TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION TEAM

REPORT No. 10

1Governance Structure for Heritage Services

2Progress Report on the Workplan of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

3Selection Process for Appointing Citizen Members to the Current Board of Health

4Amendment to the Terms of Reference of the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall

5Procedural By-Law Amendment to Permit Request for Recorded Votes at Meetings of Standing Committees and Committees of Council

6Toronto City Hall Renovations -Design Options for Committee Room 1

7Decorations Proposed by the Architects Respecting the Renovations to the Councillor's Offices and Council Chamber in Toronto City Hall

8Reporting Relationship of the Audit Committee and the City Auditor

9Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 10

OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT

OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION TEAM

(from its meeting on July 17, 1998,

submitted by Councillor David Miller, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

1

Governance Structure for Heritage Services

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, together with the following motion and the various documents and communications submitted at Council:

Moved by Councillor Adams:

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

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

and with the following requests:

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

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

(b)handle deputations expeditiously;

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

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

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

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the report (July 10, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to striking out the recommendations embodied therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

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

(2)six LACACs each nominate a representative to form one Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (TACAC) and that the TACAC report to the appropriate Community Council depending on where a particular site is located;

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

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

(5)staff support to TACAC be located in the Urban Design Section of the City of Toronto's Planning Department;

(6)a Toronto Museums Board be created, composed of representatives of each Museum Board or Advisory Committee and reporting to the Economic Development Committee;

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

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

(9)staff support for the local Museum Boards, Advisory Committees and the Toronto Museums Board, be provided from the City of Toronto's Culture Office;

(10)Heritage Toronto be composed of the six members of TACAC and the members of the Toronto Museums Board;

(11)preservation policies recommended by Heritage Toronto be reported to City Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(12)Heritage Trust, made up of members of Heritage Toronto, be the charitable foundation responsible for fundraising;

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

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

(15)Council adopt the following fundamental principles:

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

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

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

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

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

(16)the Chief Administrative Officer and Heritage Toronto be requested to jointly develop a Heritage Master Plan;

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

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

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

(1)referred the following motion to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on July 29, 1998:

Moved by Councillor David Miller:

"That Heritage Toronto act as an advocate for natural and human heritage to Council and City staff; and further, that Heritage Toronto be provided with adequate staff to monitor the City with respect to heritage policy development and preservation.";

(2)requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 29, 1998, with respect to the strategy/vision component recommended by the Special Committee, and to clarify the reporting process; and

(3)requested the City Clerk to forward the foregoing recommendations of the Special Committee to all of the deputants who appeared at the Special Committee at its meeting on July 17, 1998, and all interested parties, in order that they may provide comments thereon to City Council when this matter is being considered on July 29, 1998.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report recommends a general direction for structuring the heritage functions provided across the seven former municipalities and recommends the next steps toward implementation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Once the general structure has been approved, the rationalization of the financial and human resources will be reported through the 1999 budget process.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)to foster a partnership among citizens, Council, and City program staff which will continue to engage citizens in the development and delivery of City heritage policies and programs, the general structure of City heritage functions outlined in this report be approved, including:

(a)the continuation of the Toronto Historical Board, Heritage Toronto, comprised primarily of citizens nominated by the heritage community, and empowered to recommend to Council a Heritage Master Plan for the City, to recommend to Council heritage strategies and policies for all City programs, and to manage and distribute heritage funds donated privately;

(b)the establishment of a single Toronto Architectural and Conservation Advisory Committee organized into seven committees as follows:

(i)six LACAC panels comprised of citizens selected by and reporting to Community Councils as an integral part of the planning protocol on issues related to Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act; to be empowered to enforce Council's heritage by-laws; to recommend capital grants for preservation of heritage properties; and to help increase public awareness and knowledge of heritage conservation through plaquing, walking tours, lectures, etc;

(ii)a City-wide Preservation Commission comprised of representatives of each of the LACAC panels to report to the Urban Development and Planning Committee on heritage issues of city-wide significance and to coordinate the policies and strategies of the LACAC panels;

(c)the continuation of existing and the establishment of new site specific boards as required, comprised of citizens interested in the operations of individual sites and reporting to the Economic Development Committee, to develop programs, direct the operations, and manage resources allocated to museums and heritage sites; and

(d)the City Culture Office work with staff of other City departments to promote heritage issues in all City programs, provide staff support to the LACAC panels, oversee the overall portfolio of City heritage resources and allocate human and financial resources to specific sites for use by sites;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Parks, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the current Toronto Historical Board, the Scarborough Historical Museum Board, and the Executive Director of Human Resources arrange for integration of staff into the Culture Office and report to the Amalgamation Office on the timeframe, strategy, and budgetary impact for staffing the Culture Office in the longer term;

(3)the City Clerk report further on the process for citizen selection of LACAC members by the Community Councils;

(4)site specific boards and advisory committees be continued and their members re-appointed, and the Culture Office report to the Task Force on Agencies, Board and Commissions on the structure, size and composition of boards for the sites currently managed by the existing Toronto Historical Board;

(5)the Culture Office consult with the heritage community in developing a process for selecting members for Heritage Toronto and report further to the Economic Development Committee on a process agreeable to the heritage community;

(6)the City Solicitor, in consultation with all appropriate stakeholders, develop for Council approval any necessary by-laws and agreements between the City and Heritage Toronto, LACAC's, and heritage site boards;

(7)the Commissioner of Finance, in consultation with the Culture Office, report on the impact of the restructuring on the 1998 and 1999 budgets; and

(8)the appropriate officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Under the former municipalities, heritage services were managed and delivered through a variety of structures ranging from internal departmental staff to advisory committees and boards, to arm's length boards appointed by Council. Even where the governance structures were similar, the staff supports and program delivery were diverse.

In the summer of 1997, anticipating municipal amalgamation, heritage groups began to gather information regarding staffing, budgets, facilities, and functions of all arts and heritage activities in the new City and to discuss structural options. Heritage is of wide-spread interest in the community and earned the attention of staff groups, Council appointed committees and boards, independent heritage service organizations and the community at large.

The Municipal Heritage Alliance was formed in January 1997, consisting of staff and citizens municipally appointed to LACAC's, advisory committees, and museum boards within the borders of the new City of Toronto. Only these people are directly affected by government restructuring of heritage service, and therefore, the Municipal Heritage Alliance was the appropriate group in which to discuss structural models. There was agreement that heritage needs a stronger presence in the new City of Toronto. It was also agreed that the larger issue of developing heritage policy which will impact the heritage community at large would involve the voluntary sector in a consultation process.

In addition, the issues had been discussed at Metro's Roundtable on Culture; public meetings held by the Toronto Transition Team specifically on heritage; discussions within the Arts, Culture and Heritage Service Review Team to discuss transition issues; and a visioning exercise was held with arts, culture, and heritage staff and board members on February 26, 1998.

Numerous submissions were received by the Toronto Transition Team, which were used to formulate its final Recommendation No.(102) as follows:

"Council should create a new city-wide Toronto Historical Board, consisting of two committees, the Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (TACAC) and the Toronto Museums Committee.

The City's Culture Office should provide staffing to the Toronto Historical Board for the delivery of the following heritage services: heritage designation and conservation; monument and outdoor artworks maintenance; museums management; and natural heritage.

The TACAC should have local panels to ensure that the local perspective on heritage issues is maintained. The TACAC should work with the local panels on all matters relating to, but not limited to, Sections IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Toronto Museums Committee should oversee management of the City's museums in accordance with policy guidelines set by Council.

Existing arrangements for heritage designations and conservation and for museums management should continue until alternative arrangements are approved by Council, preferably early in 1998."

After the Transition Team report was submitted to City Council, many of the groups continued to meet to discuss possible approaches to restructuring. Board and committee members as well as heritage community representatives have taken the opportunity to appear before the Special Committee, in the context of the citizen nominations process, in order to advocate various positions on the governance structure. Staff do not make deputations, so the committee has not heard all points of view as yet. The Special Committee referred the issue to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for a report.

Given the numerous discussions that had already taken place, it was deemed repetitive to conduct a full-scale study and consultation process. To document the options available and to make available a reasoned proposal for discussion which had the support of the majority of staff and board members, the CAO requested the Culture Office to prepare a report. That report was circulated to heritage organizations and individuals who were asked to comment back directly to the Chief Administrator's Office. A letter dated April 7, 1998, made it very clear that the report was for discussion purposes only and the CAO had not yet formulated a position. Heritage Toronto also prepared a communication to many independent heritage community organizations indicating that plans had already been made to dismantle Heritage Toronto and urging them to oppose the report through a sample letter. Eighty-five written responses were received directly, two community meetings were arranged where 41 people spoke to the issue, primarily from the former City of Toronto, and hundreds of telephone calls were received and individual meetings attended. In addition, many communications were received by other staff and Council Members.

This review addresses only the governance structure of City departments and agencies delivering municipal heritage services and is not a review of the vision, policies, strategies, or operations. While a good structure should support the overall vision, the City master plan for heritage has yet to be developed. This report is intended to create a participative structure which will enable the City government to best develop the plan in a way that furthers heritage issues.

There is definitely no consensus on the structure which is most appropriate. This report, therefore, presents an independent assessment of the issues and is based on the principles of governance structure outlined in the approved Terms of Reference for the Task Force on ABC's which was intended as a guideline in determining the composition of municipal agencies.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(1.0)Context for Municipal Heritage Structures:

Much of the concern expressed during consultations stems from a misunderstanding of the scope of the issues and functions under review. It is therefore essential that the scope be described within the larger context to put the whole issue into perspective.

(1.1)City Role in Heritage:

The City of Toronto does not have stewardship, control, or influence over all aspects of heritage, nor should it. Sheldon Godfrey, former Chair of Heritage Canada wrote, "Our heritage is that each person has the right to define him/herself in terms of their own culture". Culture and thus heritage is created, documented, preserved, and retold in various ways by the people of the community individually and in groups.

Within the City of Toronto, there are virtually hundreds of individuals and groups, both formally constituted and informal, commercial and non-profit, who have taken on various aspects of this role. It was stated emphatically during consultations that heritage belongs to the people and the people should develop and control it. This is understood and supported. The City plays a specific role in heritage. Restructuring of the City function is intended to improve performance as it relates to the City's role in Heritage.

Municipal Role in Perspective

The City has a duty to:

(i)identify physical structures owned by others having heritage value and encourage owners to maintain and preserve such assets;

(ii)preserve and maintain the physical assets (natural and built) the City owns which are deemed to have historical significance and tell the story of those assets;

(iii)document government actions and preserve their records; and

(iv)make available to the public documentary history of the City's heritage.

Beyond that, however, municipal governments have also come to understand that a community rich in culture is attractive to its own residents and to its visitors. Culture enriches the quality of life in the community and helps to attract investment. It is therefore in the government's interest (on behalf of its residents) to encourage the community to develop culture, preserve it, and tell about it. This can be accomplished through funding of community initiatives, incentives, administrative support or professional assistance. The government might also provide training or educational courses to encourage interests in these areas. In some cases, the government may acquire properties, artifacts, or documents at risk in order to preserve them. In this way, the government may take a more participative role in service delivery. However, it is clear that the government's role is supplementary to the community's role in these areas.

There is a distinction between the broad heritage voluntary sector and volunteers who work at municipal museums and in many other ways in support of the City's programs. The voluntary sector is a collective term for all independent groups who form and conduct programs and activities mostly without government support or influence. City program volunteers refers to those who work within the government sphere usually individually donating their time, knowledge, and expertise toward delivering a government program. Citizen appointees are those who represent Council's interest by serving on boards and committees which oversee municipal services. Individuals may find themselves participating in one or all of these capacities.

(1.2)Sectors Impacted:

This report deals with the City's current role in heritage including its agencies and will impact staff and citizen appointees, but should not impact other sectors. There is no intention now, nor was there ever, to take over any part of the role served by individuals and groups in the community including any historical societies in operation now or in the future. The hope is that the diversity of citizen activity will continue and further encourage citizen-initiated activities. Non-municipal government entities are unaffected by reorganization that takes place as a result of municipal restructuring. Other than normal budget priority shifts, entities receiving municipal supports are also unaffected as are entities with which the government has operating agreements. It is intended at this point, to continue all services previously provided by any of the six former municipalities - no more and no less. Only staff of the municipality and municipally appointed committees and agencies are affected by the reorganization.

(1.3)Legislative Constraints:

The Ontario Heritage Act requires that a register of all properties designated under PartIV within a municipality be kept by the City Clerk. The legislation permits a municipality to establish a local architectural conservation committee, but does not require it. Where established, the committee shall be composed of not less than five members to advise and assist Council in all matters related to Parts IV and V of the Act which deal with designation of properties and districts.

(2.0)Existing Structures:

Although it is understood that heritage is a broad strategic and policy area involving many municipal issues, the two main operating components are preservation and heritage sites or museums. The provision of heritage services in the former municipalities have basic similarities. Each of the local municipalities has a LACAC to advise on matters under the Ontario Heritage Act. All seven municipalities operate museums or heritage sites in conjunction with citizen volunteers.

There are, however, some distinct differences among the municipalities. In East York, Scarborough, and York the LACAC's and the museum boards are separate entities. In Etobicoke, North York and Toronto the LACAC function and the museum functions are combined within one entity.

The other major difference centres on the amount of management control exercised by the governing body and how the functions are staffed. In East York, North York, Metro and York, museums and heritage sites are managed by municipal staff with citizens acting in an advisory capacity. In Etobicoke, the citizen board has budgetary responsibility and operational control, but staff are City staff reporting through the Parks and Recreation Department. In the former cities of Toronto and Scarborough, the citizen boards have full control of staff and budgets. The following illustrates the variations in structure:

The City owns some heritage sites which are operated and managed by independent non-profit organizations without operating subsidy from the City. These include Lambton House (operated by a voluntary organization), Casa Loma (operated by the Kiwanis Club), and Campbell House (managed privately and receives an operating grant from the City).

Appendices 1 and 2 illustrate the specific structures for LACAC and museum management in each of the former municipalities. Each of the former municipalities had a different model suggesting that each is workable for its circumstances.

During consultations, many people relayed stories and disappointing outcomes which resulted in destruction of important heritage features of the City. All of the stories concerned downtown sites. Examples include the John Street Roundhouse, the Rousseau site, Gooderham & Worts, and the properties in West Toronto. This is not surprising given that the majority of heritage sites are within the old City of Toronto boundaries. However, it does serve to illustrate that an arm's length Board is not necessarily more effective in advocating preservation than a City department might be. At the same time, citizens have criticized the actions of other former City of Toronto departments and have concluded that internal management of heritage cannot work. Since no internal department in the former City of Toronto was ever charged with heritage issues, as these were the mandate of Heritage Toronto, it is not surprising that the departments were not advocates for heritage issues. This is a correction that any new model should make.

It is a common assumption that a citizen run board is more cost effective and is more entrepreneurial. Although it is difficult to compare different entities for cost-effectiveness, some indicators may be useful.

(1)Heritage Toronto management staff salary scales are generally higher than City staff salary scales. This does not take into account whether they are more productive or effective, but it does demonstrate that it is not always safe to say that core City staff are paid at higher rates.

(2)A comparison of cost per visitor and percentage of expenditures funded by the tax base by museum is shown in Appendix 3. It demonstrates that arm's length board enterprises are not necessarily more entrepreneurial. Many of the sites managed by staff through citizen advisory committees showed a lower dependence on the tax base and lower costs per visitor. Although there may be sites which have the potential to reduce their dependence on tax base funding, none of the sites operating currently are even close to financial independence. The one exception may be the Pier which is scheduled to open in July and its financial success has yet to be determined.

It is also a common misconception that government operations cannot attract volunteers to work within the program and attract monetary donations. Keeping in mind the large differences in program size among the former municipalities, a comparison of monetary donations and volunteers working within the government program demonstrates that either structure can attract such giving. As an example, 250 volunteers donated 8,900 hours directly to Heritage Toronto programs and all of the other municipal programs attracted 150 volunteers donating 13,600 hours. This is in addition to the 140 volunteers serving on boards, LACAC's, and advisory committees throughout the City.

Many people expressed concern that preservation is not as effective if separated from museum management. Where the LACAC function is combined with museum management, the degree of attention paid to preservation is in competition with site management. No complaints were heard about museum management, whereas all complaints expressed were regarding efforts on preservation issues. This suggests that the separation of preservation from museum management would provide more focus on preservation issues. Most jurisdictions outside of Toronto keep these two functions separate.

