TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 13

1Review of Fair Wage Policy

2"Arm's Length" Municipal Office - Assessment Appeals

3Final Billing of 1998 Property Taxes - Update

4Agreement Between the Former City of Toronto and COTAPSAI (City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated

5Employees Eligibility for Membership in COTAPSAI (City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated)

6Lease of Digital Networked Reproduction Equipment

7Fees for Real Estate Documents and Services Provided for by the City Solicitor

8Constance E. Hamilton Award - 20th Anniversary - 1999

9Undergraduate Recipient - 1998-99 City of Toronto Women's Studies Scholarship at the University of Toronto

10Review of Rent - Lease of Portion of Roxborough Parkette, Adjacent to 3 Highland Avenue (Ward 23 - Midtown)

11Property Matter - 1258 Queen Street West

12Expropriation of Property Interests, Sheppard Subway Project, Yonge Station, Premium Projects Limited, 4726 Yonge Street and Part of 20-24 Poyntz Avenue (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

13Disposition of City-Owned Property Dundas Street West and Viking Road (Ward 4 - Markland-Centennial)

14Sale of City-Owned Property known Municipally as 23 Fraser Avenue (Ward 20 - Trinity Niagara)

15Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Propertyat 34 Gloucester Grove, (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

16Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 118 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

17Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 121 Everden Road - (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

18Sale of Surplus Properties, Southerly Portion of 141 Weston Road and the Residual Portion of Keele Street Closed (Ward 21 - Davenport)

19A Preliminary Review of the 12 Surplus Properties, Directed by Council to be Held in Abeyance for 120 Days Pending a Review to Determine the Feasibility of Development for Affordable Housing

20Renewal of Lease of City-Owned Property Located at 4118 Sheppard Avenue East (Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt)

21Road Closure and Declaration as Surplus, Stub-End of Felan Crescent (Ward 5 - Rexdale Thistletown)

22Road Closure and Declaration as Surplus Stub-End of John Grubb Court (Ward 5 - Rexdale Thistletown)

23Road Closure and Declaration as SurplusStub-End of Perry Crescent (Ward 3 - Kingsway Humber)

24Declaration as Surplus - Land not Requiredfor Waterfront Drive - Humber Bay Shores Rear of 2095 Lakeshore Boulevard West, (Ward 2 - Lakeshore Queensway)

25Declaration as Surplus - Land Not Required for Waterfront Drive - Humber Bay Shores Rear of 2063 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Ward 2 - Lakeshore Queensway)

26Declaration as Surplus - Land North of Lane, Near North West Corner of Royalavon Crescent and Dundas Street West (Ward 3 - Kingsway Humber)

27Declaration as Surplus - Closed Laneway North of Bloor Street West Between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road (Ward 3 - Kingsway Humber)

28385-401 Queens Quay West - City's Residual Fee Simple Interests - Declaration as Surplus (Ward 24 - Downtown)

29Proposed Lane Closing and Surplus Property Declaration - Unnamed Lane Extending North from Esquire Road, Plan 4490 (Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford)

30Licence Agreement - Encroachment on Road Allowance in Front of 35-65 Weston Road (Ward 21 - Davenport)

31Personnel Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services Committee - Terms of Reference

32New Fire Station No. 2 - North York District Contract No. FA30-98001 - Ward 9 Centre South

33Masonry Conservation of South Portico, Toronto City Hall Tender Call No. 73-1998 (Toronto - Downtown)

345182 and 5200 Yonge Street - Extension Request

35Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 13

OF THE CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on September 14, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Dick O'Brien, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

1

Review of Fair Wage Policy

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)inserting the word "approved" prior to the words "apprenticeship programs" in Recommendation No. (2)(i) of the Corporate Services Committee, and by adding to the end thereof the words "under these programs, and staff work with its reference groups to develop guidelines for approved programs", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)(i)with respect to the Workers' Rights document, such report to include a Clause which would give preference to contractors who support approved apprenticeship programs and who hire and train apprentices under these programs, and staff work with its reference groups to develop guidelines for approved programs; and";

(2)striking out Recommendation No. (5) embodied in the report dated July 9, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(5)the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office report to the Executive Director of Human Resources for administrative purposes only, and report directly to the Corporate Services Committee on Fair Wage Policy matters, after having consulted with Human Resources and other appropriate staff; and, further, that the resource requirements of the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office be reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Executive Director, Human Resources;";

(3)striking out Recommendation No. (6) embodied in the report dated July 9, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(6)instead of using outside consultants, the Chief Administrative Officer use existing studies commissioned by the Government of Canada and other parties to conduct an assessment in 1999 on the competitiveness of the City of Toronto's Fair Wage schedule and rates;"; and

(4)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following motion be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for consideration:

Moved by Councillor Augimeri:

'It is recommended that the City of Toronto give preference to companies which support apprenticeship programs and hire qualified apprentices, within the confines of the standard contractual agreements, similar to those previously in place in the former City of Toronto and the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.' ")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (2) to (7) embodied in the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) to provide that Clause A and B of the former City of Toronto policy with respect to Anti-racism and the Occupational Health and Safety Act be included in the new Fair Wage Policy; and

(2)that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee:

(i)with respect to the Workers' Rights document, such report to include a Clause which would give preference to contractors who support apprenticeship programs and who hire and train apprentices; and

(ii)in November, 1998, on the feasibility of undertaking a study of the conditions of workers in other sectors of the economy such as the garment and printing industries to see how the Fair Wage Policy is impacting their wages and benefits.

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to review options respecting the introduction of a single Fair Wage Policy for the new City of Toronto. The varying degree of adoption, application, enforcement and perceived utility of fair wage policy among the former municipalities of the new City is discussed. In addition, the merits of differing views respecting current fair wage provisions are presented for the consideration of Council. Since there also appears to be a high level of misunderstanding between fair wage policy, its purpose and provisions, and the separate and provincially legislated provisions governing certain labour trades, these issues are reviewed to provide a context for the decisions of Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funds immediately required to implement the options under consideration in this report although there may be undetermined cost implications should a Fair Wage Policy be adopted. If extending Fair Wage Policy provisions to the whole City is recommended by Council, there will likely be a need within one year to add one position to the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office.

Recommendations for Part 1 - Labour Trade Provisions:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Executive Director of Human Resources in conjunction with the City Solicitor report on the possibilities presented by the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, 1998 for modifying current binding obligations of the City for certified labour trades and the potential to realize future project savings;

Recommendations for Part 2 - Fair Wage Policy:

It is recommended that:

(2)the Fair Wage Policy of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be adopted for all City Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions and replace all existing fair wage policies of the former local municipalities;

(3)a new Workers' Rights document be developed by the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office and the Chief Administrative Officer which clearly separates and explains the distinct Fair Wage Policy and Labour Trade sections, their respective purposes, provisions and applicability to areas of the new City;

(4)the Manager of the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office with the Executive Director of Human Resources report to the Corporate Services Committee by November, 1998, on current and alternative methods of establishing Fair Wage Schedules and rates;

(5)the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office report to the Executive Director of Human Resources in the Corporate Services Department and the office's resource requirements be reviewed within one year;

(6)an independent assessment be conducted by the Chief Administrative Officer during 1999, on the competitiveness of its Fair Wage Schedule and rates, including a review of City purchasing costs compared to other large cities not having a fair wage policy; and

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

Council Reference and Background:

At Council's meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, in consideration of Clause No.1 of Report No.2 of The Corporate Services Committee, entitled 'Interim Purchasing By-law", the Chief Administrative Officer was requested to develop a City-wide fair wage policy. Council further requested that the recommendations include a mechanism for enforcement and that the report be completed within two months.

Underlying this directive was the assumption that it would be appropriate to extend and apply existing fair wage policy to the new City of Toronto. This was based, in part, on the fact that fair wage policy has had long-standing precedent in the former City of Toronto since 1893, as well as in the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, since 1954. The other former local municipalities differ considerably in the type of purchases for which they use the Toronto and/or Metro fair wage policies as a guide, while enforcement of the provision ranges from none, application on a very limited basis, to full application, as assessed throughout this report.

Comments and Discussion:

Inconsistent fair wage policies and varying application of those policies across the new City detract from achieving amalgamated purchasing activities. In turn, this means that savings through bulk price discounts obtained through amalgamation of volumes cannot be achieved. The decision to be made by Council is whether to achieve consistency through having a single Fair Wage Policy for the new City, or having no Fair Wage Policy. While concerns are expressed about additional cost ramifications where there is adherence to Fair Wage Policy, there is a study commissioned by the Construction Labour Relations Association of B.C., and the B.C. Provincial Council of Carpenters and financially assisted by the Government of Canada, that indicates otherwise. This report contends that the evidence to adequately support or refute the claims is inconclusive at present.

In the preparation of this report, staff of the Chief Administrator's Office (C.A.O.) consulted with legal and labour relations staff from the Corporate Services Department, purchasing staff of the Finance Department, and the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office. In order to review options for Council, several activities have been undertaken. First, binding municipal obligations under province-wide collective agreements for labour trades have been distinguished from Fair Wage Policy. Second, the current fair wage policies and degree of use across the former local municipalities and other sectors have been summarized. Third, the purpose and utility of a Fair Wage Policy have been assessed. Fourth, recommendations to ensure operational improvements have been made.

Part 1 - Labour Trade Provisions:

(a)Legislation and Applicability:

The mandatory Labour Trades provisions for municipalities bound by province-wide collective agreements are separate from Fair Wage Policy established, monitored and enforced by the City. Central to any understanding of municipal obligations to Labour Trades, is that the City has no discretion in setting wage rates or in using union labour for certain trades performing work for the City. This is by virtue of Province-wide collective agreements applicable to trades in the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) and Residential, sectors of the construction industry.

The Province-wide collective agreements are binding on all employers in the sector. The former City of Toronto and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto were first considered 'employers' when hiring directly from the trade union halls for which the relevant unions obtained bargaining rights beginning in 1978. As a result, subject to the jurisdiction of the collective agreements, union workers must be used for contracted-out work. The use of union sub-contractors for municipal building projects is also required. The former City of Toronto is bound to use union affiliated workers and wages for eight construction trades. The former Metro is bound to use the appropriate union affiliation workers for four ICI trades and five in the Residential sector. Similar agreements were not applicable to the other municipalities with the exception of the City of Etobicoke, which is bound to the Bricklayers' provincial collective agreement. Appendix 1 to this report provides an overview of the binding obligations respecting labour trades.

(b)Impacts of Labour Trade Provisions and Next Steps:

The Labour Relations Act requires the negotiation of collective agreements in the ICI sector by Province-wide employer associations consisting of the major construction companies. These agreements are, however, binding upon all those determined to be 'employers' including certain municipalities. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Shell Canada, for example, have argued that in contracting-out work they are not 'employers' in the construction industry, but are acting as owners not subject to the obligations of the agreements. The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has rejected those arguments and has held that having once been an employer of the relevant labour trades, the entity continues to be an employer within the industry.

At present, Bill 136 specifies that the collective agreements for the construction industry, to which any of the former municipalities were a party, will continue to apply. In addition, the City is concerned about the costs that would result in the event that existing obligations were extended across all its localities. This will be a subject at discussions being held between trade union and City staff on bargaining unit structure and jurisdiction.

On June 26, 1998, Bill 31, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, 1998 received Royal Assent. Certain of the Act's provisions address the issue of adherence of municipalities and other non-construction employers to the province-wide collective agreements for certified labour trades. In explanatory notes to first reading of the Bill, two avenues allowing non-applicability of the collective agreements are noted. First, the OLRB may issue an order to a non-construction employer declaring that a trade union no longer represents its construction-related employees (as long as the employer does not employ any such trade union members on the day the application is made to the Board). Second, if a project is considered to be economically significant, the Bill provides for specific project agreements to be negotiated. A negotiated project agreement could modify the provisions of province-wide collective agreements if sixty percent of the bargaining agents support its approval.

It is, therefore, recommended that the Executive Director of Human Resources, in conjunction with the City Solicitor, report on the possibilities presented by the Act for modifying current binding obligations of the City for certified labour trades and the potential to realize future project savings.

Part 2 - Fair Wage Policy:

(A)Former City of Toronto and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Fair Wage Policies:

The Fair Wage Policy of the former City of Toronto has as its central tenet the prohibition of the City doing business with contractors and suppliers who discriminate against their workers. Originally implemented in 1893 to ensure that contractors for the City paid mechanics, workmen and labourers the union rates or, for non-union workers, the prevailing wages and benefits in their field, the Fair Wage Policy has expanded over the years to other classifications such as clerical workers. The policy also requires compliance with the acceptable number of working hours and conditions of work.

The former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was served by the former City of Toronto's Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office and cost-shared the expenses of operating the office. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto also had its own Fair Wage Policy, which used the same wage rates and Schedules as the (former) City of Toronto. It did not, however, include the City of Toronto's non-discrimination and occupational health and safety clauses, since these are covered by legislation governing other related policies. The intent of Fair Wage Policy can be summarized as follows:

(i)to produce stable labour relations with minimal disruption;

(ii)to compromise between the wage differentials of organized labour and unorganized labour;

(iii)to create a level playing field in competitions for City work;

(iv)to protect the public; and

(v)to enhance the reputation of the City for ethical business dealings.

Establishing fair wage rates and schedules are intended to minimize potential conflicts between organized and unorganized labour in the tendering and awarding of civic contracts. Fair wage rates are established through discussion with employee and employer groups and associations (having both union and non-union members). These rates are voted on by the above noted groups and are recommended to Council for approval every three years. Certain designated construction related rates are based on the lowest rate established by collective bargaining, while the wage rates for other classifications are based on market and industrial surveys in accordance with the prevailing wages for non-union workers in the geographic area.

The fair wage rates do not apply to small businesses, typically those with owner-operators, or partnerships, or principals of companies as long as they undertake the work themselves. Similarly, while not enforceable since it applies to external jurisdictions, the former City of Toronto approved an International Employment Standards Policy. In this manner, the City alerted potential suppliers that their subsidiaries, partners and suppliers, were also expected to comply with basic employment standards for goods manufactured abroad/overseas.

The Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office has three staff and a budget of approximately $190,000.00, a small portion of which is cost-recoverable from user fees (approximately $20,000.00 per annum) and a 10 percent administrative charge for non-compliance. Prospective bidders to competitive calls are provided with fair wage information and recommended bidders are reviewed prior to the award of any contract to ensure compliance with the approved wage Schedules. In addition, some 200 investigations, inspections and payroll audits are carried out annually as a result of worker or competitor complaints. The 'Workers' Rights' documents attached as Appendix 2 to this report, contain fair wage policy information exclusive of Schedules (as well as labour trades obligations) for each of the former City of Toronto and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

(b)Overview of Fair Wage Policies in Other Jurisdictions:

Many organizations, as shown in Appendix 3 to this report, have made use of either the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto or City of Toronto Fair Wage Policy and the (common) fair wage Schedules. Some former local municipalities applied fair wage monitoring on a part-time basis tending to concentrate only on construction contracts for capital projects as opposed to other types of purchases. The current use and application of fair wage policy across the local areas of the new City, is shown in Appendix 4 to this report.

Other government jurisdictions also tend to concentrate on construction work in Fair Wage Policy. This is the case at both the Federal and Provincial government levels and it is also common in a number of municipalities. In all jurisdictions, fair wages are determined in accordance with factors such as the cost of living, taxation rates, collective agreements, and even weather conditions particular to a locality. Conditions around the hours of work, overtime pay, required record-keeping and associated procedures, are also commonly stipulated in fair wage policy. In the Province of Ontario, Fair Wage Schedules include several work sectors additional to the construction sector. In addition, Ontario places an emphasis upon distinguishing between "urban and non-urban areas" and issues varying Fair Wage Schedules accordingly, the last revisions being in 1995.

More detail on the Federal and Provincial Fair Wage Policies, as well as those for other municipalities, including the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth, Cities of Mississauga, Vaughan, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, can be found in Appendix 5 to this report. It can be concluded that the rate of pay constituting a 'fair wage' is relative to a number of complex factors in any given jurisdiction or locality, as opposed to being a fixed or consistent rate.

A table comparing a sample of Provincial and City/Metro current fair wage rates is contained in Appendix 6.

(c)Merits of Fair Wage Policy:

The Fair Wage Policy is seen by its supporters as a fulfilment of social responsibility by the City to protect the rights of workers and to accord them fair treatment, including fairly ascertained, agreed upon and reasonable rates of pay. The collection and return of nearly $200,000.00, on behalf of workers being paid lesser rates than established as fair, occurred in 1997. The Fair Wage Policy provisions allow for either union or non-union contractors to undertake work as long as they agree to comply with the fair wage Schedule rates of pay.

Enforcement of the Fair Wage Policy is based upon contract law since the Workers' Rights document is included in tender and quotation documents and explicitly states that compliance is a condition of fulfilling the contract's requirements. The existence of a Fair Wage Policy provides a forum for the grievances of workers in business and industry that have little or no union presence. These workers thus have assurance that they will receive rates of pay appropriate to the nature and location (urban locale) of the work.

Outright adoption of a Fair Wage Policy by the new City would confirm its commitment to the fair treatment of workers with whom it does business. Adoption would also allow for amalgamation of purchasing activities, other than those subject to labour trades requirements, across the new City. Since 75 percent of total purchasing dollars spent by the former local municipalities are potentially covered by current Fair Wage Policy, a single policy would permit purchasing savings due to bulk volume pricing discounts. Second, it would avoid the possibility of claims against the City from unsuccessful contractors who are limited in bidding for the same work in different areas of the City if they do not comply with the Fair Wage Policy where it is applied.

(d)Drawbacks of Fair Wage Policy:

It is often assumed that binding obligations respecting labour trades (see Part 1) are, by definition, part of Fair Wage Policy. In fact, they are established by different authorities and set different wage compliance conditions for different purposes. While City Council does not control policy respecting labour trades, it needs to ensure that it is not subject to penalty for contravention of an agreement to which it is a party. As a result, confusion typically exists in understanding the differences between Labour Trade and Fair Wage requirements. In cases where municipalities have been determined to be employers in the construction industry, the wage rates for certified construction trades will override the Fair Wage Schedule rates for those classifications of work. As a result, jurisdictions without binding agreements for labour trades tend to conclude that Fair Wage Policy automatically requires union rates of pay when this is not the case.

The application and adherence to Fair Wage Policy has been very limited in the former municipalities comprising the new City of Toronto even where such policy was adopted. Arguments against a fair wage policy include that the Fair Wage Schedule rates may be set too high for construction in particular, but also for other work classifications. This perception arises given the strong influence of construction sector input to setting the fair wage rates and a concern that the rates may be costing the municipality more than necessary while also restricting competition. In addition, some contractors cite the Province of Ontario's lower fair wage schedules. They do not usually make reference, however, to the fact that Provincial schedules are limited to fewer work classifications than the former City or Metro policies.

It should be recognized that wholesale adoption of a Fair Wage Policy (from the former Toronto or Metro) has some costs for the new City associated with it. It would likely require at least one fair wage officer position to be added to the establishment of the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office within one year. In addition, under a single fair wage policy, suppliers to the City who currently supply to former municipalities not practicing/possessing fair wage, would be obligated to pay wage rates they do not necessarily incur now.

Fair Wage Policy Options and Recommendations for the New City:

(a)Adoption or Non-Adoption of a Fair Wage Policy:

In order to achieve amalgamated purchasing activities for the new City, implementing either one Fair Wage Policy or no Fair Wage Policy across the City, are the only options. Based on the above merits and drawbacks in this regard, it appears that adopting a single Fair Wage Policy is the best course of action for the new City. It gives the City a presence in Fair Wage Policy similar to other large cities and government jurisdictions. Adoption of a Fair Wage Policy will establish agreement with the principles of fair worker treatment, while not precluding operational improvements and options to be reported to Council.

The Fair Wage Policy of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is more straightforward than that of the former City of Toronto since it contains fewer references to other policy areas covered by other legislation. It is, therefore, recommended that the Fair Wage Policy of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be adopted for all City Departments, agencies, boards and commissions and replace all existing fair wage policies of the former local municipalities.

(b)Operational Improvements in the Short Term:

In order to address the drawbacks perceived with a Fair Wage Policy, a number of operational improvements for immediate implementation can be identified. First, the confusion in understanding the difference between the Fair Wage Policy and the Labour Trades requirements needs to be reduced. This will be aided to a large extent by amending the Workers' Rights document since that document contains the conditions of both the Fair Wage Policy and the separate and different Labour Trade obligations. As a result, the Workers' Rights document is often referred to as the Fair Wage Policy, when it actually comprises the two separate policy areas. It is, therefore, recommended that a new Workers' Rights document be developed which clearly separates and explains the distinct Fair Wage Policy and Labour Trade sections, their respective purposes, provisions and applicability to areas of the new City.

It would appear that many of the arguments on both sides of the Fair Wage issue are not directly comparable and are inconclusive at best. The perception persists, however, that savings would accrue to the City if there were no Fair Wage Policy. Consideration should be given to addressing the arguments about defraying and controlling costs and testing whether modified, or less direct, involvement in establishing wage rates could result in savings. As a first step, it is recommended that the Manager of the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office and the Executive Director of Human Resources report to the Corporate Services Committee by November, 1998, on current and alternative methods of establishing Fair Wage Schedules and rates. This would allow for feasible change and also prepare Committee to hold deputations with industry representatives on the options.

It is anticipated that better co-ordination of the issues that will be facing the new City can be delivered by direct collaboration of staff from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office with those from the Labour Relations function. The purpose of the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office is also consistent with goals of the Human Resources Division, such as ensuring workers' rights, promoting equal opportunity, and establishing practices that support employment standards and compensation issues. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office be located in, the Human Resources Division of the Corporate Services Department. The importance of Council receiving the professional advice of the Fair Wage Officer on the setting of Fair Wage Rates and Schedules and on the City's purchasing activities is fully acknowledged and supported in establishing this reporting relationship. It is further recommended that the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office be reviewed in terms of its resource requirements within one year of implementing a City-wide Fair Wage Policy.

(c)Possible Longer-Term Assessment of Fair Wage versus no Fair Wage Pricing:

The Fair Wage Policy has not been assessed against a 'no fair wage policy' in the experience of municipalities. The Fair Wage Policy (as do labour trades' requirements) restricts competition to suppliers who meet its requirements. It can be argued that this may result in fewer bidders competing for the purchase (if they voluntarily choose not to comply) and, therefore, may result in higher costs. In contrast, it could be argued that a Fair Wage Policy might reduce the overall cost of work through better wages and, thus, better performance and work quality.

It is extremely difficult to validly argue either of the above positions in the new City of Toronto in terms of the impact of Fair Wage Policy on overall purchasing costs. Available data is based on the large municipal bulk purchases with volume discounts experienced by the former Metro and City of Toronto, as compared with small volumes and no bulk discounts in other municipalities. The scope of work and the extent of work, is extremely varied and more cost-effective service contracts in areas not applying Fair Wage rates, may be due simply to less complex work being provided.

Nevertheless, over the longer term, Council may feel it is advantageous to initiate an independent assessment of Fair Wage procedures, Schedules and rates. Any such study would be based on comparative evaluations with the Ontario provincial government, other large cities and countries, if applicable. As part of the assessment, purchasing costs for the City of Toronto could be compared with those of cities that do not have a Fair Wage policy. The drawback of such pricing comparisons is that most large cities and jurisdictions in Canada have a Fair Wage Policy. In addition, tax rate differentials, labour costs as only one component of the overall cost of a contract (normally between twenty to thirty percent of total costs), and other such factors can lead to inconclusive results that are open to criticism.

It is, therefore, recommended that Council have an independent assessment conducted by the Chief Administrative Officer during 1999, on the competitiveness of its Fair Wage Schedule and rates, including a review of City purchasing costs compared to other large cities not having a fair wage policy.

Conclusion:

The former City of Toronto and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto had Fair Wage Policies designed to protect the rights of workers and to prevent doing business with contractors and suppliers who financially or otherwise discriminate against their workers. Both these municipalities used the same Fair Wage Schedule. The other former area municipalities differed considerably in their support, use and enforcement of a Fair Wage Policy. These inconsistencies across the new City detract from achieving amalgamated purchasing activities and the associated savings through bulk price discounts.

Consistency in purchasing across the new City can be achieved by Council either adopting a single Fair Wage Policy, or determining that it will not implement such a policy. An assessment of the merits and drawbacks in this regard was undertaken. It was found that existence of a Fair Wage Policy appears to contribute towards integrity in City business dealings, achieve labour stability and narrow the gap between the wage differentials of union and non-union labour. It was also found that there is not sufficient evidence to either support or refute claims that the Fair Wage Policy may lead to higher costs. Accordingly, this report recommends that the Fair Wage Policy of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be adopted.

