Clause Embodied in Report No

CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 5 of the Policy and Finance Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its regular meeting held on April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and its special meeting held on April 30, May 1 and 2, 2001.

City of Toronto 2001 Operating Budget

(City Council at its regular meeting held on April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and its special meeting held on April 30, May 1 and 2, 2001, adopted the recommendations of the Policy and Finance Committee embodied in this Clause, subject to the following amendments:

(A) Children’s Services:

(1) by amending the amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee to read as follows (noting that this amendment has no impact on the Policy and Finance recommendations):

“Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

‘that:

(a) $160,000.00 be restored to the Children’s Services Budget to fund one-third of the York Before and After School Program;

(b) approval be subject to receiving two-thirds from the Toronto District School Board and/or from parents providing funding; and

(c) the funding mechanism for the two-thirds non-City funded portion of the York Before and After School Program be referred to the Liaison Committee of the Toronto District School Board and the City of Toronto for future discussions and any alternate allocation between the parents and the Toronto District School Board.’ ”; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the Auditor General of Canada be requested to review the Children’s Services agenda, giving specific attention to the allocation of monies to the Province of Ontario and the extent to which these monies flow through to the respective providers of Children’s Services in Ontario; and Toronto City Council 2 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(b) the following motion be adopted and a copy thereof be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Ontario, the Minister for the Greater Toronto Area and the leader of the Opposition Party:

Moved by Councillor Soknacki:

‘It is recommended that:

(i) Toronto City Council continue to emphatically seek the approval of the provincial government for the expansion of an extra 2,000 spaces of subsidized child care in the City of Toronto and that such program be funded 80 percent (actual cost) by the provincial government and 20 percent by the municipality;

(ii) if the provincial government agrees to such a program, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to submit a joint report to the Community Services Committee on various funding sources, including the possibility of allocating funds from the Social Service Stabilization Reserve Fund; and

(iii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to submit a report to the Community Services Committee on the $40 million provided by the federal government to the Province of Ontario for child care assistance in Toronto.’ ”;

(3) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to submit a report to the meeting of the Community Services Committee scheduled to be held on June 7, 2001, outlining elements of a plan to address the 330 shelter bed shortage created by the loss of 120 beds due to the closure of the Princess Margaret facility, the annual loss of 150 beds in the spring/summer/fall through the closing of the ‘Out-of-the-Cold’ 7-day per week programs (150 beds), and the overcrowding of the men’s shelter system where 60 beds are required to reduce the occupancy to the Council-approved maximum of 90 percent; Toronto City Council 3 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(b) in view of the difficulty being encountered by City staff and community groups in establishing sites for shelters, each Member of City Council be requested to submit a brief report to the meeting of the Community Services Committee scheduled to be held on June 7, 2001, outlining the following:

(i) the shelters and number of beds currently available or under development in their Ward;

(ii) the process which should be followed in their Ward to create momentum and support for the establishment of one or more shelter facilities for the homeless; and

(iii) a process which could be initiated and implemented in their Ward to establish one or more shelter facilities;

(c) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 4, 2001, on an expedited timetable to implement the ‘Fair Share’ amendments to the zoning by-laws previously requested by Council that will enable the location of shelters across the City of Toronto;

(d) the Building and Planning Division of the Urban Development Services Department be requested to fast track the planning approval process in the development of shelters;

(e) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to submit a joint report to the Community Services Committee on the feasibility of placing revenue from the sale of surplus lands into the Capital Revolving Fund, in order to provide matching funds for housing, should such funds become available;

(f) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee, as soon as possible, on the creation of a social housing reserve fund as part of the 2002 Operating Budget and funded from future social housing savings; and

(g) the priority for the use of the reserve fund be:

(i) for the repair and regeneration of existing social housing and other funding pressures and liabilities within the housing portfolio; and Toronto City Council 4 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(ii) the municipal share of any new affordable housing programs which are expected to be announced shortly by the federal government.”;

(G) Solid Waste Management Services:

(4) by striking out and referring Recommendations Nos. (31), (32), (33) and (35) of the Policy and Finance Committee to the Waste Diversion Task Force 2010, viz.:

“(31) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee, by September 2001, on implementation strategies and recommendations regarding the application of user fees effective 2002 for waste collection from residences and apartment buildings, as well as on the 2001 implementation of user fees or charges for School Boards, agencies, boards or commissions;

(32) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee, by the fall of 2001, with a suggested policy framework for considering pilot projects related to emerging or alternative waste management technologies that will allow for such programs to be reviewed relative to both the Corporation’s diversion targets as well as the City’s ability to afford them;

(33) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee, prior to the 2002 budget deliberations, on the ability and cost of implementing weekly organic pick up in addition to the weekly recycling pick up;

(35) once per week recycling be implemented across the City, commencing January 1, 2002;”;

(5) by inserting in Recommendation No. (34) of the Policy and Finance Committee, after the words “Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services”, the words “and the Waste Diversion Task Force 2010”, so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

“(34) that $2.4 million be held as a reserve in the Fleet Capital Budget for the purchase of recycling vehicles, and such funds not be released until such time as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Waste Diversion Task Force 2010 provide a report to Council, through the Works Committee, on the best initiatives to implement waste diversion;”; Toronto City Council 5 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(6) by striking out and referring the following portion of Recommendation No. (36) of the Policy and Finance Committee to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee:

“and that should no decision be mutually agreed upon regarding this item that consideration be given to contracting out collection services at least within the former City of North York”;

(7) by adding to Recommendation No. (38) of the Policy and Finance Committee, the words “such discussion to include the Toronto Catholic District School Board and take into account their decision to charge the City of Toronto development fees for all City-initiated affordable housing projects”, so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

“(38) the Joint Liaison Committee, outlined in the communication (March 19, 2001) from the Chair, Toronto District School Board, be requested to meet to discuss service exchanges and report to the Policy and Finance Committee, as soon as possible, regarding the agreement being proposed for service exchanges, such discussion to include the Toronto Catholic District School Board and take into account their decision to charge the City of Toronto development fees for all City-initiated affordable housing projects;”; and

(8) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) Council direct that, with respect to the budget of the Solid Waste Management Services Division, any net surplus be transferred to the Waste Management Reserve Fund and any spending of that net surplus be subject to approval by City Council;

(b) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Waste Diversion Task Force 2010 on methods to measure the cleanliness of small business strips in the City of Toronto;

(c) the following motion be referred to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for report thereon to the Works Committee:

Moved by Councillor Minnan-Wong:

‘That the Clause be amended to provide that the original staff report recommending the elimination of ICI collection be adopted for September 2001, the effect of which would be a saving to the City of Toronto of $1.4 million.’; and Toronto City Council 6 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(d) the following motion be referred to the Waste Diversion Task Force 2010 for report thereon to the Works Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 6, 2001:

Moved by Councillor Cho:

‘It is further recommended the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee on the feasibility of selling plastic garbage bins on Environment Days, for implementation in 2002, and the impact thereof on the 2002 Operating Budget.’ ”;

(H) Fire Services:

(9) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) a Task Force be established to consider the issue of the need for the Fireground Incident Technicians and be requested to report thereon to the Community Services Committee within 90 days;

(b) the following Members of Council be appointed to such Task Force:

Councillor Altobello, Councillor Chow, Councillor Kelly, Councillor Lindsay Luby, Councillor Ootes, and Councillor Pitfield;

(c) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to assess the need for the Fireground Incident Technicians and report thereon to the Task Force;

(d) the following motions be referred to the Task Force for consideration:

Moved by Councillor Pitfield:

‘It is further recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Fire Chief be requested to submit a joint report to the Budget Advisory Committee, through the Community Services Committee, in time for the 2002 budget process, providing their assessment of the continued need and value of the 64 Fireground Incident Technicians.’ Toronto City Council 7 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Moved by Councillor Prue:

‘It is further recommended that the Fire Chief be authorized to hire 55 additional firefighters on July 1, 2001, at a cost of $1.4 million in 2001, and an additional cost of $1.2 million in 2002.’

Moved by Councillor Duguid:

‘That the motion by Councillor Prue be amended to provide that Council commit to hiring the additional 55 firefighters effective May 2002, subject to approval through the budget process.’ ”;

(I) Transportation Services:

(10) to provide that the proposed permit fee increase of $3.00 per month be reduced to $1.50 per month, and the decrease in revenue be deducted proportionally from the partial reinstatement of funding to clean around parked cars and the ‘Clean City’ initiative; and further, in 2002, when the full impact of the parking permit fee increase of $1.50 per month comes into effect, both programs receive the full allocation; and

(11) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit a joint report to the Administration Committee on a fair hiring policy for the retention of part-time students for street litter pick-up in each and every City Ward;

(b) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a joint report to the Works Committee on a program to permit front yard parking fees to be collected in a manner similar to property taxes;

(i) submit a report to the Works Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 6, 2001, for submission to the June 26, 2001 meeting of Council, on a policy regarding City-wide service levels for sidewalk snow clearing, leaf collection and City cleanliness, to take effect in the year 2002, subject to budget approval;

(ii) submit a report to the Works Committee on a strategy to ensure that all residents who have front yard parking are paying for same; and Toronto City Council 8 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iii) provide, to each Member of Council, copies of maps of the City of Toronto clearly identifying the services that are provided City-wide, and on a Ward basis, i.e., windrow clearing, leaf pick-up, street cleaning, snow clearing and street sweeping; and

(d) the following motions be referred to the Works Committee for consideration at such time as the report requested in Recommendation No. (11)(c)(i), above, is submitted to the Committee:

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

‘WHEREAS permit parking is an essential service for the residents of the former Cities of Toronto and York and the former Borough of East York; and

WHEREAS the near absence of alternative parking opportunities, such as two-car garages and private drives, found largely in the suburban neighbourhoods of the amalgamated City, results in a greater reliance on permit parking for residents of downtown neighbourhoods; and

WHEREAS a $3.00 per month increase for a parking permit and a front yard parking pad permit, as recommended by the Budget Advisory Committee, would result in an increased annual fee of $120.00 from the current $84.00, costing 73,000 permit holders $2.5 million; and

WHEREAS the original staff recommendation was for no increase in parking permit fees;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and Council of the City of Toronto support a $3.00 per year increase in parking permit fees and front yard parking pad fees in the City of Toronto to deal with street cleaning requirements.’

Moved by Councillor Layton:

‘That the Clause be amended by deleting the $200,000.00 allocated for special leaf pick-up, and the funds be utilized for the Pesticide Reduction Program recommended by the Environmental Task Force.’ ”; Toronto City Council 9 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(K) Works and Emergency Services – Technical Services:

(12) by striking out the following recommendation of the Policy and Finance Committee:

“The Policy and Finance Committee further recommends that the report (April 6, 2001) from the Chief Administrative Officer, entitled “Corporate Environmental Initiatives for 2001”, embodying the following recommendations, be received:

‘It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to provide an annual, co-ordinated work plan to implement the Environmental Plan initiatives in a phased manner, for consideration with the annual budget process, starting with the 2002 process;

(2) funding in the amount of $972,630.00 (net) be provided in various programs’ 2001 Operating Budgets to proceed with the Environmental Plan Initiatives as outlined in Appendix II of this report; and

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

and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

“It is recommended that:

(a) City Council support the following Environmental Plan initiatives (with no net impact on the tax rate) as embodied in Appendix I of the report dated April 6, 2001, from the Chief Administrative Officer, to the Budget Advisory Committee, entitled ‘Corporate Environmental Initiatives for 2001”, in the following manner:

(i) Recommendation No. (43) (Clean Air Campaign/Smog Summit Declaration):

$50,000.00 (net) for one pro-rated FTE, materials and supplies to be absorbed within the existing 2001 Public Health Operating Budget; and Toronto City Council 10 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(ii) Recommendation No. (7) (Pesticide Reduction):

(1) six months of one pro-rated FTE, to be shared equally by the Works and Emergency Services Department and the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, through reallocation of existing funds;

(2) $200,000.00 for equipment purchases, through a draw from the Fleet and Equipment Reserve Fund; and

(3) $75,000.00 for additional materials and supplies, to be reallocated within the existing Economic Development, Culture and Tourism 2001 Operating Budget; and

(b) the Chief Administrative Officer make it a priority to direct all City staff to develop an annual, co-ordinated work plan to implement the Environmental Plan initiatives in a phased manner, for consideration with the annual budget process, and that this begin immediately and be included in the 2002 budget process; and

(L) Culture:

(13) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) City-owned buildings, such as Toronto City Hall, which provide a level of security and provide tours to the public, be used to display artifacts from the collections of the former Cities of Toronto, Scarborough, York, North York and Etobicoke, the East York Foundation and Metropolitan Toronto;

(b) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and relevant staff of the Heritage Office be requested to meet with the members of the Board of the Montgomery Inn to provide a detailed Operating Budget, including staffing information and program activities for the year; and

(c) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on clerical staffing support for the Local Architectural Conservancy Advisory Committee (LACAC) and the six panels.” Toronto City Council 11 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(O) Parks and Recreation:

(14) by deleting Recommendation No. (76) of the Policy and Finance Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (76):

“(76) the provincial government be advised of the City’s opposition to the sideloading of recreation costs to the City of Toronto;”; and

(15) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the City of Toronto submit the Action Plan 2001 in response to the Toronto Report Card on Children to the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government of Canada to request that they assist in the funding of preschool recreation programs for 5,900 children ($582,278.00);

(b) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Mayor’s Office and the Chair of the Economic Development and Parks Committee, be requested to develop a strategy to pressure the Toronto District School Board and, in particular, the Province of Ontario, to keep school pools which accommodate City programs open, and submit a report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in June 2001;

(i) submit the outstanding report on ice rental rates and the disposition of surplus resulting from the harmonization of ice rental rates to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on May 14, 2001;

(ii) submit a report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 14, 2001, on the possibility of submitting, to Council, by January of the year in which such increases would apply, any fee increases affecting community sports organizations;

(iii) meet with swim club officials, in the area of the City of Toronto formerly known as the City of Scarborough, to discuss alternatives to accommodate the clubs’ September 2001 to August 2002 training schedule and submit a report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on June 14, 2001; Toronto City Council 12 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iv) convene a meeting of swimming constituencies in the City of Toronto to discuss the resources available for swimming in Toronto and submit a report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the ideas generated at that meeting;

(v) submit a report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on:

(1) what the status of the Bathurst Heights pool will be when the school closes; and

(2) the pools that the City is proposing to abandon as a result of the School Board closure of schools, such report to include a rationale for deciding which pools will be abandoned;

(vi) submit a report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee in October 2001, in the event paid parking is expanded to the four waterfront parks, on the impact thereof;

(vii) submit reports to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on:

(1) the costs associated with replacing the sign on the Gus Ryder Health Club, and whether the funds for the Health Club are still in reserve;

(2) the repairs and costs necessary to reinstate the bocce court in Douglas Park;

(3) the possibility of a paid parking lot on the west side of Colonel Samuel Smith Avenue adjacent to the Assembly Hall; and

(4) the costs attached to signage at the Mimico Arena; and

(viii) submit a report to the Budget Advisory Committee, during the 2002 budget deliberations, on the feasibility of funding the Pesticide Reduction program, either in whole or in part, by a surcharge on golf games; and Toronto City Council 13 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(d) the following be considered during the 2002 Operating Budget process and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to continue pursuing third party funding:

(i) the expansion of an additional 121 recreation programs for 11,804 school age children and the expansion of 44 family programs for 1,700 participants ($1.2 million); and

(ii) $600,000.00 for the continuation of the youth outreach workers as recommended by the Economic Development and Parks Committee.”;

(Q) Special Events:

(16) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the organizers of the ‘First Night’ celebrations be allowed to have the use of the park and facilities at Metro Hall which they may require for New Year’s Eve 2001/2002;

(b) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be requested to submit a report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the issue of the park at Metro Hall, and its future in conjunction with any consideration of sale; and

(c) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit reports to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on:

(i) the Special Events budget, broken down by event for the calendar year 2000 (gross and net), such report to include the taxpayer costs (gross and net) for these events prior to amalgamation and to be submitted to the Committee no later than its meeting scheduled to be held on July 9, 2001; and

(ii) special events that can be sponsored along the waterfront in the areas of the City of Toronto formerly known as the Cities of Etobicoke and Scarborough.”; Toronto City Council 14 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(R) Urban Development Services:

(17) by striking out and referring Recommendation No. (107) of the Policy and Finance Committee to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration, viz.:

“(107) the practice of staff representing residents to appeal Council, City staff or Committee of Adjustment decisions at the OMB be discontinued;”;

(V) Facilities and Real Estate:

(18) to provide that:

(a) the adoption of the 2001 Operating Budget for Facilities and Real Estate be subject to the redeployment and use of attrition for all full-time staff; and

(b) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit a report thereon to the Administration Committee;

(W) Fleet Management Services:

(19) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report to the Administration Committee respecting any legal remedies regarding Recommendation No. (135) of the Policy and Finance Committee to seek an exemption from fuel taxes on all City fuel purchases.”;

(AA) Finance:

(20) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to:

(a) include details pertaining to the assets and liabilities of the City of Toronto in the quarterly financial variance reports to the Policy and Finance Committee; and

(b) submit a mid-year balance sheet to the Policy and Finance Committee which includes cash, receivables, investments, temporary loans, accounts payable, long-term debt, reserves and reserve funds.” Toronto City Council 15 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(DD) Council:

(21) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the City Clerk be requested to submit reports to the Administration Committee on:

(i) the cost of hiring outside services for the delivery of mail, such as agendas, if the courier service provided by the corporate vehicle service is abolished, such review to be comprehensive and include a complete comparison of alternative methods of transportation and courier service and to take into consideration waiting time/convenience and joint use, etc.”; and

(ii) the City’s policy on the use of the corporate logo as it applies to Members of Council, such report to also comment on third party donations and third party sponsorships as it pertains to Members’ office expenses; and further that any Councillor that has spent any of their own monies, or any money received through third party donations or sponsorships, also be included in said report; and

(b) the City once again request the provincial government to allow municipalities to permit Councillors’ salaries to be 100 percent taxable.”;

(FF) Public Health:

(22) to provide that:

(a) the Board of Health be requested to continue to provide existing services for seniors under the Frail Seniors Program in 2001;

(b) the Board of Health be requested to not curtail its plan to extend the tuberculosis program by $283,500.00, in 2001; (c) the Board of Health be requested to immediately petition the Province of Ontario and request that they assume full funding and program responsibility for the delivery of services for frail and vulnerable seniors; (d) the Board of Health be requested to immediately petition the Government of Canada and request that they assume funding responsibility for the delivery of tuberculosis services at current and projected program levels; (e) the Chair of the Board of Health be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee, through the Board of Health, within four months, on the progress of cost containment strategies currently being undertaken; and Toronto City Council 16 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(f) in the event the Board of Health encounters in-year difficulty funding the Frail Seniors Program and/or the tuberculosis expansion program, and program costs cannot be met within the Board of Health’s approved 2001 Operating Budget or be offset by cost containment strategies, the Chair of the Board of Health will request the Policy and Finance Committee to have the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report on providing funding of up to $500,000.00 through an in-year base budget adjustment from the Corporate Contingency Account;

(23) by adding to Recommendation No. (168) of the Policy and Finance Committee, the words “and that the Medical Officer of Health, as part of her Business Plan on policies and practices, ensure the highest standard of humane treatment of animals”, so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

“(168) the 2000 net funding in the amount of $776,000.00 for Animal Shelter services in the south region be the same for 2001 (with additional revenues of $300,000.00 to be offset by one time set up costs) and, if any additional net capital or operating funding is required in that regard, the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report a business case, with financial implications to Council, through the Policy and Finance Committee; and that the Board of Health be requested to prepare a business plan to be submitted to Council, through the Policy and Finance Committee, providing costs and savings that are projected if the City decides to provide this service, and that the Medical Officer of Health, as part of her Business Plan on policies and practices, ensure the highest standard of humane treatment of animals;”;

(24) by deleting Recommendation No. (170) of the Policy and Finance Committee, viz.:

“(170) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer Health, be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on some form of fee for the Dental Program, including an acceptable amount for children and a fee based on the number of users;”; and

(25) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) City Council reiterate its many requests to the federal government to recognize the seriousness of the tuberculosis problem in the City of Toronto and to assume its responsibility to fund these programs, and a delegation of City Councillors be requested to hold a joint formal meeting with the Ministers of Immigration Canada and Health Canada to address this issue and the funding required; Toronto City Council 17 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(b) the following motion be adopted:

Moved by Councillor Shiner:

‘WHEREAS the City of Toronto has a rate of tuberculosis which is almost three times the national rate, and close to five times the rate of the remainder of the Province of Ontario; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto has one quarter of the tuberculosis cases in Canada (about 400 cases per year); and

WHEREAS 90 percent of these cases occur with individuals born outside Canada;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council request that the federal government provide 100 percent funding for the tuberculosis program, in order for the City of Toronto to discharge its public health responsibility.’;

Moved by Councillor Bussin:

‘WHEREAS the provincially-mandated City of Toronto Tuberculosis Control Program which reduces the incidence and spread of tuberculosis will be cut by $300,000.00 in the 2001 Board of Health Budget; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto’s tuberculosis rate is three times the national average; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto’s tuberculosis program could not cope with a major outbreak of this highly infectious disease; and

WHEREAS the Ministry of Health of the Province of Ontario has an obligation to ensure that the incidence and spread of tuberculosis is reduced in the City of Toronto; and

WHEREAS the negative impact of provincial government downloading of hundreds of millions of dollars of responsibilities on the residents of the City of Toronto has forced the City to cut critical programs such as the Tuberculosis Control Program;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and Council of the City of Toronto request that the Government of Ontario provide full funding, in the amount of $567,000.00, for the Board of Health’s 2001 Tuberculosis Control Program.’; Toronto City Council 18 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(d) the City take up the issue of funding tuberculosis control, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), with the Minister of Immigration, as it pertains to the responsibilities for funding immigration-related health matters;

(e) this issue be pursued with the assistance of FCM, and FCM be requested to initiate a dialogue among municipal health officials and cities that are major centres for immigration;

(f) the Minister of Health be requested to review and provide adequate funding to the Community Care Access Centres to enable the provision of public health nurses in response to vulnerable adults and frail elderly residents;

(g) the Province of Ontario and the federal government be requested to fund the Early Childhood Parenting and Prenatal Group Education for ‘High Risk’ and ‘At-Risk’ Women programs; and the Medical Officer of Health be requested to explore ways to transfer funds from the Early Year Community Co-ordinator Initiative to fund these programs;

(h) the following motion be referred to the 2002 budget process for further consideration:

Moved by Councillor McConnell:

‘It is further recommended that:

(i) Early Childhood Parenting Program:

The Public Health budget for the Early Childhood Parenting Program be increased by $362,500.00 net and $725,000.00 gross in 2001, resulting in service to 1,500 more families;

(ii) Prenatal Group Education:

The Public Health budget for Prenatal Group Education for ‘High Risk’ and ‘At Risk’ Women be increased by $260,000.00 net and $520,000.00 gross in 2001, resulting in service for an additional 750 mothers; and

(iii) the additional funds be provided from supplementary taxes.’ ”; Toronto City Council 19 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(GG) Toronto Public Library:

(26) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that the following recommendations be considered as part of the 2002 budget process and the City Librarian be requested to continue to pursue third-party funding in this regard:

(a) expansion of the Leading to Reading Program to 350 children in the areas of the City of Toronto formerly known as Agincourt, Downsview, Mimico and Annette ($50,000.00) be approved;

(b) Leading to Reading Programs to 400 children at 23 locations for year-round after school programs ($100,000.00) be approved; and

(c) the Youth Gateway on the Internet, ‘Teen Zone’, which serves as an information portal for all Toronto youth ($342,000.00) be approved.”;

(NN) GTSB/GO Transit:

(27) by deleting from the lead in phrase of Recommendation No. (197) of the Policy and Finance Committee, the words “be received”, and inserting in lieu thereof the words “be approved”;

(OO) Toronto Transit Commission:

(28) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the Province of Ontario be requested to provide transitional operating funding for the Sheppard subway;

(b) the transitional operating funding be structured in a manner similar to that received from the Province of Ontario for the Spadina subway and the Scarborough R.T.;

(c) the Mayor be instructed to negotiate an appropriate transitional operating funding formula with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Finance;

(d) the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) be requested to give consideration to:

(i) the implementation of a ten-month pass for students; and

(ii) reinstating the TTC Information Line; Toronto City Council 20 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(e) City Council extend its congratulations to the Toronto Transit Commission on its achievement on September 1, 2001, of the 80th year of the public provision of public transit in the City of Toronto;

(f) the following motion be referred to TTC for consideration, with a request that a report thereon be submitted to the Policy and Finance Committee:

Moved by Councillor Johnston:

‘It is further recommended that City Council reiterate the following recommendations from the Seniors’ Task Force and the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the feasibility of providing a seniors’ day pass as recommended herein:

“(19) the TTC continue the discounted seniors fare;

(20) the TTC develop mechanisms which allow for reduced rates for seniors during off-peak times. One of these should be the development of a seniors’ day pass which is valid during off-peak times and available for purchase at stations and community outlets; and

(21) the TTC recognize that low-income seniors have difficulty having enough money to pay for transit fares, even at discounted rates. It is recommended that appropriate City staff explore the possibility of a transit subsidy for seniors receiving the Provincial GAINS (Guaranteed Annual Income Supplement) and that staff approach the provincial government with a proposal.” ’; and

(g) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the contributions, interest earnings, withdrawals and current balance of the TTC Operating Stabilization Fund.”; Toronto City Council 21 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(PP) Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board:

(29) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the following motion be adopted:

Moved by Councillor Li Preti:

‘WHEREAS the proceeds of crime are currently administered by the provincial government; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto Police Services Board and citizens spend millions of dollars seizing proceeds of crime on an annual basis;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(i) the federal government, through the Province of Ontario, be requested to allocate all proceeds of crime seized by the Toronto Police Service for the front-line policing needs of the City of Toronto;

(ii) the Province of Ontario be requested to pay its fair share towards the City of Toronto’s Police Service budget for the running of the provincial court system where the services of the Toronto Police Service are required; and

(iii) the amount as specified by the Chief of Police be billed to the Province of Ontario.’;

(b) the Chief of Police be requested to consult with the local community within 21 Division about any change in service or service levels that may occur as a result of the budget approval by Toronto City Council and submit a report thereon to Council, through the Toronto Police Services Board and the Policy and Finance Committee; and

(c) the Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee providing an update on the overtime costs of the Toronto Police Service and the actions being taken to address the issue of high costs in this area; scheduling of police attending court and the co-operation of court officials in this regard.”; Toronto City Council 22 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(RR) Consolidated Grant Program:

(30) to provide that:

(a) the 2000 approved budget flat line, plus the new approved base budget pressures of $596,500.00, be supported, for an increase of $1,657,900.00 to the proposed 2001 budget, and these additional funds be found from savings achieved based on recommendations contained in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Audit Committee, headed “Community and Neighbourhood Services - Community Services Grants Program Review”, and, in the event that these savings cannot be realized through the Auditor’s accountability concerns, the necessary funds be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account; and

(b) $90,000.00 of the children nutrition program, as proposed in the Children and Youth Action Plan 2001, be funded through the Grants Contingency within the existing Consolidated Grants budget; and

(31) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the budget for the Association of Community Centres (AOCC) centres not be considered as part of the Consolidated Grants Program but be considered as a separate budget line item in future years; and

(b) the following motion be referred to the Grants Sub-Committee for report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee:

Moved by Councillor Mammoliti:

‘It is further recommended that the respective Commissioners and the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit, to each Community Council, a priority list, on an area specific basis, of those groups who have had their grant request rejected by the City, for consideration and report thereon to Council, through the Policy and Finance Committee.’ ”;

(SS) Capital and Corporate Financing and Non-Program Revenues/Expenditures:

(32) to provide that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to hold back, at her discretion, the payment to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) of $25.7 million pending:

(a) the result of the request to the Province of Ontario to freeze the method of allocating fees to the City of Toronto; and Toronto City Council 23 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(b) the results of meeting with the Assessment Corporation staff regarding the City of Toronto’s request to separate out lands with telecommunication structures for reassessment at commercial values, and the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to take whatever measures may be necessary, including taking legal action if necessary; and

(33) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) the Province of Ontario be again requested to amend the Municipal Act to replace the ‘Heads and Beds’ tax with a requirement for these institutions to pay full property taxes;

(b) the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to respond to Council with a resolution of this matter within 30 days;

(c) a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) for support and AMO be requested to pursue this matter on City Council’s behalf;

(d) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the feasibility of reducing operating costs by writing down capital expenditures from one-time receipts, in order to reduce department interest payment charges;

(e) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) be requested to submit a report to Council, through the TTC and the Policy and Finance Committee, respectively, on what TTC Capital projects could be debentured over a longer period of time than ten years and the savings in respect thereto;

(f) the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a joint report to the Policy and Finance Committee by September 30, 2001, on the slot machines at the Woodbine Racetrack, such report to outline the current and future service pressures on City departments and agencies (Works and Emergency Services, Toronto Police Service, Toronto Ambulance Service, Toronto Fire Service, Toronto Transit Commission, Public Health) since the opening of the Woodbine facility, and options available for funding these pressures in the 2002 Operating Budget;

(g) should the 2001 Budget of $12,000,000.00, obtained from the Woodbine slot machines, be exceeded, such that the 2002 Budget can be increased, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the feasibility of providing Toronto City Council 24 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

additional funding in the 2002 Operating Budget and beyond for the City departments and agencies that have increased service costs resulting from the operation of Woodbine Racetrack slot machines;

(h) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on measures to improve the estimates of supplementary taxes;

(i) the report dated April 30, 2001, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

