1 Development and Positioning of Nathan Phillips Square

2 Union Station Purchase of Toronto Terminals Railway Assets: The CP Express Site

3 Review and Harmonization of Environmentally Responsible Procurement

4 1171 St. Clair Avenue West and 1345 St. Clair Avenue West Appeal of Interim Control By-law No. 1997-0321 Ontario Municipal Board

5 Establishing a Scale of Costs for Proceedings Under Municipal Tax Sales Act

6 39 - 41 Fenmar Drive Assessment Roll No. 19 08 01 3 310 00400 (Ward 6 - North York Humber)

7 Sale of Surplus Vacant Lands on North Side of Ellesmere Road East of Kennedy Road (Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)

8 Conveyance of 118A and 120 Pearl Street - Toronto District Heating Corporation (TDHC) (Ward 24 - Downtown)

9 Request for an Encroachment Agreement - 33 Cornwallis Drive (Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre)

10 Lease Renewal - Birchmount Bluffs Neighbourhood Centre (Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs)

11 Toronto Public Library Board Leases

12 Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund Respecting By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation), Section 24 Refund, Proposed Widening of Entitlement

13 Plan Upgrades: Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund

14 Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee for further consideration, together with the following motions:

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

"It is further recommended that the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit a report to the Administration Committee on the feasibility of using the Request for Proposal process to determine what entities may use Nathan Phillips Square."

Moved by Councillor Lindsay Luby:

"It is further recommended that the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee be requested to consider holding a public charette as part of the design process for Nathan Phillips Square, in order to make the citizens of Toronto feel part of our newly-amalgamated City."

Moved by Councillor Minnan-Wong:

"That the Clause be amended by deleting Recommendation No. (2) of the Administration Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

'(2) that Council approve, in principle, the inclusion of a tribute that recognizes public contributions.' "

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

"That the Clause be amended by:

(1) deleting Recommendation No. (2) of the Administration Committee;

(2) rescinding the action taken by the Administration Committee respecting Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3) embodied in the report dated September 20, 1999, from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, and referring such recommendations to the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee; and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to work with the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee on the development of City Hall and the City Hall Square complex; and

(3) adding thereto the following:

'It is further recommended that a Public Art Policy Committee, comprised of Councillors Bussin, Chow, Johnston, Moscoe and Prue, and any other interested Members of Council, be established, and that such Committee report through the Economic Development and Parks Committee on its terms of reference.' ")

The Administration Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) and (4) embodied in the report (September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, viz:

"(1) Council endorse the use of Nathan Phillips Square as the City's premiere public space and event venue;"; and

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

(2) that Council approve, in principle, the inclusion of a United Way Tribute in Nathan Phillips Square; and that the Tribute be considered in the overall needs assessment of the review of Nathan Phillips Square on the development and positioning of the Square as proposed in the aforementioned report dated September 20, 1999, from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services.

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

(A) referred the following Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report (September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, to the Chief Administrative Officer for inclusion in his forthcoming report to the Administration Committee regarding the City Hall square area:

"(2) Council endorse a review and re-design process for Nathan Phillips Square to increase the Square's viability as a public space and event venue taking into consideration the needs of the community at large;"; and

(B) amended Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the aforementioned report (September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services by deleting the word "reserve" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "propose", so that Recommendation No. (3) now reads as follows:

"(3) the Facilities and Real Estate Division be directed to propose sufficient funding in its year 2000 capital budget to initiate a condition survey, needs assessment, Terms of Reference and design competition for Nathan Phillips Square;"; and

referred the aforementioned Recommendation No. (3), as amended, to the Chief Administrative Officer for inclusion in his forthcoming report to the Administration Committee regarding the City Hall square area.

The Administration Committee submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek City Council's endorsement to position Nathan Phillips Square as the City of Toronto's premiere public space and event venue.

Funding Impacts:

The Facilities and Real Estate Division will reserve sufficient funding in its year 2000 Capital Budget to initiate a condition survey, needs assessment, Terms of Reference, and initiate a design competition for Nathan Phillips Square. Actual cost are currently being estimated and will be detailed in the Facilities and Real Estate Division's year 2000 capital budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council endorse the use of Nathan Phillips Square as the City's premiere public space and event venue;

(2) Council endorse a review and re-design process for Nathan Phillips Square to increase the Square's viability as a public space and event venue taking into consideration the needs of the community at large;

(3) the Facilities and Real Estate Division be directed to reserve sufficient funding in its year 2000 Capital Budget to initiate a condition survey, needs assessment, Terms of Reference and design competition for Nathan Phillips Square; and

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

Background/History:

Nathan Phillips Square has served the people of Toronto and the "former City of Toronto" as a "people place." It has become the venue of choice for ceremonial and political events, concerts, festivals, art exhibitions and community events. Nathan Phillips Square is also identified as an internationally recognized tourist destination. As the city has expanded, so have the demands on Nathan Phillips Square to serve as the City of Toronto's primary event venue.

During the past year, Nathan Phillips Square has hosted a total of 200 events. These events consisted of concerts, awareness events, demonstrations, City produced events, a Farmer's Market and foreign delegations and royalty showcasing the City of Toronto to the world. The joint activities of Toronto Special Events and Facilities and Real Estate Division have allowed these events to operate successfully.

To meet the demand for event programming on Nathan Phillips Square, city staff have implemented and maintained a variety of temporary supports including the purchase of a seasonal stage, rental of tent coverings at $27,000.00 per annum, and crowd control barricades. It is our intent to review the physical plan requirements of the square to provide the necessary infrastructure to meet the demands on Nathan Phillips Square.

It is anticipated that with the creation of the new City of Toronto, the demand for events on Nathan Phillips Square will increase in frequency, size, and complexity and will receive greater international exposure. Staff recommend that a site condition survey, needs assessment, terms of reference and design competition be initiated. The re-design process to include but not be limited to the following:

(i) maintain the current philosophy of Nathan Phillips Square as a "people place". Ensure that Nathan Phillips Square is an attractive and welcoming resting and recreational place in an urban environment;

(ii) review existing layout and make recommendations on new physical additions or modifications to position Nathan Phillips Square as the city's premiere event venue including permanent staging structures and associated facilities. In addition, the need for permanent stage facilities has also been identified by the Millennium Task Force as a possible Millennium activity;

(iii) identify the capital investment required to re-vitalize the Kiosk on the south west side of the Square;

(iv) review and report on the feasibility of relocating or modifying the Peace Garden, the Archer art work and the Kiosk to increase the people capacity (complete with an pedestrian traffic flow analyst) of the Square;

(v) conduct a public consultation with key stakeholders to identify any design concerns from the community; and

(vi) any recommendations resulting from the review process take into consideration the current structural reinforcement and garage rooftop waterproofing projects.

Facilities and Real Estate staff would oversee the development of the condition survey, needs assessment, terms of reference, and design competition for Nathan Phillips Square in conjunction with the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, Special Events Division and Urban Planning and Development Services. Appropriate consultation with external stakeholders would be initiated early in the process to establish the parameters of the project.

Conclusion:

Nathan Phillips Square, named in honor of the late Nathan Phillips who initiated the project, has been deemed a "People Place". Since its opening the City of Toronto has continued to enhance the Square as a public space.

With the introduction of the new City of Toronto and the designation of City Hall as the 'seat of government', it is anticipated that the demand for Nathan Phillips Square as an event venue will continue to increase in frequency, complexity and international exposure. Subsequently a review of Nathan Phillips Square's ability to support a broader mandate consistent with current and future demands is required.

Contact:

Mark Davies, Director, Facilities Services; Tel: 397-0805

Nelson Elliott, Manager, Customer Support; Tel: 397-5147

The Administration Committee also submits the following communication (September 27, 1999) from the President, United Way of Greater Toronto:

Attached is a proposal which I would like to bring to your Administration Committee on October 5, 1999.

I realize the notice is very, very short, but I have only just learned the way to take it to Council is through your Committee. For the sake of the project's success, it would be ideal to get City Council's approval in principle at its meeting on October 26-28, 1999. Therefore, I ask you to please forgive us for any inconvenience this short notice creates, and appeal for your support.

The process we envision is as follows:

(i) approval by your Committee on October 5, 1999, to go to City Council this month (possibly to go to the Policy and Finance Committee on October 14, 1999);

(ii) a competition open to Canada's best architects/designers to be narrowed down to five, selected by a jury that will include:

(a) Bruce Mau Design;

(b) Shirley Blumberg (Chief Architect for the refurbished City Hall);

(c) Max Teitelbaum (CEO, Art Galley of Ontario);

(d) Honey Sherman (a major Toronto donor); and

(e) Judith Matthews (Chair of the project, on behalf of United Way of Greater Toronto and Toronto Community Foundation);

(iii) Selection of the artist/designer late 1999;

(iv) Project design completed in the first quarter of 2000;

(v) Final approval by the City in the spring of 2000;

(vi) Construction in the year 2000; and

(vii) Project launch in the fall of 2000, the millennial year.

As part of the completed homework, we have met with and obtained support from the Mayor's Office, Councillor Kyle Rae, and the six Community Council Chairs.

We hope to get your Committee's support in principle at your October 5, 1999 meeting. Thank you for your consideration.

September 27, 1999

The Partners are:

United Way of Greater Toronto and the Toronto Community Foundation, this city's most inclusive and highly respected charitable organizations, dedicated to preserving Toronto's civilized and internationally recognized quality of life. United Way focuses on a complete range of health and human services, and the Community Foundation supports endowments for the environment, arts and culture, and leadership development. These are the only two charities in Toronto with the breadth and scope that allow donors to give anywhere in the community. Working together, United Way and the Community Foundation will ensure that Toronto remains a vibrant and healthy community, now and in the future.

The Concept is:

to create a major recognition project for public giving to the two Toronto charities that represent the community-at-large.

We propose to distinguish the importance of community investment in the new millennium with an artistic tribute in the southwest corner of Nathan Phillips Square. Both organizations share a unique community-wide scope and a broad range of individual support - hundreds of thousands of donors, hundreds of agencies. The tribute would be the first community-wide recognition of philanthropists in our new united city.

The Opportunity will be:

unique: to create a legacy with leverage, endowing social services, arts, and environmental programs for our community for generations to come. Toronto can thus creatively and compellingly honour this century's philanthropists while encouraging and inviting philanthropy in the next millennium.

The Challenge is:

to create a dynamic, compelling landmark of art and design as well as an inspirational statement recognizing those who give back to their community.

The Tribute will:

(i) enliven the public square, and be sustainable;

(ii) achieve permanence, yet be adaptable;

(iii) be flexible and expandable;

(iv) simultaneously recognize a vast range of donor giving levels and types - from highest to lowest, annual to cumulative, corporate to individual - inclusive of them all, but giving priority recognition to some;

(v) reflect the connectedness which is central to the charities' missions; and

(vi) take advantage of the latest technology (e.g., interactive to access individual names).

The Administration Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (October 4, 1999) from the Executive Assistant to Councillor Ron Moeser, Scarborough, Highland Creek, requesting that staff report to the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee respecting the issue of the Development and Positioning of Nathan Phillips Square.

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

- Ms. Judy Matthews and Ms. Judith John, United Way of Greater Toronto;

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park; and

- Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 25, 1999) from Mr. Terry Thompson, Executive Director, ShareLife, advising that ShareLife is the official charitable fundraising arm of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto and requesting an opportunity to be included in the planned recognition project for charitable organizations at Nathan Phillips Square.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the report (September 20, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, subject to:

(1) amending Recommendation No. (1) by adding after the word "proposed", the word "interim" and deleting the words "and to facilitate modifications to the east end of Platforms 1, 2 and 3 in the rail corridor", so that Recommendation No. (1) now reads as follows:

"(1) Council endorse the acquisition of the CP Express site by GO Transit for the proposed interim GO intermodal bus terminal;"; and

(2) amending Recommendation No. (2) by adding to the end thereof the following words "including a best case analysis of the complete cost and benefit of closing the Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., and opening a permanent bus terminal or terminals at this site including the cost of any necessary renovations to the Union Station platform to accommodate the increased passenger traffic from inter City bus operations", so that Recommendation No. (2) now reads as follows:

"(2) the staff team headed by Urban Planning and Development Services staff continue to facilitate further discussions with OMCA, TTC and GO Transit regarding inter-city bus operations in the downtown including a best case analysis of the complete cost and benefit of closing the Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., and opening a permanent bus terminal or terminals at this site including the cost of any necessary renovations to the Union Station platform to accommodate the increased passenger traffic from inter City bus operations."

The Administration Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on October 26, 1999, regarding the foregoing amendment respecting the inclusion of the word "interim" in Recommendation No. (1) embodied in his report dated September 20, 1999; such report to indicate whether this amendment poses a problem.

The Administration Committee submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report responds to a number of Council requests regarding the CP Express site as a component of the City's proposal to purchase Union Station and to provide an update on the issues pertaining to the future use of this site as a bus terminal. This report has been prepared in consultation with stakeholders including the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), the Ontario Motor Coach Association (OMCA), and the Parking Authority of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

If, as recommended, GO Transit is the purchaser of the CP Express site, it will pay all acquisition, development and ongoing operating costs of the proposed bus terminal. Aside from its significant financial interest in GO Transit, there are no direct financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council endorse the acquisition of the CP Express site by GO Transit for the proposed GO intermodal bus terminal and to facilitate modifications to the east end of Platforms 1, 2 and 3 in the rail corridor;

(2) the staff team headed by Urban Planning and Development Services staff continue to facilitate further discussions with OMCA, TTC and GO Transit regarding inter-city bus operations in the downtown; and

(3) the appropriate City staff be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background History:

Council, at its meeting held on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999, by its adoption of two reports dated July 12 and July 21, 1999 from the Chief Administrative Officer included as Clause No. 15 of Report No. 2 of The Administration Committee, authorized the CAO and the City Solicitor to execute a Purchase Agreement for the acquisition of the assets of The Toronto Terminals Railway Company ("TTR") on terms and conditions as outlined therein.

