TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 7

1John Street Roundhouse - Request for Expressions of Interest (Ward 24 - Downtown)

2Union Station Arbitration and Appeal

3City of Toronto Administrative Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI)

4Property Matter Respecting a Possible Purchase in the City of Toronto

55182 and 5200 Yonge Street - Extension Request (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

6Appointment of Chair for the Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and Four Members of the Sinking Fund Committee

7Decision of the Court of Appeal for OntarioRespecting Same-Sex Survivor Pension Benefits

8Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations V. Ernst Zundel - Authority to Attend in Federal Court

9Inquest into the Death of Kenneth Au-Yeung

10Protection of the City's Tax Base

11Contract to Provide Banking Services for the City of Toronto

12Interim Report on a Registry of Lobbyists and Related Matters

13Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council

14Re-Employment Policy for Former Members of Council and Former Staff of Members of Council

15Proposed Fee Structure for Documentsand Services Provided by the City Clerk's Secretariat

16Resolution Policy

17Interim Purchasing By-lawAwarding of Contracts

18Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund 1998 Pensioner Increase, Amendment to By-Law No. 181-81

19Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan1998 Pensioner Increase, Amendment to By-Law No. 15-92

20Actuarial Valuation Results - Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund

21Expropriation of Property 11R Hounslow Heath Road

22Expropriation of a Limited Interest In and Over Lands for Drainage Easement Purposes - Wychwood Park (Midtown)

23Sale of Surplus Property at 171 Strathearn Road, City of Toronto (Formerly City of York) Ward 28 - York Eglinton

24Sale of Surplus Property at 38 Wildwood Crescent City of Toronto, Ward 26,

25Sale of Surplus Property - 114 Combe Avenue(North York Spadina - Ward 8)

26Disposal and Sale of City-Owned Vacant Land to Adjoining Owners - 20 Sudbury Street (Ward 20 - Trinity-Niagara)

27Proposed Property Disposal -West Side of Avonmore Square,Block C, Plan M-943 Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

28Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue Registered Plan M-108, (Ward 9 - North York Centre South)

29Use of City-Owned Property by Non-Profit Corporations at Below Market Charges

30Use of Former City of York Civic Service Centre 2700 Eglinton Avenue West, for the Learning Enrichment Foundation (Ward 27 - York Humber)

31Acquisition of Property Interests Sheppard Subway -Bayview Station Owner: Verdiroc Holdings Limited, Daniels Financial Corporation and John Henry Daniels in Trust

32Proposed Acquisition of Land for Park Purposes from the Sisters of St. Joseph - A Block of Land (2.84 Acres)Adjacent to Clairlea Playfield South of Fairfax Crescent,West of Warden Avenue (Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs)

33Partial Property Acquistion - Lucille Lamana (Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek)

34F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling ProjectRequest for Authority to Acquire Property Wards: Don River; East Toronto

35Release of Watermain Easement Registeredas Instrument No. 61630 F on the Title of 4A Wychwood Park (Ward 23 - Midtown) 5144

36Easement Request from Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission Midland Avenue - J. A. Leslie Tot Lot, North of 2550 Kingston Road Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs 5145

37Agreement of Purchase and Sale; Worksite Lease Agreement and Permanent Easement Agreement Owner: YMCA of Greater Toronto 567 Sheppard Avenue East Sheppard Avenue Subway - Bayview Station

38Wychwood Carhouse Demolition

39Licence Agreement - Ontario Hydro - Bishop Avenue Garden Allotment Plots (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

40Licence Agreement - Ontario Hydro - Four Winds Drive Garden Allotment Plots (Ward 17 - Black Creek) 5157

41Proposed Licence Agreement - Prince Edward Viaduct Parkette (Ward 23 - Midtown) 5158

42Assignment of Leases and Other Agreements from Seneca College to the Institute of Naturopathic Education and Research, 1255 Sheppard Avenue East (Ward 9 - North York Centre South)

43Lease of Space at 150 Eglinton Avenue East Social Services Division, Community and Neighbourhood Services Department (Ward No. 22 - North Toronto)

44Licence Agreement - Parking Use Encroachment on Road Allowance in Front and East Side of 3140-3150 Dufferin Street (Ward No. 8 - North York Spadina)

45Road Closing and Surplus Property Declaration Westerly Portion of Monogram Place (Kingsway-Humber-Ward 3)

46Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 7

OF THE CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on May 25, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Dick O'Brien, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

1

John Street Roundhouse - Request for

Expressions of Interest (Ward 24 - Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration; and the Commissioner of Corporate Services was requested to continue negotiations with the two leading proponents in order to obtain additional information and submit a further report to Council for its meeting to be held on October 1, 1998, through the Corporate Services Committee, once more substantive information is available.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and, further, that the position of City Council be communicated to TrizecHahn that any proposal must include an operating railway museum:

Purpose:

To obtain authority to enter into negotiations with TrizecHahn in order to provide The Corporate Services Committee with a firm proposal and clear recommendations that may be presented to City Council, relative to the rehabilitation and reuse of the John Street Roundhouse.

Financial Implications:

The financial implications will be addressed in a further report on the outcome of negotiations with TrizecHahn, to The Corporate Services Committee on September 14, 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with Heritage Toronto, be authorized to enter into negotiations with TrizecHahn in order to arrive at a comprehensive proposal for the rehabilitation and reuse of the John Street Roundhouse Complex;

(2)in formalizing their proposal, TrizecHahn investigate the possibility of incorporating the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum and/or the group known as Terminus, as tenants within the Roundhouse;

(3)the Review Committee, convened to assess the submissions received in response to this Request for Expressions of Interest, be continued for the purpose of providing consultative support in the above-noted negotiations; and

(4)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back to the Corporate Services Committee, at its meeting to be held on September 14, 1998, with details of the negotiations and recommendations on appropriate next steps.

Background:

The Canadian Pacific John Street Roundhouse Complex, known municipally as 222 Bremner Boulevard, is a complex of historical significance located within Roundhouse Park, a new major urban park. The Roundhouse Complex consists of a number of structures which have been designated as being of historical significance at the national and municipal levels.

At its meeting held on March 28, 1994, the Council of the previous City of Toronto adopted a report from the Commissioner of Planning and Development, dated March 14, 1994, granting approval for the expansion of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (MTCC). The MTCC expansion is a major subsurface development located below a portion of the Roundhouse Park and below a portion of the Roundhouse Complex.

As a component of the MTCC development, a portion of the Roundhouse, Bays 1 - 11 was dismantled and stored for future reassembly. The reassembly work is currently being tendered and it is anticipated that the reconstruction will commence in June 1998 and be complete by approximately September, 1998.

The City of Toronto assumed title to the Roundhouse Complex, Roundhouse Park and Bremner Boulevard, in the summer of 1997, in accordance with agreement made between MTCC and other parties with interests in the Railway Lands East, and has leased back the portion of the property occupied by MTCC for a term which expires in 2083.

The City's objectives for the site are to secure the rehabilitation and reuse of the John Street Roundhouse Complex as an operating rail museum and other uses. To this end, a proposal call was issued in May of 1997. This process produced only two responses, neither of which was acceptable to the Selection Committee. After examining the reasons for this poor response, it was determined that issuing a Request for Expression of Interest would be appropriate.

At its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997, the Council of the previous City of Toronto, adopted, with amendments, Clause No.9 of Executive Committee Report No. 23, thereby authorizing the Director, Property Services, in consultation with Heritage Toronto and the City Solicitor, to issue a Request for Expressions of Interest (REI) for the Rehabilitation and Reuse of the John Street Roundhouse Complex. In addition, the Selection Committee, previously established to serve in an advisory capacity relative to a proposal call previously issued in connection with the John Street Roundhouse Complex, was continued under the revised name of the Review Committee. The Review Committee consists of staff representatives from City Legal, Property Services, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Finance, City Planning and Heritage Toronto, as well as two representatives from the rail heritage community and one member of City Council.

The REI was advertised on December 19 and 29, 1997. A site meeting was held on January 6, 1998, and the REI closed on January 28, 1998, at noon. A total of five submissions were received.

A copy of the REI is on file with the City Clerk.

Comments:

Submissions were received in response to the REI from Terminus, Axiis Architects, Invacon Development Group Inc., the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum and TrizecHahn Corporation. The Review Committee has met with all five proponents. Details of the five submissions received in response to the REI are set out on the attached Appendix I. A summary of these submissions follows:

Terminus:

This group proposed a mixed use facility comprised of a rail museum (25,000 ft²) , meeting and special event space (40,000 ft.²), a railway themed restaurant facility developed as distinct eating venues (15,000 ft.²) and a performing arts facility (20,000 ft.²).

The project team consists of an Event Design, Planning and Management firm, hospitality/food and beverage firm, developer and architect and the consultant team consists of a museum consultant, conservation architect, railroad consultant and heritage preservation consultant team.

While the ability of this team to provide the proposed uses of event planning, hospitality/food service appears to be sound, the Review Committee had reservations with respect to this team's capability to develop a project of this magnitude and to provide a sustained operating rail museum. Although a number of creative ideas were presented relative to the rail museum, park programming, etc., the role of this respondent would, more appropriately, be that of a tenant or end user of space within the Roundhouse.

The Review Committee concluded that this respondent should not be considered further in terms of these deliberations but could be considered as a possible tenant.

Axiis Architects:

The proposed project consists of the "Triennale" of Toronto/Exhibit Hall (60,000 ft.²), Canadian Museum of Railway History and Toronto Visitor Centre (20,0000 ft.²), Ecology Centre and Interactive Exhibit for a Sustainable City (exterior demonstration of active and passive solar energy harnessing) and commercial uses (20,000 ft.²). The commercial tenants have reportedly already been secured (food service and event planning).

This project team consists of two members of the Design Exchange, two members from the Maison D'Etre Gallery and two members from the Architectural Literacy Forum and the consultant team consists of a museum consultant, cultural tourism consultant, conservation planner, conservation architect and railroad consultant.

It is the opinion of the Review Committee that in order to sustain the proposed uses, with the exception of the 20,000 ft.² of commercial space, it is likely that some form of financial subsidy will be required. The Review Committee is also of the opinion that the proposed uses will not result in a dynamic use of the complex and will appeal to a limited audience. This respondent should not be considered further.

Invacon Development Group Inc.:

The proposed project consists of an operating rail museum (50,000 ft.² as per submission and first interview and 30,000 ft.² of museum plus 20,000 ft² of common area as per second interview), below ground IMAX theatre (40,000 - 50,000 ft.²) and commercial uses including retail, dining and entertainment venues (50,000 ft.²).

The project team consists of Invacon Development Group Inc., and the consultant team consists of two architects, a fire protection consulting engineering firm and a heritage consultant.

This group presented a dynamic reuse of the site that would attract a number of visitors throughout the day and evening and at all times during the year. The museum concept was not well developed, however, the respondent indicated that a general manager and museum curator would be hired immediately upon selection as the successful respondent. The respondent also stated that funds in the amount of $65M (to include approximately $5 - $6M equity) were committed to proceed immediately with construction. The Review Committee considered this submission to be worthy of serious consideration.

Accordingly, the Review Committee required that it be satisfied in terms of the respondents development experience and ability to finance the project. This is a shell corporation, incorporated specifically for the purpose of responding to this REI and, as such, evidence of financial ability and previous experience in development of the principle was requested. Information was requested to support the representations made in terms of availability of financing and previous experience of the principal in developments of this scale. Invacon Development Group Inc., did not provide sufficient evidence that financing could be secured, and did not provide any evidence that equity funds existed or that the principle had completed any development projects. In addition, as further interviews were held and investigations made, a number of discrepancies in information came to light.

It is the opinion of the Review Committee that this respondent should not be given further consideration. Raymond Kennedy, one of the members of the Review Committee representing the rail heritage community, dissents this opinion.

The Canadian Air Land Sea Museum:

This respondent proposes an operating rail museum, the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, International Vintage Aircraft exhibition and a ground school.

The project team includes the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum Inc., and the consultant team consists of a curator, rail consultant, marine consultant, restoration consultant and architect.

The three users, the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, the International Vintage Aircraft exhibition, and the ground school are all established enterprises that are seeking a new location. This respondent has not undertaken any major rehabilitation projects and should not be considered further in the context of rehabilitation and reuse of the John Street Roundhouse Complex. However, the Review Committee is of the opinion that this respondent could be an end user. Substantial experience, enthusiasm and creativity in terms of museum/exhibit uses would be brought to any project which included this respondent. Further, there are obvious ties between the rail industry and other modes of transportation. Inclusion of programming which is dedicated to these other modes of transportation within the rail museum, or, an independent museum operating in conjunction with the rail museum, will appeal to a much wider audience and may result in a more intensive use of the site.

The Review Committee agreed that this respondent should not be considered in the role as developer, but their involvement on a user level could be encouraged.

TrizecHahn Corporation:

The project team consists of TrizecHahn Corporation. The consultant team consists of a museum consultant, railroad consultant, conservation architect, executive architect and a project management

firm. In addition, the City may have direct representation in the project team, if it so desires. Although no formal arrangement exists, TrizecHahn advises that they have the support, and possibly the assistance, of Skydome Corporation.

The Review Committee expressed some reservation about certain members of the consultant team and was assured by TrizecHahn that they are willing to consider changes to their consultant team.

This respondent assumed that the REI process would be followed by a formal proposal call process (which is the case in most instances). This assumption is evident in the lack of detail within this groups submission. During the interview held with this group, the Review Committee clarified that it was not necessarily the intent of the City to follow the REI process with a proposal call. This respondent has asserted that any program of rehabilitation and reuse must be based on the principle of "preservation with a purpose" and a certain degree of market analysis and consultation is necessary prior to finalizing any development plans. This group has advised that, if entering into negotiations with the City, a firm proposal could be formulated in approximately six weeks.

The project may be comprised of an operating rail museum, the Toronto Museum School (alternative preparatory school with a focus on urban studies), a community centre, Cirque de Soleil, retail and event space and railway themed parkland.

TrizecHahn is undertaking a redevelopment project at the base of the CN Tower. This development will consist of an entertainment complex with a maximum of approximately 385,000ft². If selected, it is the intention of TrizecHahn to redevelop the John Street Roundhouse concurrently with the development at the base of the CN Tower. The development of these major projects, in such close proximity and by the same developer, will provide cross marketing opportunities and will lend this emerging neighbourhood a degree of cohesiveness.

Although TrizecHahn did not present a well defined submission for the rehabilitation and reuse of the John Street Roundhouse, this respondent is considered to be the only respondent with the experience and financial capability to undertake a project of this magnitude. The manner in which the John Street Roundhouse is redeveloped and reused, could have a substantial impact on the success of the respondent's real estate holdings due to their close proximity. It is anticipated that this vested interest in the rehabilitation and reuse of the John Street Roundhouse Complex, of this particular respondent, will translate into a project which reflects the City's objectives for the site in a sustained manner.

It is the opinion of the Review Committee that TrizecHahn should be considered to be the preferred respondent and that the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with members of the Review Committee and Heritage Toronto, should enter into negotiations in order to arrive at a firm proposal, including a long term museum strategy, which will be suitable for presentation to The Corporate Services Committee and City Council and from which a master agreement and lease agreement can be formulated. Raymond Kennedy, one of the members of the Review Committee representing the rail heritage community, dissents this opinion.

It is also recommended by the Review Committee that, in formalizing their proposal, TrizecHahn contact the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum and the group known as Terminus to discuss any interest these groups may have in being tenants within the rehabilitated Roundhouse.

Conclusion:

Of the five submissions received, only one respondent is considered to have the development expertise and financial backing to undertake a project of the scale envisioned. Although a number of creative and dynamic ideas were put forward by other respondents, the sustainability of a project, particularly a museum, is as important as the components of the project itself. It is the opinion of the Review Committee that entering into negotiations with TrizecHahn for the rehabilitation and reuse of the John Street Roundhouse, will result in a final product which has been built upon sound business practices and backed by extensive experience in the development industry.

I concur with the opinions of the Review Committee.

Contact Name:

Bonnie G. Duncan, Telephone No. 392-1861, Fax No. 392-1880, bduncan@city.toronto.on.ca, Report No. cs98071.wpd

--------

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications from concerned individuals respecting the recommendations contained in the report (May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

(i)(May 24, 1998) from Ms. Peggy Kurtin, President, Cabbagetown Preservation Association;

(ii)(May 23, 1998) from Mr. Bob Trueman;

(iii)(May 24, 1998) from Mr. John L. Males; and

(iv)(May 23, 1998) from Mr. Jack Bell, President, Canadian Railroad Historical Association, Toronto and York.

Mr. Doug Stewart, Interim Lead, Facilities and Real Estate, gave a presentation to the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a copy of his briefing notes in regard thereto.

The following persons appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Doug Lister, on behalf of Mr. Don Lister, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Don Lister, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Phillip Garforth, Invacon 98', and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Ms. Jane Beecroft, CHP Heritage Centre, and filed a written submission in regard thereto;

-Mr. Raymond Kennedy;

-Mr. Melvin, on behalf of Mr. Jack, Bell, President, Canadian Railroad Historical Association, Toronto and York; and

-Mr. William Phillips.

(A copy of Appendix "A", detailing the five submissions received in response to the REI, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To respond to questions set out in a communication from Councillor Ila Bossons, dated May 25, 1998, addressed to the Corporate Services Committee.

Financial Implications:

Not Applicable

Recommendation:

That this report be received.

Background:

Councillor Ila Bossons has requested that certain information be provided as set out in Item 2(b) to be considered by City Council, in conjunction with Clause No. 1 of Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee. Councillor Bossons has requested information regarding the possibility of obtaining direct rail access from the John Street Roundhouse Complex to the main line tracks and has requested that a detailed financial analysis of all materials provided by the respondents to the above-noted Request for Expressions of Interest be provided to members of Council.

Comments:

Direct Rail Access:

It is not possible to achieve direct rail access to the main rail line. The attached sketch has been provided by Carruthers and Wallace, Structural Engineers. The portion of the site which has been reinforced to withstand loads from rolling stock is limited to the area between the sand/coal loader and the turntable. Direct rail access to the main line would require a spur line extending in a north-easterly fashion from the turntable, over Bremner Boulevard and arcing just south east of the CN Tower to the main line. This spur line is no longer possible due to the fact that the redevelopment project located at the base of the CN Tower will occupy lands that would be required to accommodate the spur line.

Financial Issues:

The Review Committee included within it's membership appropriate staff of the City Finance Department who analysed financial information provided by the respondents. It was concluded by staff that the financial information available with respect to Invacon was not sufficient to warrant further negotiations and that the financial information available with respect to TrizecHahn Corporation was sufficient to warrant further negotiation and members of the Review Committee were so advised.

Contact Name:

Bonnie G. Duncan, 392-1861; Fax: 392-1880; bduncan@city.toronto.on.ca, (cn98089.wpd).)

(A copy of the sketch, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 25, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown:

(1)Rail Access: Feasible or Not??

Subsequent to your May 25, 1998 meeting, I've been given to understand by members of the heritage community that sufficient reinforcements do exist which would make it feasible to bring engines and cars by RAIL rather than by CRANE to the Roundhouse site.

I would request that the necessary engineering reports be provided so that, once and for all, we can find out whether rail access is feasible or not. Direct access would allow historical train excursions, which would have a major impact on the feasibility of any site development proposal.

(2)Financial Information Provided by INVACON vs. Information Provided by Other Proponents.

I would request that Members of Council be provided with a detailed financial analysis of all materials provided. The evaluation provided on May 25, 1998 is insufficient.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition to the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee, and requesting that the matter be referred back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration:

(i)(June 1, 1998) from Mr. John L. Males, Willowdale, Ontario;

(ii)(May 31, 1998) from Mr. Raymond L. Kennedy, Old Time Trains; and

(iii)(May 28, 1998) from the Chair, The Society of Heritage Associates.)

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that the applicant's solicitor is a partner at the same law firm as his son.)

2

Union Station Arbitration and Appeal

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee contained in the confidential communication (May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting the Union Station Arbitration and Appeal, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk embodying the following confidential reports, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(9) of the Municipal Act:

(i)(May 22, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer; and

(ii)(May 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor.)

3

City of Toronto Administrative Professional

Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer be instructed to consult fully and openly with COTAPSAI and other affected management staff on proposed changes to all policies currently covered by the terms and conditions of the consolidated Memorandum of Agreement.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee contained in the confidential communication (May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk respecting the City of Toronto Administrative Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI), which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following communications:

(i)(May 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, at its Special Meeting on April28 and May 1, 1998, had before it Clause No.1 of Report No.3A of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI)"; and that Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration; such Clause also containing a confidential report (April 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services in regard thereto.

(ii)(May 25, 1998) from Mr. David Neil, President of the City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI), recommending that the Corporate Services Committee defer discussion of COTAPSAI and its Agreement until a report outlining the nature of the future relationship between the City of Toronto and COTAPSAI is submitted.

(City Council on June 3, 4, and, 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk wherein it recommends to Council the adoption of the following Recommendations embodied in the confidential report (April 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and further, that the Executive Director of Human Resources be directed to continue to meet with representatives of the City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI) and the other Management Associations, and report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee on the results of such meetings:

(1)that the Executive Director of Human Resources develop and implement a comprehensive process that will provide meaningful and frequent communication, input from and consultation with all of its non-union employees with respect to those issues that will impact directly upon them;

(2)that appropriate notice be provided to non-union employees where the terms and conditions of their employment are amended;

(3)that any by-laws, authorities, policies or agreements whereby the former City of Toronto agreed to negotiate terms and conditions of employment for non-union employees who are members of COTAPSAI be repealed and terminated forthwith including Confirmation By-law No. 1997-0088 adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of February 3, 1997 as it pertains to the agreement with COTAPSAI;

(4)notwithstanding Recommendation No. (3), the terms and conditions of employment for nonunion employees of the former City of Toronto who are members of COTAPSAI at December 31, 1997 will continue until appropriate notice is given respecting any changes or amendments to their terms and conditions of employment; and

(5)that the appropriate City officials be given the necessary authority to give effect thereto.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May27, 1998) from the Presidents of the City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated (COTAPSAI), the Metropolitan Toronto Management Association (MTMA), the Scarborough Exempt Employees Association (SEEA), the City of York Management Association (CYMA), the Etobicoke Professional Administrative Management Employees Association (EPAMEA), the East York Administrative and Supervisory Association (EYASA), and the North York Management Association (NYMA), requesting that City Council not adopt the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee; and recommending that:

(1)the City reaffirm COTAPSAI's bargaining agent status to cover all non-union employees across the unified City of Toronto; and

(2)the Executive Director of Human Resources be directed to negotiate with COTAPSAI the terms and conditions of employment for all non-union staff.)

4

Property Matter Respecting

a Possible Purchase in the

City of Toronto

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, met in camera to consider this matter and subsequently gave direction to staff, such direction to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

The Corporate Services Committee reports having submitted a confidential communication (May 12, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, High Park - Parkdale, respecting a property matter, without recommendation, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover; and having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit a confidential report thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause:

(i)(June 2, 1998) confidential report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(ii)(undated) confidential communication from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.)

5

5182 and 5200 Yonge Street - Extension Request

(Ward 10 - North York Centre)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (May22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "5182 and 5200 Yonge Street - Extension Request (North York Centre - Ward 10)", which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, embodying the following confidential reports, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of Section55(9) of the Municipal Act:

(i)(May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(ii)(May 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.)

6

Appointment of Chair for the Boards of Trustees

of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the

Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and

Four Members of the Sinking Fund Committee

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (May12, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer, respecting appointments to the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and Members to the Sinking Fund Committee, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report requests City Council to approve the appointment of a Chair for the Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and to approve the appointment of four members of the Sinking Fund Committee.

Source of Funds:

The funds to provide for the remuneration of the Chair of the two Boards of Trustees and of four Sinking Fund Committee members are contained in the Finance Department's 1998 operating budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Mr. Michel D. Jory be appointed as Chair of the Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund for a term expiring November 30, 2000, and until his successor is appointed; and

(2)Ms. Leslie Thompson, Mr. James Claydon and Mr. James Black be appointed as members of the Sinking Fund Committee effective June 1, 1998 and that Mr. James Pratt be appointed effective December 1, 1998, for terms expiring November 30, 2000 and until their successors are appointed.

Background:

At its meeting on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, City Council in its adoption of Clause 4 of Report No.1 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, approved an interim policy for the appointment of the Chair of the two Boards of Trustees as detailed in Part(9) of Appendix 2 of the City Clerk's report dated January 26, 1998:

"(9) For the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and the Metropolitan Toronto Sinking Fund Committee, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer shall review applications and make recommendations to the Corporate Services Committee."

During February 1998, an advertisement was placed in various public media inviting interested citizens who are qualified electors to apply for appointment to various committees, boards and commissions. In accordance with Council's policy, all new applicants were required to attend an introduction seminar.

In response to the seminar, which was held on March 4, 1998, a number of applications were received from individuals who had an interest in serving as a member of the Sinking Fund Committee or as the Chair of the Board of Trustees for both the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund.

Comments:

(A)Chair of the Pension Boards of Trustees

Subclause 3 (1)(a) of By-law No. 15-92 relating to the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and Subclause 3 (1)(a) of By-law No. 181-81 relating to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund require that a person who is not a member of Council be appointed by Council as Chair of the respective Boards.

Four applicants were interviewed for the position of Chair of the two Boards of Trustees. In addition, the incumbent Chair applied for re-appointment. While all new applicants had sound experience, the incumbent, Mr Michel D. Jory, was evaluated as possessing the most appropriate skills and background, including 18 years of experience as a chief financial officer and equal experience on pension committees, several years of which were as Chair of these committees. He has given three years of active strong leadership as Chair of the two Boards of Trustees and has had perfect attendance at the monthly meetings of the Boards. A second term will enable some continuity as the City progresses through a transition period.

(B)Sinking Fund Committee

The Sinking Fund Committee oversees the management of sinking fund monies that are required under the Municipal Act to retire in an orderly fashion the City's sinking fund debentures. Duties include approval of all investment transactions, investment policy and payments of surplus funds.

Section 102 of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No.2) requires the formation of a Sinking Fund Committee and allows Council to appoint a number of members of the Sinking Fund that it considers appropriate with their remuneration to be paid out of the City's operating budget, to assist the City Treasurer as Chair of the Committee.

The policy of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was to appoint four members to terms of eighteen months, that were staggered to allow for continuity in the Committee. One of these appointments has expired, two other appointments expire on May 31, 1998 and the other appointment on November 30, 1998. For the new City of Toronto, it is proposed to continue to appoint four members to the Committee but to have all terms expire at the end of the term of Council, in this case November 30, 2000, and until their successors are appointed.

In order to expedite the appointments to the Committee, the recent process for selecting applicants to serve on the Committee is proposed to be used to fill the vacant position and to appoint successors to the positions which expire later this year.

It was gratifying to receive 29 applications from a diverse range of candidates, many of whom possess impressive skills and backgrounds. Nine new applicants were selected for a first interview and of these three were selected for a second interview as were the four incumbents. After careful considerations of each candidate's financial skills and background, a Committee comprised of two of the incumbents and two new applicants was considered to be the best combination to oversee the operations of the Sinking Fund. Accordingly, it is recommended that Mr. James Claydon and Mr. James Black be re-appointed effective June 1, 1998; Ms. Leslie Thompson be appointed also effective June 1, 1998, and that Mr. James Pratt be appointed effective December 1, 1998.

Conclusions:

As the process of selecting candidates for citizen appointments has been completed in accordance with Council policy, the recommendations are hereby submitted for adoption.

Contact Name:

Tony Brooks

Phone No. 392-8066

Fax No. 392-3649

E-Mail address: tony_brooks@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.)

7

Decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Respecting Same-Sex Survivor Pension Benefits

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that:

(1)City of Toronto Council request the Federal Government not to appeal the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal; and

(2)upon the expiry of the appeal period, and no appeal having been taken, that City of Toronto Council:

(a)amend all by-laws governing pension plans provided by the City of Toronto and its Agencies, Boards and Commissions to ensure equal access to survivor pension benefits by all employees of the City of Toronto, its Agencies, Boards and Commissions, particularly same-sex employees and their spouses; and

(b)recommend to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement system (OMERS) Board to amend the statutes and regulations governing the OMERS pension plan to provide same-sex survivor pension benefits to the employees of the City of Toronto covered by this plan:

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 12, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee and Council on the implications for the new City of Toronto of the Rosenberg case relating to same sex survivor pension benefits.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received and forwarded to Council for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Corporate Services Committee at its meeting of April 27, 1998 requested me to submit a report to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee scheduled for May 25, 1998, on the implications of the "Rosenberg" decision made by the Court of Appeal for Ontario respecting the provision of same-sex survivor pension benefits.

Council at its meeting of February 4, 5, and 6, 1998, adopted the motion of Councillor Rae to approve the extension of benefits (excluding survivor pension benefits) to same-sex partners of City of Toronto employees.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

By decision dated April 23, 1998, the Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously allowed the appeal from the decision of Charron J. (as she then was) of the Ontario Court (General Division) dismissing an application of Nancy Rosenberg, Margaret Evans and others (the "Rosenberg case") against the Attorney General of Canada for a declaration that the opposite sex definition of "spouse" in ss.252(4) of the federal Income Tax Act (the "Act") infringed section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") and is not saved as a reasonable and justifiable limitation under section 1 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario per Abella J.A. in the Rosenberg case concluded that the opposite sex definition of "spouse" in ss. 252(4) of the Act infringed section 15 (the equality rights provision) of the Charter. Following the reasoning of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Vriend v. Alberta which declared unconstitutional the exclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination from the human rights legislation in the province of Alberta and applying a more concise analytical framework for determination of reasonable limitations under section 1 of the Charter, the Court of Appeal for Ontario concluded that the impugned provision of the Act is not saved under section 1 of the Charter. As a result, the Court of Appeal for Ontario made a declaratory order that the opposite sex definition of "spouse" in the Act as it applies to the registration of pension plans or amendments to registered pension plans is unconstitutional and is remedied by reading the words "and the same sex" into the definition of spouse in the Act.

Prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the Rosenberg case, Revenue Canada took the position that, given the opposite sex definition of "spouse" in the Act, the inclusion of same sex survivor pension benefits in registered pension plans may result in the de-registration of registered pension plans which would have serious tax consequences for members of registered pension plans. Further, the government of Canada did not introduce amendments to the opposite sex definition of "spouse" in the Act to include same sex partners despite requests to do so by various groups including a request by the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. In the absence of a successful appeal of the Rosenberg decision by the Attorney-General of Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada for which leave must be granted or the invocation of the "notwithstanding" clause in the Charter by Parliament, the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario means that same sex survivor pension benefits can be provided directly within a registered pension plan without risking the de-registration of registered pension plans. It is not known at this time whether the Attorney-General of Canada intends to seek leave to appeal the Rosenberg case to the Supreme Court of Canada which application must be made within sixty days of the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario or whether the government of Canada intends to introduce amendments to the Act to accord with the decision in the Rosenberg case.

Pensions and pension benefits for municipal employees in the province of Ontario including employees of the new City of Toronto and its agencies, boards and commissions is primarily provided by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System ("OMERS") and is administered by the OMERS Board exercising powers delegated by statute and regulation. The extension of same sex survivor pension benefits and the costs related thereto as determined by the plan's actuaries are, therefore, matters for decision by OMERS. I am advised that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Executive Director of Human Resources and Amalgamation intend to meet with the officials of OMERS to discuss, inter alia, the issue of the provision of same sex survivor pension benefits within OMERS. Consideration should be given, therefore, to requesting a joint report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Executive Director of Human Resources and Amalgamation on the position of OMERS in this matter, including the actuarial costs, the source of funding and in financial impacts for the plan members arising out of the provision of such benefits.

Some employees of the new City of Toronto are members of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, the City of Toronto Civic Employees Pension and Benefit Fund, and the City of York Employees Pension and Benefit Fund, the City of Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund, and the Etobicoke Pension Plan (which is in winding-up proceedings). Also, some members of the Toronto Police Service are members of the Police Benefit Fund. These six plans are governed and administered by by-laws of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the former Cities of Toronto, York and Etobicoke. The extension of same sex survivor pension benefits in these six pension plans and the costs related thereto to the new City of Toronto is, therefore a matter for decision by the trustees of the plans and City Council and which will require amendments by City Council to the by-laws governing these plans. On the assumption that the Rosenberg case will stand, consideration should be given to requiring the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Executive Director of Human Resources and Amalgamation, in consultation with the trustees of the plans and the City Solicitor, to report jointly on the necessary amendments required to be made to the plans to provide same sex survivor pension benefits for employees of the new City of Toronto covered by these plans, together with an estimate of the actuarial costs and the source of funding to provide such benefits.

There are also complex issues which are beyond the scope of this report but which could be included in the aforementioned reports relating to whether the Rosenberg case has a retrospective or prospective effect, the position of Revenue Canada in relation thereto and whether the extension of such benefits within OMERS and the other plans will have application to active and retired employees.

If the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the Rosenberg case is either not appealed or is upheld on appeal and is not overridden by the invocation of the "notwithstanding" clause in the Charter, then, in my opinion, a failure to provide same sex survivor pension benefits in pension plans that provide such benefits to opposite sex spouses, such as OMERS and the six plans referred to above will constitute discrimination in employment under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Conclusions:

The implications of the Rosenberg case for the new City of Toronto relate to the provision of same sex survivor pension benefits within a registered pension plan which, for municipal employees in Ontario, is the responsibility of OMERS to determine including matters relating to funding such benefits. Further, the Rosenberg case has the same implications for the pension plans governed by by-laws of the former municipalities.

Contact Name:

George S. Monteith - 392-8062

--------

The following persons appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Karen McDuffy, Toronto Employee Working Group of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues, Access and Equity Centre; and

-Mr. William Dwyer.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 28, 1998) from Mr. Bill Graham, M.P., Toronto Centre - Rosedale, in support of the resolution adopted by the Corporate Services Committee urging the amendment of municipal pension plans to include same-sex benefits pending the Federal Government's position on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, and attaching a copy of his correspondence in recent months on this issue.)