‘It is recommended that the Payment-in-Lieu revenue in the Non-Program budget be reduced from $159,022.0 thousand to $155,576.0 thousand and that the Tax Levy Revenue be increased from $2,734,204.7 thousand to $2,737,650.7 million, for a net impact of zero.’;

(j) the following motion be referred to the City Clerk for report thereon to the Administration Committee:

Moved by Councillor Filion:

‘It is further recommended that members of the public be charged only a nominal fee of up to ten cents a page for copies of Audited Financial Statements of municipal candidates.’; and

(k) consideration of the following motion be deferred to the first meeting of City Council to be held in 2525:

Moved by Councillor Pitfield:

‘It is further recommended that the City Clerk be requested to:

(i) submit a report to the Administration Committee on possible limits on the amounts of rebates above the allowable spending limits, as per the Municipal Elections Act, and possible changes to the program that can be implemented to reduce the cost to all taxpayers for the 2003 municipal election; and

(ii) provide to the Administration Committee, as an addendum, the results of the 2000 Candidate Rebate Program, as part of the review of the 2000 Municipal Election.”; Toronto City Council 25 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

GENERAL:

(34) to provide that ten percent of all department ‘consultants’ budgets be held back pending:

(a) the submission of a report from the City Auditor on the use of consultants, such report to be submitted to Council, through the Audit Committee; and

(b) the submission of a report from the Chief Administrative Officer on consultant costs and an appropriate level of cut, such report to be submitted to Council, through the Policy and Finance Committee; and

(35) by adding thereto the following:

“It is further recommended that:

(a) City Council request the provincial government to agree to set up a committee of Toronto City Councillors and members of the Provincial Conservative Caucus from ridings in the City of Toronto to discuss mutual concerns;

(b) the Mayor be requested to submit a report to Council, through the Policy and Finance Committee, on a comprehensive strategic management plan that provides measurable goals and communicates clearly the impact of provincial policies and programs to City of Toronto residents and businesses;

(c) the Mayor’s Office, in consultation with appropriate Councillors, be requested to develop and implement, as soon as possible, an awareness campaign as to the services provided by the City, and the financial situation of the City; such campaign to be conducted using existing City and agency, board and commission resources, and all heads of City departments, agencies, boards and commissions be requested to assist in this campaign;

(d) the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to establish policies and guidelines to provide direction on what is the appropriate level of debt carrying cost as a ratio of the Operating Budget and report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee;

(e) the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the appropriate Commissioners, be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the costs to undertake a cost/benefit analysis of the Lead Pipe Replacement Program, with a view to maintaining a waiting list of no longer than six months, such report to be part of the 2002 budget process;

(f) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to Council, in June 2001, through the Policy and Finance Committee, outlining a policy for Capital project debentures, such policy to clearly define; Toronto City Council 26 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(i) the criteria used for capital projects to be funded by the City standard of a 10-year debenture;

(ii) the criteria used in considering a longer time frame debenture;

(iii) identification in the Capital Budget document and the Capital Budget process of the debenture time frames being proposed, thus clearly allowing management staff and Council to estimate the debt and the time frame of debt against a particular department; and

(iv) any further reporting procedures whereby Council is made aware of the securing of debentures on individual projects;

(g) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the City Auditor, be requested to submit semi-annual (April and September) reports to Council, through the Policy and Finance Committee, on reserve and reserve fund continuity schedules, itemizing contributions to and withdrawals from each reserve and reserve fund;

(h) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the City Auditor, be requested to submit the outstanding reports on reserves and reserve fund activity for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, to Council, by June 2001, through the Policy and Finance Committee; the format of such reports to be revised to itemize contributions to and withdrawals from each reserve and reserve fund and to include details of every transaction since January 2, 1998;

(i) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the capital from current guidelines, such report to indicate how the funds are allocated back to the departmental program/projects;

(j) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee, in June 2001, outlining a strategy for the reduction of flooding in those areas that have experienced the most frequent basement flooding, such report to include immediate, medium-term and long-term measures, and the Works Committee be requested to recommend a plan which will immediately improve the situation in high priority areas; and

(k) City Council extend its appreciation to the staff of the City Clerk’s Division of the Corporate Services Department, the Finance Department and all other City staff involved in the 2001 budget process for their excellent support during the budget deliberations.”) Toronto City Council 27 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The Policy and Finance Committee recommends:

(I) the adoption of the report (April 11, 2001) from the Chair, Budget Advisory Committee, subject to the amendments by the Policy and Finance Committee:

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

(A) CHILDREN’S SERVICES:

(1) the 2001 recommended Operating Budget of $275.163 million gross and $57.108 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Divisional office 448.4 224.2 Research Planning and Support 2,460.6 850.0 Service Access Management 7,186.2 3,593.0 Regulation and Monitoring 3,356.4 1,628.2 Child Care Delivery 213,958.2 41,216.6 Operating Assistance to Service Providers 47,754.0 9,596.7

Total Program Budget 275,163.8 57,108.7

(2) funding for paying the actual cost of running Child Care Centres, be conditional upon the Province providing 80 percent of the gross cost, with no commitment to City funding in future years;

(3) the approval, in principle, of those recommendations without financial implications contained in the report, entitled “Children and Youth Action Committee Action Plan 2001”, and in the joint communication dated February 7, 2001, from Councillor Pam McConnell and Councillor Olivia Chow, as follows:

(i) the Shelter, Housing and Support Division continue emergency shelter system to secure and maintain affordable housing and to develop permanent affordable housing options;

(ii) efforts established over the past year to improve service coordination and planning for all City of Toronto divisions serving children continue in 2001. The development of future benchmarks and targets is a priority. There should be continued efforts to link the City’s service planning for children with that of other organizations;

(iii) a cross-sectoral study be initiated in 2001 for implementation in 2002. A comprehensive assessment of needs, opportunities and barriers Toronto City Council 28 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

would ensure that all investments in programs for children and families are planned and connected to the City’s Strategy for Children;

(iv) ongoing advocacy efforts to ensure that the City of Toronto receives its share of funding under the federal-provincial agreement on Early Childhood Development as well as its share of provincial funds under the Early Years Challenge Fund; and

(v) ongoing advocacy efforts aimed at the Province of Ontario to increase funding to cost shared programs that serve children such as child care subsidies and early child parenting programs;

(4) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to seek additional funds amounting to $29.3 million from the Province for the shortfalls in funding of child care program:

(i) user fees revenue;

(ii) rent to School Boards;

(iii) additional download program by the Province consisting of wage subsidy, special needs resourcing, resource centres, approved corporations and integration (from cost share of 87:13 to 80:20); and

(iv) change in cost sharing for the child care administration from 80:20 to 50:50.

Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“that $160,000 be restored to the Children’s Services Budget to fund one- third of the York Before and After School Program, and that approval be subject to receiving one-third from the Toronto District School Board and one-third from parents providing funding in an equal amount.”

(B) HOMES FOR THE AGED:

(5) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $144.042 million gross and $25.875 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved: Toronto City Council 29 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Administrative and Program Support 1,281.7 256.6 Toronto Homes 134,096.8 24,373.1 Community Based Services Development 8,663.6 1,246.0

Total Program Budget 144,042.1 25,875.7

(6) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to seek a Provincial commitment to stabilize funding by guaranteeing transition funding until a permanent increase in base funding can be negotiated with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC). Also, to continue advocating for an increase in base LTC facility funding; and

(7) City Council request the Province to pay their fair share of the 80/20 funding that is due to the City, estimated at $10 million;

(8) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $437.593 million gross and $270.880 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Divisional Office 1,455.9 1,455.9 Provincial Download – Social Housing 307,517.8 232,143.0 Hostel Services 97,500.6 32,158.7 Housing Programs 2,902.4 1,574.8 Social Housing & Support 28,216.6 3,547.8

Total Program Budget 437,593.3 270,880.2

(9) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services requested to seek additional funding amounting to $13.700 million for the Provincial shortfall in funding the actual cost of per-diem for shelter program;

(10) the program eliminate one time-set-up costs (furniture and equipment) amounting to $0.349 million in the 2002 budget submission;

(11) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the Community Services Committee on opportunities to enhance client training within the shelter system; and Toronto City Council 30 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(12) the report (March 12, 2001) from City Auditor, entitled “Hostel Vacancy and Bed Rates” embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

(i) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, be requested to review the reservation policy of all shelters with a view to maintaining a balance between maximizing bed space usage and providing assurance that a bed space will be available to client who is registered in a shelter;

(ii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, be requested to provide all shelters with a clear definition of an occupied bed for the purposes of reporting the daily occupancy data and establishing the number of bed spaces eligible for the per diem fee to the paid by the City;

(iii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, be requested to enhance the agency review officers’ site visits to the shelters to include random verification checks of the per diem billings and occupancy data submitted by the shelters;

(iv) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, be requested to ensure that the bed space capacity used in calculating occupancy rates is calculated properly when new bed spaces are added into the emergency shelter system;

(v) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with City Legal be requested to review the need to update the service agreements with service providers that were previously made with the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; and

(vi) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, request Street Helpline, a program of Community Information Toronto, to review the hostel/bed registry information posted on its web site with a view to providing accurate and complete information;

(13) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the City Auditor, be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the criteria and formulae used to calculate per diem shelter rates paid under contracts with various service providers and the rationale for the range of rates as noted in the City Auditor's report, entitled "Hostel Vacancy and Bed Rates";

(14) City Council request the Provincial Government to increase its per diem rate to reimburse the City for 80 percent of the actual per diem rate paid by the City and in the event these negotiations are not successful report thereon to the Community Services Committee on the steps that can be taken to reduce Toronto City Council 31 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

the City's actual average per diem rate pertaining to shelter costs to the maximum per diem rate set by the Province; and

(15) the report (March 30, 2001) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Robertson House Pilot Project for At Risk Pregnant Women” embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

(i) Council request that the Ministry of Health fund the annual operating costs of $171,258 for pregnant mothers’ program at Robertson House;

(ii) the Province of Ontario be encouraged to expand the pregnant mothers program in all family shelters across Ontario; and

(iii) this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Health and to the Inquest into the death of Jordan Heikamp.

(16) the CEO of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the financial impact of the recycling initiative on the 2002 Operating Budget, and such report to be forwarded to the Works Committee for information.

Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“(a) that the foregoing Recommendation No. (15) (ii) be amended by adding thereto the following words “especially one in the City of Toronto, and that the Shelter be named “Jordan House”; and

(b) that the foregoing Recommendation No. (15 (iii) be amended by adding thereto the following words “and the Ministry of Community and Social Services”; so that Recommendation No. (15) now reads as follows:

“(15) the report (March 30, 2001) from Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Robertson House Pilot Project for At Risk Pregnant Women” embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

(i) Council request that the Ministry of Health fund the annual operating costs of $171,258 for pregnant mothers’ program at Robertson House;

(ii) the Province of Ontario be encouraged to expand the pregnant mothers program in all family shelters across Ontario, especially one in the City of Toronto, and that the Shelter be named Jordan House;

(iii) this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Health and to the Inquest into the death of Jordan Heikamp, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Toronto City Council 32 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(D) SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

(17) the 2001 recommended operating budget of $14.964 million gross and $7.890 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved: Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Administrative Program Support 11,419.1 6,838.0 Community Resources 3,544.9 1,052.1

Total Program Budget 14,964.0 7,890.1

(18) the report (March 26, 2001) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Street Involved Youth Program” formally “Squeegee Working Youth Mobilization Program” be adopted and the 2001 budget be adjusted accordingly; (E) SOCIAL SERVICES:

(19) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $895.835 million gross and $235.473 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Program Support 9,458.9 4,729.4 Social Assistance 886,376.4 230,744.0

Total Program Budget 895,835.3 235,473.4

(20) with respect to the caseload:

(i) the Toronto Social Services Program identify, as part of the City’s Operating Budget Variance reporting process, the cost implications in the event that the 2001 actual caseload exceeds the caseload reflected in the 2001 approved budget;

(ii) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the Community Services Committee and the Policy and Finance Committee, on additional funding, if necessary, from the Social Assistance Stabilization Reserve Fund, if the caseload increases over the 2001 approved budget; and Toronto City Council 33 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the Community Services Committee on a monthly basis providing the up-to-date caseload figures with respect to Social Assistance recipients;

(21) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the Community Services Committee, once issues relating to the transition to the BTP System have been addressed, on the advisability and opportunity to consolidate the 14 local offices into 5 and 10 local offices, such report to include the potential cost-savings; and

(22) Council decline to pay the $3,100,000 gross, $2,700,000 net, increase in the Provincial Program Delivery cost under the Ontario Disability and Support Program and the associated reduction in GTA Pooling Revenues without detailed justification from the Province of Ontario; and further that the Chair of the Community Services Committee be requested to advise the Province and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario of this action.

WORKS AND EMERGENCY SERVICES:

(F) Emergency Medical Services:

(23) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $95.144 million gross and $39.058 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprising the following services, be approved:

Gross Net ($000s) ($000s) Service:

Emergency Support Services 27,880.4 8,197.3 Emergency Medical Services 66,584.9 30,691.0 Community Safeguard Services 679.0 169.9

Total Program Budget 95,144.3 39,058.2

(24) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the General Manager of Emergency Medical Services be requested to:

(a) consider the option to lease rather than purchase replacement vehicles, and report to the Community Services Committee by May 2001; and

(b) report to the Community Services Committee on the status of the negotiations with the Province of Ontario with respect to the 2000 and 2001 subsidies for Emergency Medical Services; Toronto City Council 34 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(25) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Community Services Committee on Community Medicine Initiatives and the possibility of acquiring funding from the Provincial and Federal governments and from the private sector for this initiative; and

(26) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the May 10, 2001, meeting of the Community Services Committee, or sooner, on the extended transfer of care currently being provided by the Emergency Services and solutions to the current problems;

(G) Solid Waste Management Services:

(27) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $158.840 million gross and $87.246 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Administration and Program Support 23,427.8 18,891.6 Collection 62,247.1 61,162.9 Transfer 15,446.7 (2,294.6) Processing 6,108.5 (8,166.9) Disposal 51,610.3 17,653.2

Total Program Budget 158,840.4 87,246.2

(28) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee by September, 2001, regarding the program’s vehicle maintenance and equipment replacement requirements for the five year period commencing with 2002 including identification of maintenance savings related to enhanced vehicle replacement practices, surplus values associated with disposal of Keele Valley equipment after closure in 2002, changes in maintenance expenditures related to age of fleet, reduced equipment needs, and fuel requirements;

(29) that surplus garbage packers be sold to offset contributions to the cost of vehicle equipment and replacements as recommended by the Works Committee;

(30) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee by the fall, 2001 outlining the operating budget impacts arising from recently proposed provincial legislation relating to funding for new recycling initiatives as recommended through the Waste Diversion Organization; Toronto City Council 35 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(31) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee by September, 2001, on implementation strategies and recommendations regarding application of user fees effective 2002 for waste collection from residences and apartment buildings as well as on the 2001 implementation of user fees or charges for School Boards, Agencies, Boards or Commissions;

(32) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee by the fall of 2001, with a suggested policy framework for considering pilot projects related to emerging or alternative waste management technologies that will allow for such programs to be reviewed relative to both the Corporation’s diversion targets as well as the City’s ability to afford them;

(33) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee, prior to the 2002 Budget deliberations on the ability and cost of implementing weekly organic pick up in addition to the weekly recycling pick up;

(34) that $2.4 million be held as a reserve in the Fleet Capital Budget for the purchase of recycling vehicles, and such funds not be released until such time as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provides a report to Council through the Works Committee, on the best initiatives to implement wasted diversion;

(35) once per week recycling be implemented across the City commencing January 1, 2002;

(36) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to meet with representatives of Local 416 and report to the Works Committee by the Spring of 2001, with respect to establishment of a four day, 10 hour shift, work week and that should no decision be mutually agreed upon regarding this item that consideration be given to contracting out collection services at least within the former City of North York;

(37) the Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee by the fall of 2001, on the status of a critical path for having solid waste management costs established as a separate rate similar to the Water and Wastewater user charge; and

(38) the Joint Liaison Committee, outlined in the communication (March 19, 2001) from the Chair, Toronto District School Board, be requested to meet to discuss service exchanges and report to the Policy and Finance Committee as soon as possible regarding the agreement being proposed for service exchanges; Toronto City Council 36 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(H) Fire Services:

(39) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $242.848 million gross and $239.013 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Operations 198,379.1 198,379.1 Fire Prevention and Public Education 9,491.8 9,191.8 Administration and Program Support 34,976.8 31,442.1

Total Program Budget 242,847.7 239,013.0

(40) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief be requested to consider maximizing revenue generating opportunities, such as utilizing the Fire Services name and logo on clothing, accessories, toys, and other appropriate products, and report thereon to the Community Services Committee by June 2001;

(41) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief be requested to consider the option to lease rather than purchase replacement fire services fleet, and report thereon to the Community Services Committee;

(42) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to review the Toronto Fire Services management structure and consider opportunities for rationalization following implementation of the Records Management System;

(43) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief and the General Manager of the Emergency Medical Services, be requrested to report to the Community Services Committee on the implementation of Fire Services being allocated the maintenance of the Fire Services vehicles (beginning July 1, 2001);

(44) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief be requested to report to the Community Services Committee on the balance of the maintenance of the Fire Services equipment being done in-house and how this can be accomplished; Toronto City Council 37 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(45) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee as to whether any efficiencies to taxpayers and cost savings can be achieved by investigating the need for a 3-tiered response on every call; and

(46) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Fire Chief and the President of the Firefighters Union be requested to continue the good work which emanated from the informative meeting that took place last November and to have this type of meeting on a yearly basis;

(I) Transportation:

(47) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $212.854 million gross and $167.937 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Roadway Services 116,603.1 82,181.5 Pedestrian Services 41,874.3 35,579.4 Traffic Systems 31,512.9 29,412.9 Infrastructure Planning 4,735.6 2,635.6 Tech. Services/Program Support 18,127.9 18,127.9

Total Program Budget 212,853.8 167,937.3

(48) the related costs for the 2002 Papal visit planning and 2008 Olympics planning be assumed by the appropriate agencies;

(49) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be reqested to investigate means of providing a more harmonized approach to the in-house standby and call in policy, in the context of corporate policy;

(50) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to a future meeting of the Works Committee on the 150 vacancies identified, and how long such positions have been vacant;

(51) the City Auditor be requested to report to the Works Committee on the adequacy of financial reporting on the snow removal budget;

(52) the issue of the safety of bicycle lanes on McCowan Avenue be referred to the Cycling Committee; Toronto City Council 38 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(53) the City Solicitor be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee on imposing a fee on fast food and convenience stores related to the clean-up and collection of litter or other waste which has been illegally disposed of on any land; and

(54) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee on the enforcement of front yard parking permits across the City;

(J) Support Services:

(55) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget for WES Support Services of $32.381 million gross and $0 net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved;

(56) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to include in the report respecting administration costs to the Administration Committee, information to identify Departments, such as Support Services, that will be given some of those general administration costs that are passed on internally; and

(57) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to review the staffing in the Communications Section (refer to Recommendation No. 119 in Corporate Communications);

(K) Technical Services:

(58) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $43.421 million gross and $1.810 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved;

(59) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report to the Works Committee on the priority initiatives to which funding of $100,000 gross and $50,000 net ($50,000 to be provided by the Toronto Atmospheric Fund) set aside in Non-Program for Environmental Initiatives will be applied pending such report being submitted by the Chief Administrative Officer;

(60) City Council authorize Toronto Hydro to submit a proposal to conduct the energy efficiency work referenced in the environmental plan on behalf of the City as part of its provision of energy services to the City and its power purchase agreement at no cost to the City;

(61) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee providing a review of the resources now assigned to environmental initiatives and to reprioritize staff where possible;

(62) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee each month on the current status of development applications; Toronto City Council 39 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(63) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Works Committee prior to the 2002 Budget process, on the initiatives which have been undertaken to improve the process for reviewing development applications; and

(64) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, be requested to report to the Works Committee by September 2001, on adoption of a user fee program whereby the cost of the processing of development applications is funded by the users of this service.

The Policy and Finance Committee further recommends that the report (April 6, 2001) from the Chief Administrative Officer, entitled “Corporate Environmental Initiatives for 2001”, embodying the following Recommendations, be received:

“It is recommended that:

(2) funding in the amount of $972,630 (net) be provided in various programs’ 2001 operating budgets to proceed with the Environmental Plan Initiatives as outlined in Appendix II of this report; and

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

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CULTURE AND TOURISM:

(L) Culture:

(65) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $11.135 million gross and $8.134 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s) Arts Services 1,785.4 1,403.57 Cultural Development 4,191.1 2,854.9 Heritage Services 5,158.6 3,875.9

Total Program Budget 11,135.1 8,134.3 Toronto City Council 40 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(66) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to continue negotiations with the Ontario Heritage Foundation to financially assist in the maintenance of the Guild Inn artifacts collection;

(67) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the development of a Cultural Centre at the Pier site, as the development of the waterfront is a priority for the City and is the foundation of much of the City’s cultural and economic heritage; and to enable work to begin towards the creation of a Centre on the waterfront for the Celebration of Toronto Culture that will tell the stories of Toronto’s diverse cultural communities and their contributions to our cultural life and economic prosperity; and

(68) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee, following the 2001 budget process, on the transfer of Heritage Toronto’s operating budget line from Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department to Consolidated Grants;

(M) Customer and Business Support:

(69) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $ 18.570 million gross and $16.471 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Technical Support and Administration 13,469.6 13,269.6 Policy and Development 5,100.1 3,201.1

Total Program Budget 18,569.7 16,470.7

(70) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Administration Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee in June 2001, on the implementation of the plan for consolidation of construction management function in City Departments, including Agencies, Boards and Commissions; Toronto City Council 41 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(N) Economic Development:

(71) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $7.461 million gross and $6.837 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Service: Gross Net ($000s) ($000s)

Business Development and Retention 2,249.7 2,234.7 Entrepreneurship and Small Business 780.6 630.6 Investment Marketing 2,348.6 2,168.6 Economic Research and Business Development 1,066.7 1,046.7 Local Partnerships 1,015.8 756.1

Total Program Budget 7,461.4 6,836.7

and,

(72) a review be undertaken by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to identify the harmonization and service level implications of continuing increases in the numbers of Business Improvement Areas, their continuing geographic dispersion and operating complexity, as well as opportunities for the alternate provision of services and appropriate levels of City-wide resources for the program, and report back to the Economic Development and Parks Committee.

(O) PARKS AND RECREATION:

(73) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $201.371 million gross and $138.313 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Parkland and Open Space 88,561.3 74,383.9 Sports and Recreation 112,809.2 63,929.0

Total Program Budget 201,370.5 138,312.9

(74) funding for the Lifeguard Beach program be transferred to the Toronto Police in the amount of $0.773 million; $0.401 million transfer from Parks and Recreation and $0.372 million from Non-Program, be approved; Toronto City Council 42 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(75) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be advised that the Economic Development and Parks Committee wishes to proceed as quickly as possible with the construction of a Driving Range on the vacant land in the North District in order to maximize revenues at a net zero cost for 2001;

(76) that City Council request the Provincial Government to review the Toronto District School Board initiatives to sideload the costs to the City of Toronto taxpayers and comment on the schedule of costs that the Toronto District School Board has put forward with respect to the rates to be established at the schools;

(77) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to review options for cost savings through contracting out the delivery of turf maintenance and facility custodial maintenance for implementation in 2002 and report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee by June 2001;

(78) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the Department’s ability of reducing the forestry backlog to four months;

(79) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee meeting of September 14, 2001, on reducing the Preventative Maintenance Program in Facilities and Reducing Preventative Maintenance in Parks;

(80) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the September 14, 2001, meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the feasibility of providing vehicle ferry services to the Toronto Islands on a cost recovery or profitable basis, and so as not to require any reduction in service;

(81) the Policy and Finance Committee and City Council be requested to renegotiate the $5.2 million increase in rent to the Toronto District School Board with a view to paying the 2000 requested amount plus an increase of four percent; and further that this issue be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Joint Liaison Committee;

(82) City Council support the Youth Cabinet Initiatives of encouraging Councillors to hire summer students with no net additional cost to the City; and further that City staff assist the Youth Cabinet to seek external funding source; and Toronto City Council 43 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(83) the report (March 29, 2001) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled “Parks and Recreation Division – Information Requests on 2001 Operating Budget” embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

(i) the Budget Advisory Committee recommend to Council the extension of the project for paid parking to four additional waterfront parks and two commuter locations at a 2001 net revenue of $0.250 million.

Subject to the following amendments by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“(a) that $105,000 be restored to the Parks and Recreation Budget to continue the summer outdoor swim program hours as offered by the former City of Toronto;

(b) that the Woodbine/Ashbridges Bay Pilot Project be opened at the same time as the other locations included in the project for paid parking suggested in the report dated March 29, 2001, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled “Parks and Recreation Division – Information Requests on 2001 Operating Budget (All Wards)”;

(c) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the potential funding model to sustain school pools, including all relevant pools City-wide, and that such report also include consideration of the Etobicoke model in terms of funding; and

(d) that the report (April 12, 2001) from the Chair, Toronto District School Board, entitled “Financial Accord Between the City of Toronto and the Toronto District School Board”, be referred to the Budget Advisory Committee for consideration at its first meeting dealing with the 2002 Operating Budget;”

(P) World Youth Day:

(84) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $0.871 million gross and $0.871 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved.

(Q) Special Events:

(85) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $6.4373 million gross and $3.3389 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved;

(86) up to $100,000.00 gross and $50,000.00 net for the Enhanced New Year’s Eve Celebration be approved, subject to matching funds being raised by the private sector; and a report being forwarded to the Economic Development and Parks Committee prior to the release of said funding; Toronto City Council 44 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(87) Tourism Toronto be requested to prioritize within their workplan the marketing of Toronto as a destination for the Special Events Division’s Signature Events; and

(88) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to pursue private sponsors to fund the New Year’s celebrations at Nathan Phillips Square.

(R) Urban Development Services:

(89) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $77.387 million gross and $14.146 million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Business Support Services 9,300.4 9,300.4 City Planning 21,530.5 13,277.4 Municipal Licensing & Standards 21,136.3 7,443.7 Buildings 25,420.1 (15,875.0)

Total Program Budget 77,387.3 14,146.5

(90) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the proposed fee increases relating to Building Permit Applications, Zoning By-Law Applications and the cost recovery measures in the Buildings Division, outlining the capacity for these increases and provide benchmarks with other municipalities;

(91) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee providing the rationale for re-prioritizing or deferring the studies contained in the New Service Changes as outlined in Appendix B, in the Program Highlights, Volume I;

(92) the Budget Sub-Committee of the Planning and Transportation Committee build a Council cost component into the budgets of the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division and the Building Division of the Urban Development Services Department;

(93) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report to a future meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on recommendations for further efficiencies;

(94) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report on the possibility of obtaining external funding for the King Evaluation Study; Toronto City Council 45 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(95) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report on what revenues would accrue if a 5 percent increase was applied to all department-wide services involving a fee;

(96) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report on the increased number of e-mail messages received respecting reinforcement of property standards, to include information on internal versus external e-mails, and explain the impact these e-mails have on staff time involved in handling them and the resulting extra workload;

(97) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report on the status of the HRDC funding of the Road and Trail Safety Ambassador Program and potential adjustments to this program in order to modify it to deliver initiatives such as those outlined in the report dated February 19, 2001, from Councillor Layton;

(98) CUPE Local 79 be requested to present for data to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, through the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee and prepare a list of proposed efficiencies for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Committee, or its Budget Sub-Committee, as a basis for ongoing discussions with the City for the 2001 and future budgets;

(99) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to immediately begin to undertake the studies necessary to refine development levies and the briefing note dated February 15, 2001, on the Costs of Development in Toronto, prepared by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and submitted by Councillor Moscoe, be considered by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its next meeting on March 26, 2001 with a view to recommending that the City aim towards rationalizing development levies for the 2002 budget;

(100) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report, at the appropriate time, to the Planning and Transportation Committee, providing the top ten revenue options relating to increasing fines for the inspections;

(101) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the following:

(a) internal costs for staff attending appeals to the OMB and the success rate of such appeals;

(b) looking into the possibility of finding solutions between parties instead of going to the OMB; and Toronto City Council 46 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(c) providing a breakdown of the costs for the cycling program, including direct salaries, printing expenses and all other cycling expenditures; (102) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the number of times planning staff attended the OMB at the request of Councillors in the past three years, particularly in the former North York Community Council area and also comment on other Community Councils that had that opportunity, the said report to include:

(1) how many incidents; and

(2) the dollar value of such service;

(103) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on a new Development Review process model for development applications that will co-ordinate comments and establish timelines for these comments and that the scope of this co-ordination include not only City departments but also Agencies, Boards and Commissions such as the Toronto Hydro and the Toronto Transit Commission;

(104) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report on the Corporate approach to streamlining the development review process, particularly on the one window approach;

(105) the report (March 30, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services entitled “Sign Permit Fees” be adopted with the recommendation that the 5 percent increase in sign permit fees be approved and incorporated in the 2001 Operating Budget;

(106) the report (March 29, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, entitled “Expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program” be adopted with the recommendation that consideration of the expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program across the new City of Toronto be deferred for consideration to the 2002 Budget Process due to the current financial pressures facing the City;

(107) the practice of staff representing residents to appeal Council, City staff or Committee of Adjustment decisions at the OMB be discontinued;

(108) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor be requested to report to the next meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on additional fees that require amendments to the Municipal Code; and Toronto City Council 47 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(109) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report on the application of overtime as a chargeback to the applicant as a means of expediting planning applications. Toronto City Council 48 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“that the foregoing Recommendation No. (99) be amended by deleting the following words “at its next meeting on March 26, 2001”, so that such Recommendation now reads as follows:

“(99) The Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to immediately begin to undertake the studies necessary to refine development levies and that the briefing note dated February 15, 2001, on the Costs of Development in Toronto, prepared by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and submitted by Councillor Moscoe, be considered by the Planning and Transportation Committee with a view to recommending that the City aim towards rationalizing development levies for the 2002 budget;”;

Corporate Services:

(S) City Clerk:

(110) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $39.945 million gross and $19.506 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Secretariat 7,755.0 7,270.6 Printing and Distribution 13,846.1 2,354.4 Council and Support Services 2,940.4 2,940.4 Corporate Access and Privacy 812.2 782.2 Corporate Records and Archives 5,695.4 5,616.9 Elections – Operations 1,352.7 1,132.7 Elections – Events 2,409.8 2,049.8 Legislative Services 3,737.7 (4,036.3) Protocol 1,395.5 1,395.5

Total Program Budget 39,944.8 19,506.2

(111) the City Clerk be requested to report to the Administration Committee on the experience of Election 2000 and present an operational plan and budget for Election 2003;

(112) the 2001 Contribution to Reserve for Election 2003 be adjusted by a net increase of $0.210 million for the software and hardware maintenance costs for the Toronto Election Information System (T.E.I.S.), the testing, shredding and sorting costs and the limiting of the distribution of Vote-At Cards; Toronto City Council 49 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(113) the City continue to provide in-kind support of poll locations, computers, equipment, staff and technical support, as it did in the 2000 election, for the election in 2003, up to an annual estimated amount of $0.515 million for 2001, 2002 and 2003; and for a total 2003 gross expenditure subsidy of $1.545 million;

(114) the City Clerk be requested to approach the Province of Ontario to amend legislation to allow the city to recover a proportionate share of election expenses from the Boards of Education and report back to the Budget Advisory Committee before the start of the 2002 budget process; and

(115) the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Director of Fleet Management and the City Clerk, be requested to review the use of couriers in all City Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions, and provide recommendations to the Administration Committee on how to streamline all the various services now in place, review ways to reduce the use of external courier services and determine how best to set up a City courier-shuttle system using existing resources.

