The Decision Document is for preliminary reference purposes only. Please refer to the Committee’s Report to City Council or to the Minutes for the official record.

This report seeks authority for the City to provide a $5,800,000 capital loan guarantee for Toronto Artscape Inc. ("Artscape") to assist them in the purchase and development of the Artscape Shaw Street Centre that will be used for their activities.  It is proposed to be in effect for an initial three year term from May 1, 2010 until May 31, 2013.

The Executive Committee:

1.         Referred the following motion by Councillor Howard Moscoe, to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation for a report directly to City Council, and requested that she consult with interested Members of Council:

"That:

   a.        Part 1 contained in Attachment 1 to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, be amended by adding the following:

“that staff be directed to implement these provisions immediately for all properties not currently subject to an active development application.”

  b.        Part 1B, entitled “Definition” contained in Attachment 1 to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, be amended by deleting the word “exclusively” and inserting instead the word “primarily.”

  c.        The General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, be requested  to report on additional wording for Attachment 1, Section 4, to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, to ensure accurate calculations for parkland dedication in mixed use developments.

 d.         Attachment 1, Section 4, Subsection B, entitled "Delegation of Authority", to the report (April 23, 2010) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, be amended by the addition of the following words “in consultation with the local Councillor.  In the event of disagreement, staff will report to Council and Council will make the final determination” so that Subsection B reads as follows:

                         “B.       Delegation of Authority

Council continue to delegate approval authority to the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation for choosing a land or cash-in-lieu of land dedication and for the attributes of the conveyance in consultation with the local Councillor.  In the event of a disagreement, staff will report to Council and Council will make the final determination.”

 e.         The proposed City-wide Parkland Dedication requirement come into effect for any application that has been submitted after the date the by-law attains final approval."

2.        Requested the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation to submit a report directly to City Council on possible changes to the proposed by-law in order to make a distinction between for profit and non-profit nursing homes with respect to exemptions.

Ms. Brenda Patterson, General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and Mr. Mark Edelman, Acting Manager, Strategic and Service Planning, Policy and Strategic Planning, gave a presentation to the Executive Committee on the Proposed Municipal Code Amendment City Wide Parkland Dedication By-law, and filed a copy of their presentation.

The City currently applies a number of parkland dedication by-laws of the former municipalities across Toronto. These pre-amalgamation by-laws differ in requirements and exemptions and result in a varied set of parkland dedication requirements that are applied differently to similar developments across the city. In order to ensure consistency, equity and fairness to all applicants and property owners, a single by-law is needed to harmonize the City’s existing parkland dedication by-laws and practices. 

This report seeks Council’s authority to develop a comprehensive parkland dedication by-law, under Chapter 415 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, which will result in a consistent city-wide application of parkland dedication requirements.

The Executive Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council, in order to enhance the $500,000 in funds the City has committed to Vermont Square improvements in 2011, authorize the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer to establish a reserve account called the “Vermont Square Reserve” for the purpose of receiving cash donations from the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee to fund further park enhancements in Vermont Square.

2.         City Council amend Municipal Code, Chapter 227, Reserves and Reserve Funds, by adding the Vermont Square reserve account to "Schedule 5 – Donations Reserves".

3.         City Council direct that all donations received by the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee and by the City for Vermont Square enhancements to be held separately in the Vermont Square reserve account designated for this purpose, and receipts for income tax purposes be issued by the City of Toronto to donors for eligible donations in accordance with the Income Tax Act and City policy in this regard.

4.         City Council grant authority to Parks, Forestry and Recreation to enter into an agreement, if necessary, with the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee to allow the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee to fundraise on behalf of the City of Toronto for enhancements in Vermont Square, in a form and content satisfactory to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the City Solicitor.

5.         City Council authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and that leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.

