TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on May 13 and 14, 1998
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT
OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 6
1Preliminary Revisions to the Interim Procedural By-law
2Organization of the Licensing Commission
3Relocation to Toronto City Hall, Approval Schedule - Phase 1;Conceptual Options for Relocation to City Hall; and
Terms of Reference and Workplan for Renovations to City Hall
4Staffing Levels and Resources to Support Cycling and Pedestrian Programs
5Terms of Reference - Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor
6Public Consultations on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils
7Other Items Considered by the Committee 4955
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 6
OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT
OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION TEAM
(from its meeting on April 24, 1998,
submitted by Councillor David Miller, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on May 13 and 14, 1998
1
Preliminary Revisions to the Interim Procedural By-law
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause:
(1)by amending Appendix 1, entitled "Summary of Recommended Changes to the Procedural By-law",
by:
(a)deleting therefrom the following Recommendation No. (19)(d):
"(d)that only the Chair, or in his absence, the Councillor chairing the meetings be permitted to call
staff to the floor for questioning later during the debate if necessary.";
(b)inserting in the first portion of Recommendation No. (30), as recommended by the Special
Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, after the words "that
Members", the words "be requested to", so that the first portion shall now read as follows:
"(30)that Members be requested to submit to the Clerk, in writing by 4:30p.m. of the day prior to
Council, a list of those items that they wish to be held;";
(c)deleting from the second portion of Recommendation No. (30), as recommended by the Special
Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, the word "required", and
inserting in lieu thereof the word "requested", so that the second portion shall now read as follows:
"that Members of Council who hold items at the beginning of Council meetings be requested to discuss
those items with the relevant staff prior to the lunch break; and that the Chair canvass Council
immediately after the lunch break to determine which items Members wish to release;"; and
(d)adding thereto the following new section:
"The following may be introduced at any Council meeting on a simple majority:
(i)staff reports on matters previously requested by Council to be reported directly to Council; and
(ii)interim control by-laws on the advice of the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development
Services.";
(2)to provide that:
(a)the quorum of Committees of Council, with the exception of the East York Community Council, be
50 percent of the membership excluding the Mayor, ex-officio;
(b)the Chairs of the Standing Committees be selected by the Members of those relevant Committees;
(c)the dinner break during meetings of Council be from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.;
(d)Clauses and Motions not disposed of at a Council meeting be placed prior to other Reports on the
Agenda of the subsequent Council meeting; and
(e)reports pertaining to Notices of Motion be attached to the appropriate Notice of Motion; and
(3)by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that:
(a)the following procedure for hearing deputations from the public and from Councillors at
Committee meetings who are not members of the Committee be forwarded to the Special Committee to
Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for consideration:
'(i)introduction by the Chair of the subject matter. (Ward Councillors are informed in advance of the
meeting by the Committee Secretary with regard to items on the Agenda relating to his/her Ward to
which requests have been communicated to the Clerk to appear before Committee.);
(ii)deputant(s) appear before Committee on the subject matter;
(iii)Committee Members and non-Committee Members may ask questions of deputant(s) through the
Chair of the Committee;
(iv)Non-Committee Members who wish to address the Committee are then permitted to speak as
deputants;
(v)subject matter is then considered and debated by Committee Members only and decision made; and
(vi)public informed of Committee decision; and
(b)the following items be referred to the City Clerk for consideration and report thereon to the Special
Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:
(i)the numbering system and handling of correspondence and Notices of Motion;
(ii)colour coding of Committee Reports;
(iii)including in the Agenda package for Council a Table of Contents; and
(iv)a mechanism for making items more suitably available to the public.")
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team
recommends:
(1)the adoption of the joint report (April 22, 1998) from the City Solicitor and the City Clerk,
subject to amending Appendix 1 embodied therein by:
(i)referring Recommendations Nos. (3) and (14) back to the City Solicitor and the City Clerk for
report thereon to the Special Committee at such time as they are reporting on the proposal
respecting the use of a "Presiding Member of Council", as outlined in the Special Committee
direction No. (1) below;
(ii)amending Recommendation No. (7) to require the Chair to ensure that a quorum is present
at Council and Committee meetings when a vote is taken;
(iii)striking out Recommendation No. (18);
(iv)amending Recommendation No. (19) to read as follows:
"(19)(a)that the first speaker be the Councillor who held the Clause, with a single extension in
speaking time if supported by a majority vote of Council, and that all other speakers be limited
to five minutes, with no extension unless supported by a majority of Council;
(b)that the second speaker be the Chair of the Standing Committee, Community Council,
Special Purpose Body, Sub-Committee, Special Committee or Task Force to which the clause
applies;
(c)that all questions of staff be taken before the beginning of the debate of any item; and
(d)that only the Chair, or in his absence, the Councillor chairing the meetings be permitted to
call staff to the floor for questioning later during the debate, if necessary;";
(v)striking out Recommendation No. (21);
(vi)referring Recommendation No. (27) back to the City Solicitor and the City Clerk for further
report thereon to the Special Committee;
(vii)amending Recommendation No. (30) by deleting therefrom the word "noon" and inserting
in lieu thereof the time "4:30 p.m."; so that Recommendation No. (30) shall now read as follows:
"(30)that Members submit to the Clerk, in writing by 4:30 p.m. of the day prior to Council, a
list of those items that they wish to be held;"
(viii)inserting in the Section, entitled "The Management of Notices of Motion", the following
new recommendation:
"that Members of Council submit notices of motion to the City Clerk who shall ensure that such
motions conform to the rules of Council.";
(ix)inserting in the Section, entitled "Holding Items for Debate at Council", the following new
recommendation:
"that Members of Council who hold items at the beginning of Council meetings be required to
discuss those items with the relevant staff prior to the lunch break; and that the Chair canvass
Council immediately after the lunch break to determine which items Members wish to release;"
and
(x)striking out Recommendation No. (32);
(2)that a position of Vice-Chair be established for Standing Committees, other Committees of
Council, and Community Councils, and elected by the Members of those relevant committees;
and
(3)that the report (April 21, 1998) from Councillor Sinclair respecting Recommendation No.
(33) embodied in Appendix 1 be received.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the
information of Council, having:
(1)endorsed, in principle, the proposal outlined in the communication (April 20, 1998) from
Councillor Frank Faubert, respecting the use of a "Presiding Member of Council"; and requested the
City Solicitor and the City Clerk to submit a report to the Special Committee for its meeting scheduled
to be held on May 8, 1998:
(i)on a method of implementing the proposal outlined in the communication (April 20, 1998) from
Councillor Frank Faubert respecting the use of a "Presiding Member of Council", which will fulfill the
legal requirements of the Municipal Act and the intent of having a single Member of Council
responsible for conducting meetings of Council; and
(ii)on the feasibility of each Member of Council being given the opportunity of chairing meetings of
Council on a rotating basis;
(2)endorsed, in principle, the idea of a Municipal Hansard-like service provided it can be
accomplished at a reasonable cost; and
(i)requested the City Clerk to establish a small working group, in consultation with the City Solicitor
and interested citizens, to report back to the Special Committee with respect to the practical
implementation issues involved; and
(ii)referred the following communications to the City Clerk for consideration respecting the
establishment of a Hansard-like service:
(a)(March 5, 1998) from Mr. Mark Stanisz, requesting an opportunity to appear before the Special
Committee respecting the creation of a Toronto Hansard Service; and requesting the Special
Committee to direct staff to report to the Special Committee summarizing the cost and timeline of
setting up a Toronto Hansard Service, the ability to pay for bills and registrations online and setting up
a live viewcam for Council meetings;
(b)(April 14, 1998) from Ms. Liz Rykert, respecting the development of a Hansard Service for City
Council; and recommending that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto
Transition Team:
(1)recommend to Council the establishment of a Municipal Hansard Service for the City of Toronto;
and
(2)strike a working group of staff and interested citizens to develop the plan to implement the service
and identify costs and operational implications;
(c)(April 18, 1998) from Ms. Sally Gibson respecting the development of a Municipal Hansard
system;
(d)(April 22, 1998) from Ms. Tara Dier respecting the development of a Municipal Hansard system;
and
(e)(April 21, 1998) from Mr. Roger Greenwald requesting that the Special Committee give careful
consideration to establishing a Municipal Hansard system; and
(3)requested the City Clerk to submit a report to the Special Committee:
(i)on technological solutions respecting Recommendation No. (30) embodied in Appendix 1; and
(ii)respecting the numbering system of agendas and reports as proposed by Councillor Rae.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the
following joint report (April22, 1998) from the City Solicitor and the City Clerk:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to address a number of amendments proposed by Members of Council to
the Procedural By-law and referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Recommendations
of the Toronto Transition Team.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
This report has no immediate financial implications. In the future, should Council elect to implement a
Hansard system, there would be an impact on the budget of the Clerk's Division. Additional
information is required to assess the magnitude of this impact.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council adopt the recommendations contained in this report respecting administrative changes to
the Procedural By-law intended to simplify language, clarify meanings or make minor corrections to
selected sections of the Procedural By-law, embodied in Appendix 1;
(2)Council adopt the recommendations contained in this report respecting revisions to the Procedural
By-law that streamline rules and procedures governing Council debate specifically, embodied in
Appendix 1;
(3)the City Clerk report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto
Transition Team on alternative vehicles, such as cable television, through which members of the public
can have better access to elected officials; and
(4)that the appropriate officials be authorized to take any action necessary to give effect thereto,
including the introduction of the necessary bill in Council.
Council Reference/Background/History:
City Council, at its meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, considered and adopted a communication
from the City Clerk dated December 30, 1997, respecting a draft Procedural By-law for City Council
which was modeled after the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition
Team. At its January meeting, Council referred the draft Procedural By-law and several
communications and proposed amendments related to it to the Special Committee to Review the Final
Report of the Toronto Transition Team (the Special Committee) for a report back to Council in May,
1998. A copy of the Procedural By-law with the proposed amendments by Members of Council
merged into the document has been prepared and is on file with the City Clerk.
By-law No. 23-1998, being a by-law to govern the proceedings of Council and the Committees
thereof, (the Procedural By-law) was adopted by City Council at its meeting of February 6, 1998. In
accordance with the recommendations of the Special Committee, which were adopted by City Council
at its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, the Procedural By-law has been amended to permit
Community Councils to establish sub-committees and to delegate statutory hearings to such
sub-committees; to permit recorded votes at meetings of Community Councils; and to require motions
to be signed by Members of Council.
There are four broad categories into which the amendments to the Procedural By-law that were
proposed at City Council's January meeting fall. They are:
(1)Administrative Matters;
(2)Rules of Debate/Conduct of Members;
(3)Governance; and
(4)Membership.
This report recommends administrative amendments to the Procedural By-law. These
recommendations provide clarification as to the meaning of provisions within the By-law, simplify
language in specific sections or make minor corrections. The recommended amendments do not have a
material impact on the meaning or intent of the document.
This report also sets out options and recommendations concerning the rules governing Council debate
and public access to the action and decisions of Council. Where possible, these options and
recommendations consider approaches taken by other governments and input from members of City
Council.
Amendments to those portions of the Procedural By-law relating to governance and membership will
be the subject of a separate report once the Special Committee has concluded its review of the current
governance structure and of the roles and responsibilities of City Council, Community Councils and
the Standing Committees.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
A Procedural By-law is intended to provide the means whereby members, staff and the general public
can determine how the business of the municipality is to be conducted. Subsection 55(2) of the
Municipal Act requires Council to adopt a Procedural By-law for governing the calling, place and
proceedings of meetings of Council. Additionally, the Municipal Act prescribes certain other rules that
must be followed by municipalities in conducting their business, for example, determining when
meetings can be held in camera. These rules, and others relating to the rules of debate, the conduct of
Members, Standing Committee structure, etc., are set out in the Procedural By-law.
Administrative Matters:
At its January meeting, City Council had before it several suggested amendments to the Procedural
By-law that are administrative in nature and generally serve to clarify or simplify language in the
matter, or make minor corrections. After reviewing the Procedural By-law with reference to these
recommendations, the following amendments are now being recommended:
(1)in subsection (h) replace "Corporation of the City of Toronto" with "City of Toronto";
(2)in subsection 1(m)(ii) add "save and except the ex-officio powers of the Mayor as a Member of a
Community Council";
(3)delete subsections 1(m)(iii) and (iv) respecting Second and Third Deputy Mayor, subject to them
being reinserted at a future date if Council chooses to appoint members to these positions;
(4)amend subsection 3(2)(b) respecting the inaugural meeting of Council to permit Community
Councils to meet in their usual meeting places to elect their Chair to facilitate community access to
proceedings;
(5)amend subsection 5(1) respecting emergency meetings to clarify that 24 hours notification before
the meeting be in writing and can include electronic mail;
(6)respecting the preparation of agendas for special meetings of Council, amend subsection 5(3) to
clarify that it is the responsibility of the Clerk to direct development of the agenda for these meetings,
in consultation with the Mayor;
(7)amend the definition of quorum for Council meetings in section 8 to clarify that quorum requires a
majority of Members sitting in their assigned seats;
(8)respecting In-Camera meetings, rather than reference the Municipal Act, amend section 10 to set
out the situations when a member can move a motion that Council meet in camera as set out in section
55 of the Municipal Act. This would allow members to determine when meetings may be held in
camera by referencing the Procedural By-law and would eliminate the need to then reference the
Municipal Act;
(9)amend section 11 respecting Council adjournments to add a new subsection providing that when
Council meets on a Friday, it shall adjourn prior to sundown;
(10)subsection 15(a)(I) provides that Members of Council shall not speak disrespectfully of a diversity
of parties, including City officials and, it has been recommended that "officials" be replaced by the
broader term "employees";
(11)in subsection 25(7) respecting questions that are substantially similar in form and content to
questions already asked, for clarity replace the words "substantially similar" with "substantially the
same";
(12)in section 38, simplify the language by deleting "The following are deemed to be procedural
motions and shall be subject to debate, as follows:" and replace it with "The following are deemed to
be procedural motions and shall be subject to consideration in the following order:"; and
(13)amend subsection 60(1) to provide that the Clerk will prepare and circulate a Bills index with the
Council Agenda rather than the actual bills to reduce the amount of paper to Councillors, with copies
of the bills available in the Clerk's Office or in the Council Chamber during meetings for review.
Rules of Debate:
Many of the issues raised by Members of Council during their review of the Procedural By-law
concerned the rules and procedures governing Council debate and public access to Council
information, actions and decisions. At Council's inaugural meeting in January, Members proposed a
variety of By-law amendments to address these issues. Additional suggestions were obtained by means
of discussions with staff and individual Councillors. In addition, feedback on the various options
presented in this report was obtained by means of a questionnaire circulated by the Chair of the Special
Committee to all Members of Council. All of this information has been considered in developing and
refining the procedural directions recommended in this report.
A number of assumptions underlie the following recommendations. They are:
(1)that the rules and procedures in the Procedural By-law must facilitate effective, efficient,
accountable and sensitive decision making by Council;
(2)that the Procedural By-law must provide the tools necessary to manage the City's large agenda in a
timely manner;
(3)that Council Members must have fair and equal opportunities to present their positions to Council;
(4)that individual Members of Council and the actions, discussions and decisions of Council as a
whole must be accessible and understandable to external constituencies; and
(5)that, in general, all matters requiring debate by Council must be listed in the Order Paper.
Specific issues raised by Members of Council related to rules of debate can be divided into the
following six categories:
(i)the use of a speaker;
(ii)conduct at Council meetings;
(iii)the questioning and speaking process;
(iv)the management of notices of motion;
(v)miscellaneous procedural issues; and
(vi)public access to political processes.
For each of these categories, this report reviews the requirements of the current Procedural By-law,
issues and concerns raised by Members of Council, options or proposed amendments for addressing
these issues, and recommended actions.
The Use of Speaker:
The Procedural By-law currently recognizes the Mayor as head of Council. It permits the appointment
by Council of a Deputy Mayor to act in the place of the Mayor when needed. The Deputy is not
permitted to chair a Standing Committee or Community Council and is appointed by Council By-law.
