CITY CLERK

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PARKS COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 1

For Consideration by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999

2 Recreation Grants Program - 1999 Allocations - All Wards

3 Economic Development Partnership Program Grants - All Wards

4 1999 Cultural Grants Recommendations - All Wards

5 Millennium Grants Program Allocations

6 Interim "Welcome Policy" for Users of Recreation Program - All Wards

7 Woodbine Park - Sponsorship of Bandshell (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

8 Appointments to the Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board

9 Community Garden Action Plan

10 Millennium Publications

11 Funding for Sir Adam Beck Multi-Use Facility (Alderwood Pool) Roof (Ward 2 - Lakeshore Queensway)

12 Woodbine Park School Site - Toronto District School Board Option Agreement (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

13 Heritage Toronto Agreement with Cottage Creek re: Annual Events at Fort York (Ward 20 - Trinity Niagara)

14 1999 Business Improvement Area Budgets - Supplementary Report No. 3 - Upper Village (Toronto) Business Improvement Area

15 Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 1

OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPENT AND PARKS COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on June 21, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Brian Aston, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999

1

Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1) adding to Recommendation No. (3) of the Economic Development and Parks Committee, the following:

"(f) Ramsden Park;

(g) Clarke Beach Park; and

(h) Cedarvale Park;"; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) discussions by the Etobicoke Leash Free Committee, regarding other viable sites in Etobicoke for leash free zones, be permitted to continue; and

(b) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to:

(i) expedite consideration of the off-leash arrangements for Sorauren Park, Waterfront east of the Argonaut Rowing Club and High Park; and

(ii) submit a report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on enhanced enforcement, including the potential use of students in the summer.")

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends:

(1) adoption of the report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by striking out all the words after the words "objective of" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "reviewing the provision of an off-leash fenced area as well as the acceptability of the forested area as an off-leash zone.", so that such recommendation reads:

"(1) that the Sherwood Park site be the subject of an accelerated review and consultation process with the objective of reviewing the provision of an off-leash fenced area as well as the acceptability of the forested area being an off-leash zone."

(2) adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the report (March 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to deleting the words "with the exception of Sherwood Park" in Recommendation No. (1), so that such recommendation reads as follows:

"(1) all existing off-leash areas in the former City of Toronto, North York and Etobicoke continue for the present time. In the former City of Toronto only four out of 23 existing sites meet the new guidelines. It is, therefore, recommended that a site by site review be conducted during the next 12 months involving local residents and Councillors, with a report back to Toronto Community Council;"

(3) that the following areas be added to the study as potential off-leash zones:

(a) Terraview/Willowfield Park;

(b) Sunnybrook Park;

(c) Sorauren Park;

(d) Waterfront east of the Argonaut Rowing Club; and

(e) High Park;

(4) that a communication strategy or plan be put in place once off-leash areas have been established, and that such strategy include posting signs in pet food stores, veterinary clinics and parks; and

(5) that the minutes of the Sherwood Park Dog Owners meeting of May 19, 1999 be appended to the study.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to analyze whether line marking can be installed with signs indicating off-leash areas and report back to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in that regard.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To acknowledge the resolution from the former North York Community Council, to ban dogs off-leash from the naturalized area of Sherwood Park, and to have the Department with Ward Councillors proceed with a community consultation process to consider an alternate fenced-in dogs off-leash location in the park.

Source of Funds:

Funding in the amount of $10,000.00 to $48,000.00 (depending of the type of fencing most appropriate) will be required to install a fenced-in area. Funds for this purpose are not currently available and would be requested as part of the 2000 budget submission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Sherwood Park site be the subject of an accelerated review and consultation process with the objective of relocating the current dogs off-leash area to a new fenced-in location as shown on the attached map (Appendix "A");

(2) until the process to review the new fenced-in location is completed, the existing leash free area be maintained; and

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

Background:

On April 6, 1999, the Sherwood Park Advisory Committee held a public meeting. In attendance were Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, North Toronto, and Parks and Recreation staff. The meeting was attended by approximately 100 area residents. There was strong support for and against the North York Community Council resolution.

As a result, it is recommended that a further community consultation process be conducted to review a possible alternative fenced-in location for dogs to roam unleashed, in Sherwood Park.

Justification:

North York Community Council passed a resolution banning dogs off-leash in the naturalized area of Sherwood Park. This portion of the park currently falls under the jurisdiction of North York Community Council. The Guidelines for Dogs Off-Leash, also does not support dogs to be off-leash in a naturalized area. As a result, it is recommended that arrangements be made immediately to relocate the dogs off-leash area in Sherwood Park.

An alternate fenced-in location is being proposed in Sherwood Park, to be reviewed through a community consultation process. This proposal is to support those members of the community who still desire a dogs off-leash area in Sherwood Park, and to be considerate of public safety and to limit environmental damage to the park as much as possible.

Conclusions:

That an accelerated community consultation proceed to confirm the proposed new fenced-in site location, and that the existing area be maintained in the short term.

Contact Names:

Mr. Mario Zanetti, Director of Parks and Recreation, South District, 392-1905; Ms. Anne Valliere, Manager of Parks and Recreation, South District, 392-1909.

___________

(A copy of the map (Appendix "A") and Appendices 1 and 2 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to each Member of Council with the agenda of the Economic Development and Parks Committee meeting June 21, 1999, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following report (March 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information as requested by City Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable at this time.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) all existing off-leash areas in the former City of Toronto, North York and Etobicoke, with the exception of Sherwood Park, continue for the present time. In the former City of Toronto only four out of 23 existing sites meet the new guidelines. It is, therefore, recommended that a site by site review be conducted during the next 12 months involving local residents and Councillors, with a report back to Toronto Community Council;

(2) keeping with the recommendation from North York Community Council, the existing off-leash area at Sherwood Park be discontinued as a result of on-going concerns of neighbouring residents and park visitors;

(3) potential new off-leash areas that conform to the new off-leash guidelines and that the following sites be further considered in association with the community and Councillors:

North York -- fenced-in dog runs at Sunnybrook Park, Earl Bales Park and Downsview Dells Park; and

Etobicoke/York -- West Deane, Ravenscrest, Bloordale, Smythe, Cruikshank and Coronation Parks; and

if there is support for these sites, a final decision would be made by the appropriate Community Council;

(4) the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report to the Board of Health and the Economic Development Committee, at a future date, regarding a policy and costs for more effective enforcement of existing by-laws regarding stoop and scoop and dogs off-leash;

(5) at sites where problems with compliance to the by-law are persistent, the Parks and Recreation Division be granted authority to suspend the off-leash areas and submit a report to the appropriate Community Council for review; and

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

Background:

At its meeting on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, City Council adopted Recommendation No. (1) of the joint report (June 30, 1998) to the July 16, 1998 meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee which outlined a new process and guidelines for designating off-leash areas in the City of Toronto. Pursuant to this report Council requested a report back to Economic Development Committee on the following items:

(a) review all existing arrangements where off-leash areas currently exist and report back with suggested amendments in accordance with Recommendation No. (1) (Report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee);

(b) the potential off-leash areas which conform to the new off-leash guidelines in Toronto;

(c) the cost to properly fence off-leash areas; and

(d) an effective enforcement by-law with respect to illegal unleashed dogs in City parks and violations of stoop and scoop regulations.

Further, the Board of Health, at its meeting of December 16, 1998, referred recommendations of Community Councils with respect to this policy to the Economic Development Committee for consideration. (Please see Appendix "A").

Comments:

The Uniform Parks By-law that was consistent across all the former municipalities stipulates that no person having control of any dog shall allow it to run at large, except in a designated area. Permitting dogs to roam unleashed in City parks is a controversial issue given the challenge of satisfying the interests of all park patrons. Out of a total of 25 existing off-leash areas 23 are in the former City of Toronto and of these only four sites meet the new guidelines. The experience of the former City of Toronto has been that damage to the parks has been a serious ongoing problem, the stoop and scoop by-law is frequently violated and dogs are often off leash beyond designated areas into on-leash areas, neighbourhood streets and private property. Further there is frequently a conflict between dogs off-leash and other park patrons leading to intimidation and discomfort that in some cases has included personal injury. On the other hand, dog owning city residents benefit from dog companionship, security, social and recreational activity. Dogs off-leash areas promote dog owners socializing in parks creating a presence that may enhance the perception of public safety and act as a deterrent to inappropriate or criminal activities. Because of the potential for conflict between the interests of different park users, the Department recommends that a site by site review of the existing sites in the former City of Toronto be conducted during the next 12 months involving local residents and councillors with a report back to Toronto Community Council.

As a result of ongoing complaints and concerns from neighbours and non dog owning park users, North York Community Council has recommended the immediate suspension of the dogs off-leash area in Sherwood Park. The off-leash area is located in the forested area of Sherwood Park and staff and the Sherwood Park Advisory Committee report damage to the environmentally sensitive forest ecosystem. Sherwood Park is ostensibly entirely off-leash since the majority of dog owners using this park allow their dogs to run unleashed in all areas of the park. This park is also a favourite location for professional dog walkers who walk multiple dogs at one time.

Some Community Councils such as Etobicoke have declared an interest in the establishment of more off-leash areas in parks where they would conform to the new off-leash guidelines. There has also been interest in fenced-in dog runs expressed by residents of North York. Fenced-in dog runs have been used with some success in other cities. There is currently one fenced-in dog run in North York and one in the former Toronto. Where the park is large enough to accommodate a fenced-in dog run without removing valuable park space from general use, this approach may be a good one. However, lack of compliance with the stoop and scoop by-law causes a concentration of dog faeces and having the assistance of the local dog owners group is essential. Council requested that the Department provide information on the cost of properly fencing off-leash areas. Installation costs vary from $45.00 to $90.00 per linear foot for fencing and $250.00 and up for gates.

Council requested that the Department recommend an effective enforcement policy for dogs off-leash areas and the stoop and scoop by-law. Since enforcement of the by-law rests with the Animal Service Division of the Public Health Department, staff have consulted with the Medical Officer of Health with regards to this item. There are a number of ways to approach enforcement, ranging from additional Animal Service Officers to increase the regularity of park visitation, the production of educational brochures that can be handed out to the public to encourage their co-operation, to the involvement of local community groups in public education. The Medical Officer of Health be requested to report to the Board of Health and the Economic Development Committee, at a future date, regarding a policy and costs for more effective enforcement of existing by-laws regarding stoop and scoop and dogs off-leash.

Conclusions:

Dogs off-leash areas if appropriately located can provide a desirable public service. However, existing areas need further review to determine their continuance and new areas should only be established where the site is in compliance with the new guidelines and with the active support of local community groups who will participate in clean up, friendly policing and education. Where space exists fenced-in dog runs may be the best answer. Effective enforcement may require further resource allocation to the Animal Services of the Division of Public Health.

Contact Name:

Mr. John A. Macintyre,

Director of Parks and Recreation,

Central Services and the Waterfront, 397-4451.

__________

(Report dated December 16, 1998, addressed to the

Economic Development Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendations:

The Board of Health at its meeting on December 1, 1998 referred the following recommendations of Community Councils with respect to the Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in City Parks, the establishment of leash-free zones in the City and the regulation of dog walkers, to the Economic Development Committee for consideration:

From Toronto Community Council:

"(6) the following off-leash hours be instituted in Jean Sibelius Park for a period of six months:

Weekdays : 7:00 a.m - 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

Weekends: 8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

(7) the Park Users' Committee of the Annex Residents' Association be recognized as the "dog watch community group" for the Jean Sibelius Park, as requested by City policy on leash-free areas in City parks."

From Etobicoke Community Council:

"(2) strongly supported the introduction of leash-free areas in City Parks and endorsed the Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks;

(4) endorsed the Stoop and Scoop Provision of the proposed by-law and its appropriate enforcement."

From North York Community Council:

"(1) WHEREAS our recreational parks are being overrun by irresponsible dog owners who are allowing their dogs to run loose; and

WHEREAS the responsible dog owner has become increasingly fed up with the conduct of the irresponsible dog owner; and

WHEREAS the irresponsible dog owner has put the City in a very difficult situation; and

WHEREAS it has contributed in the public having less faith in trusting loose dogs; and

WHEREAS the City's enforcement of the dog loose leash by-law should become heightened;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City's Health Department carry out aggressive enforcement of the following by-laws as they relate to dogs and dog owners:

Dog loose leash, stoop and scoop, noise and biting;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

(1) should an offence be acknowledged by the City's Health Department, the dog owner be given written warning on a first and second offence of the by-law; and

(2) should a third offence be acknowledged by the City's Health Department, that a fine be set for the dog owner at a minimum fine of $1,000.00;

AND:

"(5) Recommendation No. (4) embodied in the joint report (June 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Medical Officer of Health, as amended by Clause No. 1 of Report No. 7 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, be amended to provide for the following:

'That the off-leash area in Sherwood Park be discontinued pending the fast track evaluation that is currently under way.';

and that this amendment also be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee".

The Board of Health reports, for the information of the Economic Development Committee, having:

(1) (a) referred all material before the Board of Health with the exception of those matters referred to in the foregoing Recommendation, to the Board of Health for its January 1999 meeting, and requested the Medical Officer of Health, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report thereon with a revised by-law taking into account the concerns and suggestions of the deputants and people who had written in to the Board, and any other recommended amendments deemed appropriate;

(b) requested that this revised by-law be circulated as early as possible in December to all deputants and other interested persons; and

(c) requested that deputations not be heard at the January 1999 meeting, but that written submissions would be welcomed;

(2) referred the following recommendations of the Animal Services Advisory Committee back to that Committee for further consideration:

"m. (1) give consideration to the feasibility of establishing future by-laws:

(c) to licence/identify and regulate the keeping of and use of guard dogs, including such things as hours of work and training; and

(e) to regulate the use of poisons and adhesives";

(3) requested the Medical Officer of Health to report to the Board of Health on:

(a) details on a public education campaign regarding spay/neuter clinics;

(b) a clarification of the provisions of the by-law with respect to attendant working dogs (e.g., seeing-eye dogs);

(4) referred the following motions placed by Councillor Prue to the Medical Officer of Health for consideration of including these into the revised by-law:

"(a) including in Section Part VII, Pigeons, a recommended number of pigeons that may be kept on the property of the person keeping the pigeons;

(b) an appeal process which would consider exemptions, in certain situations, for animals included on Schedule "A";

(c) that the exemption definition contained in the Birds order/family of Psittaciformes be revised to conform with the federal legislation as set out in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) or the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)."

Background:

The Board of Health at its meeting on December 1, 1998, had before it a report (October 29, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting the Revised Animal Control By-law, providing the Board of Health with a revised draft animal control by-law which reflects the recommendations made by the Animal Services Advisory Sub-Committee of the Board of Health; and recommending that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council in the form or substantially in the form of the draft by-law attached to the foregoing report.

The Board also had before it the following reports/communications:

- (November 16, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Chair, Animal Services Sub-Committee of the Board of Health;

- (September 16, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Board of Health for the City of Toronto Health Unit, addressed to all Community Councils;

- (October 21, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council;

- (October 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council;

- (October 16, 1998) from the City Clerk, Etobicoke Community Council;

- (October 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council;

- (October 20, 1998) from the City Clerk, York Community Council;

- (November 17, 1998) from the City Clerk, Scarborough Community Council;

- (October 11, 1998) from Mr. Joseph Frankovic and Ms. Janet Lawrence, Toronto, Ontario;

-. (November 5, 1998) from Mr. Louis McCann, Executive Director, PIJAC Canada (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council);

- (November 6, 1998) from Ms. Margaret S. Both, Vice-President, OHS;

- (October 26, 1998) from Dr. Wolfgang Zenker, Burloak Animal Clinic, Oakville, Ontario;

- (November 2, 1998) from C. M. McIntosh and Ms. Margaret Ratan, Don Mills, Ontario;

- (September 30, 1998) from Mr. Jack Warren, Toronto, Ontario;

- (October 6, 1998) from Mr. Vernon Nixon, Toronto, Ontario;

- (October 12, 1998) from Ms. Rhea Plosker and Mr. Michael Carter, Toronto, Ontario;

- (October 12, 1998) from Ms. Holly Penfound and Mr. Lesli Bisgould, Directors, Zoocheck Canada Inc.;

- (October 13, 1998) from Mr. Ian Clifford, Toronto, Ontario;

- (October 14, 1998) from Ms. Heather Speakman, Toronto, Ontario;

- (October 18, 1998) from Ms. Sheila Bacher, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 15, 1998) from Ms. Thea Botsford, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 17, 1998) from Ms. Heather Hogben, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 18, 1998) from Ms. Lois Horst, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 27, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health;

- (November 21, 1998) from Ms. Zennia Savaryn, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 17, 1998) from Ms. Carol Lau, Etobicoke, Ontario;

- (November 23, 1998) from Ms. Helen Roman Barber, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 24, 1998) from Ms. Elyse Tytel, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 25, 1998) from Chris Whitelaw, on behalf of Aquarium Services Warehouse Outlets;

- (November 25, 1998) from Ms. Lori A. Welbourn, Cavan, Ontario;

- (July 28, 1998) from Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby, Kingsway Humber, forwarding a communication (undated) from Ms. Veronika Hering;

- (November 25, 1998) from Ms. Eileen Elmy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 20, 1998) from Ms. Penny Walker, Thornhill, Ontario;

- (November 27, 1998) from Ms. Janet M. Shea and Children, Newmarket, Ontario;

- (November 27, 1998) from Ms. Mary and Mr. Bob Long, Scarborough, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Ms. A. Teresa Kowalishin, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 25, 1998) from Mr. Christopher Holoboff, The Avicultural Advancement Council of Canada, Toronto;

- (November 18, 1998) from Mr. Jim Albani, East York, forwarded by Councillor Michael Prue, East York;

- (November 18, 1998) from B. Buckle, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Anne Leon, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 29, 1998) from Ms. Veronica Pees, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 18, 1998) from Ms. Jennifer Polk, on behalf of The Kindness Club;

- (Undated) from Ms. Patricia Thiessen, Chairman, Putting People First, Canada;

- (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Maria Kasstan, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 25, 1998) from Mr. Baxter H. Boyde, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 30, 1998) from the Toronto Humane Society;

- (November 30, 1998) from Mr. Christopher Holoboff, Barrister and Solicitor;

- (November 29, 1998) from Dr. Rick Axelson, The Links Road Animal & Bird Clinic;

- (November 28, 1998) from H. Makarewicz, Toronto, Ontario;

- (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Mary Ann Clifton, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Various dates) Various communications submitted by Councillor Anne Johnston;

- (November 30, 1998) from Dr. B. Mingram, P.V.M., Clarington Animal Hospital;

- (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Grace Hall, Adopt-A-Dog/Save-A-Life;

- (November 30, 1998) from Mr. Conrad Beaubien, Toronto, Ontario;

-. (November 30, 1998) from Ms. Frances Rodenburg, Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies;

- (Undated) from Ms. Natalia Mayer and Mr. Derek Smith, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Ontario Herpetological Society;

- Photo of corn snake at the North York Animal Shelter;

- (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Brian Eddy, Founding President of the Parrot Association of Canada and Life Member of the World Parrot Trust;

- (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Christine Schramm, President, Rainforest Reptile Refuge Society;

- (Undated) from Mr. Steve Marks, Toronto, Ontario;

- (December 1, 1998) from Chris Holoboff, forwarding copy of Bird Talk, January 1999;

- (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Rob Laidlaw and Ms. Holly Penfound, Directors, Zoocheck Canada Inc.;

- (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Tom Mason, Toronto Zoo;

- (Undated) from Ms. Jenny Pearce, Etobicoke, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Mr. Jeff Hathaway, Etobicoke, Ontario;

- (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Marlene Semple, Annex Animal Rescue, Toronto; and

- (November 30, 1998) from F. Everitt and F.F. Everitt, Toronto, Ontario.

