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
STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 9
11982 Queen Street East 7th Wave Bistro (Ward 26 - East Toronto)
2Use of Trademark PATH
3Appointments to the Boards of Management for Business Improvement
Areas and Amendments to the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20,
Business Improvement Areas- Various Wards
41998 BIA Operating Budgets
5Terms of Reference - Harmonization of Services
6Harmonization of User Fees for Recreation Programs
71998 Operating and Capital Budget - Parks and Recreation Program
8Property Acquisition for Parkland - Canada Lands Company- Scarborough
Bluffs (Ward 13)
9Acquisition of Former Landfill Site Owned by the Ministry of Transportation -
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
10Income Sharing Arrangement with theToronto Parking Authority
11Toronto Transit Commission - Procurement ofReplacement Subway Cars
12Other Items Considered by the Committee
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 9
OF THE STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
(from its meeting on May 29, 1998,
submitted by Mayor Mel Lastman , Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998
1
1982 Queen Street East 7th Wave Bistro
(Ward 26 - East Toronto)
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends that the confidential report
dated May 13, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services respecting 1982 Queen Street East 7th Wave Bistro, which was forwarded to
Members of Council under confidential cover, be received, such reports to remain
confidential in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(9) of the Municipal Act..
--------
No one addressed the Committee in connection with this matter.
2
Use of Trademark PATH
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the report
(May13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee advises that it has requested the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to investigate opportunities
to involve the private sector and benefitting businesses in assuming the costs of the City of
Toronto's underground walkway system currently being borne by the municipality.
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (May13,
1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
This report recommends that the City of Toronto consent to the adoption, use and registration
of the trademark PATH by The Young Consulting Group Inc. a Vancouver based
management consulting firm. Council approval is required since the City is the owner of the
official mark PATH which identifies the downtown underground walkway system.
Source of Funds, Financial Implications and Impact:
No funding is required and there are no financial implications for the City of Toronto.
Recommendations:
That the City of Toronto consent to the registration of PATH as a trademark by The Young
Consulting Group Inc. subject to the applicant's agreeing that the trade mark for which
consent has been sought will not be used in any design form which is confusingly similar to
the design forms used by the City of Toronto, including any similar typeface.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The former Corporation of the City of Toronto was the owner of the following official marks
pursuant to section 9 of the Trade Marks Act which identify the underground walkway system
in downtown Toronto: PATH, P.A.T.H. & Design, PATH & Design, INSIDE PATHWAYS,
INSIDE PASSAGE, THE PATHWAY, PATH DOWNTOWN WALKWAY and Design,
DOWNTOWN WALKWAY and PATHWAY SYSTEM.
Subsection 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act provides that no person shall adopt in connection with
a business, as a trademark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to
be likely to be mistaken for any badge, crest, emblem or mark adopted and used by any public
authority in Canada as an official mark for wares or services. Subsection 9(2) of that Act
provides that nothing in the section prevents the adoption, use or registration of a trade-mark
or otherwise, in connection with a business, of any mark described in subsection 9(1) with the
consent of the public authority which was intended to be protected by the section. It is this
requirement for consent that has generated the following request.
The City has received a request from The Young Consulting Group Inc., a British Columbia
management consulting firm specializing in the health care and non-profit sectors to provide
its consent to that company's adoption and use of the trademark PATH in association with a
Performance Assessment Tool for Healthcare. Performance Assessment Tool for Healthcare
assists decision making bodies who must have accurate information upon which to make their
decisions and to involve and investigate multiple-site, multiple-service situations where
clarity of the facts and perceptions can lead to evidence-based decisions.
The City's consent has been requested to enable The Young Consulting Group Inc. to use and
register the trademark PATH. Since it is unlikely that anyone would associate a Performance
Assessment Tool for Healthcare with the City's official mark PATH, it is our view that the
City could reasonably give its consent. Under the circumstances and in view of the proposed
use of the trademark we do not recommend that a fee be charged for the use of the mark, nor
do we recommend any limitations on it's use. We do, however, recommend that as a condition
of the consent being given that the applicant be required to agree that the trademark will not
be used in any design form which is confusingly similar to the design forms used by the City
of Toronto, including any similar typeface.
We have consulted with the City Solicitor in the preparation of this report.
Contact Name:
George Spezza: phone: 392-6904, fax: 392-0675, E-mail: gspezza@city.toronto.on.ca.
3
Appointments to the Boards of Management for Business
Improvement Areas and Amendments to the (former Toronto)
Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas
- Various Wards
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
Changes to membership of Boards of Management for Business Improvement Areas require
Council approval and a by-law amendment. Attached is Schedule A detailing the amendments
to (former Toronto) Municipal Code, Chapter 20 and Appendix 1 listing the names of the
nominees to be appointed.
Source of Funds:
No funds required. Business Improvement Area operating budgets are raised by a special levy
on members and will be brought forward in a separate report for approval.
Recommendations:
"It is recommended that:
(1)in accordance with the elections held at the Business Improvement Area Annual General
Meetings, amendments be made to Schedule A Individual Boards of Management, of the
(former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas as set out in the
attached Schedule A. These changes are specific to Number of Members and Members
Needed for Quorum and are highlighted by "Changes From and To";
(2)Council appoint the nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report to the Boards of
Management for Hillcrest Village, Long Branch and Village of Islington Business
Improvement Areas. The term of office is to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon
thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of
Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106.
(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto."
Comments:
Following the election held at the Annual General Meeting of Hillcrest Village Business
Improvement Area, amendments are required to the number of members and members needed
for quorum. These amendments must be reflected in Schedule A Individual Boards of
Management of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement
Areas.
Following the elections held at the Annual General Meetings of Long Branch and Village of
Islington Business Improvement Areas and as per Councils resolution at it's meeting of
February 5 & 6, 1998, attached in Appendix 1 are the nominations for appointments to other
Business Improvement Areas Boards of Management in the former Area Municipalities.
Conclusions:
These amendments should be reflected in Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management of
the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas.
The nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report should be appointed to the Business
Improvement Area, Boards of Management. The terms of office are to expire on November
30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees
meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106.
--------
SCHEDULE A
Business Improvement Areas
Individual Boards of Management
Name ofBy-lawMembers
Business WhichNumberCouncil MembersNeeded
ImprovementDesignatesofFor
AreaAreaMembersNumberWardQuorum
ChangedChanged
FromToFrom To
Hillcrest
Village808-8387 1Davenport44
--------
Appendix 1
Hillcrest Village BIA
Cathy LawesToronto Dominion Bank
687 St. Clair Ave. W.
Toronto, Ont. M6C 1B2
Luigi SabatiniOrizzonte Restaurant
760 St. Clair Ave. W.
Toronto, Ont. M6C 1B5
Santo Carino760 St. Clair Avenue W.
Toronto, Ont. M6C 1B5
Joseph LupoJoseph's
806 St. Clair Ave. W.
Toronto, Ont. M6C 1B6
Tony Diodati Churrasco of St. Clair
679 St. Clair Ave. W.
Toronto, Ont. M6C 1A7
Santo BozzoSanto's Hair Stylist
804 St. Clair Ave. W.
Toronto, Ont. M6C 1B6
Long Branch BIA
Dietmar LeinLein's Deli
3262 Lakeshore Blvd. W.
Toronto, Ont. M8V 1M4
Carl PorrittH. G. Porritt Real Estate Inc.
3399 Lakeshore Blvd., W.
Toronto, Ont. M8W 1N2
Liz PorrittH. G. Porritt Real Estate Inc.
3399 Lakeshore Blvd., W.
Toronto, Ont. M8W 1N2
Phil BakerLakeshore Accounting
3421 Lakeshore Blvd., W.
Toronto, Ont. M8W 1N2
Patricia LukasewichLawyer's Office
3386 Lakeshore Blvd., W.
Toronto, Ont. M8W 1M9
George DimogerontasGreek Texan Bar & Grill
3235 Lakeshore Blvd., W.
Toronto, Ont. M8V 1M2
Anne Marie HopkinsLakeshore Cycle & Sports
3451 Lakeshore Blvd., W.
Toronto, Ont. M8W 1N2
George KokosielisThe Bridge Port Restaurant
3473 Lakeshore Blvd., W.
Toronto, Ont. M8W 1N5
Mike WiltonGolf-To-A-Tee
3541 Lakeshore Blvd. W.
Toronto, Ont. M8W 1P4
Village Of Islington BIA
Stuart HillsTurner & Porter
Butler Chapel
4933 Dundas St. W.
Toronto, Ont. M9A 1B6
Rick GenioleRicci Salon
4868 Dundas St. W.
Toronto, Ont. M9A 1B6
Jon C. ParryEdward D. Jones & Co.
4889 A Dundas St. W.
Suite # 4
Toronto, Ont. M9A 1B2
Kathleen YeomanDewar Graham
4889 Dundas St. W.
Toronto, Ont. M9A 1B2
Eric TettmarThe Precinct
4946 Dundas St. W.
Toronto, Ont. M9A 1B7
John AlkinsAlkins Real Estate Ltd.
4872 Dundas St. W.
Toronto, Ont. M9A 1B5
4
1998 BIA Operating Budgets
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of
Recommendations (1) and (2) in the report (May 14, 1998) from the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer.
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council,
having concurred with Recommendation No. (3) in the report (May 14, 1998) from the Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer, that
"(3)a copy of this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information.".
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (May 14,
1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
Purpose:
Approval of Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual budgets is required by Council as per
Section220 of the Municipal Act as amended by Bill 106.
Source of Funds:
No City funding is required since Business Improvement Area operating budgets are raised by
a special levy on members.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee certify to City Council the expenditure
estimates of the following Business Improvement Areas for the year 1998, in the following
amounts:
$
Bloordale Village58,000
Gerrard India Bazaar40,000
Harbord Street26,000
Parkdale Village115,500
Queen/Broadview Village39,000
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood70,000
Upper Village127,900
(2)the expenditure estimates of the above Business Improvement Areas be adopted; and
(3)a copy of this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information.
Comments:
The budget approval process for BIA budgets is as follows. Each BIA submits a budget which
has been approved by the members and the Board of Management to the BIA Office. As with
all agency budgets, the Finance Department reviews the budget and submits it to this
committee for recommendation to Council for adoption. Once the budgets have been
approved, the funds are raised by the City by a special levy on the businesses within the
bounds of the business improvement area.
The first group of BIA budgets was approved by Council at its meeting of May13, 1998. This
is the second group. The rest of the BIA budgets will be forwarded to you as they are
submitted. Appendix B contains the full list of all 39 BIAs and where the budget is in the
approval process.