The TTR assets include three main real estate assets:

(i) Union Station;

(ii) the Rail Corridor between the Don River and Strachan Avenue; and

(iii) the CP Express Site.

In considering this matter, Council requested staff to report back on a number of items related to the CP Express site component of the purchase. Specifically, Council requested staff to address:

(i) the business case for a new bus terminal on the CP Express site;

(ii) a management model for the new bus terminal, and

(iii) the inclusion of the TTC in negotiations regarding the new bus terminal.

As pointed out in the Chief Administrative Officer's July 12, 1999 report, a team of City staff headed-up by Urban Planning and Development Services Department staff would be reviewing the related issues of:

(i) ownership and management options for the new bus terminal;

(ii) the value and alternative uses of the existing bus terminal at the Bay/Dundas site;

(iii) assessment of operational needs for a new bus terminal;

(iv) assessment of the physical constraints of the CP Express site, and

(v) traffic impacts of a bus terminal located on the CP Express site.

Comments:

(1) Background:

There is a long history of proposals and studies for a new bus terminal in the City's downtown. The more recent history begins in 1989 when the Council of the former City of Toronto, in approving the renovation of the existing Bay/Dundas terminal as an interim measure, went on record "….as preferring a location for a new bus terminal in the vicinity of the Gardiner Expressway and Bay Street" as the long-term solution. In July 1994, the TTC, which is the owner and manager of the existing bus terminal, announced plans to discontinue bus operations at the Bay/Dundas facility in the next three to five years. This announcement prompted the Ontario Motor Coach Association (OMCA) to finance a consultant's study of alternative sites for a new bus terminal in the vicinity of Union Station in keeping with the stated planning objectives of the former City of Toronto. It was hoped that a new bus terminal would accommodate the needs of both the private carriers and GO Transit, and the OMCA's 1995 study identified the CP Express building as one of three potential candidate sites. However, since that study was completed, a number of conditions have again changed. The TTC has indicated it is willing to operate the inter-regional bus terminal as long as it does not require any cash operating subsidy. GO Transit's bus terminal needs have been re-assessed in the light of a higher than expected growth in its "train-bus" services operating out of Union Station. Private carriers have experienced minimal growth in passenger demand while facing the uncertainties of possible deregulation within the bus industry.

When the City's negotiations with TTR evolved to encompass acquisition of TTR's assets including the CP Express site, the opportunity presented itself to reconsider the future requirements for bus terminal facilities in the downtown and the role that the CP Express site might be expected to play in meeting these needs. At Council's direction a staff working team has been created to involve all stakeholders and particularly TTC.

(2) Issues:

2.1 Operational Requirements:

There is a pressing need for an off-street bus terminal in the vicinity of Union Station due to the growth of GO bus activity in the area. GO provides bus services to supplement its rail operations, particularly during off-peak periods when passenger trains are not operational. Initially, this back-up service was provided by around 40 bus movements each weekday but this figure has now grown to 158, with some 40 bus departures from Union Station during the 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. period alone. Currently, these buses assemble on various downtown streets and then pull up at Union Station on Front Street to board passengers around the scheduled departure time. These buses, which park and circulate around the Union Station area, add to downtown traffic congestion. There would be a clear public benefit to having them operate from an off-street terminal such as could be provided on the CP Express site. Such a terminal would also add to passenger convenience.

GO expects the use of supporting bus services at Union Station to remain high as the opportunities for expanding passenger rail service, particularly along the Lakeshore corridor, remain limited in comparison to the expected increases in GO patronage. Consequently, GO's bus terminal requirements are higher than originally contemplated. In addition, much of GO's activities at the existing bus terminal, where it occupies the Elizabeth Street station, would be transferred to the bus terminal at the CP Express site. This transfer would free up capacity for private inter-city bus carriers at the existing bus terminal or allow the Elizabeth Street facility to be sold or put to another beneficial use such as Bus Parcel Express. As a result, in the short term, GO would be the sole user of the CP Express site. TTC is supportive of this move in principle, subject to having continuing involvement in the decision-making process.

2.2 Site Constraints and Traffic Impacts:

The CP Express site is relatively constrained in terms of its size and access opportunities. The original concept for a bus terminal on this site had the bus platforms at ground level with passenger waiting, drop-off and bus parcel express facilities located above at the rail level. GO Transit has advised that the original concept has been changed to meet their primary long term requirement for increased capacity on the rail Platforms 1, 2 and 3 of Union Station, directly above and adjacent to the CP Express site. Particularly, changes to the east end of Platform 1 to increase rail passenger capacity will have implications for the use of the second level of the CP Express site for bus passenger purposes.

However, the bus terminal can be expanded, at a cost, by excavating under the rail corridor to enlarge the grade-level floor plate. There may also be the opportunity to use the access provided by the Teamway on the east side of Bay Street to connect to and, possibly, integrate the operations of the CP Express site with the future development of the neighbouring site to the south of the rail corridor.

In the basic design concept, access to the bus terminal is provided by right- turns in from Bay Street northbound and right turns out on to Yonge Street southbound. Pedestrian access could be provided from the track level of Union Station by enhancing of a pedestrian connection, along existing Platform 1, over Bay Street and from the sidewalks at street level. The possibility of providing a direct pedestrian connection to the subway platforms at Union Station is also being studied. It should be noted that one of the preconditions for the purchase of Union Station is the consent of Public Works Canada, which has property interests in and adjacent to the CP Express site, to allow redevelopment of the site as a bus terminal.

The traffic impacts of a bus terminal on the CP Express site are difficult to address until an actual design has been finalized and the capacity optimized. The larger the capacity of the bus terminal the greater its potential traffic impacts and a particular concern is the possibility of conflicts with pedestrian movements at the access points on Bay and Yonge Streets. In regard to this latter point, the use of the teamway to bring buses into the terminal from the south side of the rail corridor might, if feasible, prove a desirable option.

City staff will continue to address at the access opportunities and traffic impacts of the bus terminal, in detail, during the Site Plan Approval process.

2.3 Management Model and Business Case:

In light of GO Transits increased requirements for the CP Express site, such that for the short term at least it will be the sole user of a new facility, the parties are in agreement that the CP Express site should be purchased by GO Transit (through the City) for its own bus operations and the expansion of rail platforms. This makes a management model for the new bus terminal straightforward. It is proposed that the new terminal be owned and managed by GO Transit.

The Business Case analyses for the new terminal has been undertaken by GO Transit. It is being updated, based on current GO Transit needs and will be presented, in its final form, to its Board and the GTSB this fall. We are advised by GO that:

(i) sufficient capital funds are available for site acquisition and development of the new terminal. The funds have been allocated to GTSB for GO Transit infrastructure improvement; and

(ii) the anticipated operating expenses at the new terminal will be less than the existing operating expenditures for GO downtown bus operations.

From a broader planning or public policy perspective the acquisition of the CP Express site by GO Transit can be supported on two key premises. First, the new bus terminal will enable the removal of a large number of GO buses from the streets around Union Station while offering better facilities for bus passengers. The second is to enable GO Transit to make changes to Rail platforms 1, 2 and 3 in the rail corridor to accommodate more trains at Union Station during peak times. The expansion will accommodate double the number of trains in the peak hour on the three rail platforms. Additionally, GO Transit may be able to rationalize its bus operations and withdraw from the Elizabeth Street terminal. In the longer term, the CP Express site could be developed to accommodate the vision of a single, consolidated bus terminal at Union Station.

2.4 Process:

City staff have continued to consult with those individuals and agencies having a direct interest in the development of a new bus terminal at Union Station. A joint meeting, which included representatives from GO Transit, TTC and the OMCA, was held on September 16, 1999, to review the draft of this report. In particular, TTC staff have been consulted with regard to the Union Station negotiations and will continue to be involved in the discussions regarding the new bus terminal. OMCA, while supportive of the acquisition of this site for a new bus terminal, has expressed concern about its ability to utilize the new facility and exploit the intermodal opportunity it presents.

GO Transit has advised that its immediate priority is to commence design and reconstruction of the east end of Rail platforms 1, 2 and 3. This work will take about 3 years to complete. In the interim, GO proposes to build a scaled-down temporary bus terminal at the CP Express site to remove the buses off the streets surrounding Union Station.

This three year period will provide opportunities for further discussions regarding the consolidation of bus terminal operations. Any move towards consolidation would have to be supported by a business case for such a merger strategy, including the impacts on the future use and/or disposition of the existing Bay/Dundas bus terminal should it be considered redundant. However, in the context of the City's current purchase of Union Station these concerns are not an immediate factor that needs to be weighed in the present decision-making process.

Conclusion:

There are obvious benefits to the City acquiring the CP Express site as part of the Union Station purchase. Principally, it enables GO Transit to develop an off-street terminal for its expanding bus passenger services and facilitates changes to Rail platforms 1, 2 and 3 to increase the rail capacity of Union Station. The platform lengthening will accommodate two ten-car GO trains simultaneously, thereby improving the utilization of Union Station.

Initially, the new bus terminal at Union Station will be a temporary facility. In the longer term, it could be considered for a consolidated facility that could meet the needs of all inter-city bus operators, both public and private. GO Transit is prepared to study capacity enhancements for the bus terminal upon completion of its design for expansion of rail Platforms 1, 2 and 3.

The CP Express site remains an attractive proposition for GO Transit as a bus terminal whether or not it is shared with private carriers and, consequently, GO Transit will directly fund, develop and operate the facility. GO, TTC and OMCA will continue their efforts for public/private partnerships in the ongoing bus terminal operations.

Consolidating GO bus operations at Union Station will free-up capacity for private carriers at the existing Bay/Dundas bus terminal. However, the debate over the desirability and the feasibility of having one or two downtown bus stations cannot be settled immediately. It will be at least three years before the permanent bus terminal at the CP Express site is operational and this gives time to further explore the long-term objective of consolidating all bus operations in a single terminal at Union Station or to identify measures to protect for this possible, future outcome. In the meantime there remains a compelling case to acquire the CP Express site while the opportunity presents itself to meet GO Transit's present needs and increase the City's long term flexibility to address future transportation needs in the downtown.

Contact Name:

Greg Stewart, Program Co-ordinator, Transportation Planning, Urban Planning and Development Services, Telephone: 392-2691.

Mr. Brian Crow, President, Ontario Motor Coach Association, appeared before the Administration Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a written submission in regard thereto.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 25, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

This report responds to the Administration Committee's request to report directly to the October 26, 1999 meeting of City Council on certain matters relating to the acquisition of the CP Express site as part of the Union Station purchase.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This report raises no additional financial issues.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

Background:

At its meeting of October 5, 1999 the Administrative Committee had before it a report from the Chief Administrative Officer dated September 20, 1999 dealing with the City's acquisition of the CP Express site as part of the Union Station purchase. In considering this report the Committee recommended:

"1. Council endorse the acquisition of the CP Express site by GO Transit for the proposed interim GO intermodal bus terminal including a best case analysis of the complete cost and benefit of closing the Toronto Coach Terminal Inc. and opening a permanent bus terminal or terminals at this site including the cost of any necessary renovations to the Union Station platform to accommodate the increased passenger traffic from inter City bus operations."

The Committee requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on October 26, 1999, regarding the foregoing amendment respecting the inclusion of the word "interim" in Recommendation 1.

GO Transit staff have indicated that the insertion of the word "interim" in Recommendation 1 does not present a problem. The primary reason for GO Transit acquiring the CP Express site, and the first priority, is to pursue changes to the east end of rail tracks 1, 2 and 3 to increase passenger rail handling capacity at Union Station. These rail and accompanying platform changes are expected to take up to three years to complete from the time of the acquisition of the CP Express site. During this three-year period, GO Transit will operate a temporary, bare-bones bus terminal from the at-grade level of the CP Express site until a more substantial, permanent facility can be built after the overhead work on the rail tracks and platforms is complete. The initial, temporary bus terminal, which will have the immediate impact of taking GO buses off the streets around Union Station, will necessarily be of an "interim" nature. However, it must be recognized that the ultimate approval of the acquisition of the CP Express site by GO Transit rests with GO's Board of Directors whose decision will be dependent upon the approval of an internally generated business case supportive of such an investment.

Private, inter-city bus carriers, as represented by the Ontario Motor Coach Association (OMCA), have expressed a strong desire to eventually locate their downtown terminal operations in a new, permanent bus station at the CP Express site and are anxious not to see this option foreclosed in any way. GO Transit is prepared to study capacity enhancements for the bus terminal at the CP Express site upon completion of its design for the changes to rail tracks 1, 2 and 3 and the accompanying platform expansions. The initial period for the design and construction of the rail facilities at the CP Express site gives the time or opportunity to further explore the long-term objective of consolidating all bus operations in a single, permanent, intermodal terminal at the CP Express site or to identify measures to protect this possible future outcome. In this context, it should be noted that Recommendation 2 of the September 20, 1999 report of the Chief Administrative Officer, which was adopted by the Administrative Committee, states that a "…staff team headed by the Urban Planning and Development Services staff continue to facilitate further discussions with OMCA, TTC and GO Transit regarding inter-city bus operations in the downtown."