The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization to establish a reserve account to receive cash donations from the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee in order to enhance the $500,000 in funds the City has committed to Vermont Square improvements in 2011. The report will also request authority for the City of Toronto to issue receipts for income tax purposes for eligible donations in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

The Vermont Square Fundraising Committee wishes to raise funds to improve Vermont Square. The funds raised will be used to provide additional enhancements to the new waterplay feature which were identified in the masterplan which was created in consultation with the local community.  The actual features to be added to the capital project will depend on the total amount of funds raised.

The fundraising target is $50,000 to be used entirely in 2011 as a supplement to the $500,000 City Council has approved for this park in the 2010 Parks, Forestry and Recreation Capital Budget. 

The goals and objectives of the Vermont Square Fundraising Committee are in keeping with Parks, Forestry and Recreation’s mandate to provide active recreation opportunities

The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization to establish a reserve account to receive donations from the Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee in order to enhance Ramsden Park, Budd Sugarman Park, and the associated Rosedale Station TTC Bus Loop Lands. The report will also request authority for the City of Toronto to issue receipts for income tax purposes for eligible donations in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

The Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee wishes to raise up to $3,000,000.00 to improve Ramsden Park, Budd Sugarman Park, and the associated Rosedale Station TTC Bus Loop Lands. The raised funds will be used to develop a master plan, in consultation with the local community, for future site improvements, and to implement those improvements.

The goals and objectives of the Cross Town Parks Fundraising Committee are in keeping with Parks, Forestry and Recreation’s mandate to provide recreation, urban forest growth, and horticultural opportunities.

The Executive Committee requested the Director of the Toronto Environment Office and staff from Toronto Public Health to meet with Canadian Tire Corporation with respect to their proposal and report directly to Council on its willingness to voluntarily remove pesticides from its shelves as other large retailers have done.

Officially launched in May 2008, Live Green Toronto is the City's leading initiative for supporting neighbourhoods and community groups in taking local, grassroots action on climate change and other local environmental issues of concern. With the creation of a dedicated website providing one-stop access to information tools (www.livegreentoronto.ca), the provision of financial assistance and the support of Community Animators, Live Green Toronto has helped neighbourhoods and community groups install green roofs, plant trees, initiate collective purchases of renewable energy systems, create community gardens, encourage energy efficiency retrofits, and facilitate people in choosing alternative low polluting modes of transportation.

When City Council endorsed the establishment of Live Green Toronto it was identified that it would become a vehicle through which other public and private interests could support community led environmental activities. It was expected that this would primarily come in the form of sponsorships or partnerships.

The Toronto Environment Office has been approached by Canadian Tire about becoming the first major financial sponsor of Live Green Toronto. Its proposal involves a financial commitment spread over two years that would provide support for the Live Green Toronto Festival, the Live Green Toronto Grants Program and the Cut It Out Program. Preliminary proposals have also been received from other potential sponsors.

This report seeks authority from City Council to negotiate and enter into a sponsorship agreement with Canadian Tire for a value of $200,000 ($175,000 cash and $25,000 in-kind) each year for a total of two years, as well as the authority for a period of two years to negotiate and enter into future sponsorship agreements that may have terms of up to two years (so an agreement entered into a year and a half from the date authority is granted might extend to a date three and one-half years from the date authority is granted) with a value of up to $200,000 per sponsorship agreement each year.

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval of a Waterfront Expropriation Protocol between the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto (WT). Under the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Act 2002, WT does not have the power or authority to expropriate land.

Through WT’s revitalization activities in the Designated Waterfront Area (DWA), land acquisition requirements for municipal purposes such as roads, parks and services are determined.  In instances when there is a risk that consensual negotiations between WT and private landowners are not leading to the acquisition of the required lands in a timely manner, WT has requested that the City exercise its powers under the Expropriations Act.  

A protocol to govern WT and City roles regarding expropriation requests has been negotiated and is provided for City Council approval.  This protocol will accelerate waterfront renewal by creating a common understanding of the requirements of the process, and the respective roles of both parties.

