City of Toronto Logo Decision Document



Executive Committee


Meeting No. 44   Contact Patsy Morris, Committee Administrator
Meeting Date Monday, May 17, 2010
  Phone 416-392-9151
Start Time 9:30 AM
  E-mail exc@toronto.ca
Location Committee Room 1, City Hall
  Chair   Mayor David Miller  


The Decision Document is for preliminary reference purposes only. Please refer to the Committee’s Report to City Council or to the Minutes for the official record.

EX44.1 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: 18 

Development Charge Complaint - 351 Wallace Avenue
Public Notice Given
Statutory - Development Charges Act, SO 1997
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.                 City Council determine that the City's development charge by-law has been properly applied to the land development project located at 351 Wallace Avenue.

 

2.         City Council dismiss the complaint filed pursuant to Section 20 of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

Origin
(April 27, 2010) Report from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Summary

This report responds to a complaint filed pursuant to Section 20 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 relating to a proposed residential land development project consisting of 134 townhouse units located at 351 Wallace Avenue.

 

The two issues raised in the complaint relate to the rate that ought to be applied in calculating the development charge.  The complainant’s position is that the rates in effect when the building permit was submitted (December 31, 2004) should be applied in determining the development charge instead of the rate in effect at the time of permit issuance (November 24, 2009).  In addition, the complainant argues that the development charge rate for "apartment units" should be applied in the calculation of the charge rather than the "multiple unit" rate that was applied.

 

Staff is of the opinion that the development charges were properly calculated and collected.  In accordance with the City's development charge bylaw, the charges are calculated and become due and payable based on the rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.  Also, the residential units in the project do not meet the definition of "apartment unit", as defined in the bylaw, and the "multiple dwelling unit" rates apply.  Accordingly, it is recommended that Council dismiss the complaint.

 

Background Information
Development Charge Complaint - 351 Wallace Avenue
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29874.pdf)

Attachment 1 - Complaint Letter from Borden ladner Gervais
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29875.pdf)

Attachment 2 - Copies of the Development Charge Calculation Form and Receipt
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29876.pdf)

Attachment 3 - Background on Planning and Building Approvals
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29877.pdf)

Communications
(May 17, 2010) Submission from S. Waque, Lawyer (EX.Main.EX44.1.1)
Speakers

Mr. Stephen Waque, Lawyer, on behalf of Montevallo Developments Limited (Submission Filed)


EX44.2 

ACTION

Amended 

 

Ward: All 

Earthquake Disaster Relief Assistance for Haiti and Chile
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council request the Government of Canada to significantly increase the $2 million set aside for earthquake relief in Chile, and specifically that the Federal Government match the money of private donations to relief efforts.

 

2.         City Council urge the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) to take action as deemed necessary to reach out to counterparts in the Federal Government and Chile to offer technical support for the City of Lota.

 

3.         The City of Toronto consider any formal request from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Chile for technical partnership assistance for the City of Lota.

 

4.         The City of Toronto assess any formal request from the City of Lota for a structured City Twinning arrangement through the International Alliance Program (IAP).

 

5.         City Council endorse the George Brown College/LACAP (Latin American Canadian Art Projects) to develop IWB (Instinct Without Boundary) Program with Lota, Chile, such endorsement being for the purpose of helping George Brown College/LACAP in raising third party awareness and funding.

 

Origin
(April 22, 2010) Report from the City Manager
Summary

At its meeting on March 1, 2010, the Executive Committee referred the Member Motion (February 1, 2010) titled “Disaster Relief – Haiti”, to the City Manager and requested staff to report with respect to the City’s International Disaster Relief Policy and how it could be applied to Chile and Haiti.

 

Further, City Council on March 31 and April 1, 2010, in response to a Member Motion (March 31, 2010) titled "Providing Earthquake Relief to Chile", requested staff to report on the appropriate assistance and response for the City of Toronto, to provide earthquake relief for Chile, in keeping with the City of Toronto’s International Disaster Relief Policy.

 

This report provides a recommendation for action to aid earthquake relief in Haiti and Chile, and further information about the International Disaster Relief Policy to aid consideration of the member motions. An update is provided about the current status of earthquake relief efforts by the governments of Ontario, Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) as it relates to the City response. The International Disaster Relief Policy has been effective to date and served the City well. Staff will evaluate international programs in the next term of Council to assess their effectiveness and update the policy frameworks, as required.

 

Background Information
Earthquake Disaster Relief Assistance for Haiti and Chile
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29878.pdf)

Communications
(May 17, 2010) E-mail from Monique Plessas (EX.Main.EX44.2.1)
(May 17, 2010) Submission from Magdalena Diaz, Member of Chile CAN Rise (EX.Main.EX44.2.2)
(May 17, 2010) Submission from Tamara Toledo, Executive Director, LACAP (EX.Main.EX44.2.3)
(May 17, 2010) Submission from Luz Bascunan (EX.Main.EX44.2.4)
(May 17, 2010) Submission from Alejandro Morales, Vice President, ASHTOR (EX.Main.EX44.2.5)
Speakers

Ms. Magdalena Diaz, Chile CAN Rise (Submission Filed)
Ms. Tamara  Toledo, Executive Director, LACAP (Submission Filed)
Ms. Luz Bascunan, Chilean Canadian Cultural Society CASA Salvador Allende (Submission Filed)
Mr. Alejandro Morales, Vice President, Ashtor, Association of Spanish Speaking Seniors of the GTA (Submission Filed)
Councillor Cesar Palacio, Ward 17, Davenport
Councillor Michael  Walker, Ward 22, St. Paul's


EX44.3 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: 18 

Request for a Capital Loan Guarantee for the Artscape Shaw Street Centre
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         a.         City Council provide, to the Artscape’s financial institution, a capital loan guarantee in respect of Artscape's capital loan for the construction and development of the Artscape Shaw Street Centre in the amount of $5,800,000.00 (inclusive of all interest costs payable by Artscape), for a three year term commencing on May 1, 2010 until May 31, 2013.

 

b.         City Council, in accordance with the City’s Capital Loan and Line of Credit Guarantee Policy, enter into a tri-party agreement with Artscape and its financial institution, in respect of the recommended capital loan guarantee.

 

2.                 City Council authorize and direct the Deputy City Manager and the Chief Financial Officer to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Artscape, whereby the City's interest is secured by a mortgage registered against the title to the Shaw Street Property, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Deputy City Manager and the Chief Financial Officer and in a form approved by the City Solicitor.

 

3.         City Council direct that Artscape be required to provide the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer with their 2010 to 2013 inclusive audited financial statements when they become available.

 

4.         City Council direct that before any future loan guarantees are considered by the City, Artscape be requested to submit their business plan to the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer and the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture which achieves the objective of becoming more financially self-sufficient by placing less reliance on loan guarantees and creating more equity in its projects. 

 

5.         City Council direct that the capital loan guarantee be deemed to be in the interest of the municipality.

Origin
(April 30, 2010) Report from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Summary

This report seeks authority for the City to provide a $5,800,000 capital loan guarantee for Toronto Artscape Inc. ("Artscape") to assist them in the purchase and development of the Artscape Shaw Street Centre that will be used for their activities.  It is proposed to be in effect for an initial three year term from May 1, 2010 until May 31, 2013.

Background Information
Request for a Capital Loan Guarantee for the Artscape Shaw Street Centre
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29879.pdf)


EX44.4 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: All 

City of Toronto 2009 Investment Report and Policy Update
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.                  City Council direct that the changes in the City’s Investment Policy as outlined in Appendix B in the report (April 27, 2010) from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer be approved.

 

2.                  City Council grant authority to staff to incorporate the changes into the City’s Investment Policy document as outlined in the report (April 27, 2010) from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer.