The following persons appeared before the Board of Health in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Eric Pressman, Toronto, Ontario;

- Heath Thomas, Scarborough, Ontario;

- Ms. Josephine Polk, The Kindness Club, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Michael Lockey, Toronto Parrot Club;

- Ms. Anne Parker, Weston, Ontario;

- Ms. Victoria Earle, Chief Executive Officer, Ontario S.P.C.A.;

- Ms. Nathalie Karvonen, Toronto Wildlife Centre;

- Ms. Valerie Wyatt, Guelph, Ontario;

- Mr. Brian Eddy, Founding President of The Parrot Association of Canada, and Life Member of The World Parrot Trust, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Margaret Both and Ms. Carol Both, Aurora, Ontario;

- Ms. Melissa Drake, Etobicoke, Ontario;

- Adelaide Bell, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Mike Murphy, Toronto, Ontario;

- Chris Pritchard, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Lois Horst, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. George Haeh, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Zennia Savaryn, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Gayle Murphy, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Veronica Hering, Toronto, Ontario;

- Dr. Petra Burgmann, Animal Hospital of High Park;

- Mr. Keith Burgess, Ontario Director, PIJAC Canada, and Pet Paradise;

- Ms. Arlene Lannon, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Jennifer Jones, Markham, Ontario;

- Mr. Grant Crossman, Ontario Exotic Pet Council, Port Credit, Ontario;

- Mr. Steve Marks, Barrie, Ontario;

- Ms. Valerie Scott,Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Rob Summers, Etobicoke, Ontario;

- Professor Sylvia Mittler, Scarborough, Ontario;

- Chris Holoboff, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Steve Ellis, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Diane Grell Thow, East York, Ontario;

- Ms. Linda Pitney, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Mark Hagan, Scarborough, Ontario;

- Dr. W. G. E. Zenker, Burloak Animal Clinic, Oakville, Ontario;

- Mr. Merlin Andrew, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Holly Penfound, Zoocheck Canada Inc.,Toronto, Ontario;

- Chris Whitelaw, on behalf of Aquarium Services Warehouse Outlets, Markham, Ontario;

- Mr. David Rosenfeld, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Teresa Kowalishin, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Louis McCann, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council Canada (PIJAC), Pointe Claire, Quebec;

- Ms. Paula Neilson, North York, Ontario;

- Ms. Rose Jackson, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Alan Heisey, Kerzner, Papazian, MacDermid, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of PJ's Pet Stores, Toronto, Ontario;

- Dr. Rick Axelson, The Links Road Animal & Bird Clinic, North York, Ontario;

- Mr. Mike Elioff, Ontario Turtle & Tortoise Society, Oakville, Ontario;

- Ms. Jacquie Blackburn, Scarborough, Ontario;

- Maris White, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Dominic Clarke, Menagerie Petshop, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Peter Mostert, c/o Mr. Christopher Holoboff, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Rick Parker, Canadian Wrangler Motion Picture Animals Ltd.;

- Ms. Rose Kologie, Ajax, Ontario;

- Mr. Tom Mason, Acting Curator of Birds, and Curator of Invertebrates, Toronto Zoo;

- Ms. Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance of Canada;

- Mr. Mike Coward, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Sharon Boon, Scarborough, Ontario;

- Ms. Jenny Pearce, Etobicoke, Ontario;

- Mr. Jeff Hathaway, Etobicoke, Ontario;

- Mr. Mike Murphy, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Christine Pellegrini, North York, Ontario;

- Ms. Marlene Semple, Annex Cat Rescue, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Jim Martin, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Rob Laidlaw, Director, Zoocheck.

__________

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also had before it the following communications:

- (March 24, 1999) from Ms. Gail S. Gibson, President, Sherwood Park Dog Owners Association;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Jeffrey Y. Herman, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 26, 1999) from Vancy K. Kasper, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Dr. D. Robertson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 26, 1999) from Ms. Naomi Kane, Former President of the Sherwood Park Dog Owners Association;

- (March 28, 1999) from Mr. Lars and Ms. Madeleine Henriksson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Mr. D. Ross MacKinnon, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 27, 1999) from Ms. Marissa Richmond and Ms. Stacey Curtis, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Dr. Betty Kershner, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 28, 1999) from Mr. Robert F. Brooks, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 28, 1999) from Dr. D. Wilson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Mr. Ed Timermanis, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 21, 1999) from Ms. Susan B. Manley, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 27, 1999) from Ms. Lucienne Watt, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 26, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Judges, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 26, 1999) from Ms. Fionna Barrington, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 26, 1999) from P.N. Wesson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 26, 1999) from M.Y. Barrington, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Mr. Paul Clark, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) Petition from seven area residents;

- (Undated) from Ms. Jennifer A. Gough and Mr. Michael B. Ayoub, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 28, 1999) from Ms. Gina Grant and Mr. Paul Schiratti, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Ms. Kathy Mackie, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Ms. Jill Bridge, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Mr. Norman Steinhart and Ms. Pam Halpern, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 28, 1999) from Ms. Suzanne Mackie, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Dr. John A. Sloane, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 16, 1999) from Ms. Nancy Mueller, Chair, Community Standards (Sub-Committee of) Crime S.C.O.P.E. Etobicoke Office;

- (March 17, 1999) from Beacon Hill Tenants Association, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 24, 1999) from Councillor David Miller, High Park - Parkdale;

- (March 26, 1999) from Mrs. Sheila Kennedy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 26, 1999) from Mr. Frederick M. Kasper, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Mr. Mike and Ms. Angel LeClair, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Diane Barker, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from area residents;

- (Undated) from Ms. Carla Hoyer, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Ms. Birgitta Sigfridsson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Mr. Thomas Frank, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Mr. James McGivern, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Thomas B. Akin, Ms. Mary Akin, Mr. Thomas Akin and Ms. Holly Akin, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Lisa S. Kennedy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Beth Hannon, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Linda Li, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Nancy Dun, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Howard Tencer, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Linda Zarytski, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Carol Herling, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Julia Sublett and Mr. Steve Fowler, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 28, 1999) from Mr. Don Robertson and Ms. Cecile Robertson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Julia Nairne and Mr. Robert Roy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Hilary Braun, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Tom Gilchrist, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Ralph T.I. Sickinger, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 28, 1999) from Ms. Elaine Schillinger, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Jeffrey Alan Payne, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Joan Cass, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Megan Coles, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Sid Dolgoy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Lawlor Rochester, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Jennifer Burton, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 28, 1999) from Ms. Hilary Duggan, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Jim Burtnick, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Boris Broz, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Sylvia Gowans, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. John Saltmarsh, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Stella Abesdris, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Sharon McKnight and Mr. Jack Mills, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Marilyn Bergman, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Pauline Tice, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Maura Matesic, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Janet Terry, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Margaret Cardy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Kevan Staples, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from Ms. Cheryl Lester, Toronto, Ontario;

- (Undated) from C.S. McCracken, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Martha Shea, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Rita Taryan and Mr. Raj Gandesha, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Ms. Susan Cooke, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Rob Morse and Ms. Carolyn Silvey, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 30, 1999) from Ms. Cynthia Forbes, Toronto, Ontario;

- (March 30, 1999) from Mr. John C. Thomson and Ms. Marie-Hélène Benais, Toronto, Ontario;

- (May 4, 1999) from Mr. Hollis Rinehart, Chair, Sherwood Park Advisory Committee;

- (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Shoshanah Silverman, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 5, 1999) from Ms. Jill Bridge, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 12, 1999) from Mr. Mark and Ms. Kathy Ciavaglia, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 12, 1999) from Mr. Jean-Paul Gagnon, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 12, 1999) from Ms. Mary and Mr. Drew Davis, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 12, 1999) from Dr. Lance and Mrs. Elyse Belchetz, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 13, 1999) from Mr. Jason Sharpe, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 13, 1999) from Ms. Mary Templin, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 13, 1999) from Ms. D. Jane Forbes-Roberts, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Shirley Marcenuik, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Sandra Kellogg, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Gordon Gable, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Bob Coles, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Evelyn Sharpe, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Leslie C. Smith, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Erica Ehm, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Mary Anne Cecutti, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Robert G. Brooks, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Carolyn Mustor, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Stephen Carr, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Kristine Sonnenberg, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mrs. Sheila Kennedy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Patrick and Ms. Arlene Jube, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Kate Hayes and Mr. David Faassen, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Ian Meadows, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Alice LeBlanc, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Eloise Lewis, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Mr. Richard S. Sutin, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Ms. Pauline Tice, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Ms. Judy Jahnke, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Ms. Michelle C. Phillips, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Michael Kerbel, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Eric Ashford, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Muzyka, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from C. Somerville, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto;

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. George Brady, Toronto, Ontario;

- (May 26, 1999) from Mr. Bill Phillips, President, Lawrence Park Ratepayers' Association, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 10, 1999) from Ms. Helen Cooper, Member, Sherwood Park Dog Owners Association, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 11, 1999) from Ms. Evelyn Sharpe, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 11, 1999) from Mr. Robert and Ms. Cheryl Lee, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Mary Ann Stewart, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 14, 1999) from Mr. Jason Sharpe, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Ms. Carol Herling, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from D. C. Stott, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Ms. Sharon Goldberg, President, Fifeshire Road Area Community Association, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Dr. D. Weingarten, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Ms. Dana Burns, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Ms. Risa Gitelman, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 15, 1999) from Mr. Gil and Ms. Gail Faclier, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Shoshanah Silverman, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Marian Neal, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Mavis Himes and Mr. Lawlor Rochester, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Mrs. Donna McDonald, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Sylvia Lassam, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Lise Sklar, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Alicia Tickle, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Ms. Naomi Kane, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Mr. Philip Creighton, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Mr. Millard S. Roth, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 16, 1999) from Pat Pape, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999) from Mr. Dave Fraser, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999) from Ms. Daisy C. Falle, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999) from Ms. Grace Donald, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999) from Ms. Suzanne Mackie, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999) from Ms. Maggie Bergamo, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999) from Ms. Nancy J. Perkins, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999) from Ms. Bryna and Mr. Ken Back, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Ms. Anne Robertson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Daniela Quaglia, Public Affairs Advisor, Toronto Humane Society, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Mr. Arnold Massey, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Nol Wenneker, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Jane Taylor, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Constance Sheriff and Mr. John Sheriff, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Mr. George Kelk, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Louise E. Cumming, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Dr. Christopher R. Forrest and Dr. Sandra Landolt, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Mr. Alastair T. Gordon, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Chris Seymour, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999) from Ms. Nancy Bonus, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Donna Wilson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Mr. Paul Freedman, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Sonia Ryerson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Mr. Sid Dolgoy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Dianne Rae, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) Petition signed by area residents;

- (June 18, 1999 from Mr. John Hopkins, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Jennifer Selskey, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Mr. David Rhodes, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Stephanie Owens, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Jean MacKay, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Calay Vangroll, Mr. Raymond Vangroll, Ms. Nancy Vangroll and Mr. Jonathon Vangroll, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Jan Brandkvist, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from S. Hoey, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from K. Zarnett, H. Zarnett, B. Zarnett, V. Kraniou R. Vice, S. Hernando, P. James and F. Murray, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Karen Behie, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Gail Gibson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 20, 1999) from Ms. Nancy Mueller, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Ms. Cynthia Luks, Mr. Eric Luks, Ms. Vanessa Luks and Mr. Andy Luks, Toronto Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Petition signed by area residents;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Karen Carter, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Ms. Becky Thorson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 18, 1999) from Mr. Frederick M. Kasper, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Mrs. S. Bart, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 20, 1999) from Mr. Gunnel Brandkvist, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 20, 1999) from Ms. Eileen and Mr. Harvey Simmons, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 20, 1999) from Dr. John A. Sloane, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from M.A. Murray, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Beth Alber, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 199) from Mr. Denis and Ms. Jennifer Richardson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Mr. Frederick M. Kasper, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Eve Petit, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 19, 1999) from Ms. Rosemary Crean Gray, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 20, 1999) from Mr. Michael W. Carter and Ms. Rhea S. Plosker, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Mr. James Kertesz, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Ms. Barbara Judges, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Mr. David Wesson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Ms. Alison Wesson, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 17, 1999 from Ms. Renata Kraszewski, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 20, 1999) from Mr. Howard C. Flood, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Beth Ratcliffe, Ms. Julia McLaughlin, and H.B. Skinner, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Zoë Shanoff, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 20, 1999) from Dr. Lorne and Mrs. Susan Rotstein, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Kathy Lowinger, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Risa Lean, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 22, 1999) from Ms. Mary S. Roy, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Nancy L. Burns, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mr. Glenn Schmelzle, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mr. Michael Grant, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 20, 1999) from Ms. Kim and Mr. James Roblin, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mr. John Moore, Ms. Corinne Moore, Mr. Jarrett Moore and Mr. Hayden Moore, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Ms. Fionna Barrington, Toronto, Ontario;

- (undated) from Mr. Michael Barrington, Toronto, Ontario;

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Petra Hamann, Toronto, Ontario; and

- (June 17, 1999) from Mr. Peter Payne, Ms. Alina Payne and Ms. Julia Payne, Toronto, Ontario.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South;

- Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto;

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park; and

- Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto.

The following persons also appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Anne Robertson, North York, Ontario;

- Ms. Stephanie Thorson, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. John Hopkins, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Eric Pressman, Toronto, Ontario, and filed a copy of his submission;

- Mr. Nathan Shuster, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Leslie Smith, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Nancy Mueller, Toronto, Ontario;

- Dr. Dennis Kussin, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Jane Welch, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Gail Gibson, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Frederick Kasper, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Sid Dolgoy, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Lisa Stevens, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Michelle Phillips, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Ms. Eve Petit, Toronto, Ontario.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Minutes of Sherwood Park Community

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Minutes of Sherwood Park Community

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Minutes of Sherwood Park Community

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Minutes of Sherwood Park Community

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Minutes of Sherwood Park Community

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Minutes of Sherwood Park Community

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Minutes of Sherwood Park Community

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 18, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Toronto-Don River:

I am writing to request that the Economic Development and Parks Committee consider creating an area for off-leash dogs in Clarke Beach Park as you review Toronto's Off-leash dog policy.

Users of the park have prepared a petition requesting this change. A copy of attached for your information. Clearly, many people and their pets enjoy this park on a daily or weekly basis.

I appreciate you taking the time to add Clarke Beach Park to your list of possible off-leash sites.)

(A copy of the aforementioned petition containing 130 signatures is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in support of an off-leash area in Sherwood Park:

(i) (June 22, 1999) from Ms. Laura Tamblyn, Toronto;

(ii) (June 22, 1999) from Ms. Colleen Tapp and Mr. John Grant, Toronto; and

(iii) (June 24, 1999) from Ms. Marg Cathers, Toronto.)

2

Recreation Grants Program - 1999 Allocations - All Wards

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the appropriate Commissioners, when submitting recommendations on all categories of grants, with the exception of those for arm's length agencies, be requested to advise the appropriate Committee of any applicant that receives multiple grants from the different grant categories, and identify any additional or other names that may be used by each applicant.")

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the report (June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the appeals by the Canadian Stage Company, the Ralph Thornton Centre and the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Association of Ontario, to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for further consideration and a report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for its meeting of July 12, 1999.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following report (June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report presents the recommended allocations for the 133 agencies/groups which have applied for municipal support within the Major and Minor Recreation Grants Programs and the nine Lawn Bowling Clubs that are supported through the Recreation Program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999 approved budget for the Recreation Grants Programs is $1,329,800.00, which is sufficient for the recommendations presented in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the 1999 Minor Recreation Grants Program allocations totalling $440,300.00 to 105 agencies/groups, listed in Appendix "A", be approved:

(2) the 1999 Major Recreation Grants allocations totalling $707,495.00 to 16 agencies/groups, listed in Appendix "C", be approved;

(3) the 1999 Lawn Bowling Recreation Grants allocations totalling $24,673.00 for nine clubs, listed in Appendix "C", be approved;

(4) $450.00 allocated to the Etobicoke Horticultural Society be requisitioned from the 1999 Toronto Arts Council Grants Budget;

(5) $4,000.00 of the $5,000.00 allocated to the North York Committee for Educational Enrichment be requisitioned from the 1999 Community Services Grants Budget; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Under the general authority for making grants provided in Section 113 (1) of the Municipal Act, three of the former municipalities, York, North York and Toronto, provided support to the not-for-profit sector through recreation grants. In 1998, the Minor Recreation Grants Programs were combined and a common application was designed. The existing criteria of the former municipalities were used to assess applications. Only the former City of Toronto provided Major Recreation Grants; so it was not necessary to revise the application forms or the criteria.

After the grants cycle in 1998, a service area review of the Minor Recreation Grants Program was undertaken which included a discussion paper, public forum, focus groups, and interviews with some successful and unsuccessful applicants and City staff. This resulted in the design of the present grants program which builds on "best practices". Levelling up issues were examined so that all the former municipalities would be served and all groups could have equitable access. A formula was designed based on many factors and it was determined that it would take $345,000.00 to accomplish full levelling up of the Minor Recreation Grants Program to allow new groups and initiatives access, and to ensure that needed services and programs are provided.

Under the direction and guidance of the Municipal Grants Review Committee, a comprehensive City of Toronto Grants Policy was created which established overarching principles and processes under which all City Grants Programs must operate. This policy, contained in the Clause No. 5 of Report No. 26 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, was adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 1998. Except for London, England and Stockholm, Sweden, the City of Toronto is the only other municipality to have one single distinctive grants policy.

Comment and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

1999 Budget:

The 1999 Consolidated Grants Budget for all the grants programs offered by the City is $42,693,100.00. The 1999 Recreation Grants Budget is $1,329,800.00 and consists of Major and Minor Recreation Grants, Lawn Bowling Grants and the Board of Education Shared Use Grant. The Recreation Grants Program was increased by $42,200.00 of new dollars for service levelling in 1999.

Application and Assessment Process:

For this year, there are 16 organizations that applied in the Major Recreation Grants category, one more than in 1998. There are 118 organizations that are being reviewed in the Minor Recreation Grants category, 24 more than last year. Nine former City of Toronto Lawn Bowling Clubs have filed the standard requirements within this specific program. Overall there is a 22 percent increase in the number of requests. There were more than 300 applications sent to 1998 applicants and to those requesting applications on the telephone, in person or by e-mail. Information sessions were held in February to advise the community of the availability of Recreation Grants and to assist in filling them out. Staff had positive feedback on the application and grant requirements; however, some applicants asked for clearer directions in responding to some questions. This will be addressed before the next grant cycle.

