CITY CLERK

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 2

For Consideration by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

1 Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on June 14, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Joanne Flint, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated

from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1) to provide that Community Councils have the option of recommending to City Council, through the appropriate Standing Committees, if necessary, expenditures of up to 100 percent of their portion of the cash-in-lieu funds to acquire parkland, if they deem it necessary; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the report requested of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, regarding the adjustment to the policy to build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City, be submitted no later than the October 1999 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee; and

(b) Members of Council who have concerns regarding this matter be requested to forward such concerns to the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, for report thereon, following completion of the cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication policy.")

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 27, 1999.)

--------

(Clause No. 2 of Report No. 1 of The Planning and Transportation Committee)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, contained in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, appended to the communication (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, be adopted as an interim policy pending the adoption of a further report from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1) referred the reports from the Community Councils which were before the Planning and Transportation Committee to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with a request that they report jointly to Council for its meeting on July 6, 1999 on the comments and recommendations made therein and to also address the comments raised by the Committee on this matter; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the feasibility of developing a plan for each district and/or neighbourhood to rectify park deficiencies by creating additional parkland.

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication".

Council directed that this Clause be struck out and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

Council also directed that:

(1) a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they submit their comments thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting on June 14, 1999;

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to the Planning and Transportation on a policy and mechanism, in the context of planning applications, of identifying parks deficiencies and allocating funding therefor through the budget process;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on all concerns expressed by Members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district and community; and

(4) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient.

(Clause No. 5 embodied in Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, titled "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication" which Council, at its meeting on May 11 and 12, 1999, struck out and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Planning and transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

Council also directed that:

(4) Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted as an interim policy pending the adoption of a further report from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to City Council's November 12, 1998 request for a joint report from the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, and Impact Statement:

Financial Implications relate to the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication in conjunction with development applications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to establish a city-wide reserve fund for cash-in-lieu of parkland collected by the City;

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50 percent for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes:

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25 percent of the total) to be retained to acquire land for park or open space purposes in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 percent of the total) to be allocated on a city-wide basis to purchase land for park or open space purposes in other areas of the City where deficiencies have been identified; and

(b) 50 percent for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities:

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25 percent of the total) to be retained for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 percent of the total) to be allocated for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities on a city-wide basis, in areas where deficiencies have been identified;

(3) the Budget Committee be advised with respect to Council's action resulting from this report;

(4) this report be forwarded to each Community Council as a communication item; and

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

Council Reference:

At its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, City Council struck out Clause No. 4 in Report No. 3 of The Economic Development Committee and referred this Clause to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that they submit a joint report thereon to Council, through the appropriate Committees.

Comments:

Both the September 8, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and an earlier report (March 30,1998), to the Budget Committee, entitled, "Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Funds" recommended criteria for allocating revenues obtained from cash payments in-lieu of parkland conveyances for approval of development applications. These criteria were as follows:

(1) that any outstanding cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments relating to developments which had obtained planning approval but had not yet received building permits, be allocated for local expenditures, provided the payments were received by December 31, 1998; and

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication be allocated through the budget process and restricted as follows:

(i) 50 percent for the purpose of acquisition of lands for park purposes, on a city-wide basis, having regard to both local and city-wide priorities; and

(ii) 50 percent for the development and upgrading of parkland and parks and recreation facilities on a city-wide basis, having regard to both local and city-wide priorities.

At its November 12, 1998 meeting, Council did not adopt this recommendation, but referred this matter to both the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services for a joint report.

Difficulties with Current Allocation of Cash-in-lieu Funds:

The criteria for the use of cash-in-lieu revenues obtained in 1998 was largely based on the historic allocation of these funds by the six former municipalities that comprise the City of Toronto. Accordingly, the 1999 Capital Works Program included projects in the former municipalities that were offset by cash-in-lieu funds generated in those municipalities.

This system was manageable for the 1999 Capital Budget due to the availability of cash-in-lieu reserve monies in some of the former municipalities to fund earlier identified projects, as well as, fund new projects. However, this system is unworkable over the longer term, particularly for the implementation of large scale projects that have a city-wide draw, such as city -wide parks. It will also hamper our ability to achieve the goal of service harmonization in stable areas that are identified as being deficient in park and recreational infrastructure but which cannot generate sufficient revenues from development projects.