Conclusions:

The Administrative Committees insertion of the word "interim" into Recommendation 1 of the September 20, 1999 report of the Chief Administrative Officer does not present an immediate problem to GO Transit staff. However, the ultimate approval of the acquisition of the CP Express site for GO Transit purposes rests with GO's Board of Directors whose decision will be dependent upon the approval of an internally generated business case supportive of such an investment.

There continues to be discussion and debate over the long-term future of a permanent, intermodal bus terminal at the CP Express site. Recognizing this situation, the Administrative Committee adopted Recommendation 2 of the Chief Administrative Officer's September 20, 1999 report which directs the appropriate city staff to "…continue to facilitate further discussions with OMCA, TTC and GO Transit regarding inter-city bus operations in the downtown.")

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 25, 1999) from Mr. Brian Crow, President, Ontario Motor Coach Association, submitting background information with respect to the issue of a new bus terminal at Union Station.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends:

(A) the adoption of the report (April 26, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer embodied in the communication (June 17, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by deleting the word "Appendix A", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Schedule 'A', entitled 'City of Toronto Revised Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy' ", so that Recommendation No. (1) now reads as follows:

"(1) the City of Toronto adopt the Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy attached as Schedule 'A', entitled 'City of Toronto Revised Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy' ";

(B) that any City Agency, Board or Corporation owned by the City that is not necessarily covered by the City's purchasing policy be requested to adopt this policy; and

(C) that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit an annual report to the Administration Committee on the application of this policy to determine whether it needs to be updated or revised; such report to include a brief overview of the best practices.

The Administration Committee submits the following communication (June 17, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at is meeting held on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it the attached Clause No. 4 contained in Report No. 10 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed "Review and Harmonization of Environmentally Responsible Procurement".

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred to the Administration Committee for consideration, with a request that all interested parties, including residents, representatives from labour, business, industry and research science, and those persons who appeared before the City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto Council in 1995 on the phasing out of the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, be invited to participate in the deliberation in this regard by appearing in deputation or submitting a communication to the Committee.

(Clause No. 4 of Report No. 10

of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee,

entitled "Review and Harmonization of Environmentally Responsible Procurement")

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Administration Committee for consideration, with a request that all interested parties, including residents, representatives from labour, business, industry and research science, and those persons who appeared before the City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto Council in 1995 on the phasing out of the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, be invited to participate in the deliberations in this regard by appearing in deputation or submitting a communication to the Committee.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 26, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, subject to adding the following Clauses to the Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy contained in Appendix "A":

"(7) given the environmental and economic importance of infrastructure, environmentally responsible procurement principles should be fully applied to construction design, processes, tendering and materials; and

(8) given that many environmentally preferred products and services can produce a variety of tangible benefits, full consideration should be given to the long term and complete costs and benefits of green procurement."

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (April 26, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To respond to the request of the Environmental Task Force regarding the "quick start idea" to review and harmonize Environmentally Responsible Procurement.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications for either the short term or long term.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City of Toronto adopt the Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy attached as Appendix A; and

(2) Interim Purchasing By-law No. 57-1998 be revised to include the new City of Toronto Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy.

Council Reference/Background History:

In early September 1998, the Environmental Task Force held a series of focussed workshops in the areas of air, land, water, nature/greenspace, toxics/pollution prevention and sustainable energy strategies. Participants included Task Force members, city staff, representatives from environmental groups and agencies, community groups, business, education and labour. The workshops were chaired by City Councillors who are members of the Task Force. The participants of the workshops were asked to identify priority issues and actions for their topic areas. In addition, they were asked to identify quick start ideas that would result in improvements to the environment, achieve cost savings, create local employment and require limited new resources to implement.

The quick start ideas were prioritized by workshop participants and reviewed by smaller groups of workshop participants and Environmental Task Force staff to identify actions which the Task Force could take or recommend. For those priority quick starts which City or Agency staff were being asked to take action, program staff were consulted to determine feasibility, cost implications, etc. Environmentally Responsible Procurement was identified as a "quick start" idea at two of the workshops.

In addition, the Environmental Task Force at its meeting on December 18, 1998, requested in a report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee that the Commissioner of Finance submit the Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy that is being prepared for City Council as soon as possible and submit it to the Environmental Task Force for information en-route to Standing Committee.

A review of Environmentally Responsible Procurement policies of former municipalities was conducted by the Finance Department Purchasing and Materials Management Division and the following are a summary of the findings and recommendations.

Comments:

A review of Environmentally Responsible Procurement activities of the former municipalities has indicated that the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto had the following Environmentally Responsible Procurement policies:

Former Metro Policy:

In order to contribute to waste reduction and to increase the development and awareness of Environmentally Sound Purchasing, acquisitions of goods and services will ensure that wherever possible specifications are amended to provide for expanded use of durable products, reusable products and products (including those used in services) that contain the maximum level of post-consumer waste and/or recyclable content, without significantly affecting the intended use of the products or service. It is recognized that cost analysis is required in order to ensure that the products are made available at competitive prices.

Former City Policy:

That in order to increase the development and awareness of Environmentally Sound Products all departments, in conjunction with Purchasing and Supply staff review their contracts and tender specifications for goods and services, to ensure that wherever possible and economical, specifications are amended to provide for expanded use of products and services that contain the maximum level of post-consumer recyclable waste and/or recyclable content, without significantly affecting the intended use of the product or service, and that it is recognized that cost analysis is required in order to ensure that the products are made available at competitive prices.

Both policies recognized the need to expand the use of Environmentally Sound Products, that the products/service must be suitable for the intended use to ensure that operational requirements are met and that the products/services must be competitive in cost to ensure that the City/Metro would not pay unnecessary price premiums for these products or restrict competition in its purchasing activities.

The above policies are still being applied to all former City and Metro purchasing activity. The policies however only mention products/services containing maximum levels of post-consumer waste and/or recyclable content in order to minimize waste. They do not mention products/services that result in minimum damage to the environment (i.e. pollutants, non-renewable resources, public health).

Discussions with representatives of the Federal Government Environmental Choice Program (a Federal Government program which identifies products and services having an environmental benefit) has resulted in the Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy attached as Appendix A. The policy includes the above-mentioned concerns of minimizing damage to the environment.

The policy would ensure that suppliers are aware that the City is looking to expand its use of environmentally preferred products/services, that these products/services are obtained in a competitive manner to ensure best prices possible for the City, that specifications for acquisitions of goods and services are expanded to include such products/services, that the products/services provide the performance required by the City, and would harmonize Environmentally Responsible Procurement practices within the City of Toronto.

Although the new Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy can be applied to all City Purchasing activity, Guidelines for Environmentally Preferred Products and Services are developed by the Federal Government Environmental Choice Program (ECP). The Purchasing and Materials Management Division will continue to liaise with the ECP to encourage the development of guidelines for all products/services purchased by the City. The guidelines are referenced in specifications for acquisition of goods and services to ensure that those offering environmentally preferred products/services meet the requirements of the guidelines so that the products/services offered are in fact environmentally responsible products.

To ensure that procurement specifications allow for the purchase of environmentally preferred products/services, the Purchasing and Materials Division will continue to work corporately with departments to ensure that specifications for acquisitions of goods and services are expanded to include those products/services.

Conclusions:

In order to ensure that suppliers are made aware of the City's intentions to expand its use of environmentally preferred products/services and to ensure that specifications for acquisitions are expanded to include such products/services, an Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy has been developed, and included as Appendix A in this report.

The adoption of this policy and its inclusion in Interim Purchasing By-law No. 57-1998 would not only ensure a harmonization of Environmentally Responsible Procurement activities within the City of Toronto, but would also ensure that the City adopts environmentally responsible procurement practices.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lou Pagano, Director, Purchasing and Materials Management Division

Finance Department; Telephone: 392-7312

"That in order to increase the development and awareness of environmentally sound purchasing, acquisitions of goods and services will ensure that wherever possible specifications are amended to provide for the expanded use of environmentally preferred products such as: durable products, reusable products, energy efficient products, low pollution products, products (including those used in services) that contain the maximum level of post-consumer waste and/or recyclable content, and products that provide minimal impact to the environment.

An environmentally preferred product is one that is less harmful to the environment than the next best alternative having characteristics including, but not limited to the following:

(1) Reduce waste and make efficient use of resources: An EPP would be a product that is more energy, fuel, or water efficient, or that uses less paper, ink, or other resources. For example, energy-efficient lighting, and photocopiers capable of double-sided photocopying.

(2) Are reusable or contain reusable parts: These are products such as rechargeable batteries, reusable building partitions, and laser printers with refillable toner cartridges.

(3) Are recyclable: A product will be considered to be an EPP if local facilities exist capable of recycling the product at the end of its useful life.

(4) Contain recycled materials: An EPP contains post-consumer recycled content. An example is paper products made from recycled post-consumer fibre.

(5) Produce fewer polluting by-products and/or safety hazards during manufacture, use or disposal: An EPP product would be a non-hazardous product that replaces a hazardous product.

(6) Have a long service-life and/or can be economically and effectively repaired or upgraded.

It is recognized that cost analysis is required in order to ensure that the products are made available at competitive prices, and that the environmental benefits provided by a product or service does not undermine its overall performance.

Given the environmental and economic importance of infrastructure, environmentally responsible procurement principles should be applied to construction design, processes, tendering and materials; and

Given that many environmentally preferred products and services can produce a variety of tangible benefits, full consideration should be given to the long-term and complete costs and benefits of environmentally responsible procurement."

City of Toronto

Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy

"That in order to increase the development and awareness of environmentally preferred products, acquisitions of goods and services will ensure that wherever possible specifications are amended to provide for expanded use of durable products, reusable products, energy efficient products, low pollution products, products (including those used in services) that contain the maximum level of post-consumer waste and/or recyclable content and provide minimal impact to the environment.

An Environmentally Preferred Product (EPP) is one that is less harmful to the environment than the next best alternative. Characteristics of an EPP are as follows:

(1) Reduce waste and make efficient use of resources

An EPP would be a product that is more energy, fuel, or water efficient, or that uses less paper, ink, or other resources. For example, energy-efficient lighting, and photocopiers capable of double-sided photocopying.

(2) Are reusable or contain reusable parts

These are products such as rechargeable batteries, reusable building partitions, and laser printers with refillable toner cartridges.

(3) Are recyclable

A product will be considered to be an EPP if local facilities exist capable of recycling the product at the end of its useful life.

(4) Contain recycled materials

An EPP contains post-consumer recycled content. An example is paper products made from recycled post-consumer fibre.

(5) Produce fewer polluting by-products and/or safety hazards during manufacture, use or disposal

An EPP product would be a non-hazardous product that replaces a hazardous product.

(6) Have a long service-life and/or can be economically and effectively repaired or upgraded.

It is recognized that cost analysis is required in order to ensure that the products are made available at competitive prices, and that the environmental benefits provided by a product or service does not undermine its overall performance."

The following persons appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Steven Peck, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities Coalition;

- Ms. Monica E. Kuhn, Architect, Architecture Rooftop Gardens Permaculture Designs; and

- Mr. Rich Whate, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and filed a submission in regard thereto.

(Councillor Augimeri, at the meeting of City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, declared her interest in the foregoing Clause, in that her husband is a shareholder in a company that deals with environmentally responsible goods.)

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

- Ms. Mimi Nadiesta Singh, Director, Environmental Health and Safety, Canadian Plastics Industry Association;

- Mr. Steven W. Peck, Principal, Peck and Associates, and filed a written submission in regard thereto; and

- Councillor Jack Layton - Don River.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 13, 1999) from Mr. Sam Morra, P. Eng, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, advising of the Association's concern with respect to the recommendations related to the review and harmonization of environmentally responsible procurement.)

(Councillor Augimeri, at the Council meeting on October 26 and 27, 1999, declared her interest in the foregoing Clause, in that her husband is a shareholder in a company that deals with environmentally responsible goods.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report to the Administration Committee, if and when a settlement is finalized.")

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (September 20, 1999) from the City Solicitor, entitled "1171 St. Clair Avenue West and 1345 St. Clair Avenue West, Appeal of Interim Control By-law No. 1997-0321, Ontario Municipal Board", which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover; and reports having requested the City Solicitor to submit a confidential report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on October 26, 1999, in regard thereto.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, considered the aforementioned report dated September 20, 1999, from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report dated October 18, 1999, from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(Councillor Disero, at the Council meeting on October 26 and 27, 1999, declared her interest in the foregoing Clause, in that she has a legal interest in this matter.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 23, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report recommends the establishment of a scale of costs associated with proceedings under the Municipal Tax Sales Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. M. 60.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the charging of costs in accordance with the Scale of Costs attached as Schedule 'A' hereto be approved;

(2) By-law No. 32590 of the former City of North York and By-law No. 1994-128 of the former City of Etobicoke be repealed;

(3) authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council; and

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

Background:

Municipal tax sales proceedings can commence once taxes have been in arrears for three years (for lands with a building) or two years for vacant land. The Municipality must follow specific requirements and steps as identified in the Municipal Tax Sales Act (the "Act").

It is Finance Department policy that tax sales proceedings are only commenced after all other collection efforts have been exhausted. If staff are unable to achieve payment or a firm, suitable repayment plan to address the arrears of taxes, they proceed with the steps as outlined in the Act to collect the tax arrears. The debtor has one year from the date of registration of a tax arrears certificate on title of the property, to pay the cancellation price which includes all of the taxes levied, any interest/penalties and costs. Failing payment within that one year, or the entering into of an extension agreement, where the Treasurer is satisfied that the legislation has been substantially complied with, the City is required to proceed with a public sale of the property.