8

Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community

and Race Relations v. Ernst Zundel - Authority

to Attend in Federal Court

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May21, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To seek authority for the City Solicitor to attend in Federal Court on behalf of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations (the "TMCCRR") to oppose an Application for Judicial Review brought by Mr. Ernst Zundel with respect to a recent decision (April 22, 1998) by the Human Rights Tribunal dismissing Mr. Zundel's motion to have the hearing into the TMCCRR's complaint against Mr. Zundel under the Canadian Human Rights Act stayed and the complaints against him dismissed.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council authorize the City Solicitor to attend in Federal Court on behalf of the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations (the "TMCCRR"), to submit evidence and make arguments as necessary to oppose the Application for Judicial Review brought by Mr. Ernst Zundel with respect to the recent decision (April 22, 1998) of the Human Rights Tribunal hearing the complaint of the TMCCRR against Mr. Zundel under the Canadian Human Rights Act to dismiss a motion by Mr. Zundel to stay the proceeding and to dismiss the complaints; and

(2)in light of the numerous proceedings launched to date by Mr. Zundel in this matter, City Council provide the City Solicitor with standing authority to represent and defend the TMCCRR and the City of Toronto's interests as necessary in such further court proceedings as may be initiated by Mr. Zundel with respect to the Tribunal hearing, any interim or final decision of the Tribunal hearing the TMCCRR's complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act, or appeal from any Court decision respecting the Tribunal hearing.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On July 18, 1996, the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations (the "TMCCRR") of the former City of Toronto made a formal complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") alleging that Ernst Zundel has discriminated against certain identifiable individuals or groups on the grounds of race, religion or national or ethnic origin contrary to subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act by placing holocaust denial and hate propaganda material on the Internet which will expose persons of Jewish origin to hatred and contempt.

As a result of the TMCCRR's complaint, and a similar complaint received from Ms. Sabina Citron against Mr. Zundel, the Commission appointed a Human Rights Tribunal to enquire into the complaints, hear evidence and argument, and make a determination as to whether Mr. Zundel had in fact violated the Act.

The Tribunal hearing commenced on May 26, 1997 and has convened in October 1997, December 1997, April 1998 and May 1998 for a total of approximately 23 hearing days. A further 12 days of hearing are presently scheduled for the remainder of May and June 1998.

Prior to the Tribunal hearing commencing, Mr. Zundel made an application (dated December 12, 1996) for judicial review to the Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) raising various challenges to the proceedings and requesting a stay of proceedings to allow for a Court to first rule on these issues. Preliminary motions to this effect have been denied by both the Court and the Tribunal hearing the complaint.

On March 23, 1998, the Federal Court issued a decision with respect to another human rights tribunal hearing dealing with a pay equity complaint against Bell Canada and ordered that the proceedings before the tribunal in that case should be quashed on the basis that the statutory scheme contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act creates a reasonable apprehension of bias in that there is too close a relationship between a Tribunal under the Act and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which appoints and pays Tribunal members. On the basis of this decision, Mr. Zundel brought motions before both the Tribunal (heard April 7 and 8, 1998) and the Federal Court (heard April 27 and 28, 1998) to stay the Tribunal hearing for the reasons enunciated in the Bell case.

At its meeting of April 16, 1998, City Council authorized the City Solicitor to seek party and/or intervenor status to participate in the judicial review and speak to the stay motion. Party status was granted to the TMCCRR by the Federal Court on April 27, 1998.

Mr. Zundel's motions before the Tribunal and the Court were both dismissed and the hearing resumed last week (May 11-15, 1998).

In addition to the complainants, the Commission and Mr. Zundel, the other parties participating in the Tribunal hearing and judicial review are: The Canadian Jewish Congress, The League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Canadian Association for Free Expression (not involved in the judicial review).

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On May 14 and 15, 1998, the solicitor representing the TMCCRR at the Tribunal hearing was served by Mr. Zundel with both a Notice of Application to judicially review the Tribunal's decision and a Notice of Appeal of the decision of the Federal Court to dismiss Mr. Zundel's most recent stay motions. While I have taken the appropriate action to preserve the TMCCRR's rights with respect to both Notices, the Application for Judicial Review is a new proceeding for which my attendance has not been previously authorized by Council. I am therefore seeking the authority to attend with respect to that proceeding to submit evidence and make argument as necessary to protect the interests of the TMCCRR as a complainant before the Tribunal.

Given the number of proceedings which Mr. Zundel has launched in the past with respect to this matter and may initiate in the future, I am also requesting standing authority to defend the interests of the TMCCRR and the City in any other related proceeding launched by Mr. Zundel.

Conclusions:

Authority should be granted for the City Solicitor to represent the TMCCRR as necessary to protect its interests and the interests of the City with respect to this matter.

Contact Name:

Edward Earle, Legal Services Division - 392-7226

9

Inquest into the Death of Kenneth Au-Yeung

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 11, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise that an Inquest into the death of Kenneth Au-Yeung is scheduled to commence on June 17, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no municipal costs associated with this matter.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City of Toronto at the Inquest into the death of Kenneth Au-Yeung; and

(2)this report be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A notice has been received regarding an Inquest into the death of Kenneth Au-Yeung which is scheduled to commence on June 17, 1998. A pre-inquest meeting, at which the Inquest brief will be available to parties seeking standing, is scheduled for May 15, 1998.

Mr. Au-Yeung was a 17 year old high school student who committed suicide by jumping from the Bloor Street Viaduct on December 11, 1997.

One of the issues to be dealt with at the Inquest is the large number of suicides by people jumping from the viaduct and what safety measures can be designed at the bridge to prevent suicides.

By the adoption, at its meeting on April 16, 1998, of Clause No. 3 of Report No. 4 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, Council directed that staff meet with the Schizophrenia Society and the local Councillors, as well as the Historical Board, to develop an options analysis with recommendations to be submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee within ninety days.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The issue of what safety measures can be designed at the bridge to prevent suicides will be dealt with at the Inquest and the City should therefore have standing. The City's solicitor can advise the jury of Council's decision regarding the design of safety measures at the bridge, assuming Council has received a report from the Urban Environment and Development Committee prior to the completion of the Inquest.

If Council does not deal with the design of safety measures at the bridge before the completion of the Inquest, counsel for the City of Toronto can invite the jury to make recommendations which will be forwarded to Council.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City of Toronto at the Inquest into the death of Kenneth Au-Yeung; and

(2)this report be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its information.

Contact Name:

Jane Egan

Phone: 392-8703

Fax:392-3848

10

Protection of the City's Tax Base

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the Budget Committee for further consideration.)

The Corporate Services Committee reports having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to Council, for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998, on the number of cases under appeal, the dollar value involved, and an interim action plan as to how City Council can deal with these appeals.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (April 16, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report outlines the initiatives that will be investigated to protect the property tax base.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

There is no funding required.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information and that a full report on this program, be brought back to Council by September 1998.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on March 4, 5, and 6, 1998, Council passed a motion that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Corporate Services Committee on how to protect the City's tax base due to the School Board not continuing to pursue action to fight certain tax appeals.

The Toronto District School Board was involved in the fighting of specific appeals where it felt the assessment allocated to the property was defendable. The School Board used an outside tax agent and lawyers to represent them on certain outstanding appeals. Due to the change in funding of education effective January 1, 1998, the School Board is no longer directly impacted by the outcome of appeals.

The former City of Toronto has been and is actively involved in certain appeals which coincide, in some cases to those properties the School Board was also involved. The former municipalities were not aggressive in defending assessment appeals.

Comments:

The practice of defending the City's tax base varied across the former municipalities and we are in the process of developing a new strategy to defend the City's tax base. The strategy will involve ensuring that assessments represent the property's fair share of taxes. This will be accomplished by reviewing assessment appeals and deciding which ones to challenge at the Assessment Review Board or which ones to accept. We have generally found that more analysis needs to be done in order to methodically protect the tax base from being eroded and unfortunately, the Province does not seem have the resources to do so.

Part of the strategy will involve identifying new assessments for properties in which new tenants have moved in to vacant properties or a portion of properties, especially when it comes to commercial and industrial properties. This can be done in conjunction with staff such as utility meter readers, building inspection staff, business licensing groups, etc. It will mean a close link with building staff to ensure any new construction, renovations, additions, etc. are quickly brought to the attention of the Assessment Office in order to be reflected in revised assessment amounts. We have generally found that the new or revised assessment numbers are not reflected on the assessment rolls or on a supplementary billing as quickly as we would prefer.

We will be drafting a Request for Information (RFI) to find out who can provide which specific services and at what cost to the City. The various bodies will include the Province, School Board and any private organizations.

We will also be looking at the feasibility of reorganizing our own internal staff resources to expand an assessment/appeals section which will deal with this very issue. It is envisioned that a group of staff could be dedicated and experienced in methodically determining whether assessments accurately reflect the value of the property and whether the City should accept, defend or increase assessments when they are appealed. This group would consist of about three or four individuals dedicated to protecting the City's tax base and where the cost/benefit is easily defendable. The group would pay for itself on an annual basis by finding new assessments and defending existing assessments. A performance measurement system would ensure that stated targets are achieved annually. The group would also act in the capacity of doing spot analysis to ensure the accuracy of assessments and find areas where there are inconsistencies.

The Province has stated that municipalities will be responsible for the assessment function through the new Ontario Assessment Corporation. The role that the City will play in ensuring that its best interests are protected is unclear at this point in time. In the meantime, we need to ensure that we have a plan that will address our concerns.

Conclusions:

There will be a complete investigation of the most cost-effective method in protecting the tax base in the near future and we will report back by September 1998 on the best way to protect the City's interest.

Contact Name:

Ed DeSousa

Phone:397-4226

Fax:392-3649

--------

Mr. David Powell and Ms. Carla Nell, Representatives of the Municipal Tax Equity Consultant, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 2, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report outlines the interim initiatives that the City will be taking to protect its property tax base, prior to a detailed report being submitted by this fall. The report also includes information requested by the Corporate Services Committee.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

There is no funding required.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information and that a full report on this program be brought back to Council by this fall.

Background:

At its meeting held on May 25, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee passed a motion that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report directly to the next Council meeting on the number of cases under appeal, the dollar value involved and an interim action plan as to how City Council can deal with these appeals. The current status of tax appeals is attached as Appendix I and the spreadsheet illustrates the potential loss of tax dollars to the City. A detailed list of outstanding appeals filed by the Toronto District School Board is available through the Finance Department.

The Toronto District School Board was involved in the fighting of specific appeals where it felt the assessment allocated to the property was inappropriate. The School Board used an outside tax agent and lawyers to represent them on certain outstanding appeals. Due to the change in funding of education effective January 1, 1998, it would appear that the School Board is no longer directly impacted by the outcome of appeals. The Province would be expected to make up any shortfall. As a result, the School Board will be discontinuing their involvement with outstanding appeals in the near future. The Board is waiting to receive written confirmation from the Province that their funding is protected before formally withdrawing from the balance of the appeals.

The former City of Toronto has been and is actively involved in certain appeals which coincide, in some cases, to those properties in which the School Board was also involved. The other former municipalities were not as aggressive in defending assessment appeals.

Comments:

The practice of defending the City's tax base varied across the former municipalities and we are in the process of developing a new strategy to protect the City's tax base. The strategy will involve some analysis to verify that assessments represent the property's fair share of taxes and to identify properties that were previously vacant, but have been since occupied and not yet recorded by the Province. The strategy will be geared mainly towards appeals for 1998 and beyond and for occupied properties that were assessed as vacant for the past couple of years. In most cases, the City's efforts should compliment and not duplicate the Province's work.

In the interim, until a full report is submitted to Council by the fall, City staff will be protecting the City's tax base as follows:

(1)Staff will continue to review the list of all properties that the School Board had an interest in (400-500) and identify the top 25-50 or so properties they feel the City should potentially be involved in.

(2)Staff will then review the Assessment Review Board (ARB) and Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing schedules to determine if any of the subject properties are scheduled to be heard before the fall. If they are scheduled to be heard, then we will meet with the Assessment Commissioner to discuss the feasibility of entering into the appeal process at this late stage or the impact of requesting a delay in the process. The cost/benefit of our involvement to defend the existing assessment would also be required for each case. In addition we will consider the use of external consultants in these assessment appeals.

(3)In consultation with the City Solicitor, it is advised that each appeal needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis to ensure that the City's involvement would add value to the process. At the ARB, we are automatic parties to the hearings, but at the OMB we need special permission from the chairperson and the other parties. It should be noted that many of the larger appeals at the ARB are for matters in adjournment which are awaiting decisions from the OMB for the earlier tax years under appeal. Many of these have been settled.

The concept of fighting assessment appeals is a sensitive issue which must be balanced with the City's vision of attracting new businesses to, and keeping existing businesses and industry in Toronto. Consideration needs to be given to the possible impact of the assessment decrease, possible future use of the building/property if the business relocates and the potential impact to our community. Council will need to decide how vigorous a position it wants to take on assessment appeals in conjunction with all factors. Finance will develop criteria, in consultation with Economic Development, for determining appropriate City involvement in the appeal process as part of its final report. In the interim, as a general guideline, if the estimated loss of annual taxes is greater, the $250,000.00 the City will consider steps to protect its interest, taking into account various factors. The factors include chance of success, financial impact and probability of a precedent being set. City staff are in the best position to advise which assessment appeals should be pursued and to negotiate a mutually agreed upon settlement to avoid both sides incurring great legal expenses.

Contact Name:

Giuliana Carbone, Phone: 392-8065, Fax: 392-3649.)

(Appendix I)

11

Contract to Provide Banking Services

for the City of Toronto

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding to Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated May 11, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the words "but that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be required to report back to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee, on any significant matter, particularly those that involve staffing implications", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to implement additional services with the Royal Bank or other financial institutions where such services result in cost savings to the City, but that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be required to report back to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee, on any significant matters, particularly those that involve staffing implications;".)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 11, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To select a provider of banking services to the City of Toronto

Financial Implications:

The recommended action will result in annual cost savings of $414,000.00 for existing banking services, with the potential for further savings should other proposed services be adopted by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a five-year contract in an estimated amount of $392,000.00 annually be awarded to the Royal Bank of Canada to provide banking services to the City of Toronto;

(2)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to implement additional services with the Royal Bank or other financial institutions where such services result in cost savings to the City; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

N/A

Discussion:

The former Area Municipalities and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto currently have the following arrangements with various financial institutions to provide banking services.

In order to achieve cost savings and to rationalize banking services in the amalgamated organization, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for these services was issued on March 11, 1998 to the five major Canadian banks. The deadline for submissions was April 9, 1998, and all of the five major banks submitted a response to either part or all of the service areas in the proposal.

An evaluation team consisting of City staff familiar with banking operations requirements reviewed each proposal. Proponents were evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP which were as follows: proposed pricing structure and terms, proposed services and alternatives, proponents' qualifications, performance capabilities and references and ability to provide all banking services. The final criteria listed above was included to determine whether additional cost savings could be realized through having one proponent service the needs of the City.

All proponents were also invited to make a formal presentation to the evaluation team. Presentations occurred in the middle of April. The following table indicates which services each of the proponents submitted a comprehensive and satisfactory response for:

The evaluation team recommends that the Royal Bank be chosen to provide all of the required services. The services awarded are:

(1)the requirements for general banking, which include cheque encashment services, convenient deposit facilities for all City locations, payroll services, as well as the unique banking requirements for social services;

(2)the requirements for revenue collection, which include the consolidation of water, tax and miscellaneous payments made at financial institutions;

(3)the requirements for Parking Tag Operations, which include a payment processing service; and

(4)the general banking requirements for the Homes for the Aged Division.

The evaluation team recommends that the Royal Bank be chosen for the following reasons:

(1)The Royal Bank proposal represents the lowest cost. The proposal submitted provides annual cost savings on existing services of $414,000.00, savings of 51 percent from the current cost of $806,000.00, should they be awarded all services.

(2)A comprehensive implementation program has been outlined that recognizes the scope of the task at hand and has identified key issues as well as time lines to the process.

(3)Their understanding and appreciation of the issues and challenges facing the City, both short term and long term.

(4)They were the only proponent able to provide the full range of services, including an acceptable solution for the Social Services Division.

The following is an overview of how the Royal Bank, the recommended proponent, addressed each of the key areas identified in the RFP that were considered important in evaluating the submissions:

(1)Cost savings to be realized through consolidation of banking operations:

A primary objective of consolidation is cost savings. To achieve cost reduction it is crucial that internal controls remain strong and the transition process be seamless and efficient.

(i)The Royal Bank proposal represents the lowest cost. The proposal submitted by the Royal Bank provides annual cost savings of $414,000.00 should they be awarded all services. The next closest offer from a proponent would have resulted in cost savings of $216,000.00.

(ii)The offer includes a dedicated 'bank' staff person for 6 to 8 months to assist with the transition, at no charge to the City.

(iii)In addition, the proposal includes a three month waiver on fees worth approximately $98,000.00 for existing services.

(iv)A comprehensive implementation program has been outlined that recognizes the scope of the task at hand and has identified key issues as well as time lines to the process.

(v)They were the only proponent to provide an acceptable solution for Social Services requirements.

(vi)They were the only proponent able to provide the full range of services.

(2)Consolidation of revenue collection activities:

Reliable, cost effective presentment and remittance processing are essential to the City. The transition and implementation from decentralized systems to a centralized system requires significant commitment and expertise from the preferred service provider.

(i)The Royal Bank proposal represents the lowest price.

(ii)A comprehensive implementation program has been outlined that recognizes the scope of the task at hand and has identified key issues as well as time lines to the process.

(iii)The Royal Bank will provide all services requested in part or in full depending on final requirements of the City.

(iv)The Royal Bank provided a thorough discussion on other alternatives that will enhance the City's revenue collection processes and cash management operations.

(v)The Royal Bank currently provides this service for two of the former municipalities, and Parking Tag Operations.

(3)Increased use of technology:

Throughout the RFP document, emphasis is placed on increasing the use of technology in the delivery of banking services and gaining internal efficiencies.

(i)The Royal provides the commitment to technology in the form of capital invested and resources available.

(ii)The Royal will assist the City in moving to increased use of electronic commerce.

(iii)The Royal will provide reports and data in hard copy format, or by way of electronic transmission mainframe to mainframe or personal computer to personal computer.

(iv)The submission contained a discussion of an electronic data interchange solution that may increase the efficiency of the disbursement process.

(v)The submission included a discussion of technological developments that will promote customer service initiatives and requirements.

(4)Long term commitment to the City's goals:

(i)Based on the information provided and the collective experience of the former municipalities, the Royal Bank is committed to servicing public sector organizations.

(ii)The Royal Bank submitted the only proposal that comprehensively addresses the City's unique banking requirements.

(iii)They have a very good understanding of the issues and challenges facing the City.

Besides basic services, the RFP also asked proponents for pricing and discussion on several technologically advanced services such as electronic data interchange facilities, electronic commerce solutions, procurement card solutions, lock box facilities and imaging capabilities. Staff have made a preliminary analysis that has identified the potential for further savings through innovative use of the bank's services in these areas and it is recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to implement solutions which result in cost savings to the City.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the Royal Bank be awarded a five year contract to provide banking services to the City of Toronto.

Contact Name:

Len Brittain, Director of Treasury and Financial Services

Phone number: 392-5380

Fax number: 392-3649

E-Mail address: lbrittai@city.toronto.on.ca

12

Interim Report on a Registry of Lobbyists

and Related Matters

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause:

(1)to provide that Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated May 7, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer, shall now read as follows:

"(2)the Chief Administrative Officer, together with the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, establish Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials which are more clear and specific than those currently provided across several pieces of legislation;"; and

(2)by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the joint report requested of the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, also address the experience at the Federal government level with its Registry of Lobbyists and disclosure; and

(2)the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on the registration of lobbyists dealing with either politicians or City staff.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 7, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by deleting therefrom the following words "together with the Solicitor and the City Clerk, consult with Council to determine its degree of interest in establishing", and inserting in lieu thereof the word "establish", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)the Chief Administrative Officer establish Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials which are more clear and specific than those currently provided across several pieces of legislation;":

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998, commenting on the foregoing amendment recommended by the Corporate Services Committee.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 7, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This interim report summarizes the findings to-date on former and present lobbyist registry legislation within governments, the rationale for its establishment and its degree of success. Additional or alternative methods available to protect the interests of municipal taxpayers and public scrutiny are being examined since there are legal constraints in local jurisdictions to enact similar lobbyist legislation. These alternatives include the development of municipal policies governing the general conduct expected of elected officials and staff in the carriage of their regular duties. The related matters of ensuring no undue influence in specific processes approved by Council, such as competitive calls for tenders, or Requests for Proposals, are also being examined. Detailed recommendations for the approval of Council, will be forthcoming by June, 1998, following further consultation, legal and policy considerations.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial obligations or implications associated with the recommendations of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Chief Administrative Officer ensure that the municipal employee Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions now being developed, are inclusive of Corporate expectations about how to deal with lobbyists;

(2)the Chief Administrative Officer, together with the Solicitor and the City Clerk, consult with Council to determine its degree of interest in establishing Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials which are more clear and specific than those currently provided across several pieces of legislation;

(3)the Chief Administrative Officer, ensure inclusion of ethical matters and provisions in the purchasing procedures report, as directed by Council at its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998;

(4)the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Solicitor, further assess the specific legislative authority of the City respecting the ability to establish lobbyist registration provisions and identify an appropriate process or model for implementation, in light of the proposed new Municipal Act, anticipated provincial legislation respecting lobbyists registration, and previous municipal experiences; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

On March2, 1998, the Chairman of the Corporate Services Committee directed a communication from Councillor Judy Sgro, to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for action. The communication advised that there appears to have been a significant increase in the number of lobbyists approaching Members of Council, on a variety of issues, since the inaugural meeting of Toronto City Council. Further, the communication noted that since these issues impact the interest and well being of taxpayers, the CAO be requested to submit recommendations respecting the establishment of a lobbyist registration by-law in the interest of meeting public scrutiny. Specific mention of the need to examine lobbyist registry models in other jurisdictions formed part of the communication.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Staff of the CAO Department and the Legal Department, have commenced a review of both former and present lobbyist registry requirements in other government jurisdictions. Several common themes underlie the rationale and purpose for establishing registration requirements for lobbyists, as well as processes and policies to govern the conduct of elected officials and staff. These findings are summarized in this report as are the Province of Ontario and the former City of Toronto experiences, in order to present Council with the required context for considering recommendations.

(a)General Provisions Regulating the Conduct of Lobbyists, Elected Officials and Public/Civic Staff:

Independent of the presence of any specific legislation designed to govern lobbying in the public sector, there are several mechanisms by which lobbyist behaviour and interaction with government officials is regulated, including:

-industry codes with which lobbyists representing a member sector must comply;

-professional codes of conduct with which lawyers and other professionals acting as lobbyists must comply; and

-the Criminal Code, which covers influence peddling bribery and fraud, municipal corruption and interference with the performance of official acts, for example.

Governments have traditionally relied upon these provisions as well as their own purchasing/procurement policies to ensure certain safeguards and processes of integrity in their dealings with external organizations. In addition, while governments commonly establish a Code of Conduct for their employees, they have traditionally relied upon codes such as the (Provincial) Members' Integrity Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to regulate elected officials.

New business pressures and the pace of rapid change being experienced by governments, have led to additional policies and procedures being established, particularly by senior government levels. This has occurred in order to address the public's expectations for information about, and confidence in, government decision-making and the conduct of public officials and staff.

(b)Lobbyists Defined:

Most commonly, lobbyists are defined as individuals or organizations paid to communicate with elected or appointed officials and any staff of government, in a deliberate and concerted attempt to influence government decisions. The behaviour under scrutiny is specifically related to the phrase "attempt to influence government decisions" because the activity often occurs beyond public scrutiny and is on behalf of someone else. The intent and accompanying activities of lobbyists are considered distinct from advice seeking, public deputations (for which individuals are named and identify their interest), or regular business transactions and communications.

(c)The Existence of Lobbyist Registration Legislation:

The Canadian government, the United States government and many individual states in America, have a lobbyist registration law. In Canada, Ontario is the first province to announce similar initiatives. In their 1996 budget statement, they declared their intention to establish procedures to "require the registration of all persons and firms who lobby the government". This legislation is anticipated during 1998.

Some municipalities with complex and/or highly visible or contentious issues, including the former City of Toronto and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, have taken steps to manage lobbyist activities, although in different ways as summarized later in this report (see Municipal Actions to Manage Lobbyists). Evidence from these and other government sectors, suggests that the success of such initiatives will depend upon implementing procedures that are appropriate to the situation and within the authority and power of the municipality.

(d)The Purpose of Lobbyist Legislation:

The manner in which governments carry out their business has changed significantly in recent years. As governments seek to achieve more efficient and effective service, they have broadened their interactions, relationships and exposure to external organizations and centres of expertise. Initiatives such as public-private relationships, the contracting-out of services and the accompanying increase in the issuance and evaluation of competitive call documents, have resulted in new accountability mechanisms being developed. The principle of accountability to the public was the driving force where government has established:

-formal registers listing all persons and firms paid (and, in some cases unpaid) to lobby;

-public access to the registry of lobbyists, their clients and their respective issues;

-open and available information respecting those who seek to influence the decision-making of government; and

-rigorous conflict of interest standards and codes of conduct for elected officials and public servants.

(e)The Relationship among Codes of Conduct, Conflict of Interest Provisions and Lobbyist Registration:

It is recognized that lobbying is an acceptable and integral part of all government levels' processes. For many years, federal and provincial Canadian governments have regulated the behaviour of elected representatives holding office, as well as those who have left office. Post-employment rules preventing former cabinet ministers from receiving government contracts, or representing private sector clients seeking government contracts, are common. The restrictions normally apply for a period ranging from twelve to twenty-four months.

In late 1997, the Integrity Commissioner of the Province of Ontario, recommended that the Members' Integrity Act for elected officials, be extended and applied to senior public officials. This involves new conflict of interest standards to reinforce and expand rules in the Public Service Act governing public servants in their day-to-day duties. Similar to federal legislation, its intent is to more clearly regulate the official dealings of government staff with other sectors, as well as the treatment of confidential or insider information both during and following employment with the government.

Underlying these provisions are themes consistent with that of lobbyist registration, namely:

-to ensure fair and open government processes and business dealings;

-to prevent the occurrence of unfair individual influence or advantage resulting from positions of authority or insider knowledge; and

-to prevent putting the public interest at risk.

Municipal Actions to Manage Lobbyists:

(a)Creation of a Municipal By-law on Lobbyist Registration:

In 1988, the former City of Toronto adopted a report from its Special Committee on a Code of Conduct for Members of Council which recommended, along with other recommendations, that a register of lobbyists be established and available to the public in the office of the Clerk. This recommendation led to enactment of By-law No. 183-89 (the "Lobbyist Register By-law) in February of 1989.

The authority to enact the Lobbyist Register By-law, was purported to be the former Section104 of the Municipal Act, which is now a part of Section 102 of the Act. This Section permits a municipal council to pass by-laws for the "health, safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants of the Municipality in matters not specifically provided for by the Municipal Act".

The Lobbyists Register By-law included the following provisions:

-a definition of a lobbyist as, "a person acting on behalf of others with respect to an issue and doing so for remuneration and/or compensation";

-all lobbyists were required to file a form with the Clerk showing the name of the lobbyist, the employer(s) or client(s) of the lobbyist, and the issues on which the lobbyist was appearing;

-a lobbyist who made an "appearance" without first registering was guilty of an offence and liable to a fine up to $ 2,000.00; and

-an "appearance" included oral or written deputations to Council, its committees, or agencies and any communication, oral or written, with Councillors or senior staff.

The Lobbyist Register By-law had an effective date of April 1, 1989 and on May 18, 1989, the City Solicitor reported to the meeting of the Council on a number of problems with the by-law. These problems included an inadequate distinction between lobbying and advice-seeking, deputations by a paid staff member of an organization, or other routine interactions. The by-law also proved to be unworkable in terms of its monitoring and enforcement. These problems were addressed by an amending by-law (By-law No. 330-89) which included provisions as follows:

-an attempt was made to narrow the apparent application of the by-law to all circumstances where paid agents contacted the municipal government by limiting the application to contacts with an intent to "influence a decision" in respect of an issue; and

-to exempt members of other governments and their employees from the registration requirements.

The City Solicitor also reported to Council that a court challenge had been started to quash the by-law as illegal (an interpretation of Section 104, perceived conflict between the Lobbyist Registration by-law and professional ethics and responsibilities, and the validity of municipal regulations respecting the conduct and discipline of lawyers). The Solicitor stated that he would be discussing the concerns of the counsel bringing the action and the court challenge was adjourned to permit this. A sub-committee of the Council was established to examine the by-law in the circumstances of the challenge. During this time, enforcement of the by-law was suspended and no charges or prosecutions of infringements were pursued.

(b)Lobbyist Disclosure System:

Following the report of the sub-committee in November of 1989, the former City of Toronto Council repealed the Lobbyist Registry By-law and enacted By-law No. 716-89 (the "Lobbyist Disclosure By-law"). The new by-law placed the responsibility on an "applicant" rather than the lobbyist to file with the Clerk a duly completed lobbyist disclosure form. An applicant included any person who made an application to the City in respect of any one or more of a number of matters enumerated in the by-law. These included matters under the Planning Act and other legislation. Persons who responded to proposal calls and tenders, with some exceptions, were also included in the definition of applicants.

Reflecting the change in making applicants rather than lobbyists responsible for filing a disclosure form, the obligation respecting filing with the Clerk became part of the Council Procedure By-law. The Council approved staffing and administration for the disclosure system and determined that failure to comply with the disclosure rules would result in a lobbyist issue not being placed on an agenda.

(c)Difficulties with the Lobbyist Disclosure Provisions:

For a number of reasons, the lobbyist disclosure provisions proved to be as problematic as the previous lobbyist registry had been. Examples included additional workload, missed agenda items of importance to City business and complicated scheduling requirements and conditions to fill forms. In addition, legal and other staffs were required to define cases for exclusion from the disclosure rules, list professionals and other parties exempted, and identify staff to whom disclosures were to be made (over six pages). All of these factors resulted in repeated amendments to the Council Procedural By-law.

(d)Repeal of the Lobbyist Disclosure Provisions:

In February of 1993, the City repealed its By-law on lobbyist disclosure after experiencing repeated difficulties. Additional analysis on the degree of public use of the information, showed that in two and one-half years, there had been only five cases of file review by a member of the press or Council and none by a member of the public. There was insufficient data to indicate whether the information and disclosure forms provided value to Council members when they came before Committees where lobbying was indicated.

(e)Another Municipal Approach to Managing Lobbying:

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto experienced two instances where restrictions on the conduct and contacts of its Council Members and officials were imposed. In each case, intense lobbying (by paid and unpaid representatives) to influence the decisions of Council, threatened the integrity of approved Council processes and the accountability incumbent upon municipal business procedures. Specifically, a 'no-lobby' ban was imposed in two instances of high profile high dollar-value Requests for Proposals. In one case, the ban was imposed as a condition stated in the call document since the issue had been generating a high degree of lobbying for some time before the competitive call took place. In the other case, the ban was imposed during the call process in order to restore order, objectivity and integrity to the evaluation process since it was in danger of being severely compromised.

The 'no-lobby' ban was extended to external and internal stakeholders including both elected and staff officials of the Municipality. While the imposition of the ban in those cases was determined by Council to be warranted given the issues and public interests at stake, many subsequent competitive calls were issued without such provisions. In this manner, the conditions imposed around conduct were appropriate to the special circumstances involved and did not indicate a particular set of pre-conceived assumptions on the part of the Municipality respecting the legitimacy of lobbying or lobbyists.

Recommendations and Conclusions:

At the senior government levels in Canada, lobbyist registration law, stringent codes of conduct and conflict of interest provisions for elected officials and public/civic servants, have been successfully implemented. The purpose of such regulations is twofold, namely, to make government information available to the taxpaying public and to add to the continuum of ethics in government. While this may logically suggest that there is merit in developing and applying similar processes for the City of Toronto, the municipal level actually possesses very limited authorities and powers to do so, as described earlier in this report.

Attempting to put in place operations to distinguish between lobbying to affect a matter to be before a Council or Committee, as opposed to seeking information or conducting routine business, is extremely difficult at the municipal level. The nature and volume of City business and the democratic process by which the public has access to elected officials and civic staff, requires an enormous degree of administrative process associated with attempts to monitor and regulate lobbying. For example, how does one determine that a direct contact with an elected official was for the intent of attempting to influence government policy outside of accepted 'parliamentary' procedure, i.e., was it lobbying? Many other questions of a similar nature can be posed. In the end, much of the success of procedures for registering lobbyists will be very dependent upon individuals' understanding of acceptable legal and ethical behaviours. This applies to elected officials as well as to civic staff.

Managing activities in an open, fair and transparent manner is particularly important in municipal government given its high degree of direct and frequent interaction with constituents. Accordingly, it is considered good practice to establish clear rules and applications around government accountability mechanisms designed to protect the public interest. The Chief Administrative Officer, together with the Solicitor and the Executive Director of Human Resources, are well underway in developing municipal employee Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions. It is, therefore, recommended that these include corporate expectations about how to deal with lobbyists.

Methods of making government information available to the taxpaying public will add to the continuum of ethics in government. Currently, the conduct of municipal elected officials is regulated through the federal Criminal Code, the Municipal Act, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the Municipal Elections Act. The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Council Procedural By-law requirements for open meetings and requirements to declare conflicts of interest, are other examples of ensuring ethics in government. Most, but not all of these statutes/legislation tend to emphasize economic or pecuniary matters such as bribery or the acceptance/solicitation of gifts, voting on a matter in which one has a personal economic interest, or exceeding the allowable maximum election expenditure.

There are several improvements possible to financially related definitions in these regulations/statutes although these are outside the direct control of the municipality. In contrast, specifying what is considered to constitute conflict of interest for elected officials and staff does fall within the control and authority of a municipality. Examples could include, defining the use of insider or confidential information, the exertion of undue influence by virtue of office, or acting as a paid agent for a government within which they are members, for example. It is, therefore, recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer, together with the Solicitor and the City Clerk, determine the degree of interest held by Council in establishing Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials. The intent would be to collect existing legislative requirements in this respect into a single document for the assistance of Councillors, as well as consultation with Council to identify any specific issues additional to those of a financial/pecuniary nature, for inclusion in such a document.

Similarly, it is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer ensure inclusion of ethical matters and provisions in the purchasing procedures report, as directed by Council at its meeting of March4,5 and 6, 1998. This would ensure consistency in the approach and content of policies for the City.