Minor Recreation Grants had a deadline of March 15, 1999. At that time, 115 applications had been received. However, an applicant to the Access and Equity Grants Program, an applicant to the Community Services Grants Program and an applicant to the Toronto Arts Council's Arts Grants Program were subsequently moved to the Minor Recreation Grants Program as their programs were more appropriately placed in this category. In addition, the North York Association for Educational Enrichment is a common applicant to the Minor Recreation Grants Program and Community Services Program. The review of these applications has been conducted through the Minor Recreation Grants Program.

The assessment/review process for the Minor Recreation Grants this year was co-ordinated through the Department's Culture grant staff and involved a grants team made up of four Operations Co-ordinators or their designates from four districts. No applications were reviewed in the Central District. Applications were reviewed by Grants staff for completeness and accuracy and additional information and/or clarification were requested where necessary, and in some instances, new submissions were required. This was the first year for the new, revised eligibility criteria and application, and some former recipients of Minor Recreation Grants no longer qualify. However, to be fair, these applicants will receive some funding this year, but will have to work towards meeting the criteria if they wish to apply for grants in future years.

New applicants to the Minor Recreation Grants Program and those returning applicants with outstanding issues or that required some clarifications were interviewed. In total, 50 applicants were interviewed by the grants panel, comprised of two Culture Division staff, knowledgeable in City grants review and allocation processes, and the designate from the appropriate district. These interviews provided the opportunity to assess the ability of the groups to deliver the proposed programs, to clarify any financial or management issues and to address any questions pertaining to the applications. It also provided an opportunity for district staff to give information on various Parks and Recreation Division programs and initiatives that could assist these groups in the delivery of their programs. This was most helpful to the groups.

Assessments were made in accordance with the guidelines, eligibility and assessment criteria, and the City of Toronto Grants Policy. It was useful to review the assessments in each district and then across the City to ensure that like organizations and programs were treated equitably and fairly.

Major Recreation Grants had a deadline of February 15, 1999. All 16 applications were received on time and were reviewed in accordance with policy governing these grants. These organizations had to provide a multitude of services and programs, usually on a neighbourhood basis, provide recreational programs as part of their overall array of services, provide these services year-round and year-to-year, and have done so for many years. Funding levels are in excess of $12,000.00. Central Eglinton Community Centre has received Minor Recreation Grants for many years and applied for the first time in this category. Staff conducted a comprehensive review of these applications including requests for additional information, clarification, new material and some resubmissions.

Allocation Recommendations:

Appendix "A" lists the recommendations for 1999 funding and Appendix "B" provides a summary of services of each organization applying for funding in the Minor Recreation Grants Program. Appendix "C" lists the recommendations for 1999 funding and Appendix "D" provides a detailed summary of services for each organization applying for funding in the Major Recreation Grants Program.

As mentioned in the background, the issue of levelling up, not service enhancement was the basis for the increase in the Recreation Grants Budget. Those former municipalities that were under serviced were to be given priority in the allocation of grants. No funds should be moved from one district to another, but rather new funds would be allocated to those districts that had small or no Recreation Grants Programs prior to amalgamation. Priority was given to the East District which did not have a Recreation Program and to the West District which had a small recreation grants program in the former City of York.

1999 Minor Recreation Allocations Summary:

Total Number of Applicants	118	Total Number of Applications Funded	105
Number of Returning Applicants	79	Number of Returning Applicants Funded	77
Number of New Applicants	39	Number of New Applicants Funded	28
Number of Applicants Interviewed	50	Number of Applications not Funded	13

Comparison of District Allocations for Minor Recreation in 1998 and 1999:

District	Number of Grants 1998	Amount Awarded 1998 $	Number of Grants 1999	Amount Awarded 1999 $
East	0	0	4	17,400.00
North	12	64,594.00	15	68,500.00
South	72	258,700.00	74	280,700.00
West	8	47,500.00	12	73,700.00

The allocation recommendations support a wide variety of sport, recreation and leisure activities. Many multicultural groups and ethno-specific organizations have applied and will receive funding. All ages are represented in the Recreation Grants Program. There are some organizations whose programs are better suited to other existing grants programs within the City. Recommendations contain specific directions to these programs for future years. Although some of these applications were redirected during the course of the review, there is still a need for staff to assess the most appropriate City grants program for applicants whose mandates more clearly fit one program but that apply and are assessed in more than one.

There has been a great increase in the number of organizations that apply to the Minor Recreation Grants Program for support of community-based festivals and special events. Although the festivals and celebrations are ineligible for support, pre-festival expenses required to organize and plan these events, are deemed eligible. This year's allocations have awarded 13 percent of the budget to such festivals. The number of community events is increasing and the Minor Recreation Grants Program cannot sustain such growth and still fulfill its purpose to provide grants to community organizations to help them respond effectively to the needs of citizens and to improve the quality of life. A special committee has been working on the issue of support for community festivals and its report to Council is scheduled for the fall. The Recreation Grants Program staff are working closely with this committee to find an equitable solution for the communities that serve the recreation needs and those that provide these special celebrations.

For the Major Recreation Grants, 16 organizations are awarded $707,495.00 as compared to $695,372.00 in 1998. The 1999 funding allocations include $16,000.00 to a new organization and a $3,816.00 reduction to one other group.

Appeals:

An amount of $9,890.00 has been set aside for appeals in the Major and Minor Recreation Grants Programs. Organizations have been advised of their recommendations in writing and the appeals process including the availability of funds.

Conclusions:

The recommendations for allocations contained in this report are the result of a review of the applications received by the Department at the appropriate deadlines. The administration of the review was carried out in accordance with the City of Toronto's Grants Policy as adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.

The Recreation Grants Program extends the reach of community involvement in meeting the needs of a culturally diverse City to ensure that services have the broadest distribution. The Program is integral in providing opportunities to allow communities to help themselves. Public and community partnership is the key to successful, long-term development and municipal support is critical to such programs as those supported by the Recreation Grants Program.

Contact Name:

Ms. Cathi Forbes, Cultural Affairs Officer, 395-6192.

____________

Appendix "A"

City of Toronto

1999 Minor Recreation Grants

(A copy of Appendices B, C and D referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to each Member of Council with the agenda of the Economic Development and Parks Committee meeting of June 21, 1999, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 18, 1999) from Councillor Mario Silva, Trinity Niagara:

I regret being unable to attend the June 21, 1999 meeting. I do request that Members of the Economic Development and Parks Committee strongly consider granting the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of Ontario an additional $5,000.00 in grant for this year for the following reasons:

(1) The Portugal Day Parade and Associated Festivities constitute the fourth largest cultural event in Toronto;

(2) traditionally $20,000.00 was granted by the former City of Toronto; and

(3) the event attracts thousands of people from across the province and brings in huge amounts of money to our great city.

_________

Mr. David Abel, Canadian Stage Company, "Dream in High Park", appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(Councillor Saundercook, at the meeting of Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, declared his interest in that portion of the Recreation Grants Program - 1999 Allocations - All Wards, pertaining to the Swansea Girls Hockey League (Item No. 88), in that his daughters are members of the League.)

3

Economic Development Partnership Program Grants - All Wards

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report seeks approval for the first round of the Economic Development Partnership (EDP) Program grant allocations totaling $275,272.50. The report discusses the principles and evaluation criteria applied to select this year's recipients, summarizes the grants requests, and makes recommendations concerning the allocations.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The allocations recommended in this report fall within Council's approved 1999 Municipal Grants budget of $42,693,100.00. The total 1999 budget for the Economic Development Partnership Program is $337,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Economic Development Partnership Program grants totaling $275,272.50 be allocated to 15 projects, as set out in Appendix 1;

(2) the disbursement of the Economic Development Partnership Program allocations be conditional on satisfying the 1999 Economic Development Partnership Program goals and criteria as set out in Appendix 2 and on project specific conditions set out in Appendix 4;

(3) $61,727.50 be set aside for the Economic Development Partnership Program Fall deadline of September 4, 1999; and

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

Background:

The goal of the Economic Development Partnership (EDP) program is to facilitate the start-up or expansion of projects that will provide substantial long-term economic benefits to the City. The program provides for two categories of support: one time only projects; and developmental projects that are eligible for support for a maximum of five years with the maximum support in the fourth and fifth year set at 50 percent and 25 percent respectively, of the level of support provided in the third year. Both new and developmental applications are considered two times a year. The upcoming Fall deadline is September 4, 1999.

Priority is given to projects with a strong potential of becoming self sustaining within the five year time frame of the program and which involve substantive partnerships with the private sector or other levels of government. Applicants are required to submit a business plan and detailed budget demonstrating the economic benefit and long-term viability or benefits of this initiative.

This program originated with the former City of Toronto and was supporting a number of on-going projects at the time of amalgamation. A report commenting on the status and results of the EDP program was considered and adopted by Council at its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999. In this report, staff recommended that the 1999 EDP program continue with the criteria and program guidelines that were in place in 1998, and that a program review take place in 1999.

The objective of the review is to determine how the program can best support the City's emerging economic development strategy and to ensure that it is delivered in the most effective and equitable manner. Over the summer, staff will be consulting with previous grant recipients and other key departmental client groups to determine which of the elements of the program require change or refinement. Staff will be reporting to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the outcome of the review in the Fall of 1999, so that any changes to the year 2000 program can be communicated to client groups prior to the year's end.

The 1999 EDP program guideline is attached to this report as Appendix 2.

Applications:

A total of 16 applications were received requesting $405,314.50 for a number of purposes, in the Fashion, Tourism, Film, Food, Medical Bio-Tech and Retail Sectors, including one application, 761 Community Development Corporation, for community development. Forty percent or $163,772.50 of the total money requested is to fund five new projects. A summary of the applications is shown in Appendix 3. Details on each individual application, allocation criteria and conditions are provided in Appendix 4.

Evaluation Criteria and Principles:

Given that the requests for grants exceed by $68,314.50 the amount available for this Program and that additional applications i.e., the Toronto Theatre Alliance, are expected for the Fall round of applications, staff undertook a rigorous examination of each application in consultation with staff of Festivals and Special Events, Film and BIA Offices. Each application was reviewed in detail to ensure that the purpose of the project is in keeping with the objectives of this program.

To ensure that all applications were dealt with fairly, the following principles guided staff evaluation of these applications:

(a) former recipients would not be eligible to receive an amount higher than in the previous year; this would permit the support of new projects and gear the EDP Program towards supporting the economic development priorities of the amalgamated City of Toronto;

(b) former recipients were required to demonstrate that previous allocations were used as intended by the EDP Program otherwise their allocation would be reduced according to the particulars of the project for which a grant is being sought; and

(c) ongoing projects, such as, the Toronto International Film Festival, Cinematheque Ontario and the Toronto Worldwide Short Film Festival - all in their fifth year - which under the existing criteria would be subject to a 50 percent reduction, would continue to be funded at the 1998 level; when restructuring the EDP program, staff will address the issue of funding for ongoing projects where a long-term funding relationship supports the City's economic development interests.

Appendix 1 contains the funding history of each organization along with the proposed allocations.

Conclusions:

Staff are recommending that a total of $275,272.50 be allocated to funding the 15 projects described in this report. The review of the applications indicated that the 11 former recipients used the grant as per previous allocations criteria. Four out of the five new projects are recommended for approval for a total of $83,772.50, leaving $61,727.50 for the Fall round of allocations.

Future allocations beyond the Fall round, will be determined on the basis of a revised program which will be prepared in keeping with the objectives of the City's emerging Economic Development strategy. A report outlining the recommended adjustments to the EDP program is targeted for the Fall of 1999.

Contact Names:

Ms. Alicia I. Bulwik, 392-3830; Ms. Brenda Librecz, 392-4700.

--------

Appendix 1

Economic Development Partnership

Program 1999

Funding History and Recommended Allocations

* Subject to applicant leveraging other funds by September 4, 1999. Grant money will be held for this purpose until that time.

Summary Total

Approved Budget 1999 $337,000.00

Total Recommended $275,272.50

For 4 new projects $83,772.50

For 11 ongoing projects $191,500.00

Reserved for Fall Round $61,727.50

(A copy of Appendices 2, 3 and 4 referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to each Member of Council with the agenda of the Economic Development and Parks Committee meeting of June 21, 1999, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

1999 Cultural Grants Recommendations - All Wards

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the report (June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the appeals by Lakeshore Arts and Arts York to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for further consideration and report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee on the appropriateness of providing additional funding for the aforementioned programs.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following report (June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report presents the recommended allocations for the 11 cultural organizations which have applied through the Culture Division for municipal support within the Cultural Grants Program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The approved budget for the Cultural Grants Program administered by the Culture Division is $3,527,180.00 which is sufficient for the recommended allocations presented in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Cultural Grants allocations totalling $3,465,180.00 to 11 organizations, listed in Appendix "A" and described in the body of this report, be approved; and

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

Background:

Through Clause No. 3 of Report No. 24 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, adopted by City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, the City established the roles of the Toronto Arts Council and the Culture Division in the delivery of the Arts and Cultural Grants Program. The Culture Division was given the responsibility for the administration of arts grants to five Major Cultural Organizations, Caribbean Cultural Committee (Caribana), local arts councils and the Arts Toronto Arts Awards Program.

Prior to amalgamation, five major cultural organizations (Art Gallery of Ontario, Canadian Opera Company, National Ballet of Canada, National Ballet School and Toronto Symphony Orchestra) were funded solely by the former Metro Toronto level of government, under specialized criteria developed for major regional institutions. These organizations are national institutions and large employers that contribute significantly to the tourism infrastructure of the City. The criteria used to evaluate these organizations go well beyond the artistic merit of these organizations and include economic and tourism dimensions. Accordingly, these organizations continue to be funded through the Culture Division. The Caribbean Cultural Committee was added to the list of major cultural organizations in 1998 through Council directive.

Local arts councils are membership-based service organizations that enhance their communities by serving the needs of artists and arts organizations. Unlike the Toronto Arts Council, they are not funding bodies, and they do not make grants of any kind. The criteria used to evaluate these organizations focus on the quality of service provided in a geographic area rather than artistic or cultural merit. The services provided complement those provided by the Department through the Culture Division.

In 1998, Arts Toronto's grant for the Toronto Arts Awards was a miscellaneous line item grant in the Consolidated Grants Budget. These funds were transferred during the 1999 Budget process to the Cultural Grants Program for administration and review. Arts Toronto also applies annually for a project grant of $10,000.00 from the Toronto Arts Council for ArtsWeek.

Discussion:

Cultural Grants Budget:

The consolidated Arts and Cultural Grants Program budget for 1999 is $12,183,500.00. Of this amount, $3,527,180.00 is designated for allocation through the Cultural Grants Program administered by the Culture Division. The Cultural Grants Program includes line item grants to Campbell House ($35,000.00) and to Toronto's First Post Office ($27,000.00) that were approved as part of the 1999 budget process. The budget for the 1999 Cultural Grants Program is unchanged from the 1998 amount.

Review Process:

Staff of the Culture Division reviewed the applications received at the April 1, 1999 deadline and requested additional information and/or clarification where necessary. Applications were reviewed and assessed by peer assessment panels in two separate streams and are reported on accordingly. The six Major Cultural Organizations in one stream and the local arts councils and Arts Toronto in the other.

Both streams were processed in a similar manner. The applications were reviewed and assessed through a peer assessment process. The role of the panels was to provide advice on the merit of the applications and to identify long-term issues and trends. Advisors were selected to represent a broad base of experience and expertise and a general knowledge of the cultural sector.

The panel for the Art Gallery of Ontario, Canadian Opera Company, National Ballet of Canada, National Ballet School and Toronto Symphony Orchestra included James Lee (Chief Financial Officer, McMichael Canadian Art Collection), Jane Marsland (General Manager, Danny Grossman Dance Company) and Wendy Reid (a senior Arts Manager in music and dance). The Caribbean Cultural Committee is being reviewed on an ongoing basis by the Advisory Board established by the Province and the City. Staff will continue to monitor the Caribbean Cultural Committee through this process until the restructuring of the organization is complete. The intent would be to include the review of the Caribbean Cultural Committee grant as part of the review of Major Cultural Organizations in 2000.

The panel to review the local arts councils and Arts Toronto included Greg Baeker (Instructor in Arts Management, University of Toronto at Scarborough), Greg Brown (Artistic Director, Skylight Theatre) and John Elvidge (Chief Administrator's Office and former Community Arts Officer in Culture).

Major Cultural Organizations:

Several issues were identified in the review of the Major Cultural Organizations. Most have experienced a significant decrease in government funding in recent years, primarily from the Ontario Arts Council, and have been unable to secure sufficient sources of alternate funding. In the absence of the stability which government funding used to supply, these organizations have been struggling on an annual basis to maintain artistic excellence while dealing with growing deficits. The vitality of these organizations is a key component in the cultural life of the City and staff will continue to monitor their progress closely.

The National Ballet School has experienced a complete withdrawal of provincial funding and has had its municipal funding reduced in recent years. The Ballet School has requested an increase in support given the level of service to the local cultural community. The level of City support will need to be examined as part of a review of support to training institutions that will form part of the City's cultural planning process.

In addition, the Canadian Opera Company and the National Ballet of Canada continue to be funded by the City for their programs and activities taking place in the calendar year. The organizations have requested that they be funded on the basis of their fiscal years like other cultural grant recipients. The Municipal Grants Review Committee has referred this request to City Audit and staff will work with the Canadian Opera Company and the National Ballet of Canada to resolve this funding issue.

For the first time, in 1999, the support to the Caribbean Cultural Committee (Caribana) has been reviewed in the context of the Major Cultural Organizations. The City and the Province have made the restructuring of the organization a condition of continued financial support. Staff will continue to work with the Advisory Board to the Caribbean Cultural Committee to facilitate the restructuring process.

Local Arts Councils and Arts Toronto:

In Clause No. 3 of Report No. 24 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee referred to earlier, the Culture Division signaled its intention to move towards a purchase of service arrangement with local arts councils starting in the year 2000. To accomplish this, the Culture Division began discussions with the local arts councils who subsequently formed a steering committee of representatives from each of the councils and the three former municipalities that did not have community arts councils. Together, they have formed the Toronto Community Arts Alliance as a way of bringing together groups and individuals to further the interests of community arts in the City of Toronto and to begin to address those parts of the City not currently served by local arts councils (former East York, North York and Toronto). The Alliance will work with City staff to define a new funding arrangement so that the entire City has equitable access to community arts services. The Alliance will also hold a city-wide Community Arts Forum in partnership with the Culture Division in the fall of 1999.

Arts Toronto is not a community arts council per se but has been included in the Toronto Community Arts Alliance due to its work serving artists and arts organizations through ArtsWeek and the Toronto Arts Awards. The Chief Administrator's Office is currently reviewing City Award Programs and will consider the City's long-term support to the Toronto Arts Awards as part of its review.

