City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules


		City of Toronto Council and Committees
		All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.
		TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES AND OTHER COMMITTEES As Considered by The Council of the City of Toronto on December 16 and 17, 1998 SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION COMMITTEE REPORT No. 15 1 Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure 2 Community Council Boundaries 3 Governance Structure for Heritage Services 4 Administrative Structure for Arts Grants 5 Objectives and Principles of Office and Civic Space Consolidation Project 6 Council Legislative Process Review - Deputations at Committee Meetings 7 Creation of No-Smoking Area, Glass House, City Hall, Ward 24 8 Retention of Official Parking Space at Metro Hall 9 Other Item Considered by the Committee City of Toronto REPORT No. 15 OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT OF THE TORONTO TRANSITION TEAM (from its meeting on December 4, 1998, submitted by Councillor David Miller, Chair) As Considered by The Council of the City of Toronto on December 16 and 17, 1998 1 Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999. Council also referred the following motions to the Office of the Mayor and to the Chair of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, for consideration in the preparation of their report in this regard: Moved by Councillor McConnell: "That the report dated November 26, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer be amended by: (1) adding to Recommendation No. (1) the words: 'subject to adding thereto the following additional principle: (11) The Council-Committee structure should be flexible and responsive enough to respond to changing needs in the communities.'; and (2) deleting from Recommendation No. (2), the words 'Policy and Finance Committee', and inserting in lieu thereof the words 'Financial Policy Committee', in order to better identify the Committee's role and the primacy of the other Standing Committees in their respective policy areas." Moved by Councillor Moscoe: "That: (1) the report dated November 26, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer, be amended by adding to Recommendation No. (10) the words 'but the Mayor shall continue to be permitted to name a designate if he so requires', so that such recommendation shall now read as follows: '(10) with the exception of the Mayor, who is an ex-officio member of all Committees of Council, no Member of Council should be a Member of more than one of the six policy/issue-based standing committees (not including the Appointments and Audit Committees) shown in Figure 6 in the section of this report entitled "Standing Committee Portfolios", but the Mayor continue to be permitted to name a designate if he so requires;'; (2) the name of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be changed to the Urban Planning Committee, or the Planning Committee; and (3) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to develop strict guidelines for the writing of staff reports which include: (a) clarity of language and the omission of jargon; (b) some reasonable limits on the length of reports; (c) a format that makes recommendations easy to understand; and (d) the incorporation of a brief Executive Summary in bold print at a fixed location within each report.") The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer with the exception of Recommendations Nos. (4), (5), (7), (11) and (16); and subject to: (1) amending Recommendation No. (8) to provide that Parks and Recreation report to Council through the Economic Development Committee; and (2) striking out Recommendations Nos. (13), (14) and (15); and the Board of Health continue to report directly to Council. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having: (1) referred Recommendations Nos. (4), (5), (7) and (11) and the role and composition of the Policy and Finance Committee, to the Office of the Mayor and Councillor David Miller, Chair of the Special Committee, for further discussion and report thereon directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on December 16, 1998; (2) requested the City Clerk to report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on December 16, 1998: (i) in consultation with the City Solicitor, respecting Recommendation No. (16) embodied in the report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, on a mechanism to manage Council's agenda, such report to include comments on the Deputy Mayor meeting with the Chairs of Committees prior to Council to prepare a priority list for the Council agenda; and (ii) in consultation with the Mayor, on: (a) committees being required to identify those items that have a high priority; (b) Members of Council being required to give prior notice with respect to special time slots for items being considered; and (c) any other issues of concern with respect to the management of Council's agenda; and (3) referred the following motions to the Office of the Mayor and Councillor David Miller for inclusion in their deliberations: Moved by Councillor Moeser: "That Standing Committee members and the Chair of Standing Committees be selected on a yearly basis." Moved by Councillor Feldman: "That the foregoing motion by Councillor Moeser be amended to provide that the Chair of a Standing Committee, if he/she has the confidence of the Committee, be elected to a second term." The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer: Purpose: The purpose of this report is to: (a) outline the results of a review of the current interim Council-Committee structure; (b) highlight issues with the interim structure; and (c) recommend revisions to the structure in response to the issues. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: The recommendations in this report have no direct financial implications. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the principles set out in the section of this report entitled "Guiding Principles" be adopted as the means to guide the performance of the Council-Committee structure; (2) effective June 1, 1999, a Policy and Finance Committee, as illustrated in figure 5 in the section of this report entitled "A Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial Control", be established to replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee; (3) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee prior to the end of April 1999, fleshing out the budget setting process for the year 2000 budget and related financial control protocols, including: (i) the relationship between in-year policy development by standing committees and the annual budget process; (ii) the process to be used by the Policy and Finance Committee and Council in setting budgets for the whole range of City programs; (iii) the role of standing committees and community councils in the annual budget setting process; and (iv) guidelines for the in-year financial monitoring and management of specific program areas within standing committees' portfolios; (4) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report further on the concept of a time-limited Budget Advisory Committee as described in the section of this report entitled "A Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial Control"; (5) the proposed Policy and Finance Committee be chaired by the Mayor; (6) the chairs of all standing committees and community councils, other than the Policy and Finance Committee and the Appointments Committee, continue to be selected by a vote of the members of the respective standing committees and community councils; (7) appointments to standing committees and community councils continue to be made for each half-term of Council and, with the exception of the Mayor, no Member of Council chair the same standing committee or community council in consecutive half-terms of the same Council; (8) the committee structure described in Figure 6 in the section of this report entitled "Standing Committee Portfolios" be adopted for implementation effective June 1, 1999; (9) the Commissioners review all pre-existing advisory committees, working groups and task forces within their respective areas of responsibility and report thereon to the relevant standing committees, setting out the mandates and composition of the advisory committees, special committees, working groups and task forces, and make recommendations with respect to their continuation; (10) with the exception of the Mayor, who is an ex-officio member of all committees of Council, no Member of Council should be a Member of more than one of the six policy/issue-based standing committees (not including the Appointments and Audit committees) shown in Figure 6 in the section of this report entitled "Standing Committee Portfolios"; (11) the Mayor recommend the membership of the Appointments Committee to Council, and the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, if so assigned by the Mayor, serve as the chair of the Appointments Committee; (12) the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions report through the proposed Policy and Finance Committee for budget purposes, and through the standing committee with responsibility for the relevant policy field for any other matters; (13) Council request the Provincial Government to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997(No. 2) to confer upon Toronto City Council the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health; (14) when City Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of a Board of Health, public health matters be reported to Council through a standing committee of Council, and Council establish formal mechanisms to ensure that citizens continue to have meaningful input to the development of public health policy; (15) until such time that Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health, the present Board of Health report to Council through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and no longer report directly to City Council; (16) the Mayor may assign to the Deputy Mayor the role of manager of the Council meeting Agenda, as described in the section of this report entitled "A Mechanism to Manage Council's Agenda", and the City Clerk and City Solicitor be requested to report further on how this recommendation can be implemented; (17) the City Clerk and City Solicitor undertake the necessary actions to give effect to the changes to the Council-committee structure, including the development of a schedule of Council and committee meetings, and drafting the relevant amendments to the Procedural by-law for Council approval; (18) the Council-committee structure be reviewed at the end of 18 months following the implementation of the revisions recommended in this report and thereafter regularly every three to five years; and (19) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Council Reference: At the inaugural meeting on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council adopted an amended version of the committee structure recommended by the Toronto Transition Team. Council established the structure on an interim basis and requested the Special Committee to review and comment on the interim structure as part of its mandate. Review Process: Interviews were conducted during August and September with approximately one-third of the Members of Council including the chairs of the standing committees, all but one of the Community Council chairs and a sample of other Members of Council. Staff who provide secretariat support to Council and its committees, the Commissioners and a sample of senior management staff were also interviewed. On October 16, 1998, the Special Committee reviewed a staff discussion paper that summarized the results of the interviews. The discussion paper highlighted issues with the interim structure and outlined a framework for developing options to resolve the issues. Following the Special Committee's deliberations, the discussion paper and a questionnaire seeking feedback on guiding principles and options for changing the Council-Committee structure were sent to all Members of Council and a selection of senior staff on October 22, 1998. Seventeen Members of Council and the Commissioners responded to the questionnaire. The recommendations contained in this report are based on input gathered through the interviews and questionnaire responses. The Commissioners and City Clerk have been consulted throughout the review process. Discussion: Toronto's Interim Committee Structure: The basic Council-committee structure is illustrated in figure 1. The structure consists of 17 committees. It includes 6 geographically focused community councils, six policy oriented standing committees and a Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. These 13 committees make recommendations directly to City Council. A Budget Committee makes recommendations to Council through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. Initially, an Audit Committee reported to Council through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. In July, Council decided that the Audit Committee should report directly to Council.⁽¹⁾ A Striking Committee and a Nominating Committee make recommendations directly to Council on the appointment of councillors and citizens respectively to various bodies. ¹ Clause No. 8 of Report No. 10 of the Special Committee (adopted by Council July 29, 30, 31, 1998) At the January 1998 meeting, Council created a further nine special committees and task forces⁽²⁾ and adopted a motion to have the Board of Health report directly to City Council. Since January, Council has established numerous additional committees and task forces. ² These were: Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards and Commissions; Access and Equity Action plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, and Ethno-Canadian Issues Task Force; Task Force to develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly; Environment Task Force; Homeless Strategy Task Force; Children s Action Committee; Task Force on Community Safety; and the World City Committee. Assessment of Toronto s Interim Committee Structure: Generally, the structure is working and Council business is being done, but there are some clear stresses and strains in the political decision-making system. As illustrated in Figure 2, the source of these pressures is the combined impact of the existing structure of committees and task forces and the existing legislative process: (a) Structural Issues: The number of committees and task forces presents some logistical challenges. A review of the bodies to which the Striking Committee recommends appointments reveals that the basic Council-Committee structure consists of at least 49 standing committees, special committees, sub-committees of standing committees and task forces that report to Council either directly or through standing committees. These 49 committees and task forces constitute the political decision-making structure for business for which Council has direct responsibility. This number does not include the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions such as the Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Police Services Board or Boards of Governors of Exhibition Place and the Zoo. Nor does it include the myriad community based organizations on whose boards of directors Members of Council sit. As of August 1998, the Striking Committee had recommended appointments of Members of Council to at least 225 bodies. The 49 committees and task forces noted above constitute the political decision-making structure for business for which Council has direct responsibility. They are listed in Appendix 1. A direct consequence of the sheer number of committees is the difficulty in scheduling meetings. This has lead to scheduling conflicts forcing Members of Council to choose between attending a standing committee meeting or a meeting of a task force or ABC. The scheduling problems are reflected in the difficulty many committees experience in maintaining quorum. The combination of scheduling and quorum problems means that, on occasion, meetings must be cancelled, delayed or wrapped up before the agenda is complete. When this happens, the committee s business is deferred and begins to pile up. The heavy schedule of committee and task force meetings can take a personal toll, too. The demands on Councillors' time may be excessive. There are huge blocks of time when Councillors are committed in committees, community councils and task forces. Some feel they are being "scheduled to death." However, time management may be more of an issue for some Councillors than for others. Several Members of Council suggested during the interviews that they were too ambitious in regard to the number of committees and outside organizations in which they enlisted. They are reviewing their commitments. Nevertheless there is a concern that the Council and committee workload is eating into the time available for constituency work. (b) Co-ordination Issues: The number and scope of committees and task forces have a bearing on how Council makes decisions. The range of committees and task forces has produced a very fragmented approach to dealing with Council s business. In part, this has to do with the way in which many of the task forces were established. In several cases, working groups or task forces were established through a motion on the floor of Council without consideration of how the work of the task force would relate to mandates and priorities of standing committees. In addition, the number of committees and task forces increases the possibility that the same issue will be dealt with by more than one committee. For example, overlaps were identified between the Environmental Task Force, the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Works and Utilities Committee and between the Task Force on Community Safety and the Emergency and Protective Services Committee. The role of the World Cities Committee was called into question by the creation of the Economic Development Committee. The greatest concern about duplication and overlapping mandates relates to the respective roles of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the Corporate Services Committee and the Budget Committee. Much of the concern over the respective roles of the Strategic Policies and Priorities, Corporate Services and Budget Committees focused on the absence of an executive committee in the City's political decision-making structure. The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee does not perform an executive committee function and will not as long as typical executive committee resource control functions are split between it and the Corporate Services Committee. Some Members of Council felt that this diffusion of executive responsibilities, coupled with an underwhelming performance by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee to date, had caused the Budget Committee to expand its mandate beyond that set out in the Procedural By-law to attempt to become a broader financial priorities committee. The net result of a fragmented approach to committee work and the existence of duplication and overlapping mandates is insufficient co-ordination of Council business. When matters arrive on the Council agenda in an uncoordinated fashion and without the context of an overall set of strategic policy or financial priorities, Council s decision-making suffers. (c) Procedural Issues: Council and its committees function within a framework of rules and procedures that constitute the legislative process. The legislative process is a significant part of the overall governance structure. The way the legislative process interacts with the committee structure affects the quality of Council s debates and decisions. The legislative cycle is very crowded. It is organized to stream the deliberations of all standing committees and community councils into a single meeting of City Council each month. Where an issue must go to more than one committee, most commonly financial matters that may go to a standing committee, Budget Committee and then Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on their way to Council, the lead times are considered too short. This situation is exacerbated when one committee requests an additional report to accompany a staff report to the next step in the decision-making sequence. It places extraordinary pressure on staff. Conversely, in some instances, the time taken from the preparation of a report to a Council decision is considered too long. A problem inherent in the current legislative cycle is the number of last minute reports that are added to committee and Council agendas. Often this is a direct consequence of the schedule and sequence of meetings. Some people have suggested that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee is limited in its capacity to review matters thoroughly because it meets so soon after the committees that feed issues to it, such as the Budget Committee. Last minute reports, in combination with the sheer volume of reports, leaves Members of Council with insufficient time to read their agendas. This problem is made worse by the "layering" of information as a report progresses from staff to committees to Council. When Members of Council do not have the time to read their agendas they risk debating matters without the benefit of much of the background information. When Members of Council are insufficiently briefed or are ill-informed, the quality of debate suffers and the quality of the decisions made by Council can suffer. The current legislative cycle which has Council meeting once a month to debate reports from all community councils and standing committees, which meet on the same monthly cycle yields unwieldy and potentially unmanageable Council agendas. Large Council agendas create long and, from some Members' perspectives, unfocused and unbalanced Council meetings. The length of Council meetings is not solely the result of the size of the agenda. Debate over procedure has proved to be very time-consuming, too. Council routinely votes to waive some of the procedures in place to streamline and improve Council debates. The pattern at long Council meetings has been to devote a lot of time to the debate of a few items at the beginning of the agenda. Too little or no debate is devoted to many items that are approved at the last minute towards the end of a Council meeting when Members are exhausted and the quorum is at risk. When this occurs the quality of Council's decision-making can suffer. (d) Impact of Structural Issues on