Origin
(April 27, 2010) Report from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Summary

This report provides a review of the City of Toronto’s 2009 annual bond fund and money market investment returns for all internally managed portfolios, i.e. invested in respect of the City’s reserve funds and operating budget.  Amounts invested in other funds are reported separately, specifically, those in sinking funds, pension funds and trust funds.

 

In compliance with Ontario Regulation 610/06 Financial Activities of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, a record of each transaction in its own securities is listed in this report.

 

Due to various amendments and issues that need to be addressed arising from the 2008 Investment Policy Compliance Report from Ernst & Young LLP and the internal review of the Policy for various enhancements, minor amendments to the City’s Investment Policy are recommended in report.    

 

Background Information
City of Toronto 2009 Investment Report and Policy Update
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29880.pdf)


EX44.5 

ACTION

Amended 

 

Ward: All 

Proposed Municipal Code Amendment - City Wide Parkland Dedication By-law
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council adopt the principles for a city-wide parkland dedication by-law as outlined in Attachment 1 of the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation.

 

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce a Bill to amend Municipal Code, Chapter 415, Development of Land, to provide for the Official Plan parkland dedication rate of 2 percent of lands for parks purposes for commercial and industrial purposes and 5 percent for all other uses (unless the Alternative Rate applies), as set out in Attachment 1 to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and to repeal the parkland dedication by-laws of the former municipalities, to come into effect May 3, 2011.

 

3.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce a Bill to amend the parkland dedication by-laws of the former municipalities to provide for the exemptions, as set out in Attachment 1 to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, to come into effect upon introduction of the bill in advance of the city-wide parkland dedication by-law.

 

4.         City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Decision Advice and Other Information

The Executive Committee:

 

1.         Referred the following motion by Councillor Howard Moscoe, to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation for a report directly to City Council, and requested that she consult with interested Members of Council:

 

"That:

 

   a.        Part 1 contained in Attachment 1 to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, be amended by adding the following:

 

“that staff be directed to implement these provisions immediately for all properties not currently subject to an active development application.”

 

  b.        Part 1B, entitled “Definition” contained in Attachment 1 to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, be amended by deleting the word “exclusively” and inserting instead the word “primarily.”

 

  c.        The General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, be requested  to report on additional wording for Attachment 1, Section 4, to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, to ensure accurate calculations for parkland dedication in mixed use developments.

 

 d.         Attachment 1, Section 4, Subsection B, entitled "Delegation of Authority", to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, be amended by the addition of the following words “in consultation with the local Councillor.  In the event of disagreement, staff will report to Council and Council will make the final determination” so that Subsection B reads as follows:

 

                         “B.       Delegation of Authority

 

Council continue to delegate approval authority to the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation for choosing a land or cash-in-lieu of land dedication and for the attributes of the conveyance in consultation with the local Councillor.  In the event of a disagreement, staff will report to Council and Council will make the final determination.”

 

 e.         The proposed City-wide Parkland Dedication requirement come into effect for any application that has been submitted after the date the by-law attains final approval."

 

2.        Requested the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation to submit a report directly to City Council on possible changes to the proposed by-law in order to make a distinction between for profit and non-profit nursing homes with respect to exemptions.

 

Ms. Brenda Patterson, General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and Mr. Mark Edelman, Acting Manager, Strategic and Service Planning, Policy and Strategic Planning, gave a presentation to the Executive Committee on the Proposed Municipal Code Amendment City Wide Parkland Dedication By-law, and filed a copy of their presentation.

Origin
(April 23, 2010) Report from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation
Summary

The City currently applies a number of parkland dedication by-laws of the former municipalities across Toronto. These pre-amalgamation by-laws differ in requirements and exemptions and result in a varied set of parkland dedication requirements that are applied differently to similar developments across the city. In order to ensure consistency, equity and fairness to all applicants and property owners, a single by-law is needed to harmonize the City’s existing parkland dedication by-laws and practices. 

 

This report seeks Council’s authority to develop a comprehensive parkland dedication by-law, under Chapter 415 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, which will result in a consistent city-wide application of parkland dedication requirements.

Background Information
Proposed Municipal Code Amendment City Wide Parkland Dedication By-law
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29881.pdf)

Presentation - city-Wide Parkland Dedication By-law Executive Committee
Speakers

Councillor Cliff Jenkins, Ward 25, Don Valley West


EX44.6 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: 20 

Establishment of a Reserve Account for Parks Improvements - Vermont Square Fundraising Committee
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council, in order to enhance the $500,000 in funds the City has committed to Vermont Square improvements in 2011, authorize the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer to establish a reserve account called the “Vermont Square Reserve” for the purpose of receiving cash donations from the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee to fund further park enhancements in Vermont Square.

 

2.         City Council amend Municipal Code, Chapter 227, Reserves and Reserve Funds, by adding the Vermont Square reserve account to "Schedule 5 – Donations Reserves".

 

3.         City Council direct that all donations received by the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee and by the City for Vermont Square enhancements to be held separately in the Vermont Square reserve account designated for this purpose, and receipts for income tax purposes be issued by the City of Toronto to donors for eligible donations in accordance with the Income Tax Act and City policy in this regard.

 

4.         City Council grant authority to Parks, Forestry and Recreation to enter into an agreement, if necessary, with the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee to allow the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee to fundraise on behalf of the City of Toronto for enhancements in Vermont Square, in a form and content satisfactory to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the City Solicitor.

 

5.         City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and that leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Origin
(April 26, 2010) Report from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Summary

The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization to establish a reserve account to receive cash donations from the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee in order to enhance the $500,000 in funds the City has committed to Vermont Square improvements in 2011. The report will also request authority for the City of Toronto to issue receipts for income tax purposes for eligible donations in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

 

The Vermont Square Fundraising Committee wishes to raise funds to improve Vermont Square. The funds raised will be used to provide additional enhancements to the new waterplay feature which were identified in the masterplan which was created in consultation with the local community.  The actual features to be added to the capital project will depend on the total amount of funds raised.

 

The fundraising target is $50,000 to be used entirely in 2011 as a supplement to the $500,000 City Council has approved for this park in the 2010 Parks, Forestry and Recreation Capital Budget. 

 

The goals and objectives of the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee are in keeping with Parks, Forestry and Recreation’s mandate to provide active recreation opportunities

Background Information
Establishment of a Reserve Account for Parks Improvements - Vermont Square Fundraising Committee
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29882.pdf)


EX44.7 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: 27 

Establishment of a Reserve Account for Parks Improvements – Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council authorize the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer to establish a reserve account called the “Cross Town Parks Reserve” for receiving cash donations from the Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee in order to enhance Ramsden Park, Budd Sugarman Park, and the associated Rosedale Station TTC Bus Loop Lands.

 

2.         City Council amend Municipal Code, Chapter 227 [Reserves and Reserve Funds] by adding the “Cross Town Parks Reserve” to Schedule 5 – Donations Reserves.

 

3.         City Council direct that all donations received by the Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee and by the City for the Cross Town Parks Reserve Account be held separately in the Cross Town Parks Reserve designated for this purpose, and receipts for income tax purposes be issued by the City of Toronto to donors for eligible donations in accordance with the Income Tax Act and City policy in this regard.

 

4.         City Council grant authority to Parks, Forestry and Recreation to enter into an agreement, if necessary, with the Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee to allow the Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee to fundraise on behalf of the City of Toronto for enhancements in Ramsden and Budd Sugarman Parks and associated Rosedale Station TTC Bus Loop Lands, in a form and content satisfactory to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the City Solicitor.