Most people consulted during this review, suggested that change was needed to improve results on preservation issues, engage the voluntary sector more actively in setting government strategies, and establish interrelationships with other government program areas.

(3.0)Restructuring Objectives:

(3.1)Several Voices Required:

One of the common themes emerging from the consultations was that government needs to hear the heritage message loud and clear and that heritage issues should be either integrated or taken into consideration within many different government program areas. To ensure that this happens, it is necessary to strike a three-way partnership among Councillors, municipal staff, and citizens.

Any model which eliminates any of these components is unlikely to be as effective as a model which has a strong role for all three groups. To raise the profile of heritage issues, a structure is needed to ensure that heritage issues cannot be sidelined, but rather are considered within all municipal programs.

Sheldon Godfrey said, "Heritage preservation has focused on the tangible; the built heritage, the artifacts, the natural or scenic heritage, but citizens all have a different perspective and focus". It is for this reason that the City needs to engage as many people as possible in providing input into its decision-making process. Citizen engagement must go beyond a select few who may serve on a board or committee within the government structure. Council should receive the most informed advice possible respecting its role, its policies and its strategic direction for heritage. One voice and one perspective is not enough.

(3.2)Meaningful Citizen Involvement:

A primary objective is to increase meaningful citizen involvement. There has been the suggestion that citizen involvement cannot be meaningful unless citizens are empowered with budgetary and staffing responsibilities. Citizens currently serving in advisory capacities within LACAC's and museum advisory boards do not share this view. Most believe that their contribution has been meaningful and influential to decision-making. One cannot invalidate the positive impacts and experiences of those who serve in an advisory capacity.

In addition to the 140 citizens who currently serve on heritage boards and committees within municipal programs, it was estimated by a community group that the total voluntary sector consists of 130 organizations in which 15,311 volunteers contributed 5,877,400 hours annually. It should be noted that these organizations generally work on community heritage initiatives outside the government sector. Volunteerism should be encouraged both within the government program and in the community at large to maximize impact on the City as a whole. It is clear that local concerns are paramount in both preservation and site development and programming. Empowerment at a local level is essential, as is a city-wide perspective and overall policy and strategic direction provided by City Council.

To enhance citizen influence on decision-making, operations, and municipal strategies, a structure is needed which engages citizens where they have the greatest interest and direct access to Councillors. Citizen volunteers working within the government program complement staff.

(3.3)Accountability:

Heritage needs a framework of Council approved policies. In particular, strong measures to assist in heritage preservation need to be taken at the Council level. In addition, there is a need to ensure that the heritage program is coordinated to tell the story of the City in a compelling and engaging way. Program policy making authority needs to be retained at the political level to ensure that the government remains accountable to its electorate. Advice from all sectors should be encouraged.

Any group or individuals charged with spending taxpayer money must clearly understand their role and expectations and be held fully accountable to Council who is ultimately responsible for these expenditures. Council also has an obligation to ensure that municipal assets are maintained and protected at municipal government standards. Implementation of any model must ensure that this accountability is built in whether through staff reporting relationships to Council or citizen boards.

(3.4)Balance of Cost and Service Levels:

In consolidating City functions, the aim is to ensure that every part of the City receives the attention it requires and common principles of service are applied across the City. This is not to say that attention and service must be the same for every part. It is obvious that there are different concentrations of historically significant sites across the City. For heritage, equalized service means ensuring that all communities have common standards of excellence and relevance and equal access to heritage awareness programs. The City should also apply a common definition of "historical significance" across the City. The built environment and programming opportunities will continue to determine the funding and efforts allocated to each part.

All municipal services are expected to use resources as effectively and efficiently as possible to meet Council priorities. All sites should have available to them additional expertise in specific disciplines which were not generally available in smaller operations. An organization which provides flexibility in resourcing would be optimal.

Additional revenue generating opportunities should be explored as appropriate and as the opportunities arise. The Provincial museum grant program requires that each museum site have a curator and a citizen board (or advisory committee) responsible for operations. A structure which meets these criteria will maximize the potential for Provincial support.

(4.0)Rationale for Arm's Length Management:

Research and collective experience in assessing the need for arm's length management of specific functions suggest there are many reasons why a Council may choose to use this form of governance.

(1)decisions need to be independent of political influence;

(2)issues are multi-jurisdictional;

(3)a large percentage of funding comes from sources other than the tax base;

(4)the type of business or market environment requires operational flexibility outside of the rather stringent administrative policies of the government;

(5)the service need not inter-relate to other municipal programs and outcomes are identifiable and results are measurable; and

(6)efficiency and effectiveness of a program is dependent on citizen fund-raising and volunteer work.

With respect to heritage, issues are very much tied to political decision-making especially in the area of preservation where Council must be able to balance the many differing needs of the community. Legislation, in fact, requires that Council itself retain the authority to make designation decisions. The issues are not multi-jurisdictional since all properties are geographically based within the City borders. Heritage functions are highly dependent on tax base funding and are likely to remain so. Although some would argue that museums operate in a competitive market and compete for tourism dollars, there are few in the City which could be classified as commercial sites. Heritage costs money, but the benefits are deemed to be worthwhile, providing the City with an ambiance and texture which is attractive to residents and tourists alike. Heritage is intrinsically linked to many other municipal programs in arts and culture, parks, roads, libraries, archives, planning, economic development, tourism, special events, among others. It is true that heritage depends heavily on the voluntary sector to continue to do the bulk of the legwork required to maintain a history rich community. In the various cities' experiences, however, volunteers and outside funding have been attracted to this function regardless of governance structure.

There is no public policy rational to support an arm's length board. The community, however, wants to have an active role and certainly has the interest, time, and expertise to be so engaged in a variety of ways in the City's programs.

It is agreed that heritage should be strongly linked to parklands, archives, libraries, planning and other municipal programs. Some would have these City responsibilities moved into the heritage program. To maintain a strong relationship with these other functions, there needs to be a tighter relationship between those who plan and manage heritage services and those who manage these other municipal services. This is best accomplished by having a heritage program integrated within the municipal core structure and directed by and accountable to Council.

(5.0)Proposed Model for Heritage:

Appendix 4 contains a discussion of several models reviewed - some suggested by other stakeholders and some from other jurisdictions. None of those reviewed meet the objectives of restructuring to the extent of the model proposed in this report.

The proposed model outlines the general direction for structuring the municipal heritage services which most effectively meets the objectives set out in this report. The model is flexible enough to provide for growth and maturity of the functions over time because the scope and responsibilities of the individual entities can be further developed as the function grows.

This report suggests general guidelines for the size and composition of each entity and for the processes for selection of their members. However, additional work is required to precisely define the individual relationships, the precise size and composition of each, and to develop the selection processes. The recommendations suggest the next steps in moving toward implementation of this general direction.

(5.1)One Board or Several:

One of the key issues is whether all aspects of heritage should fall under one governing body, whether internal or arm's length. The Transition Team recommendation, the Heritage Toronto model, and the Heritage Community model all suggest that one overarching body is appropriate. There are a number of concerns with this approach.

One of the most consistent complaints was that preservation was not being given the attention, resources, and profile required to be effective. Part of the reason given was that the single board model would split attention among strategic issues, preservation, museum operations, and administration. One board which is all things to all people is not as effective if functions have to compete for attention. It is difficult for part-time citizen volunteers to remain focussed on all of these issues to the degree necessary. A distinction between preservation and museums is common in almost all other jurisdictions examined. Both functions require concentrated effort and often attract different individuals with specific interests in one area or the other. If entities are separate, appointments can be tailored to the specific requirements of each function.

A single heritage board consisting of both LACAC and heritage site management poses a problem in relating to Community Councils. Concentration of the LACAC on local issues and working closely with Community Councils is one of the essential ingredients in a workable structure. At the very least, local panels of a larger preservation board would be required. It would be preferable that the local panels be selected by the Community Councils.

Putting all heritage issues under one board which reports to one standing committee provides only one voice for heritage direct to decision-makers and concentrates these issues in a standing committee with a focus on only a portion of the issues that heritage deals with. The proposed model creates three different groupings of citizen bodies with focused attention and reporting through several different standing committees. In so doing, several voices for heritage are heard in several different contexts. In total, the profile of heritage is raised without one dominant governing entity.

One of the key advantages of maintaining several distinct entities reporting to standing committees is that the number of citizens appointed by Council and interacting with and influencing the political decision-making process is far greater than in a model which consolidates these into one entity. There are currently approximately 140 citizens appointed by Council to act for heritage. If one body were appointed, this number would be drastically reduced by about 75percent. Although many citizen groups might be continued, their delegated powers would necessarily be curtailed and their concerns would be filtered through the governing body.

Preservation is essentially a regulating process whereas museum and heritage site operation is a public service. It is increasingly necessary to raise funds through sponsorship, donations, grants and other funding-raising initiatives to support heritage sites. It is difficult to raise funds from those who are being regulated by the same entity.

The recommended model provides the greatest number of direct citizen access points to a number of standing committees, enables citizens to focus on the areas of their greatest interest, and raises the overall profile of heritage issues across the full range of related city programs.

(5.2)Preservation:

The Preservation role is to:

(i)establish the criteria for evaluating properties for their architectural and/or historic value or interest;

(ii)identify sites of historic significance and make recommendations on their listing or designation under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act;

(iii)advise Council on means of conserving heritage properties, including natural sites, through development requirements, agreements, restorations funding or purchase; and

(iv)help increase public awareness and knowledge of heritage conservation.

Issues related to property designation often arise when a property is put at risk through a development application. The Preservation function is therefore very much inter-related with City planning functions. Most issues are local in nature. However, the concept of "historical significance" and City policies respecting site designation and listing are City-wide issues. A structure is needed which recognizes both the local perspective and the City-wide perspective.

The Ontario Heritage Act is the enabling legislation which permits the establishment of a LACAC by a municipality. It is generally held that only one formally established LACAC is permitted. However, the Act does not specify how the LACAC must function and does not prevent delegation to panels of the formally established single entity. It is proposed that a single Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee be established and organized into seven committees. The Preservation Commission would deal with city-wide issues, but operationally, local LACAC panels would deal with local issues and processes. The governance structure chart indicates that the local panel recommendations pass through the Preservation Commission, but operationally, this is a formality rather than a decision-making process step.

The LACAC works within the site plan approval process to seek heritage-sensitive solutions on proposals, applications, and policies affecting heritage properties. Local panels of LACAC's would report to Community Councils on local issues. The Preservation Commission would ensure that City-wide issues are moved forward to the Urban Development and Planning Committee, establish common criteria for property designations and define the term "historically significant". The Preservation Commission would also provide the input to the Official Plan for heritage issues.

The size of the LACAC should depend on the number of properties and issues to be reviewed, the other functions and activities assumed by its members, and the interest of the community. A minimum of three and a maximum of 15 would be appropriate. The actual size and membership should be recommended by the Community Council to which the LACAC reports.

A local LACAC panel would be comprised of citizen members and one Councillor from the Community Council to which it reports. LACAC members would be chosen from local community groups or other knowledgeable and interested individuals from each district. LACAC members would be nominated by their respective Community Councils. Chairs would be selected from among its members and should not be members of Council. Each local LACAC panel would select a representative to form the single Preservation Commission required by legislation. It has been suggested that in addition to these six citizen members, another two citizens and two Councillors should be appointed to the Preservation Commission who do not sit on the local panels. There is merit to this suggestion, but further investigation is required to ensure that the composition complies with the intent of the Heritage Act.

Most people consulted during this review indicated that there was a need to separate the LACAC functions from other heritage issues in order to ensure that preservation issues were given appropriate focus and energy. However, there still needs to be a tie in to developing the overall policy and strategic direction for heritage beyond specific preservation policies. It is proposed that the Preservation Commission would nominate a representative to serve on Heritage Toronto.

Staff support to the LACAC's would be provided by the Culture Office which will work closely with Planning and other City departments to ensure that preservation issues are considered in reviewing development proposals or planning other physical structure changes. Budget for the LACAC's would be included in the Culture Office. The City Clerk is also required by legislation to maintain the property registry which is developed through the LACAC functions.

Some people suggest that the LACAC's should be resourced by staff outside of the municipal departmental structure in order to maintain independence. This approach is adversarial and in some situations has merit. However, in order to give heritage presentation status and clout within the City, it should be integrated within the fabric of the organization. The checks and balances can be provided through the partnerships with the voluntary sector and through Heritage Toronto. External staff can use the media as leverage to rally support in lobbying Council to favour heritage issues over development.

This structure enhances the profile of the preservation function and permits a concentrated effort on the function most criticized by the heritage community. By its composition and processes, it will represent the voice of the heritage community rather than staff or political views. In addition, it promotes consistency across the City and provides a voice to the strategic directions board. The LACAC's should also make recommendations on capital grants for preservation. LACAC members have traditionally also provided public education on architecture through walking tours, plaquing, lectures, etc. This should continue under the new structure.

(5.3)Museums:

Each heritage site or museum is quite unique and may have different program objectives and modes of operation. This diversity needs to be encouraged so that residents and visitors are offered a whole range of experiences and learning opportunities. Much of the volunteer interest is in supporting, planning, and working within specific museums and historic sites. In addition, provincial grants are contingent on having a citizen board for each of the sites funded. Appendix 3 shows that provincial funding is lower where sites are combined into common boards which serve more than one site or combine the LACAC function.

For these reasons, it is recommended that separate citizen boards be continued or established to oversee the operations of individual sites. However, each site differs in size and complexity and degree of the local communities' participation. There may be the need for a whole range of structures from program advisory committees, to operating boards, to boards which create long-term business plans, organize restoration projects, and manage fund-raising events. The structure should be appropriate to the individual needs of the sites and communities. An agreement between the individual board and the City should be developed to clarify the authority and responsibilities of each board with respect to budgeting, spending, staff hiring and management, operating policies and procedures, marketing, recruitment and coordination of volunteers and other activities.

Museum Boards would consist of citizens selected from the heritage community based on their knowledge and expertise in the field. Nominations should be made jointly by the Chair of the Economic Development Committee; the Commissioner of Economic Development, Parks, Culture, and Tourism; the Chair of Heritage Toronto; and representatives of the local Historical Societies or other heritage groups.

Staff would be provided by the Culture Office in order to maximize efficiency and provide the benefits of centralized professional services which some sites currently lack because they are small stand-alone operations. There may be a need to coordinate some activities such as marketing. This could be accomplished through the Culture Office and through board cooperation. Volunteers would be recruited by either staff or their boards and work along side staff and with the board directly.

It is likely that Council will consider the heritage budget as one program within the Culture Office. However, the boards will develop their own individual budgets and business plans and provide the justifications necessary. The clustered budget will be broken down into site specific allocations which would fall under board control once approved. The boards and advisory committees for museums may choose to meet jointly periodically to share ideas, cooperate in joint program development, exchange resources and make nominations to Heritage Toronto. Reports of the boards and advisory committees will be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee.

This structure builds on the citizen involvement essential to the success of the museum program which needs the volunteer resources and the input of the community to ensure that the program is both relevant and excellent. Coordination where needed can be accomplished through the Culture Office, through joint projects among boards, and through common overall City program strategies. An overarching museum board is unnecessary and would tend to diminish the enthusiasm and participation of volunteers who want to be accountable directly for program direction.

(5.4)Heritage Toronto and Heritage Trust:

Heritage issues cross functional boundaries and go beyond museum management and property designation. One of the key issues arising from discussions and consultations during this review was the need to have an arm's length citizen board to consider the overall strategic direction for the government role in heritage and to make recommendations on heritage issues which may impact departments outside of the traditional heritage functions. Beyond museums and preservation issues, these would include natural heritage, archives, libraries, archaeology, etc. It should also provide a vehicle for developing an innovative vision which builds on the synergies among the arts, special events and tourism. Although the name is retained, this entity would be quite different from the site management and LACAC function currently performed by the existing Heritage Toronto.

The objective is to establish an entity which is quite independent of the government structure. Heritage Toronto will advise the City on development of its heritage master plan. Members should be selected for their knowledge and expertise in the heritage field and may be high profile, respected experts in specific disciplines. To ensure that the membership is truly representative of the heritage community views, nominations should come from the heritage community directly. This will require that the community be organized to establish such a process. In addition, the museum boards should jointly nominate a representative to Heritage Toronto as should the Preservation Commission. A representative of the Economic Development Committee should also be a member. The Director of Culture should also participate as a non-voting member.