Section 57 of the Municipal Act requires that the Mayor as head of Council chair Council meetings.
Existing drafts of the proposed new Municipal Act contain the same requirement. As a result, special
legislation or a Municipal Act amendment would be required should Council elect to fully delegate all
tasks related to a speaker. It is possible for the Mayor to administratively request a member to assume
the chair during his absences without legislative amendment.
It has been proposed that Section 1 of the Procedural By-law be amended to permit the appointment,
by by-law, of a Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Council. These individuals would be selected from
Members and would chair Council meetings.
Speakers are commonly used in larger legislative assemblies operating under a party system. They are
intended to be impartial and, as is the case with the Province of Ontario, have no voting rights. The
party system improves the effectiveness of the speaker model by ensuring that elected officials, other
than the speaker, are available to represent a party's position and interests on specific issues.
The City of Winnipeg is the only known municipal model in which a speaker or presiding official is
employed. This individual is appointed by Winnipeg Council from within its membership and presides
over Council meetings. Specific responsibilities of the speaker are legislated in the City of Winnipeg
Act and elaborated on in the City's Procedural By-law. They include chairing meetings of Council,
maintaining order and decorum at Council and deciding on questions of order. The Speaker has normal
voting rights but must leave the chair to participate in debate. A Deputy Presiding Officer chairs in
these cases. The Speaker also chairs the Secretariat Committee, which handles the internal affairs of
Members. The Mayor and Members of the Executive Committee cannot be speakers.
Options available to City Council in its consideration of the speaker model are:
(1)maintaining the status quo in which the Mayor is chair of Council but vacates the chair when
speaking or moving a motion;
(2)selecting a speaker from within Council who would be impartial and without voting rights
(legislative amendment required);
(3)selecting a speaker from within Council who would vote in the event of a tie and vacate the chair to
speak or introduce a motion (legislative amendment required); or
(4)selecting a speaker from within Council who would have full voting rights but would be required to
vacate the chair to speak or move a motion (legislative amendment required).
In all options, where a speaker is proposed, the Deputy Speaker would assume the chair when it is
vacated.
There are both benefits and drawback to implementing the speaker model in the City of Toronto. It
could reduce the Mayor's considerable workload while allowing a member to focus on managing the
sizable agenda of Council and becoming expert on the rules and procedures governing Council.
Without full voting rights, as is suggested in options two and three, and in the absence of a party
system, the ability of the speaker to represent the interests of his or her constituency at Council may be
impaired. Option four addresses this concern by awarding the speaker full voting rights.
In light of the above issues, it is recommended that option one, the status quo, be continued. This
option ensures that all constituents are equally represented at Council, recognizes that the Mayor, who
is elected at large, is better equipped to act as an impartial chair and does not require legislative
amendment. This option was preferred by those members that responded to the questionnaire
circulated by the Chair of the Special Committee.
Conduct at Council Meetings:
Currently, section 16.1 of the Procedural By-law outlines rules governing the behaviour of Members at
Council meetings. Specifically, it clarifies in sub-section 16(b) that "No person shall display signs or
placards, applaud participants in debate or engage in conversation or other behaviour which may
disrupt the proceedings of Council." In addition, section 16.1(d) requires that Members not use
"offensive words or unparliamentary language in or against the Council or against any speaker."
Proposed amendments to section 16 are as follows:
(1)that the requirement that Members "not speak disrespectfully of the Royal Family, the Governor
General, the Lieutenant Governor of any Province, any Member of Council or any official of the
Corporation" be deleted;
(2)that a definition of unparliamentary language which specifies that Members not "A. attribute false
of undeclared motives to another Member; B. Charges another Member with being dishonest; C. is
abusive or insulting; or, D. is likely to cause disorder" be incorporated in the By-law; and
(3)that sub-section 16(b), which is quoted above, be amended to read that "No member shall engage in
behaviour that shall disrupt the proceedings of Council."
Options for addressing these issues are:
(1)maintaining the status quo in which Members are not permitted to speak disrespectfully of the
parties listed above and in which "unparliamentary language" is not specifically defined in the By-law;
(2)citing a parliamentary authority within the By-law to be referred to when a definition of
"unparliamentary language" is required;
(3)incorporating a description of "unparliamentary language" in the By-law;
(4)deleting sub-section 16.1 which clarifies those parties to whom Councillors cannot speak
disrespectfully; or
(5)amending sub-section 16(b) to read "No member shall engage in behaviour that shall disrupt the
proceedings of Council."
A number of these options can be implemented alone or in combination with other options.
The intent of options two and three is to clarify what constitutes "unparliamentary language". Detailed
definitions exist in a variety of credible sources including Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and
Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. By contrast, the Standing Orders of the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario simply refer to matters which "in the opinion of the Speaker offend the Practices
and Precedents of the House". Developing a new definition specifically for the By-law that is
all-inclusive would be difficult and unnecessary. Option two, which suggests citing an existing
definition to be referred to as needed, is an option that would provide Council with access to a clear
definition. However, any detailed listing of unparliamentary language soon becomes out of date. The
status quo, which is similar to the Provincial model is preferred because these provisions do not require
updating and provide for flexibility.
Option four suggests removing from the current By-law restrictions prohibiting Councillors from
speaking disrespectfully of a variety of parties including the Royal Family, employees and other public
sector officials. Such restrictions are traditionally included in Procedural By-laws and are beneficial as
they focus debate on issues as opposed to individuals. As a result, this option is not recommended for
implementation.
Finally, option five suggests that sub-section 16(b) of the By-law be amended to read that "No member
shall engage in behaviour that shall disrupt the proceedings of Council." At present, this sub-section
specifies what is considered to be disruptive behaviour. The proposed amendment could be open to a
diversity of interpretations and is not recommended for implementation.
Questioning and Speaking Guidelines:
At present, section 25 of the Procedural By-law stipulates that a Member, when speaking to Council,
may first ask questions to obtain facts or clarification on a matter. Questions can be asked of the
Mayor, an official of the City or of a related body, a Committee Chair, Community Council Chair or
Chair of an agency, board or commission. They can also be asked of the previous speaker when that
speaker has introduced a motion. Members are permitted to speak on a matter for five minutes. A five
minute extension is possible, with support from two thirds of Members present. Motions can be
introduced during a Member's speaking time.
A number of concerns have been raised as a result of current speaking and questioning practices.
Specifically, the duration of individual debates and of Council meetings, the number of speakers on
individual items, the degree to which the speaking list grows as debate continues, the use of
questioning as a tool of debate, and the use of speaking time to continue questioning have been
identified as issues by a number of Councillors.
Several options have been proposed to address these issues and to streamline the debate process. A
number of these options referred to the speaking time allotted to Members on individual items. After
considering the impact of various time limits, it was concluded that refining the questioning and
speaking process as opposed to simply adjusting limits on speaking time better addresses the above
issues. For this reason, it is recommended that current practices governing speaking time be
maintained.
Refining the Questioning Process:
A number of options have been proposed for streamlining questioning practices at Council. They are:
(1)that a period of time be set aside prior to debate on each item at Council for questioning of staff by
Members of Council and that no questions of staff be allowed during Council debate;
(2)that a briefing on key issues be held by staff prior to Council meetings and that questioning at
Council pertain only to clarification of new information submitted at Council or clarification of
motions;
(3)that questioning be permitted only when it is to clarify a motion; and
(4)that Members be permitted to question only when on the floor to speak.
Option one would limit the use of questioning as a tool of debate and successfully streamlines the
debate process. There is a concern that it could have a negative impact on attendance at Standing
Committees, however, where detailed questioning of staff traditionally takes place. In addition, a need
to seek further information from staff may arise as a result of Council debate. This option would
prevent Council from seeking clarification from staff once debate on an item has begun.
In option two, a briefing on key issues would be held prior to Council meetings. The agenda for these
briefings would be circulated in advance and sessions would be open to both the public and the media.
Staff could begin with a presentation on agenda items. For those items addressed at the briefing,
questioning at Council would be limited to clarification of any new information submitted to Council
or clarifying motions. By focussing on only selected items, this option could have less of an impact on
attendance at Standing Committees than would option one.
Option three is the most restrictive in that it would permit questioning only to clarify a motion. This
limits the ability of Councillors to obtain clarification on any new information presented at Council
meetings. To be effective, this option would have to be implemented in combination with option one,
in which time was set aside at Council to question staff.
Option four permits Councillors to ask questions only when they on the floor to speak. The primary
concern with this approach is its impact on debate, which could become fragmented and confusing as
councillors alternated between speaking and questioning.
It is recommended that option two be implemented and that briefing sessions be scheduled prior to
Council on key items on the Council agenda. By providing a time for Councillors to obtain detailed
information or clarification on complex items, prior to Council, the debate process could be
significantly streamlined. Opening these sessions to the public and media ensure continued full access
to the political process.
Finally, in the area of questioning it has also been proposed that Section 25(7) of the By-law, which
stipulates that a member may not ask a question if the Chair rules that the question is similar in form
and content to one that has already been asked, be deleted. Deleting this clause could result in debate
that becomes unnecessarily prolonged or repetitive. This proposed amendment is therefore not
recommended.
Refining the Speaking Process:
A number of options have been proposed to streamline the speaking process and to address other
issues described earlier. These options are:
(1)that the Committee Chair responsible for an item be the first speaker, with a single extension if
supported by a majority vote of Council and that all other speakers be limited to five minutes only,
with no extension;
(2)that the speakers' list be open prior to the start of debate on an item and permanently closed when
debate begins; and
(3)that the speaking list be restricted to ten people at a time and that after each group of ten the vote be
called automatically and be allowed only if the motion that the vote now be taken is successful.
Option one provides Committee chairs with an opportunity to present an overview of the issue and to
highlight the rationale behind the Committee recommendation. By restricting all subsequent speakers
to five minutes, the debate process could be significantly streamlined. With the unanimous approval of
Council, extensions could be provided to speakers in extraordinary cases.
In option two, the speakers' list is open prior to the start of debate on an item and closed when debate
begins. While this proposal prevents the speakers' list from growing as debate continues, it prohibits
Members from responding to issues raised by colleagues during the debate process.
In Option three, the speakers' list is restricted to ten names, including the Member responsible for
holding a report. After all ten Members have spoken, Council would be canvassed to determine if
Members were ready to vote or if more debate was required. In the case of the latter, another ten
speakers would be recorded and the process would repeat itself. While this approach could serve to
limit the extent to which debate is prolonged and is repetitive, it could also restrict the extent to which
opposing views can be aired at Council.
In light of the above, option one is recommended for implementation. While it streamlines the debate
process, it ensures that each member of Council has a fair and equal opportunity to present his or her
views at meetings.
The Management of Motions:
Finally, it has been suggested that the debate process could be further streamlined with changes in the
ways in which motions are managed. The following three options have been suggested:
(1)that when a motion to defer or refer an item has been tabled, further speakers will only be
entertained if they have amendments to the deferral or referral motion, otherwise a vote be taken
immediately; and
(2)that Members of Council submit their proposed motions (amendments to clauses in Committee
Reports) to the City Clerk by noon in the day prior to Council to permit circulation of the motions in
advance of the Council meeting.
Option one and two are recommended for implementation. Option one reduces the likelihood of
dedicating time at Council to debating items that are ultimately going to be referred to a Standing
Committee or Community Council or deferred to a later Council meeting. Option two enables the City
Clerk to circulate proposed amendments to Clauses to Councillors at the outset of Council meetings
thus facilitating the agenda review process and reducing the speaking time requirements of members.
This is compatible with the previous recommendation that speaking time be restricted to five minutes
for members other than the Chair of the Committee responsible for a clause.
The Management of Notices of Motion:
At present, the Procedural By-law permits Notices of Motion to be tabled at any time prior to or during
a Council meeting. Notices submitted five business days in advance of a Council meeting can appear
on the Council agenda. Notice must be given at a previous Council meeting prior to debate. If no
notice was given at a previous Council meeting, then a 2/3's vote of Members present is required to
debate.
Most parliamentary authorities require that notice be given for motions.
A number of concerns have been raised with this process. Specifically, the logistics of managing
motions without notice during meetings and the number of motions that must be voted on at the
conclusion of each Council meeting has proven to be difficult. In addition, there is concern that major
policy issues or other initiatives are being introduced through Notices of Motion and not subject to
public consultation or proper staff review. When Notices of Motions are for staff reports, there is a
delay in Council receiving reports as a result of current process. While there is a need for the process
of managing Notices of Motion to be flexible enough to accommodate emergency situations and legal
deadlines, tight definitions of these situations are required to avoid misuse. Finally, there is a concern
that referring Notices of Motion to Committees is being used as a tactic to avoid issues.
A number of options have been identified to address these issues. They are:
(1)that, in general, all Notices of Motion must appear on the Council agenda;
(2)that notice must be given at a previous Council meeting prior to debate by Council;
(3)that a time limit be set during the first day of Council meetings for late Notices of Motion beyond
which Notices of Motion will not be accepted. Council will only consider late Notices of Motion if it
deals with emergency, legal and other deadline requirements.
(4)that Notices of Motion be automatically referred by the Clerk to the appropriate Standing
Committees or Community Councils, if they fall under the jurisdiction of the Standing Committee or
Community Council, with emergencies, legal and other deadline requirements made the exception; and
(5)that Notices of Motions requesting staff reports be submitted directly to Standing Committees or
Community Councils as opposed to Council, with an appeal mechanism to Council.
Options (1) to (5) are recommended for implementation.
Options one and two ensure that sufficient notice is given to Members of Council and the public of any
up-coming issues and allow sufficient time for public consultations and staff review prior to debate by
Council.
Option three will limit the number of motions received during Council meetings. It is unlikely to
significantly reduce the number requiring a vote prior to the end of Council however.
Options four and five resolve a number of issues and could streamline the political decision-making
process and are recommended for implementation. They ensure that major policy directions receive
appropriate review and analysis at both the staff and political levels. They also ensure that the public
has an opportunity to comment on proposed directions at Committees or Community Council
meetings. By the Clerk being directed to automatically refer motions that request staff to report
directly to the appropriate Committee, the need to go to Council is eliminated and direction to staff is
more timely. There is however a concern that this process could substantially increase the number of
reports being requested from staff.
Finally, option four permits notices of motions that are time sensitive or that deal with emergency
situations to go directly to Council. Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of the Chair, in
consultation with the appropriate staff to determine issues that fall into these categories.
Miscellaneous Procedural Issues:
A number of proposed amendments to the Procedural By-law have been made that impact the political
process at both the Council and Committee level. Some of these proposals enable the streamlining of
the debate process, while others clarify or simplify normal Council practices. Issues addressed in this
section of the report include the reopening and reconsidering of items, the definition of quorum at the
committee level, the process through which items are held for discussion at Council and the use of
prayer at Council meetings.
Conduct of Business - Unprovided Cases:
The current Procedural By-law provides that the rules and regulations contained in the By-law shall be
observed in all proceedings of the Council and, where applicable, in the Committees thereof. Council
referred to the Special Committee that section of the original draft by-law pertaining to the use of the
Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for unprovided cases in the proceedings of
Council. It has been suggested that the By-law be amended to provide that Bourinot, Beauschesne,
Robert's or any other authority deemed appropriate be consulted in such circumstances.
Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms set out the
principles of English parliamentary law in the context of the Canadian Parliament. These authorities
date back to 1916 and 1922 respectively and have been updated from time to time. Robert's Rules of
Order is an American text dating back to 1876 and updated through the years to provide a reference
manual of parliamentary procedures applicable within a club, organization, business or government
structure. The current Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario date back to 1989 and
provide for the conduct of business in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in its Committees. In
recent years, the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Robert's Rules of Order
have often been referred to by municipalities in unprovided cases. It is recommended that the Standing
Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be referred to in unprovided cases in the proceedings of
Council or its Committees because these provisions are familiar and accessible to councillors, staff and
the public; better reflect Canadian Parliamentary Procedures than Robert's Rules and are more up to
date than Bourinot or Beauschesne.