 

5.         City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and that leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Origin
(April 26, 2010) Report from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Summary

The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization to establish a reserve account to receive donations from the Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee in order to enhance Ramsden Park, Budd Sugarman Park, and the associated Rosedale Station TTC Bus Loop Lands. The report will also request authority for the City of Toronto to issue receipts for income tax purposes for eligible donations in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

 

The Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee wishes to raise up to $3,000,000.00 to improve Ramsden Park, Budd Sugarman Park, and the associated Rosedale Station TTC Bus Loop Lands. The raised funds will be used to develop a master plan, in consultation with the local community, for future site improvements, and to implement those improvements.

 

The goals and objectives of the Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee are in keeping with Parks, Forestry and Recreation’s mandate to provide recreation, urban forest growth, and horticultural opportunities.

Background Information
Establishment of a Reserve Account for Parks Improvements - Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29883.pdf)


EX44.8 

ACTION

Without Recs 

 

Ward: All 

Live Green Toronto Corporate Sponsorship
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee submits this item to Council without recommendation.

Decision Advice and Other Information

The Executive Committee requested the Director of the Toronto Environment Office and staff from Toronto Public Health to meet with Canadian Tire Corporation with respect to their proposal and report directly to Council on its willingness to voluntarily remove pesticides from its shelves as other large retailers have done.

Origin
(May 3, 2010) Report from the Director, Toronto Environment Office
Summary

Officially launched in May 2008, Live Green Toronto is the City's leading initiative for supporting neighbourhoods and community groups in taking local, grassroots action on climate change and other local environmental issues of concern. With the creation of a dedicated website providing one-stop access to information tools (www.livegreentoronto.ca), the provision of financial assistance and the support of Community Animators, Live Green Toronto has helped neighbourhoods and community groups install green roofs, plant trees, initiate collective purchases of renewable energy systems, create community gardens, encourage energy efficiency retrofits, and facilitate people in choosing alternative low polluting modes of transportation.

 

When City Council endorsed the establishment of Live Green Toronto it was identified that it would become a vehicle through which other public and private interests could support community led environmental activities. It was expected that this would primarily come in the form of sponsorships or partnerships.

 

The Toronto Environment Office has been approached by Canadian Tire about becoming the first major financial sponsor of Live Green Toronto. Its proposal involves a financial commitment spread over two years that would provide support for the Live Green Toronto Festival, the Live Green Toronto Grants Program and the Cut It Out Program. Preliminary proposals have also been received from other potential sponsors.

 

This report seeks authority from City Council to negotiate and enter into a sponsorship agreement with Canadian Tire for a value of $200,000 ($175,000 cash and $25,000 in-kind) each year for a total of two years, as well as the authority for a period of two years to negotiate and enter into future sponsorship agreements that may have terms of up to two years (so an agreement entered into a year and a half from the date authority is granted might extend to a date three and one-half years from the date authority is granted) with a value of up to $200,000 per sponsorship agreement each year.

 

Background Information
Live Green Toronto Corporate Sponsorship
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29884.pdf)

Speakers

Councillor Michael Walker, Ward 22, St. Paul's


EX44.9 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: 14, 19, 20, 28, 30, 32 

Waterfront Expropriation Protocol
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council authorize the execution of a Waterfront Expropriation Protocol, to be at no cost to the City, on terms and conditions contained in Attachment 1 in the report (May 4, 2010) from Deputy City Manager Richard Butts.

 

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such unsubstantive, stylistic and technical changes to the Protocol as may be required.

 

3.         City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City Officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Origin
(May 4, 2010) Report from Richard Butts, Deputy City Manager
Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval of a Waterfront Expropriation Protocol between the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto (WT). Under the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Act 2002, WT does not have the power or authority to expropriate land.

 

Through WT’s revitalization activities in the Designated Waterfront Area (DWA), land acquisition requirements for municipal purposes such as roads, parks and services are determined.  In instances when there is a risk that consensual negotiations between WT and private landowners are not leading to the acquisition of the required lands in a timely manner, WT has requested that the City exercise its powers under the Expropriations Act.  

 

A protocol to govern WT and City roles regarding expropriation requests has been negotiated and is provided for City Council approval.  This protocol will accelerate waterfront renewal by creating a common understanding of the requirements of the process, and the respective roles of both parties.

 

Background Information
Waterfront Expropriation Protocol
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29885.pdf)

Attachment 1 - Waterfront Expropriation Protocol
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29886.pdf)


EX44.10 

Information

Deferred 

 

Ward: All 

Taxi Industry Regulatory Review
Committee Decision

The Executive Committee deferred consideration of the report (April 30, 2010) from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, entitled " Taxi Industry Regulatory Review", until its meeting to be held on June 14, 2010, to allow for debate.

Origin
(April 30, 2010) Report from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards
Summary

This report is in response to the request of the Executive Committee, at its April 19, 2010 meeting, to report back on the engagement of an outside consultant to be engaged to conduct a review of the provisions dealing with the taxicab industry in Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 545, Licensing.

 

In light of the 1998 Report to Review the Toronto Taxi Industry, staff have determined that before conducting a review and engaging a consultant, initial research and consultations should take place to establish what the issues are and what the scope of the resulting review and associated work should be. Once this preliminary work is accomplished, staff shall prepare a business case for the engagement of the consultant or consultants to be included in the Municipal Licensing and Standards' 2011 operating budget submission.

 

While the direction from the Executive Committee was to identify a budget and a source of funding for the project, it is not possible to report on these issues until we have determined the overall scope of the project.

 

Background Information
Taxi Industry Regulatory Review
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29887.pdf)


EX44.11 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: All 

Establishment of a Tower Renewal Donation Reserve
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.                  City Council accept, and authorize the spending of, a maximum donation of $500,000 from Toronto Community Foundation for the development of community projects known as Recipe for Community in the St. James Town community proposed to begin in June 2010 as outlined in Appendix 1 in the report (May 4, 2010) from the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer.

 

2.                  City Council direct that appropriate adjustments be made to the 10-year capital plans and operating budgets of the various City programs, through variance reporting, once the project estimates are finalized.

 

3.                  City Council authorize the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer to establish a reserve account called the “Tower Renewal Donation Reserve” to receive cash donations to deliver on building stronger communities, including social and cultural benefits.

 

4.                  City Council amend Municipal Code, Chapter 227 [Reserves and Reserve Funds] by adding the “Tower Renewal Donation Reserve” to Schedule 5 – Donations Reserves.

 

5.                  City Council direct that all donations received by the Toronto Community Foundation and other partners for the St. James Community be held in the Tower Renewal Donation Reserve designated for this purpose.

 

6.                  City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and that leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Origin
(May 4, 2010) Report from the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager & Chief Financial Officer
Summary

The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization to establish a reserve account to receive donations from the Toronto Community Foundation and other partners to support the objectives of Tower Renewal. The first instance is to receive donations for St. James Town community.

 

The first donations will be used to develop community building projects in the St. James Town neighbourhood of Toronto. This funding opportunity supports specific goals and objectives of the Tower Renewal pilot project to deliver on building stronger communities including social and cultural benefits. The project is proposed to start in June 2010.

 

Background Information
Establishment of a Tower Renewal Donation Reserve
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30017.pdf)


EX44.12 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: All 

Personal Vehicle Tax - Refund Policy
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council approve a new refund in respect of the City’s Personal Vehicle Tax (the “PVT”) of the following:

 

a.         The full amount of the PVT paid prior to the date by which the validation must be renewed (the “Renewal Date”), if prior to the Renewal Date, the taxpayer returned the plates for the vehicle for which the PVT was paid to the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) or moved out of the City of Toronto; and

 

b.         One-half of the full amount of PVT paid, if, within the first-year of the two-year validation, the taxpayer returned the plates for the vehicle for which the PVT was paid to MTO or moved out of Toronto.