(T) Service Improvement and Innovation:

(116) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget for Service Improvement and Innovation, Corporate Services of $1.366 million gross and $1.221 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved.

(U) Corporate Communications:

(117) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $6.010 million gross and $5.881 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Corporate Strategic and Internal 1,526.1 1,526.1 Communications Media Services 525.9 505.9 Public Information 2,299.8 2,190.8 Creative Services 1,657.7 1,657.7

Total Program Budget 6,009.5 5,880.5

(118) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to explore expeditiously, and no later than June 2001, the relocation of the tourist gift store in the area presently occupied by the small business centre, with an entrance and exposure to Nathan Phillips Square, such possible relocation to include a plan to make the store self-sufficient or profitable in 2002; and Toronto City Council 50 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

further that the Commissioner be requested to report to the Administration Committee on the possibility of having charity groups run the gift shop as a fundraising endeavour and/or contracting out of the space; and

(119) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit a report to the Administration Committee summarizing communication needs and functions across the Corporation; a plan for centralizing and downsizing communications services and a plan for cost savings associated with this reorganization to achieve a 5 percent budget reduction in 2001 and a further 5 percent budget reduction in 2002; and that the Commissioner report back to the Administration Committee no later than July, 2001 on savings to be realized by this action (refer to Recommendation No.(140) in Human Resources and Recommendations No. (57) in Works and Emergency Services, Support Services)

(V) Facilities And Real Estate:

(120) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $89.849 million gross and $44.914 million net, as detailed in Appendix “B”, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Facilities 83,312.6 42,928.5 Real Estate 6,536.0 1,985.8

Total Program Budget 89,848.6 44,914.3

(121) a cost/benefits analysis be undertaken by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to determine the potential cost savings of alternate service delivery of building cleaning services within the Facilities and Real Estate Division of Corporate Services;

(122) Council adopt a $10 million maximum value held for “Let’s Build” projects; and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report quarterly to their respective Standing Committees to review projects on how the program is achieving its objectives should land opportunities arise that would be appropriate for affordable housing within the ‘Let’s Build’ program that would exceed the $10 million land value, the Commissioner CNS has the ability to seek Council approval through the Community Services Committee on an ‘as need’ basis;

(123) that the Director of Real Estate be requested to increase the level of property sales; that two additional staff be added to the Real Estate section to help facilitate this increase; that these two staff persons be re-deployed from Toronto City Council 51 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

elsewhere in the Division and not be new staff; that the Director of Real Estate be authorized to backfill the positions of re-deployed staff with temporary staff; that any additional salary dollars for both backfill and re-deployed staff be paid from the additional cost savings from increased property sales; and that the Director of Real Estate be requested to report directly to the Budget Advisory Committee on the amount of extra revenue that can be achieved through these actions;

(124) if any additional specialized legal work is required for the sale of surplus property or the implementation of the Master Accommodation Plan, that this work be allocated from the Master Accommodation Plan net proceeds up to a maximum of $77,200.00;

(125) the report (March 28, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services entitled “Assessment of Alternative Service Delivery (ASD) Options for Building Maintenance Function in the Facilities and Real Estate Division” be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2002 budget deliberations;

(126) the report (March 8, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services entitled “Building Cleaning Services – Potential Cost Savings from Alternate Service Delivery” be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2002 budget deliberations;

(127) the Real Estate Division institute a regular report with frequency at least quarterly, to the Administration Committee, establishing targets for sale of properties in the City portfolio, number of properties proposed for sale in the last quarter, current status of such properties, number of months since proposed and/or designated surplus and other appropriate measures to assist in the management for the sale of surplus properties, the first of such report to be submitted to the Budget Advisory Committee as well;

(128) the report (March 8, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled “Funding Provided for Maintenance Items in the Facilities and Real Estate Division in 2000 and 2001 Operating Budgets” be referred to the Administration Committee for information;

(129) the communication (March 21, 2001) from the Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416 be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer;

(130) the report (March 8, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled “Charging for Parking at City Hall and Metro Hall” be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer; and the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to report to the Administration Committee in May on the implementation of this strategy; Toronto City Council 52 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(131) the report (March, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled “Request for Information – FTE’s by Function in Facilities and Real Estate Division and How to Projects Are Evaluated and Prioritized”, be referred to the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to provide an update on the subject matter for the 2002 budget deliberations; and

(132) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Administration Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee in June 2001, on the implementation of the plan for consolidation of construction management function in City Departments, including Agencies, Boards and Commissions.

Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“That the foregoing Recommendation No. (124) be amended to read as follows:

“(124) that if any additional specialized legal work is required for the sale of surplus property or the implementation of the Master Accommodation Plan, that this work be undertaken by Legal Division staff and that funds be allocated from the sale of surplus property net proceeds up to a maximum of $77,200.00 per annum;”;

(W) Fleet Management Services:

(133) that the 2001 Recommended Operating budget for Fleet Management Services of $32.459 million gross and $0.0 million net, as detailed in Appendix B comprised of the following services be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Fleet Maintenance 22,239.7 (0.00) Fleet Management 2,534.3 (0.00) Fleet Safety 714.7 (0.00) Fuel Operations 6,970.1 (0.00)

Total Program Budget 32,458.8 (0.00)

(134) Fleet Management Services be directed to aggressively explore opportunities to outsource parts supply, including developing just-in-time inventory supply channels and report thereon to the Administration Committee on the targeted savings to be achieved by such a strategy no later than May, 2001; Toronto City Council 53 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(135) the Policy and Finance Committee request Council make a formal request to both the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada for an exemption from fuel taxes on all City fuel purchases; (136) the Commissioner of Corporate undertake the following:

(i) an in-depth review of the M4 system five year plan, benchmarking garage labour output and standardizing hours;

(ii) the implementation of a standardized hours charging system for all interdepartmental charges for 2002 based on the standard labour charges; and

(iii) report on the policies regarding personal use of corporate vehicles across the City and how such policies are being enforced and report thereon to the Administration Committee on the implementation of such system in the City;

(137) that the City Auditor be requested to review all the fleet charges that were made interdepartmentally and comment on the appropriateness of these charges and report thereon to the Administration Committee; and

(138) that the transfer the of Fire Vehicle Maintenance from Corporate Fleet to Fire be approved and a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be submitted to the Works Committee on the implementation associated with the budget adjustments recommended; and that the Corporate Fleet budget be reduced by $100,000.00 to be added to the City Auditor’s budget for additional audit services.

(X) Human Resources:

(139) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $25.439 million gross and $22.617 million net, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Employment Services 7,280.5 6,904.8 Organizational Effectiveness 2,644.7 2,644.7 Employee and Labour Relations 3,351.0 1,574.0 Departmental Services 11,936.1 11,269.4 Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office 226.5 223.9

Total Program Budget 25,438.7 22,616.7

(140) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report during the 2002 Operating Budget Toronto City Council 54 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

providing a list of all Communications personnel in other Departments, to include the breakdown of administration costs, etc.; (refer to Recommendation No. (119) in Corporate Communications); (141) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to the Administration Committee on the rationale behind the current wage level defined by the City in comparison with the fair wage level of the corresponding positions in the Federal and Provincial Government;

(Y) Information and Technology:

(142) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $37.896 million gross and $35.564 million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Desktop Computing 23,827.3 21,494.4 Applications Delivery 9,987.4 9,987.4 Voice & Messaging 1,761.1 1,761.1 Information & Products 2,320.6 2,320.6

Total Program Budget 37,896.4 35,563.5

(143) the Commissioner of Corporate Services encourage staff to complete a five year plan for the Information and Technology Division and the Corporation prior to the 2002 Operating Budget Process;

(144) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to provide a complete overview of all Information Technology expenditures in the Capital and Operating Budgets for all Departments, Agencies, Board and Commissions, including consideration of the following requests:

(a) ranking all, including Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Departments, Capital Budget and major operating submissions on information technology in order of the corporate priorities using:

(i) clear service standards;

(ii) a goal to achieve equity of excellence; and

(iii) a goal to maximize productivity in the workforce;

(b) providing a rationale of increasing the Information Technology Capital Budget envelope to $24.24 million from a $2.5 million spending average between 1998 and 2000; and Toronto City Council 55 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(c) consolidating and transferring other information technology expenditures, such as $18.6 million in the Non-Program area, into the Information Technology capital budget request and provide a breakdown of these expenditures prior to the meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee scheduled to be held on March 1, 2001.

(Z) Legal:

(145) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $18.662 million gross and $16.305 million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved: Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Administration 2,109.3 2,109.2 Municipal Law 3,197.2 2,490.9 Real Estate 2,586.3 2,399.3 Planning and Development 3,796.7 3,451.7 Litigation 4,139.3 3,395.2 Employment Law 1,679.7 1,304.7 Prosecutions 1,153.5 1,153.5

Total Program Budget 18,661.9 16,304.5

Finance Department: (AA) Finance:

(146) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $66.413 million gross and $30.855 million net, as detailed in Appendix “B”, comprised of the following services, be approved: Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s) Accounting Services 9,321.5 7,698.9 Budget Services 3,998.3 3,383.8 Development, Policy and Research 785.8 722.1 Office of the CFO and Treasurer 735.2 568.9 Pension, Payroll and Employee Benefits 9,148.2 6,777.8 Purchasing and Materials Management 6,766.1 5,577.0 Revenue Services 32,893.8 4,677.1 Treasury and Financial Services 2,764.1 1,449.7

Total Program Budget 66,413.0 30,855.3

Other:

(BB) Audit: Toronto City Council 56 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(1) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of Audit Services with gross expenditures of $2.887 million and $2.650 million net expenditures, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved. (CC) Chief Administrator’s Office:

(2) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $5.160 million gross and $5.160 million net, as detailed in Appendix “B”, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Executive Management 1,607.7 1,607.7 Strategic and Corporate Policy 3,552.3 3,552.3

Total Program Budget 5,160.0 5,160.0

(149) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to provide an analysis of present and future wage agreement and what they will mean to the City, such report to include all the Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(150) a copy of the subject report be forwarded to Municipalities which are undergoing amalgamation at present; and a copy of this report be forwarded to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Association of Municipalities of Ontario for their consideration and information; and

(151) a copy of the subject report be forwarded to the Mayor to be considered as part of his ongoing negotiations with the Province.

(DD) Council:

(152) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $16.850 million gross and net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s ($000s)

Councillors’ Salaries & Benefits 3,399.1 3,399.1 Councillors Staff Salaries & Benefits 9,158.8 9,158.8 Council Global Budget 2,336.4 2,336.4 Council General Expenses 2,955.7 2,955.7 Total Program Budget 16,850.0 16,850.0

(153) the freezing of Councillors and Council staff current salary levels for two years, commencing with the approval of the 2001 Operating Budget, be deferred until the pension issue is resolved; Toronto City Council 57 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(154) Members of Council who are not elected or appointed to the executive, board, section executive, task force or committee of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), the World Association of Major Metropolis (WAMM), the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) or the International Council for Local Environment Issues (ICLEI) and who wish to attend the annual meetings for any of these associations, other than those held in Canada, shall pay such costs from their global office budgets not from the Council Business Travel account, such policy not to affect existing booked trips;

(155) the City Clerk be directed to phase out the corporate vehicle service for Councillors by the end of the year 2001;

(156) the Human Resources Division, be directed to attempt to place Council Drivers/Pool Chauffeurs elsewhere within the City of Toronto in accordance with City policy and collective agreements; and further should Human Resources be unsuccessful in placing said Drivers that the Commissioner of Corporate Service be requested to report to Administration Committee through the Personnel Sub-committee in that regard;

(157) any costs incurred from other transportation and parking by Councillors from the elimination of Council Transportation be paid for within Councillors' Global Office Budget.

(EE) Office of the Mayor:

(158) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $1.402 million gross and $1.402 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, for the Office of the Mayor, be approved;

(159) the freezing of the current salary level of the Mayor and the Mayor’s Office staff for two years, commencing with the approval of the 2001 Operating Budget, be deferred until the pension issue is resolved; and

(160) the Corporate vehicle service for the Mayor’s Office not be phased out;

Special Purpose Bodies:

(FF) Toronto Public Health:

(161) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $142.925 million gross and $58.985 million net, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s) Support Services 11,716.9 5,854.1 Toronto City Council 58 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Policy and Planning 9,556.7 4,701.4 Family Health/Healthy Lifestyles 74,915.3 24,508.0 Communicable Diseases 22,447.0 10,180.2 Healthy Environments 21,791.2 12,122.6 BAC Service Level Adjustments 2,498.2 1,619.1 Total Program Budget $142,925 $58,985.4

(162) the requested funding of $0.030 million for the Hot Weather Alert Program be deferred for consideration with the year 2002 Operating Budget process;

(163) before the $634,000 gross $317,000 net of municipal funds for the Food Safety program is approved, a report on the future funding implications be submitted to Budget Advisory Committee for its review, including an implementation plan for charging fees for public health inspection and re-inspection;

(164) before any further requests are considered for funds in addition to the 2001 Recommended Budget for Public Health, the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on accommodating these additional requests through re-prioritizing all Public Health activities within the 2001 recommended budget envelope;

(165) given the support of Council for new and enhanced programs in Public Health in 1999 and 2000, and since Council needs to know the impact of its investments, that comprehensive performance efficiency measures be submitted as part of the 2002 Operating Budget process;

(166) the Mayor’s Office, in discussion with the Province, be requested to look at the City cost sharing with the Province or 100 percent funding from the Province for the cost of the City’s non-mandatory public health dental treatment program;

(167) in the event that the Board of Health retain the Humane Society service it does so on the condition that the City have access to Humane Society financial information and statements on the contract services to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer;

(168) the 2000 net funding in the amount of $776,000.00 for Animal Shelter services in the south region be the same for 2001 (with additional revenues of $300,000.00 to be offset by one time set up costs) and if any additional net capital or operating funding is required in that regard the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report a business case, with financial implications to Council through the Policy and Finance Committee; and that the Board of Health be requested to prepare a business plan to be submitted to Council, through the Policy and Finance Committee, providing costs and savings that are projected if the City decides to provide this service; Toronto City Council 59 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(169) the report (February 21, 2001) entitled “Toronto Food Charter and Food and Hunger Action Committee Phase II” from the Board of Health, be referred to the Grants Sub-Committee;

(170) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer Health be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on some form of fee for the Dental Program, including an acceptable amount for children and a fee based on the number of users;

(171) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the following:

(i) opportunities for reducing costs by moving to smaller and/or less expensive quarters, this report to include:

(a) a list of spaces owned and leased by the Board of Health;

(b) times remaining in the leases;

(d) any opportunities for reducing occupancy costs of the Board of Health, such report to be in consultation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(ii) the savings associated with removing the "yellow" card issued to restaurants for non-compliance;

(iii) a review of the food inspection program, specifically addressing the "yellow" card aspect of such program, including the funding and the actual costs involved in implementing this program in 2001 and future years; and

(iv) review the Food Safety Basic program (cost shared);

(172) the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on a breakdown by Division on how much money is spent on electronic advertising, such as radio, TV, billboards, etc., the said report to comment on the required advertising as well as discretionary advertising; details on the 12 FTEs in the Communications Division and whether this function could be carried out through Corporate Services; and funds spent by the Communications Division for outside consultants and whether this function could also be carried out through Corporate Services; and, Toronto City Council 60 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(173) the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report to the Board of Health on a second step whereby the restaurant operator is given at least a week to comply with the order to obtain a "yellow" order. Subject to the following amendments by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“(1) that the Public Health Operating Budget be increased by $717.3 with $317.3 allocated for the Food Safety disclosure program and $400.0 to maintain current services, and that this be funded by the additional revenue identified in the report (April 12, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Tax Impacts of Provincially Imposed Transition Ratios and Education Tax Rates for the 2001 Reassessment Year”;

(2) that the Capital and Corporate Financing Computer Leasing Program expenditure be increased by $2.218 M to fund Public Health’s IT initiatives; and that Non-Program Revenues – OMERS recovery be increased by $2.218 M to reflect 2000 actuals updated for 2001;

(3) that the following motion by Councillor Minnan-Wong be referred to the City Auditor; and the Medical Officer and Health be requested to forward all reports from the Medical Officer of Health and consultants in the past, including correspondence from the Ontario Dental Association, respecting an audit of service delivery, to the City Auditor for report thereon to Council, through the Audit Committee, on the best course of action to be taken:

Moved by Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong:

“(1) that a value for money audit be conducted by the City Auditor to determine if the current service delivery model can be improved;

(2) that the City Auditor be requested to submit a report to the Audit Committee specifically evaluating alternative service delivery and outsourcing models;

(3) that the Ontario Dental Association be consulted in the preparation of the foregoing requested report; and

(4) the cost of this audit be assigned to the Public Health Department’s Budget;”;

(GG) Toronto Public Library:

(174) the 2001 recommended operating budget of $122.663 million gross and $110.165 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved: Toronto City Council 61 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Library Administration 4,051.7 3,751.7 Library Services 118,611.4 106,413.7

Total Toronto Public Library 122,663.1 110,165.4

(175) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the City Librarian be requested to report at a later date on the potential for raising money through Development Charges on new construction projects across the City which could lead to new and efficient libraries on these sites;

(176) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Librarian be requested to report on a plan to promote bequests to be dedicated by residents of the City of Toronto for libraries or other City programs and providing a fitting means of recognition to those individuals;

(177) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief Librarian be requested to prepare a comparison of the work of the Library Foundation to the Toronto Zoo Foundation and all other foundations that may be working on behalf of the City;

(178) the City Auditor be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to the 2002 budget deliberations, providing a review of the Library:

(a) end of year spending;

(b) fleet maintenance and usage;

(d) use of consultants throughout the Library Programs; and

(e) use in Capital and Operating budgets for maintenance and repair programs;

Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“that an amount of $100,000.00 be restored to the Library Services Budget to prevent cuts in hours of service for the 26 libraries identified. Toronto City Council 62 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(HH) Exhibition Place:

(179) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $38.389 million gross and ($0.773) million net, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net ($000s) ($000s) Service:

Canadian National Exhibition Association 15,691.5 (3.5) Exhibition Place Operations 10,026.3 1,251.6 National Trade Centre 12,671.3 (2,021.4)

Total Program Budget 38,389.1 (773.3)

(180) the Board of Exhibition Place request the City of Toronto Council to make the necessary amendments to the Exhibition Place Capital Reserve Fund by-law (City of Toronto By-Law No. 131-1999) to permit the use of this reserve fund for future capital rehabilitation activities at the National Trade Centre and that the fund be renamed the national Trade Centre Capital Reserve Fund;

(181) the Board of Exhibition Place seek approval of the City for an annual contribution to the NTC Capital Reserve Fund of 1 percent of net operating surplus of Exhibition Place based on the previous year audited statements, commencing in the budget year 2002; and

(182) the contribution for 2001 to the Tree Advocacy Program, based on 23 percent of net profits earned from the use of Marilyn Bell and Battery Parks for parking purposes during the 18-day CNEA event be approved, subject to CNEA being in a surplus position.

(II) Theatres:

(183) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $14.629 million gross and $2.965 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Hummingbird Centre for the 9,022.9 0.0 Performing Arts St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts 2,017.0 1,124.8 Toronto Centre for the Arts 3,588.8 1,839.8

Total Program Budget 14,628.7 2,964.6 Toronto City Council 63 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(184) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture And Tourism, in consultation with the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre Corporation provide the report requested during the 2000 Operating Budget process to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the status of the lease negotiations for the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts, prior to the end of June 2001.

(JJ) Toronto Zoo:

(185) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $27.946 million gross and $7.936 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Biology and Conservation 8,210.5 7,746.0 Marketing and Communications 8,410.8 1,132.6 Administrative and Site Services 10,651.5 10,520.0 General Management 537.6 469.6 Revenue and Recoveries 0 (11,932.2) Animal & Endangered Species 136.0 0

Total Program Budget 27,946.4 7,936.0

(186) the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo be requested to submit a Strategic Plan in support of the further admission fee increase, and include the result of consultations with officials of the Toronto Transit Commission concerning improvements to transit service to the Zoo, to the Budget Advisory Committee by June 2001, as requested during the 2000 Operating Budget process;

(187) the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo be requested to report on a detailed review of the cost of operations of the Toronto Zoo including a comparison to other zoos, as requested during the 2000 Operating Budget process, to the Budget Advisory Committee by the end of June 2001; and

(188) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the current water rate charges to the Toronto Zoo with a recommendation for the best rate possible based on the Zoo’s water consumption, as requested during the 2000 Operating Budget process, to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to the end of June 2001. Toronto City Council 64 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(KK) Arena Boards of Management:

(189) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $4.494 million gross and $0.177 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Arena: Gross Net ($000s) ($000s)

George Bell Arena 373.1 14.6 Bill Bolton 572.5 (2.2) Forest Hill 640.2 (86.2) Leaside 769.8 272.7 McCormick 494.0 18.4 Moss Park 525.0 (21.4) North Toronto 622.6 (18.1) Ted Reeve 496.2 (0.9)

Total Program Budget 4,493.4 176.9

(190) the Operating Budget implications for Ted Reeve Arena of the conversion of the outdoor rink at East Toronto Athletic Field be reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer prior to these agreements being signed;

(191) the review of the governance of Agencies, Boards and Commissions being undertaken by the Chief Administrator’s Office address the following matters, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, prior to recommendations being brought forward:

(i) Operating Budget implications of alternative arena governance structures;

(ii) revenue impacts of alternate ice rental pricing structures and ice time allocation policies; and

(iii) financial and procedural implications of alternate capital funding models to achieve consistent treatment of capital expenditures;

(192) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the City Solicitor, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report on what can be done to establish common agreements, financial reporting and financial arrangements; the said agreements and arrangements to take into account the community investment and individual circumstances of each facility; Toronto City Council 65 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(193) the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the appropriateness of an education session for Members of Council in their roles and financial responsibilities while sitting on the Agencies, Boards and commissions of the City.

(LL) Toronto Housing Company:

(194) it is recommended that the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $261.894 million gross and $0 million net comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Building Operations and Maintenance 43,589.2 0.0 Tenancy Management 4,206.2 0.0 Community Support Services 2,523.8 0.0 Commercial Operations 2,419.9 0.0 Major Repairs 9,341.5 0.0 Housing Applications 1,873.0 0.0 Debt Services/ Non-Discretionary Services 197,940.5 0.0

Total Program Budget 261,894.1 0.0

(MM) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:

(195) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $23.813 million gross and $4.414 million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprising the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s) Corporate 3,155.5 1,318.7 Watershed Health 14,025.5 2,951.2 Watershed Experience 6,268.7 85.1 Rouge Park Interim Management 364.2 59.0

Total Program Budget 23,812.9 4,414.0

(196) the Policy and Finance Committee be requested to review and recommend, a list of service level / standard adjustment options totalling $42.2 K. Toronto City Council 66 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(NN) GO Transit/Greater Toronto Services Board:

(197) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $52.111 million, comprised of the following services, be adopted:

Other Service: GTSB/GO Municipalities City’s Gross Share Share ($000s) ($000s) ($000s)

Greater Toronto Services 2,765.4 1,446.6 1,318.8 Board GO Transit Capital 65,309.0 34,202.0 31,107.0 Maintenance 10-Year Expansion Plan 15,740.0 8,720.0 7,020.0 GO Transit Operating 26,580.8 13,916.0 12,664.8

Net Before Allocation 110,395.2 Total Other Municipalities’ Share 58,284.6 Total City’s Share 52,110.6

(198) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee by the fall of 2001, respecting the level of funding commitments obtained from the Provincial and Federal governments for GO Transit expenditures in 2002-2010 including the associated financial impacts on the City’s share of cash flow expenditures in future years for the 10-Year Growth and Enhancement Plan;

(OO) Toronto Transit Commission:

(199) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $845.7 million gross and $190.4 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Conventional 814,111.8 174,219.7 Wheel Transit 44,946.9 42,777.8 Unspecified Reductions (13,308.9) (26,617.7)

Total Program Budget 845,749.8 190,379.8

(200) that the Chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee after the April 11, 2001 Toronto Transit Commission meeting, to quantify how the $26.6 million shortfall Toronto City Council 67 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

contained in the recommended operating budget estimates will be addressed and further include but not limit to the following:

(i) implementing fare increases in the range of either 10 cents, 15 cents, 20 cents or 25 cents for the adult ticket/token fare, which could have an estimated impact of increasing revenues by between $24.0 million and $55.3 million annually based on current ridership forecasts (416 million riders) or approximately $12.0 to $27.7 million after allowance for lost riders if implemented in June 2001;

(ii) the feasibility of changing the cash fare by an increment of 25 cents. This 12.5 percent increase in the cash fare could produce an extra revenue stream of $6.6 million annually after adjustment for any anticipated ridership loss. This would be approximately $3.3 million if implemented by June 2001;

(iii) adjusting revenue projections based on projected ridership levels from the projected level of ridership of 416 million riders, to a level of 420-421 million, which would equate to a possible increase in revenue of $5.0 to $6.2 million;

(iv) reducing and/or eliminating service on under-utilized routes; and

(v) revising the price structure for the adult ticket/token fare such that revenues are maximized during peak or rush hour periods and ridership is increased during off-peak, non-rush-hour periods;

(201) that the Chair, Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to report to City Council, through the Policy and Finance Committee, prior to withdrawing funds from the TTC Stabilization Reserve fund, such report to include an outline of the need for such funds;

(202) the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on various performance measures to facilitate relevant analysis of operating budget options including the cost per rider and cost per kilometer of service provided broken down by bus, streetcar and subway. Included would be the year over year performance and a benchmark analysis to other major North American cities;

(203) that the Budget Advisory Committee be requested to consider the impact of the 2002 Operating Budget of the Toronto Transit Commission at a future meeting shortly after completion of the 2001 Budget process and approval of same by Council; and the Chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to report to such meeting on the impacts and pressures of the Toronto Transit Commission’s 2002 Operating Budget, especially as it relates to service cuts; and Toronto City Council 68 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(204) the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee meeting of April 17, 2001 providing, as requested, a detailed analysis of employee benefit costs.

Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“that the foregoing Recommendation No. (204) be deleted and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(204) that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, after consultation with Agencies, Boards and Commissions, be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee on opportunities to reduce benefit costs for the City and the Agencies Boards and Commissions, including the merging of all benefit carriers to the City;”;

(PP) Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board:

(205) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $592.120 million gross and $575.096 million net, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Toronto Police Services Board 1,261.0 1,261.0 Chief of Police 6,393.8 6,392.8 Corporate Support Command 152,387.4 145,341.2 Policing Operations Command 310,967.9 303,902.9 Policing Support Command 140,036.6 137,125.0 Unallocated Reduction * (18,926.5) (18,926.5)

Total Program Budget 592,120.2 575,096.4

* Pending the list of adjustments to be provided by the Toronto Police Services Board.