Recommendations:

1999 is another transitional year for the Cultural Grants Program. The Culture Division is taking shape and work has begun on the framework for a Culture Plan. The Culture Division will examine support to major cultural organizations as part of the Culture Plan and move to a purchase of service agreement with local arts councils in the year 2000 to ensure consistent standards and access across the entire community. The budget is the same as 1998 and does not allow for any flexibility or increases, regardless of merit. For 1999, all applicants are recommended at the same level as last year. All organizations have sustained growth, performed well, and have no outstanding or unfulfilled conditions with the City.

It is recommended that the following allocations be approved:

Major Cultural Organizations:

(1) The Art Gallery of Ontario, established as the Art Gallery of Toronto in 1900 and operating as a provincial agency since 1966, offers innovative and diverse programs of exhibitions, lectures, film screenings, concerts, and educational services. The Art Gallery of Ontario is open to the public 2,200 hours a year, has 600,000 visitors and has a membership base of 39,000. The organization is seeking funding for its 1999/2000 activities.

An operating grant of $373,620.00 is recommended, which represents 1.3 percent of its revenue.

(2) The Canadian Opera Company, founded in 1950, has a two-fold objective: to advance the art of opera in Canada, and to develop the reputation and role of Canadian opera abroad. The Canadian Opera Company stages 47 performances annually with a total attendance of 118,000. The company has a subscription base of over 15,000. The organization is seeking funding for its 1999 activities and programs.

An operating grant of $854,970.00 is recommended which represents 5.5 percent of its revenue.

(3) The Caribbean Cultural Committee was founded in 1967 as a response to Canada's Centennial celebrations. The main activity for the Caribbean Cultural Committee is the annual production of the Caribana Festival. Since its inception, Caribana has grown to become one of the major cultural attractions in the City of Toronto. In 1998, a concerted effort was made to put the Caribbean Cultural Committee and Caribana on a sound financial footing with a substantial reduction in the organization's accumulated deficit. The organization completed 1998 with a clean audit and reduced its accumulated deficit by 50 percent. These efforts continue with the assistance of the Advisory Board with the involvement of Provincial and City officials. The 1998 Caribana Festival was an unqualified success with an estimated attendance of 750,000. The 1999 Caribana Festival will be held from July 31st until August 2nd.

An operating grant of $353,500.00 is recommended, which represents 21 percent of its revenue.

(4) The National Ballet of Canada, founded in 1951, is one of Canada's oldest and most renowned classical ballet companies. It presents three series each year at the Hummingbird Centre. The National Ballet of Canada stages 68 performances annually with a total attendance of 154,000. The organization has a subscription base of over 12,000. The organization is seeking funding for its 1999 activities and programs.

An operating grant of $767,670.00 is recommended which represents 5.7 percent of its revenue.

(5) The National Ballet School, incorporated in 1959, is recognized internationally for the quality of its professional training. The school presents public performances and lecture demonstrations throughout the year, and regularly commissions professional dance artists to choreograph works for the students. The school performs a series of public programs in the spring each year and makes its facilities available to organizations in the dance community for more than 1,200 hours per year. The organization is seeking funding for its 1999/2000 Toronto season of public performances and community programs.

An operating grant of $91,210.00 is recommended which represents 1.2 percent of its revenue.

(6) The Toronto Symphony Orchestra, formed in 1921, is ranked among the top 10 best orchestras in North America. The organization provides distinctive performances of both established and new orchestral music. The Toronto Symphony Orchestra stages 114 performances per year with total attendance exceeding 215,000. It has a subscription base of over 28,000. The organization is seeking funding for its 1999/2000 activities.

An operating grant of $773,640.00 is recommended which represents 4.5 percent of its revenue.

Local Arts Councils and Arts Toronto:

(7) Arts Etobicoke, founded in 1973, is a local arts council for the former City of Etobicoke, providing services to its members and organizing events to foster appreciation for the arts. The organization is seeking funding for its 1999/2000 programs and services including its major annual festival, Autumn ArtsFest, which is held in October each year. Other programs include: Arts in Action supplement in the local paper, Arts Discovery education program in schools, Juried Art Show and Art Rental Program, Scholarships, Youth Without Shelter, in addition to Community Outreach and Membership Services. The organization has 336 members, four full-time staff and 34 part-time staff people. Over 278 volunteers contributed 2,600 hours last year and attendance at Arts Etobicoke events exceeded 15,000.

An operating grant of $144,570.00 ($45,000.00 of this is directed to Autumn ArtsFest) is recommended which represents 23 percent of its revenue.

(8) Arts Toronto (formerly the Arts Foundation of Greater Toronto), incorporated in 1985, produces both the annual Toronto Arts Awards and ArtsWeek, a city-wide celebration of the arts held each September, in support of its mandate to heighten public awareness of the arts.  The Toronto Arts Awards celebrate and raise the profile of established and internationally-renowned artists. The organization is seeking funding for sponsorship of the two Lifetime Achievement Awards for the 1999 Toronto Arts Awards. The organization has two full-time staff and 12 part-time staff people. Annual attendance for ArtsWeek exceeds 355,000 and the organization has over 200 volunteers who contributed 1,200 hours last year.

A project grant of $25,000.00 is recommended, which represents 7 percent of its revenue.

(9) Arts York, founded in 1988 and incorporated in 1992, is a community arts council whose mandate is to enhance the quality of life for residents of the former City of York region of Toronto by bringing together community members to create an environment in which arts and culture can flourish. The organization acts as a catalyst for the development of arts and cultural initiatives. Programs and services include: Workshops, Bi-yearly newsletter, Graffiti Transformation Program, regular features in the local papers, in addition to regular public, community and membership services. The organization is seeking funding for its 1999 operating costs which includes increasing the hours of the part-time administrator, as it implements a cultural plan for its community approved by the former Council for the City of York. The organization has 330 members and two part-time staff people. Twenty-two volunteers contributed 600 hours last year.

An operating grant of $12,000.00 is recommended, which represents 27 percent of its revenue.

(10) Lakeshore Arts, formed in 1992, fosters the participation, enjoyment and appreciation of the arts, culture and heritage-related activities in the Lakeshore community. Programs and services include: development of the South Etobicoke Community Cultural Plan, showcasing artists through events, exhibitions and public murals, Series of Chamber Music and Family concerts, quarterly insert in local paper and studies for the Lakeshore Assembly Hall. This 100 percent volunteer organization has grown to such a point that it now needs to hire a part-time staff person, so the request has increased from $5,000.00 to $25,000.00. Funds would be directed to its 1999/2000 fiscal year. Attendance at Lakeshore Arts events totalled 6,575 and over 157 volunteers contributed 1,672 hours last year.

An operating grant of $5,000.00 is recommended, which represents 9 percent of its revenue.

(11) The Scarborough Arts Council, incorporated in 1979, is the local arts council for the former City of Scarborough, serving as an umbrella organization providing services and programs in support of the arts. Programs and services include: Art Naturally, an annual arts festival, Monthly newsletters, programming the Bluffs Gallery, Library Displays, Art Rental program and a juried art show, Poetry Competition, and Open Doors, an annual studio tour. The organization is seeking funding for its 1999/2000 programs and services. It has 626 members, two full-time staff and eight part-time staff people. Total attendance at Scarborough Arts Council events and programs was 608,000 and over 212 volunteers contributed 2,500 hours last year.

An operating grant of $64,000.00 is recommended, which represents 25 percent of its revenue.

Appeals:

Since there was no increase in the 1999 Cultural Grants Budget and all applicants have been recommended at the same level as in 1998, no funds could be withheld for appeals. However, the right to appeal is granted to all grant applicants that apply to the City of Toronto. The Economic Development and Parks Committee will hear deputations at the meeting at which these recommendations are presented, and any adjustments should be recommended from the contingency allotment within the Consolidated Grants Budget.

Conclusions:

The recommendations for allocations contained in this report are the result of a review of the 11 applications received by the Culture Division at the April 1, 1999 deadline. The administration of the review was carried out in accordance with the City of Toronto's Grants Policy as adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 1998. The arts and cultural organizations that are supported through the City's Cultural Grants Program provide a wide variety of opportunities for residents in the City of Toronto to participate in the arts as a participant, volunteer or audience member, and make the City a better place to live, work and visit.

Contact Names:

Ms. Beth Hanna, Culture Division, 392-5225; Ms. Cathi Forbes, Culture Division, 395-6192; Mr. Terry Nicholson, Culture Division, 392-4166.

--------

Appendix "A"

1999 Recommended Cultural Grant Allocations

Major Cultural Organizations 1998 Grant 1999 Request 1999 Grant

(1) Art Gallery of Ontario $373,620.00 $373,620.00 $373,620.00

(2) Canadian Opera Company $854,970.00 $880,000.00 $854,970.00

(3) Caribbean Cultural

Committee (Caribana) $353,500.00 $353,500.00 $353,500.00

(4) National Ballet of Canada $767,670.00 $768,000.00 $767,670.00

(5) National Ballet School $91,210.00 $100,000.00 $91,210.00

(6) Toronto Symphony Orchestra $773,640.00 $773,640.00 $773,640.00

Total $3,214,610.00 $3,248,760.00 $3,214,610.00

Local Arts Councils & Arts Toronto 1998 Grant 1999 Request 1999 Grant

(7) Arts Etobicoke $144,570.00 $144,570.00 $144,570.00

(8) Arts Toronto $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00

(9) Arts York $12,000.00 $40,000.00 $12,000.00

(10) Lakeshore Arts $5,000.0 $25,000.00 $5,000.00

(11) Scarborough Arts Council $64,000.00 $75,000.00 $64,000.00

Total $250,570.00 $309,570.00 $250,570.00

Totals $3,465,180.00 $3,558,330.00 $3,465,180.00

_________

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also had before it the following communication, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(a) (June 21, 1999) from Mr. Gerald Smith, Director, Lakeshore Arts, Community Arts Council, regarding the adjustment from the contingency allotment within the grants budget for Lakeshore Arts in 1999; and

(b) (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Liliana D'Avella, Administrator, Arts York, regarding the adjustment from the contingency allotment within the grants budget for Arts York in 1999.

5

Millennium Grants Program Allocations

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Council express its appreciation to all staff involved in the processing of the Millennium Grants for their exemplary efforts in this regard.")

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends adoption of the recommendations of the Millennium Task Force contained in the following report (June 3, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Millennium Task Force on June 2, 1999, recommended to the Economic Development and Parks Committee, and Council, adoption of the report (May 20, 1999) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Chairman, Millennium Task Force, wherein it is recommended that:

(1) the Millennium Grants allocations totalling $438,500.00 to 105 organizations/groups, listed in Appendix "A" and described in Appendix "B", be approved;

(2) those organizations/groups wishing to appeal their allocations be given the opportunity to appear before the Millennium Task Force on June 30, 1999, to put forth reasons as to why their allocation should be changed;

(3) any funds not allocated and/or released to the Millennium Grants Program applicants be the subject of a future report to Council; and

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

Background:

The Millennium Task Force had before it a report (May 20, 1999) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Chairman, Millennium Task Force, entitled "Millennium Grants Program Allocations".

(Report dated May 20, 1999, addressed to the

Millennium Task Force Committee from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski

Chairman, Millennium Task Force Committee)

Purpose:

This report presents the recommended allocations for the 177 organizations/groups which have applied for municipal support within the Millennium Grants Program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The approved budget for the Millennium Grants Program is $500,000.00 which is sufficient for the recommended allocations presented in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Millennium Grants allocations totalling $438,500.00 to 105 organizations/groups, listed in Appendix "A" and described in Appendix "B", be approved;

(2) those organizations/groups wishing to appeal their allocations be given the opportunity to appear before the Millennium Task Force on June 30, 1999, to put forth reasons as to why their allocation should be changed;

(3) any funds not allocated and/or released to the Millennium Grants Program applicants be the subject of a future report to Council; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Through Clause No. 27 of Report No.18 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, adopted by City Council at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, the City established a plan for its role in the year long activities to take place in the year 2000 as part of the global Millennium celebrations. The City wanted to support community initiatives and potential legacy projects as part of the Millennium celebrations and so a grants program was created to support such initiatives. The budget, mandate, eligibility criteria, application form, assessment process, and the Terms and Conditions of the Millennium Grants Program were also adopted.

The City of Toronto's Millennium Grants Program was established to provide financial assistance for initiatives that help residents and visitors celebrate the Millennium. The Program's mandate is to support the efforts of Toronto-based organizations to mark the Millennium through a variety of one-time only initiatives that explore our culture, celebrate our achievements and build our future. Opportunities for new funding would be offered to existing communities across the City in a variety of areas such as culture, sport and recreation, environment, social services and others.

In January 1999, the Millennium Grants Program was announced through press releases, public service announcements, and mailings to over 1,500 community groups. Each Member of Council was given the announcement and 25 Millennium Grant applications for distribution to groups within his or her ward. Staff held four information sessions within the City to discuss the program and to answer questions. These sessions were well attended.

Comment and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Millennium Grants Budget:

The total budget approved for the Millennium Grants Program is $500,000.00. The maximum grant is $10,000.00 and the minimum is $500.00 per group as described in the guidelines. Recommendations for allocations, as outlined in Appendix "A", total $438,500.00. This does not include the allocations awarded to two organizations, Cahoots Theatre and Cooking Fire Coalition, that have subsequently withdrawn their applications. This has increased the amount of the appeals fund by $13,500.00, making a total of $61,500.00 available.

Applications and Review Process:

Over 350 applications were mailed out after initial staff screening to determine eligibility. This number does not include the applications given out by Councillors or those at the information sessions. One hundred and seventy-seven applications were received and of these 174 were received prior to the deadline of 4:00 p.m. on March 1, 1999, and three were received well after this date. The application form was designed to allow applicants to write their own proposal using common headings with specific leading questions. Sufficient substantiating data was required to ensure accountability for City funding.

The requests total $1,663,320.00. The applications represent all Wards within the City except Ward 27. The ward was determined from the applicant's address which is not necessarily the address of the group. The ward number in which the Millennium event will take place would have a significant impact on the ward distribution list. It is noted some downtown wards appear to have a disproportionate number of projects; however, there are more venues, facilities and organizations in these wards.

Over sixty different types of projects were submitted to the Millennium Grants Program for funding. Some of these are festivals, concerts, performances, portraits, exhibitions, awards, parades, commissioned works, books, storytelling, conferences, gardens, races, recreation trails, web sites, CDS, time capsules, contests, scholarships, sculptures, tapestries, quilts, directories Millennium coin, heritage projects, celebrations, playgrounds and a rally.

Staff from the Culture Office reviewed applications for completeness and accuracy and requested additional information and/or clarification as necessary. To be eligible for funding:

(1) the applicant had to be a not-for-profit organization (if not incorporated then the group had to be sponsored by a incorporated group or have a charitable number);

(2) the applicant has a head office in the City of Toronto;

(3) the project could start no earlier than September 1, 1999 and be completed no later than December 31, 2000;

(4) the project is new or goes beyond the routine activity of the organization;

(5) the project is intended to have lasting benefits to the community;

(6) the project supports the mandate of the City of Toronto's Millennium Grants Program;

(7) the project is consistent with the organization's objectives;

(8) the project is accessible to members of the public; and

(9) other funding partners are involved in the project.

Staff of the Culture Division prepared summaries of eligibility using these criteria for the Millennium Task Force.

Allocation Issues:

The allocation criteria for assessment of the projects included:

(i) supports the Millennium Mandate (this was heavily weighted);

(ii) is consistent with the group's objectives;

(iii) has specific goals which can be measured;

(iv) demonstrates community involvement and support, including how many people will participate in and benefit from the project (this was heavily weighted);

(v) is accessible* to the community (this was heavily weighted) and has lasting benefits; and

(vi) has other financial supports and community partnerships.

*Accessibility was interpreted to be the most inclusive which was defined as "able to be reached". This definition would include physical location of event, public or private site, on transit system, has available parking, cost to attend the event, capacity and the degree of community involvement. Community was defined by the geographic area or interest.

Projects that demonstrated financial viability which had realistic budgets, variety of funding sources in both the private and public sector, and some confirmed funding received higher rankings than those whose budgets were totally dependent on government grants or corporate sponsorships.

The Millennium Grants are provided for one-time only project support and cannot be used for core or sustaining funding for ongoing services or programs. The projects supported must be new and address the mandate of the program. Some applications requested support for ongoing programs. Others requested support for new programs which could be considered part of the organization's everyday business, or for new initiatives that did not relate to the Millennium celebrations or to the Millennium mandate. These programs and projects are worthy, but they did not meet the allocation criteria and, therefore, were ineligible for funding.

Allocation Recommendations:

Allocation recommendations have been made by the Millennium Task Force in accordance with the allocation criteria. Appendix "A" provides a list of the applicants and the recommendations for Millennium funding. Appendix "B" includes a summary of each project request, and comments on the grant and conditions, if applicable.

A total of 177 applications were received and 105 are recommended for grants totalling $438,500.00.

Project-End Report:

Within three months of the completion of a project, a final report must be submitted to the City. The report must include information about whether the project's goals were met, how its success was measured, the level of community response, and so on. Additional details on what is to be included will be provided in the Terms and Conditions as set out in the Letter of Understanding.

Terms and Conditions:

Approved grants for the Millennium Grants Program are governed by the Terms and Conditions which are set out in a Letter of Understanding between the organization and the City of Toronto. The Terms and Conditions cover issues such as the expectations about the purpose of the grants, how funding is to be acknowledged, payment and report schedules, accounting and use of funds, grant periods and disclosure of information. Culture staff will have the responsibility for executing the Letters of Agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Appeals:

An amount of $61,500.00 is available for appeals. Groups will be notified in writing of the opportunity to appeal the grant recommendations to the Millennium Task Force at its meeting scheduled to be held on June 30, 1999, in Committee Room No. 2, 2nd Floor, Toronto City Hall, at 9:30 a.m. Those wishing to appeal will be required to contact Ms. Betty Henderson, Secretary of the Task Force at 392-8088 or Ms. Colleen O'Neill at 392-5227 to be assigned a specific time. These recommendations will be appended to the main report which will go to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for its meeting on July 12, 1999.

Remaining Budget:

There is $61,500.00 unallocated and many of the grants are conditional on confirmed funding, venues and dates, community partners, and additional information. It is possible that some of the funds in the Millennium Grants Program Budget may not be disbursed. Should there be any unallocated funds and/or undisbursed grants by March 1, 2000, a report will be submitted to Council as to the possible redirection of this budget as it relates to the Millennium.

Conclusions:

It is anticipated that there will be at least 2000 Millennium Celebrations in Toronto. The majority of these are being planned and implemented locally by community organizations. The Millennium Grants Program enables a wide variety of organizations to participate in making the celebrations in Toronto memorable for all involved including residents, tourists and visitors. The City can be proud of the Millennium initiatives that will be undertaken by the community through the Millennium Grants Program.

Contact Name:

Ms. Cathi Forbes, Cultural Affairs Officer, 395-6192.