There are differing views on how these funds could be allocated. Some Councillors, who are experiencing growth in their Wards, would like to retain some or all of this money in their Wards to finance park land acquisition and/or recreational facility development to meet the needs of their existing and future residents. Others, particularly those in relatively stable areas that are deficient of park land or recreational facilities, would like to achieve service harmonization through some redistribution of these funds to areas that have historically been under serviced.

There are several inherent problems with allocating all of these revenues within the Wards in which they are generated. Some slower growing Wards may never be able to generate enough funds from development or redevelopment to buy parkland or provide recreational amenities to meet the needs of their communities. Any projects in these areas would have to compete for other Capital Budget funds. Others may be able to generate enough funds to provide small park and facility improvements, such as new playground equipment or water spray pads, but not enough to fund larger projects, such as district parks, community centres or indoor pools, which may be deemed as high priority needs for the area.

Additionally, many of these larger projects serve communities outside the Wards in which they are located, so more pooling of these resources is needed to ensure better access and use of these facilities, in order to achieve the City's goal of service harmonization for all of its residents. A primary goal of amalgamation is to share resources and avoid duplication of services. This goal can only be achieved through some pooling of these monies both at the local and city-wide level.

It is recognized that areas that are experiencing rapid growth through intensification or green field development will require retention of some of these cash-in-lieu funds in order to provide adequate services to meet the needs of existing and future populations. Rather than retaining a portion of these funds in the Ward in which they are generated, which in many instances, would restrict their use to smaller scale projects or create duplication, it would be much more cost effective and beneficial to retain a portion of these funds for pooling within the district ( East, West, North, and South ) in which they are generated, for either the acquisition of new parkland (if it is determined that there is insufficient parkland in that district) or the development of park and recreational facilities that have been identified as priority items in the Capital Budget.

The East District would include all of the Wards within the Scarborough and East York Community Council jurisdictions. The West District would include all of the Wards within the boundaries of the Etobicoke and York Community Councils, while the North District would include all of the Wards within the North York Community Council jurisdiction and the South District would encompass all of the Wards within the Toronto Community Council boundaries.

This money could be spent annually or left to accumulate for future land acquisition, park upgrading or recreational facility projects, as determined by the needs of the district - East, West, North and South - which would be identified by both staff and the local Community Councils. For example, in the East District, both staff and the Scarborough and East York Community Councils would determine the local priority projects in that district, based on needs assessment studies. These projects would be identified and prioritized in the Capital Budget process.

We are recommending that the remainder of these funds be allocated on a city-wide basis in order to facilitate larger scale projects, which may be of city-wide significance, such as a waterfront park system or which may serve several communities and possibly more than one district, e.g. a large community centre. The city-wide pool of funds could also be used to achieve service equalization opportunities, such as, the acquisition of new park land or the development of recreation facilities in relatively stable areas where the needs are greatest.

In some cases, projects could receive funding allocations both from district and city-wide sources, if they have city-wide significance, serve more than one district or provide services in a high priority area that has been identified as under serviced. (City-wide projects would be identified by studies and would be reviewed through the Capital Budget process).

Some pooling of funds would be beneficial to all as opportunities and efficiencies may be maximized both at the local (district-wide) level and at the city-wide level. Community Councils in each district would also have a greater role in determining how these monies are spent locally.

Policy Framework

A brief overview of the parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu mechanisms available to the City are presented below, along with an update on the development of a new city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law . The policy context upon which longer term criteria will be developed for determining how cash-in-lieu of parkland revenues will be allocated is also outlined.

Parkland Dedication By-law:

Section 42 of the "Planning Act" gives the City the authority to require either a parkland dedication or a cash-in-lieu payment for the subdivision, severance, development or redevelopment of land. Implementation of Council's policy regarding parkland dedication is accomplished through the enactment of a Parkland Dedication By-law and through policies and procedures related to the implementation of the By-law.

At present, the existing Parkland Dedication By-laws of the six former municipalities are still in effect. Staff are currently working towards the harmonization of these by-laws into one city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law. At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, City Council adopted the report of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (July 9, 1998) which recommended principles for inclusion in a Parkland Dedication By-law.

