City of Toronto  
HomeContact UsHow Do I...?Advanced search
Living in TorontoDoing businessVisiting TorontoAccessing City Hall
 
Accessing City Hall
Mayor
Councillors
Meeting Schedules
   
   
  City of Toronto Council and Committees
  All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.
   

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

 As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 7



1Transfer of Artifacts at Coronation Park (Trinity-Niagara - Ward 20)

2Election of Chairman and Vice-ChairmanNorth York Performing Arts Centre Corporation (North York Centre - Ward 10)

3Technical Improvements to the Jane Mallett Theatre(Downtown - Ward 24)

4Funding Strategy for the 1999 Caribana Festival

5Other Items Considered by the Committee

 



City of Toronto

REPORT No. 7

OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on December 11, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Brian Ashton, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

  1

Transfer of Artifacts at Coronation Park (Trinity-Niagara - Ward 20)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 23, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, subject to deleting Recommendation No. (2):

Purpose:

To seek Council approval for the transfer of artifacts at Coronation Park to suitable museum homes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the Lancaster Bomber be offered on loan to the Toronto Aerospace Museum (TAM), within a negotiated museum loan agreement process, which includes (but is not limited by) the following provisions:

    1. that the TAM remove the bomber from Coronation Park in coordination with Heritage Toronto and City staff, within the framework of a professionally prepared removal plan produced by the TAM and approved by the Heritage Toronto conservator;
    2. that the TAM be allowed to restore the bomber, within the framework of a professionally prepared restoration plan produced by the TAM (in consultation with the Canadian Conservation Institute) and approved by the Heritage Toronto conservator;

(c)that the TAM house and display the bomber indoors within its Downsview premises;

    1. that the City be able to inspect the bomber on forty-eight hours' notice during normal business hours;

(e)that the City affirm that it is its intention to leave the bomber at the TAM so long as the museum fulfils the conditions of the loan agreement.

(2)That should negotiations with the TAM fail, then the bomber be offered on loan, pending successful negotiations, to the Comox Air Force Museum at CFB Comox in Lazo, British Columbia.

(3)That the Sherman Tank and 25-Pounder Howitzer be offered as donations to the Canadian War Museum (CWM) in Ottawa, with the restriction that the CWM, should it decide to deaccession either object, keep the artifact in the public domain by offering it for donation to the City of Toronto in the first instance, then to an appropriate Canadian museum.

(4)That should the CWM decide against accepting either artifact, then the Tank be offered to Niagara National Historic Sites in Niagara-on-the-Lake, and the 25-Pounder to the Canadian Military Heritage Museum in Brantford, with the restriction that should either museum decide to deaccession the object it obtained from the City, it shall keep it in the public domain by offering it for donation to the City of Toronto in the first instance, then to an appropriate Canadian museum.

(5)That the Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun be offered as a donation to the Naval Museum of Manitoba (NMM) in Winnipeg, with the restriction that the NMM, should it decide to deaccession the Gun, keep it in the public domain by offering it to the City of Toronto in the first instance, then to an appropriate Canadian museum.

(6)That should the NMM decide against accepting the Bofors, then it be offered to the RCAF Memorial Museum in Trenton, with the restriction that should that museum decide to deaccession the object it will keep it in the public domain by offering it for donation to the City of Toronto in the first instance, then to an appropriate Canadian museum.

(7)That Heritage Toronto be authorized to reopen the competition for the American Anti-Aircraft Gun.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Since 1965, a number of military artifacts of the World War II and Cold War era have been displayed at Coronation Park. They were owned by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, but their maintenance was (and is) the responsibility of Heritage Toronto. The objects are:

(1)a RCAF Lancaster Bomber (FM104);

(2)a Sherman Tank, without an engine (M4A3E8 'Easy 8');

(3)a 25-Pounder Howitzer;

(4)a 40 mm Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun CMK 1;

(5)a United States 90 mm Anti-Aircraft Gun Model M1A3, with 1943 American Ordnance markings (and used by Canadian forces in the 1950s).

The original intention of placing the objects in the park, that of creating a museum (rather than a memorial), has never been realized. The cost of maintaining the objects is far greater than the funding that has ever been available for their conservation, which has led to their serious deterioration. The exposed waterside display of the objects makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that the objects survive into the future. When an institution is no longer able to care for an artifact, museological ethics suggest that the best solution is to deaccession it and transfer it to a new home where adequate care can be provided.

Given that the objects are not fulfilling their intended museum function, and given that they are deteriorating, Metro Council, at the request of Heritage Toronto, authorized Heritage Toronto to hold a national competition in which Canadian museums could apply for these objects. A committee formed by Heritage Toronto judged the applications, and made the above recommendations, based on the principles of protecting the public interest in these objects and of maximizing the public benefit inherent in these objects through:

(1)keeping them in the public domain;

(2)placing them where they could be conserved professionally and maintained well;

(3)placing them in settings where they would be interpreted within a broader historical and cultural framework effectively.

The committee membership was:

Dr Carl Benn, Curator, Military History, Heritage Toronto

Ms Kate Frame, Conservator, Heritage Toronto

Ms Lynne Kurylo, Board Member, Heritage Toronto

Ms Carla Morse, Manager, HMCS Haida.

Please see the attached appendix for a list of institutions which applied for one or more of the above artifacts.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The above recommendations to lend or donate objects to museums, along with a list of second choice museums, represent the committee's assessments of which institutions were best qualified to fulfil the preservation and historical interpretation potential inherent in these objects. We note that all of the recommended institutions are well equipped to provide a strong interpretive framework, and all of the first choice institutions can provide protected environments in which to display the artifacts. Those institutions which received neither a first nor second choice recommendation all had some strengths, but were, in the committee's opinion, measurably weaker in their conservation and interpretation profiles than the first and second choice institutions.

In terms of the specific recommendations, the committee notes the following:

(1)Lancaster Bomber

The bomber is the rarest and most significant of the objects. The committee believes that the Toronto Aerospace Museum has developed a good interpretive programme focusing on the Toronto aviation industry, has appropriate facilities for the bomber's restoration and display, and is part of a larger matrix of public facilities being developed on the Canada Lands Company holdings in Downsview, which ought to assist the museum in becoming a viable cultural facility in the City.