The proposed new Municipal Act and the Provincial decision to enact legislation for a registry of lobbyists to the province, may provide a model to the City. A precedent may have been established in this regard respecting referenda. Recently introduced provincial legislation for referenda brought forward mirror-image packages for the provincial and municipal levels respectively. It is, therefore, recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Solicitor, assess the specific legislative authority of the City respecting the ability to establish lobbyist registration provisions and report on the appropriate process or model for implementation of such a registry. This assessment will need to be undertaken in light of previous municipal experience around implementation difficulties. Moreover, it will be necessary to ensure, if possible, that any by-law proposed will meet the requirement, not only of municipal jurisdiction, but also of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the authority to collect the information under right to privacy legislation.

Contact Names:

Jack Horsley, Legal 392-8736

Laurie McQueen, Corporate Policy and Planning 392-8895

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 2, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to comment, as requested, upon the amendment made by the Corporate Services Committee to the Interim Report on a Registry of Lobbyists and Related Matters, at its meeting of May 25, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial obligations or implications associated with the recommendation of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council adopt the recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee to adopt Clause48 of the Corporate Services Committee, Interim Report on a Registry of Lobbyists and Related Matters, subject to further amending Recommendation No. (2) of the report dated May 7, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer so that the Recommendation shall read as follows:

"(2)the Chief Administrative Officer, together with the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, establish Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials which are more clear and specific than those currently provided across several pieces of legislation."

Council Reference:

At its meeting of May 26, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee recommended adoption with one amendment, of the May 7, 1998, report from the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), titled "Interim Report on a Registry of Lobbyists and Related Matters".

In summary, the report had recommended that the CAO:

(1)ensure that the municipal employee Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions now being developed are inclusive of Corporate expectations about how to deal with lobbyists;

(2)together with the City Solicitor and City Clerk, consult with Council to determine its degree of interest in establishing Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials which are more clear and specific than those currently provided across several pieces of legislation;

(3)ensure inclusion of ethical matters and provisions in the purchasing procedures report as directed by Council at its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998; and

(4)together with the City Solicitor, further assess the specific legislative authority of the City respecting the ability to establish lobbyist registration provisions and identify an appropriate process or model for implementation, in light of the proposed new Municipal Act, anticipated provincial legislation respecting lobbyists registration, and previous municipal experiences; and

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

The Corporate Services Committee amended Recommendation No. (2) by deleting the words, "together with the City Solicitor and City Clerk consult with Council to determine its degree of interest in establishing", and inserting in lieu thereof the word "establish", so that the recommendation would read as follows:

"(2)the Chief Administrative Officer establish Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials which are more clear and specific than those currently provided across several pieces of legislation;"

In addition, the Committee requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998, commenting on the foregoing amendment recommended by the Corporate Services Committee.

Comments:

The Interim Report on a Registry of Lobbyists and Related Matters, examines the continuum of ethics in government ranging from lobbyist registration requirements to Codes of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for municipal employees and elected officials. It was found that managing activities in an open, fair and transparent manner is particularly important in municipal government. The high degree of direct and frequent interaction with constituents is the nature of municipal government. Accordingly, any practice which contributes to the establishment of clear rules and applications around government accountability, serves to enhance the protection of the public interest.

It was also found that the conduct of municipal elected officials is regulated through several pieces of legislation including:

• the Federal Criminal Code;
• the Municipal Act;
• the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act;
• the Municipal Elections Act;
• the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and
• the Council Procedure By-law.

Most of these statutes/legislation emphasize economic or pecuniary matters (for example, the acceptance/solicitation of gifts; bribery; or maximum election expenditures). These matters are outside the direct control of the municipality but there are a variety of other code of conduct/conflict of interest matters within the control and authority of a Council to regulate the conduct of its own Members. The intent of Recommendation No. (2) of the May 7, 1998, report from the CAO in this regard was twofold, namely:

(1)to gather existing Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest legislative requirements into a single document for the assistance of Councillors; and

(2)to supplement the document with issues additional to those of a financial/pecuniary nature including, for example restrictions on:

-the exertion of undue influence by virtue of office; and

-the use of insider or confidential information.

At the time of preparing the report, we were not aware of the degree of Council support for developing a Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest document for elected officials. It was, therefore, considered prudent as a first step for staff to consult with Councillors to ascertain not only their degree of interest in having such a document, but to also identify specific issues for inclusion.

Conclusions and Recommendation:

Councillor Joe Mihevc has been consulted on the intent of his motion and I concur with his point that discussion of Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials is best dealt with by Council as a whole. Councillor Mihevc wishes to receive a Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest document that consolidates existing legislation in this regard and also identifies a range of issues without individual Member's opinions placing restrictions on the potential subject matter to be included. In this manner, the discussion of the report content and recommendations will be subject to open debate only in the forum of Standing Committee and Council. At that time, staff can be directed to address any specific issues in the document which are considered to be unnecessary, unclear, or required for inclusion.

In order to develop Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials inclusive of issues additional to existing legislation, the following tasks must be undertaken:

(a)matters additional to those of a pecuniary or economical in nature which commonly pose difficulties for Members of Council must be identified;

(b)the responses of other government levels to similar issues must be reviewed and assessed; and

(c)provisions for the City of Toronto which complement all applicable statutory frameworks must be developed.

These tasks will require collaboration among Legal, Clerk's and CAO's staff. Councillor Mihevc advises that his amendment to Recommendation No. (2) inadvertently omitted reference to this collaboration and he concurs with its reinstatement.

It is, therefore, recommended that Council adopt the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee, subject to further amending Recommendation No. (2)of my report dated May 7, 1998, so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)the Chief Administrative Officer, together with the City Solicitor and the City Clerk, establish Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest provisions for elected officials which are more clear and specific than those currently provided across several pieces of legislation.")

13

Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)responsibility for the payment of Councillors' office expenses be transferred from City Clerk's to the Finance Department;

(2)business travel in connection with the International Council for Local Environmental Issues (ICLEI) be added to the list of associations qualifying for funding from the Council Business Travel Budget listed in Appendix 'A' under Section (11)(A)(ii), entitled 'Business Travel';

(3)use of a personal automobile by Members of Council for City business be included as an expense under the Global Office Budget, such reimbursement to be for metreage only and to be subject to the same policy currently applied to City staff, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee on the personal income tax implications thereof for Members of Council;

(4)the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a joint report to the Corporate Services Committee on senior staff expenses; and

(5)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit, on a monthly basis, to Members of Council, an update of their respective office budgets.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following joint report (May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to amending Appendix "A", entitled "Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council", as follows:

(i)deleting from the Section entitled "Extended Disability", the following word and figure "six (6)", and inserting in lieu thereof the following word and figure, "five (5)", so that such Section shall now read as follows:

Extended Disability:

"Members of Council do not have the ability to sustain effective office operations when a staff member is ill for an extended period of time due to the limited staff resources at his/her disposal.

Given that Councillors may be able to sustain effective operations for a short period of time, and that the Councillor has no control over absence due to illness, where replacement staff are required to cover staff absences due to illness of five (5) consecutive business days or more, expenses will be charged to the general Council budget."; and

(ii)deleting therefrom the Section, entitled "Severance Allowances", and referring such Section back to staff for report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee on the severance arrangement for Councillors' employees who are terminated without cause;

(2)that funds for Members of Council to attend annual meetings of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), the World Association of Major Metropolis (WAMM), and the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA), be provided from the Council Business Travel Budget; and that the additional funds therefor be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account; and

(3)that staff be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee:

(1)on the implications of the foregoing Recommendation No. (2) with respect to Members of Agencies, Boards and Commissions; and

(2)on a cap on such expenditures; such report to also review the other policies of the former municipalities in regard thereto.":

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following joint report (May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To comment on specific issues raised at the Corporate Services Committee meeting of April 27, 1998, with respect to office administration and expenses of Members of Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approval of the staff recommendations will have no financial impact. Approval of recommendations not put forward by staff will result in expenditures other than those approved in the 1998 Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the policies and procedures as outlined in Appendix "A", entitled "Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council", as submitted to the Corporate Services Committee on April 27, 1998, be adopted subject to the following amendments:

(1)Section 2(I) - Corporate Credit Cards

that corporate credit cards not be issued to City Councillors;

1. Section 11(a) - Travel - Conference/Seminar and Business Travel

that invitations to speak at a conference or seminar be covered under Conference/Seminar and charged to the Councillor's global budget;

(3)Section 11(b) - Conference/Seminar and Business Travel Approvals

that prior to attending any conference/seminar (in or out of town) or business trip, Councillors complete a "Request to Attend/Travel" form and forward the request to the Clerk for processing/recordkeeping; and that the Mayor complete a similar form for any travel he undertakes and process the request through his office.

(4)Section 11(c) - Corporate Travel Agent

that Councillors are encouraged to make their travel arrangements at the lowest possible cost either through the corporate travel agent or an independent agent of their choice.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Corporate Services Committee on February 16, 1998, received a communication (January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on January 2, 6, 8, and 9, 1998, had before it, amongst other things, a motion by Mayor Lastman and seconded by Councillor Ootes respecting the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. Council referred all motions concerning the administration of staffing and salaries to the Corporate Services Committee.

The Corporate Services Committee requested that the Commissioner of Corporate Services submit a report to the Committee on a policy governing the provision of extended disability, overtime, vacation, maternity/parental/adoption leave and severance allowances for Councillors' staff.

The policies and procedures as contained in Appendix "A" entitled "Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council" was presented to the Corporate Services Committee on April 27, 1998. The Committee requested the Chief Administrative Officer, Commissioner of Corporate Services, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to review a number of issues and report back to the next meeting of the Committee.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

At its meeting on April 27, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee considered Appendix "A" entitled "Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council" and raised a number of issues to be further reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer, Commissioner of Corporate Services, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. The issues raised at the meeting are detailed as follows:

Appendix "A" - Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council:

(1) Global Budget Expenses:

Tickets for community and other events:

A motion was put forward to delete the limitation of two (2) tickets per community and other events.

The proposed policy states that the global budget does not cover expenses that are corporate in nature, such as sponsorships and donations, since these are similar in nature to grants and are considered by Council as a whole. The recommendation to put a limit of two (2) tickets per event is considered reasonable since, in most circumstances, Councillors attend community events either on their own or with a guest. The purchase of more than two (2) tickets could be viewed as a sponsorship or a donation to a community event and is not recommended.

Use of personal automobile:

A motion was put forward to include "business use of personal automobile" as an expense covered under the Global Office Budget.

Although the Legal Department has advised that there is no legal restriction on including business use of a personal automobile as an expense under the Global Budget, it was the past practice in the former municipalities comprising the City of Toronto to treat automobile expenses as part of the one-third tax free allowance.

Should Council decide to include business use of a personal automobile as an expense under the Global Office Budget, it is recommended that it include the reimbursement of metreage only, and that reimbursement be subject to the same policy that currently applies to staff.

2(f)Permitted Expenditures and General Requirements:

A motion was put forward that any overexpenditure of the global office budget would be recovered from the next year's budget allocation subject to the Councillor being personally responsible for any overexpenditure at the end of the three year term of office.

The primary difficulty with this approach is that the Councillor may start a year with a significant amount of his or her global budget already committed in the absence of an approved budget for that year. If Council decides to reduce the global budget in the second or third year of a Council term, an individual Councillor, due to an overexpenditure in a previous year, may be placed in a situation where it would be very difficult to operate his or her office. It is also important to note that allowing Councillors to overspend could result in the overall Council budget being overspent in a given year. This amendment is therefore not recommended.

2 (I)Corporate Credit Cards:

A motion was put forward to delete the provision for a corporate credit card for City Councillors.

A corporate credit card is a method of paying for certain expenses such as corporate travel and business meetings. The proposal in the policy was an option for councillors to ease in the administration but not to detract in any way from proper documentation requirements. It should be noted, however, that the proposed policy on Office Administration and Expenses allows Councillors to request advances for travel costs not paid directly by the corporation. Business meeting expenses can also be reimbursed through petty cash or via a monthly expense report. Consequently, it does not appear that credit cards are necessary for Councillors.

11(a)Travel - Conference/Seminar and Business Travel:

Two motions were put forward pertaining to invitations to speak or participation as a delegate at conferences and seminars such as AMO, FCM, IULA, WAMM, and OGRA:

1. It was moved that Section 11(a)(i) - "Conference/Seminar" be amended so that where Councillors are invited to speak at a conference or seminar, such expenditure could be covered under Conference/Seminar and charged to the Councillor's global budget. The Chief Administrative Officer was also requested to submit a report to Corporate Services Committee on specific criteria related to invitations to speak.

This amendment presents no difficulty as the Councillor's global budget is intended to cover conferences attended by the Councillor which are not covered under Business Travel. This could include invitations to speak at a conference or seminar.

1. It was moved that Section 11(a)(ii) - "Business Travel" be amended to provide that travel as a delegate to annual or general meetings of organizations such as AMO, FCM. IULA, WAMM, and OGRA be charged to the Council Business Travel Budget.

This amendment is not recommended. The Council business travel budget was established to cover association travel by Members of Council elected or appointed to the executive, board, section executive task force or/committee of FCM, AMO, IULA or WAMM. Such travel is restricted to Councillors who have an official position in the respective associations and their duties require them to travel on association business. This travel furthers corporate interests and has the support of Council. Travel to specific venues, even if as a delegate, may not be considered in the same way, and consequently requires the prior approval of Council to access the business travel account.

11(b)Conference/Seminar and Business Travel Approvals:

It was moved that Section 11(b)(i) be amended so that the Councillors and the Mayor shall notify the City Clerk in advance of plans to attend an event.

This requirement is already met through current administrative practices. Councillors must complete a "request to attend/travel form" prior to attending any conference /seminar (in or out of town) or business trips and forward it to the Council Services Unit. The Mayor would complete a similar form for any travel he undertakes and process the request through his office.

11(c)Travel Arrangements - Corporate Travel Agent:

It was moved that the requirement to use the corporate travel agent for travel arrangements be deleted.

Councillors should be encouraged to make their travel arrangements at the lowest possible cost, either through the corporate travel agent or an independent agent of their choice. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to allow Councillors to use another agent if they can obtain travel services at a lower cost.

11(c)Travel Arrangements - Insurance Coverage:

Committee requested clarification of whether Council Members are covered by the City of Toronto insurance plan, even when the travel is not specifically authorized by Council.

The City of Toronto purchases three (3) types of insurance coverage which apply to travel. A Travel Accident Policy provides Council Members with a weekly accident indemnity benefit as well as a principal sum benefit in the event of accidental death, dismemberment or permanent disability for injury sustained while attending any meetings and/or conventions. This type of coverage includes travel to and from these events. The General Liability Policy provides coverage for third party damage, bodily injury and personal injury claims. The Non-Owned Automobile Policy provides coverage for third party liability (in excess of that provided by the owner) and legal liability for physical damage to vehicles rented during business trips. However, to minimize the risk to the City, it is recommended that the waiver deductible, covering collision damage, be purchased from the car rental company. In addition, Sun Life covers the payment of fees for medical or hospital services while travelling outside of Ontario up to the reasonable and customary charge.

All types of insurance coverage will apply, provided that Council Members are acting in the capacity as a Councillor, even in situations where Council has not specifically approved the travel.

14(b)Overtime by Administrative Assistants:

It was moved that this section be amended to provide that overtime worked be included in the General Council Budget, subject to a limit, and that the Chief Administrative Officer and City Clerk report on a reasonable limit.

In reviewing the past annual overtime expenses of administrative staff of the former municipalities, where such an expense was charged to the general Council or Clerk's budget, an upset limit of approximately two weeks pay per administrative position was the norm.

If such an expense were to be provided, an additional $90,000.00 would be required in the General Council budget.

Given that Councillors manage the workload of their staff, and that lieu time is the most common form of compensation for overtime worked, we recommend that any overtime expenses approved by Councillors for their staff be charged against the Councillor's individual global budget allocation, if funds are not available within the salary budget assigned to the Councillor.

14(b)Vacation:

It was moved that vacation coverage be provided from the General Council budget up to the City standard.

The City standard for vacation is, at a minimum, three (3) weeks after one (1) year of service. If Council chooses to provide replacement staff out of the General Council budget to cover up to three (3) weeks vacation for each staff member, an additional $446,100.00 would be required in the General Council budget.

Given the corporate practice of not replacing staff who are on vacation and the cost of such a proposal, we do not recommend the provision of specific funds for this purpose.

Conclusions:

This report responds to a number of issues raised by Committee regarding the administration of Council office expenditures. The City Clerk and City Auditor have been consulted in the development of this report and support its content and recommendations.

Contact Name:

Barbara McEwan, Interim Lead, Council Services and Administration - 392-4373.

--------

Appendix "A"

Office Administration and Expenses of Members of Council

(1)Global Budget Expenses

(2)Permitted Expenditures and General Requirements

(3)Purchase and Payment of Goods and Services

(4)Printing

(5)Distribution

(6)Cellular Phones/Long Distance Charges

(7)Constituency Office Expenses

(8)Consulting Expenses

(9)Business Meeting Expenses

(10)Business Parking

(11)Travel

(12)Memberships and Association Fees

(13)Financial Reports

(14)Staffing

(15)Council Transportation

(16)Office Space

This policy covers the requirements with respect to the office, travel and other expenses of Members of Council. As with all financial transactions of the City, it is expected that this policy, which includes the corporate purchasing requirements, will be observed by all Members of Council and their staff.

Expenditures incurred by Members of Council or their staff must be for City business purposes only. Expenditures that are personal in nature or that further personal interests are not permitted.

(1)Global Budget Expenses:

City Council approved a global budget of $70,000.00 for each Councillor to cover the cost of general office requirements, communication and constituency office accommodation.

The global budget does not cover expenses that are corporate in nature, such as sponsorships and donations. These are similar in nature to grants and considered by Council as a whole.

The following are examples of items covered by the global office budget of Councillors:

Staff Salaries and Benefits (in excess of the equivalent of three (3) full-time staff) Replacement Staff

Constituency Office

Constituency Meetings

Office Materials and Supplies

Newspaper/Book and Magazine Subscriptions

Office Machinery and Equipment (above standard configuration)

Conference Travel

Seminars

Postage/Distribution

Tickets for community and other events (limit of two (2) per event)

Courier Services

Printing Services

Staff Overtime

Meal Allowances

Photocopying

Staff Meterage, Parking

Transit Passes - Staff (a taxable benefit may be assessed for personal use of such passes)

Hardware and Software (above standard configuration)

Basic Telephone Expenses

Long Distance Charges

Cell Phones and Pagers

Advertising and Promotion

Taxis

Business Meeting Expenses

(2)Permitted Expenditures and General Requirements:

(a)Equipment, materials or other assets purchased for office use are the exclusive property of the City.

(b)Limits for various purchases and other expenditures will be determined by policies approved by Council from time to time, and cannot be exceeded.

(c)All purchases and expenditures submitted for payment must be supported by original receipts/invoices, which include a description of the goods purchased or services rendered, the cost, applicable taxes and G.S.T. registration number. The support for all purchases and payments will be reviewed and certified by the City Clerk or her designates.

(d)Members of Council, or their designate, must approve all expenditures charged to their office budgets and submit such expenses to the Council Services Unit.

(e)Peculiar transactions or non compliance with policies will be forwarded to the Chief Financial Officer and City Auditor for appropriate action, which may include the refusal of the expenditure claim by the Corporation.

(f)Councillors cannot exceed their annual global office budget. Any over-expenditure of a Member's office budget is the personal responsibility of that Member and will be covered from personal funds.

(g)Expenses will be charged to the year the goods are received or services rendered. It is important that Councillors advise the City Clerk or her designate of goods or services received prior to the end of the year, but not invoiced until the subsequent year.

(h)The City Auditor, as part of his normal duties, may perform random audits of the expenses of all City Departments, including Council Offices. Non compliance or irregularities with respect to the expenses of Members of Council will be discussed with the respective Member and communicated to the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer for any necessary action.

(i)Purchases made by Members of Council will be paid directly to the supplier by the Corporation. Incidental expenses may be reimbursed to Councillors through petty cash or upon submission of a completed and supported expense report. Corporate credit cards will be available to City Councillors. However, such cards can only be used for business purposes and expenses must comply with the corporate purchasing guidelines contained herein. Further, the monthly credit card statements must be supported by receipts/invoices indicating the purchase made and its purpose (where appropriate) and be approved by the Councillor.

(j)Purchasing documents, as specified in this policy, for all expenses incurred by Council Offices must be forwarded to the Council Services Unit in a timely manner, to ensure prompt payment to suppliers.

(3)Purchase and Payment of Goods and Services:

All purchases are governed by the Corporation's interim purchasing policy which outlines the authority required with respect to the commitment of funds and the payment of accounts.

As is the case with City Departments, Members of Council and their staff are required to comply with the Corporation's purchasing policy and procedures.

The City Clerk's Department co-ordinates all purchases for the Clerk's Department and Council Offices.

The official supplier of standard office supplies is Grand & Toy. A copy of its catalogue is available with the Purchasing Clerk, Clerk's Department. The mail clerks deliver these supplies typically within one business day.

In order to facilitate the acquisition of standard office supplies, as well as office furnishings or equipment, an Office Supplies Requisition Form is completed by the Councillors' staff. It is then forwarded to the Clerk's Department, Purchasing Clerk, with the following information:

(i)description of the item;

(ii)quantity required;

(iii)estimated cost;

(iv)date required; and

(v)suggested supplier, (if any).

Required items that are not shown on the list of standard office supplies will be ordered through external suppliers. Typical delivery periods for office supplies from external suppliers is two (2) weeks.

(a)Purchases under $200.00

(i)Incidental expenses costing less than $200.00 in any one instance may be reimbursed through petty cash.

(ii)In order to be reimbursed, such expenses must be processed through the City Clerk's Department, be approved by the Councillor and supported by original receipts.

(iii)All petty cash requirements will be handled through a central petty cash fund maintained by Council Services.

(b)Purchases $200.00 - $10,000.00

(i)An Office Supplies Requisition Form must be completed and approved by the Councillor;

(ii)all purchases between $3,000.00 and $10,000.00 require three (3) written quotes;

(iii)for purchases under $3,000.00, three (3) written quotes are encouraged but not mandatory;

(iv)staff of the Council Services Unit of the Clerk's Department will confirm the availability of funds from within individual Councillors budgets;

(v)the Clerk's Department Purchasing Clerk will contact suppliers to obtain three(3) written quotes, where required, and will prepare a Departmental Purchase Order;

(vi)when the supporting original receipt/invoice is approved by the Councillor, and goods have been received, payment will be made to the supplier; and

(vii)expenditures for which a purchase order is not applicable such as books, subscriptions, or publications, must be approved by the Councillor and supported by original invoices/receipts.

(c)Purchases over $10,000.00:

(i)An Office Supplies Requisition Form must be completed and approved by the Councillor and forwarded to the Council Services Unit;

(ii)staff of the Council Services Unit of the Clerk's Department confirm the availability of funds from within individual Councillors budgets;

(iii)a Purchase Requisition is then sent to the City of Toronto, Purchasing, Finance Department;

(iv)the City of Toronto Purchasing and Material Supply Division contacts suppliers to determine the best value;

(v)a Purchase Order is issued by Purchasing and Material Supply to the City Clerk's Department authorizing the acquisition of the goods or services; and

(vi)payment is made to suppliers when supported by purchase orders, original invoices, and packing slip or other documentation indicating receipt of goods.

(4)Printing:

A number of service delivery options are being examined for printing, therefore on an interim basis Members may continue to print at Civic Centre locations.

All high volume Council printing (flyers, newsletters, stationery, etc....) is generally produced at No. 90 Niagara Street.

Prior to submitting a printing request to No. 90 Niagara Street, a printing requisition form is required. Council Service Unit will ensure the availability of funds in the respective Councillor's global budget.

(5)Distribution:

The City of Toronto has purchase agreements with Canada Post and various distribution companies that offer very competitive rates.

The Council Services Unit will be contacted prior to arranging any distribution to ensure that your requirements are met at the best possible cost.

(6)Cellular Telephones/Long Distance Charges :

It is the responsibility of Members of Council to review telephone bills for their respective office and to reimburse the City of Toronto through the Council Services Unit for any personal cellular telephone or long distance expenses.

Reimbursement of these personal expenses should be done on at least a quarterly basis.

(7)Constituency Office Expenses:

Councillors who choose to operate a constituency office should be aware of the following:

(a)The Councillor renting the constituency office is the tenant and responsible for the tenant's obligations under the lease.

(b)All financial and other obligations arising out of the establishment of a constituency office by a Councillor, including rent, utilities, insurance, realty taxes, maintenance, telephones, office supplies, and the rental of office furniture and equipment, are the sole responsibility of the City Councillor.

(c)City Councillors may be reimbursed for expenses incurred under 7 (b) from their global budget, subject to providing appropriate invoices and other supporting documentation.

(d)A signed true copy of the lease as signed is to be filed with the Clerk as well as with the Chief Financial Officer.

Prior to entering into any agreement for a constituency office or incurring any related expenses, Councillors are to contact the Council Services Unit to ensure that sufficient funds are available within their global budgets.

Staff at City Property Services and City Legal Services are available to assist Councillors in securing a constituency office and with the lease agreement.

(8)Consulting Expenses:

With respect to consulting services, it is necessary to review the arrangement for the provision of these services in order to determine whether the proposed arrangement with the consultant has the legal status of an employee or an independent contractor.

Given Revenue Canada's strict guidelines in this regard, Councillors must contact the Council Services Unit prior to committing the Corporation to any services or obligations with respect to provision of these services.

Prior to incurring consulting expenses, Members of Council must comply with the following purchasing procedures:

(i)a Departmental Purchase Order or letter of agreement must be issued for services estimated to cost between $200.00 and $10,000.00 in any calendar year;

(ii)a Corporate Purchase Order (through City Purchasing) or letter of agreement must be issued for services costing over $10,000.00 in any calendar year; and

(iii)purchase orders or letters of agreements with consultants must include the nature of the work performed, the hourly, daily or contract rate, term of arrangement, the anticipated total expenditure on a calendar year basis, and GST registration number.

Please refer all requests for these types of services to the Council Services Unit prior to committing the City of Toronto.

Payment of consulting services must be supported by an original invoice which includes a detailed description of the services rendered, the hourly or per diem rate, the number of hours or days worked and the G.S.T. registration number.

(9)Business Meeting Expenses:

Meetings held at restaurants and hotels may be claimed when the purpose of the meeting is related to the business of the City.

Supporting documentation for luncheon and business meeting expenses must include the following:

(a)an original receipt;

(b)the purpose of the meeting;

(c)the names of all those in attendance; and

(d)the Councillor's approval

These requirements are consistent with practices in the private sector and are in accordance with Revenue Canada guidelines.

(10) Business Parking:

Parking fees related to business meetings will be reimbursed for actual cost when the purpose and location of the meeting are noted and original receipts are submitted. Claims may be made through petty cash, or as part of a monthly expense claim report.

(11) Travel:

Members of Council are required to travel from time to time to attend conferences and seminars, or to represent the City on specific business. Only those expenses specifically relating to the Councillor will be reimbursed. Expenses for individuals travelling with a Councillor, who are not employees of the Corporation, are considered personal in nature and therefore not eligible for reimbursement.

(A) Definitions:

(i) Conference/Seminar

An expense relates to this category if it furthers corporate goals and involves:

(a)attendance at a conference, which is an event sponsored by a professional or trade association involving a series of presentations or discussions related to the purposes and goals of the association;

(b)attendance at a seminar, which is a compact program of not more than five working days, not necessarily offered through an approved academic institution or professional body, for an individual's professional development; and

(c)participation in study or inspection tours, not specifically directed by Council.

These expenses are charged to the Councillor's global budget.

(ii)Business Travel

Business travel is travel which is necessary to conduct the business affairs of the Corporation and is defined as:

(a)travel on association business by a Member of Council elected or appointed to the executive, board, section executive, task force or committee of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, International Union of Local Authorities or World Association of Major Metropolises, and charged to the Council Business Travel Budget;

(b)travel to participate in study or inspection tours, visits or meetings when specifically directed by Council, and charged to the Council Business Travel Budget; and

(c)travel necessary to carry out duties directly related to a Member of Council's responsibilities as a Chair or Vice-Chair of a City Agency, Board or Commission, and charged to the related Agency, Board or Commission budget.

(B) Conference/Seminar and Business Travel Approvals:

Note: Approvals include registration, travel, accommodation and all related expenses.

(i)Councillors shall notify the Mayor in advance of plans to attend an event and shall seek Council approval for conference/seminar events exceeding $3,500.00 (Canadian funds), inclusive of registration, travel, accommodation and all related expenses.

(ii)Business travel as defined in section 11 (a) (ii) of this policy does not require Council approval, subject to the availability of funds in the Council Business Travel Budget.

(iii)The Mayor's attendance at events will be limited by the Mayor's budget for the year and will not require prior approval of individual events by Council.

(C)Travel Arrangements:

(i)When attending out of town conferences or business trips, air travel will be economy class, using the services of the Corporate Travel Agent and eligible alternate travel expenses, be they by bus, train or automobile, shall be limited to the economy class air fare rate.

(ii)When Councillors use their personal auto to attend an out of town conference, seminar or business trip, reimbursement of meterage will be at the rate of $0.36 per kilometer.

(iii)Councillors who use their automobiles for City business are required to carry at least $1 million of public liability and property damage insurance.

(D)Registration Fees:

Registration fees for conferences and seminars will be paid directly to the conference association. Original documentation must be provided to support the payment.

(E)Accommodation Arrangements:

Whether for out of town conferences/seminars or for business travel, eligible accommodation will be a single standard room, at the lesser of the government rate or actual cost. An original hotel bill must be submitted to support the claim.

(F)Pier Diem (for overnight stay out of town):

(i)The amount which may be claimed for sundry expenses related to an out of town conference/seminar or business trip may be up to $65 Cdn. per day when in Canada and $65 U.S. when outside of the country, with no need to submit receipts.

(ii)The number of days claimed will be the same as the number associated with the conference/seminar or business trip in question, including the day of departure and return.

(G)Meal Allowance:

For in town conferences/seminars at which meals are not provided by the conference/seminar association and where no per diem may be claimed, a meal allowance of up to $15.00 may be claimed when supported by original receipts.

(H)Travel to/from Transportation Terminal:

The cost of transportation from home/office to and from an air, bus or train terminal will be reimbursed when supported by an original receipt.

(I)Administration:

(i)A "request to attend/travel form" will be completed prior to attending any conference/seminar (in or out of town) or business trip. The form will provide all details of the trip, including all related costs, be approved by the Councillor, and forwarded to the Council Services Unit.

(ii)Advances may be requested for costs not paid for directly by the Corporation. (e.g., per diem, accommodation).

(iii)An Expense Claim report, supported by original receipts, must be filed with the Council Services Unit within 10 days of return from the event. The balance of unspent advances must be remitted to the City in a timely manner.

(12)Memberships and Association Fees:

Membership fees may be charged to the Councillor's global budget when memberships clearly further municipal interests.

Payment of these expenses will be made directly to the corporate entity whenever possible.

(13)Financial Reports:

(a)To assist Councillors in tracking their office costs, a monthly summary of expenses detailing paid and encumbered expenditures is provided. Councillors or their staff are encouraged to review these reports and report any errors to staff of the Council Services Unit as soon as possible.

(b)A report is submitted to Council at the end of each year by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, summarizing the office expenses incurred by each Councillor and identifying the cost of each individual event attended by Members of Council related to conferences, seminars and business travel, including events attended as a member of a City Agency, Board or Commission.

(14)Staffing:

(a)Procedures:

All staffing requests must be processed through the Council Services Unit prior to the employee's start date.

(b)Expenses:

Discretionary:

Overtime by Administrative Assistants

Given that Members of Council manage the workload of their staff and that lieu time is the most common form of compensation for overtime worked, any overtime expenses approved by Councillors for their staff will be charged against their individual global budget allocation, if funds are not available within the salary budget assigned to the Councillor.

Vacation:

Members of Council are encouraged to structure staff vacation schedules, where possible, at times that have the least impact on office operations. Where the Member decides to replace a staff member who is on vacation, this expense will be paid from his or her individual global budget allocation, if funds are not available within the salary budget assigned to the Councillor's office.

Non-Discretionary:

Extended Disability:

Members of Council do not have the ability to sustain effective office operations when a staff member is ill for an extended period of time due to the limited staff resources at his/her disposal.

Given that Councillors may be able to sustain effective operations for a short period of time, and that the Councillor has no control over absence due to illness, where replacement staff are required to cover staff absences due to illness of six (6) consecutive business days or more, expenses will be charged to the general Council budget.

Accrued Vacation Entitlement:

In instances where a Councillor's staff person has accrued vacation entitlements and leaves the employment of the City of Toronto, such entitlements must be paid to the employee.

Since the Councillor has no discretion over these payments, expenses will be charged to the general Council budget.

Maternity/Parental/Adoption Leave:

Members of Council cannot be expected to accommodate extended staff leaves without a temporary replacement.

In order to provide for the temporary replacement of staff who are on extended maternity/parental or adoption leaves, any payments to staff who are on such leaves will be provided from the general Council budget.

Severance Allowances:

Council staff may be given severance allowances when their Councillor leaves office or when their Councillor terminates their employment without cause.

If a Council staff member is given a severance allowance because their Councillor has left office, the in-coming Councillor cannot be expected to absorb any of the termination costs. In these instances, expenses will be charged to the general Council budget.

When Councillors terminate staff without cause and elect to pay notice rather then have it worked, it is reasonable to expect Councillors to cover the first 30 days notice out of their global budget. If funds are not available within the salary budget assigned to Councillors. Any termination costs in excess of this amount will be covered by the general Council budget.

(15)Council Transportation:

The regular hours of Council Transportation are 7:00 am - 8:00 pm, except on Council days when service is available until 11:00 pm.

In order to maximize the efficient use of the Council vehicles, the following guidelines are to be followed:

(a)Council Members and their staff are generally responsible for getting to and from work at their own expense.

(b)Council cars should be used by Members of Council and the Protocol Division of the City Clerk's Department only when on Council business.

(c)Guests and/or staff of Members of Council will only be permitted to use the cars when authorized by a Member of Council and only on City Council business.