A sub-committee specifically structured to raise funds for heritage functions is also recommended. Since fund-raising is a different skill than policy and strategy determination, a separate committee is proposed for this purpose. The fund-raisers may secure funds which are ear-marked for specific projects or may be donations for general purposes. In addition, the Heritage Trust may initiate site specific fund-raising events in cooperation with site boards and staff. A membership program may also be a practical method of raising funds. However, the Heritage Trust activities must be coordinated with the site boards wherever admission privileges are part of the donation benefits. The specific structure of the Heritage Trust will have to be developed as part of the implementation process.

To maintain its independent perspective, Heritage Toronto would have its own small staff to assist the Board in conducting research, writing reports, and fund-raising. Heritage Toronto would determine how the funds raised would be spent, thereby having a degree of influence in the types of initiatives to be undertaken. It is expected that a board free of daily operating concerns can be creative in its approach to fund-raising thorough events which raise the profile of heritage in the community.

Knowledgeable advice suggests that fund-raising must be tied to programming and sponsorship activities in order to be effective. With cooperation among entities, joint ventures on specific fund-raising projects and operational agreements can be used to maximize the impact of fund-raising campaigns. There is no need for fund-raisers to have complete operational control over the functions being funded. Few fund-raising foundations have operational control over the functions which they fund.

(5.5)Summary:

The appropriate linkages must be put in place to ensure that all aspects of heritage are co-ordinated. This is accomplished through some cross-appointments to governing bodies, staff resources reporting to a common director and through overall Council vision and policies which links components at a high level.

Strategies and policies need coordination, but there is not the same need to ensure operations are consistent. This model is based on the premise that different approaches at each site are needed to meet the individual interests of the communities and provide diversity in the overall program. Necessary commonalities can be promoted through staff approaches without eroding the authority and distinction of the individual boards.

The structure engages all of the parties necessary to ensure that the heritage program is embraced by the City at several levels and that the components work together. This partnership among Council, citizens, and staff will promote cooperation and communication. The following illustrates the interactions and participation of the various entities proposed.

Conclusions:

The proposed structure creates a three-way partnership among Council, staff, and citizens to multiply the voices for heritage issues. It not only maintains citizen involvement, but expands it by involving more citizens in areas where they have particular interest and are able to interact and influence Council through several different standing committees. In addition, citizens will be empowered with direct operational responsibilities as members of citizen boards to manage site operations where there is interest, ability, and clear objectives to be achieved. Citizens will be formally engaged in developing heritage policies and strategies throughout municipal programs.

The structure maintains the local focus for preservation issues, but facilitates common application of city-wide principles and policies. Utilizing internal staff charged with protection of heritage concerns will serve to enhance the profile of these issues and encourage inter-departmental cooperation in achieving satisfactory outcomes.

The voluntary sector is not impacted by this reorganization, but may experience a simpler relationship with the municipal government and will have improved opportunity to guide the municipal agenda for heritage and impact decisions, not only for preservation and museums, but for all municipal functions with heritage concerns.

The model maximizes efficiency by streamlining top management, bringing compensation structures into line with municipal rates, sharing specialist resources and using the corporate support systems for administration. This will free up resources to be spent on direct programming instead of administration. It also provides the essential linkages with other cultural initiatives and eliminates duplication of functions across the several existing structures. The placement of staff within the larger cluster of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture along with Parks and Recreation enhances operational flexibility to marshal resources and expertise within the cluster.

The proposed structure builds a powerful partnership among citizens, politicians, and municipal staff which is needed to ensure that there remains a commitment to heritage issues throughout municipal service areas.

Contact Name:

Nancy Autton 397-0306

--------

Appendix 1Existing LACAC Structures:

Under legislation, the City may establish a committee which advises Council on designations and listings of properties of historical significance. In all cases, regardless of structure, this is an advisory body and Council may not delegate such authority. Council must retain the responsibility of weighing the many conflicting priorities of historical value, cost to the taxpayer, and development needs.

The number of listed and designated sites varies dramatically by former municipality. There could be many reasons for such geographical differences. First, the history may be concentrated in the central district since the suburbs are relatively new in historical terms. Second, the interpretation of "historical significance" could be very different by district. Third, the resources available to conduct research on properties may have varied significantly by district over time.

The existing LACAC functions are delivered as follows:

--------

Appendix 2Museum Governance Structures:

--------

Appendix 3Financial Analysis of Museums:

The City also provided grants to Sir William Campbell House ($35,000.00) and Town of York Historical Society for Toronto's First Post Office ($27,000.00) and Heritage Toronto provided 12capital grants for preservation ($112,000.00).

1997 budget data taken from Inventory of Toronto Municipal Cultural Programs prepared by the Inventory Sub-Group of the Municipal Arts, Heritage and Culture Work Group except Pier taken from 1998 plan. Excludes capital costs.

Statistics on 191 Ontario museums gathered through the Ontario Museums Operating Grants process for 1996 indicated the following:

*supplied by Heritage Toronto and excludes preservation expenditures and employee separation costs experienced in 1996.

Expenditures for museums consists of 3 types of costs for: (1) the preservation and maintenance of the physical assets, (2) public history and programs aimed at education for the local community, and (3) commercial/tourist attraction programming.

Appendix 4Models Reviewed:

(A)Single Heritage Board Model:

There are many variations on this model, but the traditional model is a single arms' length board appointed by Council to carry out the City's heritage role. Responsibilities include:

(1)preservation function where the board is the LACAC;

(2)management of all museums;

(3)development of heritage policy and strategies;

(4)capital development of sites;

(5)capital restoration grants administration; and

(6)development of heritage vision or Master Plan for the City;

Under this model, the board would employ its own staff, manage its own administration, and administer its own budget.

The advantages are:

(i)citizens appointed to the board are empowered and engaged in a meaningful way in carrying on the business of the City;

(ii)the board enjoys independence and is not influenced by the City agenda;

(iii)those who create the vision also implement it. This ensures that the plan is carried out as intended;

(iv)the board has control over operations and financial management and can be held accountable if Council chooses to exercise its power to replace ineffective board members;

(v)facilitates coordination of all heritage activities; and

(vi)fund-raising can be directed and coordinated.

The drawbacks include:

(i)local focus on preservation issues is difficult to maintain through a centralized board;

(ii)authority delegated by Council to City boards cannot in turn be delegated to other boards at the site level. Therefore, the number of citizens directly accountable to Council is dramatically reduced and other citizens must act within the parameters set by the heritage board;

(iii)the model does not engage City staff and a large number of Councillors in the standing committee forum. This means that it will be much more difficult to raise the profile of heritage issues which relate to planning issues and other municipal programs;

(iv)Provincial grants may be at risk without specific boards for individual sites;

(v)does not take advantage of the City administrative services;

(vi)spreads part-time citizen board's attention among many competing demands. This means that many issues will be delegated to staff of the board and the bureaucracy created may not be much different from internal City bureaucracy; and

(vii)it is difficult to ensure that the City priorities are considered in administering this program.

Heritage Toronto has also put forward variations of this model. The first proposed one arm's length board making policy, strategically planning the City's heritage role, and delivering all preservation and museum services. This body would report directly to Council. A second model was to support preservation through the Culture Office reporting to a LACAC; an entrepreneurial museums board to manage Fort York, the Pier, Spadina House, Montgomery's Inn, Todmorden Mills, Black Creek Pioneer Village, the Guild, and the Brick Works; other museums managed through staff and site specific advisory committees; and an overarching strategic advisory committee to advise Council on policy and long term plans. As time went on the second option evolved back to the original position.

A third variation of this model is that used in Etobicoke which follows the basic model but is supported by staff reporting through the City Parks and Recreation Department. The Etobicoke model, however, manages only one site and deals with local preservation issues. This model is not comparable to an amalgamated City-wide function. However, the benefits of the staff dual reporting relationship have been used in the structure proposed in this report.

Heritage Toronto has suggested that the new direction for heritage is to become more entrepreneurial and that a citizen dominated arm's length board is the only means by which that can be achieved. Appendix 3 shows that the museums which are operated by staff under the direction of citizen advisory committees have actually been less dependent on the tax base than operations which are managed by citizen boards of management. This is not a criticism of the boards of management, merely an observation which disproves the premise. It may not be in the public interest for many museums to aspire to become commercial. There is always a conflict between authenticity and commercial salability which may not be healthy for some museums.

(B)Staff and Advisory Commissions Model:

This model would bring all operational supports in-house within the Culture Office, being advised by two separate advisory bodies - a Preservation Commission and a Museums Commission. The LACAC function would be performed by panels of the Preservation Commission each reporting to the Community Councils. The Museums Commission would coordinate site development strategies and be a forum for airing new ideas on operations and programs. Site committees would advise on operations, budgets, and programming for individual sites. This model is almost the same as the Transition Team recommendation except that it eliminates the overarching heritage board.

This model has the advantage of providing coordination points for both the LACAC and museums functions and engages citizens in both. Citizen involvement in terms of numbers would actually increase. This model enhances the interrelationship of heritage with other culture programs as well as with other internal municipal programs. It provides the internal advocacy role necessary to raise the profile and priority of heritage issues. It is also the most cost-effective of any of the models explored because it takes advantage of the comprehensive administrative support structures within the core government, eliminating the need to duplicate such efforts for support of a relatively small entity required for a separate board.

One of the drawbacks of this model is its symmetry. All sites need not be governed in the same way. It also distances citizens involved in the front-line programs from political decision-makers by setting up two layer reporting structures. Since all citizens serve in advisory capacities, it does not empower citizens with real authority to plan and implement programs and take budgetary responsibility. The key concern with this model, however, is the absence of a citizen-based entity which deals with overall heritage policy and strategies and has the opportunity to influence other municipal programs in which heritage issues arise.

(C)Heritage Community Model:

The structure presented by the Society of Heritage Associates would be modeled along the lines of the Toronto Arts Council which is an independent corporation, not an agency of the City. This model would be completely independent of the City, but receive a grant to sustain operations. However, the suggestion is that this entity would establish heritage policy to be included in the Official Plan of the City and set policy for other programs of the City. Under this model the entity would be charged with property designation responsibilities, have the authority to enforce by-laws and to assume full authority for all parks areas where the natural heritage is at risk.

The Board would consist of 2 Councillors, 1 citizen from each of East York and York, 2citizens from each of Etobicoke, North York, Toronto, and Scarborough as well as 4 Chairs of geographic regional divisions. Division committees would be elected out of citizen organizations. Each division would have full jurisdiction over staff and spending for its division without interference from the Board. This model does not take advantage of the opportunities available in the new City. It instead maintains the regionalization of issues. It also fails to recognize that Council must retain policy and spending responsibilities since it is accountable to the taxpayer on these matters.

The main complaint of most of those who prefer this option is that City staff have not performed well in protecting heritage during consideration of development opportunities and therefore should not be entrusted with heritage issues in the new structure. This was precisely because no city staff were charged with heritage responsibilities. This is the danger with separating heritage completely from the core civic structure.

Some in the voluntary sector have suggested that all staff positions dealing with heritage issues in all departments of the City be vetted by the heritage board; that staff positions be put on contracts of one year duration; and that all staff be clear that they have no decision-making responsibility with respect to heritage. Taxpayers should be concerned about paying municipal staff under these circumstances.

(D)Ontario Heritage Foundation:

This is an advisory board established by the province reporting to the Minister of Culture and operates in accordance with the policies and priorities established by the Minister and the Minister himself may exercise any powers of the Foundation directly. The Heritage Act also makes it clear that the Foundation may exercise its powers only as an agent of the Province. All property acquired remains the property of the Province.

The Foundation is recognized as an effective model which engages citizens. It should be noted, however, that under the Ontario Heritage Act the Minister retains most of the decision-making authority under this structure.

(4.5)Other Cities:

The research for this study included a review of the organization of heritage services in 150different organizations across North America including 25 largest Canadian and 50largest American cities. The preservation and museum functions are typically organized under separate bodies. This reflects the distinct mandates and legislative basis for the two functions. It is rare to find these functions combined into one body. Advice on preservation issues is usually provided to Council by an appointed commission or committee supported by departmental staff. There is no common model for the management of civic museums. Municipalities employ a wide range of governance and staffing approaches.

Tyne & Wear Museums in the United Kingdom is purported to be very successful in moving toward an entrepreneurial model for museums. It is an independent entity which serves seven different funding public sector entities. The model is not comparable to the City of Toronto situation for this reason. However, it is interesting to note that one of its main revenue sources is the provision of archaeological and capital works for third parties including municipalities.

--------

Ms. Nancy Autton, Senior Corporate Management and Policy Consultant, Chief Administrator's Office gave a presentation to the Special Committee respecting the Governance Structure for City Heritage Services, and submitted a copy of her presentation material.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also had before it the following communications:

(a)(April 9, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Etobicoke Community Council, advising that the Etobicoke Community Council on April 1, 1998, recommended that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be advised that the Etobicoke Community Council endorses Scenario 2A presented in a submission dated April 1, 1998, from the Etobicoke Historical Board;

(b)(July 2, 1998) from the Interim Contact, North York Community Council, advising that the North York Community Council on June 24, 1998, referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, without comment, the communication (June 12, 1998) from Mr. Lawrence Leonoff, Chair, North York Heritage Committee, such communication endorsing the position of the Heritage Committee, and requesting that this be forwarded to the Special Committee for consideration;

(c)(May 7, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Scarborough Community Council, advising that the Scarborough Community Council, on May 6, 1998, directed that The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be advised that Scarborough Community Council supports, in principle, the following recommendations presented by Mr. Richard Schofield on behalf of the Scarborough Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and the Scarborough Historical Museums Board:

(1)the need to continue volunteer local citizen participation at the local community level;

(2)the continuation of a Scarborough Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) to make recommendations to a central "preservation" body on matters relating to Sections IV and V of The Ontario Heritage Act (as required by the Act) and to liaise with the Scarborough Community Council on matters relating to the study, preservation and promotion of the local community's built and natural heritage;

(3)the establishment of a separate Toronto committee to deal with the issues of Heritage Preservation (LACAC) and a separate Toronto committee to deal with the issues of Museum Management; and that these two separate bodies report through the Culture Office to Council;

(4)the preparation of a By-law and/or Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the Toronto Museums Committee, concerning the future management of Museums in the new City of Toronto; and

(5)the employment by the City of all staff of Toronto Museums, under the Management of the City of Toronto and the Toronto Museums Committee, as well as staff of the Culture Office in Toronto;

(d)communications received from the following registering concern respecting heritage issues in the City of Toronto:

(1)(March 30, 1998) from Mr. John D. Bertram, Chair, Todmorden Mills Museum;

(2)(April 2, 1998) from Ms. Peggy Kurtin, President, Cabbagetown Preservation Association;

(3)(April 2, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Ingolfsrud, Chairman, Etobicoke Historical Board;

(4)(April 3, 1998) from Mr. John Colautti, President, Parkdale Village Ratepayers' Association;

(5)(April 4, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Brettell, Toronto, Ontario;

(6)(April 6, 1998) from Ms. Mary Campbell, President and Archivist, The Beach and East Toronto Historical Society;

(7)(April 8, 1998) from Mr. Lawrence Adams, Ms. Miriam Adams, Co-Directors, Dance Collection Danse;

(8)(April 22, 1998) from H. E. Ashley, Toronto, Ontario;

(9)(April 27, 1998) from Dr. Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto;

(10)(April 28, 1998) from Mr. Douglas Grigg, Scarborough, Ontario;

(11)(Undated) from Ms. Madeleine McDowell, Toronto, Ontario;

(12)(April 29, 1998) from Ms. Marcia Cuthbert, Toronto, Ontario;

(13)(April 29, 1998) from Ms. E. Ann Rowan, Toronto, Ontario;

(14)(April 29, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Robertson, President, York Pioneer & Historical Society 1869;

(15)(April 29, 1998) from Mr. Michael Freeman, City of York, Ontario;

(16)(April 29, 1998) from Mr. Rob Garrard, Toronto, Ontario;

(17)(April 30, 1998) from Mrs. Lois V. House, Downsview, Ontario;

(18)(April 30, 1998) from M. C. Smillie, Toronto, Ontario;

(19)(April 30, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Near, Toronto, Ontario;

(20)(April 30, 1998) from Anne Byzko, Toronto, Ontario;

(21)(April 30, 1998) from Mr. Sander Gladstone, Toronto, Ontario;

(22)(April 30, 1998) from Ms. Kristina Guiguet;