(A copy of Appendix "B" referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to each Member of Council with the Agenda of the Millennium Task Force meeting of June 2, 1999, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

6

Interim "Welcome Policy" for Users of

Recreation Program - All Wards

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the following seven Community Centres be added to the list of high-needs communities, and that $86,000.00 be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account to cover the loss of revenue:

(a) Jimmie Simpson;

(b) Rockcliffe Middle School;

(c) O'Connor;

(d) Chalkfarm;

(e) Bliss Carman Senior Public School;

(f) Galloway Road Public School; and

(g) Oakdale;

(2) the homeless, the vulnerable and low income persons be exempted from being charged user fees at the Harrison Baths and, if these groups constitute the majority of users at the baths, City staff exempt the Harrison Baths from user fees; and

(3) the following motions be referred to the Policy and Finance Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on July 20, 1999; the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee, for consideration therewith, respecting funding options, and the Committee report thereon to the next meeting of Council to be held on July 27, 1999; and that, in the interim, staff be instructed not to publish user fee charges on any of the sites that potentially would have been exempted, and that a draft insert to the recreation guide be prepared, once the prices are established:

Moved by Councillor Ashton:

'That Recommendations Nos. (2), (3) and (6) embodied in the motion by Councillor McConnell be referred to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration.'

Moved by Councillor Brown:

'That the motion by Councillor McConnell be amended to provide that if any community or high-needs area has been omitted in error, they be automatically included.'

Moved by Councillor McConnell:

'It is further recommended that:

(1) the indicator of Low Income Cut-off (LICO), as set out in report dated July 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, be used as the key indicator to rank community centres serving high-needs communities;

(2) the list of centres serving high-needs communities be extended to 15 additional centres (where approximately one-third of the population is living below the LICO) at an additional cost of $600,000.00;

(3) the interim individual access policy be extended to two programs per week, per individual, at an additional cost of $400,000.00, and that adequate publicity and outreach programs be implemented as part of this funding;

(4) prior to July 15, 1999, staff be requested to provide each Member of Council with a schedule of programs and respective fees for the fall programs;

(5) the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Community and Neighbourhood Services, and Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to Council on priority neighbourhoods using common criteria; and

(6) funding of $1.0 million be provided from the Corporate Contingency Account or any other source identified by the Chief Administrative Officer.'

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

'It is further recommended that all of the Community Centres listed in the report dated July 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be included in the high-needs category at a total cost of $1,708,230.00, such funds to be provided from the Corporate Contingency Account.'

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

'It is further recommended that, as the S. H. Armstrong Community Centre meets the eligibility requirements of the Interim Welcome Policy related to low income cut-offs, no fees be applied to the Community Centre's activities.'

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

'It is further recommended that the S.H. Armstrong Community Centre receive a grant-in-lieu to reflect individual access needs.'

Moved by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

'That the motion by Councillor Miller be amended by adding after the words "Parkdale Community Centre" the words "and the McCormick Recreation Centre".'

Moved by Councillor Miller:

'It is further recommended that the Parkdale Community Centre be identified on the priority listing of Centres at a level identical to that of the Masaryk-Cowan Community Centre.'

Moved by Councillor Miller:

'It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the September 1999 meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee on all early childhood education and children/youth programs for which fees are proposed.'

Moved by Councillor Pantalone:

'It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to review the catchment area used for the McCormick Community Centre and, should an error be found, take appropriate and immediate action.'

Moved by Councillor Prue:

'It is further recommended that the Crescent Town Club area be included as a high needs community area and that, in the absence of a municipally-funded Community Centre, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be instructed to:

(1) work with the Board of Directors of the Crescent Town Recreation Complex to determine what recreation needs are not currently being met, and submit a report to Council, through the Economic Development and Parks Committee, on the programs required and the costs associated therewith;

(2) provide the necessary funds for those services, where appropriate, from the Corporate Contingency Account for the balance of this year; and

(3) include this unique circumstance area in any future plans as a program jointly funded between the Board of Directors of the Crescent Town Recreation Complex and the City of Toronto.'

Moved by Councillor Rae:

'It is further recommended that the St. Lawrence Community Recreation Centre be included as a high-needs community.' ")

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommended that:

(1) City Council receive the report (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for information; and

(2) the communications (June 15, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow, Child and Youth Advocate, and (June 21, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, be referred to the Chair of the Economic Development and Parks Committee, for discussions thereon with the aforementioned Councillors and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and report thereon directly to City Council for its meeting of July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, the said report to include financial implications.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following report (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To provide information on accessibility to recreation programs in light of Council's decision on harmonization of recreation user fees, and recommending that the report be received for information.

Background:

The recent decision by City Council on April 26 and 27, 1999, on the harmonization of recreation user fees has presented an opportunity to the Parks and Recreation Division to develop a policy that will ensure accessibility to recreation programs for residents who are unable to afford the cost of these programs.

Council adopted Option "B" with respect to harmonization of recreation programs. This option provided for non-specialized programs (drop-in, subscriber, introductory instructional) to be free for pre-schoolers, children and youth. It also provided free drop-in programs for older adults and for-fee programs for other older adult programs and for all adult programs. The "Welcome" policy, insofar as it deals with reducing financial barriers to participation, would apply to specialized programs for pre-schoolers, children and youth and for all other programs (except for older adult drop-in) for adults and older adults.

There are severe time constraints for developing such a policy as the Fall/Winter Parks and Recreation Guide, "Toronto Fun", goes to print in July 1999. Accordingly, the Division is advancing an interim policy for welcoming all users. This policy will address the need for accessibility for both individuals and communities. In keeping with Parks and Recreation's practice of encouraging input and advice from community residents, it is the intent of staff to consult with residents and appropriate community agencies to develop a proactive "Welcome Policy" to be in place for the fall of the year 2000.

Guiding principles for the interim accessibility:

The Division is committed to ensuring all City residents year-round accessibility to high quality community recreation and leisure programs regardless of their ability to pay. A "Welcome" or accessibility policy must be:

- accessible and equitable to all;

- reduce barriers to access in a seamless fashion;

- be handled in confidence with sensitivity to individual;

- apply to both individuals and communities;

- clearly welcome all to participate in enjoyable, healthful, satisfying and creative use of leisure time; and

- proactive in terms of increasing participation in recreational opportunities.

Benefits of Recreation for Individuals and High Need Communities:

Recreation contributes significant personal, social, economic and environmental benefits which enhance the well-being of Toronto citizens, their neighbourhoods and the local economy. This is particularly the case for high need individuals and communities as options may be more limited.

Through various studies, recreation has been demonstrated to:

- increase one's self esteem and confidence;

- reduce alienation, loneliness and anti-social behaviours;

- promote ethnic and cultural harmony;

- build strong families, the foundation of a stronger society;

- be critical, if integrated and accessible, to the quality of life of people with a disability and disadvantaged individuals;

- provide youth employment opportunities;

- reduce incidence of teen pregnancy;

- increase one's ability to work as part of a team; and

- increase youth's ability to complete schooling.

Individual Accessibility Policy - Interim Approach:

The interim policy is based on previous consultations with staff, residents and community agencies, done in the preparation of information for the User Fee Committee of City Council. It provides an individual with a choice of directly approaching a full-time recreation staff at the centre level or, for those who desire greater anonymity, of writing to a staff removed from centre operations.

An individual accessibility policy needs to be non-stigmatizing to the person, efficient and effective to administer and able to be clearly documented and controlled from a financial standpoint. The applicant will have to provide written evidence of financial need in general terms (no figures required). This can be provided by a social service agency or other professions familiar with the family (public health nurse, doctor, lawyer, school principal, etc.). A drug or benefit card, U.I.C. stub or other such documentation is also acceptable. In exceptional circumstances (e.g., homeless), written evidence may not be available. Supervisory staff will have the authority to approve subsidy. The key here is to ensure that site staff get to know their community.

Any number of members of one family are eligible. However, only one program per season per individual will be subsidized or as space may permit. In the case of children and youth, a specialized program would be subsidized as other programs are offered free of charge. Further, a minimum of 10 percent of program spaces within for-fee programs will be set aside, on a preliminary basis, for individuals in financial need. At some centres, this may increase to a higher level, and in communities that are among the highest need, even 100 percent of the spaces may be available for subsidy. The Division acknowledges that 25 percent of the children in the City are considered to be living in a financially challenging situation. Reaching out to these children and their families is a challenge that the Division embraces. The Division will seek more proactive methods as a result of further consultation.

The principle of this strategy (reserving a minimum of spaces for those in financial need) could be extended to other community based groups that use our facilities and outdoor spaces. For instance, each community based sports group utilizing public facilities could be encouraged to have a policy whereby a minimum of 10 percent of their spaces would be set aside for participants who cannot afford the registration fee. The Division will be reporting in the Fall of this year on permitting policies.

The Division is reviewing for the future the possibility of implementing a membership card system which would allow different fees to be charged based on family income or financial need. This is in keeping with direction received from City Council. A membership approach to individuals and families facing financial barriers to participation would involve the provision of a credit for a capped supply of recreation programs. For instance, a child may be able to choose from a menu of programs including advanced learn to swim, specialized day camp, etc., up to the maximum credit. The credit would be based on a calculated formula relating to what a family or individual would use on a City-wide average basis.

Welcome Policy for High Need Neighbourhoods:

One of the actions coming out of the user fee harmonization decision was "that high need communities be exempt from paying user fees for specialized programs" and that "an access policy be considered that would ensure low income families and individuals are not penalized" (Economic Development Committee Meeting No. 3, February 18, 1999). Existing programs at centres serving the local needs of these neighbourhoods would be offered free of charge. In keeping with this, staff have identified recreation centres whose local programming primarily serves neighbourhoods of high need. Participants from these neighbourhoods require special consideration in order to maximize their potential for enjoyment of recreation programs and activities. Generally, participants already rely on social services support. Recreation services, with the complementary support of social services, are delivered to attain the full benefit of recreation activity for participants.

Identification of centres serving neighbourhoods of high need is based on certain key demographic indicators in addition to the experience and judgement gained through many years of providing recreation programs and activities to various communities in the former municipalities. The two socio-economic key indicators used are Children zero to 17 years of age in families on Social Assistance and Lone Parent Families as a Percentage of Total Families. Attached is a map indicating the distribution of recreation centres in census tracts that reflect these key indicators. From the various centres on this map, the Division selected certain centres that should be a priority for free recreation programs given the Division's experience and, in particular, the percentage of young people on Social Assistance in the census tracts served by these centres.

The Division appreciates that selection of the key socio-economic indicators is a simple approach to a complex issue. For instance, the Urban Planning and Development Services is currently undertaking an exhaustive study on certain communities within the City that may require additional and/or continued investment in them by the City and other parties. This "investment" will be essential to ensure a continued and/or improved quality of life for the residents who reside in these neighbourhoods.

Indeed, this report specifies that enhancing the quality of life for residents is a prime objective of the Official Plan. The Official Plan is intended to be a corporate policy tool to provide a "geographic and urban structure for the Social Development Strategy .... for community development and service delivery." The end result of the study by Urban Planning and Development Services will certainly inform Parks and Recreation Services' proposal for the formal "Welcome" policy.

Welcome Policy Financing:

The Welcome policy is formally funded up to $700,000.00 ($400,000.00 for high need and $300,000.00 for increased demand). The strategy to provide for those in financial need, a minimum of 10 percent of maximum registration in a given program, will help avoid direct additional costs. Increased demand in particular is difficult to forecast. The Division will be reporting back on this matter after our experience with the Fall program series. The "Welcome" policy may have to be adjusted with respect to particulars or with respect to level of available subsidy.

For the pre-school, children and youth group, subsidy will only be necessary for specialized programs. Currently, the take-up on specialized programs represents 4.8 percent of the total program offering for these groups. Based on former Scarborough figures, an average participant registers for two to three programs per year. This is consistent with the interim individual access policy of allowing one program per season per individual to be subsidized. In the future, a new City-wide average participant profile will help inform the Division's recommendations with respect to a membership card system and an appropriate credit cap within budget guidelines.

Information and Consultation Strategy:

The Division intends to take a proactive approach to ensuring that interested residents in financial need are aware of the Welcome policy. The policy will be published in "Toronto Fun". Notices will be placed in all our facilities. Social Service agencies will be advised of the policy and asked to advise their clients and to publicize the "Welcome" policy.

In the longer term, the Division intends to promote formalized neighbourhood linkages with community groups and agencies that will consider the "whole" person and that person's various needs, including recreation services. Further, staff will review recreation service delivery at the local level with recreation advisory councils so as to address the accessibility requirements of individuals in all neighbourhoods.

For the final Welcome policy, the Division will invite interested community groups, social service agencies and stakeholders to review the interim policy and suggest refinements and different approaches to ensuring that all residents feel "welcome" to use recreation services. A report will be forwarded to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in time for implementation of a permanent Welcome policy by September 2000.

Contact Name:

Mr. Mario Zanetti, 392-7252.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Census Tracts Denoting Lone Parent Families

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Census Tracts Denoting Lone Parent Families

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 15, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow, Children and Youth Advocate:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the current definition of youth used by Parks and Recreation which caps the age of youth at 18 years of age be changed to cap the age of youth at 24 years of age, which is consistent with the definition of youth applied by other levels of government and community-based agencies;

(2) the measure used for defining High Need Communities be revised from the current one of 0-17 year olds on social assistance to a measure of families living below the Low Income Cutoff (LICO), and that the list of centres serving High Need Communities be revised to reflect this change; and

(3) given the need for additional resources to meet the needs of youth in under-serviced, high need areas, the Youth Sub-Committee of the Children and Youth Action Committee recommends that:

(a) the $300,000.00 put aside by the Budget Committee for service demands that result from harmonization be allocated for the specific purpose of creating new recreation programs for children and youth aged 6 to 24, in under-served, high need areas; and

(b) Parks and Recreation Department undertake the development of these new programs in consultation with youth in order to develop programming that will meet the needs and increase participation among youth who do not currently access recreation programs.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Youth Sub-Committee of the Children and Youth Action Committee adopted the foregoing recommendations on June 14, 1999. The Youth Sub-Committee will bring these motions forward to the Children and Youth Action Committee at its June 25, 1999 meeting. In view of the fact that the Economic Development and Parks Committee will discuss this item at its June 21 meeting, the Youth Sub-Committee is forwarding its recommendations directly to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for consideration.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 18, 1999) from Paris Gardos, Youth Advocate, For Youth Project:

I am writing on behalf of the For Youth Project (FYP) to address the issue of the Interim Welcome Policy proposals for the City of Toronto's recreation programs. I want to urge this Committee to support an equitable, accessible and quality public recreation system for the City of Toronto. The For Youth Project is a partnership initiative comprised of eight organizations serving the former City of York. Through our involvement with youth in York in the policy development area and our work with the Youth Committee of the Children's and Youth Action Committee, FYP has been deeply involved in the consultations around the recreation user-fees issues.

The proposals outlined for the Interim Welcome Policy proposals clearly violate the Guiding Principles outlined for it. Our understanding of the focus of the policy is to

- reduce barriers;

- be accessible and equitable to all; and

- increase participation.

These goals cannot be implemented by considering the definition of youth strictly between the ages of 13 and 18. The understanding our organization had when Council approved option "B" in April was that youth up to the age of 24 would be included. Clearly excluding youth that are still high school age will not assist in reducing barriers or increasing participation. The proposal will create a recreation system that is not accessible to all.

Many neighbourhoods in the former City of York do not have access to local community recreation services. This geographic area has large numbers of youth, new Canadians and families who receive some form of social assistance. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be reflected in the calculations that determine which communities will get support through the Interim Welcome Policy. By not including in the formula average household income as well as the percentage of new Canadians living in the area, the method for determining need resulted in the exclusion of the former City of York.

In the Interim Welcome Policy proposals, the benefits of recreation are clearly stated:

- help reduce anti-social behaviours;

- promote ethno-cultural harmony;

- improve a community's quality of life.

These goals are undermined if they do not apply to all communities in Toronto. The former City of York has very limited recreation services for youth especially considering the absence of even one fully resourced community centre. By continuing policies that allow for high costs and low levels of service, youth in this area are being placed at even higher risk. Many youth in this area hoped to see a fair and equitable improvement in recreation services under the amalgamation. With the current Interim Welcome Policy proposals, the lack of recreation services for youth will reach crisis levels.

Our organization urges you to ensure that any recreation policy takes into consideration the need for equitable and accessible recreation services for youth in the former City of York as it will ultimately affect the future well being of all Toronto's youth.

I want to thank you for your attention in this matter. The For Youth Project can be reached at (416) 652-2273.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 21, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell:

I am very concerned about Item seven on today's Agenda - The Implementation Strategy for the "Welcome Policy".

There are several elements of the Policy, and the implementation strategy as a whole, that I believe unintentionally diverge from the direction given by Council and the understanding we had at Committee of what the policy would be.

I have three areas of concern:

(1) Age

When the matter was before committee and Council, the youth exempted from user fees included everyone up to 24 years old (see attached memo). In the current implementation plan, youth between 18 and 24 are required to pay.

(2) Program Categories

It is unclear in the current implementation plan if all programs run on a drop-in or instructional basis under the old system continue to be treated as drop-in or instructional programs under the current implementation plan.

(3) Free Access to People Living in Poverty

Council rejected Option B+, which would have given free access to adult drop-in programs. Both Council and Committee were assured that free adult drop-in was unnecessary since people living in poverty would have access through special funding for high needs areas. Under the current implementation plan, the high needs component does not take adults living in poverty into account at all, it provides solely for children living in poverty, and even there, ignores very poor neighbourhoods like Alexandra Park and Parkdale.

I understand that staff need to print the recreation calendars in very short order. Obviously, these calendars must include the user fee information. There are some serious concerns about the content of the implementation strategy, but little time to deal with them.

I think our only recourse is to have staff meet with the Chair of the Committee to review the implementation strategy to ensure that it complies with the policy direction staff were given, and that staff report to Council with the final draft of the implementation strategy. I would be happy to offer any assistance I can in this process.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Options Comparison

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (June 18, 1999) from Punam Khosla, Planner and Karen Wirsig, Planner, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto:

Re: Implementation of Parks and Recreation "Welcome" and User-fee policies

The Community Social Planning Council of Toronto has been involved in City Council's process to establish a new user-fee policy since last summer. Our primary concern about the new policy is access for everyone in Toronto to high-quality recreation programs and services, regardless of ability to pay. We have held meetings with residents and community organizations across the new Toronto who are committed to making recreation a fundamental municipal service.

We are very concerned about the autumn implementation proposals for the new user-fee and "welcome" policies. They do not appear to correspond to the spirit of the decision on user-fees and access, made by City Council last April.

We understood that the decision would ensure access for children and youth - up to age 24, and their families, to a broad range of recreation programs and services across the new City. We also understood that provisions were made to provide all programs at no fee to "high needs" communities in the City.

Upon the study of the "Welcome" policy, along with draft pricing policies from a number of community recreation centres, it has become evident that a very narrow interpretation of Council's decision is being made.