(d)Council cars will not generally be used as a delivery service if required for passenger service; however, the delivery of agendas for the City Clerk's Department is acceptable. Requests for deliveries should be limited to items of an urgent nature that cannot be made by Canada Post, courier, or by other means due to time constraints.

(e)The use of the Council vehicles will be recorded as follows:

(i)the names of the users;

(ii)the destination of each trip and the approximate time of return;

(iii)the actual length of time logged for each trip; and

(iv)the side uses, such as deliveries, and the number.

(16)Office Space:

When an outgoing Councillor vacates his or her elected office the incoming representative for that Ward automatically assumes possession of the vacated office and its associated inventory for that Ward.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following Expense Claim Policy (March 10, 1998) submitted by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Expense Claim Policy

For Staff

Of The City Of Toronto

As in all financial transactions of the City, it is expected that high moral standards, good judgement, honesty and integrity will guide the actions taken under this policy.

This policy covers requirements with respect to attendance at conferences/seminars, business trips, meterage claims for use of personal auto, meal allowances, business meetings, professional memberships, corporate credit cards and the use of cellular phones and long distance telephone calls.

A.Attendance at Conferences/Seminars and Business Travel

Attendance at Conferences/Seminars and for Business Travel must be pre-approved, at least two weeks prior to the event. Notwithstanding approval processes outlined in this policy, staff travel outside of Ontario requires pre-approval by the Commissioner and staff travel outside of Canada requires pre-approval by the Chief Administrative Officer.

1.Definitions

(a)Conferences/Seminars

An expense relates to this category if it furthers corporate goals and involves:

(i)attendance at a conference, which is an event sponsored by a professional or trade association involving a series of presentations or discussions related to the purposes and goals of the association. Conferences at which an employee is not a speaker on the agenda. (See Business Travel)

(ii)attendance at a seminar, which is a compact program of not more than five working days, not necessarily offered through an approved academic institution or professional body, for an individual's professional development. Seminars at which an employee is not a speaker on the agenda. (See Business Travel)

(iii)participation in study or inspection tours not specifically directed by Council.

(b)Business Travel

Business travel is travel which is necessary to conduct the business affairs of the Corporation and is defined as:

(i)travel necessary to carry out duties directly related to staff job responsibilities. Conferences and seminars at which the individual is a speaker on the agenda. (See Conferences/Seminars)

(ii)travel by staff undertaken in their capacity as an executive of a professional association where membership is paid by the department.

(iii)travel to an event where a member of staff is a speaker, panel participant or presenting a paper, where participation is formally recognized in the agenda.

(iv)travel to participate in study or inspection tours, visits or meetings when specifically directed by Council.

2.Conference/Seminar and Business Travel Approvals

Note: Approvals include registration, travel, accommodation and all related expenses.

(a)Staff approvals for both in town and out of town conferences and seminars are as follows, for up to $3,500.00 per event within budget limits:

- Mayor or designate approves for Chief Administrative Officer ;

- Chief Administrative Officer approves for Commissioners;

- Commissioners approve for Directors; and

- Commissioner or Designate approves for staff in the department;

with approval requested at least two weeks prior to the event. Council approval is required for events exceeding $3,500.00;

business trips are subject to the same staff approvals as conferences and seminars, however, no Council approval is required for business trips.

(b)Advances may be claimed for the estimated and approved cost of the event; if not paid in advance directly to the conference association, hotel or travel agent.

(c)Expense claim forms must be filed within 10 days of return from the event, supported by original receipts, and the total of all unspent advances remitted to the City.

(d)Staff shall file a written report within 30 days with the Department Head outlining the benefits derived from the conference/seminar attended. The Department Head shall file a report with the Chief Administrative Officer.

3.Travel Arrangements

When attending out of town conferences or business trips, air travel shall be economy class, using the services of the Corporate Travel Agent, and eligible alternate travel expenses, whether by bus, train or automobile, shall be limited to the economy class air fare rate.

4.Accommodation

Whether for conferences/seminars or for business travel, the same policy applies to accommodation expenses.

(a)Eligible accommodation shall be a single standard room, at the lesser of the government rate or actual cost.

(b)An advance may be claimed for accommodation.

(c)Original receipts must be submitted with related claim forms for conference/seminar or business travel within 10 days of return from the event, and the total of all unspent advances remitted to the City.

5.Per Diem (for overnight stay out of town)

(a)The amount which may be claimed for sundry expenses related to an out of town conference/seminar or business trip shall be up to $65 Cdn. per day when in Canada and $65 U.S. when outside of the country, with no need to submit receipts.

(b)The number of days claimed may be up to the same as the number associated with the conference/seminar or business trip in question, including the day of departure and return.

(c)An advance may be claimed for sundry expenses.

(d)The per diem claim shall be filed on related claim forms within 10 days of return from the event, and the total of all unspent advances remitted to the City.

6.Travel to/from Transportation Terminal

The cost of transportation to and from home/office and an air, bus or train terminal shall be reimbursed when supported by an original receipt.

B.Personal Auto

This policy pertains to staff use of a personal automobile, either for day to day local business or for travel to/from a conference/seminar or business trip.

(i)The rate per kilometre claimed shall be the rate which is contained in the collective bargaining agreements of the former municipalities in effect January 1, 1998, for both the union members and the excluded employees of each former municipality, until a new rate is established for the new City of Toronto.

(ii)Meterage claims may be made either bi-weekly each pay period, in cases of regular use, or at least monthly. All claims must exclude the distance travelled to and from work and be authorised by the Department Head or designate. Where staff go directly from home to an alternate work location, the employee shall be reimbursed only for the additional distance travelled, beyond the regular distance from home to the employee's regular work location.

(iii)Employees who use their automobiles for City business shall be required to carry at least $1 million of public liability and property damage insurance.

(iv)Where a personal auto is used to attend a conference/seminar or business trip, and an overnight stay is required, the meterage claims shall be included as part of the overall request for reimbursement for the event.

C.Meal Allowance

A meal allowance of up to $15.00 may be granted with the submission of an original receipt when employees are required to work at least two hours of overtime on a normal business day and at least four hours of overtime on a non-scheduled work day. A second meal allowance of up to $15.00 is allowed when an employee works at least nine hours on a non-scheduled work day. When employees are attending local conferences/seminars for which no other travel allowance applies, and meals are not provided by the conference/seminar association, a meal allowance of up to $15.00 for lunch may be claimed when supported by original receipts. Authority for approvals rests with the supervisor in the case of overtime, and with the relevant conferences/seminars approval authority.

D.Business Meetings

Meetings held at eating establishments and hotels may be claimed when:

(i)the purpose of the meeting is related to the business of the municipality and is documented along with the names of all those in attendance;

(ii)the most senior staff person present pays the bill and an original receipt is submitted;

(iii)the second removed supervisor reviews and approves the claim; and

(iv)the Mayor or designate approves for the Chief Administrative Officer , the Chief Administrative Officer approves for Commissioners and Commissioners approve for Directors and other staff, etc.

E.Business Parking

Parking fees related to business meetings shall be reimbursed for actual cost with the submission of original receipts, approved by the second removed supervisor. Claims may be made via petty cash, bi-weekly through payroll, or at least monthly.

F.Professional Memberships & Association Fees

(i)Memberships and association fees may be claimed when the employee is required to carry a professional designation for the performance of job duties or where in the opinion of the Department Head membership will benefit job performance.

(ii)Payment shall be made directly to the corporate entity whenever possible.

(iii)Annual expenditure limits are as prescribed in the budget.

(iv)The Mayor or designate shall approve for the Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Administrative Officer approve for the Commissioners and the Commissioners approve for the related staff.

G.Corporate Credit Cards

For the purposes of expense claim policy, credit cards are deemed to be an alternative to reimbursing employees directly by cheque or through petty cash. The use of the corporate credit card must be in compliance with all purchasing policies. On an exception basis, corporate credit cards will be available only to the senior managers who demonstrate to the Chief Administrative Officer a regular need for substantial expenditures while outside of the office in the course of business. The same rigor is required when reviewing and approving credit card expenses as for all claims for reimbursement. Original credit card receipts and invoices must be provided to support the reimbursement.

No personal expenses shall be charged to the corporate credit card.

H.Cellular Phones/Long Distance Telephone Calls

All personal calls shall be logged and monitored by a Department Designate for full reimbursement to the City by employees on at least a quarterly basis, once reviewed by the immediate supervisor.)

(Councillor Gardner, at the meeting of City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that a member of his office staff is a relative.)

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that a member of his office staff is a relative.)

14

Re-Employment Policy for Former Members of

Council and Former Staff of Members of Council

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee:

(1)again recommends that the report (April 4, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer embodied in the following communication (May21, 1998) from the City Clerk be received; and

(2)reports having requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit directly to Council, for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998, the report requested by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, respecting staff who have signed contracts with former municipalities which have subsequently been broached.

City Council, at its meeting held on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it Clause No. 2 of Report No.5 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Re-Employment Policy for Former Members of Council and Former Staff of Members of Council".

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration and report thereon to the next meeting of Council to be held on June 3, 1998; and the Executive Director of Human Resources be requested to submit a confidential report to the Committee, for consideration therewith, on staff who have signed contracts with former municipalities which have subsequently been broached, such report to also address the issue of former employees of Members of Council having the option of deferring acceptance of their severance packages should they obtain employment with the City.

(Clause No. 2 of Report No.5 of The Corporate Services Committee,

headed "Re-Employment Policy for Former Members of Council

and Former Staff of Members of Council".)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration and report thereon to the next meeting of Council to be held on June 3, 1998; and the Executive Director of Human Resources was requested to submit a confidential report to the Committee, for consideration therewith, on staff who have signed contracts with former municipalities which have subsequently been broached, such report to also address the issue of former employees of Members of Council having the option of deferring acceptance of their severance packages should they obtain employment with the City.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that the following report (April4, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer be received:

Purpose:

This report will respond to a directive by Council that the Chief Administrative Officer review the policy implications where former Members of Council or former staff of Members of Council are seeking re-employment by the City of Toronto.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council determine if former Members of Council or former staff of Members of Council should be restricted from being re-employed by the City of Toronto; and

(2)any restriction, if applied, be limited to the period of time that the former Member of Council or former staff of a Member of Council is in receipt of severance or separation pay.

Background:

At its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, City Council considered a report and policy with respect to the re-employment of staff who have received an exit or retirement package from either the current City of Toronto, its Agencies, Boards or Commissions or one of the former seven municipalities. A policy was implemented which restricted such staff from re-employment by the municipality or any of its Agencies, Boards, and Commissions for a period of two years.

Council directed the Chief Administrative Officer to consider the application of this policy to former Members of Council or to former staff of Members of Council and to report to the Corporate Services Committee.

Discussion:

The philosophy behind a decision to restrict re-employment is that an individual should not be in receipt of a severance payment or separation package from the municipality while he/she is also collecting salary. This is perceived to be "double-dipping".

In accordance with the harmonized policies from the former municipalities which now constitute the City of Toronto, Members of Council are eligible to receive a severance payment of one month for every year of service on Council, to a maximum of six months. Should Council decide to restrict a former Member of Council from being employed by the municipality in a "staff" capacity, it is appropriate that this restriction apply to the period of time the individual is in receipt of severance (i.e., up to a maximum of six months).

Former staff of a Member of Council would also have been in receipt of an exit or retirement package, or would have had exit provisions by virtue of an employment contract. It is also appropriate, should Council decided to restrict such staff from being re-employed by the municipality, that such restriction apply to the period of time the individual is in receipt of severance or separation pay.

Further, should Council now decide to implement a policy, the restrictions should be implemented on a going-forward basis so that individuals currently in the employ of the municipality, who were former Members of Council or former staff of a Member of Council, would not be adversely affected.

Contact:

Brenda Glover, Executive Director of Human Resources - 397-9802.

--------

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a confidential report (May 25, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, respecting the issue of a re-employment policy for former Members of Council and former staff of Members of Council.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 2, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources:

At its meeting of May 25, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee considered the request from Council for information on staff who signed contracts with former municipalities which have since been breached, and requested that this information be submitted directly to Council for its meeting scheduled June 3, 1998.

Legal assistance is being sought in this matter relative to the individual situations as well as any Freedom of Information concerns. Due to the complexity and the need for additional information we are not in a position to respond at this time.)

15

Proposed Fee Structure for Documents

and Services Provided by the

City Clerk's Secretariat

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May 5, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk to report to the Corporate Services Committee on Councils ability to serve the public via the Internet in terms of providing agendas and minutes of Council, Standing Committees, Sub-Committees, Task Forces and Agencies, Boards and Commissions, to the public.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May5, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To recommend appropriate charges for documents and services provided by the City Clerk's Secretariat.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The subscription rates for the Council-generated documents reflect appropriate costs associated with the increased volume of material submitted while balancing the public's right to information and participation in the governance process. This report recommends that the City Clerk continue to provide free agenda material to resident and ratepayer associations and non-profit community organizations and the media. In addition, all Council documents are accessible to the general public on the Internet. Due to reductions in the printing budget, the subscription rates allow the Clerk's Secretariat to recover costs associated with this work process.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the charges for copies of documents, certification and research assistance embodied in Appendix 1 of this report, be approved;

(2)resident and ratepayer associations and non-profit community organizations be provided, free of charge, with agenda lists only, on written request, and a single copy of any individual agenda item of interest, if necessary;

(3)the City Clerk be given authority to waive charges for copies of documents under exceptional circumstances;

(4)a by-law be introduced to permit the charging for documents, services, research assistance; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Municipal Act allows a municipality to charge for copies of documents and other services.

This report reviews existing fees charged by the Clerk's Departments from the former municipalities as well as reviewing the current volume of materials produced to determine appropriate charges.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Copying and Research Fees.

The Municipal Act permits a municipality to pass by-laws imposing fees or charges for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it. The Act also requires that copies be certified under seal, if required. All of the former municipalities had fees/charges in place for copies of documents generated from the legislative process and for the provision of certified copies of documents.

Given the demand for services, a review of current charges was undertaken. Appendix 1 depicts the proposed charges for the subscription service for Council and Committee agendas and minutes, photocopying of documents and certification, videotapes, information on computer diskettes and research assistance, based on the volumes experienced over the past three months. The fee schedules from the former Municipalities of East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Toronto, and Metropolitan Toronto, for Council documents and photocopying are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The former City of York did not have a formal policy in this regard.

It is recommended that an increase in fees from the former Metropolitan Toronto structure be introduced to more accurately reflect staff and production costs and to reflect the increased volume of material as a result of the amalgamation of municipalities. The volume of material produced for Council-related documents has increased by approximately 22 percent from the 1997 levels for the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The subscriptions shall be paid on an annual basis. The subscription rates include a standard mailing fee which reflects the average mailing costs for documents of this size. Calculations of postage costs on an individual subscription basis is too cumbersome and time-consuming.

The Secretariat recognizes the need to inform the public and promote public participation in the decision-making process. It is recommended that resident and ratepayer associations and non-profit community organizations be provided with agenda lists and copies of individual agenda items, on request, free of charge. Council and Committee documents are also accessible on the City of Toronto Website.

The former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto by-law gave the Metropolitan Clerk authority to waive fees for copying documents, under exceptional circumstances. It is recommended that the City Clerk be granted this authority. The Secretariat will provide full agenda packages to the media, on written request, and reference libraries free of charge. In addition, a complete set of agendas will also be available at City Clerk's in each civic centre.

Once the Secretariat has permanently located at City Hall, consideration will be given to installing public access terminals within the public area of City Clerk's and adjacent to the Council Chamber to allow the public to conduct their own on-line searches with or without assistance from staff. These terminals could be used for a full range of activities emanating from the City Clerk's responsibilities. A review is also being undertaken as part of the customer service initiative to install similar terminals in the civic service centres. Libraries can potentially access Council documents upon the availability of Internet access in the branches.

Conclusion:

This report addresses the necessity to introduce a uniform fee structure for charges of documents and services emanating from the City Clerk's Secretariat while balancing an individual's access to information.

Contact Names:

Terry Fenton, Interim Community Council Contact

Tel. No. 778-2002.

Marilyn Toft

Tel. No. 392-4364.

--------

Appendix 1

*the rates established in Column 2 under the heading "Proposed Fee Structure for City of Toronto" do not include taxes and any applicable sales, goods and services or other taxes shall be added thereto.

(A copy of the fee schedules from the former Area Municipalities referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

16

Resolution Policy

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May5, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To establish a protocol to advise Members of Council and staff electronically of the receipt of resolutions from other municipal councils and responses to decisions of Toronto City Council, and other general correspondence.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council recognize the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and/or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) as the appropriate forums for municipalities to present resolutions for endorsement; and

(2)Council approve the policy and process pertaining to Council resolutions, resolutions received from other municipalities, responses to decisions of Council, and other general correspondence, set out in Appendix "A".

Background:

The Chief Administrative Officer requested the City Clerk to propose an appropriate policy and process with respect to the receipt of resolutions from other municipal councils.

Discussion:

Traditionally, municipalities adopt resolutions and then seek the support of other municipalities for such resolutions.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as appropriate, is also usually notified.

As a matter of policy, many municipalities now automatically forward resolutions they receive to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The role of FCMand AMO in providing an important forum for the discussion of common municipal concerns and for representing municipal interests at the federal and provincial levels is acknowledged by these municipalities and should be by this Council.

The policy set out in Appendix "A" closely mirrors policies of the former Toronto area municipalities.

Conclusions:

Given the evolving workload of Committees and Council and the need to deal with matters expediently, effectively and economically without bogging down in correspondence, it is appropriate to implement a policy and process.

This report recommends that Council recognize the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as the appropriate forums for municipalities across Ontario and Canada to submit resolutions for endorsement. This is consistent with the increasingly common practice of municipalities not to consider resolutions or simply refer resolutions to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and/or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The policy proposed addresses Council's concern over the types of matters coming before it, and allows us to streamline and reduce paper flow at Committee and Council meetings.

Contact Name:

Ralph Walton, Interim Lead - Secretariat

Tel. No. 392-8670.

--------

Appendix "A"

Resolution Policy and Process.

(A)Resolutions from other Municipalities:

(1)Members of Council, the Chief Administrative Officer and Heads of Departments and Divisions will be provided electronically, by the City Clerk on a bi-weekly basis, with a summary of any resolutions received. Interested Members or Executives can then obtain a copy of the resolution, and, if it is deemed necessary, request the appropriate Standing Committee, in writing and within ten business days of receipt of the resolution, to give consideration to it.

(2)If no request is received by the City Clerk after ten business days, the City Clerk would advise the municipality originating the resolution that all Members of Council have been advised of the resolution. Where appropriate, the City Clerk would provide the municipality with information on Council's current position on the matter.

(B)Resolutions from City Council:

Unless specifically instructed by Council, resolutions from City Council seeking general endorsement from municipalities will only be sent to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and/or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, for endorsement.

(C)Acknowledgement from other Municipalities, other Levels of Government, Citizens, Public or Private Organizations, Pertaining to Clauses or Resolutions adopted by Council:

(1)Comments or responses received from other municipalities, requested by the City, will automatically be forwarded to the appropriate staff, Standing Committee or Council, for consideration.

(2)Members of Council and appropriate Heads of Departments will be provided, electronically by the City Clerk on a bi-weekly basis, with a summary of all other acknowledgements (responses) received. A copy of the acknowledgement will be provided, upon request.

(D)General Correspondence:

(1)Any correspondence that pertains to a subject matter that is currently under review by the City will automatically be forwarded to the appropriate Standing Committee; Special Committee; Agency, Board or Commission or Council for consideration.

(2)Other Correspondence or newsletters from the public or other organizations for the attention, or for the information of Members of Council in general, will be summarized and distributed electronically to Members of Council and the Chief Administrative Officer and Department and Division Heads, where appropriate. Interested Members may request a hard copy of the correspondence from City Clerk's if and when required.

17

Interim Purchasing By-law

Awarding of Contracts

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the motion embodied in the following communication (May 15, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending the first operative part to read as follows:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in order to streamline the process for award of contracts between $1.0 million and $2.5 million, By-law No.57-1998 be amended to provide that the appropriate Standing Committee of Council and/or Community Council be authorized to approve such contract awards and that these approvals be forwarded to Council for information":

City Council, at its meeting held on May 13 and 14, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration:

Moved by:Councillor Pantalone

Seconded by:Councillor Disero

"WHEREAS By-law No. 57-1998 establishes an interim procedure and authority for the calling of bids and the award of contracts; and

WHEREAS Council at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended Clause No. 1 of Report No. 2 of the Corporate Services Committee entitled 'Interim Purchasing By-law' to provide that all quotations and tender calls over $1.0 million shall be reported to the appropriate Standing Committee of Council and/or Community Council, and subsequently submitted with a recommendation to Council for award; and

WHEREAS the requirement that Council award all contracts will extend the approval process and create scheduling problems for construction contracts given the limited duration of the construction season, and delivery problems for contracts for goods, services and materials required in day-to-day operations; and

WHEREAS if all the conditions contained in Section 5(3) of By-law No. 57-1998 are met, except for the $1.0 million limitation in the amount of the award, it is appropriate that the Standing Committee or Community Council responsible for the program or service to which the Call or Request is related be authorized to award the contract;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in order to streamline the process for award of contracts over $1.0 million, By-law No. 57-1998 be amended to provide that the appropriate Standing Committee of Council and/or Community Council be authorized to approve such contract awards and that these approvals be forwarded to Council for information;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the Bill necessary to give effect thereto."

18

Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund

1998 Pensioner Increase, Amendment to By-Law No. 181-81

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the Recommendations of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, embodied in the communication (April 26, 1998) from the Interim Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, with the exception of all benefit improvements relating to active members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund; and

(2)the amendment of By-law No. 181-81 in accordance with the draft amending By-law referred to in the aforementioned communication from the Interim Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having directed that the proposed changes respecting the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund be forwarded, in writing, to the Toronto Police Pensioners Association for their information; and that they be advised of the date that this matter will be considered by City Council.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following communication (April 26, 1998) from the Interim Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund:

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund on April 24, 1998, had before it the Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate for the Fund as at December 31, 1997, submitted by Mr. Robert Camp, Senior Vice-President, Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, and setting out full details of the Fund's financial position on the valuation date, making recommendations as to the utilization of the experience gains, and illustrating the effect of the recommendations on the funded position.

The Board of Trustees also had before it a report dated April 21, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer submitting comments on the aforementioned Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate; advising that the Actuary's recommendations to significantly improve the benefits of the Metro pension plans require consultation with and endorsement by employers and employee groups; and recommending that:

(i)a consultation process be commenced by means of the recommendations of the Actuary relating to changes to the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, other than the cost-of-living increase to pensions, being referred to the Corporate Services Committee and the Toronto Police Services Board, respectively and to the appropriate corresponding employee bargaining units for comment; and

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

Mr. Robert Camp, Senior Vice-President, Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, made a presentation to the Board of Trustees in connection with the foregoing matter and filed a copy of his presentation with respect thereto.

The Board of Trustees recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that:

(1)effective July 1, 1998:

(a)an increase of 0.7 percent be granted on pensions to pensioners on benefit for more than one year, and a proportionate increase of .058 percent for each month of pension payment made in 1997 be granted for pensioners who retired during 1997;

(b)current member and employer contributions be reduced by 2 percent of contributory earnings for the five-year period ending June 30, 2003;

(c)the basic percentage for spousal survivor pensions be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60percent for all active and retired members;

(d)in addition to the pensioner increases provided for in Recommendation No. (1)(a), all current spousal benefits be increased by one-ninth if the spouse is in receipt of a 60percent spousal benefit and, further, if the spouse is in receipt of a 65percent, 70percent or 75 percent optional spousal benefit that the pensions be recalculated using revised reduction factors to reflect the increase in the basic spousal benefit to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent;

(e)the spousal benefit for post-retirement marriage be amended to one-thirty-sixth of the normal pension of the deceased member per month of marriage, to a maximum of 662/3 percent; and

(f)the benefit being paid to pensioner members who have elected increased spousal benefits, be adjusted using the revised reduction factors to reflect the increase in spousal benefits to 66 2/3 percent; and

(2)the authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendation No. (1).

The Board of Trustees also:

(i)requested the City Solicitor to draft the appropriate amending by-law respecting Recommendation No. (1), and submit such draft by-law directly to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration with this matter; and

(ii)received the aforementioned report dated April 21, 1998 from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

The Corporate Services Committee also submits the following communication (May 22, 1998) from the Interim Board Secretary, Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund:

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund on May 22, 1998, had before it, for information, a report dated May 12, 1998, addressed to the Corporate Services Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, headed "Actuarial Valuation Results - Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund," commenting on the recommendations of the Actuary relating to the actuarial valuation as at December 31, 1997; and recommending that:

(1)the Corporate Services Committee endorse that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer approach the Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and to the governing bodies of the City of Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund, the City of Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund and the City of York Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund with the view that the pension funds should bear the total administration costs of the plans in order to allocate actuarial gains more equitably; and

(2)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Executive Director of Human Resources, be requested to report on the cost and funding of benefit improvements, similar to those proposed by the Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, for the City of Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund, the City of Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund and the City of York Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund.

The Board of Trustees decided to request the Corporate Services Committee and Council that, whatever action is taken on the said Recommendations of the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the adoption of the following Recommendations embodied in the communication dated April 26, 1998 from the Interim Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, be proceeded with:

(i)Recommendation No. (1) (a), viz.:

" (1)effective July 1, 1998:

(a)an increase of 0.7 percent be granted on pensions to pensioners on benefit for more than one year, and a proportionate increase of .058 percent for each month of pension payment made in 1997 be granted for pensioners who retired during 1997;"; and

(ii)Recommendations Nos. (1) (c) to (f), viz.:

" (1)effective July 1, 1998:

(c)the basic percentage for spousal survivor pensions be increased to 662/3percent from 60percent for all active and retired members;

(d)in addition to the pensioner increases provided for in Recommendation No.(1)(a), all current spousal benefits be increased by one-ninth if the spouse is in receipt of a 60 percent spousal benefit and, further, if the spouse is in receipt of a 65percent, 70percent or 75 percent optional spousal benefit that the pensions be recalculated using revised reduction factors to reflect the increase in the basic spousal benefit to 662/3 percent from 60 percent;

(e)the spousal benefit for post-retirement marriage be amended to one-thirty-sixth of the normal pension of the deceased member per month of marriage, to a maximum of 662/3percent; and

(f)the benefit being paid to pensioner members who have elected increased spousal benefits, be adjusted using the revised reduction factors to reflect the increase in spousal benefits to 662/3 percent;",

it being the opinion of the Board that the proposed spousal benefit increase relating to active members is not an active-member improvement.

The Board of Trustees reports, for the information of the Corporate Services Committee and Council, having initiated a consultation process with the Actuary, City officials, and representatives of the Toronto Police Association, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Senior Officers' Organization, respecting, amongst other things, benefit improvements to the Fund and the assumption by the Fund of the total costs of its administration.

--------

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i)(May 12, 1998) from Mr.D.Brown, Legal Department, forwarding a copy of the draft amending by-law to amend further By-law No. 181-81 as requested by the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund on April 24, 1998.

(ii)(May15, 1998) from Mr. Norman Gardner, Chair, Toronto Police Services Board, noting that the Police Services Board has concerns with the Benefit Fund Surplus being utilized in this manner as the Toronto Police Association has submitted bargaining proposals for the year 1998 on pension issues other that those referred to in the letter dated April26, 1998.

(iii)(May14, 1998) from Mr. A. Christofaro, President, Toronto Police Senior Officers Organization, advising that the Organization does not have any concerns with respect to the improvements recommended for the Police Benefit Fund Plan.

--------

D R A F T

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend further By-law No. 181-81

of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

respecting pensions and other benefits.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.By-law No. 149-97 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To amend further By-law No. 181-81 respecting pensions and other benefits", is amended by striking out the words "first line of" in the first line of clause 4(11)(a) thereof.

2.(1)Subsection 8(1) of By-law No. 181-81 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To provide pensions and death benefits to members of the Metropolitan Police Force", as heretofore amended, is further amended by striking out the first word and substituting therefor "Subject to the contribution reduction provided for by subsection(1.1) and subject".

(2)Section 8 of said By-law No. 181-81 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"Contribution

Reduction

1998 - 2003

8.(1.1)During the period from and including July 1, 1998, to and including June 30, 2003, subsection (1) shall be interpreted as if it specified a contributory rate of 6½ per cent. rather than the rate of 8½ per cent. provided for therein."

3.(1)Clause 17(3)(a) of said By-law No. 181-81, as such clause was re-enacted by By-law No. 66-94 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and amended by By-law No.149-97 of that former municipality, is further amended by

(a)striking out the text "60 per cent." in the third line of item (i)(A) thereof and substituting therefor "66_ per cent.";

(b)striking out that part of item (i)(B) thereof following the text "subsisted," appearing in the third line thereof and substituting therefor "one-thirty-sixth (1/36th) of a pension calculated in the manner prescribed in section 11, to a maximum of 66_ per cent."; and

(c)striking out the text "60 per cent." in the second line of subclause (ii) thereof and substituting therefor "66_ per cent.".

(2)Clause 17(3)(b) of said By-law No. 181-81, as such clause was re-enacted by said By-law No. 66-94 (as clause 17(3a)(b)) and amended by said By-law No. 149-97, is further amended by striking out the text "60 per cent." where same appears in the third line of each of subclauses (i) and (ii) thereof and substituting therefor in each case "66_ per cent."

(3)Subsection 17(7) of said By-law No. 181-81 as such subsection was enacted by By-law No. 86-89 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and amended by By-law No. 95-96 of that former municipality, is further amended by striking out the text "65%," where same appears therein.

(4)Clauses 17a(3)(a) and (b) of said By-law No. 181-81, as such clauses were enacted by By-law No. 17-86 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and amended by said By-law No. 66-94, are further amended by striking out the text "60 per cent." where same appears in the third line of each thereof and substituting therefor in each case "66_ per cent.";

(5)Subsection 17b(3) of said By-law No. 181-81, as such subsection was enacted by said By-law No. 17-86 and amended by said By-law No. 66-94, is further amended by striking out the text "60 per cent." in the second line thereof and substituting therefor "66_ per cent."

(6)Subsection 17c(3) of said By-law No. 181-81, as such subsection was enacted by said By-law No. 66-94 is amended by striking out striking out that part thereof following the text "subsisted," appearing in the third line thereof to and including the text "60%" appearing in the fifth line thereof, and substituting therefor "one-thirty-sixth (1/36th) of a pension calculated in the manner prescribed in section 11, to a maximum of 66_ per cent."

(7)Clause 23(1)(b) of said By-law No. 181-81, as such clause was amended by By-law No. 156-96 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, is further amended by striking out the text "60%" at the end thereof and substituting therefor "66_ per cent."

(8)Clause 23(1)(c) of said By-law No. 181-81, as such clause was re-enacted by said By-law No. 156-96, is amended by striking out the text "60%" in the third line of subclause (i) thereof and substituting therefor "66_ per cent."

(9)Section 32i of said By-law No. 181-81, as such section was enacted by By-law No. 82-88 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and amended by By-law No.83-92 of that former municipality, is further amended by

(a)striking out the text "60 per cent" in the first line of clause (b) thereof and substituting therefor "66_ per cent."; and

(b)striking out the text "32m" in the second line of subsection (2) thereof and substituting therefor "32s".

4.(1)Said By-law No. 181-81 is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

"General

Pensioner

Increase

(1998)

32s.(1)Save and except for those pensions increased pursuant to subsection (2), the amount of pension payable under this By-law is hereby increased by 0.7 per cent effective the 1^st day of July, 1998, in respect of

(a)each pensioner in receipt of a pension; and

(b)each member entitled to a deferred pension under section 18 or a predecessor thereof,

on or before the 31^st day of December, 1997.

Adjusted

Pensioner

Increases

(1998)

(2)Effective the 1^st day of July, 1998, the amount of pension

(a)payable

(i)to each member in receipt of a pension; and

(ii)to each pensioner under section 17 or a predecessor thereof in respect of a deceased member who died prior to retirement; and

which commenced on a date shown in ColumnI;

(b)payable to each pensioner under section 17 in respect of a deceased pensioner member whose retirement commenced on a date shown in Column I;

(c)payable to each member entitled to a deferred pension under section 18 as a result of termination of employment which took place after December 1, 1996, on a date shown in ColumnI, treating any such termination which occurred on any day of a month other than the first as if it had occurred on the first day of the next following month,

is hereby increased by the percentage set out opposite such date in Column II:

Column IColumn II

January 1, 19970.700 per cent.

February 1, 19970.642 per cent.

March 1, 19970.583 per cent.

April 1, 19970.525 per cent.

May 1, 19970.467 per cent.

June 1, 19970.408 per cent.

Column IColumn II

July 1, 19970.350 per cent.

August 1, 19970.292 per cent.

September 1, 19970.233 per cent.

October 1, 19970.175 per cent.

November 1, 19970.117 per cent.

December 1, 19970.058 per cent."

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), sections 3 and 5 shall be deemed to have come into force immediately prior to the increases called for by the new section 32s.

5.Effective July 1, 1998,

(a)the reduced benefit then being received by any pensioner member; and

(b)the increased benefit then being received by the widow(er) of any member,

pursuant to subsection 17(9) of said By-law No. 181-81 shall in each case be modified so as to take proper account. in the manner calculated by the actuary, the increase in the basic survivor benefit from 60 per cent. to 66_ per cent. resulting from the operation of section 3 of this by-law.

6.(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), this by-law shall come into force on the date of its enactment and passing.

(2)Section 1 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1^st day of January, 1992.

(3)Sections 2 and 3 shall come into force on the 1^st day of July, 1998.

ENACTED AND PASSED by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Members of Council present and voting this day of June, A.D. 1998.

MayorCity Clerk.

(A copy of:

(1) the document, entitled "The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate with Respect to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund as at December 31, 1997", prepared by Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, April, 1998; and

(2)the report (April 21, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Actuarial Valuation Results",

which was attached to the foregoing communication, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

19

Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan

1998 Pensioner Increase, Amendment to By-Law No. 15-92

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the Recommendations of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, embodied in the following communication (April 26, 1998) from the Interim Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan; and

(2)the amendment of By-law No.15-92 in accordance with the draft amending By-law referred to in the aforementioned communication from the Interim Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan:

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan on April 24, 1998, had before it the Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate for the Plan as at December 31, 1997, submitted by Mr.Robert Camp, Senior Vice-President, Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, and setting out full details of the Plan's financial position on the valuation date, making recommendations as to the utilization of the experience gains, and illustrating the effect of the recommendations on the funded position.