The following Business Improvement Areas held meetings on the noted days at which the
budgets (see Appendix A) were approved:
Approved ByApproved By
Members Board of Management
Bloordale VillageApril 14, 1998April 14, 1998
Gerrard India BazaarFebruary 26, 1998February 26, 1998
Harbord StreetDecember 10, 1997December 10, 1997
Parkdale VillageJanuary 19, 1998January 19, 1998
Queen/Broadview VillageApril 29, 1998April 29, 1998
St. Lawrence NeighbourhoodApril 16, 1998April 16, 1998
Upper VillageApril 22, 1998April 22, 1998
The following tables adjust the gross budgets to arrive at net budgets for special levying
purposes for these Business Improvement Areas:
19971998 Budget
Budget Request
$$
Bloordale Village:
Expenditure Estimates30,03058,000
Miscellaneous Revenue00
BIA's Prior Years
(Surplus)/Deficit 0(20,000)
Net Expenditure Budget30,03038,000
Gerrard India Bazaar:
Expenditure Estimates40,00040,000
Miscellaneous Revenue00
BIA's Prior Years
(Surplus)/Deficit 0 0
Net Expenditure Budget40,00040,000
Harbord Street:
Expenditure Estimates22,50026,000
Miscellaneous Revenue00
BIA's Prior Year
(Surplus)/Deficit 0(3,500)
Net Expenditure Budget22,50022,500
Parkdale Village:
Expenditure Estimates96,000115,500
Miscellaneous Revenue00
BIA's Prior Years
(Surplus)/Deficit 0(19,500)
Net Expenditure Budget96,00096,000
Queen/Broadview Village:
Expenditure Estimates26,00039,000
Miscellaneous Revenue00
BIA's Prior Years
(Surplus)/Deficit 0(13,000)
Net Expenditure Budget26,00026,000
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood:
Expenditure Estimate50,00070,000
Miscellaneous Revenue00
BIA's Prior Years
(Surplus)/Deficit 0(20,000)
Net Expenditure Budget50,00050,000
Upper Village:
Expenditure Estimates135,000127,900
Miscellaneous Revenue00
BIA's Prior Years
(Surplus)/Deficit 0 0
Net Expenditure Budget135,000127,900
Contact Name:
Donald Altman, telephone: 392-1529; fax: 392-6963
Internet e-mail: daltman@city.toronto.on.ca
Ingrid Girdauskas, telephone: 392-1134; fax: 392-0675
Internet e-mail: igirdaus@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
Appendix A
Operating Budget of the Bloordale Village BIA
For The Year 1998
Budget Summary
1997
1997Council1998
ProjectedApprovedBudget
Actual Request Request
$$$
Revenue and Surplus20,76630,03058,000
Expenditures:
Administration2,565730750
Capital4,64915,00045,500
Maintenance1,2439,0007,900
Promotion and Advertising7,2535,3003,850
Contingency 0 0 0
Total Expenditures15,71030,03058,000
(GST Included)
(Surplus)/Deficit(5,056)00
--------
Operating Budget of the Gerrard India Bazaar BIA
For The Year 1998
Budget Summary
1997
1997Council1998
ProjectedApprovedBudget
Actual Request Request
$$$
Revenue and Surplus55,07340,00040,000
Expenditures:
Administration2,742300300
Capital02,00016,250
Maintenance1,5003,0003,500
Promotion and Advertising22,09734,70019,950
Contingency/Provision19,909 0 0
Total Expenditures46,24840,00040,000
(GST Included)
(Surplus)/Deficit ( 8,825)00
--------
Operating Budget of the Harbord Street BIA
For The Year 1998
Budget Summary
1997
1997Council1998
ProjectedApprovedBudget
Actual Request Request
$$$
Revenue and Surplus18,55622,50026,000
Expenditures:
Administration4,6824003,000
Capital06,50015,000
Maintenance06003,000
Promotion and Advertising13,12913,0005,000
Contingency/Provision 809 0 0
Total Expenditures18,62022,50026,000
(GST Included)
(Surplus)/Deficit6400
Operating Budget of the Parkdale Village BIA
For The Year 1998
Budget Summary
1997
1997Council1998
ProjectedApprovedBudget
Actual Request Request
$$$
Revenue and Surplus46,81396,000115,500
Expenditures:
Administration9,76112,00025,000
Capital10,03260,00040,000
Maintenance13,57710,00020,000
Promotion and Advertising13,05813,000 20,000
Contingency/Provision 4,611 1,000 10,500
Total Expenditures51,03996,000115,500
(GST Included)
(Surplus)/Deficit4,22600
--------
Operating Budget of the Queen/Broadview Village BIA
For The Year 1998
Budget Summary
1997
1997Council1998
ProjectedApprovedBudget
Actual Request Request
$$$
Revenue and Surplus25,98726,00039,000
Expenditures:
Administration4,9441,0001,000
Capital010,00015,800
Maintenance6,34611,00017,200
Promotion and Advertising6,5644,0005,000
Contingency/Provision 1,609 0 0
Total Expenditures19,46326,00039,000
(GST Included)
(Surplus)/Deficit(6,524)00
Operating Budget of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood BIA
For The Year 1998
Budget Summary
1997
1997Council1998
ProjectedApprovedBudget
Actual Request Request
$$$
Revenue and SurplusN/A50,00070,000
Expenditures:
AdministrationN/A 3009,120
CapitalN/A29,5012,500
Maintenance N/A10,00017,800
Promotion and AdvertisingN/A10,20030,500
ContingencyN/A 0 80
Total ExpendituresN/A50,00070,000
(GST Included)
(Surplus)/DeficitN/A00
--------
Operating Budget of the Upper Village BIA
For The Year 1998
Budget Summary
1997
1997Council1998
ProjectedApprovedBudget
Actual Request Request
$$$
Revenue and Surplus155,284135,000127,900
Expenditures:
Administration18,03425,90020,100
Capital15,00035,00053,000
Maintenance1,22118,10019,800
Promotion and Advertising 37,46456,00035,000
Contingency/Provision67,477 0 0
Total Expenditures39,196135,000127,900
(GST Included)
(Surplus)/Deficit(16,088)00
Appendix B
Business Improvement Area |
Municipality |
Stage in Budget Process |
Bloor/Bathurst-Madison |
T |
A |
Bloor-by-the-Park |
T |
A |
Bloorcourt Village |
T |
A |
Bloordale Village |
T |
B |
Bloor West Village |
T |
A |
Bloor-Yorkville |
T |
A |
Corso Italia |
T |
A |
Danforth-by-the-Valley |
T |
A |
Dovercourt Village |
T |
C |
Eglinton Way |
T |
A |
Elm Street |
T |
C |
Forest Hill Village |
T |
A |
Gerrard India Bazaar |
T |
B |
Greektown-on-the-Danforth |
T |
A |
Harbord Street |
T |
B |
Hillcrest Village |
T |
C |
Junction Gardens |
T |
A |
Keele-Eglinton |
Y |
C |
Kennedy Road |
S |
A |
Kingsway |
E |
A |
Lakeshore Village |
E |
A |
Little Italy |
T |
A |
Long Branch |
E |
A |
Mimico-by-the-Lake |
E |
C |
Mimico Village |
E |
A |
Mount Dennis |
Y |
C |
Old Cabbagetown |
T |
A |
Pape Village |
EY |
A |
Parkdale Village |
T |
B |
Queen/Broadview Village |
T |
B |
Roncesvalles Village |
T |
A |
St. Clair Gardens |
T |
C |
St. Lawrence |
T |
B |
Upper Village |
T |
B |
Upper Village (York) |
Y |
C |
Village of Islington |
E |
C |
Weston |
Y |
A |
Yonge/Queen-Dundas |
T |
C |
Yonge-Eglinton |
Y |
C |
A - Approved by Council - May 13, 1998
B - This Report
C - Budget not submitted
5
Terms of Reference - Harmonization of Services
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
following report (May 27, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:
Purpose:
This report provides an update on the process that will be undertaken for the harmonization of
services where departmental programs have been restructured as a result of amalgamation.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The recommendations in this report have no immediate financial impact.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Chief Administrative Officer immediately direct the development of reports in each
department that define service level variations across the City and identify to the appropriate
Standing Committee services that must be addressed on a priority basis;
(2)the Chief Administrative Officer report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee
on the key principles that will guide service harmonization for 1999;
(3)based on the departmental service harmonization priorities determined in consultation with
the Standing Committees, and using the principles approved by the Strategic Planning and
Priorities Committee, the affected departments develop 1999 service harmonization plans for
approval by Council through the appropriate Standing Committee to be implemented through
the 1999 budget process; and
(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect
thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Council on May 13, 1998, requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the next
meeting of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee as to the process and timetable for
the establishment of service levels and user fees.
This report discusses the process that will be undertaken for the harmonization of services
where departmental programs have been restructured as a result of amalgamation.
Discussion:
Range of Public Services and Rationalization:
The new City offers a wide range of public services designed to both maintain and enhance
the quality of life for its residents. It is actively involved in stimulating the business climate to
further its economic development; maintaining and building infrastructure; providing police
services; protecting the environment; providing a wide range of social services; and,
managing the City's overall growth.
Prior to the amalgamation, all the current services were provided through the seven former
municipalities. In many cases, the services provided by the former municipalities were similar
and comparable, however, the programs, services, policies and local priorities were not
necessarily consistent. As a successor municipality, the City has inherited the obligation to
continue to provide the services its residents have become accustomed to, while trying to
rationalize and harmonize them from the perspective of the unified City. Examples of services
that need to be considered for rationalization include:
(a)parks and recreation services;
(b)garbage pickup and recycling:
(c)road cleaning and snow removal;
(d)library services; and
(e)issuance of permits and certificates.
Departmental Challenges:
During 1998, those departments whose programs and services have been restructured as a
result of amalgamation, will begin to review and assess their respective programs for the
harmonization of services and user fees. All the parameters associated with the programs and
service delivery will be considered, i.e., City role, program outcomes, range of services, costs,
funding sources, delivery mechanisms and geographic locations. It will not be possible to
undertake a review of all affected programs in 1998 for the 1999 budget cycle. This exercise
will be, by necessity, a multi-year undertaking and priorities will have to be established for
the sequencing of programs to be reviewed.
The review for the harmonization of services will be undertaken in a structured manner with
the participation of all key stakeholders, user groups and the public. In particular, departments
will have to consider the following key factors/questions which will inform the Chief
Administrative Officer's report on guiding principles to the Strategic Policies and Priorities
Committee:
(a)compliance with legislated requirements and Council priorities;
(b)accessibility strategies;
(c)responsiveness to community needs;
(d)impact on other programs;
(e)detailed service cost analysis;
(f)analysis of demographic and geographic variables; and
(g)potential impact on low income groups.
In addressing the factors previously mentioned, the affected departments will also have to
determine which programs and services are to be recommended for review as a priority during
1998 in consultation with their Standing Committees. Impacted departments may not have
sufficient information readily available for the review of programs and services in relation to
services so as to initiate public consultations with user and community groups. Departments
require sufficient lead time as they strive towards the harmonization of specific services in a
timely manner for 1999 budget process.
Political Process:
In order to ensure that all the relevant concerns are addressed in an effective manner, it is
proposed that the departmental service harmonization plans be reviewed by the following
committees:
(a)The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee will approve the timetable, and the general
guidelines and principles, that will guide service harmonization for 1999.
(b)The Standing Committees will review departmental reports on the harmonization of
services and recommend to Council specific services to be addressed on a priority basis.
(c)The Community Councils will provide input and comment on policies as recommended by
the respective Standing Committees.
(d)The recommendations of the Community Councils concerning the harmonization of
services will be submitted to the respective Standing Committees and subsequently for
Council's consideration.
(e)The Budget Committee will review the budgets related to service levels based on
Council's decision as part of the 1999 budget process.
Owing to the time constraints, it is proposed that the affected departments report to their
respective Standing Committee by October 31, 1998 on the plans for the prioritization and
harmonization of key services.
The Chief Administrative Officer will report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities
Committee on the principles that will guide service harmonization in 1999.
Conclusion:
As a result of amalgamation of the former municipalities into the new City of Toronto,
services must be harmonized through a consistent and structured process, to meet the diverse
needs of the City's communities. Departments are faced with many challenges as they seek to
harmonize services, and should be provided with sufficient lead time so as to properly prepare
and submit their plans (by October 31, 1998) to the appropriate standing committees for the
harmonization of key programs and services for 1999.
Contact Name:
Firoz Kara, 392-8678.
