City of Toronto   *
HomeContact UsHow Do I...? Advanced search Go
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@toronto.ca.
   

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

 As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 5

1Proposed Amendments to the City Lands Compensation Agreement(Ward 20 - Downtown

2Response to the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report

3Mayor's Initiative on Youth Violence in Schools

4Final Report of the Task Force on Community Safety

5Acquisition of Ontario Hydro Corridor, Kennedy Road to Birchmount Road,(Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)

6Leasing of Temporary Office Space Required for Office Consolidation

7Retention of Outside Counsel: Livent Mortgage

8Year 2000 Priority 1 Business Functions Status Reportand Identification of Priority 2 and 3 Business Functions

9Applications to the Chief Judge ofthe Provincial Court for Set Fines

10"Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century:New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policyand Legislation" - Announcement by Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - January 6, 1999

11Information in Reports on Comparable Costs for Previous Year's Pricing for Purchases

12Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force -Terms of Reference

13The State of the City's Health: Achieving Public Health Goals in the Millennium

14Contamination of Recyclables at Multi-Unit Residential Locations in the Scarborough Community Council Area

15Evaluation of the "On The Move" Pilot Project

16Grants Priorities

17Delegation of Authority - Grants Administration

18Improvements to Florence Gell Park(Ward 27, York Humber

19Smythe Park Tennis Courts(Ward 27 - York Humber) 2.686

20Lester B. Pearson International Airport - Noise Monitoring Study - Terms of Reference and Cost Estimate

21Proposed Harmonization of Development Related Engineering Fees for the City of Toronto, Works and Emergency Services Department

22A Plan to Reinvest National Child Benefit Supplement Saving

23Main Treatment Plant - Award of Beneficial Use Contracts and Procedure for Selection of Design/Build Firms for the Implementation of100 per cent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program

24Update on Hostel Occupancy

25Board of Directors for New Toronto Hydro Corporation

26St. Patrick's Day Parade Events

27Other Items Considered by the Committee



City of Toronto

REPORT No. 5

OF THE STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on February 23, 1999,

submitted by Mayor Mel Lastman , Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

1

Proposed Amendments to the City Lands

Compensation Agreement

(Ward 20 - Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999 amended this Clause:

(1)to provide that tickets for the executive suite, platinum seats and the Toronto Raptors be administered by the Office of the City Clerk, in consultation with the Mayor, and, to the extent that they are to be allocated to Members of Council, such allocation be conducted by lottery; and

(2)by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with appropriate City officials, be instructed to include in the negotiation of any agreement with Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Limited, that the City of Toronto be permitted to staff the Box with City of Toronto employees; and the appropriate City officials be directed to first offer the opportunity for such positions to City employees (temporary or permanent) who are currently employed at the City's SkyDome Box.")

  The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential joint report (February 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, respecting proposed amendments to the City Lands Compensation Agreement, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover, subject to:

(1)amending Recommendation No. (3) by adding thereto the following words, "for the use of non-profit charities and community groups, or for City use", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(3)the administration and scheduling of the Stadium Days be delegated to the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department for the use of non-profit charities and community groups, or for City use;"; and

(2)amending Recommendation No. (5) to read as follows:

"(5)should the City elect to receive the Toronto Raptor Basketball tickets pursuant to the Ticket Election provision, the administration and distribution of these tickets be delegated to the Office of the Mayor for community and non-profit use."

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (February 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To seek approval to amend the current City Lands Compensation Agreement with the Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Limited in accordance with the terms and provisions contained in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statements:

Under the existing City Lands Compensation Agreement, the City is entitled to receive annual compensation in the form of cash and in-kind contributions valued at $426,776 per annum for the remaining term of the agreement (to 2017). The proposed amendments to this agreement increase the value of consideration to the City to $458,885 per annum for the duration of the agreement. In net present value terms, the proposed compensation package is worth $649,000.00 more than the existing compensation package.

The proposal would also provide the City with greater flexibility in converting its in-kind entitlements to cash payments.

The proposed amendments to the agreement Olymp contain a provision whereby the Air Canada Centre would be made available for use relating to the 2008 ics and that the rates charged for that use are no higher than the average rates charged over the preceding three years. This provision could be of significant financial benefit to the City in the event that the 2008 Games are secured.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the amendments to the City Land Compensation Agreement as set out in this report be approved;

(2)the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary document to amend the City Lands Compensation Agreement and related documents as set out in this report, in a form acceptable to him;

(3)the administration and scheduling of the Stadium Days be delegated to the Parks and Recreation Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(4)the executive suite and platinum tickets be administered by the Office of the Mayor;

(5)should the City to elect to receive the Toronto Raptor Basketball tickets pursuant to the Ticket Election provision, the administration of these tickets be delegated to the Parks and Recreation Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

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

Background:

At its meeting of July 13, 1995, City Council of the former City of Toronto adopted Clause No. 1, of Land Use Committee Report No. 11. This report authorized an in-kind compensation package for the City's interest in the Block 5A Triangle Lands which were subsequently used in assembling the required lands to construct the new Air Canada Centre developed by Centre Court Limited Partnership (CCLP) to accommodate the Toronto Raptors basketball team. The value of the Block 5A Lands at the time of the transaction was estimated to be approximately $3,800,000.00. The City Lands Compensation Agreement (CLCA) was the agreement entered into with CCLP that detailed the particulars of the in-kind compensation package for this parcel. The main business terms of the agreement commenced in 1998 and provide for a 20 year compensation term whereby the City would receive:

(A)an annual cash payment of either $100,000.00 outright, or if the City so elects, a sum of $80,000.00 together with $20,000.00 worth of Tickets annually (Ticket Election) For 1998, the City received the full $100,000.00 as the Ticket Election was not available as the Air Canada Centre was not yet complete; and

(B)six (6) days usage of the Air Canada Centre within each calendar year of the term for City purposes. The City has the right to use the Stadium for any lawful purpose, and had the right to transfer, assign or otherwise sell this right of use, subject to the reasonable consent of CCLP. These "Stadium Days" consist of 18 consecutive hours of use, from 7:00 am to 1:00 am. The 6 Stadium Days are selected from a Yearly Schedule to be provided to the City by July 31 for scheduling purposes of the next year's available dates. In the event that Stadium Days are not available to the City, provision has been made for payment of a Payment Equivalency Amount to the City. This amount is predetermined by a payment schedule and formulae contained in the Agreement. In 1998, the 6 Stadium Days were not available as the Stadium had not opened, and in lieu thereof, a payment equivalency amount as provided for in the agreement, plus accrued interest was received by the City.

In late 1997, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Limited (MLSEL) gained control and ownership of the Air Canada Centre and as a consequence assumed the obligations of CCLP under the City Lands Compensation Agreement.

MLSEL has provided the City with the Yearly Schedule for selection of the 1999 Stadium Days as required by the Agreement in July of 1998. It should be noted that the Yearly Schedule consisted of days in the Air Canada Centre combined with days at Maple Leaf Gardens in order to provide the proper mix of week days and Saturdays as called for by the Agreement. This two stadium approach to the provision of the Stadium Days is not contemplated by the Agreement, but is now required by MLSEL as scheduling conflicts for the Stadium Days at Air Canada Centre now exist due to the Raptors and the Toronto Maple Leafs operating out of the same facility.

The Agreement also allows MLSEL an earlier election to discharge its compensation obligations to the City in accordance with a Buy-out amount Schedule negotiated as part of the Agreement. Additionally, the Agreement stipulates the compensation obligations due the City, be secured by a Letter of Credit in the amount of $1,000,000.00. Further security consists of a mortgage that secures the City's interest.

Proposal by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Limited

MLSEL has requested that the CLCA be amended to change the compensation package previously negotiated as part of this agreement. City staff have met with officials of MLSEL and have negotiated these proposed changes by way of a Letter Agreement, the main business issues are as set out in the Summary of Changes heading immediately below. These proposed changes include the principal amendments to the compensation package and also allow both parties to address concerns that have arisen and were not previously contemplated when the agreement was first entered into. The Letter Agreement heading details the actual agreement between the parties and considers the complexities and legal issues of the proposed changes to the CLCA.

Summary of Changes

The basic structure of the existing agreement is that the owner, now MLSEL is paying for lands sold by the City to the owner over time, or, at the election of the owner, by paying the remaining outstanding amount on January 7th in any year (the Buyout Amount). The proposed changes do not materially alter this basic structure. Security in favour of the City is in place (a $1,000,000.00 letter of credit and a 1st mortgage) to secure the obligations of the owner. The proposed changes do not alter this security structure.

The CLCA provides that if the owner pays over time, in each year, there are three components to the payment, namely, $80,000.00 cash, an additional $20,000.00 cash if the City does not elect to purchase $20,000.00 of Raptors tickets, and the remaining payment is made in kind by providing the City with 6 Stadium Days of use. If the owner cannot provide the 6 Stadium Days of use, the owner has the option to pay the City at the rate of $54,462.00 per Stadium Day not available (being an aggregate of approximately $326,776.00, which together with the other components creates an aggregate possible yearly payment of about $426,776.00).

The proposal contains a number of changes to the components for the yearly payment, summarized as follows:

(a)No substantive changes are made to the cash/Raptors tickets component. There are some procedural changes dealing with the ticket election process.

(b)The number of Stadium Days usage is reduced from 6 to 2. There are changes in the procedure as to when the Stadium Days will be offered (now late May to late August in each year), that Maple Leaf Gardens may be substituted for the Air Canada Centre for one of the Stadium Days and other revised procedures respecting selection of the Stadium Days. Another new provision is that the City has the election to take the Payment Equivalency Amount ($54,462.00 per Stadium Day amount) in lieu of using the 2 Stadium Days.

(c)In consideration for the 4 Stadium Days "released", the owner will provide a license agreement for Suite 237 in Air Canada Centre for a term expiring December 31, 2017 (the end of the 20 year payments under the CLCA) on substantially the terms set out in the standard form suite license agreement, but without payment of the annual license fee ($230,000.00 per annum for this suite, escalating at 2 percent per annum). The suite seats 12 people, and one staff person and tickets for Leafs, Raptors, and certain other events are included in the annual license fee. There are various "extra charges" that will need to be paid by the City including, without limitation, food/beverages purchases from the owner or its designated supplier, obligatory purchase of playoff tickets for Leaf and Raptors beyond the second playoff round, payment of ticket prices for persons in excess of 12 attending the event and the like.

(d)In addition to the provision of the suite on these terms, the owner would be obliged to provide two platinum seats (section 117, row 5, seats 5 and 6) in the Air Canada Centre for Maple Leaf hockey games only until December 31, 2017, at no charge to the City. (These seats, sold by the owner at retail, have three levels of charges, namely a one time personal license fee per seat of $15,000.00, plus taxes payable at time of purchase, an annual membership fee of $2,500.00 per seat, plus taxes paid each year, and the ticket purchase price of $115.00 per game per seat payable each year).

In addition, there are some further refinements as follows:

(a)The revised agreement is to include rights to exchange the platinum seats for more desirable platinum seats that become available at no charge, the right to upgrade the location of the suite to a higher priced location by paying an appropriate differential amount per year representing the increased license fee for the more desirable location, and the right to purchase Raptors seasons tickets for these platinum seats at regular prices should these seats be available for Raptors games at present.

(b)In order to protect the City's rights to maintain the suite and the seats should the owner decide to buy out the purchase price, (i.e. pay the Buyout Amount) it is proposed that the City would have the first right to re-purchase the suite and the seats, with the suite being at the fixed annual license fee amount of $230,000.00 for base year 1999, with 2 percent escalations thereafter, and the seats being at the then present pricing.

(c)The proposal also includes a provision in the event the City secures the 2008 Olympics, that the owner would make the Air Canada Centre available at reasonable rates, no higher than the average rates charged during the same calendar year portion of usage over the preceding three years.

(d)The proposal is subject to City Council approval, and finalization of the various agreements contemplated. There are also provisions relating to 50 percent reimbursement of the City's external legal costs and provisions for the owner to obtain third party acknowledgements to the amended CLCA terms along the lines of the acknowledgements previously obtained from project lenders.

The Letter Agreement

A letter agreement setting out the foregoing terms and other minor revisions has been prepared and is attached as Appendix A. This letter agreement constitutes an agreement in principle to amend the terms of the CLCA and to execute such other documentation as is contemplated in the letter agreement.

  Parks and Recreation Comments

As the Air Canada Centre has just opened, the prior use of the Stadium Days has not been an issue. The administration and scheduling of all of the current 6 Stadium Days may be problematic for City staff in the short term, considering the need to plan, program, and promote such large scale City events. Additionally the set up, staffing, and financial requirements have yet to be determined for such a large size venue.

Staff have also advised that the department has no objections to the reduction in the number of usage of the Stadium Days from 6 to 2 per year.

Financial Analysis of Proposal

As previously noted, the main business terms of the City Lands Compensation Agreement ("CLCA") commenced in 1998 and provided for a 20 year compensation term whereby the City would annually receive a combination of cash payments and in-kind contributions. The details of the 20 year compensation package are set out in Exhibit I below:

Exhibit I

Existing Compensation Package

  Calendar

Year

Payment

Equivalency

Amount

(6 Stadium

Days)

Ticket &

Cash

Election

 Total

Value

Payment

Buyout

Amount

as at

7 January

1998 326,776 100,000 426,776 4,313,296
1999 326,776 100,000 426,776 4,226,591
2000 326,776 100,000 426,776 4,132,298
2001 326,776 100,000 426,776 4,029,755
2002 326,776 100,000 426,776 3,918,240
2003 326,776 100,000 426,776 3,796,967
2004 326,776 100,000 426,776 3,665,083
2005 326,776 100,000 426,776 3,521,659
2006 326,776 100,000 426,776 3,365,685
2007 326,776 100,000 426,776 3,196,064
2008 326,776 100,000 426,776 3,011,600
2009 326,776 100,000 426,776 2,810,996
2010 326,776 100,000 426,776 2,592,840
2011 326,776 100,000 426,776 2,355,594

 2012 326,776 100,000 426,776 2,097,590
2013 326,776 100,000 426,776 1,817,010
2014 326,776 100,000 426,776 1,511,880
2015 326,776 100,000 426,776 1,180,050
2016 326,776 100,000 426,776 819,186
2017 326,776 100,000 426,776 426,776
Note: The final payment is actually $426,746. The difference is due to rounding errors

Under the CLCA, the City is entitled to receive the following:

(1)An annual cash payment of either $100,000.00 or if the City so elects, a cash payment of $80,000 combined with 420,000.00 worth of tickets to the Toronto Raptors Basketball home games; and

(2)six (6) days usage of the Air Canada Centre within each calendar year for City purposes. In the event that the stadium days are not available to the City, MLSEL is required to compensate the City by way of a predetermined Payment Equivalency Amount. The annual Payment Equivalency Amount in respect of the six (6) stadium days is $326,776.00 ($54,462/stadium day).

The existing agreement also allows MLSEL in any given year to fully discharge its total compensation obligations by paying the City a Buyout amount. The Buyout amount represents the outstanding mortgage amount on January 7th of each calendar year during the twenty year term.

Exhibit II below sets out the compensation package proposed by MLSEL.

Exhibit II

Proposed Compensation Package

  Calendar

Year

 Ticket &

Cash

Election

 Executive

Suite

Value

 Platinum

Seats

Value

Payment

Equivalency

Amount

(2 Stadium

Days)

 Total

Package

Value

1999 100,000 230,000 19,960 108,925 458,885
2000 100,000 234,600 19,960 108,925 463,485
2001 100,000 239,292 19,960 108,925 468,177
2002 100,000 244,078 19,960 108,925 472,963
2003 100,000 248,959 19,960 108,925 477,844
2004 100,000 253,939 19,960 108,925 482,824
2005 100,000 259,017 19,960 108,925 487,902
2006 100,000 264,198 19,960 108,925 493,083
2007 100,000 269,482 19,960 108,925 498,367
2008 100,000 274,871 19,960 108,925 503,756
2009 100,000 280,369 19,960 108,925 509,254
2010 100,000 285,976 19,960 108,925 514,861
2111 100,000 291,696 19,960 108,925 520,581
2012 100,000 297,530 19,960 108,925 526,415
2013 100,000 303,480 19,960 108,925 532,365
2014 100,000 309,550 19,960 108,925 538,435
2015 100,000 315,741 19,960 108,925 544,626
2016 100,000 322,056 19,960 108,925 550,941
2017 100,000 328,497 19,960 108,925 557,382

The proposed package consists of four components. These include:

(1)Ticket and cash component - this component is identical to that contained in the original agreement except for some minor procedural amendments to the ticket election process;

(2)two stadium days - the use of this stadium days are offered from late May to late August in each year with MLSEL holding the right to substitute Maple Leaf Gardens for one of the stadium days. The city can elect to take, in cash, the Payment Equivalency Amount ($54,462 per stadium day) in lieu of using the stadium days;

(3)Executive Suite - the annual license fee for the use of this suite is $230,000 escalating at two per cent per annum. The City has the right to assign or sublet the City's rights to the suite without the consent of MLSEL; and

(4)two Platinum Seats - the use of two (2) platinum level seats with an annual value of $19,960.

Exhibit III provides a financial comparison of the existing compensation package with the proposed package. In Net Present value terms (i.e. 1999 dollars), the value attributed to the proposed package is worth $649,000.00 more than the value of the compensation attributed to the existing package.

Furthermore, under the new proposal, the City can now elect to receive a cash payment ($108,925/year) in the event that it no longer requires the use of its allocated Stadium Days. This new provision gives the City additional flexibility to monetize its in-kind compensation at a prescribed rate - flexibility that is not otherwise available under the existing agreement.

Finally, as previously noted, the security underlying the agreement, in the form of the $1 million letter of credit and mortgage in favour of the City remain unaltered by the proposed amendments to the agreement.

Exhibit III

Calendar

Year

Monetary

Value of

Proposed

Package

Monetary

Value of

Existing

Package

Difference

in Nominal

Dollars

 Difference

in Present

Value Terms

1999 458,885 426,776 32,109 32,109
2000 463,485 426,776 36,709 33,755
2001 468,177 426,776 41,401 35,007
2002 472,963 426,776 46,187 35,911
2003 477,844 426,776 51,068 36,512
2004 482,824 426,776 56,048 36,848
2005 487,902 426,776 61,126 36,953
2006 493,083 426,776 66,307 36,860
2007

2007g200

498,367 426,776 71,591 36,595
2008 503,756 426,776 76,980 36,184
2009 509,254 426,776 82,478 35,649
2010 514,861 426,776 88,085 35,009
2011 520,581 426,776 93,805 34,283
2012 526,415 426,776 99,639 33,485
2013 532,365 426,776 105,589 32,629
2014 538,435 426,776 111,659 31,729
2015 544,626 426,776 117,850 30,794
2016 550,941 426,776 124,165 29,833
2017 557,382 426,776 130,606 28,856
Net present value benefit to City (in 1999 dollars) 649,000

Conclusion:

This report recommends that the City of Toronto and the Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. alter the current City Lands Compensation Agreement. In exchange for new compensation terms as set out in this report, the City will agree to amend the City Lands Compensation Agreement to remove its right to utilize Air Canada Centre for 4 Stadium Days annually.

The City of Toronto in concurrence with Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd., will accomplish mutual goals. Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. can operate its facility in the interest of the community and on behalf of its sports and entertainment events unencumbered by event days during a very busy schedule, especially during the winter season.

The City gains access to a wider range of Air Canada Centre events including Toronto Maple Leaf hockey games. Although, the acquisition of the suite and seats will provide accommodations for only small groups the substantially increased number of events will provide the City with an opportunity to utilize the suite and seats to facilitate charity and other City sponsored utilization of these assets on a much more flexible basis. Basketball and entertainment events increases the opportunity for the City to showcase and enhance its world class reputation.

Additionally, the City has now been able to secure a concession from the Air Canada Centre to provide reasonable rents and to protect time slots in the event the City secures the 2008 Olympics.

Contact Name:

Doug StewartJoe Farag

Director, Real EstateDirector, Development Policy and Research

392-7202392-8108

--------

Appendix A

1.City Council Condition

This agreement in principle is subject to a condition precedent in favour of the City that City Council confirms, ratifies and approves this letter agreement and authorizes representatives of the City to negotiate, execute and deliver the Definitive Agreements (as hereinafter defined) in relation thereto. This condition has been inserted for the benefit of the City and may not be waived by the City. The City hereby advises that upon execution of this letter agreement by the Commissioner of Corporate Services on behalf of the City, and by MLSEL, the Chief Financial Officer and Commissioner of Corporate Services of the City agree to jointly present this letter agreement to City Council at its meetings presently scheduled for March 2, 3 and 4, 1999 for such confirmation, ratification, approval and authorization. MLSEL acknowledges that the Commissioner of Corporate Services has no authority to unconditionally bind the City pursuant to this letter agreement. In the event that this condition is satisfied, the City shall notify MLSEL on or before 5:00 p.m., Friday March 5, 1999. In the event that this condition is not satisfied by that time and date, or in the event no notice of satisfaction is delivered by the City to MLSEL, then this condition shall be deemed not to have been satisfied and this agreement shall be terminated with its provisions being of no force or effect, and the CLCA shall continue to be in full force and effect, unamended (collectively this paragraph being referred to as the "City Council Condition").

  2.Definitive Agreements Condition

In the event the City Council Condition is satisfied by the City, then this letter agreement in principle shall be further conditional upon the City and MLSEL entering into definitive formal agreements to further detail and implement the general terms and conditions contained herein, including without limitation, an amending agreement to the CLCA (the "CLCA Amendment"), a licence agreement for Suite 237 in the Air Canada Centre (the "Suite"), located as outlined in red on Appendix I attached hereto, to be licenced by MLSEL to the City pursuant to the terms herein (the "Suite License Agreement"), a licence agreement to be entered into in respect of platinum seats located in section 117, row 5, seats 5 & 6 (the "Seats") in the Air Canada Centre, as outlined in red on Appendix II hereto (the "Seat Licence Agreement") and a club seat agreement for the Seats (the "Seats Agreement"), (collectively the "Definitive Agreements"). The City and MLSEL agree to negotiate in good faith and expeditiously to finalize the terms of the Definitive Agreements in accordance with the general terms and conditions set out herein on or before 5:00 p.m., March 22, 1999. In the event all of the Definitive Agreements are not executed and delivered by each party to the other by such time and date, or such later time and date as may be mutually agreed upon in writing, this letter agreement (and any of the Definitive Agreements then executed) shall be deemed to be terminated and of no force or effect, and the CLCA shall continue in full force and effect, unamended. (collectively the "Definitive Agreements Condition").

3.Effect of Termination Pursuant to Sections 1 or 2

MLSEL acknowledges that in the event the City has utilized the Suite or the Seats and in the event that either the City Council Condition or the Definitive Agreements Condition results in the termination of this letter agreement, then the City shall have no obligations or liabilities to MLSEL respecting such utilization, including without limitation, no obligation to pay any fees or other amounts in respect of such utilization.

4.Terminology

References in this letter agreement to the City in relation to the CLCA are references to the Vendor, and references to MLSEL in relation to the CLCA are references to the Purchaser. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall bear the meanings ascribed to them in the CLCA.

      5. Amendments of Article 3 of CLCA - Satisfaction of Purchase Price

5.1Amendment of section 3.1 - Purchase Options

Section 3.1 of the CLCA is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

"The City hereby grants MLSEL the option to satisfy the Purchase Price by:

(a)payment and performance of the Compensation Obligations throughout the Term; or

(b)payment and performance of the Compensation Obligations up to but not including the Calendar Year in which the Buyout Amount is paid by MLSEL to the City, together with payment of such Buyout Amount, provided as a condition of the exercise by MLSEL of the option to pay the Buy out Amount, MLSEL shall comply with the provisions of section 5.3.11(e) herein."

5.2Amendment to Section 3.2 of CLCA - Buy out Amount Calculation

MLSEL acknowledges that its right to elect to pay the Buyout Amount for the 1998 Calendar Year and the 1999 Calendar Year has lapsed. The City prepared Revised Buyout Amount Schedule shall be attached as a replacement Schedule "C" to the CLCA Amendment.

5.3Amendments to Section 3.3 of CLCA - Payment and Performance of Compensation Obligations

5.3.1General

The CLCA Amendment shall amend and restate section 3.3 of the CLCA. The provisions in this section 5.3 shall set out the general intent of such amendments, but the parties acknowledge the CLCA Amendment will deal with further contingencies.

5.3.2Definition of Tickets

Section 1.1(ao) of the CLCA is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

""Tickets" means tickets for Toronto Raptors Basketball home games in any quantity or ticket price as the City determines, subject to availability at the time of determination, to a maximum published ticket price of $20,000.00 per year."

5.3.3Ticket Election Procedures

In the event the City desires to make a Ticket Election, the provisions in section 3.3(b) of the CLCA shall not be applicable and the following provision shall be applicable. MLSEL shall provide the City with priority ticket selection at least four weeks in advance of tickets being made available to the public by delivering to the City a list of available tickets for Toronto Raptors Basketball home games at all ticket prices. The City shall deliver notice to MLSEL within 20 business days of receipt of such list of the City's annual ticket selection, and MLSEL shall confirm such selection to the City within five business days of receipt, and provide such tickets to the City as soon as practical thereafter.

5.3.4Definition of Suite Obligation and MLSEL Representation regarding Suite

(a)"Suite Obligation" means the obligation of MLSEL to provide to the City the Suite commencing not later than February 20, 1999 for the Term (and until December 31, 2017 in the event the City makes its election pursuant to section 5.3.11(e) herein) pursuant to the Suite License Agreement without the provision of the annual license fee (being $230,000.00 for the 1999 Calendar Year, and escalating in each calendar year thereafter at the rate of 2 percent per annum pursuant to the terms of the Suite License Agreement).

(b)MLSEL represents and warrants to the City that the Suite has fixed seating for 12 persons.

5.3.5Definition of Seats Obligation

"Seats Obligation" means the obligation of MLSEL to provide to the City the seats for all preseason and regular season Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey games (approximately 45 games) commencing February 20, 1999 for the Term (and in the event the Term expires prior to December 31, 2017 the City shall have the rights to elect pursuant to section 5.3.11(e) herein), without the payment of any costs, including personal license fee, annual memberships per seat and yearly ticket costs, all inclusive of all taxes.

     5.3.6Reduction in Use of Stadium Days Respecting Compensation Obligation

Section 3.3(a)(ii) of the CLCA is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

"(ii)during the Term (excluding the Stub Period), provision of use of the Stadium, including the Stadium Use Inclusions and including the Stadium Use Additional Services for an aggregate of 2 Stadium Days per Calendar Year, upon the terms and conditions set out in section 3.3(b) to (l) inclusive of the CLCA, as amended herein (the "Compensation Stadium Use Obligation")."

5.3.7Addition of Suite Obligation and Seats Obligation Respecting Compensation Obligation

A new section 3.3(a)(iii) of the CLCA shall be added as follows:

"(iii) commencing not later than February 20, 1999 and during the Term, provision of the Suite Obligation and Seats Obligation upon the terms and conditions set out herein."

5.3.8Addition of Pro Rata Payment for Calendar Year 1999 Respecting Compensation Obligation

A new Section 3.3(a)(iv) of the CLCA shall be added as follows:

"(iv) MLSEL shall pay to the City on the date of execution of the CLCA Amendment an amount equal to 50/365th of 2/3 of the Payment Equivalency Amount in respect of Calendar Year 1999, which amount shall be considered an additional component of the Compensation Obligation for Calendar Year 1999 only (the "Calendar Year 1999 Payment")."

5.3.9Amendment to Definition of Compensation Obligation

The definition of "Compensation Obligation" is hereby amended to include collectively the Compensation Payment Obligation, the Compensation Stadium Use Obligation, the Suite Obligation, the Seats Obligation, and the Calendar Year 1999 Payment.

    5.3.10Revised Stadium Days Provisions

(a)The provisions of section 3.3(b) of the CLCA are hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

"On or before March 31, 1999 in respect of the 1999 Calendar Year, and on or before July 31, 1999 in respect of Calendar Year 2000, and on or before the preceding July 31 in respect of each ensuing Calendar Year, MLSEL shall deliver to the City a Yearly Schedule for the Air Canada Centre (and as applicable pursuant to the terms herein for Maple Leaf Gardens), in accordance with the Revised Yearly Schedule Obligation, and shall set out the proposed configuration of the Air Canada Centre (or Maple Leaf Gardens as applicable) (either in basketball court, ice rink or concert mode) for each day set out on such Yearly Schedule. Within 30 days of receipt of the Yearly Schedule material, the City shall deliver written notice to the MLSEL of the City's election as follows:

(i)the City may elect to receive (and upon such election MLSEL shall pay to the City on the January 7th next occurring) an amount equal to one-third of the Payment Equivalency Amount, (as shown on the Buyout Amount Illustration Schedule "C" of the CLCA, subject to revision as set out in the CLCA Amendment Revised Buyout Amount Schedule) in the event the City elects zero Stadium Days, and one-sixth of the Payment Equivalency Amount in the event the City elects one Stadium Day; (the "City Stadium Day Payment Election") and

(ii)the Stadium Days if any, selected, including the date selected, the venue selected, the nature of the anticipated event or events respecting each Stadium Day selected and the reasonably expected range of attendance at such event or events. The dates in respect of the Stadium Days to be used by the City shall not conflict with the scheduled events set out in the Yearly Schedule materials. The City shall provide MLSEL with not less than 30 days prior written notice in the event that there is a change in the anticipated event or events for the particular Stadium Day from time to time in order to facilitate MLSEL's staffing requirements."

 (b)"Revised Yearly Schedule Obligation" means collectively:

(i)The obligation of MLSEL to provide available dates on a Yearly Schedule between the first Tuesday next following Victoria Day in May of each Calendar Year and the Thursday immediately preceding Labour Day at the end of August or early September in each Calendar Year.

(ii)In the event MLSEL owns Maple Leaf Gardens and controls the scheduling of events at Maple Leaf Gardens, MLSEL at the time of delivery of the Yearly Schedule material in any Calendar Year shall have the right to determine for such Calendar Year that one of the two Stadium Days (if two Stadium Days are selected by the City) shall be held at Maple Leaf Gardens, and not at Air Canada Centre, in which event, MLSEL shall also provide the Yearly Schedule for Maple Leaf Gardens.

(iii)The Yearly Schedule for the Air Canada Centre shall indicate at least 40 Stadium Days available during such period, including not less than 4 Stadium Days available on Saturdays, and the Yearly Schedule for Maple Leaf Gardens shall indicate at least 80 Stadium Days available during such period, including not less than 8 Stadium Days available on Saturdays; and

(iv)in the event the City is entitled to select and does select two Stadium Days in a Calendar Year at the Air Canada Centre, unless MLSEL otherwise agrees, only one of such Stadium Days shall be selected on a Saturday.

(c)Section 3.3(e) of the CLCA is hereby deleted (except for the heading) and replaced as follows:

"In the event MLSEL fails to deliver Yearly Schedules as provided herein, the City may nonetheless elect to receive 1/3 of the Payment Equivalency Amount set out in Section 3.3(b) (as amended herein) by election by notice to MLSEL by November 30 for payment on January 7 of the next ensuing year. In the event no notice is given by the City by such date, the City shall be deemed to have elected the Payment Equivalency Amount payment."

(d)Sections 3.3(g) and (h) of the CLCA are hereby deleted.

5.3.11Additional Provisions Respecting Suite Obligation and Seats Obligation

(a)Upgraded Seats

Subject to the terms of any prior rights granted by MLSEL before the execution of this letter agreement, MLSEL shall notify the City in writing from time to time promptly upon any pair of more desirable platinum seats (the "New Seats") becoming available for Toronto Maple Leaf season ticket holders, and within ten business days of receipt of any notice from time to time, the City shall have the right to elect to exchange the Seats at no cost to the City for the New Seats, (and the New Seats shall be held on the same terms as the Seats, including without limitation, no payment for tickets, annual membership fee or personal license fee and including all taxes) whereupon the New Seats shall be the seats upon which the Seats Obligation shall thereafter be applicable.

(b)Seats for Toronto Raptors games

In the event the Seats are currently available on a Toronto Raptors season ticket holder basis, MLSEL shall so advise the City by notice in writing, including the applicable license fee, applicable annual membership cost per seat, and the yearly ticket cost per seat for the 1999 calendar year, all inclusive of all taxes, and the City, within 20 business days of receipt of such notice, shall have the election to acquire the rights to the Seats for Toronto Raptors Basketball season ticket holder purposes, for the next Calendar Year upon payment of such amounts to MLSEL, and the yearly election from Calendar Year to Calendar Year thereafter on like terms to retain such rights.

(c)Upgraded Suite

Subject to the terms of any prior rights granted by MLSEL before the execution of this letter agreement, MLSEL agrees to provide the City with notice from time to time should more desirable (i.e. higher priced as shown on Appendix I) suites become available, setting out in such notice the price differential required for the City to exchange the Suite for such new suite (the "New Suite") (which price differential shall be based on the differential between the price shown on Appendix I for such New Suite escalated at 2 percent per year commencing in Calendar Year 2000, in comparison to the price for the Suite, being $230,000.00, escalated at 2 percent per year commencing in Calendar Year 2000) and the City shall have the right to elect to exchange the Suite for the New Suite within 40 business days of receipt of such notice from time to time, upon payment of such price differential, whereupon the Suite Obligations shall apply to the New Suite.

(d)Amendments to Terms of Suite License Agreement, Seats License Agreement and Seats Agreement

Notwithstanding the terms of the Suite Licence Agreement, the Seat Licence Agreement or the Seats Agreement; (i) the City shall have the right to assign or sublet the City's rights without the consent of MLSEL subject to MLSEL having the first right of refusal should the City wish to assign or sublet for commercial purposes, (provided that this subparagraph (i) shall not apply after MLSEL pays the Buyout Amount to the City, and the City continues the Suite License Agreement pursuant to Section 5.3.11(e), in which event the general provision set out in the Suite License Agreement shall apply); (ii) in the event the City is unable to use the Suite or Seats for any reason beyond the control of the City, the City shall be entitled to receive in such Calendar Year, 2/3 of the Payment Equivalency Amount pro rated based upon the number of events missed in the same manner as set out in the Suite Licence Agreement, Seat Licence Agreement and Seats Agreement respectively; and (iii) in the event the Suite License Agreement, Seat License Agreement, Seats Agreement or any of them are terminated prior to their intended expiry, for any reason whatsoever, other than by MLSEL paying the Buyout Amount in lieu of the City enjoying the benefits pursuant to such agreements, the City shall be entitled to receive in such Calendar Year a pro rata Payment Equivalency Amount, and in each succeeding Calendar Year during the Term 2/3rds of the Payment Equivalency Amount, prorated if one or more of the Suite Obligation and Seats Obligation continue.

(e)City Election to Repurchase Suite License and Seats upon MLSEL Payment of Buyout Amount

In the event that MLSEL exercises the option to pay the Buyout Amount in a Calendar Year pursuant to Section 5.1 herein, then prior to or concurrently with making such election, MLSEL shall offer to the City to continue the Suite Licence Agreement on the same terms and conditions to and including December 31, 2017, save and except that the annual licence fee shall become payable in the Calendar Year to which the Buyout Amount is applicable, and shall be in the amount of $230,000.00, escalated at the rate of 2 percent per annum commencing in Calendar Year 2000, and MLSEL shall also offer to the City on a year to year basis the right to purchase the Seats pursuant to the Seats Obligation, provided that the City pays to MLSEL the then applicable seat prices, and applicable annual membership payments, both inclusive of all taxes (but without payment of any personal license fee). The City shall have the right to elect neither, one or both of such offers within 40 business days of receipt of the Buyout Amount.

6.2008 Olympics

In the event the City secures the 2008 Olympics, MLSEL agrees to make the Air Canada Centre available for use relating to the 2008 Olympics pursuant to a schedule of dates determined by the City (which may include a series of preparation and disassembly dates as well as dates of attended events), and MLSEL shall charge rates for such usage no higher than the average rates charged to arm's length third party purchasers of usage days at Air Canada Centre during the same calendar year portion of usage over the preceding three years, and on other terms not more onerous than the terms provided for such prior usage.

7.Reimbursement by MLSEL for City Legal Costs

MLSEL hereby agrees to be responsible for 50 percent of the fees and disbursements of the legal firm retained by the City under the direction of the City Solicitor to assist in the preparation of this letter agreement, the drafting, negotiation and finalization of the Definitive Agreements, the finalization of matters contemplated herein, and any advice required by the City, relating thereto.

8.Revised Third Party Acknowledgements

MLSEL shall use its commercial best efforts to obtain acknowledgements in form and content satisfactory to the City, acting reasonably, (and generally in accordance with the forms set out in Schedule "G" of the CLCA) from every Person that has previously delivered an acknowledgement in the form of such Schedule "G" to the City, and every further chargee of the Centre Court Lands, the Stadium, the Galleria Lands or the West Retail Lands as at the date of execution of the CLCA Amendment.

 9.General

This letter agreement deals only with the subject matter of the CLCA as between the parties. The CLCA shall only be amended to the extent provided herein, and shall otherwise remain in full force and effect unamended.

(Copies of the following Appendices, referred to in Appendix A of the foregoing report, are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-Appendix 1, headed "Locations of Proposed City Executive Suite at the Air Canada Centre"; and

-Appendix 2, headed "Location of the Platinum Seats at the Air Canada Centre".)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (February 25, 1999) from Mr. Basil 'Buzz' Hargrove, President, CAW-Canada, expressing concern related to the proposal that Council opt for 12 box seats at the new Air Canada Centre instead of six public dates per year.)

 2

Response to the Mayor's Homelessness

Action Task Force Final Report

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1)deleting from Recommendation No. (6) of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the words "the Mayor" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the Chief Administrative Officer", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(6)that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to present a report card directly to City Council every six months, commencing at the April, 1999, meeting of Toronto City Council, as to:

(a)the status of homelessness in Toronto; and

(b)what action has been taken by the City of Toronto and the Federal and Provincial Government to alleviate the problem;";

  (2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a)City Council urge the provincial government to provide more long-term treatment facilities for homeless persons with mental health problems, alcohol problems and drug addictions, especially those individuals that have been diagnosed as having concurrent disorders;

(b)the Mayor be requested to urge the provincial and federal governments to join the City of Toronto to establish a permanent body that will be given a budget and the authority to deal with the issues of homelessness and affordable housing in the City of Toronto;

(c)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to:

(i)submit a report to the Municipal Grants Review Committee on the implications of Recommendation No. (44) of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, viz.:

"(44)The City should ensure sufficient funding for the Federation of Metro Tenants' Association Tenant Hot Line to ensure that callers can get through to receive information."; and

(ii)submit a report to the Budget Committee no later than April, 1999, and to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, on the results of the funding negotiations with the federal and provincial governments;

(d)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to review the possibility of accessing the revolving fund for housing initiatives to kick start the redevelopment of Lawrence Heights using the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation lands located at W.R. Allen Road and Lawrence Avenue West, and submit a joint report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee;

(e)Recommendation No. (69) of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force be referred to the Chief Planner for consultation with the local community and report thereon to City Council, through the Etobicoke Community Council, viz.:

"(69)The Ministry of Health, the Ontario Realty Corporation, and the City of Toronto should pursue an agreement with CAMH to make land within the Queen Street Division of CAMH and the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital immediately available for the development of supportive housing for persons with serious mental illness or concurrent disorders. At least half the units should be dedicated for persons with concurrent disorders."; and

(f)the following motion be referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Medical Officer of Health, with a request that the concerns raised therein be addressed in the comprehensive report which will be submitted to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in April, 1999:

Moved by Councillor Chong:

"It is recommended that City Council urge the provincial government, in its review of the Mental Health Act, to give consideration to compelling treatment for those individuals who are incapable of taking responsibility for their own lives.")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report (February 17, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to:

(a)amending Recommendation No. (5) (a) to include the Task Force request that GST be waived on new low-income housing; and

(b)amending the report to provide that the full supply of supportive housing recommended by the Task Force be supported; and that the Task Force call for supportive housing across the province also be supported;

(2)that the Provincial Government be urged to adopt the recommendations of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force which outline the need for Provincial Action in partnership with the City;

(3)that the City of Toronto particularly urge the Province to:

(a)support the request for $52 million per year to adjust the shelter component of welfare to reflect local rents province-wide;

(b)support the request for $178 million a year for a new shelter allowance for working, low-income singles and families, province-wide; and

(c)support $32 million a year in Capital costs to develop new supportive housing;

(4)that the Task Force's Recommendation No. (101) concerning evictions, as it pertains to High-rise and multi-residential buildings, be referred to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes with a request that the Committee work with staff and the public to review the City's eviction prevention strategy and the impact of the new provincial legislation concerning evictions;

(5)that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes be requested to meet with the Board of the Toronto Housing Company to discuss its eviction policies and practices;

(6)that the Mayor be requested to present a report card directly to City Council every six months, commencing at the April, 1999, meeting of Toronto City Council, as to:

(a)the status of homelessness in Toronto; and

(b)what action has been taken by the City of Toronto and the Federal and Provincial Government to alleviate the problem;

(7)that the City of Toronto request the Provincial Government to assist communities outside of the City of Toronto to provide appropriate programming to deal with homelessness in their respective cities.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)referred the following motion to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

Moved by Councillor Layton:

"That the Chief Administrative Officer's report (February 17, 1999) be amended to provide for support of the full funding of the rent bank proposed by the Task Force, raising the proposed funding from the Chief Administrative Officer's recommended funding of $200,000.00 to $500,000.00.";

(2)requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report directly to Council, for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 2, 1999, on public expectations as it relates to the visibility of panhandling and homelessness on the streets and whether this expectation can be met by the implementation of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force report;

(3)requested the Medical Officer of Health and other appropriate staff to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, on extending the provisions/powers contained in the "Extreme Weather Alert" year round; and

(4)requested the appropriate staff to report on how social/street workers other than the police could be given the authority to relocate homeless persons to a safe housing alternative; and on how this could be implemented and funded.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (February 17, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To provide an overview of policy directions and preliminary analysis of financial implications for the City of Toronto arising from recommendations of the final report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, "Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An Action Plan for the City of Toronto."

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A total of $6.8 million from the National Child Benefit Savings, if approved by Council, will be used to provide first and last months rent and other support for families with children on social assistance. The City is currently negotiating with the Province for an amount of up to $6.9 million which represents full 80 percent cost-sharing on Toronto's hostels. Currently, Toronto receives only about 73 percent due to the higher per diems paid to hostel operators in the city. Consideration should be given to redirect these savings to diversion and prevention programs such as hostel follow-up program, to develop a feasibility plan prior to the establishment of a Homeless Services Information Line and to conduct a comprehensive health and safety audit of the drop-in sector. Funding for the rent bank and community economic development initiatives are included in the 1999 budget.

In terms of capital costs, the City has established a $10.9 million Capital Revolving Fund to be used to promote the development of new affordable rental housing.

It is recommended that Provincial funding be sought for a $1.5 million (annual) capital replacement fund for emergency shelters, the expansion of the current Health and Safety grants program for drop-in capital expenditures and for $14 million in funding to add 1,000 supportive housing units each year for the next five years in Toronto.

It is recommended that the City urge the Federal Government to establish a $300 million capital support fund for new low-income rental housing development. In addition, funding of at least $150,000.00 will be sought from Human Resources and Development Canada for implementation of the Homeless Services Information System.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council endorse, in principle, the general directions outlined in the final report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, "Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An Action Plan for the City of Toronto";

(2)in recognition of the need for all three levels of government to be involved in responding to the homeless crisis, the Mayor convene a meeting with officials of the Provincial and Federal governments to determine the appropriate resources and structure required to coordinate a tri-level action plan;

(3)in order to exercise a leadership role, as recommended by the Task Force, and to ensure the City of Toronto is best able to utilize the policy and planning tools available to it to respond to the homeless crisis, Council direct the following Commissioners to submit their respective reports to their representative standing committees by April 1999:

(a)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to Urban Environment and Development Committee on recommendations contained in the Homelessness Action Task Force report relating to the housing policies of the Official Plan including second suites, rooming houses, main streets development, density incentives and inclusionary zoning;

(b)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report to Community and Neighbourhood Services on recommendations contained in the Homelessness Action Task Force report relating to service coordination and planning, emergency shelter, social assistance, health and mental health, housing help, supportive and affordable housing, aboriginal peoples and immigrants and refugees;

(c)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Service, in consultation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report to Corporate Services Committee, on recommendations contained in the Homelessness Action Task Force report relating to land management issues and a "housing first" policy for the City of Toronto; and

(d)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in her review of the City's development charges by-law, in consultation with Urban Planning and Development Services, to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on recommendations contained in the Homelessness Action Task Force report relating to development charges;

(4)once the detailed policy reviews, described in Recommendation No. (3), have been brought forward to the standing committees, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, report to the Budget Committee with a detailed financial analysis of the implications of the recommendations from the policy reviews for the City's operating and capital budgets;

(5)in recognition of the need for all three levels of government to take ownership of the problem of homelessness and responsibility for solving it, Council encourage the involvement of the other levels of government in areas that fall within their jurisdictions by:

(a)urging the Federal Government to establish a $300 million capital support fund in recognition of the critical need for this type of financing assistance to encourage the development of new low-income rental housing;

(b)seeking funding support from Human Resources and Development Canada to implement the Homeless Services Information Line consistent with their expression of interest in projects which enhance community access to existing supports and services, in particular community information;

(c)seeking approval from the Province to fund Toronto hostels at the full 80 percent level resulting in savings of up to $6.9 million for 1999 for the City;

(d)urging the Province to establish a $1.5 million (annual) capital replacement fund for emergency shelters in the City of Toronto;

(e)urging the Province to expand the criteria for health and safety grants to include all capital expenditures, including food preparation equipment, and to dedicate an additional $400,000.00 specifically for the drop-in sector, for 1999 to respond to the most pressing needs of drop-ins as identified through the City's facilities audit; and

(f)again urging the Province to fund all supportive housing units, including those in mixed social housing portfolios, in recognition of provincial responsibility for this type of housing;

(6)contingent upon provincial commitment to fund Toronto hostels at the full 80 percent, Council consider reinvesting the resulting savings to the Shelter, Housing and Support Division budget into diversion and prevention strategies which would include, but not be limited to:

(a)a hostel follow-up program to assist people to leave the hostel system and to maintain housing to reduce recidivism;

(b)a comprehensive service audit of the community-based social service sector to determine the scope and capacity of the service system to be involved in a Homeless Services Information System; and

(c)a comprehensive health and safety audit of the drop-in sector to identify capital cost requirements to bring them to code;

(7)pending the final evaluation of the City's $50,000.00 rent bank pilot project, consideration be given to increasing the fund to $200,000.00 as part of the 1999 allocations of the Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund;

(8)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be authorized to receive and administer a $50,000.00 grant from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to organize a national symposium on homelessness in March 1999; and

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

Background:

In January 1998, the Mayor created the Homelessness Action Task Force in response to public concern about the growth of homelessness in Toronto. The four member task force included Elizabeth Greaves, William Currie, John Latimer and Anne Golden (Chairperson).

The Task Force had a mandate to develop both short-term proposals for emergency services and long-term solutions for health and mental health services, housing support, housing supply and housing affordability. Each area was to include an analysis of the problem, a review of existing programs, an identification of service gaps, recommended changes, a definition of roles and responsibilities for each level of government and of the private and community-based sector. The homeless population included not only the "visible" homeless evident on the streets or in our hostels, but also the "hidden" homeless, people who live in illegal or temporary housing; and those at significant risk of becoming homeless.

On January 14, 1999, the Task Force presented the Mayor with its final report entitled "Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An Action Plan for the City of Toronto." The Mayor requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services Department to prepare an action oriented response to this report within 60 days. As the recommendations contained in the report have implications for several of the City's departments, an inter-departmental team has been established, co-ordinated by the Shelter, Housing and Support Division of Community and Neighbourhood Services Department.

This report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee provides a brief overview of the key policy directions outlined in the Task Force report. The main purpose is to provide a preliminary analysis of main financial implications for the City resulting from the Task Force recommendations. Financing options are discussed within the context of a two to three year implementation plan.

A detailed analysis of the Task Force report is underway. Separate reports on the policy and financial implications of the Task Force recommendations will be submitted to the relevant standing committee during March and early April. The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services department will report to Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on the recommendations relating to service coordination and planning, emergency shelter, social assistance, health and mental health, supportive and affordable housing, aboriginal peoples and immigrants and refugees. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services will report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on recommendations relating to the housing policies of the Official Plan including second suites, rooming houses, main streets development, density incentives and inclusionary zoning. The Commissioners of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Corporate Services will jointly report to Corporate Services Committee on land management issues and a "housing first" policy for the City. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will report to the Budget Committee with a detailed financial analysis of the recommendations and to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the development charges issue.

A comprehensive report consolidating the feedback from the standing committees and the February 23, 1999, Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee will then be submitted to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in the Spring.

The Commissioners of Community and Neighbourhood Services, Urban Planning and Development Services, Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer, were consulted in the preparation of this report and concur with the recommendations.

Overview of the Task Force Report:

The Task Force report contains 105 recommendations directed to all levels of government and the community-based service sector (see Appendix D for a list of these recommendations).

Barriers to Solving the Homeless Crisis:

The Task Force identified six barriers to solving the problem of homelessness:

(1) growing poverty;

(2) a shrinking supply of affordable housing;

(3)a service system that is biased to short-term emergency assistance rather than long-term solutions;

(4)jurisdictional gridlock where different levels of government and government departments squabble over areas of responsibility;

(5)inadequate supports for people with serious mental illness and addictions problem; and

(6)no capacity for service co-ordination or capacity to address the different needs of the different sub-groups of the homeless population.

The Task Force Action Plan to Address Homelessness:

To overcome the barriers, as described above, the Task Force recommends changes on several fronts. The Task Force proposes that the shelter component of social assistance be adjusted to reflect local market conditions. Because rents in Toronto are so high, many social assistance recipients use all of the shelter component and part of their basic needs allowance to pay rent, often resulting in food bank usage, loss of their housing or simply going without. Setting the shelter component of social assistance at 85 percent of median market rents would put social assistance recipients in Toronto on an equal footing with those in other areas of the province and in a better position to secure an affordable unit. At the same time the Task Force proposes establishing a shelter allowance program for the working poor. This program would supplement the income of very low income people who pay more than 50 percent of their income on rent, thereby enabling them to keep their housing.

The Task Force proposes the creation of 5,000 additional supportive housing units (i.e. housing with supports) in Toronto, to meet the needs of homeless people suffering from mental illness and/or addictions. These units should be built over five years with an additional 8,500 units built throughout the rest of the province. At the same time, the Task Force proposes a City-initiated housing development strategy to increase the supply of affordable rental housing by 2,000 units a year. The recommendations call for a layered approach since no single mechanism can bring rents down to affordable levels. Governments are asked to subsidize land costs, waive certain fees, development charges and taxes, modify property taxes, provide rent supplements and assist with mortgage insurance, and capital grants. At the same time, extensive efforts should be placed on preserving existing housing, placing controls on demolition and conversion of affordable apartments and legalizing second suites and rooming houses in selected areas under certain conditions.

At the service level, the Task Force proposes that service planning be organized around three sub-groups: youth, families and singles in order to address the different needs. By bringing together all the services that affect a particular group, agencies would be able to plan effectively and co-ordinate their efforts. The Task Force recommends the establishment of a Homeless Services Information System to provide a comprehensive database on social, health and housing services for homeless people, as well as a central hostels bed registry.

In addition, there are a number of recommendations aimed at preventing homelessness. These include: a rent bank to help people in short-term arrears; more systematic housing help services and one-on-one support to help people move from shelters to stable housing; and to keep people housed. Institutions should establish discharge policies to ensure no-one is discharged from an institution to the street or to a hostel without prior arrangement and follow-up.

The Task Force outlines a comprehensive health strategy to address the health and mental health needs of the homeless population. A number of recommendations address ways to remove barriers to accessing comprehensive health care. The Task Force also suggests that the Ministry of Health combine its community health and community mental health funding for homeless people into one single Homelessness Health Fund to enable systematic priority setting and efficient utilization of existing resources.

While emphasizing long-term solutions and prevention, the Task Force recognizes that some measures are required to reduce street homelessness. They suggest a number of improvements to hostel conditions aimed at inducing more people to come in off the streets. In addition, they recommend establishing harm reduction facilities which accept the use of drugs and alcohol on site (under controlled conditions) to help the "hardest to serve" population, often people with both mental illness and addictions, obtain the help they need to get off the streets.

Government Roles and Responsibilities:

The Task Force emphasizes that all levels of government have a role to play and each must take its share of responsibility. Because homelessness is tied to issues of housing, health, welfare, education, employment and community services, and straddles all levels of government and geographic boundaries, no-one is currently "in charge". To address this, the Task Force is recommending the appointment of a Facilitator for Action on Homelessness to address jurisdictional issues, work with all levels of government and overcome barriers to change.

As discussed, the Task Force identifies jurisdictional squabbling as a key barrier to solving the homeless crisis thus far. In an effort to disentangle who does what, the Task Force articulates clear roles and responsibilities for each level of government.

The Federal Government is charged with renewing its commitment in the area of social housing by financing the construction of new affordable housing and the rehabilitation of existing affordable housing. In addition, the Federal Government is asked to finance projects which prevent and reduce homelessness among Aboriginal people and immigrants and refugees, groups for which the federal government has primary responsibility.

As the Province is responsible for health and income maintenance, the Task Force recommends that the Province adjust the shelter component of welfare to reflect local rents, establish a new shelter allowance program for the working poor, fund supportive housing and treatment programs and, continue to enhance access to health care for homeless people.

The City of Toronto is charged with the responsibility to plan and manage local homeless programs. In addition, the City is called upon to use the existing planning tools at its disposal and to seek additional powers to provide a framework for the development and preservation of affordable housing, encouraging the involvement of all levels of government.

The Greater Toronto Services Board is given the task of ensuring the equitable distribution of affordable housing, supports and services throughout the GTA.

Discussion:

The key directions proposed by the Task Force emphasize the need to move from short-term emergency responses to prevention and long-term solutions. The Task Force report also stresses the need for concerted effort and commitment from all levels of government and the community. These approaches provide a sensible framework to guide government action. Its recommended that Council endorse, in principle, the general directions outlined in the final report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force.

The City's Role in Responding to the Task Force Recommendations:

The City has a major role to play in facilitating affordable housing development both through new construction and preservation of existing stock. The City can be the catalyst for affordable housing development and establish a framework to seek specific resources from senior levels of government and the private sector. Consideration can be given to waiving development charges for affordable rental housing construction and make land available for low-cost housing development. At the same time, the City has a number of planning mechanisms at its disposal to preserve existing stock. These include restricting condominium conversions and demolitions, liberalizing policies related to the legalization of second suites and rooming houses under certain land use criteria, and utilizing the provisions of the Planning Act (section 37) addressing density incentives. In addition, the City as manager of a large number of social housing units, is in a position to leverage resources for regeneration and redevelopment of existing social housing stock from senior levels of government.

As planner, manager and funder of the City's hostels system as well as major funder of a range of community based services for the homeless population, the City is well positioned to play a leadership role in ensuring that the root causes of homelessness are addressed. This requires all levels of government to work together, in collaboration with private sector and community partners, to maximize limited resources and coordinate efforts.

The action plan proposed by the Task Force is premised on the belief that homelessness is solvable. Homelessness is an issue which reflects the social well being of our whole community. The choices made by each level of government in responding to this growing social problem will reflect its "vision" of a healthy and thriving community. The newly amalgamated City of Toronto is currently embarking on its own visioning exercise as part of its strategic planning process and therefore has an opportunity to affirm its commitment to addressing poverty and homelessness in our city. The importance of housing as a fundamental human need and as a key factor in maintaining a healthy community means it will also be included as a basic building block of the new Official Plan.

What the City is Currently Doing to Address Homelessness:

Where the City of Toronto has control it is already engaged in a number of initiatives that address the issue of homelessness. The municipality, through its Community and Neighbourhood Services Department and Urban Planning and Development Services Department plays a wide range of policy, planning, research, service delivery and funding roles. Support is provided for emergency shelter, day shelter, street health, public health, mental health, outreach, social assistance, community economic development, employment initiatives and transitional, supportive and long term housing initiatives. The majority of programs and services are targeted toward people who are already homeless, however, consistent with the approach recommended by the Task Force, the City has begun to channel some of its resources into prevention. (See Appendix A for a summary of the current municipal expenditures for homeless services).

Some recent City initiatives which correspond with a number of the Task Force recommendations include the following:

(a)approval by Council of a $10.9 million Capital Revolving Fund for housing development (using a social housing reserve fund established by the former City of Toronto);

(b)approval of a strategy to create affordable housing which capitalizes on the various "tools" available to the municipality, for example, making city-owned land available for demonstration projects;

(c)on February 8, 1999, the Urban Environment and Development Committee approved the report recommending control of condominium conversion and demolition of rental housing;

(d)the establishment of a special property tax class for new multi-residential rental housing. The tax rate for the new class will be set this Spring;

(e)a $155,000.00 eviction prevention program delivered through community-based services. The program includes a $50,000.00 rent bank for women with children, who were in arrears, paying market rent and at risk of eviction. In addition, funding was provided to establish an eviction information hotline, to strengthen local landlord/tenant education efforts and to increase tenant advocacy programs; and

(f)allocations for the new Provincial Homeless Initiatives Fund ($1.02 million, 100 percent funded by the Province) have been targeted to community agencies to support aboriginal programs, housing support for refugees, eviction prevention strategies, housing for chronic hostel users, skills development and community economic development strategies. These allocations are in accordance with the directions outlined in the Task Force action plan.