The Board of Trustees also had before it a report dated April 21, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer submitting comments on the aforementioned Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate; advising that the Actuary's recommendations to significantly improve the benefits of the Metro pension plans require consultation with and endorsement by employers and employee groups; and recommending that:

(i)a consultation process be commenced by means of the recommendations of the Actuary relating to changes to the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, other than the cost-of-living increase to pensions, being referred to the Corporate Services Committee and the Toronto Police Services Board, respectively, and to the appropriate corresponding employee bargaining units for comment; and

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

Mr. Robert Camp, Senior Vice-President, Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, made a presentation to the Boards of Trustees in connection with the foregoing matter and filed a copy of his presentation with respect thereto.

The Board of Trustees recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that:

(1)effective July 1, 1998:

(a)an increase of 0.7 percent be granted on pensions to pensioners on benefit for more than one year, and a proportionate increase of 0.058 percent for each month of pension payment made in 1997 be granted for pensioners who retired during 1997;

(b)current member and employer contributions be reduced by 2.0 percent of contributory earnings for the five-year period ending June 30, 2003;

(c)the current early retirement factor of 85 points be reduced to 80 points for the five-year period ending June 30, 2003;

(d)the current reduction penalty for shortfalls in the early retirement factor be reduced from 4.0 percent to 2.5 percent for the five-year period ending June 30, 2003;

(e)the basic percentage for spousal survivor pensions be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60percent for all active and retired members;

(f)in addition to the pensioner increases provided for in Recommendation No. (1)(a), all current spousal benefits be increased by one-ninth if the spouse is in receipt of a 60percent spousal benefit and, further, if the spouse is in receipt of a 65percent, 70percent or 75 percent optional spousal benefit that the pensions be recalculated using revised reduction factors to reflect the increase in the basic spousal benefit to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent;

(g)the benefit being paid to pensioner members who have elected increased spousal benefits, be adjusted using revised actuarial reduction factors to reflect the increase in spousal benefits to 662/3 percent; and

(2)the authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendation No. (1).

The Board of Trustees also:

(i)requested the City Solicitor to draft the appropriate amending by-law respecting Recommendation No. (1), and submit such draft by-law directly to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration with this matter;

(ii)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report to the Board of Trustees for its next meeting scheduled to be held on May 22, 1998, on the costs of administering the Plan; and

(iii)received the aforementioned report dated April 21, 1998 from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

The Corporate Services Committee also had before it a communication (May 12, 1998) from Mr.D.Brown, Legal Department forwarding a copy of a draft amending by-law to amend further By-law No.15-92 as requested by the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan on April 24, 1998.

--------

D R A F T

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend further By-law No. 15-92

of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

respecting pensions and other benefits.

The Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.(1)Clause 1(1)(e.1) of By-law No. 15-92 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To provide pensions for employees, their spouses and children of the Metropolitan Corporation and other participating employers", as such clause was enacted by By-law No. 148-97 of that former municipality, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(e.1)`City' means the City of Toronto incorporated by the City of Toronto Act, 1997;" .

(2)Subclause 1(1)(ee)(i) of said By-law No. 15-92 is amended by striking out the words "at that time" in the second-last line thereof and substituting therefor "at the member's death".

(3)Subsection 13(1) of said By-law No. 15-92 as heretofore amended is further amended by re-labelling clauses (a) and (b) added by clause 3(4)(b) of By-law No. 148-97 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as clauses (c) and (d) respectively.

(4)Subsection 32(3) of said By-law No. 15-92 is amended by inserting the words "or after" immediately preceding the word "retirement" in the first line thereof.

(5)Subsection 37(2) of said By-law No. 15-92 as amended by said By-law No.148-97 is further amended by inserting the word "a" immediately preceding the word "stepped" where same appears therein.

2.(1)Subsection 13(1) of said By-law No. 15-92 as heretofore amended is further amended by inserting the text "subsection (1.1)," immediately following the words "Subject to" at the beginning thereof.

(2)Section 13 of said By-law No. 15-92 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"Contribution

Reduction

1998 - 2003

13.(1.1)During the period from and including July 1, 1998, to and including June 30, 2003, clauses (1)(a) and (b) shall be interpreted as if the contributory rates specified therein were 6 per cent. and 5percent. respectively rather than the rates of 8 per cent. and 7percent. provided for therein."

3.(1)Subsection 23(3) of said By-law No. 15-92 as such subsection was amended by By-law No. 45-94 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is further amended by striking out the first word thereof and substituting therefor the text "Subject to subsection (3.1), the".

(2)Section 23 of said By-law No. 15-92 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"Modified

Reduction

1998 - 2003

23.(3.1)During the period from and including July 1, 1998, to and including June 30, 2003, subsection (3) shall be interpreted as if

(a)the number of completed years specified immediately following clause (b) thereof were eighty rather than eighty-five as there provided;

(b)the percentage specified immediately prior to clause (c) thereof were 2½ per cent. rather than 4 per cent. as there provided;

(c)the number specified at the beginning of clause(d) thereof were eighty rather than eighty-five as there provided."

4.(1)Subclauses 31(3)(a)(i) and (b)(i) of said By-law No. 15-92 are amended by striking out the text "60 per cent" where same appears at the beginning of each such subclause and substituting therefor "66_ per cent".

(2)Subsection 32(1) of said By-law No. 15-92 as such subsection was amended by said By-law No. 148-97 is further amended by

(a)striking out the text "60 per cent" in the third and fourth lines thereof and substituting therefor "66_"; and

(b)striking out the text "65," in the fifth line thereof.

5.(1)Said By-law No. 15-92 is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

"General

Pensioner

Increase

(1998)

42.7(1)Save and except for those pensions increased pursuant to sub-section (2), the amount of pension payable under this By-law is hereby increased by 0.7 per cent effective the 1^st day of July, 1998, in respect of

(a)each pensioner in receipt of a pension; and

(b)each employee member entitled to a deferred pension under clause 28(1)(a) and, if applicable, clause 28(4)(b), or predecessors thereof,

on or before the 31^st day of December, 1997.

First-time(2)Effective the 1^st day of July, 1998, the amount of pension

Pensioner

Increase(a)payable

(1998)

(i)to each employee pensioner in receipt of a pension; and

(ii)to each pensioner under section 29 or a predecessor thereof in respect of a deceased employee member who died prior to retirement; and

which commenced on a date shown in Column I;

(b)payable to each pensioner under section 31 or any predecessor thereof in respect of a deceased employee pensioner whose retirement commenced on a date shown in Column I;

(c)payable to each employee member entitled to a deferred pension under clause 28(1)(a) and, if applicable, clause 28(4)(b), as a result of termination of employment which took place after December 1, 1996, on a date shown in Column I, treating any such termination which occurred on any day of a month other than the first as if it had occurred on the first day of the next following month, is hereby increased by the percentage set out opposite such date in Column II:

Column IColumn II

January 1, 19970.700 per cent.

February 1, 19970.642 per cent.

March 1, 19970.583 per cent.

April 1, 19970.525 per cent.

May 1, 19970.467 per cent.

June 1, 19970.408 per cent.

July 1, 19970.350 per cent.

August 1, 19970.292 per cent.

September 1, 19970.233 per cent.

October 1, 19970.175 per cent.

November 1, 19970.117 per cent.

December 1, 19970.058 per cent."

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), sections 4 and 6 shall be deemed to have come into force immediately prior to the increases called for by the new section 42.7.

6.Effective July 1, 1998,

(a)the reduced benefit then being received by any pensioner member pursuant to clause 32(3)(a) of said By-law No. 15-92; and

(b)the increased benefit then being received by the spouse of any deceased employee member pursuant to clause 32(3)(b) of said By-law No. 15-92,

shall in each case be modified so as to take proper account. in the manner calculated by the actuary, the increase in the basic survivor benefit from 60 per cent. to 66_ per cent. resulting from the operation of section 4 of this by-law.

7.(1)Subject to subsections (2) to (5), this by-law shall come into force on the date of its enactment and passing.

(2)Subsection 1(1) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1^st day of January, 1998.

(3)Subsections 1(2), (4) and (5) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1^st day of January, 1992.

(4)Subsection 1(3) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1^st day of January, 1997.

(5)Sections 2 to 4 shall come into force on the 1^st day of July, 1998.

ENACTED AND PASSED by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Members of Council present and voting this ^th day of June, A.D. 1998.

MayorCity Clerk.

(A copy of:

(1) the document, entitled "The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Actuarial Report and Cost Certificate with Respect to the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan as at December31, 1997", prepared by Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, April, 1998; and

(2)the report (April 21, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled "Actuarial Valuation Results",

which was attached to the foregoing communication, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

20

Actuarial Valuation Results - Metropolitan Toronto

Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police

Benefit Fund

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May12, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To comment on the recommendations of the Actuary relating to the actuarial valuation as at December 31, 1997, of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and to submit recommendations for a course of action for consultation with stakeholders on the topic of the allocation of ongoing actuarial surpluses pertaining to all City-sponsored pension plans including the transfer of the administrative costs now borne by the employer to the pension funds.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Corporate Services Committee endorse that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer approach the Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and to the governing bodies of the City of Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund, the City of Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund and the City of York Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund with the view that the pension funds should bear the total administration costs of the plans in order to allocate actuarial gains more equitably; and

(2)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Executive Director of Human Resources, be requested to report on the cost and funding of benefit improvements, similar to those proposed by the Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, for the City of Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund, the City of Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund and the City of York Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund.

Background:

At their respective meetings on April 24, 1998, the Boards of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund considered recommendations made by the plans' Actuary arising out of the plans' annual actuarial valuations.

The two pension plans experienced actuarial gains in 1997 which contributed to an increase in their respective "Indexation Reserves". The Reserves represent the difference between actuarial liabilities and actuarial assets. These gains were generated by variations from actuarial assumptions in three areas:

(i)lower wage growth;

(ii)lower inflation; and

(iii)higher investment returns.

The Actuary's recommendations relating to this actuarial gain are common to both plans and are:

(a)Active Members:

(i)a reduction in current member and employer contributions by 2.0percent of contributory earnings for 5 years;

(ii)a 5-year early retirement window (reducing the 85 factor to 80 and reducing the 4.0percent early retirement penalty to 2½ percent per year);

(iii)an increase in pensions for future surviving spouses from 60 percent to 66_percent of the member's normal pension.

(b)Retired Members:

(i)an increase in pensions to match the cost-of-living index (0.7 percent for 1997);

(ii)an increase in pensions for current and future surviving spouses from 60 percent to 66_ percent of the member's normal pension.

The following is a summary of the Indexation Reserve Accounts' activity contained in the Actuary's reports of the two Metro plans showing the balance remaining after the proposed benefit improvements:

The amount remaining in the Indexation Reserve of the Metro Toronto Pension Plan of $133,433,000.00 as at January 1, 1998, is up from $93,483,000.00 a year earlier and results in the average per member increasing from $21,860.00 to $31,780.00. For the Metro Toronto Police Benefit Fund, the amount of $48,146,000.00 as at January 1, 1998, is up from $24,228,000.00 a year earlier and results in the average per member increasing from $9,740.00 to $19,590.00.

The Boards of Trustees also had before them a report dated April 21, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer submitting comments on the actuarial reports and advising that the Actuary's recommendations require consultation with and endorsement by employers and employee groups and recommending that:

"(i)a consultation process be commenced by means of the recommendations of the Actuary relating to changes to the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, other than the cost-of-living increase to pensions, being referred to the Corporate Services Committee and the Toronto Police Services Board respectively and to the appropriate corresponding employee bargaining units for comment."

Both Boards of Trustees received the report; in addition, the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report to the Board of Trustees for its next meeting to be held on May 22, 1998, on the costs of administering the plan.

Comments:

There are a number of ramifications relating to benefit improvements to City-sponsored pension plans.

(a)Metro Toronto Pension Plans:

In the valuation report for the year 1990, the Actuary cited the impending likelihood of mandatory indexing and recommended that an Indexation Reserve Account be created to hold all monies not required to meet specific current pension liabilities, to a maximum of 30percent of the non-indexed reserves, and that no allocation of surplus be considered until attainment of such maximum. Minor improvements in pension benefits and increases in pensions due to cost-of-living inflation should be restricted to the extent that the Indexation Reserve Account can cover the cost. The Boards of Trustees forwarded that recommendation to Metropolitan Council, which adopted it. In subsequent valuations, all of which have been adopted by Metropolitan Toronto Council, the Actuary has recommended cost-of-living increases and indicated continued placement of unallocated funds in the Reserve and confirmed the suggested 30 percent ceiling.

The recommendations made by the Actuary in its most recent report dated April 1998 would provide material benefit improvements for plan members similar to those implemented recently in the Ontario Municipal Employees' Retirement System (OMERS) plan. The OMERS changes, which were proposed only after an extensive analysis of options and broad consultation with employer and trade union representatives, were intended to distribute surplus assets not required to be retained in the OMERS fund for future contingencies fairly among all System participants by making improvements for the benefit of members, pensioners and employers equitably.

As with the OMERS plan, the Metro plans' proposals significantly improve benefits. For example, the spousal benefit level increase is 11 per cent and its actuarial cost of $29,132,000.00 is the major element of the total recommendations. This cost includes the increase from 60percent to 66_ percent for the basic spousal pension and also the increase in the maximum survivor pension when there are dependent children from a maximum of 85percent to a maximum of 94.44 percent of the member's pension: in the OMERS plan the maximum of 75 percent was not changed. A further difference from the OMERS plan is that in the proposals for the Metro plans, early retirement without penalty may occur at the 80factor rather than the 85 factor in OMERS.

The total actuarial cost for the two plans of each element of the Actuary's recommendations analyzed as to the benefit value to plan participants is:

The total actuarial cost to the plans of the above benefit improvements is $41,561,000.00. The present value accruing to the plan members would be $39,687,000.00 with $1,874,000.00 accruing to the employers, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Police Services Board. The recommendation relating to an increase to pensions to offset the increase in the cost of living is made each year and falls within the purpose of the Indexation Reserve but, even after disregarding its cost of $7,875,000.00, there remains an amount of $31,812,000.00 to the benefit of plan members compared with $1,874,000.00 to the benefit of the employers.

As may be seen, there is a weighting toward the plans' members and pensioners under the benefit improvement proposals and the employers gain little advantage from the plans' favourable actuarial position. There is no such imbalance in the case of OMERS, which has many active members, making the 2.0percent reduction in contributions for 5 years a significant cost-saving for the System's employers. The Metro plans, on the other hand, have comparatively few active members and therefore the contribution reduction is proportionately negligible from the point of view of the City.

Consequently, it is recommended that a more equitable allocation of recent actuarial gains be pursued by means of an approach by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to the Boards of Trustees to seek concurrence for the pension funds to bear the total cost of the administration of the pension plans now borne by the City. The approximate annual administrative cost of the two Metro plans is currently $600,000.00 with the actuarial present value cost estimated at $6,000,000.00.

(b)Other City-sponsored Pension Plans:

There are three other City-sponsored pension plans; the City of Toronto Civic Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund, the City of Toronto Fire Department Superannuation and Benefit Fund and the City of York Employees' Pension and Benefit Fund.

The Toronto Civic Pensioners Protective Association (TCPPA) and the Toronto Fire Department. Pensioners Association (TFDPA) representing the retired members of the old City of Toronto plans have both made representations for similar benefit improvements to give them parity with OMERS members.

Like the Metro plans, both the Civic and Fire plans have enjoyed excellent investment returns over the past several years. The excess returns are allocated towards the indexing provisions of these plans which provide for cost of living increases if there are surpluses in the plans. New plan improvements would potentially decrease the amount available for future indexing.

During the past decade, in addition to matching employee current service contributions, the City of Toronto has made significant special payments to both the Civic and Fire plans for unfunded liabilities arising from benefit improvements and experience losses as well as paying the full internal administration costs for the plans. Unlike the OMERS plan where experience losses and administration costs are shared equally by the employees and the employers, the City as plan sponsor has paid the full cost of these increased liabilities and expenses. The administration costs paid by the employer are estimated at $250,000.00 annually.

The old City of York plan has a total membership of less than 400 and is composed mostly of pensioners. Administration costs are estimated at $30,000.00 per annum and paid by the plan.

As it may be desirable to maintain similar pension benefits levels for all City employees, conditional upon sufficient actuarial surpluses being available in the pension funds, it is recommended that a report be presented to the Corporate Services Committee on the costs and funding of benefit improvements to the three plans which would correspond to the changes proposed to be made to the OMERS and Metro plans. Also, the governing bodies of the aforementioned plans should be approached by the Chief Financial Officer with the proposal that all administrative expenses should be borne by the pension funds. These expenses are estimated at $250,000.00 annually; the actuarial cost would approximate $2,500,000.00.

Conclusions:

The Actuary's recommendations to improve significantly the benefits of the Metro pension plans require endorsement by employers and employee groups. The recommendations in this report would initiate a process with objectives of a more equitable allocation of the actuarial gains of all City-sponsored pension plans among employers and pension plan members and, subject to sufficient actuarial surpluses, benefit improvements to the pension plans of the old Cities of Toronto and York similar to those proposed for the OMERS and Metro plans.

A separate report on this matter has been submitted to the Toronto Police Services Board respecting the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund.

The Executive Director of Human Resources concurs with the content of this report.

Contact Name:

Tony Brooks

Phone No. 392-8066

Fax No. 392-3649

E-Mail address: tony_brooks@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

21

Expropriation of Property

11R Hounslow Heath Road

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that:

(1)the portion of the decision of the Council of the former City of Toronto (as contained in Clause No. 50 of Executive Committee report No. 17, adopted June 23, and 24, 1997, authorizing an application to Council for approval to expropriate all right, title and interest, for public highway purposes, in the land known municipally as 11R Hounslow Heath Road, be rescinded;

(2)an application to Council for approval to expropriate all right, title and interest in the lands municipally known as 11R Hounslow Heath Road, be authorized for the following purposes:

(a)public laneway purposes;

(b)parks purposes; and

(c)to extinguish the legal non-conforming use pursuant to subsection 34(8) of the Planning Act;

(3)the acquisition of these lands by expropriation be exempted from the policy contained in Clause No. 46 of Report No. 11 of the Executive Committee of the former City of Toronto, adopted June 21, 1993, requiring that the lands first be remediated to the standards under the Environment Protection Act applicable to their future use for purposes other than as public laneway;

(4)the City Surveyor be directed to prepare a legal description of the lands to be expropriated;

(5)the service and publication of the Notice of such application be authorized as required by the Expropriations Act;

(6)the appropriate officials be authorized to forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the Act, any requests for hearings that are received;

(7)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to obtain any appraisal reports required to comply with the Expropriations Act;

(8)the City Solicitor be authorized to make any necessary applications to a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario to appoint the Public Trustee or other person to represent the interests of any owners served pursuant to subsection 1 of Section 5 of The City of Toronto Act, 1981;

(9)City Council authorize the introduction of a by-law to lay out that portion of the lands to be used as public laneway and thereafter dedicate the lands for public lane purposes; and

(10)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To set out the appropriate procedural authorities required to implement the expropriation recommended by Councillor Disero in her communication (April 16, 1998).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No source of funds has yet been allocated, but consideration may be given to the use of funds from the future sale of 80 Turnberry Avenue, details of which are described in the body of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Having read the communication (April 16, 1998) from Councillor Disero concerning the expropriation of the lands municipally known as 11R Hounslow Heath Road, if Committee and Council determine to take the steps requested by her, the following are the authorizations necessary to effect such determination:

(1)the portion of the decision of the Council of the former City of Toronto (as contained in Clause No. 50 of Executive Committee report No. 17, adopted June 23, and 24, 1997) authorizing an application to Council for approval to expropriate all right, title and interest, for public highway purposes, in the land known municipally as 11R Hounslow Heath Road, be rescinded;

(2)an application to Council for approval to expropriate all right, title and interest in the lands municipally known as 11R Hounslow Heath Road, be authorized for the following purposes:

(a)public laneway purposes;

(b)parks purposes; and

(c)to extinguish the legal non-conforming use pursuant to subsection 34(8) of the Planning Act;

(3)the acquisition of these lands by expropriation be exempted from the policy contained in Clause No. 46 of Report No. 11 of the Executive Committee of the former City of Toronto, adopted June 21, 1993, requiring that the lands first be remediated to the standards under the Environment Protection Act applicable to their future use for purposes other than as public laneway;

(4)the City Surveyor be directed to prepare a legal description of the lands to be expropriated;

(5)the service and publication of the Notice of such application be authorized as required by the Expropriations Act;

(6)the appropriate officials be authorized to forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the Act, any requests for hearings that are received;

(7)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to obtain any appraisal reports required to comply with the Expropriations Act;

(8)the City Solicitor be authorized to make any necessary applications to a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario to appoint the Public Trustee or other person to represent the interests of any owners served pursuant to subsection 1 of Section 5 of The City of Toronto Act, 1981;

(9)City Council authorize the introduction of a by-law to lay out that portion of the lands to be used as public laneway and thereafter dedicate the lands for public lane purposes; and

(10)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing.

When the former City of Toronto Council initially authorized the expropriation, there was a communication from Councillor Disero which recommended that 80 Turnberry Avenue be offered for sale and some of the proceeds be used to pay for the expropriation. Council authorized staff to sell the north portion of 80 Turnberry Avenue according to the existing zoning so that issues respecting residential use of the property can be addressed within the context of a site specific Official Plan amendment and rezoning application and that the southern portion of the site be retained by the City for the time being so that staff could explore other industrial possibilities for this site. Staff undertook the preparatory work including an environmental assessment, survey etc., in order to market this property in the latter half of 1997k. As 80 Turnberry Avenue abuts the easterly lot line of an operating transportation yard formerly owned by Metro, the marketing was delayed to provide an opportunity to decide whether or not 80 Turnberry Avenue was required for yard purposes as part of the yards rationalization exercise. Although the yards rationalization review is not yet fully complete, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has advised that he has no objection to the sale of 80 Turnberry Avenue and we are now accordingly in a position to market this property. Council can decide whether or not it wishes to allocate the revenue from this sale to fund the proposed expropriation of 11R Hounslow Heath Road.

Contact Name:

Doug Stewart, Real Estate Division - 392-7206.

The Corporate Services Committee also submits the following communication (May12, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council:

The Toronto Community Council forwards the communication (April16, 1998) from Councillor BettyDisero to the Corporate Services Committee, with the request that the recommendations contained therein be adopted.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on May6, 1998 had before it a communication (April16, 1998) from Councillor Disero, respecting 11R Hounslow Heath (Davenport).

--------

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (May 1, 1998) from Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown, forwarding a communication (April 16, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport embodying the following recommendations:

"(1)That the original authority to expropriate be rescinded.

(2)That there is a likelihood of contamination (please see attached) and any Council decision should be based on the assumption that the lands are contaminated.

(3)Approve a new application to expropriate to make clear that the lands are being taken for the following purposes:

(a)A portion for public laneway purposes;

(b)A portion for park purposes (i.e.; added to the north limit of Wadsworth Park); and

(c)A portion to extinguish the legal non-conforming scrapyard use pursuant to subsection 39(8) of the Planning Act."

(A copy of the sketch attached to the report (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and a copy of the confidential communication (March 26, 1998) from Ms. Sylvia Watson, on behalf of the City Solicitor, was forwarded to all Members of Council under confidential cover with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

22

Expropriation of a Limited Interest In and Over Lands for

Drainage Easement Purposes - Wychwood Park (Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 16, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor embodied in the following communication (April 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

At its meeting held on April 16, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration to Clause No. 3 contained in Report No. 3 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Expropriation of a Limited Interest in and Over Lands for Drainage Easement Purposes - Wychwood Park (Downtown)".

Council struck out the foregoing Clause and referred it to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration.

(Clause No. 3 of Report No. 3 of the Toronto Community

Council, entitled "Expropriation of a Limited Interest in and Over

Lands for Drainage Easement Purposes - Wychwood Park (Downtown)".)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration.

The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report (March16,1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor:

Purpose:

To request that City Council, as the Approving Authority under the Expropriations Act, decide whether to approve the application to expropriate the limited interest described above for drainage easement purposes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for the payment of fair market value and any damages claimed in connection with the expropriation of the drainage easement at this location is to be provided from Capital Account No.296001-39270-7Feat-296701-A101.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve the expropriation and direct that:

(a)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer or designate and the City Clerk or designate be authorized and directed to execute a Certificate of Approval in the form prescribed in the Expropriations Act;

(b)leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto;

(c)offers of compensation, in compliance with the requirements of the Expropriations Act, to the registered owners, and/or whomever may be entitled to be served, be approved up to the amount of the appraisal reports obtained by the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and that the appropriate City Officials be authorized to offer immediate payment of 100 percent of the offers of compensation and to settle the compensation claims within the limits of their authority and further be authorized to complete these transactions; prepare the necessary documents releasing the City from any claims arising from the expropriation of the limited interest; pay any interest charges or expenses incurred by the City; and pay any reasonable legal and appraisal fees associated therewith;

(d)the lands be placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corporate Services until required for drainage easement purposes; and

(e)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take such action as may be necessary to complete these transactions and/or take possession of the limited interest involved, including the preparation and registration of the Expropriation Plan and service of the required documents such as Notice of Expropriation, Notice of Possession, Notice of Election, Without Prejudice Offers, Appraisal Reports, etc.

Council Reference/Background/History:

As appears from Clause 16, City Services Committee Report No. 10, adopted with amendment at its meeting held on August 21, 1997, as amended by Clause 55 of Executive Committee Report No. 25 adopted by Council on December 8, 1997, City Council authorized, among other things:

(1)An application to Council for approval of the expropriation of a limited interest in and over the lands described as follows, for the purpose of a drainage easement;

Schedule "A"

In the City of Toronto, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of part of Lot 6 on the north side of Davenport Road according to Plan No. 854 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as Part 13 on a plan of survey deposited in the said Land Registry Office as 63R-4740.

(2)The service and publication of the Notice of such application required by the Expropriations Act;

(3)The appropriate Officials to forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the said Act, any requests for hearings that are received;

(4)The Commissioner of Corporate Services to obtain any appraisal reports required to comply with the Expropriations Act;

(5)The City Solicitor to make any necessary applications to a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario to appoint the Public Trustee to represent the interests of any owners served pursuant to subsection 1 of Section 5 of the City of Toronto Act, 1981;

(6)The appropriate City officials to report further to Council as the occasion may require;

(7)The appropriate City officials to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The service and publication of the Notice of Application for Approval to Expropriate Land has been duly effected. No requests for a hearing have been received, and the time limitation of the receipt of such requests as set out in the Expropriations Act has expired. A sketch showing the interest in land proposed to be expropriated is attached as Schedule "A".

Conclusions:

It is recommended therefore that City Council, as the Approving Authority under the Expropriations Act, approve the application as requested.

Contact Name:

Edward A. Earle, Legal Services

Tel. No.: 392-7226

Schedule A - Davenport Road/ Wychwood

23

Sale of Surplus Property at

171 Strathearn Road, City of Toronto

(Formerly City of York) Ward 28 - York-Eglinton

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 171 Strathearn Road, City of Toronto as per attached sketch.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $342,100.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the Province pursuant to Clause No.1 of Report No.25 of The Corporate Administration Committee of the former Metropolitan Council, approved on December4, 1996, is anticipated. The property is currently vacant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence, that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the Agreement of Purchase and Sale in the amount of $342,100.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CP300J56200;

(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Province of Ontario is the owner of 171 Strathearn Road, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Prudential SadieMoranis Realty on April 23, 1998, at an asking price of $319,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. As a result, the following offers were received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Cameron Shouldice &$25,000.00 $342,100.00 (non-conditional)

Michelle Shouldice(certified cheque)

Sarah Sherman$20,050.00 (bank draft)$326,000.00 (non-conditional)

Diane Grundy &$16,575.00 $331,500.00 (non-conditional)

Marty Grundy(certified cheque)

Alan Godel & Lisa Godel$16,500.00$326,600.00 (non-conditional)

(certified cheque)

Louis Kirklfsoglou$16,000.00$303,000.00 (non-conditional)

(certified cheque)

Property Address:171 Strathearn Road, City of Toronto

Legal Description:Plan 2338, Lot 158, City of Toronto

Approximate Lot Size:9.14 metres (30 feet) fronting onto Everden Road 41.45 metres (136feet) depth

Location:West side of Strathearn Road, east of Everden Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West

Improvements:Detached, two storey, brick dwelling

Recommended Sale Price:$342,100.00

Deposit:$25,000.00 (certified cheque)

Purchaser(s):Cameron Shouldice and Michelle Shouldice

Closing Date:July 15, 1998

Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker:Prudential Sadie Moranis Realty.

Selling Broker:Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd.

Commission:Four (4) per cent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.

Conclusions:

Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Mr. Roland Mayr (396-4930)

Director of Real Estate

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

24

Sale of Surplus Property at 38 Wildwood Crescent

City of Toronto, Ward 26, East Toronto

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 38 Wildwood Crescent, City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Revenue of $192,500.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, is anticipated. The property is currently vacant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to such approvals as may be required under the City of Toronto Act, 1997, that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept the Agreement of Purchase and Sale in the amount of $192,500.00 as detailed herein;

(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of The Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CP300J56013;

(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action in conjunction with Province of Ontario Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation, and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

As a result of the Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway Project, the City of Toronto is the owner of 38Wildwood Crescent. By its adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 30 of The Corporate Administration Committee on December 6, 1995, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-Law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified. However, a City-wide municipal canvass determined an interest by the former City of Toronto, Urban Forestry and Parks, in the ravine portion of the property. Therefore, prior to listing the property, a survey was conducted isolating the house from the ravine. The ravine portion remains in the ownership of the City. A copy of the plan has been included for your information.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, the property was listed with Re/Max Hallmark Realty Ltd., on April 21, 1998 at an asking price of $199,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. As a result, the following offer(s) were received:

PurchaserDepositPurchase Price/Terms

Nicole Zwiers and Paul Wright$10,000.00$192,500.00 (non-conditional)

(certified)

Herbert Frederick Kuhn$3,000.00$170,001.00 (conditional)

Stephanie Margaret Hancock Kuhn(certified)

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address:38 Wildwood Crescent, Toronto

Legal Description:Part of Block A, Plan 459E shown as Plan 64R-15893, Parts1 and 2

Approximate Lot Size:10.84 metres (35.56 feet) fronting onto Wildwood Crescent 21.70 metres (71.19 feet) depth

Location:North side of Wildwood Crescent, west of Woodbine Avenue

Improvements:Detached, brick bungalow

Recommended Sale Price:$192,500.00

Deposit:$10,000.00

Purchaser:Nicole Zwiers and Paul Wright

Closing Date:July 14, 1998

Terms:Cash on closing, subject to usual adjustments

Listing Broker:Re/Max Hallmark Realty Ltd.

Selling Broker:Savvy Realty Corporation

Commission:Four (4) per cent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.

Conclusions:

Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Mr. Roland Mayr (396-4930)

Director of Real Estate, City of Scarborough

(A copy of the location maps, attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, Corporate Services Committee Agenda, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

25

Sale of Surplus Property - 114 Combe Avenue

(North York Spadina - Ward 8)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1)that Council approve the request to purchase the subject property; and

(2)the adoption of Recommendations Nos.(2) and (3) embodied in the following report (April30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

Purpose:

To consider a request made by a Mr. and Mrs. Messinger, the tenants of a surplus City-owned improved residential property, that they be allowed to purchase the property by direct sale.

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $225,000.00 would be generated from this sale.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council exercise its discretion regarding the request made by Mr. and Mrs. Messinger, that they be allowed to purchase the subject property by direct sale;

(2)in the event Council approves the direct sale:

(i)the sale price of the property to be based on the appraised value of $225,000.00;

(ii)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to complete a transaction without further submission to Council if the sale is equal to the appraised value and is on a cash basis with normal closing requirements; and

(3)the proceeds of the sale be credited to the 1998 Capital Program Parks and Recreation "Facility Improvement - Clanton Park Project", subject to Capital Budget approval.

Background:

The subject property is located on the north side of Combe Avenue and is the second parcel west of Wilmington Avenue. The dimensions are 63.31 feet (frontage) by 115 feet (7,280 square feet). It is briefly legally described as being, Part of Lot 188, Registered Plan 1899. It was acquired on June6, 1991, for $250,000.00 as an addition to Irving W. Chapley Park and was at the time listed for sale with the National Group Limited asking $259,000.00 having been reduced from $279,000.00. To recommend the offer to sell to Council (North York) at $250,000.00, staff reviewed two comparable sales in the subject area, which it was determined supported the offer.

Because of changes to the park development plan, the property was not utilized and was subsequently declared surplus by North York Council per Resolution No. 97-08, on April 2, 1997. By that resolution, Council also approved the recommendation that the revenue from the sale of the property should be allocated to the Parks and Recreation "Facility Improvement - Clanton Park Project". This item appears in the City of Toronto, 1998 Capital Program, Parks and Recreation in the Partially Funded Projects category.

The property has been tenanted since purchase, the latest occupancy being Mr. and Mrs.Messinger since December 1, 1996. Their rent is $1,100.00 per month which is considered appropriate.

Comments:

Recently, when informed of the Corporate intention to sell the property, and even before, Mr. and Mrs. Messinger made known their desire to acquire it. While having only been there a short time, they claim to have established themselves in the neighbourhood, are very comfortable in those surroundings and have treated the property as one would if they were an owner to the extent, according to Mr. Messinger, of having invested some $10,000.00 in maintenance and improvements.

The advantage of a direct sale would be a saving of staff time and advertising costs or commission costs if marketed through a broker. This should be weighed against the possibility of a higher price if the property were offered for sale in the open market.

An appraisal of the property has been prepared by Johnston Donald Associates Limited, dated September 9, 1997, giving a value opinion of $215,000.00. The report was felt to be reasonable as of the effective date. However, given the passage of time and the current active market, an update of the appraisal (by Johnson Donald Associates Limited) was requested which gives a value of $225,000.00 as of April 3, 1998.

Conclusion:

A decision by Council to sell direct would be consistent with practices in the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Province of Ontario, who on occasion, sold surplus residential properties directly to their tenant(s) based on the appraised value.