 

2.                  City Council direct that the refund recommended in Recommendation 1 above:

 

a.                   Be made retroactive to the commencement date of the PVT, September 1, 2008; and

 

b.         Be administered by the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer (the “CFO”) through receipt of applications for refunds to the CFO, made by the taxpayers, along with evidence to the satisfaction of the CFO as to the applicants’ eligibility for the refund.

 

3.                  City Council approve a new refund in respect of the PVT  paid in respect of a taxicab licensed by the City, of the following:

 

a.                   The full amount of PVT paid for a validation period commencing after September 1, 2010; and

 

b.         One-half the full amount of PVT paid for a two-year validation if the second year of the validation commences on or after September 1, 2010.

 

4.                  City Council amend Municipal Code Chapter 765, Taxation, Personal Vehicle Tax to give effect to Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 above.

 

5.                  City Council approve two new positions in Revenue Services to administer the new PVT refunds in 2010 at a part-year cost of $95,000 gross ($0 net), funded from PVT revenues included in the Non-Program Revenue Budget.

 

6.                  City Council approve an increase of $95,000 gross ($0 net) in the 2010 Non-Program Personal Vehicle Tax Revenue Budget to fund the two positions identified in Recommendation 5 above.

 

7.                  City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the necessary bills to give effect to the required amendments to the relevant by-law and the appropriate officials be authorized and directed to take necessary actions to give effect thereto.

 

Origin
(May 5, 2010) Report from the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Summary

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Executive Committee direction to the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer and the City Solicitor for a report on Personal Vehicle Tax (PVT) refunds, and to report on the Executive Committee’s referral to the Mayor’s Office of a letter from the Chair of the Licensing and Standards Committee for necessary action to address the inequity between Ambassador and Fleet Taxis.

 

The tax was designed in accordance with the City’s legislative authority at the time, and provides refunds where a person has paid an amount of tax that is not payable under the by-law, i.e. only where the tax is collected in error, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence and such determination by the City’s Chief Financial Officer. It does not provide for refunds due to changing circumstances such as plate cancellation or relocation outside Toronto.  This contrasts with the Provincial registration fee system, and has resulted in criticism.

 

Staff have examined scenarios with regard to providing refunds more in line with the Provincial registration system. Taking into account fairness, feasibility, and cost, it is recommended that PVT be refunded when ownership and address changes occur prior to the onset of a whole year(s) validation renewal period.  More comprehensive (monthly) refund administration would take years to implement and is not recommended.

 

In addition, staff have examined the feasibility of refunding PVT paid by individually owned Ambassador Class and Standard Class taxicabs.  It is recommended that both classes be subject to a full refund of taxes paid, starting September 1, 2010.

This report was developed in consultation with the City Solicitor.

 

Background Information
Personal Vehicle Tax - Refund Policy
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29955.pdf)


EX44.13 

Presentation

Received 

 

 

Status Report on Property Rental Requirements to Meet the Toronto Police Service's Operational and Security Obligations for the 2010 G8 and G20 Summits
Committee Decision

The Executive Committee received, for information, the presentation from the City Manager and  the Senior Corporate Management Policy Consultant, respecting the Status of the Property Rental Requirements to Meet the Toronto Police Service's Operational and Security Obligations for the 2010, G20 Summit.

 

Decision Advice and Other Information

Mr. Joe Pennachetti, City Manager, and Mr. Peter Notaro, Senior Corporate Management Policy Consultant, gave a presentation to the Executive Committee on the Status of the Property Rental Requirements to Meet the Toronto Police Service's Operational and Security Obligations for the 2010, G20 Summit, and filed a copy of their presentation.

Origin
(April 1, 2010) Letter from City Council
Summary

City Council on March 31 and April 1, 2010, in adopting, as amended, Government Management Committee Item GM29.22, headed "Property Rental Requirements to Meet Toronto Police Service Operational/Security Obligations for the 2010 G8/G20 Summits" requested the Chief Corporate Officer to provide a status report on this matter to the April 19, 2010 meeting of the Executive Committee

Background Information
Status Report on Property Rental Requirements to Meet the Toronto Police Service's Operational and Security Obligations for the 2010 G8 and G20 Summits
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29702.pdf)


EX44.14 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: 9 

Donation to Robert (Bob) Leek Park Revitalization
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council accept the donation from the Toronto Community Foundation in the amount of $61,500.00.

 

2.         City Council accept the in-kind donation of general labour and materials valued at $97,255.00 provided by the following businesses and union locals: 

 

i.          Teskey Construction;

ii.         United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 27; and

iii.        Labourers International Unions of North America, Local 183.

 

3.         City Council authorize the selection of the named unions, on a sole source basis, as pre-selected service providers for this Project.

 

4.         City Council amend the 2010 Parks, Forestry and Recreation Capital Budget to increase the Hanover Park (Bob Leek) development project by $61,500 from $75,000 to $136,500 gross, funded by the cash donation of $61,500 from the Toronto Community Foundation.

 

5.         City Council authorize the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation to enter into appropriate agreements with the Toronto Community Foundation and the named unions and businesses in relation to the financial and in-kind contributions made towards this project, on terms and conditions satisfactory in form and content to the General Manager and City Solicitor.

Origin
(April 30, 2010) Report from the Budget Committee
Summary

This report seeks Toronto City Council approval to accept a cash donation in the amount of $61,500.00 from the Toronto Community Foundation and $97,255.00 in the form of in-kind donations from a number of local businesses and unions toward redeveloping Robert (Bob) Leek Park in accordance with the Policy on Donations to the City for Community Benefits.

 

According to the 2006 amendment to the Policy on Donations to the City for Community Benefits, City Council approval is required to accept donations from any individual or organization where the value of the donation exceeds $50,000.00. The combined financial and in-kind value of this donation is $158,755.00.

 

The following private corporations and union locals have committed to provide in-kind labour and materials estimated to be $97,255.00 towards the revitalization of the park space:

 

            i.          Teskey Construction

ii.         United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 27

iii.        Labourers International Unions of North America, Local 183

 

The Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division will act as the constructor, pre-approve all plans, and provide oversight of the project through to completion.

 

At its meeting held September 15, 2009, North York Community Council passed a motion to officially rename Hanover Park, located at Hanover Road and Powell Road, as “Robert (Bob) Leek Park” in honour of the late 25-year veteran fire fighter and his significant contributions to Toronto Fire Services and the citizens of Toronto as a District Chief.  In addition to transforming what is currently an undeveloped vacant parcel of land into usable parkland for the local community, the revitalized Robert (Bob) Leek Park will serve as a monument to the fallen firefighter who perished responding to the Sunrise Natural Gas site explosion in 2008.

 

Background Information
Donation to Robert (Bob) Leek Park Revitalization - Budget Letter
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29888.pdf)

Donation to Robert (Bob) Leek Park Revitalization
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29889.pdf)


EX44.15 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: All 

Toronto Water 2009 and 2010 Capital Budget Cashflow
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council approve a decrease in the Toronto Water total capital project costs of $50.457 million and budget adjustments to the 2009 Capital Budget in order to offset over-expenditures resulting from acceleration of capital projects and unanticipated increases in the cost of delivering other projects totalling $134.704 million which includes carry-forward of $50.767 million to 2010, with offsets from 2009 underspent project of $72.216 million resulting in a net over-expenditure of $62.492 million as detailed in Appendix 1 in the report (April 28, 2010) from the General Manager, Toronto Water.

 

2.         City Council approve adjustments to the 2010 - 2019 Toronto Water Approved Capital Budget and Plan in order to offset the 2009 increase in reserve funding requirement of $62.492 million due to accelerated and overspent 2009 capital projects comprised of: a net decrease in 2012 capital expenditures and reserve funding of $44.111 million; and, a net decrease in 2013 capital expenditures and reserve funding of $18.391 million.

