee.
(e) Registration of Second Suites.
The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having referred the following report (September 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to the Acting Commissioner with a request that he submit to the Committee a further report proposing a more refined fee schedule and include incentives which would encourage property owners to register their second suite units.
Councillor Filion indicated an interest in this matter, and advised that the nature of his interest is that he owns a property which has potential for creating a second suite apartment.
(i) (September 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, reporting further on an implementation plan for the registration of second suites, as requested by Council at its meeting on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999 and on a series of motions from the Council debate on the registration of second suites, and recommending that:
(1) the City Solicitor be instructed to prepare the necessary by-law to institute a program for registration of two-unit houses, and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto;
(2) Council endorse an enforcement strategy based only upon responding to complaints and voluntary compliance by property owners;
(3) Council request the Province of Ontario to undertake the legislative changes necessary to permit the City of Toronto to pass a by-law for the licensing and regulating of two-unit houses;
or
(4) Council receive this report for information, and not adopt a program for registration of two-unit houses.
(ii) (August 6, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause 1 of Report 3 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, titled "Draft Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right", which was adopted as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, and referring to the Planning and Transportation Committee for report thereon to Council the following:
(1) all portions of the Clauses pertaining to the registration of second suites and the following motions related thereto, be referred to the Planning and Transportation Committee for report thereon to Council for its regular meeting to be held on October 26, 1999;
(2) the following motions:
Moved by Councillor Cho:
"That Part (3) of the motion by Councillor Flint be amended to provide that:
(1) registration take place prior to, or at the same time, as the lease on the second suite closes; and
(2) the City grant a six-month grace period to those persons already living in a second suite and the owners who have been renting their second suites."
Moved by Councillor Duguid:
"That Part (3) of the motion of Councillor Flint be amended by deleting the words 'and annually thereafter', and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
'and that the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to apply to the Province of Ontario for an amendment to the Municipal Act to permit municipalities to undertake an annual inspection and impose an annual registration fee for each second suite.' "
Moved by Councillor Nunziata:
"That Part (4) of the motion by Councillor Flint be struck out and the following be inserted in lieu thereof:
'(4) that the City establish a system for the registration of two-unit houses authorizing these suites only where there is compliance with the Zoning By-law, the Property Standards By-law, the Fire Code and the Building Code, and that such registration be reviewed when the Registrar receives complaints with respect to the second unit and revoked when there is a breach of any of these laws or when inspection to determine a breach is refused.' "
Moved by Councillor Flint:
"It is further recommended that:
(1) Recommendation No. (4) of the Planning and Transportation Committee be deleted;
(2) a By-law, substantially in the form of the draft by-law attached to the report dated June 22, 1999, from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, regarding registration of second suites, be approved, and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto;
(3) a fee of $75.00 be charged for each second suite; such fee to be payable at the time of registration and annually thereafter; and
(4) Council endorse an enforcement strategy based upon responding to complaints and voluntary compliance by homeowners and tenants."
Moved by Councillor Duguid:
"It is further recommended that, if a registration system for second suites is adopted by Council, staff be requested to apply to the Province of Ontario for an amendment to the relevant legislation to increase the maximum fine for failure to register a second suite to $25,000.00 from $5,000.00."
Moved by Councillor Li Preti:
"It is further recommended that a permanent registry of 'add-a-suite' be established by the appropriate Department."
Moved by Councillor Bossons:
"It is further recommended that:
(1) the City establish and maintain a registry of units existing before enactment of the second suites By-law and units created on the basis of the new By-law, to the extent possible under the rights-of-entry powers available to the City;
(2) the City not charge inspection fees, and the waiving of fees be considered the City's contribution to affordable housing construction; and
(3) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on registry and inspection costs."
Moved by Councillor King:
"It is further recommended that, when the Planning and Transportation Committee gives consideration to the matter of registering second suites, it also give consideration to imposing fines on the owners of those second suites which have not been registered."
Moved by Councillor Minnan-Wong:
"It is further recommended that sufficient enforcement officers be retained for by-law enforcement, property standards and registration and that this be done on a cost-recovery basis from owners who have second suite apartments."
Moved by Councillor Tzekas:
"It is further recommended that the Province of Ontario be requested to amend the Municipal Act to permit the City of Toronto to pass By-laws licensing and regulating units in houses with second suites."
(f) Toronto Licensing Tribunal - Semi Annual Report, January - June, 1999.
The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having endorsed the following report (August 19, 1999) from the Chair, Toronto Licensing Tribunal, and referred it to the Licensing Sub-Committee for consideration at its first meeting and requested the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Licensing Sub-Committee for that meeting on the power of the Licencing Tribunal to levy fees.
(August 19, 1999) from the Chair, Toronto Licensing Tribunal, reporting in response to City Council's direction that the Toronto Licensing Tribunal report at least semi-annually to the Planning and Transportation Committee, and recommending that:
(1) City Council amend Section 11(1) of By-law 20-85 to read as follows:
11(1) an applicant for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence is, subject to the provisions of this By-law, entitled to be issued the licence or renewal, except where,
(a) the conduct of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that he has not carried on or will not carry on his trade, calling, business or occupation in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty; or
(b) there are reasonable grounds for belief that the carrying on of the trade, calling, business or occupation by the applicant has resulted or will result in a breach of this By-law or any other law; or
(c) the applicant is a corporation and its conduct or the conduct of its officers, directors, employees or agents affords reasonable grounds for belief that its trade, calling, business or occupation has not been or will not be carried on in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty; or
(d) there are reasonable grounds for belief that the premises, accommodation, equipment or facilities in respect of which the licence is required have not complied or will not comply with the provisions of this By-law or any other law; or
(e) the conduct of the applicant or other circumstances afford reasonable grounds for belief that the carrying on by the applicant of the business in respect of which the licence is sought infringed or would infringe the rights, or endanger the health or safety of other members of the public; and
(2) City Council direct the City Solicitor to amend By-law 20-85 to authorize the Tribunal to suspend penalty for a specified period of time, to be determined by the Tribunal.
Dorothy Thomas, Chair, Toronto Licensing Tribunal, appeared before the Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.
(g) Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication.
The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services and requested the Acting Commissioner to report further on:
(a) areas which are used to determine efficiencies; and
(b) standards to be used to determine efficiencies.
(September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, reporting on policy initiatives directed at acquiring parkland in areas of the city which are parks deficient, including the consideration of adjustments to the City's interim policy on the use of funds collected in-lieu of parkland dedication through Section 42 of the Planning Act, and recommending that:
(1) this report be received for information; and,
(2) this report be forwarded to the Economic Development and Parks Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
JOANNE FLINT
Chair
Toronto, October 4, 1999
(Report No. 5 of The Planning and Transportation Committee was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999.)