Governance Structure for Heritage Services

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends:

(A)the adoption of the Governance Structure for Heritage Services outlined in the communication (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Rick Schofield, Scarborough LACAC (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee) and Scarborough Historical Museum Board:

(i) as amended viz:

"It is recommended that:

(1)a Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Panel (LACAC) be established for each Community Council area;

(2)LACAC Panels each nominate a representative to form one Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (TACAC) and that each LACAC report to the appropriate Community Council on local issues, depending on where a particular site is located and TACAC report through the Planning and Urban Development Committee to City Council on issues relating to the Ontario Heritage Act;

(3)Community Councils be authorized to nominate the membership of each LACAC Panel;

(4)all qualified electors living within the City of Toronto be eligible for appointment to LACAC Panels;

(5)staff support to TACAC be seconded from City staff located in the Planning and/or Culture Departments, within budget allocations of Council;

(6)a Toronto Historical Museum Board be created, composed of representatives of each Community Museum Management Board and reporting to the Economic Development Committee;

(7)a Community Museum Management Board be created for each historical site or combined sites; and the same principles for appointments of citizens to LACACs be applied;

(8)Community Councils be authorized to nominate the membership of each individual Museum Board in its jurisdiction;

(9)staff support for the local Museum Management Boards be provided by the City;

(10)Heritage Toronto be composed of representatives from each of the Local LACAC panels and the Community Museum Management Boards, plus representatives from the heritage community and Council;

(11)preservation policies recommended by the TACAC be reported to City Council through the Planning and Urban Development Committee;

(12)City Council support the continued existence of an independent arms length charitable foundation to facilitate fundraising and development activities for a broad range of heritage projects throughout the City, and the Heritage Board, in consultation with the Culture Office, report on the further implementation of such charitable foundation;

(13)should Council adopt this report, as amended by the Special Committee, all staff of the Toronto Historical Board and of the Scarborough Historical Museum Board become staff of the City of Toronto;

(14)Heritage be included in the City of Toronto's Official Plan;

(15)Council adopt the following fundamental principles:

"(1)that Heritage contributes to the quality of life and economic health of the community;

(2)that local community input is of prime importance;

(3)that Municipal government has a major role to play in supporting and encouraging the preservation and appreciation of local community heritage and in fostering the stewardship of its material and natural resources;

(4)that the City is charged with heritage stewardship; and

(5)that it is important to sustain, at the local community level, a partnership of professional staff and volunteers;";

(16)the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to review the selected model in three year's time and report thereon to Council, through the appropriate Standing Committee; and

(17)the City Solicitor, in consultation with all appropriate stakeholders, develop for Council approval any necessary by-laws and agreements to give effect thereto;"; and

(ii)subject to:

(a)striking out the recommendation respecting Heritage Toronto; and

(b)the Commissioner of Economic Development and Culture submitting a report to the Economic Development Committee, on the proposed composition of Heritage Toronto; and

(B)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with Chairs of the LACAC and Museum Boards, the Toronto Historical Association, Councillors who sit on LACACs and The Heritage Board, the Executive Director of Human Resources, the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and anyone else required, present options to the Economic Development Committee for implementing the selected option.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)requested the Chairman of the Special Committee to formally thank the participants who developed the Heritage Master Plan; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development and Culture, in consultation with the Toronto Historical Association and all other interested organizations, to submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on the steps required for the further development of the Heritage Master Plan.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Rick Schofield, Scarborough LACAC (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee) and Scarborough Historical Museum Board:

Attached please find a proposed compromise model as developed this past week at the request of Councillor David Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. It is a slight modification of the chart presented to Councillor Miller on Monday, November 30, 1998, but includes important recommendations.

It addresses some of the common principles and attempts to compromise on those principles with which there is no agreement. I have included the necessary proposed amendments to the Chief Administrative Officers report recommendations which would be necessary to have this compromise model work.

The key issues are:

(1)getting some structure in place as soon as possible;

(2)dealing with staffing and budget issues as soon as possible;

(3)accountability at a level which Council can easily review;

(4)maximizing volunteer input and support; and

(5)reinforcing Recommendation No. (17) which calls for a review in three years.