The City Solicitor, in consultation with staff in the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, is currently preparing a draft city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law that will harmonize all of the provisions of the existing parkland dedication by-laws and will include exemptions that are currently permitted in these by-laws. This draft by-law will be submitted to the appropriate Standing Committees in April or May of this year.

New City-wide Official Plan:

Staff in Urban Planning and Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism are also working together to develop policies and criteria in the new Official Plan that will identify growth areas and any parkland deficiencies, based on current and future population projections. The Plan will include policies to protect and manage the City's green space system, including environmentally sensitive lands, ravines, valleys, waterfront corridors, utility and rail corridors, public rights-of-way, etc. and creating or restoring links between elements of the green space system, including other public and privately owned green spaces. Some of the studies that will be undertaken in the development of Official Plan policies pertaining to open space and recreation amenities include:

- development of new City of Toronto parkland objectives;

- review of Official Plan parkland standards (both quantitative and qualitative);

- identification of open space and parkland deficiencies:

- review of land use implementation tools and criteria for use;

- review of open space, parkland and recreational amenity policies.

Community Centre Needs Assessment Study:

Staff in the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department are also conducting a Needs Assessment / Feasibility Study of new community centres in five areas of the City that have been identified as deficient in recreational facilities. A report on the results of this study, which will include recommendations on the feasibility of these facility requirements, will be submitted to the Economic Development Committee by late summer, 1999.

As a result of these assessments, more detailed funding allocations can be determined in the Capital Budget Program. Upon completion of this work, other areas of the City will be reviewed in terms of deficiencies in park and/or recreational facilities.

Land Acquisition Strategy:

In addition, staff in the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services are working towards the development of a city-wide land acquisition strategy, in conjunction with the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority and others, which will include criteria for the acquisition of land for park, conservation and natural heritage open space areas. This study will be completed in the last quarter of 1999.

All of these efforts will assist us in developing a five year Capital Works Program and refining our allocation of cash-in-lieu funds to maximize the provision of park and recreational services in priority areas where needs have been identified.

Next Steps

The process of developing the new Official Plan for the City will involve incorporating the results of the various needs assessment studies and the land acquisition strategy that will provide a clear policy framework for identifying servicing opportunities and priorities that could be included in the development of the five year Capital Budget. These Official Plan policies will be based on population growth projections, desired service levels and identification and prioritization of areas in need of parkland and/or recreation facilities. The Plan will include strategies for fulfilment of the goals of service harmonization and the expansion, protection and enhancement of the City's open space system.

Proposed Interim Criteria for Use of Cash-in-lieu Payments

Interim Solution:

As a guiding principle, all new funding either for parkland acquisition or for major park and recreational facility developments should require the approval of needs assessment studies, based on an inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities. This work will take some time to complete, so in the short term, it is recommended that interim criteria be established for how this money should be allocated in 1999 for the 2000 and 2001 Capital Budget Programs. These criteria would take into account the need to provide sufficient parkland and recreational facilities in areas where new growth is occurring, as well as, providing this infrastructure in areas of the City that have been identified as under serviced at the time of amalgamation. In this way, it is anticipated that over time, the goal of service equalization throughout the City can be achieved.

In order to provide a system that is fair and equitable to all areas of the City, including those areas where growth is occurring, as well as, stable areas which are identified as being under serviced in terms of parkland and recreational facilities, the following revised criteria are proposed for how cash-in-lieu funds should be allocated. These interim criteria will be embodied in the proposed Capital Budget program for the years 2000 and 2001, until all of the needs assessment studies are completed.

As of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50 percent for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes:

(i) of this amount, half ( 25 percent of the total) of these funds to be retained to acquire land for park or open space purposes in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(b) 50 percent for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities:

(i) of this amount, half (50 percent) of these funds to be retained for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (50 percent) to be allocated for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities on a city-wide basis, in areas where deficiencies have been identified.

The above noted interim criteria are intended to balance the need to provide parkland and recreational services in areas of the City where new growth is occurring and which are not adequately serviced, with the need to equalize the service provision in those areas that have been historically under serviced and have been identified as priority areas. In an effort to ensure fairness and equity across the City, these interim criteria would be reviewed on an annual basis by staff and any deviations would be reflected in the Capital Budget reports submitted for the years 2000 and 2001, in order to ensure that any high priority needs or unique opportunities are addressed appropriately.