Among the steps taken leading into and through the registration process for an average registration are:

(1) review by manager to ensure all collection efforts have been exhausted;

(2) conduct a search of title to the property;

(3) prepare and register a tax arrears certificate;

(4) prepare and send notice of registration to owner(s) and all interested parties;

(5) prepare and register the statutory declaration (shows step 3 above was completed);

(6) within 30 days after 280 days from registering the tax arrears certificate, send a final notice to all interested parties;

(7) prepare and execute a statutory declaration, which does not need to be registered, (shows step 4 above was completed); and

(8) if payment is received, prepare and execute a cancellation certificate.

Additionally, although not prescribed by the legislation, staff attend at the property to try to speak with the owner and if unable to make contact, speak with neighbours to determine the whereabouts and situation of the owner. At the time of their attendance, if staff are able to talk with the debtor, they advise of the next steps that will be taken if no suitable payment arrangements are made. In addition, they observe the property looking for any environmental concerns. Proceedings under the Act are reviewed carefully by senior finance staff.

Discussion:

Section 15 of the Act allows for the charging of the municipal costs incurred in the tax sales process, by either tracking actual costs incurred, or by establishing a by-law, fixing a scale of costs, being a reasonable estimate of the costs to the municipality of the tax sale process. Administratively, by establishing a Scale of Costs by-law, at any given time, it is possible to advise interested parties as to the exact costs are on a file. As well, before proceeding, we can anticipate what the costs will be.

A review of the practices of the former municipalities regarding the use of a by-law to set out the fees allowed to be charged for proceedings under the Act or by charging actual costs was conducted by both the legal and finance departments.

The former Borough of East York used outside legal firms to conduct their registration proceedings, and charged their registration accounts at actual costs. Former Scarborough did not proceed to register accounts. Toronto used inside counsel, however did not establish a by-law, so also charged their fees at actual costs. Etobicoke and North York had by-laws passed which set out the fees. York used inside counsel and charged a flat fee. A summary of the fees as set by by-law and the proposed fees is attached. The fees, upon payment by the debtor, are credited to the legal and finance department accounts, based upon their respective costs as used to determine the proposed fee as set out in 'Schedule A'. The existing by-laws were established in 1994 for Etobicoke and 1995 for North York.

It was determined that it was more fair and equitable to charge a standard fee for any account for which a tax arrears certificate was registered under the Act. A property owner will know up front what the cost exposure is and it is administratively a faster process to track the costs. In determining standard fees, it was necessary to estimate the average preparation time multiplied by the average staff cost. As such, the attached Schedule sets out the scale of costs that reflects a recovery of the costs incurred for each legislatively required stage of the process.

A comparison of the average costs charged up to the time of registration of a cancellation certificate under the existing fee structures and the proposed fees as set out in 'Schedule A', is set out in the following table:

These costs are incurred only by those taxpayers that have an improved property where the taxes are in arrears for three years or more or vacant land where the taxes are in arrears for two years or more and who have failed to make suitable arrangements for the repayment of these outstanding taxes. These costs form part of the cancellation price once proceedings have been commenced to collect upon the realty tax arrears, pursuant to the provisions of the Act.

Once we have commenced proceedings, a tax arrears certificate is registered against the title of the property. The property owner has one year from the date of this registration to pay the cancellation price. Failing payment being received by the City within this one year period, the City must conduct a public sale of the property. If there is a successful purchaser then the amount bid must be paid within 14 days. If there is no successful purchaser then the property vests in the municipality upon registration of a Notice of Vesting.

On January 1, 1999, we had roughly 1,200 accounts, or approximately 0.2 percent of our total accounts billed annually, being approximately $79 million, where we could have started proceedings under the Act. At present, roughly 10 percent of the accounts where a tax arrears certificate could have been registered on January 1, 1999 have had a certificate registered on title. Of the balance, in roughly 50 percent of cases, we have reached a firm suitable repayment plan, or have received payment in full. For the remaining 40 percent, we are still attempting collections, and have requested a title search on the property, the initial step leading to registration of a tax arrears certificate.

Conclusion:

A review of the two methods of charging the respective fees with respect to proceedings under the Act was conducted by the legal and finance departments. It was determined that by establishing a scale of costs by-law, it would be possible to establish a system for cost recovery which is both fair and equitable to the taxpayer and relatively straightforward to administer. The proposed costs are set out in Schedule 'A' attached.

Contact Name:

Margo L. Brunning, Manager, Collections/Receivables, Payments

and Regional Customer Services

Phone: (416) 395-6789

Fax: (416) 395-6703

Internet Email Address: mbrunnin@toronto.ca

Mary Ellen Bench, Solicitor

Phone: (416) 392-7245

Fax: (416) 392-1017

Internet Email Address: mbench@toronto.ca

Proposed Scale of Costs pursuant to Section 15 of the Municipal Tax Sales Act R.S.O. 1990, c.M.60

The Scale of Costs to be charged shall be:

Registration of Tax Arrears Certificate $250.00 Plus actual costs of title search and execution search costs

Preparation and Notice of Registration $25.00 each notice sent

Preparation and Registration of Statutory Declaration $125.00

Preparation and Registration of

Tax Arrears Cancellation Certificate $150.00

Preparation of Extension Agreement $250.00

Preparation of Final Notice $25.00 each notice sent

Preparation of Notice re Advertisement for Public Sale $25.00 each notice sent

Sale by Public Tender $300.00

Preparation and Registration of

Tax Deed or Notice of Vesting $175.00

Payment into Court and Statement of Facts $100.00

Payment out of Court $450.00

Charges for Surveys, Advertising, Soil Testing, Actual Cost

Preparation and Placement of Placards

Farm Debt Review Board $25.00

Registered Mail Costs Actual Cost

Registration File Folders Actual Cost

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 23, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an extension of an agreement entered into by the former City of North York with the owner of the above noted property, Carlow Investments Inc.

Funding:

None required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City of Toronto enter into an Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor, amending the agreement pertaining to 39 - 41 Fenmar Drive, dated August 25, 1997, between the former City of North York and Carlow Investments Inc. ("Carlow") which agreement shall extend the deadline to July 1, 2000, for the completion of construction bringing the gross floor area to a minimum of 85,000 square feet, and shall provide that upon completion of the structure by the deadline, the deposit of $62,400 be refunded to Carlow; and

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

Background:

Council of the former City of North York entered into an agreement on August 25, 1997 with Carlow who is the current owner of 39 - 41 Fenmar Drive. Under this agreement, Carlow has the following obligations:

(1) to submit any environmental reports in its possession or control which identify the extent of the contamination and the expected cost to remediate (this was done September 1997);

(2) to make a deposit of $62,400, (this was done by cheque dated September 26, 1997);

(3) to remediate the property, at its expense, within 3 months of the agreement, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Environment and Energy ("MOEE") and to obtain a discharge or certificate of compliance with respect to the Director's Orders (this was done on December 16, 1997) and;

(4) upon completion of the remediation, to submit a phase two environmental assessment to the Treasurer verifying the extent and completion of the environmental remediation to the satisfaction of the Treasurer and Medical Officer of Health (this was done on December 8, 1997).

Upon Carlow's compliance with its above mentioned obligations, the City was required under the agreement to provide a tax clearance certificate. This was done on December 19, 1997.

Pursuant to the agreement, Carlow was further required to obtain a building permit to erect a structure bringing the gross floor area at 39 - 41 Fenmar Drive to a minimum of 85,000 square feet thereby generating tax revenue of roughly $59,000 per year for the City. Carlow was also required to occupy the structure for its business purposes on or before June 30, 1998, failing which it would forfeit its deposit of $62,400. The building permit has now been requested but the structure is incomplete. The anticipated completion date is March, 2000. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the City has not refunded the deposit.

Discussion:

By letter dated February 20, 1998 to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Carlow Investments Inc. requested, an extension of the completion of the building to December 31, 1998. Subsequently, by letter dated June 3, 1998 to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Carlow requested that it be permitted to further extend the completion of the building to July 1, 1999. By verbal discussions with various members of staff, a further extension to July 1, 2000 has been requested by Carlow.

The City has two options with respect to extending the completion deadline of the 85,000 square foot structure:

(1) do not extend the deadline and do not refund the deposit of $62,400; in compliance with the current agreement; or

(2) extend the deadline by amendment of the agreement, refund the deposit when the structure has been completed prior to July 1, 2000, and collect approximately $59,000 per year in additional tax revenue resulting from the increased assessment of 39 - 41 Fenmar Drive.

It is recommended that option 2 as outlined above, extending the completion date of the structure to July 1, 2000 be adopted. The additional annual revenue would offset the deposit in year one alone, with additional annual tax revenues continuing each year thereafter.

Conclusion:

As Carlow has not brought the square footage of the building's floor space at 39-41 Fenmar Drive up to the minimum of 85,000 square feet as required under its Agreement with the former City of North York, Carlow is not currently entitled to a return of its deposit of $62,400 from the City. This report recommends that the City enter into an agreement amending the August 25, 1997 agreement between the former City of North York and Carlow, so as to extend the deadline for completion of such construction to July 1, 2000.

Contact Name:

Giuliana Carbone,

Director of Revenue Services, (416) 392-8065

Margo L. Brunning,

Manager, Collections/ Receivables,, Payments and Regional Customer Service, (416) 395-6789

Christina Hueniken,

Solicitor, Legal Division Services, (416) 392-8429

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 23, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the sale of the vacant parcel on the north side of Ellesmere Road east of Kennedy Road.

Financial Implications:

Estimated revenue of $715,494.00 less commission, closing costs and the usual adjustments on closing is anticipated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept the Offer to Purchase as submitted by Lambertus Dekkema Holdings Inc. in the amount of $801,000.00, subject to a price reduction, based on $275,826.44/acre, for the area of land affected by the former City of Scarborough Tree By-law (25150);

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 36 of The former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CP300J56258;

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to complete this transaction, including adjusting the sale price, and be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as considered reasonable; and

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

Background:

By its adoption of Clause No. 7 of Report No. 1 of The Corporate Administration Committee on January 7, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus. Further, by its adoption of Clause No. 19 of Report No. 13 of The Corporate Services Committee on October 1 and 2, 1998, City Council released the surplus property from a list of properties considered for affordable housing and authorized its disposal subject to easement protection for utilities, by offering the property for sale at market value on the open market by direct sale or by use of the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board.

The subject lands, totalling 2.904 acres, located on the north side of Ellesmere Road, just east of Kennedy Road, were acquired for and in connection with the Ellesmere/CNR Grade Separation Project, from Sextet Investments Limited and Cheeseworth's Limited on October 17, 1978. The lands were listed for sale on October 8, 1998 with CB Richard Ellis on the Toronto Real Estate Board MLS without an asking price. In spite of numerous inquiries, only two offers were received, neither were indicative of our estimate of market value. After further consultation with the realtors involved, it was learned that many prospective purchasers were concerned about the effects of the former City of Scarborough Tree By-law (25150) and its impact on the site's development potential. The trees, identified as being a significant stand of oak trees, are clustered centrally near the north property limit. The property was remarketed in the spring of 1999 at an asking price of $290,000.00 per acre. Three offers were received on August 19, 1999.

Comments:

The following are the details of the offers received:

Total Price

Purchaser Purchase Price per Acre Deposit Term

Lambertus Dekkema

Holdings Inc. $801,000.00 $275,826.44 $40,050.00 - The purchase price is based on a developable area of 2.904 acs., and is subject to adjustment at the rate of $275,826.44/acre, if the developable area is reduced as a result of the Tree By-law.

- The purchaser satisfying itself as to the suitability of he intended use within 30 days of acceptance.

Total Price

Purchaser Purchase Price per Acre Deposit Term

Richmond Property

Corporation $652,000.00 $224,517.90 $31,000.00 - Conditional on soil testing Certified and rezoning by vendor for Cheque residential rental apartments within 11 months of acceptance by vendor and receipt of site plan approval.

1077572 Ontario $300,000.00 $103,305.78 $50,000.00 - Unconditional

Inc. and IDMD OR

Manufacturing Inc. $400,000.00 $137,741.04 $50,000.00 - Conditional of City Certified rezoning and exemption Cheque from Tree By-law.

The highest and best offer received from Lambertus Dekkema Holdings Inc. is recommended for acceptance:

Subject Property: Part of Lot 14, Registrar's Complied Plan 9953, City of Toronto, (formerly City of Scarborough) designated as Parts 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 17 on Reference Plan 64R-8378, subject to the following easements.

Easements: (1) An existing easement over Parts 8 and 17, Plan 64R-8378 in favour of the Canada Life Assurance Co. as set out in Instrument No. 504624;

An existing easement over Parts 15, 16 and 17 on Plan 64R-8378 in favour of Bell Canada as set out in Instrument No. TR-039426;

An easement to be reserved over Parts 1 and 2 on draft reference plan, a copy of which is attached for information in favour of I.D.M.D. Corporation for sewer purposes; and

An easement to be reserved over Parts 3, 4 and 5 on draft reference plan, a copy of which is attached for information in favour of the TTC for sewer purposes.

Location: North side of Ellesmere Road, east of Kennedy Road.

Dimensions: 200.56 metres (658.02 feet) of frontage on Ellesmere Road with an average depth of 53.34 metres (175 feet).

Site Area: 11,750.08 square metres (126,481 square feet or 2.904 acres).

Developable

Site Area: Estimated 2.594 acres, subject to a survey confirming area affected by the Tree By-law.