However, the committee also notes that the Toronto Aerospace Museum might not have the museological conservation skills necessary for restoring the bomber. The committee notes that the museum is new and exists in a development phase, and therefore does not have enough of a 'track record' to allow the City, at this time, to give the bomber to the museum in full confidence that it will be restored and interpreted effectively for the public benefit. Therefore, the committee thought it essential, to protect the public interest, that the bomber be offered as a loan rather than as a donation to the Toronto Aerospace Museum, but, given the willingness of the TAM to restore the bomber, that the loan be based on the premise that the bomber would remain with the museum so long as the museum fulfilled the loan agreement. Once the museum has become fully established and successful, the City could decide to donate the bomber to the TAM. The committee also thought that the bomber's importance requires that a qualified professional museum conservator approve the moving and restoration plans for the bomber to ensure that the history of its care is fully documented and that no further unnecessary compromises to the artifact's integrity occur.

The committee also notes that it was most impressed by the submission from the Comox Air Force Museum. This institution has a longer track record, a good collection, a well-run facility, and would be an appropriate home for the bomber, particularly as Lancasters were stationed at the Comox air force base during the Cold War era. However, the committee thought that the Comox Air Force Museum ought not to be the first choice selection because the museum plans to exhibit the bomber outdoors and because the institution's location prevents it from attracting a large number of visitors. Should negotiations to place the object on loan to the Toronto Aerospace Museum fail, and the bomber go to Comox, then the City would have to be confident, at the very least, that a strong maintenance programme would be put in place to mitigate the problems of outdoor display.

(2), (3), Sherman Tank, 25-pounder Howitzer

The donation of these objects seemed more straightforward, given that the contending institutions are more established, have the necessary resources to care for the artifacts, and have solid interpretive reasons for wanting to acquire them. In the case of the Tank and the 25-Pounder, the Canadian War Museum clearly was the frontrunner in terms of conservation standards and interpretive focus. The second place competitor for the Tank, the Niagara National Historic Parks, while being a solid second choice competitor, was weaker than the CWM because of its desire to display the Tank outdoors and because the interpretive programme connected to the Tank is not as fully developed as the CWM's. The second place choice for the 25-Pounder, the Canadian Military Heritage Museum, offers a good home for the Gun, and a donation to that museum would help a regionally based institution fulfil its mandate better. However, this museum does not have professional museum conservation staff and the committee believes that the public interest is fulfilled better by placing the object in a national and better-resourced institution.

(4) 40 mm Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun CMK 1

Both the Naval Museum of Manitoba and the RCAF Memorial Museum in Trenton had strong interpretive reasons for wanting to acquire the Bofors Gun given that the navy used (and still uses) Bofors and that Bofors also have been used to defend Canadian airfields. However, the Naval Museum's application was stronger because it offered indoor display and a stronger conservation programme for the Gun.

(5)United States 90mm anti-aircraft gun model M1A3

There was only one applicant for this Gun, the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum. This institution is housed in Markham, but has entered preliminary negotiations to move to the John Street Roundhouse. The museum, it should be noted, applied for all of the Coronation Park artifacts. As well, the Kingsville Historical Park, Inc. noted in its application for the Tank that it 'would be very interested in any of the artillery pieces that have not been applied for.'

The committee did not see how any of the objects requested by the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, with the exception of the Lancaster Bomber, fitted into the existing core interpretive interests of the museum, and did not see evidence of significant movement towards expanding into naval and army history beyond this particular application to warrant it being recommended to receive the other objects. Furthermore, the committee thought the institution is far enough from moving to the John Street Roundhouse at this point in time that the public interest might not be served well by placing the Anti-Aircraft Gun in the museum's collection because of the uncertainty over the future use and display of the Gun.

The Kingsville application struck the committee as being weak as the institution does not seem to have the museological expertise required to care for the object.

Therefore, the committee thought it best to reopen the competition for the Anti-Aircraft Gun to determine if there would be a better home for this piece.

Contact Name:

Mr. Carl Benn,

Curator, Fort York

392-6907

--------

Appendix

Institutions which applied for the Coronation Park Artifacts

RCAF Lancaster Bomber (FM104):

1st choice:Toronto Aerospace Museum, Downsview, Ont.

2nd choice:Comox Air Force Museum, CFB Comox, B.C.

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Sherman Tank:

1st choice:Canadian War Museum, Ottawa, Ont.

2nd choice:Niagara National Historic Parks, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Kingsville Historical Park, Inc., Kingsville, Ont.

Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 197, Acton, Ont.

25-Pounder Howitzer:

1st choice:Canadian War Museum, Ottawa, Ont.

2nd choice:Canadian Military Heritage Museum, Brantford, Ont.

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Kingsville Historical Park, Inc., Kingsville, Ont.

Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 197, Acton, Ont.

26th Field Regiment Museum, Brandon, Man.

40-MM Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun:

1st choice:Naval Museum of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.

2nd choice:RCAF Memorial Museum, Trenton, Ont.

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Kingsville Historical Park, Inc., Kingsville, Ont.

U.S. 90-MM Anti-Aircraft Gun:

1st choice:none

2nd choice:none

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Kingsville Historical Park, Inc., Kingsville, Ont.

--------

The Economic Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications and material:

-(December 7, 1998) from Mr. Allan A. Rubin, President, Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, on behalf of Comox Air Force Museum. (Bound copy of full submission was forwarded to each member of the Economic Development Committee and is on file in the office of the City Clerk.);

-(December 10, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone supporting the relocation of the Lancaster Bomber to the Toronto Aerospace Museum;

-(December 11, 1998) from Mr. Bill Dickinson, Toronto Region Vice President, Air Force Association of Canada, endorsing the recommendations of the Toronto Historical Board for the transfer of the Lancaster Bomber to the Toronto Aerospace Museum;

-brochure, titled "Welcome to the New Toronto Aerospace Museum";

-booklet, titled "Canada Remembers"; and

-magazine, titled "Airforce".