More permanent criteria will be developed for the five year Capital Budget Program, once all of the aforenoted studies and plans are completed. At that time, a report on these criteria will be submitted for consideration by the appropriate Standing Committees.

Other Revenue Sources

Development Charges:

An additional source of revenue for the development of park and recreational facilities may become available if a Development Charge By-law is enacted by City Council. This by-law would be subject to the provisions of the "Development Charge Act", 1997, which stipulates that only charges for net capital costs due to increased service needs resulting from growth can be applied. Eligible charges include capital costs to: improve land; acquire, lease, construct or improve buildings or structures; acquire, lease or improve facilities; costs to conduct studies associated with capital projects eligible for development charges; and pay interest charges on money borrowed to pay for the aforementioned costs.

However, there are restrictions on how this money can be spent. While this money can be pooled city-wide, it must be spent on specific growth related projects and cannot be used for the acquisition of new parkland, except as part of a project development site, e.g. for a recreational complex or community centre. There are also restrictions on the calculation of need and the level of service that the City wants to provide. The service level for each service cannot exceed the average level that was provided by the municipality over the last ten years. This average service level may be lower than the desired service level that Council would like to achieve in the future.

Therefore, although a Development Charge By-law would provide an additional source of revenue to offset some of our park and recreational servicing costs related to growth, there are certain restrictions in the calculation of the charges and the use of these funds. Because the needs of existing populations cannot be included in the calculation of a development charge, the goal of service equalization in older, relatively stable areas cannot be fulfilled by this funding mechanism.

A joint study on development charges is currently being conducted by the Chief Financial Officer, in conjunction with the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Corporate Services and the City Solicitor. A report is expected to be submitted to the appropriate Committees later this spring.

Section 37 Agreements:

Section 37 agreements provide another source of revenue for certain types of development applications. Section 37 of the "Planning Act", RSO 1996, authorizes the City to include policies in the Official Plan that would enable it to pass by-laws to increase the height or density of development in return for certain facilities, services or benefits.

Section 37 agreements are only applied in securing parkland benefits that are in excess of what can be secured through the use of Section 42 provisions. Although these types of agreements have been very successful in obtaining benefits for the City, the number of these agreements may fluctuate from year to year, depending on market forces and are, therefore, quite variable as a revenue source.

Conclusions:

The proposed interim criteria for the allocation of cash-in-lieu payments for parkland are needed to determine the Capital Budget process for the year 2000 and 2001. This proposal is both fair and equitable and recognizes the need to provide parkland and recreational facilities in growth areas that require this infrastructure, along with the need to raise services levels in stable areas where deficiencies have been identified and prioritized.

The new Official Plan's reinvestment policies and priority goal setting will guide the five year Capital Budget process in sustaining, improving and enhancing the quality of life of the residents of the City, which will include a review of the interim funding criteria for land acquisition and facility development at both the district-wide and city-wide levels. Upon completion of the Official Plan process and the various needs assessment studies for parks and recreational facilities, these interim criteria will be reviewed and updated, as needed.

Contact Names:

Frank Kershaw Barbara Leonhardt

392-8199 392-8148

Diane Stevenson Ann-Marie Nasr

395-6065 392-0402)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 27, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

That the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Background:

At its meeting on April 23, 1999, the Economic Development Committee gave consideration to the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications, and recommending that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to establish a city-wide reserve fund for cash-in-lieu of parkland collected by the City;

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50 percent for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes,

(b) 50 percent for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities,

(3) the Budget Committee be advised with respect to Council's action resulting from this report;

(4) this report be forwarded to each Community Council as a communication item;

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also considered this matter at its meeting on April 19, 1999 and its recommendations in this respect are contained in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 which is before Council for its May 11, 1999 meeting. The Economic Development Committee's recommendations are as noted above.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 22, 1999) from H-JEH Becker, Toronto, in support of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications.)

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the following report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide information on the allocation of parkland in the City of Toronto and to comment on mechanisms for securing parkland and/or cash-in-lieu of parkland.