Governance Structure for Heritage Services

Compromise Model

(Following up on the Special Committee Report, July 10, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer.)

From the compromise model, it is recommended that:

Recommendations Nos. (1), (3), (4), (8), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17) and (18) be adopted as proposed.

Other proposals require amendments as outlined below:

Recommendation No. (2) be amended to read:

"(2)LACAC Panels each nominate a representative to form one Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (TACAC) and that each LACAC report to the appropriate Community Council on local issues, depending on where a particular site is located and TACAC report through the Planning and Urban Development Committee to City Council on issues relating to the Ontario Heritage Act;";.

Recommendation No. (5) be amended to read:

"(5)staff support to TACAC be seconded from City staff located in the Planning and/or Culture Departments, within budget allocations of Council;".

Recommendation No. (6) be amended to read:

"(6)a Toronto Historical Museum Board be created, composed of representatives of each Community Museum Management Board and reporting to the Economic Development Committee;".

Recommendation No. (7) be amended to read:

"(7)a Community Museum Management Board be created for each historical site or combined sites; and the same principles for appointments of citizens to LACACs be applied;".

Recommendation No. (9) be amended to read:

"(9)staff support for the local Museum Management Boards be provided by City;".

Recommendation No. (10) be amended to read:

"(10)Heritage Toronto be composed of representatives from each of the Local LACAC panels and the Community Museum Management Boards, plus representatives from the heritage community and Council;".

Recommendation No. (11) be amended to read:

"(11)preservation policies recommended by the TACAC be reported to City Council through the Planning and Urban Development Committee;".

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (December 3, 1998) from Councillor David, Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee:

As directed by Council, I have met with the representatives of the existing LACAC's and Museum Boards, and heard from many more since this issue was discussed at Council last summer. A number of models and variations have been proposed.

Areas of Common Agreement:

(1)All agree with the following general principles contained in our first report to Council:

(i)that heritage contributes to the quality of life and economic health of the community;

(ii)that local community input is of prime importance;

(iii)that municipal government has a major role to play in supporting and encouraging the preservation and appreciation of local community heritage in fostering the stewardship of its material and natural resources;

(iv)that the City is charged with heritage stewardship; and

(v)that it is important to sustain, at the local community level, a partnership of professional staff and volunteers.

(2)Nearly every model put forward includes the continuation of a local LACAC for each Community Council area. Although the models vary, they almost all feature some form of City-wide committee made up of representatives of the local committees.

(3)Each of the models foresees the continuance of a committee or board for each of the existing museums. Again, most of the models provide for representation of these committees to a City-wide body.

(4)For the most part, people believe there are benefits to be obtained fro co-ordinating all of the City-owned museums. On the preservation side there is general agreement that these services should be delivered on a City-wide basis.

(5)All of the models attempt to extend the valuable advocacy role that Heritage Toronto has been able to play because of its agency status.

Options:

Everyone agrees that citizen and volunteer participation in heritage services should be maximized. The underlying difference of opinion comes down to how those citizens are used - i.e., should Council establish an advisory committee system and advises Council and heritage staff within the departmental structure, or should Council delegate full authority and resources (including staff) to an agency.

A number of other important issues have been raised - Committee reporting relationships, nomination of citizen board and committee members, one board or two etc. But for now, I am recommending that Council take a two-step approach.

Step One:

Endorse the areas of agreement above as guiding principles and select a general approach from the options below:

(1)deliver both preservation a d museum services through the departmental structure in combination with a series of local and City-wide citizen advisory committees;

(2)deliver both services through an agency governed by a citizen board with its own staff; and

(3)deliver museums through the citizen advisory committee/departmental model and preservation through an agency.

Step Two:

Once Council has agreed to one of these approaches, it should then turn its attention to the more detailed issues. The appropriate staff should be asked to report in early 1999 on options for structuring the selected option. Depending on the option selected, the report should address issues such as:

(1)Committee reporting relationships;

(2)staff reporting relationships;

(3)composition of the citizen boards and committees;

(4)selection process for citizen members:

(5)a single board versus separate boards for museums and preservation;

(6)if Options (2) or (3) are selected, roles of Culture Division and City Planning Division; and

(7)if Options (1) and (3) are selected, the role of Heritage Toronto.