(23)(May 1, 1998) from Ms. Cecile Berube, Toronto, Ontario;

(24)(May 3, 1998) from Mr. Jim Houston, Toronto, Ontario;

(25)(May 3, 1998) from Ms. Mary G. Barnett, Toronto, Ontario;

(26)(May 4, 1998) from Mr. Rodger W. McLennan, Toronto, Ontario;

(27)(May 4, 1998) from Mr. John B. Lawson, McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers & Solicitors;

(28)(May 4, 1998) from Ms. Carol Helmstadter, Toronto, Ontario;

(29)(May 4, 1998) from Mr. C. M. Cole, Toronto, Ontario;

(30)(May 4, 1998) from Dr. Mima Rapches, Head, Royal Ontario Museum;

(31)(May 5, 1998) from Mr. Donald Gard, Toronto, Ontario;

(32)(May 5, 1998) from Mr. L. E. Leonoff, Chairman, North York Heritage Committee;

(33)(May 5, 1998) from Ms. Anna Teper, York, Ontario;

(34)(undated) from Mr. Paul Stewart, Toronto, Ontario;

(35)(May 5, 1998) from Ms. Anne Mcaughey, Toronto, Ontario;

(36)(Undated) from Ms. Phyllis Platnick, North York, Ontario;

(37)(May 6, 1998) from Mr. Ed Freeman, Toronto, Ontario;

(38)(May 6, 1998) from Mr. John P. M. Court, Toronto, Ontario;

(39)(May 7, 1998) from Mr. & Mrs. J. Granot, Toronto, Ontario;

(40)(May 7, 1998) from Ms. Joan L. Harris, T. Montgomery's Inn;

(41)(May 7, 1998) from Mr. Kenneth C. Peterson, Supreme Chief Ranger, The Independent Order of Foresters;

(42)(May 8, 1998) from Ms. Grace Heggie, Toronto, Ontario;

(43)(May 8, 1998) from Mr. Gordon Turner, Toronto, Ontario;

(44)(May 8, 1998) from Ms. Irma Bain, Toronto, Ontario;

(45)(May 10, 1998) from Mr. Edward R. Lyons, Toronto, Ontario;

(46)(May 11, 1998) from Mrs. Dorothy E. Foley, North York, Ontario;

(47)(May 12, 1998) from Professor Jeffrey Stinson, Associate Dean, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture;

(48)(May 12, 1998) from Mr. Jim Wiswell, Toronto, Ontario;

(49)(May 12, 1998) from Ms. Jean French, Don Mills, Ontario;

(50)(May 12, 1998) from Ms. Laura Purdy, Chair, Attractions Council, Tourism Toronto;

(51)(Undated) from Ms. Peggie Sampson, Toronto, Ontario;

(52)(May 13, 1998) from Mr. Alex D. Camp, Toronto, Ontario;

(53)(May 14, 1998) from Mr. Sheldon J. Godfrey, Toronto, Ontario;

(54)(May 15, 1998) from Mr. Rob Brown, Honorary Commodore, Toronto Harbour Parade of Lights Inc.;

(55)(May 19, 1998) from Miss Jane Beecroft, Chair, CHP Heritage Centre;

(56)(May 21, 1998) from Mr. Stephen Thomas, Stephen Thomas Associates;

(57)(May 21, 1998) from Miss Lois Williamson, Toronto, Ontario;

(58)(May 25, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Gayfer, Toronto, Ontario;

(59)(May 27, 1998) from Mr. Kirk Shearer, President, Tourism Toronto;

(60)(May 29, 1998 and June 1, 1998) from Mr. Joseph Gill, Chair, Friends of Fort York;

(61)(June 1, 1998) from Mr. Dave Roberts, President, ABC Residents' Association;

(62)(June 3, 1998) from Mr. George Waters, Managing Director, Heritage Toronto;

(63)(June 3, 1998) from Mr. Louis Badone, Toronto, Ontario;

(64)(June 4, 1998) from Ms. Edna Hudson, President, Toronto Region Architectural Conservancy;

(65)(June 9, 1998) from Ms. Elayne Dobel Goyette, Archivist and Records Manager for The Salvation Army;

(66)(June 11, 1998) from Ms. Diana Fancher, President, West Toronto Junction Historical Society;

(67)(June 12, 1998) from Mr. Morris Zbar, Vice-Chair, Ontario Heritage Foundation;

(68)(June 12, 1998) from Ms. Maribeth Solomon, Toronto, Ontario;

(69)(June 13, 1998) from Ms. Eleanor Inglis Sanderson, Toronto, Ontario;

(70)(June 15, 1998) from Mr. Michael J. Rudman, Toronto, Ontario;

(71)(undated) from Mr. Scott Duncan, President, Toronto Military Heritage Association;

(72)(undated) from Ms. Ruth Nixon, Heritage Partner;

(73)(June 17, 1998) from Ms. Susan Palmer, Toronto, Ontario;

(74)(June 17, 1998) from Mr. Stewart A. Bull and Ms. Doris L. Bull, Etobicoke, Ontario;

(75)(June 19, 1998) from Mr. Rod Behan, Senior Vice-President, Nesbitt Burns;

(76)(June 19, 1998) from Ms. Helen Mills, Chair, Lost Rivers Project and Heritage Community Garden;

(77)(June 25, 1998) from Mr. Michael A. Stevenson, Toronto, Ontario;

(78)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Peter D. Pellier, Oakville, Ontario;

(79)(July 8, 1998) from Mr. William L. Archer, Q.C., Toronto, Ontario;

(80)(Undated) from Mr. Robert J. Hall, Mississauga, Ontario;

(81)(May 18, 1998) from Ms. Edith Geduld, Past President, North York Historical Society on behalf of Metro Area Heritage Group

(82)(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Heather Howard-Bobiwash, Research Centre Coordinator, The Gathering Place Toronto Native Community History Project; and

(83)(July 15, 1998) from Mr. Howard Levine, Chair, and Mr. Rollo Myers, Co-ordinator, Old Town 1793.

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

-Dr. Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto, and Mr. George Waters, Toronto Historical Board; and submitted the following documents entitled:

(i)"The Future of Heritage in Toronto";

(ii)"Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto - Notes to the Chief Administrative Officer's report on Heritage Management in Toronto (July 16, 1998); and

a revised Governance Model for Heritage Services;

-Ms. Alanna Jones, National Society of Fundraising Executives;

-Mrs. Elizabeth Ingolfsrud, Chairman, Etobicoke Historical Board, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. Earl Jarvis, Etobicoke Historical Board;

-Mr. Bill Greer, Canadian Association of Heritage Preservation Consultants;

-Mr. Joe Gill, and submitted a brief prepared by Mr. Murray Philp, Director, Friends of Fort York;

-Dr. Terry Russell;

-Mr. R. Schofield, Scarborough, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), and submitted a brief in regard thereto

-Mr. William Archer, and submitted a communication (June 29, 1998) respecting the issue of Heritage, and a document entitled "A New Direction for Heritage - the Revised Preliminary report of the Toronto Historical Board", dated October 18, 1996;

-Ms. Phyllis Creighton and Ms. Ruby Steiger, The Raging Grannies, with a singing rendition of their position respecting Heritage issues in the City of Toronto;

-Mr. Larry Leonoff, Chairman, North York Heritage Committee;

-Ms. Ann Rowan, a Member of the Metro Area Heritage Group (MAHG); and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Ms. Madeleine McDowell, Chair of the Humber Heritage Committee;

-Mr. John A. McGinnis, First Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, and former Chairman of the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

-Mr. William Phillips, and submitted a pamphlet entitled "South Rosedale Self-guided Walking Tour" published by the South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association;

-Ms. Jane Beecroft, Chair, CHP Heritage Centre, The Society of Heritage Associates;

-Mr. John Carter, Chairman, East York LACAC, and submitted a brief in regard thereto, and a communication (March 30, 1998) addressed to Councillor David Miller from the East York LACAC respecting a motion passed at the East York LACAC at its meeting on March 25, 1998, supporting recommendations made by the Toronto Transition Team related to Arts and Heritage Boards;

-Mr. Michael Stevenson, Vice Chair, Todmorden Mills Museum Advisory Board, and submitted a brief in regard thereto, and a communication (March 30, 1998) addressed to Councillor David Miller from Mr. D. Bertram, Chair, Todmorden Mills Museum, conveying the Board's position respecting the delivery of heritage services in the City of Toronto;

-Ms. Edith Geduld a Member of the Metro Area Heritage Group, and submitted a brief in regard thereto, and a handbook entitled "Heritage Handbook for City Councillors - City of Toronto", prepared by members of the Metro Area Heritage Group, and a communication (May 18, 1998) from the Metro Area Heritage Group respecting the delivery of heritage services in the City of Toronto ;

-Ms. Louise Roberge;

-Ms. Peggy Kurtin, President, Cabbagetown Preservation Association, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. John P. M. Court, and submitted a communication (June 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, York Community Council, respecting recommendations submitted by him to York Community Council;

-Ms. Lumia Heyno;

-Mr. Bob Saunders, Scarborough LACAC;

-Mr. Henry Sator;

-Mr. John Harstone;

-Ms. Susan Pointe, a volunteer with Heritage Toronto;

-Dr. Carol Stimmell, Editor, Metro Community News and member of the Board of Heritage Toronto; and

-Ms. Lynne Kurylo, Chair of the Board of the Enoch Turner Schoolhouse Foundation and member of the Advocacy Committee of the Ontario Museum Association and citizen member of the Toronto Historical Board.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 24, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report responds to a request by the Special Committee to Review the Transition Team Report to report directly to Council to clarify the reporting process and comment on the strategy/vision component and staffing for the restructured Heritage Toronto resulting from amendments made to the Chief Administrative Officer report by the Special Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

To assist Council to debate the recommendations from one source document, the following are the recommendations of the Special Committee, with the amendments recommended in this report shown in bold:

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

(2)six LACAC panels each nominate a representative to form one Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (TACAC) and that the TACAC report through the appropriate Community Council depending on where a particular site is located;

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

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

(5)staff support to TACAC and Heritage Toronto be located in the Urban Design Section of the City of Toronto's Planning Department and the Culture Office;

(6)a Toronto Museums Board be created, composed of representatives of each museum board or advisory committee and reporting to the Economic Development Committee;

(7)a museum board or advisory committee be created for each historical site and the same principles for appointments of citizens to LACAC panels be applied;

(8)Community Councils be authorized to nominate the membership of each individual museum board or advisory committee in its jurisdiction;

(9)staff support for the local museum boards, advisory committees, and the Toronto Museums Board be provided from the City of Toronto Culture Office;

(10)Heritage Toronto be composed of one member from each of the LACAC panels and one member from each of the museum boards or advisory committees, a member of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, a member of the Economic Development Committee and six additional members selected by the Heritage Community;

(11)Heritage Toronto report to the Economic Development Committee for all issues except those specifically related to the planning process, planning policies, and the Official Plan which would be reported to the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(12)Heritage Trust, made up of members of Heritage Toronto, be the charitable foundation responsible for fundraising;

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

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

(15)Council adopt the following fundamental principles:

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

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

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

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

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

(16)the Chief Administrative Officer and Heritage Toronto be requested to jointly develop a Heritage Master Plan;

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

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 17, 1998, the Special Committee to Review the Transition Team Report considered a report from the Chief Administrative Officer recommending a new governance structure for City heritage services. The Committee adopted the report, but struck out the recommendations and substituted a set of recommendations which develops a structure retaining the key philosophical framework of the Chief Administrative Officer's report, but adds an overarching Museums Board, modifies the reporting relationships, and changes the composition of Heritage Toronto.

The Special Committee referred the following motion to the Chief Administrator's Office for a report directly to Council for its meeting on July 29,1998:

"that Heritage Toronto act as an advocate for natural and human heritage to Council and City staff, and further that Heritage Toronto be provided with adequate staff to monitor the City with respect to heritage policy development and preservation".

In addition, the Special Committee requested a report "with respect to the strategy/vision component recommended by the Special Committee, and to clarify the reporting process".

This report responds to these requests by discussing the role of the new entity called Heritage Toronto with respect to development of the strategy/vision and its possible monitoring of City performance with respect to heritage. In clarifying this role, it became evident that the City would benefit from augmenting the composition of Heritage Toronto recommended by the Special Committee. In addition, the clarification of the reporting process suggests a further amendment. The recommendations of the Special Committee have been restated in this report with the recommended modifications so that Council may more easily debate the recommendations from one source.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The model recommended by the Special Committee is the same as the Chief Administrative Officer's proposal in the following ways:

(1)LACAC's are established for each Community Council area;

(2)members of LACAC's are nominated by Community Councils;

(3)the six LACAC's each select a representative to serve on a preservation coordinating committee; (The Chief Administrative Officer's model named this the Preservation Commission and the Special Committee named this the Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee.)

(4)a Museum Board or Advisory Committee is established for each museum or heritage site owned and operated by the City;

(5)the City Culture Office provides staff support to the local museum boards and advisory committees and the Toronto Museums Board;

(6)an entity called Heritage Toronto be responsible for developing the strategy and vision for heritage in the City;

(7)Heritage Trust, comprised of members of Heritage Toronto, be the charitable foundation responsible for fundraising; and

(8)Heritage Toronto develop a Heritage Master Plan. (The Special Committee added that the Chief Administrative Officer should also be involved in developing the plan.)

The model recommended by the Special Committee differs from the Chief Administrative Officer proposal in the following ways:

(1)The Chief Administrative Officer's report recommended that the local LACAC panels report directly to their respective Community Councils on local issues. The Special Committee recommended that the LACAC's report to the TACAC which in turn would report to the respective Community Councils.

(2)The Special Committee recommended that staff support to the LACAC's be provided by the Urban Design Section of the City Planning Department. The Chief Administrative Officer's report recommended that the Culture Office provide the support to the LACAC's. This is discussed further below.

(3)The Special Committee formally establishes a coordinating body for museum boards and advisory committees. The Chief Administrative Officer's report merely suggested in the narrative of the report that it may be desirable for representatives of all museums to meet periodically to discuss common interests and to initiate cooperative ventures.

(4)The major difference between the models is the structure of Heritage Toronto and its composition. The Chief Administrative Officer's report saw this as a separate arm's length body which would recommend heritage strategies and an overall City vision for heritage and would be the fund-raising arm. It was reasoned that Heritage Toronto should represent the voice of those who were separate from service delivery organizations and be the vehicle through which the Heritage Community at-large could present its opinions in a formal way. The Chief Administrative Officer's report, therefore, recommended that Heritage Toronto be primarily nominated by the Heritage Community at large. The Special Committee's recommended model integrates the new Heritage Toronto into the structure, more closely linking it with the operational entities, and recommends that the membership of Heritage Toronto be comprised of all the members of both the TACAC and the Museums Board. The structure and reporting relationships are addressed later in this report.

The Special Committee also enhanced the recommendations of the Chief Administrative Officer's report by recommending that the fundamental principles be specifically adopted by Council and that heritage be included in the City of Toronto's Official Plan. In addition, the Special Committee recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer review the model in three years' time. This will provide an opportunity to determine whether the structure is meeting the stated objectives and working to improve the City's performance with respect to heritage issues.

Heritage Toronto's Role and Staffing:

Heritage Toronto will be the forum within which the overall City strategy for heritage can be discussed and recommended to Council. It brings together both preservation and museum management representatives to develop an overall vision for heritage in the City. However, heritage issues go beyond museum management and property designation and include natural heritage, archives, libraries, archaeology, etc. It is important that the overall heritage strategy include creative ways in which other City programs can incorporate aspects of heritage. In addition, Heritage Toronto will initiate and work cooperatively with other boards to raise private funds for heritage.

With this mandate, it is clear that the composition of Heritage Toronto should include not only representatives of the preservation and museum management programs, but also representatives from the Heritage community who have some expertise in these other disciplines as well as fund-raising. It would also be prudent to include at least one Councillor from each of the Standing Committees responsible for these programs.

The Heritage program is an intricate part of the Culture program which also interacts with other City programs and promotes arts, special events, and programs which attract tourists. The heritage vision should include living heritage and programs and events which demonstrate the skills, arts, crafts, and lifestyles of the past. The vision and strategies for heritage should fall within the Culture strategy of the City. For this reason, staff of the Culture Office who are responsible for developing the Culture strategy and policies should also support Heritage Toronto in developing the heritage strategy. Both should report to Council through the Economic Development Committee which is responsible for economic development, tourism, parks, recreation, and culture.