(206) the Toronto Police Services Board be requested to report directly to the Policy and Finance Committee on the service and feature detail breakdown of the unallocated reductions relating to the Budget Advisory Committee Recommended 2001 Operating Budget;

(207) commencing with the 2001 Operating Budget, and in accordance with the Police Services Act 39.(1), the Toronto Police Services Board submit their operating budget requirements as is currently done for the Toronto Parking Enforcement; Toronto City Council 69 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(208) the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in conjunction with the Toronto Police Services Board be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee prior to submission of the September, 2001 Operating Variance Report regarding the disposition of the budgeted and actual expenditures associated with caretaking services charged to the Toronto Police Service for the period of 1999 to 2001, including a recommendation for how the appropriate services should be handled on an on-going basis;

(209) the Toronto Police Services Board (where applicable) be requested to report on projected 2001 and future year performance measures as part of the 2001 Operating Budget Variance reporting process and include these estimates in their base budget submissions for the 2002 operating and future year budgets as required;

(210) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Chief Administrative Officer, Toronto Police Service be requested to review and compare the current negotiated agreements and benefits plans for the Toronto Police Service to those held for City programs and report to the Policy and Finance Committee by the Fall of 2001 regarding options for addressing the increased expenditures;

(211) Council be advised that the Toronto Police Services Board will be authorizing a one-time contribution to the City’s Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Reserve in 2000 as provided for through the Toronto Police Service’s reported surplus in 2000 subject to the final year-end results;

(212) the City Auditor, in conjunction with the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee by the Spring of 2001 regarding the results of the Air Service pilot project including pre- and post-performance measures as directed by Council at its meeting of April 25, 26 and 27, 2000;

(213) the Toronto Police Services Board, the City Auditor, and the City’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to its final deliberation of the 2001 Operating Budget regarding the policing expenditures incurred at 23 Division since the opening of Woodbine Casino as directed through Clause No. 1 of Report No. 6 of the Policy and Finance Committee, adopted by Council at its meeting of May 9, 10, and 11, 2000;

(214) the report (March 19, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer entitled, “Funding of Cost Overruns in 2001 for Toronto Police Service Benefits” embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

(i) the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee, as part of its monthly operating budget variance reports, on the progress of cost containment Toronto City Council 70 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

strategies currently being undertaken with respect to Employee Benefits at the Toronto Police Service; and

(ii) if actual expenditures in 2001 begin to exceed approved levels, the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board request the Policy and Finance Committee to direct the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report on providing funding through an in-year base budget adjustment.

Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

“that the foregoing Recommendation No. (213) be amended to read as follows:

“(213) the Toronto Police Services Board, the City Auditor, and the City’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Budget Advisory Committee regarding the policing expenditures incurred at 23 Division since the opening of Woodbine Casino as directed through Clause No. 1 of Report No. 6 of the Policy and Finance Committee, adopted by Council at its meeting of May 9, 10, and 11, 2000;

(QQ) Toronto Atmospheric Fund:

the 2000 Recommended Operating Budget of $1.830 million gross expenditures and $1.830 million revenues, as detailed in Appendix “B”, be adopted subject to:

(215) the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the President of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee, prior to October 1, 2001, on a review of the financial and the organizational structure of TAF with a view to determining the most efficient means to achieve the objectives of TAF; such report to include a breakdown of the activities of TAF into major components, and to tabulate the requirements for:

(i) level of investment;

(ii) staffing; and

(iii) potential for partners or additional investors; and, Toronto City Council 71 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(216) if there are savings to TAF as a result of the City Solicitor’s report to examine reducing costs by using the City’s legal staff instead of TAF’s reliance on outside legal services, TAF and the City Solicitor be requested to:

(i) implement changes to minimize costs as expeditiously as possible; and

(ii) transfer the full costs of such legal services from TAF to the City Solicitor.

(RR) Consolidated Grants:

(217) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $45.893 million gross and $41.396 million net, comprised of the following grant envelopes, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s) Arts and Culture Grants 12,736.7 12,681.8 Community Service Grant 10,588.7 10,588.7 Recreational Grant 1,224.1 1,224.1 Public Health Grant 3,496.6 3,496.6 Housing Grant 6,858.0 2,416.0 Miscellaneous 5,572.3 5,572.2 Access and Equity 458.2 458.2 Economic Development 4,659.3 4,659.3 Urban Development Grants 299.1 299.1

Consolidated Corporate Grants 45,893.0 41,396.0

(218) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to consult with other levels of Government to create a long-term plan that will give all of the organizations the assurance that funds to deliver these services will be available; and

(219) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested, in conjunction with City Staff and other volunteer organizations, to identify "lead" umbrella agencies and submit a report to the respective standing committee with respect to a consolidation and streamlining of these services in the City of Toronto.

(SS) Non-Program:

(220) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $694.264 million gross and $204.869 net, comprised of the following Non-Program Accounts, be approved: Toronto City Council 72 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Capital and Corporate Financing 437,162.7 433,662.7 Non Program Expenditure 257,101.8 213,601.8 Non Program Revenue N/A (442,395.9)

Total Program Budget 694,264.5 204,868.6

(221) the report (April 4, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Analysis of Contingency Expenditures – 1998 to 2000” including the following recommendations be adopted and further that the contingency account be set at $3.0 million:

(a) Council adopt the definition of emergency items for contingency draw purposes as contained in this report;

(b) the 2001 budget for emergency items remain at $3,000,000 with funds designated for use only on those items meeting the criteria for emergency items as described in this report; and

(c) Council authorize and direct appropriate City Officials to amend the Financial Control By-law for the use of contingency funds as provided for in this report.

(222) retro settlement for Fire Services to be funded from Employee Benefits Reserve Fund; and

(223) that the same methodology for the formula used for corporate charges to Public Health be the same formula used for all Departments, Agencies Boards and Commissions in 2002.

Subject to the following amendment by the Policy and Finance Committee:

(1) “That the following motion be adopted:

Moved by Councillor David Shiner:

“Whereas the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer identified in her report dated April 10, 2001, entitled “2001 Operating Budget – Amendments to Budget Advisory Committee’s Recommendations”, that the remaining net pressures from the Budget Advisory Committee recommended Operating Budget at $173.0 M which when taken with Mayor Lastman’s motion embodied in the Policy and Finance Committee Recommendation (II) (ii) reduces the net pressure to $48 M or a 5 percent residential tax increase; and Toronto City Council 73 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Whereas the actual net pressure is $172.1 M, and that $900.0 is available to maintain the 5 percent increase, Be it resolved that the $900,000 that is available be used to fund the following adjustments:

+ $160.0 Restore York – Before and After School Program, subject to one-third from the City, one-third from the Toronto District School Board and one-third from parents providing funding in an equal amount;

+$100.0 Restore reduction to Library Hours of Service;

+$100.0 Restore outdoor pool harmonization; and

+$540.0 Reserve Account for possible school pool issue;”

(2) that Council pursue with the Province of Ontario the fair settlement for the rate of the Provincial Heads and Beds tax as proposed in 1998 which would have increased City revenue by $17.6 M; and

(3) that AMO be requested to pursue this matter on behalf of all Ontario Municipalities given that there has been no increase in the $75.00 rate since 1987 and given that an appropriate rate of $208.00 in 1998 was not implemented;”;

(TT) Parking Tag Enforcement and Operations:

(224) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $34.210 million gross, revenue of $61.032 million and net revenue of $26.822 million, comprised of the following components, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Parking Tag Enforcement – Toronto Police Services 24,084.4 24,084.4 Parking Tag Operations – Revenue Services, Finance 10,125.3 10,125.3 Parking Tag Enforcement & Operations – Revenues ______(61,031.6)

Total Program Budget 34,209.7 (26,821.9)

(225) the hiring of 48 additional Parking Tag Enforcement officers be deferred;

(226) the City Auditor, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the President of the Toronto Parking Authority, the Chief of Police and the Director of Purchasing and Materials Management be requested to report to the Administration Committee, for its meeting of May 8, 2001, on the terms of reference to the request for proposals only from Toronto City Council 74 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

the Police Services Enforcement Unit and the Toronto Parking Authority on the management and enforcement of permitted on-street parking; and that the Members of the Budget Advisory Committee be invited to attend such meeting; and

(227) the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Auditor be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee within three months after the end of the first tendered period, with recommendations on the most effective and efficient means by which the City manages its parking operations.

(UU) Toronto Parking Authority:

(228) the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $33.975 million gross and $(45.050) million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprising the following services, be approved:

Service: Gross Net ($000s) ($000s)

Off-Street Parking 30,621.0 (19,104.0) On-Street Parking 3,354.0 (25,946.0)

Total Program Budget 33,975.0 (45,050.0)

(229) the report (March 19, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer entitled “Toronto Parking Authority, Revenue Sharing and Capital Account Structure” embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

(i) a new revenue sharing agreement between in the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking Authority be approved to provide 75 percent of net income to the City of Toronto and 25 percent of net income to the Parking Authority, effective January 1, 2001, for a three-year period ending December 31, 2003;

(ii) net operating income includes direct parking revenues and expenses, administrative expenses and sundry revenue or expenses;

(iii) payments be made on a monthly basis for the City’s portion, based on the annual budget for the year with an annual minimum of $18 million;

(iv) a final payment/settlement occur once the audited actual amount for the year is confirmed;

(v) any surpluses in the retained earnings accounts of the Toronto Parking Authority, in excess of the projected five-year cash flow requirements, be remitted to the City of Toronto for other uses; and Toronto City Council 75 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 Toronto City Council 76 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(vi) the City Solicitor and other appropriate officials of the City and the Toronto Parking Authority be authorized to enter into a new revenue sharing agreement consistent with the terms set out above and in the body of the report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to the Budget advisory Committee entitled “Toronto Parking Authority, Revenue Sharing and Capital Account Structure” dated March 19, 2001;

(230) the Policy and Finance Committee and Council be requested to amend the procedure with respect to allowing the on-street parking meter installation to be approved through the Planning and Transportation Committee who in turn would consult with the Community Councils in that regard as appropriate; and

(231) the President of the Toronto Parking Authority be requested to report to the Administration Committee at its meeting of June 2001, providing a list of Toronto Parking Authority-owned property, including purchased property and property the Authority will be acquiring.

General:

(232) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report by September 2001, through the appropriate Standing Committees, to the Budget Advisory Committee, in consultation with relevant staff, providing a review on the administrative costs of each Department and ABC, such report to include the savings and reductions which can be achieved;

(233) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report during the 2002 Operating Budget deliberations, providing a list of all Communications personnel in other Departments, to include the breakdown of administration costs, etc.;

(234) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to include in the report respecting administration costs to the Administration Committee, information to identify Departments, such as Support Services, that will be given some of those general administration costs that end up passed on internally;

(235) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer be requested to undertake a review during 2001 of potential options to phase-in the impact of the shift in allocations for Support and Technical Services costs between the tax-supported and rate-supported programs of Works and Emergency Services and report thereon to the Policy and Finance Department through the Budget Advisory Committee by September 2001 prior to the 2002 Operating Budget review; Toronto City Council 77 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(236) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to provide an updated report with respect to FTE’s and report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee;

(237) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to review the policy respecting voluntary exit packages and report thereon to the Administration Committee in June 2001 or sooner if possible;

(238) all Department Heads be requested to provide a list to the Administration Committee of any deferred projects which no longer require consultants this year;

(239) all Department Heads be requested to report to the Administration Committee providing any system in place which monitors staff time and output;

(240) a copy of the report (March 12, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Share of Senior Government Revenues for Municipalities”, be forwarded to Municipalities which are undergoing amalgamation at present; and that a copy of the report, also be forwarded to the FCM and AMO for their consideration and information;

(241) a copy of the report (March 12, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Share of Senior Government Revenues for Municipalities”, be forwarded immediately, under separate cover, to all Members of Council, Members of the GTSB, MPPs and MPs in the Greater Toronto Area, all Mayors in the GTA, and to Mayor Lastman to be considered as part of his ongoing negotiations with the Province; and that a copy of said report be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario;

(242) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to provide a more in depth and detailed report with respect to funding from other levels of government internationally as to how such funding originated, how were they able to set up such funding and how the City is moving this ahead through the Charter City initiative;

(243) the 2001 Operating Budget of $6,076.1 million gross and $2,771.0 million net, as detailed in Appendix A 2001 Operating Budget – Program Summary of Adjustments, be adopted;

(244) that leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto; and

(245) the reports, transmittals and communications that are on file with the City Clerk considered by the Budget Advisory Committee at its meetings be received; Toronto City Council 78 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(II) that Toronto City Council endorse:

(i) the foregoing 2001 Operating Budget recommendations of the Budget Advisory Committee, as amended by the Policy and Finance Committee; and

(ii) the recommended revenue adjustments of $75 million contained in the report dated April 10, 2001, from the Chief Financial Officer; entitled “2001 Operating Budget – Amendments to Budget Advisory Committee’s Recommendations”;

(III) that Toronto City Council confirm the use of the $50 million grant from the Provincial government to be used towards reducing the 2001 Operating Budget pressures;

(IV) that any recommendations to increase city spending on programs beyond those recommended by the Policy and Finance Committee, also include the identification of the savings and/or revenue source required to achieve this goal;

(V) that any recommendations to approve a tax decrease also include the identification of the saving and/or revenue source required to achieve this goal; and

(VI) that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the Budget Advisory Committee in May, 2001, on Toronto’s future Budget pressures and projected long-term financial condition.

The Policy and Finance Committee submits the following report (April 11, 2001) from the Chair, Budget Advisory Committee, entitled “2001 Recommended Operating Budget”:

Purpose:

This report presents the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget for the City of Toronto’s Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions. This report also provides an overview of the operating budget process and highlights the recommended base budget and new service changes for 2001.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget for the City of Toronto reflects gross expenditures of $6,076.1 million and revenues of $3,305.1 million, resulting in a net budget of $2,771.0 million. The following chart highlights the changes from the 2000 Approved Budget: Toronto City Council 79 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Operating Budget Summary 2001 Recommended Budget - Base vs. New

Gross Net Gross Change Net Change (In $000's) $ $ $ % $ %

2000 Approved Budget 5,945.6 2,598.9

2001 Base Budget 6,011.4 2,743.6 65.8 1.1% 144.7 5.6%

2001 New Services 64.7 27.4 64.7 1.1% 27.4 1.1%

TOTAL 2001 Recommended 6,076.1 2,771.0 130.5 2.2% 172.1 6.6%

2002 Outlook 6,223.4 2,881.4 147.3 2.4% 110.4 4.0%

Approval of the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget will result in a gross expenditure increase of $130.5 million or 2.2 percent and a net expenditure increase of $172.1 million or a 6.6 percent increase over the 2000 Approved Budget. Fixed costs of $261 million to deliver services approved by Council in 2000 have been reduced to $145 million through revenue generation, service efficiencies and service level adjustments. New service changes of $27.4 million include $22.4 million in debt service costs and minimal new service initiatives.

The 2002 Outlook reflects additional pressures of $147.3 million gross and $110.4 million net to primarily fund increased costs to support TTC and GO Transit requirements and initiatives ($48 million) and to service capital works ($52 million). No projection has been included for a potential increase for negotiated wage settlement costs that may arise in 2002.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Community and Neighbourhood Services:

(A) Children’s Services:

(1) The 2001 recommended operating budget $275.163 million gross and $57.108 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved: Toronto City Council 80 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Total Program Budget 275,163.8 57,108.7

(2) Funding for paying the actual cost of running Child Care Centres, be conditional upon the Province providing 80 percent of the gross cost, with no commitment to City funding in future years;

(3) The approval, in principle, of those recommendations without financial implications contained in the report, entitled “Children and Youth Action Committee Action Plan 2001” and in the joint communication dated February 7, 2001, from Councillor Pam McConnell and Councillor Olivia Chow, as follows:

(i) the Shelter, Housing and Support Division continue emergency shelter system to secure and maintain affordable housing and to develop permanent affordable housing options;

(iii) a cross-sectoral study be initiated in 2001 for implementation in 2002. A comprehensive assessment of needs, opportunities and barriers would ensure that all investments in programs for children and families are planned and connected to the City’s Strategy for Children;

(v) ongoing advocacy efforts aimed at the Province of Ontario to increase funding to cost shared programs that serve children such as child care subsidies and early child parenting programs; Toronto City Council 81 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(4) The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services being requested to seek additional funds amounting to $29.3 million from the Province for the shortfalls in funding of child care program:

(i) user fees revenue;

(ii) rent to School Boards;

(iv) change in cost sharing for the child care administration from 80:20 to 50:50;

(B) Homes for the Aged:

(5) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $144.042 million gross and $25.875 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Administrative and Program Support 1,281.7 256.6 Toronto Homes 134,096.8 24,373.1 Community Based Services Development 8,663.6 1,246.0

Total Program Budget 144,042.1 25,875.7

(6) The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services seek a Provincial commitment to stabilize funding by guaranteeing transition funding until a permanent increase in base funding can be negotiated with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC). Also, to continue advocating for an increase in base LTC facility funding; and

(7) City Council request the Province to pay their fair share of the 80/20 funding that is due to the City, estimated at $10 million; Toronto City Council 82 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(8) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $437.593 million gross and $270.880 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Total Program Budget 437,593.3 270,880.2

(9) The Commissioner Community and Neighbourhood Services seek additional funding amounting to $13.700 million for the Provincial shortfall in funding the actual cost of per-diem for shelter program;

(10) The program eliminate one time-set-up costs (furniture and equipment) amounting to $0.349 million in the 2002 budget submission;

(11) That the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report to the Community Services Committee on opportunities to enhance client training within the shelter system; and

(12) The report (March 12, 2001) from City Auditor, entitled “Hostel Vacancy and Bed Rates” be adopted with the following recommendations:

(i) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, review the reservation policy of all shelters with a view to maintaining a balance between maximizing bed space usage and providing assurance that a bed space will be available to client who is registered in a shelter;

(ii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, provide all shelters with a clear definition of an occupied bed for the purposes of reporting the daily occupancy data and establishing the number of bed spaces eligible for the per diem fee to the paid by the City;

(iii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, enhance the agency review officers’ site visits to include random verification checks of the per diem billings and occupancy data submitted by the shelters;

(iv) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, ensure that the bed space capacity used in calculating occupancy rates is calculated properly when new bed spaces are added into the emergency shelter system; Toronto City Council 83 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(v) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with City Legal, review the need to update the service agreements with service providers that were previously made with the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; and

(13) The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the City Auditor, report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the criteria and formulae used to calculate per diem shelter rates paid under contracts with various service providers and the rationale for the range of rates as noted in the City Auditor's report, entitled "Hostel Vacancy and Bed Rates";

(14) City Council request the Provincial Government to increase its per diem rate to reimburse the City for 80 percent of the actual per diem rate paid by the City and in the event these negotiations are not successful report thereon to the Community Services Committee on the steps that can be taken to reduce the City's actual average per diem rate pertaining to shelter costs to the maximum per diem rate set by the Province; and

(15) The report (March 30, 2001) from Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Robertson House Pilot Project for At Risk Pregnant Women” be adopted with the following recommendations:

(i) Council request that the Ministry of Health fund the annual operating costs of $171,258 for pregnant mothers’ program at Robertson House;

(ii) the Province of Ontario be encouraged to expand the pregnant mothers program in all family shelters across Ontario;

(iii) this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Health and to the Inquest into the death of Jordan Heikamp.

(16) The CEO of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited, report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the financial impact of the recycling initiative on the 2002 Operating Budget, and such report to be forwarded to the Works Committee for information. Toronto City Council 84 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(D) Social Development and Administration

(17) The 2001 recommended operating budget $14.964 million gross and $7.890 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Administrative Program Support 11,419.1 6,838.0 Community Resources 3,544.9 1,052.1

Total Program Budget 14,964.0 7,890.1

(18) The report (March 26, 2001) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Street Involved Youth Program” formally “Squeegee Working Youth Mobilization Program” be adopted and the 2001 budget be adjusted accordingly;

(E) Social Services:

(19) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $895.835 million gross and $235.473 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Program Support 9,458.9 4,729.4 Social Assistance 886,376.4 230,744.0

Total Program Budget 895,835.3 235,473.4

(20) With respect to the caseload:

(ii) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report to Community Services Committee and Policy and Finance Committee, on additional funding, if necessary, from the Social Assistance Stabilization Reserve Fund, if the caseload increases over the 2001 approved budget; and

(iii) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report to the Community Services Committee on a monthly basis providing the up-to-date caseload figures with respect to Social Assistance recipients; Toronto City Council 85 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(21) The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report to the Community Services Committee, once issues relating to the transition to the BTP System have been addressed, on the advisability and opportunity to consolidate the 14 local offices into 5 and 10 local offices, such report to include the potential cost-savings; and

Works and Emergency Services:

(F) Emergency Medical Services:

(23) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $95.144 million gross and $39.058 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprising the following services, be approved:

Gross Net ($000s) ($000s) Service:

Emergency Support Services 27,880.4 8,197.3 Emergency Medical Services 66,584.9 30,691.0 Community Safeguard Services 679.0 169.9

Total Program Budget 95,144.3 39,058.2

(24) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the General Manager of Emergency Medical Services: (a) consider the option to lease rather than purchase replacement vehicles, and report to the Community Services Committee by May 2001; and (b) report to the Community Services Committee on the status of the negotiations with the Province of Ontario with respect to the 2000 and 2001 subsidies for Emergency Medical Services;

(25) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Community Services Committee on Community Medicine Initiatives and the possibility of acquiring funding from the Provincial and Federal governments and from the private sector for this initiative; and,

(26) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the May 10, 2001 meeting of the Community Services Committee, or sooner, on the extended transfer of care currently being provided by the Emergency Services and solutions to the current problems. Toronto City Council 86 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(G) Solid Waste Management Services:

(27) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $158.840 million gross and $87.246 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services be approved;

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Administration and Program Support 23,470.8 18,891.6 Collection 62,247.1 61,162.9 Transfer 15,446.7 (2,294.6) Processing 6,108.5 (8,166.9) Disposal 51,610.3 17,653.2

Total Program Budget 158,840.4 87,246.2

(28) The Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Commissioner, Corporate Services, report back to the Policy and Finance Committee by September, 2001 regarding the program’s vehicle maintenance and equipment replacement requirements for the five year period commencing with 2002 including identification of maintenance savings related to enhanced vehicle replacement practices, surplus values associated with disposal of Keele Valley equipment after closure in 2002, changes in maintenance expenditures related to age of fleet, reduced equipment needs, and fuel requirements;

(29) That surplus garbage packers be sold to offset contributions to the cost of vehicle equipment and replacements as recommended by the Works Committee;

(30) The Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, report back to Works Committee by the fall, 2001 outlining the operating budget impacts arising from recently proposed provincial legislation relating to funding for new recycling initiatives as recommended through the Waste Diversion Organization;

(31) The Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, report back to the Policy and Finance Committee by September, 2001 on implementation strategies and recommendations regarding application of user fees effective 2002 for waste collection from residences and apartment buildings as well as on the 2001 implementation of user fees or charges for school boards, Agencies, Boards or Commissions;

(32) The Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services report back to the Works Committee by the Fall of 2001 with a suggested policy framework for considering pilot projects related to emerging or alternative waste management technologies that will allow for such programs to be reviewed relative to both the Corporation’s diversion targets as well as the City’s ability to afford them; Toronto City Council 87 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(33) The Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services report back to the Works Committee prior to the 2002 Budget deliberations on the ability and cost of implementing weekly organic pick up in addition to the weekly recycling pick up;

(34) That $2.4 million be held as a reserve in the Fleet Capital Budget for the purchase of recycling vehicles, and such funds not be released until such time the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provides a report to Council through the Works Committee on the best initiatives to implement wasted diversion;

(35) Once per week recycling be implemented across the City commencing January 1, 2002;

(36) The Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, meet with representatives of Local 416 and report back to the Works Committee by the Spring of 2001 with respect to establishment of a four day, 10 hour shift, work week and that should no decision be mutually agreed upon regarding this item that consideration be given to contracting out collection services at least within the former City of North York;

(37) The Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, report back to the Works Committee by the Fall of 2001 on the status of a critical path for having solid waste management costs established as a separate rate similar to the Water and Wastewater user charge; and,

(38) The Joint Liaison Committee, outlined in the communication (March 19, 2001) from the Chair, Toronto District School Board, meet to discuss service exchanges and report back to the Policy and Finance Committee as soon as possible regarding the agreement being proposed for service exchanges.

(H) Fire Services:

(39) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $242.848 million gross and $239.013 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Operations 198,379.1 198,379.1 Fire Prevention and Public Education 9,491.8 9,191.8 Administration and Program Support 34,976.8 31,442.1

Total Program Budget 242,847.7 239,013.0

(40) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief consider maximizing revenue generating opportunities, such as utilizing the Fire Services name and logo on clothing, accessories, toys, and other appropriate products, and report thereon to the Community Services Committee by June 2001; Toronto City Council 88 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(41) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief to consider the option to lease rather than purchase replacement fire services fleet, and report thereon to the Community Services Committee;

(42) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to review the Toronto Fire Services management structure and consider opportunities for rationalization following implementation of the Records Management System;

(43) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief and the General Manager of the Emergency Medical Services, to report to the Community Services Committee on the implementation of Fire Services being allocated the maintenance of the Fire Services vehicles (beginning July 1, 2001);

(44) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief, to report to the Community Services Committee on the balance of the maintenance of the Fire Services equipment being done in-house and how this can be accomplished;

(45) The Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Policy and Finance Committee as to whether any efficiencies to taxpayers and cost savings can be achieved by investigating the need for a 3-tiered response on every call; and,

(46) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Fire Chief and the President of the Firefighters Union be requested to continue the good work which emanated from the informative meeting that took place last November and to have this type of meeting on a yearly basis.

(I) Transportation:

(47) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $212.854 million gross and $167.937 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Roadway Services 116,603.1 82,181.5 Pedestrian Services 41,874.3 35,579.4 Traffic Systems 31,512.9 29,412.9 Infrastructure Planning 4,735.6 2,635.6 Tech. Services/Program Support 18,127.9 18,127.9

Total Program Budget 212,853.8 167,937.3

(48) The related costs for the 2002 Papal visit planning and 2008 Olympics planning be assumed by the appropriate agencies; Toronto City Council 89 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(49) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services investigate means of providing a more harmonized approach to the in-house standby and call in policy, in the context of corporate policy;

(50) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to a future meeting of the Works Committee on the 150 vacancies identified, and how long such positions have been vacant;

(51) The City Auditor report back to the Works Committee on the adequacy of financial reporting on the snow removal budget;

(52) The issue of the safety of bicycle lanes on McGown Avenue be referred to the Cycling Committee;

(53) The City Solicitor report to the Policy and Finance Committee on imposing a fee on fast food and convenience stores related to the clean-up and collection of litter or other waste which has been illegally disposed of on any land; and,

(54) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Works Committee on the enforcement of front yard parking permits across the City.

(J) Support Services:

(55) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget for WES Support Services of $32.381 million gross and $0 net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved;

(56) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer include in the above report respecting administration costs to the Administration Committee, information to identify Departments, such as Support Services, that will be given some of those general administration costs that end passed on internally; and,

(57) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to review the staffing in the Communications Section (refer to Recommendation # ? in Corporate Communications).

(K) Technical Services:

(58) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $43.421 million gross and $1.810 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved;

(59) The Chief Administrative Officer report to the Works Committee on the priority initiatives to which funding of $100,000 gross and $50,000 net ($50,000 to be provided by the Toronto Atmospheric Fund) set aside in Non-Program for Environmental Initiatives will be applied pending such report being submitted by the Chief Administrative Officer; Toronto City Council 90 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(61) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Policy and Finance Committee providing a review of the resources now assigned to environmental initiatives and to reprioritize staff where possible;

(62) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Works Committee each month on the current status of development applications;

(63) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Works Committee prior to the 2002 Budget process on the initiatives which have been undertaken to improve the process for reviewing development applications; and

(64) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, report to the Works Committee by September 2001 on adoption of a user fee program whereby the cost of the processing of development applications is funded by the users of this service.

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

(L) Culture:

(65) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $11.135 million gross and $8.134 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Arts Services 1,785.4 1,403.57 Cultural Development 4,191.1 2,854.9 Heritage Services 5,158.6 3,875.9

Total Program Budget 11,135.1 8,134.3

(66) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism continue negotiations with the Ontario Heritage Foundation to financially assist in the maintenance of the Guild Inn artifacts collection;

(67) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the development of a Cultural Centre at the Pier site, as the development of the waterfront is a priority for the City and is the foundation of much of the City’s cultural and economic heritage; and to enable work to begin towards the creation of a Centre on the waterfront for the Celebration of Toronto Toronto City Council 91 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Culture that will tell the stories of Toronto’s diverse cultural communities and their contributions to our cultural life and economic prosperity; and,

(68) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Budget Advisory Committee following the 2001 budget process on the transfer of Heritage Toronto’s operating budget line from Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department to Consolidated Grants.

(M) Customer and Business Support:

(69) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $ 18.570 million gross and $16.471 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Technical Support and Administration 13,469.6 13,269.6 Policy and Development 5,100.1 3,201.1

Total Program Budget 18,569.7 16,470.7

(70) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Administration Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee in June 2001 on the implementation of the plan for consolidation of construction management function in City Departments, including Agencies, Boards and Commissions.

(N) Economic Development:

(71) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $7.461 million gross and $6.837 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Service: Gross Net ($000s) ($000s)

Total Program Budget 7,461.4 6,836.7 and, Toronto City Council 92 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(72) A review be undertaken by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to identify the harmonization and service level implications of continuing increases in the numbers of Business Improvement Areas, their continuing geographic dispersion and operating complexity, as well as opportunities for the alternate provision of services and appropriate levels of City-wide resources for the program, and report back to the Economic Development and Parks Committee.