The following persons appeared before the Economic Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Allan A. Rubin, President, Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, on behalf of Comox Air Force Museum; and

-Mr. Ron Wylie, Curator, Toronto Aerospace Museum.

2

Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman

North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation

(North York Centre - Ward 10)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends that James G. McGuffin be appointed Chair of the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation and Symon Zucker be appointed Vice-Chair.

The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Board of Directors for the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation on November 23, 1998 recommended to the Economic Development Committee and Council the appointment of the following persons to the positions of Chairman and Vice-Chairman:

Mr. James G. McGuffin - Chairman; and

Mr. Symon Zucker - Vice-Chairman.

Background:

The City of Toronto Council at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998 appointed new members to the Board of Directors for the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation. Under Section 11(1) of Bill Pr58 - An Act Respecting the City of North York - which established the North York Performing Arts Centre Corporation, appointment of officers of the Corporation, i.e. Chairman and Vice-Chairman in this instance, are required to have Council approval.

The Board of Directors at its meeting on November 23, 1998 duly held an election to select a Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

  3

Technical Improvements to the Jane Mallett Theatre

(Downtown - Ward 24)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends that approval be expedited for technical improvements to the Jane Mallett Theatre by providing six motorised system pipes to enable the use of on-stage lighting and scenery hanging.

The Economic Development Committee submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Chair, The Board of Management of the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts:

Purpose:

The Board wishes to undertake technical improvements to the Jane Mallett Theatre by providing six motorized system pipes to enable the use of on-stage lighting and scenery hanging. These improvements will provide additional requested support to existing users of the facility and will assist in attracting new use and new users to the Centre.

Clause 7 of By-law 367-73, which established the Board of Management, states that:

"The Board shall not make or cause, commit or allow to be made to the Centre, any structural addition, alteration or improvement without the consent of the City."

Whilst these technical improvements are not essentially "structural" in nature, they will involve removing a section of a suspended plaster ceiling and relocating a section of duct work and some sprinkler heads. The Centre will ensure that the necessary building permits are obtained from the City in order to carry out this work. Full details of the project have been submitted to the City Property Department earlier this year, and they have raised no objections to the proposed scope of work.

The Board would like to apply for the required building permits by the end of December or early January in order to proceed with the work in the summer of 1999. The Board would appreciate the Economic Development Committee expediting Council approval for this project if in fact it deems that Council approval is necessary.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Board of Management has approved full funding for this project from its own Capital Improvement Fund.

There is no financial requirement for the City to provide any funding for this project.

The financial impact would be positive on the Centre's operating budget as the proposed improvements should generate new revenues to the Centre in the form of new rental income.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David Wallett

General Manager

(416) 366-1656, Ext. 224

 4

Funding Strategy for the 1999 Caribana Festival

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend a funding strategy for the Caribbean Cultural Committee (CCC) that allows the planning for the 1999 Caribana Festival to proceed in an orderly way.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

In 1998, the City of Toronto provided $353,500.00 to the Caribana Festival. These funds were drawn from the consolidated grants budget and comprised funding provided in 1997 by the Toronto Arts Council ($40,000.00), the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto ($150,000.00) and the former City of Toronto ($8,500.00) for a total of $203,500.00. The 1998 grant also included an additional amount approved by Council ($150,000.00). In order to implement the funding strategy in this report, Finance will need to ensure that the amounts required for interim payments to the Caribana Festival are included in the interim appropriation.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the grant to the Caribana Festival be paid on a monthly installment basis, beginning in January, 1999, based on the level of the grant made in 1998 ($353,500.00) until such time as the 1999 grant amount has been approved by Council and subject to the receipt of audited statements for the 1997-98 fiscal year and the authorization of the Caribana Festival Support Group (CFSG);

(2)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer make provision for the monthly payments for the Caribana Festival in the interim appropriation; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 16, 1998, City Council approved Report No. 5 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee that recommended funding for the annual Caribana Festival. In adopting the report, Council directed that, in addition to the previous year's grant, $75,000.00 be drawn from under-expenditure in the grants envelope. Council also directed that an additional $75,000.00 be provided for Caribana Festival mas bands and cultural producers with such funds to be added to the grants envelope.

The release of these funds was subject to conditions approved by Council which set up the Caribana Festival Support Group (CFSG) to act on behalf of Council and to monitor the performance of the CCC as well as to authorize the release of funds subject to the CCC meeting the conditions set by Council. A list of the members of the CFSG is attached as Appendix A.

There were ten conditions approved by Council for the release of funds to the CCC for the 1998 Caribana Festival. These conditions included the releasing of funds monthly based on performance satisfactory to the CFSG; undertaking an organizational restructuring process; implementing a debt reduction strategy; attaining an unqualified financial audit; and completing a business plan and marketing strategy.

In addition, Council directed the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to:

(1)devise and execute an economic development study of the 1998 Caribana Festival measuring direct and indirect impacts, such study to include the value of volunteer hours and public sector impacts;

(2)in consultation with Special Events' staff, submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on the feasibility of the City of Toronto entering into a "strategic joint venture partnership" with the CCC in producing the annual Caribana Festival; and

(3)after having assessed the economic benefits of the 1998 Caribana Festival, submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, through the Economic Development Committee, on the feasibility of changing the mechanism by which funds flow to Caribana to a method which would allow the CCC to market revenue-positive events with more lead time.

Council also authorized the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to receive financial contributions for the Caribana Parade and to assist the CCC in obtaining charitable status for the purpose of raising funds.

Further, the Municipal Grants Review Committee recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer report to the Committee on the feasibility of funding the CCC in the same context as the National Ballet of Canada, the Canadian Opera Company and the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, in that it should be regarded as an established institution and supported accordingly.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Report on the 1998 Caribana Festival:

The 1998 Caribana Festival was a success. With the return of the mas bands and cultural producers, the CCC was able to coordinate a vibrant and exciting Festival from July 17 until August 3, 1998. The Festival featured the King and Queen of the Bands Competition, several ferry cruises, the annual gala Parade on Lakeshore Boulevard and the two-day music festival on the Toronto Islands. The organizers estimate that 750,000 people attended the Parade, 18,000 attended the music festival and 6,500 attended the King and Queen show at Lamport Stadium.