The Re-opening and Re-considering of Items:
The current Procedural By-law permits the re-opening of an item at Council with a simple majority, if
notice is given at the previous meeting of Council, and if the motion to re-open is moved by a Member
of Council who voted on the prevailing side. Section 28 of the By-law requires that two thirds vote of
Members present is required if that re-opening is proposed without prior notice. Standing Committees
are not permitted to debate any issue that has already been decided on by Council unless Council has
re-opened the matter.
Traditionally, a matter is re-opened or re-considered if it is revisited within a twelve month period.
After this period, a re-consideration of an issue is considered to be a new item.
The Provincial Legislature does not permit the re-opening of an item in the same sitting. In Roberts
Rules, support from 2/3 of the Members of the Legislative Assembly is required to re-open or
re-consider an item after the first sitting.
Given the current size of City Council, it has become relatively easy to re-open an issue. As a result, a
number of significant items have been debated and decided at one Council meeting only to be
re-opened and re-debated at the next, or even later in the same meeting when the vote may be seen to
have shifted. Given the size of Council's agenda, this has significantly prolonged Council meetings
and the City's decision making process.
A number of options have been proposed to address this concern. They are:
(1)that re-openings intended to change a Council decision not be possible in the twelve months
following the date of the original decision, unless supported by two-thirds of Members present;
(2)that re-openings intended to change a Council decision not be possible in eighteen months unless
supported by two thirds of Members present;
(3)that re-openings intended to change a Council decision not be possible during the term of Council
unless supported by two-thirds of Members present; and
(4)that re-openings intended to change a Council decision not be permitted during the meeting in
which the item was originally debated, unless two-thirds of Members present vote in favour of the
re-opening.
It is recommended that options one and four be implemented and reflected in the Procedural By-law.
This is consistent with that followed by the Province of Ontario and reflected in various Parliamentary
Authorities.
Holding Items for Debate at Council:
At present, the Order Paper for Council includes reviewing all committee reports listed on the Council
agenda to determine which are to be held for debate or amendment. The size of the Council and the
volume of issues under its purview as a single tier government have resulted in this process consuming
substantial time at the beginning of Council meetings.
It has been proposed that the Procedural By-law be amended to require that members submit to the
Clerk, in writing, a list of those items that they wish to be held. The deadline for submissions could be
noon on the day prior to Council. Requests could be date and time stamped to facilitate identification
of the first speaker. A list of all held items could then be circulated at the outset of all Council
meetings and Members could amend the list at the start of each meeting. Items not on the list would be
deemed to be adopted.
To facilitate debate and to give priority to discussion of major issues at Council, it is also proposed that
the Clerk, in consultation with the Mayor, prepare and submit to Council at the beginning of each
meeting a list of key items which should receive priority for debate at Council.
These proposals are recommended for implementation. While Councillors could amend the list of held
items at the start of each meeting, the need to review by calling out the entire agenda would be
eliminated.
Other Business on the Council Agenda:
At present, the clause appearing at the end of Committee reports is an information item called "Other
Items Considered by the Committee". This item summarizes other actions undertaken by Standing
Committees and Community Councils, such as deferrals, referrals or receipt for information which do
not require Council action.
In light of lengthy Council agendas, it is recommended that this clause be deleted from reports
submitted to Council and that the Clerk circulates monthly, in the form of a communication to all
Members, these information items.
The Use of Prayer at Council Meetings:
At present, the second item on the Council Order Paper, according to section 17.1 of the Procedural
By-law, is a Moment of Silence for Members of Council to reflect as each individual sees appropriate.
It has been proposed that this item be replaced with the Lord's Prayer or another appropriate prayer.
In considering this issue, the following four options were identified:
(1)that a Moment of Silence remain as part of the Order Paper and that it be renamed a "Moment of
Silence and Personal Reflection";
(2)that a moment of personal reflection replace the Moment of Silence;
(3)that a personal prayer, which would also be silent, replace the moment of silence; or
(4)that the Lord's prayer or an acceptable alternative prayer replace the Moment of Silence.
After reviewing these options, it is recommended that a Moment of Silence and Personal Reflection is
more inclusive and better reflects the diversity of Council and the community at large. As a result, it is
recommended the Order Paper be revised to reflect this.
Quorum:
In the Interim Procedural By-law, the Mayor is an ex-officio member of all Committees and Task
Forces of Councils. As such, he has voting rights and is included in the calculation of quorum. The
demands on the Mayor's time and the simultaneous timing of many of meetings makes his attendance
difficult. Nevertheless, in a number of instances, achieving a quorum without the Mayor has proven
problematic. In some cases, meetings have proceeded informally without quorum.
To address this issue and to realistically reflect the availability of the Mayor, it is recommended that
the quorum for all Council Committees and Task Forces exclude the Mayor from the quorum
calculation. He would continue to be an ex-officio member and would retain his voting rights however.
It is also recommended that the Procedural by-law be amended to require that if no quorum is present
in any Committee or Task Force, that the meeting stand adjourned and not continue on an informal
basis and that all business be deferred to the next meeting of that Committee or Task Force or at the
call of the chair. This is necessary to ensure that the actions and recommendations arising from these
formally constituted bodies reflect the interests of the majority of its Members.
Public Access to the Political Process:
According to existing Council/Committee procedures, public participation and questions of elected
officials is accommodated at the Standing Committees and Community Council level. Council's role is
focussed on making decisions on recommendations coming forward from these committees and
Community Councils.
It has been proposed that the Order Paper for Council be revised to replace the "Enquires and
Answers" section with a "Question Period" for citizens. The intent of this proposed amendment is to
provide the public with opportunities to pose questions to the Mayor or Members of Council.
A number of options exist for improving public access to elected officials. They are:
(1)that Standing Committees and Community Councils continue to be the primary vehicles through
which the public can formally access elected representatives but that other options for questioning
Councillors and the Mayor be investigated;
(2)that a sixty-minute period of time be set aside on the Council agenda for members of the public
who have registered their name and question with the Clerk in advance to ask a question of Members
of Council; and
(3)that a question period be set aside for the public in the day prior to Council meetings.
In option one, staff of the Corporate Communications function in the Clerk's Division could be asked
to research various opportunities through which the public could access elected officials. These
opportunities could include cable television, radio, public meetings and other vehicles. The role of the
Standing Committees and Community Councils in hearing from the public would be unchanged.
In option (2), one question only would be permitted. Clarification as to who would respond would be
required. This approach could further lengthens Council meetings and reduce the public's interest in
Standing Committee and Community Council consultation processes.
Logistically, option three would be difficult to implement. The demands on the time of Members of
Council and the diversity of meetings in which these Councillors are required to participate may make
the scheduling of such sessions difficult.
It is recommended that option one be implemented and that the City Clerk be asked to investigate
other less formal vehicles through which members of the public can improve access to elected
representatives.
Use of Hansard:
Hansard is the official, complete report of proceedings in a parliament or legislature. Traditionally, it is
substantially a verbatim report of proceedings, with repetitions, redundancies and obvious mistakes
omitted. Rules and practices governing Hansard are generally tailored to the body employing this
model.
In order to improve public access and understanding of the City's decision making process, it has been
proposed that consideration be given to implementing a Hansard Model in which actual Council debate
as well as decisions are recorded and made available through a variety of sources to the public.
At present, members of the public have access to the political process in a variety of ways. They can
contact individual councillors, attend or depute to Community Councils and Standing Committees and
observe Council meetings. While there is no verbatim recording of Council discussions, the present
system provides the public with access to Council and Committee agendas, reports and decisions.
Both the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Ontario use Hansard systems.
In Winnipeg, which has a council of sixteen including the Mayor, a separate Hansard branch exists
within the City Clerk's Department. This branch records, transcribes and distributes all Winnipeg
Council debates and decisions. The public can access the City's Hansard by subscription or at the
central Clerk's office, Community Committee Offices and public libraries. The City's rationale for
instituting Hansard is that the public has a right to know both the decisions that were made by Council
and the way in which those decisions were made.
The gross annual cost of Winnipeg's Hansard is $85,000.00 per annum, of which the majority of
expenditures ($64.0 thousand) is staff. Some revenues are generated through subscriptions. Given the
size of Toronto Council, the projected number of meetings hours and the distribution demands of the
larger urban area, costs in the City of Toronto are likely to be significantly higher.
In the Province of Ontario, the Hansard functions as a branch of the Office of the Assembly and
reports to the Clerk of the House. Debates in the House and all committees are recorded using digital
audio software. Speakers are identified on the recording by an audio operator and interjections are
noted by shorthand writers. In its final stage of development, the Hansard is reformatted through
desktop publishing and printed commercially. The total cost of the program, including salaries and
equipment is $3.0 million. This includes the cost of providing services to committee meetings.
In general, the benefits of a Hansard system are that the public is made aware of the rationale behind
Council decisions, it is consistent with the concept of open government. It also provides staff with a
context within which to positions future reports and actions. On the negative side, the model requires
additional resources dedicated to the editing and production of the Hansard and for the purchase of
equipment.
Should Council elect to pursue a Hansard model, additional research is required into the staff,
technical, financial, reproduction and distribution requirements. An assessment of Hansard objectives
is also needed, for example a verbatim transcription, that is unedited, of Council meeting can only be
accomplished within the complexities of the current procedural system.
Conclusions:
This report recommends a number of administrative changes to the Procedural By-law and proposes a
number of amendments intended to streamline or refine political processes. Recommendations are
based on comments from Members of Council, obtained at the inaugural meeting of Council and
through individual interviews and a questionnaire circulated by Chair of the Special Committee.
Further refinements to the By-law related to governance and membership issues will be submitted for
Council consideration later in 1998, following the development of recommendations by the Special
Committee in these areas.
Contact Names:
Elaine Baxter-Trahair - (416) 392-8668, and
Mary Ellen Bench - (416) 392-7245
--------
Appendix 1
Summary of Recommended Changes to the Procedural By-law
(Note - Changes proposed by the Special Committee are italicized.)
Administrative Changes:
(1)In subsection (h) replace "Corporation of the City of Toronto" with "City of Toronto".
(2)In subsection 1(m)(ii) add "save and except the ex-officio powers of the Mayor as a Member of a
Community Council".
(3)Delete subsections 1(m)(iii) and (iv) respecting Second and Third Deputy Mayor, subject to them
being reinserted at a future date if Council chooses to appoint members to these positions.
(The foregoing Recommendation No. (3) was referred back to the City Clerk and the City Solicitor
with a request for a further report to the Special Committee.)
(4)Amend subsection 3(2)(b) respecting the inaugural meeting of Council to permit Community
Councils to meet in their usual meeting places to elect their Chair to facilitate community access to
proceedings.
(5)Amend subsection 5(1) respecting emergency meetings to clarify that 24 hours notification before
the meeting be in writing and can include electronic mail.
(6)Respecting the preparation of agendas for special meetings of Council, amend subsection 5(3) to
clarify that it is the responsibility of the Clerk to direct development of the agenda for these meetings,
in consultation with the Mayor.
(7)Amend the definition of quorum for Council meetings in section 8 to clarify that quorum requires a
majority of Members sitting in their assigned seats.
(The foregoing Recommendation No. (7) was amended to require the Chair to ensure that a quorum is
present at Council and Committee meetings when a vote is taken;
(8)Respecting In-Camera meetings, rather than reference the Municipal Act, amend section 10 to set
out the situations when a member can move a motion that Council meet in camera as set out in section
55 of the Municipal Act. This would allow members to determine when meetings may be held in
camera by referencing the Procedural By-law and would eliminate the need to then reference the
Municipal Act.
(9)Amend section 11 respecting Council adjournments to add a new subsection providing that when
Council meets on a Friday, it shall adjourn prior to sundown.
(10)Subsection 15(a)(i) provides that Members of Council shall not speak disrespectfully of a
diversity of parties, including City officials and, it has been recommended that "officials" be replaced
by the broader term "employees".
(11)In subsection 25(7) respecting questions that are substantially similar in form and content to
questions already asked, for clarity replace the words "substantially similar" with "substantially the
same".
(12)In section 38, simplify the language by deleting "The following are deemed to be procedural
motions and shall be subject to debate, as follows:" and replace it with "The following are deemed to
be procedural motions and shall be subject to consideration in the following order:".
(13)Amend subsection 60(1) to provide that the Clerk will prepare and circulate a Bills index with the
Council Agenda rather than the actual bills to reduce the amount of paper to Councillors, with copies
of the bills available in the Clerk's Office or in the Council Chamber during meetings for review.
The Use of Speaker:
(14)That the status quo, in which the Mayor is chair of Council but vacates the chair when speaking or
moving a Motion, be maintained.
(The foregoing Recommendation No. (14) was referred back to the City Solicitor and the City Clerk
for report thereon to the Special Committee.)
Conduct at Council Meetings:
(15)That the status quo, in which a detailed definition of "unparliamentary language" is excluded from
the Procedural By-law, be maintained and that it be the role of the Chair to determine language which
offends the Council.
(16)That portion of section 16 of the Procedural By-law, which defines those parties to whom
Councillors cannot speak disrespectfully, remain unchanged.
(17)That subsection 16(b) of the By-law, which clarified those behaviours considered disruptive to the
proceedings of Council, remain unchanged.
Refining the Questioning Process:
(18)That a briefing on key issues be held by staff prior to Council meetings and that questioning at
Council pertain only to clarifying new information submitted at Council or clarification of Motions.
(The foregoing Recommendation No. (18) was struck out.)
Refining the Speaking Process:
(19)That the Committee Chair responsible for an item be the first speaker, with a single extension in
speaking time if supported by a majority vote of Council and that all other speakers be limited to five
minutes, with no extensions unless supported unanimously by Council.
(The foregoing Recommendation No. (19) was amended to read as follows:
(a)that the first speaker be the Councillor who held the Clause, with a single extension in speaking
time if supported by a majority vote of Council, and that all other speakers be limited to five minutes,
with no extension unless supported by a majority of Council;
(b)that the second speaker be the Chair of the Standing Committee, Community Council, Special
Purpose Body, Sub-Committee, Special Committee or Task Force to which the clause applies;
(c)that all questions of staff be taken before the beginning of the debate of any item; and
(d)that only the Chair, or in his absence, the Councillor chairing the meetings be permitted to call
staff to the floor for questioning later during the debate if necessary.";")
The Management of Motions:
(20)That when a motion to defer or refer an item has been tabled, further speakers be entertained only
if they have amendments to the deferral or referral Motion, otherwise a vote be taken immediately.
(21)That Members of Council submit their proposed motions (amendments to clauses in Committee
Reports) to the City Clerk by noon of the day prior to Council to permit circulation of motions in
advance of Council meetings.
(The foregoing Recommendation No. (21) was struck out.)
The Management of Notices of Motion:
(22)That, in general, all Notices of Motion must appear on the Council agenda.
(23)That notice must be given at a previous Council meeting prior to debate by Council.
(24)That a time limit be set during the first day of Council beyond which late Notices of Motion will
not be accepted and that Council only consider late Notices of Motion if they deal with emergency,
legal and other deadline requirements.
(25)That Notices of Motion be automatically referred by the Clerk to the appropriate Standing
Committee or Community Council, if they fall under the jurisdiction of the Standing Committee or
Community Council, with exceptions made for emergencies, legal and other deadline requirements.
(26)That Notices of Motions requesting staff reports be submitted directly to Standing Committees or
Community Councils as opposed to Council, with an appeal mechanism to Council.
(The foregoing Section was amended by adding thereto the following new recommendation:
"that Members of Council submit their notices of motion to the City Clerk who shall to ensure that
such motions conform to the rules of Council.)
Conduct of Business - Unprovided Cases:
(27)That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be referred to in unprovided
cases in the proceedings of Council or its Committees.
(The foregoing Recommendation No. (27) was referred back to the City Solicitor and the City Clerk
for further report thereon to the Special Committee.)
The Reopening and Reconsidering of Items:
(28)That reopenings intended to change a Council decision not be possible in the twelve months
following the date of the original decision, unless supported by two thirds of the Members present.