(O) Parks And Recreation:

(73) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $201.371 million gross and $138.313 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Parkland & Open Space 88,561.3 74,383.9 Sports & Recreation 112,809.2 63,929.0

Total Program Budget 201,370.5 138,312.9

(74) Funding for the Lifeguard Beach program be transferred to the Toronto Police in the amount of $0.773 million; $0.401 million transfer from Parks and Recreation and $0.372 million from Non-Program, be approved;

(75) The Commissioner of Corporate Services be advised that the Economic Development and Parks Committee wishes to proceed as quickly as possible with the construction of a Driving Range on the vacant land in the North District in order to maximize revenues at a net zero cost for 2001;

(76) That City Council request the Provincial Government to review the Toronto District School Board initiatives to sideload the costs to the City of Toronto taxpayers and comment on the schedule of costs that the Toronto District School Board has put forward with respect to the rates to be established at the schools;

(77) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to review options for cost savings through contracting out the delivery of turf maintenance and facility custodial maintenance for implementation in 2002 and report back to the Economic Development and Parks Committee by June 2001;

(78) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to Economic Development and Parks Committee on the Department’s ability of reducing the forestry backlog to four months;

(79) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee meeting of September 14, 2001, on Toronto City Council 93 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

reducing the Preventative Maintenance Program in Facilities and Reducing Preventative Maintenance in Parks; (80) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the September 14, 2001 meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the feasibility of providing vehicle ferry services to the Toronto Islands on a cost recovery or profitable basis, and so as not to require any reduction in service;

(81) The Policy and Finance Committee and City Council be requested to renegotiate the $5.2 million increase in rent to the Toronto District School Board with a view to paying the 2000 requested amount plus an increase of four percent; and further that this issue be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Joint Liaison Committee;

(82) That City Council support the Youth Cabinet Initiatives of encouraging Councillors to hire summer students with no net additional cost to the City; and further that City staff assist the Youth Cabinet to seek external funding source; and

(83) That the report (dated March 29, 2001) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism entitled “Parks and Recreation Division - Information Requests on 2001 Operating Budget” be adopted with the following recommendation:

(i) The Budget Advisory Committee recommend to Council the extension of the project for paid parking to four additional waterfront parks and two commuter locations at a 2001 net revenue of $0.250 million.

(P) World Youth Day:

(84) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $0.871 million gross and $0.871 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved.

(Q) Special Events:

(85) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $6.4373 million gross and $3.3389 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved;

(86) Up to $100,000.00 gross and $50,000.00 net for the Enhanced New Year’s Eve Celebration be approved, subject to matching funds being raised by the private sector; and a report being forwarded to the Economic Development and Parks Committee prior to the release of said funding;

(87) Tourism Toronto be requested to prioritize within their workplan the marketing of Toronto as a destination for the Special Events Division’s Signature Events; and,

(88) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism pursue private sponsors to fund the New Year’s celebrations at Nathan Phillips Square. Toronto City Council 94 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(R) Urban Development Services:

(89) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $77.387 million gross and $14.146 million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Business Support Services 9,300.4 9,300.4 City Planning 21,530.5 13,277.4 Municipal Licensing and Standards 21,136.3 7,443.7 Buildings 25,420.1 (15,875.0)

Total Program Budget 77,387.3 14,146.5

(90) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the proposed fee increases relating to Building Permit Applications, Zoning By-Law Applications and the cost recovery measures in the Buildings Division, outlining the capacity for these increases and provide benchmarks with other municipalities;

(91) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report to the Planning and Transportation Committee to provide the rationale for re-prioritizing or deferring the studies contained in the New Services Changes as outlined in Appendix B, in the Program Highlights, Volume I;

(92) The Budget Sub-Committee of the Planning and Transportation Committee build a Council cost component into the budgets of the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division and the Building Division of the Urban Development Services Department;

(93) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report to a future meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on recommendations for further efficiencies;

(94) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report on the possibility of obtaining external funding for the King Evaluation Study;

(95) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report on what revenues would accrue if a 5 percent increase was applied to all department-wide services involving a fee;

(96) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report on the increased number of e-mail messages received respecting reinforcement of property standards, to include information on internal versus external e-mails, and explain the impact these e-mails have on staff time involved in handling them and the resulting extra workload; Toronto City Council 95 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(97) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report on the status of the HRDC funding of the Road and Trail Safety Ambassador Program and potential adjustments to this program in order to modify it to deliver initiatives such as those outlined in the report dated February 19, 2001 from Councillor Layton;

(98) CUPE Local 79 present for data to the Commissioner, Urban Development Services, through the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee and prepare a list of proposed efficiencies for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Committee, or its Budget Sub-Committee, as a basis for ongoing discussions with the City for the 2001 and future budgets;

(99) The Commissioner of Urban Development Services to immediately begin to undertake the studies necessary to refine development levies and directed that the briefing note dated February 15, 2001 on the Costs of Development in Toronto, prepared by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and submitted by Councillor Moscoe, be considered by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its next meeting on March 26, 2001 with a view to recommending that the City aim towards rationalizing development levies for the 2002 budget;

(100) The Commissioner of Urban Development Services report at the appropriate time to the Planning and Transportation Committee, providing the top ten revenue options relating to increasing fines for the inspections;

(101) The Commissioner of Urban Development Services report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the following; (a) internal costs for staff attending appeals to the OMB and the success rate of such appeals; (b) looking into the possibility of finding solutions between parties instead of going to the OMB and (c) providing a breakdown of the costs for the cycling program, including direct salaries, printing expenses and all other cycling expenditures;

(102) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the number of times planning staff attended the OMB at the request of Councillors in the past three years, particularly in the former North York Community Council area and also comment on other Community Councils that had that opportunity, the said report to include; (1) how many incidents and (2) the dollar value of such service;

(103) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on a new Development Review process model for development applications that will co-ordinate comments and establish timelines for these comments and that the scope of this co-ordination include not only City departments but also Agencies, Boards and Commissions such as the Toronto Hydro and the Toronto Transit Commission;

(104) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report on the Corporate approach to streamlining the development review process, particularly on the one window approach; Toronto City Council 96 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(105) The report (March 30, 2001) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services entitled “Sign Permit Fees be adopted with the recommendation that the 5% increase in sign permit fees be approved and incorporated in the 2001 Operating Budget;

(106) The report (March 29, 2001) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services entitled “Expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program” be adopted with the recommendation that consideration of the expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program across the new City of Toronto be deferred for consideration to the 2002 Budget Process due to the current financial pressures facing the City;

(107) The practice of staff representing residents to appeal Council, City staff or Committee of Adjustment decisions at the OMB be discontinued;

(108) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, report to the next meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on additional fees that require amendments to the Municipal Code and;

(109) The Commissioner, Urban Development Services report on the application of overtime as a chargeback to the applicant as a means of expediting planning applications.

Corporate Services:

(S) City Clerk:

(110) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $39.945 million gross and $19.506 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s) Secretariat 7,755.0 7,270.6 Printing and Distribution 13,846.1 2,354.4 Council and Support Services 2,940.4 2,940.4 Corporate Access and Privacy 812.2 782.2 Corporate Records and Archives 5,695.4 5,616.9 Elections – Operations 1,352.7 1,132.7 Elections – Events 2,409.8 2,049.8 Legislative Services 3,737.7 (4,036.3) Protocol 1,395.5 1,395.5

Total Program Budget 39,944.8 19,506.2

(111) The City Clerk report to the Administration Committee with a report on the experience of Election 2000 and present an operational plan and budget for Election 2003;

(112) The 2001 Contribution to Reserve for Election 2003 be adjusted by a net increase of $0.210 million for the software and hardware maintenance costs for the Toronto Election Toronto City Council 97 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Information System (T.E.I.S.), the testing, shredding and sorting costs and the limiting of the distribution of Vote-At Cards; (113) The City continue to provide in kind support of poll locations, computers, equipment, staff and technical support, as it did in the 2000 election, for the election in 2003, up to an annual estimated amount of $0.515 million for 2001, 2002 and 2003; and for a total 2003 gross expenditure subsidy of $1.545 million;

(114) The City Clerk approach the Province of Ontario to amend legislation to allow the city to recover a proportionate share of election expenses from the Boards of Education and report back to the Budget Advisory Committee before the start of the 2002 budget process; and,

(115) The Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Director of Fleet Management and the City Clerk, to review the use of couriers in all City departments, agencies, boards and commissions, and provide recommendations to the Administration Committee on how to streamline all the various services now in place, review ways to reduce the use of external courier services and determine how best to set up a City courier-shuttle system using existing resources.

(T) Service Improvement and Innovation:

(116) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget for Service Improvement and Innovation, Corporate Services of $1.366 million gross and $1.221 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved.

(U) Corporate Communications:

(117) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $6.010 million gross and $5.881 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Corporate Strategic and Internal Communications 1,526.1 1,526.1 Media Services 525.9 505.9 Public Information 2,299.8 2,190.8 Creative Services 1,657.7 1,657.7

Total Program Budget 6,009.5 5,880.5

(118) The Commissioner of Corporate Services is requested to explore expeditiously, and no later than June 2001, the relocation of the tourist gift store in the area presently occupied by the small business centre, with an entrance and exposure to Nathan Phillips Square, such possible relocation to include a plan to make the store self-sufficient or profitable in 2002; and further that the Commissioner report to the Administration Committee on the Toronto City Council 98 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

possibility of having charity groups run the gift shop as a fundraising endeavour and/or contracting out of the space; and,

(119) The Commissioner of Corporate Services submit a report to the Administration Committee summarizing communication needs and functions across the Corporation; a plan for centralizing and downsizing communications services and a plan for cost savings associated with this reorganization to achieve a 5 percent budget reduction in 2001 and a further 5 percent budget reduction in 2002; and that the Commissioner report back to the Administration Committee no later than July, 2001 on savings to be realized by this action (refer to Recommendation No.(140) in Human Resources and Recommendations No. (57) in Works and Emergency Services, Support Services)

(V) Facilities And Real Estate:

(120) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $89.849 million gross and $44.914 million net, as detailed in Appendix “B”, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Facilities 83,312.6 42,928.5 Real Estate 6,536.0 1,985.8

Total Program Budget 89,848.6 44,914.3

(121) A cost/benefits analysis be undertaken by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to determine the potential cost savings of alternate service delivery of building cleaning services within the Facilities and Real Estate Division of Corporate Services;

(122) Council adopt a $10 million maximum value held for “Let’s Build” projects; and further the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the Commissioner of Corporate Services report quarterly to their respective Standing Committees to review projects on how the program is achieving its objectives should land opportunities arise that would be appropriate for affordable housing within the ‘Let’s Build program that would exceed the $10 million land value, the Commissioner CNS has the ability to seek Council approval through the Community Services Committee on an ‘as need’ basis;

(123) That the Director of Real Estate be requested to increase the level of property sales; that two additional staff be added to the Real Estate section to help facilitate this increase; that these two staff persons be re-deployed from elsewhere in the Division and not be new staff; that the Director of Real Estate be authorized to backfill the positions of re- deployed staff with temporary staff; that any additional salary dollars for both backfill and re-deployed staff be paid from the additional cost savings from increased property sales; and that the Director of Real Estate be requested to report directly to the Budget Advisory Committee on the amount of extra revenue that can be achieved through these actions; Toronto City Council 99 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(124) If any additional specialized legal work is required for the sale of surplus property or the implementation of the Master Accommodation Plan, that this work be allocated from the Master Accommodation Plan net proceeds up to a maximum of $77,200.00;

(125) The report (March 28, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services entitled “Assessment of Alternative Service Delivery (ASD) Options for Building Maintenance Function in the Facilities and Real Estate Division” be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2002 budget deliberations;

(126) The report (March 8, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services entitled “Building Cleaning Services – Potential Cost Savings from Alternate Service Delivery” to the Chief Administrative Officer for report thereon to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2002 budget deliberations;

(127) The Real Estate Division institute a regular report with frequency at least quarterly, to the Administration Committee, establishing targets for sale of properties in the City portfolio, number of properties proposed for sale in the last quarter, current status of such properties, number of months since proposed and/or designated surplus and other appropriate measures to assist in the management for the sale of surplus properties, the first of such report to be submitted to the Budget Advisory Committee as well;

(128) The report (March 8, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled “Funding Provided for Maintenance Items in the Facilities and Real Estate Division in 2000 and 2001 Operating Budgets” be referred to the Administration Committee for information;

(129) The communication (March 21, 2001) from the Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416 to the Chief Administrative Officer;

(130) The report (March 8, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled “Charging for Parking at City Hall and Metro Hall” and requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Administration Committee in May on the implementation of this strategy;

(131) The report (March, 2001) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled “Request for Information – FTE’s by Function in Facilities and Real Estate Division and How to Projects Are Evaluated and Prioritized”, and requested the Commissioner of corporate Service to provide an update on the subject matter for the 2002 budget deliberations; and,

(132) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Administration Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee in June 2001 on the implementation of the plan for consolidation of construction management function in city departments, including agencies, boards and commissions. Toronto City Council 100 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(W) Fleet Management Services:

(133) That the 2001 Recommended Operating budget for Fleet Management Services of $32.459 million gross and $0.0 million net, as detailed in Appendix B comprised of the following services be approved: Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Fleet Maintenance 22,239.7 (0.00) Fleet Management 2,534.3 (0.00) Fleet Safety 714.7 (0.00) Fuel Operations 6,970.1 (0.00)

Total Program Budget 32,458.8 (0.00)

(135) The Policy and Finance Committee request Council make a formal request to both the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada for an exemption from fuel taxes on all City fuel purchases;

(136) The Commissioner of Corporate undertake the following:

(i) undertake an in-depth review of the M4 system five year plan, benchmarking garage labour output and standardizing hours;

(ii) the implementation of a standardized hours charging system for all interdepartmental charges for 2002 based on the standard labour charges;

(137) That the City Auditor review all the fleet charges that were made interdepartmentally and comment on the appropriateness of these charges and report thereon to the Administration Committee; and,

(138) That the transfer the of Fire Vehicle Maintenance from Corporate Fleet to Fire be approved and that a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to be submitted to the Works Committee on the implementation associated with the budget adjustments recommended; and further that the Corporate Fleet budget be reduced by $100,000.00 to be added to the City Auditor’s budget for additional audit services. Toronto City Council 101 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(X) Human Resources:

(139) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $25.439 million gross and $22.617 million net, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Total Program Budget 25,438.7 22,616.7

(140) The Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report during the 2002 Operating Budget providing a list of all Communications personnel in other Departments, to include the breakdown of administration costs, etc.; and (refer to Recommendation No. (119) in Corporate Communications)

(141) The Commissioner of Corporate Services to report to the Administration Committee on the rationale behind the current wage level defined by the City in comparison with the fair wage level of the corresponding positions in the Federal and Provincial Government.

(Y) Information and Technology:

(142) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $37.896 million gross and $35.564 million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Desktop Computing 23,827.3 21,494.4 Applications Delivery 9,987.4 9,987.4 Voice and Messaging 1,761.1 1,761.1 Information and Products 2,320.6 2,320.6

Total Program Budget 37,896.4 35,563.5

(143) The Commissioner of Corporate Services encourage staff to complete a five year plan for the Information and Technology Division and the Corporation prior to the 2002 Operating Budget Process; Toronto City Council 102 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(144) The Commissioner of Corporate Services provide a complete overview of all Information Technology expenditures in the Capital and Operating Budgets for all Departments, Agencies, Board and Commissions, including consideration of the following requests:

(a) ranking all, including agencies, boards, commissions and departments, capital budget and major operating submissions on information technology in order of the corporate priorities using:

(i) clear service standards;

(ii) a goal to achieve equity of excellence; and

(iii) a goal to maximize productivity in the workforce;

(b) providing a rationale of increasing the Information Technology capital budget envelope to $24.24 million from a $2.5 million spending average between 1998 and 2000; and,

(Z) Legal:

(145) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $18.662 million gross and $16.305 million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Total Program Budget 18,661.9 16,304.5

Finance Department:

(AA) Finance: Toronto City Council 103 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(146) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $66.413 million gross and $30.855 million net, as detailed in Appendix “B”, comprised of the following services, be approved: Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Accounting Services 9,321.5 7,698.9 Budget Services 3,998.3 3,383.8 Development, Policy and Research 785.8 722.1 Office of the CFO and Treasurer 735.2 568.9 Pension, Payroll and Employee Benefits 9,148.2 6,777.8 Purchasing and Materials Management 6,766.1 5,577.0 Revenue Services 32,893.8 4,677.1 Treasury and Financial Services 2,764.1 1,449.7

Total Program Budget 66,413.0 30,855.3

Other:

(BB) Audit:

(1) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of Audit Services with gross expenditures of $2.887 million and $2.650 million net expenditures, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved.

(CC) Chief Administrator’s Office:

(2) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $5.160 million gross and $5.160 million net, as detailed in Appendix “B”, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Executive Management 1,607.7 1,607.7 Strategic and Corporate Policy 3,552.3 3,552.3

Total Program Budget 5,160.0 5,160.0

(149) The Chief Administrative Officer provide an analysis of present and future wage agreement and what they will mean to the City, such report to include all the Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(150) A copy of the subject report be forwarded to Municipalities which are undergoing amalgamation at present; and further that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Association of Municipalities of Ontario for their consideration and information; and Toronto City Council 104 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(151) A copy of the subject report be forwarded to the Mayor to be considered as part of his ongoing negotiations with the Province. Toronto City Council 105 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(DD) Council:

(152) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $16.850 million gross and net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Councillors’ Salaries and Benefits 3,399.1 3,399.1 Councillors Staff Salaries and Benefits 9,158.8 9,158.8 Council Global Budget 2,336.4 2,336.4 Council General Expenses 2,955.7 2,955.7 Total Program Budget 16,850.0 16,850.0

(153) The freezing of Councillors and Council staff current salary levels for two years, commencing with the approval of the 2001 Operating Budget, be deferred until the pension issue is resolved;

(155) The City Clerk be directed to phase out the corporate vehicle service for Councillors by the end of the year 2001;

(156) The Human Resources Division, be directed to attempt to place Council Drivers/Pool Chauffeurs elsewhere within the City of Toronto in accordance with City policy and collective agreements; and further should Human Resources be unsuccessful in placing said Drivers that the Commissioner of Corporate Service be requested to report to Administration Committee through the Personnel Sub-committee in that regard;

(157) Any costs incurred from other transportation and parking by Councillors from the elimination of Council Transportation be paid for within Councillors' Global Office Budget.

(EE) Office of the Mayor:

(158) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $1.402 million gross and $1.402 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, for the Office of the Mayor, be approved; Toronto City Council 106 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(159) The freezing of the current salary level of the Mayor and the Mayor’s Office staff for two years, commencing with the approval of the 2001 Operating Budget, be deferred until the pension issue is resolved; and,

(160) The Corporate vehicle service for the Mayor’s Office not be phased out.

Special Purpose Bodies:

(FF) Toronto Public Health:

(161) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $142.925 million gross and $58.985 million net, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s) Support Services 11,716.9 5,854.1 Policy and Planning 9,556.7 4,701.4 Family Health/Healthy Lifestyles 74,915.3 24,508.0 Communicable Diseases 22,447.0 10,180.2 Healthy Environments 21,791.2 12,122.6 BAC Service Level Adjustments 2,498.2 1,619.1 Total Program Budget $142,925 $58,985.4

(162) The requested funding of $0.030 million for the Hot Weather Alert Program be deferred for consideration with the year 2002 Operating Budget process;

(163) Before the $634,000 gross/$317,000 net of municipal funds for the Food Safety program is approved, a report on the future funding implications be submitted to Budget Advisory Committee for its review, including an implementation plan for charging fees for public health inspection and re-inspection;

(164) Before any further requests are considered for funds in addition to the 2001 Recommended Budget for Public Health, the Medical Officer of Health report back to Budget Advisory Committee on accommodating these additional requests through re-prioritizing all Public Health activities within the 2001 recommended budget envelope;

(165) Given the support of Council for new and enhanced programs in Public Health in 1999 and 2000, and since Council needs to know the impact of its investments, that comprehensive performance efficiency measures be submitted as part of the 2002 Operating Budget process;

(166) The Mayor’s Office in discussion with the Province look at the City cost sharing with the Province or 100 percent funding from the Province for the cost of the City’s non-mandatory public health dental treatment program; Toronto City Council 107 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(167) In the event that the Board of Health retain the Humane Society service it does so on the condition that the City have access to Humane Society financial information and statements on the contract services to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer;

(168) The 2000 net funding in the amount of $776,000.00 for animal shelter services in the south region be the same for 2001 (with additional revenues of $300,000.00 to be offset by one time set up costs) and if any additional net capital or operating funding is required in that regard the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report a business case with financial implications to Council through the Policy and Finance Committee; and further that the Board of Health be requested to prepare a business plan to be submitted to Council through the Policy and Finance Committee providing costs and savings that are projected if the City decides to provide this service;

(169) The report (February 21, 2001) entitled “Toronto Food Charter and Food & Hunger Action Committee Phase II’ from the Board of Health, be referred to the Grants Sub-Committee;

(170) The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer Health, report back to Budget Advisory Committee on some form of fee for the Dental Program, including an acceptable amount for children and a fee based on the number of users;

(171) The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, report to Budget Advisory Committee on the following:

(i) opportunities for reducing costs by moving to smaller and/or less expensive quarters, this report to include: (a) a list of spaces owned and leased by the Board of Health; (b) times remaining in the leases; c) rental costs; and d) any opportunities for reducing occupancy costs of the Board of Health, such report to be in consultation with the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(ii) the savings associated with removing the "yellow" card issued to restaurants for non-compliance;

(iv) review the Food Safety Basic program (cost shared);

(172) The Medical Officer of Health report to Budget Advisory Committee a breakdown by Division on how much money is spent on electronic advertising, such as radio, TV, billboards, etc. the said report to comment on the required advertising as well as discretionary advertising; details on the 12 FTEs in the Communications Division and whether this function could be carried out through Corporate Services; and funds spent Toronto City Council 108 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

by the Communications Division for outside consultants and whether this function could also be carried out through Corporate Services; and, (173) The Medical Officer of Health report to the Board of Health on a second step whereby the restaurant operator is given at least a week to comply with the order to obtain a "yellow" order.

(GG) Toronto Public Library:

(174) The 2001 recommended operating budget $122.663 million gross and $110.165 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000’s) ($000’s)

Library Administration 4,051.7 3,751.7 Library Services 118,611.4 106,413.7

Total Toronto Public Library 122,663.1 110,165.4

(175) The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the City Librarian be requested to report at a later date on the potential for raising money through Development Charges on new construction projects across the City which could lead to new and efficient libraries on these sites;

(176) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Librarian be requested to report on a plan to promote bequests to be dedicated by residents of the City of Toronto for libraries or other City programs and providing a fitting means of recognition to those individuals;

(177) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief Librarian be requested to prepare a comparison of the work of the Library Foundation to the Toronto Zoo Foundation and all other foundations that may be working on behalf of the City;

(178) The City Auditor report to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to the 2002 budget deliberations, providing a review of the Library:

(a) end of year spending; (b) fleet maintenance and usage; (c) management structure; (d) use of consultants throughout the Library Programs; and (e) use in Capital and Operating budgets for maintenance and repair programs; Toronto City Council 109 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(HH) Exhibition Place:

(179) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $38.389 million gross and ($0.773) million net, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net ($000s) ($000s) Service:

Canadian National Exhibition Association 15,691.5 (3.5) Exhibition Place Operations 10,026.3 1,251.6 National Trade Centre 12,671.3 (2,021.4)

Total Program Budget 38,389.1 (773.3)

(180) The Board of Exhibition Place request the City of Toronto Council to make the necessary amendments to the Exhibition Place Capital Reserve Fund by-law (City of Toronto By-law No. 131-1999) to permit the use of this reserve fund for future capital rehabilitation activities at the National Trade Centre and that the fund be renamed the national Trade Centre Capital Reserve Fund;

(181) The Board of Exhibition Place seek approval of the City for an annual contribution to the NTC Capital Reserve Fund of 1% of net operating surplus of Exhibition Place based on the previous year audited statements, commencing in the budget year 2002; and,

(182) The contribution for 2001 to the Tree Advocacy Program, based on 23% of net profits earned from the use of Marilyn Bell and Battery Parks for parking purposes during the 18-day CNEA event be approved, subject to CNEA being in a surplus position.

(II) Theatres:

(183) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $14.629 million gross and $2.965 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts 9,022.9 0.0 St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts 2,017.0 1,124.8 Toronto Centre for the Arts 3,588.8 1,839.8

Total Program Budget 14,628.7 2,964.6 Toronto City Council 110 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(184) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture And Tourism, in consultation with the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre Corporation provide the report requested during the 2000 Operating Budget process to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the status of the lease negotiations for the Hummingbird Centre for the Performing Arts, prior to the end of June 2001.

(JJ) Toronto Zoo:

(185) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $27.946 million gross and $7.936 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Total Program Budget 27,946.4 7,936.0

(186) The General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo submit a Strategic Plan in support of the further admission fee increase, and including the result of consultations with officials of the Toronto Transit Commission concerning improvements to transit service to the Zoo, to the Budget Advisory Committee by June 2001, as requested during the 2000 Operating Budget process;

(187) The General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo report on a detailed review of the cost of operations of the Toronto Zoo including a comparison to other zoos, as requested during the 2000 Operating Budget process, to the Budget Advisory Committee by the end of June 2001; and

(188) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report on the current water rate charges to the Toronto Zoo with a recommendation for the best rate possible based on the Zoo’s water consumption, as requested during the 2000 Operating Budget process, to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to the end of June 2001. Toronto City Council 111 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(KK) Arena Boards of Management:

(189) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $4.494 million gross and $0.177 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Arena: Gross Net ($000s) ($000s)

George Bell Arena 373.1 14.6 Bill Bolton 572.5 (2.2) Forest Hill 640.2 (86.2) Leaside 769.8 272.7 McCormick 494.0 18.4 Moss Park 525.0 (21.4) North Toronto 622.6 (18.1) Ted Reeve 496.2 (0.9)

Total Program Budget 4,493.4 176.9

(190) The Operating Budget implications for Ted Reeve Arena of the conversion of the outdoor rink at East Toronto Athletic Field be reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer prior to these agreements being signed;

(191) The review of the governance of agencies, boards and commissions being undertaken by the Chief Administrator’s Office address the following matters, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, prior to recommendations being brought forward:

(i) Operating Budget implications of alternative arena governance structures;

(ii) revenue impacts of alternate ice rental pricing structures and ice time allocation policies; and

(iii) financial and procedural implications of alternate capital funding models to achieve consistent treatment of capital expenditures;

(192) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the City Solicitor, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to report on what can be done to establish common agreements, financial reporting and financial arrangements; the said agreements and arrangements to take into account the community investment and individual circumstances of each facility; and,

(193) The City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to report to the Policy and Finance Committee on the appropriateness of an education session for Members of Council in their roles and financial responsibilities while sitting on the agencies, boards and commissions of the City. Toronto City Council 112 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(LL) Toronto Housing Company:

(194) It is recommended that the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $261.894 million gross and $0 million net comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Building Operations & Maintenance 43,589.2 0.0 Tenancy Management 4,206.2 0.0 Community Support Services 2,523.8 0.0 Commercial Operations 2,419.9 0.0 Major Repairs 9,341.5 0.0 Housing Applications 1,873.0 0.0 Debt Services/ Non-Discretionary Services 197,940.5 0.0

Total Program Budget 261,894.1 0.0

(MM) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:

(195) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $23.813 million gross and $4.414 million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprising the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s) Corporate 3,155.5 1,318.7 Watershed Health 14,025.5 2,951.2 Watershed Experience 6,268.7 85.1 Rouge Park Interim Management 364.2 59.0

Total Program Budget 23,812.9 4,414.0

(196) The Policy and Finance Committee review and recommend, a list of service level / standard adjustment options totalling $42.2 K. Toronto City Council 113 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(NN) GO Transit/Greater Toronto Services Board:

(197) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $52.111 million, comprised of the following services, be adopted:

Other Service: GTSB/GO Municipalities City’s Gross Share Share ($000s) ($000s) ($000s)

Greater Toronto Services Board 2,765.4 1,446.6 1,318.8 GO Transit Capital Maintenance 65,309.0 34,202.0 31,107.0 10-Year Expansion Plan 15,740.0 8,720.0 7,020.0 GO Transit Operating 26,580.8 13,916.0 12,664.8

Net Before Allocation 110,395.2 Total Other Municipalities’ Share 58,284.6 Total City’s Share 52,110.6

(198) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report back to the Policy and Finance Committee by the Fall of 2001 respecting the level of funding commitments obtained from the Provincial and Federal governments for GO Transit expenditures in 2002-2010 including the associated financial impacts on the City’s share of cash flow expenditures in future years for the 10-Year Growth and Enhancement Plan.

(OO) Toronto Transit Commission:

(199) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $832.4 million gross and $190.4 million net, as detailed in Appendix B, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Conventional 814,111.8 174,219.7 Wheel Transit 44,946.9 42,777.8 Unspecified Reductions (13,308.9) (26,617.7)

Total Program Budget 845,749.8 190,379.8

(200) That the Chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission to report to the Policy and Finance Committee after the April 11, 2001 Toronto Transit Commission meeting to quantify how the $26.6 million shortfall contained in the recommended operating budget estimates will be addressed and further include but not limit to the following: Toronto City Council 114 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(ii) the feasibility of changing the cash fare by an increment of 25 cents. This 12.5% increase in the cash fare could produce an extra revenue stream of $6.6 million annually after adjustment for any anticipated ridership loss. This would be approximately $3.3 million if implemented by June 2001;

(iv) reducing and/or eliminating service on under-utilized routes; and

(v) revising the price structure for the adult ticket/token fare such that revenues are maximized during peak or rush hour periods and ridership is increased during off-peak, non-rush-hour periods;

(201) That the Chair, Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to report to City Council through the Policy and Finance Committee prior to withdrawing funds from the TTC Stabilization Reserve fund, such report to include an outline of the need for such funds

(202) The Toronto Transit Commission report back to the Budget Advisory Committee on various performance measures to facilitate relevant analysis of operating budget options including the cost per rider and cost per kilometer of service provided broken down by bus, streetcar and subway. Included would be the year over year performance and a benchmark analysis to other major North American cities;

(203) That the Budget Advisory Committee consider the impact of the 2002 Operating Budget of the Toronto Transit Commission at a future meeting shortly after completion of the 2001 Budget process and approval of same by Council; and that the Chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to report to such meeting on the impacts and pressures of the Toronto Transit Commission’s 2002 Operating Budget, especially as it relates to service cuts; and

(204) The Toronto Transit Commission be requested to report to the Policy and Finance Committee meeting of April 17, 2001 providing, as requested, a detailed analysis of employee benefit costs. Toronto City Council 115 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(PP) Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board:

(205) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $592.120 million gross and $575.096 million net, comprised of the following services, be approved:

Gross Net Service: ($000s) ($000s)

Total Program Budget 592,120.2 575,096.4

* Pending the list of adjustments to be provided by the Toronto Police Services Board.