In addition, it was found that Fair Wage Policy, its purpose, provisions and requirements, is often confused with separate, but mandatory, collective agreement compliance for certified labour trades. It was also found that opportunities exist to improve Fair Wage procedures and that there is the potential for the City to improve the competitiveness of its Schedules. Accordingly, this report recommends operating improvements such as new document formats, a review of the method and process used to set fair wage schedules, and a new reporting relationship for the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office. Over the longer-term as the new City evolves, Council may wish to initiate an independent assessment of its Fair Wage Schedule and rates and overall City purchasing costs.

--------

Appendix 1

Binding Collective Agreements of the Construction Industry

Appendix 2 - Workers' Rights, Toronto

(A)The Contractor shall not discriminate against workers or applicants for employment as workers because of race, creed, colour, national origin, political or religious affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family relationship, and disability.

(B)The Contractor shall at all times comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations and take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of workers. If the Contractor sub-contracts any or all of the work or services to be performed, the Contractor will ensure the sub-contractor or sub-contractors are qualified to perform the work or services and comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations.

(C)The Contractor shall pay or cause to be paid weekly or biweekly to every worker employed in the execution of the Contract (and shall see that every owner of a truck or other vehicle employed by the Contractor or by any subcontractor in the execution of the Contract shall pay, or cause to be paid, weekly or biweekly to each of the owner's drivers) wages at the following rates, namely:

(i)for workers employed in shop work, the Union rate of wages in the particular district or locality in which the work is undertaken for any class of work in respect of which there is such Union rate, and for any class of work for which there is no such Union rate, the rate of wages shall be the rate of wages prevailing in the particular district or locality in which the work is undertaken;

(ii)for workers employed in field work:

(a)where the Contractor is in contractual relationship with a Union recognized by the Ontario Labour Relations Board as the bargaining agent for the relevant workers, the applicable rate of wages set out in the collective agreement, provided that such rate of wages is not less than the rate set out for such work in Schedule of Wage Rates described hereinafter, in which case such Schedule of Wage Rates shall apply; and

(b)where there is no such contractual relationship, a rate not less than that set out for such work in the Schedule of Wage Rates filed by the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, in the Office of the City Clerk after being first approved by the Executive Committee of the Corporation (hereinafter called "the Fair Wage Schedule"),

and for the purpose of this paragraph, "wages" or "rate of wages" shall include any applicable amount for fringe benefits shown in the current Fair Wage Schedule, to be paid to the worker as part of the worker's wages or for the worker's benefit as provided in any collective agreement as aforesaid applicable to such worker.

(D)The City of Toronto being bound by the current province-wide collective agreements covering with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional sectors of the construction industry between:

(i)the Carpenters' Employer Bargaining Agency and the Ontario Provincial Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America;

(ii)the Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario and the Ontario Pipe Trades Council of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada;

(iii)the Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario and The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario;

(iv)the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen and the Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, and The Masonry Industry Employers Council of Ontario;

(v)the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and The Master Insulators' Association of Ontario Inc.;

(vi)the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and The Ontario Painting Contractors Association;

(vii)the Ontario Glazier Agreement between The Architectural Glass and Metal Contractors Association and The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades; and

(viii)the Environmental Sheet Metal Association Toronto and the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' Conference.

Any non-maintenance part(s) of the Work that is the work of Union members represented by any Council, Brotherhood, Association or Conference under the provisions of any of the collective agreements referred to in clauses (i) to (viii) shall in each case be performed only by an employer bound by such agreement unless such agreement does not prohibit performance of such part(s) of the Work by others. It is understood without limiting any other provision of the Contract herein that this section shall apply to subcontracts.

(E)The Contractor shall:

(i)at all times keep a list of the names of all workers employed in the Work and a record of the amounts paid to each;

(ii)from time to time, if demanded by the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, furnish a certified copy of all paysheets, lists, records and books relating to the work and keep the originals thereof open at all times for examination by the Manager; and

(iii)at all times furnish and disclose to the said Manager any other information respecting wages of workers that may be desired by the Manager in connection with the Work.

(F)In case of a jurisdictional dispute or dispute as to rate of wages to be paid under the Contract or as to the amount to be paid to any worker, the decision of the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, shall be final and binding upon all parties.

(G)The Contractor shall not compel or permit any worker engaged for the Work to work more than the number of hours per day and the number of hours per week set out in the Fair Wage Schedule for the particular type of work involved except in case of emergency; and then only with the written permission of the Commissioner or head of the Department having charge of the Work or the person then acting as such.

(H)If the Contractor fails to pay any worker (or if any owner of a truck or other vehicle fails to pay any driver) wages at the rate called for in paragraph (C), the Corporation may pay the balance necessary to make up the amount that should have been paid and may charge such balance, together with an administrative fee not in excess of ten per cent of such balance, to the Contractor.

(I)If the Contract is to be for the purchase of supplies or materials to which the provisions in paragraph (c) respecting the rates of wages to be paid to workers engaged in shop work and field work do not apply, the Executive Committee of the Corporation will before awarding same cause to be secured from the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, a report as to whether or not the Tenderer or Bidder maintains a fair wage level.

(J)Workers engaged in clerical office work are to be paid a rate of wages no less than the surveyed standard for each classification of worker for the particular industry at the time of tendering.

(K)The Contractor MUST display legible copies of these "Workers' Rights" in a prominent position in his/her workshop(s), accessible to all employees.

(L)For the purpose of the foregoing paragraphs:

(i)"field work" shall mean all work in performance of the Contract that is not shop work;

(ii)"shop work" shall mean any work in performance of the Contract that is done in or at any factory, foundry, shop or place of manufacture not located at or upon the site of the work, and not operated solely for the purpose of the work; and

(iii)"workers" shall include mechanics, workers, labourers, owners and drivers of a truck or other vehicle employed in the execution of the Contract by the Contractor or by any subcontractor under them and clerical staff.

(M)The contractor shall attach to all accounts rendered for payment of money upon the contract a statutory declaration affirming that the requirements of the foregoing paragraphs have been fully compiled with.

L. Gervasi,

Manager. Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office

Tel: (416) 392-7300/FAX: (416) 392-8081

--------

Appendix 2 - Workers' Rights - Metropolitan Toronto

(A)The Contractor shall pay or cause to be paid weekly or biweekly to every worker employed in the execution of the Contract (and shall see that every owner of a truck or other vehicle employed by the Contractor or by any subcontractor in the execution of the Contract shall pay, or cause to be paid, weekly or biweekly to each of the owner's drivers) wages at the following rates, namely:

(i)for workers employed in shop work, the Union rate of wages in the particular district or locality in which the work is undertaken for any class of work in respect of which there is such Union rate, and for any class of work for which there is no such Union rate, the rate of wages shall be the rate of wages prevailing in the particular district or locality in which the work is undertaken;

(ii)for workers employed in field work:

(a)where the Contractor is in contractual relationship with a Union recognized by the Ontario Labour Relations Board as the bargaining agent for the relevant workers, the applicable rate of wages set out in the collective agreement; and

(b)where there is no such contractual relationship, a rate not less than that set out for such work in the Schedule of Wage Rates filed by the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, with the Clerk of the Metropolitan Corporation after being first approved by the Metropolitan Council (hereinafter called "the Fair Wage Schedule"),

and for the purpose of this paragraph, "wages" or "rate of wages" shall include any applicable amount for fringe benefits shown in the current Fair Wage Schedule, to be paid to the worker as part of the worker's wages or for the worker's benefit as provided in any collective agreement as aforesaid applicable to such worker.

(B)The Metropolitan Corporation being bound by the current province-wide collective agreements with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional sectors of the construction industry between:

(i)the Carpenters' Employer Bargaining Agency and The Ontario Provincial Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America;

(ii)the Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario and The Ontario Pipe Trades Council of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada;

(iii)the Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario and The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the IBEW Construction Council of Ontario;

(iv)the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen and the Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, and The Masonry Industry Employers Council of Ontario;

and by the current collective agreements with respect to the residential sector of the construction industry in the geographic area in which the Metropolitan Corporation is situate between:

(v)Local 46 of the United Association referred to in clause (ii) and

(a)Independent Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association (for low-rise residences);

(b)Metropolitan Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association (for high-rise residences);

(vi)Local 353 of the Brotherhood referred to in clause (iii) and Electrical Contractors Association of Toronto (separate agreements for low-rise and high-rise residences);

(vii)Local 27 of the Carpenters and Allied Workers and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; and

(viii)Heavy Construction Agreement: between the Heavy Construction Association of Ontario and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, on behalf of itself and on behalf of its Local Unions and District Councils in the Province of Ontario.

any non-maintenance part(s) of the Work that is the work of Union members represented by any Council, Brotherhood, Association or Conference under the provisions of any of the collective agreements referred to in clauses (i) to (viii) shall in each case be performed only by an employer bound by such agreement unless such agreement does not prohibit performance of such pant(s) of the Work by others.

(C)the Contractor shall:

(i)at all times keep a list of the names of all workers employed in the Work and a record of the amounts paid to each;

(ii)from time to time, if demanded by the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, furnish a certified copy of all paysheets, lists, records and books relating to the work and keep the originals thereof open at all times for examination by the Manager; and

(iii)at all times furnish and disclose to the said Manager any other information respecting wages of workers that may be desired by the Manager in connection with the Work;

(D)in case of a jurisdictional dispute or dispute as to rate of wages to be paid under the Contract or as to the amount to be paid to any worker, the decision of the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, shall be final and binding upon all parties;

(E)the Contractor shall not compel or permit any worker engaged for the Work to work more than the number of hours per day and the number of hours per week set out in the Fair Wage Schedule for the particular type of work involved except in case of emergency, and then only with the written permission of the Commissioner or head of the Department having charge of the Work or the person then acting as such;

(F)if the Contractor fails to pay any worker (or if any owner of a truck or other vehicle fails to pay any driver) wages at the rate called for in paragraph (A), the Metropolitan Corporation may pay the balance necessary to make up the amount that should have been paid and may charge such balance, together with an administrative fee not in excess of ten per cent of such balance, to the Contractor;

(G)if the Contract is to be for the purchase of supplies or materials to which the provisions in paragraph (A) respecting the rates of wages to be paid to workers engaged in shop work and field work do not apply, The Metropolitan Council will, before awarding same cause to be secured from the Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, a report as to whether or not the Tenderer or Bidder maintains a fair wage level;

(H)The Contractor MUST display legible copies of these "Workers' Rights" in a prominent position in his/her workshop(s), accessible to all employees;

(I)For the purpose of the foregoing paragraphs:

(i)"field work" shall mean all work in performance of the Contract that is not shop work;

(ii)"shop work" shall mean any work in performance of the Contract that is done in or at any factory, foundry, shop or place of manufacture not located at or upon the site of the work, and not operated solely for the purpose of the work; and

(iii)"workers" shall include mechanics, workers, labourers, owners and drivers of a truck or other vehicle employed in the execution of the Contract by the Contractor or by any subcontractor under them and clerical staff.

(J)The contractor shall attach to all accounts rendered for payment of money upon the contract a statutory declaration affirming that the requirements of the foregoing paragraphs have been fully complied with.

L. Gervasi,

Manager. Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office

Tel: (416) 392-7300/FAX: (416) 392-8081

--------

Appendix 3

Organizations Using Some Services of the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office.

The following organizations use the services of the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office in some capacity:

Former Municipalities

Toronto;

Etobicoke;

York; and

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto;

Former Metro Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

Exhibition Place;

Metropolitan Toronto Zoo;

Metropolitan Toronto Library Board;

Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited;

Metropolitan Toronto Housing Development Company;

Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts; and

Toronto Transit Commission;

Former City of Toronto Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

Parking Authority of Toronto;

Toronto Economic Development Corporation;

Toronto Harbour Commission; Toronto Historical Board;

Toronto Hydro Electric System; and

Toronto Public Library Board;

Organizations Using Some Fair Wage Schedules of the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office:

In addition to the above organizations, the following have used the Fair Wage Schedules in some capacity:

Borough of East York;

City of North York;

City of Scarborough;

City of Vaughan;

George Brown College;

Scarborough Board of Education;

Scarborough Utilities;

University of Toronto;

Vaughan Hydro Commission; and

York University.

Appendix 4

Fair Wage Policy Practices in Former Municipalities

--------

Appendix 5

Overview of Fair Wage Policies in Other Governments

Fair Wage Schedules are applied over and above Federal and Provincial minimum wage legislation. Such Schedules are also applied in addition to provisions in the Employment Standards Act of Ontario, and similar legislation in other provinces, which specifies minimum vacation and public holiday entitlements, and hours of regular daily and weekly hours of work, for example.

(a)Federal Government of Canada:

The Federal Government of Canada possesses a Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. In this Act, the policy applies to contracts with the government for "construction, re-modeling and the repair or demolition of any work". It further states that, "fair wages are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed for the character or class of work in which those workmen are respectively engaged". In all cases the wages must be those that are "fair and reasonable and shall in no case be less than the minimum hourly rate of pay prescribed by or pursuant to Part III of the Canada Labour Code". Conditions around the hours of work, overtime pay, required record-keeping and associated procedures, are also stipulated. The Minister of Labour may recommend to the Governor in Council, regulations for the method of determining fair wages, the use of associated schedules, classifications of employment or work and other matters including hours of labour.

(b)Province of Ontario:

The provincial legislation, the Fair Wage Policy of the Government of Ontario, is very similar to the federal legislation but specifies that the Ministry of Labour shall issue "Fair Wage Schedules" pertaining to employment in:

(i)the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry;

(ii)the sewer and water-mains sector of the construction industry;

(iii)the roads sector of the construction industry;

(iv)the provision of protection, security or cleaning services in buildings; and

(v)the printing of documents, publications, stationery or posters.

One important distinction from federal legislation, is the emphasis the province places upon distinguishing between "urban and non-urban areas by issuing Fair Wage Schedules for each area". Furthermore, it specifies that for urban areas, the section of the Act requiring an hourly rate of wages paid to employees in the construction industry "at least equal to the fair wage rate", does not apply. Instead, it specifies an hourly rate taking into account a formula for fringe benefits and other factors that must be adhered to in relation to the fair wage rates. Its current base rates are virtually the same as those of the former City of Toronto/Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Province reviews its fair wage rates in each Fair Wage Schedule, on April 1 of each year. The most recent updates were in 1995. Enforcement tends to be on a complaint-driven basis rather than by regular or stringent monitoring, audit, or inspection procedures.

(c)Municipal Governments:

The Region of Hamilton-Wentworth has an extensive Fair Wage Policy for construction contracts that is much like that of the Province's but which includes sub-contractors under its provisions. Recently, the Region included construction maintenance contracts exceeding $100,000.00 under its Fair Wage Policy. It also made the policy decision to freeze all wage and benefits rates in its Fair Wage Schedule as at January 1, 2000. This would apply where the full costs exceed the full cost of wages and benefits included for the same or similar positions in the Province's Fair Wage Schedule and Labour Conditions (Hamilton Zone). The Region further determined that the maximum total increase to the wages and benefits in the Fair Wage Schedule before January 1, 2000 would be limited to 4.5percent of the current total compensation package.

The City of Mississauga, stipulates that the rates of wages, hours and conditions of work "shall be in accordance with the Provincial Code and Local Fair Wage Schedules and amendments thereto, as approved and/or adopted by the Authority having jurisdiction, and in force at the time of work".

The City of Vaughan follows the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Fair Wage Schedule of rates (i.e., the same as the former City of Toronto's schedule) in terms of union workers. For non-union workers, the minimum rate of wages is deemed to be the current Fair Wage Schedules of the Labour Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour in the particular locality or district in which the work is undertaken.

Fair wage policies in the City of Calgary and the City of Edmonton are in place for large construction projects whereas the Greater Vancouver Regional District applies fair wage only for projects funded by the provincial and federal governments (as required by those government levels for all municipal grant recipients).

In the City of Montreal, it is stipulated that outside contractors must be paid at least the same rates as City employees.

--------

Appendix 6

Fair Wage Rates Comparison

*Up to 15percent of the Fair Wage rates may be in the form of benefits not required by law (for example: medical, dental, pension plans)

**Represents benefits (i.e., medical, dental, pension plans)

***The total former City/Metro Fair Wage rates include Benefits amount (between 10percent - 15percent)

Note:The above is a list of sample classifications for comparison purposes and is not a complete list of either rates. The hourly rates listed are journeyperson fair wage rates. The apprentice fair wage for the City ranges from 10percent to 60percent less than the journeyperson rate.

________

The Corporate Services Committee also had before it the following communications:

(a)(August 31, 1998) from Mr. Tom Oldham, Secretary-Treasurer, Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, advising that the Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers supports the Fair Wage Policy that has existed since 1893 which ensures that workers are not exploited and improves working conditions and creates a level playing field for all firms bidding on Civic projects.

(b)(August 26, 1998) from Mr. Joe Fashion, Business Manager, Financial Secretary, Local Union 353, National Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, requesting the continuation of the City's Fair Wage Policy with adequate support to make it effective.

(c)(August 27, 1998) Mr. Joe Fashion, Business Manager, Financial Secretary, Local Union353, National Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, advising that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers supports the Fair Wage Policy that has existed since 1893 which has benefitted their members for many years by improving working conditions and at the same time created a level playing field for both union and non-unionized firms who are competing for Civic projects.

(d)(August 24, 1998) from Mr. John Cartwright, Business Manager, Building and Construction Trades Council, requesting an opportunity to appear before the Corporate Services Committee respecting the City's Fair Wage Policy.

(e)(August 21, 1998)from Mr. Keith Cooper, Legal Co-ordinator, Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, requesting an opportunity to appear before the Corporate Services Committee respecting the City's Fair Wage Policy.

(f)(August 25, 1998) from Mr. Jim Boyle, Business Representative, UA Local Union 46 Toronto, advising that Local Union 46 is in support of the City's Fair Wage Policy; and forwarding comments in regard thereto.

(g)(August 27, 1998) from Mr. Ucal Powell, Executive Secretary - Treasurer, Central Ontario Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall and Allied Workers, advising that the Central Ontario Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall and Allied Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, is in support of the continuation of the City's Fair Wage Policy; and forwarding comments in regard thereto.

(h)(August 31, 1998) from the Business Manager, Financial and Corresponding Secretary, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local No. 2, advising that the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local No. 2, is in support of the City's Fair Wage Policy; and forwarding comments in regard thereto.

(i)(August 28, 1998) from Mr. Colin Weller, Financial Secretary/Treasurer, Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation, forwarding comments respecting the City of Toronto's Fair Wage policy review.

(j)(September 10, 1998) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79, urging the Committee to endorse the recommendation to adopt a single Fair Wage Policy for the City of Toronto.

(k)(September 14, 1998) from Mr. Harry Pelissero, Executive Vice President, The Independent Contractors' Group, forwarding comments respecting the City of Toronto's Fair Wage Policy.

(l)(September 14, 1998) from Mr. John Bridges, President, Summit Restoration, advising that although they believe the need for a Fair Wage policy may have become obsolete, should the City proceed with such a policy, care must be given to insure the policy does not create an uneven playing field; and requesting that industry be fully consulted in discussions about setting the fair wage rates, and invited to provide input into who conduct the independent assessment contemplated in Recommendation No. (6) of the report (July 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer.

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

-Mr. Cosmo Mannella, Director of the Liuna Canadian Tri-Fund;

-Mr. John Cartwright, Business Manager, Building and Construction Trades Council;

-Mr. Keith Cooper, Legal Co-ordinator, Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183;

-Ms. Linda Torney, President, Toronto and York Region Labour Council, and submitted a brief in regard thereto.

-Mr. Mike Yorke, Recording Secretary, Carpenters and Allied Workers, Local 27;

-Mr. David McDonald, General Manager, Kenadian Contracting, and submitted a brief in regard thereto; and

-Mr. Sam Mora, Sewer and Contractors Association, and submitted a brief in regard thereto.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (September 28, 1998) from the Business Manager, Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, providing comments with respect to the Fair Wage Policy.)

2

"Arm's Length" Municipal Office - Assessment Appeals

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)striking out the recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that the report dated September2, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that to meet Council's intent to help taxpayers, Option3 be adopted where the City will maintain a listing of outside firms that could be provided to taxpayers who require assessment appeal services.' "; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(i)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to host information sessions, with the assistance of professional consultants, for ratepayers of the City of Toronto, such information sessions to be completed no later than October 24, 1998, and be properly advertised and promoted to ensure that all interested parties are notified; and

(ii)the Province of Ontario be requested to release all information with respect to the properties assessed in the City of Toronto as contained in the provincial records, with the exception of names of individuals.".)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that:

(1)staff, with appropriate skills, be dedicated to this function and located in the Access Toronto Office; and

(2)the aforementioned staff not report to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer with respect to this issue, but report directly to the Chief Administrative Officer and be provided with:

(i)all of the necessary materials to effectively assist persons seeking help on property tax appeals, including all necessary forms to appeal;

(ii)a CD ROM with the value of all properties in the City of Toronto;

(iii)an explanatory memorandum advising citizens regarding their rights respecting appeals, including general information about what is required to successfully appeal; and

(iv)a list of reputable outside firms.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on October 1, 1998:

(a)on the establishment of an "Arm's Length" Municipal Office as a separate department within the Corporation; and

(b)on the definition of "reputable" in this circumstance respecting Recommendation No. (2) (iv) above.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To report on the "arm's length" municipal office requested by Council to assist taxpayers in appealing their property assessment.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that to meet Council's intent to help taxpayers, that Option 3 be adopted where the City will maintain a listing of outside firms that could be provided to taxpayers who require assessment appeal services.

Reference/Background:

At its special meeting of July 21 and 23, 1998, (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee), City Council adopted, among others, a recommendation that "an arm's length municipal office be set up immediately to help the City's taxpayers to appeal their property tax assessment".

Comments:

During its meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998 regarding the setting of the 1998 tax rates and other tax policy initiatives, Council adopted the motion that an arm's length municipal office be set up immediately to help the City's taxpayers to appeal their property tax assessments. As Council is aware, the Ontario Ministry of Finance, through its Regional Assessment Offices is responsible for property assessment across the province and completed the recent Current Value Assessment which was implemented this year.

The defense of the assessment base against appeals also lies mainly with the Province. In certain instances, municipalities - including the former City of Toronto - have become actively involved in appeals. However, in most instances, the municipality was involved in ensuring that the assessment level was not reduced. It should be noted that any assistance that results in a reduction of the assessment of properties will have a negative impact on the City's overall assessment base and put further pressure on the Operating Budget.

Existing Situation Since Council Resolution - City Assists Taxpayers in Appeal Process:

While Council had requested that an arm's length municipal office be set up immediately, the City Solicitor has advised that the City could not establish such an "arms length" office within its existing powers and would require special legislation. However, in the interim, City staff have previously, and continue to provide taxpayers with assistance in appealing their property assessment. Any local tax office will provide the necessary address of the Assessment Review Board and filing fee to appeal. In addition, two of the brochures that were included in the final tax bill mailed in August 1998 included information regarding the process to appeal as well as a sample letter that could be used as a guide.

Taxpayers that are appealing their assessments because their assessment is too high are also advised that the onus is on them to show the Assessment Review Board that similar properties in their neighbourhood have lower assessments. The four Regional Assessment Offices in Toronto continue to provide five comparable properties for any taxpayer who requests them in order to better review their assessments. The Assessment Offices will also provide taxpayers with the details of how the assessment for their own property was determined. In March 1998, binders containing individual property listings for every property in the City, by City ward, were made available to all Councillors, tax offices and many libraries across Toronto. In addition, the assessment rolls are available in each of the Civic Centres where taxpayers can compare their assessments with other properties in their neighbourhood. These sources of information are still available for use by taxpayers to assist them in determining whether to appeal their assessment and are provided free of charge.

Council's recommendation on July 21 and 23, 1998 is specific in that an "arm's length municipal office" be set up which would ensure that civic staff not be actively involved but rather a separate organization operate and carry out the functions of the office. It is assumed that the primary function of the arm's length municipal office would be to assist residential taxpayers in appealing their assessments. Set out below are options that could be used to achieve this.

Option 1: Establish Arm's Length Municipal Office as a Separate Corporation:

The City Solicitor has advised that it is a basic premise of municipal law that a municipality may exercise only those powers which have been specifically given to it. Those powers are generally contained in the Municipal Act. Except in very limited circumstances such as are contained in sections 112.1 and 112.2 of the Municipal Act (community economic development corporations, community development corporations), a municipality has no ability to incorporate a corporation. In the absence of such a specific authority, a municipality must apply for special legislation. Special legislation may permit the municipality to incorporate a corporation under the Business Corporations Act or alternatively, the legislation may by its nature create a statutory corporation.

Subject to the City receiving special legislation, it is envisioned that such an arm's length corporation would actively participate in taxpayer appeals by representing the taxpayer at the appeal tribunal. In order to recover costs of operating and carrying out the functions of this office, taxpayers would be charged a fee. It should be noted that there are existing outside firms that already provide this type of service for a fee.

The primary objective of this office would be to achieve assessment reductions for taxpayers, which would contradict the City's objective to protect its assessment base. It would also be disputing assessments determined by the Regional Assessment Office, which will soon become a new assessment corporation, funded by municipalities with municipal representation on its board of directors.