Contact Name:

Vic Codato416 395-6732Fax:416 395-6703

Vicky Papas416 395-6843Fax:416 395-6703 (cs98052.wpd)

26

Disposal and Sale of City-Owned Vacant Land

to Adjoining Owners - 20 Sudbury Street

(Ward 20 - Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain City Council approval:

(a)to stop up and close a portion of a public highway shown as Part 12 on Plan 64R-13923;

(b)to declare as surplus City-owned lands shown as Parts 5, 7, 12 (a portion of a dedicated public highway), and 13, Plan 64R-13923; and

(c)to authorize the sale of and accept the Offer to Purchase from Dufflet Pastries Inc., the owners of 41 Dovercourt Road, to purchase the adjoining City-owned lands at 20Sudbury Street and shown as PARTS 5, 7, 12 and 13, Plan 64R-13923 for the sum of $15,000.00.

Financial Implications:

The net proceeds of the sale of these lands should be credited to the Capital Funds from Assets Sold Account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the portion of public highway shown as Part 12 on Plan 64R-13923 be stopped up and closed and be conveyed to the owner of 41 Dovercourt Road provided the said owner complies with the following terms and conditions:

(a) indemnifies the City together with such other persons as the City Solicitor may require, against all loss, cost, damage or action arising as a result of the public highway closing;

(b)pays the purchase price of $15,000.00 for the fee in the said Part 12 (Note - this fee also includes compensation for Parts 5, 7, and 13, Plan 64R-13923;

(c)pays all out-of-pocket expenses that will be incurred by the City as a result of the public highway closing and conveyancing, estimated to be in the amount of $1,500.00, and any such expenses paid by the applicant will not be refunded in the event that the transaction is not completed; and

(d)agrees to such other terms and conditions as the City Solicitor may deem advisable to protect the City's interests;

(2)City Council, by By-law, declare as surplus City-owned parcels of land shown as Parts 5, 7, 12 and 13 on Plan 64R-13923;

(3)City Council authorize the sale of and accept the Offer to Purchase from Dufflet Pastries Inc., the owners of 41 Dovercourt Road, to purchase the adjoining City-owned lands at 20Sudbury Street and shown as Parts 5, 7, 12, and 13 on Plan 64R-13923, for the sum of $15,000.00, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the aforementioned Offer to Purchase, including a condition that Part 5, Plan 64R-13923 is being conveyed subject to an easement in favour of Consumers Gas;

(4)City Council declare the proposed conveyance of the closed portion of Sudbury Street (Part5 on Plan 64R-13923) and of the portion of Sudbury Street to be closed ( Part 12 on Plan 64R-13923) is in compliance with Section 3.3 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan, Part 1- Cityplan;

(5)the Director, Property Services be directed, in accordance with S. 95-5 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to give notice to the public of the proposed sale to the owner of 41Dovercourt Road of the parcels of City-owned land declared surplus shown as Parts5, 7, 12 and 13 on Plan 64R-13923;

(6)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Purchase including the termination of the outstanding lease/conveyance provisions of the land exchange agreement between the City and Dufflet Pastries Inc. dated September 28, 1993, in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing or otherwise; and

(7)the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing recommendations, including introducing the necessary bills in Council.

Background:

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting held on June 1, 1993, amended and adopted ClauseNo.8, of Executive Committee Report No. 10 and thereby approved a land exchange between the City and Dufflet Pastries Inc., the owner of 41 Dovercourt Road, whereby the City would stop up, close and convey to Dufflet Pastries the portion of public highway shown as Parts3 and 14 on Plan64R-13923 in exchange for certain lands owned by Dufflet Pastries shown as Parts 2, 7, 8, 9, and 13 on Plan 64R-13923. (A schematic sketch of these Parts is shown on the attached Map 1.) Pursuant to the land exchange agreement approved by Council, following completion of the land exchange, Dufflet Pastries was also to have a number of other leasing and conveyancing rights and obligations pertaining to the lands that would then be owned by the City. Clause No.8 also authorized the stopping up, closing and retention by the City of the portions of public highway shown as Parts5 and 12 on Plan 64R-13923. The foregoing arrangements arose out of a settlement that was reached with Dufflet Pastries in connection with an objection filed by Dufflet Pastries to a proposed Bramalea development at King Street and Sudbury Street. As a result of the arrangements approved by Council, Dufflet Pastries agreed to withdraw its objection to the proposed Bramalea development.

The land exchange between the City and Dufflet Pastries was completed on February 4, 1994. Part5 on Plan 64R-13923 was stopped up and closed as a public highway but Part 12 on Plan 64R-13923 was not stopped up and closed as a public highway as it was anticipated that it would form part of a new public highway to be created as part of Bramalea's development.

Bramalea's development never proceeded and, accordingly, the outstanding leasing and conveyancing provisions in the land exchange agreement between the City and Dufflet Pastries are no longer relevant. Dufflet Pastries have now approached the City and indicated an interest in purchasing Parts5, 7, 12 an 13 on Plan 64R-13923, containing an area of approximately 1,600square feet.

Comments:

Negotiations have been conducted and Dufflet Pastries have executed an agreement of Purchase and Sale whereby it has agreed to pay the appraised market value of $15,000.00 for the City's lands. This Agreement of Purchase also includes a provision that the closing of the transaction is to take place as soon as possible.

The provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Amendment Act, 1994 (Bill 163) respecting the sale of real property, by the City, its agencies, boards and commissions took effect January 1, 1995. This legislation requires that, before the selling of any property, City Council:

(1)must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution at a meeting open to the public;

(2)give notice to the public of the proposed sale; and

(3)must obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempt by regulations passed under the legislation.

Staff of Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, and Community and Neighbourhood Services have indicated that they have no objections to the sale of these lands to the owners of 41 Dovercourt Road and are in agreement with the content of this report.

An appraisal of the current market value of the site has been completed by City staff.

Conclusion:

Parts 5, 7, 12 and 13 on Plan 64R-13923 are surplus to City requirements and the sale of this land to the abutting owners would consolidate this City-owned land into a larger privately owned parcel and result in $15,000.00 being paid to the City for the land.

Contact Name:

Ron J. Banfield

Telephone - 392-1859

Fax - 392-1880

E-mail - rbanfiel@city.toronto.on.ca (cs98055.wpd)

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, Corporate Services Committee Agenda, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

27

Proposed Property Disposal -

West Side of Avonmore Square,

Block C, Plan M-943

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To recommend disposal of a 30.5' x 182' surplus strip of land to the abutting owners.

Funding:

Proceeds of the sale to be credited to the Land Development Reserve account number 71290.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City sell Block C, Plan M-943 to the abutting owner, Sharon Seyler, for $15,000;

(2)the City grant a 4 foot wide easement at the rear of the property to Bell Canada to protect their existing facilities crossing the property;

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

Background:

In late 1997, City of Scarborough Council declared Block C, Plan M-943 as surplus and authorized staff to discuss the sale of the property with the abutting owner. Public notice declaring the property surplus and advising of the intended disposal was provided in accordance with the Scarborough Real Estate disposal by-law.

The subject property is a 9.3m (30.5') x 55.5m (182') strip which was conveyed to the City by the developer in 1962, for the construction of a temporary sewer. The construction of permanent storm sewers later that decade eliminated the need for the overland flow route. The property has remained vacant and in the City's ownership.

The property is designated "Residential Uses" in the Official Plan. The zoning is S - Single Family Residential, with one house permitted per lot with a minimum of 12m frontage and a minimum area of 613 square metres. As the other properties on Avonmore Square have frontages ranging from 12m to 13.7m, it is considered unlikely that the zoning could be amended to permit the property to be developed on its own.

Bell Canada has an existing pole line at the rear of a number of properties on Avonmore Square, and has requested the City grant it an easement prior to the sale to protect their existing facilities.

Comments:

As the subject property is not independently viable, the most appropriate method of disposal is through direct sale to one of the abutting owners, or its division between them. The owner of 22Avonmore Square has indicated a desire to purchase all of Block C, while the owners of 18Avonmore have indicated in writing they do not wish to acquire any part of the property and furthermore have no objection to the purchase of it by the other abutting owner.

The market value of the property was appraised at $19,500.00, on the basis of the value its acquisition would add to the abutting property.

Subject to the approval of Corporate Services Committee and Council, a tentative agreement has been reached with the owner of 22 Avenmore Square to sell the property for $15,000.00.

Conclusions:

Given the highly restricted market for this property, and the knowledge the other abutting owner has no interest, its sale in the amount of $15,000.00 is recommended.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, Corporate Services Committee Agenda, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

28

Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue

Registered Plan M-108,

(Ward 9 - North York Centre South)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the North York Community Council for further consideration.

Council also adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Ward Councillors be notified of all real estate related requests in their Wards and be kept informed of all ongoing negotiations;

(2)Ward Councillors be advised of the details prior to the final conclusion of any transactions and before any reports are signed or the matter is considered by the Corporate Services Committee/Council; and

(3)the following motion be referred to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee to be held on June 22, 1998, for consideration with the report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services on the processing of real estate transactions:

Moved by Councillor Flint:

'It is recommended that:

(1)real estate matters under $500,000.00, that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at that Councillor's request;

(2)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;

(3)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services Committee; and

(4)the Council Procedural By-law be amended accordingly.' ")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded a copy of the aforementioned report to the North York Community Council for comment thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain Council approval for the sale of the subject property to the abutting property owner at 530Woburn Avenue.

Financial Implications:

The sale of the subject property will generate funds in the amount of $100,000.00 to be deposited in the Land Acquisition Account No. 007-430-0000-8340.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City accept the offer to purchase for the subject property, made by the abutting property owner at 530 Woburn Avenue, Boaz Feiner, for the appraised value of $100,000.00;

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the offer to purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing of the transaction of otherwise;

(3)the proceeds from the sale be credited to Account No. 007-430-000-8340; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary.

Background:

The former City of North York acquired the subject vacant residential property through a Certificate of Tax Arrears on November 20, 1939. The property has frontage of 6.1 m (20 ft) by a depth of 36.57 m (120 ft) and an area of 239.7 m² (2,400 square ft.). This property has always been considered to have only contributory value with abutting lands.

However, in 1996, a number of similar size properties in the surrounding area received Committee of Adjustment approval of variances to the minimum lot frontage and coverage provisions and thereby establishing them as viable building parcels. In view of these recent approvals, staff determined that there was a reasonable chance that the Committee of Adjustment would also approve an application to establish the subject property as a viable (R6) residential building lot. On April 17, 1996, staff received approval from the former City of North York Council to make such an application to the Committee of Adjustment.

The application to establish the subject property as a viable building lot was heard by the North York Committee of Adjustment on June 13, 1996. The Committee stated that if approval was granted to this application there could be a proliferation of 6.1 m (20 ft) lots in the area. It was moved by the Committee that the application be deferred sine die with the understanding that City staff attempt to negotiate the sale of the subject property with the owner of 530 Woburn Avenue.

The Committee of Adjustment in making their decision was aware that the new owner of 530Woburn Avenue had contacted City staff to inquire about purchasing the subject City property. It was his intention to assemble a large enough site for a possible land severance. The Committee concluded that such an assembly may provide them with the opportunity to consider land severances at that location with frontages in excess of 6.1 m (20 ft).

Former North York Council on December 11, 1996, by Resolution No. 96-18 declared the subject lands as surplus. Staff entered into prolonged negotiations with the owner of 530 Woburn Avenue for the sale of the subject property. As the result of this action a settlement has now been secured. The financial consideration is $100,000.00 and is based on the appraised value according to an independent appraisal prepared by Royal LePage for the former City of North York.

Conclusion:

The financial terms are considered to be fair and equitable and the sale being recommended for approval addresses the concerns of the former North York Committee of Adjustment.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Wayne O'Brien, Telephone No. (416)395-6847, Fax No. (416)395-6703, (cs98060.wpd)

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 28, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations :

The North York Community Council on May 27, 1998, recommended to City Council that:

(1)the report (May 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services regarding Woburn Avenue - Proposed Sale of Lot 198, Registered Plan M-108 (Ward 9 - North York Centre South) be referred to the North York Community Council for consideration;

(2)real estate matters under $500,000.00, that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at that Councillor's request;

(3)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;

(4)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services Committee; and

(5)the Council Procedure By-law be amended accordingly.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to:

(a)notify all Councillors of all real estate related requests in their Wards and keep them informed of all ongoing negotiations; and

(b)advise Councillors of the details prior to the final conclusion of any transactions and before any reports are signed or the matter is considered by the Corporate Services Committee/Council.

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it a communication (May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk regarding Woburn Avenue - Proposed Sale of Lot 198, Registered Plan M-108.)

29

Use of City-Owned Property by Non-Profit

Corporations at Below Market Charges

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To request the Corporate Services Committee to approve a policy and procedures as set out in this report for the processing of requests for use of City-owned or leased property by non-profit corporations at below market charges.

Financial Implications:

If the recommendations in this report are approved, the Municipal Grants Review Committee will be in a position to determine on a case-by-case basis whether it wishes to provide an indirect grant to non-profit corporations wishing to utilize City property at below market charges.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the policy and procedures set out on Appendices 1 and 2 for the processing of requests for use of City-owned or leased space by non-profit corporations at below market charges be approved;

(2)the Corporate Services Committee forward this report to the Chief Financial Officer and Chair of the Municipal Grants Review Committee requesting that they review the options to properly monitor costs and provide their comments to the Commissioner of Corporate Services in order that the Commissioner can submit a further report on this aspect of the policy and procedures with a view to establishing the method to monitor costs for the 1999budget cycle;

(3)the continued use by the existing non-profit month-to-month tenants of City-owned space be on the basis of their existing status until December 31, 1998;

(4)the Commissioner of Corporate Services review existing month-to-month non-profit users of City-owned or leased space be undertaken and a report be submitted thereon to the Corporate Services Committee and Municipal Grants Review Committee, together with appropriate recommendations respecting the continued utilization of City-owned or leased space by these non-profit corporations after December 31, 1998; and

(5)the Corporate Services Committee concur with the position that no requests from non-profit corporations for space in the former Civic Centres be considered until the City's space needs in these facilities are determined.

Background:

There is a continuing demand for use of City-owned or leased property by non-profit corporations at below market charges. Such requests should be considered within the context of a standardized policy and established procedures. In addition, as these requests generally impact upon the financial status of the City, it is necessary that each request, unless extremely short term in nature, i.e., two weeks or less, be approved by City Council.

The only former municipality which had a formalized policy and procedure for administering requests of this type was the old City of Toronto. Material on the policy and the procedures is attached as Appendix4 to this report.

Comments:

In view of the number of existing non-profit tenants in City-owned space and new requests there is a need to establish a policy and procedures to process these requests, a need to review the existing non-profit tenants and a need to establish a proper method to track the grants being provided for these types of users.

Policy and Procedures:

There is a requirement for an established policy and procedures which ensure that there is a financial need of the non-profit corporation, that their services provide a benefit to residents of the City of Toronto, ensure a proper process is undertaken in order to submit the necessary information to the Municipal Grants Review Committee and Council and require that City Council make the final decision on any non-profit tenancy request.

The Real Estate Group for the City has reviewed this matter and developed a policy and set of procedures as set out in Appendices 1 and 2 respectively. The policy and procedures require that a comprehensive review of the non-profit corporation is undertaken to ensure that the objectives set out above are met and to require that City Council make the final decision on non-profit tenancy requests. The only exception to these procedures is those requests for use of City property for a duration of two weeks or less. A companion report before you today recommends that approval authority for those types of requests be delegated to the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

Existing Non-profit Tenants and New Requests:

The existing non-profit tenants are listed on Appendix 3 to this report. As these tenancies have been established in various manners by the old municipalities, it is appropriate to review all existing non-profit users and submit a report on those users in accordance with the policies and procedures set out in this report. It is anticipated that the overall report on the current users can be completed and submitted in approximately three months. New non-profit requests will be processed in accordance with the policies and procedures set out in this report.

There have recently been several requests to accommodate non-profit groups in the former Civic Centre buildings. A space rationalization team is in the process of identifying available space in these facilities that can accommodate various City of Toronto departments currently occupying leased premises. At this time, priority will be given to placing City staff whose leases with private landlords are expiring into municipal space. Accordingly, until such a time as the space rationalization exercise is completed, consideration should not be given to placing non-profit groups into the various Civic Centre buildings.

Options to Monitor Costs:

The attached policy identifies the benefit provided to the non-profit corporation as an indirect grant. This type of approach does not clearly show the true cost to the City of this kind of program. It is therefore proposed that a process be established to better show these costs. One alternative approach would involve the establishment of an envelope of funds during each budget cycle to be administered by the Municipal Grants Review Committee. The imputed cost for each of the ongoing non-profit corporation's lease would be transferred from this envelope of funds to the property accounts. Similarly, any new requests approved during a given year would also require a transfer of funds to cover the costs of the lease for the balance of the fiscal year. This process is revenue neutral to the City and provides an alternative method of monitoring the cost of approving below market non-profit accommodation requests. It is appropriate to request input from the Chief Financial Officer and the Municipal Grants Review Committee on the preferred method of monitoring these costs and to submit a further report thereon with appropriate recommendations including the method of monitoring costs effective January 1, 1999.

Conclusion:

Due to the number of requests received for utilization of City-owned or leased space by non-profit corporations, there is a need for Council to establish a policy and a set of procedures to administer these requests. The policy and procedures recommended in this report will result in a consistent, uniform review of all such requests, financial accountability and full information being provided to City Council when considering such requests.

Contact Name:

Doug Stewart, Telephone 392-7202, Fax 392-1880, E-mail - dstewart@city.toronto.on.ca, (cs98017.wpd)

--------

Appendix 1

Request for Below Market Use of City-Owned

or Leased Property by Non-Profit corporations

Policy

(1)This policy will outline the City of Toronto's approach to all requests for either occupancy or extensions of occupancy of City-owned or leased space at below market rates.

This policy will not address occupancy agreements at market rates nor the use of City-owned or leased property for residential purposes, or for occasional uses such as events. Permits issued by Parks and Recreation to community groups and leases to groups for Parks purposes, such as tennis clubs, as approved by City Council are explicitly excluded from this policy.

(2)Requests for occupancy at below market rent rates can only be considered if the proposed occupant is a non-profit corporation, because Section 113 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M 45, permits such arrangements only with non-profit corporations.

Specific City Council authorization will be required for the provision of any space to non-profit corporations at below market rates, including occupancy agreement renewals except for short term occupancies of two weeks or less which will be administered by the Commissioner of Corporate Services. Any provision of space will be subject to availability and having regard to the needs of the Corporation as determined by portfolio management and accommodation policies and procedures of the City.

(3)The provision of City-owned or leased property to non-profit corporations at below market rent is an indirect grant. The amount of this indirect grant includes not only the "subsidy" in the form of market rent forgone, but also any direct expenses incurred by the City such as maintenance and operating costs. The annual value of this indirect grant will be reported on a yearly basis to City Council.

(4)The corporation must be incorporated as a non-profit corporation and the corporation must meet the policy criteria as amended from time to time.

(5)Groups and Organizations must:

(a)be non-profit and accountable to the community through an elected Board of Directors or other responsible body;

(b)be located in the City of Toronto and serve City of Toronto residents;

(c)show that the organization can manage its financial affairs;

(d)show that programs and activities are effectively meeting a community need;

(e)show that community volunteers are actively involved in the group, and support the activity proposed;

(f)cooperate with other community organizations and City of Toronto services to plan and coordinate activities; and

(g)show that the organization has adopted and upholds equal opportunity and non-discrimination policies.

(6)Programs or Services must:

(a)not duplicate already existing services;

(b)have clearly stated goals and objectives, and show how the activity will be evaluated;

(c)show clearly what community need is being met, and how the service or activity can effectively meet the need;

(d)be provided within the boundaries of the City of Toronto for City of Toronto residents;

(e)support volunteers and participants to contribute effectively to the programs and management of the group;

(f)show that they are financially viable, and that other appropriate funding sources have been approached;

(g)be free or affordable for the intended participants; and

(h)demonstrate that they are operated with adequate regard for participants' safety.

(7)Priority is given to projects and services that:

(a)assist people who are disadvantaged in terms of income, employment and other opportunities;

(b)are small or medium size organizations without access to core grants or volunteer support for fundraising; and

(c)reflect City of Toronto goals and policies as reflected in City reports relevant to the type of services offered.

(8)In all cases of occupancy of City-owned or leased property by non-profit corporations, an occupancy agreement will be entered into, stipulating specific terms and conditions. A maximum of three years will be allowed for any term of occupancy. The length of the term will have regard to the type and cost of leasehold or other improvements necessary to facilitate the group's utilization of the space and the value that these improvements will add to the City asset.

(9)In the event that the needs of more than one applicant can be matched to the same available site, a report on each applicant will be forwarded to the Municipal Grants Review Committee.

(10)The Municipal Grants Review Committee will make a recommendation (including proposed terms of occupancy) on each request for use of City-owned or leased property in a report to City Council.

--------

Appendix 2

Request for Below Market Use of City-Owned

or Leased Property by Non-Profit Corporations

Procedures

(1)All requests for occupancy at below-market rent rates of City-owned or leased property will be co-ordinated by the Facilities and Real Estate Division (FRE) of Corporate Services Department and should be directed to that Division. FRE will instruct the applicant to complete a space request form, attached as Appendix 2(a).

(2)If the applicant appears to meet the requirements, then FRE will determine whether appropriate City-owned or leased property is or can be made available. If no space is available, the Executive Director of FRE will write to the applicant to this effect and no further action will be taken.

(3)If space is available, FRE will contact other City departments and agencies, as appropriate, and ask that the programs, services, financial position and administrative capability of the non-profit corporation be evaluated for consistency with City objectives, specifically whether the non-profit corporation meets all the requirements set out in the Policy. If the requirements are not met, the Executive Director of FRE will write to the applicant to this effect and no further action will be taken.

(4)The Ward Councillor and any other member of Council who has requested such information will be advised of the space request and kept informed throughout the review process.

(5)FRE staff will estimate the market rent, operating and maintenance costs for the space and the cost of any leasehold improvements.

(6)If the non-profit corporation meets the policy requirements, the Commissioner of Corporate Services will submit a report to the Municipal Grants Review Committee on the request. This report will contain the following:

(a)information on the applicant non-profit corporation;

(b)details of the request;

(c)financial impact of the request including market rent, operating and maintenance costs, budget implications, assessment of the applicant's ability to pay some or all of the market rent and the applicant's provision of leasehold and other improvements;

(d)comments and recommendations from other City departments and agencies; and

(e)proposed terms of occupancy including length of lease term.

(7)The Municipal Grants Review Committee will consider the request and submit a report thereon to City Council.

(8)If City Council approves the provision of space to a non-profit corporation, FRE, will prepare an occupancy agreement stipulating specific terms and conditions and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, including:

(a)the tenancy may be terminated during the lease period if a material change in circumstances and/or purpose of the non-profit corporation occurs; and,

(b)the City Treasurer and City Auditor are entitled to have access to the records, books and accounts of the non-profit corporation, as they require.

(9)The Commissioner of Corporate Services will submit each year, at year end, a report to City Council via the Municipal Grants Review Committee, listing the indirect grant in each case for all occupancies by non-profit corporations, including market rent forgone and other costs and benefits.

(10)Prior to any renewal of an occupancy agreement, FRE will determine whether or not the requirements of this policy are still being met by the particular non-profit corporation and report the results to the Municipal Grants Review Committee. The agreement will only be renewed if City Council so authorizes.

(A copy of Appendices 2(a), 3 and 4, attached to the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

30

Use of Former City of York Civic Service Centre

2700 Eglinton Avenue West, for the Learning Enrichment

Foundation (Ward 27 - York Humber)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, together with the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be requested to submit a joint report to the Corporate Services Committee on a policy specifically dealing with the issue of long-term leases for daycare space in municipally-owned property;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to review the possibility of a long-term lease at this location for the Learning Enrichment Foundation and report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee; and

(3)the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee and the Budget Committee, on corporate leasing requirements and a corporate leasing strategy, no later than the first week of September 1998.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends that:

(1)the Learning Enrichment Foundation be permitted to lease space at the York Civic Centre; and

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested:

(a)to negotiate the terms of the aforementioned lease, such lease giving consideration to possible future office needs of the City; and

(b)to assist the Learning Enrichment Foundation in obtaining alternative accommodation, if necessary.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To determine if there is any space available to lease to the Learning Enrichment Foundation at the former City of York Municipal Building as per the attached location map.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received by your Committee for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Corporate Services Committee on March 30, 1998, had before it a communication (March 5, 1998) addressed to York Community Council from Councillor Frances Nunziata, Councillor York-Humber, attaching a copy of a letter (January 29, 1998) from the Executive Director, The Learning Enrichment Foundation, addressed to members of the York Community Council, respecting the possibility of utilizing space in the municipal building at 2700 Eglinton Avenue West, for daycare purposes; and requesting that this item along with a motion by Councillor Nunziata, seconded by Councillor Mihevc requesting that the York Community Council support the request for appropriate daycare space within the York Civic Centre; and that the appropriate City staff responsible for the review of the utilization of space in the Civic Centres of the former Metro Toronto municipalities be directed to assist the Learning Enrichment Foundation in this matter.

The Corporate Services Committee endorsed the request from the Learning Enrichment Foundation for the appropriate City staff responsible for the review of the utilization of space in the Civic Centres of the former Metro Toronto municipalities being directed to assist the Learning Enrichment Foundation to identify space, if possible, at the York Civic Centre for a Daycare facility. Staff have now had the opportunity to communicate with the Foundation and it has identified that they require about 3000 sq.ft. of space.

A Space Rationalization Team is currently dealing with various Civic buildings brought into amalgamation and are in the process of identifying if there is any space available in these facilities that can accommodate various City of Toronto departments that are currently occupying leased premises as tenants. In addition, a report on request for use of City-owned space by non-profit corporations is also being finalized for submission to the next Corporate Services Committee meeting which is scheduled to be held on May 25, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The space rationalization study is ongoing at this time. The study is expected to be completed by late summer at which time a proper consolidation plan will be developed and forwarded for Council approval. Priority will be given to placing City of Toronto Departments whose leases with private Landlords are expiring into Municipal space as it becomes vacant. An example of this is, the current projected move of the Community Service - Children's Services Division from leased space at 700Lawrence Avenue West to 2700 Eglinton Avenue West.

Conclusions:

It is the priority of the new City to identify areas of cost savings associated with the amalgamation by relocating its own departments in whole or in part into vacated municipal space in order to save money. This process is expected to proceed for some time until the full impact of the amalgamation is realized. Consequently, the Learning Enrichment Foundation should be notified that space is not available at the former City of York Municipal Building at this time.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No.: (416)392-8155; Fax No.:(416)392-4828; E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

The Corporate Services Committee also submits the following communication (May20, 1998) from Councillor Bill Saundercook, York Humber:

I would just like to address the issue of the Learning Enrichment Foundation's request for daycare space in the York Civic Centre.

As Board Member of the Learning Enrichment Foundation, I am very familiar with the work done by the organization. I think they are highly deserving of space for their organization.

Another point that should be considered by the Committee is that while the space rationalization study is ongoing, and due to completed in the late summer at the earliest, the LEF cannot wait. As of August 1, their daycare is without a home. Unfortunately, they have been put into a situation through no fault of their own where the decision on available space will be made after they have already been evicted.

I urge you to recommend allowing the LEF to use the surplus space at the York Civic Centre for their daycare.

--------

Ms. Pam Roberts, Representative, the Learning Enrichment Foundation, appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, Corporate Services Committee Agenda, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

31

Acquisition of Property Interests Sheppard Subway -

Bayview Station, Owner: Verdiroc Holdings Limited,

Daniels Financial Corporation and John Henry Daniels in Trust

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (May23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(2)that the communication (May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council be received.

Purpose:

Acquisition of property interests required for the construction and operation of the Sheppard Subway in the vicinity of the Bayview Station.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financing has previously been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No.TC-392.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the terms and conditions of the settlement with Verdiroc Holdings Limited, Daniels Financial Corporation, and John Henry Daniels In Trust (collectively referred to as "Dangreen") as detailed herein be approved subject to Council first taking all steps necessary to comply with the former City of North York disposal By-law No. 32512 including:

(i)two City owned strips of property, namely a 5 foot right-of-way traversing the Dangreen property and a 10 foot strip of land adjacent thereto and legally described as Instrument No. 448441 (Schedule G) and Instrument No. 448441 (Schedule D andE) respectively be declared surplus to Corporate requirements;

(ii)Council direct that the property then be disposed of in accordance with the Purchase Agreement to be concluded with Dangreen, directly to Verdiroc Holdings Limited, Daniels Financial Corporation, and John Henry Daniels In Trust;

(2)authority be granted for the execution and registration of all contract and conveyancing documentation necessary to give effect thereto, including the Purchase Agreement and all Schedules thereto together with such ancillary agreements as may be necessary to implement the transaction including any contracts and conveyancing adjustments shown necessary following completion of the construction, all to be on terms satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

(3)the appropriate municipal officials be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to give effect hereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The previous Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Management Committee (as amended) on March 8 and 9, 1994, and subject to further reports regarding funding, approved the construction of the Sheppard Subway to Don Mills Road. By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Management Committee, as amended, on April20, 1994, Council authorized the debenture funding to commence the project. Finally, Metropolitan Council by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of The Financial Priorities Committee on September 25 and 26, 1996, as amended, approved completion of the Sheppard Subway Project.

Metropolitan Council, at its meeting on June 18, 1997, by the adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 15 of The Corporate Administration Committee, authorized an Application for Approval to Expropriate Interests in Land for the construction and operation of the Sheppard Subway in the vicinity of the Bayview Station. Notice of Application for Approval to Expropriate was served on Dangreen and a Hearing of Necessity was requested. The Hearing of Necessity commenced on March 23, 1998 and was concluded on April 14, 1998. As of May 22, 1998, we are awaiting the formal report from the inquiry officer.

North York Community Council, at its meeting on May 6, 1998, during its consideration of issues related to the Bayview Station, adopted a motion expressing concern with the settlement proposal negotiated by staff which motion is also before you. Further, the TTC at its Committee of the Whole meeting on May 20, 1998, adopted a motion directing staff to assist in facilitating discussion for resolution of the overall development issues of the site.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the construction of the Sheppard Avenue Subway/Bayview Station and related facilities, property interests are required from the Dangreen property. This property is located on the east side of Bayview Avenue extending from Sheppard Avenue East on the south to Bayview Mews Lane on the north. The property is generally rectangular in shape and contains an area of approximately 2.335acres (101,712 square feet). The property is currently vacant, zoned RM3 according to the City of North York zoning by-law and designated commercial in the City of North York's official plan.

As part of the Bayview Station construction, the following property interests are required from the Dangreen property:

(a)a fee simple road widening located on the east side of Bayview Avenue just north of Sheppard Avenue and illustrated as Part 1 on the draft reference plan No.94-21-413-41-B containing an area of 173.0 square metres (1,862.2 square feet);

(b)a stratified fee simple interest to accommodate the Bayview Station and electrical substation structure illustrated as Part 2 on the draft reference plan. The upper limit of this fee interest is elevation 190.6 or approximately 8 metres above grade;

(c)a working easement to facilitate the construction of the station entrance and electrical substation illustrated as Part 4 on the draft reference plan. The term of the working easement will commence on the closing date and conclude on December 31, 2000. A further working easement above the electrical substation, illustrated as Part 3 on the draft reference plan, will commence on September 1, 2000 and conclude on May 1, 2001;

(d)stratified fee simple interest or a permanent exclusive easement to be defined by survey as may be appropriate to accommodate a surface bus loop; and

(e)a permanent exclusive easement to be defined by survey for Toronto Hydro to accommodate a hydro vault, required to be relocated as a result of the subway construction.

The draft plan of survey prepared by JD Barnes Limited as No. 94-21-413-41-B is on file with the City Clerk. Following construction of the subway station and electrical substation, it will be necessary to review the limits of the conveyances to ensure that the surveyed legal interests accurately reflect the subsequent as built condition and where necessary, survey boundaries will be adjusted.

Negotiations between municipal staff, TTC staff, Dangreen and legal counsel have been ongoing for an extended period of time. In addition, staff have briefed the Commission's Committee of the Whole with respect to the ongoing status of negotiations. The property owners are experienced real estate developers and are desirous of developing the balance of the subject property. A development application for the property has been outstanding since 1994 and is currently under review by North York Planning staff, who have recommended that, among other things, any development on the site be integrated with the subway station. Consequently, in order not to preclude or in any way pre-judge the planning process, the Bayview station facilities have been designed to include support columns which will support a development over the subway station and electrical substation. This is consistent with development criteria prepared by North York staff but not approved by North York Council.

The inclusion of these columns mitigate the adverse impact on the development potential of the balance of the property. In the event Dangreen develops the property within 10 years, it must repay to the City the costs of constructing these support columns up to a maximum of $1,050,000.00.

In addition, the owners have expressed a strong desire to acquire two property interests currently owned by the City of Toronto. The first is a 5 foot wide right-of-way which traverses the property in a southeast to northwest direction and is legally described in Instrument No. 448441 (Schedule G). This right-of-way was conveyed to the City at the time approvals were given for the townhouse development located on the north side of Bayview Mews Lane. The second property interest consists of a 10 foot strip of land abutting the easterly boundary of the subject property and legally described in Instrument 448441 (Schedule D and E). This 10 foot strip is owned in fee simple by the City and separates the subject property from the Bayview Village Mall located immediately to the east.

Negotiations were being finalized on the form of an agreement which would have provided for the acquisition of all of the TTC property requirements by way of a nominal sum land exchange. This option would require that the City declare the two municipally owned parcels surplus to City requirements in accordance with the former City of North York disposal by-law No. 32512. More recently, as a result of North York Community Council's consideration of this matter, Councillor Moscoe, Chair of the Toronto Transit Commission and a group of Councillors for this ward and the two adjacent wards, with the assistance of Planning Department staff, have had discussions with the developer and the adjacent property owner. This has resulted in a new built form concept for the proposed residential building which more appropriately addresses community concerns and allows for the bus loop to be located at the Teagarden intersection.