The Need for a Coordinated Response by all Levels of Government:

Although the City has initiated a number of strategies to address homelessness, it is clear from the growing number of people using our hostels, in particular families and youth, and the increasing number of people who are living rough on the streets, that much more needs to be done. The Task Force proposed that the City should take a leadership role in implementing the action plan and accordingly it recommended the City appoint a Facilitator for Action on Homelessness.

While the City is playing a leadership role in using the policy and planning resource available to it, it is essential to recognize that the key to successfully addressing the homeless crisis lies in the securing the involvement of the provincial and federal governments as well. In recognition of the need for all three levels of government to be involved in developing and implementing a coordinated response to the homeless crisis, it is recommended that the Mayor convene a meeting with officials of the provincial and federal governments to determine the resources and structure required to coordinate a tri-level action plan.

Key Policy Directions with Financial Implications for the City:

The following section discusses the key policy directions of the Task Force report which impact the City's budget. A preliminary financial analysis is included along with recommendations on how the City should respond identifying possible revenue sources.

(1)Co-ordinating the Service System:

The Task Force identifies the need for improved co-ordination and service planning in the homeless service sector in Toronto to ensure homeless people have access to available supports and services and to increase service efficiency.

(a)A Homeless Services Information System:

A 24-hour telephone Homeless Services Information line is recommended by the Task Force to provide a comprehensive database of social, health, and housing services along with a central bed registry. All agencies that serve homeless people, including hostels, drop-ins and hospitals would have on-line computer access to this information system.

The City should support this type of initiative as it could go a long way to ensuring homeless people have access to the resources available to them. There is an additional benefit for the City from a research and planning perspective to be able to access consolidated and current data.

Community Information Toronto currently operates a general information line and a street help line with partial funding from the City. The Task Force estimates an annual cost of $300,000.00 to operate the proposed information system. This amount is not budgeted for in the City's 1999 budget and therefore would need to be considered in the year 2000 consolidated Municipal Grants budget.

Prior to implementation, a comprehensive feasibility study should be conducted to determine the size and scope of the service system to be involved, the current capacity of agencies to interface with such a system and requirements for designing a new system or modifying the existing system. To implement this initiative, the City should seek funding support from Human Resources and Development Canada (HRDC) who have expressed interest in investing in projects which enhance community access to existing supports and services, in particular community information.

Funding for the estimated $50,000.00 needed to develop the feasibility plan should be considered under the anticipated savings to the Shelter, Housing and Support Division budget contingent upon approval by the Province to pay the full 80 percent of hostel costs to the City.

(b)Physical Upgrades for Hostels:

The Task Force recommends that the City establish a $2.5 million fund for hostel capital expenditures ($500,000.00 a year for five years). The fund would be used to upgrade hostel facilities to ensure they all provide a safe, clean environment with single beds not dormitory bunks, lockers and sufficient showers and toilets.

Capital upgrades are needed to avoid deterioration of hostel facilities as well as the possibility of operating dollars being redirected to support capital expenditures. However, it should be noted that changes such as eliminating bunk beds will reduce the capacity of the system. Current demands on the hostel system continue to rise resulting in pressures to expand the system, especially over the winter period. Significant numbers of supportive and affordable rental housing units are required to offset the demand for emergency shelter before hostels can begin to be downsized.

While most shelters are in fairly good shape, there is considerable variety in the quality of the physical facilities across the system. Significant funds are required to both maintain and upgrade these buildings and the City does not currently have a capital fund for this purpose. Hostel Services administers Health and Safety grants for the Province (the 1998 budget was $168,656.00). These grants are 100 percent provincial dollars. However, these funds are directed to support health and safety improvements for hostels and drop-in's and are not available for capital expenditures, other than for minor capital items such as fire safety, refrigeration equipment and accessibility.

Given the provincial role to date in providing some capital support, it is recommended that the City ask the Province to establish a capital replacement fund for emergency shelters. It is estimates that the funds required for this type of capital program are closer to $1.5 million annually.

(c)Physical Upgrades for Drop-in Centres:

The Task Force calls for the City to provide $300,000.00 (annual over 3 to 5 years) in capital funds for upgrading drop-in centres and $100,000.00 (annual over 3 to 5 years) for food preparation and equipment.

The City is aware of the range of health and safety issues in drop-ins both from a physical plant point of view and in terms of staff to client ratios and staff capacity. It is impossible to estimate the specific capital costs required to bring drop-ins to code and ensure fire, safety and public health standards are in effect. The City estimates that $50,000.00 is required to conduct a comprehensive facilities audit for the drop-in sector to identify capital cost requirements to bring them to code. Funding for the audit should be considered under the anticipated savings to the Shelter, Housing and Support Division budget contingent upon approval by the Province to pay the full 80 percent of hostel costs to the City.

While the Task Force recommends that the City absorb the costs for this capital funding, historically the Province has funded health and safety grants for this sector, as discussed above. It is therefore, recommended that the City ask the Province to expand the criteria for health and safety grants to include all capital expenditures and to dedicate an additional $400,000.00 to respond to the most pressing needs of drop-ins as identified by the City's audit. And further, in recognition of the important role drop-ins play in providing meals for people with low-incomes, it is recommended that funding for food preparation equipment also be available through this provincial fund.

   (2) A Focus on Prevention:

The Task Force urges the City to use its funds to encourage the shift from emergency response to prevention strategies. This direction was also reinforced in the report of the Provincial Task Force on Homelessness released in November 1998. The City agrees with this service shift away from a "crisis" response and has already begun to channel resources into prevention and long-term strategies. However, it is clear that more targeted action is needed to help people get out of the hostel system and into permanent housing, to help prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place and to help lever the development of rental housing to ensure people have appropriate and affordable housing to live in.

(a)A Shelter Allowance Program for the Working Poor:

The Task Force proposes the creation of a new shelter allowance program, targeted to working poor families as a first priority and to working adults if feasible. The aim of this program, which would require annual re-application, is to reduce the risk of homelessness and to ensure that the transition from welfare to employment does not increase the risk of homelessness. The program, as set out by the Task Force, should reduce the share of income low-income people spend on housing to between 35 and 40 percent from an unsustainable 50 percent or more. This recommendation is directed to the Province for full funding as shelter allowances are consistent with the articulated goals of the provincial government's "common sense revolution."

Implementation of this type of program would have no financial implications for the City and would make a significant difference for the working poor in terms of their ability to maintain their housing. Further review of this recommendation will be included in the detailed policy report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in March 1999.

(b)Increasing the Shelter Component of Social Assistance:

The Task Force documents an increase in both the incidence and depth of poverty in Toronto over the last decade. Their analysis clearly links this rise to labour market changes as well as to recent policy changes in the areas of social assistance such as the 22 percent reduction in benefits in 1996, changes in employment insurance and the lack of affordable housing. To address the critical issue of housing affordability from a prevention perspective, the Task Force recommends that the Province adjust the shelter component of social assistance to better reflect local market conditions thereby recognizing the differential housing costs across the province.

The maximum shelter component of social assistance, which is the same throughout the province, is too small to cover rents in Toronto, which are higher than elsewhere in the province. Raising the shelter component by an average of 20 percent as recommended by the Task Force would put social assistance recipients on equal footing with the rest of the province. At the same time, because the assistance would remain below median market rents people would still have an incentive to find housing below average cost.

Further review of this recommendation, along with associated financial implications for the City of Toronto, will be included in the detailed policy report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in March 1999.

(c)First and Last Month's Rent for Ontario Works Recipients:

The ability to pay a landlord first and last month's rent provides tenants a distinct advantage in the current housing market. In this regard, the Task Force recommends that the City provide rapid payment of first and last months rent.

Under the Ontario Works legislation, last months rent can be accessed once a year through Community Start Up Benefits (CSUB). These costs are covered under the current program and are included in the 1999 budget. These benefits are available for people leaving hostels or institutions or who are fleeing an abusive situation. It should be noted however that, even at the maximum benefit level, the Community Start Up Allowance rarely covers the cost of last month's rent for families due to the high cost of rental housing in Toronto.

At its February 11, 1999, meeting, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee adopted a report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services on options for the reinvestment of the National Child Benefit Savings. This report recommends the creation of a $6.8 million shelter fund which will provide more options for families who require financial assistance to secure, maintain or move to more affordable or suitable housing. The Task Force identifies families as one of the fastest growing group of homeless people in Toronto. This shelter fund will be a significant resource for preventing families from becoming homeless. It should be noted, however, that only families with children would be eligible for this fund. Extending this type of support for singles and couples would likely cost more than the $3 million cited by the Task Force.

(d)Housing Help at Welfare Offices:

The Task Force recommends that housing help services be provided at welfare offices by purchase-of-service contracts between Social Services and community-based agencies which provide housing help support. They estimate the annual cost for the City at $300,000.00. This direction is consistent with existing Social Services policy initiatives to use all available means to assist clients to find and maintain affordable and adequate housing. However, there is no mechanism to fund housing help services under the current legislation. Any funding for this purpose would be in addition to the 1999 base budget and would be subject to new service agreements with the Province.

The Shelter, Housing and Support Division will be allocating almost $350,000.00 in 1999 for community-based housing help services through the Provincial Homeless Initiatives Fund. This fund is 100 percent provincial dollars and was established by the Provincial Task Force on Homelessness in November 1998. While these community programs are not located in welfare offices they are targeted to people with low-incomes, many of whom are in receipt of social assistance. In an effort to explore the range of options, it is recommended that staff from the Social Services and Shelter, Housing and Support Divisions collaborate with agencies which provide housing-help support to determine the most appropriate mechanism for providing housing help to this population for the year 2000 and beyond.

(e)Hostel Follow-up Program:

The Task Force recommends that a percentage of all hostels budgets be used to purchase services from community agencies that help prepare people to leave hostels and provide follow-up support after they have left. This is in conjunction with a call for the Province to fund the full 80 percent of hostel costs.

The City of Toronto has an averaged per diem rate slightly above the provincial cap with the result that the Province funds only about 73 percent of the City's actual costs. Toronto provides per diems to some hostels which exceed the $34.50 provincial cap. This is in recognition of the need for support services over and above basic food and shelter. Toronto does not only see greater numbers of people who are homeless but also people with deeper needs. Therefore, additional programs are often required to assist people in resolving the issues which brought them to the hostel in the first place.

Requests have been made of the Province to provide full 80 percent cost-sharing on hostels. If an agreement is reached, the net savings to the City for 1998 are estimated at $6.9 million. It is recommended that consideration be given for these savings to be directed toward strategies which help people move out of the hostel system into appropriate housing as well as important follow up support to help people keep their housing. The Shelter, Housing and Support Division has already begun to make this shift but are limited in their response given the current budget constraints.

Hostel operators agree that follow up would make a tremendous difference in assisting people to maintain their housing. Because of the current high demand on the hostel system, staff are restricted in the time and support they can give. This kind of support would likely reduce recidivism and would therefore reduce the number of people who use hostels in a chronic way. This could make a significant difference in the long-term to the City's emergency shelter costs as the Task Force estimates that while only 17 percent of people staying in hostels are classified as "chronic" users, they use 46 percent of the hostel system resources. Some of these people have deeper needs and may require supportive or transitional housing. A hostel follow-up program would go a long way in assisting people with finding the best housing options available to them.

(f)A Rent Bank to Assist with Rental Arrears:

A number of eviction prevention strategies are proposed by the Task Force including a $500,000.00 rent bank.

In 1998, the City established a number of eviction prevention programs including a one-year $50,000.00 rent bank pilot project for women with children. In addition to providing loans for rental arrears, the rent bank project offers budgeting assistance and help with housing and social issues. Preliminary results indicate this program is successful in helping people with rental arrears avoid eviction.

Rather than increasing the fund ten-fold, as suggested by the Task Force, a multi-year, phase in approach may be more fiscally viable for the City. Pending the final evaluation of the rent bank pilot project in September 1999, it is recommended that consideration be given to increasing this fund to $200,000.00 as part of allocations under the Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund.

(g)Community Economic Development Initiatives:

The Task Force recommends that the City contribute $100,000.00 per year for three years to the newly established Productive Enterprises Fund. This $1.5 million fund was set up by the United Way with two other funding partners. Up to $500,000.00 is expected to be allocated annually across Toronto over the next three years for community economic development. Community economic development (CED) initiatives are business ventures initiated by a community group to create jobs for people with extremely low-incomes and social assistance recipients and are often targeted toward people who are consumers or survivors of the mental health system. This type of approach gives people more self-esteem and the ability to take more responsibility for their lives.

The City currently allocates about $150.000.00 for CED initiatives through its municipal grants programs. The City is reviewing its role with respect to CED initiatives and will be reporting out through the Municipal Grants Review Committee. An examination of the Task Force recommendation regarding the Productive Enterprises Fund will be done within the context of this review.

(3)Increasing Supportive Housing Units:

Supportive housing refers to housing plus support services to help the individual maintain their housing. Typically supportive housing is targeted for people with mental health problems, physical or developmental disabilities, HIV/AIDS, troubled youth, frail elderly, people with addictions and victims of family violence. A key recommendation of the Task Force is to increase the number of supportive housing units to address the needs of homeless people who require individual support and also in an effort to reduce the number chronic hostel users. This would have a significant impact on hostel use.

The Task Force estimates an annual provincial contribution of $14 million over five years for supportive housing in Toronto (to add 1,000 units per year). The Province downloaded its share of costs for social housing to municipalities beginning January 1, 1998. In July 1998, the Province then uploaded the cost of those supportive housing programs where 100 percent of units are dedicated to providing supportive housing. The City continues to fund supportive housing in mixed portfolios. In July 1998, Council communicated to the Province its position that providing housing for people who need support to live independently is a provincial concern and should be fully funded by the Province, which is consistent with the Task Force recommendations.

Municipal costs will be reduced if the Province agrees to "upload" the cost of supportive housing in mixed portfolios. These savings could then be used by the City to facilitate the development of additional affordable housing.

(4)The Development of an Affordable Housing Strategy:

Fundamental to the Task Force's action plan is the increased supply of affordable housing. Strategies aimed at preserving the existing stock are recommended along with strategies which lever the development of new housing. These strategies will not only benefit people who are currently homeless but also people who are at risk of becoming homeless. The Task Force report documents a sharp rise in the overall need for new affordable housing as low rent housing becomes more scarce while the numbers of households with low incomes are rising.

It costs more to build new rental housing than can be supported at market rents except at very high end rents. Investing municipal resources such as contributing city-owned land for housing development, waiving development charges and fees can be seen as ways to "lever" similar action by other levels of government to encourage private sector development. Many of the Task Force recommendations on housing are directed to the Province and the federal government who have considerably more resources to apply to housing development. However, the City is charged with taking a lead role not only in encouraging participation of other levels of government but also for promoting and supporting the development of affordable rental housing with the resources at its disposal.

(a)Developing New Affordable Housing:

In July 1998, the City approved and initiated a strategy for affordable housing to support private developers and community-based agencies to develop affordable housing. This and associated "housing demonstration projects" consist of many of the same components proposed in the Task Force action plan. In February 1999, Council approved a $10.9 million Capital Revolving Fund which answers the Task Force's call for a City "Homelessness Community Fund"for housing development.

The Task Force urges the City to develop a "housing first" policy for municipal lands while retaining long-term interest in such sites. This policy was adopted, in principle, by Council in July 1998. This is expected to have significant implications for the City in terms of foregone revenues (the Task Force estimates $3 million). The City could consider various levels of support in this regard as well as careful examination of what forms of housing development will be most cost-effective. The City is creating an interdepartmental Property Management Committee which could function as one forum for reviewing options pertaining to city-owned land for affordable housing.

The Task Force recommends that the City and its ABC's waive development charges, land use application fees, parks levies, hook-up fees and other charges for housing development that meets affordability criteria.

The City is in the process of creating a development charges by-law. The by-law will establish a set of charges against new development in the City. The charges are intended to fund improvements in the City's infrastructure needed to accommodate new development. As an incentive to promote the creation of new rental affordable housing, the by-law could contain provisions to exempt such housing from the payment of these charges. It is anticipated that the new development charges by-law will be tabled with the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in April 1999. Preliminary discussions have begun between Finance and other departments regarding affordable housing aspects. It is therefore recommended that the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on this issue to coincide with final consolidated report on the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force.

The Task Force emphasizes the critical role the federal government has to play with respect to the development of new affordable rental housing. Key to a viable and sustainable affordable housing strategy is the provision of capital support. Financing assistance helps to bridge the gap between the cost of building new housing and what would be an affordable rent. A capital support program is intended to eliminate the need for ongoing operating subsidies or direct involvement in the administration of housing programs. Construction of new affordable housing has virtually stopped since cancellation of the federal social housing program in 1993 and the provincial social housing program in 1995. The Task Force recommendations are not intended to repeat these programs which based on both capital and operating subsidies.

The Task Force recommends that the federal government provide up to $300 million in capital support for new low-income housing. Three mechanisms for contributing this capital support are identified including an infrastructure program, local housing foundations, and also tax incentives to stimulate contributions to eligible housing funds.

The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will provide a more thorough analysis of the role and structure of a federal capital fund in the report to Community and Neighbourhood Services in March 1999. However, the City should urge the federal government to establish such a fund as soon as possible in recognition of the critical role it has to play in levering the development of new affordable rental housing.

(b)Preserving the Existing Housing Supply:

In order to preserve the affordable housing that still exists, the Task Force proposes that the City adopt a goal of "no net loss" by placing controls on demolition and conversion of affordable apartments.

At its meeting of February 8, 1999, the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended that Council adopt new Official Plan policies and related by-laws regarding condominium conversion and demolition of rental housing. Additional authority is being sought from the Province in the area of demolition control.

The Task Force identifies several key planning mechanisms at the City's disposal aimed at preserving as well as increasing the affordable housing stock. Low vacancy levels and limited new affordable rental supply mean that more people are turning to second suites and rooming houses for permanent housing.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services will be reporting on proposals regarding the implementation of policies related to second suites and rooming houses. These two issues will require interdepartmental consultations owing to the complexity of issues involved, including: building standards, health issues, Fire Code issues and public consultation requirements.

The Task Force also recommends that the City urge the federal government to expand its Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program funding and further, extend this funding to rooming houses and second suites.

The federal government recently announced an additional $50 million in one-time funds for this program. Subject to confirmation from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it appears that Toronto will receive $6.5 million from this fund. Additional dollars may be forthcoming once an assessment of need for the rest of the province has been determined. The City will target these funds to rooming and boarding houses, high and low rise apartment buildings with affordable rents as well as some transitional housing projects for high risk groups. The Shelter, Housing and Support Division of Community and Neighbourhood Services is currently reviewing the RRAP program toward making decisions on how this federal program should be delivered at the municipal level.

(c)Rent Supplement for New Affordable Housing:

The Task Force recommends the use of rent supplements as one element of an overall supply strategy. The Task Force approach to affordable housing is first to reduce project costs to bridge the gap between a new project's break-even costs and actual market rents and then to use rent supplement to cover the gap between market and affordable rents.

Rent supplements represent an ongoing cost rather than a one-time capital cost. They are tied to a specific housing unit, are paid to the landlord and help with the cash flow and viability of a new rental project. Discussions among cities in the GTA are underway on the future costs and arrangements for the pooled social housing funding. The City is also urging and awaiting provincial decisions on the proposed reform of social housing programs to achieve "say for pay" and the related devolution to municipalities of housing program administration and of responsibility for housing authorities including MTHA.

This is not a 1999 budget issue as any new housing that may come on-stream would not be completed and receiving rent supplement during 1999. While the Task Force identifies rent supplement as a municipal cost, it also identifies several sources of federal and provincial money to cover these costs which could mean negligible net costs for the City in the short term. These options will be discussed in more detail in the policy report on the Task Force recommendations to Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in March 1999. In addition, the issue of rent supplements funded 100 percent by the municipal tax base need to be considered as part of a larger discussion on cost-sharing arrangements with the Province and within the GTA. This review will be undertaken by the Shelter, Housing and Support Division as part of a system redesign process.

Financial Impact on the City as Estimated by the Task Force:

The Task Force estimates the financial costs to the City of Toronto to implement the recommendations directed at the municipality. The Task Force provided general estimates only and did not fully explore the range of possibilities for these costs to be covered off through provincial or federal funds. Therefore, City staff are in a better position to do more refined estimates and to identify alternate sources of funding. The Task Force estimates that implementation of these recommendations would result in additional annual operating costs of $18.3 million for the City (see Appendix B). This amount would be offset by an estimated $3 million if current negotiations with the Province result in a full cost-share of hostels at 80:20 percent. The City has an averaged per diem rate slightly above the provincial cap with the result that the Province funds only about 73 percent of the City's actual costs.

Capital costs to the City for the first year of a five year implementation plan are estimated by the Task Force to be $10.9 million, of which $10 million is attributed to a City "Homelessness Community Fund" for affordable rental housing development.

City Financing for Implementation of the Recommendations:

Implementation of the strategies as recommended by the City in this report are expected to unfold over a two to three year period. The City is already taking action on a number of fronts. Appendix A describes the municipal expenditures for homeless services for 1998 and 1999. Due to the increased numbers of people needing emergency shelter, there is a 17 percent increase to the City's gross expenditures for 1999 and a 33 percent increase in net expenditures. The higher net amount reflects the higher hostel per diem rates in Toronto which are, on average, above the provincial cap with the result that the Province funds only about 73 percent of the City's actual costs. Requests have been made of the Province to provide full 80:20 percent cost-sharing with the City. If an agreement is reached, the net savings to the City's 1999 operating budget for hostel services could be $6.9 million (this amount represents the reimbursement for the additional costs paid by the City for 1998).

The City has realized a 45 percent increase in the amount of grants available to community-based homeless service providers. This is due to the establishment of the new Provincial Homeless Initiatives Fund in late 1998 as recommended by the Provincial Task Force on Homelessness. Toronto's share of this fund is $1.02 million annually. These funds are currently being allocated and are targeted to aboriginal programs, housing support for refugees, eviction prevention strategies, housing for chronic hostel users, skills development and community economic development strategies. These allocations are in accordance with the directions outlined in the Task Force action plan.

(a)Funding for City Recommendations Impacting upon the 1999 Operating Budget:

Costs for two of the City recommendations are already covered in the 1999 operating budget, including $200,000.00 in funding for the rent bank and $150,000.00 for community economic development initiatives. The issue of a rent supplement program and purchasing housing help services for welfare offices have been deferred for review by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services as part of the detailed policy review to Community and Neighbourhood Services in March.

The proposed shelter fund using the National Child Benefit Savings will total $6.8 million and, if approved by Council, it will be used to provide first and last months rent and other support to help people maintain their housing. However, only families with children can access this fund. Some of this support is available for singles and couples under the Community Start Up Allowance program through Ontario Works but the eligibility criteria is restricted. Extending funding for first and last months rent beyond what is now available would likely exceed the $3 million estimated by the Task Force.

It is recommended that consideration be given to use the savings to the Hostel Services budget to provide funding for the hostel follow up program and to conduct a feasibility study prior to the establishment of a Homeless Services Information Line and for a facilities audit of the drop-in sector.

(b)Funding for City Recommendations Impacting upon the 1999 Capital Budget:

In terms of capital costs to promote the development of new affordable housing, Council has established a $10.9 million Capital Revolving Fund. These funds were carried forward from a social housing reserve fund established by the former City of Toronto. This fund answers the call from the Task Force for a City "Homelessness Community Fund" to support the development of new affordable housing.

(c)Foregone Municipal Revenues:

In addition to operating and capital costs for the City, the Task Force estimates the City will forfeit potential revenue by providing land for affordable housing, reducing the effective tax rate for new multi-unit residential properties and waiving development charges, parks, levies, planning and other fees to permit the creation of affordable housing.

The cost of providing city-owned land for housing was estimated at $3 million by the Task Force (based on the portion of new housing supply that would be supported by donations of city-owned land). The City is creating an interdepartmental Property Management Committee which could function as one forum for reviewing options pertaining to city-owned land for affordable housing.

With respect to development charges, Finance staff are currently conducting a comprehensive review of the City's development charges by-law. The by-law is expected to be introduced for Council consideration in the Spring of 1999. The financial impact on the City of providing an exemption from the payment of development charges to affordable housing projects will be assessed as part of that review.

The Task Force also recommends that the City waive a variety of other development related charges and fees in order to provide financial incentive for the creation of affordable rental housing. These would typically include planning application fees, parks levies, hookup fees, building permit charges and other development related charges. These levies are based upon a variety of factors including size and construction value of the project, value of land to be developed, type of planning approval required and other site specific considerations. Financial implications for the City of waiving these charges and fees will be included as part of the detailed policy review of the Homelessness Action Task Force report by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in March 1999.

(d)Funding Priorities for the City for the Year 2000:

Some preliminary items for consideration in the year 2000 City operating budget include: $300,000.00 to $500,000.00 for the operation of a Homeless Services Information Line and a total of $200,000.00 for the expansion of the City's rent bank to be considered as part of allocations from the Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund. Additional items will be discussed in more detail in the policy reports going forward to the standing committees in March 1999.

(e)Areas for Provincial Funding:

As discussed, the City has asked the Province to provide funding for Toronto's hostels at the full 80:20 cost-share level. Success in these negotiations has the potential of recovering $6.9 million in savings for hostel costs to the City in 1998.

In terms of capital funding, it is in the City's best interests to urge the provincial government to implement the following programs: a $1.5 million (annual) capital replacement fund for emergency shelters; the expansion of the current Health and Safety grants program by $400,000.00 to address priority capital expenditures, including food preparation equipment, for drop-in centres; and, to provide $14 million in funding to add 1,000 supportive housing units each year for the next five years in Toronto.

(f)Areas for Federal Funding:

The City should urge the federal government to establish a $300 million capital fund in recognition of the critical need for this type of financing assistance to encourage the development of new low-income housing, as recommended by the Task Force.

The City should also seek funding for at least $150,000.00 from Human Resources and Development Canada who have demonstrated an interest in funding community-base information systems such as the proposed Homeless Services Information System.

Potential Long-Term Savings for the City:

While estimates have not been calculated, it is clear that considerable savings for the City would result from the implementation of the Task Force recommendations. Investing resources into strategies which prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place can only result in long-savings to the City in terms of reduced hostel use and potentially lower welfare caseloads.

Homelessness is an issue that has immeasurable human costs, both for the individual experiencing homelessness and for the rest of our community. Until serious action is taken to solve this growing crisis in this city these human costs will continue to rise.

National Homelessness Symposium:

The City, with funding support from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is co-hosting, with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, a national symposium on homelessness in the Spring of 1999. The symposium will provide an opportunity for community representatives, the private sector and all levels of government to come together to strategize about solutions to the national homeless crisis building on the work of the Homelessness Action Task Force and local initiatives in other cities.

Conclusions:

The report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, "Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An Action Plan for the City of Toronto" provides a clear blueprint for action for the City to respond to the growing problem of homelessness at a time when public and political momentum is high to find viable and sustainable solutions.

The Task Force emphasizes that all levels of government have a role to play and each must take its share of the responsibility for solving the current homeless crisis. Homelessness is tied to issues of housing, health, welfare, education, employment and community services, and straddles all levels of government. The City of Toronto is charged with taking a leadership role, utilizing the planning and policy tools at its disposal to resolve homelessness in this city. However, the City cannot solve this problem alone. The provincial and federal governments must be involved in order to address the root causes of homelessness.

This report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee is the first step in the City's review of the Task Force action plan. A detailed analysis of the policy and financial implications will be reported on through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, the Urban Environment and Development Committee, the Corporate Services Committee and the Budget Committee in March and early April.

A comprehensive report consolidating the feedback from each committee will then be brought forward to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in the Spring.

Contact Names:

Shirley Hoy, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, phone: 392-8302

Virginia West, Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, phone: 392-8793

Margaret Rodrigues, Commissioner of Corporate Services, phone: 397-4000

Wanda Liczyk, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, phone: 395-6700

--------

Appendix A

Municipal Operating Expenditures for Homeless Services

    City Budget 1998 City Budget 1999

 Expenditure Gross

(million)

Revenue

(million)

Net

(million)

Gross

(million)

% incr Revenue

(million)

Net

(million)

%

incr

 Emergency Shelter $59,189,000 $43,098, 000

(province)

$16,091,000 $69,057,000  17 $47,655,000

(province)

$21,402,000 33
Grants to Homeless Services $ 2,200,000 $0.00 $2,200,000 $ 3,202,000 46 $1,002,000

(province)

$2,200,000 0
TOTALS $61,318,756 $43,098, 000 $18,291,000 $72,259,000 18 $48,657,000 $23,602,000 29

 Municipal Capital Expenditures for Homeless Services

    City Budget 1998 City Budget 1999

 Expenditure Gross Revenue

 Net Gross %

incr

Revenue

 Net %

incr

 Capital Revolving Fund          $10,900,000 n/a $0.00 $10,900,000 n/a
Provincial Health and Safety Grants $ 168,656 $ 168,656

(province)

$0.00       not determined yet     
 Residential Rehab

Assistance Program

$1,150,100

(federal grants)

      $7,966,400

(federal grants) *

          
 TOTALS $1,318,756 $ 168,656 $ 0.00 $18,866,400       $10,900,000  

 * This number includes an estimated $6.5 million in one-time only additional RRAP funds for 1999 and $1,466,400.00 in regular RRAP grants for the former City of Toronto area.

 --------

Appendix B

Recommendations which impact upon City of Toronto Operating Budget

 Task Force Recommendations City Response Recommendations

 Task ForceRec No. Description of

Recommendation

Task Force Estimates of Costs to City City Estimates of Cost for 1999 City Estimates of Cost for 2000 Comments

 1 Appoint a Facilitator for Action on Homelessness $600,000

(for 5 years)

to be determined to be determined Pending outcome of meeting with Federal and Provincial governments on resources/structure required
7 Hostel follow up program (to help people out of hostels, to maintain housing and to reduce recidivism)  Funding from redirected savings estimated by Task Force at $3 million $2.2 million

(phase in) *

$4.4 million

(annualized)

To be funded with redirected savings if Province agrees to fund 80 percent of hostel costs
37 Adjustment of Ontario Works GTA shelter component set to median rents $6.5 million

(net)

undetermined  undetermined dependent upon case load and contingent upon Provincial approval to adjust benefit levels
40 Rent Bank $500,000 $200,000

in current budget

$200,000 (+)

in current budget

Funding from City Homeless Initiatives Fund and Provincial (100 percent) Homeless Initiatives Fund
42 Purchase of Service housing help at welfare offices $300,000 To be determined To be determined Subject to program funding of 80:20 or administration funding of 50:50 with Province.
45 First and last months rent for Ontario Works recipients who move  $3 million  $6.5 million

shelter fund for families with children

$6.5 million

shelter fund for families with children

Fund through reinvested National Child Benefit Savings
50 Community Economic Development programs

(annual for 3 years)

$100,000 $150,000

in current budget

$150,000

in current budget

Currently in municipal grants budget. City role in CED under review
88 Additional rent supplement (100 percent municipal dollars, average cost -1 to 3 yrs) $7 million undetermined undetermined Under review

*It is recommended that funding for this program be considered under potential savings for the City's Shelter, Housing and Support Division budget of $6.9 million if the Province agrees to provide Toronto with full 80 percent funding. The City has an averaged per diem rate slightly above the provincial cap with the result that the Province only funds about 73 percent of the City's actual costs.

Appendix C

Recommendations which impact upon City of Toronto Capital Budget

 Task Force Recommendations to City City Response to Recommendations

 Task ForceRec No. Task Force

Recommendation

Task Force Estimates to City for 1999 City Estimates of Cost for 1999 City Estimates of Cost for 2000 Comments

 4 and 5 24-hour Homeless Service Info System and bed registry with access by all service providers $300,000

(operating costs)

$50,000 *

for feasibility plan prior to implementation

 $300,000 - $500,000

(operating costs)

City to seek funding from Human Resources and Development Canada for development and implementation
8 Upgrade hostels $500,000

(annual for

5 years)

to be determined to be determined City recommends Province establish capital fund
11

   

 Health and safety upgrades in drop-ins

  

$300,000

(annual over 3 - 5 years)

$50,000 *

for facilities audit

to be determined City recommends Province establish capital fund.

A facilities audit is needed to assess need in the sector.

13 Food equipment for drop-ins $100,000

(annual over 3 - 5 years)

to be determined to be determined City recommends Province establish capital fund
77 City "Homelessness Community Fund" $10 million $10.9 million

in current budget

undetermined Represents the City's Capital Revolving Fund approved by Council in February 1999

*It is recommended that funding for these initiatives be considered under potential savings for the City's Shelter, Housing and Support Division budget of $6.9 million if the Province agrees to provide Toronto with full 80 percent funding. The City has an averaged per diem rate slightly above the provincial cap with the result that the Province only funds about 73 percent of the City's actual costs.

--------

       Appendix D

"Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An Action Plan for Toronto"

A report by the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force

List of Recommendations

(1)Appoint a Facilitator for Action on Homelessness for a five-year term who will report to the Mayor and Council.

(2)The Facilitator's primary mandate should be to ensure implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force. The Facilitator should establish priorities, define action plans, and track progress on implementation. The Facilitator should proceed by way of projects to create systems change; second staff as required; seek incentive funding to leverage cooperative action; and make recommendations to improve planning and service delivery where appropriate.

(3)The Facilitator for Action on Homelessness should report regularly to City Council on progress in preventing and reducing homelessness and communicate in a clear and timely way with various stakeholder groups. The Facilitator should produce an annual report card that would gauge the performance of the City and all its partners in preventing and reducing homelessness and in dealing with the needs of people who become homeless.

(4)Establish a 24-hour Homeless Services Information System comprising a database and a Homeless Services Information Telephone Line that would include the existing Street Helpline. All staff in agencies that serve the homeless population (including hostels, drop-ins, and hospitals) should have access to the database through computers housed in each agency.

(5)Community Information Toronto, in collaboration with hostel operators, should establish a central hostels bed registry to provide up-to-date information on hostel bed availability on a 24-hour basis.

(6)Resources should be redirected from providing hostel spaces to helping people find and maintain permanent housing, on condition that a sufficient new supply of supportive and low-cost housing is created. This shift should be phased in by reducing the number of hostel spaces by 10 percent each year until the total is reduced to half the base number.

(7)Provincial cost-sharing for hostels should reflect the actual costs in Toronto. A percentage of all hostels' budgets should be allocated to purchasing services from community agencies to provide additional specialized supports for those who are preparing to leave and those who need follow-up after leaving the hostel.

(8)The City should upgrade hostels to ensure that they all provide a safe, clean environment with single beds (no dormitory bunks), lockers, and sufficient showers and toilets. Standards in temporary shelters should also be upgraded. All emergency hostels should implement a clear appeals process for people who have been "barred."

(9)The City should require hostels to establish a written "community partners policy" within six months to formalize links with agencies and institutions that currently or potentially provide services to their users to prepare them to move out of hostels. The City's Shelter, Housing, and Support Division should provide clear guidance in developing these policy statements.

(10)The drop-in sector should be rationalized. All drop-ins should provide core services (basic needs, crisis intervention, information and referral, personal supports, and basic recreation). Vital ancillary services (health care, financial and legal counselling, and community economic development) should be provided across the sector. Drop-ins need stable, core funding and key funders (the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario, and United Way) need to collaborate. The City of Toronto should take the lead in implementing this initiative.

(11)The health and safety standards of drop-ins should be improved to include ventilated smoking rooms. City by-laws, which enable City staff to regularly inspect and maintain standards of hygiene, nutrition, and sanitation, should be applied to drop-ins to improve the health and safety standards for users and staff. Funders should also determine appropriate staff-to-client ratios for drop-ins. Capital costs to bring these facilities up to standard should be covered by the City.

(12)The principle of self-help should be promoted throughout the hostel and drop-in system by having service users assist in service operations on both a paid and unpaid basis.

(13)The City of Toronto and voluntary sector funders like United Way should provide supplementary funds for drop-ins to purchase and/or prepare nutritious food. They should also create a small pool of funds for physical upgrading of kitchens and equipment.

(14)As a long-term strategy, family hostels should be equitably distributed throughout the City.

(15)Reception and support programs should be established in Scarborough schools that serve the children of homeless families to enable these children to get the support they need with minimal disruption to the rest of the student body.

(16)Treatment programs should be available specifically for young parents with substance abuse problems. Such programs should include outreach services and childcare support.

(17)Dedicated supportive housing with appropriate supports should be established for young homeless mothers.

(18)The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health should partner with the new Satellite youth shelter in North York to develop and implement a harm reduction approach to serve youth with drug and alcohol addictions.

(19)The City should establish partnerships between youth shelters and landlords (including the City Housing Company) to create additional housing units for youth. The youth shelters would place their clients in designated units and provide transitional support services so that the youth can maintain stable housing and then remain in the units after they no longer need services.

(20)The Province should provide capital renovation funds for the Extended Youth Shelter Project at 11 Ordnance Street.

(21)The Ministry of Community and Social Services should reinstate funding for transitional housing supports for abused women and their children.

(22)Community-based agencies should be provided with sufficient resources to provide supports to abused women and children staying in the general hostel system. Hostels should make connections with these agencies through the new community partners policy.

(23)Additional supportive housing units, with special safety features, should be designated for abused women and their children.

(24)Establish a new Aboriginal shelter by expanding and strengthening Council Fire's operations so that it can operate its shelter year round.

(25)The federal government should carry responsibility for funding housing and supports to the Aboriginal homeless population in partnership with the provincial government.

(26)A supportive housing pilot project should be established in a suburban area of the City specifically for the Aboriginal population in Toronto. The capital costs should be covered by the federal government. Support services should be attached to appropriate Aboriginal-specific service providers. This project should establish formal linkages to the healing lodge recommended below.

(27)The Li'l Beavers/Eagles prevention program for Aboriginal children and youth, operated by Native Friendship Centres, should be reinstated by the Province.

(28)The federal government should establish an Urban Multi-Purpose Aboriginal Youth Centre in Toronto in cooperation with the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, Council Fire, and other Aboriginal agencies.

(29)The Facilitator for Action on Homelessness should, as one of his or her special projects, create an Aboriginal Steering Committee to provide ongoing advice on an implementation plan to prevent and reduce Aboriginal homelessness and monitor and evaluate the results.

(30)An Aboriginal clinical detox centre, funded by the Ministry of Health, should be established, building upon the efforts of Anishnawbe Health and Pedahbun Lodge.

(31)Establish a rural-based healing lodge near Toronto to provide opportunities for healing and self-development of the Aboriginal homeless population in Toronto. This model should be similar to existing Aboriginal healing lodges in Ontario but with a focus on the homeless population.

(32)A focused strategy should be established for increasing training and job opportunities for Aboriginal youth based on a transitional housing model in which residents work to upgrade their skills and prepare for independent living. It should be led by Native Child and Family Services in collaboration with Nishnawbe Homes and the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto and other youth service providers.

(33)Expand the Biindgd Breakfast Club model.

(34)The federal government should provide the same orientation to refugee claimants on arrival to Canada as to government-sponsored refugees. Refugee claimants should be able to access settlement services including language orientation and help in finding housing.

(35)The federal government should provide the capital costs for an additional shelter for refugees. This shelter should have on-site settlement staff. Regular operating funds for this hostel should come from the provincial government and the municipality on an 80:20 basis.

(36)The federal government should work directly with the City of Toronto to address immigration and refugee policy and program issues faced by the municipality. The federal government should make arrangements with municipalities outside of Toronto to provide emergency shelter for some of the immigrants and refugees (including refugee claimants) to reduce the pressure on Toronto's hostel system.

(37)The shelter component maximum for social assistance should equal 85 percent of median market rent for each local housing market, based on annual surveys. In Greater Toronto, this would represent, on average, an increase of just over 20 percent on the current maximum shelter benefit.

(38)A new shelter allowance program should be created, targeted to working poor families as a first priority, and to working adults if feasible. The aim of this program, which would require annual re-application, is to reduce the risk of homelessness and to ensure that the transition from welfare to employment does not increase the risk of homelessness. The shelter allowance program should reduce the share of income that low-income people spend on housing to between 35 and 40 percent of income.

(39)The shelter allowance program should be paid by the Province, consistent with the articulated goals of the provincial government.

(40)The City of Toronto should fund and administer a City-wide rent bank with a $500,000.00 annual budget, to help individuals and families deal with short-term rent arrears. Access to the rent bank should be through designated multi-service agencies.

(41)Housing help programs should be more systematic, adequately resourced, and linked to other services. Provincial funding for housing help should be maintained.

(42)Housing help to social assistance recipients should be provided by purchase-of- service contracts between welfare offices and housing help services.

(43)The Provincial legal aid plan and its successor should ensure adequate funding for community legal clinics for tenant assistance, and maintain its funding for tenant duty counsels.

(44)The City should ensure sufficient funding for the Federation of Metro Tenants' Association Tenant Hot Line to ensure that callers can get through to receive information.

(45)To ensure that social assistance recipients can rent affordable apartments, rapid payment of first and last months' rent should be provided by the City when requested, and Proof of Address procedures should be expedited.

(46)The use of outreach workers should be expanded to move chronic hostel users into stable housing. This can be done by either expanding the Hostel Outreach Program (HOP) or through specific projects similar to the Housing Match Maker Project.

(47)Institutions should establish and implement discharge protocols for all persons with no fixed address. No one should be discharged from an institution to the street. If a person is discharged to a hostel, it must be one with 24-hour access. When a homeless person is discharged from an institution to a hostel or unstable situation, arrangements for follow-up by hospital staff or an agency contracted by the hospital (such as Community Care Access Centres or Public Health) must occur within 24 hours after discharge.

(48)The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the Canadian Mental Health Association of Toronto should take responsibility for defining discharge protocols for homeless people with mental health problems and/or addictions. These two organizations should meet within the next 90 days to define discharge protocols in consultation with other key organizations.

(49)The Facilitator for Action on Homelessness should set up an inter-agency/hospital information network to monitor the effectiveness of the protocols for homeless people who are discharged from institutions.

(50)The City of Toronto should invest an additional $300,000.00 in community economic development over the next three years through the newly established Productive Enterprises Fund.

(51)The Ministry of Health should establish a permanent OHIP kiosk in an appropriate location in downtown Toronto on a full-time basis to enable homeless people to register for health cards. In addition, governments, social service agencies, and banks should accept legally certified, notarized copies of identification documents, held by approved community agencies, as identification when homeless people apply for social assistance, shelter, or bank accounts.

(52)The Ministry of Health should continue to fund Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) to provide Home Care for people with mental illness.

(53)Toronto Public Health should continue to invest in programs which address the overall health needs of the homeless population.

(54)A staff person skilled in working with homeless people should be available to hospital emergency rooms, as required.

(55)The Ministry of Health should establish a pharmacy pilot project where homeless people can obtain prescription drugs free of charge. The effectiveness of this project should be monitored and evaluated.

(56)Toronto Public Health, in collaboration with the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Toronto, George Brown College School of Dental Hygiene, and selected Community Health Centres across the City of Toronto should establish a three-year pilot project to improve the oral health needs of Toronto's homeless population.

(57)The Ministry of Health should declare Toronto an "Underserviced Area" for homeless people to enable new doctors to work with the homeless population at the full OHIP rate. In addition, the Ministry of Health should make additional sessional dollars available for physicians to work with homeless people in hostels and drop-ins.

(58)The Ministry of Health should fund infirmary beds in appropriate locations for homeless people recovering from illness or surgery. These beds should be coordinated by hospitals in collaboration with the Community Care Access Centres and appropriate community agencies.

(59)Long-term care funding should be allocated by the Ministry of Health to designated facilities equipped to address the long-term care needs of elderly chronic hostel users.

(60)The Ministry of Health should combine its current community mental health and community health funding for homeless people into one single Homelessness Health Fund which would be administered by the City of Toronto.

(61)Fifty psychiatric beds should be added to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Queen Street Division.

(62)A harm-reduction facility should be established on a pilot basis to accommodate up to 30 homeless people who cannot participate in programs that require total abstinence. The facility should be staffed by health care professionals, supported by peer counsellors, who would ensure that the harm of alcohol and substance use is minimized and that the person is linked to other health and social supports.

(63)An addictions and mental health outreach team should be established, coordinated by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in collaboration with Toronto Public Health, Community Health Centres, Shared Care teams, and other community agencies, to connect homeless people who have severe addictions or concurrent disorders to the harm-reduction facility. This team would use its expertise to provide consultation and training to other outreach and community support initiatives.

(64)At least 5,000 additional supportive housing units should be built in the City of Toronto over the next five years at the rate of 1,000 units per year. Although the high-need districts of the City should receive new units corresponding to their population profile, the majority of new units should be built in all areas of the City.

(65)New supportive housing units should be built throughout the province to ensure that people can be served in their own communities.

(66)New supportive housing units should provide a range of housing types and management approaches to meet the different needs of different homeless groups. The range should include new construction and acquisition and conversion of existing residential and non-residential buildings.

(67)The Province should continue to expand the Habitat program for boarding houses and extend the program to other types of accommodation such as rooming houses.

(68)A high-support residential program for people with severe mental illness should be established on site at a hospital. An unused ward of the Queen Street Division of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) could be immediately converted to supportive housing for people with serious mental illness who would find it extremely difficult to find and maintain housing elsewhere.

(69)The Ministry of Health, the Ontario Realty Corporation, and the City of Toronto should pursue an agreement with CAMH to make land within the Queen Street Division of CAMH and the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital immediately available for the development of supportive housing for persons with serious mental illness or concurrent disorders. At least half the units should be dedicated for persons with concurrent disorders.

(70)The Province should fund 100 percent of supportive housing and reassume the costs of any supportive housing devolved to municipalities. It should fund all capital costs, rents supplements, and support services of supportive housing.

(71)An overall provincial policy on supportive housing should ensure that definitions of special need and eligibility for supportive housing are broad enough to include "hard to house" homeless people.

(72)The Ministry of Health should interpret its criteria for support flexibly to include chronically homeless people who may not have a formal psychiatric diagnosis. Priority should, however, still be given to the seriously mentally ill.

(73)The City should contribute developing supportive housing through advocacy, policy development, coordination, strategic top-up funding, and facilitating new supply.

(74)There should be a coordinated access system for supportive housing linked to the proposed Homeless Services Information System and to Toronto Social Housing Connections. The coordinated access system should have a "user friendly" centralized database of information on all supportive housing providers, including waiting lists and related programs like housing help. The system should be centrally administered but accessible through multiple entry points.

(75)Regular monitoring and evaluation should be done to determine what supportive housing programs are most effective at meeting the diverse needs of the homeless population.

(76)The City should develop a "housing first" policy for municipal lands to make suitable sites available for affordable housing, while retaining long-term City interest in the sites.

(77)The City should convert the Social Housing Reserve Fund into a Homelessness Community Fund for affordable housing. The annual allocation to the Fund should be $10 million derived in part from the City capital budget and in part from cash-in-lieu receipts from bonusing agreements.

(78)The City should implement a tax rate for the new multi-residential property tax class at a level comparable to that for single family dwellings.

(79)The City and its Agencies, Boards, and Commissions should waive development charges, land use application fees, parks levies, hook-up fees, and other charges for housing developments that meet affordability criteria.

(80)The City should create a private sector roundtable to work with the Facilitator for Action on Homelessness to advise on strategies to create affordable housing.

(81)Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) should provide direct mortgage loans for new affordable rental projects. CMHC should develop rules and norms for mortgage insurance on not-for-profit projects using more favourable criteria than currently apply to private-sector projects.

(82)The federal and provincial governments should develop policies to make suitable government sites available for affordable housing, while retaining long-term public interest in such sites.

(83)The federal and provincial governments should rebate fully GST and PST respectively to the developers or builders of affordable housing projects.

(84)The federal government should provide up to $300 million in capital support for new low-income housing. The federal government should also reinvest in housing each year the savings to be realized following devolution to the provinces.

(85)The federal government should channel federal capital to new affordable housing by way of an Infrastructure program for housing, local foundations for affordable housing, and/or a tax incentive for contributions to eligible foundations or projects.

(86)The Province should assume responsibility for building supportive housing either by funding capital subsidies and/or rent supplement, or by guaranteeing an income stream that private and non-profit developers can use to get financing to build or renovate the housing.

(87)Upon signing a housing devolution agreement with CMHC, the Province should ensure that the annual federal housing funds that are not required for existing projects (estimated at $60 million annually) be used as a capital and rent supplement fund to support new projects.

(88)The current pooling of resources for social housing (about $350 million annually) should be extended to include resources for new affordable housing. In accordance with the principle of "pay for say," the GTSB (rather than the Province) should allocate rent supplement funds for new affordable housing across the GTA.

(89)The City should implement the Main Streets Intensification program and explore other strategies for promoting the supply of affordable rental housing such as conversion of non-residential buildings and the purchase of condominiums.

(90)As part of its affordable housing strategy, the City of Toronto should pursue the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) option for housing with supports to house homeless singles. The City and the Province should make zoning and regulatory changes to facilitate renovation and new construction of SROs. These would include density maximums, unit sizes, parking requirements and building and fire code regulations. The City should initiate at least three SRO pilots. These should vary according to acquisition or new construction, location, number and sizes of units, financing, and management techniques.

(91)The Official Plan should incorporate the goal of preventing homelessness and support the use of planning tools that contribute to the preservation of existing housing and the construction of new affordable housing.

(92)Contributions toward the provision of low-income housing should be a high priority among the public benefits secured by the City in exchange for increases in height and density. These should be realized under existing policies and under the policy framework in the new Official Plan.

(93)The City of Toronto should request and the Province of Ontario should approve amendments to the City of Toronto Act to permit the City to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new residential developments.

(94)The City should reduce the time it takes to grant development approvals or building permits by streamlining the operation of all relevant departments.

(95)Federal Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) funding for the City of Toronto should be expanded to $7 million a year to include rental apartment buildings, rooming houses, and second suites.

(96)Council should harmonize condominium conversion policies across the new City of Toronto. The new policy should attach conditions to approval of plans of condominium to ensure the replacement of lost low-cost rental units, consistent with the City "no net loss" policy.

(97)The Province should grant appropriate authority to the City of Toronto to control demolition of affordable rental properties.

(98)The City's housing development strategy should give priority to non-profit acquisition and rehabilitation of existing private apartments, as well as new construction.

(99)All three levels of government should commit to the regeneration and redevelopment of public housing where appropriate.

(100)The City of Toronto should permit, as-of-right, second suites wherever large- scale new residential developments are being approved. The City of Toronto should permit, as-of-right, second suites in areas in which multi-unit residential buildings (including semi-detached houses, duplexes, and triplexes) already exist, as well as in any residential zones that directly abut arterial roads that are well served by public transit.

(101)In conjunction with legalization of second suites, a "fast-track" eviction procedure should be established at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, applying to tenants renting suites in owner-occupied properties with only one rented unit.

(102)Regardless of current zoning, existing second suites in single family homes that comply with health and safety standards should be legalized. There needs to be an appropriate public hearing and appeal process for neighbours who object. The onus should be on the owner to come forward with an application for relief from the zoning by-law.

(103)Council should permit rooming houses as-of-right in commercial zones and multiple-unit residential zones on arterial roads throughout the City. Existing rooming houses that comply with health and safety standards should be legalized.

(104)CMHC should assist rooming house owners to access mortgage financing.

(105)The City should explore ways to reduce or mitigate the impact of the new property tax burden on rooming houses.

________

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it, during the consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(a)(February 10, 1999) from the Scarborough Homelessness Committee supporting the recommendations of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force; and requesting that the Scarborough Homelessness Committee and its partners in Scarborough, The Caring Alliance and the Scarborough East Community Analysis Group, be consulted thereon;

(b)(February 10, 1999) from Ms. Susan Nwosu, Coalition of Toronto Housing Help Centres, supporting the recommendations of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force; and advising that Housing Help Centres are directly affected by Recommendations Nos. 41 and 42 of the Final Report; and

(c)(February 23, 1999) from Mr. Fred Avery expressing concerns with regard to the effects that the implementation of the Task Force recommendations will have on communities with vast amounts of social housing and suggesting that the strategy on this issue should include the rehabilitation of those individuals affected so that they can restart a new life apart from the constant reliance on the vast social safety net which Canadians are so proud of.

The following persons appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Phillip Dufresne, Houselink Community Homes, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Ms. Nancy Farmer, Toronto Non-Profit Housing Providers Network, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Howard Tessler, Federation of Metro Tenants;

-Ms. Ann Fitzpatrick, Children's Aid Society of Toronto, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Michael Shapcott, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, Ontario Region Office, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Ms. Tracey Nesbitt, The Central Ontario Branch of the Ontario Association of Social Workers, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Vance Latchford, Latchford Associates;

-Ms. Brenda Cohen, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. John Harstone, Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto; and

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (March 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the motion passed at the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee regarding public expectations as it relates to the visibility of panhandling and homelessness on the streets and whether this expectation can be met by the implementation of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The February 17, 1999 report Response to the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report to Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee outlined the financial sources and funding implications for the City of Toronto of implementing the recommendations of the report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Mayor's Action Task Force Report outlines a number of recommendations to prevent homelessness, and to address the needs of the diverse population who are homeless. Homeless people, as defined by the Task Force are " those who are absolutely, periodically, or temporarily without shelter, as well as those who are at substantial risk of being on the street in the immediate future". The report also outlines a number of measures to bring "visible" homeless people off the streets into hostels and ultimately into long-term housing and support where required.

At its February 23, 1999 meeting, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, passed a motion regarding public expectation of reduction in visible homelessness and panhandling resulting from implementation of the recommendations of the Mayor's Action Task Force on Homelessness. The Chief Administrative Officer asked the Commissioner of Community Services to prepare a report in response to that motion. The Chief Administrative Officer has been consulted on this report.

While there might be some overlap, issues pertaining to panhandling are different from those related to street homelessness. Most panhandlers are people living in poverty and "panning" for a variety of reasons, although some may be homeless.

  Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Defining the Visible Homeless:

As a proportion of the overall homeless population, there are relatively few homeless people living on the street on a regular basis. On any given night in winter, 4,300 people use the hostels system and it is estimated that about 250 to 300 people sleep rough (i.e., live on the streets).

A significant number of people living on the street have some form of mental illness or addiction problem, or a combination of both (ie. concurrent disorder). Some of these people do not use traditional services like hostels. They may fear for their safety in a hostel, and whether or not there are grounds for this fear, they believe they will bring less harm to themselves by remaining outside. Many of these people do, however, use other services supported by the City, such as drop-ins and food programs.

Mental Illness, Addictions and Homelessness:

The Task Force report stressed that housing, mental health and addictions supports and services must be brought together to address the complex needs of homeless people living on the street. This requires that appropriate supports and services be available in the first place, and that concerted outreach efforts serve to connect people to these services. The effectiveness of this outreach will depend on the trust established between the service provider and the homeless person. Without this, the homeless person will either avoid or refuse service. However trust takes time to establish. Offering practical support such as food or basic health care is an effective means to begin to develop this relationship. Experience has shown that supports and services for this population must be very flexible and operate in a non-judgemental manner to enable the person to feel safe in seeking help.

There are currently very few services available for people with concurrent disorders. Most mental health facilities are unable or unwilling to work with people who also have an addiction, and addiction treatment facilities are not equipped to deal with people who have serious mental illness. In addition, most shelters and supportive housing providers require abstinence as a condition of entry and many have restricted hours of access. This makes it harder for people living on the street, particularly those with serious mental illness and/or addictions, to access those services. Also, this leads people either to binge before they enter the shelter or to avoid seeking help completely.

Concerns have been repeatedly expressed regarding the ability of persons with mental illness and/or addictions problems to make "rational" decisions. The debate over whether the police or other authorities have the right or responsibility to act on behalf of a person who is mentally ill, has been going on for decades. Currently, under the Mental Health Act, the police have the power to detain an individual and bring him/her to a hospital if he/she is deemed to be a danger to him/herself or to others. Opinion is greatly divided as to whether the Act should be changed. The police must balance their responsibility to help people who may not be in a position to help themselves or who may be a risk to others, with the danger of driving people further "underground" and therefore further out of the reach of individuals and agencies with whom they can build trusting relationships and thereby begin to resolve their homelessness. Also, the shortage of psychiatric hospital beds, makes it very difficult for the police to get people admitted to hospitals.

The Province is in the midst of a 10 year plan for mental health reform which is intended to ensure the existence of an integrated, comprehensive, cost-effective and coordinated mental health system which includes a continuum of care from prevention to community-based treatment to in-hospital care. To this end, recently the Province announced an investment of $21 million in additional supports for community-based mental health, case management and crisis support services in Toronto. While this money does not cover all the services and needs identified in the Mental Health Reform Strategy, the new funds will help to improve community mental health programs. However, none of this money is earmarked for supportive housing which is essential for mentally ill homeless people. In addition, it is unclear, how much of this money will be used for services which directly benefit the homeless population.

Addressing the Needs of the Visible Homeless:

The Task Force suggests a number of improvements to hostels to bring more people off the streets. These include: increased admission flexibility, more guarantees of personal safety, a safe place to store belongings, increased cultural sensitivity, more flexibility regarding the use of drugs and alcohol and clearer policies for barring. Another key component to address the needs of the street homeless population proposed by the Task Force, is the establishment of harm reduction facilities to accommodate people who cannot participate in programs that require total abstinence and a specialized mental health and addictions outreach team to link people to these facilities.

Harm reduction strategies allow people on the street who are active drug or alcohol users to get shelter and thus begin the process to get off the streets. This approach is grounded in extensive research and experience from Canada, the U.S. and especially Europe, that demonstrates that attending to the basic needs of homeless substance users leads to safer, healthier communities by reducing crime and alleviating public health risks. Appendix A describes a number of effective harm reduction projects already in place which the City either operates or funds. Additional projects are in the planning stage. By establishing the harm reduction facilities together with the outreach team and individual support, proposed by the Task Force, a significant number of the street homeless in Toronto would likely come off the street to seek shelter and other supports.