6
Harmonization of User Fees for Recreation Programs
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the User Fee
Committee, together with the following motions, with a request that the Committee meet as
soon as possible to determine how to proceed:
Moved by Councillor Chow:
"It is further recommended that the findings and recommendations of the six Community
Councils and the User Fee Committee be submitted to Council, through the Economic
Development Committee and the Budget Committee."
Moved by Councillor McConnell, seconded by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:
"It is recommended that the report dated May 26, 1998, from the Chief Administrative
Officer, be amended by:
(a)striking out Recommendation No. (1) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new
Recommendation No. (1):
'(1)the pilot process for the harmonization of user fees for recreation programs in the Parks
and Recreation Division outlined in this report be forwarded to the User Fee Committee, and
that the User Fee Committee establish a process for public consultation at their first
meeting;';
(b)deleting from Part (2) of the Terms of Reference, entitled 'Duration', the sentence 'The
User Fee Committee will meet on a monthly basis between June and October 1998.', and
inserting in lieu thereof the sentence 'The User Fee Committee will meet at least monthly.', so
that Part (2) of the Terms of Reference shall now read as follows:
'(2)Duration:
The User Fee Committee will report to the Economic Development Committee and will
present their findings and recommendations to the Economic Development Committee by
October 1998. The User Fee Committee will meet at least monthly.'; and
(c)inserting in the first paragraph of Part (4) of the Terms of Reference, entitled 'Goals and
Objectives', after the word 'options', the words 'and a thorough public consultation', so that
such paragraph shall now read as follows:
'(4)Goals and Objectives:
The User Fee Committee will need to ensure that a comprehensive process is undertaken for
the evaluation of policy options and a thorough public consultation for the harmonization of
user fees for recreation programs provided in the former municipalities.' "
Council also adopted the following recommendation:
"It is recommended that the resignation of Councillor Giansante from the User Fee
Committee be accepted, and the Striking Committee be advised accordingly.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
following report (May 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:
Purpose:
This report provides details of the process to be followed by the Parks and Recreation
Department for the harmonization of user fees for its recreation programs. As a pilot project,
this initiative will inform future processes for the harmonization of user fees.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The recommendations in this report have no immediate financial impact. The funding of
programs will be impacted where user fees are harmonized and reset for specific recreation
programs in 1999.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the pilot process for the harmonization of user fees for recreation programs in the Parks
and Recreation Division outlined in this report be approved;
(2)the Terms of Reference for the User Fee Committee outlined in the Appendix be
approved;
(3)the User Fee Committee report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in
August 1998 on a generic consultation process based on the parks and recreation pilot project
that may be used by the Standing Committees for the harmonization of user fees as a result of
amalgamation;
(4)this report be forwarded to the User Fee Committee; and
(5)the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect
thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On May 13, 1998 Council received a report from the Striking Committee recommending the
appointment of members to the User Fee Committee, and directing the User Fee Committee to
await the outcome of reports requested of the Chief Administrative Officer by the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee to report back on the Terms of Reference for a complete
review of fees and service levels throughout the new City of Toronto. The Chief
Administrative Officer was also requested to report to the next meeting of the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee as to the process and timetable for the establishment of
service levels and user fees.
This report discusses the pilot project for the harmonization of user fees for recreation
programs that will be undertaken in consultation with the User Fee Committee. A separate
report addressing the harmonization of other services is also being submitted to the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee.
Pilot Project:
The issue of user fees for Parks and Recreation programs is perhaps one of the most visible
examples of variances in policy among the former municipalities. The variances present a
major challenge in developing a new approach to Parks and Recreation user fees that is
equitable and appropriate for all areas of Toronto. This pilot project will provide valuable
insight to inform future user fee harmonization projects.
The Parks and Recreation Division, acting on the advice of the Budget Committee, has
developed a fast tracked strategy to bring a series of policy options forward for public
consultation. The process proposed involves consultation with user groups, key stakeholders,
and ultimately formal input and deputations at meetings of Community Councils and the User
Fee Committee. The main features of the consultation plan are as follows:
(1)Development of Discussion Paper:
A comprehensive discussion paper has been developed by Parks and Recreation Division
Staff which will form the basis for the public consultation process. The paper discusses the
current scenarios in each of the former municipalities and provides the key elements of a
strategy to develop a new comprehensive user fee policy. This discussion paper is being
distributed the week of June 1, 1998, and will be available at all Community Centres,
Recreation Facilities, Civic Centres and Libraries, will be posted on the City of Toronto
Internet home page, and will be sent to key stakeholders and user groups. The discussion
paper also provides opportunity for individuals to submit direct comments to the staff group
which is co-ordinating the consultation process.
(2)Key Stakeholder Involvement:
A series of individual and focus group sessions will be held with a variety of key stakeholders
in the first two weeks of June 1998. These sessions are intended to get input from groups with
a specific interest in recreation programs. These include:
(a)Community Based Advisory Groups, in each of the former municipalities made up of key
volunteers and allied professionals involved in the delivery of our services;
(b)Children's Action Committee, a specific consultation session with this committee will be
held in June 1998;
(c)Toronto Community Social Planning Council will have a specific focus group consultation
session in June 1998; and
(d)Allied Groups, such as the YMCA's, Boys and Girls Clubs, Metro Toronto Housing
Authority, Toronto Police, Boards of Education and other allied service groups will have
focus group consultation.
Once the dates for all these sessions are finalized, a list will be forwarded to Councillors.
(3)Open Public Consultation Sessions:
Four open consultation sessions are being planned for the last two weeks of June 1998. These
sessions will be held at different geographical locations across the City and will be held in
City owned recreation facilities. The sessions will be advertised in advance in local
newspapers, recreation facilities and civic centres. The sessions will feature a short
presentation to provide background and context, and the objective of these meetings will be to
receive input from the public.
(4)Consultation Report to the Standing Committee:
A summary report will be prepared for the Economic Development Committee in September
1998 that provides a broad overview of the findings of the public consultation process,
proposed policy changes, and the major options that should be presented for formal
deputations to be held by the User Fee Committee in conjunction with the six Community
Councils. In late September and early October, six formal deputation sessions are proposed
for the User Fee Committee with the Community Councils.
(5)Economic Development Committee Review of Community Council/User Fee Committee
Recommendations:
The findings and recommendations of the six community councils and the User Fee
Committee concerning the harmonization of user fee policy for recreation programs will be
submitted to the Economic Development Committee and subsequently for Council's
consideration.
User Fee Committee Role:
The User Fee Committee will work in close consultation with the Parks and Recreation
Division.
The primary focus of the User Fee Committee will be to provide guidance in the evaluation of
policy options for the harmonization of user fees for recreation programs provided in the
former municipalities. The User Fee Committee, working with a cross departmental team, will
also provide guidance on the development of a generic process that may be used for other
programs by the appropriate standing committee of Council, based on the parks and recreation
model.
The User Fee Committee: (comprising of Councillors: Giansante, Korwin-Kuczynski, Li
Preti, Mammoliti, McConnell, Moeser and Nunziata) will report to the Economic
Development Committee. The Terms of Reference for the User Fee Committee are outlined in
the Appendix.
Conclusion:
The pilot project for the review of Parks and Recreation User Fees is aggressive and
fast-tracked. In order to address this issue with sufficient lead time and facilitate
implementation of the revised user fee policy for the winter 1998/99 program cycle, the public
consultation process must commence during the month of June 1998.
Contact Name:
John Macintyre, 397-4451.
Rosanna Scotti, 392-8637.
--------
Appendix
Terms of Reference
User Fee Committee-Review of User Fees Recreation Programs
(1)Mandate:
The mandate of the User Fee Committee is to provide guidance to the process for the
harmonization of user fees for recreation programs and to propose a generic consultation
process for the harmonization of other user fees.
(2)Duration:
The User Fee Committee will report to the Economic Development Committee and will
present their findings and recommendations to the Economic Development Committee by
October 1998. The User Fee Committee will meet on a monthly basis between June and
October 1998.
(3)Process:
Initially the focus of the User Fee Committee will be to develop a generic process based on
the parks and recreation strategy that has been launched. At various levels during the process
as outlined in the report from the Chief Administrative Officer, stakeholder input is necessary
to ensure a commitment to the recommended user fee policy options. The User Fee
Committee will work in close consultation with the Community Councils, staff from the Parks
and Recreation Division, community groups and Council members.
(4)Goals and Objectives:
The User Fee Committee will need to ensure that a comprehensive process is undertaken for
the evaluation of policy options for the harmonization of user fees for recreation programs
provided in the former municipalities.
In particular, the User Fee Committee will identify the necessary priorities from the City's
perspective and ensure that the following factors are taken into consideration:
(a)accessibility by City residents;
(b)compliance with Council priorities;
(c)specific needs of individual communities, special demands, socio-economic factors;
(d)responsiveness to community needs;
(e)economies of scale;
(f)a balanced perspective of City priorities in relation to different service requirements; and
(g)whether user fees should be based on partial or full cost recovery or market value of
services.
The User Fee Committee will also propose to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee
a generic consultation process for the harmonization of user fees by August 1998.
(5)Staff Support:
The User Fee Committee will receive secretariat support from the Clerk's Division and policy
support from Parks and Recreation, CAO, Transportation, Works and Community Services
staff.
7
1998 Operating and Capital Budget
- Parks and Recreation Program
(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 requested to submit a
report to the Budget Committee on a policy governing the allocation of revenues from the
disposition of City properties.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations in the following transmittal letter (May27, 1998) from the Budget
Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee, and Council that:
(1) the following projects listed under the Parks and Recreation Program - Gross Budget
Costs, be approved:
(a)$60,000.00 for the New Lit Sports Pad - Grandravine Community Centre - North York
(Item No. 606);
(b)$50,000.00 for the Park Restoration and Naturalization - Vyner Greenbelt Phase 2 (Item
No. 643);
(c)$100,000.00 for the Don Valley Brick Works (Item No. 45);
(d)$150,000.00 for the Phil White Arena - Lobby (Item No.906);
(e)$100,000.00 for the Colonel Sam Smith Extension (Item No.2);
(f)$100,000.00 for the Tennis Courts Convert - Amesbury (Item No. 619);
(g)$100,000.00 for the Clydesdale Park tennis project (Item No. 613); and
(2)such projects to be funded from the revenue from properties sold in 1998 ($1.56 million).
The Budget Committee reports having requested the Commissioner of Economic
Development, Culture and Tourism to report back to the Budget Committee on funding the
other supplementary capital items from any parks capital surplus.
Background:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, had before it the following communications:
(a)(May 8, 1998) from the City Clerk regarding the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for
the Parks and Recreation Program; and
(b)(May 25, 1998) from Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights, regarding Clydesdale Park
Tennis Project.
The following Councillors appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway Humber;
-Councillor Maria Augimeri, Black Creek;
-Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina; and
-Councillor Douglas Holyday, Markland Centennial.
--------
(Report dated May 8, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
City Clerk)
City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April 29 and 30, 1998, in adopting the 1998
Operating and Capital Budget, directed, inter alia, that the following items listed under the
Parks and Recreation Program- Gross Budget Costs, be struck out and referred to the Budget
Committee for further consideration as part of the 1998 Capital Program:
(a)Item No. 606, North York - New Lit Sports Pad - Grandravine CC; and
(b)Item No. 643, Park Restoration and Naturalization - Vyner Greenbelt Phase 2.
Council also directed that the following motions be referred to the Budget Committee for
consideration:
Moved by Councillor Adams:
'It is recommended that the request for an additional $100,000.00 for Don Valley Brick
Works (Item No. 45) be referred to the Budget Committee for further consideration.'