The Executive Committee deferred consideration of the report (April 30, 2010) from the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, entitled " Taxi Industry Regulatory Review", until its meeting to be held on June 14, 2010, to allow for debate.

This report is in response to the request of the Executive Committee, at its April 19, 2010 meeting, to report back on the engagement of an outside consultant to be engaged to conduct a review of the provisions dealing with the taxicab industry in Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 545, Licensing.

In light of the 1998 Report to Review the Toronto Taxi Industry, staff have determined that before conducting a review and engaging a consultant, initial research and consultations should take place to establish what the issues are and what the scope of the resulting review and associated work should be. Once this preliminary work is accomplished, staff shall prepare a business case for the engagement of the consultant or consultants to be included in the Municipal Licensing and Standards' 2011 operating budget submission.

While the direction from the Executive Committee was to identify a budget and a source of funding for the project, it is not possible to report on these issues until we have determined the overall scope of the project.

The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization to establish a reserve account to receive donations from the Toronto Community Foundation and other partners to support the objectives of Tower Renewal. The first instance is to receive donations for St. James Town community.

The first donations will be used to develop community building projects in the St. James Town neighbourhood of Toronto. This funding opportunity supports specific goals and objectives of the Tower Renewal pilot project to deliver on building stronger communities including social and cultural benefits. The project is proposed to start in June 2010.

The Executive Committee received, for information, the presentation from the City Manager and  the Senior Corporate Management Policy Consultant, respecting the Status of the Property Rental Requirements to Meet the Toronto Police Service's Operational and Security Obligations for the 2010, G20 Summit.

Mr. Joe Pennachetti, City Manager, and Mr. Peter Notaro, Senior Corporate Management Policy Consultant, gave a presentation to the Executive Committee on the Status of the Property Rental Requirements to Meet the Toronto Police Service's Operational and Security Obligations for the 2010, G20 Summit, and filed a copy of their presentation.

City Council on March 31 and April 1, 2010, in adopting, as amended, Government Management Committee Item GM29.22, headed "Property Rental Requirements to Meet Toronto Police Service Operational/Security Obligations for the 2010 G8/G20 Summits" requested the Chief Corporate Officer to provide a status report on this matter to the April 19, 2010 meeting of the Executive Committee

The Executive Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council accept the donation from the Toronto Community Foundation in the amount of $61,500.00.

2.         City Council accept the in-kind donation of general labour and materials valued at $97,255.00 provided by the following businesses and union locals: 

i.          Teskey Construction;

ii.         United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 27; and

iii.        Labourers International Unions of North America, Local 183.

3.         City Council authorize the selection of the named unions, on a sole source basis, as pre-selected service providers for this Project.

4.         City Council amend the 2010 Parks, Forestry and Recreation Capital Budget to increase the Hanover Park (Bob Leek) development project by $61,500 from $75,000 to $136,500 gross, funded by the cash donation of $61,500 from the Toronto Community Foundation.

5.         City Council authorize the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation to enter into appropriate agreements with the Toronto Community Foundation and the named unions and businesses in relation to the financial and in-kind contributions made towards this project, on terms and conditions satisfactory in form and content to the General Manager and City Solicitor.

The purpose of this report is to seek adjustments to cashflow in Toronto Water’s approved 2009 Capital Budget to reflect actual spending rates, and to subsequently adjust the resulting carry-forward of unspent funding to Toronto Water’s approved 2010 Capital Budget.  Further, in accordance with the City’s Financial Control Bylaw, this report seeks approval for reallocations in Toronto Water’s 2011-2019 Capital Plan to better align with the adjustments proposed in 2010 project cashflows.