Property Type: Vacant Land.

Zoning: M-Industrial.

Official Plan: General Industrial uses with High Performance Standards.

Recommended

Sale Price: $801,000.00 (based on site area of 2.904 acres), subject to a price reduction, based on $275,826.44/acre for the area of land which may be affected by the former City of Scarborough Tree By-law.

Deposit: $40,050.00 (certified cheque) representing a 5 per cent deposit.

Purchaser: Lambertus Dekkema Holdings Inc.

Closing Date: February 4, 2000.

Terms: Cash on closing, plus GST, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker: CB Richard Ellis.

Selling Broker: CB Richard Ellis.

Commission: Four (4) per cent, plus GST, payable on closing of the transaction.

Costing Unit No. CP300J56258 has been put in place to charge costs directly related to the maintenance and sale of this City-owned property, and includes sale commissions, surveying and registration of the sale. A recommendation is included in this report to direct a portion of the sale proceeds to close out the account for this property.

Discussion:

A stand of oak trees located near the rear centre of the site, is considered of significance and is subject to the provisions of the former City of Scarborough Tree By-law (25150) which prohibits the removal of trees having a diameter of 30 centimetres or more. Forestry staff of Economic Development Culture and Tourism have identified the stand of trees as being of Carolinian forest origin, however, the stand is somewhat isolated, being located near the rear of the lot in a predominately industrial area, without a pedestrian or vehicle link to public space.

The purchase price of $801,000.00 as submitted by the highest offeror, is based on 2.904 acres suitable for development purposes over the entire site. As a condition of the Purchaser's offer, should the developable area of the site be reduced because of the provisions of the Tree By-law, the purchase price is to be reduced on the basis of $275,826.44/acre times the treed area as determined by Forestry staff and a survey. The City will be responsible for completing the survey plan identifying the area of land affected by the Tree By-law within 30 days of acceptance and prior to closing of the transaction.

Given that the purpose of the Tree By-law is to protect trees of a specific size, coupled with the fact that the trees are on publicly held property, it is considered prudent to adjust the sale price based on the developable area rather than circumventing the Tree By-law by granting an exemption. Such action will ensure that Council's discretion relative to the Tree By-law is unfettered. Should the Purchaser seek relief from the Tree By-law to accommodate a particular development proposal, that option stills exists through the Site Plan Control process.

It is estimated that an area of approximately 0.31 acres is affected by the Tree By-law. This translates to a price reduction of $85,506.00. The area and price reduction are subject to confirmation through the preparation of a survey plan. Reducing the sale price by approximately $85,506.00 reflects a sale price of $715,494.00 which is superior to any other offers received.

Conclusion:

The Offer to Purchase, based on $275,826.44/acre, as detailed herein, is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of current market value and should be accepted.

Contact Name:

Roland Mayr, Manager of Disposals 392-1166 and/or Melanie Hale-Carter, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services, 397-0585, Fax 392-1880, E-Mail Address: melanie_halecarter@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the October 5, 1999, agenda of the Administration Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 4, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To implement the conveyance of 118A and 120 Pearl Street to TDHC.

Funding of Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The conveyance of the Pearl Street property to TDHC, at a value of $2,000,000.00, is part of the City's contribution to TDHC and is to be matched by OMERS with a cash contribution to TDHC in the same amount.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be granted for the City to proceed to implement the conveyance of 118A and 120 Pearl Street to TDHC in connection with the TDHC incorporation under the Ontario Business Corporations Act;

(2) authority be granted for the City to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

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

Background:

By its adoption of Clause No. 10 of Report No. 4 of The Policy and Finance Committee at its meeting held on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, City Council approved the incorporation of the TDHC under the Ontario Business Corporations Act. Among other matters, Council agreed that the City would contribute to TDHC the Pearl Street property, formerly owned by Toronto Hydro and retained by the City, for continued use as a steam production plant for TDHC at a value of $2,000,000.00 and to be matched by OMERS with a cash contribution to TDHC in the same amount.

In order to proceed with the proposed conveyance of the Pearl Street property to TDHC, the City must comply with the procedures governing disposal of property. Section 193(4) of the Municipal Act requires that, before the selling of any property, Council must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution passed at a meeting open to the public, give notice to the public of the proposed sale and obtain an least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempted by regulations passed under the legislation. The aforementioned procedures must be undertaken prior to Council binding the City to the transaction. This report is being submitted to fulfil the technical statutory requirements.

Comments:

By its adoption of Clause No. 16 of Report No. 5 of The Administration Committee, City Council, at its meeting held on September 28 and 29, 1999, declared surplus to the City's requirements for the conveyance to TDHC the property known municipally as 118A and 120 Pearl Street. As required, an appraisal of the market value of the property has been completed. Notice by publication in a daily newspaper of the proposed conveyance will be given prior to City Council's meeting scheduled for October 26, 27 and 28, 1999. Should comments be received pursuant to the notice, staff will report the results directly to Council at its meeting of October 26, 1999.

Conclusion:

In order to proceed with to the conveyance of 118A and 120 Pearl Street to TDHC, authorization should be granted at this time to implement the transaction.

Contact Name:

Luba Tymkewycz, 392-7207, Fax: 392-1880, E-mail: ltymkewy@toronto.ca

(A copy of the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the October 5, 1999, agenda of the Administration Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 13, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To seek authority for an encroachment agreement, to allow an existing residential building at 33 Cornwallis Drive, Scarborough, which encroaches six (6) inches onto a city sewer easement, to remain.

Funding:

Revenue of $350.00 plus disbursements will be credited to Legal Services Division of the Corporate Services Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City enter into an encroachment agreement with the owner of 33 Cornwallis Drive, Scarborough, to permit an existing residential building which encroaches six (6) inches onto a city sewer easement, to remain. The sewer easement and the encroachment are shown on Schedule "A" attached and will be subject to:

(a) the owner providing proof of insurance satisfactory to the City's Manager of Risk and Insurance;

(b) the owner agreeing to maintain the encroachment in good condition; and

(c) the owner paying the standard $350.00 administration fee plus disbursements and G.S.T. for the encroachment agreement; and

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

History:

The property at 33 Cornwallis Drive is a single family dwelling on a lot measuring 54 feet by 119 feet. It is located north of Lawrence Avenue East and west of Kennedy Road in the former City of Scarborough. A 10-foot sewer easement along the west boundary of the property was registered via instrument No. 134955 dated July 13, 1954, in favour of the City.

In a recent title conveyance, the lawyer acting for the vendor discovered from a survey, that the building on the property was 9 feet 6 inches from the west lot line and therefore, encroaching 6 inches onto the easement. The building, according to assessment records, was built in 1954.

The lawyer for the owner has acknowledged the encroachment and has requested the City authorise its continued presence through an encroachment agreement or reduce the width of the easement by 6 inches so that there will be no encroachment.

Comments:

Staff from Works and Emergency Services Department have inspected the site and advised that the encroachment does not pose a concern with respect to the structural stability of the subsurface storm sewer as well as its maintenance. They have no objections to the proposed encroachment request.

The encroachment policy of the former City of Scarborough considered minor encroachment of structures such as garages, eavestroughs, steps, retaining walls, etc., to be "Specific Encroachments", and subject to a one time administrative charge of $350.00.

Conclusion:

The existing encroachment by the building is minor in nature. It poses no obstruction to the existing storm sewer and its maintenance. Approval of the encroachment agreement will rectify an irregularity that has been in existence for over 40 years.

Contact Name:

Neubert Li, Real Estate Administrator, (416) 392-1243, Fax No. (416) 392-1880, E-mail Address: li@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy of Schedule "A" and the map attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the October 5, 1999, agenda of the Administration Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The Birchmount Bluffs Neighbourhood Centre (BBNC), in the attached letter (Appendix A) wishes to exercise its option to renew the Lease Agreement and Management Agreement between themselves (formerly the Phyllis Griffiths Neighbourhood Centre) and the City of Toronto, for use of a portion of the Birchmount Community Centre, 93 Birchmount Road.

Staff have no concern with respect to the changes requested relating to cooking or the right to post notices.

The current agreements expired August 31, 1999, with the option for a further 5-year renewal.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funding sources required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) in response to their request to exercise their option of renewal that the current agreements with the Birchmount Bluffs Neighbourhood Centre for the lease and management of space at the Birchmount Community Centre, be extended for a further five years, expiring on the last day of August 2004;

(2) the agreements be amended to:

(a) allow for cooking in the building in accordance with the regulations established by the Medical Officer of Health; and

(b) give permission to the BBNC to post notices without consent of the City; and

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

Impact:

Renewing the agreements would continue the operation of a successful partnership with the Birchmount Bluffs Neighbourhood Centre (BBNC) and the City of Toronto. The BBNC serves over 2000 people annually who participate in programs at the Birchmount Community Centre.

Comments:

The BBNC is a community-based organization serving southwest Scarborough, from Victoria Park Avenue to McCowan Road and from Lake Ontario to Eglinton Avenue.

BBNC was started by a group of residents in the early 1980's, in a storefront on Kingston Road because this community had no other recreational or social services at that time. The organization partnered with the former City of Scarborough when designing the new Birchmount Community Centre, and in 1994, the BBNC took up its current residence.

The BBNC has a mutually beneficial agreement with the City whereby, in exchange for free facilities, the neighbourhood centre offers programming in response to community needs. BBNC provides recreational, social, and creative programming to youth, children, adults, and seniors. In 1998, approximately 2010 people participated in programs such as karate, arts classes, dance, fitness, aquafitness, yoga, Feng Shui and after-school programs. Also offered, is a family resource centre which provides drop-in activities for parents and caregivers and their children; a toy, video and book lending library, and a community nursery school. The most recent addition is the Youth Employment Resource Lounge, which provides informal counselling and job access resources to community members.

The organization has fulfilled all past obligations to the City and has provided a professionally operated community recreation centre, which strives to meet the recreational needs of the surrounding community. The BBNC is an incorporated non-profit organization with a volunteer Board of Directors from the community.

The BBNC has kept up-to-date Comprehensive General Liability Insurance and Fire Liability Insurance as required by the landlord.

Conclusions:

The renewed lease and management agreement will provide the opportunity for residents in and surrounding Ward 13, to further enjoy the programs and services of the Birchmount Bluffs Neighbourhood Centre.

Contact Name:

Anne Jackson, 392-2651

I am pleased to report that the Board of Directors of the Birchmount Bluffs Neighbourhood Centre at our June 24, 1999 meeting, unanimously approved a motion to renew the Management Agreement and lease with the City of Toronto related to the occupation, management and operation of the Birchmount Community Centre at 93 Birchmount Road.

We are very pleased with the partnership with the City of Toronto which gives BBNC the opportunity to provide programs and services responsive to the community needs. We believe that the partnership is mutually beneficial and we would be pleased to continue it for another five years, as per the time frame of the lease renewal.

As per your discussions with Jacquie Buncel, Executive Director of BBNC, we would like changes to be made to Items 7 and 19 of Schedule "C" Rules and Regulations. We are in agreement that Item 7 should be changed to allow for cooking in the building in accordance with Health and Safety Standards. We would also like Section 19 to be amended to allow for BBNC's right to post notices without consent from the City.

We would also ask the Management Board to make the appropriate changes to the Management Agreement and the lease in order to reflect the new names of the parties and our representatives.

Thank you for your continued support of BBNC and our programs for the community.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 21, 1999) from the City Librarian:

Purpose:

To recommend that City Council consent to certain leasing transactions to be entered into by the Toronto Public Library Board (the "Library Board").

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Library Board's annual operating budget contains the funding for all leasing costs. Annual revenues from leases where the Library is the landlord are approximately $544,000.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that subject to the necessary funding being approved in the Library Board's operating budget, Council consent, pursuant to section 19 of the Public Libraries Act, to the Library Board entering into certain leases and lease renewals, both as landlord and as tenant, as more particularly set out in the body of this report.

Comments:

The Library Board currently leases space from third parties at a number of locations (20) that serve as public libraries across the City. Most of these locations have been occupied by the Library Board for many years and it is intended that these leases will be renewed as they become due. Attached hereto as Schedule 1 is a summary of the various leases the Library Board has entered into as tenant.

The Library Board also leases space out to various organizations and agencies at two major locations, namely 40 Orchard View Boulevard (Northern District Library) and 40 St. Clair Avenue East (Deer Park Branch) as well as the Toronto Reference Library. While each of these locations house a library there is space in excess of the Library Board's present requirements available. Existing tenants, for the most part, are long-term occupants with relatively short-term leases, e.g., 1 to 2 years. These leases expire at various times and some are open for renewal at the option of the tenants. Attached hereto as Schedule 2 is a summary of the various leases the Library Board has entered into as landlord.

The terms of all leases and lease renewals are submitted to the Library Board for approval and all lease documents are forwarded to the City Solicitor for review and approval prior to being signed by the Library Board. Pursuant to section 19 of the Public Libraries Act, however, City Council's consent is required before the Library Board may enter into lease transactions. Section 19 of the Public Libraries Act provides:

"10. (1) A board may, with the consent of the appointing council or, where it is a union board, the consent of a majority of the councils of the municipalities for which it was established,

(a) acquire land required for its purposes by purchase, lease, expropriation or otherwise;

(c) acquire or erect a building larger than is required for library purposes, and lease any surplus part of the building; ...."

In order to expedite lease transactions the Library Board approved the following motion on June 14, 1999:

The Toronto Public Library Board request City Council to approve a blanket consent that would permit the Toronto Public Library Board to undertake its real estate transactions in accordance with section 19 of the Public Libraries Act.