If Council wishes the City Solicitor to apply for special legislation in this case, it will be necessary for a further report on the structure for such a corporation so that draft legislation can be prepared.

Option 2: City Contract with Outside Firms to Assist Taxpayers:

Another option to assist taxpayers with their appeals would be for the City to establish a contract with an existing outside firm. The City would issue a Request for Proposal for these services, maintain a listing of taxpayers who are referred and monitor the progress of the appeals. Under this option, the City would pay the outside firm for the services provided, and would recover these costs from the taxpayer.

It would be very important for the City to limit its responsibility under this option by advising taxpayers that assessment reductions are not guaranteed and the City is not responsible for any decision made at the assessment tribunal.

Option 3: City Provides Taxpayers with List of Outside Firms:

Under this option, where the information already provided by the City and the Regional Assessment Office is still not sufficient and the taxpayer requires additional assistance, the City would provide a list of existing outside firms that provide assessment appeal services. However, the taxpayer would be responsible for their own determination in choosing an outside firm as well as entering into their own contractual arrangements, including payment of the fee. The City would not make any representation with respect to any of the outside firms and would provide the list as information only.

Conclusion:

Although an arm's length office has not been established for the reasons noted above, Council should be aware that taxpayers have been, and are still, provided with assistance to appeal their property assessment. If Council wishes the City Solicitor to apply for special legislation in this case, it will be necessary for a further report on the structure for such a corporation so that draft legislation can be prepared.

As noted above, there are existing outside firms that already provide this type of service for a fee. It is recommended that to meet Council's intent to help taxpayers, that Option 3 be adopted where the City would maintain a listing of outside firms that could be provided to taxpayers who require assessment appeal services. The taxpayer would be required to make their own evaluation as to which firm to use in order to limit the City's responsibility where an appeal is not successful.

Contact Name:

Paul Wealleans, 397-4208

--------

Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 28, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the Corporate Services Committee to report to Council on the establishment of an arm's-length municipal office as a separate department within the Municipal Corporation and on the definition of "reputable" as it would apply to the preparation of a list of reputable firms which could be provided to a taxpayer who wished to appeal their assessment.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on September 14, 1998 the Corporate Services Committee had before it a report dated September 2, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in which she reported on the "arm's-length" municipal office requested by Council to assist taxpayers in appealing their property assessment.

The report, among other things, stated that:

"Council's recommendation on July 21 and 23, 1998 is specific in that an "arm's length municipal office" be set up which would ensure that civic staff not be actively involved but rather a separate organization operate and carry out the functions of the office. It is assumed that the primary function of the arm's length municipal office would be to assist residential taxpayers in appealing their assessments. Set out below are options which could be used to achieve this."

The options set out in the report dated September 2, 1998, and a brief synopsis of the comments made in respect of each option are as follows:

(1)Establish an arm's-length municipal office as a separate corporation.

Special legislation would be required to enable the City to incorporate such a corporation and if legislation is to be applied for, then a further report is required on the structure for such a corporation.

(2)City contract with outside firms to assist taxpayers.

A Request for Proposals would be issued and an outside firm would provide the assessment appeal service directly to the taxpayer. The City would limit its liability under this option by advising taxpayers that assessment reductions are not guaranteed and that the City would not be responsible for any decision made at the assessment tribunal.

(3)City provides taxpayers with list of outside firms.

If the information provided by the City and by the Regional Assessment Office does not meet the taxpayer's needs and the taxpayer requires additional assistance, the City would provide taxpayers with a list of firms that provide assessment appeal services. Taxpayers would be responsible for choosing a firm and would enter into their own contractual arrangements with the firm, including payment of any fee. The City would not make any representation with respect to any of the firms and the list of firms would be provided only as a matter of information.

The Corporate Services Committee did not choose any of the above options. Instead it recommended that staff with appropriate skills be dedicated to the function of assisting taxpayers with assessment appeals and that such staff report to the Chief Administrative Officer rather than to the Chief Financial Officer. The Committee also recommended that such staff be provided with all necessary materials to effectively assist persons seeking (a) help on property tax appeals, including all necessary forms to appeal; (b) a CD ROM with the value of all properties in the City of Toronto; (c) an explanatory memorandum advising citizens regarding their rights respecting appeals, including general information about what is required to successfully appeal; and (d) a list of reputable outside firms.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

I was requested to report on the establishment of an arm's-length municipal office as a separate department within the Corporation and on the definition of "reputable" as it would apply to the preparation of a list of reputable firms which could be provided to a taxpayer who wished to appeal their assessment.

Arm's-Length:

"Arm's-length" is a term commonly used to describe a relationship between two parties who are unrelated or strangers and who, therefore, owe no special obligation to each other. It is commonly applied in areas of taxation (income tax), corporate law and contracts and is descriptive of parties who carry out a particular transaction, each acting in their own self-interest. The courts have found that a transaction or dealing is not at arm's-length where one of the parties involved is in a situation where he may exercise a control, influence or moral pressure on the free will of the other.

It is my view that, having regard to the meaning normally given to the term "arm's-length", it is impossible to establish an arm's-length municipal office as a separate department within the corporation regardless of whether the persons who staff that office report to the Chief Administrative Officer or to the Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer are both officers of the Corporation who report to Council. Employees are employees of the Corporation regardless of whether they report to the Chief Administrative Officer or the Chief Financial Officer. The Municipality exercises supervision and control over its employees and, therefore, regardless of the reporting relationship the necessary ingredients of arm's-length are absent.

City as Party to Assessment Appeals:

The City of Toronto is, under section 40 of the Assessment Act, a statutory party to all assessment appeals which means that it can actively participate in an appeal. On an appeal with respect to an assessment, the Assessment Review Board can review the assessment and has all of the powers and functions of the assessor in making an assessment determination or decision under the Act. This means that the Assessment Review Board can either confirm the assessment, reduce it or increase it depending on the facts presented to it.

It has been the experience of staff that taxpayers often do not understand the distinction between assessment and taxation and similarly do not understand the distinction between the Province's role and the City's role with respect to assessment and taxation. Most taxpayers see the role as being one and the same since to them government is government. The ordinary person does not make a distinction between the Province's role in being responsible for determining the assessment and the City's role in striking a tax rate which is applied to the assessment returned to it by the Province to determine the amount of taxes payable on a property.

The Corporate Services Committee's recommendation that the Access Toronto Office be staffed by staff with appropriate skills and that they assist persons seeking help on property tax appeals and providing taxpayers with general information about what is required to successfully appeal could in my view add to the confusion already existing.

My staff have had experiences, when dealing with applications for tax cancellations or reductions, at both the Assessment Review Board (as it then was) and at the Ontario Municipal Board where taxpayers have indicated to the tribunal that the City had told them to appeal and indicated that the City was supporting their appeal because City staff in the Clerks Department had assisted in completing the necessary application form. It both confused and angered the taxpayer when the City, as a matter of law, took a position in opposition to the appeal or when the City failed to appear to support their appeal. In my view there is potential for a similar type of situation to occur if for some reason the City decides to take an active part in a given assessment appeal, as it may do as a party to the appeal, and City staff have assisted a taxpayer in the manner contemplated by the Committee recommendation. It is therefore my view that the Committee recommendation could put the City in a conflict situation and I would therefore caution against the adoption of a recommendation which would have City staff actively assisting persons who wish to appeal their assessments. An obvious effect of the contemplated action would cause an increase in the number of assessment appeals which would likely result in reducing the City's tax base.

Having said this, if it is Council's wish that the Access Toronto Office staff provide this service, then residents seeking assistance should be provided with a letter setting out exactly what the City's role is and is not pursuing an assessment appeal on their behalf.

City Liability for Negligence:

If Council adopts the Corporate Services Committee's recommendation with respect to the staffing of the Access Toronto Office to provide taxpayers with assistance in appealing their property tax assessment, staff performing such functions must exercise due care in the performance of their duties since the City could be found liable for negligence in an action brought against it as a result of the assistance provided.

The Corporate Services Committee has recommended that staff with appropriate skills be dedicated to providing assessment appeal assistance. I believe that it could reasonably be stated that a taxpayer seeking assessment appeal assistance from the Access Toronto Office would not be knowledgeable about assessment matters, the assessment appeal process or the assessment hearing process. It would therefore follow that a person seeking assistance would be relying on the experience and expertise of the staff in the Access Toronto Office. If incorrect or misleading advice is given and the taxpayer on such advice acts to his detriment, the City could be found liable for any damages sustained by the taxpayer (i.e., an increased assessment or a missed deadline for commencing an appeal) especially where the advice is given by an employee whose responsibility includes assessment and taxation matters or is held out to be knowledgeable about such matters. Since the Municipality exercises control over its employees, it is liable for loss or injury due to the negligent acts or omissions and other wrongs of its officers and employees.

As the Committee recommendation stands, assistance could be interpreted to include the provision of assistance at an Assessment Review Board hearing. As I have indicated above since the City is a statutory party to assessment appeals it could be in a conflict situation where its interests differed from those of the taxpayer.

Identification of office staff:

The Corporate Services Committee has recommended that the Access Toronto Office be staffed with people with appropriate skills to assist taxpayers with assessment appeals. However it does not indicate whether Access Toronto staff are to be trained to perform this assistance function or whether staff must be seconded to the Access Toronto Office. If staff are to be seconded to the Access Toronto Office from another department for the purpose of providing taxpayer assistance, consideration should also be given to possible collective agreement implications, especially where job descriptions may be impacted. Consideration must also be given to the level of service this office would provide to taxpayers, and thus the calibre and availability of trained staff, any necessary backfilling or alternatively downsizing, whether this is to be an ongoing service or a service related to the 1998 assessment only, and the budgetary implications of these decisions.

CD ROM:

The Corporate Services Committee recommended that staff who will be assisting taxpayers with respect to assessment appeals be provided with the necessary materials to effectively assist persons seeking a CD ROM with the value of all properties in the City of Toronto. It is unclear from the wording of the recommendation whether staff would have access to the CD ROM as a resource or whether the intent of the recommendation is that the CD ROM would be provided to a person seeking a copy of it. It is similarly unclear for what purpose the CD ROM would be used if it is to be used as a resource.

Council, at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, by its adoption of Clause 3 of Report No.3 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, approved the privacy and protection measures outlined in the joint report (February 10, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting the use of the CD version of the preliminary estimated tax impact data. The February 10, 1998 report indicates that Members of Council would be provided with a CD version of the detailed preliminary tax estimates, that they were requested not to make copies of it and that they were to return the CD diskettes upon implementation of Council's tax plan. The report further indicates that any requests for copies of the CD diskettes or data in an electronic format from the public are to be referred to the Director of Corporate Access and Privacy for disclosure of copies of the CD ROM.

The assessment roll which is produced annually by the Ministry of Finance is a public record which is established under a provincial statute. The assessment roll in CD format can be purchased by the public for $1,700.00. The CD containing the preliminary tax estimates for the City of Toronto is not a public record. It was provided to the City by the Province to enable the City to establish a tax rate and prepare a tax impact study.

In an order released earlier this year the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, made a determination in a similar fact situation to the present one, that the municipality involved in that order did not have the authority required under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to provide councillors or the public with an open file CD format with respect to assessment information. The order confirmed the mandatory obligation of the municipality to refuse to disclose information received in confidence from the Province.

I would also point out that the City was required, as a condition of obtaining the CD ROM, to sign an undertaking that it would assume complete responsibility for the security and confidentiality of the tape and its contents. In view of the City's undertaking to assume complete responsibility for the security and confidentiality of the CD ROM, it is in my view prohibited from disclosing copies of the CD ROM containing the preliminary tax estimates to a member of the public.

Despite the fact that the City is not permitted to disclose the CD ROM, it is permitted to provide taxpayers with access to information on their own property and such additional information as is specifically requested by them in order to assist them in appealing their assessment. City staff could therefore assist taxpayers by providing information specifically requested by them.

Reputable:

The Corporate Services Committee also requested a definition of "reputable" in the context of the City providing taxpayers seeking assessment appeal assistance with a list of reputable outside firms who act for taxpayers in respect of assessment appeals.

"Reputable", as defined, includes, among other things, worthy of repute or distinction, held in esteem, honourable, credible, dependable, ethical, high principled, reliable, respectable, scrupulous, trustworthy, well-known, well thought of, honest, prominent, conscientious and above reproach.

In my view, if a list of all firms who act for taxpayers in respect of assessment appeals is prepared it should contain no commentary in respect of whether a firm is reputable as that term is defined. Negative statements concerning someone's business which cause pecuniary damage to that person's business are inherently defamatory. A municipality may be found liable to someone who has been injured in his business or reputation as a result of the publication of defamatory statements concerning him, in connection with some matter affecting the municipality. A municipality may also be found liable where the injury has resulted from a statement made by one of its officers or employees in the course of his or her duties and on its behalf.

If a list of firms is prepared, it should contain the names of all firms, both law firms and tax agents, who are involved in assessment appeal work. Since some firms specialize in a particular area of assessment, for example, Industrial, Commercial and Investment, it would be useful to determine whether a firm is interested in being included on the list. In that regard, the City could place an advertisement in the newspaper to seek an Expression of Interest from firms who wish to have their names included on the list. Persons responding could be asked to indicate their areas of expertise and to provide brochures indicating their fee schedules. This information could be located in public libraries, community centres or other public buildings as an information resource.

If the City were to prepare such a list of firms based on the responses received, the listing document should have on its face an Express Disclaimer of Responsibility which would indicate that the taxpayer is responsible for choosing a firm, contracting with the chosen firm and paying all fees for the service provided by the firm. A disclaimer should also state that the City bears no responsibility or liability arising either out of or arising from the provision of the list. In addition, staff providing the list to taxpayers should make no comments with respect to any firm on the list nor should they recommend a firm.

Conclusions:

Council should act with caution in making any decision to staff the Access Toronto Office to provide assistance to taxpayers who wish to appeal their assessments. Where the municipality exercises such supervision or control over staff, it could not claim to have created an arm's-length municipal office as a separate department within the Corporation. In order for the City to create a true arm's-length office, special legislation would be required. The City could be found liable in an action brought against it if it was found to be negligent in the provision of assistance to taxpayers who wish to appeal their assessments where a taxpayer suffered loss. Also, if Council wishes to staff the Access Toronto Office to provide assistance to taxpayers who wish to appeal their assessments, then decisions must be made respecting the time frame in which this service is to be provided, the level of service, any training requirements, and whether positions vacated are backfilled or downsized. These decisions will have budgetary implications and possibly collective agreement implications as well.

If the City wishes to prepare a list of firms who do assessment appeals and wishes to provide that list to taxpayers, the list should be provided as an information only document which clearly indicates that the taxpayer is responsible for choosing a firm and payment of the fee for the service provided and that the City bears no responsibility in respect of the provision of the list.

I have consulted with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in the preparation of this report.

Contact Name:

Dolores M. Morrell

392-7234.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (September 30, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force recommends that Recommendation A(2)(iv) of the Corporate Services Committee, contained in Clause 2 of Report No. 13 of The Corporate Services Committee be deleted, and replaced as follows:

"(A) (2)(iv)staff, with the assistance of professional consultants, provide workshops to the community on the Assessment appeal process, and how taxpayers can prepare for their informal reconsideration and/or formal hearing, if necessary."

Background:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, on September 29, 1998, had before it a report (September 2, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting Arm's Length Municipal Office - Assessment Appeals, and recommending that to meet Council's intent to help taxpayers, that Option 3 be adopted where the City will maintain a listing of outside firms that could be provided to taxpayers who require assessment appeal services.

During consideration of the foregoing matter, the Task Force also had before it a communication (September 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, addressed to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer advising of the action of the Corporate Services Committee respecting the foregoing.

The Task Force's recommendation is noted above.)

3

Final Billing of 1998 Property Taxes - Update

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)striking out the recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that additional mailers be distributed to residential taxpayers for the seniors/low income disabled tax deferral application form together with a clarification notice/brochure as outlined in the report dated August 31, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer."; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to include with the 1999 tax bill, a chart indicating how the remainder of the phase-in is calculated, for that particular taxpayer, for the remainder of the phase-in period.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that:

(1)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed not to conduct any new mailings to residential taxpayers save and except mailings to targeted condominium owners and a general mailing to seniors respecting seniors issues; and

(2)when the information brochures are mailed out that the new deadline date be clearly stated.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (August31, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To provide an update with respect to the final billing of 1998 property taxes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

At this point the extra costs associated with additional mailers (estimated at $200,000.00) to residential taxpayers for the seniors/low income disabled tax deferral application form along with a clarification notice can be absorbed within the 1998 Operating Budget of the Finance Department. The extra costs of mailing tenant listings to landlords (included above) can also be absorbed at this point.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Discussion:

Final tax bills for 1998 were mailed to residents between August 13 and 17, 1998. In preparation for the mailing, approximately 200 staff in Finance Revenue Services were trained on the City's new property tax implementation plan. Separate training sessions were also provided to all Council Members' Executive Assistants, Access Toronto staff, and City Clerks' assessment staff. Copies of the training materials were made available to all departments with an offer for additional training for front line staff if appropriate. No additional training sessions were requested.

Staff across the six civic centres handled approximately 7,000 calls per day during the week of August17, 1998. During the week of August 24, 1998, the number of telephone calls per day averaged 4,600. To accommodate the high volume of calls, office hours were extended to 7:00 p.m. from August 19 to August 28, 1998. Very few calls were actually received between 5:30 and 7:00p.m.. The busiest tax office, 112 Elizabeth Street, received no more that 15 calls after 5:30 p.m. on any given evening shift. By August 28 the number of calls coming into the tax offices decreased to manageable levels - approximately 4,100 calls across the six tax offices.

The majority of taxpayer questions asked of City staff during the week of August 17 related to the calculation of the tax bill and current account balance. For approximately four full days, staff responded exclusively to taxpayers as to how figures on the tax bill were calculated. By the week of August 24 the majority of questions being asked related to general billing issues such as mailing address corrections, amounts owing for penalty and arrears, and how to appeal 1998 assessments. While the volume of calls is still above normal average, the additional staff assigned to answering calls is helping to reduce long waits and busy signals. Additional staff assistance will be in place until the first instalment date of September 8 at which time the situation will be re-evaluated.

The City also placed two ads in the major daily papers with respect to the final tax bill; one explaining the tax bill (attached as Appendix A) which ran on Thursday, August 20; and one outlining the installment due dates (attached as Appendix B) which ran on Thursday, August 27.

The 1998 tax bill format was deficient in several key aspects that led to the significant volume of taxpayer calls and ensuing confusion. While over one-third of taxpayers did not see any changes in their tax bill because their increase was less than $300.00 or their decrease was less than $200.00, the balance of taxpayers were presented with a tax bill that had new information that was not explained in a clear manner. The following highlights the deficiencies in the 1998 tax bill:

(1)no clear display of 1998 taxes. A total line after line four on the bill would have made this clear;

(2)no break-out of the "non-phaseable" Provincial tax shift component of the total tax rate. While this amount was highlighted in staff reports on tax policy, it was not highlighted on the enclosed brochures or on the tax bill in an effort to not add confusion;

(3)too many brochures;

(4)no breakout of how the phase-in/capping amount for years after 1998 through the phase-in period;

(5)no clear comparison of 1997 taxes to 1998 taxes; and

(6)no clear calculation of the total assessment change.

At this time, staff are continuing to tabulate suggestions from taxpayers and Councillors on how to incorporate improvements to the 1999 interim and 1999 final tax bills. Draft tax bills will be focus tested with a cross section of taxpayers and Councillors . Staff will be submitting the proposed 1999interim and 1999 final tax bill formats that overcome the noted deficiencies in the 1998 tax bill, to the next Corporate Services Committee in October. A "Clarification Notice" has been prepared to answer the questions raised by the deficient 1998 tax bill that will be included in the seniors/low-income disabled tax deferral mailer to all residential taxpayers . The estimated cost for the mailing of the tax deferral brochure, a clarification notice and other mailings to commercial and industrial taxpayers are estimated to be $200,000.00. At this point it is felt that this can be absorbed within the Finance Department 1998 Operating Budget.

There are currently several issues which staff are working to resolve:

(1)Owner-Occupied Condominiums:

In previous years, tenanted condominiums were assessed at two or three time the level of owner-occupied condominiums and included in the multi-residential property class. When a tenanted condominium was sold, and the new owner subsequently moved in, it was the Province's policy to reduce the assessment for that unit to the owner-occupied rate for taxation in the following year.

The Province did not reduce the assessments of newly owner-occupied condominiums on the 1998 Interim Assessment Tape due to the fact that, with the implementation of the new assessment system, all condominiums would be included in the residential property class. However, because the data on the 1998 Interim Assessment Tape formed the basis of any residential phase-in amount, some condominium owners are having their reductions due to the change in occupancy status being phased-in in conjunction with any tax change due to Current Value Assessment.

This issue has been identified from taxpayer questions and we are actively seeking direction from the Regional Assessment Office of the Provincial Ministry of Finance. Once they have a resolution to the issue, an appropriate fix will be made and tax bills will be re-issued if necessary. In the meantime, please forward by e-mail taxpayer's name and details to LynneAshton in Finance.

(2)Frozen Assessment Listing:

We are current working on producing a listing of business tenants for every commercial or industrial property in Toronto. The data on this list will be obtained from the last revised Assessment Roll for 1997, as prepared by the Province of Ontario, and will be provided to owners/landlords to assist them in apportioning their 1998 commercial and industrial property taxes among their business tenants.

The report will be extracted and faxed and/or mailed to owners/landlords on request so that they can make the appropriate passthrough calculation to their tenants of any 1998 tax increase or decrease. It is anticipated this information will be available for commercial/industrial property owners within the next two to three weeks.

Landlords with gross leases that have complied with the notification requirements under Bill16 will be able to recover from their tenants the former Business Occupancy Tax and Business Improvement Area charges. Bill 16 requires landlords to provide their gross lease tenants with two notices. The deadline for the first notice, which must state that the landlord intends to recover these amounts, was July 15 (30 days after the return of the assessment roll). However, the Minister of Finance has announced that legislation would be introduced to extend the deadline for the first notice to October 30, 1998.

(3)Low-Income Seniors and Disabled - Tax Deferral:

The application form for the low-income seniors and disabled tax deferral program was not included in this tax bill mailing. Staff at the civic centers have been instructed to take the taxpayer's names and details. Recognizing the financial implications for these taxpayers, if a senior or low income disabled taxpayer have verbally advised us that they would qualify for the program, and depending on the request of the individual taxpayer, we are recalculating their instalments and advising them of the new amount subject to them completing an application when they are available. If they are unsuccessful in their application, we will be advising them and then requesting the difference be paid within a grace period.

Staff of the Finance, FOI and Legal Departments are preparing information brochures and application forms for mailing within the next three to four weeks. For 1998, the deadline for taxpayers to apply for the tax deferral program is November 30, 1998.

(4)1997 Assessment Appeals:

There have also been inquiries from taxpayers who received assessment reductions for 1997 but the reduction was not reflected in the 1997 Adjusted Taxes shown on their tax bill. This problem arises from the assessment roll being frozen by the Province in November, 1997 prior to the reassessment in 1998. Again, this data formed the basis for the phase-in calculation. However, the Assessment Review Board has continued to process appeals for the 1997 tax year and taxpayers that received assessment reductions for 1997 in 1998 would not have these reductions reflected in their 1997 Adjusted Taxes. Staff at the civic centres have been instructed to take the names and addresses and all other pertinent information from taxpayers in these circumstances. Taxpayers are being advised that their tax bills, and resulting phase-in amounts will be adjusted and a new tax bill issued.

(5)1998 Assessment Appeal Deadline:

The Minister of Finance has announced that legislation would be introduced to extend the deadline to appeal a property's Current Value Assessment for the 1998 tax year to October30, 1998. Until an official notification is received from the Province on this matter, staff have advised taxpayers to meet the August 31, 1998 deadline if at all possible.

(6)Supplementary Taxes:

It is also expected that the City will be receiving its first and only Supplementary Assessment Roll that covers "missed" accounts from 1997 and 1996. It is indeterminate at this time what the dollar value of the roll will be. 1998 budgeted supplementary taxes are $40,230,000.00. The delay in the 1998 assessment roll delivery and the proposed further appeal extension date will impact negatively on the Ministry of Finance's Assessment Division's ability to meet their projected supplementary tax amount which formed the basis of our 1998 budget amount. The due date for this first supplementary roll will be in 1998 with only one instalment date, likely in early December. These are accounts that do not relate in anyway to the 1998 new CVA system and the Council phase-in plan.