The Executive Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve the following cash flow adjustments to the Toronto Public Library Board 2009 and 2010 approved capital budgets:

a i.       advance $1,434,000 of debt funding for Toronto Reference Library to 2009 from 2010, offset by an equivalent deferral of Section 37 funding from 2009 to 2010;

a ii.      defer $1,434,000 of debt funding for three capital projects (Virtual Branch Services, Self-Service and Technology Asset Management Program) from 2009 to 2010;

b i.       advance $1,227,570 of debt funding to 2009 from 2010 for three capital projects (Toronto Reference Library, Multibranch and Cedarbrae) proceeding ahead of schedule; and

b ii.      defer $1,227,570 of debt funding from 2009 to 2010 for five capital projects (Brentwood, Malvern, Bloor/Gladstone, Virtual Branch Services and Thorncliffe) experiencing cash flow delays.

The purpose of this report is to request Board approval of technical cash flow adjustments to the 2009 and 2010 approved capital budgets which have no net impact on the annual debt levels approved by Council or the total budget amount for individual projects.

Technical budget adjustments contained in this report are considered a normal part of managing the capital program, as long as the adjustments do not result in an increase to approved debt levels

The Executive Committee recommends that:

1.      City Council approve of entering into an amendment to the existing Lease with 16730801 Ontario Ltd. for the QET substantially on the terms and conditions contained in the report (April 26, 2010) from the Chief Executive Officer, Exhibition Place, and such other terms and conditions satisfactory to the Board’s Chief Executive Officer and the City Solicitor.

2.      City Council direct that the confidential information in Attachment 1 to the report (April 26, 2010) from the Chief Executive Officer, Exhibition Place, not be released publicly given that involves the security of property belonging to the City of Toronto or one of its agencies, boards, and commissions

Thanks to an investigative press report, it was revealed that a Transit City project manager, who was one of three people who approve payments to subcontractors hired by AECOM, had given a $50,000 contract to a friend.  Although this contract was small, other contractors who have done business with this individual refused to speak on the record because they “fear they will lose government contracts”.

The problem may be systemic.  There were significant overruns by sub-contractors on the St. Clair Right-of-Way project, as outlined in the report “Lessons Learned”.

Instead of continuing to rush this project through, Toronto City Council should be concerned that public money is handled properly at the sub-contract level.  It is reasonable for Council to make this request of the TTC and expect a full answer on steps they are taking to ensuring that this discovery is not the tip of the iceberg.

(Submitted to City Council on March 31, April 1, 2010 as MM47.5)

The Executive Committee referred the letter (April 7, 2010) from City Council, entitled "Support in Principle for Provision of a Station at Ronald Avenue", to the Toronto Transit Commission for consideration.

The largest single distance between stations along the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT tunnel is between Caledonia and Dufferin Stations.  The station spacing for these two stations is about 1.3 km, and the distance from the east exit of Caledonia Station to the west exit of Dufferin Station is about 1.2 km.  Staff identified the average station spacing for the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT tunnel as 850 metres, and 1.3 km is over 50 percent above the average (1300m – 850m = 450m, 450m/850m = 52.9 percent).  This is an extraordinarily high value for an urban area of Toronto, and it is not conductive to creating a walkable Avenue conductive to creating a transit-oriented corridor.  This part of Eglinton Avenue West is identified as an Avenue in the Official Plan.

Bloor Street West is a vibrant street.  Between Jane and Woodbine along the Bloor-Danforth line, only one pair of station is more than 850 metres apart.  The Prince Edward Viaduct across the Don Valley between Broadview and Castle Frank stations, at about 880 metres.  Only two other pairs come close to 850 metres between them.  In several instances, stations are less than 600 metres apart along the Bloor-Danforth line, and this is a good way to build underground transit.  Between Lansdowne and Dufferin stations along the Bloor-Danforth line, they are about 520 metres apart.

Neither a proposal for nor a commitment to parallel bus service has been provided by the TTC throughout the public consultation process.  Reports on the results of the public consultation process from LURA show that this is a major concern for people along this part of the corridor, recorded/listed several times in the report from the November 2009 to January 2010 consultations alone.  Residents fear losing their existing access to transit by no station along the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT being near enough to them.