Although on its face, the motion appears to deal with all real estate transactions, this report recommends the adoption of a motion pertaining to leasing transactions only. The parameters of the blanket consent recommended to Council provides the following conditions:

Where the Library Board is the landlord:

(i) the term of the lease, including renewal options, not to exceed 5 years;

(ii) base rent to be negotiated in the range of market value except in the case of non-profit organizations; and

(iii) base rent for the entire term not to exceed $250,000.

Where the Library Board is the tenant:

(i) the term of the lease, including renewal options, not to exceed 10 years;

(ii) base rent to be negotiated in the range of market values or below;

(iii) base rent for the term not to exceed $1 million; and

(iv) funds to cover the lease costs have been approved by Council in the Library Board's operating budget.

The recommendation contained in this report pertains to leases only and has been reviewed by the City's Legal Services Division and the Facilities and Real Estate Division.

Contact Name:

Ann Eddie, Director of Administration, Phone: 393-7091, Fax: 393-7083.

Sid Mowder, Senior Manager - Finance, Phone 397-5946, Fax: 393-7115.

Schedule 1

Toronto Public Library

Leased Properties

Library is Lessee

Present

Present Annual

Landlord Location Sq. Ft. Term Lease Rate Expiry

East:

Orlando Corp. Bridlewood 5,445 10 98,010 08/31/2002

Cliffcrest Plaza Ltd. Cliffcrest 2,800 5 35,700 08/31/2002

Monarch Development Corp. Eglinton Square 4,716 5 91,962 12/31/2003

Revenue Properties Co. Ltd. Guildwood 3,010 5 36,120 11/30/2003

Milord Realty Inc. Kennedy/Eglinton 7,650 5 52,785 08/31/2002

590427 Ont. Ltd. et al. Maryvale 4,421 3 66,315 08/31/2000

Palmar Holdings Ltd. Morningside 6,032 8 87,464 12/31/2000

Ivanhoe Inc. Steeles 5,009 10 130,234 08/31/2001

Canvib Investments Corp. Woodside 4,256 5 54,264 08/31/2002

North:

Select Properties Bayview 4,290 5 127,627 12/31/2002

Sandbar Holdings Black Creek 7,382 10 88,584 08/31/2002

Ontario Hydro Centennial Parking Lot 5 1,990 10/31/2002

Bengro Holdings Inc. Downsview Access ROW 10 14,124 07/31/2004

Samuel D. Borins Jane/Sheppard 3,500 5 69,510 10/31/1999

S. Strashin & Sons Ltd. Woodview Park 2,812 5 36,108 06/14/2002

South:

TTC Danforth/Coxwell 9,617 50 41,587 12/31/2037

City of Toronto Forest Hill 10,438 Annual 125,256 Annual

City of Toronto Queen/Saulter 2,700 Annual 42,120 Annual

City of Toronto Urban Affairs 13,730 1 453,000 Annual

West:

Lucky Palace Holdings Ltd. Northern Elms 2,434 Monthly 38,690 04/30/2000

Suite Total

Tenants Location No. Sq. Ft. Term Value

Vacant 40 Orchard View Boulevard 101 1,900

Ontario Genealogical Society 40 Orchard View Boulevard 102 1,873 2 52,444.00

Winchester Arms 40 Orchard View Boulevard 103 2,125 5 90,312.50

Tractors for our Daily Bread 40 Orchard View Boulevard 104 320 2 8,320.00

Doctors Taylor, Erlich & Cryer 40 Orchard View Boulevard 209 1,150 2 17,982.00

Assoc. of Early Childhood Educ. 40 Orchard View Boulevard 211 1,450 1 20,300.00

Central Learning Centre 40 Orchard View Boulevard 213 1,450 2 50,344.00

Mood Disorders Assoc. 40 Orchard View Boulevard 215 600

A.R.C.H. 40 Orchard View Boulevard 217 1,771 2 49,588.00

Self-Help Resource Centre 40 Orchard View Boulevard 219 1,000 1 18,720.00

Mood Disorders Assoc. 40 Orchard View Boulevard 221 1,582 1 22,148.00

Canadian Info. Tech. College 40 Orchard View Boulevard 251 1,031 2 28,868.00

Vacant 40 Orchard View Boulevard 252 400

Canadian Info. Tech. College 40 Orchard View Boulevard 253 2,150 1 30,100.00

I.O.D.E. (National) 40 Orchard View Boulevard 254 1,074 1 20,105.28

A.R.C.H. 40 Orchard View Boulevard 255 3,435 1 48,153.00

Delisle Youth Services 40 Orchard View Boulevard 256 2,335 1 45,205.60

Dr. D. Ray Freebury 40 St. Clair Avenue East 200 494 2 13,832.00

Vacant 40 St. Clair Avenue East 201 3,204

John Milton Society 40 St. Clair Avenue East 202 954 1 12,879.00

Toronto Psychoanalytic Society 40 St. Clair Avenue East 203 2,261 1 31,654.00

Toronto Psychoanalytic Society 40 St. Clair Avenue East 204

I.O.D.E. (Municipal) 40 St. Clair Avenue East 205 763 1 10,300.50

Stevens & Burgess Architects 40 St. Clair Avenue East 300 2,282 1 29,666.00

Stevens & Burgess Architects 40 St. Clair Avenue East 301

Davidson-Langley Inc. Architects 40 St. Clair Avenue East 302 552 2 14,256.00

Dr. Bernard Fresco 40 St. Clair Avenue East 303 858 1 11,583.00

Dr. Bernard Fresco 40 St. Clair Avenue East 308

White Pine Therapeutics 40 St. Clair Avenue East 304 650 2 20,345.00

English Speaking Union/J. Lawer 40 St. Clair Avenue East 306 650 1 11,862.50

Targeted Audience Program 40 St. Clair Avenue East 307 972 2 27,216.00

Ontario Assoc. of Children's Mental Health 40 St. Clair Avenue East 309 1,619 1 24,556.50

Ontario Audio Library Services Fairview Library 168 5 5.00

Cultural Human Resources Info. Serv. Reference Library 320 Monthly 4,000 *

Smart Toronto Reference Library 4,316 Monthly 40,540 *

* Annual Value

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund embodied in the communication (March 12, 1999) from the Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, viz:

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

(1) amend Section 24 of By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation) to allow the payment as described in subclause (b)(i) thereof to all currently retired members who at the time of retirement had 30 years of service and were at least 50 years of age, without the requirement to receive an actuarial reduced pension under section 19; and

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

The Administration Committee submits the following communication (March 12, 1999) from the Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan:

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund at its meeting held on February 26, 1999, had before it a report dated February 13, 1998, from the City Solicitor, respecting By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation), Section 24 Refund, Proposed Widening of Entitlement; and recommending that this report be received for information.

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

(1) amend Section 24 of By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation) to allow the payment as described in subclause (b)(i) thereof to all currently retired members who at the time of retirement had 30 years of service and were at least 50 years of age, without the requirement to receive an actuarial reduced pension under section 19; and

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

The Board of Trustees also:

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

The Board of Trustees adopted the foregoing recommendations and authorized and directed the appropriate City officials, and the Chief Financial Officer to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Administration Committee also submits the following report (February 13, 1999) from the City Solicitor, entitled "By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation) Section 24 Refund, Proposed Widening of Entitlement":

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of November 20, 1998, the Board of Trustees had before it

(i) a communication dated November 18, 1998, from Mr. Paul Walter, Trustee, setting forth, inter alia, the text of a motion recommending that the City Solicitor be requested to draft an amendment to section 24 of By-law No. 181-81 to make the refund therein provided for applicable to all members who at retirement are at least 50 years of age and have 30 years of service, or who receive a pension pursuant to the permanent partial disability provisions; and

(ii) a draft amending by-law that would accomplish the desired modification of section 24, prepared by Mr. Derek Brown, City Legal Services, at the request of Mr. Art Lymer, Trustee.

At that time, the Board requested the City Solicitor to submit a report as to historical origin of the refund, the legality of the proposed amendment and the impact on the Fund.

Discussion:

Current section 24:

A copy of the office consolidation of section 24 of By-law No. 181-81 as amended to date is attached to this report as Appendix I. The section requires that to obtain the refund or equivalent supplementary pension, a member must be entitled to a pension under section 14 (permanent partial disability) or section 22 (early retirement once at least 50 with 30 years' service) AND have elected to receive a pension under section 19 (actuarial equivalence to full accrued pension credit; i.e.,  reduced to reflect the commencement of the benefits before the normal retirement age (NRA) of 60) or, if the member is already 60, to receive a normal pension under section 11.

History:

In his 1978 interest award, arbitrator Joseph Samuels refused to implement the Associations request for a switch from career average earnings to final average earnings (FAE) as the basis for pension calculation, but did recommend that the parties commence discussions concerning the possible harmonization of the Benefit Fund plan and OMERS".

In their 1979 settlement relating to pensions, the Association and the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police agreed that, commencing January 1, 1980, Fund benefits shall be identical to, but no greater or less than and on the same basis as the FAE formula benefits under OMERS, being 2 percent times average annual contributory earnings for best consecutive 60 months times years of service to a maximum of 35, subject to CPP reduction, plus Type 3 Supplemental (full pension if retiring at age 50 or older with 30 or more years service or with permanent partial disability).

The additional cost to the Fund was to be borne partly by an increase in employee/employer matching contributions -- the existing contributory rate of 7 percent would become 7˝ percent in 1979, and from 1980 would rise to 9 percent for earnings in excess of the YMPE (Years Maximum Pensionable Earnings) under the Canada Pension Plan -- and the balance, including any experience deficiency, by the Police Board, to whose benefit any surpluses would accrue. The settlement made no reference to refunds or supplementary pension in lieu thereof.

It was made clear that the long-standing right of a member who was at least 50 years of age and had 30 years of service to retire on a full pension (30-and-out) or on a reduced pension with fewer years of service (at least 25) would continue. The reductions agreed to in 1979 were somewhat larger than they had been, although they were subsequently improved and eventually eliminated.

At that time, the basic OMERS early-retirement benefit, set forth in section 16 of the Regulation, was to elect, within the ten years preceding NRA, an immediate pension actuarially equivalent (i.e., with smaller monthly payments) to a normal pension commencing at NRA. However, if the employer entered into a Type III (or ) Supplementary Agreement with OMERS, a member with 30 years service or a permanent partial disability who exercised the basic early-retirement option for a reduced pension would receive a supplementary pension to bring the total benefits up to those of an unreduced pension. There was such a Type 3 Agreement in place for officers belonging to OMERS, who contributed an additional 1 percent of their earnings beyond the basic OMERS rate of 6˝ percent plus 8 percent beyond YMPE (matched by the employer); sections 6 and 7 of that Agreement dealing with the calculation of the supplementary pension and benefits in lieu of thereof, are reproduced as Appendix II to this report.

Although not provided for in the Type 3 Agreement or in the OMERS Regulation, in 1979 the OMERS Board established a policy that any member of a class paying Type III contributions who does not become eligible for the Type 3 additional benefit was to be provided with an "additional pension from his own contributions plus interest" (see Appendix III to this report).

Mr. Jack Horsley of the Metropolitan Legal Department had responsibility for preparation of the new by-law implementing the changes called for by the 1979 pension settlement. In connection with a redraft which had been sent to Mr. Walter in his then capacity as President of the Association, but which did not yet contain what is now section 24, Mr. Walter sent to Mr. Horsley a letter dated August 11, 1981 arising from actuarial advice. Item 8 of that letter (reproduced as Appendix IV to this report) pointed out the additional pension provided by OMERS from a member's Type 3 contributions plus interest if the member does not retire early, and requested that a section be added to provide that 1 percent of contributory earnings from January 1, 1980, be treated as voluntary additional contributions (presumably referring to what is now clause 31(2)(c) of By-law No. 181-81 stating that a member of the Fund who retires without electing to transfer such contributions to a registered retirement savings plan be paid a pension on the basis of such contributions).

Mr. Horsley responded to this request in Item 8 of his letter to Mr. Walter of September 15, 1981 (reproduced as Appendix V to this report) by advising that he understood that reference had been made to "clause 7 of the supplementary [Type 3] agreement" and suggesting the original wording of section 24.

By-law No. 181-81 was enacted to include that wording and subsequently amended to read as shown in Appendix I to this report.

Commentary:

Mr. Horsley accepted the Association's position that for the benefits from the Fund to be "identical to, but no greater or less than and on the same basis as" those under OMERS, including the Type 3 Agreement, they had to include an equivalent to the benefit received by OMERS members in lieu of the early retirement supplementary pension. From this standpoint, it was irrelevant that the employer-matched 1 percent increase in the contribution rate for Fund members beginning in 1979 in no way corresponded to the additional 1 percent charged to OMERS members in connection with the Type 3 benefits (Fund members had had a 30-and-out privilege for many years without any "extra" contribution; the increase in contribution rate did not arise because of, nor was it earmarked to provide a source of special funding for, that privilege), or that Fund members who received a benefit under section 24 would in effect get the improved FAE-based benefits without full payment of their share of the negotiated increase from the old CAE contribution rates.

Section 24 was in step with the Type 3 Agreement in requiring in clause 24(a) that a pension under section 19 of the by-law (i.e., actuarially reduced) be elected as a precondition of entitlement to the refund, since section 6 of that Agreement (see Appendix II) stated that the supplementary pension was a top-up payment for any member who had elected an early retirement pension under section 16 of the Regulation (i.e., actuarially reduced). It was also in step with the 1979 OMERS policy of granting a supplementary pension for a member who "doesn't become eligible" for the Type 3 benefit, in that it specified election of a section 11 pension (normal pension) as an alternative to section 19 for a member who has reached NRA.