(29)That reopenings intended to change a Council decision not be permitted during the meeting in
which the item was originally debated, unless two thirds of the Members present vote in favour of the
reopening.
Holding Items for Debate at Council:
(30)That members submit to the Clerk, in writing by noon of the day prior to Council, a list of those
items that they wish to be held.
(The foregoing Recommendation No. (30) was amended:
(1) to read as follows:
"(30)that Members submit to the Clerk, in writing by 4:30 p.m. of the day prior to Council, a list of
those items that they wish to be held;"; and
(2)By adding thereto the following:
"that Members of Council who hold items at the beginning of Council meetings be required to discuss
those items with the relevant staff prior to the lunch break; and that the Chair canvass Council
immediately after the lunch break to determine which items Members wish to release";)
(31)That the Clerk, in consultation with the Mayor, prepare and submit to Council at the beginning of
each meeting a list of key items which should receive priority for debate;
Other Items on the Council Agenda:
(32)That the "Other Items" clause be deleted from reports submitted to Council and that the Clerk
circulate monthly, in the form of a communication to all Members, these information items.
(The Foregoing Recommendation No. (32) was struck out.)
The Use of Prayer at Council Meetings:
(33)That the Council Order Paper be revised to incorporate "A Moment of Silence and Personal
Reflection".
Quorum:
(34)That the quorum for all Council Committees and Task Forces exclude the Mayor from the quorum
calculation.
(35)That if no quorum is present in any Committee or Task Force, that the meeting stand adjourned
and not continue on an informal basis, and that all business be deferred to the next meeting of the
Committee or Task Force.
Public Access to the Political Process:
(36)That Standing Committees and Community Councils continue to be the primary vehicles through
which the public can formally access elected representatives but that other options for questioning
Councillors and the Mayor be investigated by the City Clerk.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits
the following communication (April20, 1998) from Councillor FrankFaubert,
Scarborough-Highland Creek:
This is in response to your memo of April9, 1998, in which you requested opinion from Members of
Council regarding proposed amendments to the Procedural By-law of Council. Rules of Procedure are
not simple, nor are they mutually exclusive but inter-related, and in some cases, complex in
relationship, and developed over a time of a Council. The new Toronto Council does not have the
luxury of time, and unless some issues are resolved soon, the business of Council will grind slowly to a
halt.
I have chosen to answer each question within the category posed as succinctly as possible,
acknowledging each is open to debate.
(1)Use of a Speaker:
We should first establish if the Toronto Act or the new Municipal Act allows for such a position. If
not, then Council should immediately apply for a Legislative amendment, if Council concurs:
(a)I support the principle behind such a proposal, but probably should not be a "Speaker" as this
implies a parliamentary form of government, and municipal government is congressional in nature and
form. The position should be a "President" of Council, or alternatively, a "Chairman" of Council,
elected by majority vote of Council.
(b)Chair should not be required to vote except in case of a tie vote.
(c)Must leave chair to participate in debate, move motion(s), etc.
(2)Questioning and Speaking by Members of Council:
Prohibitions of ways and manners of speaking are valid with rules to maintain decorum of Council.
Definition of "unparliamentary" language is required, and should include a prohibition of the word
"liar", for use of that word will always start debate to degenerate. As well, the attribution of "motive"
should be prohibited for the same reason.
(a)Keep speaking limit to five minutes at all times - Member of Council can always request time
extension with 2/3 vote, but this should be a mandatory recorded vote (with time stop). This speaking
time should be displayed on a "countdown" clock.
(b)Would support limits to questioning of staff. Idea of questioning only at beginning of debate
worthy of investigation and support.
(c)Staff briefings could be a waste of time as the dynamic of questioning of staff is valid only at
Council meeting, certainly in the eyes of most Members of Council. There is always the need to
question or clarify a motion, especially when most are not written out and are made off the top of one's
head.
(d)The immediate vote on a motion to refer or defer has some merit, but could also be used as a tactic
to divert or delay a debate. Also such a motion opens up a whole new debate as to defer with
instruction, etc.
(e)One way to improve the placing of motions is to insist they be in writing, which forces a Member
to think through what they really want to propose or move.
(f)The accumulation of amendments to the end of debate adds only to confusion and duplication (or
arguments of duplication). There should be a limit of up to six amendments, at which a vote must be
taken to clear the table. The further amendments treated in like manner. The issue of voting for up to
25 amendments on a motion or topic is not good government.
(3)Reopenings:
All reopenings should require 2/3 vote in all circumstances.
(4)Notices of Motion:
First and foremost all Notices of Motion falling under the jurisdiction of Committees or Community
Councils should be automatically referred to the Committee or Community Council with only
exception being that of Emergency or Legal deadline (this should also be defined).
All Motions and Notices of Motion must be limited to a deadline. Do some Members of Council only
think or read their agenda when they come to Council?
(5)Public Access:
Standing Committees indeed do provide the opportunity to question actions of the Mayor or Members
of Council if the person making the deputation understands how to place rhetorical questions (or even
direct questions). There is no provision in the rules of any legislative body to allow direct questioning
by a member of the public - just reflect on the consequences and/or opportunity for complete
disruption of the work of that body.
I believe we could develop better information to advise the public on how to access the Council
Members through committee, petition, etc.
Hansard is a nice idea, but from experience I can tell you we would be looking at a multi-million dollar
operation. The costs of direct transcription of debates in only the beginning, because there is always
pressures to speed up delivery time and accessibility.
(6)Order of Business/Moment of Silence:
I firmly believe, that as a Council we should have an opening, non-denominational Invocation, which
should serve to assist us, as Members of Council, to focus resolve on the task before us at each meeting
of Council. I previously forwarded a draft of why my former municipality of Scarborough did before
Council.
(7)Schedule of Council Meetings:
The existing four week rotation of Council wastes one week in four, as well as not accommodating the
ability of Council to respond in a timely manner to issues. A simple referral puts off an issue for up to
eight weeks. Most Committee meetings, Community Council meetings, and Special Task Force
meetings could be accompanied by a three week rotation. The down side is that the Clerk's operation
will require reorganization and personnel to deal with the added time pressures to supply committee
co-ordinators, agendas and minutes.
Please accept by apologies for not being able to be present at your Committee's meeting of Friday,
April24, 1998, but I am scheduled to be at the FCM Big City Mayors' meeting at that time. If you have
any specific question on any of the above responses, please do not hesitate to call my office at
392-4007.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits
the following communication (April 21, 1998) from Councillor Bruce Sinclair,
Rexdale-Thistletown:
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Section 17.1 of the Council Procedural By-law be amended to delete the moment of silence and
replace with an invocation, and to include a section instructing the City Clerk to contact religious
leaders from the various major faiths to officiate at each meeting of City Council on a rotating basis;
and
(2)Religious leaders from major faiths be invited each year on a rotating basis to Toronto City Council
to give a brief invocation at the beginning of each meeting.
Discussion:
During its consideration of the Council Procedural By-law, I would like the Special Committee to give
consideration to the issue of the inclusion of a religious portion at meetings of City Council not limited
to the Christian faith but inclusive of all religions.
--------
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the
information of Council, having also had before it the following communications:
(a)(March 5, 1998) from Mr. Mark Stanisz, requesting an opportunity to appear before the Special
Committee respecting the creation of a Toronto Hansard Service; and requesting the Special
Committee to direct staff to report to the Special Committee summarizing the cost and timeline of
setting up a Toronto Hansard Service, the ability to pay for bills and registrations online and setting up
a live viewcam for Council meetings.
(b)(April 14, 1998) from Ms. Liz Rykert, respecting the development of a Hansard Service for City
Council; and recommending that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto
Transition Team:
(1)recommend to Council the establishment of a Municipal Hansard Service for the City of Toronto;
and
(2)strike a working group of staff and interested citizens to develop the plan to implement the service
and identify costs and operational implications.
(c)(April 16, 1998) from Ms. Lumia-Alexander Heyno, requesting the inclusion of the Lord's Prayer
at Toronto City Council meetings.
(d)(April 21, 1998) from Ms. Bobbi Speck, Eyes on Council Committee, Citizens for Local
Democracy, advising that the Eyes on Council Committee of the Citizens for Local Democracy in their
attempt to monitor meetings of Council and its committees have encountered two major difficulties;
and requesting the Special Committee to include the following two items in their recommendations to
Council respecting the Council Procedural By-law:
(1)that Committee Members be given the right to request recorded votes at the committee level; and
(2)that the Chair of Committee meetings be requested to make it clear to everyone what is under
consideration and what the votes are for so that citizens in the audience are able to understand and
following the meetings.
(e)(April 18, 1998) from Ms. Sally Gibson respecting the development of a Municipal Hansard
system;
(f)(April 22, 1998) from Ms. Tara Dier respecting the development of a Municipal Hansard system;
and
(g)(April 21, 1998) from Mr. Roger Greenwald requesting that the Special Committee give careful
consideration to establishing a Municipal Hansard system.
The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Mark Stanisz;
-Ms. Liz Rykert; and
-Ms. Lumia Alexander Heyno; and filed a written submission in regard thereto.
(A copy of the Procedural By-law with the proposed amendments by Members of Council, referred to
in the foregoing joint report from the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, is on file in the office of the
City Clerk.)
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a
communication (May 6, 1998) from Lumia-Alexandra Heyno, LUMIA Evangelistic Association,
requesting that the Lord's Prayer be included on the Council Agenda.)
2
Organization of the Licensing Commission
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the report dated May 13,1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer,
embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:
'It is recommended that:
(1)the citizen qualifications and selection criteria for citizen appointments to the Licensing Tribunal
be reported to the June 3, 1998 Council and the appointments process begin immediately thereafter;
and
(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect
thereto.' ")
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team
recommends:
(1)the adoption of the report (April 15, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to
amending Recommendation No. (2) by adding the words, "composed of the current four citizen
members of the Toronto Licensing Commission and three additional citizens", after the word
"citizens", so that Recommendation No. (2) shall now read as follows:
"(2)the Tribunal be composed of seven citizens composed of the current four citizen members of
the Toronto Licensing Commission and three additional citizens appointed by Council through
the Nominating Committee using specific qualification criteria appropriate to their duties;";
(2)that the current Mayors designate on the Toronto Licensing Commission be appointed as an
ex-officio member of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee;
(3)that a Taxi Industry Advisory Committee, with staff support, that has equal representation
from drivers and owners be established to advise the Emergency and Protective Services
Committee; and
(4)that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to develop Terms of Reference, including
the composition of the proposed Advisory Committee, and submit a report thereon to the
Emergency and Protective Services Committee.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the
information of Council, having requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Solicitor to
submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on May 13, 1998, on what the
specific qualification criteria appropriate to the duties of Members of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal
would be.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the
following report (April 15, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:
Purpose:
This report recommends the reorganization of the Licensing Commission functions.
Financial Implications:
There are no budgetary impacts.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Toronto Licensing Commission be continued as the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to conduct
hearings as required under the Licensing By-law;
(2)the Tribunal be composed of seven citizens appointed by Council through the Nominating
Committee using specific qualification criteria appropriate to their duties;
(3)the Tribunal organize itself into three panels of two members each and a Chair to act as alternate
for any absent member;
(4)the Tribunal report at least semi-annually to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee
outlining any policy or administrative issues which need to be addressed by the Committee;
(5)the City Clerk continue to provide secretariat services to the Tribunal and the City Solicitor report
further on the provision of legal services;
(6)the General Manager and staff of the existing Licensing Commission be integrated into the City
administrative structure and the General Manager report to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development and continue to administer the issuance, renewal and suspension of licenses and advise
on licensing policy and administrative issues;
(7)the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, with the advice of staff and with the benefit of
public input through deputations or other means, recommend new or revised licensing policies to
Council;
(8)the City Solicitor prepare the necessary By-laws to effect the restructuring of the Licensing
Commission and prepare City By-laws to replace the by-laws of the existing Licensing Commission;
(9)the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development and the General Manager of the Licensing Commission, report back to the Emergency
and Protective Services Committee on the arrangements necessary to implement the transitioning of
staff;
(10)the City Clerk be authorized to begin the process of citizen appointments to the Toronto Licensing
Tribunal;
(11)the implementation of the restructuring with respect to policy matters and adjudicative functions
be phased-in as follows:
(a)effective immediately, all new licensing policy issues be forwarded to the Emergency and
Protective Services Committee for consideration;
(b)the current Licensing Commission continue to consider matters pertaining to the taxi industry until
the recommendations of the Task Force for Reform of the Taxi Industry are considered by Council,
after which such policy issues will be considered by the Emergency and Protective Services
Committee; and
(c)once the schedule for selection of citizens for the Licensing Tribunal is finalized, hearings for new
cases be scheduled for the Tribunal and the current Licensing Commission will complete any hearings
in progress; and
(12)the appropriate officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.
Council Reference:
At its meeting of January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, City Council referred Recommendations Nos. (96), (99),
and (128) of the Toronto Transition Team Report to the Mayor for a report on the structure of the
Licensing Commission. The former Metro Council also considered this issue at its meeting of August
13, 1997, and approved the recommendations of the Human Services Committee as contained in an
attachment to this report. The City's Emergency and Protective Services Committee struck a Working
Group, chaired by Councillor Fotinos, to consider the former Metro position and the recommendations
of the Transition Team and forwarded recommendations to the Mayor. Following consultation with the
Deputy Mayor, Chair of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and Councillor Moscoe
representing the Licensing Commission, the Mayor endorsed the direction proposed by the Working
Group and requested that the Chief Administrators Office report on the actions necessary to effect this
restructuring. This report recommends to the Special Committee a course of action which is essentially
the direction outlined by the Working Group.
Discussion:
The Working Group's position is consistent with the direction outlined in the Toronto Transition Team
Report and the report adopted by the former Metro Council. The fundamental premise is that the policy
development and adjudicative functions of the Commission should be separated. This means that
policy should be developed and approved by accountable elected representatives of the people, while
the quasi-judicial hearings process be conducted by non-partisan peers of the public (i.e., private
citizens).
The current Toronto Licensing Commission is a board that oversees the administration of the licensing
function, recommends changes in policy and may establish some policies itself, and also adjudicates
any cases which require hearings. In order to separate these functions, it is recommended that the
General Manager and staff of the current Toronto Licensing Commission become staff of the City of
Toronto and the commission be renamed the Toronto Licensing Tribunal which conducts hearings.
The Toronto Licensing Tribunal would be comprised entirely of citizens appointed by Council
recommended by the Nominating Committee. Specific qualifications should be developed in order to
assist the Nominating Committee in selecting citizens who are qualified to carry out these specialized
duties. The Working Group suggested that three panels of two members each could be scheduled to
address the workload. However, it is necessary to ensure that hearings are not delayed due to absence
of individual members. It is recommended that seven members be appointed including a Chair of the
Tribunal who could act as an alternate for any absent members.
The Tribunal would conduct hearings where applicants, their representatives, and others would appear
before the Tribunal to present evidence and facts. However, deputations regarding policy or
administrative issues would be presented to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee.
The Tribunal, through the Chair, would report directly to the Emergency and Protective Services
Committee and should report at least semi-annually to the Committee outlining any policy or
administrative issues which need to be addressed by the Committee.
The City Clerk would continue to provide the secretariat services necessary for the Tribunal. The City
Solicitor should report further on how legal services should be provided for the Tribunal.
The staff and General Manager of the existing Commission would become staff of the City of Toronto.
The Executive Director of Human Resources and Amalgamation has advised that CUPE Local 79
represents both the Licensing Commission staff and a major portion of the former Metro
clerical/technical staff. Labour Relations is already in the process of reviewing the many bargaining
units and the impacts of amalgamation and would include this restructuring within the review process.
The organization structure, compensation levels, and administrative linkages would also be considered
within the context of the administrative restructuring for the City.
The General Manager would report to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development and
would continue to be responsible for the administration of the licensing functions and for advising on
licensing policy issues as well as maintaining ongoing communication with the Tribunal.
The Emergency and Protective Services Committee would be responsible for recommending to
Council all policies and licensing by-law amendments.