Source of Funds:

There is no financial impact at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, City Council considered Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee (Planning and Transportation Committee) considered a joint report from the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and Urban Planning and Development Services titled "Further Report on the Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication". Council referred the Clause back to the June 14, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee (and thus to Council for its meeting of July 6, 1999). Council also directed that the report be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they forward any comments thereon to Planning and Transportation. In addition, Council approved a number of recommendations requesting reports on: all concerns expressed by Members of Council with regard to parks deficiencies (by district and community); a policy and mechanism of identifying parks deficiencies and allocating funding for parkland through the budget process; and mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parks deficient.

Given the relationship of the above-described parkland adequacy and acquisition report requests, a joint response has been prepared for Council's consideration.

Comments:

Parkland Adequacy Assessment

Staff in the Departments of Urban Planning & Development Services and Economic Development, Culture & Tourism are currently studying parkland adequacy in Toronto as one of the key areas in the development of the City's new Official Plan. This work will include:

(1) the development of Official Plan policies to reinforce the City's existing parks and open space system and set out the framework and objectives of Council with respect to the provision of new parkland;

(2) the establishment of consistent City-wide parkland adequacy standards; and

(3) the identification of preferred parkland acquisition tools, including land use planning tools used in the development approval process.

Staff are working towards the development of a needs based approach to the provision of parkland. This approach will involve the assessment of parkland adequacy using an accurate and comprehensive City-wide parks inventory and a series of detailed maps (that are currently being generated for the new City). Specific parkland acquisition policies will be developed to meet the unique needs of different communities and physical environments across the new City. Work on this substantial exercise has begun.

For the purposes of this report, an initial review of the existing parkland by Ward is presented in Table 1. The Table sets out the amounts of parkland available to serve the residents of each Ward based on the parks data available at the start of the amalgamation process and the 1996 Census data. While the Ward boundaries provide a clear and identifiable boundary for analysis, they do not take into account the arterial roads, highways, rail lines, or other barriers to access. The definition of geographical areas to be used in the determination of parkland adequacy must recognize that major physical barriers may limit access to some parks and open spaces. These geographic areas to be considered for the deficiency analysis, may include, but are not limited to: neighbourhoods, districts, or communities.

Currently, over 30 different standards for the provision of parkland (see Table 2) remain in effect pending the establishment of new harmonised standards for measuring parkland adequacy on a City-wide basis and identifying which areas of the City are in need of additional parkland. Staff in both Departments are also working together towards the establishment of consistent criteria for classifying the types of parkland available.

Policies and Mechanisms for Acquiring Parkland

Throughout the former municipalities, staff apply a range of mechanisms to secure new parks. A number of mechanisms are related to the development approval process, including parkland dedication (Section 42), plan of subdivision agreements, and Section 37 agreements. New parkland has also been secured through the Capital Budget process, supplemented by Section 42 revenues. From time to time, land is also obtained jointly with outside agencies and from private contributors.

Staff will be making recommendations to Council about the future use of the above-mentioned tools in the context of:

(1) a Parks and Natural Environment Implementation Plan which will support the policies contained in the Official Plan and provide strategic direction and guidelines regarding parkland acquisition; and

(2) a Land Acquisition Strategy which is to address specific parkland inadequacies and acquisition opportunities on a City-wide basis.

In the context of addressing planning applications the Official Plans, Parks Master Plans, and Parks Dedication By-laws of the former municipalities provide staff with a varied set of guidelines upon which to rely in processing planning applications. Until such time as the parks deficiency study is complete and Council has adopted a City wide strategy, the existing policies remain in effect. A city wide approach to resolving park deficiencies through the planning approval process will be addressed in the Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy.

Conclusions:

Staff are working towards the development of a needs based approach to the acquisition and development of parkland.

The main and pressing objective of the original report recommending interim criteria for the use of Section 42 funds is to obtain Council direction on the allocation of revenues in support of the 2000 and 2001 Capital Budget program of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism. Without an interim policy there is less certainty around the implementation of priorities established in the Department's Capital Budget program. This would include local priorities in areas of the City where development does not generate sufficient funds to support local needs with respect to the acquisition and development of parkland.