Moved by Councillor Davis:
'It is recommended that $150,000.00 for the Phil White Arena - Lobby (Item No.906) be
added back to the Parks and Recreation Program 1998 Capital Budget.'
Moved by Councillor Jones:
'It is recommended that $100,000.00 for the Colonel Sam Smith Extension (Item No.2) be
added back to the Parks and Recreation Program 1998 Capital Budget.'
Moved by Councillor Sgro:
'It is recommended that $100,000.00 for the Tennis Courts Convert - Amesbury (Item No.
619) be added back to the Parks and Recreation Program 1998 Capital Budget."
--------
(Memorandum dated May 25, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from
Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights)
With regard to your Committee's agenda, for its meeting May 26, 1998, I would like to add an
item to agenda item 3, sub-section (d) -1998 Operating and Capital Budgets.
The Clydesdale Park tennis project is an extremely important issue which was not included in
the Parks and Recreation Program 1998 Capital Budget. I would very much appreciate that
funding (approximately $100,000.00), be made available for this project. The community was
under the impression that the Clydesdale Park tennis project was a priority issue for the 1998
Capital Budget. This project does have some health and safety ramifications, and I would
appreciate your support for the work to be carried out.
Thank you.
8
Property Acquisition for Parkland - Canada Lands Company
- Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13)
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations in the following transmittal letter (May27, 1998) from the Budget
Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee, and Council:
(1)the adoption of the report (February 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate
Services; and
(2)that the land acquisition be financed from Parkland Acquisition Reserve Funds.
The Budget Committee reports having requested that Commissioner of Corporate Services
provide a report to the next Council meeting on June 3, 1998 as to whether the Canada Lands
Company has carried out any soil testing on these lands, and if soil tests have been done, that
such reports be provided.
Background:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, had before it a letter of transmittal (May 11, 1998)
from the City Clerk advising that on May 6, 1998, the Scarborough Community Council
concurred with the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee.
--------
(Letter of Transmittal dated May 11, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
City Clerk)
Recommendations:
The Scarborough Community Council, on May 6, 1998, directed that the Budget Committee
be advised that Scarborough Community Council concurs in the recommendation of the
Corporate Services Committee that the following report be adopted:
(February 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that:
(1)the City purchase the lands shown on the attached sketch being Part Lot 28, Concession B,
City of Scarborough, at the price of $332,375.00, based upon an area of 1.076 hectares, with
the final price to be adjusted upon completion of a survey plan, and the purchase to be
conditional upon the soil conditions being found satisfactory;
(2)the City enter into a license agreement with Praxair Limited, permitting the existing
pipeline crossing the property to remain for a period of ten years; and
(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Background:
The Scarborough Community Council had before it a communication (April 6, 1998) from the
CityClerk, advising that the Budget Committee, on April 3, 1998, referred to the Scarborough
Community Council, the letter of transmittal (March 30, 1998) from the Corporate Services
Committee, wherein the Committee recommended the adoption of the foregoing report
(February12,1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.
--------
(Letter of Transmittal dated April 6, 1998, addressed to the
Scarborough Community Council
from Budget Committee)
Recommendation:
The Budget Committee on April 3, 1998 referred the letter of transmittal (March 30, 1998)
from the Corporate Services Committee, regarding the acquisition of property for parkland
adjacent to Natal Park, to the Scarborough Community Council.
Background:
The Budget Committee on April 3, 1998, had before it a letter of transmittal (March 30, 1998)
from the Corporate Services Committee wherein the Committee on March 30, 1998,
recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (February 12, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Corporate Services.
--------
(Letter of Transmittal dated March 30, 1998 addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Corporate Services Committee)
Recommendation:
The Corporate Services Committee on March 30, 1998, recommended to the Budget
Committee the adoption of the report (February 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Corporate Services.
Background:
The Corporate Services Committee on March 30, 1998, had before it a report (February 12,
1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services responding to a former City of
Scarborough Council directive to purchase additional parkland adjacent to Natal Park;
advising that this report summarizes the negotiations undertaken and the resulting agreement
with Canada Lands Corporation; that the land acquisition is charged to Capital Account No.
67031-00000-00000-481 and funded from the Parks Reserved Fund No. 70490; and
recommending that:
(1)the City purchase the lands shown on the attached sketch being Part Lot 28, Concession B,
City of Scarborough, at the price of $332,375.00, based upon an area of 1.076 ha, with the
final price to be adjusted upon completion of a survey plan, and the purchase to be conditional
upon the soil conditions being found satisfactory;
(2)the City enter into a license agreement with Praxair Limited, permitting the existing
pipeline crossing the property to remain for a period of ten years; and
(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
--------
(Report dated February 12, 1998, addressed to the
Corporate Services Committee from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services)
Purpose:
In response to a former City of Scarborough Council directive to purchase additional parkland
adjacent to Natal Park this report summarizes the negotiations undertaken and the resulting
agreement with Canada Lands Corporation.
Funding:
The land acquisition to be charged to Capital Account #67031-00000-00000-481 and funded
from the Parks (5 per cent) Reserved Fund #70490.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)The City purchase the lands shown on the attached sketch being Part Lot 28, Concession
B, City of Scarborough at the price of $332,375.00, based upon an area of 1.076 ha, with the
final price to be adjusted upon completion of a survey plan, and the purchase to be conditional
upon the soil conditions being found satisfactory;
(2)The City enter into a license agreement with Praxair Limited, permitting the existing
pipeline crossing the property to remain for a period of ten years;
(3)That appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Background:
In 1991, City of Scarborough Council authorized negotiations with C.N. Rail to purchase
approximately 1.21 ha (3 acres) of land on the south side of the C.N. line between Midland
Avenue and Kennedy Road, immediately adjacent to Natal Park. The negotiations were
stalled for a number of years as the land was being conveyed by C.N. Rail to the Canada
Lands Company. The property is a 70m X 200m (1.076 ha, 2.659 acre) parcel which was part
of a much larger holding expropriated by C.N. in the 1920's for track expansion and a rail
yard. The plans for a yard were later abandoned and the surplus was transferred to the Canada
Lands Company in the early 1990's. C.L.C. has since been marketing its surplus properties in
the area. The subject is the last parcel in the immediate vicinity.
Natal Park is a 2.99 ha (7.4 acre) local park south of St. Clair Avenue, between Kennedy Road
and Midland Avenue. The subject property was identified as an appropriate addition to Natal
Park in 1991, during development of the park.
The Official Plan designation of the property is Neighbourhood Park. In anticipation of a
conveyance to the City it was redesignated in 1997, as part of Official Plan and rezoning
applications involving other lands owned by C.L.C. The current zoning is Single and Two
Family Residential.
Comments:
The property is subject to a license agreement between C.L.C. and Praxair which permits two
pipelines owned by Praxair Limited to cross the property. The pipelines, which carry
hydrogen and nitrogen, extend approximately 4 kilometres from a glass manufacturing
operation on Warden Avenue to the Praxair facility on Brimley Road. They are located close
to the southern limit of the property, and then cross the property and proceed under the C.N.
line. For most of their length the pipelines are located within various municipal road
allowances. They have been permitted to remain there by an agreement with the municipality
since their construction in the early 1960's. Praxair has agreed to add the subject property to
the existing agreement.
A tentative agreement has been reached with Canada Lands Company with respect to the
purchase of the property at a price of $332,375.00, which is equivalent to $308,882.00 per ha
($125,000.00 per acre).
Canada Lands Company is insisting that the City indemnify it with respect to the discovery of
any contamination in the future. Under Ontario law, previous owners can be made to pay
damages if found to have contaminated the property. C.L.C. indicates that the obtaining an
indemnification from purchasers is an essential part of their mandate to dispose of surplus
property formerly owned by C.N., and that they have been successful in receiving
indemnifications from other purchasers. Had the property been used for rail purposes, staff
would not recommend that such an indemnification be given. However, there is no indication
that tracks were ever installed on any part of the property, nor that it has ever been used for
any purpose other than agriculture. Nevertheless, to protect the City's interests, staff have
insisted that the purchase is to be conditional upon the City satisfying itself as to the condition
of the soils on the property, to ensure that no contamination is present. The estimated cost of
the soil testing is $25,000.00.
Conclusion:
Purchase of this property will extend Natal Park to its logical boundary at the railway, and
will provide needed parkland in an area which is deficient.. The purchase price is indicative of
the market value of the property.
Contact Name:
R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone No. (416) 396-4930, Fax No. (416)
396-4241, mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca, (cs98025.wpd)
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing
Clause, the following report (May 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To report to City Council concerning the availability of an environmental report on the
subject property.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting of May 26, 1998, the Budget Committee requested that the Commissioner of
Corporate Services provide a report to the next Council meeting on June 3, 1998 as to
whether the Canada Lands Company has carried out any soil testing on these lands and if soil
tests have been done, that such reports be provided to Council.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Canada Lands Company has not carried out any soil testing on these lands.
Conclusions:
Prior to completing the acquisition of this property, it will be necessary to undertake soil
testing as set out in my report dated February 12, 1998.
Contact Name:
R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate, Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax (416) 396-4241
mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca.)
9
Acquisition of Former Landfill Site Owned by the Ministry of
Transportation - Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations in the following transmittal letter (May27, 1998) from the Budget
Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee, and Council:
(1)the adoption of the report (February 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate
Services; and
(2)that the land acquisition be financed from Development Charges Reserve Funds.
Background:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, had before it a letter of transmittal (May 11, 1998)
from the City Clerk advising that on May 6, 1998, the Scarborough Community Council
concurred with the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated May 11, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
City Clerk)
Recommendations:
The Scarborough Community Council, on May 6, 1998, directed that the Budget Committee
be advised that Scarborough Community Council concurs in the recommendation of the
Corporate Services Committee that the following report be adopted:
(February 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that:
(1)the City purchase the lands shown on the attached sketch being Part of Lot 12, Registrar's
Compiled Plan 10303, at the price of $120,605.00, based upon a land area of 4.89 hectares
(12.08 acres), with the final price to be adjusted upon completion of a survey plan; and
(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Background:
The Scarborough Community Council had before it a communication (April 6, 1998) from the
CityClerk, advising that the Budget Committee, on April 3, 1998, referred to the Scarborough
Community Council, the letter of transmittal (March 30, 1998) from the Corporate Services
Committee, wherein the Committee recommended the adoption of the foregoing report
(February20,1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated April 6, 1998, addressed to the
Scarborough Community Council from the
City Clerk)
Recommendation:
The Budget Committee on April 3, 1998 referred the letter of transmittal (March 30, 1998)
from the Corporate Services Committee, regarding the acquisition of the former landfill site
owned by the Ministry of Transportation, to the Scarborough Community Council.
Background:
The Budget Committee on April 3, 1998, had before it a letter of transmittal (March 30, 1998)
from the Corporate Services Committee wherein the Committee on March 30, 1998
recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the report (February 20, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Corporate Services.
--------
(Transmittal letter dated March 30, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
City Clerk)
Recommendation:
The Corporate Services Committee on March 30, 1998, recommended to the Budget
Committee the adoption of the report (February 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Corporate Services.
Background:
The Corporate Services Committee on March 30, 1998, had before it a report (February 20,
1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services advising that to continue with the
Morningside Landfill remediation project, the City must acquire a 4.89 ha (12.21 acre) parcel
owned by the Ministry of Transportation; that this report seeks authority to complete the
purchase of that property; that the land acquisition is charged to Capital Account No.