 

3.         City Council approve carry forward funding of $50.767 million for unspent 2009 capital projects and adjustments to reduce previously approved carry-forward funding for projects with capital spending in excess of what was planned in the fourth quarter of 2009 as detailed in Appendix 1 in the report (April 28, 2010) from the General Manager, Toronto Water, resulting in no incremental impact on the 2010 Council approved cash flow and reserve funding as detailed in Appendix 1 in the (April 28, 2010) from the General Manager, Toronto Water.

 

4.         City Council approve the revised 2010 to 2019 Capital Budget and Plan for Toronto Water as a result of the adjustments above with a total project cost of $1.491 billion, and 2010 cash flow of $720.672 million and future year commitments of $2.894 billion comprised of: cash flows of $720.672 million in 2010 inclusive of carry forward funding of  $50.767 million; $733.718 million in 2011; $646.949 million in 2012; $494.757 million in 2013; $427.179 million in 2014; $196.988 million in 2015; and $332.259 in 2016 to 2019.

 

5.         City Council approve that funding in excess of the $30 million target in the Rate Stabilization Reserve equal to $38.133 million be transferred from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Water Capital Reserve.

 

6.         City Council authorize and direct the appropriate staff to take the necessary action to give effect thereof.

Origin
(April 30, 2010) Report from the Budget Committee
Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek adjustments to cashflow in Toronto Water’s approved 2009 Capital Budget to reflect actual spending rates, and to subsequently adjust the resulting carry-forward of unspent funding to Toronto Water’s approved 2010 Capital Budget.  Further, in accordance with the City’s Financial Control Bylaw, this report seeks approval for reallocations in Toronto Water’s 2011-2019 Capital Plan to better align with the adjustments proposed in 2010 project cashflows.

Background Information
Toronto Water 2009 and 2010 Capital Budget Cashflow - Budget Letter
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29891.pdf)

Toronto Water 2009 and 2010 Capital Budget Cashflow - Staff Report
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29892.pdf)


EX44.16 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: All 

2009 Sinking Fund Surplus
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council approve payment of the tax-supported sinking fund surplus of $9,232,344.10 and $230,621.83 for Water and Wastewater as declared by the Sinking Fund Committee and that these funds be applied to the City’s capital financing requirements.

 

2.         City Council authorize the appropriate officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Origin
(April 30, 2010) Report from the Budget Committee
Summary

This report requests Council approval for payment of the 2009 sinking fund surplus in order to fulfil the legislative requirements of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

Background Information
2009 Sinking Fund Surplus - Budget Letter
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29894.pdf)

2009 Sinking Fund Surplus - Staff Report
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29895.pdf)


EX44.17 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

Ward: All 

Toronto Public Library - Technical Adjustments - 2009 and 2010 Capital Budgets
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council approve the following cash flow adjustments to the Toronto Public Library Board 2009 and 2010 approved capital budgets:

 

a i.       advance $1,434,000 of debt funding for Toronto Reference Library to 2009 from 2010, offset by an equivalent deferral of Section 37 funding from 2009 to 2010;

 

a ii.      defer $1,434,000 of debt funding for three capital projects (Virtual Branch Services, Self-Service and Technology Asset Management Program) from 2009 to 2010;

 

b i.       advance $1,227,570 of debt funding to 2009 from 2010 for three capital projects (Toronto Reference Library, Multibranch and Cedarbrae) proceeding ahead of schedule; and

 

b ii.      defer $1,227,570 of debt funding from 2009 to 2010 for five capital projects (Brentwood, Malvern, Bloor/Gladstone, Virtual Branch Services and Thorncliffe) experiencing cash flow delays.

Origin
(April 30, 2010) Report from the Budget Committee
Summary

The purpose of this report is to request Board approval of technical cash flow adjustments to the 2009 and 2010 approved capital budgets which have no net impact on the annual debt levels approved by Council or the total budget amount for individual projects.

 

Technical budget adjustments contained in this report are considered a normal part of managing the capital program, as long as the adjustments do not result in an increase to approved debt levels

Background Information
Toronto Public Library - Technical Adjustments - 2009 and 2010 Capital Budgets - Budget Letter
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29896.pdf)

Toronto Public Library - Technical Adjustments - 2009 and 2010 Capital Budgets - Library Letter
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29897.pdf)

Toronto Public Library - Technical Adjustments - 2009 and 2010 Capital Budgets - Report
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29898.pdf)


EX44.18 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

 

Lease for the Queen Elizabeth Theatre
Confidential Attachment - The security of the property of the municipality or local board
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.      City Council approve of entering into an amendment to the existing Lease with 16730801 Ontario Ltd. for the QET substantially on the terms and conditions contained in the report (April 26, 2010) from the Chief Executive Officer, Exhibition Place, and such other terms and conditions satisfactory to the Board’s Chief Executive Officer and the City Solicitor.

 

2.      City Council direct that the confidential information in Attachment 1 to the report (April 26, 2010) from the Chief Executive Officer, Exhibition Place, not be released publicly given that involves the security of property belonging to the City of Toronto or one of its agencies, boards, and commissions

 

Origin
(April 26, 2010) Report from the Chief Executive Officer, Exhibition Place
Summary

The Queen Elizabeth Theatre (QET) is a 1,300-seat theatre that was built in 1957.  The stage structure consists of a stage 86 foot by 36 foot, a 43-foot fly floor and 9 dressing rooms below the stage level. A Request for Proposals was issued by the Board in 2007 to the private sector for the year-round operation of the QET and at its meeting on March 6, 2008, the Board approved entering into a lease with 16730801 Ontario Ltd (the “Tenant”) as the successful proponent (the “Lease”).  The approved Lease term was for 3 years commencing May 1, 2008 and concluding April 30, 2011 and includes the substantive terms and conditions as set out in Appendix “A” to this report.

 

Since being awarded the Lease, the principal shareholder, Mr. Sinopoli, has invested approximately $550,000 in renovations and audio/ lighting equipment in the QET. He has booked 60 shows to date and has another 85 dates on hold for future events and has attracted approximately 60,000 attendees to the grounds.  This activity is substantial new business to Exhibition Place grounds as previously the QET was only booked on average 40 days a year.

 

The financial return to the Board from this leasehold from May 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 is approximately $420,000 which includes rent, percentage rent, parking revenues, and administrative charges but excludes property taxes paid to the City of Toronto which are estimated to be $55,000.  

 

To grow the business, Mr. Sinopoli is now intending to further invest at least $850,000 to renovate the QET within the next 3 to 5 years to remodel washrooms, repair/replace seating, carpet, lighting, dressing rooms, staging etc. to bring the facility up to competitive industry standards.  Because of this planned investment, Mr. Sinopoli is requesting an amendment to the Lease Term for an additional 12 years with a Renewal Term of an additional 10 years.  Exhibition Place staff have negotiated amendments to the Basic Rent and Participation Rent on the basis of an extended Lease Term.  The terms and conditions of the amendment proposed are outlined in this report and the confidential Attachment.

 

Background Information
Lease for the Queen Elizabeth Theatre
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29899.pdf)


EX44.19 

ACTION

Referred 

 

Ward: All 

Freeze and Review Transit City Contracts
Committee Decision

The Executive Committee referred the letter (April 7, 2010) from City Council, entitled "Freeze and Review Transit City Contracts", to the Toronto Transit Commission, with a request that the Commission ensure that the appropriate steps are taken, with outside assistance, to review the relevant issues with respect to awarding Transit City Contracts.

Origin
(May 7, 2010) Letter from City Council
Summary

Thanks to an investigative press report, it was revealed that a Transit City project manager, who was one of three people who approve payments to subcontractors hired by AECOM, had given a $50,000 contract to a friend.  Although this contract was small, other contractors who have done business with this individual refused to speak on the record because they “fear they will lose government contracts”.