The Task Force report proposes a multi-faceted strategy to address homelessness and emphasizes the need to put our efforts into prevention and long-term solutions rather than stop-gap crisis responses. The physical evidence of homelessness can be seen by the apparent increase in the number of people we encounter everyday on the street, particularly in the downtown core. We know however, that the fastest growing groups of hostel users are families with children and youth. Hence, while it is crucial to address the needs of those people literally living on the street, it is essential that we also address the problem of families in the hostel system.

The Task Force never suggests that homelessness can be totally eliminated. However, by addressing the problem in a variety of ways, and through the concerted efforts of all levels of Government, we can go a long way to addressing the problem and ensuring that it does not become worse. For example, increasing the supply of supportive housing units, in Toronto, Ontario and across Canada, will provide viable alternatives to the street or hostels for those people who need support to live independently. For homeless people who have lived on the streets on a regular basis, long term solutions can only be found after extensive efforts by outreach workers to build trust which enables people to seek the help they need. We know that this form of intensive individual support does work to get people off the street and stabilized. However, it is extremely labour intensive and results don't happen overnight.

Panhandling:

As mentioned, while there might be some overlap, issues pertaining to panhandling are different from those related to street homelessness. Most panhandlers are people living in poverty and "panning" for a variety of reasons although some may be literally homeless. People beg on the street because they are unemployed, unable to obtain social assistance or make ends meet, they have a mental illness and can't meet their basic needs and/or they have an alcohol or drug addiction.

It is clear that some Toronto residents are becoming increasingly concerned about panhandling. By-laws to regulate panhandling are sometimes seen as an attractive option although experience has shown that enforcement is often difficult to achieve. By-laws to regulate panhandling have been passed in Winnipeg and New Westminister, B.C., although the Winnipeg by-law is currently being challenged in court.

As witnessed at City Council not long ago, opinions on imposing such by-laws are extremely divided. Some people believe that by-laws penalize the poor for their poverty. Others feel that panhandlers are too aggressive and that they create impediments to business. In May 1998, the City's Emergency and Protective Services Committee considered a motion that Toronto draft a similar by-law to that enacted by the City of Vancouver to regulate and control panhandling. A June 13, 1998, report from the City Solicitor, identified substantial issues regarding the authority of the municipality to enact such a by-law and recommended that no action be taken by Council until such time as legislative amendments are in place to authorize Council to legislate in this area and at the same time provide effective means of enforcement. In the context of the debate on squeegeeing, Council requested the provincial government to introduce appropriate legislative amendments. However, the provincial government has not yet taken this action.

  Conclusion:

The Task Force proposes a range of strategies to prevent and resolve homelessness. Over the course of a year, 26,000 different individuals use Toronto's hostels system; some for just a night or two and others for longer stretches of time. This is a changing population, where people move in and out of hostels as a result of the lack of affordable and supportive housing and other community supports. Relatively few homeless people tend to sleep rough for any length of time.

Implementing the range of recommendations proposed by the Task Force will certainly reduce the number of homeless people in Toronto. While it is impossible to estimate the number of people who would actually leave the street, we know that harm reduction facilities combined with outreach and individual supports do work to bring people off the streets.

Street homelessness and panhandling are complex social issues. Many of the root causes behind homelessness such as poverty, drug and alcohol addiction and mental illness, are not easily solved and require coordinated action between the City, the Provincial and Federal governments as well as community-based agencies and business. In addition, any efforts to reduce or eliminate panhandling and street homelessness must balance competing individual rights and ensure the safety of all residents.

Contact Name:

Barbara Emanuel: 392-5187

--------

Appendix A

There are a number of effective projects already in operation which employ the flexible harm reduction approach necessary to bring people off the streets. The Seaton House Annex program has been operating since October 1996. The program offers 30 overnight beds and twenty 24 hour beds and employs a harm reduction approach for homeless men who are alcoholics. Controlled drinking is allowed in this facility and health care supports are provided. The Annex program operates within an exceptionally tolerant and low-demand environment; a key component of any harm reduction approach. An evaluation of this program conducted in October 1997, revealed that the program is successful in reaching "hard to serve" men through the efforts of caring staff who treat the men with respect and are able to begin to build trusting relationships. Staff and clients report that the Annex program operates in a peaceful atmosphere which is of primary importance to clients. The need for ongoing support for these clients has resulted in a proposal for a rural extension of the Seaton House Annex where clients would live and work on an operating farm and the program would operate with harm reduction principles.

Anishnawbe Health's Biindgd Breakfast program for chronically homeless people, most of whom live on the street and shun the hostel system, is an effective peer support program where people can begin to develop trusting relationships in an environment where they feel safe. The expansion of this program, recommended by the Task Force is currently underway.

There are a number of harm reduction projects in operation in the City under the auspices of Public Health. For example, the Toronto Needle Exchange is a program that has been in place since 1989. The newly established Drug Court, a cooperative venture between the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a number of community agencies and the criminal justice system to divert crack/cocaine and heroin dependent offenders from the traditional prison system is another example of a harm reduction approach.)

 3

Mayor's Initiative on Youth Violence in Schools

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval for the recommendations contained in the report "Action Plan on Youth Violence in Schools" prepared for the Mayor's initiative on Youth Violence in Schools.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The City's $6,000.00 contribution to the Anti-Gang Awareness Campaign can be accommodated within the Community and Neighbourhood Services 1999 Operating Budget. The Parks and Recreation Department will identify any funding implications arising from the strategy for serving youth at risk in its 1999 budget submission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council approve the recommendations in the attached report on youth violence in schools;

(2)the report be forwarded to the Boards of Education, the Chief of Police, the Attorney General, and the Minister of Education and Training with the request that these recommendations be endorsed and acted upon immediately; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In November, Mayor Mel Lastman, responding to reports of increasing concerns over youth violence in schools, called together a meeting with the Chairs of the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board, the Chief of Police, the Attorney General, Councillors Chow, Duguid, Davis and Fotinos, and others involved in working with youth and their families. The purpose of the meeting was to begin exploring how to work together to meet two objectives: to ensure that youth are safe in schools, and to ensure that parents feel confident their children are safe in schools. The Mayor requested that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services bring together senior staff from the relevant jurisdictions to identify strategies to meet these objectives, and to report the findings back to the Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee early in the new year.

Immediately following this initial meeting, senior staff from the various jurisdictions met to begin outlining the issues, identifying existing gaps in programs and services and proposing strategies to address these issues and service gaps. Since then, Community and Neighbourhood Services staff have been working cooperatively with staff from the City Parks and Recreation Department, Public Health, Healthy City office, the TTC, the Toronto District School Board, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, the Police, the Province, and representatives from youth-focused community-based organizations. Their participation and cooperation in this initiative has been greatly appreciated.

This initiative has also been informed by the work of the Mayor's Task Force on Young Offenders, chaired by Councillor Dennis Fotinos, the Task Force on Community Safety, chaired by Councillors Brad Duguid and Rob Davis, and the Children and Youth Action Committee, chaired by Councillor Olivia Chow.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The appended report, "Action Plan on Youth Violence in Schools", focuses on defining the issue, identifying the range of existing programs and services, and proposing actions that can be taken to address youth violence in schools.

  The following recommendations are proposed:

Meeting with Youth on Violence in Schools

It is recommended that the Children and Youth Advocate and the Youth Cabinet convene a meeting on Youth Violence in Schools. The Youth Cabinet should assist in bringing together a diverse and representative group of youth from across the City. Particular attention should be paid to reaching out to youth who have been involved in gangs or violence in schools. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the issue of youth violence in schools and the actions proposed in this report, with the aim of developing an action plan endorsed by youth. This meeting should be convened for May 1999.

Police and Education Partnerships:

In order to respond to specific incidents of violence in schools, the City encourages the Boards of Education and the Police Department to complete the preparation of the Protocol on Police Involvement in Schools and requests the Boards of Education and Police to implement this protocol at the beginning of the fall 1999 school year.

It is recommended that the Police, the Boards of Education and the Public Health Department immediately begin working on a new Violence Prevention Partnership Strategy focusing on involvement in elementary and high schools, that would be implemented this fall. The strategy must identify the respective roles and responsibilities of the partners, and demonstrate a commitment to providing the necessary resources to ensure that violence prevention and police awareness programs in schools are better coordinated and more equitably distributed across the City.

It is recommended that the Police and School Boards immediately identify 3 priority areas across the City that would benefit from increased police presence in schools, and pilot violence prevention programs. This would include providing the adequate police resources to be involved in the program and a commitment from the Boards of Education to allow curriculum time and teaching support for this initiative. It is proposed that the pilots run for one year with the evaluation to include the cost implications of extending the program beyond the pilot phase, and an assessment of the effectiveness on the program in responding to youth violence issues.

Peer Programs, Role Models and Mentoring:

It is recommended that the Mayor endorse the Raptors' Slam Dunk Youth Violence initiative as one positive example of a multi-sectoral partnership with a major sports organization to respond to the issue of youth violence.

  Anti-Gang Awareness Campaign:

It is recommended that the City, the Police Department, and the Province, under the leadership of the TDSB, endorse and support the Anti- Gang Awareness Campaign. Specifically, each of the partners should contribute $6,000.00 toward this initiative. The City should also participate in the distribution of the poster through Parks and Recreation centres, and other City sites frequented by youth and their families.

Recreational and Skills Development Programs for Youth :

It is recommended that a full audit of existing City- funded community-based programs and City Parks and Recreation programs for youth, and youth at risk be undertaken as part of the Youth Profile initiative of the Children and Youth Action Committee.

It is recommended that access to recreation programs for youth at risk, and developing appropriate programs for youth at risk be a priority for the Parks and Recreation Department. To that end, it is recommended that the Department propose a feasible strategy for improving access and services for youth at risk, to be implemented in the fall programming schedule. This will require that funding implications be identified during the 1999 budget process. It is critical that this strategy also include a process for involving youth in identifying, designing and evaluating programs.

Monitoring Youth Safety in Schools:

It is recommended that an annual monitoring report on youth safety in schools be developed by the Boards of Education and the Police. A questionnaire would be administered to high school students each fall beginning in 1999, to monitor student perceptions of safety in schools.

Safe Schools Policy:

It is recommended that the City encourage the Ministry of Education and Training and the Boards of Education to bring forward and implement anti-violence policies in schools as quickly as possible. These policies must make it clear that violence, weapons, and gang activity will be met with immediate and substantive consequences, but also recognize that meaningful strategies and alternative programs must be available to support youth and respond effectively to meet their needs.

It is recommended that staff awareness and training be a key component of implementing Board policies related to safe schools, with an emphasis on ensuring that staff are equipped to deal effectively with violent incidents as they arise.

   Mediation as a First Response:

The Attorney General, in partnership with the City of Toronto and the Boards of Education should evaluate existing initiatives, identify opportunities for expanding alternative sentencing options, and establish a protocol on the respective roles and responsibilities of the community-based agencies, and the schools involved in these initiatives.

Changes to the Young Offenders Act:

It is recommended that the Federal Minister of Justice act quickly to make changes to the Young Offenders Act, and that she consider the comments and suggestions identified in the Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Young Offenders in amending the Act.

Critical to the success of these initiatives will be a strong partnership between the City, the Boards of Education, the Police, the Provincial government and local communities. It is recommended that City Council endorse and approve these recommendations, and commit to continue working in partnership to effectively implement these changes.

Conclusions:

The Action Plan on Youth Violence in Schools proposes recommendations for action to reduce youth violence in Toronto schools. While the incidence of serious violence in schools is low, schools must be safe and welcoming environments for all students. The initiative reveals that there are many excellent program services and initiatives currently in place to respond to these issues. As well, there is a strong commitment on the part of the Boards, individual school, the Police, the City and the Province to deal with this issue. The recommendations proposed in the Action Plan on Youth Violence in Schools identify some immediate actions that can be taken. Their success will depend to a large part on the continuing cooperation and partnership across sectors.

It is recommended that Council endorse the direction and recommendations in this report and call on our Civic partners to continue working together to reduce youth violence in schools.

Contact Name:

Nancy Matthews: 392-8614

________

    Action Plan on Youth Violence in Schools

Prepared by

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services

for Mayor's Initiative on Youth Violence in Schools

February 19, 1999

Defining the Issue:

Recent reports of gang activity and youth violence in schools have brought attention to the concerns that youth and their parents feel regarding safety in schools.

Responding to these concerns, Mayor Mel Lastman called on political leaders from the City, the Boards of Education, the Police, and the Province to work together to meet two key objectives: to ensure that youth are safe in schools, and to ensure that parents feel confident their children are safe in schools.

Though incidents in schools involving serious forms of violence are rare, safety in and around schools can never be taken for granted. In 1997, Metropolitan Toronto Police reported 4,646 incidents in city schools, a nine per cent decrease over the previous year. Although property related crime in schools fell, incidents of assault increased by four per cent. In 1997, criminal incidents on school premises were 20 per cent below their 1991 level, when 5,790 incidents were reported. This is due to steady declines in the reported number of thefts, break-and-enters and cases of mischief. Over the same period, however, incidents of assault on school premises peaked in 1995 before beginning to decline. In 1997, 1,198 non-sexual assaults were reported in Toronto schools, 1 times the number in 1991.

Among young offenders, the overall crime rate has declined between 1991 and 1997 from 65.8 per 1,000 persons to 48.5 per 1,000 persons. This reflects a year over year drop in the property crime rate, but little change in violent crimes. In this regard, the violent crime rate for young offenders in 1997 was 14.3 per 1,000 persons, down somewhat from its peak of 16.6 per 1,000 persons in 1995.

According to the police, there are 70 to 80 youth gangs operating in Toronto with 20 being identified as "hard core". It is estimated that approximately 2,000 individuals, 1 per cent of City youth overall, participate in gangs at some level. A recent survey and series of public meetings undertaken by the Toronto Community Safety Task Force identified youth crime, and gangs as a priority concern for City residents.

Violence in schools takes many forms including bullying, harassment and gang- like activity. One of the impediments to responding to this issue has been the difficulty in sustaining consistent attention to the issue, or even agreeing on what the focus for response should be. The result is that it has been difficult to maintain a focus on the issue, to identify the gaps in service or to fundamentally change some of the things that are not working.

The opportunity afforded by this initiative is for the various civic partners to work together, with the common commitment to reduce youth violence, regardless of its form, in and around schools. Schools must provide a safe and welcoming environment in order to educate our children and youth. Violence, in any form, undermines the ability of teacher to teach, of students to learn, and reduces the confidence of the community in their schools.

City staff, in cooperation with the Boards of Education, the Police and the Province, and drawing on the valuable work of the City's Children and Youth Action Committee, the Community Safety Task Force and the Mayor's Task Force on Young Offenders, have explored the issue of youth violence in schools. This report proposes a series of actions to ensure that our schools are safe from violence.

Responding to the Issue:

Most serious forms of violent incidents in schools are committed by a small group of young people who typically have long histories of life problems and challenges. Learning disabilities, mental health problems, abusive home environments, marginalized social status, ineffective parenting and chronic long term stress related to living in poverty or unsafe community environments are common in the backgrounds of these troubled youth. They resort to violence and aggression and gravitate to gangs often as a way to meet needs or cope with overwhelming negative life experiences.

However, only responding to the issue once an incident occurs ignores the warning signs that are often apparent much earlier in a child's development. Responding to the incident after the fact is not, in and of itself, adequate. Early identification and prevention is critical.

Efforts to prevent or address early problems must be designed to support families and communities to provide what is necessary to give children the best possible start in life, and enhance school readiness. Programs like Healthy Babies, Healthy Children and nutrition programs, access to quality child care, preschool recreation programs, effective parenting programs, remedial preschool programs are all examples of supports that can help reduce stress in families, and contribute to the healthy development of children.

Children must also be given the tools to develop appropriate ways of resolving conflict and expressing anger and upset. At the preschool age, speech and language is one critical tool that the youngest children can employ. For older children and youth, conflict resolution and peer mediation training can help them learn to avoid or defuse volatile situations; and recognize, understand and deal with the dynamics of group or peer pressure. As well, there must be alternative forms of support for students with learning difficulties or behavioural problems.

In order to prevent violence, a range of activities is necessary to combat the powerful sources that promote it. To positively shape the attitudes and behaviours of students, approaches must be supported that will help them to recognize the negative and destructive nature of all violent behaviour and to develop appropriate ways of resolving conflict and expressing anger and frustration. To have the greatest impact, violence prevention and intervention efforts must be comprehensive. Programs need to address any contributing factors in the physical environment, positively enhance the overall social relations among students and staff in the schools.

There must also be strong linkages and coordination between the prevention/ intervention efforts at the community levels and the schools. Efforts must include focused and sustained interventions; consensus regarding the definition of the problem, participation of local communities; working partnerships between the various social agencies, schools, police, business, recreation programs; and some attention to larger structural or systemic factors, such as high youth unemployment, child poverty, and access to community resources/ life.

Recent focus groups with youth by University of Toronto researchers working on the relationship between violence, victimization and leisure activities reinforce the importance of social and recreational opportunities for youth to keep youth off the streets and involved in organized activities. It is also critical to involve and engage youth in the discussion and to make them part of the solution - especially those youth who are most directly affected. The strategies that are developed must be relevant to youth, and reflect the issues young people feel are necessary to tackle in order to reduce youth violence in schools.

Who needs to be involved in reducing violence in schools?

Clearly, the Boards of Education are central to ensuring that schools are safe, however this is not just a school issue. Violence in and around schools is an issue that affects, and is influenced by the community. Solutions to issues of youth violence in schools must also involve the community, the Police, the City of Toronto, community based service providers, and the provincial government, working together with the Boards in a collaborative and cooperative way.

What is being done already?

Boards of Education:

Both the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) and the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) have a broad range of policies, programs and initiatives to respond to the issue of violence in schools. (See Appendix 1). Programs range from curriculum-based prevention programs that are tailored to the various age/grade levels across the system, specific intervention programs such as anger management, program involving the Police, Public Health or Parks and Recreation as well as specific alternative programs for youth-at-risk. As well, many schools are involved in School Watch and Crimestoppers and have begun piloting peer mediation programs.

The TCDSB currently has three policies approved by the Board to deal with issues of violence: Violence Prevention Policy, the Sexual Harassment Policy and Guidelines and the Conflict Resolution Policy, Regulations and guidelines. The Sexual Harassment Policy and guidelines for employees is being updated and a policy for students is in draft form.

With amalgamation, the TDSB has currently drafted a new Safe Schools policy that will apply across the newly amalgamated board. The Board will release the policy for consultation concurrent with the release of the provincial safe school policy guidelines.

A unique issue facing the TDSB, which has both policy and program implications, is the impact of amalgamating the six local boards and the former Metro Board of Education into one. Amalgamation means that existing policies from the previous boards must be reviewed, and new board policies developed and implemented. Programs that were offered only through one board or differently across the boards must be assessed and decisions made about where consistency is necessary, which programs should continue and how they should be implemented. The enormity of the amalgamation should not be underestimated. It will take a concerted effort over time before all of the amalgamation issues are sorted through.

In addition to amalgamation, schools and boards of education are also responding to provincial changes in the funding formula for education, and are introducing a new provincial curriculum. Some of the implications of these changes are that teachers are now expected to direct more of their attention to the classroom and are not available to spend as much time in the playground and monitoring the halls. As well, changes in the funding formula may impact on communities ability to access schools .

Police:

The Police Department is also actively involved in working in schools and communities to address issues of youth violence. The Toronto Police Service consists of 17 Divisions located throughout the city. Within a division there are five uniform platoons, an investigative branch and the community response unit. A Youth Bureau within the investigative branch is responsible investigating criminal offences involving young offenders and incidents of child physical and sexual abuse. The Community Response Unit , which has a complement of 20 - 50 officers depending on the size of the Division, is most involved in issues related to youth violence in schools. Within this unit, Community School Liaison Officers and the Street Crime Unit have most involvement with schools.

Community Liaison Officers are responsible for working in partnership with local schools, maintaining a visible uniform presence in and around schools, coordinating school lectures, education and crime prevention, facilitating and delivering educational programs to schools, liaison with the Street Crime Unit and with Boards of Education, parent and teacher groups and the communities, performing police duties while in the schools, and identifying resources to support School Watch and Student Crimestoppers programs. Each Division has one Community school Liaison Officer assigned with the exception of 41 Division, which has 3, 42 Division which has 2, and 52 Division that currently has no Community School Liaison Officer.

The Street Crime Unit may have a complement of approximately 2 - 8 Constables per Division. They are responsible for youth crime investigation in relation to violence; enforcement with special attention to youth gangs; providing education to school boards and students regarding youth issues; providing education to community groups; developing and implementing proactive strategies to deal with youth crime within the Division; preparing and assisting in the prosecution of cases; and providing information services for the judicial system in regard to youth gangs.

Assigning personnel for community response and school liaison is the responsibility of the unit commander for the Division. As a result, the level of police involvement in schools varies significantly from school to school, and from district to district. It is often difficult to compare among Divisions as the numbers of schools and the student populations vary significantly across Divisions. For example, there are currently only 2 community response officers for over 150 schools in Scarborough, as opposed to 1 community response officer for 15 - 18 schools in Etobicoke.

The kind of involvement that Police have in schools also varies considerably. For example, 23 Division in Etobicoke has piloted the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program in some elementary schools. Other Divisions have implemented the Values, Influence and Peers (VIP) program. As well, the Police have developed the Never be a Victim video and teaching manual, which is available for schools to access and include as part of their curriculum.

The Police Department also supports the Student Crimestoppers Program. This program has an annual budget of approximately $15,000.00, plus the cost of salaries for police officers attached to the program. It is most effective from Grades 7 on, and currently operates in 54 schools, which is approximately 22 per cent of schools serving Grade 7 children and up. Scarborough, North York and parts of Toronto use a program called School Watch, which has less police involvement.

There are no statistics that specifically address the impact of Student Crimestoppers on crime reduction. This is partially due to an agreement between the police and individual schools to not report data on individual schools. Interestingly, in the history of the program, not one student who has called in to report a crime has accepted the $100.00 reward. Most report that they called in for the benefit of the school and not to receive a cash reward. The police are currently working with the Boards of Education to expand the Crimestoppers program more broadly across the city.

Across the sectors, there is consistent support for increasing community policing in schools. However, the kind of police involvement in the schools will also determine its success. Drawing from the research focus groups conducted by the U. of T.'s Julian Tanner and Scott Wortley, "...students were far less enthusiastic about increased use of the police in schools. They argued that such strategies only angered young people and made them feel targeted. If the police were to be used, however, it was argued that they would have to be friendlier and "learn how to talk to young people." They emphasized that young people need to get to know the police as people and not just see them as "cops" who are looking to make an arrest. It was suggested that if the police did not wear their uniforms to school (or carry firearms), that the youth might be more willing to open up and talk to them."

City of Toronto:

Parks and Recreation:

Toronto Parks and Recreation is a key player in providing programs and services that impact significantly in anti-violence initiatives for youth. All youth in our city should have access to safe, meaningful, enjoyable and affordable recreation programs which will promote healthier youth in our communities, improve youths' chances of success in life, improve social and learning skills in youth and reduce anti-social behaviour, youth crime and violence. Many of the programs provided by Parks and Recreation are offered in school settings, and in cooperation with the Police, schools and community based organizations. Appendix 2 provides a summary of various anti-violence initiatives offered by Parks and Recreation.

Grants:

The City also funds 69 agencies across the City that deliver programs for at-risk youth, including programs and counselling to reduce violence. As well the City supports community-based projects that focus specifically on violence prevention. For example, in 1998 14 grants totalling $133,500.00 were approved for projects focusing on violence prevention for children and youth through the Breaking the Cycle of Violence grants. (See Appendix 3)

Public Health:

Toronto Public Health's policies have espoused the need for effective prevention programs which would focus on education, information and empowerment not only as it relates to violence against women, but also children, and the community.

To this end, public health has played a pivotal role in the area of violence prevention both in schools and community. In schools, Toronto Public Health has a long standing relationship with the school boards in joint program development ventures and resource development.

Toronto Public Health Nurses, Mental Health Nurses and sexual health staff provide case management activities and educational sessions, critical incident debriefing, crisis intervention, group work and community partnerships. As well, staff facilitate groups for teachers, students and parents on decision making, conflict resolution, anger management, relationships (violence); parenting groups; life skills; good touch bad touch; preventing dating violence, suicide prevention; stress management etc. Sexual health education incorporates the issues of violence in relationships (i.e., date rape); bullying, sexual harassment, sexual aggression, homophobia, gender roles; how to respond to violence and aggression.

Since violence is highly correlated with alcohol use (i.e., fights, physical and sexual assaults and aggression) various programs are in place throughout the City - Grade 5/6 Substance Abuse Awareness Program, A Ready or Not parenting program, Parent to Parent Peer Support.

The Drug Prevention Program (DAPP) - provides $500,000.00 annually to community groups for drug prevention activities, many also address issues related to violence. Community Health Officers using a community development approach assist a number of community groups and coalitions in addressing violence and other related issues for children and youth. (See appendix 4 for compilation of programs offered throughout the City.)

Toronto Transit Commission:

The Toronto Transit Commission has been involved in a pilot program focused on the Kennedy station for the past three years to reduce youth loitering in transit stations and on the transit system. In partnership with Toronto Parks and Recreation, East Metro Youth Services, and the YMCA, and with project funding through Human Resources Development Canada and the provincial Solicitor General, 2 FTE youth workers have been working to divert youth from hanging out at subway stations, and to involve them in more appropriate recreational activities. Human Resources Development Canada has recently extended the project funding for January - March 1999 to serve the Bloor, Dundas West, Dufferin, Bathurst and Spadina Stations.

Provincial Government:

The Ministry of Education and Training has the overall funding and policy development responsibility for education in the province. The provincial government in the past year has announced significant reforms to the education funding formula, and to the curriculum. This year the government will be spending $15.4 billion on elementary and secondary education. In November, the Premier announced changes to the proposed funding model that will permanently inject an additional $211 million into the system for school operations and renewal. Eighty-seven million will also be provided to ensure that no school board receives less operating money in 1999/2000 than it receives in 1998/99.

The Ministry of Education and Training has recently begun a consultation process on strengthening the existing Violence Free School Policy for the province. The Ministry's consultation will examine and seek input and examples of best practices on issues such as: what type of behaviour is expected in school; ensuring students feel safe in reporting violence; the need for students to know that there will be meaningful consequences for those who use violence; and the need for students to be supported in developing skills to solve problems in non-violent ways.

As required by the Young Offender's Act, the Ministry of the Attorney General has established a complete justice system for young offenders which is separate from the adult system. The province provides court facilities court staff, judges and prosecutors for these courts. In central Toronto, young offenders appear in a separate building at 311 Jarvis Street; in other parts of the city, young offenders appear in the same buildings as adults, but at specially designated times and in designated courtrooms. The custodial facilities for youth are separated from the adult facilities.

In order to deal more effectively with minor offences, court processes have been established in which youth who acknowledge responsibility for minor offences are diverted from the court process to alternative measures programs operated by Probation Services. The Ministry of the attorney General has also sponsored several peer mediation programs. In 1999, the Province is establishing pilot Youth Justice Committees in an attempt to find better ways to deal with non-violent offenders. These committees will involve community members in developing solutions to deal with youth crime. One of these pilots will be located in the City of Toronto.

In 1997/98, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services allocated over $600,000.00 in crime prevention grants targeted at preventing youth crime in 20 communities in Ontario, including outreach service for at-risk youth and families in Toronto. Examples of programs in Toronto are the Dufferin Mall Youth Services program, the Children Safety Village and the TTC Youth Outreach program.

Recommended Actions:

A review of the range of initiatives demonstrates that there is significant work underway in many sectors toward reducing the incidence of youth violence in schools. But, change can only happen if there is a concerted political commitment to provide some sustained focus and priority to this issue.

In the short term, it is proposed that there be specific targeted initiatives to address some of the most significant and obvious gaps in the existing system, and to demonstrate some immediate commitment to ensuring youth safety in schools. Over the longer term, there needs to be sustained attention and commitment toward a coordinated set of strategies and interventions.

Meeting with Youth on Violence in Schools:

A consistent message was that youth need to be part of the solution, and in particular, youth that have experienced violence or who have committed violent offences. Often, youth feel they are not listened to, or that their perceptions and views of the issues are different than those of adults. The Children and Youth Action Committee has recently established a Youth Cabinet. The Youth Cabinet is an excellent forum through which issues of youth violence in schools can be discussed. The Mayor's initiative provides an excellent opportunity to begin a dialogue between the City, the boards of education, the Police and youth to discuss the issue and share ideas.

(1)It is recommended that the Children and Youth Advocate and the Youth Cabinet convene a meeting on Youth Violence in Schools. The Youth Cabinet should assist in bringing together a diverse and representative group of youth from across the City. Particular attention should be paid to reaching out to youth who have been involved in gangs or violence in schools. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the issue of youth violence in schools and the actions proposed in this report, with the aim of developing an action plan endorsed by youth. This meeting should be convened for May 1999.

Police and Education Partnerships:

It has already been identified that police involvement in schools is valuable and necessary for reducing youth violence in and around schools. However, the allocation of officers to schools is completely decentralized with little coordination across divisions and inconsistent involvement from school to school and across Divisions. The result is that some school, and student populations are relatively well- served, while others are sorely under-served. There is also no consistent approach to what role the Police play in the schools. At this point, the relationship between the schools and the police is largely dependent on the relationship between the principal and the Division, and on the allocation of police resources at the Divisional level.

There are several aspects to police involvement in schools. At the elementary school level, involvement focuses on familiarizing children with the role of the police and establishing police officers as positive role models and supports for children. At the high school level, police officers continue to play a mentoring role and serve as positive role models, but there is also an enforcement role required when police are called in to respond to incidents. As previously identified, the Police and Boards of Education are working together to expand the Student Crimestoppers Program across the City.

The school boards and the police have recently begun developing a protocol which sets out the agreed upon working relationship and appropriate responses to incidents requiring police intervention or involvement. The protocol is being designed to encourage, enable and maintain a positive relationship between the Toronto Police Service and the school boards, the students, staff and the community. It is expected that a draft protocol will be ready for release this spring. To effectively implement the protocol there must also be a commitment for the appropriate staff training.

(2)In order to respond to specific incidents of violence in schools, the City encourages the Boards of Education and the Police Department to complete the preparation of the Protocol on Police Involvement in Schools and requests the Boards of Education and Police to implement this protocol at the beginning of the fall 1999 school year.

Although the Protocol is one positive step forward, there remain some other critical areas that also need immediate attention. First and foremost, there is no consistency in how School Liaison officers are assigned, what level of support they should be providing or what role they play in schools. At this time, the most prominent program that police are involved in related to preventing violence in schools is the VIP program, which is offered to some schools in three Divisions in the City. In Division 23 in Etobicoke, there is also one officer providing the DARE program to some elementary schools.

A priority must be developing a coordinated strategy between the police and the boards of education that focuses on providing a more equitable and consistent police presence in schools, and also providing models or guidelines for what kind of police involvement there should be and its relationship to the broader school curriculum. The strategy should provide curriculum options that are sensitive to the variation in needs across communities, and that build on existing programs that have already proven effective. The other critical partner in working through both the protocol and the roles is the Public Health Department because of the integral role it presently plays in schools.

As a first step, it is proposed that the Police and Boards of Education commit to piloting violence prevention programs in three underserved (relative to police presence in schools) areas. The initiatives should be focused on prevention strategies and how to respond to incidents of violence and should target children in Grades 6-9. The pilots should be evaluated for their effectiveness, and cost implications of extending beyond the pilot phase. An external agency such as Central Toronto Youth Services should be approached to conduct the evaluation, in cooperation with the Police and Boards of Education.

(3)It is recommended that the Police, the Boards of Education and the Public Health Department immediately begin working on a Violence Prevention Partnership Strategy focusing on involvement in elementary and high schools, that would be implemented this fall. The strategy must identify the respective roles and responsibilities of the partners, and demonstrate a commitment to providing the necessary resources to ensure that violence prevention and police awareness programs in schools are better coordinated and more equitably distributed across the City.

(4)It is recommended that the Police and School Boards immediately identify three priority areas across the City that would benefit from increased police presence in schools, and pilot violence prevention programs. This would include providing the adequate police resources to be involved in the program and a commitment from the Boards of Education to allow curriculum time and teaching support for this initiative. It is proposed that the pilots run for one year with the evaluation to include the cost implications of extending the program beyond the pilot phase, and an assessment of the effectiveness of the program in responding to youth violence issues. These pilots would be one component of the Violence Prevention Partnership Strategy identified above.

  Peer Programs, Role Models and Mentoring: Toronto Raptors Slam Dunk Youth Violence Program

In addition to the important role that police and the City play in working with schools, there are also a number of successful programs offered by community-based organizations and the private sector that are available to schools and communities. These range from peer theatre, youth speakouts on anti-violence and anti-drugs, sports celebrities visiting schools, and one-on-one mentoring opportunities. It is proposed that the City and the Boards of Education work together to establish a comprehensive listing of the available programs, who they target and how they can be accessed as a resource for schools.

One specific initiative that warrants attention is the Toronto Raptors Slam Dunk Youth Violence program, a school assembly format being designed to address the issue of youth violence, in partnership with the Canadian Safe School Network. With the abbreviated basketball season this year, approximately five high schools will be visited this spring. Ultimately it is anticipated that 20 visits to selected schools can be made in a season. The Police, Boards of Education, City of Toronto are supporting this initiative, with a community reference group with representatives from these jurisdictions, as well as others being established.

(5)It is recommended that the Mayor endorse the Raptors' Slam Dunk Youth Violence initiative as one positive example of a multi-sectoral partnership with a major sports organization to respond to the issue of youth violence.

Anti-Gang Awareness Campaign:

The Toronto District School Board has taken the initiative of developing an anti-gang poster and pamphlet campaign to increase awareness about youth gangs. The campaign will be one important way of informing parents, youth and the public about youth gangs and what they can do about it. This initiative is one opportunity to demonstrate a joint commitment across sectors to addressing the issue of youth gangs.

(6)It is recommended that the City, the Police Department, and the Province, under the leadership of the TDSB, endorse and support the Anti-Gang Awareness Campaign. Specifically, each of the partners should contribute $6,000.00 toward this initiative. The City should also participate in the distribution of the poster and pamphlet through Parks and Recreation centres, and other City sites frequented by youth and their families.

Recreational and Skills Development Programs for Youth:

The need for more recreational and skills development programs, particularly for vulnerable youth was identified over and over again. Youth who have constructive opportunities to participate in recreational and social activities are less likely to commit violent acts or to be victims of violence.

The City provides support to community-based programs youth programs through grants. As well, the Parks and Recreation Department provide a broad range of recreation programs to youth and some specific programs for youth at risk. The Children and Youth Action Committee is currently developing a Youth profile, which will include a preliminary audit of programs for youth provided by the City. An opportunity afforded through this initiative is to specifically identify the range of programs for youth at risk available throughout the City.

(7)It is recommended that a full audit of existing City-funded community-based programs and City Parks and Recreation programs for youth, and youth at risk be undertaken as part of the Youth Profile initiative of the Children and Youth Action Committee.

From the perspective of involving youth in recreation programs, there appear to be two key issues: one is having the resources for youth outreach in communities; the second is ensuring that the youth programs offered in the recreation centres are attractive to and appropriate for youth in the community.

The Parks and Recreation Department currently has one youth outreach worker in the Malvern community in North Scarborough. This position has proven highly effective in encouraging youth participation in recreation settings, and more generally, in linking at-risk youth with other supports that through the Malvern Youth Resource Centre. The youth outreach model has also been effective in diverting youth from hanging out at subway stations, as demonstrated in the TTC pilot project.

The Parks and Recreation Department has identified a number of communities where youth outreach is a particular priority: Kingston Road/ Galloway/ Heron Park area, the former City of York, Jane/Finch and Falstaff communities, Regent Park and Ward 24 (the downtown core). There are some common characteristics that indicate there are more youth at risk in those communities, or that there is a greater need for more proactive intervention so that youth are aware of the range of programs available to them. These characteristics include: a high incidence of poverty as reflected in low family incomes and numbers of families on social assistance; high densities of public housing; relatively high numbers of youth in relation to the overall population; prevalence of violence and gang related activity reported in the community; and high numbers of families who have recently immigrated to Canada, and for whom English is often not a first or second language. These communities have also been identified because there are existing community service networks for a youth worker to tap into. It is estimated that the annual cost of funding an outreach worker would be $35,000.00.

The second issue is ensuring that the available recreational programming is appropriate for a broad range of youth, and particularly youth at risk. This requires looking at innovative, new approaches to reducing barriers to participation, and making services accessible and relevant to youth at risk. It also requires that youth be involved in developing and evaluating the recreation programs for their use. The Parks and Recreation Department has struck a Youth at Risk Project Team to develop a strategy for improving access to programs for youth at risk. This strategy will be developed for implementation in the fall programming schedule.

(8)It is recommended that access to recreation programs for youth at risk, and developing appropriate programs for youth at risk be a priority for the Parks and Recreation Department. To that end, it is recommended that the Department propose a feasible strategy for improving access and services for youth at risk, to be implemented in the fall programming schedule. This will require that funding implications be identified during the 1999 budget process. It is critical that this strategy also include a process for involving youth in identifying, designing and evaluating programs.

A more targeted group of youth are those involved in street gangs. The Toronto Parks and Recreation Department has initiated discussions with the Los Angeles Parks and Recreation Department in an effort to learn more about working with youth involved in street gangs. The Los Angeles Parks and Recreation Department has successfully used innovative approaches with youth in the Watts area of Los Angeles, and a researcher from California State University, Jack Foley, has written a book based on their work.

Toronto Parks and Recreation are currently arranging for Jack Foley, and a senior staff of Los Angeles Parks and Recreation Department, Glenda Howley, to come to Toronto to share their knowledge and experience with City staff . Accompanying them will be three Los Angeles Parks and Recreation youth outreach workers who will stay in Toronto for a three week period to "hit the streets" with Toronto Parks and Recreation staff - meeting youth at-risk and finding ways to get youth involved in recreation as an alternative to gang activity. Parks and Recreation will also be inviting other City departments, such as Public Health and Community and Neighbourhood Services, and staff in youth-serving agencies to participate in this initiative.

Community Access to Schools:

The recent threat of school closures as a result of changes to the provincial education funding formula and the current discussions between the Boards of Education and the City are highlighting the importance of schools as community buildings. Already 60 TCDSB schools have been closed for community use - which is a warning flag that the role of schools may change in light of the revisions to the school funding formula. Recent deputations to the City's School Tax Committee reflected the concerns that many residents have of the impact of further restricting community access to schools, including the impact on youth violence. Community based organizations, the City, and officials within the Boards of Education have all identified the importance of access to school space in maintaining programs for youth that would keep then engaged and diverted from less desirable activities.

In November, the Premier announced changes to the proposed funding model that will permanently inject an additional $211 million into the system for school operations and renewal. Eighty-seven million will also be provided to ensure that no school board receives less operating money in 1999/2000 than it receives in 1998/99. The Boards of Education and the City are just in the process of examining how the revisions to the funding formula will impact on community use of schools. In light of the funding formula changes, it is apparent that a more strategic approach toward community use may be required. However, the Boards and the City will not be in a position to comment on the specific impacts of the funding changes on school closures or community use until the spring.

Monitoring Youth Safety in Schools:

A key emphasis must be for all sectors to continue working in a sustained and coordinated way to decrease the incidence of youth violence in schools. One important element of this is developing a monitoring tool that can be used in schools and communities to gauge progress in reducing both the incidence of violence and the perception of youth safety in schools.

It is proposed that an annual monitoring report be developed by the Boards of Education Research Departments, with the cooperation of community-based organizations such as Central Toronto Youth Services. The basis for the monitoring report would be a questionnaire administered to youth in high schools in the City, and in a cross-section of community programs, such as parks and recreation. The questionnaire could be used by school principals to monitor student's perceptions of safety in schools.

(9)It is recommended that an annual monitoring report on youth safety in schools be developed by the Boards of Education and the Police. A questionnaire would be administered to high school students each fall beginning in 1999.

Early Intervention Programming:

The importance of positive parenting skills, good nutrition programs, early nutrition, high quality pre-school programs and child care are all essential to support children's healthy development. There are currently a broad range of programs offered by Public Health, Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the Boards of Education. Fraser Mustard is currently preparing a report on Readiness to Learn, which will provide direction for ensuring that children have the appropriate programs and supports available so that they begin school ready to learn. The Children and Youth Action Committee will also be producing a Children's Report Card later this spring that will establish some indicators for assessing children's well-being in the City.

A particular issue that has been identified by the boards of education is the need for enhanced speech and language services in the school system. Research has demonstrated that early speech and language delays are highly related to language learning, academic, social and behavioural problems in the school years. The provincial government has introduced the Toronto Preschool Speech and Language system as part of a province-wide initiative to ensure that all preschool children with speech and language disorders receive services to better prepare them for school. This is a very positive initiative as it is expected to enhance the speech and language services for pre-schoolers and ultimately reduce the long -term need for special education services in schools. However, the benefits of greatly enhanced preschool speech and language will be lost without equally enhanced speech and language services in the school systems to support students further language learning and curriculum development, particularly in their early school years. Speech and language services in the school boards are well below levels required to meet the needs, which is recognized at 10 percent of the school population.

Safe Schools Policy:

The Minister of Education has recently invited education stakeholders to participate in consultations on school safety to be considered as the provincial government moves to establishes provincial-wide standards for safety in schools. The Ontario Crime Control Commission, in its Youth Crime report has suggested policies such as zero tolerance for violent or disorderly behaviour, short term placement centres for initial behavioural misconduct, and suspension or expulsion for specified violent or threatening behaviours. The Minister has also identified possible options, such as introducing dress-codes and behavioural standards in schools.

The TCDSB currently has policies in place to deal with issues of violence: Violence Prevention Policy, the Sexual Harassment Policy and Guidelines and the Conflict Resolution Policy, Regulations and guidelines. These policies will need to be reviewed once the provincial safety standards are released. The TDSB has currently drafted a new Safe Schools policy that will apply across the newly amalgamated board. The Board will release the policy for consultation concurrent with the release of the provincial guidelines.

(10)It is recommended that the City encourage the Ministry of Education and Training and the Boards of Education to bring forward and implement anti-violence policies in schools as quickly as possible. These policies must make it clear that violence, weapons, and gang activity will be met with immediate and substantive consequences, but also recognize that meaningful strategies and alternative programs must be available to support youth and respond effectively to meet their needs.

(11)It is recommended that staff awareness and training be a key component of implementing Board policies related to safe schools, with an emphasis on ensuring that staff are equipped to deal effectively with violent incidents as they arise.

Programs for Youth in need:

Young offenders often experience tremendous difficulty enrolling in schools, and the demand for programs to serve youth with severe developmental or behavioural needs greatly exceeds the supply. School boards currently provide a range of alternative programs, sometimes in partnership with community-based agencies and treatment facilities to meet the very specialized learning needs for these youth.

An example of a successful model of service is the Metro Program for Expelled Students, a jointly funded program between the Ministry of Education and Training and the TDSB. Funding is provided on a year by year basis. It is a voluntary program that involved parents and community-based agencies. It provides individualized programs for students and is conducted outside of school board property. The Hincks Treatment Centre is involved as part of a support team, which is critical to the model's success.

Funding for programs such as the Metro Program for Expelled Students needs to be incorporated into a long term funding commitment by the Ministry to ensure stability and continuity of programs in both boards of education. The number and range of programs needs to adequately reflect the needs and the demands, as reflected by the number of youth involved in serious incidents of violence on school property or in the community.

Mediation as a First Response:

City of Toronto consultations on the Young Offenders Act led by Councillor Dennis Fotinos and the work of the Community Safety Task Force identified the importance of developing effective alternative measures to the court system. Because young offender cases often involve an exploration of procedural and legal issues and the case processing is dependant upon the availability of defence counsel, it is not unusual for several months to pass between the time of the offence and the disposition. It was identified that it still takes one to three years for first time young offenders to go through the courts - which means that the ability of the system to respond effectively and in a timely manner, where youth are held accountable for their actions is limited.

Alternative justice models are being explored through the school system, as well as in community-based agencies as means of providing a more accountable and effective response to dealing with youth crime. The Ministry of the Attorney General has very recently announced that the City of Toronto will be one of six locations across the province where Youth Justice Committees are piloted.

Boards of Education are also being funded to pilot restorative justice models, including diversionary peer mediation in schools. Restorative measures effectively address a wide variety of issues in school settings including truancy, bullying, harassment, and criminal cases. It offers a means for facilitating change in individuals and allows for referral to services for related problems such as anger management, chemical dependency or abuse counselling. The benefits of Restorative Justice models are: it helps keep youth connected to their schools; it decreases the disruption to the education of offenders and victims; it offers the victim and offender support and resolution to the issues; it strengthens home, school, police and community partnerships; and it reduces the financial, emotional and quality of life costs of crime.

The provincial government's commitment to alternative methods of dealing with non-violent offenders is a positive one. However, in implementing the various pilots, it is critical that there be coordination between the community-based Youth Justice Committees and the restorative justice models and diversionary peer mediation models in schools.

(12)The Province, led by the Ministry of the Attorney General, in partnership with the City of Toronto and the Boards of Education should evaluate existing initiatives, identify opportunities for expanding alternative sentencing options, and establish a protocol on the respective roles and responsibilities of the community-based agencies, and the schools involved in these initiatives.

Changes to the Young Offenders Act:

The Mayor has recently forwarded the Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Young Offenders, a consultation paper on proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act, chaired by Councillor Fotinos, to the Federal Minister of Justice. The report outlines the views of City residents on the Young Offenders Act, and the changes required to improve the Act.

One of the changes proposed in this paper is to reduce the complexity involved in determining whether statements by young offenders can be admitted as rules of evidence. The rules of evidence established in the Young Offenders Act make proof of cases where there are no independent eyewitnesses very difficult. The police and the Ministry of the Attorney General have identified the rigidity in the current system as being a key impediment to getting a statement from youth admitted as evidence.

It was also identified that for a very small number of youth, counselling and rehabilitation is not effective, particularly within the time constraints (3 years maximum sentence) under the YOA. For these few individuals, consideration should be given to increasing their sentences, provided the appropriate supports/ programs are available for the youth while in custody.

(13)It is recommended that the Federal Minister of Justice act quickly to make changes to the Young Offenders Act, and that she consider the comments and suggestions identified in the Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Young Offenders in amending the Act.

Appendix 1

High Level Summary of the Range of Programs and Initiatives provided by the Boards of Education

Curriculum-based programs address many topics including, but not limited to, anti-bullying, communication skills, decision-making/ problem solving, leadership, team building, violence prevention, social skills development, and anger management.

Diversionary Peer Mediation Pilot Programs

Crisis Prevention and Intervention Programs

Anger Management Programs

Conflict Resolution/ Peer Mediation Programs

School Watch and Crimestoppers

SAVE (Students Against Violent Environments)

Alternate Secondary School Programs such as Metro Program for Expelled Students, SALEP, CAPSULE, ACE and SPACES for youth suspended from school

Resources, such as the booklet, Peacemaking in Elementary Schools are available which identify commonly used

Truancy Officers and Court Liaison Officers (TDSB only)

--------

Appendix 2

Toronto Parks and Recreation Special Initiatives for Youth

Toronto Parks and Recreation offers many excellent special initiatives for youth and at-risk youth. The following brief inventory illustrates the variety of creative approaches used by parks and recreation staff and youth in many communities across the city.

2.1Chalkfarm Junior Youth Outdoor Recreation Camp:

Thirty youth ages 11 to 15 attend a summer youth camp at Chalkfarm Community Centre. Youth in the program work with staff to plan a two-night outdoor camping experience at Oba-sa-teeka Scout Reserve near Egbert, Ontario. The youth raise $500 to cover the cost of bussing and accommodation and get food donations so that everyone can go. In the weeks before the trip, youth learn orienteering and camping skills and about nature in the outdoor environment. They plan special outdoor group activities of interest in an outdoor setting. Parents are involved through parent meetings.

2.2Young Women's Soccer at Chalkfarm:

Young women 13 to 15 attend a Young Women's Club program at Chalkfarm Community Centre. As a special component of their summer program, the girls obtained a sponsorship from the Jane/Wilson Mall that covered the cost of joining the North York Soccer League, their team uniforms and some equipment.

2.3FOCUS Against Substance Abuse Youth Drop-in Program:

At the O'Connor Community Centre Toronto Parks and Recreation has a joint initiative with the O'Connor FOCUS Against Substance Abuse, a Community Agency. The Youth Drop-in is a program for youth ages 13-21 yrs. It is a combination of life skills, resume writing, job search skills, discussions on youth related issues, stress management, healthy life style alternatives, education on alcohol and substance misuse, guest speakers and basketball skills development. The program operated during our fall session Saturday afternoons from 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.

Short term results included more ownership for the O'Connor Community Centre, rise in youth volunteers in our Snack Bar, Children's Program and community events, youth accepting ownership and responsibility for their actions, increased in the awareness of youth related issues, i.e., basketball scholarships and S. A. T. (Scholastic Assessment Test) and more awareness of the enrolment process of Colleges and Universities in the US and Canada.

2.4Driftwood Substance Abuse Community Action Group:

Children, as young as six, and youth have been found sniffing glue at local schools and community centres. Toronto Parks and Recreation staff have taken the lead role to pull together cultural organizations, such as the Canadian Cambodian Association, public health, drug addiction services, youth clinical services, youth council representatives and many others to learn about the issue of substance abuse by children and youth and to develop community-based strategies to reduce glue sniffing and substance abuse. Many groups are now coordinating their efforts to offer positive alternatives to substance abuse to youth in the community.

2.5Rose Park Community Centre's Young Women's LEAD Program:

Young women participate in a social educational program that they design. The aim of the program is to empower young women through discussion and learning about topics of top priority to them including sexuality, educational opportunities, entrepreneurial skills. In addition, young women from this community have just returned from a young women's conference in Hamilton, Ontario.

2.6Rose Park Community Centre's LEAD Program for Young Men:

Basketball is the draw for male youth in this community centre. Youth play ball and spend time doing homework and learning life skills, as well.

 2.7Parkdale Community Centre HYPE (Helping Young People Excel) Program:

Youth in the Parkdale community have some really exciting recreation underway. They are looking at how their recreation interest can be used to develop their professional selves. Some are involved in learning about mural painting and subsequently been employed to paint them in the community. Others have been involved in getting a radio station and a newspaper underway. And yet others are developing films that are letting youth express themselves.

2.8Partners in Prevention:

A collaborative partnership of agencies, volunteers and organizations focuses on the prevention of injury for children and families in the North York District, Parks and Recreation Department. The program has been in place for four years through the support funding from Bloorview Children's Hospital Foundation and North York Public Health. Participation from regional hospitals, Parks and Recreation, Race and Ethnic Relations Committee, schools board, volunteers, Bloorview, public health and other organizations have made the program a real success. Activities are structured through workgroups focussed on road safety, home safety, and violence prevention.

2.9Pro-action Program:

Youth in the Danforth and Coxwell area have benefited from a joint program from Parks and Recreation, Community Health Centre, Toronto Police, Local BIA's and a local City Home Complex. The project was started in response to concerns about youth harassment, bullying and property damage within local schools, housing complexes and surrounding neighbourhoods. Goals were to develop positive relationships between community institutions, reduce reports of delinquency, create positive encounters between youth and business owners and police. Funding was applied through the Crime Prevention Investment Fund. Parks and Recreation played a major role in this project. The creation of Fairmont Community Centre will help to ensure that programming for youth is identified as a priority in this community.

2.10Kennedy Subway Youth Workers:

Parks and Recreation together with the TTC, East Metro Youth Services, and the YMCA have expanded the availability of youth workers at Kennedy Subway Station to deal with youth violence and anti-social behaviour. The program is aimed at youth 13 years of age and older.

2.11Outdoor Recreation Experience:

A joint initiative between Bluewater Overnight Camps and the John Innes Community Recreation Centre prepare youth for a 12 day overnight experience on the coast of Lake Huron. Target youth from Moss Park, Regent Park, Cabbage Town, and St. Jamestown participated in leadership development experiences in an outdoor setting. Youth participated in horseback riding, touring coast guard boats, first aid training, nature excursions, a wide range of physical pursuits, and an extensive leadership development course. Short term measurable results included: dramatic increase in the number of youth using the community centre, ownership for youth lounge, reduction in youth related issues at the centre, rise in youth volunteers.

2.12Gardening Opportunity for Youth Aged 16 to 24:

Food Share Metro Toronto, with the support with the City of Toronto Parks and Recreation Department and Youth Services Canada, hired 14 staff positions for youth in a 6 month long internship program beginning in the Spring of 1998. At risk youth, often homeless, worked with skilled teachers learning about themselves and gardening, while helping community gardening groups to establish successful gardening plots.

2.13Marshal-in-Training Program:

Offered in the West Region, North York District, Toronto Parks and Recreation at all arenas for youth between 14 and 17 years of age. The M.I.T. is designed to assist youth to develop leadership skills, achieve personal growth and increase their potential for employment. Workshops on safety, customer service, communication and conflict resolution are offered. Volunteer opportunities are also offered where they can apply the techniques and skills they have learned.

2.14Youth Basketball League:

In partnership with the Toronto Police, Toronto Parks and Recreation offers a basketball league for youth aged 13 to 15 at Malvern, North Kipling, Driftwood, Harbourfront and Regent Park Community Centres. Youth participate in life skills workshops in addition to regular league play.

2.15Discovery Walk Program:

The program contributes to the awareness of Toronto's parks and ravines systems, promoting community interaction and safer trails. The target group is mostly children with some representation of the 13-14 age group. Partners include the Boards of Education, Toronto Field Naturalists, Design Development and Maintenance, Parks and Recreation.

2.16Youth Fitness Centre:

At S.H. Armstrong Community Recreation Centre, youth aged 12-15 years are encouraged to participate in fitness training and healthy lifestyles. As well as having a fitness benefit, the program provides the staff with an avenue to work on overall communication and program input from the youth in the community. It also provides an additional constructive outlet for youth involvement.

2.17High Risk Youth Program:

Jimmie Simpson Community Recreation Centre with the support of the Advisory Council offers a youth program from 5-10 p.m. Mon.-Fri. from June 28-Sept 4. and in the Fall and winter Monday and Saturday evenings. The program is geared to high risk youth in the community and provides youth with an opportunity to participate in physical, social, and creative programs. Leadership training and opportunities are provided through a volunteer development program. Approx. 14 males and 16 females between 14-17 years of age attend the program.

2.18York Youth Basketball League:

Toronto Parks and Recreation offers a basketball league for youth ages 7-15. There are 175 players and operates out of George Harvey C.I. and Centennial Recreation Centre in the Keele and Eglinton Ave. West area. Sponsorship from local politicians and business was obtained. Volunteer development is a goal of the program over the next few year so that they can assume leadership and administration of the league.

2.19Surf the Net for a Job:

McCormick and Regent Park Community Recreation Centres offer youth an opportunity to gain Internet access through the HRDC program. Youth are provided with information and assistance in job search, resume and interview skills. Older youth are able to book times to use the computers and gain access to the internet.

2.20Youth Physical Recreation Programs:

Staff at St. Lawrence Community Recreation Centre and the Advisory Council are exploring options to expand the youth program due to cut backs in the Board of Education Gym time and a rapidly growing youth population. Space and funding are being secured to house ball hockey, indoor soccer, basketball, and roller skating. Volunteer opportunities in youth leadership are also planned as part of the new initiative. An aggressive campaign to obtain funding from corporate sponsors is planned.

2.21Youth Leadership:

The goals of good nutrition, physical activity, and the non-use of tobacco are the goals of a joint program between Toronto Parks and Recreation, School Boards and Toronto Public Health. Various locations throughout the city are being utilized. Target groups are grades 6, 7, 8. Components of leadership training will allow the youth to become mentors and promoters of Heart Health to their own peer groups within their schools and communities. Budget for the program comes from the Ministry of Health.

2.22Youth Leadership Camp:

The Scarborough District of Toronto Parks and Recreation offers leadership opportunities at Camp Samac in partnership with Community Services and the Police. Target groups are youth aged 12-18 years of age who may be at risk.

2.23Youth Drop In Programs:

Across the new city, several opportunities exist for youth to drop in to a variety of programs that promote positive use of leisure time and appropriate socialization and health education. There are a variety of partners that include: Community Services, World Churches, Apartment Co-ops, Youth Employment.

2.24Street Buds Hockey Program:

Partners in this successful program include: Nike Canada, Toronto Maple Leafs, Parks and Recreation. Target audience is 13-16 years of age. Hockey skills, role modelling and proper use of leisure time are program goals.

2.25Malvern Youth Resource Centre:

The East District, Toronto Parks and Recreation together with Malvern Family Resource Centre, Public Health and Youth Link offer a successful program to youth aged 13-24 years of age. Program content includes life skills, health and successful use of leisure time.

2.26John Innes Community Recreation Centre:

Provides a variety of programming for youth ages 13-20 years old. In the combined communities of Moss Park, Regent Park, and St. Jamestown, staff have made youth a priority and worked to develop the Teen Leadership Development Program. Program objectives include: increasing participants abilities to work as leaders, role models and team members, job search skills through volunteer opportunities, certification program, drug prevention, and to raise self-esteem. This program operated in the summer months and included a three day canoe trip to McCrae Lake. For many participants this was the first time they had seen stars, cooked over an open fire, or slept in a tent.