Much of the success of this year's Festival is the result of the support provided to the CCC by its Advisory Board (chaired by MPP Alvin Curling) and the Caribana Festival Support Group (chaired by the Honourable Lincoln Alexander) which respectively secured additional financial support and monitored the expenditures of the organization.

The Advisory Board was responsible for securing funding for the Caribana Festival from the Province of Ontario ($350,000.00), the Federal Government ($100,000.00), and the Royal Bank ($100,000.00). The CFSG met on several occasions to review cash-flow projections and financial variance reports from the CCC to ensure that it was following sound business practices. A preliminary report on the financial performance of the CCC indicates that the organization will record an operating surplus of $157,236.00 for the 1997-98 fiscal year. A copy of the CCC's preliminary year-end financial statement is included as Appendix B.

The CCC now operates under the guidance of a newly selected Chief Executive Officer and is developing a comprehensive restructuring plan. The CCC will hold its annual general membership meeting to select new board members after receipt of the audited financial statements for the 1997-98 fiscal year in January 1999.

Economic Impact:

The Caribana Festival has a large impact on the Toronto economy - probably greater than any other single event that takes place during the year. Hundreds of thousands of people attend the Parade each year. Survey data indicate that almost half of the audience comes from outside Toronto. What's more, Caribana has a demonstrated ability to attract tourists - 36 percent of the people watching the Parade indicated that they travelled to Toronto specifically for Caribana.

The economic impact of the Caribana Festival was last studied in 1990. The Province of Ontario and Caribana's corporate sponsors funded a $100,000.00 consultant study that surveyed the people attending the 1990 Caribana Parade and generated economic impact figures based on the estimated size of the crowd.

Updating this information for the 1998 Festival would have required a comparable allocation of resources plus several months to organize the required surveys. The priority in May and June was to secure enough funding for the Festival itself, and it was not possible to also allocate resources or find funding partners for an economic impact analysis. Therefore, an updated estimate of the economic impact of the 1998 Caribana has been calculated based on information already available and secondary sources of data. If a more rigorous study is considered necessary, it can be undertaken in 1999 with sufficient lead-time to plan and access to the required resources.

Appendix C summarizes the calculations and results. The greatest variable in determining the economic impact of Caribana is estimating the number of people who attend. Calculating the size of the audience for parades and other unticketed events is very difficult, and estimates typically vary widely. Caribana is no exception. There is no generally agreed upon estimate of the size of the audience for Caribana.

In view of this uncertainty, the economic impact estimates in this report are expressed in terms of every 50,000 people who attend the Parade. If the actual attendance figure is half a million people, the impact would be ten times these numbers. If one quarter of a million people attend the parade, the impact would be five time these numbers. The impact of producing the Festival (direct expenditures of $1.3 million by the Caribbean Cultural Committee plus an estimated $2 million in expenditures by the producers of the mas bands) is added to the impact of the visitor expenditures.

As Appendix C shows, every 50,000 people who attend the Caribana Parade spend about $11.8 million on accommodation, shopping, entertainment and local transportation. These expenditures generate about 157 person years of employment in Ontario (mostly in the GTA), federal taxes equal to about $1.1 million and provincial taxes equal to $637,000.00. There would not be a discernible impact on the municipal property tax base from these types of expenditures.

   The money injected into the economy by Caribana visitors and production activity will in turn stimulate increased economic activity throughout Ontario as businesses and employees increase production and spend the additional money they earn. This "indirect" impact is calculated by applying a "multiplier" of 1.8. Hence, the total impact on the Ontario economy of every 50,000 people attending the Caribana Parade is estimated to be $21.2 million. About 282 person years of employment would be generated, as would $2 million in federal taxes and $1.1 million in provincial taxes.

Appendix C calculates the total economic impact of the 1998 Caribana Festival for three illustrative crowd sizes - 750,000, 500,000 and 350,000 people. If the actual crowd size is in the order of 750,000 people as has been estimated by the Caribana organizers, for example:

(1)the direct impact on the economy would be $180 million which would generate about 2392 person years of employment, federal taxes $17.1 million and provincial taxes of $9.7 million; and

(2)the direct plus indirect impact on the Ontario economy would be $324 million which would generate about 4319 person years of employment, federal taxes of $30.9 million and provincial taxes of $17.5 million.

If the actual number of people at the Parade was instead 500,000, the direct economic impact would be $121 million; if the actual number was 350,000, the direct economic impact would be $86 million.

Council requested that the economic impact study include public sector impacts and the value of volunteer hours. The taxes generated are the major public sector impact. As Appendix C and the above figures indicate, substantial provincial and federal income and sales taxes are generated by the visitor expenditures from Caribana. The municipal property tax base is not directly impacted in a discernible way since Caribana-related expenditures do not entail property development activity or directly impact long-term property values.

The value of the volunteer hours contributed is the production of the Festival itself and the $21.2 million addition to the economy for every 50,000 people who watch the Parade, for Caribana could not take place without the thousands of hours that volunteers contribute to the mas bands and festival production. However, the contributions that people make to society by volunteering their time (including charitable work, unpaid housework and childcare, etc.) are not quantified in conventional economic impact analyses because these contributions do not result in increased income.

Special Events Assistance:

Toronto Special Events has met with representatives of the CCC to discuss the feasibility of entering into a "strategic joint venture partnership" with the City of Toronto in the production of the annual Caribana Festival.

Caribana is a dynamic, grassroots event that has flourished in the community for many years. Events such as this take on a spirit of their own precisely because they have roots firmly planted in the community. As the primary stakeholder, the Caribbean community takes great pride in the Caribana Festival and feels a sense of ownership. The festival is their gift to the people of Toronto.

A partnership with the City for this unique event could be perceived as an intervention and stifling to the creative process. For this reason, both Special Events and the CCC agree that such a partnership would not be in the best interests of the Caribana Festival.

While a partnership is not recommended, the Festival Liaison Office of Toronto Special Events will be able to provide some measure of support and service to the producers of Caribana. The goal of the Office is to offer streamlined services to Toronto event producers including one-stop shopping for road closure information, permit applications, bylaw information and grant applications. A menu of festival consulting services will also be available. This service will facilitate Toronto signature events such as the Caribana Festival, and help build a strong Toronto event calendar grounded in each season.