The comments expressed at Council and at the recent Community Council meetings provided staff with valuable input in the formulation of new parkland adequacy and acquisition policies as well as a related new policy implementation framework. Staff will be reporting further on these subjects as part of the Official Plan review and the development of a Land Acquisition Strategy to implement the policies developed for the Official Plan.

Contact:

Frank Kershaw Barbara Leonhardt

392-8199 392-8148

Diane Stevenson Ann-Marie Nasr

392-8692 392-0402

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Park acreages per ward population & standards for the provision of parkslands

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Park acreages per ward population & standards for the provision of parkslands

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 31, 1999) from the City Clerk, Scarborough Community Council:

Recommendations:

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1) that the Planning and Transportation Committee defer its decision on this matter to permit Scarborough Community Council an opportunity to give further consideration to the recommendations for the following reasons:

(a) recommendations 2(a) and (b) seem to allow double dipping and Scarborough Community Council would wish to explore another model;

(b) the definition of a District is not clear;

(2) that a further report be submitted to the Community Councils prior to finalization of this process.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting on May 27, 1999, had before it a communication (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the City Council, at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, directed that Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, be referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration; and that it be forwarded to the Community Councils for comments thereon and report back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on June 14, 1999.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 31, 1999) from the City Clerk, Etobicoke Community Council:

Recommendation:

The Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting held on May 26, 1999, during consideration of a communication (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, embodying Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication", recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee that when potential parkland allocations between the Etobicoke and York Districts are being considered, a joint meeting of the two Community Councils be held at the appropriate time and in an appropriate venue.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 31, 1999) from the City Clerk, York Community Council:

The York Community Council on May 26, 1999 had before it a transmittal letter (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee; and that Council directed that this Clause be struck out and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

The York Community Council on May 26, 1999, in view of time constraints at this meeting, directed its members caucus to discuss this matter and to decide on a position, prior to the June 14, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee.

Mr. Frank Kershaw, Director, Policy and Development Division, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the aforementioned matter.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 31, 1999) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council:

Recommendation:

The North York Community Council on May 26, 1999 reports having referred the following recommendations to the Planning and Transportation Committee:

(1) Recommendation (2) embodied in the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended by adding thereto the following:

"(2)(c) That notwithstanding the above, Community Councils. if they so choose can allocate monies from Recommendation No. (2)(b)(i) to Recommendation No. (2)(a)(i);

(2) when reviewing amendment applications in areas that are deficient in parkland, the City attempt to acquire parkland, where possible, either on site or in adjoining neighbourhoods, rather than accepting cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments;

(3) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to make offers for up to 10 percent over the appraised value for properties that may be for sale and can be used for parkland purposes; and further, that expropriation be considered as a last resort.

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

(a) prepare maps of park deficiencies within the boundaries of the North York Community Council area, and within each Ward; with such maps having isometric lines and clearly indicating the calculations that were used to support the deficiencies;

(b) report further on what plans are in place to address the parkland deficiencies in the area bounded by Yonge Street, Bayview Avenue, Finch Avenue and Sheppard Avenue; and

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it a report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that, City Council, at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, directed that Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication", be struck out and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999; and further directed that:

(4) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient.

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a chart (May 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled "Park Acreages Per Ward Population and Standards for the Provision of Parkland".

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (June 2, 1999) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council:

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, and Community Councils, on all concerns expressed by Members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district, community and Ward;

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, and Community Councils, on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient; and

(3) the Commissioners, in their joint report, include population density and other measures as mechanisms to identify parkland deficiencies.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on May 26 and 27, 1999, had before it a report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication", which was referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

The Toronto Community Council recommendations are noted above.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 28, 1999) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council:

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council on May 26 and 27, 1999 endorsed the interim policy respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development projects as outlined in the joint report (May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services embodied in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication".

Background:

The East York Community Council had before it a communication (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication" which was struck out by City Council at its meeting on May 11 and 12, 1999, and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration; advising that Council also directed, among other things, that a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they submit their comments thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting on June 14, 1999.