2.27Bell Raptor Ball Instructional Basketball Program at Various Locations:

Target ages are for children and youth aged 6-14 and older. Provides after school programming, speciality skill development, role modelling, positive use of free time. Additional goals are to provide youth with the opportunity to learn the skills involved in basketball in a safe recreational setting at no or minimal cost. Locations include: Roding Community Centre, Humber Summit Middle School, Gosford Public School and East York Community Centre, plus various other locations.

2.28Integration Facilitators-in-Training Program:

An advanced leadership program offers youth aged 14-17 in the North District an opportunity to work with children with a disability.

2.29Regent Park and Alexandra Park High Risk Youth Project:

These specific initiatives address violence issues in local communities that are considered high risk.

2.30P.R.I.D.E.(Parent Resource Institute for Drug Education) East York Youth Against Drugs:

This is a self directed program for young people who promote a drug-free lifestyle to their friends through songs, skits and dance. This program helps youth develop their creative and artistic skills, public speaking skills, and builds self-esteem.

2.31Youth Speak Out East York:

This initiative was held in the East York region and gave youth an opportunity to speak-out on a number of issues that affected youth and their lives and to assist them in making wise decisions around staying in school, drug free lifestyles and broader community service.

2.32Bob Abate Youth Cooking for Each Other:

Youth are cooking for one another at the Bob Abate Community Recreation Centre. This program provides a great opportunity to learn cooking skills, nutritional information, and social skills.

2.33North District, West Region Leadership in Training Programs:

Year round opportunities are available for youth ages 14 to 17 to participate in structured leadership programs. In the fall/winter/spring, participants attend bi-weekly workshops on leadership skills, communication, anti-bias programming, conflict resolution, child development and are placed in children=s and youth programs throughout the region. In the summer, a four-level leadership program is offered, starting at the leadership camp level for youth 12 to 13. In leadership camp, participants are offered an introduction to leadership through the group development process. There are several opportunities for youth 14 to 17, including theory and placement program in our summer camps and advanced leadership through our Junior Leader and Integration Facilitator- in-Training Programs.

2.34Playmobile Program:

In the North District, West Region, a van, fully loaded with recreation equipment and supplies, staffed by two qualified, trained leaders, visit local parks and other hang-outs of at-risk youth during the summer. The target audience is youth 10 to 17. Special events are held throughout the summer, including out trips and tournaments. The goal of the program is to reach youth at-risk, youth with a disability, new Canadian youth, and young women, and to provide opportunities to connect them with community centre activities.

2.35Rexdale Youth Resource Centre:

Rexdale Youth Resource Centre is a collaborative community partnership offering employment, education, health, recreation, and personal services to youth. It is a resource centre for Etobicoke youth between the ages of 15 to 24. The centre is designed to assist young people secure and maintain employment while fostering an atmosphere of personal growth and development.

2.36Rockcliffe Youth Centre:

Rockcliffe Youth Centre services the youth living in the Jane/Woolner area. Many of the youth living in this area would be considered at risk due to various socio and economic factors. Currently, Toronto Parks and Recreation is in partnership with Syme/Woolner Neighbourhood Association as well as Toronto Housing Authority in the summer to provide a yearly vibrant, quality recreation drop-in program.

2.37Kesri Foundation Tutorial Program:

This program targets Punjabi youth for whom English is a second language. The intent is to support and encourage children and youth in their school work.

2.38Oriole - Woodbine Junior Youth Leader Program:

An innovative partnership program between a school and recreation centre which provides practical training and peer role models for a lunch time and after school time recreation program for youth.

This initiative is a cooperative venture between the teachers and principal of Woodbine Junior High School and Oriole Community Resource Centre recreation staff. Students who have good grades and who show leadership capabilities are picked by teachers and referred to the recreation centre's leadership program. Chosen students receive training with Parks and Recreation (leadership skills, first aid etc.) and an opportunity to practice their skills by assisting at the youth program which is operated for their peers, while being supervised by senior recreation staff. Through this placement of part volunteer work and part paid, the students learn the craft of recreation leadership and set a good example for their peers. A requirement of the program is that all leadership students must keep up their grades.

Appendix 3

Grants Programs related to the issue of Youth Violence funded by the City of Toronto

The Community Services Grants Programs (C.S.G.P.) represents a combination of 10 existing grants programs, including East York Community Grants, Etobicoke Community Service and Development Grants, Metro Community Resources Fund, Metro Emergency Support Fund, Metro Special Projects Grants, North York General and Sustaining Grants, Scarborough Grants to Organizations, Toronto General Grants, and York Community Service Grants.

C.S.G.P. funds 69 agencies across the City that deliver programs for at-risk youth, which include programs and counselling to reduce violence. For example, the East Metro Youth Services youth violence prevention program incorporates peer mediation, conflict resolution and anger management training for youth in the former City of Scarborough and former Borough of East York.

The City also provides support to community projects through Breaking the Cycle of Violence grants, Access and Equity grants, Drug Abuse Prevention grants, and Recreation grants. Breaking the Cycle of Violence grants focus explicitly on violence prevention, while the other grants support projects that prevent violence through community capacity building projects.

Breaking the Cycle of Violence grants supports community agencies in working to prevent violence against women and other vulnerable groups in the community. In 1998, 14 grants totalling $133,500.00 were approved for projects for children and youth. Community organizations are engaging youth in violence prevention through a variety of approaches, including peer education, leadership development, and conflict resolution programs. Seven projects have significant connections to youth in school settings. For example, Youthlink Inner City's Peer Education program will train youth Peer Educators who have had difficulties with violence and have successfully completed anger management and violence reduction training. Abrigo will provide violence prevention workshops for 1,000 children aged 12-14 in 12 schools serving the Portuguese community.

(A copy of Appendix 4, entitled "Public Health Interventions to Address Youth Violence School Based and Community", which was attached to the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Membersoff Council with the February 23, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

 4

Final Report of the Task Force on Community Safety

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1)striking out Recommendation No. (1) of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)the adoption of the recommendations contained in the report (February, 1999) from the Task Force on Community Safety, entitled "Toronto. My City. A Safe City. A Community Safety Strategy for the City of Toronto."; and further, that any recommendations embodied in such report which require funding beyond approved Departmental budget allocations, be the subject of further reporting to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee by the Chief Administrative Officer;"; and

(2)amending Recommendation No. (35) of the aforementioned report from the Task Force on Community Safety to provide that five Members of Council representing all areas of the City, be appointed to such Task Force.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the Recommendations contained in the report (February, 1999) from the Task Force on Community Safety, entitled "Toronto. My City. A Safe City. A Community Safety Strategy for the City of Toronto"; subject to those Recommendations contained therein which have financial implications being referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee; and

(2)that City Council indicate in strong terms, to the Federal and Provincial Government, to take immediate measures to deal with the ongoing concerns respecting prostitution in the City of Toronto.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having conveyed its appreciation to the Members of the Task Force on Community Safety, and staff for their efforts in finalizing the aforementioned report.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (February 8, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Task Force on Community Safety on January 25, 1999, adopted its Final Report and requested that the report be forwarded to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and to City Council for adoption of the recommendations.

Background:

The Task Force on Community Safety had before it a communication (January 14, 1999) from Ms. Carolyn Whitzman, Coordinator, enclosing the final draft of the Final Report of the Task Force on Community Safety.

The members of the Task Force unanimously adopted the Final Report.

--------

(Recommendations embodied in the report from the

Task Force on Community Safety, entitled

"Toronto My City A Safe City. A Community Safety

Strategy for the City of Toronto" dated February 1999.)

Recommendations:

The Task Force's recommendations were based on the following criteria:

Mandate:

(1)Is it appropriate that local government be responsible for this recommendation?

(2)Does the recommendation fit in with the Task Force on Community Safety's mandate?

(3)Does it reflect the views of Toronto citizens?

(4)Does it build on programs and policies that have worked in Toronto or elsewhere?

(5)Does it develop partnerships between the City of Toronto and other partners?

(6)Does it address the root causes of crime for most effective interventions?

Impact:

(1)Does the recommendation address the needs of those most vulnerable to crime, fear, and violence?

(2)Is the recommendation fair to all citizens? Does it "buy" safety for one group at the expense of another group?

(3)Can the impact of this recommendation be measured?

Resources:

(1)Does the recommendation build on existing resources?

(2)Is there no significant money or personnel shift in the short term?

(3)If a long term shift or addition to City resources is indicated, will the recommendation increase service to the public?

The Task Force has grouped its recommendations into five directions for action:

(A)Strengthening Neighbourhoods

(B)Investing in Children and Youth

(C)Policing and Justice

(D)Information and Coordination

(E)Making it Happen

--------

(A)Strengthening Neighbourhoods:

(1)A Safety Audit in Every Neighbourhood: Safety audits are an effective way for community groups to identify unsafe neighbourhoods and how they can be improved. A safety audit involves a small group of residents who take a walk through a neighbourhood, park or facility, identifying features which may contribute to crime or make them feel unsafe. More neighbourhoods need to know about safety audits, and the City of Toronto needs to ensure consistent and rapid responses to recommendations arising from safety audits. This should be accomplished by:

(a)training appropriate staff from City Planning, Police, Public Health, councillors' offices, Parks and Recreation, Licensing and Municipal Standards, Housing, and the TTC to help communities do safety audits;

(b)developing a staff lead from each ward who would coordinate and track responses to recommendations arising from audits;

(c)promoting safety audits, especially in high crime neighbourhoods;

(d)publishing a City of Toronto safety audit guide and putting it online so that councillors, community centres, libraries, and community agencies can access it;

(e)developing a computer program that tracks all safety audits conducted, and the status of recommendations; and

(f)developing a protocol which ensures that recommendations from safety audits are responded to on a high priority basis.

Lead:City Planning, working with the divisions named above and with appropriate community groups.

Impact:An increase in number of safety audits and decrease in response time to recommendations arising from safety audits, with a goal of all residential neighbourhoods to have conducted a community led safety audit by the end of 2001. There should be an independent evaluation at the end of 2001 as to the effectiveness of the program in decreasing fear and crime.

(2)Making Public Buildings and Spaces Safer: The City of Toronto should ensure that City-owned buildings and open spaces are models for the integration of safety in planning by:

(a)conducting safety audits, with service users, in city-owned libraries, housing, TTC, parks, recreation centres, and parking garages;

(b)ensuring that safety and design guidelines are used when renovating and constructing City buildings;

(c)ensuring that these spaces have adequate lighting, landscaping, and maintenance; and

(d)ensuring that major new developments, such as Yonge-Dundas Square, have safety as a priority criteria in design.

Lead:City Planning, with Libraries, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Parking Authority, TTC, Works and Emergency Services and Police.

Impact:All City-owned public space to be audited by 2001, with improvements to City-owned spaces as a result of safety audits.

(3)Putting Pedestrians First: The City of Toronto should investigate the following mechanisms for improving pedestrian safety, especially for seniors, children, and people with disabilities, by:

(a)examining best practice approaches to pedestrian safety issues, in conjunction with the Toronto Pedestrian Committee and Transportation Services;

(b)increasing the time for pedestrian crosswalks, especially in downtown areas;

(c)supporting initiatives that promote safety for pedestrians, including the Walking School Bus Program;

(d)working with Police and private charities to expand the number of Children's Safety Villages; and

(e)continuing to support the work of the Cycling Committee and the Bike Ambassadors in teaching bicyclists traffic safety.

Lead:Transportation Services, working with the Cycling and Pedestrian Committees.

Impact:Decrease in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries by the end of 2001, as a result of increased public education and improved planning. An increase in pedestrian traffic by children, seniors, and people with disabilities in neighbourhoods.

(4)Maintenance and Community Safety: The City of Toronto should encourage property owners and landlords to manage and maintain their buildings in a manner which promotes community safety by:

(a)providing training and materials to property owners, landlords, tenants and BIAs (business improvement areas), on maintenance issues;

(b)promoting safety audits to property owners, landlords and tenants in high-crime areas;

(c)implementing a "Porch Lights On" campaign that would encourage neighbourhood residents to leave their front lights on, which would increase the amount of lighting on streets without significant cost to homeowners; and

(d)enacting a bylaw ensuring that all unsolicited graffiti be removed from buildings upon discovery, failing which the City would be within its right to enter onto the property and remove the graffiti at the owners expense.

Lead:Buildings to work with Legal, Municipal Standards, Police, and community organizations representing landlords, tenants, residents, and BIAs.

Impact:Increase in maintenance standards across the City, especially in high-crime areas, leading to a decrease in property crime.

(5)Problem Properties: The City of Toronto should ensure a consistent approach to "problem properties" where drug dealing, after-hours clubs and other anti-social activities are taking place by a coordinated crackdown on these properties as they are identified, including the establishment of interdepartmental committees for every community council, similar to successful models in the former cities of York and Toronto.

Lead:Licensing and Municipal Standards to bring together Police, Public Health, Legal, Buildings, City Councillors, in consultation with community organizations such as BIAs.

Impact:Decrease in number of identified "problem properties", increase in response time to complaints by citizens and police, decrease in crimes related to these properties.

(6)By-Law Enforcement and Community Safety: The City of Toronto should enhance bylaw enforcement by:

(a)establishing a database on "problem properties" available to all relevant authorities for monitoring by-law compliance;

(b)improving training procedures for by-law inspectors;

(c)improving communications with the public regarding complaint tracking, assigning of files and follow-up measures;

(d)re-investing all fines, where possible and appropriate, collected from by-law infractions into the communities in which they were collected; and

(e)ensure public participation in the process by which licenses are granted to licensed establishments in close proximity to residential neighbourhoods.

Lead: Buildings, and Licensing and Municipal Standards, in consultation with community organizations, including BIAs.

Impact:Increase in by-law enforcement across the City, especially in high-crime areas, leading to a decrease in property crime.

(7)Promoting Neighbourhood Small Business: The City should continue to support and expand initiatives that work with small businesses to improve amenity and safety and provide local employment opportunities, such as Commercial Facade Improvement Programs, Festival and Special Events Programs, and Community Improvement Committees.

Lead:Economic Development

Impact:Decrease in vacancy rates and property crime rates in vulnerable commercial areas.

(8)Staff Support for Business Safety Initiatives: The City of Toronto should continue staff developmental support to initiatives such as TaxiWatch, Transit Community Watch, and Business Watch that organize employees to take responsibility for reporting potentially criminal acts, and should continue to organize crime prevention seminars for local businesses in partnership with Police.

Lead: Licensing (TaxiWatch), TTC (Transit Community Watch), Economic Development (Business Watch and crime prevention seminars) working with Police.

Impact:Expansion of these initiatives, in terms of number of businesses and individuals involved by the end of 2001. Individual evaluation of these initiatives, in terms of their impact in decreasing crime.

(9)Drug Abuse Committee: The Toronto Board of Health should appoint a committee to deal with the community impact of illicit drugs and other harmful substances. It should include citizen representatives from neighbourhoods that are most affected by the illicit drug trade. The Committee should advise the Board in the development of comprehensive and innovative policies and programs to mitigate the harm done to individuals, families and communities, and work with senior levels of government on curbing the illicit drug trade in Toronto. There should be sub-committees to address specific issues (e.g. street drug use, liquor licensing).

Lead:Board of Health and Public Health Department

Impact:Citizen input into decision-making on drug abuse policies for the new City. Increased programs and coordination of programs, leading to a continued decrease in drug abuse and crimes associated with the illicit drug trade.

(10)Drug Abuse Prevention Community Grants Program: The City of Toronto should expand the Drug Abuse Prevention Community Grants Program, with an appropriate level of funding to cover the entire City without jeopardizing existing programs. The Board of Health should continue the practice of appointing citizens, including representatives of communities of concern, to review these grants and hear appeals.

Lead:Grant Review Committee to set priorities. Public Health to administer program.

Impact:Increased number of communities providing effective substance abuse prevention programs. Need for evaluation of Drug Abuse Prevention Community Grants Program at the end of its first year of City-wide implementation.

(11)Coordination with Official Plan: The City of Toronto should ensure that community safety be a major focus in the City's new Official Plan by:

(a)making public safety a criterion for development proposals, as it is in Official Plans for many former municipalities;

(b)publishing "safer city" planning guidelines, based on the award-winning guidelines from the former Cities of Toronto and Scarborough; and

(c)providing training opportunities for planning staff, developers and architects, police and community groups, once the guidelines have been developed.

Lead:City Planning

Impact:Development and use of guidelines and provision of training, to lead to safer planning and design. Need for evaluation of use and effectiveness of safety guidelines after three years of implementation.

(12)Coordination with Affordable and Accessible Housing Initiatives: The Task Force recognizes that adequate and affordable housing is a prerequisite for a safe society, and that homeless people are particularly vulnerable to crime and violence. Policy, programs and services responding to the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force report should acknowledge the relationship between community safety and the homelessness crisis.

Lead: Homelessness Task Force and Housing.

(B)Investing in Children, Youth, and Families:

Youth As Leaders in Crime Prevention

(13)Coordination of Child and Youth Violence Prevention Across the City: The City of Toronto should assist in the coordination of school boards, community agencies, police, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, City staff and other partners to promote comprehensive and coordinated prevention resources to children, youth, and families at risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of abuse and crime. These prevention resources should be aimed at children and their caregivers from pregnancy through the end of secondary school. The City should also take leadership by ensuring that all city-funded programs for children, youth and families (childcare centres, parent-child drop-in centres, community recreation centres, libraries) include anti-violence program elements. The City should ensure that information about these resources is available to all parents and caregivers, by assisting in the development of school board wide and City-wide information networks.

Furthermore, the City should assist in the development of a Case Management Referral Protocol between childcare centres, schools, police, courts, and community agencies, that allows better coordination of services to children who are offenders and/or victims of crime. This protocol would include when it is necessary and appropriate to inform Police when a crime has occurred or is suspected to have occurred.

Lead:Community and Neighbourhood Services to work with Children's Services, School Boards, Police, Public Health, senior levels of government, and appropriate community agencies to coordinate anti-violence resources and develop and publicize the protocol.

Impact:More prevention resources and better coordination of prevention resources aimed at children, youth and families, to lead to a decrease in youth crime and crimes against youth.

(14)Coordination of Substance Abuse Policies in Schools: Public Health should work with other community partners to assist in reviewing and revising current school substance abuse policies to include: education, prevention, early identification, support for users, and training and support for school, Public Health, and community agency staff.

Lead:Public Health to work with School Boards, Police, and appropriate agencies such as the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health.

Impact:Increased coordination and provision of substance abuse programs to lead to decreased substance abuse among young people.

(15)Improving Parenting Supports: The City of Toronto should assist in the coordination of supports to parents, and promote the expansion of parenting skills education to sites as varied as libraries, schools, and workplaces, with an emphasis on high-risk families.

Lead: Public Health to work with the same groups listed in recommendation 13 to develop a list of parenting supports, and identify priorities and gaps in service. Potential funding sources should also be identified for expansion of service.

Impact:Increase in number of parenting skills education and people reached by this education.

(16)Youth Mentoring: The City of Toronto should expand its "One on One" school-based mentoring program that involves City staff in developing supportive personal relationships with children. Other sources of funding should be solicited to expand this successful program into the private sector.

Lead:Public Health, working with all interested City staff, police, and the Toronto Rotary Club.

Impact:By the end of 1999, expansion in number of staff and children participating in the One-on-One Mentoring program. By the end of 2000, expansion of model into private sector.

(17)Provision of Quality Recreation to Children, Youth and Families at Risk: City Council should recognize the provision of high-quality accessible recreation for children, youth and families at risk of being victims and/or offenders as the top priority for programming at recreation centres. Parks and Recreation should work with community agencies, school boards, libraries, housing, police and the TTC, to develop an inventory of where pre-school, after school and evening programs for youth, late night drop in programs, recreation leagues and community recreation agencies are presently provided, along with a needs assessment of where these services are most needed, and an analysis of possible sources of funding, including professional sports organizations as part of the Youth Profile initiative of the Children and Youth Action Committee. Furthermore, Parks and Recreation should report to City Council on ways to improve access to programs for high risk youth, and that this strategy involve youth in identifying and evaluating programs.

Lead:Parks and Recreation, working with the partners mentioned above.

Impact:City-wide needs assessment to have an impact on 2000 budget priorities. Increase in number of programs and attendance at these programs from high-risk youth. There has been some interest from the Centre for Criminology at the University of Toronto in evaluating the effectiveness of these programs in preventing youth crime.

(18)Self-Defense Classes: City Council should recognize the importance of self-defence classes in providing necessary skills for those most at risk for violence, including children, women and girls, seniors, people with disabilities, gay and lesbian people, and high-risk youth, by maintaining and expanding the number and range of self-defence classes provided in community recreation centres. Self-defence courses should be appropriate for the specific group, taught by instructors with a demonstrated sensitivity to the safety issues of the specific group, and should be regularly evaluated by their appropriateness and effectiveness.

Lead:Parks and Recreation, working with appropriate community organizations.

Impact:Increase in the number and range of self-defence classes taught in recreation centres. Self-defence classes should be independently evaluated for effectiveness in preventing fear and crime.

(19)Youth Employment/ Job Skills and Community Safety: The City of Toronto should continue to support and expand youth employment initiatives that combine job readiness/ employment creation with community safety enhancement, such as the Graffiti Transformation, Drug Ambassador and Job Corps Programs.

Furthermore, the City of Toronto should investigate co-funding possibilities for expanded programs that would employ at-risk youth to provide activities, maintenance and other improvements to neighbourhood business areas, and other public places in high-crime areas.

Lead:Economic Development, Culture and Tourism working with Community and Neighbourhood Services, Public Health, Police, Mayor's Youth Employment Strategy, school boards, and appropriate community agencies.

Impact:Expansion in number of youth employed through these programs; external evaluation of effectiveness in providing longer-term employment is necessary.

(20)Coordination of Community Safety, Children's Rights, and Youth Employment: The City should forward these recommendations to the Children and Youth Action Committee, the Mayor's Youth Employment Strategy, and the Economic Development Strategy for inclusion in these respective strategies.

(C)Policing and Justice:

(21)Community Police Liaison Committees (CPLCs): CPLCs are one way that Toronto Police can involve citizens in problem-oriented policing. Toronto Police Services should ensure that CPLCs work effectively by:

(a)requiring CPLCs to develop annual goals, and evaluating CPLCs in terms of their success in meeting these goals;

(b)having as a goal that Divisional CPLCs should reflect the demographic diversity of their area, and providing outreach to marginalized groups such as linguistic and cultural minorities; and

(c)requiring CPLCs to focus on the improvement of high-crime areas as identified by police statistics.

Lead:Toronto Police Services

Impact:Stimulate community interest and awareness of safety issues/crime concerns, and reduce crime in the areas targeted by the goals

(22)Promoting Community Justice Council Initiatives: The City of Toronto should assist in the development of a list of community justice initiatives, towards the goals of establishing a network of such initiatives across the new City, as well as publicizing and improving access to these initiatives. The City should also explore sources of funding for community justice councils, especially from senior levels of government.

Lead:Social Development to work the federal Ministry of Justice and the Ontario Solicitor General in bringing together Police, School Boards, and appropriate community agencies.

Impact:Increased coordination leading to increased number of cases diverted through community justice councils. Priority for independent evaluation of effectiveness in reducing re-offending.

(23)Expansion of Diversion and Community Service Programs, especially for young offenders:

The City of Toronto should work with the Police, Crowns, senior levels of government, and community organizations to expand pre-charge diversion programs, life skills programs, and involvement with community service orders for offenders, including park maintenance and graffiti removal. Where needed, offenders in alternative justice programs should be linked to drug abuse prevention and other supports. The City should also explore sources of funding for diversion and community service order programs from senior levels of government.

Lead:Parks and Recreation, working with Police and provincial and federal governments.

Impact: Increased number of participants in programs. Evaluation of impact in terms of preventing re-offending.

 (D)Information and coordination:

(24)A Central Information Point on Safety Concerns: The City of Toronto should develop a comprehensive database on crime prevention and community safety resources, accessible by internet and telephone. The database should include a continually updated inventory of who is doing what across the new City to promote community safety, including contact numbers, project summaries, evaluations and success stories. It is possible that this task should be contracted out to a community organization with relevant expertise and experience.

There should be as many access points as possible to this database. The City of Toronto should develop and implement a comprehensive communications strategy which ensures that people can find out about this information from a variety of sources, such as Access Toronto, councillors' offices, police divisions, libraries, recreation centres, social service offices, fire halls, and public health offices.

The communications strategy should also include the possibility of a newsletter that would summarize new policies, programs, initiatives and "good ideas" related to community safety.

Lead:Social Development to bring together Libraries, Information and Communications, Police, and relevant community agencies. This group to report to Council with recommendations, including costs of this information resource, and a request for proposals.

Impact:Establishment of the internet database and a launch by the Mayor of the communications strategy to lead to wide use by individuals and organizations, decreased duplication of resources, improved accessibility of community safety information and an increase in community initiatives.

(25)Promoting Research and Evaluation: The City of Toronto should ensure that there is maximum "value added" to its community grants that work to prevent violence by providing a central location that has reports and other information on past and present City-funded projects, and best practices worldwide. This site could be accessed by the general public, by community organizations, and by researchers interested in developing programs in a similar manner to the Drug Abuse Prevention Centre.

In addition, the City should endeavor to evaluate the impact of several long-term projects to promote community safety, such as the Toronto Transit Commission's Moving Forward recommendations (1989), and an update of the 1988 users survey of High Park. These evaluations can be one product of increased partnerships with universities and other research organizations. The federal government has also expressed interest in funding evaluations of safety initiatives.

Lead:Social Development, within the ongoing work under the Social Development Atlas, to bring together partners to promote research and evaluation regarding community safety.

Impact:Resource Centre used by community organizations, and evaluations of TTC and High Park initiatives to lead to promotion of best practices

(26)Promoting and Awarding Excellence: The City of Toronto should promote the dissemination of good ideas between communities. There are many ways that this goal can be accomplished:

(a)City staff should continue to work with other community partners, such as business, agencies, and school boards, to provide showcases and other opportunities to share "what works";

(b)The City of Toronto should host an annual event that celebrates community safety success stories, with an awards component recognizing private and public sectors, community groups and agencies.;

(c)Community grants should continue to require that agencies receiving funding publicize their work; in addition, City staff can provide "peer learning" opportunities for grants recipients; and

(d)City staff can also promote "leadership training" for community leaders, which would include training in program evaluation and promoting best practices.

Lead: Special Events to bring together Housing, Social Development, Parks and Recreation, Public Health, Police, and Access and Equity to report to Council on a proposed showcase event for November 1999, The Mayor's Community Safety and Crime Prevention Awards, including possibilities for outside funding for this event.

(27)Community Safety Grants: The City of Toronto should expand the Breaking the Cycle of Violence Grants program, in order to provide funding for the entire City of Toronto without threatening the level of funding now available to vulnerable communities. City staff should coordinate with City grants and grants from other levels of government and charitable organizations, by convening a Funders' Roundtable for Toronto-area Safety Initiatives.

Lead:Grant Review Committee to set grants priorities for 1999. Social Development to bring together Housing, Public Health, Parks and Recreation, Access and Equity, Police, Ontario Solicitor General, National Crime Prevention Council, United Way, and other partners for the Funders' Roundtable.

Impacts:More funding for the prevention of crime and the promotion of community safety.

More coordination between funders leading to efficient use of limited funds.

Promoting community safety become one of the considerations for a successful grant application.

(28)Staff and Community Leaders Working for a Safer City: The City of Toronto should ensure that City staff who work with citizens on safety concerns, including parks and recreation workers, public health nurses, employees of city-owned housing and city planners, and community leaders themselves, are adequately supported in this vital work. City staff presently support, advise, and assist citizen advisory groups that promote safety directly and indirectly, such as ParkWatch programs, tenant security committees in city-owned housing and Police Community Liaison Committees. A list of all front line staff who provide these services should be developed. An appropriate "curriculum" should be developed, which includes facts, figures and resources on crime and safety issues; protective skills; identifying and dealing with family violence issues, including responding to suspected child abuse; working with particular vulnerable groups, including homeless and mentally ill persons; community organizing; and referral to other services, including ethnospecific and multicultural agencies. Seminars and peer training opportunities should be provided to both staff and community leaders.

Lead:Community and Neighbourhood Services and Human Resources to bring together staff from the Chief Administrator's Office, Public Health, Parks and Recreation, Libraries, Housing, Access and Equity, Police, and relevant community agencies. This group to report to Council with recommendations, including costs of this training (which, in many cases, can be peer-led, and has already been provided to many staff).

Impact:More coordination around safety concerns among staff who provide community development and community leadership. An identification of gaps in training, best practices from various divisions, and ways to integrate staff training on these issues. Some evaluation at the end of 3 years as to the impact on community safety.

(29)City Watch Program: Corporate Services, in conjunction with Toronto Police, should establish a City-wide "City Watch Program" program to assist front line staff in parks, streets, and driving vehicles in observing and reporting suspicious activities to police or to the appropriate authorities. As a first step, front line staff from Works and Emergency Services, Buildings; Housing; Licencing and Municipal Standards; Parks and Recreation and Fire would be identified.

The program could be modelled on TaxiWatch and a similar program run by Consumers Gas, and could eventually include private sector partnerships with courier, telephone, gas, cable, and delivery services. Other sources of funding should be solicited for this high profile program.

Lead:Corporate Services to bring together staff from the above departments, Police, Parking Authority, CUPE Locals 416 and 79, and appropriate community agencies.

Impact:Development of the City Watch Program to assist in the prevention of street crimes. All appropriate staff receive training and all City-owned vehicles identified as participating in the program by 2001. Thousands of more eyes and ears on our streets to promote a safer Toronto.

(30)Integrating Safety in Social Development: The City of Toronto should ensure that community and personal safety is integrated into the proposed social development plan, with an emphasis on vulnerable communities and neighbourhoods.

Lead:Social Development

Impact:Safety as a priority for social development goals, programs, services, and policies.

(31)Integrating Hate Crime Prevention and Community Safety: The City of Toronto should continue to support Access and Equity grants aimed at preventing hate crimes, and support coordination of hate crime prevention activity, as recommended by the Access and Equity Task Force.

Lead:Access and Equity.

Impact:A decrease in hate crime activity.

(D)Making It Happen: Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring

(32)Community Safety as a Corporate Priority: City Council should formally declare community safety to be a corporate priority, within a Healthy Communities Framework. City Council should direct the Chief Administrative Officer's's Office to ensure that safety is integrated as a priority in the City's Strategic Plan, which will determine where staff and monetary resources should be deployed.

Lead:Chief Administrative Officer's Office.

Impact:Safety included as a priority in Strategic Plan, to be completed by mid-1999.

(33)One Percent for Prevention: Federal and international reports have recommended that a greater percentage of the money spent on responding to crime (police, courts, and corrections) be applied to preventing crime, since one dollar in prevention can provide at least seven dollars in later savings. In accordance with this, City Council should have a goal of designating a sum equal to one percent of the money it spends on Police Services to expand crime prevention programs, with a focus on groups vulnerable to committing or being a victim of crime. The City of Toronto should further request that the Ontario and Federal government designate 1 percent of funding from courts and corrections in the City of Toronto to crime prevention in the City. If this recommendation is adopted, City Council should request a report from the Chief Administrative Officer's Office that summarizes departmental requests related to community safety promotion in the 1999 budget year.

Lead: Chief Administrative Officer's Office to coordinate a report for Budget Review Committee that summarizes departmental requests related to community safety promotion in the 1999 budget year.

Impact:Greater resources to prevention, leading to eventual cost savings for local and senior levels of government.

(34)Measuring Progress Towards a Safer City: The City of Toronto should release an annual report that will measure progress on the Community Safety Strategy, including evaluating City-run and -supported programs on the basis of participation by vulnerable groups (performance indicators), and measuring progress towards a safer city (outcome indicators). The annual report should be launched at the annual celebration of successful initiatives described in Recommendation No. (26).

Lead:Chief Administrative Officer's Office.

Impact:Accountability to City Council and to Toronto citizens.

(35)Council Accountability Structure: City Council should reconstitute the Task Force on Community Safety to monitor the implementation of Task Force recommendations, respond to crime prevention issues as they arise, and promote a coordinated approach among all partners in the crime prevention field. The Task Force would have a mandate for the next two years, until the end of 2000.

The Task Force would report through Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, or equivalent successor committee. It would consist of four City Councillors from across the new City (one each from the North, West, South, and East districts), senior staff from:

Toronto District School Board;

Toronto Separate School Board; and

Toronto Police Service

and approximately 10 representatives of community organizations working on safety issues with vulnerable populations: children and youth, seniors, women, people with disabilities, linguistic and cultural minority populations. The Task Force would be co-chaired by two councillors on a rotating basis. The Task Force would be coordinated by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, who could also chair the Committee in the absence of the Chair.

This Committee would require the support of City Clerk's, as well as requiring a Coordinator and an Administrative Staff person to be provided from Community and Neighbourhood Services. There would need to be a report to City Council about staffing and resource allocations to this initiatives.

There would also be representation from senior staff in the following key divisions:

Chief Administrative Officer's Office;

Social Development;

Public Health;

Parks and Recreation; and

City Planning.

and representation from the following divisions as necessary:

Economic Development;

Housing;

Buildings;

Libraries;

Fire;

Access and Equity;

Human Resources;

Licensing and Municipal Standards; and

Works and Emergency Services.

Lead:Community and Neighbourhood Services.

Impact:A coordinated, comprehensive and community-based ongoing response to safety and crime prevention issues.

--------

Side notes embodied in the foregoing report:

Safety Audit Success Stories:

Safety Audits were developed by METRAC, a Toronto Community organization, in 1989. Since then, many Canadian cities, including Calgary, Ottawa, and Kitchener, have trained staff to assist communities in identifying safe and unsafe places, and have established protocols to respond to safety audit recommendations. In Toronto, Parkdale Community Watch has done 38 safety audits in their neighbourhood, with the cooperation of residents, police, councillors, and local businesses. Results of some of these initiatives include:

(i) lighting upgrades;

(ii) over 15 self-enclosed telephone booths were changes to open, walk-upstyle booths to discourage excessive use by drug dealers and prostitutes;

(iii) community members have easy access and better communication with police, and how, when, and what to report;

(iv) Parkdale Community Watch's safety hotline receives 200 calls per month from people who want to know how they can make their community safer or report suspicious activities;

(v) more people are participating in safety audits and in other community events such as school meetings and Christmas caroling;

(vi) overall perception of Parkdale is becoming more positive;

Boston's Comprehensive Communities Program:

The Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) is Boston's citywide, proactive approach to improving quality of life and reducing crime and fear for the residents of Boston. It consists of Police, City staff, neighbourhood leaders and other stakeholders. There is an emphasis on coordinating services to at-risk youth within this plan. For instance, the Youth Services Providers Network consists of youth service organizations and police who have together developed a Case Management Referral System. When police deal with a young person, they contact a licensed clinical social workers based in their police divisions, to develop a strategy together with the police and the young person's family. The City, assisted by the federal government, has hired 50 Streetworkers, social workers who assist police in working with identified gang members.

The Alternatives to Incarceration Network includes the state Departments of Youth Services and Probation, the District Attorney's Office and non-profit agencies, along with the police. They work together to divert first-time and non-violent young offenders from prison to substance abuse counselling, job skills training and placement, community service programs, life skills counselling and violence prevention programs. City staff and schools have worked together to provide 41 community centres, a comprehensive violence prevention curriculum has been developed for ages 9 to 18, and school-to-work internships have been fostered.

Youth As Leaders in Crime Prevention

The "Youth as Resources" Program, funded by the US National Crime Prevention Council, helps develop leadership and job skills among youth. Youth are hired to participate in:

(i)local government boards and advisory groups;

(ii) community service or charitable activities; and

(iii) school violence prevention programs.

In Evansville, Indiana, youth renovated a half-acre site at Mesker Zoo into a landscaped knoll to be used by young children as a lunch and rest area. Youth developed the idea, wrote the grant proposal, presented it to the school board of trustees, and initiated a publicity campaign. Longitudal evaluations concluded that Youth as Resources programs positively influenced anti-delinquency attitudes, leadership traits and civic responsibility.

In 1995, the Toronto Police Service provided the following definition of Community Policing:

"Community Policing is a means of providing public service requiring local community partnerships which prioritize and solve problems to enhance safety, maintain order, prevent crime and enforce laws, thereby improving the quality of life in Toronto."

   Judiciary in the Neighbourhood, City of Rotterdam

Begun in April 1997, the Judiciary in the Neighbourhood Program was set up to address juvenile crime, organized drug-related crime and the need for a more visible law enforcement presence in the Delfshaven district of Rotterdam. With the assistance of mediators provided by the program, victims and suspects of crime are given an opportunity to reach a civil agreement to settle damages. If the agreement is honoured there is no criminal prosecution. The program works in partnership with the local police, the borough council and the Child Welfare Council. The results to date have included dramatically reduced processing times for cases, with some even being resolved "on the spot", and an improved perception of safety in the district.

Information and Referral: Examples of What People Want to Know

The former City of Toronto's Safe City Committee received many calls from citizens needing appropriate information and referral on safety concerns. Since the number is still listed in the phone book as "safe city" and since the "safe city line" was advertised in posters during 1996, calls continue to come into the Chief Administrative Office from across the new City. A sampling of calls for the week of November 16-20, 1998, by issue, ward, how call referred to office, and information/referral given.

-Nov. 16: Graffiti (High Park): Previous member of Safe City Committee. Wanted contact person for Graffiti Transformation Project.

-Nov. 18: Street Light Out (Davenport): Phone book. Caller referred to Public Works

-Nov. 18: Small Business (East Toronto): Phone book. Caller wanted to be connected to local Neighbourhood Watch initiatives. Referred to 55 Division, Police Service.

-Nov. 18: East York Safety Council (East York): Referred by local councillor Case Ootes. Wanted info on organizational issues related to membership and who to report to.

-Nov. 19: Pedestrian safety, especially from bicyclists (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Concern referred by local councillor Irene Jones. Concern referred to Cycling Committee and to Pedestrian Committee in Department of Public Works and the Environment

-Nov. 19: Problem property: trash and nuisance (Scarborough-Agincourt): Phone book. Caller referred to local councillors and Licensing.

-Nov. 19: St. James Town Safety Work Group (Don River): Previous contact. Wanted names of organizations that could do displays at upcoming safety fair. Caller referred to appropriate organizations.

-Nov. 19: School Safety (Kingsway-Humber): Conference brochure. Caller wanting to know about impact of education cuts on safety programs. Referred to contact in Toronto District School Board.

-Nov. 20: Self Defence (North York Centre): Referred by agency. Blind person wanting information on self-defence courses. Referred to Parks and Recreation.

Safer City programs work

The current UK government has launched a five year safer city program as part of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. There is now a statutory requirement for all municipalities to develop and implement crime and violence reduction strategies. Co-funding is available from the national government for municipalities that adopt a strategy which sets clear targets and performance indicators, and which is:

-partnership based

-root cause focussed; and

-evidence led.

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is one example of a successful Safer Cities Program. Since its Corporate Community Safety Strategy was adopted in 1991, services developed include:

-Support for community services, including MEND: the neighbourhood dispute mediation service, victim support services, shelters for battered women, "women's safe transport" ( a non-profit taxi service for women and girls), the rape crisis centre, and "keep safe" (a non-profit service that provides free locks to low-income homes) has been increased;

-A Domestic Violence Task Force has developed a co-ordinated strategy which links police officers with housing, welfare, and public health services provided by the municipality;

-A comprehensive list of public education materials, including stickers, posters and pamphlets on "protecting yourself", "protecting your home", responding after a crime, and municipal community safety services have been produced;

-A high profile campaign to get more visible minorities into police and justice of the peace positions has been launched;

-A youth crime prevention strategy has incorporated pre-school programs, quality summer activities for young people, curriculum materials, and diversion programs for first-time offenders;

-a "pensioners' safety project" has targeted home and personal safety for older people, including peer-led protective skills courses;

-free self-defence classes have been provided; and

-safety audits have been carried out in all public housing estates and many other neighbourhoods, and community safety is a factor in building design.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following communication (February 19, 1999) from the City Clerk:

The Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting held on February 17, 1999, referred the attached 1998 Annual Report of Crime S.C.O.P.E., to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting on February 23, 1999, for consideration with Agenda Item No. 2, entitled :Final Report of the Task Force on Community Safety."

Ms. C. Micallef, Chair, Crime S.C.O.P.E., appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the report '1998 Annual Report of Crime S.C.O.P.E.', referred to the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of Council with the February 23, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

--------

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it, during the consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (February 22, 1999) from Mr. H. Daryl Currie advising that he had just received the notice of the meeting and that he would not be able to attend due to a prior appointment; and requesting that he be advised of the decision on this issue.

________

Councillor Rob Davis and Councillor Brad Duguid, Co-Chairs, Task Force on Community Safety, made a presentation to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee respecting the Final Report of the Task Force on Community Safety.

The following persons appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Jeff Zajac CMA, Chair, City of Etobicoke Safety Council; and

-Mr. Ross Vaughan, Chair, Police Issues Committee, Crime S.C.O.P.E. Etobicoke.

 5

Acquisition of Ontario Hydro Corridor,

Kennedy Road to Birchmount Road,

(Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the confidential communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk, entitled "Acquisition of Ontario Hydro Corridor, Kennedy Road to Birchmount Road", which was forwarded to all Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council, on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendation of the Budget Committee with respect to the confidential report (February 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, such communication and report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, save and except the recommendations embodied therein.

(Extract from the confidential communication

dated February 22, 1999, from the City Clerk.)

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the confidential report (February 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

    (Extract from the confidential report dated February 8, 1999,

from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council authorize the purchase from Norstar Development Corporation of the Hydro Corridor lands south of Highway 401, as shown on Appendix 1 attached, lying between Kennedy Road and Birchmount Road described as part of Lots 29 and 30, Concession 1, formerly of Scarborough containing approximately 11.83 acres at a price of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00);

(2)appropriate staff be directed to draft and execute an agreement of purchase and sale in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

(3)appropriate staff be directed to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2).)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (February 23, 1999) from Mr. Robert Brown, President, Wishing Well Acres Community Association, regarding the acquisition of Ontario Hydro Corridor lands (Kennedy Road to Birchmount Road) and requesting that Council give consideration to the acquisition of the entire corridor.)

6

Leasing of Temporary Office Space Required for

Office Consolidation

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (February 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "Leasing of Temporary Office Space Required for Office Consolidation", which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (February 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, save and except the recommendation embodied therein.

 (Extract from the confidential report dated February 19, 1999,

from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to enter into a one year lease, with a one year renewal option, for up to 65,000 square feet of office space within reasonable walking distance of City Hall, to provide for the temporary relocation of staff displaced during the office consolidation project.)

 7

Retention of Outside Counsel: Livent Mortgage

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (February 16, 1999) from the City Solicitor, entitled "Retention of Outside Counsel: Livent Mortgage", which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (February 16, 1999) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

 8

Year 2000 Priority 1 Business Functions Status Report

and Identification of Priority 2 and 3 Business Functions

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 9, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan Status Report (January 1999) outlines the following information as requested by Council at its November 1998 meeting:

(1)an inventory of priority two and three Year 2000 projects for the City of Toronto's Departments, Agencies Boards and Commissions;

(2)the estimated completion date for each priority 2 and 3 project, where provided;

(3)the planned budget required to ensure year 2000 readiness for each priority 2 and 3 project;

(4)the current status of each priority 2 and 3 project;

(5)the amount and source of funding for the year 2000 priority 2 and 3 projects for the year 2000 program;

(6)status report of each priority 1 year 2000 function;

(7)status report on the ABC's and their state of readiness;

(8)status report on expenditures for priority 1 year 2000 functions; and

(9)change requests.

Funding Sources:

No additional funding is requested at this point.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the 64 priority 2 and 3 business functions identified by the Operating Departments be approved for remediation;

(2)the Program Office be given the authority to recommend to the Year 2000 Steering Committee that the City extend, re-negotiate, terminate or enter into new contracts that affect priority 2 and 3 business functions to minimize major disruptions of business units doing remedial work on priorities 2 and 3 business functions thereby putting business continuity at risk;

(3)the Chief Administration Officer be given approval to continue to enter into agreements for priority 2 and 3 business functions in support of the above for the full amount of expenditures, until June year 2000, reporting on a regular basis to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee;

(4)the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee refer this report to Council for approval; and

(5)the Year 2000 Project Office be requested to report monthly to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the status of priorities 2 and 3 business functions.

Comments:

At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, Council directed the Year 2000 Program Office to report monthly to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the progress of the Year 2000 plan. At its meeting of November 17, 1998, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee adopted the Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan to remedy the 84 priority 1 business functions identified and approved the $149.6 million requested. The report was forwarded to Council at its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 and was adopted.

At its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, Council directed the Year 2000 Program Office to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee by February, 1999, on the funding requirements for business functions identified as priority 2 (important) and 3 (when time permits).

In November 1998, the City of Toronto began remediating the 84 critical business functions immediately to ensure business continuity for the millennium. At the same time, operating departments and citywide initiatives were requested to complete the inventory phase of all priority 2 and 3 business functions by February 1999. To date 38 priority 2 and 26 priority 3 business functions have been identified. For each of these 64 business cases, a cost-effective strategy for remedy has been recommended. The Commissioner for each operating department has approved the priority 2 and 3 business cases identified in their area.

The projected cost of ensuring business continuity for the 37 departmental business functions for priority 2 is $11.7 million. In addition, $0.9 million is required for the one citywide priority 2 business function. The projected cost for the 26 departmental business functions for priority 3 is $2.2 million. A project contingency fund of $2.2 million, which is 15 percent of the projected estimate of $14.8 million has been included as part of the overall total budget. This will cover purchased services and taxes where they exceed the estimated totals. Expenditures from project contingency fund will be managed through a change request process with prior approval from the Year 2000 Steering Committee.

Project Number of Business Cost (Million)
Departmental Priority 2

37

$11.7

Citywide Initiatives

Priority 2

1

$0.9

Departmental Priority 3

26

$2.2

Contingency Fund 15%  

$2.2

Total

64

$17.0

Budget Summary:

Within each of the departments a total of 63 priority 2 and 3 projects have been identified, and one citywide initiative. A total of $2.2 million in contingency funding has been allocated. Appendix 1 gives a summary of each of the priority 2 and 3 business functions and their status.

Contingency Planning:

The City evaluates all critical business functions based on the level of year 2000 compliance coupled with the adequacy of the contingency plans for the 84 priority 1 business functions. The objective is to identify risks, on a predictive basis, so that they can be mitigated. Varying risk levels invoke a variety of actions. For projects that are on target, no action is required. For projects that are at risk, the solution may be to abandon remediation and immediately act on the contingency plan. A contingency plan is required for all priority 1 business functions.

The Emergency Preparedness Organization within the City's Works and Emergency Services Department is entrusted with the development of the City's Emergency Preparedness plans. The Year 2000 Program is working closely with this group to ensure year 2000 scenarios are identified. Changes required to the City's Emergency Preparedness plans to address year 2000 scenarios will be identified.

The Year 2000 Program Office will be reporting on proposed contingency plans for priority 1 business functions and year 2000 emergency preparedness plans and requesting any funds required to implement or execute these plans.

Status report on priority 1 business functions:

Departmental critical 1 business functions:

All Departments are on track and well into the remediation phase with the exception of Finance. However, hiring project resources and the identification of a contingency plan has mitigated the risk associated with Finance. Test plans are being developed to ensure all systems are functional following the current remediation phase. Appendix 2 is attached indicating the current status of each of the critical 1 business functions.

Status report on the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC):

Project plans to remediate business applications, technology infrastructure, and embedded systems are in place. Seven major teams reporting to the Y2K Project Office have been created and staffed with technical resources. User resources for testing have been identified and commitments made. The seven teams, supporting approximately 45 project areas, include:

Financial;

Transportation;

Work Order Maintenance and Materials;

Engineering;

Corporate;

Technology Infrastructure; and

Embedded Systems.

A Y2K Project Charter has been finalized and published, defining program scope, approach, responsibilities, and budget.

A final Assessment Report will be produced in February. Some fine-tuning of initial project plans is expected.

Current remediation efforts are scheduled and expected to be completed by September. Exceptions to this include a small number of replacement business applications, such as Scheduling, Timeline, and Engineering Document Control. On balance, the project is tracking 2-3 weeks behind schedule, with no further slippage expected.

The TTC has initiated contingency/continuity planning, to accommodate both IT application failures and external problems related to power supply, communications, and water which will significantly impact service. The TTC is working with the City and Police in support of a consolidated Emergency Services planning effort.

Higher than expected costs are being realized due to the scope of application and infrastructure concerns. The technology infrastructure in particular is quite obsolete and a greater replacement than initially budgeted will be required to create a stable and compliant environment. An internal review of project costs and sources of funding is underway. Additional funding is not requested at this time.

A chart has been provided in Attachment 3.

Status report from Toronto Hydro January 28, 1999:

Of the seven areas that have been identified for tracking Y2K progress (Electrical Distribution, Facilities, Meters, Customer and Energy Services, Corporate Services, Telecommunications, and I/T Infrastructure), Hydro has completed the inventory and assessment phase for all but one. Planning and performance of remediation and testing work is progressing well.

The top priorities for Toronto Hydro's Y2K readiness work are:

(1)The safety of the public and their employees,

(2)The continuity of electrical supply to their customers, and

(3)Maintaining critical business functions, such as accurate billing.

Items in the inventory of possible Y2K exposure have been assessed as 'A', 'B', or 'C' items, depending upon their impact on the Y2K readiness goals. 'A' items are those which have a significant impact on the Y2K goals, 'B' items are those which are important to an area of the business but do not significantly impact the Y2K goals, and 'C' items are those others which would be nice to have. All items in the Y2K inventory have been categorized by the Y2K team, in concert with the responsible manager, and listings have been provided to each Senior Vice-President for confirmation of completeness and categorization. The Y2K team will continue to monitor and follow up on progress on the 'A' items. The 'B' and 'C' items will be addressed in the normal course of business.

The Toronto Hydro Executive Committee has approved a testing policy for Y2K items. The 'A' item must be tested, and the responsible Senior Vice-President will approve the test results. The responsible Senior Vice-President must approve exceptions to this testing requirement. The 'B' and 'C' items may be tested for Y2K readiness, within the context of business as usual.

Additional consulting staff have been utilized to assist in the inventory, reporting, and test planning for Y2K items. IBM is Toronto Hydro's consultant for Y2K, and is assisting in project management and methodology.

Toronto Hydro is continuing to participate on the Canadian Electric Association (CEA) Year 2000 Working Committee, and thereby is gaining access to the work done by other major Canadian utilities, including their supplier, Ontario Hydro. Toronto Hydro participated in a periodic survey on Y2K readiness that was developed by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and distributed through the CEA. Canadian information from that survey is used by the CEA to advise federal and provincial government agencies about the current state of the industry.

Ontario Hydro continues to report that its Y2K program is on track. Operational readiness is scheduled for mid-1999. Toronto Hydro has met with representatives from the transmission group within Ontario Hydro, and has jointly inspected nine of their stations to verify readiness at the interface between Ontario Hydro's equipment and theirs. Toronto Hydro is also working with Ontario Hydro on a test of one of Ontario Hydro's major stations. They plan to move the equipment clocks ahead, so that "January 1, 2000" will appear to happen soon after the start of the test. The equipment will be allowed to continue in this way for a couple of months, to check the leap year functionality.

The station to be tested serves Toronto Hydro customers in the southwest area of the City of Toronto. The highway 401 bound this area to the north, Spadina to the east, Lakeshore to the south and Eglinton to the west. A communication plan has been developed to minimize any negative impact from the test, and to maximize the positive aspect. No date information is passed between the Ontario Hydro equipment and the Toronto Hydro equipment. As long as there is no interruption from Ontario Hydro, Toronto Hydro customers will be unaffected by this test.

Customers or other organizations that have asked about Toronto Hydro's Y2K readiness program have been sent a Y2K Statement, which is attached to this report in Appendix 4.

Contingency planning for Y2K was scheduled by Toronto Hydro to be done in the second quarter of 1999. Toronto Hydro has found that this schedule would not keep pace with the electricity industry as a whole, and they are therefore starting to develop contingency plans immediately, although the scheduled completion date, for this and for Y2K readiness of critical items remains June 30, 1999. Toronto Hydro anticipates that most contingencies will be covered by plans that already exist in the context of normal operations.

Toronto Hydro continues to operate within the budgeted cost to the company for Year 2000 readiness. In many cases, Toronto Hydro has achieved a collateral benefit within the amalgamation project, by eliminating a system that was not Y2K ready, and utilizing one that is.

Status report on the City of Toronto's expenditures:

Attached is a status report on the $149.6 million allocated to the Y2K project to remedy all critical 1 business functions. As of January 31, 1999, $11.2 million has been committed or spent. The majority of this expenditure is for resources, hardware, servers, and network equipment. See attachment 5.

Change requests:

Project Management Office:

Council has requested, based on a recommendation by the Budget Committee, the Year 2000 Program Office to review, assess and report on the Year 2000 action plan of the City's agencies boards and commissions. If any issues are identified which could impact the City of Toronto's Year 2000 readiness, the Program Office will escalate these items to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for action. A change request was issued and approved by the Year 2000 Steering Committee in the amount of up to $750,000. These funds will be utilized to fund a Project Manager and 3 staff to take on this pro-active role. This amount will be drawn from the project contingency fund.

Project Management Office Tools:

The office space available to house the Year 2000 project team did not meet the team's requirements, and the Year 2000 Program Office is working with Facilities Management to implement the necessary modifications to provide a suitable working environment for the team. A change request was issued and approved by the Year 2000 Steering Committee in the amount of up to $400,000.00. This amount will be drawn from the project contingency fund.

Communication:

Communication consultants have been retained to work with Corporate Communications and the Year 2000 Project Office to implement a pro-active public communication campaign on the City of Toronto's Year 2000 action plan, status and contingency plans. This firm will also interact with Toronto Hydro, TTC and Toronto Police to ensure that the City provides accurate and consistent information to the public. This firm will also participate on the communications team for the City's emergency preparedness committee. All information to be distributed will be reviewed and a copy retained by the Year 2000 program office to ensure due diligence. The public communications plan, currently being developed, will be brought forward to the SPPC once complete. A change request was issued and approved by the Year 2000 Steering Committee in the amount of up to $300,000.00. This amount will be drawn from the project contingency fund.

Partnership and Agreements:

The legal firm of Fasken Campbell Godfrey has been retained by the City Solicitor to provide legal support to the Year 2000 Program Office. The services will include the review of all year 2000 information including contracts and communication documents for the public and other partners to be distributed by the City, the provision of legal advice on year 2000 issues and contract services for the new and re-negotiated contracts of the City. Due to the volume of work, the Year 2000 Program Office projects a requirement for two dedicated resources and additional resources as required. A change request was issued and approved by the Year 2000 Steering Committee in the amount of up to $750,000.00. This amount will be drawn from the project contingency fund.

Community and Neighborhood Services:

Children's Services:

A change request was issued and approved to increase the budget for the Children Services business function from $5,000.00 to up to $75,600.00 to hire resources to complete the required Year 2000 testing, documentation and contingency planning. The previous estimate of the effort was inadequate to complete the work required. The Year 2000 Steering Committee approved the request. This amount will be drawn from the project contingency fund.

Conclusion:

The City of Toronto's Year 2000 readiness program is moving forward as anticipated. Council will continue to receive program reports as requested.

Contact:

Lana Viinamae, Director Year 2000

--------

    Appendix 4

Toronto Hydro Y2K Statement:

At Toronto Hydro, we have been aware of the Year 2000 problem for several years now and have been actively working on a solution since 1997. Our Y2K Plan has been given high priority, with support from our Executive Committee, and we have dedicated both personnel and resources to address the problem. Currently, our Y2K Team is assessing all computer and electrical distribution systems and components for their ability to provide an uninterrupted supply of electricity to customers as we pass the millennium.

Because we meet record peak demands during heat waves and quickly restore service in the aftermath of all kinds of weather, preparing for and dealing with operating risks is an ingrained part of our business. Our Year 2000 preparations centre around three major priorities:

(i)the continuity of electrical supply to customers;

(ii)the safety of the public and utility employees; and

(iii)the ability to maintain critical business functions.

Our Y2K initiatives are consistent with the electricity industry timeline suggested by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), a coordinating body charged with ensuring the smooth transition of the North American power industry into the new millennium. Through participation in the Canadian Electric Association committee on Y2K readiness, we've also been able to review the initiatives and benefit from the experience of other utilities right across the country. Our Y2K planning is on schedule with, and in some areas ahead of, the Y2K planning of other utilities. We believe that our timeline is ambitious but achievable:

(i)team members now have a plan in place to address all computer systems and components that are not Y2K-ready;

(ii)all critical systems and components that are not Y2K-ready will be replaced, or upgraded and fully tested for readiness by June 30, 1999;

(iii)a contingency plan addressing "what ifs" is already being developed; and

(iv)less critical items such as internal functions, which have no customer impact, will be dealt with on or after June 30, 1999.

Our Y2K team of computer and utility industry experts reports monthly to our Executive Committee. A database has been developed to help track progress on the more than 1500 item types that have been identified and the team has given priority to areas which could affect customer service.

The Y2K problem, however, does not only affect Toronto Hydro; it also affects our suppliers. We're working with industry associations and with Ontario Hydro to assess the impact of Y2K on their generation and transmission operations. Part of our plan involves obtaining assurances from them that their Year 2000 plans are on track to provide us - and our customers with - an ongoing power supply.