Conclusion:

Staff will continue to work on outstanding issues and will issue updated briefing notes to Council Members and staff as required. A tax bill clarification notice will be mailed out to all residents in September, in conjunction with the assessment-related tax deferral application for low income seniors and low income disabled persons. A report regarding draft tax bill designs for the 1999 interim and the 1999 final tax bill will be submitted to Corporate Services Committee at its next meeting.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Giuliana Carbone, Director of Revenue Services392-8065

Sharon Kinasz, Manager Centralized Client Services392-6798

_______

A Copy of Appendices A and B, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following brochures submitted by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

(i)"Low Income Seniors and Disabled Homeowners Property Tax Deferral - you can put off to tomorrow.... 1998 Property Tax Assistance Program: Low Income Seniors and Disabled Taxpayers"; and

(ii)"There are a couple of things we'd like to clear up. Answers to common questions about Provincial Tax Policy changes that affect your tax bill.")

(A copy of the aforementioned brochures was circulated to all Members of Council and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Agreement Between the Former City of Toronto

and COTAPSAI (City of Toronto Administrative,

Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on October 28, 1998.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations (a) and (b) embodied in the following communication (August 31, 1998) from the President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, (COTAPSAI) viz:

"(a)that the City be directed to adhere to Existing Exit Program for those eligible in accordance with the recommendations adopted by City Council on June 3, 1998; and

(b)that the City undertake to apply those provisions to those eligible employees that remain in the City's employment that have been appointed to alternative positions but at a lower wage grade since amalgamation;";

and reports having requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit a report thereon to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on October 1, 1998:

I am writing to you to express our deep concerns about the lack of adherence to several key provisions in the agreement between COTAPSAI and the former City of Toronto. As you know, the adoption by City Council of the recommendations of the Commissioner of Corporate Services on June 3, 1998, ensured that the terms and conditions of employment for non-union employees covered by our agreement will continue until appropriate notice is given respecting any changes or amendments to their terms and conditions of employment and until such time as the appropriate notice period has been completed (Recommendation No. (4) embodied in Clause No. 3 of Report No.7 of The Corporate Services Committee.)

Background:

In accordance with Appendix "N" of the Consolidated Memorandum of Understanding, an employee is eligible to participate in the Exit and Retirement Incentives for Surplus Employees if the employee's position has been eliminated by streamlining or Operating Budget reduction approved by City Council, and the employee has been placed into an alternative position, but at a lower salary grade (with salary protection).

During the first few Department and Division re-organizations in 1998, several situations have arisen where such eligible employees have been placed into alternative positions at lower salary grades. These eligible employees no longer maintain any of their previous management responsibilities. In past re-organizations, when this situation did arise, the employee was given a letter by the City indicating that they were eligible for the Exit Program. I have attached a sample of one of these letters. I can provide other if you wish.

Our Association has repeatedly raised concerns with management in Human Resources in Corporate Services that these employees are eligible to receive the same letter, but to no avail. We believe that City Council and the Members of Corporate Services intended that the City honour the agreement until such time that appropriate notice is given respecting changes or amendments to their terms and conditions and until such time as the appropriate notice period has been completed. No such notice has been given. The agreement remains in effect.

Recommendations:

Therefore, we recommend that Corporate Services and Personnel Committees adopt the following recommendations:

(a)that the City be directed to adhere to Existing Exit Program for those eligible in accordance with the recommendations adopted by City Council on June 3, 1998; and

(b)that the City undertake to apply those provisions to those eligible employees that remain in the City's employment that have been appointed to alternative positions but at a lower wage grade since amalgamation.

On behalf of all our members throughout the City of Toronto, I welcome the opportunity to bring our concerns forward to the next Corporate Services Committee for consideration.

_______

Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, (COTAPSAI) appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the sample letter given to employees by the former City of Toronto indicating that they were eligible for the Exit Program, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Executive Director, Human Resources:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the correspondence from COTAPSAI be received; and

(2)the current practice continue; that letters to employees confirming eligibility for a separation package as a result of position termination be sent at the time it is determined that they cannot be placed in an equivalent position.

Background:

At its meeting on September 14, 1998, Corporate Services Committee had before it correspondence from COTAPSAI expressing concern about adherence to provisions in the agreement between COTAPSAI and the former City of Toronto with respect to the separation program. Corporate Services Committee requested that staff report directly to City Council on the matter.

Comments/Discussion:

In its correspondence to Corporate Services Committee, COTAPSAI recommended:

"(a)that the City be directed to adhere to existing exit program for those eligible in accordance with the recommendations adopted by City Council on June 3, 1998; and

(b)that the City undertake to apply those provisions to those eligible employees that remain in the City's employment that have been appointed to alternative positions but at a lower wage grade since amalgamation."

COTAPSAI's explanation, as I understand it, is that these recommendations are to address a specific concern; that when employees have been displaced from their old job and placed into alternative positions at the lower salary that they receive a letter indicating that they are eligible to participate in the separation program. It should be noted that COTAPSAI has not provided us with any specific examples of this situation having occurred to date.

In accordance with City Council's decision of June 3, 1998, the City has provided the former City of Toronto separation package to those eligible employees covered by the COTAPSAI agreement. Because of the nature of the restructuring and promotion process, however, the letter to displaced employees that was sent to employees in COTAPSAI in the past is not applicable in the current situation.

Displaced employees are generally eligible to compete for a position at the next two levels down in the organization depending on their level of responsibility in their former municipality and the requirements of the position for which they are applying. Most often, at the time of displacement the next levels have not been finalized. As such, employees are offered the opportunity to continue in their function or alternative work to allow for this option. In many cases, a position one level down is equivalent to the scope, responsibility and salary of their former position. A letter at this stage advising the employee that they are eligible for the exit program is not often applicable because the process of redeployment is not complete and the full extent of their options is not known. Therefore, given that circumstances differ from that which existed in the former City of Toronto the intent of the memorandum of understanding has been followed.

It is recommended that COTAPSAI employees continue to be offered this flexibility to consider their options and that letters confirming eligibility for a separation package as a result of position termination be sent at the completion of the above described process in cases where the employee cannot be placed in a position at the equivalent level, as has been the current practice.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Alison Anderson, Director, Human Resources, Employment Services

392-5028.)

5

Employees Eligibility for Membership in COTAPSAI

(City of Toronto Administrative, Professional

Supervisory Association, Incorporated)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on October 28, 1998.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations (a) (b) and (c) embodied in the following communication (September 2, 1998) from the President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI), regarding references made by City staff to employees respecting their eligibility for membership in COTAPSAI:

"It is recommended that City Council:

(a)direct appropriate City staff to amend any and all such references including Recommendation No. (4) of Clause No. 3 of Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee, by striking out the phrase "who are members of COTAPSAI at December 31, 1997";

(b)direct the appropriate City staff to prepare and forward a communication, in consultation with COTAPSAI, outlining the implications of this change to all eligible employees who are not members of COTAPSAI employed by the former City of Toronto; and

(c)financially compensate the Association for that portion of member's dues lost since January 1, 1998, for all eligible non-union employees of the former City of Toronto who were dissuaded but may now wish to become members of COTAPSAI;"; and

reports having requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on October 1, 1998, respecting Recommendation(c) above.

I am writing to express our deep concerns about misrepresentations being made by City staff to employees eligible for membership in COTAPSAI. These misrepresentations are discouraging eligible administrative, professional and supervisory employees from joining COTAPSAI.

Background:

During the past few months, a number of eligible employees (employed by the former City of Toronto) have expressed interest in joining the Association. Apparently, various human resources staff have advised them that joining COTAPSAI in 1998, would afford them no benefits. The human resources staff have been advising employees that they had to be members of COTAPSAI prior to January1, 1998, to be entitled to the terms and conditions of employment set out in the Consolidated Memorandum of Understanding with the City.

This misrepresentation is echoed in Clause No. 3 of Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on June 3, 1998. Recommendation No. (4) of that clause is as follows:

"(4) notwithstanding Recommendation No. (3), the terms and conditions of employment for non-union employees of the former City of Toronto who are members of COTAPSAI at December 31, 1997 will continue until appropriate notice is given respecting any changes or amendments to their terms and conditions of employment".

If you review the Consolidated Memorandum of Understanding between the City and COTAPSAI, you will see that COTAPSAI is a bargaining agent for all employees of the City (subject to specific exceptions). COTAPSAI is a bargaining agent for all employees and not just those who are members of the Association. Therefore, all administrative, professional and supervisory employees are entitled to the terms and conditions of employment set out in the Consolidated Memorandum of Understanding with the City whether or not they are members of the Association. With respect to the misrepresentation in the aforementioned Clause No. 3 of Report No. 7, you will recall that COTAPSAI was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the contents of the report to City Council.

The act of directly or indirectly dissuading any eligible employee from joining COTAPSAI is a fundamental principle that the former City of Toronto and COTAPSAI embodied in its agreement more than 20years ago. Article 1.02(a) of the Consolidated Memorandum of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of Toronto and COTAPSAI reads as follows:

Membership in COTAPSAI

1.02(a) The City will not seek directly or indirectly to dissuade any eligible employee from joining COTAPSAI or holding office in COTAPSAI.

The City's misrepresentation regarding the issue of membership in COTAPSAI has damaged the Association and has negatively affected our ability to attract eligible employees - especially those employees previously employed by the former City of Toronto.

Recommendations:

We consider the City's actions a serious affront to COTAPSAI. We therefore request that the Corporate Services Committee adopt the following recommendations to remedy the situation:

(a)that the Corporate Services Committee direct appropriate City staff to amend any and all such references including Clause No. 3 of Recommendation No. (4) of Report No. 7 of TheCorporate Services Committee, by striking out the phrase "who are members of COTAPSAI at December 31, 1997;

(b)that the Corporate Services Committee direct the appropriate City staff to prepare and forward a communication, in consultation with COTAPSAI, outlining the implications of this change to all eligible employees who are not members of COTAPSAI employed by the former City of Toronto; and

(c)that the Corporate Services Committee financially compensate the Association for that portion of member's dues lost since January 1, 1998 for all eligible non-union employees of the former City of Toronto who were dissuaded, but may now wish to become members of COTAPSAI.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated. On behalf of the Board of Directors, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further at the next Corporate Services Committee meeting.

Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI), appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Executive Director, Human Resources:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to concerns contained in a September 2, 1998 letter to the Corporate Services Committee from COTAPSAI.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the correspondence from COTAPSAI be received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At a meeting on September 14, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee had before it correspondence from Mr. David Neil, President of COTAPSAI, expressing concerns regarding alleged representations made by City staff whereby those administrative, professional and supervisory employees who are otherwise eligible for membership in COTAPSAI were being discouraged from joining the association. Corporate Services Committee requested that staff report directly to City Council on this matter.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Following the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee on September 14, 1998, staff undertook to investigate the concerns raised by Mr. Neil as set out in his letter to Councillor O'Brien, Chair of the Corporate Services Committee, dated September 2, 1998.

Specifically, Mr. Neil has stated that over the past several months, various Human Resources staff have advised a number of staff who were employed by the former City of Toronto that joining would afford them no benefits.

Mr. Neil has indicated that a strict interpretation of the Council resolution would lead one to believe that only those former employees of the City of Toronto who paid dues to COTAPSAI would receive the benefits of the Consolidated Memorandum of Understanding.

In fact, it was staff's intent, in placing the recommendation of June 3, 1998 before Council, that all eligible employees of the former City of Toronto covered by the Memorandum, as laid out in its "Schedule A", would continue to be covered by the terms of the Memorandum until appropriate notice is given respecting any changes or amendments to their terms and conditions of employment, pursuant to Council's resolution. Notwithstanding any other interpretation, "member" is as defined in Article 1.02 (b) of the Consolidated Memorandum of Understanding. Membership is not defined by whether an individual chooses to pay dues to the Association.

In that respect, Human Resources staff have been following the requirements of the Memorandum and have been extending the benefits of the Memorandum of Understanding to all employees of the former City of Toronto whose position is covered by "Schedule A".

Conclusion:

Mr. Neil has specifically asked for compensation for lost dues. Following an extensive investigation, staff have been unable to find any evidence to support the Association's claims that employees of the former City of Toronto have been discouraged from membership. A letter has been sent to Mr. Neil advising him of our findings.

In order to further assist staff with their inquiries regarding this matter, Mr. Neil has been asked to provide specific particulars in support of the Association's claim.

Once further information has been provided by COTAPSAI, staff will continue their inquiries and report their findings to the Personnel Sub-Committee.

Contact Name:

Brenda Glover,

Executive Director of Human Resources, 397-9802.)

6

Lease of Digital Networked Reproduction Equipment

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (September2, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To recommend the consolidation of all corporate high speed reproduction equipment leases, and the completion of a high speed digital networked reproduction system.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The consolidation of leases will result in a saving of approximately five percent each year as compared to expenditures under the existing leases.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to enter into an agreement with Xerox Canada Ltd., to consolidate existing leases for high speed reproduction equipment and to complete the integration of a digital networked reproduction system, for a term expiring in 2003, at an annual cost (including maintenance) of:

1998 (remainder):$ 277,251.00

1999$1,109,004.00

2000$1,109,004.00

2001$1,126,464.00

2002$1,144,432.00

2003$1,162,932.00; and

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

Discussion:

The City of Toronto is the successor to leases for high speed reproduction equipment entered into by the former municipalities, the leases having expiry dates at various points in 4 different years, the last being 2001. The current cumulative expenditure under these separate agreements amounts to approximately $1,200,000.00 annually (including maintenance) with each lease containing an annual escalation clause. Five of the seven leases are with Xerox Canada Ltd. The current cost of early termination of these leases is $1,045,000.00.

As a result of the need to specify and acquire reproduction equipment for the City Hall Council Chamber, discussions have been held with Xerox Canada Ltd. to obtain pricing on consolidating the leases and reconfiguring the equipment as necessary in order to establish a high-speed, digital, networked reproduction system (including a small unit to support the Council Chamber in City Hall). In response, Xerox has committed to total lease costs ranging from $1,109,004.00 (including maintenance) in 1999 through to $1,162,932.00 in 2003, with a payment of $277,251.00 for the balance of 1998. Overage rates (for excess of 60 million and 67 million copies respectively) will range between $0.0125/$0.0085 in the first year to $0.0137/$0.0094 in the last. These costs, when measured against the current and future expenditures for the existing non-digital, mostly non-networked equipment, represent a savings of approximately five percent for each year of the existing leases.

One advantage of networking, upgrading and supplementing the existing machines includes the ability to print documents at their intended point of delivery (each civic centre and Metro Hall), which will make more timely the delivery of legislative and other documents. By using digital equipment, reproduction jobs will be able to be sent from desktop computers connected to the City's network, be able to be produced faster than analog methods of reproduction, and will be able to be split amongst the various networked machines. Further, digital reproduction will make it easier to post Council's legislative materials to the internet and intranet.

As part of the lease consolidation, existing Xerox components will be reused, upgraded or replaced, and substitutions will be made for non-Xerox machines. The proprietary nature of a networked reproduction system prevents other manufacturers' equipment from being integrated into the recommended configuration. Indeed, even were it possible to include such equipment, operational inefficiencies, including a requirement for training on multiple platforms, would result.

Given the proprietary nature of the technology, the need to match new equipment to that technology, the operational need to establish and test a fully-networked reproduction system as soon as possible, the variety of termination dates in existing leases, and the cost of early termination of those leases, there is a sound business case for sole sourcing the equipment and services in question. One of the benefits in consolidating the existing leases is that in advance of the expiry of the recommended agreement, a single proposal call can be issued. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has been consulted in this matter, and concurs in the approach being taken.

Summary:

The consolidation of existing high speed reproduction leases will result in net cost savings to the City, yet improve the productivity of reproduction services. The existing leases make it impractical to issue a request for proposals at this time, however the consolidation of lease termination dates does create the opportunity for a formal proposal call in advance of the expiry of the proposed agreement.

Entering into an agreement as recommended by this report will have no bearing on any procurement strategy related to the provision of floor photocopying services in the business offices of the City.

Contact Name:

Jeffrey A. Abrams

Director, Secretariat, Printing and Distribution, 392-8670

7

Fees for Real Estate Documents and Services

Provided for by the City Solicitor

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August21, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To recommend appropriate charges for documents and services provided by the City Solicitor to outside law firms, individuals and organizations.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Some revenue will be generated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the fee schedule as set out in Appendix 1 to this report be approved, effective as of the date of Council adoption;

(2)the fees collected from the provision of the services identified in Appendix 1 be allocated to the Legal Department budget;

(3)the City Solicitor be authorized to waive, or reduce any fees, as set out in Appendix 1, in exceptional circumstances or situations of financial hardship;

(4)this authority supersede and replace any authorities, by-laws, policies or procedures of the seven former municipalities that relate to the charging of these types of fees for documents or services provided by the Solicitor; and

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

Background:

Previously, the practices of the former seven "old" municipalities varied as to whether fees were charged for documents and services provided by the legal departments to law firms, individuals, and other organizations, including:

(a)preparation of encroachment agreements;

(b)written responses to compliance requests; and

(c)various other documents or services, leases, licences and other agreements, or amendments.

In addition, even where there was uniformity as to the fact of imposing such charges, the amount in question varied among the seven municipalities. As a result, a replacement authorization is required for uniform application across the new city.

Encroachment Agreements:

After comparing the practices of the amalgamated cities, as well as some of the surrounding GTA municipalities, and reviewing the actual costs in preparing encroachment agreements, carrying out title searches, reviewing relevant legal documents, and drafting and finalizing encroachment agreements, it is recommended that the fee for legal services to prepare and register encroachment agreements be a flat fee of $350.00, (not including the actual Registry Office fee, also the responsibility of the applicant) for all types of properties, and that the Solicitor be authorized to waive the required fees where the encroachment(s) has been caused by a road widening or other municipal undertaking.

Compliance Letters:

A large number of requests are received by the Legal Department, from outside parties, inquiring as to whether easements or other types of agreements are "in good standing" (usually as a result of a proposed transfer or refinancing). The preparation of the response involves a file review, and analysis of the instrument in question, obtaining updated information from the Operating Department involved concerning the specific agreement, and ultimately, preparing a letter informing the inquirer as to whether or not there is compliance and/or whether the City is prepared to release the agreement.

Leases, Licences, Consents and Other Real Estate Documents:

In addition, there are various other services performed by the legal department as a result of the desires of third parties to enter into or consider entering into documentation and/or to re-organize itself or its affairs. The following is a list of activities for which the Department recommends that an administration fee, on a cost recovery basis, as set out in Appendix 1, be approved.

(a)preparation of a lease or lease renewal agreement;

(b)lease amending agreement;

(c)consent to security documents or refinancing;

(d)consent to assignment or sublet of a lease;

(e)production of an estoppel certificate;

(f)requests to expedite the execution of a consent and a waiver of notice;

(g)consent to document registration;

(h)surrender, discharge, termination or release documentation;

(i)consent to Applications for First Registration in Land Titles; and

(j)due diligence requests made by potential purchasers of property.

Comments:

It is recommended that authorization be granted to charge fees for legal documents and services as set out in Appendix 1 attached hereto, effective as of the date of council adoption.

Contact Name:

Margaret Fischer-tel: 392-8054

--------

Appendix 1

ServiceApplicable Fee*

Encroachment Agreements $350.00 plus disbursements

Compliance Request$100.00 per property

Preparation of Nominal Sum Lease$300.00

Renewal of Lease$200.00

Lease Amending Agreement$300.00

Surrender, Termination or Release documentation$100.00

Consent to Security Documents or a refinancing $300.00

Consent to Assignment or Sublet of lease$300.00

Production of an estoppel certificate under a lease$100.00

Consent to Applications for First Registration in Land Titles$100.00

Responding to due diligence requests made by$100.00

purchasers of property

Consent to document registration$ 50.00

* plus GST

8

Constance E. Hamilton Award - 20th Anniversary - 1999

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July9, 1998) from the Women Members of City Council; and reports having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on all awards and bursaries from former municipalities; and on how such awards and bursaries are to be distributed and administered:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve the 20 anniversary program for the Constance E. Hamilton Award and the continuation of this award to recognize Person's Day;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services make the arrangements for the Constance E. Hamilton Award and that joint advertising take place with the Access Award and the William Hubbard Race Relations Award as outlined in this report; and

(3)this report be forwarded to the Task Force on Community Access and Equity for information.

Background:

Every year on October 18, Person's Day is celebrated across Canada to recognize the 1929 Privy Council decision in which women were declared persons and therefore became eligible to be appointed to the Senate of Canada. In 1979, to recognize the 50 anniversary of this decision, the former Council of the City of Toronto established an annual award. The Award was named after Constance E. Hamilton who was the first woman elected to a municipal council in Toronto in 1920. The recipients have been selected by the Constance E. Hamilton Award committee which is comprised of the Women Members of Council.

Aside from celebrating Person's Day and women's participation in the political process, the Award recognizes contributions made by up to three persons towards improving the status of women in the city. The Award is intended to honour individuals whose work has not been previously recognized. Nominations are sought through a publicly advertised process and selections are made by the Women Members of Council. Advertising has taken place with other civic awards, in particular the Access Award and the William P. Hubbard Race Relations Award.

Comments:

In 1989, to recognize the 10 anniversary of the Award, a special pin was commissioned, which was presented to the recipients at the civic honours ceremony when all other civic awards are presented. We recommend that this pin continue to be presented at an annual civic awards ceremony when this has been established.

In addition, to the formal civic awards ceremony a special presentation program has been held to include people working on women's issues and was combined with the scholarships in women's studies which have been endowed by the City at the University of Toronto.

It is proposed that the launch for nominations take place during the second week of October with a deadline for receipt of nominations by the end of November. The Award will be presented in early March in conjunction with a program to recognize International Women's Day - March 8.

Annual funding of approximately $9,000.00 for the Constance E. Hamilton Award was established by the former Toronto City Council in the City Clerk's budget. Additional costs for printing in conjunction with the Access Award and Race Relations Award were provided through the Equal Opportunity Program, Human Resources Division.

Councillor Maria Augimeri - Ward 7Councillor Irene Jones - Ward 2

Councillor Ila Bossons - Ward 23Councillor Joan King - Ward 12

Councillor Elizabeth Brown - Ward 5Councillor Gloria L. Luby - Ward 3

Councillor Sandra Bussin - Ward 26Councillor Pam McConnell - Ward 25

Councillor Olivia Chow - Ward 24Councillor Frances Nunziata - Ward 27

Councillor Betty Disero - Ward 21Councillor Judy Sgro - Ward 6

Councillor Joanne Flint - Ward 9Councillor Sherene Shaw - Ward 17

Councillor Anne Johnston - Ward 22

9

Undergraduate Recipient - 1998-99

City of Toronto Women's Studies

Scholarship at the University of Toronto

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (August 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Executive Director, Human Resources; and reports having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on all awards and bursaries from former municipalities; and on how such awards and bursaries are to be distributed and administered:

Purpose:

This report advises Council of the result of the Scholarship application process.

Financial implications:

Funding for the scholarship was established through an agreement between the City and the University.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council endorse the selection of Bonnie Hunter as the undergraduate recipient of 1998-99 City of Toronto Women's Studies Scholarship at the University of Toronto; and

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

Reference/Background/History:

In 1985, the former City of Toronto established an annual scholarship of $5,000.00 at the University of Toronto named "The City of Toronto Women's Studies Scholarship". The scholarship was established for several purposes: to commemorate the centenary of the admission of women students to the University, to recognize the significance higher education plays in the achievement of equality of opportunity, and to encourage students to continue on to the graduate level in women's studies.

The undergraduate scholarship is given to a student entering fourth year. It is based on a student's third-year performance and is awarded to the student deemed most likely to contribute to studies on the status of women, community studies and public policy, including work in the areas of transportation, housing, urban planning, employment, public works and municipal services. Selection is made by the Women's Studies Program Committee of the University of Toronto in consultation with City staff.

A new scholarship at the graduate level was also established in 1997 by the City and the University as part of the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Funds (OSOTF). The selection process will be similar to the undergraduate scholarship and the first recipient will be selected in 1999.

Comments:

The undergraduate recipient of the 1998-99 City of Toronto Women's Studies Scholarship is BonnieHunter. Bonnie Hunter has distinguished herself as a recipient of this scholarship through an exemplary academic record, volunteer work within and external to the University and involvement in activities of the Women's Studies Program.

Conclusions:

The City of Toronto's participation in various scholarship programs continues to advance the importance of higher education to the urban environment, and in particular the City's continued leadership role in achieving equity in the community.

Contact Names:

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, 392-6824

Manager, Equal Opportunity

10

Review of Rent - Lease of Portion of

Roxborough Parkette, Adjacent to

3 Highland Avenue (Ward 23 - Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To secure Council authorization for the increase of annual rent paid to the City by Ms.NeemaVerjee, in accordance with the terms of the lease between the City and Ms. Verjee pertaining to a portion of Roxborough Parkette, adjacent to 3 Highland Avenue.

Source of Funds:

No funding required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to increase the annual rent payable to the City by the current owner of 3 Highland Avenue pertaining to the lease of an adjacent portion of Roxborough Parkette to $100.00 per annum;

(2)this authority be granted subject to any conditions deemed necessary by the City Solicitor; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary steps to implement the foregoing.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its meeting held on July 24 and 25, 1995, adopted without amendment Clause No.21 contained in Report No. 9 of The Neighbourhood Committee, titled "New Lease - Premises 3Highland Avenue - Roxborough Parkette" (copy attached).