Citizen Participation: The above-noted comments about the governance structure focus on its impact on internal players, that, is Members of Council and the administration. These seemingly internal issues also impact on citizens at large. The Council-committee structure and legislative process provide an important means for citizens to participate in the governance of their city. Committees, community councils and task forces all have the potential to provide opportunities to participate in the debate of civic issues and the formulation of the municipal agenda. For the system to be accountable to the public, the decision-making process must be transparent, responsibilities need to be clearly assigned and procedures and timelines should be well defined. For example, recommendations adopted by Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, to distinguish the roles of community councils and standing committees and to require the development of protocols that define what is a local versus a citywide matter are intended to make the decision-making process more understandable and therefore more accountable. The current large number of committees and task forces and sometimes indistinct dividing lines between their mandates has diffused responsibility among a large number of bodies. Blurred or overlapping mandates are confusing and can confound accountability. If people are not sure who is dealing with an issue, it is more difficult for them to participate. The issue of last minute reports and agendas and difficult to interpret documentation also impinges on the public's capacity and right to know and comprehend what their municipal government is up to. Resolution of Governance Structure Issues: The City of Toronto's political decision-making structure will be shaped over time by the demands placed upon it by its environment. That environment of expectations, needs, values and mandate form the context within which the City government functions through its organizational structures. It is important to understand this context in order to resolve the issues with the interim structure in a way that is relevant to its context. (a) Some Basic Assumptions: It is possible to make the following general assumptions about what is expected of City Council. (1) The twin challenges facing City Council during its first and even second terms are: (i) to build the new, single, integrated City of Toronto; and (ii) to continue to provide municipal services efficiently and effectively. (2) Meeting these challenges requires a Council-committee structure: (i) with strong policy and co-ordinating capacity; and (ii) that conducts the business of the municipal government efficiently and effectively within the municipality s financial means. (3) The Council-Committee structure must provide Council with an efficient decision-making forum, with public input and access, to continue to build the new City. The structure is evolving over the first term of Council and, during the first two terms at minimum, should be considered a work in progress. (4) The Council-Committee structure must enable Council to receive public input on issues in a timely fashion. (5) The Council-Committee structure provides a forum for administrative staff to provide input and make recommendations to Council on all issues. (b) Guiding Principles: The above-noted assumptions help to indicate what the Council-Committee structure has to be capable of doing. It is also important to identify principles to guide how the Council-Committee structure should be capable of performing. The following ten guiding principles were developed based on input by Members of Council via their interview and questionnaire responses. It is recommended that these principles be adopted as the means to guide the performance of the Council-Committee structure. (1) The Council-Committee structure should enable Council to set goals and priorities and to adhere to these. (2) The Council-Committee structure should enable control of municipal expenditures. (3) All committees of Council should add value to the political decision-making process. (4) Every Member of Council should have an important role in the decision-making process. (5) The Council workload should be shared as evenly as possible among Members of Council. (6) The Council-Committee structure should be simple and understandable to the public. (7) The Council-Committee structure should allow for meaningful opportunities for public input to Council s decision-making process. (8) The Council-Committee structure should enable councillors to be held accountable for their decisions. (9) The Council-Committee structure should enable councillors to spend time in their constituencies. (10) Standing committees are where policies should be developed for recommendation to Council and where the implementation of policies should be monitored. (c) Framework for Resolving Governance Structure Issues: The interview and questionnaire responses revealed that there is not unanimity over the specific issues or their seriousness. A number of diametrically opposed points of view were expressed during the interviews. However, most of the input does lead to consistent conclusions that: - the objective, or desired outcome of the Council-Committee structure and legislative process is well considered, timely, effective and accountable decision-making by Toronto City Council. Any changes to the structure should result in improved Council decision-making; - certain structural and procedural conditions are necessary to achieve the desired outcome; and - specific decisions must be made to create the required conditions. These conclusions constitute a framework for looking at options to make changes to the governance structure. The framework is summarized in figure 3. (d) A Mechanism to Set Council Priorities and Achieve Financial Control: In order to achieve the desired outcome of improved Council decision-making, the political decision-making structure must be capable of managing the Council's agenda. This involves having the capacity to co-ordinate the issues that form the agenda. An effective mechanism needs to be in place to set goals and priorities to guide debate and issue resolution throughout the political decision-making structure. The structure also needs to be capable of integrating key policy decisions and financial and budgetary priorities. This type of integrating and priority setting mechanism performs a control function in municipal government and is often provided in the form of an executive committee. A key consideration, therefore, is whether and how to provide typical executive committee control functions in Toronto's political structure. Feedback from Members of Council on this matter reveals two competing yet strongly held values that need to be reconciled. These are: - a deep concern about vesting too much power and control in the hands of a small group of people; but, at the same time; and - acknowledgement of a need to vest responsibility for corporate control functions such as the establishment of financial priorities, corporate strategic goals and corporate-wide policies to control the management of human resources, real estate and other assets in a dedicated committee of Council. A critical issue for Council in the present review of the Council-committee structure lies in finding a way to reconcile these apparently competing values of corporate control and power decentralization. Reluctance to vest control in the hands of a small group of people reflects opposition to an executive committee composed of the chairs of standing committees, which plays a role in vetting the recommendations emanating from other committees of Council. This type of executive committee is perceived to create two classes of councillors. On a large Council, the majority is excluded from membership of the executive committee. Their exclusion carries with it the risk that executive committee recommendations will be held down and opposed in full Council on principle. This would slow business down, would duplicate the deliberations of the executive at Council and would make it difficult for the executive to add significant value to the political decision-making process. In Toronto's situation, because of the volume of business, it would be impractical to route all standing committee reports through an executive committee. Such a process would generate an enormous amount of paper and would likely create a serious bottleneck in the conduct of Council business. This type of situation is already evident in the practice of routing certain standing committee reports through the Budget and Strategic Policies and Priorities Committees and needs to be corrected, not reinforced. One of the guiding principles outlined earlier in this report speaks to the need for the Council-Committee structure to be simple and understandable. A simple, understandable and, therefore, accountable structure is one in which each issue need go to just one committee. This suggests giving consideration to flattening the Council-committee structure. A flatter Council-committee structure provides the means to reconcile competing expectations of corporate control and power decentralization. Within a flatter structure, it is possible to achieve both. At issue is the capacity for Council to make decisions on specific issues in full confidence that it has the necessary information to do so. Responsibilities would be divided between standing committees, each of which reports directly to Council. Each committee would play a role in providing information required by Council to make its decisions. Responsibility for analyzing and recommending on program policy would remain vested in standing committees whose focus is on services to the public as is the practice now. The role of these standing committees will be to monitor the management of current programs and review service levels. They will propose modifications to service levels, bearing in mind strategic plan directions and fiscal parameters set by Council. Standing Committees will also develop policies to meet emerging issues and guide future program improvements, which will provide input to budget development in subsequent years. Responsibility for recommending on corporate strategic goals, corporate intergovernmental issues and corporate international activities, corporate financial priorities, the annual operating and capital estimates, tax policies and in-year recommendations on expenditures not included within approved allocations would be vested in a separate standing committee which would replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee. Consideration was given to merging the responsibilities currently assigned to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the Budget Committee and the Corporate Services Committee into a single Corporate Finance and Administration Committee. These responsibilities would include the financial and corporate priority setting role already described, the range of corporate administration responsibilities and review of intergovernmental and international activities. During this term of Council, the Corporate Services Committee is dealing with the development of many administrative policies as part of the amalgamation process. There are also many amalgamation-related real estate items, the move to City Hall and impending labour contract negotiations. The City is playing a more active role in AMO and the FCM and is soon likely to become involved in the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board. Thus, intergovernmental affairs are requiring more careful and focused attention. Therefore, a single Finance and Corporate Administration Committee would have a large agenda. It would have to establish a number of specific sub-committees to handle its responsibilities. This is illustrated in figure 4. The difficulty with this option is that it reintroduces some of the problems inherent in the current structure. It does not satisfy the simplicity and understandability principle. In addition, this option still relies on a hierarchy of committees reporting to another committee. It therefore runs the risk of recreating scheduling difficulties and bottlenecks. A Corporate Finance and Administration Committee may be a viable option in the next term of Council once many of the administrative policy issues associated with amalgamation have been dealt with. As a stepping stone in that direction, for the second half of this term of Council it is concluded that a separate Corporate Administration committee is still required to deal with the amalgamation-driven issues and many day-to-day administrative items that need committee consideration and Council approval. Accordingly corporate-wide policies to control the management of human resources, real estate and other aspects of the corporate administration should continue to be recommended through a separate Corporate Administration Committee. A Policy and Finance Committee should be established to deal with corporate strategic goals, corporate intergovernmental issues and corporate international activities, corporate financial priorities, the annual operating and capital estimates, tax policies and in-year recommendations on expenditures not included within approved allocations. It is recommended that, effective June 1, 1999, a Policy and Finance Committee, as illustrated in figure 5 in this report, be established to replace the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and the Budget Committee. This recommendation is a logical step in the evolution of the City s governance structure. In reality, because of the way it was defined by the Transition Team, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee never really functioned as an executive committee. The Transition Team itself was apparently confused since, in the same section of its report, it said that the SPPC was and was not an executive committee. In any event, the responsibilities that the Transition Team ascribed to the SPPC were so diluted and were countered by similar responsibilities vested in the Corporate Services Committee so as to make it impossible for the SPPC to function as an executive, resource control or leadership committee. In practice, the Budget Committee attempted to fill the void and assume the role of a vetting body even though it did not have the mandate to do so. To be effective, the type of non-hierarchical committee structure being proposed in this report must be complemented by clear and rigorous financial control procedures. These are necessary to ensure that budgets are developed in a co-ordinated and consistent manner, allocations within budgets reflect Council s relative priorities and financial means, and allocations and, therefore, priorities are not undermined by ad hoc and piecemeal in-year changes. Financial control procedures are necessary, too, to hold staff accountable for the service levels that Council establishes through the budget process. Protocols will be needed to guide the instances when the proposed Policy and Finance Committee becomes involved in the review of in-year operation of programs within the purview of other standing committees. As a general rule, the budget should be considered a service level contract. From the point when Council adopts the budget, staff will be held accountable for delivering on the budget contract and service levels contained therein. The budget setting process for the following year must be undertaken with all competing priorities on the table together. This approach should not leave room for ad hoc in-year changes. An underlying expectation of the protocols will be that in-year change to the approved budget is an unusual event. An example might be the impact of a higher than anticipated welfare caseload. Such an instance would be reported to the Policy and Finance Committee through normal variance reporting mechanisms. The Policy and Finance Committee would review the impact of the matter and would make recommendations to Council regarding the adjustment of priorities to accommodate the increased expenditures required in the affected program area. It is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee prior to the end of April 1999, fleshing out the budget setting process for the year 2000 budget and related financial control protocols, including: (i) the relationship between in-year policy development by standing committees and the annual budget process; (ii) the process to be used by the Policy and Finance Committee and Council in setting budgets for the whole range of City programs; (iii) the role of standing committees and community councils in the annual budget setting process; and (iv) guidelines for the in-year financial monitoring and management of specific program areas within standing committees portfolios. Some Members of Council have suggested that a Budget Advisory Committee be established to assist the Policy and Finance Committee with the preparation of the annual Capital and Operating estimates. Such a group would be advisory to the Mayor and the Policy and Finance Committee and would exist only for the duration of the annual budget process. It is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report further on this concept of a time-limited Budget Advisory Committee. Responsibility for the establishment of strategic corporate goals and priorities, corporate financial priorities and the budget gives the Policy and Finance Committee a critical role in setting the parameters for the operation of the municipal corporation. It is appropriate that the Head of Council chair this committee. It is recommended that the Policy and Finance Committee be chaired by the Mayor. It is further recommended that the chairs of all standing committees and community councils, other than the Policy and Finance Committee and the Appointments Committee, continue to be selected by a vote of the members of the respective standing committees and community councils. One of the ways to ensure that disproportionate power is not concentrated in a small group of councillors is to limit the term of chair of a standing committee or community council to a half term of Council. It is recommended that appointments to standing committees and community councils continue to be made for each half-term of Council and that, with the exception of the Mayor, no Member of Council chair the same standing committee or community council in consecutive half-terms of the same Council. The approach outlined in this section of the report is consistent with the proposed guiding principles in that it will enable Council to set goals and priorities and adhere to them. It will also enable control of municipal expenditures within the financial capacity of the City. (e) Standing Committee Portfolios: A further condition that must be met for Council decision-making to improve is that committees must play a constructive part in the decision-making process. As noted in the proposed guiding principles, committees must add value to decision-making. For this to happen there must be sufficient time in committees to debate the issues that are before them. This requires that there is a reasonable division of responsibilities among committees. There must also be sufficient time for the whole of Council to review and understand the committees actions. In the interviews and the questionnaire, Members of Council were asked for their views about the standing committees clusters of responsibilities. Their responses suggest that there should not be a radical change in the number of standing committees at this time. Most respondents seem comfortable with between six and eight main standing committees, including the Policy and Finance Committee and Corporate Administration Committee already discussed, and in addition to the community councils. A larger question arose about whether it is appropriate to recommend any changes at all to standing committee portfolios at this time. Council has yet to adopt its strategic plan and related policy sectoral plans. These plans could have implications for the way Council wants to focus standing committee responsibilities. Most of Council s task forces have not yet issued their final reports. Their recommendations, too, may have some implications for committees clusters of responsibilities. For these reasons, and because experience of the interim structure is still relatively short, some people have suggested that now is not the time to recommend major changes. Nevertheless, based on the input received during this review of the Council-committee structure, it is appropriate to recommend some adjustments to committees portfolios. These are illustrated in Figure 6. It should be noted that Figure 6 does not involve changes to the administrative structure or the departmental responsibilities of the commissioners. The recommended changes are to the political decision-making structure. The political and administrative structures do not and need not mirror one another. It is recommended that the committee structure described in Figure 6 be adopted for implementation effective June 1, 1999. The changes being recommended include: - combining the Striking and Nominating Committees into a single Appointments Committee; - regrouping the responsibilities of committees that focus on services to the public into clusters that look after urban and built form and its regulation, the economy and its development, physical infrastructure, and services that affect the social and physical well-being of people; - eliminating the need for a separate Emergency and Protective Services Committee because its functions are deployed to other standing committees; and - changing the names of standing committees to reflect their mandates more accurately. This structure will replace existing standing committees and their sub-committees. The new standing committees will have to decide whether it is necessary to re-establish sub-committees. At present, numerous advisory committees exist. By and large, these advisory committees were inherited from the former municipalities. Their status and relationship to the formal departmental and standing committee structures needs to be reviewed and rationalized. It is recommended that the Commissioners review all pre-existing advisory committees, special committees, working groups and task forces within their respective areas of responsibility and report thereon to the relevant standing committees, setting out the mandates and composition of the advisory committees, special committees, working groups and task forces, and make recommendations with respect to their continuation. Consistent with the proposed guiding