Many of the policies and strategies will also involve planning issues. Under the Special Committee model, Heritage Toronto will consider the strategic issues respecting urban planning and development and will provide input to the Planning Department to ensure that heritage issues are adequately considered in the Official Plan. These aspects of heritage should be reported through the Urban Environment and Development Committee and draw on Planning Department staff to assist in developing these policies.

It is recommended that staff supports for both Heritage Toronto and the LACAC's come from both the Planning Department and the Culture Office. The LACAC's should be supported by staff whose first interest is heritage, but also are familiar with the planning protocol. By having LACAC support staff in the Culture Office as well such expertise would also be available to provide insights and inputs into other heritage issues and museum operations where required. This specialized expertise would not likely be readily available to museum operations if staff were assigned solely to Planning. In addition, Heritage Toronto issues will be a combination of preservation and museum issues, among other things, and will require staff support from both.

Councillor Miller's Motion:

The Chief Administrative Officer was specifically requested to report on the motion by Councillor Miller that:

"Heritage Toronto act as an advocate for natural and human heritage to Council and City staff, and further that Heritage Toronto be provided with adequate staff to monitor the City with respect to heritage policy development and preservation".

There are a number of issues which this motion raises.

First, Heritage Toronto should act as an advocate. In all models considered, Heritage Toronto is an advocate for heritage issues. However, in the Chief Administrative Officer's recommended model as well as that of the Special Committee, several entities would play different advocacy roles for heritage issues. These include the staff of the Culture Office, acting as internal advocates with their professional colleagues, the individual museum boards, the overarching Museums Board, the LACAC's and the TACAC, and the Heritage Community. The premise on which these models are built is that heritage needs several advocates within the City structure, Council appointed citizen boards, and the community. Through these strong partnerships, the profile of heritage issues will be raised through various standing committees of Council. Heritage advocacy need not be confined to one voice.

Second, both natural and human heritage should be included in the mandate of Heritage Toronto. The Heritage Community was very vocal in criticizing the Chief Administrative Officer's report for not moving natural heritage issues under the jurisdiction of Heritage Toronto. The report very clearly states that Heritage Toronto would advise the City on heritage issues which go beyond the LACAC and museums functions including issues related to natural heritage, archives, libraries, archaeology, etc. However, it is not recommended that Heritage Toronto be given any operational responsibility for natural heritage which is found in City parks, the streetscape, and elsewhere on properties not owned by the City. These functions clearly fall within the mandate of other City programs. Although heritage issues should certainly be considered in these other programs and Heritage Toronto would be expected to recommend how the natural heritage could be preserved, it does not make sense to remove bits and pieces of other programs to ensure that these properties are protected. Heritage programs fall under the Economic Development Committee responsibilities which includes many of these other programs as well.

Third, Heritage Toronto staff would monitor the City with respect to heritage policy development and preservation. This function would be essential in order for Heritage Toronto to properly identify what new strategies and policies were necessary to improve performance with respect to heritage issues. However, under the Special Committee proposal, Heritage Toronto would be involved in operational aspects and implementation of policy. This may diminish the ability of Heritage Toronto to independently assess performance. Under the Chief Administrative Officer model, Heritage Toronto would have been independent of operations and would have been in a position to critically assess the City's overall performance concerning heritage.

Reporting Process:

The chart on the following page illustrates the reporting relationships of the various entities as described in the recommendations of the Special Committee as amended by this report. It also indicates the nominations made from citizen bodies. In addition, the Community Councils would nominate members of the LACAC's and site museum boards.

Under the Special Committee model, the LACAC's will consider preservation issues within the jurisdiction of the Community Councils which appoint them and the TACAC will report these to the Community Council. This suggests that all recommendations of the LACAC's would be reviewed by the TACAC to ensure consistency in application of City-wide principles before reporting on to the respective Community Councils. This structure more clearly establishes a single entity in accordance with the Heritage Act. The TACAC would develop a common definition of "historical significance" and the criteria for designation. These City-wide issues would be reviewed by Heritage Toronto to ensure that they fit with the overall City strategies and would then be reported to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Site museum boards and advisory committees will oversee operations of individual sites. Since each site is unique with different requirements and programs, the board scope and mandate may be tailored to the needs of each site. However, it is anticipated that each board or advisory committee, along with support staff, will develop a program plan and determine the budget, staffing, capital and other resources necessary to deliver that program. The Toronto Museums Board, with staff support from the Culture Office, would ensure that the total program is comprehensive and coordinated and meets the overall objectives of the heritage program. The Commissioner will also be responsible for ensuring that the program is consistent with the overall Culture program and meets the corporate objectives for the larger program. The Economic Development Committee will monitor the overall program, address operational issues as recommended by the Museums Board, and review strategic issues as recommended by Heritage Toronto.

The chart also indicates how each of the entities nominates members of the coordinating bodies. The Special Committee recommends that all members of the TACAC and the Museums Board become members of Heritage Toronto. A practical workload concern arises from this. Six individuals would serve on all three of LACAC, TACAC and Heritage Toronto. Fourteen individuals would serve on all three of site board, Museums Board, and Heritage Toronto. Current members of LACAC's and museum boards have suggested that each LACAC and museum board have the right to choose different representatives to serve on the coordinating board and Heritage Toronto. This would more evenly distribute the workload. The recommendations have been amended to reflect this technical change.

Other Issues:

The term "LACAC" has come to mean the single entity appointed by Council to make recommendations to Council on designation of historical properties. The proposed structure establishes such a group named the TACAC. The LACAC's described in this structure are local panels and technically should be referred to as LACAC panels. The Special Committee recommendations have been altered to reflect this change.

The Special Committee recommended that "all qualified electors living within the City of Toronto be eligible for appointment" to LACAC's and the site museum boards. There is already a Council policy which specifies who is eligible for appointment to City boards, but the Special Committee wanted to stress that members should be chosen from beyond the Community Council area. The citizen appointee nominations process approved by Council earlier in 1998 requires that all applicants must be eligible voters. There is no restriction that they must be residents. It is recommended that the word "living" be struck from Recommendation No. 4 of the Special Committee.

Conclusions:

The Special Committee's recommendation that the Chief Administrative Officer's report be adopted indicates support for the objectives and basic approach to the structure. However, the Special Committee struck out the specific recommendations of the Chief Administrative Officer's report, substituting an alternative set of recommendations which basically keeps the same entities recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer, but changes how the various entities are nominated and their reporting relationships.

Without the benefit of descriptive information to accompany the Special Committee's recommendations, it is not entirely clear what authorities are being assigned to each of the entities. This report provides comment on the apparent intent and clarifies the reporting relationship of the various entities. Some technical amendments to the recommendations have been suggested. In response to a request by the Special Committee that the Chief Administrative Officer further report on the reporting process and the role and staffing for Heritage Toronto, this report also recommends some further amendments in this regard. These are intended to further clarify and enhance the recommendations of the Special Committee.

Contact Name:

Nancy Autton, 397-0306.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(July 24, 1998) from Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown, submitting suggested changes to the recommendations of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(ii)(July 28, 1998) from Ms. Jane Beecroft, Chair, CHP Heritage Centre, The Society of Heritage Associates, in response to the request of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for comments from interested parties; advising that the Editorial Committee of the Maps Project of the Metro Area Heritage Groups convened and worked for several weeks, producing analysis and recommendations for the future of heritage in the new City; and stating that if a new and improved heritage structure cannot be developed, then Heritage Toronto must be saved with a greatly enhanced mandate.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications, submitting comments in opposition to the recommendations of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

(i)(July 28, 1998) from Mr. George H. Rust-D'Eye;

(ii)(July 28, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Gleason;

(iii)(July 27, 1998) from Mr. Geoffrey E. Geduld, President, North York Historical Society and a Member of the Heritage Showcase Committee (Metro Area Heritage Group), submitted by Councillor John Adams, Midtown;

(iv)(July 27, 1998) from William and Sophia Phillips;

(v)(July 27, 1998) and (undated) from Ms. Mary Campbell, President and Archivist, The Beach and East Toronto Historical Society;

(vi)(July 23, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Ingolfsrud, Chairman and Mr. Earl Jarvis, Vice Chairman, Etobicoke Historical Board, and attaching a response to the aforementioned recommendations from the Etobicoke Historical Board;

(vii)(undated) from Ms. D. Pearson;

(viii)(undated) from M. Fainer; and

(ix)(undated) from Christopher and Elizabeth Foot, Richmond Hill.)

2

Progress Report on the Workplan of the

Special Committee to Review the Final

Report of the Toronto Transition Team

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer subject to:

(1)amending Recommendation No. (2) by adding after the word report, the words "not be adopted", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team that deal with administrative and public policy matters, listed in Appendix A to this report not be adopted and be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioners for information and consideration, if appropriate, in their respective areas of responsibility;"; and

(2)referring Recommendations Nos. (72) to (77) of the Toronto Transition Team, listed in Appendix 'A' embodied therein, to the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, for report thereon to the Special Committee, together with their forthcoming review on Hydro structure and governance:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

(i)provide a summary review of the actions taken by the Special Committee since its creation in January 1998;

(ii)review the progress of outstanding items on the Special Committee's workplan; and

(iii)recommend the disposition of certain matters that were referred to the Special Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations in this report have no financial impact.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Special Committee take no further action on the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team that deal with administrative and public policy matters, listed in Appendix A to this report;

(2)the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team that deal with administrative and public policy matters, listed in Appendix A to this report, be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and Commissioners for information and consideration, if appropriate, in their respective areas of responsibility;

(3)the Special Committee's mandate continue for the remainder of 1998 to enable it to complete the outstanding items on its workplan;

(4)the major focus for the Special Committee's work in the coming months be on the review of governance, including the interconnected and complex issues related to citizen involvement and governance structures; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council created the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team at the meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998. Council referred all motions with respect to the Transition Team Report and the Interim Procedural By-law to the Special Committee. Council requested the Special Committee to report on the Transition Team's recommendations to the May 1998 meeting of Council. This report responds to Council's request.

On February 4, 5 and 6, 1998 Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of the Special Committee, entitled "Terms of Reference for the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team." The Clause identified the following six priority areas in the Special Committee's workplan:

(i)confirmation of the location of the seat of government;

(ii)definition of the role of Community Councils and their relationship to the rest of the Council structure;

(iii)definition of the basic Council-Committee structure;

(iv)reinforcement of mechanisms for citizen involvement in the City's governance;

(v)development of the Council Procedural By-law; and

(vi)definition of the basic administrative structure.

These matters are all concerned with the basic structures and processes of municipal government in Toronto. This report describes the progress made by the Special Committee in the six priority areas.

The Transition Team also made many recommendations that were concerned with administrative minutiae and matters of public policy that form the normal business of the City's administration and of Council and its Committees. This report identifies which of the Transition Team's recommendations fall into this category and proposes how Council should dispose of them.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Location of the Seat of Government:

The Special Committee considered the seat of government at its first meeting on January 28, 1998. Subsequently, on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998 Council adopted the Special Committee's recommendations that:

(a)Toronto City Hall be approved as the permanent, long-term location for City Council; and

(b)expenditures totalling $5.2 million be authorized to cover the renovations to the Council Chamber, Members' offices and Committee rooms to facilitate a move by the end of 1998.

Staff were directed to investigate longer-term options for the creation of a civic centre complex. The CAO was requested to report to the Special Committee on a process for public participation in planning the redesign of Toronto City Hall. In addition, the Commissioner of Finance was requested to submit a report to the Special Committee on the ability to finance underground connections to the City Hall complex through the lease or sale of commercial space.

Council also requested the Special Committee to establish a sub-committee to:

(a)report back on details for the relocation of all Members of Council, such report to address the timeframe and construction details; and

(b)address the issue of how to phase in the funding of the $5.2 million cost for the renovations over one year.

On February 13, 1998, the Special Committee appointed Councillors Moeser (Chair), Johnston, Kelly, Lindsay-Luby, Moscoe and Rae to the Sub-committee to Consider the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall.

The Sub-committee met on March 19, 1998, to review conceptual options and floor plans for the renovation to the Council Chamber, Councillors' offices and meeting rooms. On April 24, 1998, the Sub-committee reported on its deliberations to the Special Committee and recommended approval of a schedule for:

(a)upgrading the Council Chamber to improve seating and the technology for Council operations;

(b)improving access to the Council Chamber with links to the City Hall towers, and increasing the number of washrooms in the vicinity of the Council Chamber;

(c)improving meeting space by adding new, larger meeting rooms and adding audio-visual facilities;

(d)adding offices to accommodate all Members of council;

(e)improving the Mayor's offices; and

(f)relocating the CAO, commissioners and other key staff to Toronto City Hall,

by the end of December, 1998. In addition, on April 24, 1998 the Special Committee voted to recommend to Council that the terms of reference of the Sub-Committee be amended to permit it to review the long-term options for the civic centre proposal and its process. These recommendations were before Council on May 13, 1998.

Role of Community Councils:

The Special Committee has considered a number of specific issues related to Community Councils. The Committee has also commenced a comprehensive review of the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils.

On February 19, 1998, Members of the Special Committee attended a meeting of the East York Community Council to hear deputations on the issue of the number of political representatives on the East York Community Council. Subsequently, on February 26, 1998, the Special Committee reviewed this matter. The Special Committee's recommendation that a third Councillor be granted to Ward One, East York, was adopted by Council on April 16, 1998.

On February 26, 1998, the Special Committee recommended a number of changes to the procedures governing the conduct of Community Council meetings, including the authority to:

(a)establish sub-committees of Community Councils;

(b)delegate planning matters and statutory hearings to such sub-committees; and

(c)hold recorded votes at Community Council meetings.

These changes, which are intended to provide for greater flexibility and accountability at Community Council meetings, were adopted by Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998. At the same time, Council also adopted a Special Committee recommendation to endorse the principle of treating Community Council reports as "consent agendas" at Council meetings.

Because of the considerable public interest and debate about the role that Community Councils should play in the City's governance structure, the Special Committee initiated a process of workshops and public consultation to assist it in reaching conclusions in this matter.

On February 23, 1998, staff organized a half-day workshop on the roles and responsibilities of Community councils for Members of the special Committee and the Chairs of the Community Councils. The workshop included staff presentations on the context of legislative parameters and governance principles and objectives affecting Community councils. Using ideas that were generated at the workshop and in communications to the Special Committee, staff prepared a discussion paper on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils.

The Special Committee considered the discussion paper and heard related deputations from the public on February 26, 1998. The Committee recommended amendments to the discussion paper and proposed a variety of methods for obtaining public comments on the role of Community Councils, using the discussion paper as a focal point. Council adopted the Committee's recommendations on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.

The Special Committee's report and recommendations to the Council meeting on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, responded to Council's request, on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, that the Special Committee report to Council in March on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils.

The discussion paper, including a short questionnaire soliciting comments, was distributed to Members of Council and to the public through the Special Committee's mailing list, the City's Civic Service Centres and public libraries. It was also posted on the City's website on the Internet.

The Special Committee hosted focus groups on April 6, 7 and 8, 1998. The focus groups examined:

(a)the role of Community Councils in recreation services;

(b)the role of Community Councils in planning and development control; and

(c)the concept of neighbourhood report cards.

Seventy-six people participated in the focus group discussions.

The discussion paper was also referred to the six Community Councils for consideration and community input. The Community Councils were scheduled to hold public meetings in April and May and then report back to the Special Committee.

A staff report describing the outcome of the public consultation on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils will be submitted to the Special Committee for consideration at its meeting on May 22, 1998. The report will recommend steps that may be taken in the short term to clarify the mandates and improve the functioning of the Community Councils. It will also consider the role of Community Councils within the broader context of the City's overall governance structures and opportunities for citizen involvement in municipal government.

Council-Committee Structure:

On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council adopted an interim committee structure based largely on the recommendations in the Transition Team's Final Report. As part of its mandate, the Special Committee must review this structure and make recommendations to Council. In addition, Council created a new Standing Committee called the Economic Development Committee and requested the Special Committee to develop terms of reference for it.

On April 3, 1998, the Special Committee considered terms of reference for the Economic Development Committee. The Special Committee's recommendations were before Council on May13, 1998.

The Council-Committee structure is possibly the most visible aspect of the City's governance structure. However, there are many other components of the political decision-making system. These include task forces, special committees and special purpose agencies, boards and commissions.