(206) The Toronto Police Services Board, report back directly to the Policy and Finance Committee on the service and feature detail breakdown of the unallocated reductions relating to the Budget Advisory Committee Recommended 2001 Operating Budget;

(207) Commencing with the 2001 Operating Budget, and in accordance with the Police Services Act 39.(1), the Toronto Police Services Board submit their operating budget requirements as is currently done for the Toronto Parking Enforcement;

(208) The Commissioner of Corporate Services, in conjunction with the Toronto Police Services Board report back to the Policy and Finance Committee prior to submission of the September, 2001 Operating Variance Report regarding the disposition of the budgeted and actual expenditures associated with caretaking services charged to the Toronto Police Service for the period of 1999 to 2001, including a recommendation for how the appropriate services should be handled on an on-going basis;

(209) The Toronto Police Services Board (where applicable) report on projected 2001 and future year performance measures as part of the 2001 Operating Budget Variance reporting process and include these estimates in their base budget submissions for the 2002 operating and future year budgets as required;

(210) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in conjunction with the Chief Administrative Officer, Toronto Police Service, review and compare the current negotiated agreements and benefits plans for the Toronto Police Service to those held for City programs and report back to the Policy and Finance Committee by the Fall of 2001 regarding options for addressing the increased expenditures; Toronto City Council 116 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(212) The City Auditor, in conjunction with the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board, report to the Policy and Finance Committee by the Spring of 2001 regarding the results of the Air Service pilot project including pre- and post- performance measures as directed by Council at its meeting of April 25, 26 and 27, 2000;

(213) The Toronto Police Services Board, City Auditor, and the City’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to its final deliberation of the 2001 Operating Budget regarding the policing expenditures incurred at 23 Division since the opening of Woodbine Casino as directed through Clause No. 1 of Report No. 6 of the Policy and Finance Committee, adopted by Council at its meeting of May 9, 10, and 11, 2000;

(214) The report (March 19, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer entitled, “Funding of Cost Overruns in 2001 for Toronto Police Service Benefits” be adopted with the following recommendations :

(i) the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board report to the Policy and Finance Committee as part of its monthly operating budget variance reports on the progress of cost containment strategies currently being undertaken with respect to Employee Benefits at the Toronto Police Service; and,

(QQ) Toronto Atmospheric Fund:

The 2000 Recommended Operating Budget of $1.830 million gross expenditures and $1.830 million revenues, as detailed in Appendix “B”, be adopted subject to:

(215) The Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the President of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to report to Policy and Finance Committee, prior to October 1, 2001, on a review of the financial and the organizational structure of TAF with a view to determining the most efficient means to achieve the objectives of TAF; such report to include a breakdown of the activities of TAF into major components, and to tabulate the requirements for:

(i) level of investment;

(ii) staffing; and Toronto City Council 117 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iii) potential for partners or additional investors; and, (216) If there are savings to TAF as a result of the City Solicitor’s report to examine reducing costs by using the City’s legal staff instead of TAF’s reliance on outside legal services, TAF and the City Solicitor are requested to:

(i) implement changes to minimize costs as expeditiously as possible; and,

(ii) transfer the full costs of such legal services from TAF to the City Solicitor.

(RR) Consolidated Grants:

(217) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $45.893 million gross and $41.396 million net, comprised of the following grant envelopes, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Arts and Culture Grants 12,736.7 12,681.8 Community Service Grant 10,588.7 10,588.7 Recreational Grant 1,224.1 1,224.1 Public Health Grant 3,496.6 3,496.6 Housing Grant 6,858.0 2,416.0 Miscellaneous 5,572.3 5,572.2 Access and Equity 458.2 458.2 Economic Development 4,659.3 4,659.3 Urban Development Grants 299.1 299.1

Consolidated Corporate Grants 45,893.0 41,396.0

(218) The Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to consult with other levels of Government to create a long-term plan that will give all of the organizations the assurance that funds to deliver these services will be available; and

(219) The Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested, in conjunction with City Staff and other volunteer organizations, to identify "lead" umbrella agencies and submit a report to the respective standing committee with respect to a consolidation and streamlining of these services in the City of Toronto.

(SS) Non-Program:

(220) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $694.264 million gross and $204.869 net, comprised of the following Non-Program Accounts, be approved: Toronto City Council 118 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Capital and Corporate Financing 437,162.7 433.662.7 Non Program Expenditure 257,101.8 213,601.8 Non Program Revenue N/A (442,395.9)

Total Program Budget 694,264.5 204,868.6

(221) The report (April 4, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Analysis of Contingency Expenditures – 1998 to 2000” including the following recommendations be adopted and further that the contingency account be set at $3.0 million;

(a) Council adopt the definition of emergency items for contingency draw purposes as contained in this report;

(b) the 2001 budget for emergency items remain at $3,000,000 with funds designated for use only on those items meeting the criteria for emergency items as described in this report; and,

(c) Council authorize and direct appropriate City Officials to amend the Financial Control By-law for the use of contingency funds as provided for in this report.

(222) Retro settlement for Fire Services to be funded from Employee Benefits Reserve Fund; and,

(223) That the same methodology for the formula used for corporate charges to Public Health be the same formula used for all Departments, agencies boards and commissions in 2002.

(TT) Parking Tag Enforcement and Operations:

(224) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $34.210 million gross, revenue of $61.032 million and net revenue of $26.822 million, comprised of the following components, be approved:

Gross Net Service ($000s) ($000s)

Parking Tag Enforcement – Toronto Police Services 24,084.4 24,084.4 Parking Tag Operations – Revenue Services, Finance 10,125.3 10,125.3 Parking Tag Enforcement and Operations – Revenues ______(61,031.6)

Total Program Budget 34,209.7 (26,821.9) Toronto City Council 119 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(225) The hiring of 48 additional Parking Tag Enforcement officers be deferred;

(226) The City Auditor, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the President of the Toronto Parking Authority, the Chief of Police and the Director of Purchasing and Materials Management report to the Administration Committee for its meeting of May 8, 2001, on the terms of reference to the request for proposals only from the Police Services Enforcement Unit and the Toronto Parking Authority on the management and enforcement of permitted on-street parking; and further that the Members of the Budget Advisory Committee be invited to attend such meeting; and

(227) The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Auditor report to the Policy and Finance Committee within three months after the end of the first tendered period, with recommendations on the most effective and efficient means by which the City manages its parking operations.

(UU) Toronto Parking Authority:

(228) The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $33.975 million gross and $(45.050) million net, as outlined in Appendix B, comprising the following services, be approved:

Service: Gross Net ($000s) ($000s)

Off-Street Parking 30,621.0 (19,104.0) On-Street Parking 3,354.0 (25,946.0)

Total Program Budget 33,975.0 (45,050.0)

(229) The report (March 19, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer entitled “Toronto Parking Authority, Revenue Sharing & Capital Account Structure” be adopted with the following recommendations:

(i) a new revenue sharing agreement between in the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking Authority be approved to provide 75% of net income to the City of Toronto and 25% of net income to the Parking Authority, effective January 1, 2001, for a three-year period ending December 31, 2003;

(ii) Net operating income includes direct parking revenues and expenses, administrative expenses and sundry revenue or expenses;

(iii) payments be made on a monthly basis for the City’s portion, based on the annual budget for the year with an annual minimum of $18 million;

(iv) a final payment/settlement occur once the audited actual amount for the year is confirmed; Toronto City Council 120 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(v) any surpluses in the retained earnings accounts of the Toronto Parking Authority, in excess of the projected five-year cash flow requirements, be remitted to the City of Toronto for other uses;

(vi) the City Solicitor and other appropriate officials of the City and the Toronto Parking Authority be authorized to enter into a new revenue sharing agreement consistent with the terms set out above and in the body of the report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to the Budget advisory Committee entitled “Toronto Parking Authority, Revenue Sharing & Capital Account Structure” dated March 19, 2001;

(230) The Policy and Finance Committee and Council be requested to amend the procedure with respect to allowing the on-street parking meter installation to be approved through the Planning and Transportation Committee who in turn would consult with the Community Councils in that regard as appropriate; and,

(231) The President of the Toronto Parking Authority be requested to report to the Administration Committee at its meeting of June 2001, providing a list of Toronto Parking Authority-owned property, including purchased property and property the Authority will be acquiring.

General:

(232) The Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report by September 2001, through the appropriate Standing Committees to the Budget Advisory Committee, in consultation with relevant staff, providing a review on the administrative costs of each Department and ABC, such report to include the savings and reductions which can be achieved;

(233) The Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report during the 2002 Operating Budget providing a list of all Communications personnel in other Departments, to include the breakdown of administration costs, etc.;

(234) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to include in the report respecting administration costs to the Administration Committee, information to identify Departments, such as Support Services, that will be given some of those general administration costs that end up passed on internally;

(235) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer undertake a review during 2001 of potential options to phase-in the impact of the shift in allocations for Support and Technical Services costs between the tax-supported and rate- supported programs of Works and Emergency Services and report back thereon to the Policy and Finance Department through the Budget Advisory Committee by September 2001 prior to the 2002 Operating Budget review; Toronto City Council 121 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(236) The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to provide an updated report with respect to FTE’s and report thereon to the Policy and Finance Committee for its meeting of April 17, 2001; and (237) The Chief Administrative Officer to review the policy respecting voluntary exit packages and report thereon to the Administration Committee in June 2001 or sooner if possible;

(238) All Department Heads provide a list to the Administration Committee of any deferred projects which no longer require consultants this year;

(239) All Department Heads report to the Administration Committee providing any system in place which monitors staff time and output; and

(240) A copy of the subject report, be forwarded to Municipalities which are undergoing amalgamation at present; and further that a copy of the report, also be forwarded to the FCM and AMO for their consideration and information;

(241) A copy of the subject report be forwarded immediately, under separate cover, to all Members of Council, Members of the GTSB, MPPs and MPs in the Greater Toronto Area, all Mayors in the GTA, and to Mayor Lastman to be considered as part of his ongoing negotiations with the Province; and further that a copy of said report be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario; and

(242) The Chief Administrative Officer provide a more in depth and detailed report with respect to funding from other levels of government internationally as to how such funding originated, how were they able to set up such funding and how the City is moving this ahead through the Charter City initiative;

(243) The 2001 Operating Budget of $6,076.1 million gross and $2,771.0 million net, as detailed in Appendix A: 2001 Operating Budget – Program Summary of Adjustments be adopted;

(244) That leave be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto; and

(245) The reports, transmittals and communications that are on file with the City Clerk considered by the Budget Advisory Committee at its meetings be received.

Background:

The City’s Operating Budget – 1998 to 2000:

Since amalgamation, City Council approved Operating Budgets that maintained core services to the public; harmonized key services such as residential garbage collection, public health programs, sidewalk and windrow snow clearing; expanded services to meet increased demand while sustaining a zero tax increase over this three year period. The maximization of efficiencies, amalgamation savings and revenue generation opportunities enabled the City to offset the increased service delivery costs. Toronto City Council 122 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The rationalization of responsibilities and regulation changes by the Province resulting in the downloading of additional services and service costs to the City continued to be a financial challenge for the City to address. The operating budget process for the new City was designed to facilitate and support the budgetary decision-making needs of senior management, Committees and Council in allocating resources required to deliver City services and to meet Council priorities, as noted above. Since 1998, the operating budget process evolved to include the following elements by 2000:

(i) identification of current services, service plans and priorities; allocation of human and financial resources at the service level and provision of service delivery options;

(ii) identification of operating impacts of previously approved Council decisions, including capital works, as well as the inclusion of a preliminary outlook projecting financial impacts for the following fiscal year;

(iii) delineation of each program or agency current service (base) budget requirements from service expansions, enhancements or new service changes, focusing analysis and reporting on two distinct budget components – base budget and new requests;

(iv) an Administrative Review process performed by the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer that reviewed program/agency budget requests, identified critical issues and provided recommendations, strategies and alternatives to the Budget Advisory Committee; and,

(v) a Political Review process for Budget Advisory Committee and Standing Committees and the public to assess the staff recommended budget for service and funding priorities.

As part of the City’s commitment to continuous improvement, debriefings on the 2000 budget process were held in May and June 2000 with City program and agency staff, senior management, the Chief Administrative Officer; the Budget Advisory Committee, Standing Committee Chairs and the Policy and Finance Committee. This work resulted in a proposal by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (CFO) to implement the next elements of the Corporate Management Framework by developing a new budget process that is integrated with a program planning process for the City.

The Corporate Management Framework, approved by Council, provides the basis for sound service and financial planning based on strategic goals that identify Council’s priorities. The next step in the implementation of the Framework involves the mature budget process that will link multi-year program planning to Council’s strategic plan. The goal is to provide a sound, stable and sustainable financial management environment with the following budget planning stages:

(1) at the start of each new Council term, Council will review the Corporate Strategic Plan and financial forecast and establish its top priorities within a realistic fiscal framework for the next three years; Toronto City Council 123 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(2) based on Council’s identified priorities, staff will develop three-year operating program plans with five-year capital plans. These plans would be reviewed, assessed and evaluated by the City’s CAO, CFO and Senior Management Team;

(3) Council’s Standing Committees will review the program plans, invite public input and forward their findings to the Policy and Finance Committee for information;

(4) the Policy and Finance Committee will refer Standing Committee recommendations to the Budget Advisory Committee for consideration with the budget process;

(5) Program and Agency staff will develop detailed operating and capital budgets based on current services and service levels. Senior staff will review the budgets and balance competing priorities based on Council’s directions derived from the first stage. The CAO and CFO will submit recommended capital and operating budgets to Council’s Policy and Finance Committee;

(6) the Policy and Finance Committee will review the recommended budgets and forward the respective program budgets to the appropriate Standing Committees;

(7) Standing Committees will review their respective program recommended budgets, invite public input and forward their recommendations to the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC);

(8) BAC will review Standing Committee recommendations, integrate City-wide service priorities within the fiscal framework and recommend a capital and operating budget to the Policy and Finance Committee;

(9) the Policy and Finance Committee will undertake a final review based on input from Council members and forward the recommended capital and budgets to Council for its review and approval; and

(10) based on the above, City Council will approve a five-year capital program and a two-year operating budget.

The joint report entitled “Implementing Council’s Corporate Management Framework: A New Budget Process for 2001 and Beyond” outlining this new approach will be before City Council at its meeting of April 24, 25, and 26, 2001, the same meeting during which City Council will be considering the 2001 Recommended Operating and Capital Budgets.

The 2001 Operating Budget Process:

The budget process for 2001 reflects the implementation of elements of the new budget process proposed in the joint report from the CAO and CFO.

In particular, Standing Committees have played a significantly enhanced role in the determination of service delivery efficiencies, service priorities, service levels and service level adjustments. Once launched, the staff recommended program budgets were first forwarded to Toronto City Council 124 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 each Standing Committee for review of the respective programs that fall under its purview and to receive public deputations. The Standing Committee recommendations were then forwarded to the Budget Advisory Committee for its deliberations of integrating the Standing Committee priorities into an affordable financial package. In previous years, these steps were reversed.

The municipal election in November 2000 acted as a catalyst for enabling the operating and capital budgets to be considered concurrently during the political review process for 2001, as proposed by the CAO and CFO. A concurrent review and approval of operating and capital budgets allows Council to fully consider the impacts of approving capital works on the operating budget, including increased direct service costs as well as debt service costs. In previous years, the capital budget process has taken place during November and December with Council approval in late January or early February. The fall election meant that Standing Committee membership could not be determined until December 2000 and City business for the new term of Council would not begin until January 2001.

The 2001 Operating Budget includes the implementation of key performance measures and service level indicators in the analysis and reporting of program budgets, as was reported during the 2000 process. A full year of stable detailed financial data has enabled program staff to identify key efficiency measures from which performance can be tracked and trends analyzed. While this information has laid the groundwork for performance budgeting, analysis and reporting, continued work is required throughout the organization to build upon this data, particularly as this information becomes more widely used for decision-making, as evidenced by the Municipal Report Card requirements mandated by the Province.

(i) Administrative Review Process:

Many of the 2001 Operating Plans and Detailed Budget requests were submitted to the Finance Department from mid-November to early December 2000. Some agency submissions were not received until early in the new year given that their newly appointed boards and commissions had not yet approved the 2001 budgets. Budget staff began their analysis and discussions with program senior staff in preparation for the CFO preliminary reviews in early December, followed by a review by the CAO thereafter. An overview briefing held on November 27, 2000 advised the CAO and the Senior Management Team that the 2001 operating budget request was $378.5 million net over the 2000 Approved Budget.

The CAO/CFO review meetings held from December 1, 2000 to December 13, 2000 with Budget and program staff resulted in Phase I adjustments that reduced the 2001 budget request by $73.8 million net, comprising of mostly technical, efficiency and administrative budget adjustments. This resulted in a revised budget request for 2001 that was still $304.7 million net over the 2000 Approved Budget.

Senior Management Team meetings held December 14, 15, 18 and 20, 2000 with support from Budget Services staff and senior departmental staff resulted in additional or Phase II adjustments of $120.5 million net consisting of reductions to requested new or expanded services as well as adjustments to current services and/or service levels. The majority of the pressures faced by the City for 2001 are fixed costs of delivering current services. In an effort to maintain current services approved by Council, Senior Management Team first chose to review and not Toronto City Council 125 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 recommend funding for service expansion or new service requests. However, these budget reductions were insufficient and additional proposals to adjust current service levels were also recommended Toronto City Council 126 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The Administrative Review process reduced the 2001 budget request by a total of $194.3 million net, resulting in a staff Recommended 2001 Operating Budget that was $184.2 million net over the 2000 Approved Budget which included, amongst others, service level adjustments to current services as options for the Committees’ consideration in addressing service funding priorities.

(ii) Political Review Process:

The political review process was launched on January 31, 2001 by the CAO and CFO with a presentation on the 2001 Recommended Budget to all Council members. The 2001 recommended program budgets were then forwarded to the respective Standing Committees. The City’s agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs) report to the Policy and Finance on matters relating to its budgets. The recommended budgets for the ABCs were forwarded to the Budget Advisory Committee which acted as the “standing committee” for the review of ABC budgets on behalf of the Policy and Finance Committee.

Two meetings were scheduled for the Standing Committee review during February: one meeting during the week of February 5 to 12, 2001 and another during the week of February 19 to 26, 2001 to review program budgets and receive public deputations. Many of the Standing Committees also scheduled special additional meetings through to the end of the month to finalize their budget deliberations. The Budget Advisory Committee met on February 9 and 28 and March 1 and 2, 2001 to consider the budgets of the City’s ABCs.

The recommendations arising from the Standing Committee review resulted in recommending confirmation of existing reductions of $120.4 million (with a different mix of adjustments from staff recommendations in some cases) as well as additional expenditure reductions, service changes and revenue opportunities totalling $4.9 million net. These recommendations as well as the initial BAC recommendations respecting the ABC budgets were considered by the Budget Advisory Committee during its meetings held on March 19 to 23 and 26, 2001. A final session of wrap-up meetings that took place on April 2 and 6, 2001 by the Budget Advisory Committee resulted in confirmation of an additional $13 million net or 10% in reductions and a 2001 Recommended Operating Budget that is $172.1 million net over the 2000 Approved Budget.

The Policy and Finance Committee will consider and hear final deputations on the BAC Recommended 2001 Operating Budget at its special meeting of April 17, 2001. City Council’s consideration of the final 2001 Recommended Operating Budget will occur at its special meeting of April 24, 25and 26, 2001.

Appendix A summarizes the recommended changes arising out of the Administrative and Political Review stages for each program.

Discussion:

2001 Recommended Operating Budget:

The 2001 BAC Recommended Operating Budget of $6,076.1 million gross and $2,771.0 million net includes a base budget of $6,011.4 million gross and $2,743.6 million net to deliver current services as well as $64.7 million gross and $27.4 million net for the service expansions or new Toronto City Council 127 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 services, primarily as a result of 2000 approved or new Council/Committee directives. On a total basis, the 2001 BAC Recommended Operating Budget is $130.5 million gross or 2.2% and $172.1 million net or 6.6% over the 2000 Approved Budget.

Appendix B details the recommended base budget and new service changes on a program by program basis.

2001 Key Highlights:

(1) Fixed Costs to Deliver Current Services Reduced:

The preliminary pressures of $305 million included $261 million in fixed costs to deliver the services approved by Council in 2000. Budget Advisory Committee reduced these costs to $234 million and further offset them by reductions of $133 million to $145 million. This was achieved primarily through additional revenue generation of $36 million and service efficiencies and service level adjustments of $53 million, resulting in a 2001 Operating Budget that comprises the following revised pressures of $172 million as outlined below:

Preliminary BAC Rec’d Change In Pressures Pressures Pressures ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) Base Budget Changes Salaries and Wages 108 101 (7) Supplies and Services 38 34 (4) Other Base Changes 40 44 4 Impacts of Previous Decisions 15 8 (7) Additional Down/Side Loading 47 47 0 Revenue Loss/(Gain) 13 (36) (49) Service Level Adjustments ____ (53) (53)

Sub-total 261 145 (116)

New Service Changes: Debt Charges 22 22 0 New Services __22 __5 _(17)

Total 305 172 (133)

(2) Flexibility in the Operating Budget Removed:

The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget reflects savings and efficiencies in service delivery as well as the elimination of any flexibility in major expenditure and revenue items in the budget. For example:

(i) the annual welfare caseload has been reduced from 77,000 to 65,000 cases ($18 million) with no cushion for fluctuations remaining; Toronto City Council 128 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(ii) Prior year surplus has been reduced from $40 million to $10.5 million; and,

(iii) Corporate Contingency Account has been reduced from $7.7 million to $3 million for 2001.

Departments such as Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Finance adjusted their budgets by a sum of $5.5 million based on actual expenditures experienced in 2000. The revenue estimate for building permit fees has been increased by $3.1 million based on actual permit activity experienced in 2000.

(3) New Service Changes Minimized:

The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget includes $27.4 million for new service changes, however, new debt charges comprise $22.4 million of this total. The balance of $5 million includes $12.3 million in new services offset by $7.1 million in new revenues. For example:

(i) New fees of $25 for children’s instructional recreational programming and $125 for specialty summer day camps for a total of $2 million in 2001 and $3.1 million in 2002;

(ii) Zoning review application fee based on full cost recovery standardized City-wide for additional revenue of $0.544 million;

(iii) Clean City Initiative: Students hired for summer litter cleaning (82 FTEs) - $0.890 million; and,

(iv) New funding for Tenant Support Grants to hire legal counsel and other professional services - $0.300 million.

(4) Staffing Increased to Address Council Priorities:

An additional 477 FTEs are funded in the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget, representing a 1.1 percent increase in the total complement for the City, including agencies, boards and commissions. Of this amount, 207 FTEs are required to deliver Provincially-mandated programs while the balance, a net 270 FTEs, are primarily attributable to the City’s ABCs (TTC: 214; Exhibition Place: 18).

Appendix C summarizes the change in budgeted FTEs between those approved in the 2000 Budget and those recommended in the 2001 Operating Budget as well as major reasons for the proposed changes. Toronto City Council 129 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(5) 2001 Budget Highlights:

Base Budget Changes:

The 2001 base budget reflects increased fixed costs of $234 million to deliver services approved by Council in 2000. Significant changes are highlighted below:

(a) Increased Costs:

(1) salaries and Wages - $101 million;

(2) increased Utility and Fuel Costs - $16.4 million:

(i) TTC - $6.9 million; Shelters - $3.3 million; Facilities - $2.3 million; Transportation - $1 million; Police - $0.700 million;

(3) supplies and Services: $18 million

(i) Transportation - $7.8 million; TTC - $3.3 million; Solid Waste - $1 million; Parks and Recreation - $2.2 million; Urban Development Services - $1.4 million;

(4) Increased Down/Side Loading:$47 million:

(i) annualized rental costs for school facilities of $6.3 million (Childrens’ Services - $1.1 million; Parks - $5.2 million);

(ii) User fees incorporated in the calculation of Provincial revenue for child care services - $3 million;

(iii) Social Housing Devolution costs - $3.9 million gross and $1.4 million net;

(iv) extra Provincial billing for the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) - $3.1 million

(v) additional debt service costs for TTC and GO Transit capital works due loss of provincial support- $30 million;

(vi) reduced Provincial revenue from the transfer of responsibilities arising from the Provincial Offences Act – $4.5 million

(5) Other Base Changes: $43.3 million:

(i) increased haulage contract costs in Solid Waste - $12.9 million

(ii) GO Transit operating requirements and expansion - $13.1 million; Toronto City Council 130 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iii) Corporate Expenditures: Vacancy Rebate Program - $17 million gross and $0 net;

(iv) increased Employee Related Liabilities - $9.5 million;

(v) contributions to Fleet Reserve for Fire and Solid Waste - $5.9 million

(vi) TTC vehicle and facilities maintenance - $5.2 million;

(vii) annualization of City computer leasing program - $4.6 million;

(viii) additional Nursing Care for increased complexity of care and associated supplies - $4.4 million gross and $0.175 million net.

(ix) increased Grass Cutting Costs - $1.2 million; and

(x) increased Salt Costs - $1 million.

(b) Major Savings:

(i) annual welfare caseload reduced from 77,000 to 65,000 cases - $144.5 million gross and $18 million net;

(ii) Social housing mortgage rollover savings - $24 million gross and $6.4 million net;

(iii) reduction in Corporate Contingency Account - $4.7 million;

(iv) GO Transit reduced maintenance costs - $3.8 million;

(v) base budget unallocated savings in Police - $2.7 million;

(vi) increased waste tonnage at transfer stations - $0.940 million

(vii) ELF Bus Savings in TTC - $0.353 million; and

(viii) reduction in Councillors’ Global Budgets by 10 percent - $0.260 million.

The 2001 recommended base budget does make provision of $8 million for the financial impacts of prior year Council decisions, including the annualization of funding for service changes approved in 2000 as well as the operating impacts of previously approved capital works programs. They include the following significant changes: Toronto City Council 131 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(1) Annualized Costs of Previous Council Approvals:

(i) purchased Daycare Services Actual Cost - $3.3 million gross and $0.666 million net;

(ii) Special Needs Resourcing and Resource Centre - $0.500 million gross and $0.100 million net;

(iii) York Before and After School Program - $0.160 million

(iv) Early Childhood Pilot Project (CYACC) - $0.300 million gross and $0 net;

(v) Sunday Service Expansion to 8 Neigbourhood Libraries - $0.105 million;

(vi) Youth Job Corps - $0.069 million gross and $0 net;

(vii) Film and Television Office Harmonization - $0.235 million gross and $0.055 million net;

(viii) Children Youth and Action Committee and Mayor’s Action Plan Initiatives in Parks and Recreation - $0.700 million;

(ix) Forestry Backlog Program - $0.162 million;

(x) Non-Recurring Millennium Celebration Funding – ($0.270) million;

(xi) Savings from Reducing Council size from 57 to 44 – ($3.3) million;

(xii) additional Paramedics and 100 percent Funded Dispatchers - $1.3 million gross and $0.580 million net; and

(xiii) extension of sidewalk snowclearing to arterial roads and bus stops in District 1 and 4 resulting (year 3 of 4) - $1.6 million. Phase 3 completes the harmonization of sidewalk snowclearing on arterial road across the City. Phase 4 for local roads has been deferred.

(2) Impact of Previously Approved Capital Programs:

(i) Seaton House Renovations - $0.712 million;

(ii) increased Parks operating and maintenance costs for Woodbine Parks and Maryvale/Wexford and Heron Park Community Centres - $1.1 million;

(iii) Debt Service Costs for debt issued in 2000- $2.3 million.

The above major base budget changes for 2001 have been reduced by additional revenue adjustments and service level adjustments, as noted below: Toronto City Council 132 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(d) Revenue Changes:

(1) Rate Increases:

(i) Go Transit 15 cent fare increase effective May 1, 2001 - $8.8 million;

(ii) TTC 10 cent fare increase - $16.6 million;

(iii) Zoo admission fee increase of $2 for adults and $1 for Seniors and Children to $11 and $9, respectively - $1 million;

(iv) Per diem increase from $2.34 to $2.73 based on 2000 parents mix for Childrens’ Services - $2.4 million;

(v) User fee revenue increase based on Provincial rates for Homes for the Aged - $1.2 million;

(vi) Golf Fee average increase of $2 per round for adults - $0.500 million;

(vii) new Vending Contract for Parks Concessions - $0.578 million;

(viii) Permit fee increases for stadium usage ($0.029 million) and picnics ($0.155 million);

(ix) Harmonized permit fees for pools ($0.047 million); gymnasium usage for adult groups ($0.030 million); sports fields ($0.240 million);

(x) 25 percent increase in permit rental rates for minor hockey, MTHL and adult ice time - $0.780 million;

(xi) increased permit fees and front yard parking fees by $3 per month to restore funding for street cleaning around parked vehicles- $1.1 million;

(xii) $2 Tipping Fee at Keele Valley and transfer stations - $0.300 million;

(xiii) Transit Shelter, utility cut increases, red light camera recoveries and other revenue changes - $4.4 million;

(xiv) Provincial stablization funding for Homes for the Aged - $2.5 million;

(xv) Corporate Sponsorships on Ferries - $0.240 million.