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

Purpose:

To respond to the request by the Planning and Transportation Committee for a joint report on the recommendations of the Community Councils and comments of the Planning and Transportation Committee concerning the proposed interim policy for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues, as outlined in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Financial Implications:

There is no financial impact at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of June 14, 1999, the Planning and Transportation Committee recommended that the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioners of Economic, Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, contained in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee appended to the May 18, 1999 communication from the City Clerk, be adopted as an interim policy (for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues) pending the adoption of a further report from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also requested the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the July 6, 1999 meeting of City Council on the comments raised in the reports of the Community Councils at their May 26 and 27, 1999 meetings, as well as, the comments raised by the Committee on this matter.

A further request was made to the Commissioners to report back to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the feasibility of developing a plan for each district and/or neighbourhood to rectify park deficiencies by creating additional parkland.

Comments:

Throughout the lengthy discussion on this topic, it has been difficult to keep the issues associated with the proposed interim policy for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues separate from those associated with the larger topics of parkland adequacy and acquisition. Staff recognize that the allocation of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues is central to the larger task of allocating resources for the acquisition of parkland in parks-deficient neighbourhoods throughout the new City of Toronto. The proposed policy for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues outlined in the March 17, 1999 joint report is meant as an interim arrangement until a policy framework can be established for the larger issues of parkland adequacy and acquisition. This interim arrangement is needed to provide direction on the allocation of revenues for the 2000 and 2001 Capital Budget program for the Parks and Recreation Division of the Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Staff in the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services have reviewed the comments of the various Community Councils and the Planning and Transportation Committee. In response, this report comments on direction related to the larger policy framework, as well as, those pertaining to the proposed interim policy related to the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues.

It is noted that the Etobicoke, York and East York Community Councils did not have specific concerns or requests for information. East York Community Council endorsed the proposed interim policy respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development projects, as outlined in the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Etobicoke Community Council recommended that when potential parkland allocations between the Etobicoke and York Districts are being considered, a joint meeting of the two Community Councils be held at the appropriate time and in an appropriate venue.

The York Community Council took no position on this matter, at its May 26 meeting.

Toronto Community Council:

The Toronto Community Council requested that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on all concerns expressed by members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district, community and Ward. The joint Supplementary Report (June 3, 1999) of the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, to the Planning and Transportation Committee addressed the concerns expressed by City Council at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, which included statements about the new policies and standards that will be developed in the new Official Plan and the Land Acquisition Strategy.

The work that is currently being conducted for these studies will be used for evaluating parkland inadequacies. The Toronto Community Council's request that park deficiencies by district, community and Ward be taken into account will be included as part of this work.

The Toronto Community Council's request for a joint report from the two Commissioners to the Planning and Transportation Committees and the Community Councils on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient echoes the fourth recommendation of City Council from its May 11 and 12, 1999 meeting and will be included in the Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy, as indicated in the June 3 Supplementary Report.

The further request by the Toronto Community Council that this work include consideration of population densities and other measures as mechanisms to identify parkland deficiencies will be fulfilled.

North York Community Council:

The North York Community Council made several recommendations, including: a recommendation that the district level monies may be reallocated from park and recreation facilities improvements to land acquisition for park and open space purposes at the discretion of the Community Councils. The Community Councils have the ability to make recommendations on the allocation of funding earmarked for both parkland acquisition and development through the Capital Budget process.

Staff agree with Recommendation 2 of the North York Community Council, which states that, when reviewing development applications in areas that are deficient in parkland, the City attempt to acquire parkland rather than accepting cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments.

It is the current practice of staff in the Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to recommend acquiring land from development applications in cases where sufficient land can be conveyed through dedication of land for new parks or the land parcels can be linked to existing parks to expand the existing network.

The Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy work will study the larger set of tools used for acquiring parkland, including the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland reserve funds. This work will provide more detailed recommendations regarding the acquisition of land for parks and open space, including land in park deficient areas of the City. The above-mentioned studies will take several months to complete.

City Council will have to consider Recommendation 3, which states that, "the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to make offers for up to 10 percent over the appraised value for properties that may be up for sale and can be used for parkland purposes; and further, that expropriation be considered as a last resort."