principles, every Member of Council should have an important role in the decision-making process and the Council workload should be shared between Members of Council. Therefore, it is recommended that, with the exception of the Mayor, who is an ex-officio member of all committees of Council, no Member of Council should be a Member of more than one of the six policy/issue-based standing committees (not including the Appointments and Audit committees) shown in figure 6. At present, the Striking Committee is chaired by the Mayor and is composed of Members of Council appointed by the Mayor. Because of the political nature of many of the appointments that will be made by the proposed Appointments Committee, the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor should chair this committee. The Mayor, as the head of Council, should have the authority to recommend to Council the membership of the Appointments Committee. It is recommended that the Mayor recommend the membership of the Appointments Committee to Council and the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, if so assigned by the Mayor, serve as the chair of the Appointments Committee. (f) Agencies, Boards and Commissions: In order to clarify and simplify the Council-committee structure, the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions are not listed in the recommended structure. By definition, the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions are not part of the committee structure. They set their own policies and their administrations are accountable to their boards. Their primary relationship to City Council is financial. Council funds them and therefore is responsible for approving their budgets. It is recommended that the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions report through the proposed Policy and Finance Committee for budget purposes, and through the standing committee with responsibility for the relevant policy field for any other matters. In some instances, Agencies, Boards and Commissions do have need to seek approvals from City Council. For example, the City's Management Agreement with the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place requires Council approval of certain Board decisions, such as demolition of buildings, and certain leases. On other occasions, an agency, board or commission may wish to ensure that a policy direction is in synchronization with Council s objectives. In these instances, the Agencies, Boards and Commissions should report to Council through the standing committee that has responsibility for the particular policy field. The relationship is less clear-cut in the case of the Board of Health for the Toronto Health Unit. This is a Board established under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. However, under the City of Toronto Act, 1997, Council is responsible for the appointment, reappointment and dismissal of the Medical Officer of Health and Associate Medical Officers of Health as well as for providing to the Board municipal employees necessary for the Board to carry out its functions. In addition, the Board of Health has functioned in a somewhat similar manner to standing committees in that it has been reporting directly to Council. A review of agendas shows that there has been some overlap in the policy issues, for example, homelessness, coming before the Board of Health and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee. Thus, unlike other Agencies, Boards and Commissions, the Board of Health is already quite integrated into the City s organization. This integration could be complete if the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health were conferred upon City Council. A precedent for this does exist. Section 49 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act sets out the composition and term of office for boards of health. However, paragraph 49 (9) (c) states that the provisions do not apply to "a regional corporation that, under the Act establishing or continuing the corporation, has the powers, rights and duties of a...board of health." This is the case in the regional municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area. Under the Acts establishing them, they are granted these powers, rights and duties. The Medical Officer of Health and public health staff are integrated into the municipal administration and public health matters are reported to Council through a standing committee of the regional government. It is recommended that Council request the provincial government to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) to confer upon Toronto City Council the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health. It is further recommended that, when City Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of a Board of Health, public health matters be reported to Council through a standing committee of Council and that Council establish formal mechanisms to ensure that citizens continue to have meaningful input to the development of public health policy. It is also recommended that, until such time that Council is granted the powers, rights and duties of the Board of Health, the present Board of Health report to Council through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and no longer report directly to City Council. (g) A Mechanism to Manage Council s Agenda: To make effective use of the information provided by its standing committees, Council must have the ability to integrate and co-ordinate the information. In other words, to function effectively, a flattened Council-committee structure must be complemented by a strong and dedicated agenda management function. It is recommended that the Mayor may assign to the Deputy Mayor the role of manager of the Council meeting Agenda. This role would entail responsibility for assisting the Mayor, in consultation with the City Clerk, Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioners, to formulate the order paper for Council meetings including the identification of key items and the grouping of items on the agenda to ensure co-ordination of related matters. Council Agenda management also entails assisting the Mayor in managing the business portion of Council meetings, including chairing meetings of Council; maintaining order and decorum; and deciding questions of order, subject to appeal to Council. The Solicitor has advised that Section 57 of the Municipal Act requires that the Mayor, as head of Council, chair Council meetings. The Act authorizes Council to appoint a substitute to act in the Mayor s place and stead when he is absent or refuses to act. Council has exercised this power in appointing Councillor Ootes Deputy Mayor. The Municipal Act does not allow for the Mayor s power to be split between two individuals. Therefore, the assignment of responsibilities described in this section of the report to a Deputy Mayor and a separate Manager of the Council Agenda would likely require changes to the relevant portions of the legislation, if the role includes chairing Council meetings when the Mayor is absent or refuses to act. In that event, Council would have to request the province to amend the Municipal Act or provide special legislation that would authorize the City to appoint a speaker or a person other than the Mayor to chair meetings of Council. Legislative changes would not be required if the responsibilities of manager of the Council Agenda were part of the duties of the Deputy Mayor. It is recommended that the City Clerk and City Solicitor report further on how to implement the proposal to assign a manager of the Council meeting Agenda. (h) Task Forces and Special Committees: A key issue that emerged during the interviews revolved around the role of task forces and other ad hoc committees within the Council-committee structure. Ad hoc or special committees recommend to Council on a particular issue or advise on the management of a particular initiative or project. They tend to be temporary or cross-functional. Municipal governance texts suggest that ad hoc committees provide important evidence of a municipal government s responsiveness and adaptability to its environment. Structural flexibility is an asset. At the same time, it is important for the basic structure of standing committees to be seen to have the capacity to deal with key priority or extraordinary issues without the need to set up accompanying structures. A balance must be found. The present review has found that, in the absence of a balance, ad hoc committees will proliferate resulting in some of the issues and pressures described earlier in this report. Council has already recognized the need to think carefully before creating ad hoc committees. On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted as amended Clause No. 1 of Report No. 17 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee entitled "Status of Special Committees and Task Forces." In adopting the clause, Council approved the following guidelines that should attach more rigour to the establishment of ad hoc committees in the future: - Before creating a special committee or task force, Council should ensure that: (1) the work cannot be undertaken by an existing standing committee of Council; (2) the mandate of the new special committee or task force is time limited by a sunset date and Council approval is required for continuation beyond the sunset date; (3) the special committee or task force will report to Council through a standing committee where appropriate; and (4) the staff and other resources required to support the work of the special committee or task force are identified and available within existing resources. Those principles will guide future actions. The question remains about the continuation of the existing task forces and special committees. Some people suggested ending their mandates now. This is not recommended for two main reasons. First, most of the major task forces are scheduled to complete their mandates by the end of 1998 or during 1999. Second, the task forces are dealing with important issues regardless of whether or not these issues could have been addressed within standing committees. Termination prior to the completion of their mandates could result in the waste of some of the effort and resources that have already been invested in them. It could also confuse external stakeholders and the general public who may have been involved in the work of the task forces and special committees. Some Members of Council suggested that, in principle, task forces should be made up entirely of citizens and should be advisory to standing committees, where policy deliberations should occur. This may be appropriate in some instances but not necessarily in every situation. It is important to understand what are appropriate mechanisms for doing pieces of specialized policy work. There may be models that the city can try to adopt to continue to involve citizens in ongoing policy work. Staff who have been providing support to the task forces have been amassing experience and information about how they have worked and what lessons may be learned. Each task force experience has been different. While it is tempting to come up with a blanket rule about how to approach specialized policy work, the experience to date is suggesting that one size may not fit all situations. (i) Improving the Legislative Process: Revisions to the Council-committee structure can only go so far in addressing the issues described earlier in this report. The efficacy of the Council decision-making system also depends on the rules and materials that go with the structures and on the willingness of the participants to be constrained by the rules. The decision-making structure will be as good as the councillors ability to make it work. It follows that, in order to improve Council decision-making, councillors workloads must be manageable. This means that their agendas must be comprehensible. They must be sufficiently briefed about the matters they are considering. In short, councillors must have sufficient time to read necessary reports and background materials. Members of Council must also be able to attend the meetings of their committees and not be forced to choose from within conflicting schedules. For these conditions to be met, decisions must be made about the rules, procedures and sequence of events that make up the legislative process. The cycle of meetings must be refined. Should Council meet every two weeks with smaller, more focused agendas? Decisions must also be made about the form of documentation that supports and records the political decision-making process. It must be user-friendly. The City Clerk is examining these matters as part of her review of the Council legislative process. Conclusions: The interim Council-committee structure has been in place for less than one year. That is a relatively short period on which to base too many conclusions. In addition, information is not yet available from the task forces, strategic plan or policy sectoral plans, which could influence the political decision-making structure. For these reasons, the recommendations in this report do not represent a radical departure from the current structure. Rather, they are revisions, which in combination with actions arising from the City Clerk s review of the legislative process, are intended to relieve the stresses described in this report. The changes recommended in this report are intended to take effect on June 1, 1999 when the mid-term reappointments occur. Thus the changes should not be disruptive. In the interim, it is recommended that the City Clerk and City Solicitor undertake the necessary actions to give effect to the changes to the Council-committee structure, including the development of a schedule of Council and committee meetings, and drafting the relevant amendments to the Procedural by-law for Council approval. The changes recommended in this report do not deal with the longer term. How the Council structure evolves after the present term of Council will depend, among other things, on the size of the Council. Toronto City Council's dilemma is that it is the size and complexity of a provincial legislature, yet it is bound by rules that make it try to function like a small town council. How can the two factors be reconciled? Are there any procedural characteristics that can be borrowed from provincial/federal legislatures that will deal with Toronto s size and volume of business? In the longer term, the practices of Members Statements and Question Period may provide models for Toronto's legislative process. In adopting Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee entitled "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure" on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Council signalled its tolerance for the delegation of final decision-making responsibility to other levels within the decision-making structure. A future Council may focus more on the passage of enabling legislation, thereby vesting more authority for making final decisions in the standing committees, community councils and administration. It is recommended that the Council-Committee structure be reviewed at the end of 18 months following the implementation of the revisions recommended in this report and thereafter regularly every three to five years. The recommendations in this report represent a step. As noted in the section of the report entitled some basic assumptions , the structure is evolving over the first term of Council and, during the first two terms at minimum, should be considered a work in progress. The structure will continue to evolve and adapt to Council s and Toronto's needs. -------- Appendix 1 Standing Committees, Sub-committees, Working Groups and Task Forces Dealing with Business for which Council has Direct Responsibility - Task Force for Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights - Task Force to Review Smaller Agencies, Boards and Commissions - Working Group on Amalgamation of Fire Department - Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force - Audit Committee - Budget Committee - Working Group on Co-ordination of By-law Enforcement Functions - Children s Action Committee - Sub-Committee on Collision Reporting - Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee - Task Force on Community Safety - Corporate Services Committee - Council Strategy for People without Homes - East York Community Council - Economic Development Committee - Emergency and Protective Services Committee - Environmental Task Force - Etobicoke Community Council - Working Group on Budget of Fire/Ambulance Services - Sub-Committee on Gambling - Task Force on Gardiner/Lakeshore - Task Force to plan Toronto s role in the year long activities for the Year 2000 Millennium - Municipal Grants Review Committee - Nominating Committee - North York Community Council - Special Committee to consider the issue of Pay Duty Policing - Personnel Sub-Committee - Special Committee on Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall - Road Allowance Sub-Committee - Scarborough Community Council - Senior s Task Force - Steeles Avenue Sub-Committee - Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee - Striking Committee - Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry - Sub-Committee of the Works and Utilities Committee Toronto 3Rs - Toronto Community Council - Working Group on Budget of Toronto Licensing Commission - Working Group on Restructuring of Toronto Licensing Commission - Working Group on Budget of Toronto Police Services Board - Special Committee to Review the Final Report of Toronto Transition Team - Task Force for the Railway Lands Central and West Urban Design - Urban Environment and Development Committee - User Fee Committee - Work and Utilities Committee - World City Committee - York Community Council - Toronto Cycling Committee - Toronto Pedestrian Committee ________ The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications: (i) (December 3, 1998) from Mr. David McKeown, writing in opposition to Recommendations Nos. (13) and (14) embodied in the report (November 26, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer; (ii) (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Loren Freid, Executive Director, North York Harvest Food Bank, expressing concern respecting the proposed plan to abolish the Board of Health and transfer its powers to City Council; (iii) (December 4, 1998) addressed to Councillor John Filion, from Ms. Connie Clement, forwarding information respecting the history of the establishment of the Board of Health; (iv) (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Ruth Crammond, Executive Director, Davenport Perth Neighbourhood Centre, writing in opposition to the transfer of the Board of Health to City Council; (v) (Undated) from Dr. Rosana Pellizzari, forwarding comments respecting the transfer of the Board of Health to City Council; (vi) (December 5, 1998) from Ms. Anita O Connor, Executive Director, Parkdale Golden Age Foundation; and (vii) (December 4, 1998) from Ms. Kathryn Scharf, FoodShare Toronto and Co-Chair, Toronto Food Policy Council. Mr. Phillip Abrahams, Senior Corporate Management and Policy Consultant, Strategic and Corporate Policy Division, Chief Administrator's Office, gave an overhead presentation to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled "Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure", and filed a copy of his presentation material. The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter: - Mr. Lee Zaslofsky, Chair, Citizens for Public Health; - Mr. Rick Lines, Prisoners HIV Aids Support Action Network (PASAN); - Ms. Fiona Nelson; and - Councillor John Filion, North York Centre. (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause the following transmittal letter (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk: Recommendation: The Municipal Grants Review Committee on October 26, 1998, recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team the adoption of the attached report (October 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting grants and the legislative process. (Report dated October 9, 1998, addressed to the Municipal Grants Review Committee from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled "Grants and the Legislative Process") Purpose: To recommend committee reporting procedures for grants policies and programs. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: Not applicable. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the general responsibility for the review and consideration of grants policies and programs be assigned to the standing committee of Council responsible for the policy area addressed by the grants programs; (2) the responsibility for corporate-wide grants policy issues, and those grants matters that do not fall within the mandate of a standing committee, be assigned to the Municipal Grants Review Committee; (3) this report be referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for consideration in conjunction with the review of the Council committee structure; and (4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Council Reference/Background/History: At its meeting of September 28, 1998, the Municipal Grants Review Committee (MGRC) considered the City of Toronto Grants Policy. It was indicated at that time that a report on various implementation issues associated with the policy would be submitted to the October 26, 1998, meeting of the Committee. One of these issues is the way in which grants policy matters are processed by Council and Committee. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification: Three options for Committee consideration of grants issues have been considered: (1) All grants matters reviewed by a corporate grants committee (MGRC model). (2) All grants matters reviewed by the most appropriate standing committee, with all corporate and residual matters reviewed by the Strategic Policies and Prioroties Committee. (3) Same as Option No. 2, except a corporate grants committee is retained for corporate and residual matters. A corporate grants committee would allow for more in-depth study of grants matters. It would divert time-consuming deputations from the long agendas of the standing committees. However, a centralized committee would place emphasis on the mechanics of grants at the expense of purpose and outcomes. Moreover, it would deprive the standing committees of the opportunity to review important issues under their jurisdiction. It would lead to duplication as some policy issues would likely be debated at both a grants committee and standing committee. Lastly, a separate committee is proving to be difficult to schedule between all other committees and task forces. Standing committees allow for grants policies to be developed in the context of related policy instruments. While the deputations associated with allocations reports may be time-consuming, they do provide committee with an opportunity to interact with members of the public with an interest in the committee's mandate. Furthermore, the standing committee option allows for streamlining through the elimination of a sub-committee and extra demands placed on Councillors, the City Clerk and staff. (The proposed distribution of the current grants programs is shown in Appendix 1.) Under the standing committee option, some grants matters will transcend more than one standing committee, while others may not be easily categorized. These corporate and residual policy initiatives could be assigned to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, or the Municipal Grants Review Committee could be retained to fulfil this function. In assigning responsibilities for committees, it is important to note that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team is scheduled to consider options for changes to the Council committee structure. As a result, the recommendations contained herein should be referred to the committee for its consideration. Conclusions: There are at least three options for assigning committee responsibility for grants matters. This report recommends that in general these issues should be dealt with at the appropriate standing committee with corporate and residual issues assigned to the Municipal Grants Review Committee, which reports through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. Contact Name: Chris Brillinger Tel: 392-8608 E-Mail: chris_brillinger@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca -------- Appendix 1 Distribution of Existing Grants Programs Among the Standing Committees (1) Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee: (a) Community Services grants; (b) Breaking the Cycle of Violence grants; (c) Homeless Initiatives Fund. (2) Board of Health: (a) Drug Abuse Prevention grants; (b) AIDS Prevention grants; and (c) School Nutrition grants. (3) Economic Development Committee: (a) Arts and Culture grants; (b) Economic Partnership grants; (c) Commercial Research Partnership Grants; (d) Facade Improvement grants; (e) Recreation grants; and (f) proposed Millennium grants. (4) Corporate Services Committee: (a) Access and Equity grants. (5) Urban Environment and Development (a) Graffiti Transformation grants; and (b) Youth Employment Counselling Centre grants.) (City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint communication (December 14, 1998) from the Mayor and the Chair, Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team: At last week's meeting of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, a number of items relating to the proposed governance structure (item one) were referred to us for a report directly to Council. Unfortunately, we have been unable to meet to prepare the report. Consequently, some issues remain unresolved. Given the importance of this issue to Council, we recommend that this report be deferred to the February 2-4^th Council to allow us the time to complete our report. The report will be made time specific at that Council so debate, if required, can be completed.) 2 Community Council Boundaries (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted the following recommendation: Moved by: Councillor McConnell *"WHEREAS* the citizens of this City had opposed amalgamation precisely because they did not want to see their historic communities swept away; and WHEREAS the Community Council system was established to serve as a protection for citizens in sustaining the community relationships they valued; and WHEREAS community consultations on this issue resulted in many respondents opposing changes to the Community Council boundaries; and WHEREAS the proposed criteria for new Community Council boundaries has had little public discussion; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Clause be referred back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration and public review.") The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk to consult with the border Councillors on the issues raised by Councillor Anne Johnston respecting those homes where the wards overlap. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer: Purpose: This report responds to Council's request that the Special Committee give consideration to: (a) the appropriateness of the current community council boundaries; (b) the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and (c) linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the Urban and Environment Development Committee. The report recommends increasing the number of community councils and outlines a number of principles to guide the redefinition of community council boundaries, effective following the next municipal election. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: The recommendations in this report have no direct financial implications. A change in the number of community councils will have implications for the number and assignment of secretariat support staff to the community councils by the City Clerk's Division. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the boundaries of the community councils be redefined to ensure that community councils better reflect local areas and are better able to focus on local matters; (2) the new community council boundaries take effect following the next municipal election; (3) the redefinition of community council boundaries be guided by the following principles: (a) there will be more community councils than at present, not fewer; (b) each community council will represent a group of neighbourhoods with a community of interest; (c) community councils will each have a membership of between five and seven Members of Council; (4) the process to redefine community council boundaries will be lead by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Planner; (5) the public be consulted prior to the development of specific options for new community council boundaries; and (6) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Council Reference: Recommendation No. (21) in the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team stated that: "City Council should move to single member wards for the next term of Council that begins in 2001. At that time, consideration should be given to further refining the community council boundaries to reflect historic associations among neighbourhoods." On January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, Council referred the portion of this recommendation pertaining to single member wards to the Urban Environment and Development Committee. The portion of the recommendation regarding community council boundaries fell within the purview of the Special Committee. On October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Council adopted as amended Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee, entitled "The Roles and responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure." In adopting the clause, Council specifically requested the Special Committee to give further consideration to: (a) the appropriateness of the current community council boundaries; (b) the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and (c) linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the Urban and Environment Development Committee. This report responds to Council's request. Comments: The present boundaries of the six community councils are identical to the boundaries of the former municipalities prior to amalgamation. In the first term of Council, the utility of these boundaries has been to bridge the transition from the old structure of municipal government to the new City of Toronto. As the new City evolves, and people become used to it, the need to retain the old municipal boundaries may be expected to diminish. The governance forms in the new City are evolving. On October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 Council made a clear statement about the place that community councils should have in the governance of the City of Toronto. Council resolved that there is a distinction between matters of city-wide significance and matters of local importance and impact. The community councils are needed to focus on the latter. Council set in motion a number of initiatives to find options for further delegation of responsibilities and final decision-making authority to enable community councils to perform their functions effectively. It is important, too, to ensure that community council boundaries are defined in a way that enables community councils to focus on local matters. Do Current Boundaries Make Sense? The suitability of the current community council boundaries was considered in a discussion paper on "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the City of Toronto" which the Special Committee produced in March 1998. The discussion paper noted that "clearly�there is an uneven distribution of workload. Some community councils have a far heavier workload than others and have proposed that they should organize sub-committees, task forces or panels within their community councils to manage the workload." The discussion paper went on to note that the uneven distribution of community council workloads could be an indication that the current community council boundaries are incorrect. The community councils range in size from a membership of 3 in East York to 16 members in Toronto. East York encountered some practical difficulties as a result of its small size, especially for the part of the year when it had only 2 members. At the other extreme, a community council of 16 members may be too large for a committee of council. Several members of the Toronto Community Council have suggested that it is too large to focus on local matters of importance to all its members. Some Members of Council, who were interviewed for the review of the Council-committee structure, said that the current community council boundaries do not make sense. Most of the people interviewed thought that the community councils should be more equal in size and their boundaries should bear a closer relationship to groups of neighbourhoods with a community of interest. A number of councillors noted that, in the interests of "getting on with making the new City work," it was important not to maintain the former municipal boundaries as the basis for community council boundaries. More Community Councils or Fewer? In the interviews and in responses to the questionnaire requesting input to the review of the Council-committee structure, some councillors thought that there should be more community councils than the present six. Others said that there should be fewer. The point of having community councils is to have a means within the political structure to focus on local issues. The strength of a community council approach is that it enables elected representatives from a local community, who know and understand the community well, to deal with matters of particular concern to the local community that do not have an impact on other communities. This point becomes obscured if there are fewer, therefore larger, community councils. Is there an Ideal Size for a Community Council? Following an extensive consultation process during 1997, the networks of agencies that provide community and social services across the City, proposed that the City should be divided into "civic districts" that would align more closely with natural communities rather than be based on the borders of the former municipalities. Under this proposal, about a dozen community councils could be defined by grouping civic districts together. The Community Social Planning Council of Toronto is continuing to develop the concept of civic districts. Based on their experience of dealing with local issues in the larger community councils, some councillors have suggested that a workable size for a community council is between 5 and 7 members. This is a small enough number to increase the likelihood that members have a local connection to the matters being dealt with. It is also not too small to prevent the checks and balances that come with diverse perspectives and debate. Membership of between 5 and 7 people could be achieved by having 8 to 12 community councils. When Could Community Council Boundaries be Revised? As alluded to earlier in this report, the present community council boundaries provide a familiar comfort zone for citizens and elected officials during the transition from the old governing structures to the new City of Toronto. Most councillors, who were interviewed as part of the review of the Council-committee structure, said that community council boundaries should not change before the next term of Council. There are practical considerations, too, which make any boundary revisions prior to next term unlikely. Subsection 7 (5) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 empowers City Council to redefine the boundaries and composition of community councils so long as, under the terms of subsection 7 (6) of the Act, "no ward shall be represented partly by one and partly by another community council." The redefinition of community council boundaries is dependent, therefore, upon the outcome of the current ward boundary review process. Clearly, 57 wards rather than 28 wards provide different sets of options for building community councils. At the staff level, the process to review ward boundaries has been lead by the City Clerk reporting to the Urban and Environment development Committee. It is appropriate that the process to revise community council boundaries also be lead by the City Clerk. Because of the mandate and function of community councils, it is important that citizens have the opportunity to participate in the definition of community council boundaries at an early stage in the process. Conclusions: The current community council boundaries are based on former municipal boundaries rather than on the definition of local areas. Council has decided that community councils should play an important role in the City dealing with local matters. It is appropriate that their boundaries be redefined to better suit that role. Community council areas are based on groupings of City wards. Therefore, the redefinition of community council boundaries will begin following the outcome of Council's review of the ward boundaries. It is anticipated that redefined community council boundaries will come into effect following the next municipal election. It is recommended that: (1) the boundaries of the community councils be redefined to ensure that community councils better reflect local areas and are better able to focus on local matters; (2) the new community council boundaries take effect following the next municipal election; (3) the redefinition of community council boundaries be guided by the following principles: (a) there will be more community councils than at present, not fewer; (b) each community council will represent a group of neighbourhoods with a community of interest; (c) community councils will each have a membership of between five and seven Members of Council; (4) the process to redefine community council boundaries will be lead by the City Clerk, in consultation with the Chief Planner; and (5) the public be consulted prior to the development of specific options for new community council boundaries. -------- The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, in adopting, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 12 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure", directed, inter alia, that the following Recommendation No. (9) embodied in the report dated June 3, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer, be struck out and referred to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration: "Community Council Boundaries: (9) to assess alternative approaches to ensuring that the City's government has an effective geographic focus, the Special Committee's examination of Council's political decision-making structure should include consideration of: (a) the appropriateness of the current Community Council boundaries; (b) the process for defining geographic committees of Council; and (c) linkages to the ward boundary review being undertaken by the UEDC;". ________ Councillor Bill Saundercook, York- Humber, appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, in connection with the foregoing matter. 3 Governance Structure for Heritage Services (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by: (1) amending Recommendation (A) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team: (a) by deleting the preamble and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "(A) Whereas Toronto City Council endorses the principle that the City's heritage resources and programs be delivered and managed through a structure of management boards comprised of community organizations and citizens, as described in Mr. Richard Schofield's presentation concerning heritage structure (cited as 'Model 3H') to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on December 4, 1998; Therefore, it is recommended that the resolution of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be approved by Council with the following amendments:"; (b) by deleting Recommendation No. (i)(9) and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "(9) Heritage staff employed in delivering and supporting museum services shall be City of Toronto employees and shall be managed and directed by museum management boards;"; (c) by deleting Recommendation No. (i)(10) and renumbering the subsequent recommendations accordingly; (d) by deleting Recommendation No. (i)(12) and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "(12) Council recognize the importance of obtaining financial support from the private sector. Consequently, an arms-length foundation or other body be established by the new Heritage Toronto to promote public awareness of Toronto's heritage and to solicit charitable donations, in a manner which conforms with the requirements of Revenue Canada;"; (e) to provide that the relative roles of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Museum Management Boards, with respect to staffing, be further elaborated as part of the consultation process; and (f) to provide that the issue of the names of the various entities be referred as part of the consultation process; and (2) adding thereto the following: "It is further recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer, in partnership and consultation with citizens, the Chairs of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees (LACACs), Museum Boards of Management, the Toronto Historical Association, Members of Council, and other interested parties, be requested to: (a) develop a plan to determine the future composition of Heritage Toronto, in order that it may carry out its new mandate; and (b) submit a report thereon through the appropriate Committee, for consideration by Council at its regular meeting to be held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999.") The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends: (A) the adoption of the Governance Structure for Heritage Services outlined in the communication (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Rick Schofield, Scarborough LACAC (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee) and Scarborough Historical Museum Board: (i) as amended viz: "It is recommended that: (1) a Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Panel (LACAC) be established for each Community Council area; (2) LACAC Panels each nominate a representative to form one Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (TACAC) and that each LACAC report to the appropriate Community Council on local issues, depending on where a particular site is located and TACAC report through the Planning and Urban Development Committee to City Council on issues relating to the Ontario Heritage Act; (3) Community Councils be authorized to nominate the membership of each LACAC Panel; (4) all qualified electors living within the City of Toronto be eligible for appointment to LACAC Panels; (5) staff support to TACAC be seconded from City staff located in the Planning and/or Culture Departments, within budget allocations of Council; (6) a Toronto Historical Museum Board be created, composed of representatives of each Community Museum Management Board and reporting to the Economic Development Committee; (7) a Community Museum Management Board be created for each historical site or combined sites; and the same principles for appointments of citizens to LACACs be applied; (8) Community Councils be authorized to nominate the membership of each individual Museum Board in its jurisdiction; (9) staff support for the local Museum Management Boards be provided by the City; (10) Heritage Toronto be composed of representatives from each of the Local LACAC panels and the Community Museum Management Boards, plus representatives from the heritage community and Council; (11) preservation policies recommended by the TACAC be reported to City Council through the Planning and Urban Development Committee; (12) City Council support the continued existence of an independent arms length charitable foundation to facilitate fundraising and development activities for a broad range of heritage projects throughout the City, and the Heritage Board, in consultation with the Culture Office, report on the further implementation of such charitable foundation; (13) should Council adopt this report, as amended by the Special Committee, all staff of the Toronto Historical Board and of the Scarborough Historical Museum Board become staff of the City of Toronto; (14) Heritage be included in the City of Toronto's Official Plan; (15) Council adopt the following fundamental principles: "(1) that Heritage contributes to the quality of life and economic health of the community; (2) that local community input is of prime importance; (3) that Municipal government has a major role to play in supporting and encouraging the preservation and appreciation of local community heritage and in fostering the stewardship of its material and natural resources; (4) that the City is charged with heritage stewardship; and (5) that it is important to sustain, at the local community level, a partnership of professional staff and volunteers;"; (16) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to review the selected model in three year's time and report thereon to Council, through the appropriate Standing Committee; and (17) the City Solicitor, in consultation with all appropriate stakeholders, develop for Council approval any necessary by-laws and agreements to give effect thereto;"; and (ii) subject to: (a) striking out the recommendation respecting Heritage Toronto; and (b) the Commissioner of Economic Development and Culture submitting a report to the Economic Development Committee, on the proposed composition of Heritage Toronto; and (B) that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with Chairs of the LACAC and Museum Boards, the Toronto Historical Association, Councillors who sit on LACACs and The Heritage Board, the Executive Director of Human Resources, the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and anyone else required, present options to the Economic Development Committee for implementing the selected option. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having: (1) requested the Chairman of the Special Committee to formally thank the participants who developed the Heritage Master Plan; and (2) requested the Commissioner of Economic Development and Culture, in consultation with the Toronto Historical Association and all other interested organizations, to submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on the steps required for the further development of the Heritage Master Plan. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Rick Schofield, Scarborough LACAC (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee) and Scarborough Historical Museum Board: Attached please find a proposed compromise model as developed this past week at the request of Councillor David Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. It is a slight modification of the chart presented to Councillor Miller on Monday, November 30, 1998, but includes important recommendations. It addresses some of the common principles and attempts to compromise on those principles with which there is no agreement. I have included the necessary proposed amendments to the Chief Administrative Officers report recommendations which would be necessary to have this compromise model work. The key issues are: (1) getting some structure in place as soon as possible; (2) dealing with staffing and budget issues as soon as possible; (3) accountability at a level which Council can easily review; (4) maximizing volunteer input and support; and (5) reinforcing Recommendation No. (17) which calls for a review in three years. Governance Structure for Heritage Services Compromise Model (Following up on the Special Committee Report, July 10, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer.) From the compromise model, it is recommended that: Recommendations Nos. (1), (3), (4), (8), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17) and (18) be adopted as proposed. Other proposals require amendments as outlined below: Recommendation No. (2) be amended to read: "(2) LACAC Panels each nominate a representative to form one Toronto Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (TACAC) and that each LACAC report to the appropriate Community Council on local issues, depending on where a particular site is located and TACAC report through the Planning and Urban Development Committee to City Council on issues relating to the Ontario Heritage Act;";. Recommendation No. (5) be amended to read: "(5) staff support to TACAC be seconded from City staff located in the Planning and/or Culture Departments, within budget allocations of Council;". Recommendation No. (6) be amended to read: "(6) a Toronto Historical Museum Board be created, composed of representatives of each Community Museum Management Board and reporting to the Economic Development Committee;". Recommendation No. (7) be amended to read: "(7) a Community Museum Management Board be created for each historical site or combined sites; and the same principles for appointments of citizens to LACACs be applied;". Recommendation No. (9) be amended to read: "(9) staff support for the local Museum Management Boards be provided by City;". Recommendation No. (10) be amended to read: "(10) Heritage Toronto be composed of representatives from each of the Local LACAC panels and the Community Museum Management Boards, plus representatives from the heritage community and Council;". Recommendation No. (11) be amended to read: "(11) preservation policies recommended by the TACAC be reported to City Council through the Planning and Urban Development Committee;". The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (December 3, 1998) from Councillor David, Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee: As directed by Council, I have met with the representatives of the existing LACAC's and Museum Boards, and heard from many more since this issue was discussed at Council last summer. A number of models and variations have been proposed. Areas of Common Agreement: (1) All agree with the following general principles contained in our first report to Council: (i) that heritage contributes to the quality of life and economic health of the community; (ii) that local community input is of prime importance; (iii) that municipal government has a major role to play in supporting and encouraging the preservation and appreciation of local community heritage in fostering the stewardship of its material and natural resources; (iv) that the City is charged with heritage stewardship; and (v) that it is important to sustain, at the local community level, a partnership of professional staff and volunteers. (2) Nearly every model put forward includes the continuation of a local LACAC for each Community Council area. Although the models vary, they almost all feature some form of City-wide committee made up of representatives of the local committees. (3) Each of the models foresees the continuance of a committee or board for each of the existing museums. Again, most of the models provide for representation of these committees to a City-wide body. (4) For the most part, people believe there are benefits to be obtained fro co-ordinating all of the City-owned museums. On the preservation side there is general agreement that these services should be delivered on a City-wide basis. (5) All of the models attempt to extend the valuable advocacy role that Heritage Toronto has been able to play because of its agency status. Options: Everyone agrees that citizen and volunteer participation in heritage services should be maximized. The underlying difference of opinion comes down to how those citizens are used - i.e., should Council establish an advisory committee system and advises Council and heritage staff within the departmental structure, or should Council delegate full authority and resources (including staff) to an agency. A number of other important issues have been raised - Committee reporting relationships, nomination of citizen board and committee members, one board or two etc. But for now, I am recommending that Council take a two-step approach. Step One: Endorse the areas of agreement above as guiding principles and select a general approach from the options below: (1) deliver both preservation a d museum services through the departmental structure in combination with a series of local and City-wide citizen advisory committees; (2) deliver both services through an agency governed by a citizen board with its own staff; and (3) deliver museums through the citizen advisory committee/departmental model and preservation through an agency. Step Two: Once Council has agreed to one of these approaches, it should then turn its attention to the more detailed issues. The appropriate staff should be asked to report in early 1999 on options for structuring the selected option. Depending on the option selected, the report should address issues such as: (1) Committee reporting relationships; (2) staff reporting relationships; (3) composition of the citizen boards and committees; (4) selection process for citizen members: (5) a single board versus separate boards for museums and preservation; (6) if Options (2) or (3) are selected, roles of Culture Division and City Planning Division; and (7) if Options (1) and (3) are selected, the role of Heritage Toronto. Because all of these options involve the transfer of staff and assets, Committee should also consider reports from the Executive Director of Human Resources and the City Solicitor on implications of the selected option. Furthermore since preservation relates to the work of City Planning Division, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services should also be consulted. Recommendations: I am recommending that: (1) Council adopt as guiding principles the points under "Areas of Agreement" above; (2) Option 3 under the heading "Step One" above be recommended as the preferred option; and (3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with Chairs of LACAC and Museum Boards, the Executive Director of Human Resources, the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, present options to the Economic Development Committee for implementing the selected option, being sure to incorporate the principles adopted under Recommendation No. (1). Conclusion: The Committee has been presented with an array of competing structural options for heritage services. The Committee's deliberations would be improved if it narrows the range by selecting one of three basic structural options and only then turning its attention to the more detailed structural, human resource and legal issues. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (November 20, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer: Purpose: To provide a summary of the results of the Heritage Workshop. Recommendation: It is recommended that the attached summary be received for information. Council Reference/Background/History: At its meeting of July 31, 1998, Council referred the issue of the governance structure for heritage functions back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team and directed that the Heritage Community develop the City's heritage master plan. The Committee Chair organized a workshop where Councillors could meet with stakeholders and representatives of the Heritage Community to discuss the City's role in heritage and a process for developing the City's long term vision or strategy for heritage. Staff of the Chief Administrator's Office were asked to summarize the workshop discussion and report to the Committee. Comments: Forty-two people attended the workshop including Councillors, Chairs of City heritage boards and committees, representatives of the heritage community, agency and City staff, and invited guests representing federal, provincial, and other municipal perspectives. Five speakers with perspectives external to the City of Toronto experience were invited to talk on the subject of the role of the City of Toronto in heritage. Speakers: (1) Sheldon Godfrey spoke about the definition of heritage, its scope and principles. (2) Dorothy Duncan described how heritage groups evolved and why heritage should be supported by tax dollars, and why partnerships among governments and interest groups is important. (3) Pamela Craig addressed the legislative provisions and offered some advice on the process of developing the City's vision and structure. (4) Marilynn Havelka reinforced principles developed by the Ontario Museums Association and spoke about her experience within the City of Hamilton (5) Michael McClelland spoke about the need to embed heritage in the municipal structure because it is a core mandate of the government and pervades many municipal programs. These presentations were followed by facilitated break-out groups to discuss who should take the lead in the development of the City's heritage strategy and what approach should be taken to develop the plan. Many opinions on timing and structural issues were also brought forward. Summary of Presentations: The following summarizes ideas expressed by the five speakers. There was agreement that the definition of heritage is inclusive, meaning that it represents the tangible and intangible, natural and built, and concerns all aspects of culture including lifestyle, arts, artifacts, skills, mores, religions, etc., as well as architecture. There may be a distinction drawn between local community heritage and City heritage, just as there is a distinction between provincial and national heritage. Cities that have strong cultural identities will be cities that grow. The sense of place is what sells a city to tourists and residents. The City's interest in heritage includes the education and enjoyment of citizens to assist in understanding City roots as well as enrichment of the ambiance of the City to attract visitors. Heritage is a prime contributor to the quality of life and economic health of the City. The City government's role should be to protect significant symbols of our history, to promote heritage beyond stewardship of the City's owned assets, and to secure the power of community heritage institutions to fulfill their mandates. Heritage should be supported by tax dollars because it is an economic stimulant. Cultural activities attract more participants than sports - 88 per cent compared to 31 per cent. Special events yield $87 per day per person to the surrounding community. Developers and merchandisers understand this interest by selling heritage as product as well. Citizen concern over the City's history dates back to 1869 when societies and foundations were formed to create a common voice to the City Councils. These groups were and still are often concerned with specific sites. Provincial contributions to heritage include the Archives of Ontario, Ontario Heritage Act, and support and program funding provided by the Ministry of Culture. Toronto is the headquarters for many provincial organizations. There are clearly many different groups and many different perspectives. It is essential that a climate of understanding exist among these. Taxpayers need to understand how heritage benefits the City and why tax money should be spent on heritage. Individuals and organizations who contribute vast resources and effort need to feel part of a team working together for heritage. City staff need to be recognized as experts in their field and Councillors need to understand how heritage policies will benefit the City overall. The Ontario Heritage Act is enabling legislation specifying a direct, but limited role for municipalities and encourages citizen participation, specifically through LACACs (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees). Although the legislation permits a single LACAC for the City with a minimum of 5 members, the committee may operate through functional sub-groups. Provincial museum funding criteria requires that each museum achieve provincial museum standards, have a curator, and an appointed body that is responsible for overseeing its operation. Although most cities in Ontario have a LACAC and at least one museum, few cities have developed a vision or strategy for heritage. Council's involvement in heritage is unique in each city and depends on the historic relationship between the community and the Council, on the mandates upon which historic properties were based, on the community needs and interests, and on the degree to which programs and services were developed by staff or volunteers. Stakeholders need commitment and leadership from municipal officials and politicians to best deliver heritage services. The principal goal is that the structure have dedicated resources that benefit residents and visitors alike. Current levels of qualified staff, facilities, and funding of heritage programs and services will support the City's role. In Hamilton, city staff within the Culture and Parks Department are responsible for 5 museums, a marine archaeological project, arts programs, the Farmers' Market, and special events. Planning Department staff support LACACs. The Historical Board and LACAC have overlapping representation and deliver a joint plaquing program. Heritage is a mainstream issue that pervades many municipal departmental programs. There is a need to embed heritage in the municipal structure rather than view it as an externally driven advocacy issue. Currently heritage is over-regulated and poorly integrated within the municipal services. The struggle over leadership in heritage in the City has resulted in little actual policy development and fewer staff. Toronto has fallen behind most Canadian cities in its policies and funding for heritage. Summary of Roundtable Discussions: (1) Sequencing of strategy development and restructuring: (i) strategy then structure, possibly need for City of Toronto Heritage Act as an enabler for implementing the vision; (ii) prefer vision then structure, but it would likely take 1-2 years to develop a master plan; meanwhile there is pressure to reduce costs and the organization needs stability; practically, establish general direction, design structure, develop strategy; implementation requires commitment to the strategy which is secured by taking leadership in its development; and (iii) identify scope of issues, decide on goals and priorities, identify tools for implementation, then decide on structure; however this is long term and something needs to be done in the interim. (2) Who should lead development of the Strategy? (i) political leadership - three members of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team as a reference group; consultant to work with heritage community and key stakeholders; must be resourced and funded; (ii) City needs to take ownership and therefore lead; alternatively ad hoc committee of 8 people not involving stakeholders; need Terms of Reference and professional advice; meanwhile freeze budget, get buy-in of staff who will deliver; (iii) ad hoc committee including Councillors, CAO representative, major players, citizens at large; (iv) Heritage Regeneration Trust - Heritage Toronto to form vision group including architect, historian, environmentalist, archaeologist; include chairs of sub-groups; City Council to direct that all departments participate; and (v) Heritage Task Force of stakeholders and two politicians, staff of Toronto Historical Board and others, and heritage volunteers; need a champion at both staff level and political level. (3) Structural Options (i) currently diffused accountability because responsibility resides in too many departments and agencies; consider a single unit within administrative structure reporting to a standing committee; (ii) strategy, policy and monitoring should be central functions, but some issues may fall under Community Councils; links to other culture programs, tourism, special events and cross-pollinization necessary; some think there should be a heritage section in Planning Department; (iii) should consider core services and the required linkages to other City programs; local vs City-wide issues; direct service (sites) vs support services (oral history); should consider whether City wants its residents and City administration to be aware of their heritage leading to political will and integrated services; (iv) internal staff don't have the whole picture; need to embed heritage in departmental planning processes; locate in the community, not bureaucratize; and (v) formulate partnerships among politicians, appointed bodies, civil staff, taxpayers, heritage groups; one LACAC comprised of branches representing Community Council jurisdictions. (4) Strategy (i) agree that heritage is defined in broadest context; City is not responsible for delivering all aspects of heritage, but sets the vision city-wide; (ii) Council sets municipal goals, prioritize choices; use inclusive definition of heritage; citizen involvement a key component as well as staff and politicians, coordination points required, connections to industry, tourism, economic development; and (iii) change Heritage Act; pursue taxation and development incentives, provide grants, include heritage in Official Plan and zoning considerations. (5) Other comments (i) heritage policy must serve the public interest which must come first; (ii) take time and do this right; (iii) can't muddle through another year, nobody is watching the store while preservation issues sliding through; (iv) delays are holding up private donations for fear that recipient entity will no longer exist in a year; (v) need a heritage planner; and (vi) budget targets for 1999 are impacted since cannot realize savings from integration. Conclusions: There were a number of areas where there was consensus. First, it is clear that virtually everyone agrees that the definition of heritage is inclusive. Second, there seemed to be agreement that it would be worthwhile to determine what aspects of heritage apply across the City and what might be considered local to the community. Third, determination of core services is essential to establishing priorities and required linkages with other programs. The common message seemed to be that the City's role is to: (1) protect and preserve existing symbols of heritage; (2) provide assistance in response to local initiatives; and (3) promote heritage. It was also generally agreed that development of the heritage plan would require input from Councillors, staff, citizens serving on City boards, the heritage community, and citizens in general. This process was estimated to take upwards to a year to develop a comprehensive plan. Most agreed that form should follow function and the City strategy for heritage services should be developed prior to establishing the long term structure required to support the strategy. However, it was acknowledged that there are pressures to reorganize the function to address budgetary and staffing issues. Several people expressed the concern that business was in a holding pattern until the organizational issues were addressed; others believe that "buy-in" of the new organization's leadership is necessary to successfully implement the strategy and therefore should be developed after the organization is in place. Contact Name: Nancy Autton 397-0306 The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (Undated) from Dr. Marion Joppe, Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board): Purpose: This report recommends a vision and structure for heritage services in Toronto. Funding Sources: No new budget impacts are associated with this report. Recommendations: Heritage Services in the City of Toronto should be delivered by a Heritage Board which has registered charitable status, a clear financial agreement with the City, and an effective system