In fact, section 24 went beyond OMERS since it provided for a refund as an option at retirement -- at the time, section 18 of the OMERS Regulation in 1979 (referred to in clause 7(a) of the Type 3 Agreement; see Appendix II) contemplated refunds to a member only on cessation of membership for reasons other than death or retirement, or to a widow(er), a designated beneficiary or the member's estate. As it happens, the "pension adjustment" requirements that were put into the Income Tax Regulations about a decade ago now preclude the possibility of supplementary pensions for post-1989 service.

Nowhere did the OMERS scheme of benefits in existence in 1979 permit a member to double-dip by retiring below NRA and receiving a supplementary pension based on "unused" Type 3 contributions, which is what has been suggested for Fund members (substituting a refund for a supplementary pension). Accordingly, in placing the restrictions it does on entitlement to a refund, section 24 has never been defective, or at odds with the original intent either of the 1979 settlement or the 1981 correspondence between Messrs. Walter and Horsley.

It is true that OMERS eventually dispensed with the collection of extra contributions for the 30-and-out privilege, and made blanket refunds to all active Type 3 contributors. If this circumstance is put forth as the justification for an amendment to section 24 permitting a refund to all members, the matter is in the realm not of legal interpretation but of policy toward post-1979 OMERS improvements, keeping in mind that under the 1979 settlement, the Police Board did not oblige itself to make the benefits under the Fund identical to those under OMERS as same might evolve over the years, but rather only as at the time of that settlement. Furthermore, the Fund has never had a two-tier system under which supplementary benefits could be purchased by paying additional contributions and has never been in a financial position so favourable that it could afford to reduce future contributions.

If the issue is characterized as granting to members a refund of the part of their contributions attributable to the 30-and-out privilege, questions will arise as to the magnitude of that part (presumably significantly less than the ˝ percent stipulated in item 24(b)(i)(B) of By-law No. 181-81) and the appropriateness of making a refund of a portion of contributions that were never separately collected or regarded as the source of separate funding for that privilege (as they were in OMERS) and for which no across-the-board reduction in the contributions of active members (and the employer) has been or is intended to be implemented.

Legality of Refunds:

Section 8502 of the Income Tax Regulations sets out the conditions to which a pension plan must adhere to avoid revocation of its registration. Clause (d) thereof is headed "permissible distributions", and the only return of contributions provided for (and hence permitted) are those described in subclause (iii) "to avoid the revocation of the registration of the plan" or under subclause (iv) with respect to a defined benefit provision, "pursuant to an amendment to the plan that also reduces the future contributions that would otherwise be required to be made under the provision by members". Subclause (v) permits interest to be paid in connection with subclause (iv) returns.

Section 63 of the Pension Benefits Act prohibits entitlements to refunds with the exception of additional voluntary contribution and interest, payments under the 50 percent rule and refunds on termination of employment where there is no deferred pension.

In light of the foregoing, it seems that even the existing provisions in section 24 for refunds are of doubtful validity as currently worded, although insofar as they can be characterized as predetermined conditional benefits they may be valid. Since the specified percentages were never identifiable parts of the contribution formula, they could not very well be deemed (retroactively) to be voluntary additional contributions.

Extension of the "refund" to all members could possibly be accomplished as a distribution of surplus -- subclause 8502(d)(vi) of the Income Tax Regulations includes "a payment in full or partial satisfaction of the interests of a person in an actuarial surplus that relates to a defined benefit". Such an approach would probably be acceptable under the Pension Benefits Act as well, since the restrictions on distribution of surplus to employers do not apply to such distributions to employees.

Insofar as an amendment affected active members, it would be a collective-bargaining issue and would require the concurrence of both the Police Association and the Police Services Board before submission to Council.

Cost:

The actuary has advised that if the by-law is lawfully amended, the cost to the Fund of providing benefits in accordance with the draft by-law referred to above (i.e., making a payment to all pensioners who did not qualify for benefits under clause 24(b) when they retired and to all currently active members as they retire in the future) would be about $4,000,000.00. After the possibility of making entitlement to such benefits universal was raised with the actuary some time ago, the reserve already established with respect to clause 24(b) was gradually increased until it is now at that amount, but the actuary points out that this increase took place not in acknowledgment that the existing liability of the Fund under that clause was of that magnitude, but rather out of a desire to be conservative (i.e., in case the clause were to be amended to implement the possibility).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Derek Brown at 392-8055.

Supplementary

benefit

24. A member entitled to a pension under section 14 ((Permanent partial disability)) or 22 ((early retirement with 30 years of service)) may, in lieu thereof, elect to receive on retirement.

(a) a pension under section 19 ((actuarial equivalence to full accrued pension credit)) or, if the member has reached his normal retirement date, a pension under section 11 ((normal pension)), and

(b) either:

(i) a refund of an amount equal to the total of:

(A) 1 per cent of the member's contributory earnings from January 1, 1980, to April 3, 1984; plus

(B) one-half of 1 per cent of the member's contributory earnings after April 3, 1984; plus

(C) interest on the subtotal of the percentages described in items (A) and (B), at the rate of 3 per cent per annum up to the 31^st day of December, 1977 and 5 per cent per annum thereafter, compounded yearly in respect of the completed months from the end of the year in which the contributions were paid into the fund; or

(ii) a supplementary pension payable, co-incident with and on the same terms and conditions as the pension referred to in clause (a) in an amount which is actuarially equivalent to the refund described in subclause (i). (By-law No. 33-83 effective January 1, 1982 and By-law No. 147-84 effective December 4, 1984; re-enacted by By-law No. 66-94 effective January 1, 1988).

Early Retirement Supplementary Pension

6. (1) An early retirement supplementary pension is payable under this Plan to a covered member who:

(a) retires within the 10 year period before his Plan normal retirement date; and

(b) has earned at least 30 years of Early Retirement Qualifying Service or has become permanently partially disabled; and

(c) elects to receive an early retirement pension under section 16 of the Regulation.

(2) The early retirement supplementary pension shall be payable coincident with and under the same terms and conditions and subject to the same limitations as the member's early retirement pension so elected in paragraph (c) of subsection (1).

(3) The early retirement supplementary pension payable to a covered member under this Plan shall be equal to the sum of:

(a) the amount by which the early retirement pension referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is less than the amount of normal retirement pension calculated in respect of the covered member in accordance with section 12 of the Regulation using the same pensionable earnings and credited service used to calculate such early retirement pension; plus

(b) the amount, if any, by which the pension from an approved pension plan or prior service agreement of the Employer payable in respect of the covered member's Plan credited service and payable to the covered member on the date of his early retirement referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is less than the amount of pension from such approved pension plan or prior service agreement which would have been payable to the member on his Plan normal retirement date.

Other Benefits

In lieu of the early retirement supplementary pension payable under section 6 of this Plan, there shall be payable, coincident with and under the same terms and conditions and subject to the same limitations as the basic benefits;

(a) a refund of contributions plus interest to the credit of a covered member under this Plan, in the manner prescribed in section 18 of the Regulation, or

(b) a transfer of the present value of any supplementary pension to the credit of the covered member under this Plan, in accordance with the manner prescribed in section 22 of the Regulation or subsection 10 of section 23 of the Regulation.

May 25, 1982

To Whom It May Concern:

At the meeting of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board held on March 16, 1979, the Board established a policy regarding Type 3 Supplementary Benefits, i.e., where all members in a class are required to contribute towards the cost of a type 3 supplementary benefit and a member doesn't become eligible for such a benefit, an additional pension be provided for the member from his own contributions plus interest at the rate of interest used each year on the total funds held in the agreement.

G. A. Tyson

Director

Pension Administration

Appendix IV

Walter Letter of August 11/81

(8) We understand that an employee's share of the additional contributions for an OMERS type 3 supplementary benefit is accumulated with interest at the rates actually earned by OMERS until his retirement, and is then applied towards offsetting the capitalized value of the excess of his full accrued pension without actuarial reduction over the reduced pension that he would have received without the type 3 supplement. If the employee does not retire earlier than his normal retirement age, or if he does retire early but the accumulation of this share of the additional contributions is more than the amount needed to offset the above capitalized value, OMERS converts the excess into an additional pension on his behalf on an actuarially equivalent basis.

A section should therefore be added to the draft providing for the same treatment as voluntary additional contributions of employee contributions to the Benefit Fund of 1 percent of contributory earnings since January 1, 1980 that is applied as described above to the accumulation of an OMERS members' share of the additional contributions for the OMERS type 3 supplement that is not used to offset the capitalized value of the excess of his full accrued pension without reduction over the reduced pension that he would have received without the 30 year retirement provision.

We enclose herewith a copy of the letter we sent today to the Metro Police Commission regarding certain other matters which we believe should be included or changed in the revised By-law. You will be contacted further after those matters have been finalized between the contracting parties.

Yours truly,

Metropolitan Toronto Police Association

per:

Paul Walter

President

--------

Appendix V

Horsley Letter of September 15/81

(8) You appear to be referring to clause 7 of the supplementary agreement. (copy attached) Since I am not sure, may I have your comments on the suitability of adding after section 23 in the draft the following:

Other Benefits

24. A member entitled to a pension under sections 14 or 22 may, in lieu thereof, elect to receive on retirement:

(a) a pension under section 19 or, if the member has reached his normal retirement date, a pension under section 11;

and

(b) a refund of an annual amount equal to 1 percent of the contributions made by him under section 8 since January 1, 1980 plus interest, in the manner prescribed by section 23, or a supplementary pension payable, coincident with and on the same terms and conditions as the pension referred to in clause a in an amount which is actuarially equivalent to such refund.

The Administration Committee also submits the following report (May 5, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To comment on the recommendations of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund in regards to the proposed widening of the entitlement to a refund of contributions to members who retire with more than 30 years of service.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Corporate Services Committee refer these recommendations to the Toronto Police Services Board for their concurrence.

Background:

The Corporate Services Committee had before it a communication from the Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund advising that the Board recommended to the Corporate Services Committee:

(1) to amend Section 24 of By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Corporation) to allow the payment as described in subclause (b)(i) thereof to all currently retired members who at the time of retirement had 30 years of service and were at least 50 years of age, without the requirement to receive an actuarial reduced pension under section 19; and

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

The Board of Trustees had a request from Mr. Paul Walter, Trustee to amend Section 24 of By-law No. 181-81 to make the refund provided for applicable to all members who at retirement are at least 50 years of age and have 30 years of service, or who receive a pension pursuant to the permanent partial disability provisions. The Board requested a report from the City Solicitor, which was attached to their communication to the Corporate Services Committee, on the historical origin of the refund, the legality of the proposed amendment and the impact on the Fund. This report was forwarded to the Board for their information at their meeting of February 26,1999.

Discussion:

The report of the City Solicitor (Appendix 1) outlines the history and legal issues involved in the granting of the refund of contributions requested by the Board of Trustees. The City Solicitor concludes that "in placing the restrictions it does on entitlement of a refund, section 24 has never been defective, or at odds with the original intent either of the 1979 settlement or the 1981 correspondence between Messrs. Walter and Horsley".

The Solicitor also addresses the legality of refunds. He concludes that the "section 24 refunds are of doubtful validity as currently worded". He suggests that the extension of the "refund" to all members could possibly be accomplished as a distribution of surplus. Thirdly, he advises that the actuary has reserved for the cost of this improvement.

A draft by-law prepared by City Legal Services to implement the changes recommended is appended to this report.

Conclusion:

This issue has been part of labour negotiations between the Police Services Board and the Toronto Police Association. In light of this concurrence from both parties should be sought before the recommendation of the Board of Trustees is implemented.

Contact Name:

Ivana Zanardo, Director, Pension, Payroll and Employee Benefits; 397-4143

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

(1) (August 24, 1999) from the Manager, Compensation and Benefits, Toronto Police Service, addressed to Mr. Ron Coopman, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, advising that the Toronto Police Service Board and the Toronto Police Association have reached a memorandum of understanding dealing with the Police Benefit Fund issues on their 1999 Collective Bargaining table; and that the parties agree that they support changes to By-law No. 181-81 as requested by the Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, namely:

(1) the plan should be converted to a non-contributory plan subject to annual review, effective January 1, 1999; and

(2) the basic percentage for spousal pensions be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent for all active members, effective July 1, 1998; and

(2) (October 4, 1999) from the Manager, Compensation and Benefits, Toronto Police Service, addressed to Mr. Ron Coopman, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, providing a further update to his communication dated August 24, 1999, dealing with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Administration Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 23, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To report further to the Administration Committee, in accordance with both Council and Committee requests, with respect to recommendations for certain pension improvements previously submitted by the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that

(1) By-law No. 181-81 (Metropolitan Toronto) as amended governing the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund be amended so that:

(a) an employee and employer contribution holiday applies for the period January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2000; and

(b) the basic percentage for a spousal survivor pension be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent for all members, effective July 1, 1998,

and the Trustees be requested to review and report annually on the feasibility of extending such holiday;

(2) said By-law No. 181-81 and By-law No. 15-92 (Metropolitan Toronto) as amended governing the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan each be amended so that:

(a) member and employer contributions cease for each active member who has accrued 35 years of credited service;

(b) past member contributions made after the accrual of 35 years of credited service be refunded to each employee pensioner or, if deceased, the surviving spouse, if any;

(c) for members attaining age 65 on or after January 1, 1999, change the offset when Canada Pension Plan integration begins from a three-year average to a five-year average; and

(d) effective January 1, 1999, survivor benefits for a spouse and a dependent child or children be increased to the following percentages of the member's pension:

(i) Two survivors: 80 per cent;

(ii) Three survivors: 90 per cent; and

(iii) Four or more survivors: 100 per cent; and

(3) authority be granted for introduction of the appropriate Bills in Council to implement Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2).