At Toronto Hydro, we feel that we are well under way in addressing Year 2000 issues. While no utility can ever guarantee electrical supply at any time due to the nature of electricity, preparing for and dealing with operating risks is an ingrained part of our business. While the Year 2000 problem is of universal concern, we believe that a well-defined action plan will enable us to meet the challenge successfully.

(A copy of the attachments to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the February 23, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

 9

Applications to the Chief Judge of

the Provincial Court for Set Fines

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 11, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To establish a policy for the new City of Toronto respecting set fine applications, to seek authority to apply for set fines and to seek increases in set fines from time-to-time.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor be granted authority to apply from time-to-time to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court for the establishment of set fines under the Provincial Offences Act, for violations of by-laws of the new City of Toronto and of the municipalities that were amalgamated to form the new City, where the Court has not previously established set fines, and that the City Solicitor in consultation with the appropriate City staff, determine the amount of the set fine to be requested from the Chief Judge; and

(2)the City Solicitor be granted authority to apply from time-to-time to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court for increases in the set fines established under the Provincial Offences Act for City of Toronto by-laws, to amounts which more accurately reflect the seriousness of the violation at the time of the application, such amounts to be determined by the City Solicitor in consultation with the appropriate City staff.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Provincial Offences Act provides for the establishment of "set fines" for any offence created by municipal by-law. These "set fines" are established by the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court upon recommendation from the Attorney-General. Prior to amalgamation, the former area municipalities and Metro applied for and received approval for the establishment of set fines for violations of many of the offences contained in municipal by-laws. The establishment of set fines allows for easier enforcement of offences since offence notices (i.e., tickets) may be issued by the enforcement officer to the alleged violator. This is an expeditious procedure permitted under the Act. The alternative, proceeding by way of laying an information, requires attendance at court, and is a time consuming and less efficient process.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The maximum set fine which can be established under the Provincial Offences Act is $500.00. The actual amount of the set fine is within the discretion of the Chief Judge. As a matter of practice, the City prepares an application for a set fine to the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General makes a recommendation to the Chief Judge as to what is felt to be an appropriate amount for the set fine. In some cases, the amount recommended by the Attorney-General and established by the Chief Judge is less than that suggested by the City in its applications. The Attorney-General and Chief Judge try to follow the principle in establishing set fines, of keeping the amount of the fines for similar offences, relatively the same from municipality to municipality.

Conclusions:

I am proposing that I be delegated the authority to make applications for the establishment of and increase in set fines, to amounts which are appropriate in my opinion in the circumstances, for the violation of the City's by-laws. Before making such applications, I would consult with the appropriate City staff responsible for the policies implemented in the by-laws, to help determine the amount for suggested set fines.

Contact Name:

Jane Speakman

Solicitor

392-1563

 10

"Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century:

New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy

and Legislation" - Announcement by Minister of

Citizenship and Immigration - January 6, 1999

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the joint report (February 9, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources; subject to striking out the following Items Nos. (6) and (7) contained therein, appearing under the section entitled "Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification":

"(6)Undocumented convention refugees:

The document on new directions proposes a reduction in the waiting period from five to three years before the undocumented refugees can apply for landing. While this proposal is an improvement on the present policy, it does not address the issue of establishing other means of identification for the purpose of applying for permanent residence, such as affidavits. The delay in obtaining permanent resident status would prevent the refugees from accessing benefits available to landed immigrants and prolong their dependence on social assistance, which would have financial implications on the City.

"(7)Inland refugee determination process and security measures:

The immigrant and refugee service sector has expressed concern about a few proposals in the inland refugee determination process and security measures. For instance, a 30-day time limit for making a refugee claim, with exception in "compelling circumstances" will make certain categories of refugee claimants, such as women fleeing domestic violence or sexual assault and people fleeing persecution based on sexual orientation, particularly vulnerable."; and

(2)that the Mayor be requested to arrange a meeting with the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Honourable David Collenette, Federal Minister responsible for the GTA, to discuss these issues.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

(1)to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 2, 1999, on the cost of the City's immigration and refugee programs; and

(2)to prepare an inventory of immigration and refugee settlement programs and priorities and report thereon to the appropriate standing committee.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following joint report (February 9, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Executive Director of Human Resources:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to review the proposed directions for Canada's immigration and refugee policy and legislation from the perspective of the City of Toronto's position on immigrant and refugee issues. The proposed changes will have a significant impact on the City of Toronto, which has the largest immigrant population of any metropolitan area in Canada.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications. If the City's recommendations are adopted by the Federal Government, there may be potential for reimbursement to municipalities for some social service costs provided to immigrants and refugees, and there may be significant long-term impact on the decision-making, development and delivery of services to the residents of the City who are immigrants and refugees.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council reaffirm its position on the Settlement Legislative Review of the Immigration Act as identified in the March 1998 response to the Settlement Legislative Review consultation, and the recommendations on the Urban Forum on Immigration and Refugee Issues addressed in the Chief Administrative Officer's report to the Task Force on Community Access and Equity in May, 1998, specifically:

(i)the inclusion of the City of Toronto by the Federal Government in formal consultation and collaboration on relevant policy issues;

(ii)the maintenance of an ongoing federal role in settlement services with a commitment to establishing clear accountability guidelines and providing adequate funds to the community-based sector to ensure equitable access to settlement services;

(iii)the reimbursement to municipalities for social assistance, hostel and other service costs borne by the municipalities for services and programs provided to immigrants and refugees;

(iv)a review of the impact of the right of landing fee and the waiting period for landing required for undocumented convention refugees on the settlement and integration of immigrants and refugees by the Federal Government; and

(v)a firm commitment to access to trades and professions be reflected in the new immigration and refugee policy and legislation;

(2)this report be forwarded to the Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues to be incorporated in submission to Citizenship and Immigration Canada regarding the proposed new directions for Canada's immigration and refugee policy and legislation;

(3)this report be forwarded to the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

(4)Council encourage the Federal Government to conduct broad and public consultation on the proposed directions for the new immigration and refugee policy and legislation to ensure all relevant stakeholders have an opportunity for input; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

On January 6, 1999, the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, announced the directions for Canada's new immigration and refugee policy and legislation in a document titled, Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy. She invited comments on the implementation of the policy and legislation proposals for consideration in developing a new legislation. Appendix A provides a summary of the document, Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy. This document is available upon request through the City Clerk's office.

The Minister's invitation provides an opportunity for the City of Toronto to reiterate the City's position on immigration and refugee policies and programs, and renew its proposal to the Federal Government that the City be included in formal consultation and collaboration on relevant policy issues.

The current City of Toronto's policies on immigrant and refugee settlement and integration are outlined in the recommendations on Immigrant Legislative Review from the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, and the Chief Administrative Officer's report to the Task Force on Community Access and Equity on the Urban Forum on Immigration and Refugee Issues. The Advisory Committee On Immigration and Refugee Issues, chaired by Councillor David Miller, has continued to identify and respond to immigration and refugee issues. The Advisory Committee has recommended that the immigration and refugee policies and programs of the City's former municipalities be fully integrated into the City's policy and programs.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Toronto has the largest immigrant population of any metropolitan area in Canada. According to the 1996 Census, approximately 48 percent of the Toronto's population was made up of immigrants and refugees. By the year 2001, foreign-born residents will comprise the majority of the City's population. Over 70,000 immigrants come to Toronto every year, and approximately 60 percent of the refugee claims in Ontario originate in Toronto. Newcomers have shaped the diverse social, cultural, political and economic landscape of Toronto. They have created a vibrant, thriving and dynamic community in the City. Further, as a result of declining birth rates, immigration is expected to be the main source of population growth in Toronto in the future. The City therefore has a fundamental stake in any changes that might be made to the legislation and policies regarding immigration and refugees.

The document on the new directions for immigration and refugee policy and legislation has some positive proposals, for example:

(1)separating the immigration program and refugee protection program in two distinct sections in the new Immigration Act;

(2)raising the age limit of a dependent child from under 19 years to under 22 years recognizing common-law and same-sex spouses for sponsorship programs through regulation; and

(3)allowing extended family members of refugees in the resettlement from abroad program to be processed together overseas to promote speedy family reunion.

  However, the proposed directions fail to address a number of key issues raised by the City of Toronto:

(1)Formal consultation and collaboration:

The City of Toronto has requested, in its response to the Immigration Legislative Review, that any federal-provincial structure created should include the City as a participant, and the Federal Government should conduct formal consultations on significant policy developments with municipalities. The 1998 report of the Immigration Legislative Advisory Group commissioned by Citizenship and Immigration Canada also recommended the inclusion of municipalities in formal consultations on relevant policy issues.

The proposed changes commit the Federal Government to conduct regular and structured consultations with provincial and territorial governments. Municipalities are not included except as stakeholders along with non-governmental organizations and consultants. The City needs to reiterate its interest in being a full participant in these discussions.

(2)Cost recovery:

The document on new directions for immigration and refugee policy and legislation proposes that Citizenship and Immigration Canada undertake collection action against defaulting sponsors and share the proceeds with the province. However, this does not deal with the issue raised by the City with respect to reimbursing municipalities the cost of social assistance and emergency shelter for refugee claimants and immigrants who experience sponsorship breakdowns. Council should reiterate its position that the Federal Government's responsibility for these costs be included in the new legislation.

(3)Settlement renewal:

The document also does not provide any future directions on immigrant and refugee settlement. While the Federal Government is devolving settlement services to the provinces, it is essential that it establish and maintain clear accountability guidelines for settlement services and be committed to adequate funding and equitable access to settlement services. Funding cuts to the settlement service sector has in some instances resulted in a form of downloading as the City attempts to fill in the gaps.

(4)Right of landing fee:

While the document acknowledges the importance of reuniting families, it does not address the exceptional burden the right of landing fee (head tax) has imposed on low-income families and refugees, and the obstacle to family reunification it has caused.

(5)Access to trades and professions:

There is a very general statement on working with the provinces and professional associations on access to trades and professions.

(6)Undocumented convention refugees:

The document on new directions proposes a reduction in the waiting period from five to three years before the undocumented refugees can apply for landing. While this proposal is an improvement on the present policy, it does not address the issue of establishing other means of identification for the purpose of applying for permanent residence, such as affidavits. The delay in obtaining permanent resident status would prevent the refugees from accessing benefits available to landed immigrants and prolong their dependence on social assistance, which would have financial implications on the City.

(7)Inland refugee determination process and security measures:

The immigrant and refugee service sector has expressed concern about a few proposals in the inland refugee determination process and security measures. For instance, a 30-day time limit for making a refugee claim, with exception in "compelling circumstances" will make certain categories of refugee claimants, such as women fleeing domestic violence or sexual assault and people fleeing persecution based on sexual orientation, particularly vulnerable.

It is appropriate to forward these community concerns to the Advisory Committee on immigration and Refugee Issues for consideration in developing the submission to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Conclusion:

The City of Toronto, being the key destination for immigrants and refugees for Canada, is the municipality most affected by federal immigration and refugee policy and legislation. The document, Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and Legislation, proposes significant changes to the existing immigration and refugee policy and legislation. It is important that the City take this opportunity to reiterate its position on immigration and refugee issues and request the Federal Government to formally consult with municipalities in developing the new legislation. Municipalities must deal with the impact of decisions made by other levels of government which affect the immigration settlement process at the local level. The City should also encourage the Federal government to consult broadly with immigrant and refugee service sector and community and business groups who play an essential role in the settlement and integration of immigrants and refugees.

 Contact Name:

Rose Lee, Access and Equity Centre - 392-4991

Eric Gam, Social Development and Administration Division - 392-8238

--------

Appendix A

Summary of Proposed New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and Legislation, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, January 1999:

(1)Simplifying the Immigration Act:

The objectives of the Act will be updated and the Act will be redrafted in plain language and will clearly state the immigration program and refugee program in two distinct sections.

(2)Strengthening partnerships:

Consultations with provincial and territorial governments will be regularized and widened, while municipal governments will continue to be included in stakeholder consultations where appropriate.

(3)Strengthening family reunification:

The current age limit for a dependent child is increased from under 19 years to under 22 years.

(i)Older children who are financially dependent on their parents or dependent because of physical and mental disability are continued to be included as dependent children.

(ii)Spouses and dependent children can apply from within Canada under certain conditions if they have legal status.

(iii)The federal government proposes to discuss with provincial and territorial governments: (a) possible reduction in the length of sponsorships for spouses and dependent children, and (b) the possibility of removing inadmissibility on the basis of excessive demands on health and social services and spouses and dependent children.

(iv)The federal government will promote the principle that an adopted child and a biological child have the same rights.

(v)The definition of spouse is to be expanded to include common-law and same-sex spouses.

(vi)CIC's power is to be expanded to undertake collection action against defaulting spouses and to share the proceeds with the provinces.

(vii)Sponsorship by people in default of court-order obligation (alimony or child support) and people convicted of domestic violence are prohibited.

(4)Modernizing the selection for skilled workers and business immigrants. The selection system will:

(i)shift away from occupations in demand to sound and transferable skills sets;

(ii)add explicit requirements for education, language skills and significant business experience; and

(iii)require the origin of funds to be established.

There is also a general statement of commitment to access to trades and professions.

(5)Facilitating the entry of highly skilled temporary foreign workers and students:

(i)The case-by-case validation of foreign workers is to be replaced by the use of a "national validation letter".

(ii)Spouses of applicants will be authorized to accept any job offer in Canada.

(iii)Further measures are being explored to facilitate the entry of foreign students.

(6)Introducing transparent criteria for permanent residence status:

The residency requirement of six months in a year will be changed, and a secure identity card to be valid for five years will be introduced.

(7)Strengthening refugee protection:

The resettlement from abroad program would shift towards protection and away from ability to settle through such measures as:

(i)relaxing the requirement that refugees be able to settle within a year;

(ii)allowing extended family members to be processed together overseas to promote speedy family reunion;

(iii)working more closely with non-governmental organizations in identifying, pre-screening and resettling refugees;

(iv)ensuring the immediate entry into Canada of urgent protection cases;

(v)The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)will be retained;

(vi)the three existing layers for refugee determination---refugee status determination, post-determination risk review, and risk-related humanitarian review---will be reduced to one: a protection decision by the IRB;

(vii)there will be a 30-day time limit for making a claim subject to exceptions in compelling circumstances;

(viii)failed refugee claimants who return to Canada after 90 days and submit another protection claim would not have access to a protection hearing but would be examined under pre-removal risk assessment;

(ix)priority will be given to the processing of people who come from safe countries of origin and others whose claim is clearly related to reasons having nothing to do with a need for protection;

(x)the Minister can intervene in any case without seeking leave from the IRB;

(xi)the current legislation will be amended to allow the Minister, without seeking leave from the IRB, to select cases for vacation;

(xii)the waiting period for landing for undocumented convention refugees is proposed to be reduced from five to three years; and

(xiii)consideration will be given to measures to improve the recruitment of decision-makers on the IRB and increase the transparency in the selection process.

(8)Maintaining the safety of Canadian society:

(i)the interdiction of improperly documented people will be enhanced;

(ii)new classes of people inadmissible to Canada will be created;

(iii)measures against improperly documented arrivals will be increased. These measures will include removing restrictions on prosecuting people who aid and abet illegal migration and detaining claimants who refuse to cooperate in establishing their identity;

(iv)removal capacity would be enhanced through measures such as, limiting the circumstances under which a removal order may be stayed and transferring the power to issue a removal order to senior immigration officers in uncontested cases and straightforward criminal cases;

(v)there will be stiffer penalties for inadmissible people who repeatedly return to Canada without authorization, those who aid and abet persons in contravening the Immigration Act, and people who commit fraud or misrepresentation;

(vi)authority to exchange information with other countries on criminality and security issues would be enhanced, and provision would be made to enable access to the computer systems of transportation companies to facilitate the screening of passengers;

(vii)the government would consider measures to enable transportation companies to provide detention for people ordered removed;

(viii)Canada, together with the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, is engaged in a process to determine which medical screening procedures are required to protect public health;

(9)Improving the effectiveness of the immigration appeal system:

(i)the Immigration Appeal Division is to be retained;

(ii)serious criminals will lose the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division;

(iii)people who commit criminal offences while on a stay of removal would be removed;

(iv)the government will propose to introduce a requirement for leave to appeal visa decisions in the Federal Court;

(v)family class refusals continue to have the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division, but not refusals on financial grounds;

10)Refocusing discretionary power:

(i)a range of measures to redefine the use of discretionary powers will be introduced, such as defining through regulations situations where humanitarian or compassionate grounds are generally approved;

(ii)unsuccessful refugee claimants will have access to the humanitarian or compassionate decision-making process only in the period immediately following a negative decision by the IRD; and

(iii)access to the humanitarian or compassionate applications will be denied to:

(i)war criminals and people who have committed crimes against humanity;

(ii)people who are a danger to national security;

(iii)members of criminal organizations;

(iv)members of government who engage in systematic or gross violations of human rights; and

(v)people convicted of serious crimes; and

(iv)Mechanisms other than the Minister's permit will be used for delegating discretionary authority.

(A copy of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 2 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, entitled "Immigration Legislative Review" and the attachments in thereto, attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the February 23, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

At the February 23, 1999 meeting of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, a request was made for information on the cost of the City's immigration and refugee programs. This request was made as part of the committee's consideration of a report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources and Amalgamation on the proposed directions of Canada's immigration and refugee policy and legislation. The report recommended the inclusion of the City of Toronto by the federal government in formal consultations and collaboration on relevant settlement and immigration policy issues.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

It is estimated that the City of Toronto provides social assistance, emergency shelter, and public health services for immigrants and refugees at an approximate net cost of $30 million.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Mayor be requested to arrange a meeting with the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, Federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and the Honourable David Collenette, Federal Minister responsible for the GTA, to discuss these issues;

(2)the federal government be requested to reimburse the City of Toronto the municipal costs associated with the provision of social assistance, emergency shelter and public health services to immigrants and refugees; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City of Toronto is the key destination for immigrants refugees coming to Canada. Toronto receives 56% of all newcomers to Ontario and 30% of all newcomers to Canada. Approximately 60 percent of refugee claims in Ontario originate in Toronto. Newcomers have been fundamental in shaping the diverse social, cultural, political and economic landscape of Toronto. Considered to be one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world, Toronto realizes profound benefits from the ethno-racial communities which now call this city home.

The City of Toronto does not directly fund or deliver settlement services. The federal government has primary responsibility for settlement and immigration policy and funding. Some federal policies, particularly those which restrict access to settlement services or delay access to federal documentation place newcomers at greater risk of dependence on municipally delivered services including social assistance and emergency shelter.

The Province of Ontario at one time provided 100% funding of social assistance and emergency shelter costs for non-residents for the first year. Since January of 1998 this program has been cost-shared on an 80:20 basis with the City of Toronto.

Services for Immigrants and Refugees:

Newcomers to Canada require specific settlement assistance to help them adapt and integrate into Canadian society. This assistance includes: language training, interpretation and translation, job counselling, and orientation. The federal government has primary funding responsibility for these services, but it is the community-based settlement services sector which delivers the services at the local level. The 1997 report "Profile of a Changing World" by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Social Planning Council reported that settlement services received the greatest funding cuts and were most at-risk of losing programs or services. This has placed tremendous strain on social agencies, municipalities and newcomers alike.

Eligibility and Access:

Newcomers to Canada receive different levels of government support depending on their immigration status. Landed immigrants enjoy all the rights of Canadian citizenship and have full access to government programs and services. Sponsored refugees are entitled to initial support from the government or from private sponsors and are eligible for federally-funded settlement services. Approximately 50 percent of refugees; however, arrive in the country without sponsorship requesting asylum.

Refugee claimants are not entitled to initial support from the federal government and are not eligible for settlement services. In addition, refugee claimants cannot access social assistance or health care until they have received federal documentation confirming their claim. This process takes up to six weeks, during which time refugee claimants may have only the emergency shelter system on which to rely. Federal policies which limit access to settlement services, or delay access to federal documentation, in effect download these service needs to the community-based sector, and the municipality.

Settlement Renewal Initiative:

In 1995, the federal government introduced the Settlement Renewal Initiative intended to devolve the management of settlement programs for newcomers to the provinces. Originally, the federal government hoped to complete negotiations and withdraw from direct administration and delivery by March 31, 1997. This time frame has been extended in Ontario because a federal-provincial agreement has not been reached.

Currently the federal government provides $67 million in base funding for settlement services in Ontario. This funding is directly allocated by the federal government to the community-based settlement services sector. For the past three years this amount has been enhanced by an additional $35 million. This additional funding has only been committed until the year 2,000. After that date, the status of the additional $35 million is unknown.

City Role:

The City of Toronto continues to support the principle that newcomers must have access to appropriate levels of support to settle, adapt, and integrate into all aspects of community life. This principle was formally adopted by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in a policy framework which is still relevant today. The primary goals of that policy were to:

(a)support the settlement, adaptation and integration of immigrants and refugees into all aspects of community life;

  1. provide appropriate supports to facilitate in making the necessary adaptations and accommodations; and
  2. seek an equitable distribution of resources from other levels of government to Toronto to support these objectives.

It is this final goal which is particularly relevant to this report. As a key destination for newcomers to Canada, it is critical that the City of Toronto continue to provide supports and services to immigrants and refugees. The issue identified in this report is not whether these services should be provided, but which level of government has access to adequate resources to appropriately fund these services to best meet newcomer needs. In an effort to clarify the relative roles and responsibilities of the two levels of the government, the City of Toronto has endorsed the recommendations of the Legislative Advisory Review including:

  1. The inclusion of municipalities in formal consultations on relevant policy issues;
  2. The maintenance of an ongoing federal role in settlement and integration services along with a commitment to adequate funds to ensure equitable access to settlement services; and
  3. The reimbursement to municipalities for social assistance, hostel and other service costs borne by the municipality for services and programs provided to immigrants and refugees.

The Need for Federal Funding Assistance:

  1. Emergency Shelter Services

It is estimated that 450 refugee claimants are accommodated in the emergency shelter system on any given night. The City of Toronto receives provincial cost-sharing on an 80:20 basis up to a maximum per diem rate of $34.50 per person per night. The average per diem rate in the City shelter system is $44.27. Using the average actual cost and on the basis of the actual cost-sharing because of the provincial cap (73:27) it is estimated that the gross cost of sheltering refugee claimants per night is approximately $20,000.00. On an annual basis, this represents an estimated gross cost of $7.3 million. The municipal share of these costs is estimated at $1.9 million.

  1. Social Assistance

It is estimated that in any given month approximately 8,000 social assistance cases are refugees. An additional estimated 6,000 cases are immigrants receiving social assistance because of sponsorship breakdown. The average cost of social assistance benefits per case in 1999 is $723.10. Based on this average, it is estimated that social assistance benefits to refugees total approximately $5.8 million on a monthly basis and $69.6 million on an annual basis. The municipal share of these costs are estimated at $13.9 million annually. Social assistance benefits to immigrants as the result of sponsorship breakdown total an estimated $4.3 million on a monthly basis and $52.1 million on an annual basis. The municipal share of these costs are estimated at $10.4 million on an annual basis.

The total annual municipal cost to providing social assistance to refugees and those who have experienced sponsorship breakdown is estimated at $24.3 million.

  1. Public Health Services

Public Health estimates that approximately 60 percent of children participating in the City of Toronto's dental program were born outside of Canada. It is estimated that up to half of those children are immigrants or refugees. The cost of providing services to immigrant or refugee children across the city is estimated at $1.9 million.

In addition, it is estimated that 90 percent of the 500 TB cases in Toronto occur in those who are foreign born and that 50 percent of active TB cases occur in the first 5 years after immigration. The current cost of Toronto's TB budget is $2.1 million. It is estimated that the cost of providing TB services for immigrants and refugees ranges from $1.1 million to $1.9 million annually.

The total cost of public health services for immigrants and refugees is estimated to range from $3 million to $3.8 million.

Conclusion:

Although the City of Toronto does not directly deliver settlement and immigration services, as the key destination for newcomers to Canada, it is the municipality most affected by settlement and immigration policy and funding. The City of Toronto continues to support the need for immigrants and refugees to access settlement and other services to help them successfully integrate into all aspects of Canadian life. In support of this goal, the City of Toronto has endorsed recommendations of the Legislative Advisory Review which pertain to municipalities: specifically that the federal government reimburse municipalities for the costs associated with providing social assistance, emergency shelter and other services. As a result this report provides an estimate of the municipal costs associated with providing services to immigrants and refugees.

Contact Name:

Karen Mann - 392-8334)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (March 1, 1999) from Councillor David Miller, Chair, Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues:

Recommendations:

The Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues recommends:

(1)that City Council adopt the joint report (February 9, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources;

(2)that City Council NOT strike out Items Nos. (6) and (7) appearing under the section entitled, "Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification", as recommended by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee;

(3)that City Council request the Federal and Provincial governments to take action to implement strategies to eliminate barriers to access to trades and professions; and

(4)that City Council request the Federal government to consult on relevant policy issues with major cities in Canada that receive large numbers of immigrants and refugees, and the appropriate City staff also be requested to initiate consultations in this regard.

The Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources, to report to the Advisory Committee on undocumented individuals whose status is unclear with respect to being eligible for OHIP and Social Insurance Numbers, and children who are not attending school because of issues around status; and the report be prepared in consultation with school board, community health centres and other appropriate agencies.

Comments

At its meeting held on March 1, 1999, the Advisory Committee on Immigration and Refugee Issues gave consideration to the joint report (February 9, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Executive Director of Human Resources.

The Committee recommends to City Council adoption of the recommendations set out above.)

 11

Information in Reports on Comparable Costs

for Previous Year's Pricing for Purchases

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (February 9, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Committee's request from its meeting of September 9, 1998, for information on comparable costs for previous year's pricing for purchases.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that reports for Standing Committees and Council include prices received on current Request for Quotation/Request for Proposals/Tender Calls based on current requirements and market conditions, together with the previous year's pricing, for information purposes only, in cases where the purchase is made each year, where practical.

Background/History:

The Works and Utilities Committee on September 9, 1998, had before it a joint report (August 25, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the purchase of Bulk Common Coarse Rock Salt for the 1998-99 season.

The Committee recommended to Council the adoption of the report and "requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a joint report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on a policy for including in such reports the following information:

(1)comparable costs for the two previous years; and

(2)a sampling of five-year pricing in other municipalities surrounding the Greater Toronto Area and the Cities of London and Ottawa."

City Council, at its meeting of October 1, 1998, adopted this report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Established purchasing procedures require that all goods and services be obtained as the result of an open, competitive, non-restrictive process in which all bidders are provided an equal opportunity to submit bids on City requirements. This ensures maximum competition to achieve best price possible. These standard procedures are summarized as follows:

(i)Requirements are determined by the Department and forwarded to the Purchasing and Materials Management Division (PMMD). PMMD reviews these requirements to ensure that any necessary approvals are in place, the specifications are non-restrictive, the quantities are accurate, etc. so that the purchase can proceed.

(ii)PMMD prepares and issues competitive Tenders/ Requests for Quotations/Proposals to all firms on PMMD bidders list. The bidders list includes all firms who have responded to PMMD outreach activities which encourage firms wishing to do business with the City to have their names added to the City's list for the goods and service they offer.

Outreach activities include advertising in various ethic, local and national newspapers/publications inviting firms to apply to be placed on our bidders list; conducting supplier outreach briefings using an audio - visual presentation; setting up a booth at Trade Shows and Exhibitions where new and developing businesses go to expand their client base; conducting consultation sessions at Community Centres where local businesses can "drop in" to discuss how to do business with the City.

(iii)PMMD receives submitted quotations up to the closing date and time and all quotations are opened in public by PMMD at the Daily Public Quotation Opening held at PMMD location.

(iv)PMMD summarizes and analyses the received quotations ensuring that all City terms and conditions are complied with and sends the acceptable quotations together with the summary to the Department for review and recommendation.

(v)Department reviews quotations and recommends to PMMD, the bidder to whom the award should be made (the bidder who has submitted the lowest quotation meeting specifications.

(vi)PMMD reviews Department recommendation for accuracy including compliance with City Policies and after reaching concurrence, either awards the requirement to the successful bidder (within dollar limits delegated by by-law), or prepares a report seeking approval to award the requirement and forwards same to the appropriate Committee or to Council for approval.

(vii)When approval is received, the successful bidder is awarded the requirement and PMMD issues a Purchase Order to the successful bidder.

This process ensures that the City is obtaining the best price and delivery for the required goods and services since all interested firms have an equal opportunity to bid.

Prices obtained for goods and services are subject to many variables including total required volumes, revisions to specifications, technological updates, seasonal variations, market conditions, prior sale, etc. These variables may change from year to year. Thus a comparison of current pricing to historical data may not be reflective of current conditions and future trends for any good or service in a given industry or market sector and it could be misleading to rely on this historical data to make a decision on current Quotations/Tenders/Proposals. For example, quotations for vehicles and heavy equipment requirements (i.e. fire trucks, bulldozers) are issued when replacement units are needed and these items are not replaced every year. Over the years, there are changes to vehicle specifications, technological updates, revisions to client Department optional features due to changing operational needs, revisions to Health and Safety requirements, fluctuations in market conditions etc. which impact on the pricing that is offered for a particular unit. Another example are quotations for the supply and delivery of food for the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department. Costs for food are dependant local, national and international market conditions for food products, the needs among those in the establishments where the food is being consumed and on the nutritional requirements specified by dieticians in the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department. Thus a simple comparison of pricing from one purchase to the next may be of little meaning.

All interested suppliers have an opportunity to submit prices for current City requirements. Advertisements are regularly placed in newspapers which encourage suppliers to register on City mailing lists to receive Tenders and Requests for Quotations or Proposals. All Tenders and Requests for Quotations or Proposals are also listed on the City's Website to further provide access by the business community to City opportunities. This open, competitive process ensures maximum competition to achieve the best prices possible for the City's current requirements.

The reports currently prepared for Committees and Council state the number of firms who communicated their interest and received a copy of the Quotation/Tender/Proposal documents, along with the names of the firms who submitted bids based on the current requirements, together with the amount of each bid. Pricing comparison for current purchases should be made between the bids offered at the present time for the present requirements, rather than historical pricing data which were based on past requirements and often times significantly different market conditions.

 As requested by the Works and Utilities Committee, the following municipalities were contacted by PMMD to request if they could provide to the City of Toronto five-year pricing information for inclusion in such reports:

- York Region;

- Peel Region;

- Halton Region;

- Durham Region;

- Ottawa-Carleton;

- London; and

-Hamilton-Wentworth.

All of these municipalities advised that they were not in a position to provide this information.

The reasons given for not providing the information were: the amount of work involved and their lack of resources, their policy of not disclosing suppliers' unit prices for commodities purchased and their concerns about how pricing information from their municipality could be used by other suppliers to determine pricing on future bids. They consider the prices offered to their municipality by bidders to be confidential information and not to be made public.

A spokesperson for the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), a Professional Purchasing Association of which PMMD is a member, confirms that it is more valuable to compare the results of current pricing from the present year's bid call instead of a comparison of historical previous prices from the bid results of former years. The NIGP is of the opinion that it is unrealistic to base a purchasing decision on previous years' bid prices since market conditions are too variable from to year to year, resulting in price fluctuations which are not reflective of current price conditions.

Currently resources are focussed on following a process to ensure that the best price possible is achieved in the purchase of all goods and services as the result of an open, competitive, non-restrictive purchasing procedure followed consistently by the Purchasing and Materials Management Division as detailed earlier in this report.

However, for information purposes on basic bulk large volume single requirements that are purchased every year (e.g.,Rock Salt, Water Treatment Chemicals, Gasoline, Fuel Oils), reports prepared for Standing Committees and Council could include the City of Toronto's previous year's pricing together with the percentage increase or decrease for that commodity and the rationale for the change in pricing. This procedure would not apply to one-time purchases which are not made each year, where outdated historical pricing data would not be reflective of current requirements and present conditions and in cases in which the nature or variety or assortment of commodities cannot be easily compared i.e., office supplies, building materials, equipment rentals, health and safety goods and services, etc. For the reasons outlined above, providing two or more years of historical pricing data would be of no significant additional value in making decisions on the purchase of current requirements.

It is therefore recommended that we include in our reports for Standing Committee and Council prices received on current Requests for Quotations/Request for Proposals/Tender Calls based on current requirements and market conditions, together with the previous year's pricing for information purposes in cases where the purchase is made each year where practical.

Conclusion:

This report provides the Committee with the information requested at its meeting of September 9 with respect to a policy for including in reports, information on comparable costs for the previous two years and a sampling of five-year pricing in other municipalities surrounding the Greater Toronto Area and the Cities of London and Ottawa. Since historical data on past City requirements is not of significant value and information from other municipalities is not available, it is recommenced that reports for Standing Committees and Council include prices received on current Requests for Quotation /Request for Proposals/Tender Calls based on current requirements and market conditions, together with the previous year's pricing for information purposes in cases where the purchase is made each year, where practical.

Contact Names:

L.A. PaganoD. C. Kaufman

DirectorGeneral Manager

Purchasing and Materials ManagementTransportation Services

Telephone: 392-7312Telephone: 392-8431

   12

Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force -

Terms of Reference

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends that Council reaffirm the Terms of Reference for the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, embodied in the following communication (February 8, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to the Task Force reporting to Council through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force reaffirms its recommendations to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee respecting its proposed Terms of Reference.

Background:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, on February 5, 1999, had before it a communication (December 22, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the action of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee from its meeting held on December 15, 1998, in which it deferred consideration of the recommendations of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force contained in the communication (December 2, 1998) from the City Clerk, pending the review of the Council-Committee governance structure by Council.

--------

(Communication dated December 22, 1998, addressed to the

Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, from the City Clerk)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on December 15, 1998, had before it a communication (December 2, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the action of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force from its meeting of November 20, 1998, respecting Assessment and Tax Policy Tax Force - Terms of Reference and recommending:

(1)that the following Terms of Reference be adopted for the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:

(a)To meet as a working reference group to provide political direction to Finance Officials in the preparation of comprehensive tax policies in advance of the return of the 1999 Current Value assessment, (taking effect in 2001) including:

(i)review the tax burden for each property class, including the advantages and disadvantages of different tax rates for the residential, multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes;

(ii)develop comprehensive tax policies for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes, including a permanent solution (i.e. 2001) to ensure property tax equity between property classes;

(iii)develop long term (i.e. 2001) tax policies to protect charitable and similar organizations in the commercial and industrial classes;

(iv)work towards a recommendation that a portion of a resident's property taxes be based on income;

(b)To develop a process to consult interested stakeholders on proposed tax policies for the 2001 reassessment;

(c)To review hardship cases arising from the 2.5 percent cap on charitable and similar non-profit organizations during the 1998-2000 period;

(d)To review criteria for an enhanced tax relief program for low-income seniors and disabled persons;

(e)To review a mechanism to establish a general tax deferral program for all low-income home owners;

(f)To review ways and means to protect the City's tax base;

(g)To continue efforts to persuade the Provincial Government to exempt veterans' club houses from the education portion of the property tax; and

(h)To provide options for Council, should legislation change in the future; and

(2)The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force report directly to City Council because deputations are made at the Task Force level and not at the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee level.

Action:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee deferred consideration of the recommendations of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force contained in the communication (December 2, 1998) from the City Clerk, pending the review of the Council-Committee governance structure by Council.

(Communication dated December 2, 1998, addressed

to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

from the City Clerk)

Recommendations:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force recommends:

(1)that the following Terms of Reference be adopted for the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:

(a)To meet as a working reference group to provide political direction to Finance Officials in the preparation of comprehensive tax policies in advance of the return of the 1999 Current Value assessment, (taking effect in 2001) including:

(i)review the tax burden for each property class, including the advantages and disadvantages of different tax rates for the residential, multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes;

(ii)develop comprehensive tax policies for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes, including a permanent solution (i.e. 2001) to ensure property tax equity between property classes;

(iii)develop long term (i.e. 2001) tax policies to protect charitable and similar organizations in the commercial and industrial classes;

(iv)work towards a recommendation that a portion of a resident's property taxes be based on income;

(b)To develop a process to consult interested stakeholders on proposed tax policies for the 2001 reassessment;

(c)To review hardship cases arising from the 2.5 percent cap on charitable and similar non-profit organizations during the 1998-2000 period;

(d)To review criteria for an enhanced tax relief program for low-income seniors and disabled persons;

(e)To review a mechanism to establish a general tax deferral program for all low-income home owners;

(f)To review ways and means to protect the City's tax base;

(g)To continue efforts to persuade the Provincial Government to exempt veterans' club houses from the education portion of the property tax; and

(h)To provide options for Council, should legislation change in the future; and

(2)The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force report directly to City Council because deputations are made at the Task Force level and not at the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee level.

Background:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on November 20, 1998, gave consideration to a communication from Councillor Adams forwarding the proposed Terms of Reference. The Task Force also had before it a copy of Clause 1 of Report No. 17 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed "Status of Special Committees and Task Forces", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998.

The Task Force's recommendations are noted above.

--------

(Proposed Terms of Reference - Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force)

(1)To meet as a working reference group to provide political direction to Finance Officials in the preparation of comprehensive tax policies in advance of the return of the 1999 Current Value assessment, (taking effect in 2001) including:

(a)review the tax burden for each property class, including the advantages and disadvantages of different tax rates for the residential, multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes;

(b)develop comprehensive tax policies for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes, including a permanent solution (i.e. 2001) to ensure property tax equity between property classes;

(c)develop long term (i.e. 2001) tax policies to protect charitable and similar organizations in the commercial and industrial classes;

(d)work towards a recommendation that a portion of a resident's property taxes be based on income;

(2)To develop a process to consult interested stakeholders on proposed tax policies for the 2001 reassessment;

(3)To review hardship cases arising from the 2.5 percent cap on charitable and similar non-profit organizations during the 1998-2000 period;

(4)To review criteria for an enhanced tax relief program for low-income seniors and disabled persons;

(5)To review a mechanism to establish a general tax deferral program for all low-income home owners;

(6)To review ways and means to protect the City's tax base;

(7)To continue efforts to persuade the Provincial Government to exempt veterans' club houses from the education portion of the property tax; and

(8)To provide options for Council, should legislation change in the future.

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force shall continue to report to Council through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

November 20, 1998

(A copy of the communication (October 22, 1998, addressed to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, from the City Clerk; and Clause No. 1 of Report No. 17 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, entitled "Status of Special Committees and Task Forces", which was attached to the foregoing communication, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the February 23, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 1, 1999) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity Niagara:

Recommendations:

(1)That the following clause be added to the Terms of Reference of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:

(a)To review the method and timing of the processing of Assessment appeals by Finance Officials with the aim of reducing the delay in processing appeals to less than four months from date of receipt.

Background:

In order for the City to retain the trust of its citizens, it must perform its financial duties accurately and in a timely manner. The City must not only collect taxes in an efficient manner, it must process refunds in a similar manner. A communication from the CFO and Treasurer dated February 18, 1999 which is attached hereto outlines the delays which now exist. We now are processing appeals from 1996, which I believe is unacceptable. I imply no criticism of staff who I believe are dong their best under the difficult circumstances which exist due to amalgamation and the introduction of CVA. The City must however rise to this challenge and deal with refunds in a timely manner.)

 13

The State of the City's Health: Achieving

Public Health Goals in the Millennium

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)Moved by Councillor Sinclair:

'WHEREAS the health of this City and its residents is a vital resource for the long-term economic and social success of Toronto; and

WHEREAS the Report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, the Report of Toronto's Community Safety Task Force, and reports by the City's Medical Officer of Health on the state of the City's health, have all documented rising rates of housing insecurity, violence, health risks, child poverty, ill health and other signs of social dysfunction; and

WHEREAS these reports have also documented prevention opportunities for the City by promoting more equal access to food, housing, education, recreation, social support and programs that prevent premature death and promote good health; and

WHEREAS despite strong evidence of the long-term financial and social return on funds invested in prevention, even current investments are in jeopardy in the current environment of public sector financial constraint; and

WHEREAS initiatives designed to address these urgent health and social issues must be appropriately planned, funded and monitored for effectiveness;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council establish a mechanism to monitor the City's progress in addressing these social concerns and to ensure specifically that concerted and effective action is taken on the issues of homelessness and poverty.'; and

(2)the following motion be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for report as part of the Strategic Planning Process:

Moved by Councillor Sinclair:

'NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council ensure that the priorities reflected in its Strategic Plan and budget address the need for continued support for preventive programs and services to deal with these urgent health and social issues so as to maintain and strengthen the City's human infrastructure.' ")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the endorsement of the report (January 14, 1999) from the Medical Officer of Health.

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council, having received the communication (February 3, 1999) from Mr. Andrew Papadopoulos, BASc., MBA, Executive Director, Association of Local Public Health Agencies (alPHa).

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a report (January 25, 1999) from the Secretary, Board of Health, advising that the Board of Health on January 25, 1999, recommended the endorsement of report (January 14, 1999) from the Medical Officer of Health, being the annual report providing citizens of Toronto with information on their health, the health of their City, and measures needed to ensure that health needs continue to be met.

The Budget Committee also had before it a communication (February 3, 1999) from Mr. Andrew Papadopoulos, BASc., MBA, Executive Director, Association of Local Public Health Agencies (alPHa), advising that Public Health is a vital part of every community's infrastructure, promoting and protecting the health and well-being of residents of all ages; and supporting of Dr. Sheela Basrur's recent appeal for more money to meet the current health needs of City of Toronto residents.

--------

(Communication dated January 25, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the Secretary, Board of Health.)

Recommendation:

The Board of Health reports, for the information of the Budget Committee, having:

(1)adopted the report dated January 14, 1999, from the Medical Officer of Health, with a direction that such report be forwarded to the Budget Committee as part of a package with other reports requiring budget approval; and

(2)requested the Chair of the Board of Health to seek a meeting of the Board with the Mayor, prior to consideration of the budget and in addition to the Budget Committee process, to discuss public health priorities.

Background:

The Board of Health on January 25, 1999, had before it a report (January 14, 1999) from the Medical Officer of Health respecting The State of the City's Health: Achieving Public Health Goals in the Millennium, and recommending that the Board of Health endorse this report and refer it to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, Budget Committee and City Council.

The Medical Officer of Health gave a presentation to the Board with respect to the foregoing matter.

(Report dated January 14, 1999, addressed to the

Board of Health from the Medical Officer of Health)

Purpose:

This annual report to the Board of Health provides citizens of Toronto with information on their health, the health of their City, and measures needed to ensure that health needs continue to be met.

 Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Board of Health endorse this report, and refer it to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, Budget Committee and City Council.

Background:

At its meeting on February 19, 1998, the Board of Health received a report from the Medical Officer of Health reporting on health trends in Toronto and key issues for Public Health programming and resource allocations. This report provides an update of trends over the past year and highlights some of the significant issues that the Board of Health must address to ensure we enter the millennium with an effective and efficient public health infrastructure. It also points out that there are major deficiencies across Toronto with respect to meeting provincially mandated core programs and in providing an equitable level of service to all residents. The issues highlighted in this report make up only part of the activities of Toronto Public Health. Detailed information on programs will be provided in separate reports as we proceed through the budget process.

Comments:

(1)Creating a Healthy City:

In its first year as a new city, Toronto is emerging as one of North America's most vital urban centres. Despite the challenges of downloading and amalgamation, scores of initiatives are underway to strengthen and develop Toronto's economy to ensure that it maintains its reputation as the number one city in the world in which to live, work and play. Developments in the cultural, entertainment and sports industries will increase tourism, attract major conferences and conventions, and contribute to the health of our city.

Critical to the development of a healthy city is a strong social infrastructure that includes safe, affordable public transit, healthy parklands, improvements in water and air quality, maintenance of roads and the strengthening and development of accessible and effective Public Health services to promote health and prevent disease. With 2.4 million residents in a 620 square mile area, Toronto is more populous than many Canadian provinces. Its health is vital to the social and economic health of the region, the province, and the country as a whole.

Contrary to what has happened in many American cities, where the flight of the middle and upper classes has left many inner city residents without the services, commercial areas and transit that help keep cities safe, wealthy and low income people continue to live in close proximity in Toronto. The new city has a diverse population with different cultures, ethno-racial groups and well defined community identities, and, as with all major cities, a higher proportion of people requiring special services.

Amalgamation has meant that Public Health has had to find new ways of working together, as well as building on the best of the former municipalities. The past year has seen us striving to make our services more efficient, accessible across the city and responsive to diverse needs so that we can improve the equity of health outcomes and the overall health of the population.

We are still in the early stages of restructuring and have a long way to go before our six former health units are truly amalgamated. In our first year, with the support of the Board of Health and City Council, we made significant progress in delivering and expanding our services. For example, we:

(a)created a new management structure to meet the demands of the amalgamated city;

(b)implemented the provincially funded Healthy Babies Healthy Children program, providing screening, assessment and lay home visiting services for families according to need across the city;

(c)expanded the school food program to include more than 34,000 children in 170 school and community locations across the city, supported by municipal and provincial funding and contributions from community partners;

(d)amalgamated and redesigned the vaccine preventable disease program;

(e)undertook a massive investigation of an outbreak of Cyclosporiasis and made recommendations to the federal government on the improvement of food importation and safety standards;

(f)established a meningitis hotline in response to public concern about a serious outbreak in a nearby municipality, answering more than 10,000 calls in a three-week period;

(g)launched a major new city-wide Heart Health partnership to increase awareness of the role that diet, exercise and smoking play in heart disease; and

(h)maintained delivery of high quality core public health programs.

(2)The State of the City's Health:

The major causes of illness, disability and premature death in Canada are heart disease, cancer, stroke, respiratory disease, injuries and suicide, and, in Toronto, AIDS in young men. These, as a I reported earlier, remain central challenges for Public Health and are the focus of major public health programs to reduce smoking, improve diets, reduce unsafe alcohol and drug use, and unsafe sex. As well, cities by their very nature have unique issues. While they attract people with higher education and wealth, they also attract people who need access to the basics for survival. The fact that Toronto has a well educated and relatively well off population gives Torontonians the opportunity to ensure that we provide services for those of us who require them. It is not only our obligation to do so, it is in our interest to do so if Toronto is to remain an attractive place for people to live and businesses to develop.

Toronto is now the most populous municipal public health jurisdiction in Canada. The City has some of the highest health needs of all urban areas in Ontario. As reported earlier, in terms of its position within the Greater Toronto Area, Toronto has 51.5 percent of the population of the GTA and a disproportionate number of people with high needs, including the majority of low-income people, single parent families, seniors, poor children, low birth weight babies, immigrants, AIDS and tuberculosis cases. In February 1998, following up to the report "Threats to Health in the Changing City: Choices for the Future", I reported that the overall health of the public remains positive, but that there are warning signs for the future. Those warning signs persist today and there are disturbing trends in some areas, particularly in regard to poverty, homelessness, HIV infection and tuberculosis.

(3)Trends in the Determinants of Health:

Education, work, income, social equity and social support, a safe environment and freedom from discrimination are important determinants of health. Poverty and income inequities increase susceptibility to disease and are strongly related with higher rates of illness, disability and premature death in the population.

(i)Poverty:

Toronto has significant and disturbing levels of poverty. Data from the 1991 and 1996 Census show the number of low income families increased in more than 90 percent of Toronto census tracts, and median incomes declined in each of the former municipalities. As of June 1998, 40,000 households, representing 100,000 people, were on the waiting list for social housing in Toronto. From October 1990-96, the number of people using food banks increased by 44 percent. In Ontario, child poverty has increased by 116 percent since 1989, and one of every three Toronto newborns is born into a family where poverty is a risk factor. A 1998 study of women and children using Toronto food banks found inadequate intakes of iron, magnesium, vitamin A folate, protein, zinc and calcium - nutrients that affect prenatal and infant health, child development and increase the risk of chronic disease. The birth weight of babies born to teens and the percentage of underweight babies increased in areas with the highest poverty and unemployment rates. Public Health food access programs help only one-quarter of the estimated 100,000 people that could benefit from such programs.

(ii)Homelessness:

City Council has identified homelessness as a crisis. One of the most troubling aspects of homelessness in Toronto is the number of youth sleeping on the streets, which has been estimated at 10,000 during a period of one year. Among these youth, there are about 200 pregnant teens and teen mothers. Their future is grim. More than 4,000 people use city shelters each night, about 20 percent of them children. Public health nurses and outreach workers report more people sleeping in alleys and stairwells. The number of women and children using shelters because of parental or spousal abuse increased 45 percent from 1991 to 1995. Between 11 percent and 33 percent of homeless people have severe mental health and/or addiction problems.

(iii)Immigration and Ethno-Cultural Needs:

Public Health services must continue to recognize the diversity of our population in terms of cultures, faith, race, language and literacy. Almost 50 percent of Toronto's population is made up of immigrants and refugees; more than 70,000 immigrants and refugees come to Toronto every year, and just over 40 percent speak neither English nor French. They require a broad range of public health services that are accessible, equitable, and non-discriminatory and respond to the variety of values, norms, needs and practices of the various ethno-racial, cultural, linguistic and faith communities that make up Toronto.

(4)Emerging Health Threats:

(i)Tuberculosis (TB):

The World Health Organization has declared TB a global emergency. A resurgence of TB in Toronto seems inevitable unless we have a strong infrastructure to ensure effective prevention and control. We have high levels of immigration from countries where TB is endemic and no effective system to ensure infected immigrants are identified and treated. (Ninety percent of cases are foreign born.) We also have crowded drop-ins and shelters, more poverty and increasing HIV co-infection. From 1992-96, 3.7 percent of Toronto TB cases had HIV listed as a risk factor. In 1996 that figure increased to 4.2 percent of cases. While current TB levels are stable, it takes several years for a resurgence of TB to become evident. Drug resistant TB is a major concern. Of the 450-500 cases of TB that are reported in Toronto each year, 16 percent are resistant to one or more commonly used antibiotics. This compares to 8.7 percent nationally. It costs close to $300,000.00 to treat one case of multi-drug resistant TB, compared with less than $20,000.00 to treat a case of non-resistant TB. The World Health Organization recommends directly observed therapy (DOT, a supervised treatment method) for all cases. Less than 20 percent of Toronto cases are on DOT.

(ii)Tobacco-Related Disease:

As reported earlier, a disturbing increase in tobacco use began in the 1990s, after two decades of decline. Statistics from the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit show that 29 percent of females and 26 percent of males age 12-19 now smoke. One of the reasons for this high level of smoking is the low cost of cigarettes in Ontario following the lowering of federal and provincial taxes. As well, the rates of lung cancer deaths in women continue to rise. The increase in tobacco use by youth will result in illness and early death in the next generation of adults. Exposure of children and youth to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) at home and in public places where smoking is still permitted (e.g., restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls) is also a major concern. Tobacco related illness and death is preventable. Prevention requires education, smoking cessation programs, and policies and legislation to reduce youth exposure to tobacco products and environmental tobacco smoke.

(iii)HIV/AIDS:

HIV infection among injection drug users in Toronto has increased from 5 percent in 1991 to 9.5 percent today. Once the figure reaches 10 percent, studies show that an explosive spread of HIV can occur in users, their partners, and their children. In Montreal 20 percent of users are infected, in Vancouver 25 percent. If the local increase continues, Toronto will see increased HIV/AIDS rates in women and newborns and children. HIV infection in Ontario women of childbearing age is estimated at 6/10,000 women, three times estimates from 1992. Conditions that contribute to increased infection, and the spread of other blood-borne diseases, such as Hepatitis B and C, include lack of stable housing, transience and sharing needles. Street youth are at significant risk of HIV infection, with estimated HIV rates triple those of the general population.

(iv)Air Quality and Health:

In response to concerns about the quality of Toronto's air, in 1998 the Medical Officer of Health chaired a corporate-wide smog alert program that came into effect in the spring. Three smog alerts were called advising citizens, municipal operating divisions and other sectors to restrict activities that pollute the air. The City turned off all but essential gas powered equipment. These measures raise awareness but much more needs to be done, particularly in light of increasing rates of asthma in children and increasing hospital admissions on poor air quality days. Sustainable transportation options are needed to reduce our reliance on the car, one of the main causes of poor air in Toronto, and reductions are needed in the sulphur content of fuel, emissions from coal-fired generating stations, and in the use of pesticides.

(v) Food-Borne Illness:

The nature and scope of food-borne diseases are rapidly changing, resulting in greater public risk. There are more than 1,700 cases of food poisoning reported each year, but with under-reporting actual incidents of food poisoning may be as high as 42,500 cases. In the last decade there have been widespread food-borne outbreaks in industrialized countries from agents previously unrecognized as food-borne pathogens; e.g., E.coli 0157:H7, Salmonella typhimurium, DT104, Cyclospora. There is increasing virulence and prevalence of food-borne pathogens and an increasing number of previously unrecognized "hazardous" foods. Globalization of the food supply, new production technologies and inadequate safety practices in homes contribute to outbreaks. This year Toronto experienced a large outbreak of Cyclosporiasis, precipitating a major investigation involving Canadian and United States agencies. This was the third such outbreak in North America linked to contaminated raspberries from Guatemala and could have been prevented by more stringent policies regarding importation of food.

(5)Maintaining a Healthy City:

To maintain a vibrant, healthy city, we must ensure we have effective services to address growing health needs. As noted previously, declining public resources, a weakening of the social safety net and rapid institutional change, including hospital restructuring and inadequate long term care beds, have diminished our capacity to respond to the health challenges we face. Federal contributions to health care are undergoing constant change and it is uncertain what funding will be available in the new millennium. Provincial policy reforms have reduced welfare eligibility and benefits; there is reduced protection for renters, and a moratorium on social housing construction. All these factors affect poverty levels and impact on health. The pressures of amalgamation and the downloading of Public Health to municipalities are diverting attention from serious public health issues at a time when needs are growing.

In many areas, Public Health is not meeting the minimum legal standards prescribed in the Mandatory Guidelines. Examples of areas currently below standard include prevention and control of tuberculosis, needle exchange for the prevention of HIV transmission, and the safe handling of food. As well, non-mandatory programs that have evolved over time in response to local needs are not equitably distributed across the new City. These include services to help homeless people, strategies to help people access nutritional food and needle exchange and harm reduction services to reduce substance abuse. There are large pockets of unattended needs throughout the City.

We are looking at all of our programs to see how we can meet the Mandatory Guidelines and local needs with efficient use of resources and maximum effect. However, as I reported last year, additional resources will be required to meet provincial standards and to address local needs. We currently estimate we will need an additional $13 million to meet the new Mandatory Guidelines. An adjusted estimate of costs to harmonize and level services and meet information technology needs will require further review on a program-by-program basis.

Conclusions:

Public Health is a critical part of the social infrastructure, as important as the bricks and mortar for new buildings. As we enter the new millennium, it is important that we not lose sight of the improvements in health that have occurred as a result of effective public health programs. Helping new mothers breast feed; making sure children are immunized; teaching nutrition; preventing smoking; teaching hand washing in day cares; inspecting restaurants; tracking and controlling disease; maintaining dental health so people can eat properly and maintain good health - these are just some of the nuts and bolts of public health, and they are the reason we have improved life expectancy, eradicated communicable diseases like smallpox, and reduced the spread of new diseases like AIDS. Public health services, such as ensuring clean water and safe food, provide the foundation for a healthy population. Toronto has significant health challenges, and while the overall health of the population continues to be positive, the warning signs I pointed to last year still pose significant concern. Continued vigilance and investment in services that prevent disease and promote health are essential in order to ensure that our City grows with vibrancy. The decisions made today will affect the health and prosperity of our City tomorrow, and for decades to come.

Contact Name:

Dr. Sheela V. Basrur, Medical Officer of Health, 392-7402, Fax: 392-0713.

_________

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities and Council, having also had before it the following communication (February 3, 1999) from Mr. Andrew Papadopoulos, Executive Director, Association of Local Public Health Agencies:

On behalf of the Association of Local Public Health Agencies (alPHa), which represents Boards of Health and Public health Units across Ontario, I am writing to you in support of Dr. Sheela Basrur's recent appeal for more money to meet the current health needs of City of Toronto residents.

Needle-exchange programs are a proven method of reducing HIV infection among injection drug-users, saving the health care system $800,000.00 for each person who does not get infected with HIV. Dr. Basrur's request for an additional $625,000.00 for Toronto's preventive needle-exchange program is insignificant compared to the potential costs that would be incurred later if the rate of HIV infection among injection drug users increases to levels seen in Vancouver and Montreal.

Food-borne illness is also an area where public health can have a significant impact. Education and enhanced food-safety programs will reduce the risk of food poisoning, again decreasing the potential burden on the health care system.

Public health is a vital part of every community's infrastructure, promoting and protecting the health and well-being of residents of all ages. An investment in public health programs and services is an investment in the health of the City of Toronto.

 14

Contamination of Recyclables at Multi-Unit

Residential Locations in the

Scarborough Community Council Area

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (December 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)staff be authorized to enforce Scarborough By-law No. 24478 with respect to the removal of waste collection services from multi-unit residential locations in the Scarborough Community Council area not fully participating in the City's recycling program;

(2)Councillors be apprised of the affected locations in their Ward; and

(3)the City of Toronto's new waste management by-law include a provision that any multi-unit residential location that does not establish, operate and maintain a valid recycling program be subject to the removal of all municipal waste management services.

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a communication (January 13, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Works and Utilities Committee on January 13, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of report (December 23, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)staff be authorized to enforce Scarborough By-law No. 24478 with respect to the removal of waste collection services from multi-unit residential locations in the Scarborough Community Council area not fully participating in the City's recycling program;

(2)Councillors be apprised of the affected locations in their Ward; and

(3)the City of Toronto's new waste management by-law include a provision that any multi-unit residential location that does not establish, operate and maintain a valid recycling program be subject to the removal of all municipal waste management services.