of accountability. Therefore, it is recommended that: (a) the Heritage Board receive and annual funding agreement to provide city history programming to the citizens and visitors of Toronto and preservation services for all of Toronto; (b) the funding agreement recognized the growing market for history services outside the museum walls; and the need to develop the potential of the museums; (c) performance indicators be established between the Heritage Board and City Council and that Council have the power to hold the Board accountable; (d) an annual capital budget be negotiated based on the understanding that the protection of the heritage asset is the responsibility of the city. In addition, the Heritage Board could separately negotiate special capital improvement expenditures to enhance operations and to match funds from the private sector; (e) the Heritage Board establish Board member recruitment criteria in light of the performance requirements, that membership be broadly representative of the City, that members of the Board be approved by City Council via the Nominating Committee; and (f) considering that Heritage Toronto already holds a charitable number, it should continue to exist as the City's Heritage Board with a clear annual funding agreement and clear accountability system. Background: Each of the former municipalities defined and organized heritage services differently. At its meeting on July 29, 1998, Council had before it a report from the Chief Administrative Officer (Governance Structure for Heritage Services) recommending a reorganization that would consolidate resources in a new City Department, the "Culture Office". Council referred the matter back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team for further consideration, to hear deputations from Chairs of museum committees and Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committees (LACACs) of the former municipalities, and to receive comments from the heritage community on a heritage masterplan for the City. Discussion: We are at a crossroads. For years the Toronto area has been a leader in providing heritage programmes and protecting historic sites. But those programmes and special places are threatened by Provincial downloading and competing budget priorities. The debate over how heritage services should be structured has clouded the need for a rational, clear-headed discussion of why history matters to us all. The debate over structure has ignored the fact that historic preservation and educational programmes are badly underfunded. It has ignored the existing programmes that Heritage Toronto alone has delivered and is uniquely placed to continue. It has ignored the funding climate and how it can be addressed successfully. The attached report presents an inclusive vision and structure and a solid funding plan that will: (1) retain local community stewardship and decision-making for heritage resources; (2) provide Council and the people of Toronto high-quality independent expertise and advice on heritage matters; and (3) build on Heritage Toronto's existing charitable status to increase the funding base so that more community-based heritage programmes ca be developed. No other model for heritage services offers this positive combination. Conclusions: Only an arms-length approach to service delivery will allow heritage services to grow at no additional cost to the taxpayers of Toronto. Heritage Toronto has registered charitable status and 40 years experience. It is best positioned to deliver the City's heritage services well into the future. The City should negotiate an envelope funding formula and performance criteria for Heritage Toronto. Contact Name: Ms. Karen Black and Mr. Richard Stromberg Heritage Toronto, 392-6827 Ext. 224 and 236 ________ The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications respecting Heritage Services in the City of Toronto: (i) (August 12, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Governance Structure for Heritage Services"; that Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, together with the following motion and the various documents and communications submitted at Council: Moved by Councillor Adams: "That the Clause be amended by striking out Recommendation No. (12) of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and inserting in lieu thereof the following: '(12) City Council support the continued existence of an independent arms length charitable foundation to facilitate fundraising and development activities for a broad range of heritage projects throughout the City, and the Heritage Board, in consultation with the Culture Office, report on the further implementation of such charitable foundation.' "; and with the following requests: (1) that the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team: (a) hold a special meeting to give consideration thereto; (b) handle deputations expeditiously; (c) limit deputations to the Chairs of the existing LACAC's, the Chair, Heritage Toronto and the Chairs of the Museum Boards; and (d) develop a position paper on heritage issues prior to the hearing of deputations; and (2) that the heritage community be invited to immediately develop a Heritage Master Plan; (ii) (Undated) from Mr. Richard Schofield, Chair, Scarborough LACAC, submitting a Governance Structure for Heritage Services in the City of Toronto; (iii) (November 24, 1998) from Miss Patricia Kirkland, forwarding comments respecting the Governance Structure for Heritage Services in the City of Toronto; (iv) (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Greg Cosway, President, The Cottage Creek Corporation, forwarding comments respecting the Governance Structure for Heritage Services in the City of Toronto; (v) (December 4, 1998) from Mr. Lawrence Leonoff, Chair, North York Heritage Committee, forwarding his comments respecting the Governance Structure for Heritage Services in the City of Toronto having regard that he is unable to attend the meeting; (vi) (July 14, 1998) from Mr. Louis Badone, The Elihu Pease House; (vii) (July, 1998) from the Director, Toronto Heritage Foundation; (viii) (July 28, 1998) from Mr. Walter Hucker; (ix) (October 23, 1998) Ms. Diana Fancher, President, West Toronto Junction Historical Society; (x) (November 17, 1998) from Mr. Brian Anthony, Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation; and (xi) (Undated) prepared by members of the Heritage community, entitled "Outline for Heritage Master Plan, City of Toronto" ________ The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter: - Mr. John Carter, Chair, East York LACAC, and read and filed a submission on behalf of Mr. John Bertram, Chair, Todmorden Mills Heritage Museum and Arts Centre Advisory Board; - Mr. Earl Jarvis, Acting Chair, Etobicoke Museum and LACAC; - Mr. Bernard Thompson, Chair, York Museum; - Mr. Richard Schofield, Chair, Scarborough LACAC; - Ms. Margo Duncan read a submission on behalf of Ms. Mary-Louise Ashbourne, Chair, York LACAC who was unable to attend the meeting; - Ms. Lorraine O'Byrne, on behalf of the Chair, North York LACAC; - Dr. Marion Joppe, Toronto Museum and LACAC Chair; - Councillor John Adams, Midtown; and - Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown. (A copy of the attachment to the report (Undated) from Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board), entitled "Moving into the Future - A New Structure for Heritage", prepared by Heritage Toronto, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the December 4, 1998, agenda of the Special Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the Office of the City Clerk. A copy of the report (Undated) prepared by members of the Heritage community, entitled "Outline for Heritage Master Plan, City of Toronto", is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications respecting the current proposals for the governance structure for heritage services in Toronto: (i) (December 14, 1998) from Mr. William L. Archer; (ii) (December 15, 1998) from Dr. Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto; (iii) (December 15, 1998) from Mr. Joe Gill, Chair, The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common; and (iv) (December 16, 1998) executive summary, entitled, Heritage Governance: Empowering Citizens - The Enterprise Model, submitting amendments to the 'Miller Committee' recommendations, submitted by Councillor John Adams, Midtown.) 4 Administrative Structure for Arts Grants (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends: (1) the adoption of the following report (December 3, 1998) from the President of the Toronto Arts Council (TAC), subject to amending Recommendation No. (3) embodied therein by striking out the word "Budget" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "appropriate", so that Recommendation No. (3) now reads as follows: "(3) the Toronto Arts Council prepare and submit its annual Cultural Grant budget request to City Council through the appropriate Committee for approval by City Council; and (2) that the President of the Toronto Arts Council be requested to report to the Economic Development Committee on how the City can stimulate amateur theatre in the City of Toronto: Purpose: To submit the report from the Toronto Arts Council recommending an administrative structure for arts grants for the city. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: The recommendations in this report have no direct financial implications. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the Toronto Arts Council be approved as the city-wide arm's length administrative body in relation to the funding of the arts and cultural organizations and artists in the City of Toronto; (2) the Toronto Arts Council report to City Council through Economic Development Committee; (3) the Toronto Arts Council prepare and submit its annual Cultural Grant budget request to City Council through the Budget Committee for approval by City Council; (4) City Legal work with the Toronto Arts Council to establish the terms of a new Grants Agreement with the City. The Grants Agreement should ensure, among other things: (i) full financial accountability to City Council; (ii) City Council control over policy; (iii) City Council approval of the total Cultural Grants envelope; (iv) continuation of City Council appointments of five Councillors to the board of directors of the TAC; and (v) a framework that establishes TAC as an integral part of the City's functional structure; (5) the Toronto Arts Council continue to realign its structure and process to fit the amalgamated City; (6) appropriate partnerships be developed between TAC and the Culture Office to ensure efficient and effective coordination of the City's arts and culture objectives; (7) implementation proceed regarding the recommendations of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism's report of September 11, 1998 and that the four local arts councils that are not funding bodies continue to report to and enter into a purchase of service agreement with the Culture Office; (8) appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to these recommendations. Introduction: The future of funding for arts and culture has been studied for two years, ever since it became clear the seven municipalities that made up Metro Toronto might be amalgamated. And this much has been agreed to: arm's length is the way to go. This has been the recommendation of every group that has studied the issue, including the report from the ARA Consulting Group to the Special Committee to review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team Unfortunately the version of arm's length described in the report is not arm's length as the majority of the arts community understands it, and, in our opinion, would not properly serve the elected politicians, the artists or the citizens of Toronto. First, the report suggests eliminating direct reporting and accountability to City Council. But effective and responsible arm's length bodies only work when a balance is achieved between the special purpose body and the elected political representatives. Such bodies are asked to do a job for a government, and can't effectively do that job unless they can report on their ideas and results in the proper political forum. The report suggests that the Culture Office should be charged with oversight of the TAC - in effect, that the arm's length body would report to a bureaucratic mechanism. No other arm's length arts funding body in Canada reports in that manner. The Toronto Arts Council understands the need for scrutiny by appropriate city staff (see figure 1). The TAC also understands the need for partnership with the Culture Office (see figure 2). We have always supported the concept of a Culture Office as an entity with a vital and strategic role in areas such as cultural tourism, international cultural relations, and cultural policy development. The Culture Office has important new territory to define in the future of the arts in the city. The recommendation's in the ARA report ask it to keep doing a large part of the funding job that can responsibly, economically and efficiently be handed over to an arm's length body. Worse, the report asks the Culture Office to in effect also administer the arm's length body. This does not seem like an effective distribution of resources. The existing structure of the relationship between the TAC and the City and the terms of the existing Grant Agreement were developed with the intense involvement of the City legal department. Senior members of the legal department were involved in all stages of the negotiation of the Grant Agreement and legal issues were carefully considered when the Agreement was drafted. The City legal department was not only satisfied that the structure was acceptable from a legal perspective but that it was the best method for achieving accountable arm's length for both politicians and the arts community. The Recommendation of the Transition Team: In its final report, the Transition Team recommended: "That council should establish a new city-wide Toronto Arts Council, as an arm's length funding and peer review body to administer grants to arts and cultural organizations, according to policy guidelines established by Council. The Arts Council should be based on the existing Toronto Arts Council and it should report to Council through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee." City Council later amended that recommendation to read "based on the existing Toronto Arts Council model" when it referred the issue to the Special Committee. The ARA report quotes these recommendations but does not explain how it came to a decision to recommend a different funding structure. Consultations: Staff at the City of Toronto and the Toronto Arts Council took the Transition Team's recommendations out to the community to check what had been said over and over again during the Transition Team's consultations: that arm's length is the preferred model for funding arts and culture grants. The Arts Council itself went into every community in the new City to speak to artists, to build consensus between communities, and to find out what they thought needed to be done. A joint discussion paper was distributed by the Culture Office and the TAC to more than 1,600 organizations and individuals throughout the new City of Toronto. The discussion paper included an invitation for written comments. Public workshops were held, and confidential interviews were conducted. This was the consensus: (a) It is important for the City to support arts and culture. (b) The grants program should support both professional and community-based arts and culture activities. (c) A majority support a peer-review process for making grants, and an arm's length grants decision-making structure. There were some caveats. Some community-based arts organizations were worried that their needs would be over-shadowed by those of professional arts organizations. And some of the large professional arts organizations were worried their resources would disappear to service the needs of the community-based arts groups. The Toronto Arts Council understands these anxieties. Amalgamation has been difficult as great change is being undertaken in a very short time. The TAC has been working to strengthen communities' understanding of each other. We have been trying to bring communities together. The ARA Report: There are elements in the report that we support and that have overall merit such as the endorsement of arm's length principles and the report's articulation of a set of guiding principles for the city's support of arts and culture. However, in a number of critical areas, the report is inherently flawed: (a) The report justifies an additional level of management of arts and culture grants in the City. That money would be better spent directly on the arts. (b) The report reduces the political accountability of the Arts Council by eliminating the TAC's direct reporting relationship to the political body. The TAC would report to bureaucrats and not directly to Council through the Economic Development Committee. (c) The report reduces the political accountability of the Arts Council a second time by recommending that all politicians be removed from its board. (d) The report effectively relegates the Toronto Arts Council to the status of an advisory committee of the Culture Office. This in fact eliminates arm's length while purporting to support it. The ARA report also qualifies its support of arm's length. The report does not envision an arm's length process for large scale organizations or for community-based organizations. The report recommends arm's length only for groups where "artistic merit...is dominant" (and only "where necessary"). Basically, the report ignores the spirit behind the new city. Amalgamation was supposed to bring people and structures together. The report instead divides the arts community. Its recommendation that arts groups be put into one of three categories has the potential of pitting them against each other when, in fact, they are deeply interrelated. Conclusions: The Toronto Arts Council believes that arm's length status is not antithetical to political accountability. We know of no arm's length body - federal, provincial, or local - that reports to bureaucrats rather than politicians. This includes the Canada Council and the Ontario Arts Council. It also includes the Montreal Arts Council, and the London (England) Arts Board. Both the Montreal Arts Council, and the London Arts Board also have appointed politicians sitting on their arm's length boards. The Toronto Arts Council, the arts community in Toronto, and many citizens throughout the city have spent valuable time over the past two years in public discussion and debate on the issues surrounding the delivery of arts grants in the City. Their views overwhelmingly support a true arm's length body, modeled on the Toronto Arts Council. It is difficult to understand at this stage of amalgamation, why recommendations would be put forward that are more costly, that diminish accountability, and that reduce real citizen involvement. The Toronto Arts Council has a long history of working productively with the arts community, with city politicians and with bureaucrats. We welcome the opportunity to partner with the Culture Office in ways that will benefit not just the City's artists, but the entire community. We welcome the opportunity to work on behalf of the City. We therefore urge members of the Special Committee, and members of Council to support the recommendations in this report. ________ Appendices (1) Summary of 1998 Activities. (2) TAC'S Volunteer Structure. (3) TAC Transition Consultation Process. (4) TAC'S Mission Statement. (5) TAC's Board and Committee List. -------- Appendix 1 Summary of 1998 Activities - Toronto Arts Council (1) Reviewed over 1,000 applications (90 per cent. of all applications requesting cultural grants support from the City of Toronto): (i) 357 from organizations and artists collectives; and (ii) 720 from individual artists. (2) Managed $7.3 million of the City's cultural grants budget (representing 70 per cent. of overall cultural grants budget). (3) Organized and implemented a city-wide nomination process to TAC Board and Committees in which 800 nomination forms were distributed to the artists, arts supporters and arts organizations across the City resulting in: (i) eleven new board members from outside the former City of Toronto; and (ii) eighteen new arts committee members from outside the former City of Toronto. (4) Managed a volunteer structure of over 71 individuals. (5) Partnered with and implemented a joint community consultation process with the City's Culture Office in which over 1,600 individuals participated. (6) Worked with Toronto''s arts community, the Mayor's Office and City's Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force to create Toronto Arts Tax Alliance which: (i) collected information on the effects of provincial tax policy legislation on Toronto's arts and culture sector; (ii) communicated problems with the legislation to the arts community, city politicians and provincial politicians and officials; and (iii) recommended the province and the city implement changes to the tax policy legislation in order to mitigate impact on Toronto's arts and culture sector. (7) Researched the financial and economic changes to Toronto's non-profit arts community during the period 1991 to 1996. The report will be released in early 1999. (8) Developed the Arts and Community Committee as part of TAC's arts committee structure. ________ Appendix 2 TAC'S Volunteer Structure One of TAC's acknowledged strengths is the organization's strong ties to and base in the community. TAC accesses over 10,000 hours of volunteer time each year from people with extensive and specialized knowledge of the arts community and its importance to the health and wealth of the City. Their volunteer contribution, valued at approximately $500,000, almost equals the TAC's annual operating budget. It is not possible to put an estimate on the less tangible but equally valuable aspect of the volunteer base of TAC. TAC's structure of volunteer board and committees provides the organization with a direct connection to the arts community and the community at-large. The artists and other citizens knowledgeable about the city's cultural life involved in the board and committees are the TAC. They reflect the full diversity and cultural richness of the city itself. Their careful deliberation on over 1,000 grant applications a year has effectively guided the former City of Toronto's investment in the arts to have the greatest