(2) Other Changes to Revenue:

(i) increased Community Partnership Policing Grant for annualized cost of hiring of 300 front-line officers- $0.700 million; Toronto City Council 133 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(ii) Extend parking lot charges at parks on the waterfront and other ($0.250 million) (iii) increased Parking Tag recoveries - $0.516 million;

(iv) reduced Payments in Lieu of Taxes due to conversion of Hydro Buildings to Taxable Status – ($21 million);

(v) reduced Revenue from Tax Penalties – ($10.1 million);

(vi) reduced Revenue from Prior Year’s Surplus – ($29.5 million);

(vii) increased Supplementary Tax Revenue - $5 million;

(viii) Other Tax Revenue - $29.3 million;

(ix) Building Permit Fee revenue based on 2000 actual experience - $3.1 million;

(x) increased revenue at Keele Valley based on additional volume - $1.3 million;

(xi) increase in revenue from City’s share of Toronto Parking Authority net income resulting from the installation of 500 additional Pay and Display machines and additional metered parking spaces - $3.8 million;

(3) New Revenue Initiatives:

(i) new fees of $25 for children’s instructional recreational programming and $125 for specialty summer day camps for a total of $2 million in 2001 and $3.1 million in 2002;

(ii) Zoning review application fee based on full cost recovery standardized City-wide for additional revenue of $0.544 million;

(iii) change in building permit application fee structure - $1.8 million;

(iv) removal of cap on Zoning By-Law application fees - $0.700 million;

(v) User Fees from school boards for weekly garbage and recycling collection effective July 1, 2001 - $0.175 million.

(e) Service Level Adjustments:

(i) unspecified budget reduction for Police - $0.364 million;

(ii) unspecified budget reduction for TTC - $26.6 million;

(iii) unspecified budget reduction for Library - $2 million; Toronto City Council 134 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iv) reduced Clerks’ support to Council, Vital Statistics and Records and Archives - $0.345 million;

(v) adjusted office cleaning services at Metro Hall - $0.440 million;

(vi) unspecified budget reduction for Facilities - $1.3 million;

(vii) reduced ability to support programs for Human Resources services - $0.740 million;

(viii) deferral of IT projects and reduced Help Desk support for Clerks and Metro Hall - $1 million;

(ix) departments required to fund additional disk storage beyond 2000 levels - $0.375 million;

(x) closure of The Pier Museum - $0.477 million gross and $0.203 million net;

(xi) grants funding reduced by 2.5% of the 2000 Approved Budget - $1.6 million;

(xii) elimination of twice per week garbage collection in former North York and parts of former Etobicoke - $0.840 million;

(xiii) reduction in summer contracts for road maintenance - $1.8 million;

(xiv) reduction in grass cutting from 8 to 6 times per year - $1 million;

(xv) reduction in litter cleaning around parked cars - $0.430 million;

(xvi) Harmonized outdoor pool openings to 10 weeks per season except - $0.105 million;

(xvii) vehicle ferry service reduced from 2 shifts to 1 shift per day - $0.150 million;

(xviii) reduction in preventative maintenance in Parks facilities ($0.196 million) and parks ($0.678 million), focusing on priority requests and emergency repairs only;

(xix) reduction in artificial ice rink operating season to 10 weeks - $0.096 million.

New Service Changes:

(i) supporting Community Partnership Initiative: a federally funded homelessness program - $11.6 million gross and $0 net;

(ii) MLS Taxi Training Unit - $0.356 million gross and ($0.094) million net;

(iii) TTC Service Expansion - $9.8 million gross and $1.8 million net; Toronto City Council 135 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iv) Healthy Babies/Healthy Children Expansion - $1.2 million gross and $0 net;

(v) pre-School Speech and Language Program Expansion - $1.2 million gross and $0 net

(vi) Hostel head office and other support - $1.2 million gross and $0.764 million;

(vii) Tenant Support Grants - $0.300 million;

(viii) MLS Student Program - $0.368 million gross and ($0.032) million net;

(ix) 3Rs Implementation – several pilot project initiatives aimed at improving waste diversion rates - $0.684 million;

(x) Clean City Initiative – Students hired (84 FTEs) for summer litter cleaning - $0.890 million;

(xi) 3 additional Transportation By-Law Enforcement Officers - $0.201 million.

The table below outlines the net 2001 Recommended Operating Budget Base Budget and New Service Changes for City Operations, ABCs and Non-Program Accounts:

Summary of 2001 Base and New Service Changes ($000s)

2000 Approved 2001 BACChange from 2000 Base Budget New Service Budget Recommended $ % Changes Changes

City Operations 1,476.7 1,523.3 46.6 3.2 48.2 -1.6 ABCs 964.6 1,001.5 36.9 3.8 30.2 6.6 Non-Program 157.6 246.3 88.6 56.3 66.3 22.4

Total 2,598.9 2,771.1 172.1 6.6 144.7 27.4

The increase of $88.6 million for 2001 recommended Non-Program costs is primarily attributable to new debt service costs of $59.3 million; reduced payments in lieu of $21 million and reduced tax penalty revenue of $10.1 million. The increased debt service costs arising from approval of the 2001 capital works program has resulted in City and agency initiatives being minimized to enable funding of new debt service costs.

(6) 2002 Outlook:

The 2002 Outlook reflects additional pressures of $147.3 million gross and $110.4 million net million to fund $32 million for fixed costs such as salaries and wages (including negotiated wage increases for TTC and the Zoo); supplies and services and other base changes of $20 million, primarily for TTC and GO Transit; over $54 million to service capital works as well as new program initiatives of $27 million for GO and TTC. Toronto City Council 136 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

No projection has been included for a potential increase for negotiated wage settlement costs that may arise in 2002.

Conclusions:

The 2001 Recommended Operating Budget of $6,076.1 million gross and $2,771.0 million net includes a base budget of $6,011.4 million gross and $2,743.6 million net to deliver services approved by City Council in 2000 as well as $64.7 million gross and $27.4 million net for new service changes. Approval of the 2001 Recommended Operating Budget will result in a gross expenditure increase of $130.5 million or 2.2 percent and a net expenditure increase of $172.1 million or a 6.6 percent increase over the 2000 Approved Budget.

Fixed costs of $261 million to deliver services approved by Council in 2000 have been reduced to $145 million through revenue generation, service efficiencies and service level adjustments. Flexibility that may have existed in the budget has now been eliminated with major expenditure and revenues items reduced to the 2000 actual expenditure levels. New service changes of $27.4 million include $22.4 million in debt service costs and minimal new service initiative with additional funding directed for staffing to support Council priorities.

The 2002 Outlook projects that the City will be facing significant pressures of $110.4 million net to primarily fund increased costs to support the TTC and GO Transit requirements and initiatives and to service capital works. No projection has been included for potential wage settlement costs that may arise in 2002.

Contact:

Josie La Vita, Manager, Operating Budget, 397-4229; fax: 397-4465

Bob Mavin, Director, Budget Services, 392-8095; fax: 397-4465

______

(Copies of the Attachments referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 17, 2001, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Policy and Finance Committee submits the following report (April 10, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer entitled, “2001 Operating Budget - Amendments to Budget Advisory Committee’s Recommendations”:

Purpose:

To report on various amendments to the Budget Advisory Committee’s Recommended 2001 Operating Budget. Toronto City Council 137 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Financial Implications:

Adoption of the adjustments in the report will reduce the Budget Advisory Committee 2001 Operating Budget net pressure from $173.0 million to $98 million. The City’s property tax increase on only the residential property class imposed by Bill 140 is reduced from 18.0 percent to 10.2 percent. Because the City’s share of the residential property tax bill is approximately 2/3, this will mean a 6.8 percent increase on the total tax bill.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the adjustments contained in this report be adopted.

Discussion:

At the conclusion of Budget Advisory Committee’s deliberations on Friday, April 5, 2001, the remaining net pressure was $173.0 million. Outstanding from that meeting was the calculation of reduced debt charges resulting from the Budget Advisory Committee 2001 Recommended Capital Program being reduced from the original staff recommended budget.

Over the past few weeks, City Finance staff have been in discussions with Provincial staff over a number of items that have now been resolved either through pending regulation or announcement, and which will impact favourably on the Budget Advisory Committee’s 2001 Recommended Operating Budget.

Since the current provincial legislation under Bill 140 precludes taxing any property class other than residential, the following adjustments can be made to the Budget Advisory Committee 2001 Recommended Operating Budget.

Budget Advisory Committee – Friday, April 6, 2001 – Net Pressures 173.0 Recommended Adjustments $ Impact Program Description (Millions) Provincial Regulation/Announcement 1. Social Services GTA Pooling Revenue 6.0 2. Social Services Technology Transition Funding 1.5 3. Social Services Administration Cost Refund 1.0 4. Non-Program – Debt Charges PST Relief – Subway Car Lease 6.0 Program 5. Non-Program CVA Tax Shift from frozen 45.0 Transition Ratios Sub-Total 59.5

6. Non-Program – Debt Charges Reduced BAC 2001 Capital 3.5 Program 7. Non-Program – Woodbine Reclassification from Capital 12.0 Slots sustained revenue Toronto City Council 138 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Budget Advisory Committee – Friday, April 6, 2001 – Net Pressures 173.0 Recommended Adjustments $ Impact Program Description (Millions) Provincial Regulation/Announcement Sub-Total 15.5 Total 75.0 Recommended Adjustments 2001 Amended Recommended Operating Budget - Net Pressures 98.0 *Note: Funding of $22M for Fire Arbitration Retro cut from Operating and to be funded from Employee Benefit Reserve Fund

Analysis:

(1) GTA Pooling Revenue:

The Province, as part of LSR in 1998, created a beneficial cost sharing formula between the City and the Regions of Peel, York, Durham and Halton to offset costs of social services and social housing where Toronto in particular, had an inordinately high level of caseload in comparison to the GTA.

This formula for cost sharing results in revenue flowing from the GTA regions to the City. The Province regulates the basis for the GTA pooling calculation, which includes the assessment base as an element.

The Province will be issuing shortly, a regulation that delays the use of the new CVA values to 2002. This provides a benefit to the City in 2001 of $6 million. This will change in 2002 once the new CVA values are used.

(2) Technology Transition:

As part of the overhaul of Ontario Works, the Province is implementing new technology. To assist in the successful implementation, the City was asked to retain staffing levels in Social Services at 67,000 caseload versus reducing to 65,000 (the 2001 budgeted benefits level). The Province is recognizing this Transition issue with onetime funding of $1.5 million.

(3) Administration Billings:

As part of the review of various administrative costs in the Social Services Program, the Province has identified a reduction of $1.0 million in its billed administration costs.

(4) PST Relief – Subway Cars:

Council, at its meeting of August 1, 2, 3 and 4, 2000, adopted the concept of alternative financing arrangements for recently acquired subway cars. Key to making this transaction Toronto City Council 139 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 financially viable, Council requested relief from a duplicate PST payment on already delivered cars, similar to that granted by the Province for Go Transit. On Tuesday, April 10, 2001, the City was advised that this relief would be granted. The transaction can now proceed with expected reduced debt charges of $6 million that can now be recognized in 2001. This calculation is based on achieving savings of $50-60 million.

(5) CVA Tax Shift:

Recently released Provincial regulations on March 30, 2001 related to CVA Transition ratios provide the City with the ability to freeze 2000 tax ratios for commercial and industrial property classes in 2001 and 2002. By freezing the ratios for commercial and industrial and reducing the multi-residential ratio, approximately $45 million in municipal tax burden shifts from the residential property class to the other property classes. The commercial property class will still see overall tax reductions due to the $100 million Provincial education tax reduction. Given our current budget pressures, it is recommended that this CVA shift benefit be utilized. Consideration could also be given to further reducing the multi-residential tax ratio which would create $53 million in tax room on residential but which would cause minor tax increases to commercial properties. A further detailed report on this matter will be tabled at the April 17, 2001 Policy and Finance Committee.

(6) Debt Charges:

Debt charges in the 2001 Budget Advisory Committee recommended budget reflected the staff recommended budget of January 2001. Staff have been recalculating the debt charges budget and report a preliminary reduction of $3.5 million as a result of Standing Committee and Budget Advisory Committee reviews.

(7) Woodbine Slots:

In March 2000, the Province announced a new revenue source to the City arising from the implementation of slot machines at Woodbine RaceTrack. At its meeting of May 9, 10 and 11 2000, Council adopted staff’s recommendations to apply these proceeds to the unsustainable capital program.

Given the current budget pressures and tax restrictions imposed by the Province’s Bill 140, this $12 million in revenue is recommended to be applied as sustainable revenue against the ongoing net budget pressure to maximize its impact to taxpayers.

Conclusion:

A series of budget adjustments totalling $75 million that have arisen due mainly to Provincial regulations/announcements is recommended to reduce the Budget Advisory Committee 2001 Operating budget. Toronto City Council 140 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following remarks made by Mayor Lastman to the Budget Advisory Committee:

I would like to begin by congratulating you on a job well done.

This has been the toughest budget our city has ever had to deal with and i know how much work went into finding $131.5 million in savings.

The public does not realize that we only control 20 percent of our budget – and that the rest is dictated to us by the province and the ABC’s.

The $131.5 million in savings you have found represents 10 percent of that part of the budget we control.

In February, I told the people of Toronto that they deserved a new deal.

I said we would do our best to deliver a fair and reasonable tax increase of 5 percent to residential property owners and i said i would work towards a long-term solution for Toronto’s future.

We still do not have a long-term solution – but we do have the promise of short-term relief.

The province has agreed to a number of regulation changes which will reduce the pressure on our operating budget by $75 million.

They include:

(i) $45 million through a cva tax shift.

(ii) $6 million in pst relief for the purchase of ttc subway cars.

(iii) Another $6 million by allowing the city to use the old cva values for g.t.a. pooling.

(iv) $1.5 million in technology transition funding for social services.

(v) A $1 million reduction in the administration costs billed to social services.

(vi) $3.5 million in savings as a result of reduced debt-carrying costs.

(vii) we are transfering $12 million from woodbine race track in game revenues.

In addition to this $75 million, queen’s park has promised $50 million for transportation costs in the City.

Combined with the savings the Budget Committee have achieved, our budget shortfall will be reduced to $48 million – equal to a 5 percent tax increase for the residential property tax owner. Toronto City Council 141 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Do not mistake this for a provincial bail-out: Queen’s Park has not done Toronto any favours here. With the exception of our 5 percent tax increase, this is one-time money.

We still need new sources of funding in order to pay for the extraordinary costs associated with operating the TTC, GO and Social Housing.

Other provinces have addressed the needs of their large cities.

Manitoba allocates revenues from personal income tax for municipalities on a per capita basis.

British Columbia shares its retail sales tax with municipalities.

Montreal annually receives a share of the gas tax from the province of Quebec.

Toronto does not receive a penny.

A 5 percent tax increase is nothing to celebrate – but it buys us time when combined with the budget committee’s savings.

It gives us another year to continue talks with the province for a long-term solution.

Deputy Mayor Case Ootes and Budget Chief Councillor David Shiner did a great job negotiating with Queen’s Park these past few months – and I will ask them to return to the table again.

I will also be reminding Ottawa of the promises they made during the last Federal election - promises they seem anxious to forget.

Toronto must have a new deal with both the provincial and the federal government.

But for this year at least, our taxpayers have been spared an outrageous tax increase.

Thank you.

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (April 11, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “City of Toronto 2001 Capital and Operating Budgets (All Wards)”:

Recommendation:

The Budget Advisory Committee reports having recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee, and Council, the adoption of the following reports, listed in Appendix 1, such reports having been incorporated in the recommendations from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting the City of Toronto 2001 Recommended Capital and Operating Budgets:

(1) (March 26, 2001) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Funding of the Street Involved Youth Program – Formerly the Squeegee Working Youth Mobilization (SWYM) Program”; Toronto City Council 142 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(2) (March 12, 2001) from the City Auditor, entitled “Hostel Vacancy and Bed Rates”;

(3) (March 30, 2001) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Robertson House Pilot Project for At-Risk Pregnant Women”;

(4) (February 7, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “Works and Emergency Services Yard Consolidation”;

(5) (March 29, 2001) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled “Parks and Recreation Division – Information Requests on 2001 Operating Budget”;

(6) (March 28, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “Sign Permit Fees”;

(7) (March 30, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, entitled “Sign Permit Fees”;

(8) (March 29, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, entitled “Expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program”;

(9) (February 7, 2001) from the City Auditor, entitled “Outstanding Budget Issues Between the Parks and Recreation Division and the Facilities and Real Estate Division”;

(10) (February 16, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “Audit Services – 2001 Operating Plan and Budget”;

(11) (February 19, 2001) from the General Manager and CEO, Toronto Zoo, entitled “2001 Operating Budget”;

(12) (March 19, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Funding of Cost Overruns in 2001 for Toronto Police Service Benefits”;

(13) (March 15, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Operating Budget – Non Program Expenditures and Revenues Supplementary Report”;

(14) (March 15, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Annual Sinking Fund Levies, Surplus and Activity During 2000”;

(15) (April 4, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Budgets - Reserves and Reserve Funds”;

(16) (April 4, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Analysis of Contingency Expenditures – 1998 to 2000”;

(17) (March 19, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Toronto Parking Authority, Revenue Sharing and Capital Account Structure”; Toronto City Council 143 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(18) (April 3, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled “Capital Program: Transition Projects Staff Exit Costs 1998 – 2000”; and

(19) (April 5, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “Governance Structure and Funding to Implement the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative”.

The Budget Advisory Committee further reports having:

(a) received the attached reports containing recommendations, listed in Appendix 2; and

(b) received the reports and communications, listed in Appendix 3, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.

The Budget Advisory Committee further reports having forwarded the report (April 6, 2001) from the Chief Administrative Officer, entitled “Corporate Environmental Initiatives for 2001” to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration as such report was received subsequent to the Budget Advisory Committee’s consideration of Corporate Environmental Initiatives.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee at its meetings held on April 2 and 6, 2001, had before it the 2001 Recommended Operating and Capital Budgets for the City of Toronto’s Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions.

The Budget Advisory Committee also had before it the reports referred to in Appendix 1:

The Budget Advisory Committee also had before it the reports with recommendations, listed in Appendix 2, which are attached hereto.

The Budget Advisory Committee reports having received the reports and communications, listed in Appendix 3, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. Toronto City Council 144 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

APPENDIX 1 No. Reports Recommended for Adoption by the Budget Advisory Committee

SHELTER, HOUSING AND SUPPORT (1) (March 26, 2001) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Funding of the Street Involved Youth Program – Formerly the Squeegee Working Youth Mobilization (SWYM) Program”. (2) (March 12, 2001) from the City Auditor, entitled “Hostel Vacancy and Bed Rates”. (3) (March 30, 2001) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Robertson House Pilot Project for At- Risk Pregnant Women”. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (OPERATING) (4) (February 7, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “Works and Emergency Services Yard Consolidation”. PARKS AND RECREATION (5) (March 29, 2001) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled “Parks and Recreation Division – Information Requests on 2001 Operating Budget”. URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (6) (March 28, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “Sign Permit Fees”. (7) (March 30, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, entitled “ Sign Permit Fees”. (8) (March 29, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, entitled “Expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program”. FACILITIES AND REAL ESTATE (9) (February 7, 2001) from the City Auditor, entitled “Outstanding Budget Issues Between the Parks and Recreation Division and the Facilities and Real Estate Division”. AUDIT SERVICES (10) (February 16, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “Audit Services – 2001 Operating Plan and Budget”. TORONTO ZOO (11) (February 19, 2001) from the General Manager and CEO, Toronto Zoo, entitled “2001 Operating Budget”. TORONTO POLICE (12) (March 19, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Funding of Cost Overruns in 2001 for Toronto Police Service Benefits”. Toronto City Council 145 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

NON PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES (13) (March 15, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Operating Budget – Non Program Expenditures and Revenues Supplementary Report”. (14) (March 15, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Annual Sinking Fund Levies, Surplus and Activity During 2000”. (15) (April 4, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Budgets – Reserves and Reserve Funds”. (16) (April 4, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Analysis of Contingency Expenditures – 1998 to 2000”. TORONTO PARKING AUTHORITY (17) (March 19, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Toronto Parking Authority, Revenue Sharing and Capital Account Structure”. TRANSITION PROJECTS (18) (April 3, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled “Capital Program: Transition Projects Staff Exit Costs 1998 – 2000”. WATERFRONT INITIATIVES (19) (April 5, 2001) from the City Clerk, entitled “Governance Structure and Funding to Implement the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative”.

______

(A copy of Appendices “2” and “3” referred to in the foregoing communication (April 11, 2001) from the City Clerk was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 17, 2001, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following report (April 6, 2001) from the Chief Administrative Officer entitled, “Corporate Environmental Initiatives for 2001”:

Purpose:

This report outlines an approach for moving forward on the City’s Environmental Plan commitments in a fiscally responsible manner. It summarizes information recently submitted to the Budget Advisory Committee and responds to further questions raised by the Committee.

Financial Implications:

Approval of this report will result in the addition of $972,630 (net) to the 2001 operating budget. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement. Toronto City Council 146 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Administrative Officer provide an annual, co-ordinated work plan to implement the Environmental Plan initiatives in a phased manner, for consideration with the annual budget process, starting with the 2002 process;

(2) funding in the amount of $972,630 (net) be provided in various programs’ 2001 operating budgets to proceed with the Environmental Plan Initiatives as outlined in Appendix II of this report; and

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

Framework for Environmental Action:

Toronto City Council has taken a series of decisions which set out a vision and goals for a clean, green and sustainable city and which position the City in a leadership role on the environment:

(a) adopted in principle the Environmental Plan and its 66 general and 315 specific recommendations (April 2000);

(b) made an initial commitment to funding 8 Environmental Plan initiatives as part of the 2000 operating budget;

(c) signed an Intergovernmental Declaration on Clean Air at the first Toronto Smog Summit including specific City commitments to implement clean air initiatives and related Environmental Plan recommendations (June 2000);

(d) approved Council’s Strategic Plan which includes environmental sustainability goals and City directions relating to enhancing quality of life and improving environmental and health protection (August 2000); and

(e) identified 22 Environmental Plan recommendations requiring early implementation and approved a process to integrate these in future budget plans (August 2000).

Long Term Implementation Perspective:

The report from the CAO (dated March 6th) to the Budget Advisory Committee identified an approach for Council to consider in moving forward on the City’s Environmental Plan in a fiscally responsible manner. The report:

(a) indicated that implementation of the Environmental Plan was a longer term process;

(b) advised that it would be appropriate to make a commitment to implement the Environmental Plan in manageable steps over a period of time; Toronto City Council 147 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(d) recommended that the CAO provide an annual, co-ordinated work plan to implement the Environmental Plan initiatives in a phased manner, for consideration with the annual budget process, starting with the 2002 process.

Moving Forward:

The report from the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services (dated March 26th) provided the Budget Advisory Committee with information on revenue sources. The report identified that:

(a) Public Health initiatives will attract 50 percent Provincial recoveries, or $129,000 in 2001;

(b) $50,000 was committed by the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) subject to approval by the TAF Board (this is in addition to $250,000 that TAF has already approved in 2001 for other City projects on sustainable energy and transportation that fall within the purview of the Environmental Plan); and

(c) a revised amount of $972,630 net would be required in various programs’ 2001 operating budgets to proceed with the Environmental Plan initiatives identified for the next step in implementation.

Indicators for Environmnetal Investment:

The proposed initiatives are aimed at improving environmental quality and responding to critical issues such as deteriorating air quality. The need to invest in the environment is illustrated by the public health and socio-economic impacts associated with the current state of our air:

(a) Poor air quality in Toronto creates a substantial burden of illness, contributing towards 1,000 premature deaths and 5,500 respiratory or cardiac hospital admissions. Air pollution can affect anybody, but children, the elderly and those with predisposing respiratory conditions (such as asthma) or heart conditions are most vulnerable.

(b) In June 2000 the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) conservatively estimated the human and economic costs of Ontario’s polluted air at more than $1 billion a year in hospital admissions, emergency room visits and absenteeism. This translates into air pollution costs for Toronto of $227 million or $91 per capita a year.

(c) The OMA also estimated Ontario productivity losses at $560 million for time spent for illness, post treatment recovery and the equivalent cost for non-paid caregivers. This translates into a loss of $127 million in productivity for Toronto and a $2.3 million loss for the Corporation. Toronto City Council 148 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Potential Savings and Benefits:

Environmental initiatives are generally undertaken as investments to protect and improve environmental and public health, not as mechanisms for generating revenue. However, some of the recommended initiatives also provide financial savings. Initiatives that reduce the amount of energy consumed will in the medium to long term yield an ongoing stream of financial savings for the City. The proposed Environmental Plan initiatives include such energy saving projects together with other priority initiatives. This will allow the City to realize financial benefits at the earliest opportunity and help offset future investments in other environmental initiatives as part of a longer term implementation strategy.

Staffing Requirements:

A number of City programs contribute to environmental quality, such as Environmental Services in WES; the Health Promotion and Environmental Protection Office within Public Health; Natural Environment and Horticulture and Urban Forestry units in EDCT; and the environmental planning focus within UDS. The Environmental Plan recommended further environmental improvements, including clearer targets and new initiatives. The City has adopted these important recommendations, but there are imlpementation challenges as all City programs have undergone downsizing and budget reductions.

Some opportunities have been identified to implement Environmental Plan initiatives through existing resources, with funding from external sources, and Provincial cost-sharing for expenditures by Public Health. However, separate resource allocations are required to move forward with many of these initiatives. Often this requires additional temporary, contract staff. In some cases, an ongoing work load arises and staff resources will be required over a longer term basis. However, it would be possible for implementation to proceed with temporary staff resources. These resource requirements would be subject to review as part of the annual, coordinated work plan to implement the Environmental Plan, which would be considered during the annual budget process.

Profiles of Proposed Initiatives:

Information on the priority initiatives has been provided in various reports over the past year. A consolidated summary of the proposed initiatives is attcahed in Appendix I. The profiles in Appendix I include a project description as well as information on resource requirements and anticipated savings and benefits. The resource requirements are quantified in Appendix II. All staff resource requests have been pro-rated to reflect in-year implementation.

Conclusion:

This report outlines an approach for moving forward on the City’s Environmental Plan commitments in a fiscally responsible manner, and identifies funding in the amount of $972,630 (net) in various programs’ 2001 operating budgets required to proceed with the proposed Environmental Plan initiatives. Toronto City Council 149 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Contact:

Martin Herzog (392-5491) Judy Broughton (392-8393)

______

Appendix I Profiles of Environmental Plan (EP) Initiatives Proposed for 2001

(1) EP Recommendation No. 51 – Establish Sustainability Roundtable:

The Sustainability Roundtable is a high-level strategic think tank established to assist the City in shaping the discussion and understanding of sustainability – actions to simultaneously achieve environmental health, economic vitality and social equity. The Roundtable advises Council on sustainability issues and is supported through existing resources.

(2) EP Recommendation No. 21 – Develop Comprehensive Air Quality Strategy

Project Description: A comprehensive air quality strategy is being developed that will assess progress on current air quality initiatives, set targets, and identify priorities and ways of applying resources to maximum effect.

Resource Requirements: Expertise is required to develop an air quality framework, produce an inventory of national air quality programs, identify operational opportunities to reduce emissions, and examine legal and policy options to assist in reducing emissions. WES requires one temporary Policy and Research Analyst to undertake this work.

Savings and Benefits: This will produce a multi-year, corporate strategy to guide air quality improvements. Implementation of the strategy will reduce population illness and health care costs through better air quality and fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

(3) EP Recommendation No. 29 – Increase Energy Efficiency in City Operations and Facilities

Project Description: It is estimated that energy efficiency in City facilities could still be improved by approximately 15 percent. ICLEI estimates that annual savings in the range of $15 to $23 million could be realized through an investment of $68-$106 million in energy retrofits in City facilities and operations. To pursue these opportunities, energy efficiency measures in various City buildings need to be identified and evaluated.

Resource Requirements: Specific expertise in energy conservation is required, including energy cost analysis and evaluation of energy efficiency technologies and building operations. Corporate Services requires one temporary staff person to undertake this work over a 4-5 year period; this can be implemented on a temporary basis with funding subject to annual review. Toronto City Council 150 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Savings and Benefits: Once an energy saving project has been identified, it is expected that project implementation will be self-financing. The savings from reduced energy use would pay for the initial project implementation cost over a 6 to 10 year period. Once implementation costs are repaid, the savings revert to the City on a permanent basis.

(4) EP Recommendation No. 28 – Coordinate Toronto’s Efforts on Sustainable Energy

Project Description: A business plan is to be developed to guide and co-ordinate the City’s energy efficiency efforts, partnerships and financing, including energy production, transmission and use. A multi-stakeholder sustainable energy partnership and a program that targets homeowners are to be developed. This initiative builds on the work of the Better Buildings Partnership (BBP).

Resource Requirements: Expertise is required to investigate energy production, transmission and use; coordinate development of the business plan; coordinate a multi-stakeholder sustainable energy partnership; and facilitate energy efficiency investments in the private building stock. WES requires 4 temporary Senior Energy Consultants to undertake this work. Staff resources will also be required beyond 2001; however, it is anticipated that the costs for these resources will be recovered through the energy savings.

Savings and Benefits: This initiative targets energy efficiency in homes and will assist the BBP in meeting the goal to retrofit 40 percent of the buildings in the ICI sector by 2010. Natural gas and electricity costs for buildings throughout Toronto amount to about $3.8 billion annually. The 40 percent goal relates to about $1.5 billion in energy costs. Assuming a 10 percent energy efficiency potential, energy savings of $150 million are projected for building owners. Initial savings will be used to offset investments to implement energy efficiencies. Reduced energy demands will translate directly into improved air quality.