The City Solicitor advises that the existing Toronto Licensing Commission oversees By-law No.20-85
of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and other By-laws enacted by the Commission
itself. It will be necessary for Council to enact the latter and consolidate, amend or supplement these
by-laws in the course of time.
The City Solicitor has also advised that the City has the authority under Provincial Regulation 214/96
to make these structural changes to the Licensing Commission. A City By-law would be required to
finalize the restructuring and there are a number of administrative details to be attended to. It is
recommended that the City Solicitor draft the appropriate By-laws and the Chief Administrative
Officer assign the appropriate staff to work with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development and the General Manager of the Licensing Commission in developing the necessary
administrative details and report back to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on the
necessary arrangements and timing of this restructuring.
It is also recommended that the City Clerk be authorized to begin the process of citizen appointments
to the Toronto Licensing Tribunal.
Several months may be required to complete the selection process for citizen. In addition, the Task
Force for Reform of the Taxi Industry is scheduled to report within the next three months and it is
desirable that the current Commission provide input to the Task Force. In order to maintain continuity
while expediting the restructuring, a phased approach to implementing the transition for policy matters
and adjudicative functions is recommended as follows:
(a)effective immediately, all new licensing policy issues be forwarded to the Emergency and
Protective Services Committee for consideration;
(b)the current Licensing Commission continue to consider matters pertaining to the taxi industry until
the recommendations of the Task Force for Reform of the Taxi Industry are considered by Council,
after which such policy issues will be considered by the Emergency and Protective Services
Committee; and
(c)once the schedule for selection of citizens for the Licensing Tribunal is finalized, hearings for new
cases be scheduled for the Tribunal and the current Licensing Commission will complete any hearings
in progress.
Conclusions:
Three separate review processes undertaken by the former Metro Council, the Toronto Transition
Team and the Emergency and Protective Services Working Group have concluded that the existing
Toronto Licensing Commission be restructured to separate the administrative functions and the
adjudicative functions. This report makes specific recommendations to approve this approach and set
in motion the actions necessary to effect the restructuring in a phased manner.
--------
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 the
following communications:
(a)(April15, 1998) from Ms. Joanne Dileo, Chairman, Police Community Partnership - 13Division,
advising that the Police Community Partnership - 13 Division has been established for several years;
that they are a group of concerned residents who have joined together with officers of 13 Division to
try to deal with illegal activities within their boundaries; and strongly urging Members of Council to
give consideration to placing the Toronto Licensing Commission under Council control; and
(b)(April15, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, Ward 21 Davenport, enclosing a copy of a
communication from the Regal Heights Residents' Association respecting the Toronto Licensing
Commission, such communication urging Members of Council to give careful consideration to placing
under Council's direct control, those functions of the Toronto Licensing Commission that relate to the
quality of life in their neighbourhoods.
--------
The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Eugene Meikle, Toronto Taxi Drivers Association;
-Mr. Ian Allaby; and filed a written submission in regard thereto;
-Mr. Lou Racz; and
-Mr. Stephen Anemi.
Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, also appeared before the Special Committee to Review the
Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter.
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause,
the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:
Purpose:
To report on the process for determining qualifications for citizen appointees to the proposed Toronto
Licensing Tribunal.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the citizen qualifications and selection criteria for citizen appointments to the Licensing Tribunal
be reported to the June 3, 1998 Council and the appointments process begin immediately thereafter;
and
(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect
thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommended to
Council the adoption of a report from the Chief Administrative Officer which recommended that the
Toronto Licensing Commission be continued as the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to conduct hearings as
required under the Licensing By-Law. The Special Committee requested that the Chief Administrative
Officer and City Solicitor recommend to Council for its meeting of May 13, 1998 the qualification
criteria appropriate to the duties of members of the proposed Toronto Licensing Tribunal.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The proposal for restructuring recommends that three panels of two members of the Tribunal would
conduct hearings and make final decisions on applications for licenses. In the recent past, the hearings
have been conducted somewhat like a court in that often the applicant is assisted by legal
representation and the members may hear evidence from both parties. Many of the decisions made by
the Tribunal have substantive value to the applicant and the applicant's livelihood may depend on
securing the license.
The Tribunal members must understand its powers under the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and be
able to apply rules of the Licensing By-Law to specific situations with the assistance of its own legal
advice. Fairness, creative problem solving, and good judgement are critical characteristics. Members
should also be able to assess advice given, debate the applicability of such advice, and assess the
impact of their decisions on the applicant, the City regulations, and future applications. Superior
communications skills are also required since members may be required to provide comprehensive
written or oral reports outlining the reasons for their decisions. A flexible work schedule is required to
permit attendance at day-long hearings and to complete the preparation required prior to such
meetings.
In order to develop selection criteria which demonstrate these required skills, it would be beneficial to
consult with other levels of government which make appointments to quasi-judicial boards, consult
with past members and staff, and discuss with representatives of the Emergency and Protective
Services Committee. This could be completed by the June meeting of Council. The appointments
process could begin immediately thereafter.)
3
Relocation to Toronto City Hall,
Approval Schedule - Phase 1;
Conceptual Options for Relocation to City Hall; and
Terms of Reference and Workplan for Renovations to City Hall
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(1)deleting from Recommendation No. (2) of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team the words "and (3)", and referring the following Recommendation No. (3) of
the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall back to the
Sub-Committee for further consideration:
"(3)recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition
Team 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;"; and
(2)deleting from the schedule of Relocation Sub-Committee meetings and associated workshop
sessions the date and workshop "May 25 - Relocation Sub-Committee - Presentation of proposals as
revised. Sign off on functional plan, budget, schedule." and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"May 26, 1998, 2:00 p.m.,Presentation of proposals as revised. Sign off
.Council Chambers, City Hall.on functional plan, budget, schedule.")
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team
recommends:
(1)the adoption of the report (April 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services;
(2)the adoption of the Recommendations Nos. (1) and (3) of the Sub-Committee for the
Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, embodied in the communications (March 25,
1998) from the City Clerk; and
(3)that Council concur with the action taken by the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All
Members of Council to City Hall, embodied in the communication (March 25, 1998) from the
City Clerk.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transit Team reports, for the
information of Council, having:
(1)requested the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall to
investigate the possibility of making a "citizens" room available at City Hall on a
first-come-first-served basis, under the control of the Clerk's Department; and
(2)referred the following communications to the Sub-Committee for Relocation of All Members of
Council to City Hall:
(i)(April 16, 1998) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick for Gary Collver, Etobicoke Citizens for Effective
Government, forwarding a proposal regarding use of facilities at Metro Hall (as the interim seat of
Toronto's municipal government); and requesting that space be dedicated for use as a "citizens' room"
to be used by citizens from across the new City who attend meetings at the seat of government;
(ii)(April 22, 1998) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, registering concern respecting
Councillors from the former City of Toronto whose home municipality is also the seat of government
being provided with additional office space to accommodate constituency staff;
(iii)(April 23, 1998) from Ms. Pamela M. Prinold, Co-ordinator, Rexdale Partners, Etobicoke North
Community Information Centre, in support of a "citizens" room at City Hall; and
(iv)(April 24, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons, respecting the design of the Council Chamber at
City Hall.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the
following report (April 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To set out the approval schedule for the key components for Phase 1 of the renovations of Toronto
City Hall and outline other phases of work.
Funding:
City Council has approved $5.2 million for Phase 1 of the renovations.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the approval schedule set out in this report for the key components of Phase1
be approved.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On February 3 and 4, 1998, City Council approved Toronto City Hall as its seat of government.
However, Council recognized that creating a fully functional seat of government was a multi-year
project, and that it needed to consolidate Councillors' offices and Council operations in the short term.
Accordingly, Council approved a plan wherein staff were directed to complete the renovations
necessary to accommodate Councillors' offices, Council and Committee meetings, and key
administrative staff by the end of 1998 at Toronto City Hall. The estimated cost (attached), as
approved by Council, was $5.2 million.
Council also established a Relocation Sub-Committee of the Special Committee to ensure that the
needs of Councillors are met. A detailed work plan was submitted to the Sub-Committee.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Phase 1 - Relocation of Councillors and Key Administrative Staff:
When City Council decided that Toronto City Hall was to be the seat of government, it approved
funding in the amount of $5.2 million for the first phase, which includes a limited number of activities
so that Council could begin to operate there by the end of the year:
(a)upgrading of the Council Chamber to improve seating and the technology for Council operations;
(b)improving access to the Chamber with links to the towers, and increasing the number of
washrooms;
(c)improving meeting rooms, by adding new larger rooms and by adding audiovisual facilities,
assuming some meeting would still take place at Metro Hall:
(d)adding offices for 33 additional Councillors, now increased to 34;
(e)improving the Mayor's offices; and
(f)relocate the Chief Administrative Officer, Commissioners and their offices, as well as the key staff,
primarily the City Clerk and her staff essential to the operation of City Council. They are to be in City
Hall by the end of the year.
Staff and the architectural firm of Kuwabara, Payne, McKenna and Blumberg are working closely to
develop detailed proposals to present for discussion and review. To meet the deadline of the end of the
year, Council must approve the phase 1 concept by its meeting of June 3 and 4. The schedule set out
below lists the proposed steps. The meetings of the Relocation Sub Committee, with associated
workshop sessions, will be key opportunities for discussion and resolution of issues.
MeetingTopic
April 24 - Special CommitteeIntroduction to Architects
(a)handout of Architects submission document;
(b)articulation of design principles by Architect; and
(c)review of approval schedule of key matters .
May 4 - Relocation Sub-CommitteePresentation of work to date by Architects;
Comments and direction on approach and issues.
(a)councillor's office layout options;
(b)second floor layout;
(c)meeting room proposals;
(d)options for links to towers from Council Chamber;
(e)Council Chamber layout, technology (voting system, audiovisual, broadcast), desk design;
(f)accessibility and additional washrooms;
(g)cost estimates and budget;
(h)recommend approval schedule and directions to Special Committee; and
(i)architects workshop with councillors (following)
May 7 - Special CommitteeReview of recommendations from Relocation Sub Committee and
recommendations to Council.
May 13/14/15 - Council meetingApproval of approval schedule and directions on issues.
May 13/14/15- Council breakSession with Councillors - Architects' review of progress
(for interested councillors)to date and discussion.
mid May - Second workshop Presentation of revised proposals and discussion.
with architects
May 25 - Relocation Sub-CommitteePresentation of proposals as revised.
Sign off on functional plan, budget, schedule.
May (date to be set) - Recommendations to Council for final sign-off of functional
Special Committeeplan, budget, schedule.
June 3/4 - Council meetingFinal sign off on design concept for offices, Council Chamber, meeting
rooms, Mayor's office, links, budget, schedule.
A detailed schedule for reporting during the construction phase will be developed by mid May.
It should be noted that the staff and public Toronto Joint Committee of People with Disabilities is part
of the review process, and workshops will be held with them, staff and the architects, during the design
process.
Phase 2 - Creation of the Seat of Government:
While Phase I addresses Council's need to consolidate Councillors' offices and Council operations in
the short term, Phase 2 addresses what is required to compete the project of turning Toronto City Hall
into a fully functional seat of government for the new City. The following provides an overview of
some of the issues related to the finalization of Toronto City Hall as the seat of government:
(A)Development of the staff organization is proceeding and details will be produced by the summer.
A preliminary concept plan is being developed of "who goes where" including the civic centres. The
1999 budgets will provide for these moves. This matter comes within the purview of the Corporate
Services Committee. The day care and fitness centres at both City and Metro Hall will be consulted
regarding staff relocations so that appropriate reallocation of spaces can be accommodated.
(B)The former City of Toronto was working on a proposal to relocate the cafeteria from the basement
to the ground floor and a separate report on options will be submitted to the Corporate Services
Committee.
(C)The Urban Affairs Library at Metro Hall should be relocated to support the new Council and costs
for the move should be included in the 1999 budget. A separate report will be prepared on this matter.
(D)Additional meeting rooms will be required on the ground floor and planning for these and for the
use of the remaining part of the ground floor should begin once the phase 1 work is underway so that
appropriate funding can be requested for the 1999 budgets. Five meeting rooms are currently planned
for phase 1. The Council Chambers can also be used for meetings.
(E)The Toronto City Hall has been continually upgraded, such as through extensive energy
conservation programs, but minimal funding has generally been provided over the last number of years
so the standards are certainly below that of a modern office building. A twenty year plan has been
maintained for the building and an accelerated program of improvements is being developed for
consideration in the 1999 budgets.
Conclusions:
The work underway to renovate the Toronto City Hall is phase 1 of a three phase project to make the
building the seat of government and develop a Civic Complex. Approval by City Council of the
schedule for Phase 1, at its meeting on June 3, 1998, will ensure that construction work can begin and
be completed by the end of the year. Delaying this approval will impact on staff's ability to deliver on
Phase 1 of the project by the end of this year.
Contact Name:
Cathie Macdonald, Project Executive: phone 392-0449, fax 392-0029
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits
the following communication (March25, 1998) from the City Clerk:
The Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall met on March 19,
1998, and had before it the following:
-Floor plans (March 15 and 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, respecting
Conceptual Options for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall; and
-(undated) Objectives of Workplan.
Recommendations:
The Committee:
(1) authorized staff to proceed on the following options:
-with respect to the Third Floor Mezzanine - Option 2;
-with respect to the Second Floor - Option 1; and
-with respect to the Council Chamber - Option 1(b) with the directive that the space between
Councillors be widened and the Mayor's seat be closer to the full Council;
(2)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to canvas Members of Council on options on
Councillors' office configurations;
(3)recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition
Team 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; and
(4)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report on discussions to date with respect to
the lease of Old City Hall.
(1.0)Objective of Workplan
The objective of this work plan is to provide a working document to ensure that through proper
planning, monitoring and control, the project will be completed on schedule, within budget, in
accordance with the established scope and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, clients and the public.
This work plan provides a brief comment on the background of the project and describes its scope and
the associated work breakdown structure, schedules, estimates of resources, both financial and
personnel and the methodology.
The project team's organization structure, roles and responsibilities are also outlined.
The key elements of this work plan are:
(a)Project description
(b)Work breakdown structure
(c)Project schedule
(d)Project estimate
(e)Project team structure including organization, roles and responsibilities.
(2.0)The Project
(2.1)Background:
At its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998 City Council decided that renovations to the Toronto City
Hall would be made to enable the new seat of government to operate there effectively prior to the close
of 1998, and that the total cost of the required renovations was not to exceed 5.2million dollars.
(2.2)Project Objectives
The objectives of this project are:
(a)Undertake renovations to the Council Chamber, including access to it, add Councillor's offices and
meeting rooms and provide an acceptable Mayor's office.
(b)Relocation the CAO, Commissioners and essential staff to enable Council to operate effectively.
(c)Ensure that the renovations are of high quality and compatible with the special character of this
unique historic public building and that the renovations will not hinder future uses and development of
a Civic Square Complex.
(d)Complete the work by the end of the year, within budget and with a prudent allocation of resources,
and with minimal disruption to the occupants of the building.
(2.3)Scope of Work
The scope of work will include the following specific upgrades:
(1)construction of 33 additional Councillor's offices;
(2)general renovations to the second floor to include for additional washrooms, and expanded Mayor's
office, additional meeting rooms, and a new in-camera meeting facility;
(3)pedestrian links to the Council Chamber from the main elevator banks of the east and west tower;
(4)upgrades to the Council Chamber to include: improved lighting, new audio-visual and electronic
voting systems, improvements to City Clerks support areas, additional seating and new washroom
facilities;
(5)upgrades to audio visual systems throughout all public meeting areas including Council Chambers;
(6)installation of broadcast quality cameras in Council Chambers and an "in-camera" facility and
system to allow for production capability;
(7)upgrades to Telecom and Information Technology to accommodate City Council, the City Clerk,
and all support staff for the new seat of government; and
(8)possible retrofit to existing Councillor's offices.