Council granted authority, therefore, for the execution and delivery of a new lease with Ms.NeemaVerjee pertaining to a portion of Roxborough Parkette (adjacent to 3 Highland Avenue). Under the terms of this new lease, for residential gardening purposes only, Ms. Verjee is required to pay all realty and business taxes, and is not permitted to assign the lease or sub-let without leave. Ms.Verjee is also responsible for all maintenance and repairs to this property, including all costs for same, as well as all rates and charges for utilities, including water, gas and electricity and is to maintain comprehensive public liability insurance. The City may terminate this lease with thirty days written notice to the tenant if the demised premises are required for municipal purposes.

Also under the terms of the aforementioned lease, Ms. Verjee is required to pay the City an annual rent of fifty dollars ($50.00), with the understanding that prior to December 31, 1997, the amount of the annual rent to be paid to the City should be reviewed and agreed to by the City and Ms.Verjee. Failing such agreement, this lease is to be terminated.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

It was not possible to deal with the rent review prior to December 31, 1997. I have consulted with Property Services staff, requesting that the appraisal of this rent be carried out, and have received their recommendation that the rent for the subject should be increased to $100.00 per annum effective from January 1, 1998, with other lease terms remaining unchanged.

I have consulted with Ms. Verjee, who is in agreement with the recommended rent increase to $100.00 per annum.

Conclusion:

I have no objection to the increase of the annual rent payable to the City by the current owner of 3Highland Avenue pertaining to the lease of an adjacent portion of Roxborough Parkette to $100.00per annum. All other terms and conditions contained in the Lease shall remain the same.

Contact Name:

Mario Zanetti

Parks and Recreation Division

392-7252

--------

(A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Property Matter - 1258 Queen Street West

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the confidential communication (September 14, 1998) from the City Clerk respecting a property matter at 1258 Queen Street West, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (September 14, 1998) from the City Clerk embodying the following confidential reports, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act:

(i)(September 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(ii)(July 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.)

12

Expropriation of Property Interests, Sheppard Subway

Project, Yonge Station, Premium Projects Limited,

4726 Yonge Street and Part of 20-24 Poyntz Avenue

(Ward 10 - North York Centre)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting "20-24 Poyntz Avenue" wherever it appears in the Clause, and inserting in lieu thereof "18-26 Poyntz Avenue.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek approval of the expropriation under the Expropriations Act of property interests required for the construction and operation of the Sheppard Subway in the vicinity of Yonge Station.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financing has previously been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No. TC-392, Sheppard Subway Project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council, as approving authority, approve the expropriation of temporary property interests as detailed herein for a term of 44 months as recommended by the Inquiry Officer;

(2)authority be granted to take all steps necessary to comply with the Expropriations Act including, but not limited to, the preparation and registration of a Plan of Expropriation and services of Notices of Expropriation, Notices of Election as to the date for compensation, Notices of Possession, and Offers of Compensation;

(3)authority be granted to the Commissioner of Corporate Services to sign the Notices of Expropriation, Notices of Possession, and Offers of Compensation, on behalf of the City;

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

By approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Management Committee (as amended) on March8 and 9, 1994, and subject to a further report regarding funding, Metropolitan Council approved construction of the Sheppard Subway to Don Mills Road. By the approval of Clause No.2 of Report No. 14 of The Management Committee (as amended) on April 20, 1994, Metropolitan Council authorized the debenture funding to commence the project. Finally, Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of The Financial Priorities Committee on September25 and 26, 1996 (as amended), approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway Project.

Metropolitan Council, at its meeting on May 8, 1996, by the adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No.9 of The Corporate Administration Committee, authorized the services of Notices of Application for Approval to Expropriate all interests in land required for the construction of the Sheppard Subway in the vicinity of Yonge Station including the property located at 4726 Yonge Street and part of 20-24 Poyntz Avenue owned by Premium Projects Limited ("Premium"). Discussions were held with Premium in an attempt to negotiate a voluntary acquisition of the required interests. However, the parties were unable to conclude a purchase agreement in a timely fashion making it necessary to proceed with the expropriation in order to ensure that the Toronto Transit Commission ("TTC") could have possession of the property for the commencement of construction.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In response to the service of the Notice of Application to Expropriate Land, Premium requested an Inquiry as allowed by the Expropriations Act. The Inquiry was held on August 26, 1998 before Mr.David Vine to determine whether the proposed expropriation by the City of Toronto was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary. Mr. Vine's report has now been received and it is attached as Appendix "A" to this report. Mr. Vine has concluded that the proposed expropriation is, in fact, fair, sound, and reasonably necessary as required by the Expropriations Act and has recommended that Council approve expropriation of temporary property interests described as Lots 754 and 755, Plan1743 and Part of Lots 762 to 769 and Part of Lot 770, Plan 1743 shown as Parts 1 and 2, on Reference Plan 64R-15418 in the City of Toronto. He has further recommended that efforts be made to coordinate the temporary widening of Poyntz Avenue required by the TTC for its Traffic Management Plan with the ultimate widening of Poyntz Avenue to complete the "ring road" from Beecroft Road east to Yonge Street.

As part of the construction of the Sheppard Subway-Yonge Station, and related facilities, two property interests are required from Premium Projects Limited, the owner of 4726 Yonge Street and 20-24 Poyntz Avenue. The property located at 4726 Yonge Street containing an area of 6,889 square feet will be required as a mobilization site for parking, storage and use of construction equipment for a term of 44 months. A portion of the property located at 20-24 Poyntz Avenue is required for traffic management to allow for the re-routing of traffic around the Yonge/Sheppard intersection during various stages of construction is also required for a term of 44 months.

The Principal of Premium Projects Limited, Mr. Milton Winberg, argued at the Hearing of Necessity that the City should acquire all of the property requirements for the ultimate construction of the ring road from Beecroft east to Yonge Street. The TTC, in designing the Traffic Management Plan for the Yonge Station, had considered, in consultation with the former Metropolitan Transportation Department and the City of North York, the permanent construction of the ring road. The matter was deemed premature in light of all the planning and funding approvals required and the property necessary for the ultimate ring road alignment exceeds the area required in this instance and in any case, only temporary easements are required for the Traffic Management Plan. As the contract for the Yonge Station was awarded July 15, 1998 and construction of the Yonge Station has begun, it is not possible to coordinate the construction of the ring road between Beecroft Road and Yonge Street.

The proposed temporary widening of Poyntz Avenue by the TTC conforms to the approved Traffic Management Plan for the Yonge Station construction and must be constructed as soon as possible to avoid any traffic congestion associated with the Yonge Station construction.

Conclusion:

The expropriation of the lands owned by Premium Projects Limited and described herein for a temporary widening of Poyntz Avenue and as a construction work site, has been recommended by the Inquiry Officer as fair, sound, and reasonably necessary for the reasons identified in his report, and the expropriation should be approved by Council.

Contact Name:

Robert K. Johnston (905)501-9099; Facsimile (905)501-0455 E-mail address: jdassoc@interlog.com

--------

(A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

13

Disposition of City-Owned Property

Dundas Street West and Viking Road

(Ward 4 - Markland-Centennial)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To declare surplus to the City's requirements the property described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described herein be declared surplus to the City's requirements;

(2)upon compliance with the requirements of By-law No. 551-1998 and subject to easement protection for utilities, the property be offered for sale at market value to the adjacent land owner; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property, along with other lands in the area, was acquired for the construction of the Six Points Interchange in the early 1960's. The subject lands are surplus to this project.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Description of Lands:

Subject Property: Part of lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and Block A, Registered Plan 3408, City of Etobicoke, shown as Part 2 on Plan 64R-11556.

Location:South side of Dundas Street West and north side of Viking Road, West of Kipling Avenue.

Dimensions:Irregular.

Lot Area:1,673 square metres (18,008 square feet).

Property Type:Vacant Land.

Zoning:IC1 (Industrial).

The adjacent land owner to the west (Crest-Corp Holdings Limited) has submitted a site specific plan proposing a three-tower residential complex, with some commercial uses as well. This would require an assembly of a number of adjacent sites including the subject. I am advised that the majority of the lands required for this development have been assembled.

While the subject lands are viable, their most appropriate use is considered to be in their assembly with the surrounding lands for the use proposed above.

Property Canvass:

The property was canvassed on April 15, 1998 to various City Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions. No interest has been expressed.

Conclusion:

The subject lands are not required by the City and should be declared surplus and offered for sale to the abutting owner at market value.

Contact Name:

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

--------

(A copy of the map referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

Sale of City-Owned Property known Municipally as

23 Fraser Avenue (Ward 20 - Trinity Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is recommended that the report dated September 21, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled 'Sale of City-Owned Property Known Municipally as 23 Fraser Avenue (Ward 20 - Trinity Niagara)', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)the Offer to Purchase from 1294539 Ontario Inc. to acquire 23 Fraser Avenue in the amount of $1,200,000.00, including a deposit of $60,000.00, be accepted and the City's Broker, Torode Realty Ltd., be instructed to return the deposit cheques to the unsuccessful purchasers Alliance Rockliffe Limited and Herzim Management Limited;

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing of the transaction or otherwise;

(3)the City Surveyor furnish the necessary legal description;

(4)the net proceeds from the sale be directed to the Capital Funds from Assets Sold Account; and

(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing.' ")

The Corporate Services Committee reports having concurred with the Recommendations embodied in the following report (September 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To advise that the offers received for the sale of 23 Fraser Avenue are not acceptable and to secure the Corporate Services Committee's authorization to advise the three prospective purchasers that they will be provided the opportunity to resubmit a highest and final offer in a form acceptable to the City by September18, 1998. The results will be reported directly to City Council at its meeting on October 1, 1998.

Financial Implications:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)each of the three prospective purchasers be advised that their offer for 23 Fraser Avenue is not acceptable and that they will be provided the opportunity to resubmit a highest and final offer in a form acceptable to the City by September 18, 1998; and

(2)the results be reported directly to City Council at its meeting on October 1, 1998.

Background:

In July, 1996, 23 Fraser Avenue was offered for sale by public tender pursuant to the Municipal Tax Sales Act. The reserve bid, comprised of tax arrears, interest and penalty was $884,032.59. No bids were received and the ownership of the property was vested with the City of Toronto on July23,1996.

23 Fraser Avenue is improved with a two-storey commercial building having an approximate gross floor area of 44,559 square feet and a site area of 47,911 square feet. The building has two fully operational film studios and associated office space.

At its meeting held on December 8, 1997, City Council declared the property at 23 Fraser Avenue surplus to its requirements and directed the Director, Property Services to report to the Board of Management on an appropriate method of sale together with a recommended asking price. To maximize the exposure on the open market, it was concluded that it would be prudent to list the property with a real estate broker previously qualified from the City's proposal call for the retention of real estate brokers and thus, in late December, 1997, the Board of Management authorized the retention of Torode Realty Ltd. to market 23 Fraser Avenue at an asking price of $1,400,000.00. The listing price was determined on the basis of an appraisal completed for the City by Royal LePage Professional Services Inc.

Three Offers to Purchase were received by the deadline date of 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 2, 1998. None of the offers, ranging from $864,000.00 to $1,200,000.00, were considered acceptable due to either the conditions included or due to the purchase price.

At its meeting on April 16, 1998, City Council adopted the recommendations contained in a report entitled "Sale of City-owned property known as 23 Fraser Avenue" from the Commissioner of Corporate Services to Corporate Services Committee. The report recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to commence negotiations with Studioasis Media Corporation, the purchaser who submitted the highest offer, in order to secure an acceptable offer and, failing which, authority be granted to re-market the property on the open market and to report back to the Corporate Services Committee, In Camera on the results.

Comments:

As Studioasis Media Corporation was considered to be a serious purchaser and in order to secure a clean offer, City staff permitted Studioasis Media Corporation additional time to satisfy itself of certain issues that affect the property, including the opportunity to undertake a preliminary due diligence investigation.

Studioasis Media Corporation was unable to execute an acceptable Agreement of Purchase and Sale for internal reasons and, as of consequence, the property was re-marketed by Torode Realty Ltd. at an asking price of $1,400,000.00 with an offer submission deadline of 12:00 noon, August21, 1998. Three offers were received and are summarized below:

Offer No. 1- 1294539 Ontario Inc

Term Sheet:

Purchaser:1294539 Ontario Inc.

225 Mutual Street

Toronto, Ontario M5B 2B5.

Purchase Price:$1,050,000.00.

Deposit:$52,500.00 with offer and $52,500.00 upon expiry of due diligence period.

Intended Use:TV and film studios.

Solicitor:Robert J. Bassermann

120 Carlton Street, Suite 214

Toronto, Ontario M5A 4K2.

GST. No.:To be provided on or before closing.

Irrevocable Date:On or before October 20, 1998.

Closing Date:On or before February 22, 1999.

Conditions:A 60 day Due Diligence Period during which the Purchaser can conduct an environmental assessment the result thereof shall follow criteria required for the use of the Real Property for Industrial/Commercial purposes pursuant to the Ministry of Environmental & Energy's current guidelines for the decommissioning and cleanup of sites in Ontario.

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To provide City Council with information on the offers received for the sale of 23 Fraser Avenue and to recommend that the Offer to Purchase submitted by 1294539 Ontario Inc. in the amount of $1,200,000.00 be accepted.

Financial Implications:

The sale of this property for the amount of $1,200,000.00 will result in a net amount of approximately $1,161,480.00 ($1,200,000.00 minus broker's commission of $38,520.00 including GST, less any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing of the transaction or otherwise) being deposited to the Capital Funds from Assets Sold Account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Offer to Purchase from 1294539 Ontario Inc. to acquire 23 Fraser Avenue in the amount of $1,200,000.00, including a deposit of $60,000.00, be accepted and to instruct the City's Broker, Torode Realty Ltd., to return the deposit cheques to the unsuccessful purchasers Alliance Rockliffe Limited and Herzim Management Limited;

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing of the transaction or otherwise;

(3)the City Surveyor furnish the necessary legal description;

(4)the net proceeds from the sale be directed to the Capital Funds from Assets Sold Account; and

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

Background:

In July 1996, 23 Fraser Avenue was offered for sale by public tender pursuant to the Municipal Tax Sales Act. The reserve bid, comprised of tax arrears, interest and penalty was $884,032.59. No bids were received and the ownership of the property was vested with the City of Toronto on July23, 1996.

23 Fraser Avenue is improved with a two-storey commercial building having an approximate gross floor area of 44,559 square feet and a site area of 47,911 square feet. The building has two fully operational film studios and associated office space.

At its meeting held on December 8, 1997, City Council declared the property at 23 Fraser Avenue surplus to its requirements and directed the Director, Property Services to report to the Board of Management on an appropriate method of sale together with a recommended asking price. To maximize the exposure on the open market, it was concluded that it would be prudent to list the property with a real estate broker previously qualified from the City's proposal call for the retention of real estate brokers and thus, in late December, 1997, the Board of Management authorized the retention of Torode Realty Ltd. to market 23 Fraser Avenue at an asking price of $1,400,000.00. The listing price was determined on the basis of an appraisal completed for the City of Toronto by Royal LePage Professional Services Inc.

Three Offers to Purchase were received by the deadline date of 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March2, 1998. None of the offers, ranging from $864,000.00 to $1,200,000.00, were considered acceptable due to either the conditions included or due to the purchase price.

At its meeting on April 16, 1998, City Council adopted the recommendations contained in a confidential report entitled "Sale of City-owned property known as 23 Fraser Avenue" from the Commissioner of Corporate Services to the Corporate Services Committee. The report recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to commence negotiations with Studioasis Media Corporation, the purchaser who submitted the highest offer, in order to secure an acceptable offer and, failing which, authority be granted to re-market the property on the open market and to report back to the Corporate Services Committee, in camera on the results.

Comments:

As Studioasis Media Corporation was considered to be a serious purchaser and in order to secure a clean offer, City staff permitted Studioasis Media Corporation additional time to satisfy itself of certain issues that affect the property, including the opportunity to undertake a preliminary due diligence investigation.

Studioasis Media Corporation was unable to execute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for internal reasons and, as of consequence, the property was re-marketed by Torode Realty Ltd. at an asking price of $1,400,000.00 with an offer submission deadline of 12:00 noon, August 21, 1998. Three offers were received at that time, all of which were unacceptable, due to either conditions included or the amount offered.

At its meeting on September 14, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee adopted the recommendations contained in a public report entitled "Sale of City-owned property municipally known as 23 Fraser Avenue" from the Commissioner of Corporate Services. The report recommended that each of the three purchasers be advised that their offer for 23 Fraser Avenue is not acceptable and that they will be provided the opportunity to resubmit a highest and final offer in a form acceptable to the City by September 18, 1998, and the results be reported directly to City Council at its meeting on October 1, 1998.

Two of the three purchasers submitted a highest and final offer before the 4:00 p.m. deadline on September18, 1998. The offers are summarized below:

Offer No. (1) - 1294539 Ontario Inc.

(Resubmitted Offer)

Term Sheet:

Purchaser:1294539 Ontario Inc.

225 Mutual Street

Toronto, Ontario M5B 2B5

Purchase Price:$1,200,000.00

Deposit:$60,0000.00 with offer and $60,000.00 upon expiry of due diligence period

Intended Use:TV and film studios

Solicitor:Robert J. Bassermann

120 Carlton Street, Suite 214

Toronto, Ontario M5A 4K2

GST. No.:To be provided on or before closing

Irrevocable Date:On or before October 20, 1998

Closing Date:On or before December 30, 1998

Conditions:A 60 day Due Diligence Period during which the Purchaser can conduct an environmental assessment the result thereof shall follow criteria required for the use of the Real Property for Industrial/Commercial purposes pursuant to the Ministry of Environmental and Energy's current guidelines for the decommissioning and cleanup of sites in Ontario.

Comments:This purchaser, who also owns Studioasis Media Corporation submitted the highest and best offer in a form approved by City staff. The offer price is higher than the other offer and the property's appraised value. Consequently, this offer is recommended for approval.

Offer No. (2) -Herzim Management Limited, in trust for a company to be incorporated

(Resubmitted Offer)

Term Sheet:

Purchaser:Herzim Management Limited, in trust for a company to be incorporated

c/o 7 Weetwood Street

North York, Ontario M5M 4C9

Purchase Price:$800,000.00

Deposit:$80,000.00

Intended Use:To lease out subject

Solicitor:Ronen Zimmerman

20 Eglinton Avenue West, Suite 1501

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1K8

GST. No.:To be provided on or before closing

Irrevocable Date:No Date Given

Closing Date:45 days following the expiry of the 45 day Due Diligence Period

conditions:During the 45 day Due Diligence period, satisfaction respecting restrictions, easements and rights of way and environmental assessment. All conditions presented in a form acceptable to City staff.

Commends:This offer amount is below the property's appraised value and is not recommended.

Offer No. (3) -Alliance Rockliffe Limited

(Original Offer submitted on August 21, 1998. This prospective purchaser did not resubmit on September18, 1998)

Term Sheet:

Purchaser:Alliance Rockliffe Limited

1 St. Clair Avenue East

Toronto, Ontario M4T 2V7

Purchase Price:$1,250,000.00

Deposit:$125,000.00

Intended Use:Renovate and lease as studio and or office

Solicitor:Allan Kaplan

69 Bloor Street East, Suite 210

Toronto, Ontario M4W 1A9

GST. No.:To be provided on or before closing

Irrevocable Date:October 19, 1998

Closing Date:January 4, 1999 or 45 days following the expiry of the Due Diligence Period

Conditions:The agreement is conditional during the 45 day Due Diligence Period on the Purchaser satisfying itself that the environmental condition of the property is acceptable to it; and, that the present use of the property may be lawfully continued.

On closing, the Real Property to be delivered with vacant possession.

Comments:The condition respecting the environmental condition is not in a form acceptable to City legal staff. Further, the condition that the City provide vacant possession on closing is also not acceptable because if the transaction does not close for whatever reason, the property would lose its source of rental revenue. It is more prudent to sell the property subject to the existing tenancies on closing and let the purchaser provide 'notice' to the tenants at that time. As indicated in the report to the Corporate Services Committee the City's interests are not fully protected, and, accordingly, this offer is not acceptable.

Conclusion:

Of the two resubmitted offers, only Offer No. 1 from 1294539 Ontario Inc. is above the appraised value of the property. This offer is also in a form that is acceptable to City staff. The prospective purchaser Alliance Rockliffe Limited did not resubmit an offer on September 18, 1998. Although the original offer submitted by this prospective purchaser on August 21, 1998 has a greater purchase price than the offer from 1294539 Ontario Inc., this offer is not acceptable due to the conditions contained therein.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Offer to Purchase received from 1294539 Ontario Inc. in the amount of $1,200,000.00 is acceptable.

Contact Name:

Peter Aziz, 392-1856, Fax: 392-1880, paziz@toronto.ca, [cn98176.wpd].)

15

Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property

at 34 Gloucester Grove,

(Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

(This Clause, at the meeting of City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, was withdrawn.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 34 Gloucester Grove.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $195,000.00 less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the highest offer in the amount of $195,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CP300J56176;

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Province of Ontario is the owner of 34 Gloucester Grove, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-Law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-Law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and an easement requirement in favour of the City of Toronto for subway/sewer purposes has been identified and will be reserved.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Prudential Sadie Moranis Realty on August 10, 1998 at an asking price of $179,900.00. As a result, the following offers were received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Darko Joksimovic and$9,762.50 $195,000.00 (non-conditional)

Susan Mainella(money order)

Bill Iuele$12,000.00$193,504.00 (non-conditional)

(bank draft)

The highest offer is being recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:34 Gloucester Grove, City of Toronto.

Legal Description:Plan 2339, Part of Lots, 21, 22, 23 and 24, City of Toronto; designated as Part 20 on Expropriation Plan 7777.

Approximate Lot Size:6.86 metres (22.5 feet) fronting onto Everden Road

30.48 metres (100 feet) depth.

Location:Northwest corner of Gloucester Grove and Everden Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West.

Improvements:Detached, brick bungalow.

Occupancy Status:Vacant.

Easement:Title to the property will be conveyed subject to an easement in favour of the City of Toronto substantially as shown on Plan 64R-7314. Located within the boundaries of the property is a major in-tunnel trunk storm sewer and the easement rights that were granted in favour of the City of Toronto provide for the repair, replacement or any other works required in order to provide for the continual maintenance of this substantial public utility.

Recommended Sale Price:$195,000.00.

Deposit:$9,762.50.

Purchaser:Darko Joksimovic and Susan Mainella.

Closing Date:October 30, 1998.

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

Listing Broker:Prudential Sadie Moranis Realty.

Selling Broker:Prudential Sadie Moranis Realty.

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

By the adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee, Council at the meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998, directed that comparable sales data be provided in future reports of property sales. Appendix "A" identifies three comparable properties located in the vicinity that have recently sold. While comparable sales information can be included as part of the staff report, this property was listed for sale on the TREB multiple listing service and the forces of the market place have determined the true market value.

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416)396-4930, Fax No.: (416)396-4241, E-Mail Address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

--------

Appendix "A"

34 Gloucester Grove - Comparable Sales

The following three addresses represent recent comparable sales of properties that are quite similar to the residence which forms the subject matter of this report. These three properties consist of 5 room houses with 2 bedrooms.

AddressSale PriceDate of Sale

355 Winnett Avenue$182,100.00April 13, 1998

152 Gloucester Grove$178,000.00June 2, 1998

487 Winnett Avenue$188,000.00June 11, 1998

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

16

Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at

118 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 118 Everden Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $238,100.00 less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept an offer in the amount of $238,100.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CP300J56143;

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Province of Ontario is the owner of 118 Everden Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and the easement requirement detailed herein has been identified.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with HomeLife/City Hill Realty Inc. on June 29, 1998 at an asking price of $224,900.00. As a result, the following offer was received:

Property Address:118 Everden Road, City of Toronto.

Legal Description:Lot 95, Plan 2339, designated as Part 10 on Plan No. 7777, former City of York.

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

40.5 metres (132.91 feet) depth.

Location:East side of Everden Road, north of Ava Road.

Improvements:Detached, bungalow.

Occupancy Status:Vacant.

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

Easement:Title to the property will be conveyed subject to an easement in favour of the City of Toronto substantially as shown on Plan 64R-7314 for subway/sewer and other related municipal purposes.

Recommended Sale Price:$238,100.00 (non-conditional).

Deposit:$13,800.00.

Purchaser:Christina Pang.

Closing Date:October 19, 1998.

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

Listing Broker:Coldwell Banker Pinnacle Real Estate.

Selling Broker:Remax Realtron Realty.

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

By the adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee, Council at the meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998 directed that comparable sales data be provided in future reports of property sales. Appendix "A" identifies three comparable properties located in the vicinity that have recently sold. While comparable sales information can be included as part of the staff report, this property was listed for sale on the TREB multiple listing service and the forces of the market place have determined the true market value.