59204-00000-00000-481 and funded from the General Development Reserve Fund, No.
71290; and recommending that:
(1)the City purchase the lands shown on the attached sketch, being part of Lot 12, Registrar's
Compiled Plan 10303 at the price of $120,605.00, based upon a land area of 4.89 hectares
(12.08 acres) with the final price to be adjusted upon completion of a survey plan; and
(2)appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give
effect thereto.
--------
(Report dated February 20, 1998, addressed to
the Corporate Services Committee from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services.)
Purpose:
To continue with the Morningside Landfill remediation project, the City must acquire a 4.89
ha (12.21 acre) parcel owned by the Ministry of Transportation. This report seeks authority to
complete the purchase of that property.
Funding:
The land acquisition to be charged to Capital Account #59204-00000-00000-481 and funded
from the General Development Reserve Fund, No. 71290.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City purchase the lands shown on the attached sketch, being part of Lot 12, Registrar's
Compiled Plan 10303 at the price of $120,605.00, based upon a land area of 4.89 hectares
(12.08 acres) with the final price to be adjusted upon completion of a survey plan; and
(2)appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give
effect thereto.
Background:
Between the period 1960 to 1967, the then Township of Scarborough, in accordance with the
standard practices of the day, utilized an existing gravel pit located at the south-east corner of
highway 401 and Morningside Avenue as a sanitary landfill facility. Although a large part of
the gravel pit was owned by the Township, both the University of Toronto and the then
Department of Highways (now MTO) owned portions of it as well. Despite extensive research
into the City's archives, no agreement permitting the City's landfill on the Province's property
has been located.
The Ministry of Transportation owns 9.15 ha (22.6 acres) along the south limit of Highway
401 between Morningside Avenue and Conlins Road. Only 4.89 ha (12.08 acres) of this
property were used as part of the landfill operation.
Extensive research into methods of containing the methane gas and leachate within the landfill
site resulted in the former City of Scarborough approving an extensive remediation plan. This
plan contemplated the construction of a barrier adjacent to the east, west and part of the south
sides of the landfill to prevent the migration of gas and leachate from the site. Natural physical
features prevent gas and leachate from migrating north or south.
The first phase of the plan, completed in 1996, included the construction of an underground
barrier adjacent to Morningside Avenue north from Military Trail almost to Highway 401 to
protect properties on the west side of Morningside.
The next phase includes construction of a barrier along the east and part of the south sides of
the landfill area. The presence of landfill almost to the property limits required the acquisition
of land or easements from the abutting owners to the east. Agreements with the University of
Toronto and Torchin Developments, two of the three abutting owners, were approved by
Scarborough Council in 1997. Acquisition of the 4.89 ha parcel from the Ministry of
Transportation will permit the construction of the final phase of the barrier to proceed. All
subsequent remediation efforts will occur within the landfill area itself.
Subject to approval by City Council, a tentative agreement has been reached with the Province
for the acquisition of the 4.89 hectares (12.103 acres) adjacent to Highway 401, at a price of
$120,605.00.
Comments:
Discussions with MTO to acquire the property have been ongoing since the fall of 1995. The
property was appraised by an independent appraiser in 1996, and the Province has now agreed
to sell at the appraised value of $120,605.00.
The zoning of the property is I - Institutional. The Official Plan designation is Waste Disposal
Site, within an area indicated as District Park. Ministry of Environment regulations discourage
the construction of buildings on any part of the site. The surface of the property may,
however, serve as a storage area for the adjacent Works Yard.
The market value estimate of the site was predicated on the assumption that the portion of the
property closest to Morningside Avenue would have limited utility in conjunction with the
works yard, with the remainder of the property having only marginal value. The overall value
of $24,710.00 per ha ($10,000.00 per acre) is only slightly above "conservation" land values.
Conclusion:
Acquiring this parcel will give the City complete control over the landfill area, and permit the
next phase of the Morningside Landfill remediation project to proceed. Remediation will
enable the rehabilitation and possible future sale of part of an adjacent city property which
does not contain landfill.
Contact Name:
R. Mayr, AACI, Telephone: (416) 396-4930 Fax: (416) 396-4241
mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca (cs98020.wpd).
(Councillor Feldman, at the meeting of City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, declared his
interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns a property in the immediate vicinity of the
property in question.)
10
Income Sharing Arrangement with the
Toronto Parking Authority
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations in the following transmittal letter (May 27, 1998) from the Budget
Committee:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee, and Council:
(1)the adoption of the joint report (May 14, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer and President, Toronto Parking Authority subject to the income sharing
arrangement being approved for one year; and
(2)that the income sharing arrangement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking
Authority be reviewed in one year's time.
Background:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, had before it a joint report (May 14, 1998) from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the President of the Toronto Parking Authority.
--------
(Joint Report dated May 14, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and
President, Toronto Parking Authority)
Purpose:
This report sets out a new income sharing arrangement between the City of Toronto and the
Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) for net operating income generated in off-street and
on-street operations.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Once the operation of on-street metered parking is assumed by the Toronto Parking Authority
and following a 6-8 month period of equipment upgrades and rate adjustments, annual
contributions are expected to be approximately $14-$15 million for combined off-street and
on-street operations. This amount is projected to increase to $25 million per year over the next
3-4 years once the Authority's on-street meter program is fully implemented.
For 1998, an increase in revenue of $5.6 million is projected over the approved budget of $8.8
million if the rate adjustment, equipment upgrade and projected business activity materializes
by year end.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)The greater of $2,000,000.00 or 50 percent of net operating income earned from off-street
parking facilities be paid over to the City of Toronto each year;
(2)The greater of $6,000,000.00 or 100 percent of net operating income from on-street meter
operations be paid over to the City of Toronto each year;
(3)The new income sharing arrangement take effect as of January 1, 1998 for a three year
period ending December 31, 2000;
(4)Net operating income be defined as gross parking revenue less direct operating expenses
and less administrative expenses. Net operating income therefore excludes sundry revenue
and expenses not directly attributed to carpark or meter operations;
(5)Payments be made on a monthly progress payment basis, based on the annual budget for
the year;
(6)A final payment/settlement occur once the audited actual amount for the year is
confirmed; and
(7)In the event that a need for funding arises from time to time and sufficient funding is not
available from the reserves of the Toronto Parking Authority, Council will consider approving
debenture funding provided that a viable business plan for the use of the funds is presented.
Background:
The City of Toronto has adopted a by-law establishing the Toronto Parking Authority which
will be responsible for the operation of off-street parking facilities and on-street metered
parking, as well as commercial boulevard parking in the former City of North York. Prior to
amalgamation, each municipality had various arrangements/practices in place for the sharing
and use of proceeds from their respective parking operations. The chart in Appendix 1
provides a brief summary of the practices respecting net parking proceeds for each former
municipality.
With the amalgamation to the new City of Toronto and the transfer of responsibility for
on-street metered parking to the new Toronto Parking Authority, there is a need to review and
to formalize the income sharing arrangements between the new City and the new Authority.
This report examines the impact on the City's share of income by applying alternative income
sharing options against the new Toronto Parking Authority's 1998 Operating Budget (which
reflects the consolidated annualized expenditures and revenues for off-street and on-street
meter operations) as a basis for comparison.
Discussion:
The consideration of a new income sharing arrangement with the Toronto Parking Authority
should be based on the following criteria:
(a)represents rental payment for property leased from the City;
(b)should be based on net income generated, but also need to establish minimum payment to
avoid significant fluctuations in revenue available to apply against the City's operating
budget; and
(c)should not constrain the TPA's ability to self-fund its capital works program, meet normal
working capital needs, or to take advantage of business opportunities, as they arise.
Appendix 2 contains five scenarios which are compared against the base case, ie. the 1998
Operating Budget for the new Toronto Parking Authority which contemplates assuming
responsibility for all off-street facilities and on-street meter operations in the former
municipalities.
In accordance with past practice, the base case retains an annual contribution amount of $4.7
million (to cover City Works allocated costs in the former City of Toronto) as a charge against
the on-street metered parking revenue. In the future these funds would be derived from the
City's share of net income from on-street meter operations received from the Toronto Parking
Authority.
The table below summarizes the impact on income sharing from the alternative scenarios as
indicated in Appendix 2.
--------
Table 1
Summary of Impact on Income Sharing from Alternative Scenarios
(Refer to Appendix 2)
Scenario |
Description
|
$ Increase over
Base Case (1998
Budget)*
$000's |
%
Increase
over
Base
Case |
1 |
50% Net Income from Off-Street &
100% Net Income from On-Street |
5,601.5 |
61.9 |
2 |
75% Net Income from Off-Street &
100% Net Income from On-Street |
7,783.6 |
86.1 |
3 |
80% Net Income from Off-Street &
100% Net Income from On-Street |
8,220.1 |
90.9 |
4 |
75% Net Income from Off-Street &
75% Net Income from On-Street |
5,213.5 |
57.6 |
5 |
30% Gross Income from Off-Street &
30% Gross Income from On-Street |
6,024.3 |
66.6 |
* Annualized consolidated estimates for new City.
The TPA's 1998 expenditure projection for off-street facilities was adjusted to include an
estimated annual property tax increase of $437,500.00 (total increase of $3.5 million
phased-in over 8 year period) per CVA. However, given the recent Provincial announcement
(which may provide for a separate property tax class for parking facilities), this impact may be
further reduced.
Scenario 1, which provides for the return of 50 percent of net income from off-street and 100
percent of net income from on-street meter operations, is recommended because on-street
meter capital expenditures are not significant and can be met out of normal operating income
(excepting $3.8 million approved in 1998 Capital Budget and $3.2 million projected in 1999
for new electronic parking equipment to convert mechanical meters and new installations).
Over the next 3 years, the most significant increase in net income for the Authority will be in
the on-street meter program and 100 percent of this net income will be returned to the City of
Toronto. The payment of 50 percent of off-street net income has proved, in the past, to be an
amount which allows the Authority to meet the more significant carpark investment capital
and working capital requirements of off-street operations without incurring debt. For 1998,
this scenario is projected to increase the approved budgeted revenue by $5.6 million.
Scenario 5 which is a return of 30 percent of Gross Income and while administratively easy to
calculate, is not recommended as it does not take into account the fixed nature of many
expenses and could expose the Authority to potential funding problems. Should gross parking
revenues decline as they did during the 1992-1995 period, expenses cannot always be
immediately reduced in response to dropping revenues.
Scenarios 2 and 3 are not recommended as these would adversely impact on the Authority's
ability to self-finance projected investment capital and working capital requirements. Scenario
4 is not recommended as the Authority has planned to finance its capital expenditures over the
1998-2002 period from continuing to retain 50 percent of off-street net income.
Conclusion:
The recommendations are in keeping with prior arrangements between the former City of
Toronto and the former Parking Authority of Toronto which former entities accounted for
approximately 65 percent of on-street meter revenue and 93 percent of off-street carpark
revenue, respectively.
The adoption of the recommendations ensures that the City receives all funds generated by the
new Toronto Parking Authority which are not required to meet its immediate working capital
needs and longer term investment capital requirements. In the event that sufficient funds are
not available to satisfy a parking shortfall, then City Council will consider approving
debenture funding for any such rare cases, provided a viable business plan for the use of the
funds is presented at that time.
This report has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and
he concurs with its recommendations.
Contact Names:
Carmine Bruno, Budget Analyst, Finance Department, Telephone: (416) 397-4218.
Gerard Daigle, Director, Finance and Administration, TPA, Telephone: (416) 393-7295.