Because all of these options involve the transfer of staff and assets, Committee should also consider reports from the Executive Director of Human Resources and the City Solicitor on implications of the selected option. Furthermore since preservation relates to the work of City Planning Division, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services should also be consulted.

Recommendations:

I am recommending that:

(1)Council adopt as guiding principles the points under "Areas of Agreement" above;

(2)Option 3 under the heading "Step One" above be recommended as the preferred option; and

(3)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with Chairs of LACAC and Museum Boards, the Executive Director of Human Resources, the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, present options to the Economic Development Committee for implementing the selected option, being sure to incorporate the principles adopted under Recommendation No. (1).

Conclusion:

The Committee has been presented with an array of competing structural options for heritage services. The Committee's deliberations would be improved if it narrows the range by selecting one of three basic structural options and only then turning its attention to the more detailed structural, human resource and legal issues.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To provide a summary of the results of the Heritage Workshop.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the attached summary be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 31, 1998, Council referred the issue of the governance structure for heritage functions back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team and directed that the Heritage Community develop the City's heritage master plan.

The Committee Chair organized a workshop where Councillors could meet with stakeholders and representatives of the Heritage Community to discuss the City's role in heritage and a process for developing the City's long term vision or strategy for heritage.

Staff of the Chief Administrator's Office were asked to summarize the workshop discussion and report to the Committee.

Comments:

Forty-two people attended the workshop including Councillors, Chairs of City heritage boards and committees, representatives of the heritage community, agency and City staff, and invited guests representing federal, provincial, and other municipal perspectives.

Five speakers with perspectives external to the City of Toronto experience were invited to talk on the subject of the role of the City of Toronto in heritage.

Speakers:

(1)Sheldon Godfrey spoke about the definition of heritage, its scope and principles.

(2)Dorothy Duncan described how heritage groups evolved and why heritage should be supported by tax dollars, and why partnerships among governments and interest groups is important.

(3)Pamela Craig addressed the legislative provisions and offered some advice on the process of developing the City's vision and structure.

(4)Marilynn Havelka reinforced principles developed by the Ontario Museums Association and spoke about her experience within the City of Hamilton

(5)Michael McClelland spoke about the need to embed heritage in the municipal structure because it is a core mandate of the government and pervades many municipal programs.

These presentations were followed by facilitated break-out groups to discuss who should take the lead in the development of the City's heritage strategy and what approach should be taken to develop the plan. Many opinions on timing and structural issues were also brought forward.

Summary of Presentations:

The following summarizes ideas expressed by the five speakers.

There was agreement that the definition of heritage is inclusive, meaning that it represents the tangible and intangible, natural and built, and concerns all aspects of culture including lifestyle, arts, artifacts, skills, mores, religions, etc., as well as architecture.

There may be a distinction drawn between local community heritage and City heritage, just as there is a distinction between provincial and national heritage. Cities that have strong cultural identities will be cities that grow. The sense of place is what sells a city to tourists and residents. The City's interest in heritage includes the education and enjoyment of citizens to assist in understanding City roots as well as enrichment of the ambiance of the City to attract visitors. Heritage is a prime contributor to the quality of life and economic health of the City. The City government's role should be to protect significant symbols of our history, to promote heritage beyond stewardship of the City's owned assets, and to secure the power of community heritage institutions to fulfill their mandates.

Heritage should be supported by tax dollars because it is an economic stimulant. Cultural activities attract more participants than sports - 88percent compared to 31percent. Special events yield $87per day per person to the surrounding community. Developers and merchandisers understand this interest by selling heritage as product as well.

Citizen concern over the City's history dates back to 1869 when societies and foundations were formed to create a common voice to the City Councils. These groups were and still are often concerned with specific sites. Provincial contributions to heritage include the Archives of Ontario, Ontario Heritage Act, and support and program funding provided by the Ministry of Culture. Toronto is the headquarters for many provincial organizations.