In addition to the physical upgrades to Toronto City Hall, a comprehensive staff relocation program
will be undertaken, which in addition to dealing with the urgency surrounding vacating of the second
floor for construction purposes, will attempt to resolve some of the longer term issues surrounding
final locations of various departments in the context of the new organization. Paramount to the success
of the project will be the relocation of key support staff, the Chief Administrative Officer,
Commissioners and the City Clerk.
(3.0)Work Breakdown Structure
The work breakdown structure (WBS) consists of the hierarchy of activities which form the entire
project. The WBS consists of the following levels of components:
(1)Project: Renovations to City Hall.
(2)Major Elements: The breakdown of the project into its fundamental components.
(3)Tasks: The phased steps associated with each major element and associated tasks of this project are
as follows:
(4.0)Planning:
(4.1)Establish Project Team:
The project team is composed to city staff chosen either for their expertise in their respective fields or
by virtue of their senior role and experience in a specific project area. The project team reports directly
to and is accountable to the Project Manager. Refer to the organizational structure (attached) for the
composition of the project team.
(4.2)Needs Assessment:
(1)Determine the program needs for Council operations, Councillor's offices, the Mayor's offices,
meeting rooms - space, including audio-visual and I.T. requirements.
(2)Review the needs of related and support functions such as media, cafeteria and security.
(4.3)Stakeholders and Clients:
(4.4)Determine the Role of the Special Committee:
City Council prescribed that the Sub-committee perform the following role: Report back to the Special
Committee on details for the relocation of all Members of Council, such report to address the time
frame, constructions details and funding of the 5.2million cost for the renovation to the Toronto City
Hall over one year.
The role of the Relocation Sub-committee shall be:
(a)report to the Special Committee as needed on progress and recommendations on issues related to
the relocation of Councillors;
(b)hold meetings to receive reports from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Project
Team on compliance with workplan schedules and budget, and to provide information as to
Councillors' needs; and
(c)update Councillor's regarding progress and consult with to determine their needs; convey such
needs to the Project Team for consideration.
The stakeholders in this project area:
(1)Public;
(2)Heritage Toronto; and
(3)Architecture Communities.
The clients of this project are:
(1)Mayor and Councillors;
(2)Staff presently in City Hall;
(3)Staff to be located in City Hall (Head Office functions);
(4)Operations staff; and
(5)Services located in City Hall, i.e., cafeteria, media, library including the Urban Affairs Library
currently at Metro Hall, day care centre.
(4.5)Financial/Status Reporting and Communications:
(1)Determine the reporting structure within the organization as it relates to the distribution of Project
Status Updates and required approvals; also determine the level of detail and frequency required.
Potential distribution includes Council members, Council sub-committees, building occupants,
Commissioners and CAO.
(2)Develop communication procedures to provide general information to staff.
(4.6)City Organization:
(1)Determine with senior staff members to the extent possible within the condensed work schedule,
the new organizational structure which relates to the corporate centre so as to minimize excessive
relocation of all staff and parties involved.
(4.7)Space Requirements:
(1)Analyze the space requirements for following groups:
(i)those required to immediately vacate the second floor;
(ii)City Clerk support staff;
(iii)the Mayor and his support staff; and
(iv)senior staff required to relocate to City Hall prior to the end of 1998.
(4.8)Purchasing By-laws;
(1)Pre-qualify all contractors to enable the Construction Manager to mobilize forces immediately
upon vacating the second floor.
(2)Issue RFP's for both the Architect and Construction Manager.
(5.0)Design:
(5.1)Prepare conceptual design options for second floor, Council Chamber, links and Councillor's
offices and provide preliminary construction estimates.
(5.2)Submit conceptual options and corresponding estimates to Council Sub-Committee, CAO and
clients for approval.
(5.3)Review all plans, specifications and design process with Architectural Advisory Group which is
comprised of four prominent Architects.
(5.4)Review final design with Operations, Telecom, I.T., the City Hall Customer Service Team, and
the Architectural Advisory Group.
(6.0)Tender and Award:
(6.1)All tender documents for construction, purchasing of audio-visual systems and architectural and
construction management RFP's will be issued by Purchasing and Material Supply, Corporate
Services, Finance Division to meet the established schedule.
(6.2)Tenders for architectural services will be reviewed by the Project Executive and Project Manager
with advice from the Architectural Advisory Group.
(6.3)Tenders for the Construction Manager will be reviewed by the Project Manager and construction
specialists from the staff team.
(7.0)Vacate Second Floor:
(7.1)Conduct a space analysis of all occupants of second floor to assist in determining a temporary
location during construction, or preferably a new permanent home.
(7.2)Obtain information available to determine organizational requirements of the affected groups to
assist in locating them with minimal disruption to their department.
(7.3)Develop a standardized method of sign off and approval to ensure that all senior staff and
occupants of the second floor are notified in advance of their vacate date and destination. All moving
notices to be issued by April2, 1998.
(7.4)Make all short and long term recommendations to the Project Executive and where appropriate to
the Commissioner for approval.
(8.0)Construction:
(8.1)Secure site with full height hoarding and dust blankets and install exhaust fan units to control
dust emission.
(8.2)Proceed with demolition after-hours and week-ends to minimize disruption.
(8.3)Framing, rough-in for mechanical and electrical to immediately proceed demolition crew.
Latest start date for demolition - June 1, 1998.
(8.4)Relocation of occupants to second floor, no later than November 15, 1998.
(8.5)Monitor the progress of construction and report on the financial status using such techniques as
earned value or similar, which relates cash flow and actual progress to date to budgeted values.
(9.0)Commissioning and Turnover:
(9.1)Planning: Determine what building systems, audio-visual and electronic systems and sub-systems
will require testing. Pre-define acceptance criteria and determine who is best suited to carry out the
tests and who should attend the testing and training.
(9.2)Systems Testing: Manage and carry out the various activities that are involved in the review of
systems performance no later than one month prior to occupancy, i.e., commissioning should begin
approximately November 15, 1998.
(9.3)Building Turnover: Ensure that all "as-built" drawings, maintenance manuals and operating
instructions are properly completed and handed over to the City, and that the completed facility
commences operation in a seamless manner. Complete required inspections to enable clearing of all
building permits.
(10.0)Post-Occupancy Evaluation:
To ensure that the building equipment, systems, operating procedures, and users are interacting and
performing in a desired manner, a formal systematic review is required immediately after takeover and
should continue for a period of one year.
(10.1)Client follow-up: All clients will be interviewed immediately after occupancy and
approximately one year thereafter to ensure that the space and equipment meet their needs. All matters
related to Council members will be reported to the Special Committee and the Project Executive while
matters related to staff will be reported to the Project Executive.
The work breakdown structure is illustrated graphically and is attached to this report.
(11.0)Project Schedule:
The attached project schedule is shown as a Gantt Chart and indicates the critical path, progress to date
and scheduled activities which are presently not on the critical path.
(12.0)Project Estimate:
The Original estimate for the 5.2 million dollar budget submitted to Council in December 1997 was
based on acceptable performance criteria at that time. As program and technological needs are better
defined in the design process and various architectural options are presented it is assumed that funds
within the budget will be allocated as required.
Budget to Date
Construction$ 2,910,000.00
Furniture270,000.00
Telecom300,000.00
Audio Visual700,000.00
Miscellaneous (permits, security, health/safety)100,000.00
Professional Fees400,00.00
Contingencies520,000.00
Total$ 5,200,000.00
The allocation of funding will vary significantly depending on the options for construction and
technology. Staff relocation is not included in this budget.
(13.0)Project Team:
The project team is identified in the attached organizational chart.
(14.0)Current Status:
The attached schedule highlights progress to date and has been updated effective March17, 1998. The
brief summary of completed items is included below:
(a)Project Team Established;
(b)needs analysis (program space and technology) completed;
(c)cost estimates of various options completed;
(d)conceptual plans for links and second floor prepared;
(e)vacate plans for second floor completed;
(f)RFP for Architect and Construction Manager completed;
(g)Telecom and IT plans and estimates;
(h)hoarding plans for second floor;
(i)approval by Purchasing and Supply of fast-track tendering format for most trades;
(j)work plan completed; and
(k)audio visual detailed plan for RFP, tender, purchasing, installation and commissioning completed.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits
the following communication (March 25, 1998) from the City Clerk:
The Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, on March 19, 1998,
had before it a report (March 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting the
Terms of Reference for the Relocation Subcommittee and Workplan for the Renovations to City Hall.
The Committee adopted the foregoing report.
(Communication dated March 19, 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 propose a Terms of Reference for the relocation Sub-committee and transmit the report on the
workplan to date.
Source of Funds:
City Council has allocated $5.2 million for the renovations to City Hall in 1998.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Relocation Sub-committee adopt the Terms of Reference in this report;
(2)the Relocation Sub-committee receive the report on the workplan for information; and
(3)the Relocation Sub-committee provide direction on the needs of the Councillors for the effective
operation of City Council by the end of 1998.
Council Reference/Background/History:
City Council at its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, decided that renovations to the Toronto City
Hall be made so that City Council can begin to operate there by the end of 1998, and that these
renovations not exceed $5.2 million. It also requested reports on the development of a Civic Square
Complex and reports on the allocations of staff to the City Hall and other buildings. Council also
established a relocation Sub-committee of the Special Committee to Review the Final
Recommendations of the Toronto Transition Team.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
(1)The project:
City Council has decided to make the Toronto City Hall its seat of government and has authorized
renovations to the cost of $5.2 million to:
(a)improve the Council Chamber for use by the Council;
(b)add 33 Councillor's offices;
(c)provide an appropriate Mayor's offices;
(d)improve accessibility to the Council Chamber, such as by links to the two towers;
(e)provide adequate meeting rooms; and
(f)provide office space for the Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioners and key City staff
needed for the operation of Council.
The project should:
(a)ensure that the operational needs of Council are met;
(b)be on time and within budget;
(c)minimize disruption; and
(d)result in renovations that enhance and are compatible with the character of the City Hall.
(2)Terms of Reference for the Sub-committee:
The motion of the City Council at its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, to establish the
Sub-committee stated that the Sub-committee:
"(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 $5.2million cost for the renovation to the
Toronto City Hall over one year."
It is therefore proposed that the Term of Reference for the Sub-committee be to:
(a)report to the Special Committee as needed on progress of the project and recommendations on
issues;
(b)hold meetings to receive reports from the Project Team on compliance with workplan schedules
and budget, and to provide information as to Councillors' needs; and
(c)provide information to Councillors on progress and collect information from them on needs.
The Sub-committee would meet once a month and as needed. Staff support would be provided for
report writing and minutes of meetings.
The Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioner of Corporate Services are responsible for staff
relocation.
(3)Workplan and Budget:
A separate report sets out the work plan and budget to date for the renovation project.
It should be noted that a further separate report will be submitted to the Corporate Services Committee
for its April meeting on a proposal call for the development of a new cafe on the ground floor.
Conclusions:
This report and the workplan report set out the framework for the renovation work for the Toronto City
Hall. The work is presently on schedule. There is much to do and close cooperation between all
involved will continue to be required to ensure that the work will be done on time, on budget and to
the satisfaction of all.
Contact Name:
Cathie Macdonald, Project Executive, 392-0449.
--------
The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Bruce Kuwabara, Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg, Architect; and
-Ms. Janice Etter.
(A copy of the Appendix attached to the report (April 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate
Services, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 24, 1998, agenda of the Special
Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, and a copy thereof is also on
file in the office of the City Clerk.)
4
Staffing Levels and Resources to
Support Cycling and Pedestrian Programs
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team
recommends:
(1)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) embodied in the joint report (April16,
1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation and the Interim Functional Lead,
Planning;
(2)that separate Cycling and Pedestrian Committees be established to be staffed within current
budget; and
(3)that the Terms of Reference outlined in the communication (March 9, 1998) from Mr.Jack
Becker, Metro Cycling and Pedestrian Committee; and the communication (February 20, 1998)
from Ms. Joan Doiron, Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, be adopted, in principle, and that
the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation and the Interim Functional Lead, Planning be
requested to report to the first meetings of each Committee on any necessary revisions.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the
information of Council, having forwarded, for information, a copy of the aforementioned joint report
and the following communications to the Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to
the Elderly:
(ii)(March 9, 1998) from Mr. Jack Becker, Metro Cycling and Pedestrian Committee;
(ii)(February 12, 1998) from Ms. Helen Riley, Member of the former Metro Pedestrian Issues
Sub-Committee;
(iii)(February 20, 1998) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee,
(iv)(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Urban Environment and Development
Committee on April 20, 1998, during consideration of the issue of increased pedestrian safety on City
streets, inter alia, again recommended to the SpecialCommittee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team that separate committees be established to deal with cycling and pedestrian
issues;
(v)(April 22, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian
Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian
Committee at a joint meeting on April21, 1998, endorsed the recommendations embodied in the joint
report (April 16, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation and the Interim Functional
Lead for Planning respecting staffing levels and resources to support Cycling and Pedestrian Programs;
and
(vi)(April 23, 1998) from Mr. Paul Rappell, Co-Chair, Toronto City Cycling Committee.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the
following joint report (April16, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation and the
Interim Functional Lead, Planning:
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)existing cycling programs be maintained with existing staff resources during 1998;
(2)the Interim Functional Leads for Transportation and Planning identify future staff resources to
support an expanded cycling program for consideration in the 1999 Budget through the preparation of
a comprehensive Cycling Plan for the City of Toronto; and
(3)should Council approve the creation of a separate Toronto Pedestrian Committee, the Interim
Functional Leads for Transportation and Planning report to the Budget Committee on the necessary
budget increases estimated to be in the order of $ 300,000.00 annually.
Purpose:
This report identifies the current staffing levels and other resources in place to support the
Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee and the City of Toronto Cycling Committee, and
discusses future resources required to support separate cycling and pedestrian committees.
Background:
At its meeting of January 12, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee adopted
among other recommendations a request that the Interim Functional Leads for Transportation and
Planning submit a joint report to the Special Committee to Review the Transition Team's Final Report
on the staffing level and other resources previously in place to support the Metropolitan Cycling and
Pedestrian Committee and the City of Toronto Cycling Committee, including the adequacy thereof.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee also recommended to the Special Committee to
Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that two separate committees be established:
one to deal with cycling issues and one to deal with pedestrian issues.
In 1996 the Terms of Reference of the Metro Cycling Committee were expanded to include a
Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee. At their meeting of February 2, 1998, the Metro Cycling and
Pedestrian Committee endorsed the establishment of a separate and distinct Toronto Pedestrian
Committee which would provide similar programs, similar levels of detailed review and comments,
and similar profile as the previous City of Toronto Cycling Committee and Metro Cycling Committee
provided for bicycle issues.
Discussion:
Cycling Programs and infrastructure make an important contribution towards achieving Official Plan
transportation objectives to encourage bicycle use and to make efficient use of existing transportation
infrastructure. With approximately 25,000 daily bicycle commuter trips in the Central Area and
thousands of recreational cyclists using the many waterfront and park trails, cycling has become a very
popular activity across the City. Efforts to improve bicycle safety and to increase bicycle use support
the City's commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The single largest group of transportation infrastructure users are pedestrians. There is a broad range of
issues which are of interest and concern to the existing Pedestrian Issues Sub-committee and other
pedestrian interest groups such as Feet On The Street, the Older Women's Network, Scarborough
Safety VINE, and "Protect Established Neighbourhoods" in Etobicoke. Of major concern recently is
the high frequency of pedestrian fatalities occurring on roads throughout the City of Toronto. For
example, an average of 41 pedestrians have died each year on roadways within the amalgamated City
of Toronto from 1995 to 1997 inclusive, compared to an annual average of four cyclist fatalities over
the same period.
(1)Four Key Ingredients For Successful Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs
The United States' Federal Highway Administration's 1994 National Walking and Bicycling Study
concluded that there are four essential components needed to support strong, sustainable bicycle and
pedestrian programs:
(a)citizen involvement;
(b)dedicated program staff;
(c)supportive elected officials and municipal staff; and
(d)program funding.