--------

(Communication dated January 13, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Works and Utilities Committee on January 13, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report dated December 23, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting contamination of recyclables at multi-unit residential locations in the Scarborough Community Council area.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of the Budget Committee, having also referred this issue to the Toronto 3R Sub-Committee for consideration.

--------

(Communication dated December 23, 1998, addressed to the

Works and Utilities Committee from the

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

To advise of the ongoing contamination and noncompliance problems respecting recycling at multi-unit residential locations throughout the Scarborough Community Council area, and to request approval to withdraw waste management services under the authority of Scarborough By-law No. 24478 at those locations not fully participating in the City's recycling program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The current cost of providing refuse collection to the 266 locations in the Scarborough Community Council area which refuse to provide recycling services to their residents is approximately $240,000.00 annually. The additional cost associated with providing recycling services to these locations is approximately $65,000.00. Sufficient funds have been provided in the 1999 Operating Budget for the provision of these services.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)staff be authorized to enforce Scarborough By-law No. 24478 with respect to the removal of waste collection services from multi-unit residential locations in the Scarborough Community Council area not fully participating in the City's recycling program;

(2)Councillors be apprised of the affected locations in their Ward; and

(3)the City of Toronto's new waste management by-law include a provision that any multi-unit residential location that does not establish, operate and maintain a valid recycling program be subject to the removal of all municipal waste management services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Provincial Regulation 101/94 requires that municipalities with a population of 5,000 or greater offer and maintain a municipal Blue Box (recycling) system for multi-unit residential buildings that receive municipal garbage collection. In addition, Provincial Regulation 103/94 requires that the owner of a multi-unit residential building, that contains six or more dwellings, implement and maintain a recycling program for residential waste generated at the building.

The former City of Scarborough By-law No. 24478 requires that owners of multi-unit residential locations receiving municipal garbage collection participate fully in the municipal recycling program or be subject to removal of all waste management services.

All multi-unit residential locations eligible for garbage collection services in the Scarborough Community Council area have been offered municipal recycling services. Property owners have been contacted both by letter and by phone to inform them of the regulatory need for recycling programs at their locations. To date, of the 835 multi-unit residential locations in the Scarborough Community Council area, 603 have a recycling program in place.

Recyclables from these locations are collected utilizing either 95 gallon recycling carts or bulk containers. Fibre and commingled materials are collected separately. Alternate collection systems are used where carts or bulk containers are not feasible. As an added incentive to encourage participation in the recycling program, the City provides one bulk container free of charge while the property owner supplies the second. Carts are provided at a subsidized cost of $40.00. The recyclable material collected from multi-unit locations is identical to that collected in the residential curbside program.

Current Situation:

Locations with Contaminated Bins:

Commingled (bottles, cans and containers) loads of recyclable material collected from bulk bin containers are being rejected at the transfer station due to an unacceptable level of contamination. Contaminants include plastic toys, bags, five gallon pails and bagged household garbage. These loads are subsequently sent to landfill. To date, there have been no contamination problems associated with the fibre stream.

In an attempt to rectify the contamination problem, staff inspect all bulk recycling bins weekly, prior to collection. Those locations where bins were identified as contaminated are notified in person and/or by fax that the bins will not be collected until all contaminants are removed. The site is provided with a list of contaminants found. In the first week of site inspections, 84 locations were refused collection. Over the summer and early fall months, an average of 74 locations did not receive collection in any given week. Staff have worked proactively with the property owners and superintendents in an attempt to explain the importance of removing contaminants and provided educational materials in order to rectify the problem at the source.

This approach has been relatively successful as commingled loads collected from bulk containers are now generally contaminant free. However, commingled bins at 13 locations have been identified as contaminated and are not receiving collection. These locations are working diligently in an attempt to rectify the situation and staff continue to work with and support them. The remaining 32 locations blatantly refuse to ensure that their bins are contaminant free. Many of these have been filled with garbage and have not been collected for a period of time. In addition, there are two locations that have made their recycling bins inaccessible to residents and, hence, are not used at all.

It is important to note that this situation is not limited to the Scarborough Community Council area. All parts of the City are experiencing problems with contamination in varying degrees.

Locations not Offering a Recycling Program:

There are presently 232 locations in the Scarborough Community Council area that have never offered a recycling program to their residents and as such are not in compliance with Provincial Regulation 103/94. By ignoring the situation at these locations, the City is not treating all locations equitably. Many multi-unit residential locations work diligently and have expended financial resources to ensure that residents are recycling. In addition, as discussed previously, most of those locations identified over the past five months that experienced contamination problems have devoted a great deal of time and energy toward improving their programs.

It is important to note that, in addition to the above 232 locations, there are an additional 863 locations throughout Toronto that are not in compliance with Provincial Regulation No. 103/94.

Existing By-laws in Other Community Council Areas and By-law Consolidation:

Staff in all Community Council areas review site plans and/or development applications and ensure adequate facilities exist for the provision of recycling. However, only the Community Council areas of Scarborough and Etobicoke have the ability to enforce recycling requirements under existing by-laws. Both by-laws authorize the removal of all waste collection services from any location that does not establish, operate and maintain a recycling program. All other areas put the onus on the Province to enforce their Regulation. To date, staff are unaware of any locations in the City that have been notified and charged by the Province for not complying with Regulation No. 103/94.

In order to achieve maximum diversion of waste from landfill and to create a level playing field, it is imperative that all multi-unit residential locations participate fully in the City's recycling program. This must also include ensuring that the material set out for collection meets the required standards.

Recommended Strategy:

In an attempt to ensure that all locations in the Scarborough Community Council area are compliant with both By-law No. 24478 and Provincial Regulation No. 103/94, staff are prepared to enforce By-law No. 24478 by notifying the following types of noncompliant locations that the removal of all municipal waste management services is imminent unless each location participates fully and cooperatively in the City's recycling program:

(a)the 32 locations that refuse to ensure that the recycling material is free of contaminants;

(b)the 2 locations which have made the recycling program inaccessible to residents; and

(c)the 232 locations that have been offered recycling services and have refused to participate in the City's recycling program.

Etobicoke is currently the only other Community Council area that has the ability to remove waste collection services from noncomplying locations. Staff have been enforcing this by-law since August 1998 in an attempt to force approximately 200 noncomplying locations to recycle. To date, only one location has been removed from waste collection service. However, the day following the revocation of service, the property owner agreed to implement a recycling program. Of the 40 locations contacted to date, 39 are now recycling. The remaining location will begin recycling in the near future. The remainder of noncomplying locations are being contacted as staff time permits.

Conclusions:

In an attempt to harmonize service levels, ensure all multi-unit residential locations in the City of Toronto are treated equitably and to maximize diversion, any new by-law prepared for the governing of waste management services should include enforcement provisions for mandatory recycling. Staff are reviewing the various by-laws related to waste management throughout the City and will be providing a further report on this issue in the spring of 1999.

Contact Name:

Catharine Daniels, Waste Management Analyst

Solid Waste Management Services

Phone: (416) 396-5205; Fax: (416) 396-4256

E-mail: daniels@city.scarborough.on.ca.

 15

Evaluation of the "On The Move" Pilot Project

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)current funds for the 'On the Move' Pilot Project of $50,000.00 be incorporated into the Community Services Grants Program for allocation to community-based agencies as a dedicated public transit resource for homeless and socially isolated persons;

(2)the Social Services Division be directed to maximize the use of transportation assistance currently available under the Ontario Works program for all eligible clients;

(3)this report be forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission with a request to consider a discount on bulk ticket purchases, beyond the one percent currently provided to TTC ticket agents, for community-based agencies providing services for homeless and socially isolated persons; and

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

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a report (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Municipal Grants Review Committee on January 25, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of report (January 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)current funds for the 'On the Move' Pilot Project of $50,000.00 be incorporated into the Community Services Grants Program for allocation to community-based agencies as a dedicated public transit resource for homeless and socially isolated persons;

(2)the Social Services Division be directed to maximize the use of transportation assistance currently available under the Ontario Works program for all eligible clients;

(3)this report be forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission with a request to consider a discount on bulk ticket purchases, beyond the one percent currently provided to TTC ticket agents, for community-based agencies providing services for homeless and socially isolated persons; and

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

(Communication dated January 25, 1999, addressed

to the Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on January 25, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report (January 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting the 'On the Move' Pilot Project.

  (Report dated January 11, 1999, addressed to the

Municipal Grants Review Committee from the

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services)

Purpose:

To report on the final evaluation of the 'On the Move' Pilot Project, a one year transportation assistance program for homeless and socially isolated persons.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)current funds for the 'On the Move' Pilot Project of $50,000.00 be incorporated into the Community Services Grants Program for allocation to community-based agencies as a dedicated public transit resource for homeless and socially isolated persons;

(2)the Social Services Division be directed to maximize the use of transportation assistance currently available under the Ontario Works program for all eligible clients;

(3)this report be forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission with a request to consider a discount on bulk ticket purchases, beyond the one percent currently provided to TTC ticket agents, for community-based agencies providing services for homeless and socially isolated persons; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In July 1997, the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons produced the report, On the Move: Transportation Issues for Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons. This report documents the results of a study profiling the transportation issues of 166 homeless persons. The study demonstrates that access to transportation is critical for both the prevention and resolution of homelessness. People who are homeless must be able to travel throughout the City to meet their basic needs of shelter and food. Access is also essential if people are to have the capacity to attend to longer-range goals such as finding a place to live and a job.

Based on the recommendations in this report, the former Metropolitan Council approved funding for a one year, $50,000.00 pilot project to augment the number of TTC tickets distributed by a network of agencies serving homeless and socially isolated persons. The 'On the Move' Pilot Project began in January 1998 with a commitment to evaluate the project at the end of the year. The evaluation was conducted in early December, prior to the project's completion, in order to coincide with the City's budget process.

This report summarizes the results of the evaluation along with recommendations for the future of the pilot project.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Description of the 'On the Move' Pilot Project:

Agencies who work with people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless were invited to submit a "letter of intent" indicating their interest in and capacity for participating in the project. A total of seventeen agencies from across Toronto were selected. These included services for youth, adults, singles, families, men, women, aboriginal people, immigrants, refugees and people with mental health issues. Diversity in the type of service provided was also a consideration to ensure funds were targeted at prevention services as well as emergency services (see Appendix A for a list of participating agencies.)

Participation in the pilot project required a commitment to track and record how the TTC tickets were used. Several agencies also participated in a research group set up to work with the Advisory Committee's transportation sub-committee to design and analyze the results of the evaluation.

The Social Development and Administration Division of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department administered the project. The majority of agencies received allocations of at least $4,000.00, representing an 80 to 100 percent increase in transportation budgets for most. Allocations were provided in the form of TTC tickets and day passes which were ordered on a quarterly basis. This arrangement was the result of an agreement negotiated with the TTC which allowed the City a one-percent discount on the $50,000.00 pilot project fund. The TTC was not willing to offer this discount directly to the agencies involved in the project as they were reluctant to set a precedent of this practice. The TTC identified their role as the provider of public transit and that the Community and Neighbourhood Services act as the interface with the community-based sector.

Evaluation of the Pilot Project:

In June 1998, a small survey of participating agencies was done to determine how the pilot project was going and if there were any administrative details that needed to be addressed. In August 1998, a series of interviews were conducted with agency staff and with people receiving tickets through the 'On the Move' Pilot Project to learn more about the value of TTC tickets for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

The information contained in this report primarily reflects data gathered through the final evaluation surveys. Information collected from the client interviews during the summer is also included.

(1)Purpose of the Evaluation:

A program evaluation was undertaken to determine the success of the pilot project in meeting its goals and to develop recommendations for the future of the project. The primary goal was to increase access to public transit for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Secondary goals included expanding our understanding of the role of transportation in resolving and preventing homelessness, as well as to determine the viability of community-based organizations as distribution points for TTC tickets.

(2)Methodology:

Client and agency surveys were used to evaluate the project. The client survey collected general demographic information and descriptions of how TTC tickets received through the 'On the Move' project impacted on their lives. The agency survey focused on administrative aspects of the project but also included requests for client transportation stories.

Each agency was asked to administer 12 surveys to people receiving TTC tickets through their service. In order to ensure a random sample, every third person given a TTC ticket was asked to fill out a questionnaire. A total of 148 surveys were completed, representing a 70 percent response rate. The agency surveys were conducted through telephone interviews with all 17 participating agencies.

Tickets distributed through the pilot project over the course of the year were recorded by each agency using a standardized tracking form. Information was collected on the number of tickets and/or day passes distributed and for what purposes.

(3)Increasing Access to Public Transit:

Eighty-two percent of the participating agencies rated the project successful or very successful in meeting the prime goal of increased transit access. Access was seen to be increased in two ways: more tickets were available and a greater flexibility for agency staff to give out tickets for a wider range of reasons. On average, the 'On the Move' Pilot Project was able to double the daily number of tickets available to each agency. However, even with this increase, most agencies gave out an average of only 20 tickets per day.

Eighteen percent of respondents rated the project as moderately successful, however, this was mainly because the demand for tickets far exceeded the supply. There was a clear consensus among the participating agencies that more tickets were needed. Similarly, the most common suggestion from the client survey on how the agencies TTC ticket program could be improved was for more tickets to be made available (74 percent).

(4)Furthering the Research on Transportation and Homelessness:

The pilot project also sought to expand our understanding of the role of transportation in resolving and preventing homelessness, building on the original 'On the Move' research. Feedback from the agency survey indicated that the project was successful to very successful in meeting this goal (92 percent).

(a)Where are people going?

Throughout the year agencies were required to track how the tickets were being used. While some agencies did track the use of tickets prior to the pilot project, others did not. This data provides a sense of how people use the service system, depending upon their particular circumstances. Not surprisingly, ticket use was somewhat determined by the type of agency they received the ticket from. For example, people receiving tickets from a housing help centre or a hostel used them to search for housing.

However, there were common themes across the range of agencies. The most frequent use of tickets was for health appointments and housing search (18 percent each). Travelling back home or to a hostel, and getting to work or searching for employment were the next most common destinations (11 percent each).

These trends also corresponded with the information gathered through the client surveys when respondents were asked why they needed a ticket on the day they were filling out the survey. Twenty four percent needed a ticket for health care appointments. Similarly, housing search (14 percent), shelter (11 percent), employment or job search (10 percent each) were the next most frequent answers. Given that 39 percent of people were in some form of emergency shelter, this indicates that people are motivated to find permanent housing and attend to health issues.

Research continues to show a strong connection between homelessness and poor health with people experiencing high rates of both chronic and acute health problems. Access to public transit not only helps people to reach health care services before problems become more serious but also to attend important follow-up appointments. One agency highlighted the importance of public transit to help people stay connected with their own doctor who is familiar with their medical history.

In the client interviews held during the summer, people related stories about the "empowering" aspect of being able to use the TTC, of having the ability to get around especially in a large city like Toronto. The following account effectively captures the practical yet significant value of TTC tickets to search for housing in Toronto:

"When we were looking for an apartment, we had to visit over 30 apartments all over the City. This would have been impossible for us without the help of this agency. The tickets we were given enabled us to see all of the available apartments we had called. As a result, we now have an apartment that is convenient, we like and are able to afford."

The data gathered on how people use the TTC corresponds with the original 'On the Move' research. When people had a TTC ticket they tended to use it for health care appointments and to search for housing. Transit tickets are considered to be a valuable resource and as such people seem to prioritize their use. (See Appendix B for additional travel accounts of people participating in the pilot project.)

(b)Where are people getting TTC tickets from?

The client survey for the evaluation found that during the previous month 51 percent of people had received tickets from the agency where they were completing the survey, receiving an average of 13 tickets. A further 38 percent had purchased tickets themselves, at an average of 19 tickets. Only one percent, or two people, had received tickets from social services during the previous month.

Clearly, people are making use of the TTC tickets available through community. The fact that many people also buy tickets indicates the value placed on public transit as most are existing on limited incomes. Social assistance was the source of income for 48 percent of the survey respondents. Twenty-four percent reported having no income at all.

On the broader question of how to provide for the transportation needs of people with limited incomes, lowering TTC fares was the most common suggestion based on the client surveys. Metro passes were also recommended. Providing tickets or passes through social assistance benefits and supplying more tickets through the 'On the Move' Pilot Project were also recommended. Not unexpectedly, this suggests that people prefer to have the financial resources or support to buy tickets themselves rather than to ask for tickets from community agencies. However, until such time as transportation needs are more directly provided through adequate income support programs, distributing tickets through the community agencies they turn to for support remains the most feasible and accountable system.

(c)Consequences of not having access to public transit:

Understanding the consequences of not being able to use the TTC was another important aspect of the pilot project research. According to the client survey, most people said they would walk if they could not get a ticket. While walking is considered to be a good form of exercise for most, it does not always hold true for homeless people. A person who is ill, injured, hungry, cold or who does not have adequate clothing or shoes, risks further injury from prolonged walking. Another 29 percent said they would simply not go. The consequences of missed appointments or opportunities, including housing and employment were identified in the original 'On the Move' study as significant barriers for people trying to overcome their homelessness.

(d)Unmet transportation needs:

The ability to travel outside of the City was raised as an issue by the participating agencies both in the evaluation surveys and the interviews held during the summer. Agencies report growing numbers of requests for transit assistance, primarily to search for work in the GTA. This corresponds to labour market trends which indicate that job growth is higher in the GTA than in Toronto, except for highly skilled employment.

(e)Limitations of the research:

It should be noted that as a research tool, the pilot project had limitations. While agencies were encouraged to give out tickets based on need, many prioritize distribution primarily because of a limited supply of tickets. As a result, the data may not provide a complete picture of why and how people use public transportation. Targeted, more comprehensive research, such as the original 'On the Move' study, is more appropriate for this task. However, the main purpose of the pilot project was to evaluate the impact of channelling a much needed resource to the most vulnerable people in our communities and in this respect it has proven successful.

(5)Community agencies as ticket distribution points:

Integral to the design of the 'On the Move' Pilot Project was to use community agencies as the distribution point for transit tickets. This was to ensure a measure of accountability but also in recognition of the established relationships community agencies have with the people who need the tickets. While it is true that not everyone in need uses community services, the pilot project was designed to include a wide range of service providers - from hostels to information centres - in an attempt to meet a broad spectrum of needs. The Anishnawbe Health Street Patrol, for example, connects with people on the street many of whom do not use mainstream services. Sojourn House, the only hostel in Toronto specifically for immigrants and refugees, supports newcomers who are unfamiliar with local services.

Agencies reported that as people found out TTC tickets were available the demand for tickets naturally increased. While this does place an additional administration burden on front line staff, it was also seen as useful tool for engaging clients on broader needs and issues. The additional tickets allowed agencies to give out tickets for a wider variety of reasons thereby helping people to establish the wider support network necessary for getting back on their feet. Overall, transit resources were viewed as a positive and practical contribution to an agency's ability to provide a comprehensive service.

(6)Future of the Pilot Project:

There was consensus from both client and agency surveys that regardless of its structure the 'On the Move' Pilot Project should continue preferably with an expansion of funds.

From an administrative perspective, ordering and distributing tickets to community agencies is a cumbersome process for the City of Toronto. It is therefore recommended that funds from the 'On the Move' Pilot Project be incorporated into the general Community Service Grants Program for allocation to community-based agencies as a dedicated public transit resource. Given the City's current financial constraints expanding this fund is not feasible at this time despite the demonstrated need. However, maximizing the use of transportation assistance available through the Ontario Works program for all eligible clients should increase the access of many low-income people to public transit.

Funding for the pilot project was originally obtained through net departmental underexpenditures in 1997. This $50,000.00 budget item was carried forward in the 1998 budget. The disposition of these funds was held until the evaluation was completed. An amount of $50,000.00 has been included in the existing consolidated grants budget for 1999.

(7)Other funding options:

Prior to the implementation of the pilot project, a number of strategies for increasing access of people with limited incomes to public transportation were explored.

(a)Discount TTC fares:

The option of a discount fare through the TTC has been discussed by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the General Manager of the TTC. This revealed concerns on the part of the TTC that providing discount fares for groups such as homeless people would constitute a social service thereby confusing its public transit mandate. The issue of subsidies is further challenged by ongoing pressures on the TTC budget potentially threatening their existing student and senior discount rates.

(b)Discounts on bulk ticket purchases:

As mentioned, the TTC provided a one percent discount to the City, not to individual agencies, for 'On the Move' Pilot Project fund only (the same discount provided to all TTC ticket agents.) Hostels, drop-ins, housing help centres, food banks, outreach programs and other community services spend considerable dollars every year for TTC tickets, an often difficult budget decision given funding cuts at a time of increased service demand. A small study of 46 agencies in 1996 by the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons found they spent almost $340,000.00 on TTC tickets in that budget year. The Daily Bread Food Bank alone spends upwards of $48,000.00 a year on TTC tokens for low income volunteers and food bank users.

Providing a bulk purchase ticket discount for community services would significantly increase the number of tickets for distribution through this sector thereby maximizing the transit resources available and ultimately enabling more people to use the TTC. It is therefore recommended that this report be forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission with a request to consider a discount, beyond the one percent currently provided to TTC ticket agents, for bulk ticket purchases by community-based agencies who provide services for homeless and socially isolated persons.

(c)Social Assistance:

Under Ontario Works, participants who are involved in various parts of the Community Participation and Employment Support component are eligible for transportation assistance and other benefits associated with their participation in the program. Currently, transportation expenses are available to clients in self-directed job searches only on a case by case basis to allow clients to attend documented job interviews. Costs for this assistance are shared 80:20 between the Province and the City of Toronto.

The Social Services Division has raised concerns in previous reports that current allowances are inadequate in allowing people to meet their full range of basic needs, including transportation. Unfortunately, implementing transit subsidies for the entire caseload is not feasible. Social assistance is an 80:20 cost-shared responsibility between the Province and the Municipality, with the Province determining benefit levels and entitlements. As a result, subsidising transportation expenses would require a significant financial commitment from both the Municipality and the Province. Increased expenditures beyond those currently budgeted would also require provincial approval, which is unlikely.

However, feedback from the 'On the Move' Pilot Project evaluation indicates that the transportation assistance available under the Ontario Works program may be underutilized. It is therefore recommended that the Social Services Division be directed to maximize the use of this transportation resource for all eligible clients.

(d)Private sector donations:

In addition to the pilot project, a donor campaign called "Ticket to Ride" has been organized in partnership with the Ontario Association of Hostels - Toronto Chapter. Several fundraising events have taken place, the largest involving high school students from the Metropolitan Separate School Board canvassing for donations at selected TTC stations. This program has run for two years and to date approximately $10,000.00 has been raised and distributed to drop-in centres, hostels and Out of the Cold programs. The enthusiastic support of this School Board has resulted in the design of a study unit on homelessness with participation in the Ticket to Ride campaign as part of the social justice component of their senior grade religious studies program.

Conclusions:

Based on the results of the original 'On the Move' study and consistent feedback of participants in the pilot project, it is clear that public transit is essential for people who are homeless or otherwise living in poverty. TTC tickets help people meet both short term survival needs as well as longer term needs for housing and employment. While the pilot program was considered to be successful in meeting its goal to increase access to the TTC, the demand for tickets continues to far exceed the available supply. Until such time as broad transit subsidies are financially viable through income support programs, distributing tickets through the community agencies remains the most feasible and accountable system.

It is therefore recommended that funds from the 'On the Move' Pilot Project be incorporated into the general Community Service Grants Program for allocation to community-based agencies as a dedicated public transit resource; and that the Social Services Division be directed to maximize the use of transportation assistance currently available under the Ontario Works program for all eligible clients.

It is further recommended that this report be forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission with a request to consider a discount, beyond the one percent currently provided to TTC ticket agents, for bulk ticket purchases by community-based agencies who provide services for homeless and socially isolated, thereby maximizing the public transit resources available through this sector.

Contact:

Susan Shepherd

Tel: 392-5398/Fax: 392-8492

--------

Appendix A

Participants of the 'On the Move' Pilot Project

Agincourt Community Services Association, 4139 Sheppard Avenue East, Scarborough

Anishnawbe Health Toronto, 225 Queen Street East, Toronto

Eva's Place Youth Shelter, 360 Lesmill Road, North York

Good Shepherd Centre, 412 Queen Street East, Toronto

Homes First Society, 411 Richmond Street East, Toronto

Neighbourhood Information Post, 269 Gerrard Street East, Toronto

Parkdale Activity and Recreation Centre, 1497-99 Queen Street West, Toronto

Salvation Army - Maxwell Meighen Centre, 135 Sherbourne Street, Toronto

Scarborough Housing Help Centre, 780 Birchmount Road, Scarborough

Second Base Youth Shelter, 702 Kennedy Road, Scarborough

Sojourn House, 51 Bond Street, Toronto

St. Stephen's Community House, The Corner Drop-In, 370 College Street, Toronto

Street Health, 315 Dundas Street East, Toronto

West Hill Community Service, 156A Galloway Road, Scarborough

Parkdale Community Health Centre, 1257 Queen Street West, Toronto

Parkdale Community Information Centre, 1303 Queen Street West, Toronto

St. Francis Table, 1322 Queen Street West, Toronto

--------

Appendix B

Selection of Transportation Accounts

"One of our clients has to see four different specialists because of an ongoing serious medical condition. He has to see them all once a month and he has been able to co-ordinate his appointments so that they all fall on the same day. On the day that has been arranged, he is given a day pass. He has also been able to include some other necessary appointments on the designated day such as a look at an apartment or a job interview. The end of his day of errands and appointments sometimes finishes with a social event or meeting of friends and he returns late to the centre with his day pass completely full of punch-holes. If not for the 'On The Move' program, he would be in a much more difficult position in spite of his own responsible efforts."

"A woman came in for assistance in looking for housing and food. The 'On the Move' tickets provided her with the ability to get to apartment appointments she had made and also helped her to get to a food bank so she could pick up some groceries. The flexibility of the 'On the Move' criteria made this possible."

"The 'On the Move' tickets facilitate housing searches and thus helps to free hostel beds for clients who are unable to maintain their own housing."

"One woman, who was enrolled in a retraining program through Manpower that did not include transportation support, lost her Metro Pass and did not have the extra money to cover her transportation costs. 'On the Move' was able to give her two weeks of tickets to carry her through until she was able to afford a new Metro Pass. This enabled her to continue with the retraining program."

"The 'On the Move' tickets have helped several of our clients through the first couple of weeks after the get a job when they may not have the money to pay for transportation. After a couple of weeks, when they receive their first pay cheque, they are then able to pay for the tickets themselves."

"A youth who moved to independent living on student welfare was working part-time and going to school. As per welfare policy, her part-time earnings were deducted from her GWA cheque for the first three months. While clients wait out the first three months of not being able to keep money from part-time earnings, it is quite impossible to live on $195.00 and buy TTC tickets as well. This particular client was supported with 'On the Move' tickets to get to and from school. After three months, she was able to buy her own.'

"One of our clients, who was on probation, was able to consistently make her appointments with her parole officer because of the 'On the Move' tickets she received. This helped her to stabilize her life while she was adjusting to her release from prison."

 16

Grants Priorities

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to inserting the words "on a pro-rated basis" after the word "allocated" in Recommendation No. (1) so that such recommendation shall read as follows:

"(1)for the 1999 fiscal year, because key Council policy directions through the Strategic Plan, Social Development Strategy and Official Plan are not yet available, any funds available for reallocation within the consolidated grants budget be allocated on a pro-rated basis to grants service areas on an equal priority basis; and"

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a communication (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Municipal Grants Review Committee on January 25, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (January 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)for the 1999 fiscal year, because key Council policy directions through the Strategic Plan, Social Development Strategy and Official Plan are not yet available, any funds available for reallocation within the consolidated grants budget be allocated to grants service areas on an equal priority basis; and

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

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, having received the following communications pertaining to the Grant Priorities:

(a)(February 16, 1999) from Mr. Thomas Kilburn, President, Crescent Town Community Association;

(b)(February 16, 1999) from Mr. Nicholas Dick, Chair Board of Director, Warden Woods Community Centre;

(c)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Nargess Zahraci, Executive Director, Parkdale Community Information Centre;

(d)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Belinda Netley, Executive Director, Centennial Infant and Child Centre;

(e)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Michelle Cader, Acting Executive Director, Yorkdale Intercultural Association;

(f)(February 16, 1999) from Mr. Mitch Kopec, Chair, Loyola Arrupe Corporation;

(g)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Laura Kennedy, President, DCVS Services for Seniors;

(h)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Amina Rawji, On behalf of the Board, membership and community of the Immigrant Women's Health Centre;

(i)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Susan Neal, Executive Director, Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre;

(j)(February 15, 1999) from Ms. Anne MacNeill, Executive Director, East York Meals on Wheels;

(k)(February 15, 1999) from Ms. Nancy Schaefer, Executive Director, Youth Employment Services;

(l)(undated) from the Executive Director, Telecare Etobicoke;

(m)(February 15, 1999) from Ms. S. Wood, Executive Director, Touchstone Youth Centre;

(n)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Marilyn Capreol, President/Director/Volunteer, Circle of Director, Native Men's Residence;

(o)(February 17, 1999) from Pat Taylor, Chair, POINT Inc. (People and Organizations in North Toronto);

(p)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Sharon D. Zeiler, B.Sc., M.B.A., Executive Director, Jewish Immigrant Aid Services of Canada;

(q)(February 16, 1999) from Randi Fine, Executive Director, Selfhelp Resource Centre of Greater Toronto;

(r)(February 16, 1999) from Mr. John O'Connor, Secretary, Volunteer Board of Directors, Sunshine Centres for Seniors;

(s)(February 17, 1999) from Ms. Maria Harlick, Director, The Canadian Red Cross Society;

(t)(February 16, 1999) from Elske Kuiper, President Board of Directors, St. Christopher House;

(u)(February 17, 1999) from Ms. Karen Engel, Executive Director, Yorktown Family Services;

(v)(February 16, 1999) from P. Jensen, Executive Director, West Hill Community Services;

(w)(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Darlene Clarke, Executive Director, Youth Clinical Services, Inc.;

(x)(February 18, 1999) from Terry Winston, Executive Director, National Council of Jewish Woman of Canada;

(y)(February 17, 1999) from the Program and Service Manager, Lakeshore Area Multi-Services Project Inc.;

(z)(February 17, 1999) from Ms. Elaine Prescod, Executive Director, Coalition of Visible Minority Women (Ontario) Inc.;

(aa)(February 17, 1999) name and company unknown;

(bb)(February 17, 1999) from Ms. Debra Dineen, President of the Board of Directors, Regent Park Community Health Centre;

(cc)(February 18, 1999) from Ms. Beverly Pageau, Executive Director, Silent Voice;

(dd)(February 18, 1999) from the Executive Director, West Scarborough Community Legal Services;

(ee)(February 18, 1999) from Mr. Graham Baldwin, President, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;

(ff)(February 18, 1999) from Ms. Mary Ann Chang, Executive Director, Alzheimer Society for Metropolitan Toronto;

(gg)(February 18, 1999) from Ms. Susan Abell, Executive Director, Youthlink;

(hh)(February 18, 1999) from Ms. Ruth Morris, Executive Director;

(ii)(January 18, 1999) from Ms. Josie Di Zio, Executive Director, Working Women Community Centre

(jj)(February 18, 1999) from Mr. Walter Maziar, Treasurer, Ukrainian Canadian Social Services (Toronto) Incorporated;

(kk)(February 16, 1999) from Mr. Robert Cook, Vice Chair, Board of Director, True Davidson meals on Wheels (East York) Inc.;

(ll)(February 15, 1999) from Nazhath Leedham, Executive Director;

(mm)(February 18, 1999) from Ms. Janet Walker, Executive Director, Women's Habitat;

(nn)(February 18, 1999) from Tita Zierer, Treasurer, South Riverdale Child-Parent Centre;

(oo)(February 18, 1999) from Ms. Heather Hillier, Executive Director, Horizons for Youth;

(pp)(February 18, 1999) from Ms. Judy Kile, President, Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood Centre;

(qq)(February 18, 1999) from Haari Abou Korrat, Executive Director, Jamaican Canadian Association; and

(rr)(February 19, 1999) from Mr. Morris Jesion, Executive Director, Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations;

The foregoing communications are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

--------

(Communication dated January 25, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on January 25, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report (January 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services recommending that for the 1999 fiscal year, because key Council policy directions through the Strategic Plan, Social Development Strategy and Official Plan are not yet available, any funds available for reallocation within the consolidated grants budget be allocated to grants service areas on an equal priority basis.

The Municipal Grants Review Committee reports for the information of the Budget Committee, having:

(1)received the joint report dated January 22, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services; and

(2)referred the recommendations from Community Voices of Support to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for consideration during the overall budget process.

Background:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee had before it the following reports:

-(January 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting Grants priorities; and

-(January 22, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting 1999 funding levels for Municipal Grants Programs.

The following persons appeared before the Municipal Grants Review Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted recommendations on behalf of Community Voices of Support:

-Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Co-Director, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;

-Mr. Lee Zaslofsky, Citizens for Public Health; and

-Mr. Barry Rieder, Jane/Finch Community Ministry.

--------

(Report dated January 14, 1999, addressed to the

Municipal Grants Review Committee from the

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services)

Purpose:

This report provides a discussion of the challenges to establishing priorities between grants service areas and a proposed approach for 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)for the 1999 fiscal year, because key Council policy directions through the Strategic Plan, Social Development Strategy and Official Plan are not yet available, any funds available for reallocation within the consolidated grants budget be allocated to grants service areas on an equal priority basis; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on November 20, 1998, the Municipal Grants Review Committee received a report titled "1999 Funding Levels for Municipal Grant Programs". The report recommended that the Committee provide direction with respect to establishing priority service areas/functions or considering all grants service areas equally. The Committee then requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to provide a detailed report on all aspects of the grants programs with a view to establishing priority service areas for 1999...."

  Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Council policy that staff would normally use to create a framework to determine priorities between grants service areas is not yet in place. Typically Council policy direction is articulated in a range of key documents including the Official Plan, Strategic Plan, Social Development Strategy, Environmental Plan, etc. In the absence of these key planning documents, there is little basis from which to build a discussion with respect to the relative importance of one grants service area over another.

As well, Council has established a number of task forces to address specific issue areas or target populations such as seniors, access and equity, community safety, children and youth, and homelessness. It is anticipated that the work of the task forces will result in a range of recommendations related to municipal grants programs and may impact on any discussion of the relative priorities between the various grants service areas.

Levelling Up:

Levelling up applies to those programs which were not provided in all of the former local municipalities. Service levelling can result in program deletion, dilution and needs based levelling up. Each service area review report provided the Municipal Grants Review Committee with an overview of how the needs based levelling up requirements were established and a number of budget scenarios including an incremental approach. Service area review reports also identified the impacts of providing programs on a City-wide basis with no increase in funding levels. Requiring programs with a limited geographic mandate to provide services on a City-wide basis will result in a smaller proportion of eligible communities receiving service, and communities in the former City of Toronto may have a reduced level of service.

Priorities:

Priorities between service areas contained within the consolidated grants budget have not been set. In the absence of priorities the approach to the budget options has been to accommodate the proposed increases to all grants service areas on an equal priority basis. Each of the service area review reports, submitted to the Municipal Grants Review Committee in September and October, 1998, provided a review of priorities to be used within in each grants service area.

Proposed Approach for 1999:

In light of the difficulties in establishing priorities between service areas, it is recommended that any funds within the consolidated grants budget made available for redistribution to the nine grants service areas be allocated on a equal priority basis. Finance staff are reviewing the 1998 consolidated grants budget to determine the precise amount of funding that may be available for redistribution within the consolidated grants budget.

Once this information is available, each grants service area will be informed of the amount of additional funding which may become available (assuming Budget Committee and Council approve a flatline consolidated grants budget). Each service area will then be required to report back to the Municipal Grants Review Committee on a program plan based on the available funding levels. The program plan will need to identify how the grants program will achieve City-wide service with the funding available and what efforts will be made to minimize the impact on communities which will receive less service as a result of service levelling.

Conclusion:

This report summarizes the issues associated with attempts to establish priorities between grants service areas. In the absence of the key Council policy documents referred to above, it is recommended that grants programs be treated on an equal priority basis with respect to the 1999 consolidated grants budget.

Contact Name:

Chris Brillinger

Tel: 392-8608

--------

(Joint Report dated January 22, 1999, addressed to the

Municipal Grants Review Committee from the

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

During December, the Budget Committee advised the Municipal Grants Review Committee that the 1999 grants budget envelope will be maintained at the 1998 level and that the Budget Committee is interested in seeing equity as a priority over new programs, while maintaining the service level for existing programs.

The Municipal Grants Review Committee has recommended that:

(1)available, unexpended grants funds in the 1998 consolidated budget initially be used to address one-time financial adjustments required in the AIDS Prevention grants program up to $526.4 thousand, one-time financial adjustments required in the Arts and Culture grants program up to $350.0 thousand and to cover off the unsourced $75.0 thousand Caribana grant; and thereafter

(2)any funds available on an ongoing basis be reallocated within the consolidated grants budget to grants service areas.

Comments:

Staff from Budget, Accounting and the Municipal Grants Working Group have reviewed the 1998 consolidated grants budget against all grants funding releases to date. In the upcoming week, meetings have been scheduled with each grant service area, to determine where liabilities need to be established for 1998 and assign administration responsibility for outstanding line item/miscellaneous grants. Once this review is completed, an amount for reallocation will be determined. Preliminary estimates at this point in time indicate a minimum of $800.0 thousand should be available for reallocation. Should the Municipal Grants Review Committee approve the report titled "Grants Priorities" at its January 25, 1999, meeting, the funding available for reallocation will be allocated on an equal priority basis.

Conclusions:

A complete financial review is underway to determine the appropriate grants funding available for reallocation amongst the grant service areas for the 1999 requested budget. To date, preliminary estimates are that a minimum of $800.0 thousand will be available for reallocation.

Contact Names:

Susan Bury,

Budget Division, Finance

Tel: 392-8351/Fax: 392-3649

Chris Brillinger,

Community Resources, Social Development and Administration

Tel: 392-8608/Fax 392-8492

  17

Delegation of Authority - Grants Administration

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 20, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to adding the following:

"agencies that receive funding be advised that the 40 percent advanced funding is not a commitment to fund any further grants in 1999 or grants at the 1998 level".

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a communication (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Municipal Grants Review Committee on January 25, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)the authority to issue grant advances to agencies with an established funding relationship as defined in this report, up to an amount of 40 percent of the previous year's allocation be delegated to the respective Commissioners responsible for the Community Services Grants Program and the Recreation Grants Program, or her/his designate, subject to the criteria contained in this report;

(2)the terms and conditions contained in Appendix "A" of this report be approved for use in all City of Toronto grants programs;

(3)the authority to sign letters of agreement in the form or substantially in the form in Appendix A, with agencies approved for funding by Council, be delegated to the Commissioners, or their designates; and

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

--------

(Communication dated January 25, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on January 25, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the attached report (January 20, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting delegation of authority related to grants administration.

--------

(Report dated January 20, 1999, addressed to the

Municipal Grants Review Committee from the

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services)

Purpose:

This report recommends the delegation of authority to provide agencies with grant advances under defined criteria and to sign letters of agreement between the City of Toronto and funded agencies. Terms and conditions in addition to those contained in the City of Toronto Grants Policy which will apply to all funded organizations are also recommended in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approval of Recommendation No. (1) will result in the pre-commitment of up to 40 percent of the Community Services Grant Program and Recreation Grants Program budgets.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the authority to issue grant advances to agencies with an established funding relationship as defined in this report, up to an amount of 40 percent of the previous year's allocation be delegated to the respective Commissioners responsible for the Community Services Grants Program and the Recreation Grants Program, or her/his designate, subject to the criteria contained in this report;

(2)the terms and conditions contained in Appendix "A" of this report be approved for use in all City of Toronto grants programs;

(3)the authority to sign letters of agreement in the form or substantially in the form in Appendix "A", with agencies approved for funding by Council, be delegated to the Commissioners, or their designates; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

On December 16 and 17, 1998, Toronto City Council approved a report entitled "City of Toronto Grants Policy", Clause No. 5 of Report No. 26 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. This report contained the City of Toronto Grants Policy to which all City grant programs must conform. The report identified that a number of more detailed administrative guidelines were required. This report identifies additional administrative guidelines and the required delegation of authority.

Discussion:

City Council approved a report entitled "Administration of Municipal Grants Programs" on February 4, 5, and 6, 1998, which provided authority to Commissioners to issue advances on grants to organizations receiving ongoing funding from the former municipalities. Grants cannot be awarded prior to Council approval, normally in early July of each year for most grant programs.

The timing of funding approval has, in some cases, created cash flow problems for organizations during the months of January to June. In this situation organizations have turned to bank loans to finance the operation while waiting for City funding. The advance authority is not unlike the City's internal practice of approving interim appropriations in order to finance City operations prior to budget approval. Over the past ten years, agencies receiving ongoing funding from the former Metro grants programs were eligible to request an advance on their previous year's allocation. In 1997, 19 of the 268 agencies funded under the Metro Community Resources Fund were approved for advances of 25 percent of the previous year's allocation.

The criteria for providing advances are designed to minimize the risk of pre-committing a portion of the grants budget, and address the need to provide continuity for a small portion of grant recipients which provide critical community services. The cash flow issues experienced by some community-based agencies can be addressed by establishing a system of advance payments to organizations experiencing severe cash flow problems.

Advance Payment Method:

To qualify for an advance payment, an organization must:

(1)have demonstrated an ability to provide services to the community on a consistent basis;

(2)have stable sources of ongoing funding;

(3)have received annual grants under the program through which the advance is being requested for a minimum of two years;

(4)be in good standing with the City of Toronto, having met the terms and conditions of any previous grants provided to the applicant by the City; and

(5)indicate that cash flow problems exist related to the timing of the payment of grants.

The ability to provide grant advances will be authorized for the Community Services Grants Program and Recreation Grants Program only.

The amount of each advance payment will be based on 40 percent of the previous year's allocation to the agency. This amount has been set using the internal interim appropriation formula used by Council. To obtain an advance payment the organization must submit a written request to the appropriate department, documenting the need for an advance payment, and outlining the cash flow problem. Staff will review each request and advise each organization as to the Commissioner's decision.

If an advance is warranted, the Commissioner will authorize staff to request the issuance of a payment. Should an organization not agree with the decision taken by the department, the group may appeal directly to the Municipal Grants Review Committee.

Terms and Conditions:

As indicated in the City of Toronto Grants Policy, Terms and Conditions have been developed for use in all City grants programs. During the development of the generic "Letter of Understanding" to be used between the City and all grant recipients, staff identified a number of specific requirements which were not contained in the "City of Toronto Grants Policy" approved by Council in December. Approval of the following additional terms and conditions will facilitate consistent and effective grants administration.

Grants Payments:

This will require the City to advise grant recipients in writing as to the amount, timing and payment schedule once a grant has been approved by Council.

Acknowledgment of Funding:

This condition will require all grant recipients to acknowledge the support of the City of Toronto on any materials, reports, events, signage or publicity, which are paid for, in full or in part with this funding.

Reports:

This condition will require all grant recipients to provide reports on activities and financial statements in a format satisfactory to the City. The reports will be submitted according to a time schedule set out in the letter of understanding.

Consultation:

This term allows the City to consult and/or involve other organizations and/or individuals in the review and determination of eligibility of grant applicants.

Status of the Organization:

This condition requires that grant applicants must be in good standing with the City of Toronto, having met the terms and conditions of any previous grants provided to the applicant by the City.

Indemnity:

The existing indemnity clause in the Terms and Conditions contained in the City of Toronto Grants Policy requires the following revision: The recipient shall indemnify the City, its officers, employees and agents, against all costs, damages and expenses incurred as a result of a claim or proceedings related to the grant recipient's operations, unless such costs, damages or expenses arise from the negligence or wilful act of an officer, employee or agent of the City.

Letter of Understanding:

It is recommended that the grants best practice of entering into a letter of understanding with agencies receiving a grant from the City of Toronto be adopted for all City grant programs. In addition to the Terms and Conditions, the Letter of Understanding will contain specific information regarding the amount of the allocation, the purpose for which the funds have been allocated, and any special conditions or reporting requirements attached to the funding approval.

Appendix "A" contains the Terms and Conditions and a generic Letter of Understanding to be used by all City grant programs. These terms and conditions will form part of the legal agreement between the City of Toronto and funded organizations.

Authority to Sign Letters of Agreement:

Delegation of authority to sign letters of agreement is required. Once Council has approved an allocation, commissioners or their delegates require authority to sign letters of agreement on behalf of the City of Toronto. This does not include authority to determine or approve allocations.

Conclusion:

This report requests the approval for a number of administrative guidelines required to facilitate the administration and management of City grant programs.

Contact Name:

Chris Brillinger

Tel: 392-8608

--------

Appendix A

Conditions of the Grant:

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council approved the report "City of Toronto Grants Policy" which sets out a City of Toronto grants policy. The purpose of the policy is to establish standards and common practices for all its grant-making activities to ensure consistency and fairness. The list of conditions includes general conditions for all organizations receiving grants from the City of Toronto, as well as terms specific to the administration of the (name of program).

Additional reports on grants administration will be reviewed by the Municipal Grants Review Committee (MGRC) in 1999. Grant applicants will be notified should any of the MGRC decisions affect the terms and conditions of City grants for 1999.

If funding is granted by the City of Toronto (the "City") from the (name of grant program) the applicant (the "Recipient"), by signing the application authorization (Page # of the (program name) application form), acknowledges the following conditions and agrees to them.

(1)Use and Purpose of the Grant:

(1.1)The grant shall be used only for the purposes approved by City Council, as further described in the grant application form and set out in the Letter of Understanding. (Program name) grants will be used by the Recipient to (statement of program purpose) for people within the City of Toronto.

(1.2)The grant Recipient shall notify the City of any proposed material changes to the nature of, or budget for, the activities for which the grant has been made and shall use the grant for such altered activities only with the prior written consent of the City.

(1.3)The grant recipient shall not transfer or assign the grant or any part thereof to another organization or individual, without the prior written consent of the City.

(1.4)Any funds awarded will be put to their intended use by (date) unless the City has provided prior written approval regarding extension.

(1.5)Any unused portion of a grant remains the property of the City. If an unused portion of the grant has already been paid by the City to the Recipient, it shall be repaid by the Recipient to the City on request.

(2)Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act:

The information provided in the grant application and progress reports is subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. All granting decisions are publicly available.

(3)Anti-Racism, Access and Equity Guidelines:

The Recipient must complete and file a Declaration of Non-Discrimination, indicating the organization has adopted and upholds a policy of access and non-discrimination based on the City's Human Rights Policy. The Recipient will work actively to integrate anti-racism, access and equity, throughout their operations, in accordance with the City's approved Anti-Racism, Access and Equity Policy as it relates to all grant recipients.

(4)Repayment of Grants:

(4.1)The grant recipient shall, at the request of the City, repay to the City the whole or any part of the grant as determined by the City, if the grant recipient:

(a)ceases operating;

(b)ceases to operate as a non-profit organization or collective;

(c)winds-up or dissolves;

(d)merges or amalgamates with any other party;

(e)commences or has commenced against it, any proceedings in bankruptcy or is adjudged a bankrupt;

(f)has knowingly provided false information in its grant application;

(g)uses grant funds for purposes not approved by City Council;

(h)breaches any of the terms or conditions of the grant; or

(i)breaches any of the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights code in its operations.

(4.2)The Recipient shall notify the City of the occurrence of any of the events referred to in clauses (4.1) (a) through (e).

(4.3)The City may, in its sole discretion, require the Recipient to pay interest on any amount required to be repaid pursuant to this section at the prime rate of the Royal Bank of Canada from the date of the request for repayment to the date of repayment.

(5)Accounting:

(5.1)The Recipient shall keep and maintain all records, invoices and other documents relating to the grant in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and clerical practices, and shall maintain such records for a period of three years from the date of approval of the grant by City Council.

(5.2)The grant recipient shall keep records of names, titles and salaries of persons whose positions are funded by the City, in whole or in part, and provide this information to the City on request.

(5.3)The Recipient authorizes the City and its agents at all reasonable times to inspect and copy any and all records, invoices and documents in the custody or control of the Recipient which relate to the grant, for a period of three years from the date of approval of the grant by City Council. This right of inspection includes the right to perform a full or partial audit of the aforementioned records, as considered appropriate by the City.

(6)Limitation of Liability and Indemnification:

(6.1)The City shall not be liable for any damages, injury or any loss of use or profit of the recipient arising out of, or in any way related to, the grant recipient's operations.

(6.2)The Recipient shall indemnify the City, its officers, employees and agents, against all costs, damages and expenses incurred as a result of a claim or proceedings related to the grant recipient's operations, unless such costs, damages or expenses arise from the negligence or wilful act of an officer, employee or agent of the City.

(7)Further Conditions:

The City shall be entitled, at any time, to impose such additional terms and conditions on the use of the grant which, in its sole discretion, it deems appropriate.

(8)Grant Payments:

When a grant is approved, the Recipient will be advised in writing as to the amount, timing and payment schedule for the grant.

(9)Acknowledgment of Funding:

The recipient will acknowledge the support of the City of Toronto, through (name of Department or program) on any materials, reports, events, signage or publicity, which are paid for in full or in part with this funding.

(10)Reports:

The Recipient will provide reports on activities and financial statements for (name of program) grants in a format satisfactory to the City. The reports will be submitted according to a time schedule set out in the Letter of Understanding. Reports are to be submitted to the (name of program) contact person for the City as set out in the Letter of Understanding.

(11)Consultation:

The City will involve individuals with appropriate expertise in the review process, which may include a peer/citizen review mechanism. The City reserves the right to consult with other funding agencies to determine the eligibility of an organization or project to receive a grant.

(12)Status of the Organization:

The applicant must be in good standing with the City of Toronto, having met the terms and conditions of any previous grant provided to the applicant by the City.

(13)Sample Letter of Understanding:

(Date)

(Agency name,

Address, etc.)

RE: 1999 (name of program) (name of project)

Dear (contact person):

At its meeting of (date) City Council authorized that a grant in the amount of ($) be made to (organization's name) for (service or project name). This represents the total amount of the grant, including any applicable taxes and disbursements. The grant will be payable in (#) instalment(s) according to the following schedule:

(Examples: one payment after the signed letter of understanding is received, or two equal payments, the first payment after the letter of understanding is received, and the second payment after a satisfactory progress report for the period up to October 15, 1999, is received.)

(Add any conditions specific to this grant here, e.g., release of the funds in conditional on the organization providing ......)

The services which are to be provided with this funding must take place within City of Toronto boundaries unless otherwise specified. The services to be provided are:

(Description from allocations report.)

These services are to be completed by (date). Material changes to the nature of, or budget for the activities for which the grant has been made, must receive prior written consent from the City. (Spending will be in accordance with the attached budget.)

The support of the City of Toronto (Department or program name) must be acknowledged by the recipient on any materials, reports, events, signage or publicity which are paid for, in full or in part with this funding.

Reports outlining the progress in providing services or activities, and including a financial statement for the period of the report are to be submitted in accordance with the following schedule (and attached guidelines); (Insert reporting schedule. For example, a progress report by November 15, 1999, and a final report by July 30, 1999.) Please submit all reports to (staff name) your City contact for this grant.

Any unused portion of the grant remains the property of the City of Toronto and shall be returned immediately to the City. If you breach any of the terms and conditions of the grant, as set out in this letter and in Section (#) of the (program name), or if you cease operating; cease to operate as a non-profit organization or collective; wind up or dissolve; merge or amalgamate with any other party; commence or have commenced against you any proceedings in bankruptcy, or are adjudged a bankrupt; knowingly provide false information in the grant application; use grant funds for purposes not approved by City Council; or breach any of the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code in your operations, the grant must, at the request of the City be repaid in whole or in part to the City.

The City shall not be labile for any damages, injury or any loss of use or profit of the Recipient arising out of, or in any way related to, the grant Recipient's operations. The grant recipient shall indemnify the City, its officers, employees and agents, against all costs, damages and expenses incurred as a result of a claim or proceedings related to the grant recipient's operations, unless such costs, damages or expenses arise from the negligence or wilful act of an officer, employee or agent of the City.

Two copies of this Letter of Understanding are provided. Please retain one copy for your files. Sign and return the second copy to your City contact person for the grant at the address below:

(Program contact name and address)

When a signed copy of the Letter of Understanding is received by this office, arrangements will be made for you to receive your cheque.

Yours truly,

   (Authorized City Official)

I/we have read, understand and agree to comply with the terms and conditions contained in this Letter of Understanding. I/we have authority to bind the organization.

Name_____________________________________________

Title______________________________________________

Signature__________________________________________

Date_______________________________________________

 Name_____________________________________________

Title______________________________________________

Signature__________________________________________

Date______________________________________________

 18

Improvements to Florence Gell Park

(Ward 27, York Humber)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 15, 1999) from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)Parks staff install two (2) park benches and/or additional plantings in the park to discourage cyclists from racing their bicycles through the park;

(2)staff install additional lighting in the park at a cost of $3,500.00 to deter youth from using the back dark corners as a 'hangout'; and

(3)Parks staff review and install appropriate signage that would deter youth from being in the park after 11:00 p.m.

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a report (February 3, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that York Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (January 15, 1999) from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)Parks staff install two (2) park benches and/or additional plantings in the park to discourage cyclists from racing their bicycles through the park;

(2)staff install additional lighting in the park at a cost of $3,500.00 to deter youth from using the back dark corners as a 'hangout'; and

(3)parks staff review and install appropriate signage that would deter youth from being in the park after 11:00 p.m.

(Report dated February 3, 1999, addressed to the

Budget Committee, from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The York Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the approval of the recommendations in the report dated January 15, 1999, from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of the Budget Committee, having requested the Manager of Parks and Recreation, West District, York Civic Centre, to include the amount of $40,000.00 on the list of capital items for the installation of a splash pad in the Florence Gell Park.

Background:

The York Community Council on January 20, 1999, had before it a report (January 15, 1999) from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District, providing information on the lighting in Florence Gell Park and on the installation of a wading pool in the centre of the park; and advising that additional lighting and the cost of plantings and benches would be charged to the approved 1999 Operating Budget, and that if a splash pad feature was installed in the park, the cost of this capital improvement would be approximately $40,000.00; and recommending that:

(1)Parks staff install two (2) park benches and/or additional plantings in the park to discourage cyclists from racing their bicycles through the park;

(2)staff install additional lighting in the park at a cost of $3,500.00 to deter youth from using the back dark corners as a 'hangout'; and

(3)Parks staff review and install appropriate signage that would deter youth from being in the park after 11:00 p.m.

(Report dated January 15, 1999, addressed to the Chair and Members,

York Community Council, from the Manager of Parks & Recreation, West District)

Purpose:

A communication was received by Councillor Frances Nunziata from the Warren Park Ratepayers' Association requesting lighting in Florence Gell Park. In addition, they have requested the installation of a wading pool in the centre of the park.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

Additional lighting and cost of plantings and benches would be charged to the approved 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Parks staff install two (2) park benches and/or additional plantings in the park to discourage cyclists from racing their bicycles through the park;

(2)staff install additional lighting in the park at a cost of $3,500.00 to deter youth from using the back dark corners as a 'hangout'; and

(3)parks staff review and install appropriate signage that would deter youth from being in the park after 11:00 p.m.

   Comments:

Florence Gell Park was redeveloped in the Fall of 1993 at the cost of approximately $120,000.00. The work in the park consisted of new concrete walkways, concrete unit, paved sitting areas, lighting, drinking fountain, junior and senior play areas, as well as extensive tree and shrub plantings.

In 1993 the community requested the installation of a splash pad in the park, but due to the poor suitability of the site, size of park and large number of trees and shallow depth of existing site drainage, this feature was not included in the redevelopment of the park.

If a splash pad feature was installed in Florence Gell Park, the cost of this capital improvement would be approximately $40,000.00. As Florence Gell Park was redeveloped in 1993, there are numerous other parks that have been prioritized for redevelopment in the City of Toronto capital 5-year plan.

Staff will install one (1) additional light standard in Florence Gell Park at the cost of $3,500.00 that will illuminate the dark corner of the park that may deter youth from hanging around the park late at night.

Appropriate signage will be posted that outline the noise by-law in the park that may eliminate teens as identified by the local residents, from hanging around in the park after 11:00 p.m. If youth are drinking in the park, the police should be notified so appropriate charges could be laid.

Conclusions:

That appropriate signage be installed in Florence Gell Park and in the spring an additional light standard and benches or shrubs be installed and planted to resolve all issues identified by the Warren Park Ratepayers' Association.

Contact Name:

W.N. Kevin Bowser, Manager of Parks and Recreation, West District, Tel: 394-2487.

 19

Smythe Park Tennis Courts

(Ward 27 - York Humber)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 15, 1999) from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)staff in the Parks and Recreation Department, West District, evaluate the need for additional tennis courts as these facilities are inventoried with the new City of Toronto Parks and Recreation Department;

(2)the following information be received regarding the Smythe Park master plan and the relocation of the lit tennis courts; and

(3)as part of the 1999 approved capital budget, the tennis courts at Smythe Park be removed.

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a report (February 3, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that York Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (January 15, 1999) from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)staff in the Parks and Recreation Department, West District, evaluate the need for additional tennis courts as these facilities are inventoried with the new City of Toronto Parks and Recreation Department;

(2)the following information be received regarding the Smythe Park master plan and the relocation of the lit tennis courts; and

(3)as part of the 1999 approved capital budget, the tennis courts at Smythe Park be removed.