There are clearly many different groups and many different perspectives. It is essential that a climate of understanding exist among these. Taxpayers need to understand how heritage benefits the City and why tax money should be spent on heritage. Individuals and organizations who contribute vast resources and effort need to feel part of a team working together for heritage. City staff need to be recognized as experts in their field and Councillors need to understand how heritage policies will benefit the City overall.

The Ontario Heritage Act is enabling legislation specifying a direct, but limited role for municipalities and encourages citizen participation, specifically through LACACs (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees). Although the legislation permits a single LACAC for the City with a minimum of 5 members, the committee may operate through functional sub-groups. Provincial museum funding criteria requires that each museum achieve provincial museum standards, have a curator, and an appointed body that is responsible for overseeing its operation.

Although most cities in Ontario have a LACAC and at least one museum, few cities have developed a vision or strategy for heritage.

Council's involvement in heritage is unique in each city and depends on the historic relationship between the community and the Council, on the mandates upon which historic properties were based, on the community needs and interests, and on the degree to which programs and services were developed by staff or volunteers.

Stakeholders need commitment and leadership from municipal officials and politicians to best deliver heritage services. The principal goal is that the structure have dedicated resources that benefit residents and visitors alike. Current levels of qualified staff, facilities, and funding of heritage programs and services will support the City's role.

In Hamilton, city staff within the Culture and Parks Department are responsible for 5 museums, a marine archaeological project, arts programs, the Farmers' Market, and special events. Planning Department staff support LACACs. The Historical Board and LACAC have overlapping representation and deliver a joint plaquing program.

Heritage is a mainstream issue that pervades many municipal departmental programs. There is a need to embed heritage in the municipal structure rather than view it as an externally driven advocacy issue. Currently heritage is over-regulated and poorly integrated within the municipal services. The struggle over leadership in heritage in the City has resulted in little actual policy development and fewer staff. Toronto has fallen behind most Canadian cities in its policies and funding for heritage.

Summary of Roundtable Discussions:

(1)Sequencing of strategy development and restructuring:

(i)strategy then structure, possibly need for City of Toronto Heritage Act as an enabler for implementing the vision;

(ii)prefer vision then structure, but it would likely take 1-2 years to develop a master plan; meanwhile there is pressure to reduce costs and the organization needs stability; practically, establish general direction, design structure, develop strategy; implementation requires commitment to the strategy which is secured by taking leadership in its development; and

(iii)identify scope of issues, decide on goals and priorities, identify tools for implementation, then decide on structure; however this is long term and something needs to be done in the interim.

(2)Who should lead development of the Strategy?

(i)political leadership - three members of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team as a reference group; consultant to work with heritage community and key stakeholders; must be resourced and funded;

(ii)City needs to take ownership and therefore lead; alternatively ad hoc committee of 8people not involving stakeholders; need Terms of Reference and professional advice; meanwhile freeze budget, get buy-in of staff who will deliver;

(iii)ad hoc committee including Councillors, CAO representative, major players, citizens at large;

(iv)Heritage Regeneration Trust - Heritage Toronto to form vision group including architect, historian, environmentalist, archaeologist; include chairs of sub-groups; City Council to direct that all departments participate; and

(v)Heritage Task Force of stakeholders and two politicians, staff of Toronto Historical Board and others, and heritage volunteers; need a champion at both staff level and political level.

(3)Structural Options

(i)currently diffused accountability because responsibility resides in too many departments and agencies; consider a single unit within administrative structure reporting to a standing committee;

(ii)strategy, policy and monitoring should be central functions, but some issues may fall under Community Councils; links to other culture programs, tourism, special events and cross-pollinization necessary; some think there should be a heritage section in Planning Department;

(iii)should consider core services and the required linkages to other City programs; local vs City-wide issues; direct service (sites) vs support services (oral history); should consider whether City wants its residents and City administration to be aware of their heritage leading to political will and integrated services;

(iv)internal staff don't have the whole picture; need to embed heritage in departmental planning processes; locate in the community, not bureaucratize; and

(v)formulate partnerships among politicians, appointed bodies, civil staff, taxpayers, heritage groups; one LACAC comprised of branches representing Community Council jurisdictions.