In order to ensure effective bicycle and pedestrian programs in the new City, all four key ingredients
need to be present. The presence of these key ingredients for the former City of Toronto's cycling
program led to the City being recognized internationally as the best city for cycling in North America,
based on a poll of 124 large cities conducted by "Bicycling" magazine.
(a)Citizen Involvement:
The major contributions which have been made in Toronto by citizen volunteers are a very valuable
and cost-effective resource. The Toronto City Cycling Committee and Metro Cycling and Pedestrian
Committee have played a vital role in helping to develop, sustain, and operate bicycle programs and
have provided an effective forum for cyclists and pedestrians to bring issues to Council's attention.
(b)Program Staff:
The role of dedicated cycling and pedestrian staff is to act as an expert resource for citizen committees
and other municipal staff, to develop new programs, and to ensure the integration of bicycle and
pedestrian considerations at all levels of planning and decision-making. Staff dedicated exclusively to
bicycle and pedestrian issues also provide the continuity and consistency needed to develop and
implement cycling and pedestrian policies and to monitor change. Without dedicated staff in this
coordinating role, it is very easy for bicycle and pedestrian issues to be overlooked. There are currently
three dedicated cycling staff located within Urban Planning and Development Services. There are
currently no staff dedicated to pedestrian issues.
(c)Supportive Elected Officials and Municipal Staff:
Staff specifically assigned to bicycle and pedestrian programs working in cooperation with a volunteer
citizen committee can accomplish a great deal. Effective implementation, however, requires political
and staff support across many program areas to ensure that cycling and walking are routinely
considered at all levels of policy creation and decision-making. Developing policies, plans and
programs will be a particularly important task during the transition period to ensure bicycle and
pedestrian interests in all parts of the City are addressed in an efficient and effective manner.
(d)Program Funding:
Inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian considerations in annual operating and capital budgets is necessary
to ensure stable funding for the construction and maintenance of facilities, promotion, injury
prevention programs, community and economic development initiatives, and the day-to-day operations
of program staff.
(2)Staffing Levels and Resources to Support the Cycling Program:
Cycling in the seven former municipalities was dealt with in varying degrees both at an administrative
level and at a citizen participation level. The former City of Toronto had the most extensive cycling
program with its City Cycling Committee supported by three full-time staff in Urban Development
Services dedicated exclusively to cycling programs. In addition several staff in City Works Services
and Community Services were involved in implementing cycling infrastructure, including on-street
bicycle lanes and routes, bicycle parking racks, bicycle training programs for staff, and off-street trails
as a part of their overall responsibilities. At Metropolitan Toronto, the Metropolitan Cycling and
Pedestrian Committee was supported by staff from the Clerks, Planning, Parks and Transportation
Departments as part of their overall responsibilities.
At the other former local municipalities, citizen participation committees were started in Etobicoke and
North York with limited staff support from the Works and Transportation Departments. In East York,
Scarborough and York, no formal cycling committees were formed, however staff from the Planning
and Parks Departments worked on cycling issues in these municipalities.
The Clerk's Department provides administrative services to both the Metro Cycling and Pedestrian
Committee and the Toronto City Cycling Committee, which are holding joint meetings until a new
cycling committee is established by City Council. In the other former local municipalities no
administrative resources were formally assigned to the local cycling committees.
To provide the same level of support for cycling programs and infrastructure across the new City as
found in the former City of Toronto would require increased staff and other resources. Recognizing the
severe resource restraints facing the City, it is recommended that the existing levels of staffing and
resources allocated to cycling programs be maintained in 1998. For now, efforts should be
concentrated on identifying suitable policies, plans and programs for the new city so that funding and
staffing levels can be reviewed as part of the 1999 budget process.
The first step in establishing an appropriate level of support for cycling is to develop a Comprehensive
Cycling Plan for the new City. During 1998, staff and members of the combined cycling committees
will be working together to review all existing cycling policies and programs, develop new goals for
cycling, recommend Official Plan policies, operating practices, programs, capital projects and the
resources required to achieve the plan's goals. This work will ensure that the varying levels of staffing
and budget support, and the different policies and practices in the former municipalities are
successfully integrated to provide the most efficient and effective cycling programs across the City.
At its meeting of January 12, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee requested
reports on a complete system of bicycle lanes, education programs, and how the proposed committees
dealing with cycling and pedestrian issues will apply to all areas of the new City. These issues will be
addressed in our report to Urban Environment and Development Committee on the Comprehensive
Cycling Plan.
(3)Staffing Levels and Resources to Support the Proposed Pedestrian Committee
At present there is minimal staff support of the Pedestrian Issues Sub-committee. The former Planning
Department at Metro Hall maintains a mailing list, provides monthly mailings, and administers a
call-in line and voice mail. This translates into approximately one person day of effort every month.
The Clerks's Department in Metro Hall provides formal minute-taking, agendas, and
Council/Committee referral activity to the Metro Cycling and Pedestrian Committee as a whole, and
the Pedestrian Issues Sub-committee component represents approximately one half-a-person day of
activity per month.
Transportation staff at Metro Hall provides technical feed-back and attends the monthly and other
meetings of the Pedestrian Issues Sub-committee. This represents approximately one half-a-person day
of effort every month.
There are no other committees within the amalgamated City of Toronto whose primary focus is
pedestrian transportation issues.
The range and complexity of pedestrian-related issues is at least as broad as bicycle issues, and the
Pedestrian Issues Sub-committee is receiving referrals from Council and its committees as well as
generating a significant number of issues itself. The Sub-committee is comprised of volunteers and
does not have the necessary resources to respond to these matters.
In order to support a Toronto Pedestrian Committee or a properly functioning Pedestrian Issues
Sub-Committee, dedicated staff are required similar to the support provided to the Toronto Cycling
Committee. If a separate Pedestrian Committee is established, resources would have to be identified in
the Clerk's Department to undertake the variety of logistical tasks (e.g., minutes, agendas, referrals,
mailings etc.). Also at least three full-time dedicated staff would be required in order to establish
activities such as analytical, reporting, educational and research tasks, attendance at a variety of
meetings, and the provision of support and guidance to the Toronto Pedestrian Committee or a
Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee. These three positions could reside within the Transportation and
Planning units (i.e., two in one and one in the other).
Even though staff of the Planning and Transportation units presently take pedestrian issues under
consideration during their normal work duties, the level of effort required to perform the
above-referenced tasks for a separate Toronto Pedestrian Committee are beyond present resources.
Therefore dedicated funding would need to be incorporated in the annual Operating Budget for this
purpose. The minimum annual commitment would be approximately $300,000.00.
Conclusions:
The City should seek to maintain its international reputation as the best city for cycling in North
America. A Comprehensive Cycling Plan is needed to maintain this leadership position and to respond
to the diverse range of needs and opportunities across the City in an efficient and effective manner.
Strong cycling policies, plans and programs will provide environmental, economic and social benefits
for the residents and businesses of the City, consistent with the current Metro and local Official Plan
objectives. Given the severe budget restraints facing the city, existing programs and projects should be
maintained in 1998 while an overall plan is developed for 1999 and beyond. Future staff and resource
requirements for an integrated city-wide cycling program can only be properly evaluated in this
broader context.
In order to support a separate Toronto Pedestrian Committee, or the proper functioning and higher
profile activities of the existing Pedestrian Issues Sub-committee, dedicated staff and funding
resources have to be identified in the Planning and Transportation units within the City.
In order for the cycling and pedestrian programs to be effective, they must include the four key
ingredients described in this report: community representation on a citizen advisory committee;
dedicated program staff to advise, assist and provide continuity in addressing cycling and pedestrian
issues and implementing programs; supportive Council and other civic staff to ensure that cycling and
pedestrian issues are routinely considered at all levels; and annual Operating and Capital Budgets for
implementing policies, plans and programs.
Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:
Tom MulliganDaniel Egan
Works and Emergency ServicesUrban Planning and Development Services
Metro Hall OfficeCity Hall Office
(416) 392-8329(416) 392-1143
Peter K. Hillier, Senior Manager
Traffic Regions
(416) 392-5348
--------
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the
information of Council, having also had before it the following communications:
(a)(March 9, 1998) from the Metro Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, forwarding a Governance Plan
for a Cycling Committee structure for the City of Toronto; and requesting the Special Committee to
recommend to City Council adoption of forementioned structure.
(b)(February 12, 1998) from Ms. Helen Riley, Member of the former Metropolitan Pedestrian Issues
Sub-Committee, respecting the creation of a Pedestrian Committee and a Cycling Committee; and
outlining the division of the responsibilities of the two proposed committees.
(c)(February 20, 1998) from Ms. Joan Doiron, forwarding Terms of Reference for a Toronto The
Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following
communication (March 27, 1998) Pedestrian Committee.
(d)(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development
Committee on April 20, 1998, during consideration of the issue of increased pedestrian safety on City
streets, inter alia, again recommended to the SpecialCommittee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team that separate committees be established to deal with cycling and pedestrian
issues.
(e)(April 22, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian
Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian
Committee at a joint meeting on April 21, 1998, endorsed the recommendations embodied in the joint
report (April 16, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation and the Interim Functional
Lead for Planning respecting staffing levels and resources to support Cycling and Pedestrian Programs.
--------
The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Joan Doiron;
-Ms. Rhona Swarbrick;
-Ms. Helen Riley;
-Ms. Shelia McKenna;
-Ms. Saro McKenna; and
-Ms. Lois James, and filed a written submission in regard thereto.
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause,
the following communication (May 1, 1998) from the City Clerk:
The Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the
North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee at a joint meeting on April 21, 1998, endorsed the
Recommendations embodied in the joint report dated April 16, 1998, addressed to the Special
Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team from the Interim Functional
Lead for Transportation and the Interim Functional Lead for Planning, headed "Staffing Levels and
Resources to Support Cycling and Pedestrian Programs", and directed that Council be advised
accordingly.)
5
Terms of Reference - Task Force on the
Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 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 joint report (April 15, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair
and Ms. Catherine Nasmith, Co-Chair, Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor:
Purpose:
To establish Terms of Reference for the new City of Toronto's Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore
Corridor.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)(a)the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor of the former City of Toronto be
established as the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor of the new City of Toronto; and
(b)that the Terms of Reference for the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor, as appended
to this report, be adopted;
(2)the organizations and citizens-at-large presently represented on the former City of Toronto's Task
Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor as outlined in Appendix II, be appointed to the Task Force
on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor of the new City of Toronto for the period ending November 30,
2000, and until their successors are appointed, and that these organizations be requested to name a
representative and an alternate representative to the Task Force;
(3)Councillor Layton and Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, and any other interested Councillor, be
appointed to the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor for the period ending November 30,
2000, and until their successors are appointed.
(4)in addition to the above noted membership:
(a)the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor be given the authority to appoint, for the
period ending November 30, 2000, or until their successors are appointed, a broader spectrum of
community organizations, landowners, public agencies, professional organizations and
citizens-at-large as members and that those organizations, when identified, be requested to name a
representative and an alternate; and
(b)the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor be authorized to add to its membership from
time to time and be given the power to appoint such organizations or citizens-at-large as members and
that they be requested to name a representative and an alternate; and
(5)Council set the quorum requirements of the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor of the
new City of Toronto at two-fifths its total membership to reflect the same quorum requirements of the
Task Force of the former City of Toronto.
Background:
The Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor was established by Toronto City Council in
1986, as an advisory body to City Council on matters relating to the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor.
Since its inception, the Task Force has overseen several consultant studies on civic improvements
within the corridor such as:
(a)Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor - A Civic Design Study;
(b)Yonge Street Urban Design Study;
(c)High Park Western Beaches Humber River Civic Improvements Study; and
(d)Don Valley Sweep Study.
The completion of each of these studies resulted in the implementation of numerous improvements
along the entire length of the corridor and highlighted the importance and cumulative benefits achieved
from small-scale civic design initiatives.
Discussion:
Terms of Reference:
The role that the Task Force played in the former City of Toronto was no doubt very valuable and
effective. However, with a newly expanded city limits, there is a need to re-examine the role that the
Task Force will play in the new City of Toronto. The proposed Terms of Reference for the new Task
Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor are attached as Appendix I.
Budget:
No budget implications are anticipated at this time.
Membership Expansion:
The Task Force of the former City of Toronto is comprised of members from community
organizations, landowners, public agencies, professional organizations and citizens at-large. The
current membership listing is attached as Appendix II.
The Task Force would like to add new members to more accurately reflect the diverse spectrum of
interests within the new City of Toronto. Some of the suggested members include representatives from
the following groups:
(a)interested Councillors throughout the expanded corridor;
(b)Pedestrian Committee;
(c)Cycling Committee;
(d)Task Force to Bring Back the Don;
(e)Waterfront Regeneration Trust;
(f)GRAIL;
(g)Citizens for the Old Town of York;
(h)Toronto Society of Architects;
(i)Institute of Transportation Engineers;
(j)Geographic community organizations; and
(k)Landowners within the expanded corridor.
In order to ensure consistency in reporting of members, it will be necessary to reappoint all existing
member organizations of the Task Force. It is recommended that potential new member organizations
be contacted and requested to name a representative and an alternate representative.
Quorum:
Section 114 of the City of Toronto By-law to Govern the Proceedings of Council and Committees sets
quorum (which must be achieved within 15 minutes of the commencement of a meeting) of a
Committee of Council as the majority of the members of that committee, unless Council decides
otherwise.
Therefore, if the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor wishes to increase or decrease its
quorum requirements from a majority of the Task Force, it can make an appropriate recommendation
to Council. In 1996, the former City of Toronto Council (Clause 10 of Land Use Report 13) reduced
the quorum requirements of the Task Force from a majority to two-fifths of its members, thereby
setting the present quorum requirements to eight.
Given the goal to expand the membership, but at the same time recognizing that all members will not
attend regularly given the large geographic area that will now be covered by the Task Force, it is
recommended that quorum for the new Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor be set at
two-fifths of its members.
Contact Name:
Maggie Easton
Urban Planning and Development Services
City Hall
Telephone: 392-7218
--------
Appendix I
Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor
Terms of Reference
(1)Vision Statement:
The Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor visualizes the integration of the Gardiner/Lake
Shore corridor (The Corridor) into the fabric of the city and will focus its attention on the physical and
psychological barriers to the waterfront that the Gardiner Expressway, Lake Shore Boulevard and the
railway corridor have created.
(2)General Objectives:
The Task Force will ensure that the following general design objectives are incorporated into the
planning of minor and major modifications within the Corridor:
(a)substantially improve north/south links to the waterfront for automobiles, transit, pedestrians,
cyclists, wildlife and water courses;
(b)achieve substantial reductions in noise and pollution, and support the City of Toronto's objectives
for CO2 reduction;
(c)increase the diversity of transportation options within the Corridor;
(d)improve the environment for east/west pedestrian travel;
(e)rationalize and consolidate the relationship between the Gardiner Expressway, Lake Shore
Boulevard, and the railway corridor; and
(f)improve the civic character, amenities and safety along the full length of the corridor, including
respect for natural and cultural heritage features.
(3)Study Area:
The Task Force will limit its review to those proposals or concepts which fall within the general
boundary limits of the west side of the Humber River to the west, and Woodbine Avenue to the east,
within or immediately adjacent to the Corridor.
(4)Method of Work:
The General Objectives will be achieved through the review of existing projects and or proposals in the
Corridor, initiated by others, and/or the initiation of projects/proposals by the Task Force itself (subject
to funding availability).
The Task Force will continue to strive for improvements within the Corridor which satisfy their
General Objectives. This will be achieved by focussing on small scale improvements within the
Corridor and will also examine the concept of a complete reconfiguration of the Gardiner Expressway
and Lake Shore Boulevard.
The Task Force will provide a forum for interaction amongst community organizations, landowners,
members of City Council, professional organizations, other public agencies and citizens at-large,
enabling the achievement of the Task Force's vision for a transportation corridor that is integrated into
the fabric of the City.
(5)Membership:
The Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor will meet on a regular basis and include
participation from community organizations, landowners, members of City Council, professional
organizations, other public agencies, and citizens at-large.