 

The problem may be systemic.  There were significant overruns by sub-contractors on the St. Clair Right-of-Way project, as outlined in the report “Lessons Learned”.

 

Instead of continuing to rush this project through, Toronto City Council should be concerned that public money is handled properly at the sub-contract level.  It is reasonable for Council to make this request of the TTC and expect a full answer on steps they are taking to ensuring that this discovery is not the tip of the iceberg.

 

(Submitted to City Council on March 31, April 1, 2010 as MM47.5)

 

Background Information
Freeze and Review Transit City Contracts - Trans to Executive Committee
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29901.pdf)

Freeze and Review Transit City Contracts - Member Motion
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29902.pdf)


EX44.20 

ACTION

Referred 

 

Ward: All 

Support in Principle for Provision of a Station at Ronald Avenue
Committee Decision

The Executive Committee referred the letter (April 7, 2010) from City Council, entitled "Support in Principle for Provision of a Station at Ronald Avenue", to the Toronto Transit Commission for consideration.

Origin
(April 7, 2010) Letter from City Council
Summary

The largest single distance between stations along the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT tunnel is between Caledonia and Dufferin Stations.  The station spacing for these two stations is about 1.3 km, and the distance from the east exit of Caledonia Station to the west exit of Dufferin Station is about 1.2 km.  Staff identified the average station spacing for the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT tunnel as 850 metres, and 1.3 km is over 50 percent above the average (1300m – 850m = 450m, 450m/850m = 52.9 percent).  This is an extraordinarily high value for an urban area of Toronto, and it is not conductive to creating a walkable Avenue conductive to creating a transit-oriented corridor.  This part of Eglinton Avenue West is identified as an Avenue in the Official Plan.

 

Bloor Street West is a vibrant street.  Between Jane and Woodbine along the Bloor-Danforth line, only one pair of station is more than 850 metres apart.  The Prince Edward Viaduct across the Don Valley between Broadview and Castle Frank stations, at about 880 metres.  Only two other pairs come close to 850 metres between them.  In several instances, stations are less than 600 metres apart along the Bloor-Danforth line, and this is a good way to build underground transit.  Between Lansdowne and Dufferin stations along the Bloor-Danforth line, they are about 520 metres apart.

 

Neither a proposal for nor a commitment to parallel bus service has been provided by the TTC throughout the public consultation process.  Reports on the results of the public consultation process from LURA show that this is a major concern for people along this part of the corridor, recorded/listed several times in the report from the November 2009 to January 2010 consultations alone.  Residents fear losing their existing access to transit by no station along the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT being near enough to them.

 

The east boundary of the Prospect Cemetery represents the approximate midpoint between Caledonia and Dufferin stations, near Ronald Avenue/Harvie Avenue.  A station at Ronald Avenue could bring the station spacing down to 760 metres between Caledonia and Ronald, and down to 540 metres between Ronald and Dufferin, compared to 655 metres (Dufferin to Oakwood) and 570 metres (Oakwood to Allen), which are extremely similar figures.

 

The presence of a cemetery does not mean a station is unwarranted, as past examples such as Old Mill, Castel Frank, Davisville, and North York Centre are all very close to cemeteries, and future examples will include 407 on the Spadina Subway Extension and Longbridge on the Yonge Subway Extension.

 

Additionally, the grades proposed in this part of the tunnel are steep, at 5.0 percent (the LRT standard maximum), which exceeds the subway standard maximum of 3.5 percent.  The investment in these tunnels should protect for the very long-term prospect of a subway running along this corridor, if the vertical alignment can be changed for such a protection without significant impacts on the construction costs.

 

(Submitted to City Council on March 31 and April 1, 2010 as MM47.8)

Background Information
Support in Principle for Provision of a Station at Ronald Avenue - Trans to Executive Committee
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29903.pdf)

Support in Principle for Provision of a Station at Ronald Avenue - Member Motion
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29904.pdf)

Support in Principle for Provision of a Station at Ronald Avenue - Sketch
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29905.pdf)


EX44.21 

ACTION

Referred 

 

Ward: All 

Response to the Environmental Project Report and the Transit Project Assessment Process for the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT in the 30-day Public Review Period
Committee Decision

The Executive Committee referred the letter (April 7, 2010) from City Council, entitled "Response to the Environmental Project Report and the Transit Project Assessment Process for the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT in the 30-day Public Review Period ", to the Toronto Transit Commission for consideration and report back to the Executive Committee.

Origin
(April 7, 2010) Letter from City Council
Summary

The Eglinton-Crosstown LRT (ECLRT) has been put through the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), with the Toronto Transit Commission (the TTC) and the City of Toronto (the City) as the joint-proponent of the project, and a notice of completion of Environmental Project Report (EPR) has been circulated as required by the Environmental Assessment Act (the Act).  It is important to note that the TPAP and the Act do not have the power to cancel or endanger the commitment to a transit project such as the ECLRT, and that only additional studies may be imposed by the Act.

 

The role of City Council as defined in the City of Toronto Act 2006, Section 131 paragraph (e) reads that it is “to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the City,” and with the City having been directly involved in organizing the public consultations for the ECLRT project, the City is responsible for the transparency of that process.  The information that has been collected by the City and the TTC from the public in the public consultation process has been mostly, but not exclusively, summarized in reports from the consulting firm LURA.  There is a large volume of unresolved issues in the proposed project when compared against the communities’ concerns as expressed in the LURA reports and other records of public feedback.   Not all concerns raised by the public are valid, but many are, and too many are unresolved.  There is additional concern over some of the arguments put forward by staff to support decisions made.

 

On March 12, 2010, the City and the TTC submitted the EPR to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MoE).  Toronto City Council (Council) had granted approval for submission of the EPR to the MoE prior to the completion of the public consultation process and prior to the final design of the ECLRT being decided by the TTC.  By extension, Council had not seen the final EPR at the time approval was granted.  Council approved the ECLRT TPAP and EPR in good faith, confident that the feedback from the public consultation process would be used to address community concerns and generate the best proposal for the ECLRT.  Without question, the ECLRT is a project that, in principle, is strongly supported by Council, and that support is not being revisited, but the results of the public consultations have not been well received, and there are certain to be many objections from the community to the project.  As representatives of these communities, it is important to stand up for community concerns that have not been addressed.  It is important for Council to support the ECLRT project, which Council does, but it is even more important for Council to support the ECLRT project being done well, with the communities along the corridor on board with and in favour of the proposed project.  Dr. Richard Soberman and Mr. Les Kelman highlighted the importance of support for the project from the community in the Lessons Learned report on St. Clair Avenue West that they authored.

 

At the February 19, 2010 Metrolinx Board meeting, the Metrolinx CEO expressed the position that it is more important to take the design time necessary to “get it right” than rushing to “get shovels in the ground.”  This was during discussion at that board meeting on the Lessons Learned report on St. Clair Avenue West and its implications for Transit City, as the TTC had directed that that report be forwarded to Metrolinx at its January 20, 2010 meeting.  The position expressed by the Metrolinx CEO on February 19, 2010 is the opposite of the position expressed by the Chair of the TTC at the February 17, 2010 TTC meeting, where an unreasonable inflexibility with respect to changing the design was expressed and inaccurate statements made about the magnitude of delays changes would cause.  It is worth noting that neither the City nor the TTC is providing any of the funding for the ECLRT project, and that Metrolinx, on behalf of the Ontario Government, is providing all of the funding.  The view expressed by the Metrolinx CEO may be worth more serious consideration than has recently been evident with regard to the ECLRT project by the TTC.