Funding Strategy for 1999:

A funding strategy for the 1999 Caribana Festival is required to provide stability for the organization and assurance to the mas bands and cultural producers that the planning for the Festival will proceed in an orderly way. The City can play a key role in providing this stability which will allow the new Chief Executive Officer to concentrate on marshalling the required private sector financial support. In keeping with the recommendation of the Municipal Grants Committee, staff have examined ways to fund the CCC in the same context as the National Ballet of Canada, the Canadian Opera Company and the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. Since 1982, these major cultural organizations and the Art Gallery of Ontario have received their grant on a monthly installment basis. The payments are based on the level of the previous year's grant with payments being adjusted after Council has approved the current year grant amount. This system has worked well, providing cash flow and stability for the organizations while spreading the City's payments over the entire year.

It is recommended that the grant to the Caribana Festival be paid on a monthly installment basis, beginning in January, 1999, based on the level of the grant made in 1998 until such time as the 1999 grant amount has been approved by Council. The initial payment in January 1999 should not be released until the CCC has provided audited statements for 1997-98 fiscal year. In addition, the financial accountability measures employed in 1998 should continue with the authorization of the Caribana Festival Support Group (CFSG) required for the release of the monthly payments.

     On March 1, 1999, the major cultural organizations listed above will submit grant applications to the Culture Office. The CCC will fulfill the same application requirements and be required to provide detailed plans for the 1999 Caribana Festival as well as their restructuring and debt reduction strategies.

In order to allow the monthly installment payments to proceed in January 1999, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will need to include the appropriate amount in the interim appropriation.

Conclusion:

The 1998 Caribana Festival was a success and the Advisory Board and the Caribana Festival Support Group have helped to create a positive business-like environment for the organization. The new Chief Executive Officer is taking the necessary steps to place the CCC on a sound financial footing. The funding strategy recommended in this report will assist him in his efforts by providing the stability that will allow the planning for the 1999 Caribana Festival to proceed in a orderly way.

Contact Names:

Beth Hanna, Culture

392-5225

Christine Raissis, Economic Development

392-3385

Jaye Robinson, Special Events

395-7310

5

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)1999-2003 Capital Works Program.

The Economic Development Committee reports having made the following recommendations to the Budget Committee with respect to the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program:

(1)that City Council deem that physical improvements within the City's Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) are in the City's best interests in developing its economic, cultural and tourism objectives;

(2)that City Council support the former City of Toronto Council's practice of cost-shared capital funding for improving the City's commercial streets within BIAs for special streetscape improvements on a 50:50 basis;

(3)that City Council increase the Chief Administrative Officer's 1999 funding recommendations for BIAs capital cost-shared projects by $196,850.00 (net) in the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department's Capital Budget;

(4)that all public proposals and policies to be considered by City Council within the BIAs be reviewed by the local BIAs and/or the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas (TABIA) so as to provide community input on such proposals and policies;

(5)that TABIA be included in the development of any future cost-shared program proposals with other levels of Government for improving the streetscape within BIAs;

(6)that $50,000.00 be approved for environmental testing and preliminary design work for the St. James Town Community Centre and that this amount be reimbursed fully from the Section 37 funding source;

(7)that $350,000.00 for design fees for the St. James Town Community Centre be approved and that this money be spent when Section 37 funding has been received;

(8)that the $270,000.00 funding for industrial and commercial revitalization areas be reinstated in the 1999 Capital Budget for economic development, that $150,000.00 of this funding be designated for the Black Creek Business Revitalization Program, and that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report directly to the Budget Committee on the implications and benefits of this reinstatement; and

(9)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to give a comprehensive presentation to a future meeting of the Economic Development Committee on the role of BIAs and their programs.

(i)(November 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer respecting the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program; providing an overview of the Capital Budget process; and summarizing the various issues and challenges currently faced by the City;

(ii)(November 11, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer proposing a preliminary capital financing plan for the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program;

(iii)(December 2, 1998) from Ms. Ella Jackson, Chair, Black Creek Business Area Association, requesting allocation of funding to the Industrial Area Revitalization Program;

(iv)(November 27, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, requesting allocation of funding for the revitalization of the Black Creek Business Area;

(v)(December 7, 1998) from Mr. Tom Wilson, York Association of Industry & Commerce, expressing support for continuing the Industrial Area Revitalization; and

(vi)(undated) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, forwarding a submission and the following recommendations from the Economic Development Committee:

"(1)That Toronto Economic Development Committee (TEDC) work with the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, local BIAs, and other business groups to ensure the safety and enjoyment of pedestrians by developing retail- and pedestrian-friendly streets throughout the City of Toronto.

(2)That TEDC immediately establish a small working group with the Toronto Pedestrian Committee (TPC) to accomplish this with the help of appropriate staff.

(3)(a)That TEDC request its staff, in conjunction with TPC staff, to prepare a report on the importance of pedestrianisation to the economic development of Toronto before March 1999. This report should draw upon the Moving the Economy Conference (its Action Plan and International Inventory of Success Stories) and the work of the Green Tourism Association.

(b)That this report form the basis of a vigorous City Council policy on pedestrianisation as a tool for Toronto's economic growth so that Councillors may help Toronto become a world leader in this field.";

(vii)(December 9, 1998) from Councillor McConnell requesting the Committee's support for prioritizing the St. James Town Community Centre; and

(viii)(December 10, 1998) from Ms. Evelyn Garratt requesting the Committee's support for prioritizing the St. James Town Community Centre.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Economic Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

St. James Town Community Centre:

-S/Insp. Bill Blair, Metro Police, 51 Division;

-Ms. Pat Cepin;

-Ms. Precy Betran;

-Ms. Carla Rubio, Silayan Filipino Community Centre;

-Mr. Bill Graham, M.P. Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Ontario;

-Ms. Evelyn Garratt;

B.I.A. Cost Sharing:

-Mr. Alex Ling, Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas (TABIA);

Transportation and Pedestrianisation:

-Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

-Dr. Lucie Maillette, Skills Development Programme for Sustainable Transportation;

Black Creek Business Area Association:

-Mr. Lorne Berg, Black Creek Business Area Association;

Kennedy Road B.I.A.:

-Mr. Lionel Miskin, General Manager, Shanemark Management & Investments Inc.; and

West Junction B.I.A. Facade Program:

-Mr. Henry Calderon, Project Director, West Toronto Junction Team.