--------
Appendix 1
Summary of Disposition of Net Income from Parking Operations
(former municipalities)
Municipality /
Agency |
Off-Street
Net
Income |
On-Street
Metered
Net Income |
Comments |
Toronto - City
Works Dept. |
|
$4.7 m
contribution to
taxation budget
to off-set
prorated costs |
Overnight Permits - net proceeds credited to
reserve and used to fund Laneway
Improvements Program.
Front Yard/Commercial Boulevard revenue
applied against annual operating budget. |
Parking
Authority of
Toronto (PAT) |
50%
Retained
earnings
50%
Rental
payment to
City,
minimum
$2.0m/yr |
|
|
Parking
Authority of
North York |
50%
Retained
earnings
50%
Payment to
City |
50% Retained
earnings
50% Payment to
City
|
|
Etobicoke |
Parking
reserve |
Parking reserve
|
|
York |
Parking
reserve |
Parking reserve
|
|
Scarborough
|
Parking
reserve |
Parking reserve |
|
East York
|
|
Operating
budget funding
source |
|
11
Toronto Transit Commission - Procurement of
Replacement Subway Cars
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting from the
recommendation of the Budget Committee the words "Toronto Transit Commission's Capital
Reserve Fund" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "TTC Capital Subsidy Reserve Fund",
so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the recommendations embodied in the
communication (May 21, 1998) addressed to the City Clerk from the Toronto Transit
Commission and the report (May 25, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
subject to financing the 1998 requirement from the TTCCapital Subsidy Reserve Fund.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
recommendations embodied in the following transmittal letter (May 27, 1998) from the
City Clerk:
Recommendations:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the recommendations embodied in the
communication (May21, 1998) addressed to the City Clerk from the Toronto Transit
Commission and the report (May 25, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
subject to financing the 1998 requirement from the Toronto Transit Commission's Capital
Project Reserve Fund.
The Budget Committee reports having requested the Toronto Transit Commission to report to
the Budget Committee on the automated door system (platform edge doors) as originally
proposed for the Sheppard Subway line and the cost factor involved.
Background:
The Budget Committee on May 26, 1998, had before it the following:
(i)communication (May 21, 1998) addressed to the City Clerk from the Toronto Transit
Commission; and
(ii)report (May 25, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.
Mr. Gary Webster, Manager of Operations, Toronto Transit Commission, appeared before the
Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.
(Communication dated May 21, 1998, addressed to the
City Clerk from the
Toronto Transit Commission)
At its meeting on Wednesday, May 20, 1998, the Commission considered the attached report
entitled, "Procurement Of Replacement Subway Cars."
The Commission also received deputations from Mr. S. Munro and Mr. P. Lambert
concerning this matter.
After hearing the deputations, the Commission approved the Recommendation contained in
the above report as listed below:
"It is recommended that the Commission approve recommendations (1) through (5) noting
that:
(a)The H2 and H4 subway cars purchased between 1971 - 1975 are reaching the end of their
useful life and must either be replaced, or rebuilt to extend their life to 45 years;
(b)Approximately $300 million is available in the 1998-2002 Capital Program for use to
accelerate the replacement of H2 and H4 subway cars;
(c)An opportunity currently exists to replace H2 and H4 cars with T1's at a savings of
approximately $500,000.00 per car over the current contract price, allowing Bombardier and
its major component suppliers to continue uninterrupted production of T1's;
(d)Purchasing H2/H4 replacement cars now at the lower negotiated price will result in a
savings of $99 million relative to the estimated final cost for replacement in 2002-2005 as
reflected in the current 1998-2002 Capital Program. This analysis is based on net present
value comparison including the interest costs associated with advancing the expenditures to
purchase the cars now;
(e)The deferral of bus purchases, due to operational concerns with low floor buses as well as
design and quality considerations, will make sufficient funds available in the 1998-2002
Capital Program. It will limit the impact of purchasing subway cars now to an accelerated
cash flow and not require an expansion to the 1998-2002 Capital Program;
(f)Accelerating cash flow requirements in the Capital Program will assist in addressing the
cash flow peaks immediately beyond the year 2000;
(g)If the Commission approves the purchase of replacement subway cars, the H4 cars can be
used to meet the additional short term service requirements expected if the City of Toronto is
successful with its bid for the 2008 Olympics;
(h)If the Commission does not approve the purchase of H2/H4 replacement cars now it will
face two options: either replace the cars in 2002-2005 at a significantly higher price; or
undertake a risky and expensive major rebuild program on 30 year old cars to extend their life
to 45 years, noting that staff have no previous experience in rebuilding cars since most rebuild
programs occur at the mid point of a vehicle's life. Therefore it is unknown how long the car's
life will actually be extended.
(1)Amend the 1998-2002 Capital Program as follows, subject to City of Toronto Council
approval:
(a)Advance the procurement of 156 replacement subway cars for the H2 and H4 fleets to
coincide with completion of the current T1 subway car contract; and
(b)Defer the purchase of 391 buses in the 1998-2002 New Bus Acquisition Program,
eliminate the H2 Life Extension Project and allocate these funds to the purchase of 156 T1
subway cars for delivery in 1999 through 2001.
(2)Subject to approval of recommendation (1):
(a)Amend the current contract with Bombardier Inc. to purchase 156 T1 subway cars in the
amount of $307,948,204.00 to replace 76 H2 and 80 H4 cars; and
(b)Authorize funds in the amount of $3,060,000.00 for material, inspection, engineering and
other in-house staff costs required for the purchase as summarized in Appendix2.
(3)Dispose of 76 H2 cars in the best interest of the Commission as they become surplus to the
Commission's needs;
(4)Store the 80 surplus H4 cars for potential use should the City of Toronto be successful in
its bid for the 2008 Olympics, noting that some work on the trucks, propulsion systems and
control equipment would be required for the cars to be used in 2008; and
(5)Forward this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting approval of this budget
amendment noting there is no net impact on 1998-2002 envelope requirements. Further, it is
recommended that City Council authorize additional project approval in the amount of
$300,296,251.00 gross and that financing in this amount be debentured if necessary for a term
of up to 20 years."
The Commission also referred a brief submitted by Mr. Munro to staff for review and report
back in due course on the possible implementation of the suggestions contained therein.
Due to timing limitations associated with the contractual options available to extend the
current T1 Subway Car Contract, it is essential that a decision on this request is made by City
Council at its meeting on Wednesday, June 3, 1998. To facilitate this decision, it would be
appreciated if this matter could be included on the respective agendas for consideration by the
City Budget Committee on Tuesday, May 26, 1998, the City Strategic and Policies Priorities
Committee on Friday, May29,1998 and City Council at its meeting on Wednesday, June 3,
1998.
Your cooperation with respect to the foregoing is greatly appreciated.
--------
Toronto Transit Commission
Report No. 1
Meeting Date: May 20, 1998
Subject: Procurement Of Replacement Subway Cars
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Commission approve recommendations (1) through (5) noting that:
(a)The H2 and H4 subway cars purchased between 1971 - 1975 are reaching the end of their
useful life and must either be replaced, or rebuilt to extend their life to 45 years;
(b)Approximately $300 million is available in the 1998-2002 Capital Program for use to
accelerate the replacement of H2 and H4 subway cars;
(c)An opportunity currently exists to replace H2 and H4 cars with T1's at a savings of
approximately $500,000.00 per car over the current contract price, allowing Bombardier and
its major component suppliers to continue uninterrupted production of T1's;
(d)Purchasing H2/H4 replacement cars now at the lower negotiated price will result in a
savings of $99 million relative to the estimated final cost for replacement in 2002-2005 as
reflected in the current 1998-2002 Capital Program. This analysis is based on net present
value comparison including the interest costs associated with advancing the expenditures to
purchase the cars now;
(e)The deferral of bus purchases, due to operational concerns with low floor buses as well as
design and quality considerations, will make sufficient funds available in the 1998-2002
Capital Program. It will limit the impact of purchasing subway cars now to an accelerated
cash flow and not require an expansion to the 1998-2002 Capital Program;
(f)Accelerating cash flow requirements in the Capital Program will assist in addressing the
cash flow peaks immediately beyond the year 2000;
(g)If the Commission approves the purchase of replacement subway cars, the H4 cars can be
used to meet the additional short term service requirements expected if the City of Toronto is
successful with its bid for the 2008 Olympics;
(h)If the Commission does not approve the purchase of H2/H4 replacement cars now it will
face two options: either replace the cars in 2002-2005 at a significantly higher price; or
undertake a risky and expensive major rebuild program on 30 year old cars to extend their life
to 45 years, noting that staff have no previous experience in rebuilding cars since most rebuild
programs occur at the mid point of a vehicle's life. Therefore it is unknown how long the car's
life will actually be extended.
(1)amend the 1998-2002 Capital Program as follows, subject to City of Toronto Council
approval:
(a)advance the procurement of 156 replacement subway cars for the H2 and H4 fleets to
coincide with completion of the current T1 subway car contract; and
(b)defer the purchase of 391 buses in the 1998-2002 New Bus Acquisition Program,
eliminate the H2 Life Extension Project and allocate these funds to the purchase of 156 T1
subway cars for delivery in 1999 through 2001.
(2)subject to approval of recommendation (1):
(a)amend the current contract with Bombardier Inc. to purchase 156 T1 subway cars in the
amount of $307,948,204.00 to replace 76 H2 and 80 H4 cars; and
(b)authorize funds in the amount of $3,060,000.00 for material, inspection, engineering and
other in-house staff costs required for the purchase as summarized in Appendix2.
(3)dispose of 76 H2 cars in the best interest of the Commission as they become surplus to the
Commission's needs;
(4)store the 80 surplus H4 cars for potential use should the City of Toronto be successful in
its bid for the 2008 Olympics, noting that some work on the trucks, propulsion systems and
control equipment would be required for the cars to be used in 2008; and
(5)forward this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting approval of this budget
amendment noting there is no net impact on 1998-2002 envelope requirements. Further, it is
recommended that City Council authorize additional project approval in the amount of
$300,296,251.00 gross and that financing in this amount be debentured if necessary for a term
of up to 20 years.
Funding:
The impact to the 1998-2002 Capital Program is limited to a change in the timing of
expenditures. Sufficient funds totalling $300.3 million are available for the purchase of 156
replacement subway cars in the 1998-2002 Capital Program as indicated in the following
table, based on deferring the purchase of 391 buses, eliminating the H2 minor life extension
(2-3 years) and applying existing funds in the 1998-2002 Program for H2 and H4
replacement:
Table 1 - Funds Available in 1998-2002 Capital Program ($ millions)
Defer 391 Buses |
$181.2 |
H2/H4 Replacement
|
$115.0 |
H2 Minor Life Extension |
$ 4.1 |
Total Funds Available |
$300.3 |
While more funds will be required in the years 1998/1999 than are currently budgeted,
purchasing these cars now will permit the City of Toronto to save $99 million (net present
value) relative to the estimated final cost for replacement in 2002-2005 as reflected in the
1998-2002 Capital Program. Further, utilization of a portion of the $828 million provided by
the Province to discharge their responsibilities under the 5 year Provincial/Municipal/TTC
Capital Subsidy Agreement would help to mitigate the 1998/1999 budget impact.
Under this proposal, the overall funding requirements for revenue vehicles over the next 10
years will be reduced by $240 million (Table2).