On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council established eight task forces and special committees based on recommendations by the Toronto Transition Team and requested the Special Committee to review their terms of reference. As discussed in the following section on "Citizen Involvement in the City's Governance," Council considered the terms of reference and the Special Committee's recommendations on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998 and April 16, 1998. In reviewing the Terms of Reference, the Special Committee agreed with the CAO's conclusion that the task forces had been established without any input from the Standing Committees, to whose policy envelopes they relate, or the staff departments that must provide resources to support them. To ensure that task forces are employed as an effective and relevant policy tool of Council and its Committees, the Special Committee has directed the CAO to report to the Special Committee on a process for the establishment of task forces to be followed in the future.

To date, the Special Committee has also reviewed and submitted recommendations to Council regarding the governance structures of the following Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

(a)The Special Committee's recommendations for an interim structure for the Metro Toronto Housing Company limited and the City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation, to facilitate the amalgamation of the two agencies, were adopted as amended by Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998.

(b)On February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council adopted the Special Committee's recommendations regarding the structure and mandate for the Toronto Parking Authority.

(c)On February 13, 1998, the Special Committee requested the CAO to report on governance structures for Arts and Heritage. These reports are in preparation and will be submitted to a forthcoming meeting of the Special Committee.

(d)On April 28 and May 1, 1998, the Special Committee's recommended structure for the Toronto Library Board was adopted as amended by Council.

(e)On April 24, 1998, the Special Committee considered a proposal to reorganize the Toronto Licensing Commission. The Committee's recommendations were before Council on May 13, 1998.

On March 9, 1998, the Chair of the Special Committee sent a short questionnaire to all Members of Council requesting comments and suggestions regarding the Council-Committee structure. Ten Members of Council responded to the questionnaire. The CAO will submit a report to a forthcoming meeting of the Special Committee outlining a process for the review of the City's governance structures.

Citizen Involvement in the City's Governance:

On February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council adopted the Special Committee's recommendations for an Interim Policy for Citizen Appointments to the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions and other special purpose bodies. The adoption of the policy enabled the Clerk and the nominating Committee to proceed with the appointment of citizens to:

(a)the Greater Toronto Airports Authority;

(b)the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corporation;

(c)the Canadian National Exhibition Association, Municipal section;

(d)the Toronto Police services Board;

(e)the Sinking Fund Committee;

(f)the Metro Toronto Police Benefit Fund, Board of trustees;

(g)the Metro Toronto Pension Plan, Board of trustees;

(h)the Toronto Fire Department, Superannuation and Benefit Fund Committee;

(i)the Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund Committee;

(j)the Toronto Parking Authority; and

(k)the Toronto District Heating Council.

Council also approved the appointment of citizens to the interim boards of the City's two municipal housing companies.

On March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council adopted the Special Committee's recommendations that:

(a)the term of citizen appointments to agencies, boards and commissions be for the term of the Council that appoints them and until their successors are appointed, unless otherwise specified by legislation; and

(b)the process begin for the appointment of citizens to the boards of:

(i)the North York Performing Arts Centre;

(ii)the St. Lawrence Centre for the Performing Arts; and

(iii)the Toronto Economic Development Corporation.

At its meetings held on February 13 and 26, and April 3, 1998, the Special Committee reviewed terms of reference for the following task forces and committees, which were established by Council on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998:

(a)Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(b)Task Force on Community Access and Equity;

(c)Homeless Strategy Task Force;

(d)Task Force to Develop a Strategy on Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

(e)Environmental Task Force;

(f)Children's Action Committee;

(g)Task Force on Community Safety; and

(h)the World City Committee.

Council considered the terms of reference and the Special Committee's recommendations on March4, 5 and 6, 1998, and April 16, 1998. Most of these task forces and committees include citizen representation either directly or through reference and advisory groups. In addition the terms of reference for the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions include the development of an analytical framework for studying the composition of boards.

On April 24, 1998, the Special Committee voted to recommend the establishment of separate Cycling and Pedestrian Committees. This recommendation, if adopted by Council, will provide an opportunity for structured citizen input on cycling and pedestrian issues to the political decision-making process.

The above-noted actions by the Special Committee have an impact on citizen involvement in the City's government. However, the Special Committee has not yet dealt with the issue in a comprehensive manner. It has become clear from various communications to the Special Committee and the statements of many deputants that the Committee's review of governance structures and citizen involvement must be intrinsically linked. Citizens' needs and expectations in relation to their involvement in their City's government form an essential part of the foundation upon which the structures of the government should be built. Accordingly a report on needs and issues related to citizen involvement is in preparation and will be submitted by the CAO to a forthcoming meeting of the Special Committee. The report will address the linkages between citizen involvement and governance structure.

Council Procedural By-law:

Council adopted an interim Procedural By-law at its inaugural meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998. The Procedural By-law and various motions related to it were referred to the Special Committee for review. The Special Committee was requested to submit a report on the Procedural By-law to the meeting of Council to be held in May 1998.

On February 26, 1998 the Special Committee considered procedures pertaining to Community Councils and recommended a number of amendments to the Procedural By-law, which were adopted by Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998. As noted above in the comments on the "Role of Community Councils", the amendments provide for Community Councils to be:

(a)permitted to establish sub-committees;

(b)authorized to delegate planning matters and statutory hearings to sub-committees of Community Councils, including delegating those matters under the City Of Toronto Act, 1978; and

(c)permitted to record votes at meetings.

On May 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council also adopted recommendations by the Special Committee endorsing the idea of "consent agendas" for Community Councils and requiring motions to be signed by Members of Council. On April 16, 1998, Council adopted a recommendation from the Special Committee that Subsection 90 (5) of the Procedural By-law be amended to clarify that the Corporate Services Committee is responsible for recommending policies on the construction of City buildings and properties that do not fall within the mandate of another Standing Committee.

Following a review of the motions referred by Council in January and a survey of Members of Council, on April 24, 1998, the Special Committee gave consideration to a comprehensive set of preliminary revisions to the Procedural By-law. The Special Committee's recommendations were before Council on May 13, 1998 and include:

(a)administrative changes to the By-law intended to simplify language, clarify meanings or make minor corrections to selected sections of the By-law; and

(b)revisions that streamline rules and procedures governing Council debate.

Amendments to portions of the By-law relating to governance and membership will be considered when the Special Committee has concluded its review of the current governance structure, including the roles and responsibilities of Council, Standing Committees and Community Councils.

In addition, on April 24, 1998, the Special Committee endorsed in principle the use of a presiding Member of Council and requested staff to report further to the Special Committee on options for implementing this concept within the bounds of legislative requirements.

The Special Committee also endorsed in principle the idea of a Municipal Hansard-like service, provided it can be accomplished at a reasonable cost. The Special Committee requested the City Clerk to set up a working group, involving interested citizens, to review implementation issues and report back to the Special Committee.

Definition of Basic Administrative Structure:

The Special Committee considered options for the City's overall administrative structure at its meeting on January 28, 1998, and submitted recommendations to the Council meeting held on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998. Council approved a senior management structure consisting of a Chief Administrative Officer and six Commissioners, each of whom heads a major department. The departments are: Community and Neighbourhood Services; Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; Urban Planning and Development services; Works and Emergency services; Corporate Services; and Finance.

While the major part of this portion of the Special Committee's workplan is complete, staff have been requested to report further to the Special Committee on the following items related to the administrative structure:

(a)Council directed the CAO to submit periodic progress reports to the Special Committee over the course of the year on the implementation of the new administrative structure. In addition to advising Council, through the Special Committee, of the general progress made in organizing the administration, the CAO was requested to comment in particular on the names of the departments, titles used for positions below that of Commissioner and how the functions of the Strategic Directions Secretariat that was proposed by the Transition Team are being dealt with in the administrative structure. Progress reports will be forwarded to the Special Committee in the summer, fall and winter.

(b)Council has requested the CAO to report to the Special Committee on how support to the Community Councils will be handled within the City's overall administrative structure. The CAO will report on this matter to the Special Committee in the context of the broader issue of the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils.

(c)The CAO was also directed to report to the Special Committee on how the City should handle environmental issues from an administrative point of view. An interdepartmental staff working group, chaired by the CAO, has been set up to support the coordination and strategic direction of environmental issues and policies. A report outlining the structure and mandate of the working group is in preparation and will be submitted to a forthcoming meeting of the Special Committee.

Disposition of Transition Team Recommendations

That Deal with Administrative and Public Policy Matters:

The Special Committee's workplan has focused on the basic infrastructure of government in the new City. The seat of government, Council-Committee structure, role of Community Councils, Council Procedural By-law, facilitation of citizen involvement, and the basic administrative structure all shape the fundamental structure and processes of government.

The Transition Team had something to say about all of these matters in its Final Report. However, a good deal of the Transition Team's report was also taken up with recommendations about the policy content of the City government's decision-making and administrative procedures. The Transition Team's recommendations that fall into this category are listed in Appendix A. These recommendations propose specific policies that form the normal day-to-day business of the elected Council and its Committees and administrative actions that fall within the normal purview of the City's administration. It was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Transition Team to devote so much of its work to consideration of administrative detail and policy content. However, these parts of the Transition Team's Final Report do reflect the ideas of many people and organizations that provided input to the Transition Team. Many of the ideas are consistent with actions already being taken by the administration and the Standing Committees as part of the conduct of their normal business or have fallen within the purview of various working groups and task forces. It is recommended that the Special Committee take no further action on the recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team that deal with administrative and public policy matters, listed in AppendixA to this report. It is further recommended that the recommendations listed in Appendix A to this report be referred to the CAO and Commissioners for information and consideration, if appropriate, in their respective areas of responsibility.

Conclusions:

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team was established by Council on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998. Council requested the Special Committee to report back after four months. The Special Committee met for the first time on January 28, 1998. This report summarizes the Special Committee's activities during the four months since its creation. Much has been achieved but there is more to be done.

On April 3, 1998, the Special Committee approved a schedule of meetings through December 1998. It is recommended that the Special Committee's mandate continue for the remainder of 1998 to enable it to complete the outstanding items on its workplan. It is further recommended that the major focus for the Special Committee's work in the coming months be on the review of governance, including the interconnected and complex issues related to citizen involvement and governance structures.

During the course of the past four months, it became clear from the debate of issues that it is appropriate for the Special Committee to move away from a reactive mode of responding to the specific recommendations in the Transition Team's Final Report. The Committee, in keeping with the evolution of this Council itself, has begun to examine issues from the more general and forward-looking perspective of the governance needs of the City and its citizens. This approach will continue and will be reflected in the consideration of the outstanding items on the Special Committee's workplan.

--------

Appendix A

It is recommended that the Special Committee receive the following Recommendations from the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that Focus on Administrative Matters and Policy Content

Recommendation No.(17):

Any development applications in process at the time of transition should be put on the agenda of the new Community Councils as priority matters, to avoid unnecessary delays.

Recommendation No.(18):

City Council should request that all Official Plan amendments be exempt from provincial approval, to streamline the efficiency of the approvals process and enhance community control over local development decisions.

Recommendation No.(22):

Meeting space should be made available in existing civic centres (i.e. the former city halls) for councillors to meet with citizens and hold community meetings with local groups and organizations.

Recommendation No.(23):

The new City Council, recognizing that Greater Toronto is one economic, social and environmental region, should impress on the Province the importance of creating the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) as soon as possible to provide a forum for building a strong city-region in partnership with other municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area.

The GTSB should have a mandate to coordinate city-region growth and infrastructure investments and take joint action on such shared interests as watershed planning and development of a solid waste strategy.

Recommendation No.(25):

The City's contribution to the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance should complement other components of a comprehensive marketing plan for the new City of Toronto.

Recommendation No.(26):

City Council should make clear to the Province its strong support for implementing the pooling of social and health service costs across the Greater Toronto Area to ensure the long-term social and economic vibrancy of the whole city-region.

Recommendation No.(27):

City Council should ask the Province to determine, as quickly as possible, a fair distribution of GOTransit costs for 1998, based on the real costs and benefits to the six municipal partners of the entire system. There should be a reasonable relationship between each partner's share of costs and their share of votes in major capital and operating decisions.

The Province should ensure that its proposals for deregulating the inter-city bus industry respect the fact that the GTA is a single urban transit market.

City Council should insist that coordination of inter-regional transit by the GTSB not come at the expense of sustainable transit services within the new City. The GTSB should not be able to shift the burden of suburban transit subsidies onto the new City.

Recommendation No.(28):

City Council should ask the Province to ensure that the GTSB is structured in a manner that will enable it to build on the Environmental Assessment planning work for solid waste disposal already done in the new City and to respond to the range of options that can be offered by the marketplace, including public/private partnerships.

Recommendation No.(29):

City Council should ask the Province to coordinate GTA-wide discussions aimed at establishing compatible ambulance delivery systems across the GTA. These discussions should also address the continued role of the new City's ambulance communications centre in coordinating ambulance movements in the GTA as part of the provincial ambulance communications network.

Recommendation No.(30):

At a minimum, the Province should ensure uniformity of non-residential education-related property tax rates across the GTA. This will reduce artificial incentives for businesses to relocate from the new City and would mirror the Province's commitment to residential taxpayers.

Recommendation No.(52):

An enterprise approach to providing internal support services should be adopted in principle, and the potential of moving to a enterprise model of service delivery should be examined for functions within the Finance and Corporate Services cluster.

Service quality guidelines should be developed. In addition, an inventory and evaluation of best practices across the seven former municipalities should be prepared. The new City should adopt the best ideas and models for services and their delivery, including alternative delivery options.

The secretariat function (i.e., scheduling of meetings, preparing agendas, recording votes, doing minutes, keeping records) of the Clerk's Department and other administrative support services (for example, legal, purchasing or finance) should also be made available, on the enterprise model, to the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions, where appropriate.

Recommendation No.(53):

The new City Council should consider adopting the following principles to govern its approach to human resources management for the amalgamation of seven municipal organizations:

(i)employees are our greatest resource;

(ii)employees will be treated with respect and their full participation in the amalgamation process will be sought;

(iii)regular and effective two-way communication with employees will be established and maintained;

(iv)appropriate personal and career support will be provided to employees during the transition process;

(v)attrition will be the primary basis for workforce reductions; and

(vi)surplus employees will be offered retraining;

Cooperative and collaborative relationships will be sought with unions and other employee groups.

Recommendation No.(54):

On a priority basis, a comprehensive human resources strategy should be prepared to support the new City's corporate priorities for building a new organization.

Recommendation No.(55):

Council should initiate discussions as soon as possible with the City's bargaining agents on the issue of the rationalization of bargaining units in the new City. Should some of the bargaining units be unable to agree on a bargaining agent, Council should be prepared to make application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a determination.

Recommendation No.(56):

The corporation of the new City should make a commitment to access and equity in all its operations. The Access and Equity unit within the Human Resources Department should work to entrench principles of access and equity in the corporation and liaise with community groups to create greater understanding of issues and concerns across the new City.

(Part of ) Recommendation No.(63):

A long-term comprehensive asset management plan should be prepared to ensure the preservation of municipal assets and enable the City to project its funding requirements. A process for asset management coordination at the department level should be developed and an asset preservation reserve fund should be established to include a portion of the sale of municipal assets.

Policies governing office space standards and the disposal of moveable assets should be developed early in 1998.

Recommendation No.(64):

An inventory and review of all City vehicles and vehicle maintenance and repair facilities should be completed as soon as possible.

The City should review the potential to gain efficiencies in the size, use and repair of its vehicle fleet through a corporate fleet management service. Delivery of this internal service should continue to be located in facilities across the City.

Recommendation No.(65):

The information technology function in the Finance and Corporate Services departmental cluster should be responsible for building an information technology network incorporating the best features of existing networks. The City should establish centralized administration of corporate information technology, with decentralized delivery of services. All client departments should be involved in a customer-driven approach to establishing corporate information technology systems.

A shared corporate database should be designed and maintained as a corporate resource through a cooperative effort with City departments and agencies. This corporate-wide information system would be accessible to all departments and agencies and could also be made available to the public with appropriate security measures in place.

Corporate standards for information technology should be established, in consultation with all City departments and agencies. These standards will provide the basis for rationalizing the City's business applications and technology infrastructure to achieve savings and will enable the City's different information systems to be linked.

Recommendation No.(67):

The new City should explore opportunities for public-private partnerships in developing an integrated Geographic Information System to support the delivery of a wide range of City services and to provide public access to high quality information related to the City and its services.