(4)Strategy

(i)agree that heritage is defined in broadest context; City is not responsible for delivering all aspects of heritage, but sets the vision city-wide;

(ii)Council sets municipal goals, prioritize choices; use inclusive definition of heritage; citizen involvement a key component as well as staff and politicians, coordination points required, connections to industry, tourism, economic development; and

(iii)change Heritage Act; pursue taxation and development incentives, provide grants, include heritage in Official Plan and zoning considerations.

(5)Other comments

(i)heritage policy must serve the public interest which must come first;

(ii)take time and do this right;

(iii)can't muddle through another year, nobody is watching the store while preservation issues sliding through;

(iv)delays are holding up private donations for fear that recipient entity will no longer exist in a year;

(v)need a heritage planner; and

(vi)budget targets for 1999 are impacted since cannot realize savings from integration.

Conclusions:

There were a number of areas where there was consensus.

First, it is clear that virtually everyone agrees that the definition of heritage is inclusive. Second, there seemed to be agreement that it would be worthwhile to determine what aspects of heritage apply across the City and what might be considered local to the community. Third, determination of core services is essential to establishing priorities and required linkages with other programs.

The common message seemed to be that the City's role is to:

(1)protect and preserve existing symbols of heritage;

(2)provide assistance in response to local initiatives; and

(3)promote heritage.

It was also generally agreed that development of the heritage plan would require input from Councillors, staff, citizens serving on City boards, the heritage community, and citizens in general. This process was estimated to take upwards to a year to develop a comprehensive plan.

Most agreed that form should follow function and the City strategy for heritage services should be developed prior to establishing the long term structure required to support the strategy. However, it was acknowledged that there are pressures to reorganize the function to address budgetary and staffing issues. Several people expressed the concern that business was in a holding pattern until the organizational issues were addressed; others believe that "buy-in" of the new organization's leadership is necessary to successfully implement the strategy and therefore should be developed after the organization is in place.

Contact Name:

Nancy Autton 397-0306

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (Undated) from Dr. Marion Joppe, Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board):

Purpose:

This report recommends a vision and structure for heritage services in Toronto.

Funding Sources:

No new budget impacts are associated with this report.

Recommendations:

Heritage Services in the City of Toronto should be delivered by a Heritage Board which has registered charitable status, a clear financial agreement with the City, and an effective system of accountability. Therefore, it is recommended that:

(a)the Heritage Board receive and annual funding agreement to provide city history programming to the citizens and visitors of Toronto and preservation services for all of Toronto;

(b)the funding agreement recognized the growing market for history services outside the museum walls; and the need to develop the potential of the museums;

(c)performance indicators be established between the Heritage Board and City Council and that Council have the power to hold the Board accountable;

(d)an annual capital budget be negotiated based on the understanding that the protection of the heritage asset is the responsibility of the city. In addition, the Heritage Board could separately negotiate special capital improvement expenditures to enhance operations and to match funds from the private sector;

(e)the Heritage Board establish Board member recruitment criteria in light of the performance requirements, that membership be broadly representative of the City, that members of the Board be approved by City Council via the Nominating Committee; and

(f)considering that Heritage Toronto already holds a charitable number, it should continue to exist as the City's Heritage Board with a clear annual funding agreement and clear accountability system.

Background:

Each of the former municipalities defined and organized heritage services differently. At its meeting on July 29, 1998, Council had before it a report from the Chief Administrative Officer (Governance Structure for Heritage Services) recommending a reorganization that would consolidate resources in a new City Department, the "Culture Office". Council referred the matter back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration, to hear deputations from Chairs of museum committees and Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees (LACACs) of the former municipalities, and to receive comments from the heritage community on a heritage masterplan for the City.

Discussion:

We are at a crossroads. For years the Toronto area has been a leader in providing heritage programmes and protecting historic sites. But those programmes and special places are threatened by Provincial downloading and competing budget priorities.

The debate over how heritage services should be structured has clouded the need for a rational, clear-headed discussion of why history matters to us all. The debate over structure has ignored the fact that historic preservation and educational programmes are badly underfunded. It has ignored the existing programmes that Heritage Toronto alone has delivered and is uniquely placed to continue. It has ignored the funding climate and how it can be addressed successfully.