 

The TPAP may request studies regarding land use, including with respect to proximity and effect on priority development areas, existing and planned.  The ECLRT passes through two of Toronto’s priority neighbourhoods:  Mount Dennis and Victoria Village.  These two priority neighbourhoods are the sites of some of the more serious concerns from communities in the ECLRT project.  To date, these concerns have been approached purely from a technical perspective instead of a broader planning perspective that includes other factors such as social and socio-economic impacts.  If these are priority neighbourhoods, destroying dozens of residents’ properties for the sake of substantially widening roads and creating 5-point intersections that are difficult to navigate for both vehicles and pedestrians alike, or taking away a bus service in an area frequented and inhabited by a considerable number of seniors without a stop along the LRT to replace that bus service despite being in an area that is difficult to walk due to area topography, is not going to improve the quality of living in these priority areas.  Where are the land use studies and the descriptions of the impacts on these areas as they relate to the proposed ECLRT project?

 

The TPAP may also request studies on operations and maintenance costing.  Council had requested such on December 4, 2009, with respect to the airport alignment when it was granting approval of the EPR to go to the MoE (CC42.7 as amended), but there is no evidence that this request is being acted on.  The question of whether or not parallel bus service over the underground section of the ECLRT would be necessary has not been answered; what would those operations and maintenance costs be, and how would they compare to investing the capital for stations being added to avoid those operations and maintenance costs over the long term?  What about the steep grades in the underground section of the ECLRT if demand increases in the more distant future to subway-level demands, and the costs associated with that?  These are questions that continue to go unanswered despite their long-term importance and significant cost implications.  While Bloor St. had electric LRT between Dufferin and Sherbourne from 1893, with a subway not under construction until about 70 years later, it should be highlighted that none of the old Bloor LRT was underground, which is a dramatic and significant difference from the ECLRT.

 

The TPAP requires a record of the consultations that were conducted for the project, which would be mostly addressed with the LURA reports.  The TPAP also requires descriptions of follow-up efforts, and of what the proponent did to respond to concerns expressed by interested persons, some of which have yet to be responded to, and some have yet to be adequately responded to.  These include concerns at major intersections with schools right at the corner regarding safety of children at those schools, which were not mentioned in the EPR, and includes issues about station spacing and parallel bus service, which, while mentioned, were not adequately addressed in the EPR.

 

Regardless of technology, there are good designs and bad designs possible for any part of any project.  The technology being LRT for the ECLRT project does not make bad design impossible for the ECLRT, as St. Clair should be more than enough proof to substantiate.  While there are clearly many outstanding challenges to overcome, settling for a poor solution instead of taking the time to work out a good design is an alarming risk that Council cannot afford to overlook.

 

It is very important to make clear that there is no threat to the ECLRT project posed by prudent further study to get the best cost-benefit from the line.  Indeed, the threat posed by not engaging in further study is considerably greater than engaging in it, if St. Clair is any indicator.  Further study, in a situation with such a high volume of outstanding concerns and mounting public unrest over the ECLRT, as evidenced by a long series of deputations at the February 17, 2010 TTC meeting, cannot reasonably be viewed as “needless delay.”  Supporting further study does not alter Council’s support for the project; it reinforces Council’s support for the project to be done well, from the perspectives of the communities along the corridor, and the Metrolinx CEO has expressed an extremely similar opinion.  The transparency of the public consultation process, and the public trust placed in this Council, needs to be protected, and that will only be accomplished by acknowledging that this project must have its outstanding issues resolved.  The TTC is facing mounting credibility challenges over the past few months, most recently involving the project manager for the Transit City carhouses, including carhouses for the ECLRT, and the March 12, 2010 ECLRT EPR compounds the credibility problems facing the TTC, unless the outstanding valid issues are responsibly addressed and resolved.

 

The Notice of Completion of EPR stated that “The LRT will operate underground from a portal 800 metres east of Laird Drive to a portal 350 metres west of Keele Street, as the width of Eglinton Avenue in this area is too narrow to accommodate street level LRT.”  The same is true for Eglinton Avenue between Weston Road and 150m west of Pearen Street, yet it is being proposed to run at the surface, which will cause substantial permanent damage to the community, even though this area is on a hill that is geographically well-suited to a tunnel.  If the argument is that the design proposed is influenced by the limited funding available for the 32.6km project, then the communities along the corridor are effectively being asked to endure long-term suffering for the underestimated cost presented for the ECLRT when the province was determining its funding commitment, an underestimation that the communities had nothing to do with, and that is not right.  As already demonstrated by the SRT project, this project could be split into two phases, with the 2nd phase proceeding when more funding can be made available.  One of the lessons learned on Transit City is that cost estimates and funding commitments are best made after the TPAP has taken its course, not before.  When Transit City was announced in 2007 at a total cost of $6-billion for the whole 120km network, what was promised was ultimately impossible to deliver, by a very wide margin.  Shoehorning after the fact at the expense of communities’ well-being should not be considered a viable option.

 

The only event that can kill the project is the revoking of funding from upper levels of government.  In the case of the ECLRT project, this is something that can happen in the event of a change of provincial government.  That threat exists regardless of whether or not shovels are in the ground, as history has made far too clear on the Eglinton West Corridor already.  Relative to the cost, far too little is gained by building something quickly at the expense of quality and long-term planning.

 

(Submitted to City Council on March 31, April 1, 2010 as MM47.7)

 

Background Information
Response to the Environmental Project Report and the Transit Project Assessment Process for the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT in the 30-day Public Review Period - Trans to Executive Committee
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29906.pdf)

Response to the Environmental Project Report and the Transit Project Assessment Process for the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT in the 30-day Public Review Period - Member Motion
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29907.pdf)

Speakers

Councillor Frances Nunziata, Ward 11, York South-Weston


EX44.22 

ACTION

Noted/Filed 

 

Ward: All 

Development Charges - New Background Study and By-law
Committee Decision

The Executive Committee noted and filed the letter (April 7, 2010) from City Council, entitled "Development Charges - New Background Study and By-law."

Origin
(April 7, 2010) Letter from City Council
Summary

City Council adopted the current Development Charge By-law (275-2009) on February 25, 2009.  In view of the then-prevalent economic climate, Council elected to:

 

1.         Freeze the January 2009 rates until January 31, 2011, except for annual indexing

 

2.         Adopt development charge rates that represented a 10% reduction to the maximum rates calculated in the Development Charge Background Study; and

 

3.         Provide for conditional phasing in of the adopted rates over the term of the by-law.

 

While the generous provisions of the current by-law may have been warranted in the interest of City building during an economic recession, circumstances have changed.  Recent statistical data, relating especially to the building and construction sector of the economy, suggest that residential construction and sales activity in the City have weathered the storm and sales of new residential units have been at near record pace – and far exceed the thresholds for phasing-in during the term of the by-law.

 

Phase-In Thresholds from DC by-law (post-freeze - after January 31, 2011):

 

1.         If fewer than 7,000 units issued building permits – 0% phase-in of adopted DC increase

 

2.         If more than 9,000 units issued building permits – 25% phase-in of adopted DC increase

 

3.         ACTUAL 2009 residential units issued permits:  12,575.

 

Under the circumstances, it would be fiscally prudent for Council to consider alternatives to the conditional phasing in of the adopted rates and consider amending the by-law to adopt rates that more accurately reflect the cost of providing infrastructure to service growth and development, in the manner of other jurisdictions with healthy building and construction activity.