With respect to the fourth recommendation of the North York Community Council, staff have the following comments:

(1) staff of the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services are in the early stages of addressing the issues of parkland adequacy and acquisition in the new City of Toronto. As part of the Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy work, staff are currently mapping all of Toronto's parks and open space resources and identifying areas of the city which are deficient of parkland. Maps indicating parkland and open space service areas and service gaps will be prepared as part of this work;

(2) the Official Plan and the Land Acquisition Strategy will examine mechanisms to address parkland deficiencies throughout the City; and

(3) in providing policy recommendations in both the Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy related to parkland acquisition in areas that are parkland deficient, staff will provide Council with a range of approaches, for acquiring land.

Scarborough Community Council:

The request by the Scarborough Community Council that the Planning and Transportation Committee defer its decision on this matter to permit Scarborough Community Council an opportunity to give further consideration to the recommendations in the March 17 report was not adopted by the Planning and Transportation Committee. Rather, the Planning and Transportation Committee requested the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services to prepare this report to Council, at its July 6, 1999, meeting in response to the comments and recommendations of the Community Councils and to address comments raised by the Committee on this matter.

The specific concerns of the Scarborough Community Council are addressed below.

The Scarborough Community Council has expressed some concern about "double-dipping". As stated in the March 17, 1999 report, monies can be allocated from both the district and the City-wide funds for parkland acquisition in areas that were deemed to be priority under serviced areas at the time of amalgamation, in rapidly growing areas or in circumstances related to parks and open spaces which are City-wide in significance.

Also, a critical mass of funding, accumulated at a City-wide level, can have a greater impact in achieving spending priorities, as defined by Council through the Capital Budget process.

The Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy will provide a policy framework for balancing local versus City-wide funding priorities in the longer term. This framework will address the benefits of local decision-making, as well as, the benefits of City-wide pooling -- the integrity of the larger open space system, attention to natural heritage features and maximization of service equalization.

The Scarborough Community Council indicated a concern about the definition of the term "district". In the March 17 report, "district" is defined per the administrative operational districts, which includes the Community Council boundaries of Etobicoke and York in the West District, the North York Community Council boundaries in the North District, the Toronto Community Council boundaries in the South District and the Scarborough and East York Community Council boundaries in the East District. Staff recommended the operational district model because our administrative structures, staffing and operating budgets are based on this system.

Scarborough Community Council also requested that a further report be submitted to the Community Councils prior to finalization of this process. However, direction on the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues is needed for the start of the year 2000 Parks and Recreation Capital Budget cycle. Also, Council, the Community Councils, and the public will have many opportunities -- through the public process associated with the Official Plan, for example -- to comment on the work that will be done in the near future with respect to parkland adequacy and acquisition.

Planning and Transportation Committee:

In response to the comments raised by the members of the Planning and Transportation Committee, there were some questions raised about how the deficiency analysis would be done, what standards for the provision of parkland would be applied and whether these standards would be applied on a district or neighbourhood basis. The Committee also asked about the feasibility of developing a plan for each district and/or neighbourhood to rectify park deficiencies by creating additional parkland.

Staff are reviewing all of these comments and requests in developing the Official Plan policies, which will include mechanisms for acquiring park land in areas of need. The Land Acquisition Strategy will apply these policies and standards on a more detailed basis, at the local level and will include mechanisms for acquiring land in areas where deficiencies exist or in areas that are experiencing rapid growth and change.

Conclusions:

As stated in the June 3, 1999 joint report of the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, staff are working towards a needs based approach to the acquisition and development of parkland in the development of the Official Plan and the Land Acquisition Strategy. These studies, which include a park adequacy assessment, are underway and will take a number of months to complete.

The primary objective of the original (March 17) report recommending interim criteria for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland funds is to obtain Council direction on the allocation of revenues for the 2000 and 2001 Parks and Recreation Capital Budget program. Without this direction, the recommended allocation of these funds for high priority projects and land acquisition will be difficult to achieve.

Staff support the June 14, 1999 recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Committee, which recommends that the March 17 report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted as an interim policy pending the adoption of further reports (i.e., the Official Plan and the Land Acquisition Strategy) from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City. These latter reports are in progress and will take some months to complete.

Contact Names:

Frank Kershaw Barbara Leonhardt

392-8199 392-8148

Diane Stevenson Ann-Marie Nasr

392-0098 392-0402)

Respectfully submitted,

JOANNE FLINT

Chair

Toronto, June 14, 1999

(Report No. 2 of The Planning and Transportation Committee was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999.)