(b)Film Permit Issuance - Review of Practices, Procedures, Policies and By-laws.

The Economic Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of this matter and requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report on the following suggested motions of Councillor Flint for consideration at the Committee's next meeting on January 15, 1999:

"(1)That the report (September 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism as amended by his further report of (November 13, 1998) be amended by adding to Recommendation (1) a directive that affected Ward Councillor(s) be notified of each film location application prior to any permit being issued;

(2)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report back to the Committee on the issue of location film permit fees and that such report be guided by the principle that administration/promotion of location filming in Toronto shall be self-sustaining; and

(3)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism explore the possibility of any excess film permit revenues being directed towards the subsidization of recreational user fees in high-need areas."

(i)(September 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, reporting on an overview of the importance of the film industry to the economy of the City, outlining one unified By-law and comprehensive guidelines to regulate the use of public property for location filming, and recommending that:

(1)the Economic Development Committee endorse the attached Guidelines for Filming in the City of Toronto and City of Toronto Code of Conduct for Cast and Crew. (Appendices 1 and 2);

(2)film location permitting for Toronto be coordinated by the Toronto Film and Television Office in Economic Development with decision making remaining decentralized;

(3)the Economic Development Committee endorse the attached By-law (Appendix 3) and recommend that the City Solicitor be authorized to introduce the necessary Bill in Council go give effect thereto; and

(4)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report back as necessary on future developments in the film and television sector including any operational requirements; and

(ii)(November 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing revised filming guidelines.

(c)Sulphur in Fuels - Toronto's Fuel Purchase Program.

The Economic Development Committee reports having recommended the adoption of the joint report (October 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Medical Officer of Health and the Director, Fleet Management Services and forwarded its action in this respect to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its December 15, 1998 meeting.

(i)(November 16, 1998) from the City Clerk advising the Economic Development Committee that the Corporate Services Committee on November 9, 1998:

(1)submitted the communication (October 19, 1998) from the City Clerk respecting Sulphur in Fuels to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, without recommendation; and

(2)forwarded a copy of the aforementioned communication to the Economic Development Committee for consideration and report thereon to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee; and

(ii)submission from the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPP), titled "Sulphur in Gasolines".

--------

Mr. T.R. (Bob) Clapp, Vice President, Ontario Region, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, appeared before the Economic Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d)Harmonization of User Fees.

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred this matter to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and requested him to report further to the Committee's next meeting on January 15, 1999.

(i)(November 25, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding to the Economic Development Committee the action of the User Fee Committee on November 24, 1998, and recommending:

(1)(a)Policy Principles

-Recreation programs are important municipal services which contribute significant personal, social, economic and environmental benefits which enhance the well-being of Toronto citizens, their neighbourhoods and the local economy;

-the City of Toronto shall ensure all residents year-round accessibility to high quality community recreation and leisure programs regardless of their ability to pay;

-the City of Toronto shall ensure equity and fairness to taxpayers and contribute to the long term vitality of public recreation services provided by the City and the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors;

-the City of Toronto shall encourage maximum opportunity for the enjoyable, healthful, satisfying and creative use of leisure time;

(b)Policy Elements

-Client and taxpayers at the forefront of pricing decisions;

-consistency City-wide;

-quality service standards not influenced by user fees;

-accessibility strategies;

-price based on benefits to user, benefits to community and operating costs;

-accountability;

(c)Implementation Guidelines

-Establish list of services which do not charge a user fee and are available universally;

-where a user fee is to be charged, fees to be based on different levels of cost recovery (10% to over 100%);

-harmonize January 1999, followed by stable price strategy to ensure future adjustments are gradual;

-establish effective measures to provide access to low income individuals and high need communities;

-monitor and adjust fees on an annual basis prior to the submission of the annual budget;

-utilize a variety of effective user fee methods, including current technologies to enhance customer service (e.g. access "smart" card and improved registration system);

(2)"WHEREAS recreational services in the City of Toronto are a key component in providing a healthy City and contributing to the quality of life in communities across Toronto;

AND WHEREAS Toronto should be committed to equal access to these services, regardless of income, age or geographic location;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the User Fee Committee, after having now completed the public consultation process, recommend the harmonization of all user fees for recreational services by the City of Toronto effective January 1, 1999;

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the User Fee Committee recommends the elimination of all user fees for drop in programs, subscriber programs and basic instructional programs.";

(3)that the surcharge for programs and activities for participants outside the City of Toronto area be retained;

(4)that 'high needs' communities be exempt from paying user fees for specialized programs;

(5)that Recommendation No. (2) of the Scarborough Community Council be adopted, viz:

" an access policy be considered that would ensure that low income families and individuals are not penalized.";

(6)that the Budget Committee be requested to consider Parks and Recreation revenues being placed in general revenues and the Parks and Recreation budget being considered outside the framework of revenues generated;

(7)that Toronto Community Council's position (November 12, 1998) that there be no User Fees in the City of Toronto be reiterated; and

(8)that the mandate of the User Fee Committee be expanded to address the issue of recreational permits and a similar comprehensive consultation process as that undertaken for user fees for recreation programs;

(ii)(December 10, 1998) from Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79, opposing the introduction of user fees as it is felt that the principle of universal access will be destroyed forever with the introduction of even minimal user fees; and

(iii)(December 10, 1998) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council, reporting that North York Community Council, on December 10, 1998, referred the matter of Parks and Recreation User Fees and the following motions to the Chief Administrative Officer to establish a broad priority setting exercise including user fees and all other fees so that Council can collectively arrive at a decision on its priorities:

(1)Councillor Filion moved that Community Councils be allocated a per capita budget to set priorities on such areas as Parks and Recreation user fees, snow removal and garbage pick-up;

(2)Councillor King moved that:

(a)the North York Community Council supports in principle that the harmonization of user fees for Parks and Recreation programs should be revenue neutral; and

(b)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to develop a clear policy for the subsidization of programs;

(3)Councillor Shiner moved that the North York Community Council supports in principle the charging of user fees for Parks and Recreation programs, except for public skating and outdoor swimming pools, and that the user fee policy also facilitate the needs of those who cannot afford such programs.