- Although documentation put forward by staff during the budget process clearly indicated that the age limit for youth was 24 (please see attached), it has now been indicated as 18.

- Although Council decided that there would be no charge for programs in three-quarters of the program categories for children and youth, it is now proposed that only a small number of programs will be offered without charge at each centre.

- Although children and youth were designated priorities by Council in adopting the new policy, there has been no attempt to introduce new programs for them in centres where existing programming is inadequate.

- The criteria for determining "high needs" communities does not capture the actual conditions of Toronto's diverse neighbourhoods. It would be more accurate to base the definition on average household income and proportion of newcomers who have recently settled in the area (both available from census data).

As a result, we urge you to support the motions coming forward from the Youth Sub-Committee and, given the very short time-frame, recommend that a meeting be convened as soon as possible between concerned City Councillors, community representatives and Parks and Recreation staff responsible for implementing the new policies.

If you have any questions about the foregoing, please don't hesitate to contact Punam Khosla at 351-0095, extension 240.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

User Fee Options

Insert Table/Map No. 2

User Fee Options

Insert Table/Map No. 3

User Fee Options

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 5, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To provide additional information on this policy as requested by Economic Development and Parks Committee.

Source of Funds:

The harmonization of User Fees for recreation programs has already been approved by City Council. This report provides information, as requested by Economic Development and Parks Committee, on an option to increase the availability of free programmes at centres serving high need communities. Cost of this option is $600,000.00 approximately and is not currently funded.

Recommendation:

This report is provided for your information.

Council Reference/ Background:

At the last Economic Development and Parks Committee, communications from Councillor Olivia Chow, Children and Youth Advocate, and from Councillor Pam McConnell to the Chair of Economic Development and Parks Committee were referred for discussions among the Chair of Economic Development and Parks Committee, the two aforementioned Councillors and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with direction to report thereon directly to City Council for its meeting of July 6, 1999, the said report to include financial implications.

Discussion:

A number of specific issues were raised at this subsequent meeting among the Councillors concerned and the Commissioner. The five main issues are set out below with comments.

(1) Youth are to be defined as having an upper age of 24 rather than 18

The Department is agreeable to this definition as it was used, from time to time, during the User Fee debate. This definition would apply to the youth programme category, e.g., programmes aimed at youth and young adults.

(2) Free recreation programs and age based applications

The Department, in accordance with "Option B" with regard to recreation user fees, is setting out free and for fee programmes based on programme categories as defined, i.e., pre-school, children's and youth programmes are to be offered free of charge when they are drop-in, subscriber and introductory instructional. This is distinct from saying, for instance, all youth who take drop-in programmes could do so free of charge even if the programme they are entering is classified as adult. An age based approach to fee exemption would mean additional lost revenue to the Department. This revenue loss would be based primarily on youth participation free of charge in programmes aimed at adults. Staff estimate that the revenue loss could range to 15 percent of adult programmes. This translates into $251,034.00 for adult drop-in, $98,365.00 for adult subscriber and $526,538.00 for adult instructional for a additional revenue loss of $876,000.00.

(3) Programme definitions

The Councillors asked staff to review how programme definitions were being applied. There was some concern that many programmes for children and youth are being classified as fee-based rather than free under the "Option B" formula. Staff are in the process of reviewing this matter both for the upcoming Fall season and for the subsequent Winter season. Staff will review all programs being submitted for publication in the recreation guide. Each District Director will sign off for their respective district.

(4) Centres serving high need areas

"Option B" provided for all existing programmes offered at centres serving high need neighbourhood to be free of charge. Funding for this initiative under "Option B" is $400,000.00. Staff had defined a priority list of centres serving high need areas based primarily on the socio-economic indicator of "Percent of Children Aged 0-17 in Families Receiving Social Assistance". At the request of the Councillors McConnell and Chow, staff have agreed to include a Low Income Cut-Off measure in defining a priority list. The measure is that of "Percent of Incidence of Economic Families Living Below the LICO". This measure captures the working poor families in addition to welfare receiving families.

A new priority list of centres serving high need areas is attached utilizing the LICO measure. This list includes a group of centres that would receive current programmes free of charge with the approved cap of $400,000.00 in revenue loss. At the request of the Councillors concerned, the list is extended to include approximately $600,000.00 of additional lost revenue that would accommodate the majority of centres on the list whereby if 1/3 of the population is living below the LICO measurement, then the centres activities would be provided at no fee. There is no funding for this additional $600,000.00. This information is provided for Council's review and discussion.

(5) Individual Access

The individual access component of the Interim Welcome Policy provides for one programme per person per season and reserves 10 percent of fee-based programmes for individuals who are in need of financial assistance. This 10 percent reserve would be flexible depending on the neighbourhood served.

Staff were asked to consider a 20 percent reserve and to report on the cost of such a reserve if there was full subscription. An additional 10 percent reserve, if fully subscribed, would cost $463,000.00 in forgone revenue. This additional 10 percent could also be applied to raising the access level to 2 programmes per person per season.

Contact Name:

Mario Zanetti

Director of Parks and Recreation - South District

392-7252.)

Insert list from comm(9)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 6, 1999) from Councillor Maria Augimeri, Black Creek:

I have noticed that there are major errors in the High Need Community Chart (page 4 of Supplementary Report), the grossest of which is that a prominent High Need Community Centre in the Jane-Finch community - the Oakdale Community Centre, has been omitted from the top third of the list.

Since the top third of this list reflects the schedule of centres which will be exempt from paying User Fees for Parks and Recreation programmes, this particular error is most grievous in nature.

I insist that the Oakdale Centre be placed at its proper place in the top one-third of the chart and that it be designated as a High Needs Centre. Whether this correction results in the re-alignment of the rest of the centres on the list, or not, remains to be a topic of discussion at Council.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Toronto - Don River, submitting proposed amendments

respecting the Interim "Welcome Policy" for Users of Recreation Programs - All Wards.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 7, 1999) from the City-Wide Recreation Network, urging Council to support a motion respecting the allocation of funds to exempt "high needs" areas of the City from Recreation User Fees.)

7

Woodbine Park - Sponsorship of Bandshell

(Ward 26 - East Toronto)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that whether this is an auction or a Request for Proposal, it not be issued only to a list of pre-determined people who have worked with the City, but be open to the widest public bid possible.")

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (May 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be adopted, subject to deleting the recommendation embodied therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be directed to commence the installation of the necessary in-ground services for a bandshell in Woodbine Park, the funding for same to be from the Parks' Capital Budget envelope"; and

(2) the report (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be received for information.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to:

(a) prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for sponsorship of the bandshell in Woodbine Park the said RFP to have a clear understanding of the expectations relating to programming, etc., and report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for its meeting of September 11, 1999; and

(b) provide a verbal update as to the progress of the said RFP to the July 12, 1999, meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following report (May 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To seek authorization for City staff to enter into negotiations with Molson Breweries and report directly to City Council at its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, respecting the detailed terms and conditions of their sponsorship proposal for a bandshell at the new Woodbine Park.

Financial Implications:

There is a potential $630,000.00 contribution towards the construction of the bandshell which is currently planned but not budgeted for the new Woodbine Park.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Economic Development Committee authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into negotiations with Molson Breweries, and report directly to City Council at its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, on the specific terms and conditions of their sponsorship proposal for construction of a bandshell at the new Woodbine Park.

Background:

The construction of Woodbine Park will commence in June 1999 with the official opening planned for July 1, 2000. Approved capital budget funds for 1998 - 2000 will be applied to the construction of the base park. The park design contemplates a bandshell and field area for community use ranging from field sports, outdoor classrooms and special festivals and events. The bandshell is not included in the base park construction and requires additional funding of at least $600,000.00. As part of the tender process for the park construction, competitive bids were requested for the construction of the bandshell as a provisional item should additional funds be made available in the future.

On December 16, 1998, staff received a letter of interest from Molson Breweries and an accompanying cheque for sponsorship interest for the bandshell feature. Subsequently, on April 19, 1999, Labatt Breweries advised staff of their sponsorship interest in Woodbine Park with an offer, a cheque and a request to discuss steps for moving ahead. In order to ensure a fair evaluation of the two proposals, both offers and cheque deposits were returned on April 30, 1999. At that time, staff notified both Molson Breweries and Labatt Breweries that we were prepared to consider and make a decision on an offer, for recommendation to the Economic Development Committee, provided it was received by a prescribed deadline, and that it was generally consistent with the park design and budget and the intent of the City's interim corporate sponsorship guideline, to the staff's satisfaction.

Comments:

On May 13, 1999, staff received two corporate sponsorship proposals for the bandshell at the new Woodbine Park; one from Molson Breweries and one from Labatt Breweries. Based on the evaluation completed by staff, Molson Breweries sponsorship offer of $630,000.00 plus provision of bandshell signage, for a term of 10 years with an option to renew for another five years, payable upon agreement with the City, best meets the City's selection criteria and is considered the superior offer.

A corporate sponsorship program is under development by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, as outlined in the report dated February 18, 1999, that was received by Council March 2, 1999. The intention of the program is stated as follows:

"The corporate sponsorship program is intended to optimize the City's sponsorship benefits, ensure competitive access to City contracts and promote the City's public image. A six month development study will be followed by reports to Council proposing a corporate policy and seeking authority to award a sales/marketing/program management contract. Corporate sponsorship agreements may begin to impact the operating budget in the year 2000 if the project proceeds on schedule. In the meantime an interim corporate guideline has been established to direct sponsorship activities in 1999."

The General Principles of the Interim Corporate Sponsorship Guidelines provide, among other things, that:

"(1) The City of Toronto accepts the principle that, under the general conditions outlined in the guideline, external organizations may sponsor (through cash, products, services or other contributions) portions of, or entire, approved City programs, events or activities in return for forms of recognition or acknowledgment agreed upon with the City. Also, under the general conditions of this guideline, City staff may solicit such sponsorship of City projects by external organizations.

(2) Sponsorship arrangements must be in accordance with City policies.

(3) All sponsorship arrangements and agreements are subject to review and approval by the appropriate City authorities and must conform with this interim guideline....."

This report seeks explicit authorization from both the Economic Development Committee and Council to act on Molson's sponsorship, as set out in their letter dated May 13, 1999. Molson's sponsorship offer is generally consistent with the intent of the interim guideline, but not with every provision, and allows the City to realize a planned capital facility by the July 2000 opening of the new Woodbine Park. The detailed reasons for this recommendation include the following:

(1) the offer is $630,000.00 cash, payable upon agreement by the City, for a capital facility that is part of the master plan for the new Woodbine Park, but is not budgeted for in the approved Capital budget program for the period 1998-2002;

(2) the construction of the new park will commence in June 1999 and is scheduled for completion and official opening July 1, 2000. Acceptance of the Molson offer permits the bandshell to be included in the same construction contract and schedule in conjunction with the base park construction, if Council provides the necessary authorization as set out in the recommendation of this report;

(3) the bandshell is budgeted at approximately $600,000.00 with a life expectancy of greater than 10 years. The term of 10 years, with an option to renew for a further five years, and the amount of the cash contribution would be consistent with the cost and duration of the facility. While the Interim Guideline provides a term of one year for sponsorship arrangements that proceed in the interim, it is not feasible, given the cost and duration of the bandshell, to impose a one year limit on the term of the Molson sponsorship in this instance;

(4) consultation with appropriate authorities has taken place and will occur respecting the form and content of the necessary legal agreements, as provided in the Guideline, as well as information sharing and record maintenance;

(5) rather than proceeding under the delegation of authority set out in the Interim Guideline, explicit authorization is being sought from Committee and Council for the Molson sponsorship offer at this time, as the offer exceeds $500,000.00 and the facts pertaining to the bandshell construction and the sponsorship offer do not strictly conform to the Interim Guideline; and

(6) Woodbine Park is part of the approved Capital Program for 1998-2002, and all costs related to the park and bandshell are allocated to the program budget, consistent with the guideline.

Conclusion:

The Molson Sponsorship offer permits the Woodbine Park bandshell to be constructed in conjunction with the base park for completion by July 2000 promoting the City's public image. It is the superior offer of two proposals received by May 13, 1999, and evaluated according to the selection criteria set out by staff.

Appropriate City staff should now be authorized to enter into negotiations with Molson Breweries on the specific terms and conditions of their sponsorship proposal and be requested to report on the details of the sponsorship agreement arrangements to City Council at its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999.

Contact Name:

Ms. Susan Richardson, Parks and Recreation Division, 392-1941.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following report (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report provides further information as requested the Economic Development Committee meeting of May 21, 1999.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be receive as information; and

(2) the report submitted by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, dated May 18, 1999, be approved.

Comments:

At its meeting of May 21, 1999, the Economic Development Committee deferred consideration of the report (May 18, 1999) on Sponsorship of a Bandshell at the new Woodbine Park and requested that a further report be submitted to the June 21, 1999 meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the application of interim sponsorship guidelines for this project and the criteria for corporate sponsorship, particularly for sponsorship opportunities over $500,000.00.

The report on the Corporate Sponsorship Program dated February 18, 1999, the purpose of which was to update Council on efforts to develop a corporate sponsorship program was received by Council at its meeting of March 2, 1999. The Interim Corporate Sponsorship Guideline dated February 18, 1999, was attached for information. The following section refers to the guideline and how it applies in this instance. The guideline consists of seven sections labelled A to G.

(A) Background:

The purpose of the guideline is to provide interim sponsorship directions to allow program areas to pursue sponsorship opportunities that do not extend past December 31, 1999, unless the Interdepartmental Task Force approves otherwise.

Comment: The Molson sponsorship offer extends for 10 years with an option to renew for another five years.

(B) Application:

The interim guideline applies to all business arrangements with the City of Toronto or its Departments where external organizations contribute to City programs, events or activities in return for recognition or other promotional consideration during the program, event or activity. The guideline does not apply to gifts to the City, grants from other levels of government, City sponsorship of external projects, arrangements contributing to program events or activities undertaken by the City's agencies, boards or commissions.

Comment: The Molson sponsorship offer meets the above criteria.

(C) Definitions:

(1) Sponsorship:

A mutually beneficial business arrangement between the City of Toronto and one or more external companies, organizations or enterprises where the external organization contributes funds, goods or services to a City program, event or activity in return for recognition, acknowledgment or other promotional considerations connected to the project. Sponsorship arrangements may involve the dedication or exchange of goods, services, cash, or human resources by both parties toward the completion of the project which is usually managed by City staff. Sponsorship projects must be consistent with approved Departmental mandates and objectives.

Comment: The Molson Sponsorship offer would provide $630,000.00 cash to a City capital project, i.e., Woodbine Park, in return for recognition of Molson's by naming the facility the "Molson Stage" and for "preferred brewer" status for all events and occasions held at the venue where alcoholic beverages are being served - with the understanding that competitive brewers may in fact opt to sponsor events at the site that Molson would not be sponsoring. The sponsorship project, the Woodbine Park Bandshell, is part of an approved departmental Master Plan Concept for Woodbine Park.

(2) Sponsor Contribution:

The items, goods, services or resources an external organization is contributing to a City program, event or activity under a sponsorship arrangement or agreement.

Comment: The Molson Sponsorship Contribution is $630,000.00 cash upon completion of a sponsorship agreement with the City.

(3) Contribution Value:

The exact or estimated cash value of an individual sponsor's contribution to a City project. If not cash, the value should be estimated as a current market value, i.e., what the City would otherwise be willing to pay for the purchase of the item or service.

Comment: The contribution value of the Molson Sponsorship offer is exactly $630,000.00 due and payable upon the agreement of the City.

(4) Project:

An approved City program, event or activity for which external sponsorship is being sought.

Comment: The Woodbine Park bandshell is part of a departmentally approved Master Plan Concept for Woodbine Park for which City capital funds are not currently available and for which staff are seeking external sponsorship.

(5) Gift:

A contribution to the City for which there is no reciprocal benefit expected or required from the City.

This guideline does not apply to gifts which are unsolicited or, if solicited, are not linked with specific City program, event or activity. Even if no reciprocal benefit is requested, this guideline does apply to gifts which are solicited for a specific program, event or activity.

Comment: The Molson Sponsorship offer is not a gift as there is a reciprocal benefit required and expected from the City.

(D) General Principles:

There are eleven general principles set out in the interim guideline.

(1) The City of Toronto accepts the principle that, under the general conditions outlined in the guideline, external organizations may sponsor (through cash, products, services or other contributions) portions of, or entire, approved City programs, events or activities in return for forms of recognition or acknowledgement agreed upon with the City. Also, under the general conditions of this guideline, City staff may solicit such sponsorship of City projects by external organizations.

Comment: In this case, City staff solicited sponsorship proposals from both Molson and Labatt Breweries to achieve a bandshell at the new Woodbine Park without the requirement of additional capital funds.

(2) Sponsorship arrangements must be in accordance with City policies.

Comment: The Molson Sponsorship offer is in accordance with City policies, i.e., explicit City Council authorization is being sought as the financial arrangement exceeds $500,000.00. The project is part of the approved Master Plan concept developed by Parks and Recreation staff in consultation with the community. The project will be managed by Departmental staff.

(3) All sponsorship arrangements and agreements are subject to review and approval by the appropriate City authorities and must conform with the interim guideline.

Comment: All details respecting the Molson Sponsorship offer have been provided to and reviewed by appropriate City authorities. The offer does not conform to the interim guideline because the term extends past December 31, 1999.

(4) Details of sponsorship arrangements are negotiable and may vary from project to project. While public acknowledgement and publicity for the sponsor may be part of a sponsorship agreement, sponsor benefits are not limited to these opportunities. Within the general conditions of the guideline, a wide range of benefits for both parties in a sponsorship agreement may be negotiated.

Comment: Details of Molson's offer meet all criteria established by Parks and Recreation staff for this project. The benefits are limited to those described above in the Definition section.

(5) Sponsorship arrangements with the City of Toronto are governed by the following five key principles:

(i) concept approval for each sponsorship project by the appropriate level of authority prior to soliciting of sponsorship contributions;

Comment: The Woodbine Park bandshell was part of a departmentally approved Master Plan Concept dated April, 1998, prior to any sponsorship contributions being solicited.

(ii) open and competitive access, consistent with current policies, to sponsorship opportunities with the City; each department must ensure that appropriate access to sponsorship opportunities to all suitable and potentially interested external organizations is maintained; soliciting of sponsorship opportunities shall be done in accordance with City policies;

Comment: The Department provided equal access to both Molson and Labatt Breweries.

(iii) approval of actual sponsorship agreements and contracts by the appropriate City authorities;

Comment: Under the recommendations of the May 18, 1999 report, explicit Council authority is being sought for the terms and conditions of the actual sponsorship agreement and contract with Molson Breweries.

(iv) sharing of information between City departments regarding sponsorship, purchasing and advertising plans through the Interdepartmental Task Force. Departments are responsible for the maintenance of complete records of sponsorship transactions;

Comment: Information respecting this sponsorship opportunity was shared with Senior Management Committee and with the City Solicitor, the Director of Purchasing and Supply and Senior Management of the Parks and Recreation Division.

(v) a professional and co-ordinated approach to sponsorship arrangements.