The east boundary of the Prospect Cemetery represents the approximate midpoint between Caledonia and Dufferin stations, near Ronald Avenue/Harvie Avenue.  A station at Ronald Avenue could bring the station spacing down to 760 metres between Caledonia and Ronald, and down to 540 metres between Ronald and Dufferin, compared to 655 metres (Dufferin to Oakwood) and 570 metres (Oakwood to Allen), which are extremely similar figures.

The presence of a cemetery does not mean a station is unwarranted, as past examples such as Old Mill, Castel Frank, Davisville, and North York Centre are all very close to cemeteries, and future examples will include 407 on the Spadina Subway Extension and Longbridge on the Yonge Subway Extension.

Additionally, the grades proposed in this part of the tunnel are steep, at 5.0 percent (the LRT standard maximum), which exceeds the subway standard maximum of 3.5 percent.  The investment in these tunnels should protect for the very long-term prospect of a subway running along this corridor, if the vertical alignment can be changed for such a protection without significant impacts on the construction costs.

(Submitted to City Council on March 31 and April 1, 2010 as MM47.8)

The Executive Committee referred the letter (April 7, 2010) from City Council, entitled "Response to the Environmental Project Report and the Transit Project Assessment Process for the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT in the 30-day Public Review Period ", to the Toronto Transit Commission for consideration and report back to the Executive Committee.

The Eglinton-Crosstown LRT (ECLRT) has been put through the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), with the Toronto Transit Commission (the TTC) and the City of Toronto (the City) as the joint-proponent of the project, and a notice of completion of Environmental Project Report (EPR) has been circulated as required by the Environmental Assessment Act (the Act).  It is important to note that the TPAP and the Act do not have the power to cancel or endanger the commitment to a transit project such as the ECLRT, and that only additional studies may be imposed by the Act.

The role of City Council as defined in the City of Toronto Act 2006, Section 131 paragraph (e) reads that it is “to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the City,” and with the City having been directly involved in organizing the public consultations for the ECLRT project, the City is responsible for the transparency of that process.  The information that has been collected by the City and the TTC from the public in the public consultation process has been mostly, but not exclusively, summarized in reports from the consulting firm LURA.  There is a large volume of unresolved issues in the proposed project when compared against the communities’ concerns as expressed in the LURA reports and other records of public feedback.   Not all concerns raised by the public are valid, but many are, and too many are unresolved.  There is additional concern over some of the arguments put forward by staff to support decisions made.

On March 12, 2010, the City and the TTC submitted the EPR to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MoE).  Toronto City Council (Council) had granted approval for submission of the EPR to the MoE prior to the completion of the public consultation process and prior to the final design of the ECLRT being decided by the TTC.  By extension, Council had not seen the final EPR at the time approval was granted.  Council approved the ECLRT TPAP and EPR in good faith, confident that the feedback from the public consultation process would be used to address community concerns and generate the best proposal for the ECLRT.  Without question, the ECLRT is a project that, in principle, is strongly supported by Council, and that support is not being revisited, but the results of the public consultations have not been well received, and there are certain to be many objections from the community to the project.  As representatives of these communities, it is important to stand up for community concerns that have not been addressed.  It is important for Council to support the ECLRT project, which Council does, but it is even more important for Council to support the ECLRT project being done well, with the communities along the corridor on board with and in favour of the proposed project.  Dr. Richard Soberman and Mr. Les Kelman highlighted the importance of support for the project from the community in the Lessons Learned report on St. Clair Avenue West that they authored.