(Report dated February 3, 1999, addressed to

the Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The York Community Council on January 20, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the approval of Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3) in the report dated January 15, 1999, from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of the Budget Committee, having requested the Manager of Parks and Recreation, West District, York Civic Centre, to explore the need to relocate the two courts from Smythe Park, to an appropriate location, and that the necessary funds be identified within the five-year capital program.

Background:

The York Community Council on January 20, 1999, had before it a report (January 15, 1999) from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District, providing information on a plan of action for relocation of the tennis courts at Smythe Park; and recommending that:

(1)staff in the Parks and Recreation Department, West District, evaluate the need for additional tennis courts as these facilities are inventoried with the new City of Toronto Parks and Recreation Department;

(2)the following information be received regarding the Smythe Park master plan and the relocation of the lit tennis courts; and

(3)as part of the 1999 approved capital budget, the tennis courts at Smythe Park be removed.

(Report dated January 15, 1999, addressed to the

Chair and Members, York Community Council, from

the Manager of Parks and Recreation, West District)

Purpose:

Councillor Saundercook has asked that staff report on a plan of action for relocation of the tennis courts at Smythe Park.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)staff in the Parks and Recreation Department, West District, evaluate the need for additional tennis courts as these facilities are inventoried with the new City of Toronto Parks and Recreation Department;

(2)the following information be received regarding the Smythe Park masterplan and the relocation of the lit tennis courts; and

(3)as part of the 1999 approved capital budget, the tennis courts at Smythe Park be removed.

Comments:

The tennis courts at Smythe Park have been out of play by the Smythe Park Tennis Club and the community for a number of years. The surface of the court has numerous cracks as a result of heaving due to ground water problems on the site. Soil samples and testing has occurred at Smythe Park and staff have recommended that the existing courts be removed and that the current pathway running from the top of the hill at Haney and Jane into Smythe Park be relocated. A winding path will be installed and the wetlands in Smythe Park will be preserved and expanded in the tennis court area. This work has been approved in the 1999 capital budget and work will be in progress during the sprint/summer of 1999.

Parks Planning staff from the former City of York have a masterplan for Smythe Park that includes the relocation of the tennis courts on the north side of Black Creek channel between Black Creek Boulevard and the existing batting cage adjacent to the tyke diamond. The cost to relocate these courts would be approximately $150,000.00 that would include:

-excavating and grading;

-paving;

-colour coding of the surface;

-line painting;

-fencing;

-lighting; and

-sodding and restoration work.

This would allow for three courts adjacent to the tyke diamond in Smythe Park. There has been no communication to date with the homeowners on Black Creek Boulevard whose backyards are adjacent to Smythe Park.

There is no money budgeted in the 5-year capital plan for the City of Toronto for relocation of these courts in Smythe Park.

It should also be noted that the Parks and Recreation Department is currently inventorying facilities that would include outdoor tennis courts. There is currently an active club at the Old Mill site where there are four lit tennis courts and a waiting list for memberships to join the club.

There are two outdoor tennis courts located on the south side of Runnymede Collegiate that are unlit.

There are also twelve outdoor tennis courts located at Eglinton Flats Park (Eglinton Avenue and Jane Street) with six courts covered during the winter months in a bubble that allows for winter play. These courts are pay-as-you-play.

Parks and Recreation staff have found that memberships at our outdoor facilities to include Cedarvale Park and Smythe Park have declined where both clubs are now cancelled. The Weston Lions Park facility that includes four lit tennis courts has a club with recreational and competitive play. Staff from the Recreation Department have been working with the Executive of the club to assist with a membership drive.

Other sites in Ward 27 have been considered by staff for installation of three or four lit tennis courts. The south-west corner of Alliance Avenue and Rockcliffe Boulevard has been considered, however, has several restraints. As this area was a former landfill, the existing soils may not be conducive to the construction of tennis courts. A parking lot will be required for the tennis facility that would reduce the amount of parkland available at the corner of Alliance and Rockcliffe and the residents who live on Alliance Avenue are not aware that this site has been considered.

The Rockcliffe Industrial Park site is also an option. There are no plans in place for construction on this site.

Conclusion:

That the capital program for Smythe Park continue, and that Parks and Recreation staff track any needs identified by the community for additional outdoor tennis courts in the community.

    Contact Name:

W.N. Kevin Bowser, Manager of Parks and Recreation, West District, Tel: 394-2487.

 20

Lester B. Pearson International Airport - Noise

Monitoring Study - Terms of Reference and Cost Estimate

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (December 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to engage a consultant to carry out a study as outlined in the proposed terms of reference shown in this report at an estimated cost of $25,000.00 subject to approval of Council and the 1999 Budget process; and

(2)the Greater Toronto Airports Authority be requested to reimburse the City for this expense.

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a communication (February 10, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Works and Utilities Committee recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (December 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to engage a consultant to carry out a study as outlined in the proposed terms of reference shown in this report at an estimated cost of $25,000.00 subject to approval of Council and the 1999 Budget process; and

(2)the Greater Toronto Airports Authority be requested to reimburse the City for this expense.

(Communication dated February 10, 1999, addressed

to the Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendations:

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report dated December 22, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the Lester B. Pearson International Airport - Noise Monitoring Study - Terms of Reference and Cost Estimate; and

(2)that the report be referred to the Greater Toronto Services Board for information.

Background:

The Works and Utilities Committee on February 10, 1999, again had before it a report (December 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting a study to address the concerns of Toronto residents within the Lester B. Pearson International Airport operating area with respect to the noise impact resulting from the airport operation.

The Committee also again had before it a communication (January 13, 1999) from Ms. Lorrie McKee, Executive Manager, Government Relations, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, requesting that consideration of the staff report be deferred as a deputation item; and inviting Councillors and City staff to tour their Noise Management Office.

(Report dated December 22, 1998, from

the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services

addressed to the Works and Utilities Committee)

Purpose:

To provide a study design, in the form of a terms of reference, to address the concerns of Toronto residents within the Lester B. Pearson International Airport Operating Area, with respect to the noise impact resulting from the Airport operation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in the amount of $25,000.00 will be required to be included in the 1999 Budget of Works and Emergency Services. All or a portion of the cost may be recoverable from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority should they agree that this work would be of value to their Noise Management System work program.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to engage a consultant to carry out a study as outlined in the proposed terms of reference shown in this report at an estimated cost of $25,000.00 subject to approval of Council and the 1999 Budget process; and

(2)the Greater Toronto Airports Authority be requested to reimburse the City for this expense.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee had before it a report (September 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to a request of the Committee to report on the most appropriate way to monitor and address the noise problems in Etobicoke resulting from Lester B. Pearson International Airport, and recommending that:

(1)"the City's Noise Section of the Works and Emergency Services Department develop terms of reference and a cost estimate, with input from the Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations, to conduct an assessment of noise impacts from Lester B. Pearson International Airport, and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit such terms of reference and cost estimates to the Works and Utilities Committee before the end of 1998; and"

(2)funds for this study be considered in the 1999 Operating Budget submission of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

The report could not be prepared for the December 2, 1998 Works and Utilities Committee meeting because there was insufficient time allowed to gather the information necessary in order to develop a suitable study design and cost estimate. In addition, because of the labour dispute at the Airport from October 2, 1998 to November 9, 1998, Greater Toronto Airports Authority staff were not available to discuss the matter.

Comments:

The issue of noise impacts due to airport operations has been a major area of study worldwide, for a number of years. As is evident with other noise issues, the development and placement of sensitive land uses adjacent to the various airport noise sources has resulted in numerous concerns both by residents and Airport Authorities. Different strategies have been developed, depending on the circumstances, and each is unique to their geographic area. The challenge is to determine the most effective measures available which would be economically and technically feasible to balance the needs of the surrounding population adjacent to LBPIA and those of the Airport Authority.

The Co-ordinator of the City's Noise Section has met with members of the Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations (EFRRA) to discuss their concerns and to evaluate a terms of reference for a study which would satisfy their objectives. Although general agreement has been reached on the content of the terms of reference, there is a concern with respect to the timing of the study. Based on the normal budget process, subject to approval of City Council, funding would not be available until April or May 1999 and the study could not proceed until after that time.

Terms of Reference for Review of Technical Aspects of Noise Impact of the Pearson International Airport have been developed as detailed below:

(1)review existing documentation and sound monitoring equipment and procedures operated by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority at the Pearson Airport and verify baseline conditions from which to evaluate potential impacts on affected areas of reception. Provide a list of deficiencies for the existing airport monitoring system and assess the technical merits of any proposed plans to upgrade the monitoring equipment;

(2)establish the applicable state of the art guidelines; namely, federal, provincial and municipal noise limit requirements and contact appropriate government agents to substantiate both environmental criteria and the degree of effort given to ongoing research on the subject;

(3)prepare acoustic prediction models and conduct live measurements of the Pearson activities to assess near field and far field emissions at the affected receptor areas. The majority of effort will be directed toward take-offs, landings, roll-back manoeuvres, turning movements, low level flying as well as taxiing. Conduct measurements at affected areas to substantiate modelling results;

(4)measure and model/predict building vibration amplitudes as a result of low frequency noise impact and to assess the likelihood of annoyance as well the potential for damage to lightweight structural materials in dwellings and/or historical buildings;

(5)perform a literature search to verify and support the state of the art into research of appropriate descriptors for assessing aircraft noise impact (i.e., NEF, Leq, Lmax, SEL, Ldn, EPNL). In addition, also conduct a literature search on the perception of vibration due to low frequence sound from aircraft with appropriate (ie., dBA vs. dBFlat) guidelines issued accordingly; and

(6)assess the sound propagation models used by the airport authority(ies) and endorsed by research organizations for a variety of weather conditions. Review the noise emission testing procedures of individual aircraft. Illustrate noise impact significance with an octave band intrusion analysis.

The above terms of reference generally outline the steps necessary in order to evaluate the "state-of-the-art" of the existing Monitoring System. It is very likely that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority would undertake similar work at some time in the near future in order to keep pace with current practice in the industry.

Conclusion:

The estimated cost of a study conforming to the above terms of reference is approximately $25,000.00. At this stage it is not known whether the information to be gathered will be adequate given the nature of such studies, i.e., if it is found that more detailed research is required to determine which is the best monitoring system available, more study may be necessary. Should it be found that further work is necessary due to a broadening of the scope, a more detailed proposal will be requested and a further report will be prepared for consideration by City Council.

Of paramount importance is the need for ongoing co-operation from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. Officials with the Authority have agreed that in order to conduct the review, access to all pertinent information such as the noise monitoring system field set-up and data collected from the various locations will be provided.

In addition, there may be an opportunity to recover all or some of the funds in view of the importance of this study to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Chris Andrew, Co-ordinator, Noise Section,

Environmental Services Section, Works and Emergency Services,

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone: 392-0791; Fax: 392-1456

E-mail: "candrew@toronto.ca".

--------

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Steve Shaw, Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Greater Toronto Airports Authority; and

-Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations.

 21

Proposed Harmonization of Development

Related Engineering Fees for the City

of Toronto, Works and Emergency Services Department

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of report (February 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to the Works and Emergency Services Department to standardize and continue applying engineering fees for development related engineering services, as shown in Schedule "A" of this report; and

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

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council, having requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at its meeting of February 23, 1999, on the following:

(a) whether the engineering fees are cost recoverable;

(b) what an appropriate fee would be;

(c) how to phase-in the engineering fees; and

(d) why the design and contract administration fees are substantially lower that what was charged in the past.

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a communication (February 10, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Works and Utilities Committee on February 10, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (February 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to the Works and Emergency Services Department to standardize and continue applying engineering fees for development related engineering services, as shown in Schedule "A" of this report; and

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

(Communication dated February 10, 1999, addressed

to the Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Works and Utilities Committee on February 10, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report dated February 1, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting proposed harmonization of development related engineering fees for the City of Toronto, Works and Emergency Services Department.

(Report dated February 1, 1999, addressed to the

Works and Utilities Committee from the

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

To standardize engineering fees for development related engineering services applicable to the Works and Emergency Services Department.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: Continued revenue source for the Department, dependent on rate of development and growth; estimated at approximately $400,000.00 - $500,000.00 annually, based on current rate of development.

   Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(a)authority be granted to the Works and Emergency Services Department to standardize and continue applying engineering fees for development related engineering services, as shown in Schedule "A" of this report; and

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

Background and Discussion:

The engineering sections of the Works Departments of the former municipalities within the City of Toronto have a range of engineering fees charged to developers for various services related to municipal works for their development applications. It is proposed to standardize the fees and eliminate the discrepancies among the fees and services.

The engineering services for which the proposed charges would apply include review of development applications for their servicing requirements and their impact on City infrastructure. All costs associated with development related works, including cost of engineering services, are being borne by the developers and not the taxpayers. The engineering services, in addition to review, include design and contract administration of infrastructure works required for the development applications.

In setting up the proposed engineering fees, the fees charged by the former City of Toronto municipalities as well as the neighbouring GTA municipalities have been assessed and compared. Engineering fees charged by private consulting firms have been studied. Development industry representatives and the Urban Development Institute have also provided input. Most of the fees are based on a percentage of the construction cost of the proposed municipal infrastructure works. The proposed engineering fees for the City, as shown in the attached Schedule "A", are competitive when compared with those charged by other municipalities in the GTA region as well as by the private sector. For example, the engineering review fees charged by other GTA municipalities are in the range of 3 to 7 percent of the construction cost of the required municipal works whereas our proposal recommends 3 percent. Design and contract administration fees charged by GTA municipalities and private engineering consultants are in the range of 10 to 25 percent of construction cost whereas our proposal recommends 16.5 percent. The existing fee structure of the former City of Toronto municipalities is shown as Schedule "B". For comparison, fees charged by the other GTA municipalities are also shown as Schedule "C". As can be seen, the proposed standardized fee structure for the new City of Toronto compares favourably with those of the neighbouring municipalities.

The revenue potential for the proposed engineering fees chargeable to the developers will be mostly dependent on the rate of development and growth as the main potential client will be development applicants. Based on the current rate of development, revenue is estimated to be in the $400,000.00 - $500,000.00 range annually. It should be understood that this projection is not new revenue but based on engineering fees already being collected at present by the former municipalities in the City of Toronto. Approximately $100,000.00 annually is collected by the former Metro office under the Ministry of Environment Transfer of Review Program for Water and Sewer Works. The remaining $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 is the estimated annual revenue being collected by the six former municipalities based on 1998 development levels. These figures were much lower in the early 1990's and higher prior to 1989 reflecting the variability in the rate of development.

It is proposed to start applying the new engineering fee structure for new development applications and to maintain existing fee structure of the former municipalities for applications already in process.

It is intended that engineering fees received from the developers will be retained in the Technical Services Division of this department and will be used to offset costs incurred by the department. The recommended fees may change depending on development review procedures and staffing levels still to be finalized.

Conclusions:

The City should continue charging fees for development related engineering services such as engineering review, design, contract administration and inspections. The proposed fees are competitive when compared with those charged by other municipalities in the GTA region as well as by the private sector. The proposed engineering fees are a revenue source for the Department, estimated at approximately $400,000.00 - $500,000.00 annually, based on the current rate of development.

Contact Name and Address:

Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng.

Manager, Development Services, District 3

Tel. No. 416-395-6307

Fax No. 416-395-0349

E-Mail: rbedrosy@city.north-york.on.ca.

--------

    Schedule "A" - Proposed Fee Schedule

(1)Development Related Works

 Type of Work

  Proposed Fees Method & Timing

of Payment

(a) Subdivision Applications:

Review of engineering design drawings (up to three submissions or as directed by Commissioner), review of subdivision agreement, part-time inspection and spot checks, final inspection and assumption.

 Review of engineering design drawings exceeding three submissions, full time inspections, if required, and at the discretion of the Commissioner.

Review of subdivision proposal revised after engineering submissions.

  3 percent of total estimated construction cost of municipal works.

   2.20 x hourly rate *

   Additional 1 percent of total estimated construction cost of revised municipal works.

  Cash.

1.5 percent prior to first engineering submission, balance upon execution of subdivision agreement or start of construction, whichever comes first.

Cash upon invoice.

   Cash with the first engineering submission of revised plan.

(b) Re-zoning Applications, Land Division Applications, Site Plan Applications for Development Related Proposed Municipal Works:     
    Design by City.

 5.5 percent of estimated construction cost. Cash, prior to Development Agreement.
    Contract administration by City,

or

11.0 percent of estimated construction cost. Cash, prior to Development Agreement.
   Design and contract administration by developer's consultant, Engineering review by City. 3 percent of estimated construction cost. Cash, prior to review.

  

    Inspection, special studies as required. 2.20 x hourly rate* Cash, upon invoice.
2.

 

 M.O.E. Approval Under Transfer of

Review Program for Water and Sewer Works

    Type of Work  Proposed Fees Method & Timing of Payment
    City review fee.  2 percent of estimated construction cost over and above any departmental fees.  Cash, prior to review.

--------

Schedule "B"

Existing Fee Structure of Former City of Toronto Municipalities

   Municipality Engineering Review

by City

(including Inspection)

Design and Contract Administration by City (including Overhead)
East York

-

20 percent
Etobicoke

2.5 percent plus Actual Cost of Inspection

22 percent
Metro

2.5 percent plus Actual Cost of Inspection

22 percent
North York

3 percent

15 percent
Scarborough

3 percent

16 percent
Toronto

3 percent plus Actual Cost of Inspection

20 percent
York

-

22 percent
Schedule "C"

Fee Structure of GTA Municipalities

 Municipality  Engineering Review by City

(including Inspection)

Design and Contract Administration by City (including Overhead)
Brampton

Less than $100,000 = 4 percent.

$100,000 to $500,000 = 3.5 percent

More than $500,000 = 3 percent

-
Burlington

5 percent

-
Kitchener

2 percent plus City's Consulting Engineer fees for inspection

-
Markham

3.5 percent plus City's Consulting Engineer fees for inspection

-
Mississauga

minimum $600

Less than $100,000 = 4.5 percent

$100,000 to $500,000 = 4 percent

More than $500,000 = 3.5 percent

 -
Peel

 

 25 percent
Newmarket

4 to 5 percent

-
Oakville

6 percent

-
Oshawa

Less than $100,000 = 4 percent

$100,000 to $500,000 = 3.5 percent

$500,000 to $1,000,000 = 3 percent

More than $1,000,000 = 2.5 percent

-
Richmond Hill

3.5 percent

-
Vaughan

3 percent

-
Whitby

Less than $200,000 = 4 percent

$200,001 to $500,000 = 3.5 percent

$500,001 to $1,000,000 = 3 percent

-

 The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following report (February 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

In response to the specific questions of the Budget Committee related to the above-mentioned report dated February 1, 1999, our comments are as follows:

Are the fees based on cost recovery?

No, the fees are not based on cost recovery as they are dependent on highly fluctuating economic growth and development activity levels. In high level development periods, the collected fees will exceed the costs of engineering staff salaries and other expenses, while in low level development periods, the fees will not be sufficient to cover all costs. As an example, in the former municipality of North York, the total development related engineering fees were about $400,000 in 1997 and $650,000 in 1998, exceeding the development staff salaries, however, the fees collected in the early 1990's were much lower.

What is an appropriate fee?

The appropriate engineering fee is a fee based on competitive levels with those charged by other GTA municipalities and by private sector engineering consultants. The proposed development engineering fees are deemed appropriate based on comparisons with private and public sectors.

What would it take to phase-in higher fees for full cost recovery?

The development related engineering fees can be monitored, reviewed and compared on a regular basis and adjustments made towards full cost recovery.

Why are design and construction fees lower than before?

Some of the former municipalities used to charge a 7 percent or higher overhead, over and above the usual 15 percent design and contract administration fees. The resultant 22 percent or higher fees were deemed very high and non-competitive, compared to private sector consultant fees which are in the 10 percent to 18 percent range. As a result, when there was a need to design and construct some development related works, the developer invariably preferred and also pressured the municipality to use a private sector consultant, instead of City staff. With the proposed 16.5 percent design and contract administration fee, the City is in a position to undertake more development related engineering works in-house and to generate more engineering fee revenues.

  Contact Name and Telephone No.:

Raffi Bedrosyan, Manager, Development Services

North York Civic Centre

Tel: (416) 395-6307

 22

A Plan to Reinvest National

Child Benefit Supplement Savings

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following report (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to adding the following:

"(1)that the City Convey to the Province its preference to 'reinvest' in improved income benefits to children on social assistance through a Toronto Child Income Program; and urge that the Province, at a minimum, should enable municipalities to make these 'reinvestments' and not deduct these benefits as income from social assistance;

(2)that the City advance municipal reinvestment in improved income benefits to children on social assistance with other municipalities;

(3)that the City continue to support the longer term goal of rescinding the Child Benefit Supplement claw back with the Province and Federal government;

(4)that all funds from the Federal Tax Credit be allocated to the shelter fund as recommended by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and that the Commissioner consult on the design of the fund; and

(5)that the City urge the Provincial Government to move quickly to increase the shelter component maximum for social assistance."

Mr. Colin Hughes, Metro Campaign 2000, appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a brief in regard thereto.

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a communication (February 10, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on February 11, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)the objectives and implementation plan for the reinvestment of N.C.B.S. municipal savings as described in this report be approved by City Council;

(2)in 1999, cumulative N.C.B.S. municipal savings estimated at $8.8 million be allocated as recommended in this report;

(3)this report be referred to the Budget Committee;

(4)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services Department proceed to take the necessary steps to implement the proposed plan; and

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

Mr. Colin Hughes, Metro Campaign 2000, appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter and submitted a brief in regard thereto.

--------

(Communication dated February 11, 1999, addressed

to the Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on February 11, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the attached report (January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting a plan to reinvest National Child Benefit Supplement Savings.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of the Budget Committee, having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Medical Officer of Health to report to the Committee on school nutrition programs.

Mr. Colin Hughes, Metro Campaign 2000, appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a brief in regard thereto.

--------

(Report dated January 28, 1999, addressed to the

Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee from the

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services)

Purpose:

This report responds to City Council's direction to develop a reinvestment plan for municipal social assistance savings resulting from the implementation of the National Child Benefit Supplement (N.C.B.S.) in Toronto.

Financial Implications:

Fiscally, the actual net savings from the Social Assistance program as a result of the implementation of the National Child Benefit from the period September to December 1998 is $2.0 million. The estimated net annualized savings for 1999 are estimated to be approximately $6.8 million. The level of savings available may change with fluctuations in the social assistance caseload. Toronto Finance officials have reviewed and concur with the recommendations made in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the objectives and implementation plan for the reinvestment of N.C.B.S. municipal savings as described in this report be approved by City Council;

(2)in 1999, cumulative N.C.B.S. municipal savings estimated at $8.8 million be allocated as recommended in this report;

(3)this report be referred to the Budget Committee;

(4)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services the proceed to take the necessary steps to implement the proposed plan; and

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

Council Reference/Background:

At its December 3, 1998, meeting, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee (C.N.S.C) recommended adoption of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Service's November 18, 1998, report, entitled "National Child Benefit Supplement Reinvestment Plan" to the Budget Committee. Approval was granted subject to an amendment requiring a legal opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the viability of a proposed City of Toronto Child Income Program that would return the municipal portion of N.C.B.S. savings directly to families on social assistance who have children.

Subsequently, at its December 16 and 17, 1998, meeting, City Council received a report from the City Solicitor, entitled "Legal Opinion Regarding the Creation of a City of Toronto Child Income Program" (see Appendix 1). The report concluded that any portion of the N.C.B.S. savings directly returned to families under a City Child Income Program "...would likely be considered as income for the purpose of calculating the amount of a benefit unit's entitlement." For this reason, "...the amount of the child income benefit would have to be deducted from the benefit unit's entitlement and there would be no net increase in the amount of the benefit paid to the benefit unit."

Based on this opinion, and the approval of the amended report by City Council at its December meeting, this report discusses an implementation plan for the Department's reinvestment strategy, which recommends that the municipal portion of N.C.B.S. savings be allocated as follows:

(a)the bulk of the funds be targeted to eligible families with children who require assistance to stabilize their housing arrangements, through the creation of a shelter fund; and

(b)the remaining savings be used to provide a range of supports to young parents eligible for assistance under the new Provincial Learning, Earning and Parenting Program (L.E.A.P.), which is briefly described below.

In its 1998 Budget statement, the Province announced the introduction of the new Learning, Earning and Parenting Program (L.E.A.P). As the Minister of Community and Social Services noted, the Province recognizes that providing supports to young parents with minimal education, who often face substantial barriers when seeking employment, is a key priority under Ontario Works. L.E.A.P.'s aim is to ensure these parents finish high school and develop necessary parenting skills. This represents an important investment in the future of both the parents and their children. It also acknowledges that attaining a high school diploma is an essential foundation for stable employment in the longer term, and for becoming independent of social assistance.

On a provincial basis, the Ministry of Community and Social Services (M.C.S.S.) will make $25 million available to provide a range of supports to young families with children who have not completed high school. L.E.A.P. will be cost-shared on an 80/20 Provincial/Municipal basis. The Ministry's intention is to fully implement the Program across the Province in 1999.

A recent communication from the Ministry of Community and Social Services indicated that, in terms of the use of N.C.B.S. savings, "Municipalities may wish to consider using N.C.B. reinvestment to offset their 20 percent contribution" to recently announced provincial programs, such as L.E.A.P. Thus, the Department's decision to support L.E.A.P. through N.C.B.S. savings is consistent with Provincial priorities. Further information about how savings will be used to fund L.E.A.P. is provided in section III.

Discussion:

(I)Introduction: A Combined Reinvestment Strategy for City of Toronto Savings:

As noted, the Department is proposing a combined reinvestment strategy, consisting of:

(a)creation of a targeted shelter fund to address the high shelter costs of families with children; and

(b)funding the City's cost-shared contribution to the Province's Learning, Earning and Parenting Program.

Net savings from the implementation of N.C.B.S. in 1998 equalled $2.0 million. Combined with the $6.80 million estimated net savings for 1999, a projected total of $8.8 million in savings will be available for municipal reinvestment. Therefore, in 1999, it is proposed that accumulated N.C.B.S. funds be allocated to the options proposed above as follows:

(a)the majority of the funds, approximately $6.8 million, be directed to supporting the proposed shelter fund; and

(b) the remaining savings be used to cover the municipal portion of implementing L.E.A.P. in Toronto, up to a maximum of $2.0 million.

Given that the estimated savings for 1999 will change with caseload fluctuations, the Department will review the expenditure of funds to ensure that they do not exceed the amounts available from N.C.B.S. savings.

The following sections discuss in greater detail both components of the Department's strategy.

 (II)Creation of a Shelter Fund:

(A)Shelter Issues in Toronto:

Numerous studies, most recently "The Report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force", indicate that the housing problems facing all low income residents, but particularly families, have become increasingly serious in Toronto, and have worsened as the 1990's progressed.

This is clearly true for social assistance recipients. Currently, nearly 75 percent of all families in receipt of Ontario Works (O.W.) with children (currently over 20,000 families) pay more than the maximum amount they receive for shelter under Ontario Works for accommodation in Toronto. This leaves fewer resources available for other basic needs, for providing for the health and welfare of children, and for expenses related to seeking employment. Current shelter maximums also enable families who rent in the private market to afford only a small percentage of the housing available.

These changes in the social assistance allowances, and in the supply and costs of rental housing, have been particularly felt by families with children, who now constitute more than 50 percent of the overall O.W. caseload in Toronto. Single parent families alone represent 34 percent of the total O.W. caseload. Subsequent to the transfer of single parent cases from the Province, this group will comprise approximately 44 percent of the caseload.

Stable housing is the foundation on which families with children depend to conduct their lives. If that stability is threatened whether by loss of housing, pervasive insecurity about the ability to maintain existing housing, or the inability to locate new accommodation when required, there are potentially significant disruptions for families on social assistance. This type of instability is clearly a barrier to a parent's capacity to prepare for and find work.

(B)Ontario Works: Focusing on Participation and Employment:

With the introduction of the Ontario Works program in 1996, the Province signalled a new focus for social assistance, one which mandates that the aim of the program is to actively assist people obtain employment and become independent of social assistance. This orientation was formalized in the new Ontario Works Act (O.W.A.) introduced in May 1998.

Under O.W., the expectation is that a substantial majority of clients will participate in activities which will help them become independent of social assistance. In this context, it is important for delivery agents to identify and address potential barriers that can impede participation, or reduce a person's capacity to find work. The Provincial O.W. Directives acknowledge that for some clients the first step to participating in O.W. will involve stabilizing living arrangements. Overall, there is an increasing recognition in welfare programs across North America that housing instability is a key barrier to clients' participation in mandated activities, particularly for families in large cities.

In light of new program requirements under O.W., the increasing proportion of the City's caseload that is comprised of families, particularly single families, and the restricted housing options available to social assistance recipients in Toronto's market, the proposed shelter fund represents an important vehicle for assisting families in receipt of O.W. who have children.

(C)Social Services Division Shelter Initiatives:

In providing shelter supports to clients, the Division's overall aim has been to help clients maintain or establish stable housing wherever possible. This encompasses three specific objectives: helping those who do not have permanent shelter to obtain it, helping those with appropriate shelter to retain it, and helping people relocate to more affordable/appropriate housing when needed.

This involves pursuing a range of strategies. In response to the rate reductions in 1995, the Division implemented, or improved on, a number of ways to assist clients with shelter issues, including:

(a)establishing more effective working relationships with agencies providing housing assistance to low income City residents;

(b)developing housing help packages for staff and clients to help them access relevant services and expertise available in the immediate community and through other levels of government;

(c)creating and implementing a new gifts, loans and donations policy which enabled clients to receive periodic assistance from family or friends to help with rent or living expenses without any subsequent reduction of social assistance benefits; and

(d)effectively using other benefits, such as the Community Start-Up Benefit (C.S.U.B.) and the Employment Start-Up Allowance (E.S.U.A.), which can provide clients with up to $799.00 and $250.00 per 12-month period, respectively C.S.U.B. can be used in a number of ways to assist clients. People leavings hostels or other institutions can receive funds, in addition to their monthly allowance, to pay for last month's rent or other costs associated with obtaining permanent housing. It can also be used to help people cover moving costs, or to purchase necessary household appliances or furnishings. E.S.U.A. is used to assist clients looking for work or taking approved training courses by covering a wide range of expenses, such as transportation, clothing, or other items needed by the client (Appendix 2 provides a brief explanation of these benefits).

Building on these measures, the Division currently is proceeding with a number of inter-related approaches to stabilizing clients' housing conditions as follows:

(a)productively using existing benefits and policies to address shelter related needs;

(b)developing and improving preventive policy initiatives in key areas, such as establishing effective liaisons with subsidized housing providers (e.g., M.T.H.A.), the Sheriff's Office and community agencies with the aim of reducing evictions of OW clients;

(c)referring clients to appropriate community supports, such as the recently established Rent Bank Pilot Project funded by the City, other community resources (housing help agencies), as well as relevant government programs; and

(d)creating a shelter fund as discussed below.

(D)The Shelter Fund:

The intention is to use the shelter fund to provide financial benefits to families with children who require assistance to obtain or maintain housing, or to relocate. Benefits provided under the shelter fund will be targeted to families in receipt of O.W., or the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, who have a demonstrated need.

It is recommended that an amount up to $6.65 million be allocated to the provision of financial benefits through the shelter fund for 1999. The Division will closely monitor both program utilization rates and changes in the level of N.C.B.S. savings, for the purpose of revising this allocation if required. It is estimated that the Division will be able to assist over 5,000 families. An additional $150,000.00 will be allocated to administer and deliver the fund, as discussed later in this section.

   Eligibility Criteria and Guidelines:

There are a readily identifiable set of issues which can be addressed using benefits provided under the shelter fund. These include:

(a)funds to cover the cost of a deposit for last month's rent, or for fuel or hydro costs. Currently, because some families cannot make such deposits, they are at a disadvantage in the highly competitive market for affordable housing;

(b)funds to covers costs associated with the elimination of rental, or utility or fuel, arrears, which often involves processing or legal costs in addition to the payment of the actual arrears;

(c)funds for expenses associated with moving, or the reconnection of telephones or other utilities;

(d)funds for the purchase or replacement of essential household furnishings, such as major appliances or children's cribs or beds; and

(e)funds for a wide range of unique or miscellaneous situations where a family requires assistance to maintain or re-establish accommodation.

The absence of supports in these situations can cause a family to lose an existing rental accommodation. Similarly, without necessary supports, it may be substantially more difficult to locate shelter if the family currently has no permanent housing, or if the family needs to relocate, whether to a cheaper or more suitable apartment, or to move closer to a job opportunity. In many situations, there is a simultaneous need for support in several of the areas listed. For example, families relocating to a cheaper accommodation may need help with last month's rent, moving expenses, and/or replacement of necessary furnishings.

The Division's aim is to build substantial flexibility into the criteria which will establish eligibility for, and distribution of, benefits. Wherever possible, the Division will use benefits provided under the shelter fund in combination with other policies (Gifts, Loans or Donations) or allowances (C.S.U.B.,) to obtain maximum benefit for the client. In these circumstances, the shelter fund will augment existing sources of support which are governed by somewhat more restrictive rules. However, the fund will also be used to address eligible needs which cannot currently be met through other sources, such as clients who my need essential household items replaced as a result of a fire or other catastrophic occurrences.

  It is proposed that eligibility for funds be based on the criteria described in Appendix 3. Further, it is recommended that:

(a)benefits be provided in an amount that is sufficient to meet the necessary costs of obtaining, maintaining, or relocating to, appropriate housing; and

(b)benefits be provided where there is a reasonable expectation that the client can sustain current or prospective accommodations over the longer term.

It is anticipated that, in most circumstances, benefits will be allocated to families once within a 12-month period. However, given the priority placed on responding flexibly to client needs, families may be able to access the fund more frequently if they face situations which will imperil their current housing, or where they need assistance to relocate. To illustrate how the fund would work in practice, a number of scenarios have been described in Appendix 4.

As per Council's direction, the Division will ensure families can access benefits provided under the shelter fund with minimal intrusion. As with any needs based program, information will be required to establish and validate that a need exists, and to confirm eligibility for support. Existing information on file will be used wherever possible to deliver benefits to clients, reducing the collection of new information. To the degree possible, existing verification procedures will be used to confirm information provided by the client.

If a family's housing situation is identified in the client's O.W. service plan as a potential barrier to participation in required activities, or to the client's ability to find employment, benefits may be provided on the condition that the client seeks additional assistance or resources to address ongoing issues related to frequent evictions, accumulation of arrears, or inability to retain permanent housing.

Supporting Delivery of the Fund:

In terms of delivering the shelter fund, it is important to note the changes in the Division's capacity to address clients' shelter issues over the past several years. Through the late 1980's and up to the mid 1990's, social assistance offices had dedicated staff assigned to provide housing and home management counselling and supports, both to clients at risk of losing housing and those seeking housing. However, the cost sharing rules introduced under Ontario Works do not provide the City with the flexibility to continue to deploy staff in these roles. As a result, the Division lost an important source of support for clients with housing related problems.

Currently, caseworkers must increasingly focus on directly assisting clients obtain jobs, or increase their employment prospects through education and training. While clients who indicate they have housing problems, or need to find housing, are referred to appropriate community agencies, there may be little follow-up by workers given the demands placed on them under O.W.

The Division recognizes that many clients would benefit from the types of assistance formerly provided by the former housing support staff. It is also evident that administration of the shelter fund will have workload implications for the Division, and will require additional resources.

In this light, it is recommended that up to $150,000.00 be allocated to increase the Division's capacity to address shelter related issues, including:

(a)supporting the administration and delivery of the shelter fund; and

(b)dedicating staff resources to support the Division's efforts to address housing issues affecting social assistance clients, for example, by developing specific resources for use by caseworkers to assist them when dealing with client housing issues.

(III)Supporting L.E.A.P.:

As noted earlier in the report, M.C.S.S. announced the introduction of the new Learning, Earning and Parenting Program (L.E.A.P) in the Spring of 1998, with the intention that implementation would occur across the Province in 1999. The Province will provide $25 million in funding to provide a range of supports to young parents on social assistance who have children. The program recognizes the specialized and unique needs of these families, and represents a positive step to assist this high risk group acquire basic education and parenting skills.

Young parents who have not completed high school are the target group. In Toronto, approximately 2,000 young families on social assistance (both those in receipt of O.W. and those who are served through the Provincial system) who have children may be eligible under this initiative.

The Program will be cost-shared on an 80/20 Provincial/Municipal basis. It is recommended that, given the importance of providing supports to young families, the City's share of the cost of implementing L.E.A.P. be funded through N.C.B.S. savings, as suggested by the Province. This will require less than one-quarter of municipal N.C.B.S. savings in 1999, up to an estimated $2.0 million. It is also recommended that N.C.B.S. savings be used to support L.E.A.P. beyond 1999 pending any Provincial decisions related to the future shape of the program.

At this time, specific program details concerning L.E.A.P. have not yet been released. Upon release of this information, the Department will develop an implementation plan for the roll-out of L.E.A.P., including any further refinement of the estimate of the costs of the municipal portion of the program.

Conclusions:

Improved employment earnings represent the most effective way for families on social assistance to increase their income. The proposed Reinvestment Plan provides key supports to families with children which reduce significant barriers to employment, whether they are related to lack of housing or housing instability, or the problems facing young parents who do not have sufficient education to compete in the labour market. Ultimately, by making it easier for families to find and maintain work, these initiatives will help to alleviate child poverty in Toronto, which is the fundamental objective of the National Child Benefit Supplement.

Finally, from the perspective of assisting O.W. clients to capitalize on opportunities to obtain employment, and of meeting the City's program targets under O.W., these options represent an effective way to reinvest N.C.B.S. savings in Toronto.

Contact Names:

Heather MacVicar, General Manager

Tel: 392-8952

--------

(Report dated December 14, 1998, addressed

to the City Council from the City Solicitor)

Purpose:

This report responds to the request of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for a legal opinion regarding the creation of a City of Toronto child income program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of December 3, 1998, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee had before it a report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled "National Child Benefit Supplement Reinvestment Plan", in which the Commissioner made various recommendations regarding the options available for the reinvestment of municipal social assistance savings resulting from the implementation of the National Child Benefit Supplement. In considering this report, the Committee requested an opinion from the City Solicitor on the City's proposed strategy with respect to the National Child Benefit Supplement, in order to determine whether the City is able to develop its own child income program.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A Toronto child income program could be established pursuant to Section 53 of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) which enables Council to pass by-laws to provide money for the health and welfare of the resident poor who are not otherwise specifically provided for in the Act. However, it is unlikely that such a program would improve the financial situation in which social assistance recipients find themselves for the reasons set out below.

Under Section 48 of Regulation 134/98 under the Ontario Works Act, "income" is defined as "the total amount of all payments of any nature paid to or on behalf of or for the benefit of every member of the benefit unit". Given the broad nature of this definition, a Toronto child benefit payment would likely be "income" for the purpose of calculating the amount of a benefit unit's entitlement.

The income provisions in Regulation 134/98 are mandatory and accordingly a municipal social assistance administrator has no discretion to exclude a payment from being considered "income" unless the payment falls within the scope of a specific enumerated exemption. Having reviewed the exemptions set out in Regulation 134/98, it is my opinion that none of the exemptions would apply to payments under the proposed child income program. In particular, I do not believe such payments could be exempted under paragraph 8 of ss. 54(1) of Regulation 134/98 as a "casual gift or casual payment of small value" as the payment would be made on a regular basis to eligible recipients. As a result, the amount of the child income benefit would have to be deducted from the benefit unit's entitlement and there would be no net increase in the amount paid to the benefit unit.

Conclusions:

The foregoing is provided for the information of City Council.

Contact Name:

Shirley Mathi 392-2989

--------

Appendix 2

Community Start-Up Benefit and Employment Start-Up Allowance:

Community Start-Up Benefit:

Under the Ontario Works Act, the C.S.U.B. is a mandatory item of financial assistance and may be granted in addition to other budgetary requirements, up to a maximum of $799.00, once in a 12-month period, regardless of family size. The amount issued will be determined by the caseworker and client and will be dependent upon individual need.

This benefit is intended to meet special expenses related to establishing residence in the City of Toronto or another municipality. The total amount of entitlement should be issued within thirty (30) days of application for financial assistance, or of establishing a new permanent residence.

Employment Start Up Allowance:

Employment Start Up Allowance is a mandatory item of financial assistance under the Ontario Works Act. The intent of the policy is to assist recipients with the start up costs associated with employment, paid training programs or approved self-employment activities such as transportation, work clothing, foot wear or other miscellaneous work-related items.

Recipients, spouses or dependant adults, not attending school full time, who begin or change employment, or begin a paid training program or approved self-employment activity, may be granted an amount for expenses necessary to facilitate this activity.

Change of employment means the beginning of a new job, with a current or new employer, where the duties and responsibilities are substantially different than the previous job.

This maximum allowance of $253.00 may be issued only once in a 12-month period. This allowance is generally issued within three months of commencing employment.

--------

Appendix 3

Shelter Fund Eligibility Criteria:

In order to receive benefits provided under the Shelter Fund, the client must be eligible for financial assistance and meet at least one of the following criteria:

(a)Moving into boarding or rented accommodation available in the community that is not a per diem funded residence such as group homes or hostels.

(b)Being discharged from premises that meet the definition of an acceptable institution or approved facility.

(c)Leaving a harmful situation.

(d)Moving in order to significantly improve his/her living situation.

(e)Require "start-up" funds for establishing a new permanent residence within one month from the date of application for financial assistance, or the establishment of a new permanent residence.

For the purpose of issuing the Shelter Fund benefits, the following situations are considered harmful to clients health and welfare.

(i)Fire/Flood.

(ii)Chronic homelessness.

(iii)Family violence, including spousal or child abuse.

(iv)Facing eviction.

(v)A disabled person moving due to the incapacity or death of supporting care- giver/ family member(s).

(vi)Uninhabitable premises.

(vii)Documented need for relocation of sole support parents and/or children at risk.

The following situations are indicative of an improvement in the client's circumstances:

(a)Moving to less expensive accommodation (from excessively expensive shelter to housing which can be supported within the current maximum allowable shelter allowance).

(b)Moving for reasons of employment, education or training.

Eligible clients are issued C.S.U.B. to cover costs of establishing residence in the community. Such expenses may cover the cost of:

(a)Last month's rent deposit.

(b)Fuel and hydro deposits (i.e., establishing new account for services).

(c)Rental, utility, or fuel arrears, including any associated costs.

(d)Household furnishings and items.

(f)Moving and transportation.

(g)Any other costs approved by the Administrator (i.e., utility arrears paid directly to the company, storage costs).

--------

Appendix 4

Case Scenarios:

Scenario 1:

The Smith family (2 adults and 2 children under the age of 12) has been in receipt of Ontario Works (OW) assistance for the past five months. Prior to being on assistance, Mr. Smith was in receipt of Employment Insurance Benefits due to the closing of the plant where he worked for 10 years.

Monthly OW entitlement:

Basic Allowance$ 576.00

Shelter$ 602.00

$1,178.00

The Smith's currently pay $750.00 a month for a small two bedroom apartment, utilities not included. The family is currently two months in rental arrears. The Smiths currently owe an outstanding amount of $1,500.00 in rent and face eviction if the rent cannot be paid.

To enable the Smiths to maintain their current address, Community Start Up Benefit (C.S.U.B.) can be accessed to assist with the outstanding arrears. The maximum allowable amount that may be issued from C.S.U.B. is $799.00.

Total rental arrears$1,500.00

C.S.U.B.$ 799.00

Total amount still owing$ 701.00

Even accessing the maximum amount from C.S.U.B., there is still a balance of $701.00 owing in rental arrears. To assist this family in maintaining housing, the additional $701.00 could be accessed from the Shelter Fund.

Shelter Fund$ 701.00

C.S.U.B. +$ 799.00

Total arrears paid$1500.00

Note: The family requested and received an additional $100.00 from the spouses parents to assist with their situation. This money is considered a gift and under the Gift, Loans and Donations policy will not be deducted as income.

Scenario 2:

A single parent with 1 child (age 3) resides in an uninhabitable one-bedroom apartment. She is paying rental cost of $625.00 per month. This client has found a safer place for herself and her child to live and can move on the first of the month. She is required to pay first and last month's rent before moving in.

The new rental cost is $590.00 per month for a smaller one bedroom basement apartment. Due to the current living conditions, she has put her furniture into storage and requires $100.00 to cover storage costs. In addition, the client requires moving costs which are estimated at $150.00.

Client's monthly OW entitlement is:

Basic Allowance$ 446.00

Shelter$ 511.00

Total monthly OW entitlement$ 957.00

In order to move to safer accommodation the client will need an additional $860.00:

Last months rent $ 590.00

Storage costs$ 100.00

Moving costs$ 150.00

The rent at this new accommodation exceeds the shelter component of OW entitlement by $79.00. To assist the client in securing the accommodation an additional $79.00 will be accessed and issued to the client to assist in payment of first month's rent bringing the total amount required to secure the accommodation to $939.00.

All funds to ensure safe adequate housing for the client and her child could be accessed from the Shelter Fund.

Note:This client cannot access Community Start-Up Benefit as she received the maximum amount five months ago. CSUB was issued at that time to assist the client in securing her present accommodation. Immediately prior to this, the woman and her infant child spend six weeks at a shelter for abused women.

  Scenario 3:

A family (2 adults and a newborn baby) has been in receipt of Ontario Works (OW) assistance for the past six months. Prior to being on assistance, Mr. Brown was employed as a cleaner.

Monthly OW entitlement:

Basic Allowance$ 476.00

Shelter$ 554.00

$1,030.00

The family has been advised by their landlord that they must vacate their apartment as the landlord has plans for conversion of the property. The family has located alternate accommodations (a one-bedroom apartment) and the rent is $610.00 per month plus average monthly utility costs of $85.00. To obtain the new accommodation, the family requires last month's rent plus funds for moving. They are also in need for funds for a crib and other baby items. After meeting with the caseworker, it is estimated they will need $1,295.00 in order to cover all their expenses.

Last months rent$ 690.00

Baby items$ 300.00

Moving expenses$ 300.00

Total expenses$1,295.00

To assist the family in securing their new address and help cover the other expenses Community Start Up Benefit (CSUB) and the New Born Allowance can be accessed.

CSUB$ 799.00

New Born Allowance$ 260.00($160 for crib and balance to cover the essential items for a newborn)

Total$1,059.00

Even accessing the maximum amount from CSUB and the New Born Allowance there is still a balance of $241.00 required. To assist this family with their moving expenses, the additional $241.00 could be accessed from the Shelter Fund.

23

Main Treatment Plant - Award of Beneficial Use

Contracts and Procedure for Selection of

Design/Build Firms for the Implementation of

100 per cent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee embodied in the communication dated February 10, 1999, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report dated February 8, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (6) to provide that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to proceed with issuing the Request for Proposals for the design/build of the biosolids loading and odour facilities and for plant heating at the Main Treatment Plant, and report back to the Works and Utilities Committee;

(2)the adoption of the following recommendations embodied in the proposal before the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee meeting on February 9, 1999, headed "Ongoing Public Participation Proposal for Discussion at BMSC":

(a)that the consultant provide status reports on the design/build projects at the Main Treatment Plant to the Main Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committee (MTP NLC), with special attention to odour and building design issues; and

(b)that there be ongoing public involvement through the MTP NLC with respect to dryer/pelletizer construction at the Main Treatment Plant, especially in regard to community aspects such as odour;

and that Councillors from Wards 25 and 26 be invited to attend the MTP NLC meetings during its consideration of the design/build phase;

(3)that the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee and the Independent Review Committee be disbanded, and the members thanked for their time and commitment; and

(4)that a Biosolids Management Plan Committee be established; and reports having referred the membership and terms of reference to Councillor Bill Saundercook and the Environmental Task Force to consult with the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee and report back thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 24, 1999; and further recommends that:

(a)Members of Council with treatment plants in their ward be invited to attend and/or become members of the Biosolids Management Plan Committee; and

(b)the Biosolids Management Plan Committee be co-chaired by a Member of Council and a citizen member.' ")

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report, directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 2, 1999, on the present status of the Ministry of the Environment approvals for the two companies recommended in the report dated February 8, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and on whether such approvals are time or otherwise limited.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council the adoption of the report (February 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an agreement with Terratec Environmental Ltd. (Terratec), for the transport, storage and direct land application of dewatered biosolids from the Main Treatment Plant in accordance with Terratec's proposal dated December 16, 1998, such agreement to be for a period of four years, for biosolids quantities up to a maximum of 28,000 dry tonnes per year with an expected minimum of 25,000 dry tonne per year at a cost of $107.00 per dry tonne of biosolids, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the City, dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(2)authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an agreement with USF Canada Inc. (USF) for the design, construction and commissioning of a biosolids pelletizing facility in accordance with USF's proposal dated December 16, 1998, such facility to be located at the Main Treatment Plant at a lump sum price of $22,235,959.00, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the RFP issued by the City dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(3)subject to finalizing the agreement in accordance with Recommendation No. (2), authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an operations agreement with USF for the transportation, marketing and distribution of up to a maximum of 28,000 dry tonnes per year of biosolids pellets with an expected minimum of 25,000 dry tonnes per year of biosolids pellets at a cost of $13.35 per dry tonne, such agreement to be for a period of 15 years, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the RFP issued by the City dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(4)subject to finalizing agreements in accordance with Recommendations Nos. (2), and (3), authority be granted to negotiate with USF for the management and operation of the pelletization facility for a period of two years from the date of successful commissioning of the pelletizing facility;

(5)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to short list a minimum of three firms to receive the Request for Proposals for the provision of biosolids loading and odour control facilities at the Main Treatment Plant ( MTP), and to short list a minimum of three firms to receive the Request for Proposals for the provision of plant heating facilities at the MTP based on criteria and procedures contained in this report;

(6)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the next meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee on the Request for Proposals for biosolids loading and odour control facilities at the MTP and Request for Proposals for plant heating at the MTP;

(7)authorization be granted to add to the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program an amount of $76,600,000.00 net after GST rebate for the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program; and

(8)the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program additional cash flow be approved at the following levels: $15,710,000.00 for 1999, $53,303,000.00 for 2000, and $7,855,000.00 for 2001.

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, at its meeting of February 23, 1999, on the cost of the treatment process (i) through incinerators; (ii) using the current equipment; and (iii) using 100 percent Biosolids; said report to include the cost of any necessary replacement equipment.

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a communication (February 10, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Works and Utilities Committee on February 10, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the Report (February 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an agreement with Terratec Environmental Ltd. (Terratec), for the transport, storage and direct land application of dewatered biosolids from the Main Treatment Plant in accordance with Terratec's proposal dated December 16, 1998, such agreement to be for a period of four years, for biosolids quantities up to a maximum of 28,000 dry tonnes per year with an expected minimum of 25,000 dry tonne per year at a cost of $107.00 per dry tonne of biosolids, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the City, dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(2)authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an agreement with USF Canada Inc. (USF) for the design, construction and commissioning of a biosolids pelletizing facility in accordance with USF's proposal dated December 16, 1998, such facility to be located at the Main Treatment Plant at a lump sum price of $22,235,959.00, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the RFP issued by the City dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(3)subject to finalizing the agreement in accordance with Recommendation No. (2), authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an operations agreement with USF for the transportation, marketing and distribution of up to a maximum of 28,000 dry tonnes per year of biosolids pellets with an expected minimum of 25,000 dry tonnes per year of biosolids pellets at a cost of $13.35 per dry tonne, such agreement to be for a period of 15 years, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the RFP issued by the City dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(4)subject to finalizing agreements in accordance with Recommendations Nos. (2), and (3), authority be granted to negotiate with USF for the management and operation of the pelletization facility for a period of two years from the date of successful commissioning of the pelletizing facility;

(5)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to short list a minimum of three firms to receive the Request for Proposals for the provision of biosolids loading and odour control facilities at the Main Treatment Plant ( MTP), and to short list a minimum of three firms to receive the Request for Proposals for the provision of plant heating facilities at the MTP based on criteria and procedures contained in this report;

(6)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the next meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee on the Request for Proposals for biosolids loading and odour control facilities at the MTP and Request for Proposals for plant heating at the MTP;

(7)authorization be granted to add to the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program an amount of $76,600,000.00 net after GST rebate for the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program; and

(8)the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program additional cash flow be approved at the following levels: $15,710,000.00 for 1999, $53,303,000.00 for 2000, and $7,855,000.00 for 2001.

--------

(Communication dated February 10, 1999, addressed

to the Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendations:

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report dated February 8, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (6) to provide that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to proceed with issuing the Request for Proposals for the design/build of the biosolids loading and odour facilities and for plant heating at the Main Treatment Plant, and report back to the Works and Utilities Committee;

(2)the adoption of the following recommendations embodied in the proposal before the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee meeting on February 9, 1999, headed "Ongoing Public Participation Proposal for Discussion at BMSC":

(i)that the consultant provide status reports on the design/build projects at the Main Treatment Plant to the Main Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committee (MTP NLC), with special attention to odour and building design issues; and

(ii)that there be ongoing public involvement through the MTP NLC with respect to dryer/pelletizer construction at the Main Treatment Plant, especially in regard to community aspects such as odour;

and that Councillors from Wards 25 and 26 be invited to attend the MTP NLC meetings during its consideration of the design/build phase;

(3)that the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee and the Independent Review Committee be disbanded, and the members thanked for their time and commitment; and

(4)that a Biosolids Management Plan Committee be established; and reports having referred the membership and terms of reference to Councillor Bill Saundercook and the Environmental Task Force to consult with the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee and report back thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 24, 1999; and further recommends that:

(a)Members of Council with treatment plants in their ward be invited to attend and/or become members of the Biosolids Management Plan Committee; and

(b)the Biosolids Management Plan Committee be co-chaired by a Member of Council and a citizen member.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports having granted authority, in order to further the due diligence, for Councillors Bussin, Layton and McConnell as members of the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee, accompanied by a consultant and/or staff member, to visit USF's pelletizing facilities in Belgium and Spain, and meet with the local area elected officials and residents to discuss their experience with the USF operation, prior to Council's consideration of this report at its meeting scheduled to be held commencing on March 2, 1999, at a cost of approximately $19,000.00, with funding to be accommodated in the current Biosolids Beneficial Use Program budget; and requests that Council concur in the action taken by the Works and Utilities Committee.

The Works and Utilities Committee further reports, for the information of Council, having referred the communication dated February 4, 1999, from Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union Local 416, to the negotiating team for consideration.

Background:

The Works and Utilities Committee on February 10, 1999, had before it a report (February 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the implementation of 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Reuse Program at the Main Treatment Plant.

The Works and Utilities Committee also had before it a communication (February 4, 1999) from Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, addressed to Councillors Betty Disero, Sandra Bussin, Tom Jakobek and Pam McConnell, setting out recommendations with respect to the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee, and the implementation and operation of any application program for the beneficial use of biosolids.

The Works and Utilities Committee also had before it the following:

(i)a proposal entitled "Ongoing Public Participation Proposal for Participation at BMSC", which was before the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee at its meeting on February 9, 1999; and

(ii)a communication (February 9, 1999) from Mr. Brian Gallaugher, Gallaugher Associates, forwarding excerpts from the Minutes of the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee meeting held on February 9, 1999.

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Gayle Christie, Gayle Christie Associates, and Mr. Daniel Boulanger, Berlie Technologies; and

-Mr. Wally McKinnon, Project Vice-President, USF Canada Inc.

--------

      (Report dated February 8, 1999, addressed to the

Works and Utilities Committee from the

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to award contracts for beneficial use of biosolids from the Main Treatment Plant (MTP), and to proceed with the shortlisting of firms for the supply of biosolids loading, odour control and plant heating facilities at the MTP required to support the Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approval will be required to add to the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program a total of $76,600,000.00 net after GST rebate for the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program of which $15,710,000.00 will be expended in (1999); and $53,030,000.00 in (2000); and $7,855,000.00 in (2001). It is anticipated that there will be no impact to current operating budget levels resulting from the Biosolids Program. Funding for this project is to be provided from the Water and Wastewater reserves.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an agreement with Terratec Environmental Ltd. (Terratec), for the transport, storage and direct land application of dewatered biosolids from the Main Treatment Plant in accordance with Terratec's proposal dated December 16, 1998, such agreement to be for a period of four years, for biosolids quantities up to a maximum of 28,000 dry tonnes per year with an expected minimum of 25,000 dry tonne per year at a cost of $107.00 per dry tonne of biosolids, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the City, dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(2)authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an agreement with USF Canada Inc. (USF) for the design, construction and commissioning of a biosolids pelletizing facility in accordance with USF's proposal dated December 16, 1998, such facility to be located at the Main Treatment Plant at a lump sum price of $22,235,959.00, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the RFP issued by the City dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(3)subject to finalizing the agreement in accordance with Recommendation No. (2), authority be granted to commence negotiations with and, if successfully concluded, enter into an operations agreement with USF for the transportation, marketing and distribution of up to a maximum of 28,000 dry tonnes per year of biosolids pellets with an expected minimum of 25,000 dry tonnes per year of biosolids pellets at a cost of $13.35 per dry tonne, such agreement to be for a period of 15 years, on the terms and conditions as set out in this report, the RFP issued by the City dated September 28, 1998, and otherwise on such terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

(4)subject to finalizing agreements in accordance with Recommendations Nos. (2), and (3), authority be granted to negotiate with USF for the management and operation of the pelletization facility for a period of two years from the date of successful commissioning of the pelletizing facility;

(5)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to short list a minimum of three firms to receive the Request for Proposals for the provision of biosolids loading and odour control facilities at the Main Treatment Plant (MTP), and to short list a minimum of three firms to receive the Request for Proposals for the provision of plant heating facilities at the MTP based on criteria and procedures contained in this report;

(6)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the next meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee on the Request for Proposals for biosolids loading and odour control facilities at the MTP and Request for Proposals for plant heating at the MTP;

(7)authorization be granted to add to the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program an amount of $76,600,000.00 net after GST rebate for the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program; and

(8)the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program additional cash flow be approved at the following levels: $15,710,000.00 for 1999, $53,303,000.00 for 2000, and $7,855,000.00 for 2001.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On September 24, 1997, the former Metropolitan Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 8 of Report No. 12 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, entitled "Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Implementation Plan", which endorsed the conclusions of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment, including the phased implementation of Biosolids Beneficial Use following the completion of four demonstration programs.