The new development concept has been reviewed by TTC staff. As a result, the following new issues have been identified:

(i)the revised bus loop location will now be located over the developer's proposed underground parking structure. The net capital construction cost will increase by $55,000.00. In the event the parking structure has not been built by the time the bus loop is required, it will be necessary to temporarily remove the bus loop to facilitate the developer's construction activity. This will result in further costs which have been estimated at $25,000.00 per year for increased bus operating costs and a further capital cost of $120,000.00 to re-establish the bus loop. Also, a small strip of land may be required from the adjacent property to accommodate a proposed exit driveway from the development;

(ii)an additional $12,000.00 will be required to increase the load bearing capacity of the existing columns to support a three level structure over the electrical substation;

(iii)the revised development concept proposes a residential development on the adjacent property which may also be connected to the subway station. This will result in an additional cost of $50,000.00 to provide forced ventilation for the electrical substation;

(iv)as part of the discussions between the developer and the Councillors, a need was identified to provide a pedestrian linkage from the Bayview/Sheppard intersection to Bayview Village Shopping Mall.

On May 21 and 22, 1998, further meetings were held with the owner. The owner has also met with Mr. Phil King of Orlando the adjacent owner. Agreement has been reached with respect to the additional issues wherein Dangreen will be responsible for the additional costs incurred by the TTC for the bus loop including the initial capital costs up to a maximum of $55,000.00 and the additional operating and reconstruction costs if required. The TTC has agreed to defer construction of the bus loop as long as possible. Dangreen will also be responsible for the additional column costs required in the electrical substation up to a maximum of $12,000.00.

With respect to the pedestrian connection, Dangreen has agreed to provide a pedestrian walkway through its building for public access.

Dangreen has confirmed that Orlando will provide land for the proposed exit driveway, if required at no cost, as long as it does not result in Orlando losing parking spaces and Orlando will be responsible for the additional ventilation costs, if required, at the time the Orlando building proceeds. Accordingly, no additional costs will be incurred by the TTC in this regard.

The original transaction, included an option whereby, in the event Council did not approve a land exchange, the property interests would be acquired pursuant to Section 30 of the Expropriations Act. The North York Community Council, at its meeting on May 6, 1998, adopted a motion made by Councillor Moscoe which recommends that the property interests be acquired under the Section 30 Option as originally negotiated. Dangreen has now confirmed that it is no longer prepared to agree to a Section 30 agreement pursuant to the Expropriations Act as part of this settlement.

Under the proposed settlement, Dangreen will convey at no cost all of the property required by the Toronto Transit Commission to facilitate the subway station and related facilities including the lands required for the relocation of a hydro vault to the east side of Bayview Avenue and the additional costs as detailed herein. In addition, Dangreen will provide a Permission to Enter for the purposes of constructing the hydro vault immediately following Council's approval of this option. Dangreen will also convey to the City an easement to protect an existing storm sewer.

In exchange, the City will convey to Dangreen the 5 foot right-of-way across the remaining Dangreen property and the 10 foot strip located immediately east of their remaining site. All conveyances will be at no direct cost and Dangreen waives its right to any compensation for injurious affection.

In the event that Council is not prepared to convey the City owned property interests to Dangreen, it would then be necessary to pursue a formal expropriation process. In this regard, Notices of Intention to Expropriate have been served and a lengthy Hearing of Necessity has been held. As of May 22, 1998, we are awaiting the report from the Inquiry Officer. Following receipt of the Inquiry Officer's report, a further report to Council will be required to formally expropriate the required property interests. Due to the recent decision to relocate the hydro vault to the east side of Bayview Avenue, these property interests do not include the lands required for the proposed hydro vault relocation. Under this scenario, it would not be possible to relocate the hydro vault, all of which was the subject of a separate report to Council's May 13, 1998 meeting. Following Council's formal approval of the expropriation, a period of 90 days will be required before possession can be obtained. Compensation would then be payable to Dangreen in accordance with all the provisions of the Expropriations Act.

Although, the ultimate compensation payable under an expropriation cannot be determined at this time, it will no doubt be significant. Throughout the negotiations, Dangreen has taken the position that the value of their property is in the range of 10.5 million dollars and that the subway facilities and property requirements have a significant adverse impact on the value of the balance of their site. The Bayview Station contract award is the last station contract award for the Sheppard Subway. A delay in obtaining possession of the property will necessitate a delay in the construction contract award and as a consequence delay the proposed opening of the Sheppard Subway and the start of revenue service.

Conclusions:

The settlement agreement as negotiated and detailed herein allows the City to acquire the property interests required to accommodate the Bayview Station and related facilities within the required time frames and at no direct cost. The costs required for support structures and other preliminary work will be recovered when the property is developed.

The terms and conditions of the land exchange option are considered fair and reasonable and are recommended herein. Should Council elect not to approve the land exchange agreement, a further report on the formal expropriation process will be forthcoming when the Hearing Officer's report is received.

Contact Name:

Mr. Douglas F. Warning

Acting Director of Real Estate (392-8165)

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following communication (May7, 1998) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council:

The North York Community Council at its meeting on May 6, 1998, concurred with the following motion by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina:

"WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission is in the process of acquiring land to construct the Sheppard Subway;

AND WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission has, through Johnson Donald Associates, been negotiating a deal to acquire land for the Bayview Station;

AND WHEREAS in doing so they are negotiating away the ability of the North York Community Council to ensure that the official plan objectives of the City can be met;

AND WHEREAS by negotiating away the easements that will ultimately control whether or not these lands can be developed, or how they can be developed, they are robbing the community and their elected representatives of the leverage necessary to shape the development of this quadrant;

AND WHEREAS if the city uses the consensual expropriation route it is clear that any money expended on the expropriation will ultimately be recouped through the sale of the easements and related development rights;

AND WHEREAS the interests of the community are better served by retaining the opportunity for the Community Council to shape the development of North York;

AND WHEREAS consensual expropriation will allow the land to be acquired without delay to the subway construction schedule and at the same time retain community control of the destiny of the development on these lands and the neighbouring plaza lands;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council be advised that it is the position of the North York Community Council that the land for the Bayview Station be acquired through the consensual expropriation option;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the matter of the comprehensive development of the block bounded by Bayview Avenue, Bayview Mews, Hawksbury Drive and Sheppard Avenue East, be referred to planning staff for a full report to the North York Community Council."

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998 had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential joint report (June 2, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(9) of the Municipal Act.)

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that the applicant's solicitor is a partner at the same law firm as his son.)

32

Proposed Acquisition of Land for Park Purposes from

the Sisters of St. Joseph - A Block of Land (2.84 Acres)

Adjacent to Clairlea Playfield South of Fairfax Crescent,

West of Warden Avenue (Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

Negotiations with the Owners of the property have culminated in a tentative agreement of purchase and sale. This report summarizes staff's negotiation efforts and recommendations.

Funding:

The land acquisition to be charged to Capital Account No.67034-00000-00000-481 and funded from the Parks (five percent) Reserve Fund No. 70490.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City purchase the 2.84 acre parcel of land, Block 56 on Plan 66M-2320 for park purposes, at the negotiated price of $1,550,000.00; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute the relevant documents.

Background:

The Sisters of St. Joseph owned about 48 acres of lands north and south of St. Clair Avenue East on the west side of Warden Avenue. They also own the adjacent Providence Centre Hospital land (see figure 1 attached).

The lands were proposed to be developed in three (3) phases. One condition of approving the draft plan was the conveyance of parkland to the City.

The south parcel, phase I, consisting of 24.6 acres, was draft approved for development of 203 low density residential units (95 singles, 84 semi's and 24 townhouses). The owner conveyed Block 141, Plan 66M-2312 to the City for parkland. The area exceeded the parkland requirement for Phase 1. The excess parkland credit together with a strip of land, Block 58, Plan 66M-2320, has been acknowledged as being sufficient to satisfy the parkland dedication for the Phases II and III, except for Block 57. The owners agreed that prior to issuance of any building permits for Block 57, a further parkland contribution is required in the form of additional land or cash-in-lieu.

As part of the draft plan approval, the owners also agreed to set aside Block 56, Plan 66M-2320 for park use with the understanding that the City would acquire it through a combination of parkland dedication required from Block 57 and a purchase and sale agreement. In the event that Council does not approve the acquisition of Block 56, the owner is free to seek further approvals for alternative development pursuant to the Planning Act.

Subject to Council's approval, a tentative agreement has been reached with the Sisters of St.Joseph to acquire the 2.84 acres of land at a selling price of $1,550,000.00. The sale price includes the park dedication required for Block 57, which is proposed for 32 townhouses. Should there be an increase in the development density of Block 57, an additional cash-in-lieu park dedication will be assessed accordingly.

Comments:

The Sisters of St. Joseph sold the south parcel comprising 24.6 acres to a developer at a selling price of $9,827,000.00 or approximately $400,000.00 per acre subject to Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning approval to permit a total of 203 low density residential units. The transaction closed in July 1997. The Sisters also entered into two further agreements of purchase and sale with the same developer for the two blocks of lands within the north parcel. One agreement was made on September25, 1997 for $2,981,000.00 $495,000.00 per acre for 6.03acres (55 single family lots). The other was made on October 3, 1997 at a selling price of $1,332,936.00 or $499,500.00 per acre for 2.669 acres (32 townhouses). Both agreements were subject to Official Plan Amendment nd Rezoning approval by April 15, 1998.

The proposed acquisition of Block 56, is adjacent to the 6.03 acres of land proposed for 55 single family lots. The recommended purchase price of $1,550,000.00 reflects a per acre value of $536,332.17 which has taken into account the subject's smaller size and the lower servicing cost. If the Block is not used for park, it has a development potential of about 28 single family lots.

Conclusions:

The acquisition of Block 56 for parkland will fulfill the community expectation for additional green space and better utilization of Clairlea Park. It will also allow for the development of a full size soccer field, therefore meeting local and larger community demands.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca (cs98063.wpd)

(A copy of the maps, attached to the foregoing report, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

33

Partial Property Acquistion - Lucille Lamana

(Ward 16 - Scarborough-Highland Creek)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

Property acquisition to accommodate the re-naturalization of the Centennial Watercourse, north of Ellesmere Road, Scarborough.

Funding:

The land acquisition to be charged to Capital Account No.57837-00000-85040-481.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City purchase the 15.5m x 46.0m parcel shown as Part 1 on the attached sketch at the price of $110,000.00;

(2)the City pay the owner's reasonable legal fees to complete this transaction; and

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

Background:

In 1994 - 1997, the City of Scarborough initiated a program to bring into public ownership lands within the valley of the Centennial Creek, a small watercourse which extends from Lake Ontario to Highway 401, between Port Union Road and Morningside Avenue. For much of its course the stream is unregulated by conservation authority regulations, and therefore the valley was in danger of being destroyed by filling to facilitate development. In 1996 Scarborough Council authorized negotiations with the owners of twenty properties to acquire a 20.0m wide corridor centred upon the watercourse. These properties were targeted for acquisition from a significantly larger number, based upon their proximity to development and their environmental sensitivity. To date all or part of seven properties have been purchased. The subject parcel forms an important part of this program.

Comments:

The owner of the subject property is Lucille Lamanna. It is "L-shaped" with frontage of 15.5m on the west side of Zaph Avenue and a depth of 124.6m. Total area of the property is 3,011.0m² (32,411.0ft²). The portion which the City requires, has an area of 1,426.0m² (15,350.0 ft²), leaving a residual of 1,585.0 m² (17,061.0 ft²).

The Official Plan designation for the property is Low Density Residential, with an area adjacent to the watercourse as Environmental Impact Zone. The Official Plan, which was revised during 1997, contains a policy indicating that the City would negotiate the acquisition of lands within the E.I.Z. as though the old Official Plan Designation, which permitted development of the watercourse area, remained in place.

The subject property is Zoned S - Single Family Residential, with development standards permitting the construction of one single-family dwelling per parcel of land with a minimum of 15.0m (49.21 ft.) frontage on a public street, and a minimum area of 696.0 m² (7,492.0 ft²). Currently, one single family residence may be developed on the property.

Negotiations to acquire the front part of the site were complicated by the location of the stream. The watercourse is located close to the road frontage, such that if the City purchased the property it requires, the remainder would be landlocked. Even if the owner retained an easement over the property required, the remainder would be without road frontage, and all developments rights would be lost.

In the fall of 1997, Scarborough City Council gave Draft Plan Approval to a plan of subdivision immediately to the north of the Lamanna property. That plan provides for the extension of Goldene Way, which will ultimately provide road frontage to the rear of the Lamanna property. Unfortunately, it is unknown when the plan of subdivision will be registered.

To resolve the matter, and to ensure Ms. Lamanna retains the right to develop her remaining property, an agreement has been negotiated whereby she will initially grant an easement to the City over the lands described as Part 1 on the attached sketch, in exchange for payment of $110,000.00. This amount represents the market value of the lands required for the renaturalization project. This easement will permit the City to have complete control over the watercourse lands, except that if the owner is unable to gain access to Goldene Way because the abutting owner is not proceeding with registration of the plan of subdivision and construction of the road, and instead wishes to construct one single family dwelling on the remaining lands, she will be permitted to construct one 6m wide driveway across the creek to connect with Zaph Avenue. The second stage of the conveyance is to occur immediately after the construction of Goldene Way. Upon dedication of the road, the reminder of the fee simple interest in the lands is to be conveyed to the City. If a driveway has been constructed on the City property in the interim, it will be removed and the property restored.

Conclusions:

The purchase of the front portion of the Lamanna property in the manner described will enable the City to protect the watercourse and yet permit Ms. Lamanna sufficient flexibility to develop the remainder of the site whether the abutting draft plan of subdivision proceeds or not.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416) 396-4930, (416) 396-4241 Fax Number

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy of the sketch referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

34

F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project

Request for Authority to Acquire Property

Wards: Don River; East Toronto

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is recommended that the foregoing Clause be adopted, subject to the offers of acquisition being conditional on Council proceeding with the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, and to the lands in question being deemed to be required, at that time.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April24, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain authority to acquire property required for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project.

Funding Sources:

The 1998-2002 Capital Works Program for the Transportation Department includes $7.9 million for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project in 1998 (C-TR026). The Treasurer has previously certified that financing for the estimated project expenditure in 1998 can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within the updated debt guidelines approved by City of Toronto Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to negotiate with the affected owners for the acquisition of the necessary lands or interests in land required for the F.G.Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, as shown on the attached sketches, and authority be granted to make application for approval to expropriate and to serve and publish notice of such application pursuant to the Expropriations Act;

(2)the appropriate City official be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(3)the introduction of the necessary Bills be authorized.

Background:

At its meeting held on April 15 and 16, 1998, City Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 2 of Report No. 2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project". In so doing, City Council, inter alia, authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to continue to prepare the contracts for Phase I of the project scheduled to be awarded by City Council in July, 1998.

Discussion:

Permanent property acquisitions and temporary construction easements are required for the F.G.Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project as described in the attached sketches. Some of these acquisitions are required for the Phase I work, which includes the relocation of the rail line from the median to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard and the preparation of the detour route for Lake Shore Boulevard traffic.

If the Phase I contracts are awarded in July as currently planned, we will require the identified property as soon thereafter as possible. Any significant delay in acquiring this property will jeopardize our ability to complete the contract work on schedule. Given that it typically requires several months lead time to acquire property, we require authority to proceed with the property acquisitions in advance of the awarding of the Phase I contracts.

Conclusions:

Authority to acquire the property identified in this report is required in order to proceed with the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project as currently scheduled.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, P. Eng.,

Manager, Project Planning and Design

392-8590

(A copy of the sketches attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

35

Release of Watermain Easement Registered

as Instrument No. 61630 F on the Title of

4A Wychwood Park (Ward 23 - Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To release the watermain easement across No. 4A Wychwood Park as described in Instrument No.61630 F.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to remove the watermain easement rights described in Instrument No.61630 F from the title of No. 4A Wychwood Park; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Under Instrument No. 61630 F dated February 24, 1910, the City of Toronto acquired an easement for the maintenance, repair, and reconstruction of a 100 mm watermain across lands comprising Parts2 and 5 of lot 10 on Registered Plan 63R-4454.

The watermain within the lands was subsequently abandoned in conjunction with watermain construction works undertaken in 1996 and the easement is no longer required.

The owner of the subject property has submitted an application (Building Permit Application No.409289), to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for permission to undertake construction within the easement lands.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The terms of Instrument No. 61630 F prohibit construction within the easement lands and since the easement is no longer required for future servicing, I recommend that it be removed from the title of the property.

Conclusions:

Approval should be given to remove the watermain easement rights described in Instrument No.61630 F from the title of No. 4A Wychwood Park.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

W. Wichmann, P.Eng.

City Engineer, Former City of Toronto

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416) 392-7703; Fax (416) 392-0816

E-Mail "wwichman@city.toronto.on.ca"

36

Easement Request from Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission

Midland Avenue - J. A. Leslie Tot Lot,

North of 2550 Kingston Road

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission has requested a 2m wide easement across the Leslie Tot Lot as shown on the attached sketch. This report summarizes staff's investigation and recommendations.

Funding:

Not required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council grant the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission a 2m wide easement over Parts 1 and3, Plan R-2367 across the J. A. Leslie Tot Lot for the nominal sum of $1.00; and

(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized to execute he easement document suitable for land registration.

Background:

Due to the difficult access to their electrical system at the rear of 2660 Kingston Road and the increasing demand for electricity in this area, the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission are searching for an alternate site to rebuild and upgrade their electrical system from its present location at the rear of 2660 Kingston Road.

The preferred site and routing for the upgraded system, is owned by the City and is known as J.A.Leslie Tot Lot. It is located on the east side of Midland Avenue north of Kingston Road. The Commission is seeking a 2m wide easement for the purpose of installing a pad mounted transformer and underground ductwork at the locations as shown in hatched lines on the attached sketch.

The Commission has considered two (2) other locations; one on the east side of Chine Drive and the other on the west side of Chine Drive. The location at J. A. Leslie Tot Lot is favoured by the City's Works and Environment Department.

Comments:

The proposed transformer will be fenced at the northwest corner of J. A. Leslie Tot Lot. The remaining ducts will be underground extending from Midland Avenue east to the existing pole line located at the rear of 2660 Kingston Road.

Parks and Recreation Services of Scarborough District have no concerns with the easement request.

Conclusions:

The granting of an easement will enable the Commission to upgrade their electrical system to better service the area's electricity demand. The proposed easement will also eliminate the existing poles and overhead wires.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca (cs98058.wpd)

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

37

Agreement of Purchase and Sale; Worksite Lease

Agreement and Permanent Easement Agreement

Owner: YMCA of Greater Toronto

567 Sheppard Avenue East

Sheppard Avenue Subway - Bayview Station

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the execution of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale; a Worksite Lease Agreement and a Permanent Easement Agreement required for the construction of the Sheppard Subway.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financing has been previously approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No.TC-392.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to enter into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale, Worksite Lease Agreement and Permanent Easement Agreement with YMCA of Greater Toronto ("YMCA") on the terms and conditions herein; and

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

Council Reference/background/History:

By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Management Committee (as amended) on March 8 and 9, 1994, and subject to further report regarding funding, Metropolitan Council approved construction of the Sheppard Subway to Don Mills Road. By the approval of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Management Committee (as amended) on April 20, 1994, Metropolitan Council authorized the debenture funding to commence the project. Finally Metropolitan Council, by its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 21 of the Financial Priorities Committee on September 25 and 26, 1996, as amended, approved the completion of the Sheppard Subway Project.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As part of the construction of the Sheppard Subway, various property interests are required from the YMCA property at 567 Sheppard Avenue East to facilitate the construction of the Bayview Subway Station. The interests are required for the following purposes:

(1)the fee simple interest for the construction of a subway entrance building and two subway vent structures;

(2)a sub-surface fee interest for the proposed Bayview Station box structure;

(3)a permanent easement for the relocation of Bell Canada and Consumers Gas utilities; and

(4)a worksite lease for a construction staging area. The lease is required for a three year period, commencing on February 1, 1998 with the right to renew for four (4) successive periods of three (3) months each.

The property interests are located across the subject property's entire Sheppard Avenue East frontage and parking area and are illustrated on the sketch attached.

A copy of the draft survey plan, prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited (No. 94-21-413-40E) is on file with the City Clerk.

Negotiations have been conducted with the owner and an agreement has been reached as to compensation. The particulars of the property and the property requirements are summarized as follows:

Owner:YMCA of Greater Toronto

Location:The subject property is located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue East just east of Bayview Avenue and known municipally as 567Sheppard Avenue East.

Legal Description:Part of Lots 6 and 9, Registered Plan No. 3439 in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of North York).

Property Description:The subject property is an irregular shaped parcel of approximately 3.32 acres improved with a YMCA facility of approximately 52,184square feet with both surface and underground parking facilities.

Area of Requirements:The fee simple interest covers an area of 5,802 square feet and is shown as Parts 5, 7 and 9 on the attached sketch.

The sub-surface fee interest covers an area of 936 square feet and is shown as Parts 6 and 8 on the attached sketch.

The permanent easement covers an area of 5,533 square feet and is shown as Part 3 on the sketch.

The worksite lease covers an area of 25,296 square feet and is shown as Parts 3, 4, 10 and 11 on the sketch.

Compensation:(1) Fee Simple Interest$56,000.00

(2)Sub-surface Fee Interest$ 1,360.00

(3) Permanent Easement$26,700.00

(4) Worksite Lease$2,169.00 for the full three (3) year period and $723.00 for each three (3) month renewal period.

(5) Reasonable legal fees and other costs.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, the terms and conditions of the various property interests are fair and reasonable.

Contact Name and telephone Number:

Mr. D. F. Warning (392-8165)

Acting Director of Real Estate

(A copy of the sketch attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

38

Wychwood Carhouse Demolition

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to advise the following Ward Councillors when the transfer of title of 76 Wychwood Avenue from the Toronto Transit Commission to the City of Toronto is completed:

Councillors Adams and Bossons-Midtown;

Councillors Disero and Fotinos-Davenport; and

Councillors Davis and Mihevc-York-Eglinton.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations Nos.(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) embodied in the following report (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and reports having concurred with Recommendation No. (5):

Purpose:

To provide recommendations in response to the proposal from the TTC that title of the property at 76Wychwood Avenue be transferred to the City of Toronto and that future proceeds be allocated to the TTC.

Financial Implications:

The costs for the City include approximately $110,000.00 for the provision of adequate security for the property for a period of two years, and in addition payment of land transfer tax calculated on the basis of market value on the date of the transfer. This report recommends that such costs be deducted from the future sale proceeds.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the transfer of title of 76 Wychwood from the TTC to the City be approved;

(2)the City's costs as a result of the transfer be deducted from the revenue from the future sale of the property;

(3)the allocation of the revenues from the sale of the property be determined by City Council as part of the multi year capital budget planning process;

(4)the Commissioner of Corporate Services obtain an appraisal of the property on the date of the transfer;

(5)this report be forwarded the Budget Committee for its meeting of May 26, and that the Committee forward its recommendations on this matter to City Council; and

(6)the appropriate city officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.

Background:

The disposition of the TTC site at 76 Wychwood Avenue has been the subject of reports to the Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto Community Council and City Council. The TTC had planned to sell a number of properties to obtain revenue to acquire a property in the former East York for a bus garage. In considering the TTC's proposal to demolish the buildings at 76Wychwood prior to the sale of the property, the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 2, 1998, recommended that:

(1) the report of the Acting Manager of the Toronto Historical Board, March 18, 1998, entitled "Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 76Wychwood Avenue (St. Clair Carhouse)" be adopted (The report recommended the property be included in the inventory.);

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report to the Toronto Community Council on dedicating 25% - 30% of the land for heritage and/or parkland purposes, and how the remainder of the site can be developed in an appropriate manner; and

(3)the Toronto Transit Commission be requested not to seek a demolition permit for this site until the planning process has been completed.

The TTC, at its meeting of April 8, adopted a report "Wychwood Carhouse Demolition", which recommended "that the Commission receive this report for information noting that it is staff' intention to demolish Wychwood Carhouse in two months time if the City of Toronto is not prepared to accept title for the building and property in exchange for a credit to TTC equal to fair market value."

City Council considered the matter at its meeting on April 16 and 17, and;

(1)requested the Toronto Transit Commission not to seek a demolition permit for Wychwood Carhouse until the planning process has been completed; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, to submit a report to the next meeting of the Toronto Community Council, for subsequent report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee, on the implementation of the transfer of title of this site from the Toronto Transit Commission to the City of Toronto.

The Toronto Transit Commission, at its meeting on Wednesday, May 20, 1998 considered a further report "Wychwood Carhouse Demolition". After hearing deputations from Councillors Bossons and Adams, the Commission decided to receive the report and approved the following recommendations to be forwarded to the Corporate Services Committee for its meeting on May25, with the suggestion that the Committee consider a Quit Claim Deed in the City's favour to be executed by the Toronto Transit Commission:

(1)that staff pause in their efforts to obtain a Demolition Permit and Demolition Contractor until the next Commission meeting on June 17, 1998; and

(2)that this report (Wychwood Carhouse Demolition) be forwarded to the next City Corporate Services Committee meeting for consideration with a recommendation that the City of Toronto accept title for the subject building and property, effective immediately, on the understanding that the fair market value compensation for the property to the Toronto Transit Commission can be determined at a later date.

Comments:

Acquisition for municipal purposes:

The City may only acquire property for municipal purposes. The Bathurst Ct. Clair Part II Official Plan of the former City of Toronto states that the north west portion of Bathurst St. Clair is deficient in parkland and that Council will, among other things, seek to ensure that if the TTC St.Clair Carhouse property is redeveloped, that a park will be created on a portion of the site. It also states that Council shall consider, in the event of the disposal of lands by various government boards, agencies and commissions, the appropriateness of developing such lands for park and public recreation purposes. The acquisition will allow the City to better meet its planning objectives, including achieving park space and also provides for a more comprehensive planning process than can occur when the City responds to a development application from a private land owner.

Costs to ensure the property is safe:

The buildings on this site have not been used by the TTC since 1978 as an operating carhouse. Until 1995 the facility was used for storage purposes. The TTC is currently paying $400.00 a day for 24hour security, and obtained an estimate of $460,000.00 for repairs, plus $20,000.00 for boarding and fencing the site. Substantial work to the roof structure is included, as well as improvements to the electrical and mechanical services and the fire protection system.

City Buildings' staff inspected the premises in March 1998. They estimate that the cost to protect public safety is in the range of $25,000.00, which includes fencing and securing all openings, as well as limited repairs to the roof. Buildings and TTC staff have reviewed the differences in proposed approaches to the levels of repairs to the roof and resulting costs differences. In addition, funds of up to $65,000.00 are estimated to be required for improvements to the fire protection system, based on the TTC's consultant's report. In addition to the repairs, site inspections will be required, estimated to cost up to approximately $60 a day, for regular inspections at key times by a security company. Buildings staff support this approach to protecting the public for the two year period anticipated for a decision by City Council with respect to the future disposition of the buildings.

Financial benefits to TTC of transferring title:

A conveyance of the property to the City will relieve the TTC of ongoing costs including:

(a)a grant in lieu of realty taxes paid to the City of approximately $186,000.00 per year (to be reduced to $123,000.00 under Current Value Assessment) of which 60 percent is allocated to the Province for School Board purposes;

(b)security costs at the rate of $400.00 per day or $146,000.00 per year; and

(c)demolition costs, estimated as $220,000.00.

If the property is conveyed to the City, the pro-rated savings to the TTC for the balance of 1998 would be $61,500.00, assuming $123,000.00 is required for the grant in lieu of taxes, and $220,000.00 for not demolishing the building. For 1999 the savings would be in the order of $123,000.00, for the grant in lieu of taxes.

Financial implications for the City of transferring the title:

If the property is transferred, the City would be subject to the following costs:

(a)the immediate payment of an estimated $90,000.00 to secure the building and repair the sprinkler system;

(b)security costs at an estimated rate of up to $60 per day or $22,000.00 a year; and

(c)land transfer tax to be determined following an appraisal of the property on the date of the transfer.

Thus the total cost for two years is in the order of $134,000.00, excluding land transfer tax. The City should be reimbursed from the proceeds of the future sale. The City would also lose the portion of the grant in lieu of taxes that it would have received, estimated as $49,200.00 a year, 40percent of $123,000.00.

Allocation of revenues from the future sale

It is anticipated that the sale of the property will take place in about two years time, once a rezoning has been completed. City Council, at its meeting of April 16, 1998 requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on dedicating 25percent - 30percent of the land for heritage and/or parkland purposes, and how the remainder of the area can be developed in an appropriate manner. It is anticipated that housing will be included. As the land is now zoned for transportation uses, a rezoning will be required and can take up to two years. The results of this process will establish the value of the property at that time. The current value of the property would be less because the zoning permits transportation uses only, and because of the existing buildings.

The question of the proceeds of the sale flowing to the TTC should be decided by Council as part of the overall capital budget planning process. In September, the Budget Committee will be establishing a multi year capital budget plan and the allocation of the revenues should be considered in this context.

If the transfer does not take place:

The TTC has already made an application to the City to demolish the carhouse. If the TTC continues to pursue the demolition permit, City Council can decide to give notice of intention to designate the building under the Ontario Heritage Act. This notice, once published and served pursuant to the Act, will void any demolition permit which has been issued and render the building subject to the protections given to designated properties under the Act. The City of Toronto Act also applies to the property, requiring that City Council decide on an application for demolition and give notice of its decision within 90 days of the receipt of the application, or be deemed to consent to the application. Where Council refuses a demolition application, a demolition permit can not be issued until 180days from the date of Council's refusal. In addition, the owner must have obtained a building permit for a new building. Thus, if Council decides to designate the property, and as the TTC is unlikely to proceed to obtain a building permit, it is likely that the property would be sold with the carhouse remaining, and the future owner could proceed with the demolition permit process, as well as the rezoning process.

Conclusion:

The overall benefits of the proposal to transfer the Wychwood Carhouse property from the TTC to the City are to eliminate the requirement of the TTC to pay a grant in lieu of taxes for the property, to allow the City to achieve greater public benefits and control of the planning of the block than would be possible through a normal rezoning process with a developer, and to enhance potential revenue as a result of residential zoning. The question of the allocation of the future revenue should be determined as part of the multi year capital budget planning process. If the transfer does not proceed, the TTC will have to decide whether to proceed with the demolition permit application prior to the sale of the property, and if it does, City Council will have to decide whether to designate the property.

Contact Name:

Cathie Macdonald: Interim Lead Facilities and Real Estate,

Telephone 392-0449, Fax 392-0029, E-mail - cmacdona@city.toronto.on.ca, (cs98076.wpd)

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (May 21, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Toronto Transit Commission on May 20, 1998, approved and forwarded the following to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration at its meeting on May25, 1998:

"(1)that staff pause in their efforts to obtain a Demolition Permit and Demolition Contractor until the next Commission meeting on June 17, 1998; and

(2)that this report be forwarded to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration at its meeting on Monday , at which time, the TTC suggest the Committee consider the possible acceptance of a Quit Claim Deed in the City's favour to be executed by the Toronto Transit Commission."

(A copy of the location map attached to the aforementioned report (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 27, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998 concurred with the Recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the Committee Transmittal dated May 25, 1998, from the City Clerk respecting 76 Wychwood Avenue - Wychwood Carhouse, viz.:

(1)recommended to Council the adoption of Recommendations Nos.(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) embodied in the report (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(2)concurred with Recommendation No. (5) embodied in the aforementioned report.)

39

Licence Agreement - Ontario Hydro - Bishop Avenue

Garden Allotment Plots (Ward 10 - North York Centre)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To renew the licence agreement between the City and Ontario Hydro for the use of land for garden allotment plot purposes. See Map in Appendix A.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Parks and Recreation Department (North York Region), Northeast District, confirmed that the funds for the renewal agreement are available.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Licence Agreement between the City and Ontario Hydro be approved; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute the documentation and take any necessary action.

History:

The former City of North York operated garden allotment plot sites in several locations on land licensed from Ontario Hydro for nominal sum. One of these licences, on Bishop Avenue, expired on April 30th, 1998. The term of the agreement was for ten years for $1.00 (One Dollar) per annum.

Comments:

Information on the property is set out below:

Property:Bishop Avenue, Toronto (formerly North York)

Legal Description:Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, WYS, in the City of Toronto (formerly North York)

Land Size:+/- 2.37 acres (.958 ha)

Our Parks and Recreation Department indicated they wish to renew for a further term of five years and Ontario Hydro provided us with new licence agreements.

The new term commences May 1, 1998, to April 30, 2003, and continuing thereafter on a month to month basis.

Conclusions:

The license renewal between the City and Ontario Hydro should be renewed at a nominal rate.

Contact Name:

Vicky Papas 395-6843, Fax: 395-6703 (cs98065.wpd).

(A copy of Appendix A attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

40

Licence Agreement - Ontario Hydro - Four Winds Drive

Garden Allotment Plots (Ward 17 - Black Creek)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To renew the licence agreement between the City and Ontario Hydro for the use of land for garden allotment plot purposes. See Map in Appendix A.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Parks and Recreation Department (North York Region), Northwest District, confirmed that the funds for the renewal agreement are available.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Licence Agreement between the City and Ontario Hydro be approved; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute the documentation and take any necessary action.

History:

The former City of North York operated garden allotment plot sites in several locations on land licensed from Ontario Hydro for nominal sum. One of these licences, on Four Winds Drive, expired on April 30th, 1998. The term of the agreement was for ten years for $1.00 (One Dollar) per annum.

Comments:

Information on the property is set out below:

Property:Four Winds Drive, Toronto (formerly North York)

Legal Description:Part of Lot 21, Concession 4, WYS, in the City of Toronto (formerly North York)

Land Size:+/- 5.51 acres (2.22 ha)

Our Parks and Recreation Department indicated they wish to renew for a further term. Ontario Hydro provided us with new licence agreements for a term of five years.

The new term commences May 1, 1998, to April 30, 2003, and continuing thereafter on a month to month basis.

Conclusions:

The license renewal between the City and Ontario Hydro should be renewed at a nominal rate.

Contact Name:

Vicky Papas 395-6843 Fax: 395-6703 (cs98066.wpd).