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416)396-4930, Fax No.: (416)396-4241, E-Mail Address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

--------

Appendix "A"

118 Everden Road - Comparable Sales

The following three addresses represent recent comparable sales of properties that are quite similar to the residence which forms the subject matter of this report. These three properties consist of fiveroom houses with two bedrooms.

AddressSale PriceDate of Sale

114 Everden Road$222,000.00July 8, 1998

24 Gloucester Grove$221,000.00July 29, 1998

112 Everden Road$211,000.00August 18, 1997

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

17

Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at

121 Everden Road - (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 121 Everden Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $325,500.00 less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 of the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee, approved on December 4, 1996.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the highest offer in the amount of $325,500.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14, of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CP300J56146;

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Province of Ontario is the owner of 121 Everden Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and the easement requirement detailed herein has been identified.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Savvy Realty Corp. on July 30, 1998 at an asking price of $319,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. As a result, the following offers were received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Andria Jane Weiss$17,000.00$325,500.00 non-conditional

(certified cheque)

Michael Kot & Tracy Leach$15,000.00$280,600.00 non-conditional

(certified cheque)

This offer is being recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:121 Everden Road, City of Toronto.

Legal Description:Plan 2339, Lot 113, City of Toronto.

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

40.23 metres (132 feet) depth.

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

Easements:Subject to an easement in favour of the City of Toronto for subway/sewer and other related municipal purposes identified within Part 9 on Plan 64R-7314.

Improvements:Detached, two storey, brick dwelling.

Occupancy Status:Vacant.

Recommended Sale Price:$325,500.00.

Deposit:$17,000.00.

Purchaser:Andria Jane Weiss.

Closing Date:October 30, 1998.

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

Listing Broker:Savvy Realty Corp.

Selling Broker:Savvy Realty Corp.

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

By the adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee, Council at the meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998, directed that comparable sales data be provided in future reports of property sales. Appendix "A" identifies three comparable properties located in the vicinity that have recently sold. While comparable sales information can be included as part of the staff report, this property was listed for sale on the TREB multiple listing service and the forces of the market place have determined the true market value.

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

Mr. R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416)396-4930, Fax No.: (416)396-4241, E-Mail Address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

--------

Appendix "A"

121 Everden Road - Comparable Sales

The following three addressess represent recent comparable sales of properties that are quite similar to the residence which forms the subject matter of this report. These three properties consist of six room houses with three bedrooms.

AddressSale PriceDate of Sale

141 Everden Road$281,600.00July 8, 1998

103 Everden Road$300,300.00July 29, 1998

171 Strathearn Road$342,100.00June 3, 1998

--------

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

18

Sale of Surplus Properties, Southerly Portion

of 141 Weston Road and the Residual Portion

of Keele Street Closed (Ward 21 - Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the sale of the southerly portion of the property known municipally as 141 Weston Road and the residual portion of Keele Street Closed by By-law 14156, City of Toronto, to one of the adjoining property owners.

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $45,000.00 will be generated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Offer to Purchase received from Keele-St. Clair Limited Partnership, by its General Partner, 1262425 Ontario Inc., In Trust, for PARTS 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of an unregistered reference plan appended to the offer, for the amount of $45,000.00, together with a deposit of $4,500.00, as detailed herein, be accepted;

(2)a permanent easement over PART 4 be granted to Ontario Hydro, on or prior to closing, for the purpose of operating and maintaining overhead transmission lines;

(3)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete the transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing or otherwise; and

(4)the appropriate Civic Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.

Comments:

City Council at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, declared two vacant parcels of land surplus to municipal requirements. 141 Weston Road, identified as PARTS 8, 9, 10 and 12 on an unregistered reference plan, is triangular in shape. The Commissioner Works and Emergency Services has advised that the parcel is encumbered by two storm sewers and any sale of this parcel be subject to a permanent easement being reserved for the purpose of surveying, laying, constructing, operating, using, inspecting, removing, renewing, replacing, altering, enlarging, reconstructing, repairing, expanding and maintaining the storm sewers.

PARTS 4 and 5 on the unregistered reference plan comprise part of a highway stopped up and closed by City of Toronto By-law No. 14156 (Keele Street Closed). PART 4 is encumbered by overhead hydro transmission lines.

Ontario Hydro has expressed an initial interest in possibly acquiring the northerly portion of 141Weston Road (PART 12) encumbered by its tenant's improvements and the sale would be the subject of another report. With respect to the residual portion of Keele Street Closed (PARTS 4 and5), Ontario Hydro has advised that it is not interested in acquiring this parcel and will execute on or before closing a waiver of any rights it may have to purchase the closed highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, provided any sale of PART 4 is subject to a permanent easement to be granted to Ontario Hydro for the purpose of maintaining overhead transmission lines.

Keele-St. Clair Limited Partnership, by its General Partner, 1262425 Ontario Inc., In Trust, is the developer of a large "box" type retail complex proposed for the northeast corner of St. Clair Avenue West and Weston Road and has submitted an Offer to Purchase those parcels not required by Ontario Hydro for incorporation into its development site. The Offer to Purchase the lands identified as PARTS 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 is summarized below:

Property:PARTS 8, 9 and 10 - Southerly Portion of 141 Weston Road,

PARTS 4 and 5 - Residual portion of Keele Street Closed.

Legal Description:Part of Block T, Plan 1249Y and Part of Block C, Plan 1196Y and

Part of Keele Street Closed by By-law 14156.

Areas:PARTS 8, 9 and 10 - 793.3 square feet (73.7 m²)

PARTS 4 and 5 - 4,463.5 square feet (414.66 m²).

Zoning:IC (Industrial District).

Purchaser:Keele-St. Clair Limited Partnership, by its General Partner,

1262425 Ontario Inc., In Trust.

Purchase Price:$45,000.00.

Deposit:$4,500.00.

Intended Use:Commercial, including access and parking.

Acceptance Date:October 8, 1998.

Closing Date:On or before October 23, 1998.

Solicitor:David R. Fedy

Sims Clement Eastman

700-22 Frederick Street, P.O. Box 578

Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4A2

Other Relevant Terms and Conditions:

(i)the Purchaser agrees to accept title to PARTS 8, 9 and 10 subject to a permanent easement being reserved by the City, for the purpose of surveying, laying, constructing, operating, using, inspecting, removing, renewing, replacing, altering, enlarging, reconstructing, repairing, expanding and maintaining the storm sewers;

(ii)the Purchaser agrees to accept title to PART 4 subject to a permanent easement to be granted to Ontario Hydro by the City on or prior to closing for the purpose of operating and maintaining overhead transmission lines;

(iii)the Purchaser is solely liable for the costs of an up to date plan of survey and, upon approval by the City Surveyor, the registration of same; and

(iv)the City's obligation to deliver a Transfer/Deed of Land in respect of the closed highway (PARTS 4 and 5) is conditional upon any registered owners of land abutting the closed highway, if other than the Purchaser, executing on or prior to closing a waiver of any rights they may have to purchase the closed highway or any portion thereof, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. In the event a waiver is not executed, the Purchaser shall complete the transaction for the remainder of the real property and the purchase price shall be reduced accordingly on a per square foot basis.

Conclusion:

The Offer to Purchase as submitted by Keele-St. Clair Limited Partnership, by its General Partner, 1262425 Ontario Inc., for PARTS 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10, in the amount of $45,000.00, is acceptable.

Contact Name:

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

--------

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

19

A Preliminary Review of the 12 Surplus Properties,

Directed by Council to be Held in Abeyance for

120 Days Pending a Review to Determine the

Feasibility of Development for Affordable Housing

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that no action be taken with respect to the six properties located on Wilson Heights Boulevard, until such time as a public meeting can be held with the community in order to receive input from residents.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (August 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a Council directive of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, to delay for a period of 120 days, the marketing of the 12 surplus properties, identified in a report from Councillor Layton (July 30, 1998), and further that staff examine the "Ellesmere Road Site" separately. (Corporate Services Committee Report No.11, Clause No.2).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

At this time no funding is required and there are no funding implications. In the event that any of the 12 sites referenced in Councillor Layton's report are used for a pilot housing project the contributory value of the property will be estimated and reported at that time.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to proceed with sale of the following surplus sites, as identified in this report: Wilson Heights Blvd (6 sites) and Ellesmere Road (1 site between Kennedy and Midland);

(2)marketing continue to be delayed for the following surplus sites, pending a staff report, by the end of 1998, through the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, on their potential for affordable housing purposes: Grand Avenue (2 sites), Legion Road and Lawrence Avenue/Allen Road.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, Council considered a Corporate Services Committee Report describing various programs underway to expedite the disposal of land and reduction of leases (Clause No.2 of Report No.11 of The Corporate Services Committee). Councillor Layton submitted a companion report (July 30, 1998) which was considered in conjunction with the Corporate Services Committee report. The objective of the Layton report was to delay the marketing of 12 specific surplus properties to enable the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes to develop a business plan for the utilization of the sites as potential affordable housing projects. Council amended and approved both reports and directed that the "Ellesmere Road Site" be examined separately.

While we have been asked to report to the Corporate Services Committee for September 14^th regarding the Ellesmere Road site, we would also like to comment at this time on the other sites withheld from sale, at the Council meeting of July 29, 30 and 31. A staff workgroup from the Shelter, Housing and Support Division of Community and Neighbourhood Services, from Urban Planning and Development Services, and from Corporate Services, Real Estate Division has met to review these sites with regard to their potential for affordable housing development. In addition, this workgroup will be considering other City-owned sites, not yet scheduled for disposition. The objective of these reviews is to identify those sites that are most suitable for affordable ownership, rental or transitional housing demonstration projects. As described in the Affordable Housing Strategy report adopted by Council on July 29-31, the challenge is to find sites (or buildings) where it may be feasible for non-profit or private groups to create affordable housing, without ongoing government subsidy.

Based on this assessment, we would recommend that only four of the 12 sites be retained for further investigation as potential for affordable housing (Grand Avenue - two sites, Legion Road, and Lawrence Avenue/Allen Road), while the other eight be released for sale because they have limited feasibility. This report reviews the 12 sites and, for the four with the greatest potential, describes the steps required to test their feasibility for affordable housing development through further investigation and/or calls for proposals. Part of this investigation will include discussions with local planning staff and the local councillors. We would propose that the four sites be held from sale until staff report back later this year on their feasibility for affordable housing. In terms of other sites that are not yet declared surplus, the staff workgroup will be reporting through the internal real estate management process.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Ellesmere Road Site, Scarborough (Ward 15):

Located on the north side of Ellesmere Road about one hundred and twenty-five metres east of Kennedy Road, the site has an area of approximately 2.9 acres. Access is via a service road which parallels Ellesmere Road. Ellesmere is grade separated at the CNR/LRT line. As a result, parallel "slip roads" were constructed to provide access to the adjoining properties.

Land Use:

The Official Plan designation of the site is, General Industrial with High Performance Standards. The current zoning of the site is, M-Industrial.

Immediately adjacent on the east side of the Ellesmere site is the LRT and CNR line which run in a north/south direction. To the north are a series of multi-tenant industrial buildings, to the west along Kennedy Road, development is a mix of commercial and industrial, south of Ellesmere Road, development is predominately industrial.

Planning staff from the Scarborough District office advise that residential uses at this location are not compatible with the surrounding industrial development and the objectives of the former City of Scarborough Official Plan to encourage additional employment uses in this vicinity. The location of the property in the centre of an industrial area, would separate residents from amenities such as schools and parks. A secondary issue is the safety of pedestrians, particularly children, having to traverse major arterials or industrial streets to reach these facilities. In addition, surrounding land uses could have potentially significant noise, visual and environmental impacts on abutting residential uses.

Transportation Division staff advise that there is a long term goal to provide a road connection between Ellesmere Road and Progress Avenue to the north at this location. While there is no formal Council policy in this regard, staff view this connection as an important long term component in the effort to provide relief to the problematic Ellesmere Road/Kennedy Road intersection.

Grand Avenue, Etobicoke (Ward 2):

This is a large site (approx. 7.5 acres), with residential development to the east and west. It is south of the recently occupied Mystic Pointe development which converted the former McGuiness property to residential uses. Its southern limit is a park abutting the rail corridor. Based on the surrounding uses, residential development appears to be an appropriate use. However, the site was a former sewage treatment plant and incinerator. While there are extensive environmental analyses on hand, more work will have to be done to determine the level of clean-up required to reach either an industrial or a residential standard, and to estimate the cost of each. This work will be required prior to disposal for either purpose. Therefore the site should be held while this work is carried out. Depending on the estimated costs of clean-up, and the likely recovery based on the intended future use, a determination can be made as to the more feasible alternative. While this environmental work is underway, planning staff can consider possible residential development scenarios, exploring various densities and forms. Then, assuming that the clean-up costs are manageable, staff can undertake a proposal call for appropriate residential development. The site is designated as High Density Residential in the Etobicoke Official Plan. However it is zoned for industrial uses. A re-zoning of this site prior to offering it for development is recommended.

Legion Road, Etobicoke (Ward 2):

The site is zoned Class 1 Industrial and is designated as Open Space in the Official Plan. It is south of the Grand Avenue property, and north of Lakeshore Boulevard. Residential development is immediately to the west with office and commercial uses to the south. The Mimico creek to the east may be a source of flooding and further investigation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is required. Consideration must also be given to contamination which may have flowed south from the former sewage treatment plant north of the tracks. Given the environmental concerns raised, the property may not be suitable for residential development and further investigation is recommended.

Wilson Heights Blvd. (Ward 8):

There are six sites in this group, irregular parcels formed at the ends of blocks where Wilson Heights crosses the east/west streets at an angle. The surrounding neighbourhood is fully developed with good quality singles and semis. While the zoning is residential, the North York Bylaw only permits singles and semi-detached houses. The median price for single family houses in the area is $246,000.00. There are no recorded sales of attached row units. Condominium townhouses have a median of $195,600.00. This is apparently an asking price as no sales are recorded. Units which are $20 - 30,000.00 below market would still be priced too high to require or justify public intervention in their creation. Staff therefore concludes that these sites, which could only yield a small number of units, would be better sold for full market value. Efforts could more effectively be devoted to sites with the potential for achieving a greater number of units.

N/E Corner of Bayview and York Mills (Ward 9):

There is no surplus property at this location.

S/E Corner, Lawrence W. and the Allan Road (Ward 22):

This site appears to be in a suitable location for the proposed residential use. The community to the east and south is residential. A shopping center is located at the north-west corner of the intersection, and public transit is nearby.

The property has been designated as an Arterial Corridor Area under the North York Official Plan. This Particular designation does permit residential development. While North York Council had approved the development of the property for social housing purposes in 1994, the project was canceled when the Province ended the funding for such ventures in 1995. As a result the zoning was never changed and it appears that a re-zoning of the site would be necessary.

Staff are investigating the status of the original proposal, i.e.; whether the design is specific to the original user group or would be suitable for a general market, who owns the drawings, etc. This is an opportunity that should be pursued.

Conclusions:

The Wilson Heights and Ellesmere Road sites should be released for immediate sale by the Commissioner of Corporate Services. The remaining sites should be retained, and staff directed to report further on the preferred development options, through the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, once the required information has been gathered and various strategies considered.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416)396-4241 rmayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

R. Cressman, A/Director of Policy and Programs, Shelter, Housing and Support Division,Telephone (416) 392-0601, Fax (416) 392-0548, rcressma@toronto.ca

_______

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

(i)(August 10, 1998) from the City Clerk, enclosing for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No.2 contained in Report No.11 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Expediting the Disposal of Property and Reduction of Leased Space", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July29, 30and31, 1998; wherein it states that City Council amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"(4)the following motion be referred to the Commissioner of Corporate Services for report thereon to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee scheduled to be held on September 14, 1998:

Moved by Councillor Balkissoon:

'That the foregoing motion by Councillor Layton be amended to provide that the Ellesmere Road site be examined separately.' "; and

(ii)(September 10, 1998) from Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Chair, Scarborough Community Council, Councillor, Scarborough City Centre, advising that he strongly objects to the sale of the site on Ellesmere Road, between Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue, for the purpose outlined in the report (August 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; that this is an industrial area surrounded by industrial and commercial properties, and is totally inappropriate that the site would be considered for residential development of any kind; and trusting that his concerns will be taken into consideration during the debate respecting this item.

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause in that his son lives near the surplus sites on Wilson Heights Boulevard.)

(Councillor LiPreti, at the meeting of City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, declared his interest in those portions of the foregoing Clause pertaining to the sites located on Wilson Heights Boulevard in that his residence is located in that area.)

20

Renewal of Lease of City-Owned

Property Located at 4118 Sheppard Avenue East

(Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To renew the lease with Alexander Benjamin & Associates Investments Limited for auto repair-use, as per attached location and site maps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The lease agreement will generate a total income of $171,000.00 for the whole term of five (5) years.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to renew the lease with Alexander Benjamin & Associates Investments Limited for the premises described herein, based on the same terms and conditions as the expiring lease and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Metropolitan Council, by the adoption of Clause No. 9 of Report No. 38 of The Management Committee on September 29, 1993, approved the renewal of lease with Alexander Benjamin & Associates Investment Limited for auto-repair use of the property at 4118 Sheppard Avenue East in Scarborough. The subject property, acquired in connection with the proposed Sheppard Avenue East Grade Separation, is located on the east side of the CNR track and north side of Sheppard Avenue East between Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue and is being reserved still for that purpose. It comprises a site area of approximately 1,943.56 square metres (20,921 square feet) and a freestanding, garage-type building with a building area of approximately 372.53 square metres (4,010square feet). The lease was renewed for a further term of five (5) years commencing November 1, 1993 and expiring October31, 1998 at an annual rent of $34,200.00 per annum, net, or $2,850.00 per month, plus all applicable taxes. The Landlord may terminate the lease at any time upon giving six months' prior written notice to the tenant.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Upon being advised by the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department that it is interested in renewing the lease, negotiations were conducted with Ben Lam, President of Alexander Benjamin & Associates Investment Limited, at 4118 Sheppard Avenue East, Scarborough, Ontario, M1S 1T2. Agreement has been reached to renew the lease for a further term of five (5) years commencing November 1, 1998 and expiring October 31, 2003, subject to the same terms and conditions as the expiring lease including the rent, together with payment of an administrative fee for renewal of the lease. Either party may terminate the lease upon giving six months' prior written notice to the other.

Conclusion:

In my opinion, the above terms and conditions are fair and reasonable and they are acceptable to the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No. (416)-392-8155; Fax No.:(416)392-4828; E-mail Address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

--------

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

21

Road Closure and Declaration as

Surplus, Stub-End of Felan Crescent

(Ward 5 - Rexdale Thistletown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain authority to stop up and close the north stub-end of the road allowance and declare surplus to City requirements property described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described as Part of Lot 34, Concession A, formerly in the City of Etobicoke, now City of Toronto, being the unused north stub-end of the Felan Crescent road allowance, comprising an area of approximately 656 m² (2,152 sq.ft.) be declared surplus to City requirements;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the intention to stop up, close, and sell the unused portion of the road allowance and declaration as surplus;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to offer the property for sale to the abutting owner at 2435 Kipling Avenue; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property is vacant land located at the north end of the Felan Crescent road allowance, near the south-west corner of the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Albion Road, in the former City of Etobicoke. The abutting owner is proposing to sever a portion of his adjacent apartment building site at 2435 Kipling Avenue for purposes of creating a townhouse development site, and has requested that the City take the steps necessary to sell the City-owned stub-end of Felan Crescent so that it can be assembled with his property.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The subject property, although part of the road allowance and shaped like a typical cul-de-sac turning circle, has never been used as such and there is currently a barricade at the north limit of the traveled portion of the 20 m (66') wide road.

A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land.

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and conveyed to the abutting owner.

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895; E-mail: fbedard@pathcom.com.

--------

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

22

Road Closure and Declaration as Surplus

Stub-End of John Grubb Court

(Ward 5 - Rexdale Thistletown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain authority to stop up and close the south stub-end of the road allowance and declare surplus to City requirements property described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described as the 15.24 m ( 950') street running in a south westerly direction from the south-west side of Albion Road lying between Lots 14 & 15 according to Plan Number6 registered in the Registry Office for the Registry Division of Toronto boroughs and York South, formerly in the City of Etobicoke, now City of Toronto, being the unused south stub-end of the John Grubb Court road allowance, comprising an area of approximately 792m² (8,500 sq.ft.) be declared surplus to City requirements and steps be taken to enact a by-law to authorize the sale of said land;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the intention to stop up, close, and sell the unused portion of the road allowance and declaration as surplus;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to offer the property for sale to the abutting owner(s); and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property is vacant land located at the south end of the John Grubb Court road allowance, near the south-west corner of the intersection of Albion Road and Islington Avenue, in the former City of Etobicoke. The abutting owner at 1123 Albion Road is proposing to expand the uses in his adjacent commercial property and has requested that the City take the steps necessary to sell the City-owned stub-end of John Grubb Court so that it can be assembled with his property for improved parking and access.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The subject property, although part of the road allowance, has never been used as such. The 15.24m (50') wide by 52m (170') deep road presently serves as both a pedestrian and maintenance vehicle access route to/from the City's Thistletown Park from Albion Road and Parks staff have advised that the stub-end could be sold subject to reserving an easement for future access across a minimum 3m (10') wide strip along the west limit of the road allowance.

At this point the other abutting owner to the west, Central Park Lodges, at 1145 Albion Road, has not expressed any interest in the property. A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land save and except for the access requirements referred to above, and an easement for a storm sewer which runs down the centre line of the road. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority were also canvassed and have advised that they have no interest in the property. The property does not have any independent development potential and its highest and best use is assembly with the adjoining site.

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and sold to the abutting owner(s).

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895; E-mail: fbedard@pathcom.com.

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

23

Road Closure and Declaration as Surplus

Stub-End of Perry Crescent

(Ward 3 - Kingsway Humber)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain Council authority to stop up and close the south stub-end of the road allowance and declare surplus to City requirements property described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described as Part of Lot 15, Registered Plan 2186 (Part of Perry Avenue as laid out on Registered Plan 3851), formerly in the City of Etobicoke, now City of Toronto, being the unused south stub-end of the Perry Crescent road allowance, comprising an area of approximately 408 m² (4,389 sq.ft.) be declared surplus to City requirements;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the intention to stop up, close, and sell the unused portion of the road allowance and declaration as surplus;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to offer the property for sale to the abutting owners at 7 Orrell Avenue and 91 Perry Crescent; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property is vacant land located at the south end of the Perry Crescent road allowance, near the south-west corner of the intersection of Islington Avenue and Orrell Avenue, in the former City of Etobicoke. The abutting owner at 91 Perry Crescent has requested that the City take the steps necessary to sell the City-owned stub-end of Perry Crescent so that it can be assembled with their single-family residential property for additional side yard.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The subject property, although part of the road allowance, has never been used as such. The City-owned land measures 20 m (66') in width by 20 m (66') in depth. Due to its shallow depth it does not have independent development potential and its highest and best use would be assembly with the adjoining properties as additional side yard. The property has in fact been used by the current abutting owner at 91 Perry Crescent, and the previous owner, for several years with no objections by the City.

The Municipal Act, requires a municipality, when proposing to dispose of a road or lane, to first close the road through the process described in the Act.

A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land.

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and offered for sale to the abutting owner/s.

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895; E-mail: fbedard@pathcom.com.

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

24

Declaration as Surplus - Land not Required

for Waterfront Drive - Humber Bay Shores

Rear of 2095 Lakeshore Boulevard West,

(Ward 2 - Lakeshore Queensway)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To declare surplus to the City's requirements the property described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described as Part of Lot 26, Registered Plan 1176, formerly in the City of Etobicoke, now City of Toronto, located at the rear (east) of 2095 Lake Shore Blvd. West, being vacant land comprising an area of approximately 153 m² (1,647 sq.ft.) be declared surplus to City requirements;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to offer the property for sale to the abutting owner at 2095 Lake Shore Blvd. West; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property is vacant land located on the west side of the soon to be completed Waterfront Drive in the Humber Bay Shores area of the former City of Etobicoke. Following extensive negotiations and agreement between the adjacent owner and the Motel Strip Public Partnership (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the City of Etobicoke, and Metro Toronto) regarding property boundary rationalization, and upon conclusion of the detailed design of Waterfront Drive, it became apparent that a small parcel of land was considered surplus to City needs and would most appropriately be assembled with the adjacent property.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The parties to the aforementioned public partnership had been authorized by their respective approval bodies to rationalize property holdings in the area to accomplish various objectives including the creation of a regional park and a waterfront road. Most of the real estate exchanges were completed in the last two years. However, once the detailed design of the road was completed, and its construction advanced, it became obvious that certain additional remnants west of the road were surplus to public needs and should be transferred to the abutting owners.

A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land.