If a representative (or alternate in place of the representative) of an organization or group appointed as
a member of the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor does not attend three consecutive
meetings without providing an acceptable explanation, then the organization will be required to name a
new representative. If the organization chooses not to name a new representative or fails to respond to
the request in a reasonable time frame, then the organization will cease to be a member of the Task
Force.
(6)Staff Resources:
One senior staff member and/or his/her representative, from the following departments, will be
allocated to attend all meetings and assist the Task Force with its on-going work:
(a)City Clerk;
(b)Urban Planning and Development Services (Transportation Planning and Urban Design);
(c)Works and Emergency Services (Transportation);
(d)Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation, Economic Development and
Heritage); and
(e)Healthy City Office.
Advisors from the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), the Toronto Harbour
Commission (THC), the Toronto Historical Board (THB) and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)
will also be invited to participate.
--------
Appendix II
Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor
Membership: 21 members
Quorum (two-fifths): 8 members
Members
Members of Council:
Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski
Councillor Jack Layton
Two City Councillors (to be appointed)
Adjacent Land Owners:
Steve Hiley, Marathon Development Inc.
David Sadowski or Norm Jarus, CN Real Estate
Local Resident Groups:
Peter Dean, Toronto Island Residents' Association
Ron Nash, Roncesvalles-MacDonell Residents' Association
Ben Smith-Lea, Niagara Neighbourhood Assoc.
William Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers' Association
David Windrim, Beach Triangle Residents' Association (Alternate: Christopher Blythe)
Marilyn Roy, Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association
Stan Rzepka, Queen West Lower-Ossington Residents' Assoc.
David Gunter, St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
Other Interested Groups:
George Grant, Board of Trade
Ronny Yaron, Women Plan Toronto
Jim Neff, Citizens for Safe Environment and S.E. Riverdale Community Assoc.
Mark Inglis, Ontario Association of Landscape Architects
Ian Keith, The Friends of Fort York
Interested Citizens:
Cathy Naismith
Paul Raina
6
Public Consultations on the Roles and
Responsibilities of Community Councils
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits, for
information, the report (April 16, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, High Park - Parkdale:
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the
information of Council, having referred the Committee Transmittal from the City Clerk, East York
Community Council, and the following communications respecting the roles and responsibilities of
Community Councils, to the Chief Administrative Officer for consideration in the preparation of the
final report on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils:
(i)(March 27, 1998) from Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and
Residents' Association;
(ii)(April 15, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Simpson;
(iii)(April 16, 1998) from Ms. Jennifer Penney, Mr. David Kraft and Ms. Linda Epp, Ward 19
Citizens' Assembly; and
(iv)(April 15, 1998) from Councillor Pam McConnell, writing on behalf of the Working Group on
Citizen Participation.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits, the
following report (April 16, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, High Park - Parkdale:
Purpose:
This report describes the progress of consultations with the public regarding the roles and
responsibilities of the Community Councils.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial impacts.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this report be forwarded to Council for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On March 4, 5, and 6, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 3 of The Special Committee,
entitled "Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and responsibilities of Community Councils." In
adopting the Clause, Council directed that:
(1)the discussion paper on Community Councils, as amended by the Special Committee, be referred to
the Community Councils for consideration and community input, and report thereon to the Special
Committee;
(2)the discussion paper and a short questionnaire requesting public feedback be made available to the
public through the City's Civic Service Centres and libraries, be distributed to everyone on the Special
Committee's mailing list, be circulated to all Members of Council for distribution to their constituents,
and be posted on the City's site on the Internet; and
(3)the Special Committee hold one or more focused workshops on Community Councils.
This report outlines the progress to date in undertaking these consultation initiatives.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Distribution of the Consultation Document:
Following the March Council meeting, staff revised the discussion paper to incorporate the
amendments that were adopted by Council. Subsequently, in late March the discussion paper was
mailed to all individuals and organizations on the Special Committee's mailing list. Multiple copies of
the discussion paper were sent to all branches of the City's library system and Access Toronto was
requested to make copies available in each of the Civic Service Centres. Copies of the discussion
paper, including a master copy suitable for duplicating, were distributed to all Members of Council.
The discussion paper included a letter from the Chair of the Special Committee requesting readers'
comments on how they think Community Councils are working and what might be done to improve
the role they play in the government of our City. The following five questions were provided to help
focus the feedback:
(1)How do you define the community in which you live or own a business?
(2)What should be done to ensure that Toronto's City government is responsive to the needs and
priorities of individual communities like the one in which you live?
(3)Do the present boundaries of the Community Councils make sense? If not, how should they
change?
(4)What is a good way to distinguish between matters of City-wide importance and matters of local
community importance?
(5)What is the best way to ensure that individual citizens and communities continue to have access to
decision-makers?
The complete text of the discussion paper and the questionnaire were also placed on the City's website
on the Internet.
By April 15, twenty-four members of the public had faxed or e-mailed their comments. These are
currently being reviewed by staff together with the motions and correspondence that have already been
referred to the Special Committee.
The City's employees have a great deal of experience and viewpoints to share. Bulletins are being
posted at all worksites inviting employees to read the discussion paper and submit their comments.
Focus Group Discussions:
The Special Committee sponsored three focus group discussions in early April. In view of the broad
scope of the community consultation expected to be undertaken by the Community Councils, these
sessions were organized with invited participants and concentrated on specific activities that are or
could be within the realm of Community Councils' responsibilities.
On April 6, 1998, a focus group on the role of Community Councils in recreation services was held at
Montgomery Inn Community Centre. Twenty-eight people, based on a reference group developed by
the Parks Commissioners in the former municipalities, were invited to participate and 17 attended the
session. Senior staff from the City's Parks and Recreation Services presented a model for the division
of responsibilities for parks and recreation matters between Community Councils and other Standing
Committees. This presentation provided the launch pad for a discussion of issues and options.
Councillor Saundercook attended this focus group.
On April 7, 1998, a focus group on the role of Community Councils in planning and development
control was held at the Agincourt Community Centre. Twenty-five people representing, for example,
developers, ratepayers and residents associations, transportation planners, organized labour and
development lawyers were invited and fourteen attended. Senior planning staff presented models for
Community Councils' roles in development control and the development of City-wide planning policy
to begin the discussion.
On April 8, 1998, a workshop on the concept of Neighbourhood Report Cards was held at North
Toronto Memorial Centre. This workshop was organized jointly with the Toronto Community and
Social Planning Council. Sixty-four people representing a wide range of organizations, agencies and
individuals from across the City were invited to participate. Forty-five people were able to attend.
Councillor Moscoe attended this session.
I chaired the first two focus groups and co-chaired the third workshop. The sessions allowed for an
excellent exchange of ideas. The output from the three sessions is currently being reviewed by staff.
Community Consultations by the Community Councils:
The Community Councils have planned to undertake the following consultation initiatives:
(1)East York Community Council has scheduled a public meeting at the East York Civic Service
Centre on the evening of April 20, 1998.
(2)Etobicoke Community Council will hold a public meeting at the Etobicoke Civic Service Centre on
the evening of May 7, 1998.
(3)North York Community Council will hold two workshops and a public meeting. At the time of
writing, the dates of these sessions are yet to be confirmed but are expected to be during May 1998.
(4)Scarborough Community Council will hold a public meeting at the Scarborough Civic Service
Centre on the evening of May 7, 1998.
(5)Toronto Community Council has an ongoing process involving a Working Group on Citizen
Participation. The recommendations embodied in the Working Group's First Report have already been
before the Special Committee, which recommended their incorporation into the discussion paper on
the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils. Toronto Community Council will also hold a
public meeting. At the time of writing, the date of the public meeting was yet to be confirmed but it is
expected to take place during May 1998.
(6)York Community Council does not plan to hold a public meeting but has undertaken a direct
mailing of the discussion paper to approximately 350 individuals and organizations and requested
them to submit their comments directly to the Special Committee.
Conclusions:
This is a report on the status of consultations on the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils
that Council requested the Special Committee and Community Councils to undertake. As noted above,
the Community Councils have not yet completed their community consultations. It is also expected
that more written submissions will be received from the public and employees. However, a number of
themes and issues are apparent from the public feedback received to date and the focus group
discussions. These include the following:
(a)The roles, responsibilities and authority of Community Councils need to be considered within the
broader context of citizen involvement in the City's government and the overall Council-Committee
structure.
(b)Some issues, including Community Council boundaries, should be approached carefully and will
take longer to resolve. This should not prevent the Special Committee from: proposing immediate
changes to clarify the mandates of the Community Councils and their relationship to and distinction
from other Committees of Council; identifying opportunities for greater delegation to Community
Councils and, where appropriate, staff; and recommending a variety of procedural changes to make
Community Council and general City business occur more accessibly, responsively, effectively and
efficiently.
(c)There is a strong desire for the City to have a real, visible and accessible physical presence in
communities across the City. This applies equally to service delivery and political decision-making.
The geographic decentralization of political decision-making through the Community Councils is a
valued aspect of the new City government.
The Special Committee will prepare its recommendations on the roles and responsibilities of
Community Councils upon completion of the various consultation initiatives described in this report.
Given the schedule of Community Council consultations, it is likely that the Special Committee will
be in a position to consider recommendations at its first meeting after mid-May. This is later than had
been projected in the Special Committee's workplan, but the input from the Community Councils
following their public consultations is essential to the Special Committee's deliberations on this
important matter.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team also submits
the following communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, East York Community
Council:
Recommendations:
The East York Community Council recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final
Report of the Toronto Transition Team, the following:
(i)a list of municipal functions/responsibilities be established by the Special Committee which reflect
city-wide or broad municipal interest including the following:
(a)the authority to pass by-laws;
(b)the authority to restructure Community Council boundaries, alter ward boundaries or change
councillor representation;
(c)the authority to levy taxes;
(d)the ability to issue debentures;
(e)the power to expropriate land;
(f)the power to enter into agreements, or to sue or be sued;
(g)the ability to hold title to property;
(h)the power to appoint municipal officers or to hire and fire staff; and
(i)the authority to make grants;
(ii)any other municipal functions/responsibilities be deemed residual which shall be dealt with by the
community councils;
(iii)community councils be granted the authority to carry out any policy or by-law adopted by City
Council whereby the discretion shall be vested with the community council;
(iv)community councils be consulted during the standardization and consolidation process of all
municipal by-laws;
(v)general acceptance of the recommendations and comments in Appendices 1 and 2 of the
aforementioned report of the Special Committee with the exception of the following recommendations
from Appendix 1 whereby concern was expressed:
(a)Recommendation No. (2) (c) regarding many functions previously handled at the Metro level which
could and should be devolved to the community councils, including many former Metro roads and all
Metro parks and requesting Council to continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum
local delivery of service;
(b)Recommendation No. (2) (d) regarding the linkage of functions into the existing community
service infrastructure to allow citizens to enjoy cost savings and service integration;
(c)Recommendation No. (2) (e) regarding community councils retaining responsibility for most of the
areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and
planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan;
(d)Recommendation No. (4) in its entirety regarding how community councils set and spend their
budgets; and
(e)Recommendation No. (5) (c) regarding the premise that all staff serving the functions managed by
community councils would report to the community council;
(vi)endorsement of the principle that a two-thirds majority vote by City Council be required to
overturn recommendations made by community councils.
The East York Community Council reports for the information of the Special Committee having
requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to the Special Committee on the
feasibility of granting discretionary funds to community councils.
The East York Community Council also reports for the information of the Special Committee that it
received the report (March 1998) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto
Transition Team with respect to the draft discussion paper on the roles and responsibilities and
requesting the East York Community Council to report to the Special Committee after receiving
community input.
Background:
The East York Community Council, at its special meeting on April 20, 1998, had before it a report
dated March 1998, from the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition
Team with respect to the draft discussion paper on the roles and responsibilities and requesting the
East York Community Council to report to the Special Committee after receiving community input.
The East York Community Council also had before it communications from the following in respect of
the roles and responsibilities of the Community Councils:
-(April 17, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York;
-(April 20, 1998) from Ms. Lorna Krawchuk, East York;
-(April 20, 1998) from Mr. Colin MacLeod, Team East York, East York; and
-(April 20, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association Inc.
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York;
-Ms. Lorna Krawchuk, East York;
-Mr. Colin Macleod, Team East York, East York;
-Mr. Colin MacLeod on behalf of Ms. Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners'
Association Inc;
-Ms. Maureen Lindsay, East York;
-Mr. Vasil Alexiou, East York;
-Mr. Cliff Dwyer, East York; and
-Ms. Norma Curran, East York.
--------
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the
information of Council, having also had before the following communications:
(i)(March 27, 1998) from Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and
Residents' Association, forwarding recommendations respecting the roles and responsibilities of
Community Councils;
(ii)(April 15, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, forwarding comments respecting the roles and
responsibilities of Community Councils;
(iii)(April 16, 1998) from Ms. Jennifer Penney, Mr. David Kraft and Ms. Linda Epp, Ward 19
Citizens' Assembly, respecting the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils; and
(iv)(April 15, 1998) from Councillor Pam McConnell, writing on behalf of the Working Group on
Citizen Participation, respecting the roles and responsibilities of Community Councils.
The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. David Kraft, Ward 19 Citizens Assembly; and
-Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Association.
7
Other Items Considered by the Committee
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)City of Toronto's Children's Advocate - Appointment
to Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports
having referred the following communication to the Chief Administrative Officer for
consideration in his forthcoming report on the governance structure.
(February 27, 1998) from Ms. Carolyn Buck, Director of Service, Children's Aid Society of
Metropolitan Toronto, and Ms. Karen Engel, Executive Director, City of York Child and Family
Centre, advising that the successful implementation of the Children's strategy requires that the
Children's Advocate be a member of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee as emphasized by
the Metro Task Force on Services to Young Children and Families; that it is their belief that without
this executive authority, the position of Children's Advocate lacks the power and influence required to
protect the rights of children in the hyper-competitive budgetary context of downloading and threats of
increased taxation; and urging the Committee to take this important step to concretely demonstrate the
new City's commitment to its children.
--------
The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the
Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Carolyn Buck, Director of Service, Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto; and
-Ms. Karen Engel, Executive Director, City of York Child and Family Centre.
(b)Existing Environment Committees on
the Environmental Task Force.
The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports
having:
(1)concurred with Recommendation "A" embodied in the report (March10, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (3)
to read as follows:
"(3)that each Community Council be asked to advise the Special Committee to Review the Final
Report of the Transition Team on the ongoing need for a general environmental advisory
committee for its Community after receiving comments from the Environmental Task Force;";
and
(2)requested the City Clerk to canvass Members of Council to ascertain whether any additional
Members are interested in participating on the Storm Water Group:
(March 25, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that The Works and Utilities Committee on March 25,
1998, concurred in the recommendations embodied in the report dated March 10, 1998, from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting existing environmental committees and
the Environmental Task Force; and further directed that the report be referred to the Environmental
Task Force for its consideration and recommendations to the Special Committee to Review the Final
Report of the Toronto Transition Team, such report containing the following recommendations:
"(A)That this report be referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition
Team, with the following recommendations:
(1)that each of the committees listed in Appendix 1 be sent a copy of this report and the terms of
reference for the new Environmental Task Force;
(2)that each of the committees listed in Appendix 1 be asked to advise the Chief Administrative
Officer (CAO) on its work and potential role in the new City, including such matters as:
(a)the ongoing need for its work, if any;
(b)areas of overlap involving its work and that of any other committee;
(c)the relationship of its work to that of the Environmental Task Force;
(d)its anticipated ongoing need for staff support from the City; and
(e)its budget and other resource needs;
(3)that each Community Council be asked to advise the Special Committee to Review the Final
Report of the Transition Team on the ongoing need for a general environmental advisory committee
for its Community; and
(4)that the CAO report back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition
Team on the responses to recommendation (2), together with any recommendations he may deem
appropriate, and that the responses to recommendation (3) be tabled at the same meeting; and
(B)that this report be forwarded to the Environmental Task Force, the Urban Environment and
Development Committee and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for
information.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID MILLER,
Chair
Toronto, April 24, 1998
(Report No. 6 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 May13 and14, 1998.)