In January 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the feasibility of accelerating the shutdown of incineration at the Main Treatment Plant.

By adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 6 of The Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, City Council authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to establish the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee (BMSC) and Independent Review Committee (IRC), retain consultants and request proposals to allow for the shutdown of sewage sludge incinerators at the Main Treatment Plant within a three-year period. This initiative is now known as the Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program.

At its meeting of July 28, 1998, City Council adopted Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Works and Utilities Committee, which contained an accelerated timeline developed for planning purposes by the Committee for the initial implementation of the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program. Subsequently, with input from the BMSC an aggressive timeline was set with the target date of December 31, 2000, for the end of biosolids incineration at the Main Treatment Plant.

Public participation, through the involvement of the BMSC, has been intensive and proactive. The BMSC's role has been to assist in the overall development of the biosolids program by helping to chart the directions of the program, its goals and intentions, and to provide input on the concerns and recommendations of the community in regard to developing a successful biosolids program.

Committee membership was derived from several sectors. Members included Councillors Disero, Bussin, Jakobek, Layton and McConnell, environmental groups, a watershed group, neighbourhood industry, representatives of the Humber, Highland Creek, North Toronto and Main Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committees, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association (LANA) and union representatives from the Main Treatment Plant.

Fourteen meetings of the BMSC were held between July 6, 1998 and February 9, 1999. Involvement of the BMSC included the following activities:

-review and input into the public consultation program for the biosolids program development phase;

-review and input into the selection of the biosolids management consultants;

-review and input into the Expression of Interest evaluation process;

-review and input into the development of the Toronto Beneficial Use Program Request for Proposals;

-recommendations for ongoing biosolids program development; and

-review and comment on the proposal evaluation process.

The IRC also assisted the City in the development of the biosolids program. The primary role of the IRC was to allow Toronto to draw on the experience of knowledgeable individuals from The University of Guelph, Water Technology International, Ministries of Environment and Health, and representatives from other jurisdictions (Los Angeles and Philadelphia) which have already implemented beneficial use programs. The IRC has provided advice and independent peer review at all critical stages of program development. The IRC includes two public members of the BMSC and is chaired by Councillor Disero.

In December 1998, the 1999-2003 Water and Wastewater Capital budget was presented to the Budget Committee. In that submission, it was agreed that the General Manager of Water and Wastewater would report on the biosolids program costs. This report identifies costs for the 100 percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program and required design/build projects.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The process for selection of beneficial use contractors was developed by the City's biosolids consultants, R.V. Anderson Associates Limited and Brown and Caldwell, together with staff, and with extensive public consultation with the BMSC and IRC. A two-stage selection process was used which began with a request for Expressions of Interest (EOI) and then a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued to firms that had been short-listed from the EOI phase. The key milestone dates were:

Issue request for EOIAugust 14, 1998

Receive EOIs from 16 firmsSeptember 8, 1998

Shortlist to 7 firmsSeptember 22, 1998

Issue Request for ProposalSeptember 28, 1998

Perform Due Diligence inspectionsOctober-December, 1998

Receive proposals from 5 firmsDecember 16, 1998

The RFP limited the beneficial use options for respondents to two types of technologies: direct land application, and pelletization by thermal drying. Direct land application involves loading the biosolids onto trucks at the MTP and delivering it to farmland for use as a fertilizer. The biosolids are produced, processed, analysed, transported, stored, and applied according to guidelines developed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The guidelines are designed to protect humans, animals, plants, ground water and surface water, and to ensure that biosolids are applied in a safe and beneficial manner. Biosolids may also be land applied to disturbed sites such as mine tailings for site remediation. In pelletization, the biosolids are dried to produce a small stable pellet that can be used in the production of commercial fertilizer or sold as a bulk fertilizer product.

Only proven technology and firms with demonstrated successful operations were selected to participate in the City's program. The evaluation process included tours of representative facilities by consultant team members, staff, and BMSC members (on IRC) to assess the Respondents' capabilities and to verify successful operations. A detailed technical, financial, and price review was conducted using a project-specific evaluation strategy. This included systematic scoring of both technical/financial components which accounted for 66.7 percent of the total score, and price which accounted for 33.3 percent of the total score. Firms were requested to provide proposals for the processing of 10,000 dry tonnes (0 percent water) per year, 25,000 dry tonnes per year and their optimum volume of biosolids not to exceed 25,000 dry tonnes per year for each technology proposed. Firms proposing pelletizing were also requested to provide proposals for facilities to be fully owned, operated and built privately or to be designed and built by the contractor and following commissioning transferred to the City. Marketing and distribution services for the pellets are to be provided by the successful firm for both private and public operation options.

Respondents were requested to provide a unit price per dry tonne for direct land application of biosolids for a period of four years and for the fully privately owned and operated pelletizer option for a period of 15 years. Under the City owned and operated pelletizing facility option, the Respondents were to provide a lump sum price for the design, construction and commissioning of the facility. All respondents that proposed to construct a facility at the MTP were required to submit prices for both the fully privately owned and operated and City owned and operated options. The Respondents were also required to submit a per tonne price for any contractor owned/operated portion of the pelletizer's proposal, which includes the transportation, marketing and beneficial use of all pelletized biosolids produced at the MTP.

The technical/financial evaluation and scoring were based on the following criteria:

(1)Experience and capabilities;

(2)Technical issues;

(3)Odour control;

(4)Environmental health and safety;

(5)Beneficial use/product marketing;

(6)Flexibility/expansion;

(7)Performance guarantees;

(8)Public consultation plan;

(9)City biosolids program; and

(10)Financial capabilities.

The financial capabilities/stability criteria evaluation was conducted by the City's Finance Department based on the financial information requested from each Respondent.

When the technical/financial scoring and ranking had been completed, the price proposals were then opened and total score and ranking was completed.

The evaluation next considered the optimal program for meeting the City's objectives for a reliable beneficial use program as the best value for ratepayers. From the top ranked Respondents, a recommended program was developed considering an appropriate mix of technologies, biosolids quantities, and qualified firms. Throughout the development of the 100 percent utilization program, there has been consensus that diversity and multiple contracts are a key for long-term success. The recommended program is a direct reflection of this.

From the original shortlist of seven firms, five proposals were submitted from the following firms:

(i)Berlie Technologies (La Prairie, Quebec) - biosolids pelletizing;

(ii)Braemar Acres (York, Ontario) - biosolids direct land application and pelletizing;

(iii)Canadian Waste (submitted EOI as AGRA Bio Gro) (Oakville, Ontario) biosolids direct land application and pelletizing;

(iv)Terratec Environmental Limited (Oakville, Ontario) - biosolids direct land application; and

(v)USF Canada Inc. (Markham, Ontario) - biosolids direct land application and pelletizing.

Toronto Biosolids Program:

To provide diversity and stability, the City has envisioned a 100 percent biosolids utilization program that will have multiple contracts and technologies. Flexibility was included in the RFP and proposal evaluation process to allow the City to select any mix of technologies and biosolids quantities offered by each respondent to best suit the needs of the City. The value of diversity has been recognized by other municipalities and the IRC from the perspective that other elements of the program can take over if events cause one element to lose viability. For Toronto, it was determined after the EOI stage that direct land application and pelletization represented the best mix of technologies.

Submittals were divided into two categories, direct land application of dewatered MTP biosolids and thermal pelletization. Separate evaluations were conducted for each technology.

In general, the per tonne unit cost for drying and pelletization of 10,000 dry tonnes per year was almost twice the cost of the 25,000 dry tonne per year option. This can be attributed to the economies of scale for handling larger biosolids quantities. Much of the capital costs related to site preparation and facility construction would be required regardless of whether 10,000 or 25,000 dry tonnes per year was processed. Distribution of the capital costs over a larger quantity of biosolids results in a significantly reduced price for the processing of 25,000 dry tonnes per year. Based on these considerations and the value of maximizing flexibility and diversity, it is recommended that the program include a 25,000 dry tonne per year pelletization component.

In consideration of whether the proposed biosolids pelletizing facility should be privately or publicly operated, several factors were evaluated. Prices for both fully private operation and City owned and operated options were assessed in addition to other factors which led to the conclusion that the City owned and operated option was the preferred alternative. The pelletizing facility will be located at the MTP within an existing building and within the biosolids dewatering, storage and former incinerator complex, making private operation less desirable due to possible conflicts with the City's ongoing operations. From an economic point of view, the City's per tonne operations cost would not include any profit mark up as would be included in the private operations option and it is envisioned that the City will be able to operate the facility at or below the private operation unit per tonne cost. Based on the costs for the contractor provided marketing and distribution of the pellets, amortized capital costs and the City's projected operations and maintenance costs, we estimate that the cost to the City of the pelletizing facility under full private operation would be greater than the cost for the facility to be fully publicly owned and operated.

Quality control of the dried pellets produced by the pelletizing facility is critical in ensuring marketability. Proper operation of the dryer is essential to guarantee product quality. Accordingly, it is recommended, based on the advice and experience of our consultants, that there be a transition to public operation, over a period of 24 months after completion of the facility. During this period, the private contractor would be fully responsible for the operations and training of City staff. The details of the transition would be finalized during negotiation. To ensure efficient and economic City operation, the City's performance and cost of operating the facility can be monitored and compared against the private operation price presented in the proposals. The contractor will continue to be responsible for transportation, storage, marketing and distribution of the pellets for a period of 15 years during both the private and public operation phases of the drying facility, in accordance with the requirements of the City's RFP.

Based on the evaluation of the technical, financial and price proposals and the preference to retain the option for a city operated facility, USF Canada Inc. is recommended as the drying contractor.

USF's proposal ranked highest in the pelletizing technology category under the preferred public operation option. In particular, the USF indirect drying/pelletizing process had attractive features from the standpoint of emissions control, safety and low energy consumption. USF presented a strong project team for technology, design construction, public participation and operation and reuse of existing MTP building foundations and proximity to plant dewatering processes were considered in recommending USF to design and construct the pelletizing facility.

USF Canada has proposed to design and construct a two train biosolids pelletizer with capacity to process 25,000 dry tonnes per year on average and the ability to handle peak volumes of up to 32,500 dry tonnes per year for a lump sum price of $22,235,959.00. USF's design and construction cost is reasonable in comparison to similar facilities constructed in other jurisdictions. IRC members with experience and knowledge in biosolids beneficial use have confirmed that USF's cost for the construction of the pelletizer is highly competitive.

USF has proposed to locate the pelletizing facility in a new building at the MTP where incinerators Nos. 1 and 2 were previously located and reusing the existing floor and foundation. Following demolition of these incinerators in 1992, this area is presently unused and available for installation of the proposed biosolids pelletizing facility. The USF pelletizer is an indirect (meaning heated plates in lieu of hot air is used to dry the biosolids) vertically oriented drying system. Several installations are operating successfully in the United States and Europe.

In accordance with their proposal, USF Canada will also be responsible for the transportation, marketing and beneficial use of the biosolids pellets for the unit cost of $13.35 per dry tonne for a period of 15 years.

For the reasons identified above, we also propose to enter into negotiations with USF for a two year operations, management and training contract. Council approval to enter into the agreement will be sought following successful negotiation.

USF will be required to post a Performance Bond and a Payment Bond, each in the amount of 50 percent of the agreed capital cost to design, build and commission the proposed facilities. The Performance Bond will guarantee the construction, completion and commissioning of the facility as set out in the contract. The Payment Bond will guarantee the payment for labour and materials.

In the direct land application category, Terratec ranked highest following the technical and price evaluation. They presented strong qualifications and experience in all categories including innovation in solids handling, pro-active public consultation and strong technical support staff. Technical support and pro-active public consultation are critical elements in ensuring continued success of a biosolids land application program. Terratec is in a position to easily implement the land application component as currently scheduled with minor expansion of their existing storage facilities. Other municipal jurisdictions that have dealt with Terratec were extremely satisfied with Terratec's performance and good relations with the agricultural community.

In accordance with their proposal, Terratec will be responsible for receiving dewatered biosolids at the MTP and transportation to either storage or direct land application on appropriately permitted agricultural lands for a contract period of four years at a unit cost of $107.00 per dry tonne. Terratec will also be responsible for providing biosolids storage facilities sufficient for six months of operations during the winter and other periods when land application is not possible.

Earlier in the development of the program, it was envisioned that no one contractor would receive more than 25,000 dry tonnes of the City's biosolids per year. In consideration that the recommended City's optimal program will involve two contractors and that the City may produce an estimated 53,000 dry tonnes of biosolids per year at the MTP, it will be necessary to negotiate contracts with each recommended firm for biosolids quantities of up 28,000 dry tonnes per year with an expected minimum of 25,000 dry tonnes per year. This flexibility will also be required to address potential fluctuations in biosolids produced at the MTP from year to year.

Each contractor will also be required to provide operating security in the amount of $500,000.00 in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit to ensure that the contractor carries out its obligations under the services agreement. Appropriate indemnification and insurance provisions will be included subject to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

In summary, it is recommended that the biosolids beneficial use program for the City of Toronto consist of a contract with Terratec for direct land application of biosolids for a period of four years, and a contract with USF to design and build a biosolids pelletizing facility at the MTP and operate and train City staff for a period of two years. Marketing and distribution of the pellets is to be handled by USF for a period of 15 years.

The IRC at its meeting of January 25, 1999, concurred with the recommended City program as developed by the consultants and staff.

It is recognized that due to the very tight schedule for implementing the 100 percent biosolids utilization program, some consideration may need to be given to short-term emphasis on direct land application. Practical construction scheduling for the pelletizing facility is dependent upon contract negotiation, early design and project definition, odour/emission modelling and MTP facility integration issues.

Design/Build Contracts to Support Beneficial Use Program:

In order to support the beneficial use contracts described above, and to allow the shut down of incineration, it is necessary to construct modifications to the MTP. These modifications will replace some of the services currently provided by incineration. The required modifications are:

(1)The installation of a biosolids loading facility to allow for the removal of biosolids from the MTP by the land application contractors. A new loading facility is required, as the existing temporary loading facility has a maximum handling capacity of 270 cubic metres per day while the MTP can produce up to 800 cubic metres per day of biosolids. The existing temporary facility also does not provide sufficient storage capacity and was not intended to provide the high level and quality of service required by the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program. The new facility will provide up to 2,000 cubic metres of storage and be able to handle the MTP's peak biosolids production. It will provide faster and better truck loading, reduced traffic congestion, increased reliability and improved odour containment. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the new loading facility is $30,000,000.00.

(2)The MTP currently uses the heat produced by the combustion of the biosolids in the incinerator to produce steam that heats the plant's buildings in the winter and the digestion process all year round. With the shutdown of incineration, the MTP will not be able to produce enough heat during the winter months. It is therefore necessary to install additional boilers and make modifications to the plant's heating system to allow the MTP to continue operating. The preliminary capital cost estimate for the new heating system is $15,000,000.00.

(3)Incinerators are very effective in destroying odours due to the high temperature conditions inside the incinerator. The MTP makes use of this feature by sending odorous air from parts of the plant to the incinerator for odour control purposes. With the shutdown of incineration and the construction of the new loading facility, it will be necessary to construct new odour control facilities. These facilities will treat odorous air from the dewatering building, the existing loading facility and the new loading facility. Air samples from multiple locations at the MTP are currently being analyzed for odorous compounds, to assist in the design of the new odour control facilities. The new system will be designed to meet the same high standards specified in the beneficial use RFP. It is envisioned that a multi-stage scrubbing system will likely be employed to ensure complete odour control at all times. The preliminary capital cost estimates for the new odour control facilities are $10,000,000.00.

The time available to design and construct these facilities is very short and a design/build delivery method will be utilized to ensure they are operational prior to December 31, 2000. The Purchasing and Materials Management Division of the Finance Department will assist in the issuing, evaluation and awarding of the design/build contracts in order to ensure compliance with all City policies and procedures. The three projects will be bundled into two contracts: (1) for the design and construction of the biosolids loading facility and odour control facility; and (2) for the design and construction of plant heating facilities.

The procedure and timeline being followed for planning purposes for procurement of these contracts is as follows:

Advertise for Letters of InterestJanuary 26, 1999

Issue Request for Qualifications (RFQ)February 12, 1999

Receive Statements of Qualification March 11, 1999

Report on RFP to Works and Utilities CommitteeMarch 24, 1999

Short list respondentsMarch 29, 1999

Issue Request for Proposal (RFP) to Short listed FirmsApril 15, 1999

Receive ProposalsJune 14, 1999

Recommend Award to Works and UtilitiesJuly 14, 1999

All facilities operational December 31, 2000

The method to be used for short listing is one adapted from the Canadian Construction Association for design/build projects. Respondents to the RFQ will be evaluated against the criteria attached in Appendix A. The RFQ will request respondents to provide the information necessary to allow staff and the consultant team to evaluate the Statements of Qualification and shortlist a minimum of three respondents for each project. This procurement strategy is consistent with that developed by the BMSC and IRC for the beneficial use projects. The progress of these design/build projects will be reviewed by the public on a regular basis at the Main Treatment Plant Neighbourhood Liaison Committee meetings. Additional details and refined cost estimates will be reported to the Works and Utilities Committee as they become available.

Prior to the award of contracts for these design/build projects, a further report will be submitted with more precise cost estimates resulting from completion of the preliminary design.

Conclusions:

We believe the evaluation of Proposals for the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program has been fair and comprehensive with a high degree of public involvement through the BMSC and critical peer review by the IRC throughout the development of the program, evaluation and selection process.

The two firms recommended to be awarded contracts for the Beneficial Use Program, Terratec Environmental and USF Canada, have demonstrated capabilities and will provide the City's Biosolids Beneficial Use Program with diversity and flexibility through proven technology.

Incinerator shutdown at the MTP will follow construction of the ancillary design/build facilities at the MTP and full implementation of the 100 percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program.

This report has been reviewed by the City Legal Services Division and Finance Department.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director, Water Pollution Control

Telephone: (416) 392-8230; Fax: (416) 397-0908

e-mail: bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

   Request for Qualifications

Main Treatment Plant Truck Loading and Odour Control Facilities

Appendix A

Evaluation Criteria

for Statement of Qualifications

Mandatory submissions required regarding financial resources:

(A)Certified, audited, financial statements, and

(B)Letter from Bonding Agency.

The criteria to be used in evaluating SOQ submittals include the following:

(1)Corporate Structure - Design/build team organization and defined roles will be evaluated. Design/build teams with previous working relationships on successfully completed projects will receive a more favourable review.

(2)Construction Capability - Annual value of related construction (average over last 5 years) and value of construction of largest single successfully completed project over $10 million (within the last 5 years) will be evaluated. Experience and qualifications on wastewater biosolids (or similar) projects will receive a more favourable review.

(3)Qualifications of Personnel Assigned To The Project - Project management and Quality Assurance/Quality Control experience of Project Manager, Construction Manager and Senior Project Designer, will be rated based on details provided. Experience and qualifications on comparable wastewater biosolids (or similar) projects will receive a more favourable review.

(4)Design/Build Experience - Previous design/build projects successfully completed by the Designer and the Constructor will be evaluated and rated based information submitted on Projects Information Forms.

(5)Related Design Experience - Proponents with proven performance records for design of biosolids handling facilities with pumping, conveying and storage of biosolids cake with a total solids concentration, of 25 - 30 percent, and wastewater treatment odour control systems, of a similar size to the proposed facilities, will receive a more favourable review. Evaluations will be based on information submitted on Project Information Forms.

(6)Related Construction Experience - This will include a variety of rating criteria considering number of similar projects and project descriptions addressing time frame, scale, and location Evaluations will be based on information submitted on Project Information Forms.

(7)References - Findings from communications with project references will be evaluated and rated.

Request for Qualifications

Main Treatment Plant Heating

Evaluation Criteria

for Statement of Qualifications

Mandatory submissions required regarding financial resources:

(A)Certified, audited, financial statements, and

(B)Letter from Bonding Agency.

The criteria to be used in evaluating SOQ submittals include the following:

(1)Corporate Structure - Design/build team organization and defined roles will be evaluated. Design/build teams with previous working relationships on successfully completed projects will receive a more favourable review.

(2)Construction Capability - Annual value of related central heating plant construction (average over last 5 years) and value of construction of largest, single, successfully completed central heating plant project (within the last 5 years) will be evaluated. Experience and qualifications on central heating plants for wastewater (or similar) projects will receive a more favourable review.

(3)Qualifications of Personnel Assigned to the Project - Project management and Quality Assurance/Quality Control experience of the Project Manager, Construction Manager and Senior Project Designer will be rated based on details provided. Experience and qualifications on central heating plants for wastewater (or similar) projects will receive a more favourable review.

(4)Design/Build Experience - Previous central heating plant experience on design/build projects successfully completed by the Designer and the Constructor will be evaluated and rated based on information submitted on Project Information Forms. Design/build experience for central heating plants fuelled completely or in part by digester gas will receive a more favourable review.

(5)Related Design Experience - Proponents with proven performance records for design of central heating plants for wastewater treatment plants and other facilities, of a similar size and nature to the proposed facilities will receive a more favourable review. Evaluation will be based on information submitted on Project Information Forms.

(6)Related Construction Experience - This will include a variety of rating criteria considering number of similar projects and project descriptions addressed time frame, scale, and location. Evaluation will be based on information submitted on Project Information Forms.

(7)References - Findings from communications with project references will be evaluated and rated.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following report (February 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide the Committee with information requested by the Budget Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no financial implications arising from this report. Any financial implications would arise from adoption of one of the presented methods or combination thereof as the future plant operation strategy.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Main Treatment Plant (MTP), the largest water pollution control plant operated by the City, has been using incineration for the last fifty years as a method of disposal of sludges/biosolids generated during the wastewater treatment process.

On September 24, 1997, the former Metropolitan Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 8 of Report No. 12 of the Environment and Public Space Committee, titled "Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment Implementation Plan", which endorsed the conclusions of the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment, including the phased implementation of Biosolids Beneficial Use following the completion of four demonstration programs.

In mid 1996, the plant started to beneficially utilize a portion of its biosolids (about 35 percent) under two demonstration projects operated by private contractors. Under one of them, biosolids were directly applied to agricultural land in southwestern Ontario and the other used the material for minetailing remediation in northern Ontario. We are negotiating a termination of one of the projects, and the other, the land application contract, is still in operation.

In January, 1998, the Works and Utilities Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the feasibility of accelerating the shutdown of incineration at the MTP.

By adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 6 of the Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, City Council authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to establish the Biosolids Multi-Stakeholder Committee (BMSC) and Independent Review Committee (IRC), retain consultants and request proposals to allow for the shutdown of sewage sludge incinerators at the MTP within a three-year period. This initiative is now known as the Toronto Biosolids Beneficial Use Program.

At its meeting of July 28, 1998, City Council adopted Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of the Works and Utilities Committee, which contained an accelerated timeline developed for planning purposes by the Committee for the initial implementation of the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program. Subsequently, with input from the BMSC an aggressive timeline was set with the target date of December 31, 2000 for the end of biosolids incineration at the MTP.

At its meeting on February 19, 1999, the Budget Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the February 23, 1999 meeting of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee "on the cost of the treatment process through (i) incinerators, (ii) usage of the current equipment, and (iii) using 100 percent Biosolids, the said report to include the cost of any necessary replacement equipment."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The plant presently generates approximately 53,000 dry tonnes per year of solids. Out of this amount some 36,000 dry tonnes per year is incinerated, and 17,000 dry tonnes per year beneficially utilized by applying the material in the form of approximately 30 percent concentrated sludge cake to agricultural land in southwestern Ontario, utilizing the services of Terratec Environmental Inc., a private contractor. The combined cost of solids disposal using this method is approximately $113.00 per dry tonne. This cost does not include any capital cost of the equipment involved, as it is assumed to be already amortized.

In case the sludge incineration process would be adopted as a preferred method for disposal of all the sludge solids presently generated at the MTP, the existing multiple hearth incinerators would have to be replaced with the new fluidized bed units and the state of the art emission control system installed. New ash dewatering facilities would also have to be constructed.

The sludge disposal cost using this method including Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs as well as the capital costs amortized over a 20 year period would reach approximately $282.00 per dry tonne.

The cost of the MTP solids disposal based on the proposed 100 percent Beneficial Use of Biosolids includes the amortized capital cost of the necessary new facilities (e.g. biosolids load-out facility, odour control facility and heat generation facility, replacing the incinerator heat recovery boilers), as well as the operation costs quoted in the recently received proposals for direct land application of 50 percent of the biosolids generated at the plant, plus heat drying, pelletization and marketing of the other 50 percent of biosolids. This combined cost would come to approximately $280.00 per dry tonne.

In the Appendix "A" enclosed we provide calculations of the unit costs presented above and their basis.

Conclusions:

The presently used method of the MTP sludge disposal, which is incineration of the part of the volume of solids using existing and already paid down equipment, plus land application of the remaining volume of solids utilizing services of a private contractor represents the lowest cost of $113.00 per dry tonne, however, this must be balanced with the eventual need to replace the existing equipment.

The costs of incineration versus beneficial use of 100 percent of the plant generated biosolids (both methods require replacement of existing and/or addition of new facilities) represent a higher than presently incurred costs and are quite similar. However, the cost of incineration which is $282.00 per dry tonne is still $2.00 per dry tonne (0.7 percent) higher than the cost of beneficial use of biosolids.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director

Water Pollution Control

Telephone: (416) 392-8230

Fax: (416) 397-0908

e-mail: bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

Appendix "A"

Main Treatment Plant Solids Disposal Costs

Using existing method and equipment:

(1)Incineration of approximately 36,000 dry tonnes of solids per year in the multiple hearth incinerators;

(2)Land applying of approximately 17,000 dry tonnes of solids per year utilizing services of a private contractor.

(3)Capital cost of any equipment used is assumed amortized.

Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost $6,000,000.00

Unit cost @ 53,000 dry tonnes per year $113.21 per dry tonne

Incineration of 100 percent of solids generated:

Capital cost of 3 new fluidized bed incinerators$48,000,000.00

including heat recovery boilers and emission control

Building to house the new units$20,000,000.00

Ash dewatering facilities$15,000,000.00

Replacement of the plant heating system from $7,500,000.00

steam to hot water based

Engineering plus contingencies$12,750,000.00

Sub-total $103,250,000.00

Capital cost amortized over 20 years $9,575,715.00 per year

Operation and maintenance cost (O&M) $5,390,000.00 per year

(including ash handling and disposal)

Total$14,965,715.00 per year

Unit cost @ 53,000 dry tonnes per year$282.37 per dry tonne

100 percent beneficial use of biosolids:

Capital cost of the required facilities:

(based on design/build contracts)

Biosolids loading facility$30,000,000.00

Heat generation facility to replace incinerator heat$15,000,000.00

recovery boilers (includes change from steam to hot water

Odour control facility$10,000,000.00

Sub-total$55,000,000.00

Amortized over 20 years $5,100,865.00 per year

Land application of 26,500 dry tonnes per year

@ $107.00 per dry tonne based on obtained proposal

from Terratec Environmental Inc. $2,835,000.00 per year

Pelletization and marketing of 26,500 dry tonnes per year

based on obtained proposal from US Filter Canada Inc.

Capital cost of $22,235,959. amortized over 15 years $2,062,229.00 per year

(as per contract duration)

Operating cost: Marketing and distribution $353,775.00 per year

Utilities $901,000.00 per year

Labour$3,085,130.00 per year

O&M cost of the auxiliary facilities by the City $500,000.00 per year

Total$14,837,999.00 per year

Unit cost @ 53,000 dry tonnes per year $279.97 per dry tonne

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (March 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide Council with information requested by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, at its meeting on February 23, 1999, had before it a communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended adoption of the report (February 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dealing with the implementation of the 100 percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommended to Council the adoption of the Recommendations of the Budget Committee and further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report, directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on March 2, 1999, on the present status of the Ministry of Environment approvals for the two companies recommended in the report dated February 8, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and on whether such approvals are time or otherwise limited.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Following a comprehensive selection process two firms, Terratec Environmental Ltd. ("Terratec") and USF Canada Inc. ("USF"), have been recommended to be awarded contracts for the Beneficial Use of Biosolids generated at the MTP. Each firm will be responsible for securing all necessary approvals from the Ministry of Environment (MOE) as required in connection with each firm's proposal.

Terratec has proposed to direct land apply dewatered biosolids from the MTP on agricultural lands and to provide biosolids storage facilities when land application is not possible during periods of inclement weather.

Based on Terratec being awarded a four year contract to apply approximately 25,000 dry tonnes of biosolids per year, it is estimated that 7,500 acres of land will be required annually. Terratec has indicated that they have already secured with farmers approximately 36,400 acres of land specifically for the land application of Toronto biosolids with 22,600 acres of these lands being fully permitted by the MOE. Terratec expects to have all lands required for the full four year contract term permitted by December 31, 2000.

Toronto's biosolids will be stored, as required, at Terratec's existing MOE approved biosolids storage facilities in Halton Region. Minor expansion of Terratec's storage facility will be required to meet the City's current requirements. Terratec has obtained approval from the Regional Municipality of Halton for the required expansion and they have initiated discussion with the MOE to amend their existing Certificate of Approval.

USF have proposed to construct a biosolids pelletization facility on the Main Treatment Plant premises directly adjacent to the City's existing facilities. USF have reviewed the MOE requirements for Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for Municipal Water and Wastewater projects and have consulted with the MOE's EA Branch. Based on the review USF has determined that a Class EA Schedule "A" approval applies to this project. As a Schedule "A" project, the pelletizer project is considered approved and may be implemented without following a more involved Class EA planning process. It is not expected that any difficulty will be encountered in obtaining the necessary MOE approvals to permit the construction of the pelletization facility.

Certificates of Approval issued by the MOE for similar projects have not been time limited.

Staff have initiated discussions with the MOE regarding approvals that the City must obtain in support of its Biosolids Beneficial Use Program. The next meeting with the MOE on this subject is scheduled for early March.

Conclusions:

It is anticipated that all of the necessary MOE approvals will be obtained, as required, by the recommended firms and the City, to meet the current timeline of 100 percent Beneficial Use of Biosolids produced at the MTP by December 31, 2000.

Contact Name:

Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director

Water Pollution Control

Telephone: (416) 392-8230

Fax: (416) 397-0908

e-mail: bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint communication (March 1, 1999) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto, and Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River:

   Purpose of Report to Council:

To report on the facilities visits undertaken by Councillors Bussin and McConnell (accompanied by S. McMinn of R.V. Anderson Associates Limited) between February 14, 1999 and February 21, 1999. The visit represents a due diligence check by Council on the February 8, 1999 recommendation by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Works and Utilities Committee.

Findings:

Please refer to Attachment "A" for a detailed itinerary and list of interviews/presentations

US Filter is a $5 billion (US) water and wastewater corporation with 26,000 staff and 140 member companies of which 90 are manufacturing firms. USF Operating Services operates more than 200 water and wastewater treatment plants.

Seghers Better Technology has 600 employees and annual revenues for 1998 of $180 million (US). The company specializes in development, manufacturing and installation of environmental technologies, including biosolids dryers, waste-to-energy equipment, fluidized bed incinerators, flue gas cleaning equipment, and wastewater treatment equipment.

Belgium

The Bruges Dryer Facility (14,000 dry tonnes per year) was started up in 1985, and is located in a mixed industrial/agricultural area, with the nearest farmhouse within 50 meters of the plant. The treatment plant and dryer is owned by Aquafin, the Provincial operating authority (similar to the Ontario Clean Water Agency) and operated by Seghers under a long-term contract. There was no odour from the dryer facility during the visit, and apart from some initial startup problems, Aquafin (and the Flanders Ministry of Environment) reported that the dryer was operating without problems. In the near future, Seghers will be installing a larger dryer to replace the existing unit.

The Antwerp Dryer Facility (10,500 dry tonnes per year) was started up in 1997 (after a competitive proposal process which included some of the Toronto bidders), and is located in an urban area, with a large office building within 25 meters of the plant boundary. Aquafin operates the treatment plant and dryer, with technical support from Seghers. The dryer is located in a limited space, replacing a demolished incinerator. Once again, Aquafin and the Flanders Ministry of Environment reported that apart from at start-up, there were no problems with odours from the dryer.

It should be noted that there are periodic odour problems at the Bruges and Antwerp wastewater treatment plants, but these are associated with the liquid treatment and not the dewatering/drying stage. Aquafin reported that the start-up problems were efficiently addressed and solved.

The Flanders Ministry of Environment applies an environmental assessment process very similar to that in Ontario, including full public consultation. Biosolids dryers are subjected to the most stringent (Class 1) process. Environmental standards used in Belgium are European Community standards, as a minimum. For odour control, Best Available Technology is the requirement. Enforcement of operating standards at treatment plants is undertaken by the Environment Ministry and the Municipality, with public complaints usually through the City or direct to Aquafin. There were no standing public committees associated with either facility.

Spain

The Sabadell Dryer Facility (13,000 dry tonnes per year) was started up in 1996, and is situated in an industrial area. The facility is owned and operated by the Junta De Sanejament, or Catalonia (provincial) government. This facility is not constructed or operated to the same high standards required in Belgium (and Toronto). As a result there was some damage to the equipment and poor housekeeping that resulted in odours within the dryer building. These odours were not evident outside the building. The facility is operated with only one operator per shift

The Besos Dryer Facility (60,000 dry tonnes per year) is under construction at the Besos (Barcelona) Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is owned and operated by the Greater Barcelona Regional Authority. The facility is located on the Mediterranean shoreline in a tourist/residential area, with a major new residential subdivision under construction within 300 meters of the plant. Immediately adjacent to the dryer building (within 20 meters) will be a pedestrian promenade leading to a park and zoo. A marina will also be developed near the plant.

In 1991, the Catalonia Provincial Government undertook preparation of a Biosolids Master plan that identified biosolids dryers as the preferred technology. The Region then implemented four full-scale pilot projects (including the Seghers dryer at Sabadell). Based on the results of the pilot projects, the Greater Barcelona government chose indirect drying as the preferred dryer option (due in part to the requirement for safety, low emissions and odours in sensitive tourist and residential areas). The Seghers dryer was selected for the Besos plant after a competitive selection process.

Summary

Based on the facilities visit, we support the recommendation of US Filter Canada, with Seghers dryer technology. Specifically we noted that:

(1)Facilities have been in satisfactory operation since 1985.

(2)Seghers is a well respected and successful Belgian manufacturer.

(3)USF is a large corporation with considerable experience in operation of wastewater facilities.

(4)Dryers are operating in a mix of climates and locations.

(5)Odours do not appear to be a problem with this dryer technology.

(6)Seghers has received repeat business.

(7)The Seghers dryer produces a high quality pellet without an offensive odour.

(8)Positive reports on Seghers were received from all the public officials interviewed during the visit.

(9)Barcelona has selected the Seghers technology for a major facility in a sensitive tourist and residential area on the Mediterranean.

If Council members require additional information on the Councillor's visit, videos, photographs and notes are available for review. For additional technical information, please contact the Consulting Team.

Attachment "A"

Facilities Visit Itinerary

February 14, 19991800 hrs Depart Toronto

February 15, 19991100 hrs Arrive Brussels

1400 hrs Arrive Antwerp

February 16, 19990900 hrs Arrive Seghers Corporate Office, Willebroek

Johny Cornille - President

Luc De Ryck - General Manager

Ronald Tize - Manager R&D

Olivier Pollet - Head of Proposal Development

Herman Sioen - Manager, Proposal Development

Tania De Roeck - Process Engineer

Tom Maestri - Division Manager, Seghers USA

Wallace MacKinnon - USF Canada

1300 hrs Arrive Bruges Wastewater Treatment Plant

Ronnie Labeke - Operations Director, Seghers

Patrick Brackenier - Area Manager, Aquafin

February 17, 19991000 hrs Arrive Seghers Office, Willebroek

John Pauwels - Inspector General, Flanders Environment Ministry

Gilbert DeGroote - Advisor, Flanders Environment Ministry

1430 hrs Arrive Antwerp Wastewater Treatment Plant

Wim Schrijvers - ,Operations Manager, Aquafin

Filip Dehing - Project Manager, Seghers

1700 hrs Arrive Brussels Wastewater Treatment Plant (Seghers Waste -to Energy Facility)

February 18, 19991030 hrs Leave Brussels

1330 hrs Arrive Barcelona

1500 hrs Arrive Sabadell Wastewater Treatment Plant

Bart Devesse - Regional Manager, Seghers

Paul Santos - Operations Manager, Seghers

1800 hrs Arrive Junta De Sanajement Office

(Provincial Government of Catalonia)

Tomas Cazurra Perez - Chief, Operations Department

1900 hrs Arrive Hotel

February 19, 19990930 hrs Arrive Area Metropolitana De Barcelona

(Regional Government of Greater Barcelona)

Antonio Palacios Anton - Chief of Operations

1130 hrs Arrive Besos Wastewater Treatment Plant (Barcelona)

Jaime Andrew Villanova, Contractor

1400 hrs Arrive Ajuntament De Barcelona

(City Government of Barcelona)

1500 hrs Visits completed.)

(A copy of each of the photographs appended to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(February 19, 1999) from Mr. Jim Chisholm stating his concerns and submitting recommendations regarding the award of contracts and procedure for the selection of design/build firms for the implementation of the City's 100 Percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program;

(ii)(February 25, 1999) from Mr. Jacques Elie, President & General Manager, Berlie Technologies Inc., requesting that Council reconsider the proposal submitted by Berlie Technologies Inc., with respect to the Biosolids Beneficial Use Program;

(iii)(March 1, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79, requesting that Council refer consideration of the award of the Beneficial Use Contracts and the Procedure for Selection of Design/Build Firms for the Implementation of 100 percent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program back to the Works and Utilities Committee for further consideration;

(iv)(March 1, 1999) from Mr. Colin Lambert, National Director, Health and Safety Branch, Canadian Union of Public Employees, requesting that Council refer consideration of the award of the Beneficial Use Contracts and the Procedure for Selection of Design/Build Firms for the Implementation of 100 per cent Biosolids Beneficial Use Program back to the Works and Utilities Committee for further consideration;

(v)(March 1, 1999) from Mr. Albert Smith, regarding the recycling of sewage sludge upon agricultural lands and the marketing of sewage sludge for commercial and residential use; and

(vi)(March 3, 1999) from Mr. Albert Smith, providing further clarification to his communication dated March 1, 1999, regarding the recycling of sewage sludge upon agricultural lands and the marketing of sewage sludge for commercial and residential use.)

 24

Update on Hostel Occupancy

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to its next regular meeting to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the following communication (February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council the adoption of the report (February 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, as amended by Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee.

Background:

The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, had before it a communication (February 11, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on February 11, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee and Council the adoption of the report (ii) dated February 11, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by deleting the word "only", so that such recommendation reads as follows:

"(2)the commitment by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department to expand hostel services by adding smaller full-standard facilities and developing a range of harm reduction shelters be supported; and".

--------

(Communication dated February 11, 1999, addressed

to the Budget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on February 11, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee and Council the adoption of the following report (ii) dated February 11, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by deleting the word "only", so that such recommendation reads as follows:

"(2)the commitment by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department to expand hostel services by adding smaller full-standard facilities and developing a range of harm reduction shelters be supported; and".

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of the Budget Committee, having:

(1)supported the following Recommendation No. (3) of the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, contained in the aforementioned communication (iv) from Councillor Jack Layton:

"The Advisory Committee send a letter to the Medical Officer of Health to work with hostels to deal with the health and safety issues associated with the current overcrowded conditions in the hostel system (such as TB, scabies, lice).";

(2)referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with Mayor Mel Lastman, communications (i) dated January 8, 1999, from the City Clerk and (iv) dated February 11, 1999, from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, with a request that she report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on March 24, 1999;

(3)referred the following motion to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, with a request that she report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on March 24, 1999:

"That the expansion of hostel services should include the expansion of public health initiatives to reduce the spread of communicable diseases, in particular TB."; and

(4)directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to develop the concept of "full-standard facility" guidelines and the implications of this definition for the program, and report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee.

Background:

(i)(January 19, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes on January 18, 1999, had before it a communication (January 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, recommending that:

(1)the City of Toronto adopt a no "No Room at the Inn" policy with respect to the provision of emergency shelter thereby ensuring that no one will be turned away from a hostel in Toronto due to lack of space;

(2)the City of Toronto make a commitment to replace all emergency shelter beds expected to be lost in the Spring of 1999 due to the closure of temporary winter hostels and renovations scheduled for Seaton House resulting in a loss of 150 beds; and

(3)the Shelter, Housing and Support Division report on the development of standardized rules for hostels;

and that the Council Strategy Committee recommended that:

(1)the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee be requested to adopt Recommendation No. (1), as adopted by the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, at its meeting of December 18, 1998, regarding a no "No Room at the Inn" policy; and

(2)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to review Recommendations No. (2) and (3), as adopted by the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, and address these recommendations in her report on spring hostel capacity and standard rules as requested by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, with a copy of this report to be sent to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes for information;

(ii)(February 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing a current update on the occupancy levels in the hostel system; and recommending that:

(1)the existing contract with the Salvation Army, for the Lighthouse shelter at 37 Dundas Street, East, be increased by 30 beds on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights effective February 15, 1999 to April 15, 1999;

(2)the commitment by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department to expand hostel services only by adding smaller full-standard facilities and developing a range of harm reduction shelters be supported; and

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

(iii)graphs outlining Shelter Services for Single Adults and Youth from January 1-31, 1999, and from February 1-9, 1999, submitted by the Shelter, Housing and Support Division; and

(iv)(February 11, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, advising that the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons on January 22, 1999, passed the following motions:

"(2)That the Mayor be asked to:

(a)convene the Emergency Planning Committee to develop a plan to establish permanent emergency shelters in both the east and west end of the City;

(b)declare a state of emergency in the City of Toronto in response to the homeless crisis; and

(c)open the armouries immediately as a short-term response to the current capacity shortage in the hostel system until such time as the new east and west sites are opened.

(3)The Advisory Committee send a letter to the Medical Officer of Health to work with hostels to deal with the health and safety issues associated with the current overcrowded conditions in the hostel system (such as TB, scabies, lice).

(4)That City officials meet with representatives of Oxfam, the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders and the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee to consult on emergency relief strategies.

The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Kira Heineck, Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, and submitted a petition, headed "House the Homeless! Open up the Armouries!", with approximately 500 signatures;

-Ms. Cathy Crowe, Queen West Community Health Centre, and submitted a brief from the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, headed "Why Open The Armouries?";

-Ms. Denise Toulouse, Anishnawbe Health Toronto;

-Mr. Gaetan Heroux;

-Mr. Michael Skidd; and

-Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons.

--------

(Report dated February 11, 1999, addressed to the

Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee from the

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services)

Purpose:

This report provides the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee with a current update on the occupancy levels in the hostel system and recommendations for meeting needs during the balance of the winter period.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The costs associated with this report are part of the normal expense of providing hostel services, and included in the Department's 1999 budget request.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the existing contract with the Salvation Army, for the Lighthouse shelter at 37 Dundas Street, East, be increased by 30 beds on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights effective February 15, 1999 to April 15, 1999;

(2)the commitment by the Department to expand hostel services only by adding smaller full-standard facilities and developing a range of harm reduction shelters be supported; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Department was asked by Committee to provide regular updates on hostel occupancy. This report is current as of the occupancy data up to and including Monday, February 8, 1999.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report addresses the specific concerns around adults and youth.

The actual figures for Monday, February 8, 1999, show the following:

    Beds Occupied Beds Still Vacant
Adult Women 341 27
Adult Men 1,203 47
Coed Youth 394 42
Coed Adults 473 13
Totals 2,411 129

It is staff opinion that the spare capacity for youth and for adult women is adequate. The occupancy numbers do not fluctuate very much from day to day, and relatively few women or youth are living rough (outside). Shelter serving these populations are not expressing serious bed shortages.

Therefore, our focus should be on adult men. Traditionally, this is the largest group of hostel residents and the group most likely to remain outside during cold weather. While the vacancy rate on Monday night (February 8) was still about 3.9 percent, staff feel this is too low and that more reserve is needed.

In particular, we are concerned about the adequacy of services during the days of Monday through Thursday when the Out of the Cold churches offer fewer spaces. Weekend capacity (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) is not a problem.

In summary, our concerns remain focused on adult men and for the periods of Monday through Thursday nights.

Accordingly, we have renegotiated the hostel contract with the Salvation Army Lighthouse to add another 30 new beds for men for those nights. This agreement is for the balance of the winter season.

Staff are preparing a further report on hostel needs for the spring and summer period. That report will be before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee at its next regular meeting.

Department's Focus in Expanding Hostels:

To the extent that more new hostels are needed in the future, the Department will continue to focus on expansion using two models. First, we will support smaller facilities that meet full hostel standards in terms of space, amenities, staffing and services. Second, we will support programs that use a harm reduction approach that reaches the very hardest to serve. This direction was also recommended by the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force.

The Department is opposed to the extended use of large facilities such as the armouries that do not meet hostel standards and that do not help residents with their longer term needs. That approach to service is regressive and does not reduce homelessness.

Role of the Red Cross:

Staff are negotiating a formal agreement with the Red Cross to provide emergency shelter for sudden emergencies. The recent operation of the Moss Park Armoury for two days during the severe snow storm is a good example of this role. This temporary use of the armouries is appropriate and supported by both the Red Cross and National Defence.

Included in this agreement is the purchase of the necessary supplies and equipment for a complete 150-bed shelter which can be stored, and put into service with just a few hours' notice. With this agreement, we will be able to respond to any sudden emergencies related to events such as severe weather, rooming-house and apartment fires, loss of heat and power, or other evacuations.

 Conclusions:

The extra 30 new beds for men will be sufficient for the balance of this cold season. Future expansion of the hostel system must be progressive and provide appropriate help to the homeless. The formal agreement being negotiated with the Red Cross provides the capability to respond to sudden emergencies and is needed in a large urban centre. This also makes the best use of the armouries.

Contact Name:

John Jagt,

Director of Hostel Services

Tel: 392-5358/Fax: 392-8758

--------

(Communication dated February 11, 1999, addressed from to

the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee

from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River)

At its meeting on January 22, 1999, the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons passed the following motions:

"(2)That the Mayor be asked to:

(a)convene the Emergency Planning Committee to develop a plan to establish permanent emergency shelters in both the east and west end of the city;

(b)declare a state of emergency in the City of Toronto in response to the homeless crisis;

(c)open the armouries immediately as a short-term response to the current capacity shortage in the hostel system until such time as the new east and west sites are opened;

(3)the Advisory Committee send a letter to the Medical Officer of Health to work with hostels to deal with the health and safety issues associated with the current overcrowded conditions in the hostel system (such as TB, scabies, lice); and

(4)that City officials meet with representatives of Oxfam, the Red Cross, Doctors without Boarders and the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee to consult on emergency relief strategies."

--------

(Communication dated January 19, 1999, addressed to the

Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee

from the City Clerk)

The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes at its meeting of January 18, 1999, had before it the attached communication dated January 8, 1999, from Councillor Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, forwarding the noted motion, as approved at their meeting of December 18, 1998.

The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes adopted the following recommendations and transmits the same for your consideration:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee be requested to adopt Recommendation No. (1) , as adopted by the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, at its meeting of December 18, 1998, regarding a no "No Room at the Inn" policy; and

(2)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to review Recommendations No. (2) and (3), as adopted by the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons at its meeting of December 18, 1998, and address these recommendations in her report on spring hostel capacity and standard rules as requested by Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, with a copy of this report to be sent to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes for information.

 25

Board of Directors for New Toronto Hydro Corporation

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to its next regular meeting to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having concurred with the Recommendation embodied in the following report (February 19, 1999) from Mayor Mel Lastman:

Purpose:

To update the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the status of the nomination process for the Board of Directors for the new Toronto Hydro.

 Recommendation:

It is recommended that the nominations for the Board of Directors for the new Toronto Hydro Corporation be submitted directly to Council for consideration at its meeting of March 2, 1999.

Council Reference:

At its meeting on December 16 and 17, 1998, Council appointed a Steering Committee to work with the search consultant to develop a slate of nominees for the Board of Directors for the new Toronto Hydro Corporation. The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had recommended that the issue be considered by Council at its meeting of March 2, 1999.

Conclusions:

The Steering Committee is in the final stages of considering citizen nominees. In order to give full consideration to this important issue for the City, the Committee will be prepared to forward its recommendation directly to Council for consideration in camera at the March 2, 1999, meeting.

 26

St. Patrick's Day Parade Events

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends that City Council approve the request embodied in the following communication (February 16, 1999) from the St. Patrick's Parade Society, for a Special Occasion Permit for the 12th annual Toronto St. Patrick's Day Parade:

The St. Patrick's Parade Society is a non-profit cultural organization set up to finance and manage the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade in Toronto.

On Sunday, March 14, 1999, the 12th annual Toronto St. Patrick's Day Parade will march down Yonge Street. This year we are very pleased to have Mayor Mel Lastman as our Grand Marshall.

I am writing to inform you that we are planning to enhance the Irish cultural experience this year with pre and post parade fund raising events. These events will be taking place on March 13, 14 and 17, 1999, at the City of Toronto's Metro Square at Metro Hall. The event has been sponsored by City Council and the venue is booked.

The proposed shows will feature both Canadian and International "Celtic Music Song and Dance". Also, Celtic arts will be displayed. We will be requesting that, in the Celtic tradition of St. Patrick's Day, a clearly designated section of the venue be licensed and that additional celtic foods be served by our caterer. A special occasion permit will be required.

I thank you for reviewing our event plans and look forward to working with you in creating a safe, rewarding cultural event for all who attend. If you have any questions or concerns about our event, please contact me at 905-737-8668.

 27

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Toronto Food Policy Council - Food

and Agricultural Quick Starts.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the following report to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

(February 1, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Environmental Task Force, advising that the Environmental Task Force on January 28, 1999, considered a report dated January 5, 1999, from the Food Policy Coordinator, Toronto Food Policy Council, and submits the following recommendations for consideration:

(1)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as co-chairs of the Toronto Inter-departmental Environmental (TIE) Team, be requested to coordinate responses to the actions listed below and described in this report:

(i)Council endorse the practice of increasing the purchase of Canadian organic food by the City; and that Council direct the appropriate City officials responsible for food service contracts to ensure that the purchase of Canadian organic food increases over the term of food service contracts between the City and food service providers;

(ii)the Board of Directors of the Toronto Housing Company prepare a report that investigates the opportunities to establish rooftop and on-site community gardens on residential buildings owned by the Toronto Housing Company, with estimates of costs and possible sources of funding;

(iii)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism prepare an action plan to increase the area of the City devoted to community gardening and the number of participants in community gardens be developed;

(iv)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prepare a report examining the feasibility of using steam generated from burning methane gas at the Beare Road and Keele Valley Landfill sites to heat greenhouse operations that would be run by non-profit or for profit operators under an agreement with the City; and

(v)the Human Resources Director investigate the program run by Husky Molding Company, which provides organic food to employees at discounted prices, which has resulted in a reduction of absenteeism and lower medical and drug costs; and

(2)the noted recommendations and accompanying report also be forwarded to the Board of Health for their information.

(b)Yards Rationalization Update.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having received the following communication:

(February 10, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that The Works and Utilities Committee received a report dated January 11, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the yard rationalization study, and directed that it be forwarded to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, together with the communication dated February 9, 1999, from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore - Queensway.

(c)Process for Providing Downtown Municipal Office Space to Replace Metro Hall.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having:

(1)amended Recommendation No. (1) (c) embodied in the following report by adding thereto the following words, "such contribution to exclude improvements within the perimeter colonnade of Nathan Phillips Square, and with priority given to improved below-grade pedestrian access from City Hall to the subway", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(1)(c)a practical contribution towards making real the City Centre vision of an enhanced municipal precinct anchored by City Hall and an upgraded Nathan Phillips Square, such contribution to exclude improvements within the perimeter colonnade of Nathan Phillips Square, and with priority given to improved below-grade pedestrian access from City Hall to the subway;"; and

(2)added the following new Recommendation No. (5) to the following report:

"(5)the schedule for the proposed RFP be such that a final report recommending action on the proposals received reach the November meeting of City Council."; and

(3)deferred consideration of the aforementioned report, as amended, pending consideration of the Office Space Rationalization Study:

(February 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to issue a Request for Expressions of Interest, generally as described in this report, soliciting responses that would provide timely delivery of the following elements in a financially sound manner, without exposing the City to significant risks:

(a)the sale of Metro Hall;

(b)the provision of a building or buildings close to City Hall to meet the City's need for downtown office and ancillary space, on the assumption that Metro Hall and 277 Victoria would no longer be available;

(c)a practical contribution towards making real the City Centre vision of an enhanced municipal precinct anchored by City Hall and an upgraded Nathan Phillips Square; and

(d)a net return to the City;

(2)following evaluation of the Request for Expressions of Interest, the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back through the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee and Corporate Services Committee on detailed terms of reference for a Request for Proposals including the same elements set out in Recommendation No. (1); and identifying the short-listed respondents who will be invited to make Proposals;

(3)the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to develop preliminary Planning Guidelines and Principles for the City Centre so that these can be incorporated into Request for Expressions of Interest;

(4)funds be provided from Transition Funding:

(a)in the amount of $130,000.00 to cover the City's costs of preparing, issuing and evaluating both a Request for Expressions of Interest and a Request for Proposals;

(b)in the amount of $70,000.00 for consulting services to help prepare the City Centre Planning Guidelines and Principles and evaluate proponents' responses to them.

(d)Service Level Harmonization.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having:

(1)endorsed the Recommendations embodied in the following report; and

(2)requested the Works and Utilities Committee and the Urban Environment and Development Committee to convene a joint meeting, as soon as possible, to consider policy issues, and report their findings to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the 1999 Operating Budget:

(February 19, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, recommending that:

(1)this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for service level recommendations as part of the 1999 Operating Budget process;

(2)the shaded "Baseline Service Level" and options for the programs outlined in Tables 1 and 2 have formed the basis for the 1999 preliminary Operating estimates, and be considered by the Budget Committee as part of the 1999 Operating Budget process;

(3)service level harmonization reviews within Departments continue through 1999 resulting in the determination of Baseline Service Levels and options for other programs and services;

(4)this report be forwarded to Community Councils and the respective standing committees;

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

          (e)Report from the Federation of Canadian

Municipalities (FCM) Board of Directors.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the following report to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

(February 1, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, recommending that:

(1)the "New Approach to Funding Urban Transportation in Canada" document be considered by:

(i)the Environmental Task Force;

(ii)the Toronto Transit Commission; and

(iii)the Urban Environment and Development Committee and that these committees consider the recommendation adopted by the FCM Board of Directors;

(2)the issue of mercury in sludges and other wastes be addressed by the Works Department in the development of strategies for solid waste disposal/diversion and biosolids management;

(3)City Council address Brownfield Redevelopment by incorporating the recommendations into our strategic plan, official plan and environmental plan;

(4)City Council endorse the recommendations of the report entitled "Greening Canada's Brownfield Sites" (See attachment);

(5)the CES (Working Group on Community Energy Systems) Study Tour report (see attachment) be received;

(6)the FCM Campaign for Pesticide Reduction (See attachment) be submitted to the City of Toronto Pesticide Sub-Committee for consideration;

(7)FCM and its staff in the development of an information package to alert municipalities about the possibilities for Carbon Credits and Trading;

(8)the Commissioner of Works, the Toronto Atmospheric Alliance and ICLEI be requested to work together to assist the FCM in the investigation and possible development of a Municipal Carbon Trading Collaborative; and

(9)the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report on the possible involvement of the City of Toronto in the Centre for Municipal Aboriginal Relations.

(f)Municipal Plan for Continued Provision of Benefits to Non-Social Assistance Recipients.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the following communication back to the Budget Committee for consideration during the 1999 Operating Budget deliberations:

(February 22, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that The Budget Committee on February 19, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)pursuant to Council direction, a fund be established for 1999 with an amount up to $400,000.00 gross and net, with the source for this funding to be determined through the 1999 budget process;

(2)the municipality provide benefits to non-social assistance recipients on a limited basis as outlined in this report;

(3)this report be referred to the Budget Committee; and

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

(g)Corporate Sponsorship Program.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having received the following report:

(February 18, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, updating Council on efforts to develop a Corporate Sponsorship Program; advising that the Corporate Sponsorship Program is intended to optimize the City's sponsorship benefits, ensure competitive access to City contracts, and promote the City's public image; that a six month development study funded by the transition project for amalgamation and service rationalization will be followed by reports to Council proposing a corporate policy and seeking authority to award a sales/marketing/program management contract; that Corporate sponsorship agreements may begin to impact the Operating Budget in the year 2000 if the project proceeds on schedule; that in the meantime, an interim corporate guideline has been established to direct sponsorship activities in 1999; and recommending that this report be received for information.

     Respectfully submitted,

MEL LASTMAN

Chair

Toronto, February 23, 1999

 (Report No. 5 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)

 

   
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@toronto.ca.

 

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links
© City of Toronto 1998-2005