(e)Turf Management Practices by Former Municipalities and Pesticide User Information.

The Economic Development Committee reports having:

(1)recommended to Council that consideration of Clause 1 of the Board of Health Report No. 14, headed "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto" be deferred pending a report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, the Urban Pest Management Council and Landscape Ontario on the development of an Integrated Pest Management Program for submission to the March 25, 1999 meeting of the Economic Development Committee; and

(2)deferred consideration of the report (December 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism pending submission of the above-noted report.

(i)(December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, forwarding information concerning the turf management practices by the former municipal Parks and Recreation Departments and their records of pesticide usage, and recommending:

(1)implementation of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program for all City of Toronto Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions that provides for safe management of pests and reduces reliance on pesticides;

(2) development of standard procedures in distinct program areas in order to monitor the effectiveness of the IPM Program and to provide regular reports;

(3) a copy of this report be sent to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health;

(4)participation on the Pesticide Subcommittee and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team;

(5)that staff report back to the Economic Development Committee once targets are set and standards devised; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto;

(ii)(November 26, 1998) from the Chair, Environmental Task Force, recommending that the Economic Development Committee endorse the recommendations of the Board of Health contained in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of the Board of Health, headed "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", which Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, resubmitted to its next meeting on December 16, 1998;

(iii)Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of the Board of Health, headed "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", which was deferred by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on December 16, 1998; pending the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee and the Economic Development Committee in this regard;

(iv)(December 7, 1998) from the Chair, Environmental Task Force, recommending adoption of the following recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee at their meeting on December 2, 1998:

The Works and Utilities Committee:

(A)recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Board of Health, embodied in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of The Board of Health, entitled "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", subject to:

(1)striking out Recommendation No. (1) of the Board of Health and Recommendation No. (1) of the Medical Officer of Health, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)That City Council adopt in principle the banning of pesticides on all City property; and further that:

(a)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health, in coordination with the departments affected, report back to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health no later than February 1999 on a reasonable phase-in of the proposed ban that would aim to achieve an end to applying pesticides on public green space in 1999, except in emergency situations or other exceptions to be outlined in the report by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health, such report to include a financial impact and risk assessment and the final timetable for the setting of goals and targets for the reduction of pesticides in time for the 1999 season;

(b)staff ensure that the phased-in ban include an improved and modified lawn care program to balance the effect of eliminating pesticides; and

(c)the proposed Pesticide Sub-Committee, as amended by Recommendation No. (2) of the Board of Health, be convened to assist the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health in the development of their report; and

(2)amending Recommendation No. (3) of the Board of Health to provide that funding for the proposed public education program be included for consideration in the 1999 budget; and

(B)further recommends that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to develop a pilot project to engage the use of the various beneficial use products arising from the biosolids management initiatives from the Main Treatment Plant;

(2)the appropriate staff be requested to submit a report to the appropriate committee on a program similar to the Plant Health Care Program of the City of Waterloo that involves horticultural practices to lead to the near elimination of pesticide use on City of Toronto properties; and

(3)the submission by Councillor Shiner, consisting of a report dated November 1996 which was before the former City of North York Environment Committee, entitled "Pesticide Use/Alternatives to Pesticides - 1996", and detailed recommendations with respect thereto, be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team, the Medical Officer of Health and any other staff reviewing pesticide use, to review in context with the final reports;

(v)(undated) from Mr. Douglas W. Bryant, CanTox Inc, Consultants in Toxicology, forwarding comments on "Pesticides: A Public Health Perspective: Technical Report" (Toronto Public Health, Environmental Protection Office, October 30, 1998);

(vi)(December 11, 1998) from Mr. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario, recommending:

-a reasoned logical approach to pesticide reduction but no ban;

-Landscape Ontario be involved in any public education campaign;

-the technical report not be used because it misrepresents the industry and is a biased one-sided document;

-we put energy and focus into finding alternatives, research and education, i.e. biotechnology, IPM education, etc.; and

-a full impact study should be done before proceeding with the motion; and

(vii)(December 11, 1998) from Ms. Wendy Rose, Executive Director, Urban Pest Management Council of Canada, forwarding comments regarding the Board of Health report (October 30, 1998) regarding the phasing out of pesticide use in the City of Toronto.

--------

Mr. Doug McDonald, Operations Co-ordinator, Parks and Recreation gave a presentation to the Economic Development Committee on the foregoing matter.

The following persons appeared before the Economic Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Douglas Bryant, Senior Scientist, CanTox;

-Mr. Velden Sorensen, Director of Development, Bayer Inc.;

-Ms. Wendy Rose, Executive Director, Urban Pest Management Council of Canada;

-Mr. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario;

-Mr. Daniel Passmore;

-Mr. Gerald Boot, President, Boots Landscape and Maintenance; and

-Ms. Janet May, Toronto Environmental Alliance.

(f)Fashion Industry Liaison Committee - Membership Expansion.

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred the two motions from Councillor Brown and Councillor Moscoe referred by City Council to the Economic Development Committee for consideration, to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he report thereon to the Committee.

(November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding to the Economic Development Committee the action taken by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 (Clause No. 3 of Report No. 3 of the Economic Development Committee, headed "Fashion Industry Liaison Committee Membership and 1997/1998 Activities"), and advising that Council amended the Clause by adding the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)Councillor Kelly be appointed to the Fashion Industry Liaison Committee as the representative of the Economic Development Committee; and

(2)the following motions be referred to the Economic Development Committee for consideration:

Moved by Councillor Brown:

'It is further recommended that a representative of the Etobicoke garment industry be added to the membership of the Fashion Industry Liaison Committee.'