Table 2 - Net Cashflow Impact ($ millions)
Revenue Vehicle Replacement Plan Options |
1998-2002 |
2003-2008 |
1998-2008 |
a) Current Vehicle Procurement Plan |
$644
|
$1,388 |
$2,032 |
b) Defer Buses & H2/H4 Per Current Plan |
$463 |
$1,571 |
$2,034 |
c) Proposed: Defer Buses & Advance H2/H4 |
$644 |
$1,148 |
$1792 |
Savings: Proposed Plan vs Current Plan (a - c) |
- |
($240) |
($240) |
The following table presents the current and proposed bus and subway car replacement plans.
Table 3 - Revenue Vehicle Replacement Plans (number of vehicles)
DESCRIPTION |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
1998 -
2002
Total |
1998-
2008
Total |
Current Bus
Plan: |
104 |
179 |
100 |
131 |
131 |
237 |
138 |
159 |
98 |
120 |
145 |
645 |
1542 |
Proposed Bus
Plan: |
104 |
50 |
0 |
100 |
0 |
149 |
159 |
139 |
290 |
260 |
222 |
254 |
1473 |
Change |
0 |
(129) |
(100) |
(31) |
(131) |
(88) |
11 |
(21) |
192 |
140 |
77 |
(391) |
(69) |
Current Subway
Car Plan: |
78 |
52 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
78 |
78 |
78 |
60 |
0 |
130 |
430 |
Proposed
Subway Car
Plan: |
78 |
70 |
76 |
62 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
78 |
60 |
0 |
286 |
430 |
Change
|
0 |
18 |
76 |
62 |
0 |
(6) |
(78) |
(72) |
(0) |
0 |
0 |
156 |
0 |
Background:
Revenue vehicles wear out in a predictable fashion. Subway cars are expected to have a 30
year life providing they receive proper maintenance and a mid life overhaul. Bus life at the
TTC has historically been assumed to be 18 years. The current 1998-2002 Capital Program
assumes replacement of rail cars at 30 years and buses at 18 years. In fact, given the different
types of buses currently in our fleet assuming a single life expectancy is unrealistic.
Bus Program:
The TTC has in its fleet, monocoque buses consisting of GM New Looks and MCI classics
and tubular frame buses built by two manufacturers; New Flyer and Orion using either "C"
channel steel or closed boxed tube steel. Life expectancy of the GM and MCI buses with
proper maintenance and overhaul can exceed 24 years. Life expectancy of the tubular framed
buses ranges from 10 years to 18 years with proper maintenance and overhaul.
Recent experience with new bus procurements has been disappointing. At its meeting of
January27,1998, the Commission received a report titled 1998-2002 Capital Program
Amendment - Bus Purchases which outlined a proposed change in the Bus Acquisition Plan,
plus an alternative use of the funds. This report noted that we would obtain 50 Orion VI low
floor buses in early 1998 and 50 New Flyer low floor buses in mid-1999 and that it is essential
to gain a minimum of one year of operating experience to fully assess quality issues and the
impact of the use of low floor buses before purchasing additional buses. This is due to the
expected lower passenger capacity and anticipated higher maintenance costs associated with
this new technology. As a result, this report recommended the budget be revised to reflect
reality by:(1)reducing the New Bus Acquisition Program by 391 buses; and
(2)re-assigning the estimated $181.2 million in capital funds for New Bus Acquisition to be
held in a revenue vehicle replacement fund for use either to:
(a)advance H2/H4 subway car procurement to coincide with the end of the current T1
contract; or
(b)overhaul the current H2/H4 fleet to extend their life to 45 years (15 year increase).
Staff's recommendation to defer bus purchases will permit the necessary experience to be
gained regarding the impact of low floor buses, however the deferred buses will still be
required in the future beyond the 1998-2002 Capital Program. The system will survive by
taking steps to ensure a 24-year life for all GM and MCI buses, thereby delaying their
scrapping and the need for their replacements.
It is clear that the TTC will be unable to acquire new acceptable buses as planned in the
approved 1998-2002 Capital Program which frees up funds for the acquisition of subway cars.
However, this will result in extraordinarily high bus procurements in the 2003-2008
timeframe (see Table 3 previous page) with a resultant increase in cash flow requirements
during those years.
Subway Car Program:
The Commission currently operates a total fleet of 622 subway cars with a 30-year design life.
Continual replacement of vehicles, is therefore, necessary to maintain a reliable fleet to meet
service requirements. The long leadtime required for the purchase of a new order of subway
cars (approximately 30 months to the start of delivery), necessitates long term planning to
ensure funds will be budgeted to permit the purchase of cars for delivery when required.
At its meeting of March 25, 1998, the Commission received a presentation from staff which
summarized the status of the subway car fleet. The following table shows the size, age and
replacement dates for the fleet prior to the receipt of T1 cars.
Table 4 - SUBWAY CAR REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Class |
No. of Cars |
Year Built |
Current Age of Cars |
Age at Planned
Replacement |
Age at Proposed
Replacement |
M-1 |
36 |
1962-63 |
36 |
36 |
36 |
H-1 |
160 |
1965-66 |
33 |
33/34 |
33/34 |
H-2 |
76 |
1971 |
27 |
32/33 |
29 |
H-4 |
88 |
1974-75 |
24 |
30 |
26/27* |
H-5 |
136 |
1976-79 |
22 |
30 |
30 |
H-6 |
126 |
1988-89 |
11 |
30 |
30 |
Total |
622 |
|
|
|
|
* H2/H4 cars to be replaced in advance of their normal replacement age of 30 years. H4 cars to be stored in serviceable condition for occasional use as
trippers pending a decision on the City of Toronto's bid for the 2008 Olympics.
The current T1 order of 216 cars will replace the M1 and H1 cars plus add 20 cars to the fleet
for the Sheppard line. The T1 deliveries are as follows:
|
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
216 Cars |
6 |
18 |
62 |
78 |
52 |
The next subway cars due for replacement are the 76 H2 cars and the 88 H4 cars. The
following two projects are included in the approved 1998-2002 Capital Program:
(1)An H2 Life Extension project ($4.1 million) for minor work to extend the life of H2 cars
by 2 to 3 years to permit their replacement in a single, larger order with the H4 cars; and
subsequently.
(2)An H2 and H4 replacement project for 164 cars between 2003 and 2005 at a total cost of
$560 million based on an all inclusive price of approximately $3.3 to 3.4 million per car. This
is budgeted as a new contract since any options to purchase additional cars through the
existing T1 contract with Bombardier will expire soon.
The current T1 contract with Bombardier was approved in December, 1992 by the
Commission and Metro Council and awarded at $493 million with provision for adjustment
due to escalation. The contract included options which expire soon, to purchase additional
cars to extend the T1 contract
Discussion:
Over the last two to three months, staff have reviewed the feasibility of and estimated a
realistic cost for a major overhaul of the H2 and H4 fleets to extend their life to 45 years. In
addition, staff have been negotiating with Bombardier for an extension to the existing T1
contract to replace the H2 and H4 cars at a significantly lower price. As a result, the
Commission is faced with the following three options (as summarized in Table 5 below)
regarding subway car requirements, although the third option of overhauling subway cars to
extend their life to 45 years is very risky and not considered practical:
(1)Purchase T1 cars now at a significantly reduced price over current contract price; or
(2)Replace the H2 and H4 cars between 2002 - 2005 as currently shown in the 1998-2002
Capital Program; or
(3)Overhaul the H2 and H4 cars to achieve up to a 45 year life.
Table 5 - SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE OPTIONS
Options |
Price/Car
(Millions) |
Total Cost
(Millions) |
Years of Service/
Total Cost Per Year |
1) Purchase Cars Now |
$1.97 |
$300 |
30 yrs/$10 million per yr |
2) Purchase Cars in 2002/5 |
$3.3 |
$515 |
30 yrs/$17 million per yr |
3) Overhaul H2/H4 (45 yr life) |
$1.2-$1.4 |
$187-$218 |
15 yrs/$12-14 million per yr |
In making a decision on which option to select, there are two comparisons required. First, a
comparison of buying now versus buying later (Option 1 vs. Option 2) and then depending on
the outcome of that analysis, a comparison of the preferred buy option versus a major
overhaul of the H2/H4 fleets (Option 1 or 2 vs. Option 3).
Option 1 vs. Option 2: Purchase Cars Now or in 2002/2005:
Option 1 is the preferred and recommended option based on a comparison between the cost to
purchase 156 T1 cars now at a significantly lower price per car including consideration of the
interest costs associated with advancing the expenditure of funds (Option 1), versus the cost to
purchase replacement cars in 2002-2005 at an estimated higher cost (Option 2).
The cost of 156 cars is $307 million (156 cars at $1.97 million, not including GST rebate),
under Option 1 and $515 million (156 cars at $3.3 million) under Option 2. Based on a net
present value comparison, the discounted costs for Option 1 and 2 are $270 million and $369
million respectively, which represents a net saving of $99 million for Option 1.
In addition, extending the T1 contract now to replace the H2 and H4 cars would provide a
more uniform fleet with a larger number of T1 cars with the same configuration. This would
reduce inventory requirements and provide more cars with improved operational, maintenance
and passenger access/comfort features.
Also, if the H2 and H4 replacements are purchased now, the 80 H4 cars to be replaced will be
stored pending a decision on the City of Toronto's bid for the 2008 Olympics. If the City is
successful, these cars could be refurbished with minimal investment for use to handle the
additional short term load on the transit system expected during the Olympic games. Prior to
use in the Olympics, these cars would occasionally be used as "trippers" to ensure they remain
operational. When no longer required, the vehicles will be sold in the normal fashion in the
best interests of the Commission.
The estimated cost per car of $3.3 million for Option 2 is consistent with the numbers used in
the 1998-2002 Capital Program, which was based on the current contract price for a T1
subway car ($2.5 million) adjusted for inflation based on delivery. The price also assumes a
new contract with either the current or a new supplier with all the normal costs associated
with a new order including engineering, development, proto-typing, tooling and production
start-up costs. However, these costs would be amortized over a smaller 164 car order as
compared to the existing T1 contract for 216 cars plus the proposed 156 car option (which has
helped to reduce the price for extending the T1 contract now). In any event, in order for the
two options to be equal, the purchase price of the new cars in 2003-2005 would need to be
$2.5 million per car and this is not considered a reasonable or practical expectation.
Option 1 vs Option 3: Replace Cars Now or Overhaul H2/H4:
Option 1 is the preferred and recommended option based on a comparison of the average cost
per year of service between purchasing 156 new cars with a 30 year life at $1.97 million/car,
versus Option 3 involving a major overhaul of 30 year old cars at a cost of $1.2 to $1.4
million/car to extend their life to 45 years (a 15 years increase at 60 percent to 70 percent of
the price of a new car) while enjoying none of the benefits of the new car technology in the
areas of operational efficiency, maintenance and passenger access/comfort features.
A comparison reveals the much higher cost associated with overhauling 30 year old cars as
the average cost per year of service for Option 1 (purchase new) is $10.2 million (156 cars at
$1.97 million/car over a 30 years of life) versus Option 3 (overhaul) which is $14.6 million
(156 cars at $1.2-1.4 million/car over a 15 year life). Since the expenditures will occur in
approximately the same time period, interest cost differences are negligible.
Additionally, undertaking a rebuild program for cars at the end of their useful life to further
extend their life to 45 years is considered very risky. Staff have no experience in rebuilding
subway cars and while staff are rebuilding buses of a particular design with structures
conducive to a rebuild, a subway car rebuild is a much more complicated and expensive
venture. While staff are hopeful that a subway car rebuild will allow the cars to last 45 years,
there is concern that this may be overly optimistic as it has never been done before.