Background:

The 1998 improvements to the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan (MTPP), effective as of July 1 of that year, included not only the usual cost-of-living increases for existing pensioners but also, in emulation of corresponding OMERS upgrades in late 1997, a reduction in the contribution rate and an increase in the spousal pension from 60 percent to 66 2/3 percent. Because police pension benefits for active members are collective bargaining issues, the same pension benefits for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund (MTPBF), although recommended by the Actuary in the valuation report for 1997, were implemented only insofar as they did not apply to active members, pending agreement by the Police Association and the Police Services Board.

In late 1998, following the contribution holiday declared by OMERS, a similar holiday was authorized for the MTPP for 1999, and was extended to the end of the year 2000 in conjunction with the 1999 cost-of-living increase for pensioners (Clause No. 28 of Report No. 6 of The Corporate Services Committee). A similar holiday requested for the MTPBF was at the same time referred back pending bargained consent.

In 1999, OMERS announced approval of their proposals to refund all employee contributions made after accrual of 35 years' service (OMERS stopped collecting such contributions in 1992), extend the CPP offset calculation once a member reaches age 65 in years after 1998 by averaging same over five years rather than three, reduce the offset itself by 1/28 and increase the maximum supplemented benefit for surviving spouses with dependent children from 75 percent of a deceased member's pension to 100 percent.

The Boards of Trustees obtained from the Actuary estimates of the cost of corresponding improvements in the MTPP and the MTPBF as follows:

The Actuary noted that the request to reduce the CPP offset calculation to .0675 from the current .07 percent would require a revision to the Municipal Act, recalculation of all benefits and the calculation of a Past Service Pension Adjustment for those who retired after 1990.

The respective Boards considered the information from the Actuary and decided to recommend to City Council that the respective plans be amended to reflect all the above-described OMERS improvements except the reduction of the offset to .0675 percent.

The Toronto Police Services Board has now advised that a memoranda of agreement with the Toronto Police Association has been entered into for all improvements recommended by the MTPBF Trustees and that these recommendations can now proceed.

Discussion:

As at January 1, 1999, the Actuarial Report reported the indexation Reserve Account for the respective funds was $52,657,000 for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and $141,341,000 for the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan. The current balance of the indexation reserve account will be adjusted upon approval of the improvements discussed above as follows:

The contribution holiday and increase of spousal benefits from 60 percent to 66 2/3 percent costs were already accounted for in the 1998 actuarial reports.

The policy of the Board of Trustees has been to use the indexation reserve account to pay for pension increases due to cost-of-living inflation and minor improvements in pension benefits. The revised balance indicates that there are sufficient funds in these accounts at this time to make these minor improvements.

The City Solicitor has been requested to prepare the necessary Bills to amend the governing by-laws.

Conclusion:

The pension benefits for this group of pensioners and employees are as similar to the OMERS plan as possible taking into consideration the ability of the funds to pay without additional contributions by the City.

Contact Name:

Ivana Zanardo

Director, Pension, Payroll and Employee Benefits

397-4143

The Administration Committee submits the following communication (June 1, 1999) from the Board Secretary, Board of Trustees, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan:

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund on May 28, 1999, had before it a communication (May 19, 1999), submitted by Mr. Robert Camp, William M. Mercer Limited, setting out the cost of possible plan upgrades, as requested by the Board of Trustees, for their information.

The Board of Trustees recommended to the Administration Committee that the following plan upgrades be considered:

(1) refund of Member Contributions made to the Fund after 35 years of service has been credited, for active members and retired members and spouses, for which the cost is expected to be $3.50 million, similar to what OMERS has proposed;

(2) change in the offset when Canada Pension Plan starts from a three-year average calculation to a five-year calculation, for active members and retired members and spouses under 65 years of age, for which the cost is expected to be $1.80 million, similar to what OMERS has proposed;

(3) extension of the survivor continuation percentage to 100 percent, as long as no current member is adversely affected, for which the cost is expected to be $0.05 million, as follows:

one survivor 66.67 percent

two survivors 80.00 percent

three survivors 90.00 percent

four or more survivors 100.00 percent; and

(4) the authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (3).

The Board of Trustees also:

(i) requested the City Solicitor to draft the appropriate amending by-law respecting Recommendations No. (1), (2) and (3), and submit such draft by-law directly to the Administration Committee for consideration with this matter; and

(ii) requested Mr. Robert Camp, William M. Mercer Limited, to provide a formal costing if the minimum pension was increased and include the figure for that costing in his Year 2000 Actuary Report.

The Administration Committee also submits the following communication (June 1, 1999) from the Board Secretary, Board of Trustees, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan:

The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan on May 28, 1999, had before it a communication (May 19, 1999), submitted by Mr. Robert Camp, William M. Mercer Limited, setting out the cost of possible plan upgrades, as requested by the Board of Trustees, for their information.

The Board of Trustees recommended to the Administration Committee that the following plan upgrades be considered:

(1) refund Member Contributions made to the Fund after 35 years of service has been credited, for active members and retired members and spouses, for which the cost is expected to be $2.65 million, similar to what OMERS has proposed;

(2) change the offset when Canada Pension Plan starts from a three-year average calculation to a five-year calculation, for active members and retired members and spouses under 65 years of age, for which the cost is expected to be $1.95 million, similar to what OMERS has proposed;

(3) extend the survivor continuation percentage to 100 percent, for which the cost is expected to be $0.05 million, as follows:

one survivor 66.67 percent

two survivors 80.00 percent

three survivors 90.00 percent

four or more survivors 100.00 percent; and

(4) the authority be granted for the introduction in Council of the necessary Bills to give effect to Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (3).

The Board of Trustees also requested that:

(i) the City Solicitor draft the appropriate amending by-law respecting Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (3), and submit such draft by-law directly to the Administration Committee for consideration with this matter; and

(ii) the Actuary, Mr. Robert Camp, of William M. Mercer Limited, obtain the approval of the Financial Service Commission of Ontario, for the authority to pay a one-time lump sum payment to retirees equal to an active member's contribution holiday in a calendar year, through the distribution of pension fund surplus, for which the cost is expected to be $11.80 million, prior to submitting a recommendation to Administration Committee.

The Administration Committee also submits the following communication (June 9, 1999) from the President, Toronto Police Association:

As you know, the Toronto Police Association has tabled a pension proposal requesting that the Pension Benefit Fund be amended to provide for mandatory indexation of pension benefits. The Trustees of the Police Benefit Fund are proposing various initiatives, including a contribution holiday for active members of the Fund and an increase in the spousal benefit. We have been informed that the initiatives being proposed by the Trustees cannot be implemented while the Association's indexing proposal remains on the bargaining table.

Please be advised that at the last bargaining meeting on May 25, 1999, the Association told the Police Services Board's bargaining committee that it would withdraw its proposal, subject to the contribution holiday and other improvements in fact being implemented. In other words, the proposal has been withdrawn. If, however, the contribution holiday and other initiatives are for some reason not implemented, the Association will retable its indexation proposal.

I trust that the above explains the Association position to the satisfaction of Council.

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

(1) (August 24, 1999) from the Manager, Compensation and Benefits, Toronto Police Service, addressed to Mr. Ron Coopman, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, advising that the Toronto Police Service Board and the Toronto Police Association have reached a memorandum of understanding dealing with the Police Benefit Fund issues on their 1999 Collective Bargaining table; and that the parties agree that they support changes to By-law No. 181-81 as requested by the Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, namely:

(1) the plan should be converted to a non-contributory plan subject to annual review, effective January 1, 1999; and

(2) the basic percentage for spousal pensions be increased to 66 2/3 percent from 60 percent for all active members, effective July 1, 1998; and

(2) (October 4, 1999) from the Manager, Compensation and Benefits, Toronto Police Service, addressed to Mr. Ron Coopman, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund, providing a further update to his communication dated August 24, 1999, dealing with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund.

(A copy of the following was distributed to all Members of Council with the October 5, 1999, agenda of the Administration Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(i) the confidential communications (May 19, 1999) from Robert G. Camp, William M. Mercer Limited, entitled "Cost of Possible Plan Upgrades - Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund" and "Cost of Possible Plan Upgrades - Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan", which were attached to the communication (June 1, 1999) from the Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund and Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan; and

(ii) Clause No. 28 of Report No. 6 of The Corporate Services Committee, entitled "Actuarial Valuation Results - The Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Benefit Fund" which was attached to the communication (June 9, 1999) from the Toronto Police Association.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) External Legal Firms Retained for Insurance Claim Defence - Request For Proposals Selection Results.

The Administration Committee reports having:

(1) referred the following joint report back to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor with a request that the Request for Proposal be reissued, including placing an advertisement in the "Ontario Reports"; and

(2) requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to review the evaluation criteria and process in order to determine if revisions would result in stronger control over the costs of retaining outside counsel:

(September 20, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor, recommending that the City of Toronto enter into an agreement with the following successful proponents, in a form and content that is satisfactory to the City Solicitor:

Borden & Elliot

Forbes Chochla Trebuss Aikins

Lerners & Associates

Paterson, MacDougall

Shibley Righton

Smith Lyons.

(b) Redevelopment of Car Park 63 Located at 111 and 117 Richmond Street East.

The Administration Committee reports having referred the following report to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration:

(September 28, 1999) from the President, Toronto Parking Authority, recommending that:

(1) City Council approve an agreement of purchase and sale with Intracorp Developments (French Quarter II) Ltd. for the sale of 111 and 117 Richmond Street East (Municipal Carpark No. 63) and the acquisition of strata title to a portion of the proposed development containing a 12 space at-grade parking facility built to the Parking Authority's specifications. The total value of the transaction is $440,000, which includes a cash payment of $300,000 and the construction and conveyance of the parking spaces which is valued at approximately $140,000;

(2) Upon acquisition, that the lands to be acquired be designated for municipal parking purposes to be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority; and

(3) Appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action necessary to give effect to the foregoing.

(c) Conditions of Employment - Council Staff Members - Update.

The Administration Committee reports having received the following report:

(September 23, 1999) from the Director of Human Resources and Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, providing a status update on the salary survey conducted by the Hay Group Management Consultants for the position of Executive Assistant and Constituency Assistant; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(d) Municipal Code for the City of Toronto - Follow-Up Information.

The Administration Committee reports having received the following report:

(September 21, 1999) from the City Clerk, responding to the Administration Committee's request for additional information pertaining to the development of a By-law Status Register as part of the City's Municipal Code project; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(e) Integrated Billing and Revenue Management Systems.

The Administration Committee reports having received the following report:

(September 22, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, discussing the feasibility of adding permit parking fees to the property tax bill; providing information on the overall direction and development of revenue billing systems for the City of Toronto; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(f) Property Houses - Resale Restrictions.

The Administration Committee reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting scheduled to be held on November 2, 1999; and

(2) tabled the following motion until the aforementioned meeting of the Administration Committee:

Moved by Councillor Sandra Bussin:

"It is recommended that Property House tenants residing at Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 15 Hubbard Boulevard, and 2, 4, 6 and 8 Wineva Avenue, who have exercised a first right of entitlement to purchase be required to enter into agreements to be registered on title as a first charge, in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor, which give the City the right to repurchase the property, at the City's original sale price, in the event that the tenant intends to sell the property during a five-year period following the date of transfer.":

(September 24, 1999) from the City Solicitor, recommending that:

(1) the tenancies of the Property Houses, for the purpose of giving to tenants the first right to negotiate purchases, be determined in accordance with the procedures described in this report;

(2) resale restrictions not be imposed on the sales of any of the Property Houses to tenants; and

(3) the appropriate City and THCI officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to give effect to the foregoing.

Mr. Vance Latchford, appeared before the Administration Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(g) Proposed Purchase of Former Hydro Corridor Lands for Park in the Terraview-Willowfield Community South of Highway 401, West of Warden Avenue (Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford).

The Administration Committee reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting scheduled to be held on November 2, 1999;

(2) requested the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services to ensure that any future reports respecting this matter is submitted to the Administration Committee in-camera; and

(3) directed staff from the Facilities and Real Estate Division, Corporate Services Department, not to contact the developer respecting this matter until first meeting with the local Councillors:

(September 22, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept an Offer to Sell from 915343 Ontario Inc. (Norstar Group of Companies) for that part of Lot 33, Concession 2, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) being part of Part 2, Plan 64R-15854 and shown for ease of reference as Block 37 on the attached sketch (Schedule "A") in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and at a price of $1,000,000.00;

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to complete the transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Sell; and

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

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

- Councillor Mike Tzekas, Scarborough Wexford;

- Councillor Norman Kelly, Scarborough Wexford; and

- Ms. Lynda Wheeler, Terraview-Willowfield Residents' Association, and filed a written submission in regard thereto

(h) 39 McGlashan Road (Former City of North York) Municipal Tax Sale Proceedings.

The Administration Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following joint confidential report until its meeting scheduled to be held on November 2, 1999:

(September 24, 1999) from the City Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, joint confidential report respecting 39 McGlashan Road (former City of North York).

Respectfully submitted,

LORENZO BERARDINETTI

Chair

Toronto, October 5, 1999

(Report No. 6 of The Administration Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999.)