positive impact for the city. In our consultations, frequent and unsolicited observations have been made that the TAC's granting process, which rests on these volunteers, is exemplary for its community involvement, transparent processes, fairness and accessibility. ________ Appendix 3 TAC Transition Consultation Process 1998 Community Consultation: As part of the work of the City Council-appointed Municipal Grants Review Committee, the Toronto Arts Council and the City's Culture Office jointly undertook a review and consultation process to establish an integrated arts and culture grant policy for the City of Toronto, to develop operating guidelines for the new City-wide Toronto Arts Council and to consider a broad range of issues relating to arts and culture funding throughout the new City. As part of this process there were focussed consultations with the arts community, a large arts community meeting and other individual consultations by an independent consultant. The single largest issue raised by those who participated was the adoption of the "arm's length" principle. Feedback from the consultations that have taken place through this review indicate strong support for "arm's length." TAC Transition Steering Committee: As it reported to The Special Committee on February 5, TAC established a Transition Steering Committee in May, 1997, to begin consideration of issues involved in expanding TAC's services to the new city. Its membership included persons knowledgable about and active in the arts communities in the six former municipalities. This committee made recommendations to the TAC Board of Directors and staff regarding matters related to community outreach and program review. The Transition Steering Committee has been involved in the development of the process of consultation on re-vamping the TAC to serve the new city. This committee has helped to guide the TAC during its initial and intermediate transition process. Focus meetings: As reported to The Special Committee on February 5, the TAC began its consultation on how to re-vamp to provide its services to the entire city in December of 1997. As a first step, meetings were held with artists, representatives of arts groups, local arts councils and municipal staff in each of the former municipalities. Arts in the Community: Meetings with the Transition Steering Committee, key groups and individuals in all of the former municipalities have been undertaken to develop an understanding of the range of arts activities that exist in all of the former municipalities. Toronto Arts Council has been funding community-based arts groups and projects since its inception in 1974. The term "community arts" has been used to describe collaborative activities involving a community (which may be defined by a variety of common ties including race, nationality, age, economic status, geography, etc.) where the creative process within the community is valued as much as the artistic outcome. TAC has initiated a review process in order to make decisions on how it can best address funding needs in all areas of the new City. On the advice of those consulted, Toronto Arts Council is developing an Arts and Community committee as part of its arts committees structure. ________ Appendix 4 Toronto Arts Council Mission Statement Premise: A great city fosters a vibrant cultural scene and recognizes the importance of the arts to the quality of life of its citizens. Strategic municipal arts investment is a key factor in generating a healthy city economy, promoting cultural tourism, creating training and employment opportunities, and seeding the cultural industries. Mission: Toronto Arts Council is an arm's length body that supports the development, accessibility and excellence of the arts in Toronto. Toronto Arts Council, on behalf of the City of Toronto, offers grants programs to the city's arts organizations and professional artists. These programs support a broad range of activities from individual creation and small start-up projects to some of Canada's largest and most renowned arts institutions. Operating Structure: Toronto Arts Council's volunteer board and committees are made up of artists, other arts professionals and arts supporters. To guarantee accountability, City Council appoints five of its members to Toronto Arts Council's 29 member Board of Directors. Toronto Cultural Advisory Corporation, the body that elects the Toronto Arts Council Board of Directors, includes all City Councillors as well as all members of the TAC board and committees. Toronto Arts Council reports to City Council through the City's Economic Development Committee. Committees and juries review applications for funding and make grant recommendations to the Board of Directors. The board and committees are aided by a small, professional staff. Toronto Arts Council programs are funded through an annual appropriation from the City of Toronto. Toronto Arts Council's two key operating principles - arm's length funding and peer review - are applied to ensure the City of Toronto vigorously pursues artistic excellence and innovation and steadfastly protects freedom of expression. Core Values: In everything it does, the Toronto Arts Council strives to be: (a) accessible and approachable; (b) inclusive and equitable; (c) progressive and responsive; and (d) accountable and efficient. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer: Purpose: To submit the report from ARA Consulting Ltd., recommending an administrative structure for arts grants for the City. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: The recommendations in this report have no direct financial impact. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the recommendations submitted by ARA Consulting Ltd., in their report entitled "Governance Model for Arts and Culture Grants" be adopted; (2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism modify the 1999 grants process to be consistent with the model proposed in the Consultant's report, should this be approved by Council; (3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism develop an implementation plan within Corporate budgetary guidelines and report thereon to the Economic Development Committee; (4) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism work with the Chief Administrative Officer, Solicitor, and Toronto Arts Council to propose revisions to the legislation and the grant agreement with the Toronto Arts Council to address concerns articulated in the consultant's report; and (5) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Council Reference/Background/History: At its meeting of January 2, 3, and 4, 1998, Council referred the following motion to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team: "The Arts Council should be based on the existing Toronto Arts Council model and it should report to Council through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee". On March 4, 1998, Council approved the recommendation of the Special Committee to refer the structure of arts administration in Toronto to the Chief Administrative Officer for a report to the Special Committee. In the interim, the grant agreement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Arts Council (TAC) was modified to permit Council to nominate 5 members of Council from across the City to TAC's Board of Directors. The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism consulted with major arts organizations and stakeholders and recommended an interim process for distributing grants for 1999. The Interim Measures report adopted by Council at its November meeting proposes extension of the agreement for one year beyond the March 1999 expiry date of the current agreement. The five Councillors serving on the TAC Board of Directors requested that the Chief Administrative Officer report on the governance structure for arts grants at the November meeting of the Special Committee. To meet the requested deadlines, the Chief Administrative Officer engaged ARA Consulting Ltd. to review the many background documents and position papers developed for submission to the Toronto Transition Team, conduct interviews with selected stakeholders and experts outside the City structures, and prepare a report recommending a conceptual model for administration of arts grants. The attached report articulates the relative roles of the major stakeholders in the conceptual model recommended by the Consultants. Comments: Prior to amalgamation, each of the seven municipalities made grants to arts organizations. The two major municipal funders, Metro Council through the Culture Office, and the Toronto Arts Council, both recommended grants using a peer review process to assess merit. The major difference, however, was that the former City of Toronto provided a grant to an external organization, the Toronto Arts Council, to administer the grants function, whereas Metro's used peer review panels in the formulation of grant recommendations for Council approval. The former City of Toronto did not have a culture office within the City organization. Basically three categories of arts grants were inherited by the unified City as described in the ARA report. Metro provided sustaining grants to the major nationally recognized arts organizations based in the City and to organizations involved in a variety of non-profit professional arts disciplines throughout the region. The TAC distributed grants on behalf of the former City of Toronto to similar organizations and individuals within its jurisdiction, and the other former municipalities primarily provided grants to organizations providing services and support to professional organizations and to community based arts and culture organizations. The respective funding roles of each of the municipal governments has been developed and refined over the past 25 years in the context of funding provided by the federal and provincial governments. Government funding of professional not-for-profit arts organizations has been a balanced partnership among 4 levels of government, each with clearly stated public policy objectives. Both the federal and provincial governments use agencies of the government, the Canada Council and the Ontario Arts Council, to provide the independent grant adjudication and distribution function. In both cases, there are also related culture policy functions resident in a ministry or department. The consultant's report did not pursue the creation of an agency for this purpose at the City. There were clearly a range of objectives driving the grant programs within a two-tier municipal framework. In the absence of a policy review for the new City, it has been assumed that the new unified City will continue to support the collective policy objectives of the former cities. Once the structure for administration has been decided, consideration of policies and priorities should resume. In the meantime, however, there is a need to rationalize the process for distributing grants in each category to ensure that all City districts have access to funding on the same footing. Recognizing the different objectives for each of the grant categories, the ARA report recommends roles for the various stakeholders which optimize peer review concepts within legal bounds and effectively links process to objectives. The process for 1999 recently approved by Council is inconsistent in some ways with the model recommended by ARA. In the absence of a reformed structure, the intent was to make changes in the structure and procedures of the TAC and modifications to the grant agreement to implement the 1999 approved process. If Council approves the model proposed by ARA or any variation which is inconsistent with the process designed for 1999, it would be preferable that the 1999 process be modified to be consistent with the model approved by Council rather than proceeding with the 1999 process as defined and change again in 2000. The ARA proposal is a high level conceptual model. The precise organization of the various business units, the staff placement, and budget assignments will need to be planned and implemented by the department. In addition, changes to the grant agreement with the Toronto Arts Council are recommended in the ARA report. The Commissioner should work with the City Solicitor, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the TAC in initiating these changes and recommending any legislative changes necessary. Conclusions: The structure appropriate to administer arts grants has been the subject of much discussion over the last two years by stakeholders and other interest groups. The report from ARA Consulting Ltd. recommends a conceptual model which strengthens accountability and public participation, while maintaining the arms' length process where appropriate. In addition, the model facilitates coordination with other City activities and reinforces accountability within the City structure. The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism concurs with the recommended directions outlined in the Consultant's report. To operationalize this model or any variation of it, implementation must be planned and activated, the 1999 process revised, and the grant agreement revised. Contact: Nancy Autton 397-0306 -------- Recommendations and Conclusion embodied in the report, entitled "Governance Model for Arts and Culture Grants, prepared by The ARA Consulting Group, a Division of KPMG LLP, dated November, 1998: It is recommended that City Council and the Economic Development Committee: (1) consult with the public and arts organizations; (2) develop a strategic plan to guide City involvement in the arts and culture; (3) develop policies necessary to carry out that plan; (4) approve three envelopes of grants for the different types of grants noted above; (5) approve the specific grants to the seven largest arts organizations; and (6) approve a grant to the Toronto Arts Council for those organizations requiring an arm's length review of artistic merit. It is recommended that the City Culture Office: (1) provide support to Council to fulfil its functions; (2) conduct research and promotion or contract with others to do it; (3) manage the grant contracts; (4) manage community arts grants; (5) administer other arts policies; and (6) co-ordinate arts activities with other activities of the city government. It is recommended that the Toronto Arts Council: (1) continue as an independent non-profit organization; (2) continue to re-align its structure and processes to fit the amalgamated city; and (3) contract with the City Culture Office to distribute the grant for organizations that require an arm's length grant process. It is recommended that the contract between the City and the Toronto Arts Council: (1) focus on outcomes and measures of performance; (2) not include clauses appointing Councillors to the TAC board; and (3) create a reporting relationship to the Culture Office rather than the Economic Development Committee. The preceding review of options for governance of arts and culture grants and related issues has attempted to balance inherent and healthy tensions in the arts and governance. It is designed to support the further development of the arts community, independent of but in partnership with the City government. The governance model supports diversity of participation in public policy debates by arts organizations and the public. It also allows for diversity in grants to meet different public policy objectives. As noted in the report, two essential missing pieces are a strategic plan for arts and culture and an evaluation framework to measure progress toward achieving the objectives of such a plan. -------- The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications: (i) (September 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Economic Development Committee on September 18, 1998, during its consideration of a report (August, 1998) from Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council, which covered the first six months in 1998 (January 1 to June 30, 1998) and described the economic impact of the City's financial investment in the arts community and the impressive array of new work, creativity and community animation which resulted, took the following action: (1) received the report (August, 1998) from Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council, and forwarded it to City Council for information at its next meeting on October 1, 1998; and (2) referred the following Recommendation No. (103) of the Toronto Transition Team to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he submit a report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and that the Special Committee forward its recommendation in this respect to the Economic Development Committee for consideration and subsequent submission to City Council: "Council should establish a new City-wide Toronto Arts Council as an arm's length funding and peer review body to administer grants to arts and cultural organizations, according to policy guidelines established by Council." (ii) received from the following respecting Arts and Culture in the City of Toronto: - (October 21, 1998) from Ms. Joy Hughes, Cedar Ridge Studio Gallery; - (October 22, 1998) from Ms. Angela Lee; - (October 22, 1998) from Ms. Wendy Lilly, Waterfront Trail Artists; - October 22, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Cinello; - (October 22, 1998) from Mr. Dirk McLean; - (October 22, 1998) from Mr. Robin Collyer; - (October 23, 1998) from Ms. Rosa Maria Luza, Director, The Patron of Peruvian Arts; - (October 23, 1998) from Ms. Sarindar Dhaliwal; - (October 23, 1998) from Ms. Lee Pui Ming, Musician; - (October 24, 1998) from Ms. Joan A. Pierre; - (Undated) from Ms. Rina Fraticelli, Wild Zone Films; - (Undated) from Ms. Cheuk C. Kwan; - (November 28, 1998) from Ms. Barbara Fischer; - (November 30, 1998) from E. Drew Huffman; - (November 30, 1998) from Mr. David Powell, Co-Artistic Director, Puppet Mongers; - (November 30, 1998) from Mr. Eric Field, Waterfront Trail Artists; - (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Wendy Lilly, Waterfront Trail Artists; - (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Gabrielle Wimmerschoff, Waterfront Trail Artists; - (November 30, 1998) from Mr. Gerald Smith, First Stage in Arts Marketing, Management and communications; - (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Joan Bosworth, General Manager, Opera Atelier; - (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Atwood, - (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Don Moffat, Moffat Kinoshita Architects Inc.; - (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Jean Yoon, Seoul Babe, Artistic Director; - (Undated) from Jacquie P. A. Thomas, Artistic Director, Theatre Gargantua; - (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Karl Beveridge, Spokesperson, CARFAC Ontario; - (Undated) from Ms. Carol Anderson, Administrative Co-ordinator, The Aldeburgh Connection; - (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Mandy Macrae, President, Women's Musical Club of Toronto; - (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Melony Ward and Milinda Sato, Co-Directors, YYZ Artists' Outlet; - (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas Goldschmidt, Music Canada Musique 2000; - (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Diane Quinn; - (December 1, 1998) from Ms. June Callwood; - (December 1, 1998) from Mr. William Morris, President, National Shevchenko Musical Ensemble Guild of Canada; - (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Susan V. Corrigan, Administrative Director, The Canadian Bookbinders and Book Artists Guild; - (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Michael deConinck Smith, Managing Director, Canadian Children's Dance Theatre; - (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Patricia S. Rubin; - (Undated) from Ms. Rebecca Todd; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Andrew Pyper; - (December 2, 1998) from Ms. Rosslyn Jacob Edwards, General Manager, DanceWorks; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Alan McNairn, Director, Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. David Zapparoli; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Hussain Amarshi and Claudine Domingue, Mongrel Media; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Chuck McEwen, Producer, The Fringe: Toronto's Theatre Festival; - (December 2, 1998) from Ms. Sonja Mills; - (December 2, 1998) from Ms. Pat Bradley, Executive Director, Professional Association of Canadian Theatres (PACT); - (December 2, 1998) from Ms. Jane Howard Baker, Inner City Angels; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Adrian Di Castri, Chairperson, Public Art Commission; - (December 2, 1998) from Ms. Christine Foster, Administrative Director, and Ms. Alice Walter, Artistic Director, Cliffhanger Productions; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Jim Montgomery, Artistic Director, The Music Gallery; - (December 2, 1998) from Ms. Carol Auld; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Mark Czarnecki; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Richard Fung, Visiting Professor, Dept. Of Media Study, SUNY-Buffalo; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Atom Egoyan, Ego Film Arts; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Sara Angelucci, Gallery 44; - (December 2, 1998) from Selvam Sridas, Vice President, Tamil Eelam Society of Canada; - (Undated) from Ananthy Sridas; - (December 2, 1998) from Sam Sridas, Sri Lalitha Kala Khenthram; - (December 2, 1998) from Roger Gibbs, Artistic Director, Worlds of Music Toronto; - (December 1, 1998) from Marilyn Jung, Zen Mix 2000; - (December 2, 1998) from Terry Watada; - (December 2, 1998) from Mark Brownell, Artistic Director, Pea Green Theatre Group Inc.; - (December 2, 1998) from Deanna Bowen, Membership Coordinator, The Liaison of Independent Filmmakers of Toronto; - (December 2, 1998) from Claire Hopkinson, General Manager and Producer, Tapestry Music Theatre; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Elena Quah, Director, Projects for the Arts; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Nancy Coy, General Manager, Young Peoples Theatre; - (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Michael J. Thomas, Visual Artist; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Ottie Lockey, Managing Director, Tafelmusik; - (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Ross Turnbull, General Manager, Charles Street Video; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Robert Achtemichuk, Director, Open Studio; - (December 2, 1998) from Ms. Edita Petrauskate, Executive Director, The League of Canadian Poets; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Lorraine Johnson, General Manager, New Music Concerts; - (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Joey Meyer, Choreographer; - (December 3, 1998) from Mr. John Beckwith; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. Jim Millan, Artistic Director, Crow's Theatre; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Molly Thorn; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Cinello, Artist and Community Arts Worker; - (December 3, 1998) from Lee Pui Ming; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Jennifer Watkins; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Jennifer Ginder, Director of Government Relations, Canadian Opera Company; - (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Michael Malone, Executive Director, Trinity Square Video; - (Undated) from Ms. Jessica Fraser, Executive Director, Toronto Theatre Alliance; - (December 4, 1998) from Ms. Allison Melville, Chair, Baroque Music Beside the Grange; - (Undated) from Mr. Matthew Hansen; - (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Shawn Kerwin; - (Undated) from Ms. Harriet Wichin; - (December 3, 1998) from the Artistic Director, Menaka Thakkar Dance Company; - (December 2, 1998) from Mr. David Fallis, General Manager, Toronto Consort; - (December 3, 1998) from Ms. Angela Lee, Program Director, Arts Starts Neighbourhood Cultural Centre; and - (December 3, 1998) from Mr. Martin Bragg, Canadian Stage. ________ Mr. Steve Lough, ARA Consulting Ltd., gave a presentation to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, respecting the governance structure for Arts and Culture Grants. Ms. Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council, also gave a presentation to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, entitled "Governance Structure for Arts and Culture Grants", and filed a copy of her presentation material. The following persons appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter: - Ms. Alison Bain, Director, Public Affairs, Toronto International Film Festival; - Mr. Layne Coleman, Artistic Director, Theatre Passe Muraille; - Ms. Lillian Allen, Artist; - Mr. Matt Cohen, Writer; - Ms. Marion Law; - Councillor John Adams, Midtown; and - Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River. (A copy of : (a) the report entitled "Governance Model for Arts and Culture Grants", prepared by ARA Consulting Ltd., was forwarded to all Members of Council with the December 4, 1998, agenda of the Special Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and (b) Appendix 5, entitled TAC's Board and Committee List, attached to the foregoing report (December 3, 1998) from the President, Toronto Arts Council, is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications pertaining to the arm's length funding proposal for the arts in the new City of Toronto: (i) (December 4, 1998) from Mr. John Van Burek, The Pleiades Theatre; (ii) (December 8, 1998) from Ms. Alberta Nokes, Toronto; (iii) (December 15, 1998) from Mr. Silvio Sauro, Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission; and (iv) (December 16, 1998) from Mr. Richard Rose, Artistic Director, Tarragon Theatre.) 5 Objectives and Principles of Office and Civic Space Consolidation Project (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by: (1) adding the following additional principles to those embodied in the report dated December 2, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services: "(j) the provision of space for community use will continue to be made a high priority; and (k) the provision of public space for community use will be considered in the City's program of space consolidation."; and (2) adding thereto the following: "It is further recommended that the City of Toronto work co-operatively with the Toronto District School Board in its civic and space consolidation, with a view to co-ordinating space consolidation in ways that may be mutually beneficial, including the exchange of space and properties where merited.") The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, embodied in the following communication (December 3, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall: Recommendations: The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, recommends that: (1) the principles contained in the report (December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services be endorsed; (2) the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, report to the Corporate Services Committee, as quickly as possible, on the Phase One and Two Review; (3) staff be requested to report back to the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, as quickly as possible on a review timetable, and process, which shall include all Civic Centres; (4) the Commissioner of Corporate Services review the Access Points at City Hall and the cost of additional furniture for visitor seating; and (5) the Commissioner of Corporate Services canvass the Councillors who have received requests for a Citizen's Room; and report back on the status of this process to the Sub-Committee and Corporate Services Committee. Background: The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, on December 2, 1998, had before it a report (December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting Objectives and Principles of Office and Civic Space Consolidation Project. The Sub-Committee's actions are noted above. (Report dated December 2, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services addressed to the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall.) Purpose: To highlight the objectives and principles of the City's office and civic space consolidation project and how they relate to Toronto City Hall. Source of Funds: N/A. Recommendation: It is recommended that this report be received for information. Council Reference/Background/History: Councillor Ron Moeser, Chair of the Sub-Committee for the Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, requested that I report on the objectives and principles of the City's office and civic space consolidation project currently underway and how they relate to Toronto City Hall. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification: The Facilities and Real Estate Division along with an outside consulting firm are currently undertaking a corporate office and civic space consolidation study which includes an assessment of a variety of City of Toronto buildings, including Toronto City Hall, Metro Hall and the five civic centres. The objectives and principles of the project as highlighted below apply to all the buildings being examined. The project objectives are stated to be: (a) to consolidate the office and civic space based on the needs of the new organizational structures of the City of Toronto; (b) to reduce the overall office space inventory to lower operational costs; (c) to align the use of the office and civic space with City of Toronto service delivery goals; (d) to update work space strategies to provide improved productivity; (e) to implement accountability for space utilization at the Department and Divisional level; (f) to facilitate the transition into an amalgamated City through the use of space; and (g) to ensure community access with particular reference to individuals with specific accessibility needs. To achieve the project objectives, the following principles will be embraced: (a) convenient service delivery to the public is a key tenet of the office and civic space consolidation; (b) the consolidation will be achieved in an efficient, effective and cost-beneficial manner; (c) to reduce costs and advance the implementation, a key tenet will be to move people not furniture; (d) the space consolidation will be achieved with a minimal number of moves for staff; (e) space and furniture are corporate resources to be managed by the Corporate Services Department in accordance with the City's priorities; (f) functional space standards will be utilized to meet project objectives; (g) Departments are accountable for their use of space; (h) leased space will be rationalized and reduced wherever possible; and (i) environmental and social objectives will be a key consideration in space planning. Conclusions: The objectives and principles highlighted above apply to all the City buildings being studied, including Toronto City Hall, Metro Hall and the five civic centres. I anticipate the consultant's report on the project along with my final report outlining recommendations for space planning at Toronto City Hall, Metro Hall, and the other civic centres will be available for City Council's consideration in early 1999. Contact Name: Susanne Borup, Executive Director, Facilities and Real Estate Division, phone 397-4156, fax 397-0825, e-mail SusanneBorup@city.toronto.on.ca. 6 Council Legislative Process Review - Deputations at Committee Meetings (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause, together with the following motion, to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999: Moved by Councillor Moeser: "That the foregoing Clause be amended by adding thereto the following: 'It is further recommended that: (1) the joint report dated December 15, 1998, from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted: "It is recommended that: (1) the Procedural By-law be amended to incorporate the following procedure for hearing deputations from the public and from Councillors at Standing Committee meetings who are not members of the Committee: (a) introduction of the subject matter by the Committee Chair; (b) deputant(s) appear before Committee on the subject matter; (c) Committee Members and Non-Committee Members may ask questions of deputant(s) through the Committee Chair; (d) Non-Committee Members who wish to address the Committee are then permitted to speak as deputants; (e) following deputations, Committee and Non-Committee Members may ask questions of staff; (f) subject matter is considered and debated by Committee Members only; (g) once debate has commenced, Non-Committee Members may only question Committee Members with the permission of the Committee through the Committee Chair; and (h) Committee makes a decision; (2) the Procedural By-law be amended to provide that seating in Committee meetings shall be determined by lottery and shall ensure that the public can clearly distinguish Committee Members from Non-Committee Members in attendance; and (3) the appropriate officials be authorized to take any action necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction of the necessary bill in Council."; and (2) the City Clerk be requested to evaluate these amendments to the Council Procedural By-law and report thereon, in October, 1999, to the appropriate Committee of Council.' ") The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends: (1) that the following process be adopted respecting deputations by Members of Council at Committee meetings: (i) Councillors, who are not Committee Members, may ask questions of deputants, staff or Members of Council on Committees; and (ii) Committee Members then taking carriage of the item; and (2) that this shall serve as notice to give effect to the necessary amendment to the Council Procedural By-law. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk, in consultation with Councillor Ron Moeser, Chair of the Sub-Committee, Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, to provide for a designated seating arrangement in Committee Room 1 at City Hall, and that such designated seating provide for a separation between Members of the Committee and other Members of Council. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team submits the following communication (December 2, 1998) from Councillor Ron Moeser, Chairman, Sub-Committee, Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall: I would request Committee to consider adopting the process used previously by both the City of Scarborough and the old City of Toronto Committees, whereby: (1) public presentations/deputants may speak on any matter on the Agenda with speakers being limited to five minutes each and one speaker per topic; (2) Councillors, who are not Committee Members, may ask questions of deputants, staff or Members of Council on Committee; and (3) Committee Members then take carriage of the item. (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (December 15, 1998) from the City Clerk and the City Solicitor: Purpose: To report on proposed amendments to the Procedural By-law to implement Recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 of Clause No. 6 of Report No. 15 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team. Financial Implications: None. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the Procedural By-law be amended to incorporate the following procedure for hearing deputations from the public and from Councillors at Standing Committee meetings who are not members of the Committee: (a) introduction of the subject matter by the Committee Chair; (b) deputant(s) appear before Committee on the subject matter; (c) Committee Members and Non-Committee Members may ask questions of deputant(s) through the Committee Chair; (d) Non-Committee Members who wish to address the Committee are then permitted to speak as deputants; (e) following deputations, Committee and Non-Committee Members may ask questions of staff; (f) subject matter is considered and debated by Committee Members only; (g) once debate has commenced, Non-Committee Members may only question Committee Members with the permission of the Committee through the Committee Chair; and (h) Committee makes a decision; (2) the Procedural By-law be amended to provide that seating in Committee meetings shall be determined by lottery and shall ensure that the public can clearly distinguish Committee Members from Non-Committee Members in attendance; and (3) the appropriate officials be authorized to take any action necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction of the necessary bill in Council. Council Reference: In Clause No. 6 of Report No. 15, the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team has recommended that the Procedural By-law be amended to include the following process for deputations by Members of Council at Committee meetings: "(i) Councillors, who are not Committee Members, may ask questions of deputants, staff or Members of Council on Committees; and (ii) Committee Members then taking carriage of the item." Comments: Under section 115 of the Procedural By-law, Non-Committee Members of Council appearing at a Committee are accorded "all the same rights and privileges of a [Committee] Member, except for the right to present motions, or to vote." The proposed procedure is intended to make the political process more efficient by altering the participation of Non-Committee Members at Committee meetings. Consistent with current practice, Non-Committee Members would address the Committee after all public deputations have been heard. Non-Committee Members would be allowed to speak as deputants, ask questions of staff, and, once debate has begun, question Committee Members through the Chair. Opportunities for further consideration and debate would continue to exist at Council. The proposed procedure would not alter public access to the political process. Conclusions: Members of Council have frequently expressed a desire to improve the legislative process. The recommended procedure achieves this by streamlining the participation of Non-Committee Councillors at Committee meetings. Citizen participation is unaffected by the proposed amendments to the Procedural By-law. Contact Names: Wayne Reeves, Clerk's Division (392-8107) Mary Ellen Bench, Legal Division (392-7245) 7 Creation of No-Smoking Area, Glass House, City Hall, Ward 24 (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.) The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, embodied in the following communication (December 3, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall: Recommendation: The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, recommends that Council declare the area, at City Hall, adjacent to the Glass House, the Official Garage, and the employee garage to be no smoking areas as of January 1, 1999, and that notices advising staff of this be posted, along with "no smoking" signs. Background: The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, on December 2, 1998, had before it a report (November 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services respecting Creation of No-Smoking Area, Glass House, City Hall. The Sub-Committee's actions are noted above. (Report dated November 6, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services addressed to the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall.) Purpose: To report on the feasibility of turning the area adjacent to the Glass House and the Official Garage into no smoking areas and to investigate alternative areas for smokers. Source of Funds: None required Recommendations: It is recommended that Council declare the area adjacent to the Glass House, the Official Garage, and the employee garage to be no smoking areas as of January 1, 1999, and that notices advising staff of this be posted, along with " no smoking" signs. Background: At the Sub-Committee meeting of October 6, 1998, your Committee requested a report on the feasibility of turning the area outside the Glass House and the Official Garage into no smoking areas, and also requested that alternative areas for smokers be investigated. In 1988 Council approved as Smoking Policy for the former City which prohibited smoking in all of the Corporation's workplaces. The policy stated smoking was prohibited anywhere within City Hall. The garages and taxi tunnel, including the area outside the Glass House, are considered part of the workplace, however the policy was never enforced in these areas. Subsequently a workplace smoking by-law, for all workplaces in the City, was also passed however it has also not been enforced in these area. The Official Garage is used by many staff to smoke, especially during the winter months. Concerns about health impacts and the unsightly condition of the garage have been raised. Council may direct that they wish the policy and the by-law enforced by declaring these areas to be a no smoking areas. An effective date of January 1, 1999 will provide adequate time in order for appropriate signage, notifying staff of this designation, to be posted along with " no smoking" signs. Once this is in place the workplace smoking by-law and the policy can be enforced. It is difficult to provide alternate areas for smokers other than outside the building. In the past we have explored the possibility of creating an amenity on Nathan Phillips Square with benches and ashtrays in order to try to move smokers away from the front doors. Due to the events held on the Square, this was only possible on the periphery of the Square where there is no protection in inclement weather. Ashtrays installed some distance from the front entrance have only been marginally successful in moving smokers away as there is protection from the elements at the doors. By making outdoors the only place where people can smoke we are likely to exacerbate this problem. Conclusions: Should the garages and taxi tunnel be designated as no smoking areas the only area where people can smoke is outside the building. Additional ashtray receptacles will be provided. Contact Name: Sheila Batt, Manager, Custodial Services and City Hall, 392-6855, fax 392-1251, email sbatt@city.toronto.on. 8 Retention of Official Parking Space at Metro Hall (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, embodied in the following communication (December 3, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall: Recommendations: The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall: (1) recommends that Councillors retain their official parking spaces at Metro Hall until further notice; and (2) requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and the Chair of the Sub-Committee, to report further on the Allocation of Parking Spaces at Toronto City Hall at the next meeting of the Sub-Committee, and to include also in the report the possibility of providing parking space for the Limousine Service in the Taxi Tunnel. Background: The Sub-Committee - Relocation of All Members of Council to City Hall, on December 2, 1998, had before it a communication (November 26, 1998) from Councillor Moeser respecting Clause No. 1 of Report No. 14 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Allocation of Parking Spaces at Toronto City Hall", as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998. The Sub-Committee's actions are noted above. 9 Other Item Considered by the Committee (City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, received this Clause, for information.) (a) French-Language Services and the New City of Toronto. The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team reports having referred the following communication to the Chief Administrative Officer for report to the Corporate Services Committee on January 18, 1998, on an appropriate reporting structure and funding for the French Committee of the City of Toronto: (October 31, 1998) from Councillor Mario Silva, Trinity-Niagara, and Member of the French Committee of the Toronto City Hall, advising that since 1981, the French Committee of Toronto City Hall (FCTCH) has been a great bridge between the 70,000 francophones in Toronto and City Hall; that as a Member of the FCTCH, requesting the Special Committee to review the report entitled "French-Language Services and the New City of Toronto - A Framework for meeting the Needs of Toronto's Francophone Taxpayers", dated April, 1998, and recommend to City Council that: (1) City of Toronto Council continue with the French Committee for the City of Toronto; (2) the Committee be called the City of Toronto French Committee; (3) the Committee report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee; and (4) the Committee adopt the recommended board composition as stated on page 20 of the aforementioned report. ________ Mr. Andre Duclos, President of the existing French Committee at City Hall, appeared before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a pamphlet, entitled "The French Committee of Toronto City Hall." Respectfully submitted, DAVID MILLER, Chair Toronto, December 4, 1998 (Report No. 15 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)
		Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links

� City of Toronto 1998-2001