Negotiations with Bombardier:
The negotiations with Bombardier Inc. to purchase 156 replacement subway cars are based on
an option to extend the current T1 contract, however this opportunity is only available for a
limited period of time. Thereafter, the options that Bombardier has with its major component
suppliers based on the original T1 signed in 1992 contract will expire.
The negotiated agreement also includes contract security (performance bond or letter of
credit) for 25 percent of the value of the contract extension, the costs for which would be
shared equally by Bombardier and the Commission.
The significantly reduced price negotiated with Bombardier relative to the current contract
price is a result of a unique, but temporary situation. First, Bombardier will complete the
current T1 contract in late 1999 and there are currently no new orders to occupy their Thunder
Bay facility and Bombardier may have to reduce its operation if this situation does not
change. Second, under the original contract Bombardier had negotiated prices for components
from its suppliers which are still in effect (but only for a limited time) and which are very
attractive relative to current market prices. Third, based on the quantity of cars being
considered, staff have negotiated a significant quantity discount based on adding 156
additional cars to the existing 216 car order based on economies of scale, and continuity of
production, resulting in greater productivity and lower labour costs to assemble the cars at
Thunder Bay. Fourth, staff have also negotiated special terms for this extension relating to
payment/cashflow and contract security issues and improvements to provisions in
warranty/reliability, delivery and liquidated damages included in the original T1 contract.
Staff have taken advantage of a unique situation to establish a significantly reduced price with
improved terms, however this situation is temporary and Bombardier can only offer it for a
limited period of time.
Justification:
The H2 and H4 subway cars are reaching the end of their useful life and will need to be
replaced in the near future. The purchase of 156 T1 cars now to replace H2/H4 cars represents
the best option available to the Commission.
The purchase of H2/H4 replacement cars now at the negotiated lower price will result in
significant saving in the amount of $99 million (net present value) compared to purchasing
replacement cars in 2002-2005 as planned in the current 1998-2002 Capital Program.
The purchase of replacement cars now also represents a significantly lower average cost per
year of service than overhauling 30 year old cars to extend their life to 45 years.
Funds are currently available in the 1998-2002 Capital Program for the purchase of 156 cars
within the existing funding envelope based on advancing the expenditure of funds.
The purchase of 156 T1's to replace the H2/H4 subway cars will result in a more uniform fleet
and offer operational, maintenance and passenger access/comfort features. The 80 H4's to be
replaced can be stored for possible use to address additional service requirements expected
during the 2008 Olympics pending a decision on the outcome of the City of Toronto's bid.
Appendix 1
Procurement Of Replacement Subway Cars
Summary Of Total Estimated Project Costs
VEHICLE COSTS
|
|
156 Replacement T1 Subway Cars |
$267,540,000.00 |
G.S.T. at 7% |
$18,727,800.00 |
O.R.S.T. at 8% |
$21,403,200.00 |
Cost of Contract Security (includes G.S.T. at 7%) |
$277,204.00 |
Total Payable to Bombardier |
$307,948,204.00 |
IN-HOUSE COSTS
|
Engineering/Administration/ Direct Labour |
$1,750,000.00 |
Fringe Benefits/Overheads |
$910,000.00 |
Communications Equipment/Materials |
$400,000.00 |
Total In-House Costs |
$3,060,000.00 |
Total Estimated Project Costs |
$311,008,204.00 |
Total G.S.T. Rebate |
$10,711,953.00 |
Total Estimated Project Costs
Less GST Rebate |
$300,296,251.00 |
Note:The estimated cost for escalation and foreign exchange for the 156 car purchase is $8.1
million, however sufficient funds are expected to be available in the existing T1 Contract due
to current under expenditures to cover this expense.
(Report dated May 25, 1998, addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To modify the 1998 Capital Works Program of the TTC to include the purchase of 156
subway cars to replace the existing H2 and H4 subway cars (project #422), and to seek
authority for specific gross financing for the project.
Financial Implications:
The recommendations contained in this report would result in an increase in financing
requirements in 1998 of $69 million. However, the total funding requirements for capital
projects for 1998-2002 will not change significantly from the current projections as a result of
the combination of the bus purchase deferrals and the advanced purchase of subway cars
(although additional operating funds may be required to fund the expansion of the bus rebuild
program implicit in the bus purchase deferral). Concurrently, as result of the lower price of
subway cars resulting from the recommended extension of the current contract, the long term
expenditure in subway car procurement will be reduced in a net present value amount of
approximately $99 million from the current projections.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)an increase to the 1998 gross capital budget of the TTC for project #422 - 156 subway cars
(H2 & H4 Replacements) be approved in the amount of $69 million;
(2)new gross financing authority to project #422 - 156 subway cars (H2 & H4 Replacements)
be approved in the amount of $300.3 million; and
(3)appropriate staff be authorized to undertake any necessary actions to implement these
initiatives.
Council Reference / Background:
At its meeting on April 29 and 30, 1998, Council adopted the 1998 Capital Budget for the
Toronto Transit Commission which did not included the purchase of subway cars to replace
the existing H2 and H4 cars. The related project was anticipated by the TTC to start in the
year 2001, involving the purchase of 164 cars at a total estimated cost of $560 million.
At its meeting on May 20, 1998, the Commission adopted a report from the Chief General
Manager of the TTC which recommended: (i) to advance the procurement of 156 replacement
subway cars for the H2 and H4 fleets to coincide with completion of the current T1 subway
car contract at a total cost of $300.3 million and (ii) to defer the purchase of 391 buses in the
1998-2002 bus acquisition program, eliminate the H2 life extension project and allocate these
funds to the purchase of 156 T1 subway cars for delivery in 1999 through 2001.
Discussion:
The H2 and H4 subway cars were purchased between 1971 and 1975. Based on a service life
of 30 years the cars are scheduled for replacement starting in 2001. Accordingly, the TTC
capital expenditure projections associated to the approved 1998 capital budget included the
H2/H4 replacement through years 2002 to 2005.
The TTC report indicates that an opportunity currently exists to replace the H2 and H4 cars
with T1's at a savings of approximately $500 thousand per car over the current contract price
allowing the current suppliers to continue uninterrupted production of T1's.
Based on the TTC estimates, the advanced purchase of cars will result in a total lower
expenditure of $232 million in relation to the purchase of the same number of cars at the
estimated price included in the current TTC capital projections, and the resulting net present
value of the savings is approximately $100 million. The TTC calculations are based on
reasonable assumptions and Finance concurs with the conclusions of the analysis.
The Commission at the same time approved the deferral of the bus procurement plan of the
TTC as a result of: (i) an extension of the life of monocoque buses to 24 years (a 6-year
extension) through the overhaul program currently being funded from the operating budget;
and (ii) the need to gain a minimum of one year of operating experience to fully assess quality
issues and the impact of the use of low floor buses before purchasing additional buses.
The combination of both measures (T1 advanced purchase and bus procurement deferral) will
result in a smoothing of the capital expenditures of the TTC in the future years, in addition to
the already noted savings related to the acquisition of the subway cars under the currently
recommended alternative. However, the 1998 gross capital expenditures will increase by $69
million as a result of the H2/H4 subway car replacement project and a further $80 million will
be required in 1999, as compared to the TTC 1998-2002 capital budget.
The revised projections include the assumption of the continuation of the bus rebuild program
initiated in 1997. The 1998 operating budget included funds for the rebuild of 50 buses to
extend their service life from 18 to 24 years. The deferral of the bus purchases is based on
rebuild program comprising: 110 buses in 1998, 150 buses in 1999 and 2000, and 90 buses in
2001, which will increase the fleet in a manner that will provide for growth at 2 per cent per
year.
The table below indicates the impact of the T1 advanced purchase and bus procurement
deferral on the current projections of capital expenditures.
Vehicle Procurement ($ Million)
19981999200020012002Total
Original Projections
#422 - 164 Subway Cars
(H2/H4 Replacement)0.00.00.184.030.9115.0*
H2 Life Extension (included in Project
#460 Subway Car Overhaul)0.00.02.02.10.04.1
Bus Purchase Projects21.780.645.662.362.3272.5
Total Original Projections 21.780.647.7148.493.2391.6
*Post-2002 expenditures of $445.0 million and total project cost of $560.0 million.
Revised Projections
#422 - 156 Subway Cars
(H2/H4 Replacement)69.0138.352.240.80.0300.3
H2 Life Extension (included in Project
#460 Subway Car Overhaul)0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Bus Purchase Projects21.222.70.047.60.091.5
Total Revised Projections90.2161.052.288.40.0391.8
19981999200020012002Total
Difference (Revised - Original)
#422 - H2/H4 Replacement69.0138.352.1(43.2)(30.9)185.3*
H2 Life Extension (included in Project
#460 Subway Car Overhaul)0.00.0(2.0)(2.1)0.0(4.1)
Bus Purchase Projects(0.5)(57.9)(45.6)(14.7)(62.3)(181.0)
Total68.580.44.5(60.0)(93.2)0.2
*If post-2002 expenditures are included and the original project is adjusted to reflect the revised number of subway
cars (156 instead of the original 164), the difference is as follows:
Original Project (adjusted) = $532.7 million
Less Revised Project = $300.3 million
Difference = $232.4 million
Conclusions:
The advanced purchase of cars recommended by the TTC, based on savings of approximately
$500 thousand per car over the current contract price, will result in a total lower expenditure
of $232 million in relation to the purchase of the same number of cars at the estimated price
included in the current TTC capital projections, and a resulting net present value of the
savings of approximately $100 million. Concurrently, the bus purchase deferral already
adopted by the TTC will reduce the increase in capital financing resulting from the advanced
expenditure. It is therefore recommended that the purchase of 156 subway cars to replace the
existing H2 and H4 subway cars be approved
Contact Names:
Rob Hatton, 392-9149
Andres Hachard, 392-5377.
(A copy of Staff Summary Sheet appended to the report dated May 21, 1998, from Mr.
Vincent Rodo, General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, has been forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its
meeting on May29, 1998, 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, a communication (June 1, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
requesting that the name of the reserve fund referred to in Clause No. 11 of Report No. 9 of
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee regarding the procurement of replacement
subway cars be modified from "Toronto Transit Commission's Capital Project Reserve Fund"
to "TTC Capital Subsidy Reserve Fund.")
12
Other Items Considered by the Committee
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)Canada Day And The Celebrate Toronto Street Festival
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having received the following
report (May 13, 1998) from the Interim Lead, Toronto Special Events Office:
(May 13, 1998) from the Interim Lead, Toronto Special Events Office, reporting, as requested
by Council at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, that to date, confirmation has been
received that all of Toronto's Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches and a number of Greek
Orthodox and Baptist churches will participate in the Canada Day celebrations by ringing
their church bells on July 1 at noon, and that confirmation with respect to participation by the
Anglican and United churches is expected shortly.
(b)Payment of Costs for By-Election for Ward One, East York
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the
communication (May 5, 1998) from The Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing to the City Clerk for a report back to the next meeting of the
Committee:
(May 5, 1998) from The Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
requesting City Council to confirm whether or not the City is willing to pay for the
by-election for a third member for Ward One, East York.
(c)Toronto Licensing Commission Incremental Legal Costs From Restructuring
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having received the following
transmittal letter (May 27, 1998) from the Budget Committee:
(May 27, 1998) from the Budget Committee advising that it received the motion moved by
Councillor Moscoe requesting that $200,000.00 be added to the 1998 Operating Budget for
the Toronto Licensing Commission, and the report (May 25, 1998) from the Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer.
Respectfully submitted,
MEL LASTMAN,
Chair
Toronto, May 29, 1998
(Report No. 9 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, including additions thereto,
was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998.)
|