At the February 19, 2010 Metrolinx Board meeting, the Metrolinx CEO expressed the position that it is more important to take the design time necessary to “get it right” than rushing to “get shovels in the ground.”  This was during discussion at that board meeting on the Lessons Learned report on St. Clair Avenue West and its implications for Transit City, as the TTC had directed that that report be forwarded to Metrolinx at its January 20, 2010 meeting.  The position expressed by the Metrolinx CEO on February 19, 2010 is the opposite of the position expressed by the Chair of the TTC at the February 17, 2010 TTC meeting, where an unreasonable inflexibility with respect to changing the design was expressed and inaccurate statements made about the magnitude of delays changes would cause.  It is worth noting that neither the City nor the TTC is providing any of the funding for the ECLRT project, and that Metrolinx, on behalf of the Ontario Government, is providing all of the funding.  The view expressed by the Metrolinx CEO may be worth more serious consideration than has recently been evident with regard to the ECLRT project by the TTC.

The TPAP may request studies regarding land use, including with respect to proximity and effect on priority development areas, existing and planned.  The ECLRT passes through two of Toronto’s priority neighbourhoods:  Mount Dennis and Victoria Village.  These two priority neighbourhoods are the sites of some of the more serious concerns from communities in the ECLRT project.  To date, these concerns have been approached purely from a technical perspective instead of a broader planning perspective that includes other factors such as social and socio-economic impacts.  If these are priority neighbourhoods, destroying dozens of residents’ properties for the sake of substantially widening roads and creating 5-point intersections that are difficult to navigate for both vehicles and pedestrians alike, or taking away a bus service in an area frequented and inhabited by a considerable number of seniors without a stop along the LRT to replace that bus service despite being in an area that is difficult to walk due to area topography, is not going to improve the quality of living in these priority areas.  Where are the land use studies and the descriptions of the impacts on these areas as they relate to the proposed ECLRT project?

The TPAP may also request studies on operations and maintenance costing.  Council had requested such on December 4, 2009, with respect to the airport alignment when it was granting approval of the EPR to go to the MoE (CC42.7 as amended), but there is no evidence that this request is being acted on.  The question of whether or not parallel bus service over the underground section of the ECLRT would be necessary has not been answered; what would those operations and maintenance costs be, and how would they compare to investing the capital for stations being added to avoid those operations and maintenance costs over the long term?  What about the steep grades in the underground section of the ECLRT if demand increases in the more distant future to subway-level demands, and the costs associated with that?  These are questions that continue to go unanswered despite their long-term importance and significant cost implications.  While Bloor St. had electric LRT between Dufferin and Sherbourne from 1893, with a subway not under construction until about 70 years later, it should be highlighted that none of the old Bloor LRT was underground, which is a dramatic and significant difference from the ECLRT.

The TPAP requires a record of the consultations that were conducted for the project, which would be mostly addressed with the LURA reports.  The TPAP also requires descriptions of follow-up efforts, and of what the proponent did to respond to concerns expressed by interested persons, some of which have yet to be responded to, and some have yet to be adequately responded to.  These include concerns at major intersections with schools right at the corner regarding safety of children at those schools, which were not mentioned in the EPR, and includes issues about station spacing and parallel bus service, which, while mentioned, were not adequately addressed in the EPR.

Regardless of technology, there are good designs and bad designs possible for any part of any project.  The technology being LRT for the ECLRT project does not make bad design impossible for the ECLRT, as St. Clair should be more than enough proof to substantiate.  While there are clearly many outstanding challenges to overcome, settling for a poor solution instead of taking the time to work out a good design is an alarming risk that Council cannot afford to overlook.

It is very important to make clear that there is no threat to the ECLRT project posed by prudent further study to get the best cost-benefit from the line.  Indeed, the threat posed by not engaging in further study is considerably greater than engaging in it, if St. Clair is any indicator.  Further study, in a situation with such a high volume of outstanding concerns and mounting public unrest over the ECLRT, as evidenced by a long series of deputations at the February 17, 2010 TTC meeting, cannot reasonably be viewed as “needless delay.”  Supporting further study does not alter Council’s support for the project; it reinforces Council’s support for the project to be done well, from the perspectives of the communities along the corridor, and the Metrolinx CEO has expressed an extremely similar opinion.  The transparency of the public consultation process, and the public trust placed in this Council, needs to be protected, and that will only be accomplished by acknowledging that this project must have its outstanding issues resolved.  The TTC is facing mounting credibility challenges over the past few months, most recently involving the project manager for the Transit City carhouses, including carhouses for the ECLRT, and the March 12, 2010 ECLRT EPR compounds the credibility problems facing the TTC, unless the outstanding valid issues are responsibly addressed and resolved.