(A copy of Appendix A attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

41

Proposed Licence Agreement - Prince Edward

Viaduct Parkette (Ward 23 - Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded a copy of the aforementioned report to the Toronto Community Council for comment thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Purpose:

To secure Council authorization for the City to enter into a Licence Agreement with the Owner of 16 Castle Frank Crescent

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council authorize the City to enter into a Licence Agreement between the City and the Owner of 16 Castle Frank Crescent, pertaining to the use by the Owner of approximately 48.15 metres squared of Prince Edward Viaduct Parkette as shown on the attached sketch; and

(2)the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing recommendation.

Comments:

The Owner of 16 Castle Frank Crescent is requesting permission to construct a fence around part of the park and enclose same for its own use. The arrangement is to be terminable at any time on 30 days notice.

Staff have reviewed the proposal and have determined that it will not impact negatively on City-owned trees and parkland and that this particular piece of parkland has very low to no public use at present. In addition, the proposed licence agreement would align the property lines and reduce the maintenance costs for some of the park.

Terms and Conditions:

(1)The term of the licence shall be from year-to-year for the sum of $1.00 per year payable prior to the date of commencement of each year of the term.

(2)The Owner shall covenant with the city as follows:

(a)The Owner will bear all costs associated with the maintenance of the parkland as well as any costs incurred by the City and/or any public utility company or system as a result of the presence of the Licence.

(b)The Owner will pay all property taxes assessed against or in respect of the subject lands during the term of the licence.

(c)The Owner will indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims and demands which may be brought or made upon the City as a result of the Licence.

(d)The Owner shall not assign or sublet this licence without prior written consent of the City, which consent may be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld.

(e)To use the subject lands for private open green space, including constructing, at the Owner's expense, a fence, in conjunction with the property known municipally as 16Castle Frank Crescent, and that in so using the land the Owner will fully comply with all lawful rules, regulation and by-laws of every municipal or other authority which in any manner affects the said lands. The Owner shall be responsible for providing a certificate of liability insurance in the amount of $1 million in coverage and be responsible for maintenance of parkland during the term of the licence.

(f)That upon the expiration or sooner termination of the Licence, the Owners will, at their expense, remove the fence and restore the land to the condition it was in when the licence was entered into to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

(g)The Owner is not to put up or exhibit or permit to be put up or permit to be exhibited upon the subject lands any sign, notice, notice board, painting, design or advertisement without the prior consent in writing of the Commissioner of Economic Development and Culture, which consent may be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld.

(h)That no building or structure whatsoever will be erected upon the subject lands other than a fence which is subject to the approval of Building and Inspections.

(3)The Owner agrees to provide City representatives access to the subject lands at any time for any purpose at the sole determination of the City.

(4)In the event that the subject lands or any part thereof are at any time required by the City for municipal purposes, which requirement shall be at the sole determination of the City, the City may terminate the agreement by giving to the Owners 30 days written notice.

The final terms and conditions of the Licence will be in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Conclusions:

The licence will not negatively affect the trees or parkland, and the area is located in a very low public use area. All present landscaping will be restored by the Owner at his cost upon expiration of the licence. As such, Parks and Recreation has no objection to the request from the Owner of 16Castle Frank Crescent to seek permission to enter into a Licence Agreement.

Contact Name:

Anne Valliere, Parks Manager, East RegionTel: 392-7265 ext: 309

Mary Graham, Regional Director - EastTel: 392-1909 Fax: 392-6657

(A copy of the location maps attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 29, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council advises City Council that it endorses the recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee, contained in Clause No. 41 of Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee that the report (May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, respecting Proposed Licence Agreement - Prince Edward Viaduct Parkette (Midtown) be adopted.

Background:

At its meeting held on May 27, 1998, the Toronto Community Council had before it, a communication (May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting Proposed Licence Agreement - Prince Edward Viaduct Parkette (Ward 23 - Midtown).)

42

Assignment of Leases and Other Agreements from

Seneca College to the Institute of Naturopathic

Education and Research, 1255 Sheppard Avenue East

(Ward 9 - North York Centre South)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain authority to consent to assignment of leases and other agreements on the above referenced property as shown on the attached location map and site plan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to consent to the assignment of leases and other agreements, from the Board of Governors of the Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology to the Institute of Naturopathic Education and Research, provided there are no outstanding disputes or defaults under any terms and conditions with respect to the agreements and an administrative fee of $300.00 is paid to the City of Toronto;

(2)consent to the assignments be satisfactory in form and content to the City Solicitor, and that the preparation of all necessary documentation be at no expense to the City; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Metropolitan Council on April 9, 1997, by adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10 of The Corporate Administration Committee, approved the execution of several agreements with the Board of Governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology arising from an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for various property requirements in connection with the Sheppard Subway Project. The agreements executed include the Sale Agreement, a Replacement Parking Lease, a Licence Agreement, a Leaseback Agreement, a Tieback Easement Agreement and a Worksite Lease.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

By letter dated March 5, 1998, the law firm of Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington who are representing Seneca College in a proposed sale of the Leslie Campus to the Institute of Naturopathic Education and Research, requested consent to the assignment of the various existing agreements pertaining to the Sheppard Subway Project.

Conclusions:

I have no objections to assignment of the agreements to the Institute of Naturopathic Education and Research, subject to the Board of Governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology fulfilling all of its existing obligations, if any, and the Institute of Naturopathic Education and Research agreeing to assume all of Seneca College's obligations under the existing agreements and to be bound by all of the terms and conditions therein.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio

Manager of Property Services

Telephone No.: (416)392-8155

Fax No.:(416)392-4828

E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

43

Lease of Space at 150 Eglinton Avenue East

Social Services Division, Community and

Neighbourhood Services Department

(Ward No. 22 - North Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To enter into a rental agreement of the subject property with 150 Eglinton Avenue East Holdings Limited, as per the attached location and site maps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the expenditures identified in this report are part of the 1998 Social Services Operating Budget estimates. The Commissioner of Finance, in accordance with Provincial regulations, has certified that financing for the expenditure in the amount of $510,000.00 is within the Updated Financial Debt and Obligation Limit.

As a result of the renewal, the estimate reduction in annual basic net rent payable is approximately $175,424.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)financing in the amount of $510,000.00 be approved;

(2)the City of Toronto enter into a lease with 150 Eglinton Avenue East Holdings Limited on the terms and conditions outlined in this report, and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Metropolitan Council, on May 8, 1991, by the adoption of Clause No16 of Report No. 17 of TheManagement Committee, approved the sublease of 9th and 10th floors of 150 Eglinton Avenue East, for a term commencing October 1, 1991, and expiring October 30, 1998. The current basic rent is $129.17 per square meter ($12.00 per square foot) net, per annum.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A Space Rationalization Team is currently dealing with various buildings brought into amalgamation and is in the process of identifying if there is any space available in these facilities that can accommodate various City of Toronto departments that are currently occupying leased premises as tenants. As a result, a canvass has been conducted based on the criteria and catchment area established by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department. The survey revealed no suitable City-owned space to accommodate this operation at this time.

By a letter dated February 6, 1998, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department requested that the lease be renewed for a one-year term. Negotiations were conducted with Mr.GlennWilliams, Executive Vice President, Tillyard & Partners, Inc., 150 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite304, Toronto, Ontario, M4P 1E8, property management for the Landlord, and agreement has been reached on the following terms:

(1)Leased Premises:

9th and 10th Floors of the building municipally known as 150 Eglinton Avenue East, City of Toronto.

(2)Lease Term:

One (1) year from the Commencement Date, with an option to renew for a further one year term at market rent upon the Tenant giving six months' prior notice.

(3)Commencement Date:

October 31, 1998. The Landlord shall, at its expense, be responsible to terminate the existing headlease as of the Commencement Date, if necessary.

(4)Basic Rentable Rate:

$43.06 per square meter ($4.00 per square foot), net, per annum.

(5)Rentable Area:

Approximately 2,265.74 square meters (24,389 square feet), subject to an upward and downward adjustment as determined by an architect, at the Landlord's expense. The Landlord shall, at its expenses, submit to the Tenant an "Architect's Certificate of Area" prior to the execution of the lease. The rentable area shall be measured according to accepted methods as stated by the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA).

(6)The Landlord shall continue to provide the existing 22 parking spaces (of which 6 spaces are underground and 16 spaces are surface) for the use by the Tenant at the rates of $60.00 per surface space per month and $90.00 per underground space per month plus G.S.T. for the term of the lease.

(7)Additional rent in respect of the Tenant's proportion of realty taxes, utilities and operating costs is payable in addition to Basic Rent. The estimated 1998 taxes and operating costs are $14.46 per square foot, per annum, excluding any business and/or realty taxes adjustments.

(8)The Tenant will not pay any commission associated with this transaction.

(9)All other terms and conditions shall remain the same or similar to the existing sublease dated July 16, 1991, save and except any provision of leasehold improvements for the Tenant.

(10)Upon expiry or early termination, the Tenant shall not be responsible for the cost of and/or the removal of the leasehold improvement.

(11)The lease agreement may be in the Landlord's standard form which shall be amended to reflect the terms and conditions set out in this proposal, but notwithstanding any clause contained or not contained in this proposal, the lease agreement must be in form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, these terms and conditions are fair and reasonable, and I have been advised that they are acceptable to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department. Another search for suitable City-owned space will be conducted prior to the expiry of the renewal term.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No.: (416)392-8155; Fax No.:(416)392-4828; E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

(A copy of the site maps attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

44

Licence Agreement - Parking Use Encroachment

on Road Allowance in Front and East Side of

3140-3150 Dufferin Street

(Ward No. 8 - North York Spadina)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

For authority to enter into a licence agreement for encroachment use of road allowance for parking purposes, as per attached location map.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The licence will generate a total income of $10,500.00 for the whole term of five (5) years.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to enter into a licence agreement with John Farquhar McLennan, the owner of the property of 3140-3150 Dufferin Street, North York, and J.K.McLennan Developments Limited, to encroach for parking purposes on land which is to be gratuitously conveyed to the City of Toronto as road allowance for future widening of Dufferin Street, based on the terms and conditions set out in this report and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

J.K. McLennan Developments Limited has applied for site plan approval to permit the existing retail uses within the building currently on site of 3140-3150 Dufferin Street, in the former North York. This application is subject to site plan control that allows the City of Toronto to request a gratuitous conveyance of a strip of land along the Dufferin Street frontage of the property for future road widening. The strip of land is approximately 111.9 square metres (1,204.52 square feet) in area.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As the subject area has been used for customer parking purposes by the property of 3140-3150Dufferin Street, the Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division has agreed to allow encroachment use for such purposes, subject to payment of a market rent. Negotiation has been conducted with Mark Atlin of Mark E. Atlin, Barrister and Solicitor, at 845St.Clair Avenue West, 4th floor, Toronto, Ontario, M6C 1C3, the Solicitor acting on behalf of J.K. McLennan Developments Limited, and agreement has been reached to enter into a licence agreement with John Farquhar McLennan, owner of the property of 3140-3150 Dufferin Street and J.K. Mclennan Developments Limited, subject to the following terms and conditions:

(1)Location:

Road allowance on the west side of Dufferin Street along the east frontage of 3140-3150Dufferin Street, North York.

(2)Licensed Area:

Approximately 111.9 square metres (1,204.52 square feet).

(3)Term:

Five (5) years, the date of commencement to be determined after transfer of the licensed area to the City of Toronto.

(4)Licence Fee:

$2,100.00 per annum, net, payable annually in advance, plus all applicable taxes and assessments of every kind whatsoever of any amounts in lieu thereof and any cost related to the licensed area.

(5)Damage Deposit:

(i) The Licensee agrees to pay a damage deposit of $5,000.00, either by certified cheque or letter of credit from a major bank with no interest payable to the Licensee on the deposit; and

(ii)To be returned to the Licensee without interest at the expiry of the Term or any renewal or extension thereof provided that the licensed area is left in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division, failing which the deposit shall be used for the purpose of such clean up and repair to any damage.

(6)Termination:

Either party shall have the right to terminate the licence at any time upon giving at least six (6) months' prior written notice to the other.

(7)The Licensee shall use the licensed area for car parking use and not for any other purposes.

(8)The Licensee shall not assign or sublet without the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(9)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, install the "authorized parking" or "staff parking" signs at the reserved parking spaces as specified by and to the unfettered satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(10)The Licensee shall pay all charges (including penalties) for utilities supplied to the licensed area directly to the supplier thereof.

(11)The Licensee shall, at its own expense and in the name of the Licensee and the City of Toronto, maintain in force insurance coverage with respect to the licensed area and its use and occupation and shall provide the City of Toronto with certificate(s) of policy of an insurance company for:

(i)inclusive coverage for legal liability for bodily injury, death, property damage in the amount of not less than $3,000,000.00 per occurrence; and

(ii)insurance against loss by such insurable hazards.

Every policy of insurance shall provide cross-liability coverage together with a waiver of subrogation in favour of the City of Toronto.

(12)(i)The Licensee shall, at all times, indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto from and against any and all manner of claims, demands, losses, costs, charges, actions and other proceedings whatsoever, including those under or in connection with the Workers' Compensation Act, made or brought against, suffered by or imposed on the City of Toronto or its property in respect of any loss, damage or injury to any person or property (including, without restriction, employees, agents and property of the Licensee or of the City of Toronto) directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or sustained as a result of the Licensee's occupation or use of, or any operation in connection with the licensed area or any fixtures or chattels thereon; and

(ii)The Licensee shall, at all times, indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, charges, actions and other proceedings whatsoever under the Construction Lien Act in connection with any work done for the Licensee at or on the licensed area and shall promptly see to the removal from the registered title to the licensed area of every claim for lien and certificate of action having to do with such work.

(13)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, be responsible for compliance with all Municipal, Provincial and Federal laws, including, without limitation, the Environmental Protection Act and other environmental legislations, permits, rules and regulations and shall obtain all the necessary permits and licences that may be required for the use of the licensed area and shall save the City of Toronto harmless from any Licensee's failure to so comply.

(14)The Licensee shall accept the licensed area in its existing condition and shall be responsible, at its own expense, for all repairs and maintenance.

(15)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, ensure that no ashes, refuse, garbages or other loose objectionable materials will accumulate on the licensed area and to keep the licensed area clean and tidy.

(16)The Licensee shall not make addition and alteration to the licensed area including surfacing, grading or landscaping to the licensed area without the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(17)The Licensee shall not install, erect or remove any fence(s), sign(s), structure(s) and fixture(s) on the licensed area without the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(18)No storage or use of hazardous materials or environmentally sensitive materials will be permitted.

(19)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, cut the grass on and surrounding the licensed area to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(20)The Licensee shall, at its own expense, keep the licensed area and sidewalks in and around the licensed area free and clear of obstructions and in the case of sidewalks, to keep them free and clear at all times of snow and ice.

(21)The Licensee shall protect all services of public works and/or utilities easement(s) that may encumber the licensed area and shall be liable for any damage to such by its action(s) or omission(s).

(22)The Licensee shall not install any equipment or carry on any operation on the licensed area in such a way as to increase the insurance risk.

(23)The Licensee shall ensure that nothing is done or kept at or on the licensed area which is or may be a nuisance, or which will cause disturbance or interfere with the users or occupants of any neighbouring property, or which in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division, may cause damage to the licensed area or any neighbouring property.

(24)(i)The City of Toronto and any of its employees, agents and contractors shall have the right, on at least twenty-four (24) hours' advance notice to the Licensee, or in the case of emergency or pressing urgency without advance notice, provided that the Licensee is notified thereof as soon as may be convenient thereafter, to enter on the licensed area for the purpose of maintenance, repair or construction with or without all the necessary gear and equipment as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division, deems necessary, and the Licensee hereby authorizes such entry and acknowledges that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division, shall be the sole judge of any emergency or pressing urgency as aforesaid; and

(ii)The Licensee shall ensure that once any notice of entry is given to the Licensee, the licensed area is cleared of all persons and vehicles during the performance of the work therein referred to, other than as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(25)At the termination of the licence, the Licensee shall, at its own expense, remove any fixtures and chattels belonging to the Licensee, including equipment(s), fixture(s), attachment(s), apparatus(s), appliance(s), structure(s) and debris, and repair all damages caused by such removal and by its use and occupation of the licensed area expeditiously, and to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

(26)Upon acceptance of this proposal, the Licensee shall provide the City of Toronto proof of its proper legal name. If the Licensee is a corporation, such proof shall include a copy of the corporation's Articles of Incorporation and/or Articles of Amendment, if any.

(27)Notwithstanding any clause contained or not contained in the proposal, the Licence Agreement shall be in a form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor.

(28)The proposal shall be subject to the approval of the City of Toronto Council as well as such approval as may be required under the City of Toronto Act, 1997, and the concurrence of the Toronto Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division, if required.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, the above terms and conditions are fair and reasonable and they are acceptable to the Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services Division.

Contact Name:

Mr. Tony Pittiglio, Manager of Property Services; Telephone No.: (416)392-8155; Fax No.:(416)392-4828; E-mail address: anthony_pittiglio@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(A copy of the location map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

45

Road Closing and Surplus Property Declaration

Westerly Portion of Monogram Place

(Kingsway-Humber-Ward 3)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April8, 1998) from Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The proposed development of a property at the west end of Monogram Place has presented an opportunity to close and dispose of a portion of the road allowance. Authority is sought for the closing and sale of the road allowance.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Acquisition or Improvement of City Properties Reserve Account (Etobicoke).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)road closing procedures be initiated to close the westerly portion of the Monogram Place road allowance, as shown on the attached sketch;

(2)Council declare that the portion of the road is surplus and that the City intends to sell the lands;

(3)public notice of the proposed sale be given by including a notation to that effect with the advertising of the road closing;

(4)staff be directed to sell the lands on an "as is" basis directly to the abutting owner immediately after the road is closed for assembly with the adjoining industrial lands, subject to the reservation of any easements required for municipal services and public utilities, for a consideration of $35,000.00 provided that the purchaser be responsible for all costs associated with the road closure process, survey, and legal, and the cost of reconstructing the cul-de-sac; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

A. Mantella & Sons Ltd. (Mantella) is the owner of the vacant industrial land at 26 Monogram Place. They are proposing the development of a 150,000-square foot industrial/warehouse building on their 8.47-acre site.

The proponent has requested that the City stop-up, close, and sell the westerly portion of the Monogram Place road allowance. There is a one-foot reserve along the south limit of the road and, as such, Mantella is the only legal abutting owner entitled to purchase any surplus portion of the road.

Staff of the Works Department have confirmed that the westerly portion of the road is not required for municipal purposes and could be sold subject to any easements to be reserved for municipal purposes and further subject to the purchaser being responsible for the reconstruction of the cul-de-sac. The reconstruction of the cul-de-sac has been estimated at a cost of $89,000.00 by Works Department staff.

It is proposed that the purchaser reimburse the City for its reasonable costs related to the road closure process, as well as survey and legal costs for the conveyance.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Municipal Act requires the road be closed as a public highway prior to sale. Advertisements in local newspapers are required as part of the road closing process.

The portion of road deemed surplus is approximately 0.58 acre. The proponent will convey a small piece of land comprising approximately 0.15 acre for creation of the relocated cul-de-sac. Thus, the net area of City land to be conveyed to the proponent is 0.43 acre, subject to survey.

A preliminary in-house estimate of the land value had suggested a sale price of $65,000.00.

The proponent, by way of letter dated February 5, 1998, had offered a price of $35,000.00 in consideration of the municipal easements, his own estimates of the cul-de-sac reconstruction, and the physical characteristics of the land.

The proponent had also requested certain other concessions related to building permit fees and storm water quality charges. These latter requests could not be accommodated according to the Urban Development and Works Commissioners for the Etobicoke District.

Conclusions:

The proposed closure and sale of the westerly portion of the Monogram Place road allowance would facilitate the development of the industrial property at 26 Monogram Place. As newspaper advertisements will be required as part of the road closing process, the public notice requirements can be met by including a notation to that effect in the road closing advertisements.

Contact Name:

Frank Bedard, Telephone: (416) 394-8096 Fax: (416) 394-8895 (cs98047.wpd )

(A copy of the sketches attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

46

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Acquisition and Disposal of Real Property.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following joint report and communications to its next meeting to be held on June 29, 1998; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to circulate the aforementioned report to all Members of Council, requesting comments in regard thereto at least ten days prior to the agenda closing of the aforementioned Corporate Services Committee meeting:

(i)(May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and City Solicitor recommending that:

(1)the processes for the acquisition and disposal of real property, as set out in this report, be endorsed and supersede and replace any authorities, policies and procedures of the seven former municipalities that relate to these matters;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on policies for approval by City Council on the allocation of property assets to meet objectives of the City, such as promotion of affordable housing and cultural initiatives;

(3)authorization be granted for the delegation of real estate/property matters in accordance with the particulars set out in Appendix A-1 of this report;

(4)the procedures governing the sale of real property as set out in the draft Bill attached to this report as Appendix B-1 be adopted;

(5)the administrative procedures governing the sale of real property attached as Appendix B-2 to this report be received for information;

(6)for the marketing of:

(a)commercial and special purpose properties, authorization be granted for a prequalification process to establish a roster of real estate brokers, such roster to be used on a rotational basis;

(b)residential real estate, the Commissioner of Corporate Services or her designate be authorized to select real estate brokers active in residential listings, in accordance with the criteria listed in this report;

and the Commissioner of Corporate Services or her designate be authorized to execute the relevant listing agreements with the real estate broker;

(7) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to negotiate a commission fee, at her sole discretion, for any professional services from Real Estate Brokers;

(8)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report on:

(a)the appropriate roles and responsibilities of City Council and staff with respect to real estate matters for the ABC's;

(b)how applications for encroachment can be most effectively dealt with; and

(c)the effectiveness of the processes recommended in this report in one year's time;

(9)upon enactment, the disposal by-law proposed in this report shall supersede and replace the by-laws of the seven previous municipalities governing the sale of real property;

(10)authority be granted for the introduction of any Bills necessary to effect the foregoing; and

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

(ii)(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council at its meeting on April16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 19 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Delegation of Authority to Approve Various Real Estate Matters"; and that Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration, and further directed that the Council Strategy Committee for Persons Without Homes be offered the opportunity to provide input on the sale of the properties when such matters are considered by the Committee.

(iii)(May 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, on May 11, 1998, considered the recommendations, as contained in Clause No. 19 of Report No. 3 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Delegation of Authority to Approve Various Real Estate Matters"; and that The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes recommended:

(1)that the Commissioner of Corporate Services, as part of her report to the Corporate Services Committee regarding disposition of surplus lands, give consideration to the following:

(a)a mechanism needs to be created which will ensure that lands are evaluated for their potential to meet housing needs prior to their final disposition by the City of Toronto; and

(b)monies generated from the sale of surplus lands be held in a special fund, and that Council prioritize the disbursement of the said funds by targeting initiatives which assist currently homeless people, prevent people from becoming homeless, assist children living in poverty and provide assistance for housing initiatives;

(2)that the Corporate Services Committee consider the noted recommendations in conjunction with the said report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and that the report and any subsequent recommendations also be considered by the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes; and

(3) that the Corporate Services Committee also be advised that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes has reviewed the recommendations, as embodied in Clause No. 19 of Report No. 3 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Delegation of Authority to Approve Various Real Estate Matters", and advises of its concerns with regard to the lack of clarity contained in the recommendations and the accompanying tables.

(b)Expediting the Disposal of Property

and Reduction of Leased Space.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting to be held on June 29, 1998; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to circulate the aforementioned report to all Members of Council, requesting comments in regard thereto at least ten days prior to the agenda closing of the aforementioned Corporate Services Committee meeting:

(May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, describing the various programs underway to expedite the disposal of land and reduction of leases; and recommending that:

(1)the programs described in this report be endorsed;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services report to the Corporate Services Committee every six months on the implementation of the programs; and

(3)this report be referred to the Budget Committee for information.

(c)Surplus Property within the "Spadina Corridor"

and "Scarborough Transportation Corridor".

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on June29, 1998; and

(2)requested the City Clerk to invite representatives of the Spadina Corridor Residents' Association to make a deputation at the aforementioned meeting of the Committee, if they so choose:

(May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services recommending that:

(1)authorization be granted for the disposal of the properties declared surplus by the Council of (former) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, along the former Spadina and Scarborough Expressway Corridors, in the manner detailed in the body of this report;

(2)all negotiations with former owners and/or current tenants with respect to the purchase of these properties be conducted on the basis of the market value applicable at the time of current negotiations;

(3)those tenants not wishing to purchase the property occupied by them be offered a financial incentive to provide vacant possession of the property, as detailed in the body of this report;

(4)authority be granted to the City Solicitor to take the steps necessary to secure vacant possession of any properties in the circumstances referred to in the body of this Report including the execution of any Agreements to Terminate Tenancies;

(5)costs associated with the valuation, financial incentives, and sale of the properties be deducted from the proceeds of the sale; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to give effect to the foregoing.

(d)Sale of "Property Houses"

(Multiple Wards - Former City of Toronto).

The Corporate Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on June 29, 1998:

(i)(May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services seeking City Council authority to declare the "property houses" in the former City of Toronto on attached Appendix I (save and except for those four properties currently leased to community based housing providers and also identified on attached Appendix I) as surplus to the City's requirements and authorize the sale of these properties on the open market; advising that the total of the current value assessment for the 56 property houses recommended to be declared surplus in this report is $11,134,845.00; and recommending that:

(1)subject to the Board of Cityhome passing a resolution to do so, the existing leases between Cityhome and the Corporation of the City of Toronto, for the property houses be terminated in the manner described in this report;

(2)City Council, by By-Law, declare that, upon the leases having been terminated, the 56 houses owned by the City of Toronto, as set out on the attached Appendix I are surplus;

(3)notice to the public of the proposed disposition of the lands declared surplus be given in accordance with S.95-5 of the Municipal Code;

(4)prior to offering the properties for sale on the open market, the first right to purchase be given to the previous owners and/or current tenants, on the terms set out in the body of this report;

(5)the Commissioner, Corporate Services, be authorized to market those properties which the previous owners and/or tenants do not wish to purchase through a real estate broker for a listing price to be determined in consultation with the listing broker;

(6)the funds from the sale of the houses subject to the 25 year lease be deposited into an account to be used to satisfy the mortgage at maturity;

(7)the City Surveyor, in consultation with the Director, Development and Support, Parks and Recreation, be directed to prepare a survey of the north portion of 144 Balsam Avenue and that this portion of the property be retained by the City, in fee simple or by way of an easement, and placed under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Division for parks purposes;

(8)City Council endorse the tenant relocation plan as outlined in this report;

(9)the four properties currently being leased to community based housing providers, as identified within this report on Appendix I, be retained by the City to allow the current use of these properties to continue and the Commissioners of Corporate Services and Community and Neighbourhood Services determine the appropriate leasing arrangement for these four properties and report back thereon to the Corporate Services Committee; and

(10)the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.

(ii)(May 20, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity Niagara, advising that he has received a memorandum dated May 19, 1998, respecting the Sale of "Property Houses" which is of extreme importance to his constituents; that 30 of the 56properties listed in the report (May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, are located in his ward; that he will be on an official visit to Portugal when this matter will be considered by the Corporate Services Committee; and requesting that this item be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.

(e)Status of 15 Beaumont Road (Park Drive Ravine).

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following communications and confidential reports:

(i)(May 15, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, directed that the Motion by Councillor Sgro, Seconded by Councillor Brown, respecting 15 Beaumont Road, be referred to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration, together with the confidential report dated April 15, 1998, from the City Solicitor; and requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, to submit a further report to the Corporate Services Committee on real estate aspects of this matter.

(ii)Confidential report (May 21, 1998) from the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 15 Beaumont Road.

(iii)Confidential report (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, respecting 15 Beaumont Road.

(iv)(May 25, 1998) from Mr. David Vallance, Chair, Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer Associations (CORRA), requesting that Council not oppose Mrs.Dickinson's request for a full and fair hearing.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Gayle Christie, Gayle Christie Associates, and submitted a written brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. Mike McQuaid, Weir and Foulds;

-Mr. Greg Daly, Weir and Foulds;

-Mrs. Vera Dickinson;

-Mr. Stephen Fox-Revett; and

-Councillor Judy Sgro, North York, Humber.

(f)Policy and Guidelines for the Hiring of Senior Staff.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(May 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, responding to a directive by Council that the Chief Administrative Officer bring forward a comprehensive policy for the hiring of senior City staff; attaching a report (January 19, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer entitled, "Staffing of Organizational Leadership Positions" and a joint report (January 19, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Office and the Commissioner of Human Resources, entitled "Staffing Strategy for Management and Excluded Staff" adopted by Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, which outline the policy for hiring senior staff; and recommending that the report of the Chief Administrative Officer on the policy and guidelines for the hiring of senior staff be received for information.

(g)Honoraria for Councillors Appointed to

Agencies, Boards and Commissions; and

Setting Salaries for Members of Council.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following communication:

(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 42 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Services Committee headed "Other Items Considered by the Committee"; and that Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be received as information, subject to striking out and referring the following items embodied in such Clause back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration:

(1)Item (n), entitled "Honoraria for Councillors Appointed to Agencies, Boards and Commissions"; and

(2)Item (o), entitled "Setting Salaries for Members of Council".

(h)Surplus Computer or Computer Equipment.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Corporate Services for report thereon to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee scheduled to be held on June 29, 1998; and having requested that such report include comments on what the practical use of these computers are if they are not year 2000 compliant:

(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on April 16, 1998, referred to the Corporate Services Committee, a motion moved by Councillor Disero, Seconded by Councillor Jakobek, the operative paragraph of which read as follows:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Toronto City Council offer any computer or computer equipment no longer required for municipal services/use to the Toronto District School Board and/or the Toronto Catholic School Board for their use."

(i)Development of a City Wide Emblem/Logo.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Chief Administrative Officer for inclusion as part of the development of the Corporate Visual Identify Program:

(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 4 of Report No. 3 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, headed "Toronto Fire Services - Emblem and Name"; and that Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration, with requests that:

(1)the Chief Administrative Officer:

(a)co-ordinate the development of a Corporate logo for the City of Toronto, such logo to be used by all City of Toronto Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions; and

(b)submit to the Corporate Services Committee, for consideration, a copy of the logo and slogan developed by Tourism Toronto; and

(2)the Toronto Ambulance, the Toronto Police Services Board and the Toronto Transit Commission re-open consideration of their respective crests and insignias and participate in the development of the new Corporate logo.

(j)1998 Parking Tax Issuance - April.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(May 5, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer advising that Metropolitan Council, on February 17 and 18, 1993, adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 9 of the Management Committee, as amended, wherein it is recommended "that the Metropolitan Treasurer submit a monthly report to the Management Committee on the operational results of Parking Tag Operations regarding the number of tags issued and collected, staffing and expenditures and revenue and deviations thereof, together with a projected total year position"; that this report reflects parking enforcement and collection activities of the Corporation for the period ending March 31, 1998; attaching the following schedules:

Schedule 1Monthly Tag Issuance, Collection Rate and Revenue for 1998;

Schedule 2Collection Rate Activity for Tags Issued in Prior Years (1989-1997);

Schedule 3 Parking Tag Receivables (1989-1997);

Schedule 4Summary of Trial Request and Conviction Rates; and

Schedule 5Summary of Expenditures for Parking Tag Operations; and

recommending that this report be received for information.

(k)Union Station Lands.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee:

(May 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, referred the following motion, together with the communication dated February 18, 1998, from Councillor Walker, to the Corporate Services Committee for report to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on June 3, 1998:

Moved by:Councillor Walker

Seconded by:Councillor Adams

"WHEREAS there has been a great deal of speculation in the media regarding the possible purchase of the City of Toronto's 'Union Station lands'; and

WHEREAS the Mayor's office has not supplied City of Toronto Councillors with any details regarding any such proposal; and

WHEREAS Councillor Michael Walker, by way of a letter dated February 18, 1998 (see attached) requested that the Mayor provide City Councillors with information regarding the proposed land deal; and

WHEREAS the Mayor has still not provided the requested information; and

WHEREAS it is vital that the negotiations for any possible disposition of these lands be done openly in a public forum; and

WHEREAS, it is essential that the City of Toronto receive 'fair market value' for its lands, which are worth well in excess of $100 million;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1)City Council appoint a lead negotiator, who, along with City staff, negotiate the possible sale/lease of the Union Station lands with Maple Leaf Gardens;

(2)City staff select three possible chief negotiators for final selection by City Council. In selecting the three possible negotiators, staff is to give consideration to those candidates with knowledge of these lands and with previous experience in negotiating their disposition to Maple Leaf Gardens;

(3)City Council meet in special session to decide what instructions to give its negotiating team regarding any possible disposition of the lands; and

(4)City Council continue to meet at regular intervals, in special session, to receive briefings from the City negotiators and to further instruct the negotiators."

--------

The following persons appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Alan Burke, Director, East Beach Community Association; and

-Councillor Michael Walker, North-Toronto.

(l)Provision of Food Services at Metro Hall.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having:

(1)received the following communication (May 21, 1998) from the City Clerk; and

(2)directed that the matter of Provision of Food Services at City Hall be brought forward as a deputation item at the June 29, 1998, meeting of the Corporate Services Committee:

(May 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, enclosing for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No.4 contained in Report No.5 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Provision of Food Services at Metro Hall", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on May13 and14,1998, and wherein it is further recommended that:

"(1)the confidential report dated May 13, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled 'Provision of Food Services at Metro Hall', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted, subject to the Commissioner of Corporate Services being requested to submit to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee, if available, any or all of the report which was to be prepared for submission in December, in accordance with Recommendation No. (2):

'It is recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto be authorized to finalize an interim agreement to provide food services at Metro Hall with Canada Catering Ltd., in a smoke-free environment occupying approximately 50 percent of the original space, for the period of April 1, 1998, until December31, 1998, and then on a 60-day basis thereafter;

(2)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to report back to Council, in December of 1998, on the status of food services agreements at Metro Hall and other corporately-owned and operated facilities; and

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

(2)the confidential joint report dated May 13, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor, entitled 'Main Floor Cafe - City Hall (Ward24)', be referred to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration at its next meeting."

(m)Separation Program for Bargaining Unit

Employees - Early Retirement Incentive.

The Corporate Services Committee reports having received the following confidential report; and having requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee when meetings with OMERS have occurred:

confidential report (May 20, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources, respecting a separation program for bargaining Unit Employees.

Respectfully submitted,

DICK O'BRIEN,

Chair

Toronto, May 25, 1998

(Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998.)