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is further recommended that a representative of the North York garment district be added to the membership of the Fashion Industry Liaison Committee.' "

(g)Arts and Culture Grants Report for the Period January 1 to September 30, 1998.

The Economic Development Committee reports having received the Arts and Culture Grants Report for the period January 1 to September 30, 1998 from the Toronto Arts Council for information.

(November 25, 1998) from the President, Toronto Arts Council providing an information report to the Economic Development Committee on a quarterly basis on its revenues and expenditures for each of its programs for the previous quarter, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h)Toronto Arts Council's 1997 Annual Report.

The Economic Development Committee reports having received the Toronto Arts Council's 1997 Annual Report for information.

(November 25, 1998) from the President, Toronto Arts Council providing an annual report to the Economic Development Committee on its performance for the preceding calendar year and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)Pearson International Airport Development Plan.

The Economic Development Committee reports having referred the communication (November 16, 1998) to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and requested him to report thereon to the Committee.

(i)(November 16, 1998) from the Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Government Relations, Air Canada, addressed to Councillor Rob Davis, advising that Air Canada does not support the redevelopment plan in its present form and recommending that the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) develop a cost-effective development plan for Pearson that promotes growth, creates jobs in the Greater Toronto Area, keeps air travel affordable for everyone, and establishes Pearson International Airport as a major North American hub; and

(ii)(November 20, 1998), from Mr. Louis A. Turpen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, addressed to Mr. R. Lamar Durrett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada Centre 271, forwarding comments regarding the "scope and cost" of the Airport Development Program (ADP).

(j)Proposed Use of Street Ad Devices on Department Administered Properties.

The Economic Development Committee reports having adopted the following report (December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and in so doing:

(1)received the report for information;

(2)forwarded a copy to the User Fee Committee for information; and

(3)requested that a project team be established to examine issues related to outdoor advertising at City parks and recreation facilities, assess several proposals related to outdoor advertising in the context of developing future policies, and that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report on proposed policies and processes related to outdoor advertising:

(December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, replying to a communication dated August 25, 1998, from Mr. Sid Catalano, Director of Legislation, Pattison Outdoor Signs, addressed to the North York Community Council, regarding the placement of street ad devices on Department administered properties, and recommending that:

(1)this report be received for information and referred to the User Fee Committee for submission of future reports on the issue;

(2)a project team be established to examine issues related to outdoor advertising at City parks and recreation facilities, assess several proposals related to outdoor advertising in the context of developing future policies, and prepare a report on proposed policies and processes related to outdoor advertising;

(3)this report be submitted to the User Fee Committee for information; and

(4)the appropriate City officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(k)Canada Blooms - The Toronto Flower and Garden Show.

The Economic Development Committee reports having received the report (November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, for information.

(November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism providing an update as to participation and assistance to the 1999 Canada Blooms - The Toronto Flower and Garden Show, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(l)Feasibility of Establishing a Telecommunications Authority and Related Matters respecting Rights-of-Way and Access and Use.

The Economic Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer pending a further report from the Chief Administrative Officer for submission to the Committee's next meeting on January 15, 1999 commenting on the following suggested motions of Councillor Rob Davies:

"That the report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer be adopted subject to:

(1)deleting Recommendation (1);

(2)amending Recommendation (2) to read:

"(2)a five year term for Agreements with telecom providers be imposed until such time that a report is submitted to the Economic Development Committee on a Strategic Direction on Telecommunications;"

(3)amending Recommendation (3) by deleting the words "Chief Administrative Officer" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "I T" and that Councillors Fotinos, Silva and Moscoe be appointed to this working group;

(4)amending Recommendation (4) to read:

"(4)the inter-departmental working group report to the Economic Development Committee in six months time on the roles, responsibilities and tasks listed in Appendix 1 of the report on future reporting and organizational structures in relation to the Strategic Direction on Telecommunications ;"

(5)adding the following additional Recommendation (5);

"(5)that Appendix 1 of the report be amended by adding the following under the category titled "Recommend principles, policies and procedures for Council approval including:"

"-the Works Department to maintain revenues from right-of-way fees".

(November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer providing a review of the context, the use of City rights-of-way and road allowances for telecommunications infrastructure, an overview of the legislative environment for municipalities, and recommending that:

(1)the City of Toronto not establish a telecommunications authority, as defined at this time, since regulation of the industry is under federal jurisdiction and no authority exists for municipalities to establish a body of this type;

(2)protection of City interests and its own use of the rights-of-way be maintained without imposing a five-year term for Agreements with telecom providers;

 (3)Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to form an inclusive inter-departmental working group for the purpose of exchanging information and facilitating coordination, internal and external planning with respect to telecom initiatives; and

(4)the inter-departmental working group report to the Corporate Services Committee through the Chief Administrative's Office on City needs and uses for its own infrastructure, best uses of these assets in the interests of the public and businesses, as well as longer-term strategic measures.

(m)Board Composition for Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO).

The Economic Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the joint report (December 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to its next meeting on January 15, 1999.(December 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the

Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, responding to a request by the Economic Development Committee for a status report on the review of the governance structure of TEDCO, a process for filling the 3 vacancies on an interim basis, and recommending that:

(1)Council confirm the attached amendments to TEDCO's By-law No. 1 and By-law No. 3 as passed by the Board of Directors on April 14, 1998 to set the term of Council Members on the Board of Directors at 18 months as requested by the Council of the City of Toronto;

(2)the study of the role, mandate and composition of TEDCO's governance structure currently being undertaken through the Task Force on ABCs by the Chief Administrative Officer be coordinated with the study requested by the Economic Development Committee on TEDCO's future and potential future role in the City of Toronto's economic development strategy;

(3)in the interim, the seven incumbent board members continue to serve on the board and the three vacancies be filled by Councillor Brian Ashton as Chair of the Economic Development Committee and two citizens nominated by the Mayor;

(4)once these appointments have been made, the Board of Directors elect a Chair from among its voting members and the President of TEDCO would be a Director ex officio; and

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

     Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN ASHTON,

Chair

 Toronto, December 11, 1998

 (Report No. 7 of The Economic Development Committee was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)

 

   
Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

 

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links
City of Toronto 1998-2001