The attached report presents an inclusive vision and structure and a solid funding plan that will:

(1)retain local community stewardship and decision-making for heritage resources;

(2)provide Council and the people of Toronto high-quality independent expertise and advice on heritage matters; and

(3)build on Heritage Toronto's existing charitable status to increase the funding base so that more community-based heritage programmes ca be developed.

No other model for heritage services offers this positive combination.

Conclusions:

Only an arms-length approach to service delivery will allow heritage services to grow at no additional cost to the taxpayers of Toronto. Heritage Toronto has registered charitable status and 40 years experience. It is best positioned to deliver the City's heritage services well into the future. The City should negotiate an envelope funding formula and performance criteria for Heritage Toronto.

Contact Name:

Ms. Karen Black and Mr. Richard Stromberg

Heritage Toronto

392-6827 Ext. 224 and 236

________

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications respecting Heritage Services in the City of Toronto:

(i)(August 12, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Governance Structure for Heritage Services"; that Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, together with the following motion and the various documents and communications submitted at Council:

Moved by Councillor Adams:

"That the Clause be amended by striking out Recommendation No. (12) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

'(12)City Council support the continued existence of an independent arms length charitable foundation to facilitate fundraising and development activities for a broad range of heritage projects throughout the City, and the Heritage Board, in consultation with the Culture Office, report on the further implementation of such charitable foundation.' "; and

with the following requests:

(1)that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

(a)hold a special meeting to give consideration thereto;

(b)handle deputations expeditiously;

(c)limit deputations to the Chairs of the existing LACAC's, the Chair, Heritage Toronto and the Chairs of the Museum Boards; and

(d)develop a position paper on heritage issues prior to the hearing of deputations; and

(2)that the heritage community be invited to immediately develop a Heritage Master Plan;

(ii)(Undated) from Mr. Richard Schofield, Chair, Scarborough LACAC, submitting a Governance Structure for Heritage Services in the City of Toronto;

(iii)(November 24, 1998) from Miss Patricia Kirkland, forwarding comments respecting the Governance Structure for Heritage Services in the City of Toronto;

(iv)(December 3, 1998) from Mr. Greg Cosway, President, The Cottage Creek Corporation, forwarding comments respecting the Governance Structure for Heritage Services in the City of Toronto;

(v)(December 4, 1998) from Mr. Lawrence Leonoff, Chair, North York Heritage Committee, forwarding his comments respecting the Governance Structure for Heritage Services in the City of Toronto having regard that he is unable to attend the meeting;

(vi)(July 14, 1998) from Mr. Louis Badone, The Elihu Pease House;

(vii)(July, 1998) from the Director, Toronto Heritage Foundation;

(viii)(July 28, 1998) from Mr. Walter Hucker;

(ix)(October 23, 1998) Ms. Diana Fancher, President, West Toronto Junction Historical Society;

(x)(November 17, 1998) from Mr. Brian Anthony, Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation; and

(xi)(Undated) prepared by members of the Heritage community, entitled "Outline for Heritage Master Plan, City of Toronto"

________

The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. John Carter, Chair, East York LACAC, and read and filed a submission on behalf of Mr.John Bertram, Chair, Todmorden Mills Heritage Museum and Arts Centre Advisory Board;

-Mr. Earl Jarvis, Acting Chair, Etobicoke Museum and LACAC;

-Mr. Bernard Thompson, Chair, York Museum;

-Mr. Richard Schofield, Chair, Scarborough LACAC;

-Ms. Margo Duncan read a submission on behalf of Ms. Mary-Louise Ashbourne, Chair, York LACAC who was unable to attend the meeting;

-Ms. Lorraine O'Byrne, on behalf of the Chair, North York LACAC;

-Dr. Marion Joppe, Toronto Museum and LACAC Chair;

-Councillor John Adams, Midtown; and

-Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown.

(A copy of the attachment to the report (Undated) from Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board), entitled "Moving into the Future - A New Structure for Heritage", prepared by Heritage Toronto, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the December 4, 1998, agenda of the Special Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

A copy of the report (Undated) prepared by members of the Heritage community, entitled "Outline for Heritage Master Plan, City of Toronto", is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)