The Notice of Completion of EPR stated that “The LRT will operate underground from a portal 800 metres east of Laird Drive to a portal 350 metres west of Keele Street, as the width of Eglinton Avenue in this area is too narrow to accommodate street level LRT.”  The same is true for Eglinton Avenue between Weston Road and 150m west of Pearen Street, yet it is being proposed to run at the surface, which will cause substantial permanent damage to the community, even though this area is on a hill that is geographically well-suited to a tunnel.  If the argument is that the design proposed is influenced by the limited funding available for the 32.6km project, then the communities along the corridor are effectively being asked to endure long-term suffering for the underestimated cost presented for the ECLRT when the province was determining its funding commitment, an underestimation that the communities had nothing to do with, and that is not right.  As already demonstrated by the SRT project, this project could be split into two phases, with the 2^nd phase proceeding when more funding can be made available.  One of the lessons learned on Transit City is that cost estimates and funding commitments are best made after the TPAP has taken its course, not before.  When Transit City was announced in 2007 at a total cost of $6-billion for the whole 120km network, what was promised was ultimately impossible to deliver, by a very wide margin.  Shoehorning after the fact at the expense of communities’ well-being should not be considered a viable option.

The only event that can kill the project is the revoking of funding from upper levels of government.  In the case of the ECLRT project, this is something that can happen in the event of a change of provincial government.  That threat exists regardless of whether or not shovels are in the ground, as history has made far too clear on the Eglinton West Corridor already.  Relative to the cost, far too little is gained by building something quickly at the expense of quality and long-term planning.

(Submitted to City Council on March 31, April 1, 2010 as MM47.7)

The Executive Committee noted and filed the letter (April 7, 2010) from City Council, entitled "Development Charges - New Background Study and By-law."

Mr. Rick Thompson, Toronto Transit Commission, Chief Project Manager, and Mr. Sameh Ghaly, Toronto Transit Commission, Project Manager, addressed the Executive Committee and answered questions from Members of the Committee.

The Executive Committee requested the City Manager to report to the Executive Committee Meeting to be held on August 16, 2010, on a proposed customer service strategy that addresses permitting requirements, fees, inter-divisional coordination, and supports for applicants in organizing community events, and that the report examine the possibility of establishing a one-window event office.

Letter (May 17, 2010) from Councillor Janet Davis recommending that the City Manager report to the August Executive Committee Meeting on a proposed customer service strategy that addresses permitting requirements, fees, inter-divisional coordination, and supports for applicants in organizing community events, and that the report examine the possibility of establishing a one-window event office.

The Executive Committee deferred consideration of the following motion by Councillor Moscoe until its meeting on June 14, 2010:

"That:

1.         The General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be directed to develop a parks enhancement strategy to ensure that parks in priority neighbourhoods or low development areas benefit in some way from funds that are raised to enhance parks in affluent or active development areas.

2.         This strategy be initiated by a discussion paper that considers such mechanisms as:

-           a percentage of donation levy

-           a matching fund policy

-           a share of section 37 levy

-           a per capita budget share

-           indexing City investment to average income data

-           discussion of current mechanisms

3.         That this discussion paper be tabled for consideration by the Executive Committee no later than January 2011."

The following motion by Councillor Rae was tabled until the meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled to be held on June 14, 2010:

"That the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be requested to analyze the funding of parks and parks maintenance through development agreement and Section 37 agreement in Wards 20/27/28 as opposed to the use of tax revenue sources as reported through the Capital Budget.