Comment: General conformity with the interim sponsorship guidelines has been the Department's objective in order to ensure a professional and co-ordinated approach within the Corporation.

(6) Sponsorship arrangements must provide a means for the City to obtain resources which can be used to maintain, enhance, promote, or market a City program, event or activity, and should complement other City advertising, public relations and promotional activities.

Comment: The Molson Sponsorship offer provides the funding necessary to build the new bandshell.

(7) Programs, events or activities for which sponsorship is sought must be part of a department's approved service mandate or annual plan, or be mandated by Council, either through the budget process or by motion of Council. All costs to the City must be allocated to a program budget.

Comment: City Council authorization is being sought to accept the Molson Sponsorship offer and apply it to the construction of a bandshell for the new Woodbine Park.

(8) A sponsorship package or description that outlines the forms of sponsorship being sought and the benefits available to sponsors, should be presented to potential sponsors whenever possible. Staff from Purchasing and Materials Management Division may be consulted in the preparation of sponsorship packages.

Comment: This provision was complied with by Staff. A complete description of the sponsorship potential including detailed terms and conditions was provided to both Molson and Labatt Breweries, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1.

(9) The City must be sensitive to the appropriateness of certain sponsors for involvement in specific programs or events, and the potential impact on the City's image.

Comment: The appropriateness of brewery sponsorship of Parks and Recreation programs, i.e., the upgrading of children's playgrounds to incorporate new splash pads, was previously approved in this term of Council.

(10) The City will not provide income tax receipts for sponsorship contributions.

Comment: No income tax receipt is being requested by Molson Breweries.

(11) No official correspondence, Council materials and reports, or official media press releases shall carry commercial corporate recognition of any sort.

Comment: Molson Breweries is aware of this position and no commercial corporate recognition is being sought in their proposal apart from the naming of the bandshell as the "Molson Stage".

(E) Responsibilities:

The five provisions in this category are complied with by the Molson Sponsorship offer and, therefore, the details of the provisions are not set out.

(F) Approval and Sourcing Authorities:

The provisions respecting Single Sourcing and Delegation of Authority are being complied with by the procedure followed by Staff. Based on all available information, staff determined that the suitable and potentially interested external organizations for sponsorship of the Woodbine Park bandshell were Molson and Labatt Breweries.

(G) Agreements:

Staff will be working the City Solicitor in the development of suitable agreement, having regard for the provisions respecting the interim guideline.

Contact Name:

Ms. Susan Richardson, 392-1941.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (May 21, 1999) from Mr. Mike Rapino, Senior Vice President, Core Audience:

Core Audience is a leading concert promoter in Canada producing over 200 shows per year.

We understand that the City is considering a sponsorship agreement for the Bandshell in the East end of Toronto. We would be very interested in participating in a tendering process with respect to this Bandshell project.

We are excited to be involved given our investment in the Toronto entertainment industry.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (May 19, 1999) from A.F. LaSorda, Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer North America, Mosaic Group Inc.:

Mosaic Group Inc. is a sponsorship and event marketing company, based in Toronto, that represents dozens of Canada's largest corporations in sponsorship negotiations.

It has come to our attention that the City of Toronto is considering entering into a multi-year sponsorship deal for a bandshell/park in the City's east end. We understand that this is a significant departure for the City and an exciting opportunity to involve the private sector in maintaining municipal recreation services.

We support this kind of innovative partnership, but we are concerned that the proposals that you are considering have come about through limited private discussions, that no public tendering process has been followed and that our company has not had an opportunity to submit a proposal on behalf of our clients.

In the interest of increasing taxpayer value, enhancing the benefits for users and ensuring a fair and open process, I would ask that you and your Committee endorse a proper tendering process - one that we would be excited to participate in.

____________

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also had before it the following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(a) (May 27, 1999) from the City Clerk addressed to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(b) (May 13, 1999) from Mr. Dave Perkins, President, Ontario and Atlantic Region, Molson Breweries, Toronto, Ontario;

(c) (May 12, 1999) from Mr. James Villeneuve, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Labatt Breweries of Canada, Toronto, Ontario;

(d) (May 5, 1999) from Mr. Joe Halstead, Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism addressed to Mr. Dave Perkins, President, Ontario and Atlantic Region, Molson Breweries;

(e) (May 5, 1999) from Mr. Joe Halstead, Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism addressed to Mr. James Villeneuve, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Labatt Breweries of Canada;

(f) (April 30, 1999) from Mr. Joe Halstead, Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism addressed to Mr. Dave Perkins, President, Ontario and Atlantic Region, Molson Breweries;

(g) (June 17, 1999) from Mr. J. Bruce Elliot, President, Labatt Breweries Ontario, Toronto, Ontario; and

(h) (June 17, 1999) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto, enclosing three calendars of Special Events and a map of Woodbine Park.

_________

The following Members of Council appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto; and

- Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto.

The following persons also appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Davis, Urban Intelligence, representing Labatt Breweries Ontario, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Gordon Baker, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Fergie Devins, Director of Corporate Affairs, Molson's Breweries, Toronto, Ontario.

8

Appointments to the Jenner Jean-Marie

Community Centre Advisory Board

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the East York Community Council embodied in the following communication (May 28, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council on May 26 and 27, 1999, recommended that the following persons be appointed to the Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board:

(1) Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj;

(2) Mr. Gord Johnston; and

(3) Ms. Annie Yard.

The East York Community Council reports having extended its appreciation to the following persons for their past service on the Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board:

- Mrs. Lorna Krawchuk, former Member of Council, Borough of East York;

- Mr. Michael Malone;

- Miss Maxine Sequin;

- Mrs. Susan Di Pietro; and

- Mr. Robert Axford.

The East York Community Council also reports, for the information of the Economic Development and Parks Committee, having recommended to Council that Councillor Jane Pitfield be appointed to the Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board, to replace Mrs. Lorna Krawchuk, former Councillor of the Borough of East York, for a term ending on November 30, 2000.

Background:

The East York Community Council on May 26 and 27, 1999, had before it a communication (April 28, 1999) from Mr. Geoff Kettel and Ms. Hazel Thornton-Lazier, Co-chairs, Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board, recommending that the following persons be appointed as citizen representatives on the Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board:

(1) Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj;

(2) Mr. Gord Johnston; and

(3) Ms. Annie Yard.

Copies of the applications referred to in the foregoing communication have been forwarded to members of the East York Community Council under confidential cover and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

The East York Community Council also had before it a communication (May 7, 1999) from Mr. Kevin Chisholm, Facility Co-ordinator, Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre, forwarding further information with regard to the appointment of three new members to the Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board; and advising that the following citizen representatives have resigned from the Advisory Board:

(1) Mr. Michael Malone;

(2) Miss Maxine Sequin;

(3) Mrs. Susan Di Pietro; and

(4) Mr. Robert Axford.

--------

(Communication dated April 28, 1999, addressed to the

Administrator, East York Community Council, from Mr. Geoff Kettel,

Co-Chair, Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board and

Ms. Hazel Thornton-Lazier, Co-Chair, Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board)

The Jenner Jean-Marie Advisory Board, through its nomination committee, has received the names of three residents from the Thorncliffe Park area who have expressed an interest in sitting on the Board. These persons were obtained as a result of signage in the centre, advertising in the local school paper, and from our volunteer helpers at special events in the past year.

Please find attached the application form used in the former Borough of East York. I hope that the information attached is sufficient for the appointment on to our board.

Once approval has been given for these individuals to become official members for this board, they will be given the proper information as far as orientation to this board and a new list of full board members will be issued to the Community Council through the Clerk's department.

(A copy of the application form referred to in the foregoing communication is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

--------

(Communication dated May 7, 1999, addressed to the Administrator,

East York Community Council, from Mr. Kevin Chisholm, Facility

Co-ordinator, Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre)

Here is further information that you requested re the submission of three new members to the Jenner Jean-Marie Community Centre Advisory Board.

The following are members that have resigned from the above board in the last year and one half.

- Mrs. Lorna Krawchuk, former Councillor, Ward Four, Borough of East York;

- Mr. Michael Malone;

- Miss Maxine Sequin;

- Mrs. Susan DiPietro; and

- Mr. Robert Axford.

With the exception of Maxine Sequin, the other three members have given the Chairs a letter of resignation.

Lorna Krawchuk, due to her retirement from politics, did not wish to continue on the board.

The term of office was for one year but the present members have stayed on this committee pending the outcome of the decision of Toronto and Community Councils. A copy of the terms of reference is at the Clerk's Department should you want further information about this board.

I would be willing to provide any further information that you may need. Please contact me at the Centre.

9

Community Garden Action Plan

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Environmental Task Force contained in the following report (June 3, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Environmental Task Force at its meeting held on May 31, 1999, adopted the following recommendations:

(1) that the Community Garden Department Goals for 1999 and 2000, as described in the May 13, 1999 report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be endorsed, and that a copy of the report be forwarded to the Economic Development and Parks Committee and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment (TIE) Committee;

(2) that the Environmental Task Force incorporate the Community Garden Departmental Goals for 1999 and 2000, as described in the May 13, 1999 report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, into the Environmental Plan that is being prepared by the Environmental Task Force; and

(3) that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be advised of the above actions of the Environmental Task Force.

Background:

The Environmental Task Force had before it a report dated May 13, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism responding to a request from the Environmental Task Force that an action plan to increase the area of the City devoted to community gardening and the number of participants in community gardens, be developed.

The aforementioned report recommended that:

(a) future reports on community garden activities be presented to the Economic Development and Parks Committee, with copies directed to the Toronto Interdepartmental Environment Committee; and

(b) community garden sites be identified in each Ward in consultation with local Ward Councillors.

(Report dated May 13, 1999 addressed to the Environmental Task Force

from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism,

headed "Community Garden Action Plan")

Purpose:

To identify a Community Garden Action Plan in response to a request to the January 28, 1999 Environmental Task Force recommendation that "the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism prepare an action plan to increase the area of the City devoted to community gardening and the number of participants in community gardens be developed."

Financial Implications:

The costs to create additional community gardens will be garnered through partnership arrangements and in-kind services.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) future reports on community garden activities be presented to the Economic Development Committee, with copies directed to the Toronto Interdepartmental Environment Committee; and

(2) community garden sites be identified in each Ward in consultation with local Ward Councillors.

Background/Discussion:

Definition of Community Gardens:

Gardening is the second most popular form of leisure activity in Canada, attracting 72 percent of Canadian adults according to Go for Green: The Active Living and Environment Program. Public lands and public parklands provide opportunities for creating and demonstrating the benefits of gardening and for encouraging individuals to be part of a community that shares the efforts and benefits of gardening. Community gardens are safe, beautiful outdoor spaces on public or private lands, where neighbours meet to grow and care for vegetables, flowers and native species, and where the gardeners take initiative and responsibility for organizing, maintaining and managing the garden area.

The Parks and Recreation Division and Community Gardens:

The Parks and Recreation Division endeavours to provide opportunities, on lands under the Division's jurisdiction, for community gardeners and community groups to establish and maintain community gardens. Staff from the Division work with organized community groups to start food, flower and/or native species gardens that beautify or enhance public lands, and which engage sustained community involvement by youth, families, seniors, intergenerational, ethnic and multicultural groups. Parks and Recreation administers over twenty-five hundred plots in allotment and neighbourhood gardens across the City. The Division encourages new and established community gardens to partner with community organizations and other levels of government to create additional opportunities, e.g., youth employment, volunteer activity, restoration of natural areas and community development.

Benefits of Community Gardens:

Community gardens have many benefits to neighbourhoods and to the city as a whole as they:

(a) provide opportunities for information sharing on gardening, composting, recycling, healthy living activities, community recreation, heritage, environmental and cultural issues;

(b) encourage communities to care for and improve public lands;

(c) promote community organization, leadership and development;

(d) build community spirit and civic pride;

(e) promote health and well being;

(f) provide intergenerational recreational opportunities;

(h) improve neighbourhood safety;

(i) increase local food self-reliance;

(j) provide families with low-cost nutritious vegetables; and

(k) demonstrate ecological principles and natural processes.

Departmental Goals 1999 and 2000:

(1) To map out existing community gardens and assess the need for additional community gardening opportunities in 1999. To support the start-up of new community gardens in Toronto in each year based on the results of the needs assessment.

(2) To establish one community garden in each ward by the end of the year 2001.

(3) To share expertise relevant to creating and sustaining community gardens.

(4) To assist community gardeners in sustaining community gardens through a resource tool kit and train-the-trainer approach.

Community Gardens - Opportunities in 1999 and Beyond:

There are numerous opportunities on the horizon for the City as it solidifies its involvement in community gardens. These opportunities include:

(i) participating in the Community Garden Network;

(ii) participating in public and private partnerships (e.g., Public Health, Works & Emergency Services, local sponsors);

(iii) synchronizing volunteer interest with community garden and stewardship projects;

(iv) programming (children's, youth, inter-generational, multi-cultural, horticulture, native species, etc.); and

(v) making significant contributions to the broader community garden, urban agriculture and community greening movements.

The proposed Action Plan builds on the eighty-eight established community gardens, twenty-five hundred City-administered plots and estimated six thousand community gardeners in Toronto. City-wide, twenty neighbourhood and thirteen allotment gardens are located in parks, fifteen on public housing lands, forty on Community Health Centres, faith groups, cooperative housing and hospital properties. Additionally, there are dozens of community restoration projects and approximately three hundred school projects.

Drawing on the technical, horticultural, planning and programming expertise of knowledgeable and dedicated staff in the Parks and Recreation Division and other City Departments, and City Councillors, the City can support community gardening in its movement towards being an increasingly mainstream activity. Parks and Recreation Division currently works with numerous partners to support community gardens, community greening projects and community groups. Partners include FoodShare, Evergreen, African Food Basket, the Toronto District School Board, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, City Councillors and City Departments (Works and Emergency Services, Community and Neighbourhood Services, Urban Planning and Development Services) and others.

Conclusions:

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism should increase the area devoted to community gardens and increase the number of community gardeners, because community gardening relates to the Department's basic greening and environmental mandate and allocation of resources. The identification of community garden sites in each Ward be done in consultation with local Ward Councillors. The approach outlined in this report provides for an incremental increase in the numbers of community gardens and community gardeners as suggested by the Environmental Task Force and keeping in mind competing resources.

In accordance with the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department primary reporting mandate, reports on community gardening will be presented to the Economic Development and Parks Committee. The Department is pleased to provide updates to other committees and groups with interests in community planting and environmental matters.

Contact Names:

Ms. Jane Hayes, Parks and Recreation Division, 392-1560;

Mr. Solomon Boye, 392-1560.

10

Millennium Publications

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Millennium Task Force embodied in the following report (June 3, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Millennium Task Force on June 2, 1999, recommended to the Economic Development and Parks Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report (May 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, wherein it is recommended that:

(1) the Millennium retail publications endorsed by the City receive a letter of support incorporating the Millennium logo in the letterhead which could appear within the body of the publication; and

(2) the endorsement of Millennium retail publications would not extend to the use of the Millennium logo on the cover or outside packaging, excepting publications:

(i) recommended to receive a Millennium Grant; and

(ii) developed or initiated by City departments, agencies, boards or commissions.

The Millennium Task Force reports, for the information of the Economic Development and Parks Committee, and Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to provide Task Force Members with a draft copy of all publications requesting endorsement of same and that such endorsements must have the signature of the Mayor and the Chairman of the Millennium Task Force.

Background:

The Millennium Task Force had before it a report (May 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, requesting the Millennium Task Force to review and approve the recommendations for dealing with endorsement requests related to millennium retail publications received by the City of Toronto.

(Report dated May 26, 1999, addressed to the

Millennium Task Force from the Commissioner of

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)

Purpose:

To request that the Millennium Task Force review and approve the following recommendations for dealing with endorsement requests related to millennium retail publications received by the City of Toronto.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Millennium retail publications endorsed by the City receive a letter of support incorporating the Millennium logo in the letterhead which could appear within the body of the publication; and

(2) the endorsement of Millennium retail publications would not extend to the use of the Millennium logo on the cover or outside packaging, excepting publications:

(i) recommended to receive a Millennium Grant;

(ii) developed or initiated by City departments, agencies, boards or commissions.

Discussion:

The Millennium Task Force received presentations regarding three Millennium retail publication projects at the April meeting. A request was made for staff to report back on a recommended plan of action for endorsing retail publications. Issues discussed included:

Developing the Selection Criteria or Guidelines for Endorsement:

Staff generally agreed that it would be difficult to develop a clear set of guidelines to endorse or select a quality Millennium retail publication that reflected the City's values.

Possible Conflict with the Millennium Souvenir Licensing Program Request for Proposal:

A Request for Proposal has been issued for a Millennium Souvenir Licensing program that requires the successful proponent to submit a licensing fee for sole use of the Millennium logo on souvenir products. This fee should apply to the licensing of the logo on any commercial item to be fair and consistent. A retail publication would fall into this category.

Initiating a City Millennium Publication Given the Resource and Time Constraints:

Although there is interest from the City Archivist and other staff to develop a Toronto Millennium publication, there are no resources available at this time. In addition, staff resources are very limited with respect to providing extensive support for the publication and marketing of external projects.

Conclusion:

The above recommendations will ensure an approach for City endorsement that is consistent with the Millennium Souvenir Licensing program while providing the City with the discretion to encourage and support exceptional Millennium publication projects.

Contact Name:

Ms. Halina Cieszynska, Project Manager, 397-9998.

11

Funding for Sir Adam Beck Multi-Use Facility

(Alderwood Pool) Roof (Ward 2 - Lakeshore Queensway)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

The Economic Development and Park Committee reports, for the information of Council, having directed that a copy of the joint report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee for information.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following joint report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report requests funding to replace the existing roof at Alderwood Pool which is a component of the Sir Adam Beck Multi-Use Facility.

Source of Funds:

Funding in the amount of $150,000.00 is required for the roof replacement. The work for the pool roof replacement can be funded from a number of available funding balances.

Order #60033 West Mall Rink Renovation $15,000.00 (+ funding balance)

Order #60035 Olympium Water Treatment System 29,000.00 (+ funding balance)

Order #60011 West Humber Pathway Connections 6,000.00 (+ funding balance)

Order #60005 Asphalt Rehabilitation 100,000.00 (defer to future years)

Total to be transferred $150,000.00 (pending parking lot study)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Economic Development and Parks Committee approve the reallocation of $150,000.00 capital funding to cover the replacement cost of the existing pool roof; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Budget Committee at its meeting on June 1, 1999, had before it communication from Councillor Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway, regarding the need for emergency roof replacement of the Alderwood Pool roof which is a component building of the Sir Adam Back multi-use facility. The Budget Committee referred the communication to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for a report.

Sir Adam Beck Multi-Purpose Facility (Horner and Browns Line) is a four party project with the City of Toronto, the Toronto District School Board, the Toronto Public Library and the Alderwood Action Daycare.

The project consists of a partial renovation of Alderwood Pool which will be connected to a new building consisting of a community room, library, daycare and public school.