Recommendation No.(68):

High priority should be given to rationalizing the information systems for tax billing and property information, integrated budgeting, financial information, payroll and human resources. An integrated fire services communication system will also be needed in the short term. A strategy for rationalizing other applications, based on the needs of users and involving user representatives, should be developed as soon as possible.

Recommendation No.(72):

The new Council should require the new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission to develop and implement a strategy to harmonize rates for hydro-electricity across the new City. The essential *elements of the harmonization strategy should include:

(i)the plan should be in place by January 1, 1998 for ratification by the new Commission, and harmonization of rates should commence no later than July 1, 1998;

(ii)harmonization should be undertaken separately for each rate class of customer so as to expedite unification for residential and small general service (business) customers which together represent over 90 per cent of all customers;

(ii)during the phase-in process for the new rates, operating savings from amalgamation ("amalgamation dividends") should be applied to each customer class in proportion to the percentage of total revenue represented by that class, so that one customer class does not subsidize another; and

(iv)"rate capping" should be used to prevent rate increases, if any, from exceeding pre-established limits for individual customers.

The new Council should request the Province to enact legislation in the spring of 1998 which provides that: the rate harmonization plan developed jointly by the six current commissions be adopted by the new Commission, at such time as Council has appointed the new Commission; and that rates developed under the plan for application in 1998 not be subject to the normal regulatory review and authorization, so long as these new harmonized rates are revenue neutral between customer classes.

Recommendation No. (73):

The new Council should establish a policy of collecting charges for the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission with respect to the development of new sites or redevelopment of existing sites consistent with the requirements and procedures of the Development Charges Act.

Recommendation No.(75):

As a transitional step to amalgamating all municipal water and sewage functions within a City department, the City should establish an interim service agreement with the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission to provide water distribution services in the existing Scarborough Utility Commission's service area.

Recommendation No.(76):

The new Council should request the Province to enact legislation to transfer the local system of transmission lines and substations which lie within the new City, along with the associated rights-of-way and any land owned, from Ontario Hydro to the new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission for enhanced planning and operating effectiveness.

Recommendation No.(77):

The new Council in partnership with Ontario Hydro, the Toronto District Heating Corporation and the new Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission should undertake a study of the opportunity to provide a co-generation facility in the port area, including the potential of using the R.L. Hearn Generating Station and site.

Recommendation No.(86):

City Council should request the Province to restore the property tax exemptions for all Toronto public theatres.

Recommendation No.(104):

Council should retain the services of the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) to enumerate and prepare special and separate rolls for the purpose of levying charges pursuant to by-laws passed under section 220(1) of the Municipal Act, as amended.

The separate and special assessment rolls would identify and enumerate each commercial tenant or occupant within the geographic area of a Business Improvement Area (BIA) and value the space they occupy.

The Province should finance the initial creation of these rolls as a one-time transitional cost. To avoid delay, the City should pay for the initial rolls, then seek reimbursement from the Province. Annual updates to maintain the currency of the rolls should be funded by the BIAs themselves from the annual levy.

The new Council should request the province to amend section 220 of the Municipal Act to:

(i)ensure that the notice of the enactment of by-laws to authorize the creation of a BIA is expanded to include all business occupants; and

(ii)permit the special charge to be levied against ratable property in the area which would have to be divided as premises of businesses enumerated on the special assessment roll prepared for levying the rate.

In addition, legislative amendment is required to remove the requirement for Council to appoint a political representative to BIAs.

Recommendation No.(112):

A Working Committee should be formed, comprising representatives from the City, each of the amalgamated boards of education, the universities and the colleges of applied arts and technology, to develop collaborative approaches to issues of common concern.

Optimizing the use of public facilities should be an objective of all levels of government, including the community use of school facilities in off-hours.

Recommendation No(113):

A new City of Toronto customer service procedure and handbook should be drafted and distributed to all municipal staff before January 1, 1998, to ensure they have the information they need to respond appropriately to public inquiries to and about the new City.

Recommendation No.(114):

Council should establish a transitional grants policy to apply to all municipal grants given by Metro and the six Area Municipalities.

Advances should be made in January for 50 per cent of the 1997 grants for ongoing, sustaining or core programs, except where performance issues have been identified.

If the grant is $2,000.00 or less, the whole grant should be made in January. In-kind support, such as use of municipal space, should also continue.

Council's review of 1998 grant applications should use the same eligibility requirements for grants as in 1997. Community councils should be asked to provide input on needs identification.

During the year, Council should review all the grants eligibility criteria of the former municipalities and establish a grants policy for the new City, to take effect in 1999.

Recommendation No.(117):

As soon as possible, community council meeting dates for consideration of development applications should be established to ensure there is no delay in decision-making.

Development charges should be reviewed and harmonized as soon as possible in 1998.

Consideration should be given to using a development permit process for strategic areas of the city as a means of streamlining the decision-making process.

The use of site plan control across the city should be reviewed with a view to harmonizing existing practices and limiting its use to specific geographic areas based on defined criteria. City objectives in using site plan control should be clearly set out in guidelines.

To reduce the time and cost devoted to very minor administrative matters, the possibility of delegating certain minor variance decisions to the Chief Building Official, in accordance with criteria set by City Council, should be reviewed.

A case management approach should be implemented for development applications and major building projects. The use of one-window approaches to the review of routine development applications should be explored.

The City should streamline its building permit services and make them more convenient and accessible for residential and commercial clients.

By-laws relating to building and development should be harmonized as soon as possible. Sign, swimming pool fence and construction fence by-laws should be harmonized during 1998. Staff should work towards consolidation of the City's by-laws, particularly for key development lands such as industrial areas. The Planning Commissioner should report to Council on a timetable for harmonization.

Recommendation No.(118):

A Transportation Master Plan should be prepared and implemented, consistent with the Official Plan and in support of the City's economic, environmental and community accessibility objectives. It should integrate multiple uses of the street system, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit, motorists, goods movement and utilities.

A review should be undertaken to determine the costs of providing a uniform level of service in sidewalk snow-ploughing. In the meantime, whatever service has been supplied until now should continue.

A single road and utilities coordinating committee should be established, including representatives from the City and utility agencies using the road rights-of-way, to explore opportunities for collaboration and service efficiencies.

Recommendation No.(119):

All water and sewer functions for the new City should be consolidated within the Urban Development Services departmental cluster. As a transitional step, the City should retain the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission under a service agreement to provide water distribution services in the existing Scarborough Public Utility Commission's service area.

The City should collaborate with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and other GTA municipalities to develop strategies for the management of the watersheds.

A Piped Services Master Plan should be prepared and implemented, consistent with the Official Plan and coordinated with the watershed strategies.

A strategy should be developed to harmonize water rates across the new City in the first half of 1998. Until the rates are harmonized, a consistent approach to costs should be applied in determining the water rates for each of the existing municipal areas.

A city-wide water efficiency program should be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The metering program that is now in effect should be fast-tracked so that everyone is on a pay-for-use basis.

Strategies to implement water and sewer service levelling should be developed, with priority to those that result in cost savings or can be implemented with little or no financial impact.

Recommendation No.(120):

A Waste Management Master Plan should be prepared and implemented to support the City's environmental and financial objectives.

A strategy should be developed to harmonize services across the whole City, based on a cost-benefit analysis of the options and including the need to create incentives for waste reduction.

To ensure that the City's waste management services are delivered in the most efficient manner in the coming years, a formal process of competitive assessment should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Recommendation No.(122):

In developing eligibility and funding criteria for community grants for 1999, Council should consolidate and harmonize the community service grants among the seven municipalities into a single system.

The new Council should attempt to maintain the total amount of funding for community grants at no less than the 1997 level.

Recommendation No.(123):

The City should explore coordinated access for common client groups in community services, including locating program offices together.

The City should build on the success of existing community-based models, either through partnerships or contractual arrangements, to provide public information and referral to services using technologically-based systems that improve access, equity and civic participation. Examples include community information centres and Metro Access to Social Housing.

Recommendation No.(124):

Use of public parks should continue to be free and accessible. Basic recreational services should be provided free or at nominal cost across the City (e.g., swimming, drop-in programs, casual "no permit required" use of outdoor facilities and skating).

Fees for other programs (beyond basic services) should be harmonized as soon as possible across the City, in consultation with the public, so that fees represent 50 per cent of the direct cost of delivering the program. At the same time, an access policy should be developed to ensure that low-income families and individuals are not penalized.

A Parks Master Plan, including priorities for parkland acquisition, should be developed and implemented consistent with the new City's Official Plan. To support the consistent implementation of the City's parks plan, policies and by-laws respecting parkland levies and cash-in-lieu of parkland from development applications should be harmonized.

There should be a coordinated approach to the maintenance of all public green spaces in the City.

Recommendation No.(125):

An operational plan to address variations in public health services across the new City should be ready in January 1998, so that the new Board of Health can address the policy issues.

The new Board of Health should review and harmonize existing public health by-laws and methods of enforcement.

There should be a strong central office to do public health policy and program development, with decentralized delivery of services.

To ensure there is no disruption of services, the City should ensure continued funding of the CINOT Dental Treatment Program and Sexual Health Contracted Services which, until now, have been funded by the Province.

The potential for cost savings and revenue enhancements should be explored, including redesign of the Vaccine Preventable Disease Program and review of possible fee-for-service arrangements in such areas as annual restaurant licensing and food handler training.

A single nutrition policy for the City should be developed and partnerships explored with the new school boards to address nutrition issues in the school setting.

Recommendation No.(126):

Work should begin on selecting and implementing a fully-integrated library information system.

Libraries should be included in the Access Toronto interactive public information electronic network as focal points for their communities.

Opportunities for co-locating other municipal services with library services and enhancing off-site services should be explored.

Recommendation No.(127):

Emergency services should move towards a fully integrated emergency services communications and dispatch system. It is within this context that the immediate need for a city-wide radio system for the amalgamated fire services should be addressed.

A review should be undertaken of fire station service areas to see if response times could be improved by realigning boundaries, now that there is to be one city-wide fire service.

Opportunities should be explored for greater collaboration among emergency services, including the potential consolidation of fire and ambulance communications centres and headquarters, and an integrated approach to emergency vehicle repair and maintenance.

(Part of) Recommendation No.(128):

The existing diversity of non-development related municipal by-laws should be harmonized over the first term of Council, with priority given to property standards and noise by-laws.

Recommendation No.(129):

A uniform animal care and control by-law and a harmonized city-wide fee structure for animal control services should be prepared and approved early in 1998.

An independent comprehensive review of animal service delivery should be initiated in early 1998, and submitted for Council consideration by September 1998. In the interim, the existing contract with the Toronto Humane Society for services within the geographic area of the current City of Toronto should be extended for one year.

Recommendation No.(130):

The Province should include in its commitment to revenue neutrality all costs associated with the transfer of funding responsibilities to the new City, including the proposed elimination of the municipal support grant.

Recommendation No.(131):

Early in 1998, Council should consider the implications of phasing-in the impact of the 1998reassessment changes. The anticipated anomalies associated with a long phase-in period should be carefully evaluated.

Recommendation No.(132):

Council should seek the delegated authority from the Province to set the graduated tax rates for commercial properties in order to protect particular types of property, such as small business, from the impact of significant tax shifts.

Recommendation No.(133):

Council should develop criteria for tax deferral or relief from reassessment-related tax increases on residential properties for the City's most economically vulnerable property taxpayers.

Recommendation No.(134):

Council should consider decreasing property taxes for new multi-residential developments to encourage more rental housing development, and seek the permanent inclusion of the newly developed multi-residential properties in that class so that this tax policy is economically viable.

Recommendation No.(135):

An area rating scheme based on the former area municipalities is not recommended because it will:

(i)divide the new City along old political boundaries;

(ii)produce inequities in service and tax levels;

(iii)create inefficiencies and prevent economies of scale in service delivery;

(iv)discourage coordinated delivery of services across the City;

(v)frustrate assessment reform; and

(vi)compound the complexity of implementing amalgamation.

Recommendation No.(136):

As early as possible in 1998, the Budget Committee should initiate a Budget process, in consultation with the CAO and Chief Financial Officer, that enables:

(i)an opportunity for public consultations and for Standing Committees to discuss policy implications of financial decision-making;

(ii)an early decision by Council on key issues to achieve significant savings in 1998; and

(iii)an early decision on capital allocations and projects in order to make the most of our short construction season.

3

Selection Process for Appointing Citizen

Members to the Current Board of Health

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the selection process for citizen appointments to the Board of Health, as approved by the Board of Health on June 23, 1998, and outlined in the following communication (June 24, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Board of Health for the City of Toronto Health Unit:

Recommendation:

The Board of Health at its meeting on June 23, 1998:

(1)adopted the outreach strategy and selection criteria for citizen appointments to the current Board of Health, as outlined in the report (June 15, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health;

(2)considered strategies for effective, meaningful and ongoing citizen participation as a key component to its strategic planning;

(3)with respect to the selection process for the appointment of citizen members, adopted the option of establishing a sub-committee with a mandate to screen citizen applicants and nominate a slate of citizen appointees to the Board of Health. These recommended appointees would then be forwarded to the Nominating Committee and to City Council; and

(4)requested that its decision in this respect be forwarded to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and subsequently to City Council for approval of the proposed selection process for citizen appointments.

Background:

The Board of Health had before it a report (June 15, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health respecting the Selection Process for Appointing Citizen Members to the Current Board of Health and recommending an outreach strategy and selection criteria for citizen appointments to the Board of Health.

The Board's action in this matter is forwarded to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and subsequently to City Council for approval of the proposed selection process for citizen appointees to the Board of Health.

(Report dated June 15, 1998, addressed to the

Board of Health from the Medical Officer of Health,

entitled "Selection Process for Appointing Citizen

Members to the Current Board of Health.)

Purpose:

This report recommends an outreach strategy by which citizens would be advised of the six openings for citizen appointments to the current Board of Health, selection criteria by which applications would be screened and three options for a selection process to appoint citizen members.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Board of Health adopt the outreach strategy and selection criteria for citizen appointments to the Board of Health;

(2)the Board of Health choose one of the following three options for a selection process for the appointment of citizen members:

(a)the Board of Health will form a Selection Sub-committee to screen citizen applicants. The Subcommittee will nominate a slate of six citizen members to the Board of Health which will forward the recommended slate to City Council for appointment;

(b)the Sub-committee will nominate six citizen members to the Board of Health which will forward the slate with its recommendations to the Nominating Committee for approval and to City Council for appointment; and

(c)the Board of Health will refer the outreach strategy and selection criteria outlined in this report to the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee will nominate a slate of six citizen members and forward the recommended slate to City Council for appointment;

(3)the Board of Health direct the City Clerk to forward its decision with this report to the Special Committee for approval of the proposed selection process for citizen appointments and subsequently to City Council; and

(4)the Board of Health consider strategies for effective, meaningful and ongoing citizen participation as a key component of its strategic planning.

Background:

At its meeting on May 12, 1998, the Board of Health considered four options developed by a Sub-committee for selecting six citizen members to the Board of Health. These options included appointment by the City's Nominating Committee, based on recommendations from Community Councils, and appointment by Citizen Health Committees to be established in each of the six former municipalities. The options also included choosing citizen members to represent geographical and issue areas, as well as agencies and boards representing key sectors in health, social services and education. After due consideration, the Board requested the Medical Officer of Health to report to the Board's next meeting on a proposed selection process for appointing six citizen members to the current Board of Health.

Comments:

Facilitating and supporting participation at both the individual and community levels is recognized as a key health promotion strategy to "enable people to increase control over and improve their health" (Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, 1986). A basic tenet of public health practice is the need for meaningful community involvement in identifying health needs and the resolution of health concerns. It is a fundamental responsibility of boards of health to initiate and support practices which facilitate community participation in shaping and implementing public health programs and services. This is particularly critical in Toronto where many of our residents experience barriers to civic participation in relation to socio-economic status, linguistic, ethno-racial and/or cultural identification. Community participation assists in developing policies, plans and programs that are responsive to the people they serve. As well, community participation also builds community capacity to improve individual and community health.

To this end, each Board of Health in the former six municipalities developed a range of approaches to ensure that citizens were involved meaningfully in decision-making on public health needs and issues. These diverse strategies included citizen members of Boards of Health, community advisory boards and committees, a range of issue-based consultative processes and board task forces, community forums, subcommittees, etc. The involvement of citizens in the work of Boards of Health has resulted in the development of healthy public policies, new programs and structures to meet emerging health needs, the recognition of the importance of efforts to make services equitable, appropriate and accessible to the various ethno-cultural and racial communities; the delivery of community services through alliances with communities and community organizations, and the development of policies and programs that advocate for actions to address unmet health needs.