 

Comparison – Development Charges for a single-family dwelling unit (Toronto Star, 2010-02-24)

 

1.         Oakville, Halton            DC    $54,160

2.         `Markham, York             DC    $44,470

3.         Brampton, Peel              DC    $40,590

4.         Clarington, Durham       DC    $35,006

5.         Toronto                          DC    $12,910

 

 (Submitted to City Council on March 31, April 1, 2010 as MM47.3)

Background Information
Development Charges - New Background Study and By-law - Trans to Executive Committee
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29908.pdf)

Development Charges - New Background Study and By-law - Member Motion
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-29909.pdf)

Speakers

Mr. Stephen Dupuis, Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
Councillor Cliff Jenkins, Ward 25, Don Valley West
Councillor Adam Vaughan, Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina


EX44.23 

ACTION

Amended 

 

 

Scarborough Rapid Transit - Transit Project Assessment Study Recommendations
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council approve the following:

 

a.         Conversion of the existing Scarborough Rapid Transit line (Kennedy Station to McCowan Station) to use Transit City Light Rail Transit (LRT) vehicles.

 

b.         Extension of the Scarborough Rapid Transit from McCowan Road to Malvern Town Centre, including the alignment, stations, passenger pick-up and drop-off facilities and bus terminals.

 

c.         An underground non-revenue service connection to the Sheppard East Maintenance and Storage Facility.

 

d.         Protection for the future Bellamy Maintenance and Storage Facility.

 

e.          An amendment to the approved Scarborough-Malvern LRT Environmental Project Report (EPR) to provide an underground connection to Kennedy Station, via a portal located immediately west of Midland Avenue.

 

f.          An amendment to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT EPR to provide an underground connection to Kennedy Station, via a portal located immediately east of Ionview Road.

 

2.          City Council authorize staff to submit the EPR to the Ministry of Environment.

Decision Advice and Other Information

Mr. Rick Thompson, Toronto Transit Commission, Chief Project Manager, and Mr. Sameh Ghaly, Toronto Transit Commission, Project Manager, addressed the Executive Committee and answered questions from Members of the Committee.

Origin
(May 7, 2010) Report from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission
Summary

At its meeting on Thursday May 6, 2010 the Commission considered the attached report entitled, “Scarborough Rapid Transit – Transit Project Assessment Study Recommendations”.

Background Information
Scarborough Rapid Transit - Transit Project Assessment Study Recommendations - Letter
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30037.pdf)

Scarborough Rapid Transit - Transit Project Assessment Study Recommendations - Report
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30038.pdf)

Scarborough Rapid Transit - Transit Project Assessment Study Recommendations - Executive Summary
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30039.pdf)

Communications
(May 6, 2010) Letter from Mr. Mel Segal, General Manager, DAVPART INC.,  (EX.New.EX44.23.1)
(May 17, 2010) Submission from Tony Wong, Member of Board of Directors, Chinese Cultural Centre (EX.Main.EX44.23.2)
Speakers

Mr. Peter Teeson, Progress Avenue Residents
Mr. Alan Lam, Director, Chinese Cultural Centre
Mr. Tony Wong, Chinese Cultural Centre (Submission Filed)
Mr. Bobby Bhoola
Councillor Raymond Cho, Ward 42, Scarborough-Rouge River


EX44.24 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

 

Request for Approval of the Sheppard Maintenance and Storage Facility Transit Project Assessment Study
Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee recommends that:

 

1.         City Council approve the joint City/TTC Sheppard Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) Transit Project Assessment Study as described in the document (April 2010), titled "Sheppard Maintenance and Storage Facility – Draft Environmental Project Report (EPR) Executive Summary", attached to the report (May 7, 2010) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission.

 

2.         City Council authorize staff to submit the EPR to the Ministry of Environment.

 

3.         City Council direct that the City’s final report for the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment for the Sheppard MSF site be submitted to the June 16, 2010, Planning and Growth Management Committee Meeting and for submission to the July 6, 2010 City Council meeting.

 

Origin
(May 7, 2010) Report from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission
Summary

At its meeting on Thursday May 6, 2010 the Commission considered the attached report entitled, “Request for Approval of the Sheppard Maintenance and Storage Facility Transit Project Assessment Study.”

Background Information
Request for Approval of the Sheppard Maintenance and Storage Facility Transit Project Assessment Study - letter
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30032.pdf)

Request for Approval of the Sheppard Maintenance and Storage Facility Transit Project Assessment Study - Report
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30033.pdf)

Request for Approval of the Sheppard Mantenance and Storage Facility Transit Project Assessment Study - Executive Summary
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30040.pdf)


EX44.25 

ACTION

Adopted 

 

 

Improving Special Events and Permitting Processes
Committee Decision

The Executive Committee requested the City Manager to report to the Executive Committee Meeting to be held on August 16, 2010, on a proposed customer service strategy that addresses permitting requirements, fees, inter-divisional coordination, and supports for applicants in organizing community events, and that the report examine the possibility of establishing a one-window event office.

Origin
(May 17, 2010) Letter from Councillor Janet Davis
Summary

Letter (May 17, 2010) from Councillor Janet Davis recommending that the City Manager report to the August Executive Committee Meeting on a proposed customer service strategy that addresses permitting requirements, fees, inter-divisional coordination, and supports for applicants in organizing community events, and that the report examine the possibility of establishing a one-window event office.

Background Information
Improving Special Events and Permitting Processes
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30407.pdf)


EX44.26 

ACTION

Deferred 

 

 

Parks Enhancement Strategy
Committee Decision

 

The Executive Committee deferred consideration of the following motion by Councillor Moscoe until its meeting on June 14, 2010:

 

"That:

 

1.         The General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be directed to develop a parks enhancement strategy to ensure that parks in priority neighbourhoods or low development areas benefit in some way from funds that are raised to enhance parks in affluent or active development areas.

 

2.         This strategy be initiated by a discussion paper that considers such mechanisms as:

 

-           a percentage of donation levy

-           a matching fund policy

-           a share of section 37 levy

-           a per capita budget share

-           indexing City investment to average income data

-           discussion of current mechanisms

 

3.         That this discussion paper be tabled for consideration by the Executive Committee no later than January 2011."

 

The following motion by Councillor Rae was tabled until the meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled to be held on June 14, 2010:

 

"That the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be requested to analyze the funding of parks and parks maintenance through development agreement and Section 37 agreement in Wards 20/27/28 as opposed to the use of tax revenue sources as reported through the Capital Budget.

 

Origin
(May 17, 2010) Letter from Councillor Howard Moscoe
Summary

Councillor Howard Moscoe moved that the Executive Committee refer the following motion to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, for consideration with the Parks Plan that is underway:

 

1.         The General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be directed to develop a parks enhancement strategy to ensure that parks in priority neighbourhoods or low development areas benefit in some way from funds that are raised to enhance parks in affluent or active development areas.

 

2.         This strategy be initiated by a discussion paper that considers such mechanisms as:

 

a.         a percentage of donation levy

b.         a matching fund policy

c.         a share of section 37 levy

d.         a per capita budget share

e.         indexing City investment to average income data

 

3.         That this discussion paper be tabled for consideration by the Parks and Environment Committee no later than January 2011.

 

Background Information
New Business from Councillor Moscoe - Parks Enhancement Strategy
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30408.pdf)


Meeting Sessions
Session Date Session Type Start Time End Time Public or Closed Session
2010-05-17 Morning 9:41 AM 12:35 PM Public
2010-05-17 Afternoon 1:43 PM 4:52 PM Public
Attendance
Members were present for some or all of the time period indicated.
Date and Time Quorum Members
2010-05-17
9:41 AM - 12:35 PM
(Public Session)
Present Present: Carroll, Davis, Fletcher, Kelly, Mammoliti, Miller (Chair), Moscoe, Pantalone, Rae
Not Present: De Baeremaeker, McConnell, Mihevc
Also present (non-members): Cho, Jenkins, Nunziata, Vaughan, Walker
2010-05-17
1:43 PM - 4:52 PM
(Public Session)
Present Present: Carroll, Davis, Fletcher, Kelly, Mammoliti, Miller (Chair), Moscoe, Pantalone, Rae
Not Present: De Baeremaeker, McConnell, Mihevc
Also present (non-members): Cho, Vaughan