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and conveyed to the abutting owner.

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895; E-mail: fbedard@pathcom.com.

--------

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

25

Declaration as Surplus - Land Not Required

for Waterfront Drive - Humber Bay Shores

Rear of 2063 Lake Shore Boulevard West

(Ward 2 - Lakeshore Queensway)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To declare surplus to the City's requirements the property described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described as Part of the Water lot Patented to John Duck, formerly in the City of Etobicoke, now City of Toronto, located at the rear (east) of 2063 Lake Shore Blvd. West, being vacant land comprising an area of approximately 88 m² (945 sq.ft.) be declared surplus to City requirements;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to offer the property for sale to the abutting owner at 2063 Lake Shore Blvd. West; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property is vacant land located on the west side of the soon to be completed Waterfront Drive in the Humber Bay Shores area of the former City of Etobicoke. Following extensive negotiations and agreement between the adjacent owner and the Motel Strip Public Partnership (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the City of Etobicoke, and Metro Toronto) regarding property boundary rationalization, and upon conclusion of the detailed design of Waterfront Drive, it became apparent that a small parcel of land (Parcels A and B on attached sketch) was considered surplus to City needs and would most appropriately be assembled with the adjacent property.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The parties to the aforementioned public partnership had been authorized by their respective approval bodies to rationalize property holdings in the area to accomplish various objectives including the creation of a regional park and a waterfront road. Most of the real estate exchanges were completed in the last two years. However, once the detailed design of the road was completed, and its construction advanced, it became obvious that certain additional remnants west of the road were surplus to public needs and should be transferred to the abutting owners.

A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land.

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and conveyed to the abutting owner.

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895; E-mail: fbedard@pathcom.com.

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Member of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

26

Declaration as Surplus - Land North of Lane,

Near North West Corner of Royalavon Crescent

and Dundas Street West (Ward 3 - Kingsway Humber)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To declare surplus to the City's requirements the property described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described as Part of Block A, Registered Plan 1602, formerly in the City of Etobicoke, now City of Toronto, located north of the lane near the north-west corner of the intersection of Royalavon Crescent and Dundas Street West, being vacant land comprising an area of 1,203 m² (12,950 sq.ft.) be declared surplus to City requirements;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to offer the property for sale to the abutting owner/s subject to the reservation of any necessary easements; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property is vacant land located on the north side of the of the public lane, near the north-west corner of the intersection of Royalavon Crescent and Dundas Street West, in the former City of Etobicoke. Following a review of its property inventory by former City of Etobicoke staff, the subject strip of land was considered surplus to City needs and available for assembly with the adjoining residential properties provided that an easement was reserved to protect the large diameter storm sewer located beneath the surface.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The land is irregular in shape ranging from 15.24 m (50') to 21 m (69') in depth by a length of 71 m (232') along the public lane, and can only be accessed by the laneway. Due to the subterranean storm sewer and the property's physical characteristics the City-owned land does not have independent development potential and would be suitable for assembly with the adjoining residential properties. At this time a developer has secured options on several adjacent single family dwellings and their over-sized lots with a view to rezoning the land and developing it with townhouse units. In order to fully utilize the City land to its highest and best use the purchaser would be responsible for relocating the sewer.

A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land save and except for the sewer easement requirements.

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and sold for assembly with the abutting residential property.

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895; E-mail: fbedard@pathcom.com.

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

27

Declaration as Surplus - Closed Laneway

North of Bloor Street West Between

Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road

(Ward 3 - Kingsway Humber)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To declare surplus to the City's requirements the property described in this report and to direct that Notice be given, pursuant to City of Toronto By-law No. 551-1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue will be generated from the eventual sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described as Parts 4 and 5 on Plan 64R-11289, formerly in the City of Etobicoke, now City of Toronto, being the remainder of the closed laneway north of Bloor Street West between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, comprising an area of approximately 464m² (4,994 sq.ft.), be declared surplus to City requirements and steps be taken to enact a by-law to authorize the sale of said land;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus, and the proposed by-law to sell the lane;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to offer the property for sale to the abutting owners; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The subject property is vacant land being the remainder of a closed lane running between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, located at the rear of the commercial properties on the north side of Bloor Street West, in the former City of Etobicoke. The lane was closed in 1986 pursuant to By-law No.1986-221 which authorized that part of the lane be sold and the remainder, which is the subject of this report, be leased. Accordingly, the abutting owners at 2842 and 2848 Bloor St. W., Bloorhill Properties Limited and Lorne Reynolds Holdings Ltd., have been renting the City-owned land for several years, at an annual rent of $1,000.00 pro-rated at 88percent and 12percent, or $880.00 and $120.00, respectively, for parking purposes. A request has been submitted for the City to take the steps necessary to sell the land so that it can be assembled with the commercial property.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The subject property, measuring 6 m (20') by 76 m (250'), comprising an area of 464 m² (4,994sq.ft.), was formerly part of a public lane which was stopped up and closed in 1986. Other parts of the same lane, between Prince Edward Drive and Kings Lynn Road, and between Kingsmill Road and Kingscourt Drive, were disposed of at that time. However, at the request of the adjacent owners a lease was approved in this location instead of a sale. The abutting owners have recently expressed an interest in purchasing.

A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land.

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and conveyed to the abutting owners.

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895; E-mail: fbedard@pathcom.com.

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

28

385-401 Queens Quay West - City's Residual

Fee Simple Interests - Declaration as Surplus

(Ward 24 - Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To declare surplus to the City's requirements, the City's residual fee simple interests in the lands comprising 385-401 Queens Quay West and to secure Agreements of Purchase and Sale from the lessee and the condominium corporation.

Financial Implications:

Net revenues generated from the eventual sale of these interests will be transferred to the Harbourfront Foundation to support the programmes of Harbourfront (1990).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City's residual fee simple interests in the lands known municipally as 385 and 401Queens Quay West and described as being Part of Blocks T and U, Registered Plan 536-E, City of Toronto, save and except PARTS 45 and 68 and portions of PARTS 58 and 59 on Plan66R-15511, be declared surplus to the City's requirements;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services give notice to the public of the interests declared surplus;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services secure from the lessee and the condominium corporation Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the sale of these interest; and

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

Background:

On December 15, 1995, Queens Quay West Land Corporation (QQWLC), formerly Harbourfront Corporation, conveyed to the City, amongst others, title to the lands now known municipally as 385Queens Quay West subject to various existing interests, certain interests in 401 Queens Quay West and portions of the Water's Edge Promenade. Under the terms of a letter agreement dated October 6, 1992, as amended by letter dated June 8, 1994, (also known as the Implementation Agreement), the net proceeds from the lease or sale of properties transferred to the City are to be forwarded to Harbourfront Foundation to support the programmes of Harbourfront (1990).

The City's residual fee simple interests in 385 and 401 Queens Quay West include the ground floor commercial area, areas forming the lobby, vehicular and pedestrian accesses, stairwell and walkway on the east side of the condominium building, areas of the below grade parking structure, air rights above the condominium, patio and open space areas east of the building, the majority of which are subject to a perpetual right in the nature of an easement for the exclusive and permanent use of the condominium owners. Various encumbrances and restrictive covenants are registered on title. The second to eighth above grade strata of the condominium are freehold interests in favour of the condominium owners of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No.830 (MTCC No.830). With the exception of the support columns on the south side of the condominium and the lands forming the Water's Edge Promenade, the majority of the lands are under a long term lease in favour of Miletus Incorporated. The 60 year lease expires August 31, 2046 and the rent was prepaid to QQWLC. A tri-party Reciprocal Agreement between MTCC No.830, the lessee and the City, delineates maintenance and liabilities respecting various areas of the condominium building, the parking structure and the open space.

Comments:

385 Queens Quay West is open space on the surface and is located east of the condominium building. A parking structure is constructed below grade servicing the condominium building. Under the original draft plan of condominium, the surface lands were intended to be publicly accessible open space and were to be contiguous with a park to be developed on MLQ6 (known municipally as 375Queens Quay West), located west of the Peter Street Slip. A surface carpark presently operates on 375 Queens Quay West, until such time as the site will be development for park purposes.

401 Queens Quay West is a mixed-use condominium building comprised of ground floor commercial space and 73 dwelling units. The ground floor commercial space is leased to Miletus Inc. until the year 2046. Miletus Inc. has advised that various commercial ventures undertaken in the commercial space were unsuccessful and the space has been vacant since 1990. On June 11, 1996, the Committee of Adjustment granted an application filed by Miletus Inc., MTCC No.830 and the City, to alter the ground floor commercial space of 401 Queens Quay West into six additional dwelling units and to designate the existing exterior terraces as personal recreational space. The Committee was satisfied that the requested variances were minor in nature and will facilitate an appropriate development of this property.

Miletus Inc. has advised that it wishes to proceed to acquire the City's residual interests in order to facilitate the conversion from leasehold retail space to freehold residential condominiums. Discussions have been ongoing with the lessee and MTCC No.830, the City's real estate, parks, planning and legal staff respecting the purchase of the City's residual interests in 385-401 Queens Quay West.

The City Surveyor has confirmed that the City owns the lands described as Parcel T-7, Section A-536-E, which includes all the lands in premises 385 Queens Quay West as well as part of premises 415 Queens Quay West, which is part of the Water's Edge Promenade. Miletus Incorporated has a long term lease of the City's land described by Parcel T-1 Leasehold, Section A-536-E, being all the lands in premises 385 Queens Quay West and includes the ground floor interests in the building that contains MTCC No.830 located at 401 Queens Quay West. Any sale of the City's lands should not include any portion of the Water's Edge Promenade, more particularly identified as PARTS 45 and 68 on Plan 66R-15511 (being parts of Parcel T-6 and T-7, Section A-536-E) and any sale should be subject to all encumbrances and restrictive covenants on record. Because of the complicated nature of land ownership in this area, a strata reference plan is required to delineate those parts of PARTS 58 and 59 on Plan 66R-15511 being retained for the Water's Edge Promenade and it is recommended that the City Surveyor's office prepare all descriptions required for any transfer of City-owned lands.

With respect to the Water's Edge Promenade and 385 Queens Quay West, parks staff advised that under the Harbourfront transfer arrangements, it was intended that the patio and the landscaped open space east of the building would be integrated with the potential public uses of the ground floor commercial space. However, with the approval granted to convert this space to dwelling units, the open space areas lend themselves more to personal recreational space. In addition, due to the inherent liabilities associated with maintaining a surface open space over a below grade parking structure, parks staff are not opposed to the City divesting its interest at this location provided that the City retains ownership of the Water's Edge Promenade and areas south of the building footprint presently being utilized by the public as part of the Water's Edge Promenade and identified as PART68 and portions of PARTS 58 and 59, Plan 66R-15511.

The area planners have advised that the original development agreement respecting the condominium development at 401 Queens Quay West identified an area on the east side of the building to be publicly accessible open space. In disposing of the City's interest at this location, an amendment to the site plan will be required, thereby providing City staff with the opportunity to ensure that the landscaping improvements would lend itself to the future proposed public park to be developed on the City's parcel at 375 Queens Quay West (MLQ6).

A poll was undertaken of the City's divisions, agencies, boards and commissions and ward councillors to determine whether or not there is any other municipal interest in retaining the City's residual fee simple interests in these lands. No other interest was expressed. Discussions with Miletus Inc. and MTCC No.830 to acquire the City's residual fee simple interests in the site are ongoing and Agreements of Purchase and Sale should be finalized shortly. In order to proceed with the sale, the City must comply with the procedures governing sale of real property. Pursuant to section 193 of the Municipal Act relating to the sale of property, before selling real property Council must declare the property surplus by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public; give notice to the public of the proposed sale; and obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempted by regulations passed under the legislation. An appraisal of the market value of the City's residual fee simple interests has been undertaken by staff appraisers.

Conclusion:

The sale of the City's residual fee simple interests in 385 and 401 Queens Quay West will result in: the City continuing to retain ownership of the Water's Edge Promenade for park purposes; the City divesting certain inherent liabilities associated with maintenance of an open space over a below grade parking structure; the City resolving the complicated nature of ownership by selling its residual leasehold interest in the ground floor commercial space to Miletus Inc. and other interests in 385 and 401 Queens Quay West to MTCC No.830; and generating additional revenue for the Harbourfront Foundation to support the programmes of Harbourfront (1990). The City's residual fee simple interests in 385 and 401 Queens Quay West should be declared surplus to municipal requirements and the City should proceed with the sale.

Contact Name:

Luba Tymkewycz, 392-7207, Fax No.: 392-1880, ltymkewy@toronto.ca

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

29

Proposed Lane Closing and Surplus Property

Declaration - Unnamed Lane Extending North

from Esquire Road, Plan 4490

(Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that an unimproved lane separating a retail plaza on Victoria Park Avenue from the adjoining residential properties be closed and declared surplus to the needs of the City.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable at this time but future sale of these lands will provide revenue to the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council direct staff to initiate road closing procedures with respect to the unnamed lane extending north from Esquire Road as shown on the attached sketch;

(2)City Council declare the lane to be surplus to the needs of the City;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the lands declared surplus; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City is the owner of an unimproved nine metre wide lane which extends north from Esquire Road at a point approximately 50m east of Victoria Park Avenue. The lane separates the commercial property located at 2563 Victoria Park Avenue from the side of a house on Esquire Road, and the rear of two houses which front onto Esquire Circle.

In 1997, the City of Scarborough was approached by Morguard Properties Limited, representing the owner of 2563 Victoria Park, to purchase all or part of the lane. Morguard indicated that they wished to acquire the lane in order to widen the existing service laneway and to provide additional parking. Other than a request by Bell Canada for an easement to protect their existing pole line, no City Departments or outside agencies indicated a need for the City to retain the lane.

The Municipal Act, requires a municipality, when proposing to dispose of a road or lane, to first close the road through the process described in the Act.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The lane is designated "Residential Uses" in the Official Plan. The zoning is S - Single Family Residential, with one house permitted per lot on a Registered Plan. The neighbouring properties are situated on lots with frontages much larger than the subject property, and Planning Staff have advised that they would not recommend approval of a variance to permit construction of a single-family house on a thirty foot wide property.

The abutting residential owners have previously expressed concerns respecting the sale of all or a portion of the lane to the owner 2563 Victoria Park Avenue. The concerns are with respect to litter, noise, and pollution which emanate from the existing service lane at the rear of the plaza. Accordingly, it is in order for the staff to discuss, in consultation with the Ward Councillors', with the owner of 2563 Victoria Park Avenue and the owners of the three abutting residential properties the potential sale of the property and the most effective way to mitigate the residents' concerns and report back thereon to the Corporate Services Committee. It is noted that concerns of this nature can also be dealt with through site plan control agreements. If the owners of the plaza were to acquire any part of the lane and proceed to construct additional parking, they would be required to seek an Official Plan amendment and re-zone the property as well as enter into a site plan agreement with the City.

Conclusions:

The lane is not required for municipal purposes, and presents an opportunity to dispose of an unneeded municipal asset, while dealing with the concerns of the abutting owners. Staff will report back on the appropriate disposal of the lane after the discussions with the Ward Councillors and the abutting owners have been completed.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241

rmayr@city.scarborough.on.ca.

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

30

Licence Agreement - Encroachment on Road

Allowance in Front of 35-65 Weston Road

(Ward 21 - Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

For authority to enter into a Licence Agreement for encroachment use of road allowance for parking and commercial purposes, as per attached location and site plans.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The licence will generate a total income of $80,000.00, net, for the whole term of ten (10) years.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to enter into a Licence Agreement with Keele - St. Clair Limited Partnership, by its general partner, 1262425 Ontario Inc., to encroach on the subject lands for parking and commercial purposes, based on the terms and conditions set out in this report, and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Keele - St. Clair Limited Partnership, by its general partner, 1262425 Ontario Inc., has proposed to enter into a Licence Agreement with the City for an encroachment on road allowance for parking and commercial purposes in front of 35-65 Weston Road. This is due to the development of the Westclair Centre, which will be a new retail/commercial centre at the north-east corner of St. Clair Avenue West and Keele Street/Weston Road. The encroachment area is estimated to be approximately 1,100 square metres (11,840.69 square feet).

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Following negotiations with Mr. Mark B. Cairns, President of Imland Corporation, at 155 University Avenue, Suite 1240, Toronto, ON M5H 3B7, a partner of Keele - St. Clair Limited Partnership, by its general partner, 1262425 Ontario Inc., an agreement has been reached on the following terms and conditions:

(1)Location:

Road allowance on the east side of Weston Road in front of 35-65 Weston Road, Toronto.

(2)Licensed Area:

Approximately 1,100 square metres (11,840.69 square feet), as highlighted in yellow on the attached plan.

(3)Term:

Ten (10) years, reviewable every five (5) years, the date of commencement to be determined upon commencement of the encroachment use or completion of the Westclair Centre, whichever is earlier.

(4)Licence Fee:

(1)year 1 to year 5 -$8,000.00 per annum, net, payable annually in advance, plus all applicable taxes and assessments of every kind whatsoever of any amounts in lieu thereof and any cost related to the Licensed Area; and

(2)year 6 to year 10 -to be reviewed, but at not less than the amount for the first five years.

(5)Damage Deposit:

(i)The Licensee agrees to pay a damage deposit of $5,000.00 either by certified cheque or letter of credit from a major bank with no interest payable to the Licensee on the deposit; and

(ii)To be returned to the Licensee without interest at the expiry of the Term or any renewal or extension thereof provided that the Licensed Area is left in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division, failing which the deposit shall be used for the purpose of such clean up and repair to any damage.

(6)Option to Renew:

The Licensee shall have an option to renew for a further term of ten (10) years, reviewable every five (5) years, on the same terms and conditions as herein provided, save and except for the licence fee which will be re-negotiated, and subject to the Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division having no requirement of the Licensed Area by then.

(7)The Licensee shall use the Licensed Area for car parking, commercial uses as circulation and open spaces, and landscaping only.

(8)The Licensed Area should not be used for calculation of the gross floor area or density for the development of the Westclair Centre.

(9)The Licensee shall not assign or sublet without the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division, which consent shall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld.

(10)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, provide landscaping to the west portion of the Licensed Area as specified by and to the unfettered satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(11)The Licensee shall pay all charges (including penalties) for utilities supplied to the Licensed Area directly to the supplier thereof.

(12)If the Licensee holds over after the expiration of the Term, prior written consent has to be obtained from the City of Toronto and the Licensee shall only be a monthly licensee on the same terms and conditions as provided herein.

(13)If the Licensee holds over after the expiry of the Term without the prior written consent of the City of Toronto, the Licensee shall pay double the amount of the license fee set out in paragraph (4) hereto.

(14)The Licensee shall, at its own expense and in the name of the Licensee and the City of Toronto, maintain in force insurance coverage with respect to the Licensed Area and its use and occupation and shall provide the City of Toronto with certificate(s) of policy of an insurance company for:

(i)inclusive coverage for legal liability for bodily injury, death, property damage in the amount of not less than $3,000,000.00 per occurrence; and

(ii)insurance against loss by such insurable hazards.

Every policy of insurance shall provide cross-liability coverage together with a waiver of subrogation in favour of the City of Toronto.

(15)(i)The Licensee shall, at all times, indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto from and against any and all manner of claims, demands, losses, costs, charges, actions and other proceedings whatsoever, including those under or in connection with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, made or brought against, suffered by or imposed on the City of Toronto or its property in respect of any loss, damage or injury to any person or property (including, without restriction, employees, agents and property of the Licensee or of the City of Toronto) directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or sustained as a result of the Licensee's occupation or use of, or any operation in connection with the Licensed Area or any fixtures or chattels thereon, save and except for such damage or injury which is caused or contributed to the Licensed Area as a result of willful misconduct or gross negligence of any employee or agents of the City of Toronto; and

(ii)The Licensee shall, at all times, indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, charges, actions and other proceedings whatsoever under the Construction Lien Act in connection with any work done for the Licensee at or on the Licensed Area and shall promptly see to the removal from the registered title to the Licensed Area of every claim for lien and certificate of action having to do with such work.

(16)The Licensee, shall, at its own expense, be responsible for compliance with all Municipal, Provincial and Federal laws, including, without limitation, the Environmental Protection Act and other environmental legislations, permits, rules and regulations and shall obtain all the necessary permits and licenses that may be required for the use of the Licensed Area and shall save the City of Toronto harmless from any Licensee's failure to so comply.

(17)The Licensee shall accept the Licensed Area in its existing condition and shall be responsible, at its own expense, for all repairs and maintenance.

(18)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, ensure that no ashes, refuse, garbage or other loose objectionable materials will accumulate on the Licensed Area and to keep the Licensed Area clean and tidy.

(19)The Licensee shall not make additions and alteration to the Licensed Area including surfacing, grading or landscaping to the Licensed Area without the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(20)The Licensee shall not install, erect or remove any fence(s), sign(s), structure(s) and fixture(s) on the Licensed Area without the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(21)No storage or use of hazardous materials or environmentally sensitive materials will be permitted in respect of the Licensed Area.

(22)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, maintain the landscaping and cut the grass on and surrounding the Licensed Area to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(23)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, keep the Licensed Area and sidewalks in and around the Licensed Area free and clear of obstructions and in the case of sidewalks, to keep them free and clear at all times of snow and ice, and it is acknowledged and agreed that the Licensee will retain snow removal contractor for the purposes of maintaining the Licensed Area in such condition.

(24)The Licensee shall protect all services of public works and/or utilities easement(s) that may encumber the Licensed Area and shall be liable for any damage to such by its action(s) or omission(s).

(25)The Licensee shall not install any equipment or carry on any operation on the Licensed Area in such a way as to materially or unduly increase the insurance risk.

(26)The Licensee shall ensure that nothing is done or kept at or on the Licensed Area which is or may be a nuisance, or which will cause disturbance or interfere with the users or occupants of any neighbouring property, or which in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division, acting reasonably, may cause damage to the Licensed Area or any neighbouring property.

(27)(i)The City of Toronto and any of its employees, agents and contractors shall have the right, on at least twenty-four (24) hours' advance notice to the Licensee, or in the case of emergency or pressing urgency without advance notice, provided that the Licensee is notified thereof as soon as may be convenient thereafter, to enter on the Licensed Area for the purpose of maintenance, repair or construction with or without all the necessary gear and equipment as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division deems necessary, and the Licensee hereby authorizes such entry and acknowledges that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division shall be the sole judge of any emergency or pressing urgency as aforesaid; and

(ii)The Licensee shall ensure that once any notice of entry is given to the Licensee, the Licensed Area is cleared of all persons and vehicles during the performance of the work therein referred to, other than as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(28)At the termination of the licence, the Licensee shall, at its own expense, remove any fixtures and chattels belonging to the Licensee, including equipment(s), fixture(s), attachment(s), apparatus(es), appliance(s), structure(s) and debris, and repair all damages caused by such removal and by its use and occupation of the Licensed Area expeditiously, and to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(29)Upon acceptance of this proposal, the Licensee shall provide the City of Toronto proof of its proper legal name. If the Licensee is a corporation, such proof shall include a copy of the corporation's Articles of Incorporation and/or Articles of Amendment, if any.

(30)Notwithstanding any clause contained or not contained in the proposal, the Licence Agreement shall be in a form and content acceptable to the City of Toronto Solicitor and the Licensee's Solicitor.

Conclusion:

In my opinion, these terms are fair and reasonable, and I have been advised that they are acceptable to the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No. (416) 392-8155; Fax No. (416) 392-4828; E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the September 14, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

31

Personnel Sub-Committee of the

Corporate Services Committee - Terms of Reference

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 14, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, subject to amending Item No. (1) under the heading "Mandate", by adding thereto the words "such as job evaluation reports", so that Item No. (1) now read as follows:

"(1)Consider reports and deputations on matters relating to ongoing operational human resource issues and personnel matters such as job evaluation reports;".

Purpose:

This report outlines the proposed Terms of Reference and mandate for the establishment of the Personnel Sub-Committee.

Funding:

No funding required

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Terms of Reference for the Personnel Sub-Committee be adopted as outlined below.

Background:

At its meeting of July 20, 1998, Committee requested that a mandate and terms of reference for a Personnel Sub-committee reporting to the Corporate Services Committee be established and reported back to the Corporate Services Committee at its meeting of September 14, 1998.

Comments:

(1)Mandate:

The Personnel Sub-Committee, as a Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services Committee, shall deal with personnel issues and practices, and specifically shall:

(1)Consider reports and deputations on matters relating to ongoing operational human resource issues and personnel matters;

(2)Review progress reports on staff downsizing;

(3)Review progress reports on the implementation of human rights policy, access and equity goals and workplace wellness, health and safety initiatives;

(4)Review and report to the Corporate Services Committee on such personnel matters as are referred to it by the Corporate Services Committee.

(2)Membership:

The Personnel Sub-Committee shall be comprised of five members of Council as agreed to by the Corporate Services Committee. Initial committee shall be chaired by CouncillorDickO'Brien, and composed of Councillors Anne Johnston, Doug Mahood, JoeMihevc and Councillor Kyle Rae.