The original Scope of Work for the City's component includes a new community room, the interior renovation of the existing pool change rooms, lobby, offices, and support spaces in addition to the replacement of the pool filter system. At the time of preparing the program/budget for the City's share of the project, it was not apparent that the existing pool roof required replacement. Accordingly, no funds were allocated to such work.

Comments:

In December 1998, a substantial roof leak occurred at Alderwood Pool. An investigation was undertaken, including a visual inspection, and a thermographic scan. In short, the investigation indicated that the roof system is heavily deteriorated and is in need of replacement.

Conclusions:

The roof, which is thirty years old, is well beyond it serviceable life and needs replacement in order to avoid further deterioration, costly emergency repairs and the potential of facility shutdown and lost revenue. The interior renovation of the pool building is now in progress. It is recommended that funding for the roof be approved as soon as possible in order to maximize the benefits of coordinating this work with the current facility shutdown, and to obtain the necessary contractor warranties for roof work.

Contact Names:

Mr. Frank Kershaw, 392-8199; Mr. Neil Zaph, 395-6065; Ms. Susan Korrick, 394-8515.

12

Woodbine Park School Site - Toronto District School Board

Option Agreement (Ward 26 - East Toronto)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To amend the existing Option Agreement dated June 6, 1996, between the City and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) to allow the TDSB's option to purchase the City-owned school site at Woodbine Park for the purpose of building a school and the City's option to improve these lands as a public park in the interim, to remain open indefinitely.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an amending agreement to the Option Agreement dated June 6, 1996, between the City and the Toronto District School Board, to remove the time restriction with respect to the TDSB's right to exercise the option to purchase the Woodbine Park school site from the City.

Background:

In May of 1996, the TDSB waived its normal requirement for an education levy, in conjunction with the proposed Woodbine Park residential development, in return for a 4.3 acre parcel of land to build a school. Section 5.7 of the Section 37 agreement between the City and the owner of the lands, EMM Financial Corp., acknowledges that the school site is being conveyed to the City and the City is granting the TDSB an option to purchase the site for a nominal amount, for up to five years after the City has delivered notice of acquisition. The Section 37 agreement allows the City to hold the land and improve it for park use until such time as the TDSB has obtained a building permit for construction of a school. If the TDSB chooses not to build on the land, it will continue to be owned by the City and used as a park.

The Option Agreement between the City and the TDSB sets out the TDSB's option to purchase the school site provided the TDSB delivers notice of the exercise of the option to the City within five years of having been notified by the City that the site has been acquired. The City Solicitor has advised that notice of the acquisition has been sent to the TDSB through its solicitor.

Comments:

The Ward Councillors have suggested that there be no time restriction on the TDSB's option to purchase the school site from the City. The TDSB staff has advised that they are in agreement that there be no time restriction on the TDSB to obtain the site and they are prepared to have the Option Agreement amended accordingly.

Staff supports the proposal put forward by the Ward Councillors and the TDSB that the TDSB's option to build a school on the lands in the future, and the City's option to improve these lands as public park in the interim have an indefinite time frame.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the existing option agreement between the City and the TDSB be amended to remove any time restriction on the TDSB's option to purchase the City-owned school site at Woodbine Park.

Contact Name:

Ms. Susan Richardson, Parks and Recreation Division, 392-1941.

13

Heritage Toronto Agreement with Cottage Creek

re: Annual Events at Fort York (Ward 20 - Trinity Niagara)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To give consideration to a proposal that Heritage Toronto be authorized to enter into multi-year contracts with Cottage Creek for the production of events at Fort York.

Source of Funds:

There are no costs associated with this report. Funds will be revenues to the site from production of the event.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Heritage Toronto be authorized to enter into a two-year agreement with Cottage Creek to allow the holding of the following events:

(i) Children's Festival, a one-day event to be held annually in June; and

(ii) Toronto's Annual Festival of Beer, a three-day event to be held annually in August;

(2) Council refer consideration of a contract for a third event with Cottage Creek to the new management board for Fort York, once it is established; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In April 1999, Council adopted Recommendation No. (1) of Clause No. 14 of Report No. 6 of The Economic Development Committee, entitled "Fort York Annual Events", from the Managing Director of Heritage Toronto, providing Heritage Toronto with standing authority to enter into agreements with event holders in order to enhance the public profile and revenue base for Fort York within terms and conditions outlined in the report.

Recommendation No. (2) of the same report was referred to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for consideration and report back to the Committee. Recommendation No. (2) read as follows:

"(2) That City Council authorize Heritage Toronto to enter into a three-year agreement with Cottage Creek to allow the holding of the following events:

(i) Children's Festival, a one-day event to be held each June;

(ii) Toronto's Annual Festival of Beer, a three-day event to be held each August; and

(iii) Chili tasting Festival (or similar event), dates to be decided."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The request from Heritage Toronto was meant to allow Cottage Creek to have the assurance of reserved dates for these large annual events, which require long lead time and heavy investment in the event development and marketing stages. In spite of the pending change in structure, which will introduce a separate management board for Fort York, Heritage Toronto is concerned that the stream of revenues coming into Fort York continue.

Since the April meeting of Council, Heritage Toronto has undertaken work on contracts for the Beer Festival and the Children's Festival for August 1999. They have, therefore, requested a two-year contract for the three events.

Upon signing the contract, in order to reserve the dates for the years 2000 and 2001, Cottage Creek would pay a non-refundable 10 percent deposit based on the base rental rate for the Fort, which is $3,860.00 per day (services and staffing are extra). The contract would allow Cottage Creek to produce a third event, the nature of which would be subject to the governing board's approval.

Cottage Creek has proven to be a responsible event producer, has abided by the guidelines set out by Heritage Toronto, and has shown respect and sensitivity to the heritage character and fabric of the site. The company has worked successfully with Heritage Toronto over the past three years to develop, promote and stage Toronto's Annual Festival of Beer, an event which attracts over 5,000 people. Cottage Creek has met its financial obligations and has produced events which are complimentary to the Fort, resulting in increased profile and attendance for the site.

The Friends of Fort York is a group of citizen volunteers whose primary interest is the operation and development of the Fort. The Friends, in a letter to George Waters, Managing Director of Heritage Toronto, dated May 7, 1999, indicate that they support the contracts for the Toronto Annual Beer Festival and the Children's Festival. The Friends have recommended, however, that the Fort York Management Board, which will be appointed later this year, negotiate any rental for the third event once a format has been conceived and developed.

The food service contract which was approved for the Fort in November 1998, provides exclusive catering rights to the food services supplier, with a specific number of exemptions which are set out in the contract. This third event proposed by Cottage Creek would take the last available exemption. Given that a clear proposal has not yet been submitted, approval at this time would limit the options of the management board in the use of that exemption.

Conclusions:

The Annual Festival of Beer and the Children's Festival are well defined events, the former with a proven track record. The 1999 events are well along in their planning. Heritage Toronto, The Friends of Fort York and the Department all agree that these events will enhance the public profile and revenue base for the Fort and support an agreement with Cottage Creek to produce these events in 2000 and 2001. It is recommended that Council authorize Heritage Toronto to enter into such an agreement, within the terms and conditions approved by Council for agreements with event holders.

The third event has been described as "a Chili Tasting Festival or similar event". No clear proposal has been submitted to date. It is recommended that no contract for this event be entered into at this time, but that the proposal for this event be referred to the new management board for Fort York, once it is established.

Contact Name:

Ms. Beth Hanna, Culture Division, 392-5225.

14

1999 Business Improvement Area Budgets - Supplementary Report

No. 3 - Upper Village (Toronto) Business Improvement Area

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 8, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report brings forward the proposed 1999 operating budget for the Upper Village (Toronto) Business Improvement Area (BIA) for Council's approval. Council approval of this budget is required by the Municipal Act to permit the City to collect funds on behalf of the BIA through a special tax levy.

Source of Funds:

No City funding is required since Business Improvement Area budgets are raised by a special levy on their members.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Economic Development Committee adopt and certify to City Council the 1999 expenditures of the Upper Village (Toronto) Business Improvement Area of $152,000.00;

(2) a copy of this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information; and,

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

Upper Village (Toronto) BIA Budget:

The Upper Village (Toronto) BIA's draft 1999 budget proposes a 19 percent ($24,100.00) increase in expenditures and the required tax levy. This budget was approved by the BIA's Board of Management on December 16, 1998, and by the BIA's membership at a general meeting held on May 12, 1999. The Upper Village (Toronto) BIA's proposed 1999 budget, including the net 1999 levy requirement, is set out below; Appendix "A" sets out the status of BIA budget submissions.

Upper Village (Toronto) BIA Budget Summary 1998

Approved

Budget

$

1998

Projected

Actual

$

1999

Budget

Request

$

Revenue:

- Prior Years' Surplus

- Net Levy Requirement

- Other Revenue

Total:

0

127,900.00

0.00

127,900.00

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

152,000.00

0

152,000.00

Expenditures:

- Administration

- Capital

- Maintenance

- Promotion & Advertising

- Contingency

Total:

20,100.00

53,000.00

19,800.00

35,000.00

0

127,900.00

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

20,100.00

44,000.00

22,800.00

65,100.00

0

152,000.00

(Surplus)/Deficit

0

NA

0 Contact Name:

Mr. Joe Borowiec, Budget Services Division, Finance Department, 397-4298.

APPENDIX "A"

A - Reported Previously

B - Included in this Report

NA - Not Submitted

15

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Proposed Governance Structure for Advanced Environmental Decision Making.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having:

(1) endorsed the recommendations embodied in the draft memorandum (June 1, 1999) from the Environmental Task Force, entitled "Process for Adoption a new Governance Structure for Advanced Environmental Decision Making", wherein it is recommended that:

"(1) City Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Environmental Task Force, to report back in October 1999 to the Policy and Finance Committee on:

(a) the future of the Environmental advisory groups, ensuring the adherence to the principles outlined in Section IX of the Environmental Task Force's Governance Report, as part of the forthcoming report on 'Existing Environmental Committees and the Environmental Task Force'; and

(b) the resource reallocation, staff reassignment and any additional resource implications of the political and administrative governance model below;

and that the Policy and Finance Committee consider the report but defer a decision until the November 1999 meeting;

(2) any additional comments made by Standing Committees, Community Councils, staff and the communication on the proposed model be submitted to the Environmental Task Force for information by October 1, 1999;

(3) the Environmental Task Force consider the Chief Administrative Officer's report on Recommendation No. (1) and the comments that may arise from Recommendation No. (2) and submit a final report on the administrative and governance model to the Policy and Finance Committee meeting in November 1999; and

(4) the Policy and Finance Committee and City Council in November 1999, consider and approve, with such amendments as Council considers appropriate, the reports requested in Recommendations Nos. (1) and (3) and target the implementation of the new governance structure by June 2000"; and

(2) requested the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to review the proposed governance structure and report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee at its meeting of July 12, 1999, in that regard, the said report to advise as to whether economic issues are being addressed and the impact of such structure on the City:

(i) (May 21, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Environmental Task Force, requesting to make a presentation on draft recommendations outlining how the City can become a world leader in dealing with environmental issue; and

(ii) (June 1, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Environmental Task Force, Proposing a governance structure, that the Task Force believes best ensures advanced environmental decision making in the City of Toronto; and recommending that:

(1) the recommendations from the Environmental Task Force to the July meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee be endorsed;

(2) the report, entitled "The Proposed Governance Model for Advanced Environmental Decision Making for the City of Toronto", from the Environmental Task Force be received for information and comment; and

(3) any comments on the proposed governance structure, as outlined in the report, be forwarded to the Environmental Task Force before June 28, 1999, for consideration in the report and recommendations going to the Policy and Finance Committee in July, 1999.

___________

The following persons appeared before the Economic Development and Park Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Environmental Task Force; and

- Ms. Louis Corbett, Environmental Task Force.

(b) High Five Program - Quality Assurance in Children's Recreation and Sport Programs - All Wards.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report to the next meeting to be held on July 12, 1999:

(June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, advising that the Parks and Recreation Ontario (PRO) High Five Quality Assurance Program is a complete package designed to train part-time recreation staff in healthy child development as a basis for recreation programming for children 6 to 12 years of age and to provide full-time recreation staff with a reliable and valid recreation program assessment tool (QUEST Tool) that will eventually measure the quality of Toronto's children's recreation programs against provincial norms; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(c) Expansion of Victoria Village - Agreement with the Canadian Macedonian Federation (Ward 11 - Don Parkway).

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report to the next meeting to be held on July 12, 1999 to allow deputants to appear before the Committee with regard to this matter, and directed that Members of Council be requested to provide the City Clerk with a list of persons or groups interested in making deputations; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to provide a background history on the subject matter to the Economic Development and Parks Committee:

(i) (June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, recommending that:

(1) the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into negotiations with the Canadian Macedonian Federation for an agreement based on the key points of the letter of intent referred to in this report; and

(2) upon successful completion of the negotiations, such agreement be brought forward to the Economic Development Committee and City Council for review and consideration, and not be executed until approval has been obtained.

(ii) (June 21, 1999) from Mr. James G. Karas, President, Pan-Macedonian Association of Ontario Inc., requesting that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee so that at such time he may appear before the Committee; and

(iii) (Undated) from Mr. Michael Papadouris, representing AHEPA, Toronto, Ontario, requesting that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee so that at such time he may appear before the Committee.

__________

Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway, appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d) "Krinos Foods Taste of the Danforth" Festival.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having referred the following report to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with Economic Development staff, to review these types of projects in the context of the City's support for major festivals, and report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in that regard:

(June 3, 1999) from A.J. Chocorlan, Interim General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that at its meeting on Tuesday, June 1, 1999, the Commission received deputations from Mr. Andonis Artemakis, Chair, Greektown on Danforth Business Improvement Association, and Ms. Sue Graham-Nutter, Affinity Marketing Concepts, requesting free advertising space at TTC subway stations to promote the "Krinos Foods Taste of the Danforth" Festival; and recommended the following:

(1) that staff assist in the promotion of the "Krinos Foods Taste of the Danforth" Event through the use of electronic messaging;

(2) that staff report on developing a policy which would deal with the provision of advertising space for Signature Tourist Events, smaller Business Improvement Association festivals and social objectives; and

(3) that staff undertake an analysis to determine the revenue impact of the "Krinos Foods Taste of the Danforth" event using the week prior to the Caribana Festival weekend as the basis for the comparison.

(e) Toronto Technology Centre - Ward 8 - North York Spadina.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having referred the following report to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for report back to the next meeting to be held on July 12, 1999:

(June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism recommending that:

(1) the City of Toronto endorse the Research Technology Park on the Downsview Lands and support Euromart's proposal for the Toronto Technology Centre as a strategic location for companies operating in the information technology and telecommunications sector;

(2) as a result of both local and national economic benefits, the City request support from the Provincial and Federal levels of government for the Toronto Technology Centre initiative;

(3) Economic Development staff work towards achieving Council's policies for these lands (Downsview Secondary Plan) to assist the developer, Euromart, in preparing a marketing strategy and to identify and attract suitable companies to locate at the Toronto Technology Centre; and

(4) the Assessment and Policy Task Force be requested to investigate the implementation and impact of a city-wide preferential R&D tax classification.

(f) 1999 First Quarter Business Development and Retention Client Activity - All Wards.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having received the following report for information:

(June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing a summary of the Business Development and Retention Section's first quarter completed investment projects and related business activities; and recommending that the

report be received for information.

(g) Etobicoke Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Path - Waterfront to Eglinton Avenue - (Ward 3 - Lakeshore - Queensway and Ward 4 - Markland - Centennial).

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having received the following report for information:

(June 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism,

providing information on planning for proposed trail extensions in the Etobicoke Creek between the Waterfront and Eglinton Avenue West; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(h) Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team (Tie) Pesticides Sub-Committee Status Report - All Wards.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having received the following report for information:

(June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing a progress report setting out the status of the work of the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environmental Team (TIE) Pesticides Sub-Committee (Appendix "A") in assisting the Corporation of the City of Toronto to phase out its use of pesticides on public green spaces in 1999; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(i) Community Safety Project - Maurice Cody Public School/Maurice Cody Community Centre.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for report thereon to Toronto Community Council for its meeting of July 15, 1999 and subsequently to City Council on July 27, 1999:

(June 4, 1999) from Councillor Michael Walker, requesting the Economic Development Committee to request the appropriate staff to report directly to the next Toronto Council meeting on July 6 and 7, 1999, on providing a one time grant of $11,300.00 to the Maurice Cody Public School matching the contribution of the Toronto District School Board for the purpose of improving personal safety in the school parking lot by purchasing and installing two light standards and providing an additional pedestrian exit onto Cheston Road.

(j) Implementation of Boat Launch Fees - Bluffers Park and Humber Bay Park, Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs and Ward 2 - Lakeshore-Queensway.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having received the following report and communications for information:

(i) (June 14, 1999) from Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing an overview of the implementation of Boat Launch Fees at two City-owned facilities; and recommending that this report be received for information;

(ii) (June 18, 1999) from Mr. Garnet Thompson, resident, regarding the implementation of Boat Launch Fees at Bluffers Park and Humber Bay Park;

(iii) (June 20, 1999) from Ms. Darren McKeegan, resident, regarding the implementation of Boat Launch Fees at Bluffers Park and Humber Bay Park; and

(iv) (June 16, 1999) from Councillor Brian Ashton, Chair, Economic Development and Parks Committee, addressed to Mr. Jim Pantlin, resident, regarding the implementation of Boat Launch Fees at Bluffers Park and Humber Bay Park.

--------

Mr. Roy Sonier, resident, appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(k) Festivity Regarding the International Year of the Older Person.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for report on how the City can support these types of activities:

(June 7, 1999) from Ms. Lisa Tobio, Executive Director, York-Fairbank Centre for Seniors, advising of a City-wide festivity regarding the International Year of the Older Person; and requesting a permit for the use of Parks facilities and equipment as well as the provision of staff to assist with the event free of charge.

(l) Bocce Facility at the York-Fairbank Centre for Seniors in the City of York.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee with the direction that he consult with the Bocce Sub-Committee in that regard prior to reporting back to the Economic Development and Parks Committee during its meeting of July 12, 1999:

(June 7, 1999) from Ms. Lisa Tobio, Executive Director, York-Fairbank Centre for Seniors, advising that the Bocce facility at the York-Fairbank Centre for Seniors will be ready for use by the middle of July; requesting that a Program Co-ordinator be assigned to co-ordinate the new Bocce courts; and forwarding a proposal, similar to the Snow Link Program partnership that the City of Toronto and York-Fairbank Centre for Seniors presently have, in which program services are provided through the Centre and billed to the City of Toronto.

--------

The following Members of Council appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Joe Mihevc, York Eglinton; and

- Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton.

(m) Presentation to Members of the Economic Development Committee.

Councillor Brian Ashton, Chair, on behalf of the Economic Development Committee presented Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland Centennial, and Councillor Rob Davis, York Eglinton, with a plaque and thanked them for their contribution to the Committee in its first term.

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN ASHTON

Chair

Toronto, June 21, 1999

(Report No. 1 of The Economic Development and Parks Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999.)