While it is clear that appointing citizen members is only one strategy by which the Board of Health will seek community involvement in decisions affecting public health, it is a crucial component in support of its mandate to oversee and ensure the provision of the wide range of health programs and services required by Ontario's Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Mandatory Health Services and Programs Guidelines. It is also the overseer of mandated programs to meet needs specific to the City that have been identified and approved by City Council. The Board provides crucial policy direction to Public Health and serves as a forum in which citizens and communities can make health needs known.

One important component of a process to appoint citizens to the Board of Health concerns efforts to reach groups and individuals that do not traditionally volunteer for this type of position. Membership on boards is not always effective in involving individuals and groups of low socio-economic status or from ethno-racially and/or linguistically diverse groups. In addition to barriers of time and cost, people may be intimidated and overwhelmed by the language and decision-making procedures used in meetings. (Singer, Michael, Can. Medical Assoc. Journal, August 1995). Therefore, in order to ensure a diversity of representation, special outreach efforts must be made to reach diverse communities and solicit interest in membership on the Board of Health. The following outreach strategy, selection criteria and options for a selection process have been developed for appointing citizen members to the current Board of Health.

(1)Outreach Strategy:

Citizens will be informed of openings for citizen appointments on the Board of Health by the following methods:

(a)a "Notice to Potential Board Members" will be sent to all former members of Boards of Health in the former six municipalities;

(b)notices will be sent to members of all advisory committees to Boards of Health in the former six municipalities;

(c)notices will be sent to agencies and committees, including ethno-racial alliances, connected to Boards of Health and health units in the former six municipalities;

(d)advertisements and notices will be placed by the Nominating Committee in newspapers if feasible;

(e)notice will be posted on City of Toronto website; and

(f)City Clerk's will ensure applications already submitted are notified.

(2)Citizen Selection Criteria:

Potential citizen members of the Toronto Board of Health should demonstrate the following:

(a)residence within the designated boundaries of the City of Toronto, with particular attention to be paid to geographical diversity;

(b)a reflection of the demographic profile of the City, including gender balance, ability in languages other than English, populations representing ethno-racial and/or cultural groups, disability, sexual orientation;

(c)interest and/or background in issues affecting municipal public health programs and services;

(d)interest and/or skills in planning and policy development leading to a comprehensive municipal public health agenda that meets local community needs;

(e)experience in organizational activities, such as committees, non-profit groups, voluntary societies, occupational associations;

(f)skills in leadership and management and/or experience in administration and budget development;

(g)demonstrated skills in conflict management, negotiation and mediation; and

(h)ability to make a commitment to monthly involvement in Board of Health meetings and related committee or other activities.

Applicants should be screened with due regard to the above criteria and preference given to candidates who meet more than one criteria. The final slate should represent geographical diversity in the City, ethno-racial diversity, and a broad range of interests in public health.

(3)Options for Selection of Citizen Members:

The following options for citizen selection identify varied levels of involvement for Board of Health members in the process:

(a)the Board of Health will form a Selection Sub-committee to screen citizen applicants. The Subcommittee will nominate a slate of six citizen members to the Board of Health which will forward the recommended slate to City Council for appointment;

(b)the Sub-committee will nominate six citizen members to the Board of Health which will forward the slate with recommendations to the Nominating Committee for approval and to City Council for appointment; and

(c)the Board of Health will refer the outreach strategy and selection criteria outlined in this report to the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee will nominate a slate of six citizen members and forward the recommended slate to City Council for appointment.

Conclusions:

Community involvement in the Board of Health will assist elected officials as well as Public Health employees in developing policies, plans and programs that are responsive to the people we serve. A range of approaches are necessary to ensure that citizens are involved in a meaningful way in decision-making on public health needs and services. An important first step to ensure citizen involvement is an inclusive and fair process for selecting six citizen members for the current Board of Health. This outreach strategy, selection criteria and options for a selection process will ensure that a range of diverse factors are represented in the choice of citizen members of the Board of Health.

Contact Name:

Liz Janzen, Regional Director, Toronto Office

Phone No.: 392-7458; Fax: 392-0713

E-mail: ljanzen@toronto.ca

--------

The Board of Health also submits the following communication (June 15, 1998) from Ms.RitaLuty, Chairperson, Northern Health Area Community Health Board:

At the Northern Health Area Community Health Board meeting held on June 3, 1998, the following Motion was proposed by Cathy Kozma:

"That the report from the Medical Officer of Health which proposes a process for citizen participation in Board of Health activities be considered a 'deputation item' at the Board of Health."

The motion was Seconded by Anne Marie Keogh. Motion Carried.

This is forwarded to you for inclusion in the June 23, 1998 Board of Health agenda.

4

Amendment to the Terms of Reference of

the Sub-Committee for the Relocation

of All Members of Council to City Hall

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out Recommendation No. (2) in the report dated June25, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (2):

"(2)the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall report to the Corporate Services Committee on all Phase 2 and 3 issues, including renovation and maintenance items; and".)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (June25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To clarify the reporting structure and future roles of the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall and the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team pertaining to Phases 2 and 3 of the Toronto City Hall renovations project, including the City Centre project.

Source of Funds:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall continue to report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall, until the end of 1998;

(2)the Corporate Services Committee deal with Phases 2 and 3 of the City Hall project and other City Hall maintenance and renovation matters on an ongoing basis, and determine whether it wishes to establish a sub-committee for this purpose; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its May 14, 1998 meeting, the Relocation Sub-Committee adopted a motion recommending that the Sub-Committee's terms of reference be amended to permit it to review the long term options for the Civic Centre project. The Special Committee, at its June 26, 1998 meeting, will be considering this matter under Item No. 1 of the agenda.

City Council, at its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998 adopted a motion to establish the Relocation Sub-Committee as a sub-committee of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, to:

"(1)report back (to the Special Committee) on details for the relocation of all members of Council, such report to address the time frame and construction details; and

(2)address the issue of how to phase the funding of the $5.2 million costs for the renovations to the Toronto City Hall over one year."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Relocation Sub-Committee has worked diligently with the Project Team and Project Architect and has been reporting regularly to the Special Committee on the progress on the project, which is commonly referred to as Phase 1 of the City Hall renovations project. Phase1 will enable all Councillors and City Council operations to be relocated to City Hall by the end of 1998 in order to establish the seat of government at City Hall. This phase is part of a multi-phase development program for City Hall and the surrounding area, which will take place over a number of years as funding and other opportunities become available.

Given that the mandates of both the Special Committee and its Relocation Sub-Committee conclude by the end of 1998, there is now a need to clarify how reporting on Phases 2 and 3 of this project will proceed. There is some urgency to clarify this matter since I will be reporting next month on a work plan for Phase 3 of the project to provide City Council with options for the development of a 'City Centre' complex incorporating City Hall, Nathan Phillips Square, Old City Hall, the City owned lands north of City Hall, along with improvements to Bay Street and creating underground connections to the subway. As well, I will be reporting in September of this year on a proposal for the scope of the Phase 2 renovations to City Hall, including upgrades to the main floor and podium level to be undertaken early in 1999.

Recognizing that these phases of the project will continue into 1999, well after the Special Committee and the Relocation Sub-Committee are dissolved, I am recommending that these phases of the project and ongoing City Hall maintenance and renovation matters be dealt with by the Corporate Services Committee, which may wish to establish a sub-committee for this purpose.

Conclusions:

Establishing a fully functional seat of government at Toronto City Hall is a multi-phase project to be undertaken over the next few years. In light of the ongoing nature of the project and the fact that the Special Committee and Relocation Sub-Committee will be dissolved at the end of 1998, there is a need to determine the reporting structure for Phases 2 and 3 of the project so I can now begin to report to the appropriate committee on these phases.

Contact Name:

Cathie Macdonald, Project Executive and Interim Lead,

Facilities and Real Estate, phone 392-0449 and fax 392-0029

--------

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (May 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, recommended to the Special Committee that the Terms of Reference of the Sub-Committee be amended to permit the Sub-Committee to review the long term options for the Civic Centre proposal and its process.

5

Procedural By-Law Amendment to Permit

Request for Recorded Votes at Meetings of

Standing Committees and Committees of Council

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends that the Council Procedural By-law be amended to provided that recorded votes be permitted at Standing Committee and Task Force meetings.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (June 14, 1998) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government:

The "request for a recorded vote" has recently been incorporated into the procedures for meetings of Community Councils. What remains now is to amend the by-law to include the provision for a call for a recorded vote at all political meetings (i.e., Standing Committees and other Committees of Council).

It would be appreciated if this item could be included in the Friday, June 26, 1998 agenda. We will be available at that time to depute (if required), or respond to questions Committee Members may want to ask.

We suggest that the amendment clarify that the results of recorded votes be included in the reports that go to Council as well as in the minutes of the committee meetings.

--------

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government, appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter.

6

Toronto City Hall Renovations -

Design Options for Committee Room 1

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of all Members of Council to City Hall, embodied in the following communication (July 17, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, subject to amending recommendation No. (2) by deleting therefrom the words "the Chair and" so that Recommendation No. (2) now read as follows:

"(2)that the Commissioner of Corporate Services assure that funds are found within the present budget.":

Recommendations:

The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall recommends:

(1)that Option A (Curved Horseshoe Option) design for the layout of Committee Room 1 located at Toronto City Hall, as shown in Appendix 1 of report (July 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be endorsed; and

(2)that the Chair and Commissioner of Corporate Services assure that funds are found within the present budget.

Background:

The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall on July 17, 1998, respecting Toronto City Hall Renovations - Design Options for Committee Room 1.

The Sub-Committee's recommendation is noted above.

(Report dated July 14, 1998, addressed to the

Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All

Members of Council to City Hall from the

Commissioner of Corporate Services.)

Purpose:

To present two design options for Committee Room 1 which will be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the renovations to Toronto City Hall to accommodate in-camera meetings of City Council.

Source of Funds:

The additional costs (ranging from $7,000.00 to $15,000.00) required to implement Option A (Curved Horseshoe Option) will have to be provided through adjustments to other items budgeted for within the $5.2 million approved by City Council for the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that one of the two design options for the layout of Committee Room 1 located at Toronto City Hall, as shown on the attached drawings in Appendix 1, be endorsed.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council, at its June 3 and 4, 1998 meeting, approved the design concept plans for the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall which included, among other things, renovations to the second floor to accommodate a large meeting room (Committee Room 1) to be used for in-camera meetings of City Council and meetings of the standing committees and other committees to be attended by the public.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Over the last several weeks, the Project Architect and Project Team have refined the design concept for Committee Room 1 and developed several layout options in response to the operational requirements identified by the City Clerk and the Chair of the Relocation Sub-Committee. The one issue still to be resolved is the design of the head table to accommodate the following:

(a)for in-camera City Council meetings -seating for the Mayor, the City Clerk and one City Clerk's support staff

(b)for committee meetings-seating for the committee chair, two City Clerk's support staff and a commissioner

Two final design options for Committee Room 1 are illustrated on the attached drawings. In OptionA (Curved Horseshoe Option), a curved head table is attached to the inner rows of Councillors' seating, while in Option B (Straight Horseshoe Option), the head table is an attached, straight rectangular table. The Project Team and Project Architect compared the strengths and weaknesses of the two options from an operational perspective as summarized in the attached chart. A third option with a separated, curved head table located at the base of the inner rows was also studied, but it is not one of the options recommended in this report because the resulting committee room layout is inefficient, has numerous design and operational problems and is more costly.

While both options highlighted in this report are acceptable from a design viewpoint, the Straight Horseshoe Option (Option B), as evident from the chart, achieves the functional requirements for City Council's in-camera meetings and committee meetings in a more satisfactory manner.

Conclusions:

The Project Architect together with the Project Team are currently finalizing the detailed layout of Committee Room 1 which will serve as the meeting room for in-camera meetings of City Council and as one of the meeting rooms for standing committees and other committee meetings. There is an urgent need to finalize a design for the head table for this committee room that best meets the operational needs of the various users, so that construction work can begin by mid-July and be completed by the end of the year. It is recommended that one of the two design options presented in this report be selected for this purpose.

Contact Name:

Cathie Macdonald, Project Executive and Interim Lead,

Facilities and Real Estate:

Phone 392-0449. fax 392-0029.

7

Decorations Proposed by the Architects Respecting

the Renovations to the Councillor's Offices and

Council Chamber in Toronto City Hall

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of all Members of Council to City Hall, embodied in the following communication from the Interim Contact, Sub-Committee for the Relocation of all Members of Council to City Hall:

Recommendations:

The Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, on June29, 1998, recommends that the following be approved in principle with respect to the renovations to the 2nd floor, Councillors' offices and Council Chamber in Toronto City Hall:

(1)the lighting be brighter on the 2nd floor;

(2)the carpets and wood finishes as proposed by the project Architect be used; and

(3)frosted glass be used at the entrance to the Councillors' offices.

The Sub-Committee also recommends that:

(4)colours of the Administrative Assistants' offices be compatible with the colours of walls exterior to the office, and that the Councillors' and Executive Assistants' offices choose the colour of their offices, on the advice of the Architect.

The Sub-Committee advises that it has received the verbal presentation of the Architect and recommends that staff proceed with the carpet colours and wood finishes selected by the Architect.

Background:

The Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall on June 29, 1998, discussed the carpets, wood finishes and wall paints proposed by the project Architect for the Phase1 Renovation for the Toronto City Hall.

The Sub-Committee's recommendations are noted above.

8

Reporting Relationship of the

Audit Committee and the City Auditor

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends that the Council Procedural By-law be amended to provide that:

(1)the Audit Committee report directly to Council; and

(2)the City Auditor report to Council through the Audit Committee.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (July 9, 1998) from Councillor Gloria Lindsay-Luby, Kingsway Humber:

It has come to my attention that the present City Procedural By-law requires the Audit Committee to report to Council through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

In view of the need for the "perceived independence" of the Audit Committee, I would ask the Special Committee to review this matter and recommend that the Audit Committee report directly to Council.

Secondly, the City Auditor has an administrative reporting relationship to the Commissioner of Corporate Services and through her, to the Chief Administrative Officer.

Once again, to preserve the independence of the City Auditor, I recommend that he report to the Audit Committee and then to Council. As you are aware, the solicitor reports directly to Council.

I would appreciate these items being placed on the next agenda of the Special Committee.

9

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Guidelines for Determining City-Wide

Interests in Planning Matters.

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having endorsed Recommendation (B) of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, contained in the following communication:

(July 14, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Urban Environment and Development Committee, advising that The Urban Environment and Development Committee on July 13, 1998, during its consideration of a joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, took the following action:

(A)approved Recommendation No. (3), embodied in the joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, viz:

"(3)this report, and the comments from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, be placed on the:

(a)agenda of the July 17, 1998 meeting of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(b)agendas of the July 22, 1998 meetings of all Community Councils;

with a request that any comments from the Special Committee and the Community Councils be forwarded directly to the July29, 1998 City Council meeting;"; and

(B )recommended to Council:

(1)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (4), embodied in the attached joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by striking out the words "the Urban Environment and Development Committee" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "CityCouncil; so that Recommendation No. (1) shall read as follows:

"(1)City Council endorse the attached protocol for dealing with planning matters of City-wide interest and authorize its use by the Chief Planner in determining the appropriate Committee routing process for planning matters;"; and

(2)that with respect to matters abutting Community Council boundaries, a determination as to whether a City-wide or local interest exists, be made only after consultation with all of the affected Councillors.

(b)Membership - Toronto Parking Authority.

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

(1)referred the following communication from the City Clerk to the Chief Administrative Officer for inclusion in his forthcoming report on the City of Toronto Governance Structure; and

(2)requested the City Clerk to invite the Chair of the Toronto Parking Authority to appear before the Special Committee when it considers the Governance Structure:

(July 16, 1998) from the City Clerk referring the following motion for consideration by the Special Committee:

Moved by:Councillor Shiner

Seconded by:Councillor Flint

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1)By-law No. 28-1998 be amended to increase the Toronto Parking Authority membership by four members;

(2)the additional four members be Members of Council; and

(3)the appointment of the additional four members to the Toronto Parking Authority be referred to the Striking Committee for consideration."

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID MILLER,

Chair

Toronto, July 17, 1998

(Report No. 10 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 29, 30 and31,1998.)