(3)Meetings:

Meetings shall be held monthly, one week prior to the Corporate Services Committee meetings, and may be cancelled by the Chairperson due to lack of agenda items or any other appropriate reasons. Day and time of meetings are to be established. The Clerk's Department shall have responsibility for agenda distribution and minutes.

Contact Name:

Brenda Glover

Executive Director, Human Resources

397-9802

32

New Fire Station No. 2 - North York District

Contract No. FA30-98001 - Ward 9 Centre South

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)approved the following joint report (August 25, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, as amended; and

(2)directed that a copy of the aforementioned report be forwarded to Council for information:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the tender issued for the construction of a new Fire Station No. 2 at 476 Lawrence Avenue West in the District of North York in accordance with the specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department and request authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Source of Funds:

Funds were allocated in the Capital Budget for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Contract No. FA-30-98001 for the construction of a new Fire Station No. 2 be awarded to Pegah Developments Ltd., in the total amount of $1,149,180.00 including all taxes and being the lowest tender received; and

(2)this report be forwarded to the next meeting of Council for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee at its meeting held on July 29, 1998, opened tenders for Contract No.FA30-98001 for construction of new Fire Station No. 2 in the District of North York, as summarized below:

Tender No.TendererTender Price

1Pegah Developments Ltd.$1,149,180.00

2Frank Pellegrino General Contracting$1,175,000.00

3Kayal Construction$1,177,000.00

4Dinardo Contractors Ltd.$1,189,000.00

5Mannix Construction Corp.$1,193,300.00

6Maracon Construction Ltd.$1,198,000.00

7Struct-Con Construction$1,210,000.00

8Derbtile Construction$1,224,800.00

9Domus Development Corp.$1,246,000.00

10Latka Construction & Management Inc.$1,305,400.00

11Maystar General Contractor Inc.$1,335,000.00

12Grenwitch General Contracting Inc.$1,347,750.00

13Carosi Construction Ltd.$1,450,000.00

Comments/and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed by Fire Services and Facilities staff and was found to be in conformance with the tender requirements.

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the construction of a new Fire Station No. 2 at 476 Lawrence Avenue West in accordance with the specifications to Pegah Developments Ltd. at the tender price quoted being the lowest tender received that meets the specifications.

Contact Name:Contact Name:

L. A. PaganoR. H. Barry, P. Eng.

DirectorDirector

Purchasing and Materials ManagementPublic Building Services

Telephone: 392-7312Telephone: 396-4762

33

Masonry Conservation of South Portico, Toronto City Hall

Tender Call No. 73-1998 (Toronto - Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee:

(1)approved the following report (August 20, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, as amended; and

(2)directed that a copy of the aforementioned report be forwarded to Council for information.

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the Tender issued for Masonry Conservation of South Portico, Toronto Old City Hall and to request authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Source of Funds:

Funds are available in the appropriate accounts for this project. The budget amount for this project is $1,309,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Tender Call No. 73-1998 for Masonry Conservation of South Portico, Toronto Old City Hall, be awarded to the lowest bidder, Clifford Restoration Limited in the amount of $1,244,300.00 including all taxes and charges; and

(2)this report be forwarded to the next meeting of Council for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on July 22, 1998 opened the following Tenders for Tender Call No. 73-1998, for Masonry Conservation of South Portico, Toronto Old City Hall, as summarized below:

TendererPrice Complete including all

Charges and Taxes

Clifford Restoration Limited$ 1,244,300.00

Colonial Building Restoration$ 1,340,269.16

Kappeler Masonry$ 1,521,300.00

Phoenix Restoration$ 1,908,588.00

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and was found to be in conformance with the Tender requirements. The Commissioner concurs with the recommendation made.

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firm recommended.

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for Masonry Conservation of South Portico, Toronto Old City Hall, in accordance with specifications, to Clifford Restoration Limited being the lowest Tender received.

Contact Name:

L. A. Pagano

Director, Purchasing and Materials Management, Telephone: 392-7312

34

5182 and 5200 Yonge Street - Extension Request

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (September 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting an Extension Request, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of a confidential report (September 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, addressed to the Corporate Services Committee, entitled "5182 and 5200 Yonge Street - Extension Request, Sam-Sor Enterprises Inc. and City of North York Agreement, File No. SP93.44, RCS No. UDZ-9057-10 (North York Centre - Ward 10)", such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

35

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)John Street Roundhouse - Request for

Expressions of Interest (Ward 24 - Downtown).

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication and report until its meeting scheduled to be held on October9, 1998, for the hearing of deputations:

(i)(June 9, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, during consideration of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "John Street Roundhouse - Request for Expressions of Interest (Ward 24 - Downtown), directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration; and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to continue negotiations with the two leading proponents in order to obtain additional information and submit a further report to Council for its meeting to be held on October 1, 1998, through the Corporate Services Committee, once more substantive information is available.

(ii)(September 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, reporting on negotiations with Invacon 98' and TrizecHahn as directed by Council on June 3, 4 and5, 1998; and recommending that Clause 1 embodied in Report No. 7 of TheCorporate Services Committee, entitled, "John Street Roundhouse - Request for Expressions of Interest (Ward 24 - Downtown)" be adopted with the exception that Recommendation No. (4) be amended as follows:

"(4)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back to the Corporate Services Committee by the spring of 1999 with details of the negotiations with TrizecHahn Corporation and recommendations on appropriate next steps."

(iii)(September 13, 1998) from Mr. John Males, registering concern that the additional report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting the John Street Roundhouse was not made available to members of the public for comment prior to the September 14, 1998, meeting of the Corporate Services Committee.

(iv)(September 11, 1998) from Miss Jane Beecroft, Chair, CHP Heritage Centre, forwarding comments respecting the John Street Roundhouse.

(b)Status Report on Staff Affected by Restructuring.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)deleted the following in Recommendation No. (1) embodied in the following communication "Commissioners of Community and Neighbourhood Services, Corporate Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Finance, Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services"; and inserting in lieu thereof the following "Executive Director of Human Resources"; so that such Recommendation now read as follows:

"(1)the Corporate Services Committee request a report from the Executive Director of Human Resources on alternate work possibilities and on the efforts made to accommodate those employees affected by restructuring within their respective departments; and

requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit the requested report to the first meeting of the Personnel Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services Committee; and

(2)amended Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the aforementioned communication to read as follows:

"(2)that every effort be made to make accommodation for employees dislocated by restructuring.":

(August 31, 1998) from Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, recommending that:

(1)the Corporate Services Committee request a report from the Commissioners of Community and Neighbourhood Services, Corporate Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Finance, Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services on alternate work possibilities and on the efforts made to accommodate those employees affected by restructuring within their respective departments; and

(2)any decision that would alter the employment relationship of any employee(s) affected by restructuring, be deferred until the Commissioner(s) submit their report(s) and until such time that the Corporate Services Committee is satisfied that the City has made every effort to make such accommodation; and

requesting an opportunity to discuss this matter at the next Corporate Services Committee meeting scheduled to be held on September 14, 1998.

_______

Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(c)Establishment of Interim Fund to

Maintain a Secure Work Environment.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Personnel Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services Committee; and having requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit a report thereon to the aforementioned Personnel Sub-Committee:

(September 2, 1998) from Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, recommending that the Corporate Services Committee adopt the recommendation that the City establish an interim fund to maintain and provide for a secure work environment on an "as needed basis" until a report outlining the extent and the implications of the problem can be submitted for approval.

_______

Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d)Final Release and Indemnity Form -

Voluntary Exit Program.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Personnel Sub-Committee of the Corporate Services Committee for consideration:

(September 2, 1998) from Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, requesting an amendment to the City's Final Release and Indemnity Form; advising that employees who have the option to voluntarily leave or are considering an exit package are asked by the City to sign a release; that COTAPSAI is concerned with the inclusion of the third paragraph in the Release; that the City has included this paragraph to indemnify itself from its obligation as an employer to deduct and remit the appropriate amounts of tax under the Income Tax Act; and recommending that in order to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and equitably, requesting that the Corporate Services Committee adopt the recommendation that the City amend its Final Release and Indemnity form and remove the third paragraph as discussed.

_______

Mr. David Neil, President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(e)Settlement of Damages.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication and confidential report sine die:

(i)(August 26, 1998) from Councillor Bill Saundercook, York Humber, Chair, York Community Council, forwarding correspondence (August 19, 1998) from residents at 564, 566 and 568 Durie Street, regarding settlement for damages sustained to their properties by a falling tree which is located on City-owned property; and requesting that the Corporate Services Committee find a fair and equitable settlement to this problem.

(ii)(September 10, 1998) confidential report from the City Solicitor respecting the settlement of damages sustained to the properties located at 564, 566 and 568 Durie Street, City of Toronto.

(f)1998 Parking Tag Issuance - July.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(August 12, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer advising that this report reflects parking enforcement and collection activities of the Corporation for the period ending July 31, 1998; attaching the following schedules:

Schedule 1Monthly Tag Issuance, Collection Rate and Revenue for 1998;

Schedule 2Collection Rate Activity for Tags Issued in Prior Years (1989-1997);

Schedule 3 Parking Tag Receivables (1989-1997);

Schedule 4Summary of Trial Request and Conviction Rates;

Schedule 5Summary of Expenditures for Parking Tag Operations; and

Schedule 6Parking Tags Issued by former Municipal By-law Group; and

recommending that this report be received for information.

(g)Urban Aboriginal Economic Development.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the City Solicitor and the Director of Purchasing and Materials Management for report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee:

(July 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Task Force on Community Access and Equity on July 16, 1998:

(1) recommended to the Corporate Services Committee and Council, the adoption of the implementation strategy outlined in Appendix "A" of the joint report dated June 1, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Executive Director of Human Resources, which recommends in part that the Corporate Services Committee, Finance Department and Human Resources Division respond to the Task Force on Community Access and Equity and the Aboriginal Planning Group, regarding the following recommendations that the City of Toronto:

(a)continue to ensure that:

(i)the principles and practice of employment equity are maintained; and

(ii)Aboriginal youth are aware of employment opportunities and that training and mentoring programs are an integral part of its employment system;

(b)review and amend its procurement policies and procedures to ensure not only equal access for Aboriginal business but that procurement strategies be implemented to proactively support Aboriginal economic/business development;

(c)examine purchasing opportunities at all levels to identify contracts that could be used as business development opportunities for Aboriginal businesses;

(d)examine and establish set-aside programs for urban based Aboriginal businesses; and

(e)examine the impact of electronic advertising for purposes of bidding on government contracts and tenders to ensure there is no negative impact on Aboriginal and small businesses; and communicate any negative impacts identified to other levels of government using electronic advertising; and

(2)requested:

(a)the City departments and special purpose bodies identified in the implementation strategy to report their response through their standing committees to the Task Force on Community Access and Equity and to the Aboriginal Business Planning Group; and

(b)the appropriate Access and Equity Staff to:

(i)submit a report to the Task Force on the current practices of cities in Alberta, Australia and New Zealand and any other location that has a large aboriginal population, respecting the matters outlined in Appendix "A"of the aforementioned joint report; and

(ii)arrange for the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development to meet with the Task Force to discuss opportunities for collaboration and partnership between the Federal Government, the City of Toronto and the Aboriginal Community within Toronto.

(h)Employment Equity in the City of Toronto.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its meeting scheduled to be held on October 9, 1998:

(June 8, 1998) from the Committee Administrator, Employment Equity Advisory Committee, advising that the Employment Equity Advisory Committee on May 20, 1998, recommended that:

(1)City Council affirm its commitment to employment equity that incorporates the following principles and practices:

(i)an advisory committee, which includes representation from community organizations, equity advisory committees, bargaining agents and staff;

(ii)a corporate employment equity plan which is proactive and includes special programs, and which is results oriented;

(iii)a mechanism for monitoring downsizing, hiring, promotions, and appointments, as well as measuring outcomes and results; and

(iv)public reporting of results through an annual report to City Council"; and

(2)the Corporate Services Committee schedule this matter for deputations at its meeting on September 14, 1998, and equity seeking organizations and individuals be invited to address the Committee.

(i)Window Improvement Project - Toronto City Hall: Phase 2.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee and Council the adoption of the joint report (August 31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and, further, that this matter be included in the 1999 Capital Budget deliberations:

(i)(August 31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, recommending that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to issue a Request for Proposal Call for the design, supply and installation of a new high performance windows on the ground floor, Council Chamber, and the East and West Towers of Toronto City Hall, to complete the second and final phase of the planned window improvement project;

(2)the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) provide the City with a repayable loan of up to $4,705,771.00 to cover the cost of completing the second and final phase of the planned window improvement project as outlined in this report on terms, conditions and other considerations the parties determine appropriate;

(3)in the event that there is an existing loan agreement between both parties for Phase 1 of the window improvement project, the City and TAF shall amend the existing loan agreements to reflect the total funding advanced for the overall project;

(4)we report back to your Committee on the terms, conditions and other relevant matters pertaining to the funding of this window improvement project;

(5)this report be sent to the Toronto Historical Board for information; and

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

(ii)(September 11, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising the Committee of the action taken by the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund at its meeting on September 11, 1998, respecting Phase 1 of the Window Improvement Project at City Hall.

(j)Requests for Permanent Commemorative and

Memorial Installations at Toronto City Hall.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having endorsed the Recommendation embodied in the following report; and having directed that the Commissioner of Corporate Services also consult with the Police Services Board, the Police Union and the Firefighters' Association on an appropriate action of memorial:

(i)(September 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services recommending that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with other relevant City officials, report back to the Corporate Services Committee on policies and procedures for decision-making regarding permanent commemorative and memorial installations at Toronto City Hall, as part of the City's policies and procedures for public art and decorations; and

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with other relevant City officials, report back to the Corporate Services Committee on the request for the City to commission the installation of a memorial statue and plaque at Toronto City Hall in tribute to Metropolitan Toronto Police officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty, in the context of Recommendation No (1) above.

(ii)(Undated) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, forwarding the following motion for consideration by the Corporate Services Committee:

"Moved by Councillor Nunziata

Seconded by Councillor Mihevc

WHEREAS the residents of the City of Toronto were shocked and saddened by the tragic slaying of P.C. William Hancox; and

WHEREAS it is appropriate that the City honour and recognize those officers killed in the line of duty protecting the residents of the City of Toronto;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto commission the erection of a memorial statue and plaque at Toronto City Hall to recognize and honour all the Toronto police officers who have given their lives in the line of duty."

(iii)(September 11, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, advising that the recommendations in the report (September 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services seems reasonable; and requesting that the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit a report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee as quickly as possible.

(k)Code of Conduct for Citizen Members

of Agencies, Boards and Commissions.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having endorsed the Recommendation embodied in the following report from the Chief Administrative Officer.

(i)(September 2, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer recommending that the communication dated August 6, 1998, from the City Clerk be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Solicitor and the City Clerk staff work group for their consideration in the development of a code of conduct policy for Council Members.

(ii)(August 6, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on July 29, 30 and31, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration:

Moved by:Councillor Mihevc

Seconded by:Councillor Moscoe

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT when staff bring forward a 'Code of Conduct' for Council's consideration, such report to include a section on 'code of conduct' for citizen members of agencies, boards and commissions, such report to deal with appropriate issues, including acting as lobbyists."

(l)Section 41 - Council Procedural

By-law No. 23-1998, as Amended.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having endorsed the Recommendation embodied in the following report from the City Clerk:

(i)(September 2, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the City Clerk is conducting a legislative process review, and that in the context of that review, the procedures concerning motions to defer and refer will be considered; and recommending that the Motion by Councillor Silva and seconded by Councillor Saundercook, embodied in the communication dated August 6, 1998, from the City Clerk, be referred to the City Clerk for consideration in the review of the Council legislative process.

(ii)(August 6, 1998) from the City Clerk Advising that City Council on July 29, 30 and31, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration:

Moved by:Councillor Silva

Seconded by:Councillor Saundercook

"WHEREAS Council at its meeting held on July 29, 1998, adopted a motion by Councillor Prue, seconded by Councillor Faubert, to amend Section 41 of Council Procedural By-law No.23-1998, to include the right of any Member of Council to speak to, or question the reason behind any motion to refer or defer;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this matter be reopened and the action taken be rescinded;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Section 41 of the Council Procedural By-law No.23-1998 be amended to read as follows:

'41.A motion to defer, or a motion to refer, made pursuant to Section 40, shall be debatable only in respect of amendments to the motion, and no discussion of the main question shall be allowed until after its disposition.' "

(m)Outstanding Claims Where External Firms are Retained.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for report thereon to the October 9, 1998, meeting of the Corporate Services Committee:

(August 6, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Corporate Services Committee:

Moved by:Councillor Chow

Seconded by:Councillor Miller

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the October meeting of the Corporate Services Committee and the Budget Committee on:

(i)a list of all outstanding claims where external legal firms are retained, including all ABCs;

(ii)a process on how firms are selected;

(iii)the firms that are retained and annual billings by each; and

(iv)how much has been drawn from the Insurance Reserve Fund (now total at $40.6million) in the last five years and to which firms, and a projection on how much would be paid in the future five years."

(n)Proceeds from the Sale of Properties.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following communication:

(July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee on July 13, 1998, amongst other things referred the joint report (June 22, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services entitled "Proceeds from the Sale of Properties", to the Corporate Services Committee for information.

(o)Project Proposal, Financial and

Human Resources/Payroll Systems.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following communication and joint report:

(i)(August 10, 1998) from the City Clerk enclosing for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No.1 contained in Report No.10 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Project Proposal, Financial and Human Resources/Payroll Systems", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July29, 30and31, 1998; wherein it states that City Council referred the following motion to the Corporate Services Committee; and the Commissioner of Corporate Services was requested to report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee:

Moved by Councillor Jakobek:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to obtain fixed prices and commitments for the inclusion of all Agencies, Boards and Commissions, the Toronto Transit Commission and Fleet Management prior to signing any final agreements; and

(2)with respect to this project, if approved by City Council today, that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to engage independent experts to review any of the Agreements for this project prior to such Agreements being signed; and that the necessary funds therefor be provided from the Transition Projects Reserve Fund."

(ii)(September 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer reporting, as requested by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, respecting a motion by Councillor Jakobek regarding the Project Proposal for the Financial and Human Resources Payroll Systems; advising that subsequent to Council's approval of the recommendations respecting this Proposal staff have identified key issues and objectives in preparation for contract negotiations with the vendor, SAP; that one key objective is the ability to secure best available software license and service pricing arrangements from the vendor, including the capability to extend the benefit of these prices to all Agencies, Boards and Commissions (including the Toronto Transit Commission); that contract discussions with the vendor are now underway and an appropriate mechanism will be negotiated to achieve this objective; that a staff team with representatives from Finance, Information and Technology, Purchasing and Legal has been assembled for contract negotiation, and staff has also been in consultation with an external legal counsel highly knowledgeable and experienced in SAP contract negotiation and preparation and intend to retain his services as an expert advisor to work with the staff team in completing the contracting process; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(p)Policy Respecting Members of the Toronto Parking Authority.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having endorsed the Recommendation embodied in the following report from the Chief Administrative Officer, viz:

"that the communication from the City Clerk dated August 10, 1998, be referred to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions":

(i)(September 4, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer advising that the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions is responsible, in part, for reviewing the mandate, structure and accountability mechanisms of Agencies, Boards and Commissions and for making recommendations for changes where needed; that in addition, the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team (the Miller Committee), has referred specific matters to the Task Force; that this includes the first part of Recommendation No. (70) of the Transition Team which states that Council should ensure that there is citizen representation on all of its Agencies, Boards and Commissions; that it is, therefore, appropriate that the motion suggesting all Councillor membership on the Toronto Parking Authority, be referred to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions for its consideration; and recommending that the communication from the City Clerk dated August 10, 1998, be referred to the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions.

(ii)(August 10, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, on July 29, 30 and31, 1998, in adopting, as amended, Clause No.38 contained in Report No.11 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Transfer of Parking Operations to the Toronto Parking Authority", directed, inter alia, that the following motion be referred to the Corporate Services Committee:

"Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'That the Corporate Services Committee be requested to recommend to Council a policy that Members of the Toronto Parking Authority be elected Members of Council; and that such membership change occur at the expiry date of the current members' term; and that in the interim, additional Members of Council be appointed to the Toronto Parking Authority to ensure that at least one half of the members are elected representatives.' "

(q)Status of the Implementation of the Additional $9.00 in Court Costs.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having requested:

(i)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, including the City Solicitor, to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee respecting the negotiations currently underway regarding the takeover by the City of Toronto of the Provincial offenses matters;

(ii)the staff team negotiating the lease at Old City Hall, and the Manager, Provincial and Parking Offences, to meet and consider linking the issue of the lease of Old City Hall and the implementation of the additional $9.00 in court costs for parking tag convictions, and submit a report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee; and

(iii)received the following report:

(August 28, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer reporting on the status of the implementation of the additional $9.00 in court costs for parking tag convictions and the associated financial implications; advising that Council previously considered and approved a request for additional funding of up to $350,000.00 from Corporate Contingency to upgrade the existing Parking Tag Management System server, software and peripherals due to the additional users served and for the recording and collection of the $9.00 in increased court costs; that the initial and ongoing costs were to be included in the calculations related to cost recovery; that to date, the minimal expenditures (less than $1,000.00) have been paid from existing operating funds; that a further report to the Committee will be made once the effect of the increased court costs is realized and the additional 1998 expenditures can be determined; that as of August 31, 1998, no convictions containing the additional court costs have been made; that it is expected that the first Notices of Fine and Due Date including the $9.00 will be made in mid-September 1998; that the first impact of the implementation of the additional $9.00 in court costs will not be felt until mid-September; that the full impact will not be felt until at least the end of 1999 when the plate renewal cycle for persons receiving tags after July 1, 1998, is complete; that a further status report will be submitted to this Committee at its November meeting; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(r)Pay Equity - Status Report.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following confidential report:

(September 1, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, confidential report providing an update on the status of outstanding pay equity matters.

(s)Signboards Presently Located on Former Metropolitan Toronto Properties (Wards: 1 - East York, 13 - Scarborough Bluffs; 15 - Scarborough City Centre; and 25 - Don River).

The Corporate Services Committee reports having endorsed the Recommendation embodied in the following report, viz:

"that the Commissioner of Corporate Services provide a comprehensive report on the appropriate actions to be taken respecting these signboards once the appropriate consultation has been completed with the Ward Councillors":

(August 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services reporting on the signboard locations, as set out on Appendix "A" and shown on the attached maps, presently located on former Metropolitan Toronto properties arising from a request made by the Corporate Services Committee resulting from consideration of Clause No. 26 of Report No. 11 of TheCorporate Services Committee as adopted by Toronto City Council on July 29, 30 and31, 1998; advising that staff are currently consulting with each of the affected Ward Councillors concerning the future disposition of these signboards; that due to vacations they were unable to complete this process in time to provide a comprehensive report to the Corporate Services Committee meeting on September 14, 1998; and that staff will complete this process and provide a full report to the Corporate Services Committee for its meeting to be held on October 9, 1998; and recommending that the Commissioner of Corporate Services provide a comprehensive report on the appropriate actions to be taken respecting these signboards once the appropriate consultation has been completed with the Ward Councillors.

(t)Lobbying.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having endorsed the recommendation embodied in the following report from the Chief Administrative Officer; and having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report thereon to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee scheduled to be held on October 9, 1998:

(i)(September 10, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer recommending that the communication (August 6, 1998) from the City Clerk concerning the motion by Councillor Moscoe, seconded by Councillor Rae respecting lobbying be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer's staff work group that is developing a code of conduct/lobbying policy for elected officials; and

(ii)(August 6, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on July 29, 30 and31, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration:

Moved by:Councillor Moscoe

Seconded by:Councillor Rae

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT no member of a board, agency or commission associated with the City shall engage in lobbying of any Member of Council on behalf of a third party."

(u)Toronto City Hall - Accommodation of Press Gallery.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting scheduled to be held on October 9, 1998, for the hearing of deputations; and having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit a further report to the Corporate Services Committee such report to include present practices and best practices:

(September 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that:

(1)City Council adopt Option 3 as set out in this report; and

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to enter into an occupancy agreement with the Toronto Municipal Press Gallery and with the Globe and Mail on the basis of Option 3.

(v)Corporate Leasing Requirements and Strategy.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report (September 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services until its meeting scheduled to be held on October 9, 1998:

(September 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, providing an update on leasing requirements; and strategy and recommending that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to include in the report to be submitted by the end of November on office space rationalization, the detailed leasing strategy to implement the plan;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report, in consultation with the Commissioners responsible for locally delivered programs, on the future needs for leased space and opportunities for reduction of such needs and relocation to City owned space; and

(3)this report be referred to the Budget Committee for information.

Respectfully submitted,

DICK O'BRIEN,

Chair

Toronto, September 14, 1998

(Report No.13 of The Corporate Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.)