(5) EP Recommendation No. 22 – Reduce Air Emissions

Project Description: There is a need to improve City, province and federal emission inventories; revise the Provincial Certificate of Approval (CofA) process for point sources to ensure compliance and up-to-date records for emission inventories; and explore the feasibility of introducing a by-law regarding point source emissions. The City is negotiating a partnership with the MOE on monitoring local air quality within Toronto.

The impacts of air quality on health need to be examined. Regional health issues include participating in regulatory review and policy analysis to reduce air emissions (cross border and regional), particularly from the transportation and energy sectors. Local outdoor air quality issues include examination of health effects of air pollution from sources in the City such as crematoriums, factories, fires, and waste disposal options such as incineration.

Resource Requirements: WES requires one temporary Senior Air Quality Specialist to manage the MOE partnership to provide City with shared use of air quality monitoring equipment, survey industrial clusters to validate emissions within CofA limits, and complete the emission inventories. Funding for materials and supplies is required for this initiative, which will be matched by $100,000 from MOE. Public Health requires one temporary Senior Policy Analyst Toronto City Council 151 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 with expertise in urban air quality to examine the impacts of air quality on health, at a regional and local level. This position is required on a long term basis, but can be implemented on a temporary basis with funding subject to an annual review. Savings and Benefits: Better emission inventories and monitoring will improve the ability to assess existing air quality conditions and the effectiveness of emission reduction strategies. Conducting research on the health impacts of urban air quality will support strategies that help reduce the human costs impacting Toronto residents and the productivity loss experienced by businesses and the municipal corporation (as outlined in the main report). Public Health expenditures for this initiative are eligible for 50 percent provincial funding.

(6) EP Recommendation No. 26 – Plan for and Implement Sustainable Transportation

Project Description: A comprehensive, integrated framework and vision for future transportation and land use in Toronto is being developed. This will occur in consultation and partnership with relevant City departments and agencies, other levels of government, the transportation industry, citizens, labour, community groups and environmental groups.

Resource Requirements: Expertise is required to launch the Better Transportation Partnership (BTP) pilot as an implementation initiative in consultation with major stakeholders, and to facilitate partnerships. One temporary Senior Energy Consultant is required by WES to carry out this work. The position will be required beyond 2001; however, it is anticipated that these costs will be recovered through vehicle and fuel savings.

Savings and Benefits: Potential savings of 20 percent in transportation fuel use are estimated. Average annual fuel savings of $2,000 per vehicle are projected with the conversion to dedicated additional Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs). The BTP offers the City an opportunity to receive one free NGV for every four dedicated NGVs purchased. Through the BTP, the City will purchase 350 NGVs for the City fleet which will generate $700,000 in annual savings. These benefits can be extended to other fleets owned by the City’s agencies.

(7) EP Recommendation No. 14 – Prevent Discharge of Pollutants into Sewers

With funds allocated for Environmental Plan initiatives in 2000, a new Sewer Use By-law was developed and adopted. The new By-law will be enforced across institutional, commercial and industrial sectors with existing resources.

(8) EP Recommendation No. 43 – Focus Education & Community-Based Marketing on Key Areas

Project Description: “20/20: The Way to Clean Air” is a social marketing campaign to encourage behavioural changes aimed at decreased air emissions. The campaign is in Phase 1 of a 3-year program. Research is being conducting across the GTA in households to identify barriers and supports needed to reduce vehicle use and home energy consumption. Partners include the Regions of Peel, Durham, Halton and York, Environment Canada, the MOE, TAF, Toronto Hydro, Enbridge Consumers Gas, the Toronto Environmental Alliance, GreenSaver, Greenest City and Pollution Probe. Toronto City Council 152 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Resource Requirements: The City and other 20/20 partners are contributing funds towards this initiative. Public Health requires one temporary Health Promotion Consultant to continue implementating the social marketing campaign. This position is required on a long term basis but can be implemented on a temporary basis with funding subject to an annual review. Additional resources are required for campaign materials and related expenses.

Savings and Benefits: This initiative responds to the City’s commitment at the 2000 Smog Summit to implement a public education campaign to inform the public on measures they can take to reduce smog. The campaign has a goal for a 20 percent reduction in air pollution emissions (vehicle kilometres travelled and home energy consumption). 20/20 partners to date have contributed $41,700 as well as significant in-kind resources to this initiative. Further commitments of $93,500 for 2001 have already been made by the external partners. Public Health expenditures for this initiative are eligible for 50 percent provincial funding.

(9) EP Recommendation No. 7 – Eliminate Use of Pesticides

Project Description: An Integrated Plant Health Care (IPHC) initiative is proposed to support implementation of pesticide reduction and elimination in public green space. Parks, green space and plant health need to be inspected to identify and assess factors such as pests, usage patterns, environment related problems and maintenance regimens. Technical solutions need to be developed to achieve elimination of pesticide use while maintaining service levels and infrastructure integrity. Similar attention is required for large open spaces at City operating facilities. A corresponding public education strategy would include promoting reduced outdoor and indoor pesticide use and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) alternatives, reducing the burden of illness associated with pesticide use, developing a public health response to the West Nile Virus, regulatory review and related policy analysis.

Resource Requirements: One staff person with pest management expertise in relation to horticulture, turf, plant production, golf courses and general parkland is required in EDCT to develop and implement a program of alternative pest control and IPHC. A half-time position is required to undertake similar functions with respect to the extensive open space surrounding operating facilities in WES. One research analyst with expertise in pesticide related health impacts and community education is required in Public Health. These positions are required on a long term basis, but can be implemented on a temporary basis with funding subject to an annual review. Additional resources are required for related equipment and materials.

Savings and Benefits: Health impacts associated with repeated low levels of exposure to pesticides include higher rates of cancers and neuro-toxic effects. Alternative pest control measures are available and will benefit the health of residents. Significant reductions in City pesticide use have been successfully implemented. Implementing pest control alternatives and IPHC measures will result in avoidance of future costs for rehabilitation of Toronto’s green infrastructure. For example, the cost of replacing the sod on a sports field is about $10,000 - $15,000. With a current inventory of 570 sports fields, the financial and service implications are significant.

Public Health expenditures for this initiative are eligible for 50 percent provincial funding. Toronto City Council 153 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

______Toronto City Council 154 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Appendix II Proposed Environmental Plan Initiatives Funding for 2001 ($Thousands)

WES Public Corp. EDCT Non Total Health Services Program 1) EP No. 51 Sustainability Roundtable 0.00

2) EP No. 21 Air Quality - 1 FTE @ $72 pro-rated for 9 mo. 54.00 54.00

3) EP No. 29 Energy Efficiency - 1 FTE @ $78 pro-rated for 8 mo. 52.50 52.50

4) EP No. 28 Sustainable Energy - 4 FTEs @ $78 pro-rated for 9 mo. 234.00 234.00

5) EP No. 22 Reduce Air Emissions - 1 FTE @ $86 pro-rated for 9 mo. 64.50 64.50 - Materials, Supplies etc. 100.00 100.00 - 1 FTE @ $80 pro-rated for 9 mo. 60.00 60.00

6) EP No. 26 Sustainable Transportation - 1 FTE @ $78 pro-rated for 9 mo. 58.50 58.50

7) EP No. 14 Prevent Discharge of 0.00 Pollutants

8) EP No. 43 Education - 1 FTE @ $70 pro-rated for 9 mo. 52.50 52.50 - Materials, Supplies etc. 73.75 73.75

9) EP No. 7 Pesticide Reduction - 1/2 FTE @ $36 pro-rated for 9 mo. 27.00 27.00 - 1 FTE @ $70 pro-rated for 9 mo. 52.50 52.50 - Materials, Supplies etc. 20.00 275.49 - 1 FTE @ $63 pro-rated for 9 mo. 47.26 322.75

Sub-Total (Gross) 438.00 258.75 52.50 47.26 375.49 1,152.00

Provincial Recoveries for Health 129.38 129.38

Sub-Total 438.00 129.38 52.50 47.26 375.49 1,022.63

TAF Funding 50.00 50.00

Total 2001 Funding Required 438.00 129.38 52.50 47.26 325.49 972.63 (Net) Toronto City Council 155 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following report (April 3, 2001) from Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons entitled, “Shelter, Housing and Support Division Budget: Emergency Shelter Expansion”:

On February 12, 2001, the Community Services Committee adopted a motion asking City Council to “direct the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to add 1,000 new beds to the emergency shelter system over the next year; and further to report thereon to the Budget Advisory Committee during the 2001 budget process on the implementation of adding such beds to the system, and with a request that the Budget Advisory Committee be urged to fund rapid emergency shelter expansion.”

This motion came in response to a report from the Commissioner regarding several recommendations proposed by the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee to improve the capacity and quality of the emergency shelter system.

At its meeting of March 20, the Budget Advisory Committee did not approve the motion to add 1,000 new beds. The Advisory Committee on Homeless & Socially Isolated Persons urges the Policy and Finance Committee to reconsider the Budget Committee’s decision and instead support the motion of Community Services Committee to add these desperately needed beds.

Front-line workers continue to report the lack of shelter beds in the system, particularly in the adult men’s system. This problem appears to be getting worse not better. While the Advisory Committee strongly supports City Council’s efforts to lobby for a National Housing Strategy, we also need to meet the demand for emergency shelter in the short-term. Even if the federal government announced a housing program tomorrow, it would take two to three years before the housing could be built. We need emergency measures to help homeless people now. More concretely, we need to set a target of 1,000 new beds over the next year.

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (March 28, 2001) from the City Clerk entitled, “Works and Emergency Services 2001 Operating Budget - Transportation Services”:

Recommendation:

The Works Committee at its meeting on March 28, 2001, during further consideration of the 2001 Operating Budget submission for Transportation Services, adopted the following motion:

“Be it resolved that the Works Committee advise the Policy and Finance Committee at its next meeting that the Works Committee is very disappointed with the Budget Advisory Committee actions on the Transportation Services budget with regard to sidewalk snow clearing in North York being reinstated for the period November – December 2001 without foresight to the $600,000 annualized costs, which is very discriminatory to the rest of the City;

Be it further resolved that the Policy and Finance Committee be made aware that the Works Committee, which is responsible for overseeing this department, rationally had Toronto City Council 156 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

staff renegotiate, without cost, a fair and equitable sidewalk program of improved snow clearing in front of schools, parks, libraries, and community centres which are areas of concern to the larger Toronto community; and

Be it further resolved that the Works Committee reconfirm its position and request the Policy and Finance Committee and Council to reverse the Budget Advisory Committee recommendation, to send a clear message to all Torontonians that the City of Toronto is amalgamated and wishes to treat all citizens in a fair and equitable manner.”

The Policy and Finance Committee submits the following communication (February 20, 2001) from the City Clerk, Toronto Cycling Committee:

Recommendation:

The Toronto Cycling Committee requested:

(1) that the $108,000.00 operating budget be reinstated into the 2001 City budget for final consideration by City Council;

(2) that the Toronto Cycling Committee members appear concerning the cycling budget at the Joint Meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee on Friday, February 23, 2001, and that the Toronto Cycling Committee also present deputation at further Committee meetings, where possible;

(3) that the Urban Development Services Department list the cycling programs as a separate line item in all future budget submissions in order that the confusion resulting from the budget documents this year can be avoided; and

(4) that the following members of the Toronto Cycling Committee be listed as deputants at the February 23, 2001 meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee:

(a) Mr. Israel Chackowicz, CAN-BIKE Instructor;

(b) Mr. Crawford Murphy, representing Toronto Catholic District School Board;

(d) Mr. Martin Koob, representing Toronto Bicycling Network.

Background:

The Toronto Cycling Committee at its meeting held on February 19, 2001, had before it the following communications:

(1) (January 31, 2001) from Ms. Monica Tang, Executive Assistant, Councillor Jack Layton’s Office, requesting that the Toronto Cycling Committee receive a presentation Toronto City Council 157 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

on the City of Toronto 2001 Operating and Capital Budget, as it relates to the following cycling initiatives:

(a) Bike Trails In Parks and Hydro Corridors;

(b) Implementation Plan For The Cycling Master Plan, and Parking Facilities (Post and Rings, and Bike Racks); and

(2) (February 7, 2001) from Mr. Brian Rutherford, Manager, Parks Department, advising, in response to a request by Councillor Jack Layton’s Office, requesting a presentation at the Toronto Cycling Committee; advising that a presentation on the 2001 Operating and Capital Budget respecting cycling initiatives will be made directly to the February 16, 2001 (revised date) meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee; and that projects related to new bike trails and hydro corridors are several years away in the capital program, as a result to focus on “good repair” versus new infrastructure;

(3) (January 18, 2001) from the City Clerk, Policy and Finance Committee, advising that at their meeting held on January 18, 2001, Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee, appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee respecting the 2001 Operating Budget of the Toronto Cycling Committee; and that the Policy and Finance Committee, referred the following communications to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee, as part of the 2001 Budget deliberations:

(a) (January 4, 2001) from Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee; and

(b) (December 13, 2001) from the City Clerk, Toronto Cycling Committee;

(4) (February 19, 2001) from Councillor Jack Layton, providing, for the information of the Planning and Transportation Committee, the rationale for the Road and Trail Safety Ambassador program of the Toronto Cycling Committee; and recommending that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services report on:

(a) the status of HRDC funding of the Road and Trail Safety Ambassador program; and

(b) potential adjustments to the Road and Trail Ambassador program in order to modify the program to deliver initiatives such as those outlined in the foregoing communication; and

(5) (February 19, 2001) from Councillor Jack Layton, advising the Toronto Cycling Committee that the Planning and Transportation Committee did not recommend the base Toronto City Council 158 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

budget for the Toronto Cycling Committee, in the amount of $108,000.00, in the 2001 City Budget; and recommending that:

(a) the $108,000.00 operating budget be reinstated into the 2001 City budget for final consideration by City Council; (b) the Toronto Cycling Committee members appear concerning the cycling budget at the Joint Meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee on Friday, February 23, 2001, and that the Toronto Cycling Committee also present deputation at further Committee meetings, where possible; and

(c) the Urban Development Services Department list the cycling programs as a separate line item in all future budget submissions in order that the confusion resulting from the budget documents this year can be avoided.

The Toronto Cycling Committee heard presentations from the following persons:

(1) Mr. Brian Rutherford, Manager, Parks Department;

(2) Mr. Daniel Egan, Manager, Cycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure Unit; and

(3) Ms. Barbara Wentworth, Bicycling Safety Planner, and Mr. Sean Wheldrake, Bicycling Promotions Coordinator, deferred to Ms. Monica Tang, Executive Assistant, Councillor Jack Layton’s Office.

The Toronto Cycling Committee:

(1) requested the support of the Policy and Finance Committee; and

(2) requested the Policy and Finance Committee to consider the following recommendation:

(a) that the $108,000.00 operating budget be reinstated into the 2001 City budget for final consideration by City Council;

(b) that the Toronto Cycling Committee members appear concerning the cycling budget at the Joint Meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee on Friday, February 23, 2001, and that the Toronto Cycling Committee also present deputation at further Committee meetings, where possible;

(c) that the Urban Development Services Department list the cycling programs as a separate line item in all future budget submissions in order that the confusion resulting from the budget documents this year can be avoided; and

(d) that the following members of the Toronto Cycling Committee be listed as deputants at the February 23, 2001 meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee:

(i) Mr. Israel Chackowicz, CAN-BIKE Instructor; Toronto City Council 159 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(ii) Mr. Crawford Murphy, representing Toronto Catholic District School Board;

(iii) Mr. Ron Hart, representing North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee; and

(iv) Mr. Martin Koob, representing Toronto Bicycling Network.

(Copies of the communications listed in the foregoing communication were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 17, 2001, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following report (April 12, 2001) from the Secretary, Board of Health entitled, “Child Nutrition Programs in Toronto”:

Recommendation:

The Board of Health recommends that the proposed 2.5 percent reduction in funding to Child Nutrition Programs (which equals 40,000 meals) not be adopted; and, further, that the eight elementary schools that have not received municipal funding for this school year, under the Child Nutrition Program, receive funds in the amount of $60,000.00.

Background:

The Board of Health at its meeting on April 10, 2001, had before it the attached report (March 23, 2001) from the Medical Officer of Health, regarding Child Nutrition Programs in Toronto and recommending that the Board of Health:

(1) forward this report for information to the Policy and Finance Committee, to the Children and Youth Action Committee, the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board;

(2) continue to advocate to the Province of Ontario for additional funding for Child Nutrition Programs; and

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

The Board of Health reports having adopted the report (March 23, 2001) from the Medical Officer of Health and forwards same to the Policy and Finance Committee, Children and Youth Action Committee, Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board for information in accordance with Recommendation No. (1).

______

(Report dated March 23, 2001 addressed to Board of Health from the Medical Officer of Health)

Purpose: Toronto City Council 160 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The purpose of this report is to table the Toronto Child Nutrition Program Annual Reports for 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 and to describe the current status of the programs, including their expansion and funding shortfall relative to growing health needs. Toronto City Council 161 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Child Nutrition Program for the year 2000/2001 is allocated $1,791,800 from the municipality’s Consolidated Grants Budget with matching contributions from the provincial government, private sector, school boards and parents. These monies will leverage about $977,00 from the Province of Ontario, an estimated $3,267,000 from parental contributions and $1,964,000 from fundraising, to nourish close to 60,000 children. Child Nutrition Programs are funded through the following cost sharing partnership which has been supported by the City of Toronto since 1998:

City of Toronto 24 percent Province of Ontario (through Canadian Living Foundation) 24 percent Parental Contributions 38 percent Fundraising 14 percent

Funds are allocated to each program based on the number of children participating, the number of days the program is offered, the type and frequency of meals served and the neighbourhood income. A sliding scale that covers an average of 24 percent of the total estimated operating costs is used to determine the funds allocated to each program.

Currently, municipal funding provides 22.4 percent of program operating costs for 305 programs. The percentage of total operating costs provided by municipal funding will decrease in the coming year, as a finite number of dollars must be shared among programs which are growing in both number and size. This will put increased pressure on parents, the Province of Ontario and community fundraising to compensate for the shortfall.

The Budget Advisory Committee is proposing a 2.5 percent reduction in funding to child nutrition programs. With this reduction, fewer children will be served, programs will operate for fewer days and the nutritional quality of meals will decline. A cut in municipal funding will also mean fewer matched dollars from other sectors, based upon the shared funding partnership.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Board of Health:

(1) forward this report for information to the Policy & Finance Committee to the Child and Youth Action Committee, the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board;

(2) continue to advocate to the Province of Ontario for additional funding for Child Nutrition Programs; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give hereto. Toronto City Council 162 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Background:

In 1998, municipal funding of $1.3M was granted to fund 205 child nutrition programs serving approximately 40,000 children throughout the City in the school year. A model was adopted in which the City would contribute 24 percent of estimated program costs. This support was contingent upon matched funding from the province, parents and local fundraising (see table below for more detail). Programs were given assistance in order to meet all the requirements for funding. This funding, along with other co-ordinated efforts such as educational workshops for program staff and volunteers, has contributed greatly to an increased overall quality of Child Nutrition Programs in the City of Toronto.

Comments:

The number of child nutrition programs, and children served, continues to grow each year with a 42 percent increase in the number of programs operating and a 37 percent increase in the number of children served since 1998. This increase is due, in part, to the principle of universal access upheld by all child nutrition programs. All children are eligible to participate and as more parents choose to enroll their children in the programs, the demands on all funding partners increases. New programs funded by the Canadian Living Foundation in their first year of operation also rely on municipal funding to sustain operations in subsequent years. Based upon this trend of growing need, an additional 5,000 children will need to be served through existing child nutrition programs in 2001/2002, bringing the total children served to 65,000. A need has also been identified for nutrition programs for adolescents in secondary schools, but municipal funding is currently available only for elementary schools.

Programs were given assistance in order to meet all the requirements for funding. This funding, along with other co-ordinated efforts such as educational workshops for program staff and volunteers, has contributed greatly to an increased overall quality of Child Nutrition Programs in the City of Toronto.

Toronto Child Nutrition Program Funding Data for the School Years 1998/1999 - 2000/2001

Funding 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/2001 Municipal funding 1,310,500 1,310,500 1,791,800 Provincial funding 802,422 904,729 977,246 Parental Contributions 1,929,549 2,572,469 3,266,5961 Educational 690,800 963,929 1,964,3581 foundations/local fundraising Total Funding $4,733,291 $5,751,627 $8,000,0011

1 These numbers are estimates – actuals will be available in the Fall of 2001.

For more information, refer to the attached Bi-Annual Report (Attachment 1). Toronto City Council 163 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Highlights since 1998/1999:

Child nutrition programs have undergone tremendous growth in the number of programs and the number of children served since 1998. As the figures below indicate, there has been a 40% increase in the number of programs operating over the 1998/99 year, with close to 60,000 children now being served.

Toronto Child Nutrition Program Data for the School Years 1998/1999 - 2000/2001

Toronto District School Board & Toronto Catholic District Totals Community Sites School Board Year 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 1998/99 1999/00 2000/0 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 1 Number of 199 287 275 19 23 30 218 310 305 programs

Estimated 35,609 49,101 52,544 4,327 5,486 6,711 39,938 54,587 59,255 Number of children participating Total 4,112,962 5,476,538 755,630 806,151 4,868,592 6,026,637 Number of meals served Number of 744 750 303 353 1047 1103 volunteers Number of 91,132 91,496 Data not 25,897 Data not 109,738 volunteer available available hours

(Note: Complete data for 2000/2001 will be available at the end of the school year).

This program growth can be attributed to the commitment of the complex network of partners that have worked together since 1998 to support child nutrition programs. This partnership has created a foundation upon which great progress has been achieved in meeting the needs of children and ensuring high quality nutrition programs across the City. This is achieved through the work of various partners and groups who each assume important roles and responsibilities, which are described below. This complex network of partners contributing to these efforts is illustrated in a model attached to this report (Attachment 2).

Toronto Child Nutrition Program Steering Committee:

The Toronto Child Nutrition Program Steering Committee is a partnership of senior management level representatives from all sector partners (Toronto Public Health, Toronto District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board, Toronto Foundation for Student Success, Metropolitan Toronto Catholic Education Foundation, Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition and Toronto City Council). The purpose of this Committee is to establish partnership commitments from all sectors to support child nutrition, to determine and monitor allocation and expenditure of municipal funding and to ensure that matched funding is secured. Toronto City Council 164 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition (TCPCN):

TCPCN make recommendations to the Toronto Child Nutrition Program Steering Committee regarding funding allocations, best practices and policy needs. They coordinate the funding application process for all child nutrition programs, make recommendation to the Toronto Child Nutrition Program Steering Committee regarding funding allocations and help implement training and support needs identified by programs. TCPCN also is involved in public education and awareness efforts for program fundraising, maintains program standards and participates in program evaluation. In 2000, TCPCN was successful in obtaining $100,000 from the Province of Ontario to support 1 part-time and 2 full-time Child Nutrition Community Representatives. These staff work with local coalitions and programs to mobilize the community to support child nutrition programs, assist with fundraising initiatives and connect programs to appropriate community resources such as Public Health or Board of Education staff. These staff are managed by a personnel subcommittee of the Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition.

Toronto District School Board/Toronto Catholic District School Board:

Since the inception of child nutrition programs, the supporting structure for these programs has been strengthened by a number of new developments. The Toronto District School Board created two full-time Nutrition Liaison positions. These staff conduct needs assessments, promote child nutrition programs to schools, link programs to resources, assist with funding issues and create networks among programs. The Toronto Catholic District School Board also has a Community Relations Consultant who works with Child Nutrition Programs. Schools provide physical space for, and administrative support to all the Child Nutrition Programs.

The creation of the Feeding Our Future Committee with representatives from Toronto District School Board Departments, principals, Public Health, parents, trustees, Toronto Foundation for Student Success and the Toronto Education Opportunity Fund aided the transition toward a unified program across the City after amalgamation. A similar body, the Toronto Catholic District School Board School Food Program Committee, exists within the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

Toronto Foundation for Student Success/Metropolitan Toronto Catholic Education Foundation:

The Toronto Foundation for Student Success was launched through Toronto District School Board in 1998 and it administers the distribution of funds to child nutrition programs allocated by the Toronto Child Nutrition Program Steering Committee and to work with Toronto Public Health to ensure program financial accountability. The Foundation also conducts major fundraising, and organizes volunteer appreciation events. The Metropolitan Catholic Education Foundation holds a similar role within the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The Toronto Foundation for Student Success has actively linked community-based programs with neighbouring schools and assumed the financial accountability for municipal funding from community-based programs.

Toronto Public Health: Toronto City Council 165 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Toronto Public Health created an internal Liaison Committee to plan and coordinate public health services to ensure consistent service delivery to child nutrition programs across the City. Budget enhancements in 2000 enabled the hiring of 2 new staff and internal reallocation of 3 additional staff (including dietitians and nutritionists) to the Child Nutrition program. Part of their duties involve nutrition programming for school-aged children. There is now one staff member dedicated to child nutrition in each of the four regions, as well as one with city-wide coordination responsibilities for child nutrition programs. Each program now receives site visits by a Dietitian/Nutritionist to assess its menu for nutritional quality and follow-up consultation throughout the school year to help maintain nutritional standards. They also provide educational workshops on menu costing, menu planning, and other nutrition topics based on program needs . Protocols are now in place to have a Public Health Inspector conduct initial assessments of program sites and to educate the program staff and volunteers about food safety and sanitation requirements.

Public Health staff, along with child nutrition program partners, have developed a program logic model to outline program goals, objectives and outcome indicators. Data for some of the indicators, including nutrition and food safety standards, are being collected and analyzed. In addition, a research and evaluation working group spearheaded by Public Health staff are developing a child nutrition program evaluation strategy to be implemented in January, 2002 pending acceptance of a proposal submitted to the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

Coalition for Student Nutrition:

The Coalition for Student Nutrition renewed itself this year with the goals of capacity building, political advocacy for funding and creating a movement that supports and understands child nutrition programs.

Local Child Nutrition Programs:

Child nutrition programs are strengthened and supported at each site by a local program committee, a part-time paid program coordinator at most sites, and largely by volunteers, which include parents and community members. Over 1,000 volunteers contribute over 100,000 hours per school year, providing the backbone to the daily operation of these programs. Local ownership is fostered through the volunteers and the experience and training gained through child nutrition programs prepares some volunteers for future employment opportunities.

French School Programs:

Toronto’s French School Board has had two child nutrition programs in operation since 1998 without any municipal funding support. They are projecting to have five programs in operation by the 2001/2002 school year and have now linked with Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition.

Conclusions:

As a minimum, this level of funding needs to be sustained in an attempt to meet the needs of Toronto’s children. School communities continue to mobilize to start child nutrition programs to Toronto City Council 166 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 meet their local needs, highlighting the need for municipal funding above current levels. The proposed 2.5 percent funding reduction will compromise existing programs and prevent new programs from forming.

The coordinated efforts of this partnership have improved the quality and standards of child nutrition programs, including nutrition, food safety, financial accountability and community mobilization. The combination of supports from the various partners has created a unique model that other communities have built upon. This infrastructure to maintain and monitor quality assurance standards will become increasingly important as the number of programs continue to grow in the future.

The City continues to play an important role, along with the province, school boards, parents and charitable foundations, in improving the health and readiness to learn of Toronto’s children through high quality child nutrition programs.

Contact:

Connie L. Uetrecht, Manager, Planning & Policy (Healthy Lifestyles), Telephone: (416) 338-7960, Fax: (416) 392-0635; [email protected]

Carol Timmings, Regional Director, East, Tel: (416) 338-7951, Fax: (416) 392-0713; [email protected]

______

Attachment 1

Toronto Child Nutrition Programs 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 Biannual Report

Historical Context:

In the fall of 1997 with the pending amalgamation of both Toronto area municipalities and school boards, Metro Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition formed. This partnership of community groups, public health units and school boards from the former municipalities developed a model for supporting child nutrition programs. In 1998, the co-ordinated efforts of Metro Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition were instrumental in garnering the financial support of City Council for the 218 existing nourishment programs that serve breakfast, lunch or snacks throughout the City. This support was contingent upon matched funding from the province, parents and local fundraising. This funding, along with other co-ordinated efforts such as educational workshops for program staff and volunteers, and an annual Child Nutrition Conference has resulted in an increased quality among all Child Nutrition Programs in the City.

After the approval of the $1,310,500.00, a Steering Committee was established to manage the City’s contribution to child nutrition programs and to ensure matched funding. This committee included representatives from the Foundation for the Advancement of Community and Education (later changed to the Toronto Foundation for Student Success), the Metropolitan Toronto Toronto City Council 167 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Catholic Education Foundation, the Toronto District School Board, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, the Metro Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition (later changed to the Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition) and Toronto Public Health. Contracts were executed between the City and the two education foundations for the distribution and management of the grants to each local program. A funding application process with criteria (appendix a) was initiated in May 1998. The partners reviewed all applications to ensure all criteria were met. Programs were given assistance in order to meet all the requirements for funding. Funding was allocated based upon per capita food, supplies and labour costs to produce a nutritious snack ($0.65), breakfast ($0.85) or lunch ($2.00). A weighted funding formula was created using the 1991 Statistics Canada income data and applied. This enabled lower income communities to receive higher levels of support with the average contribution from the City being 24 percent of anticipated program costs.

Highlights:

Toronto Public Health increased its support for Child Nutrition Programs in 1998/99 with the allocation of two full-time Nutritionists to ensure co-ordination and quality assurance in all programs across the City. Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition developed an application process for child nutrition programs that ensured that funding allocations made by the Steering Committee were fair and equitable.

The 1999/2000 program year has undergone a tremendous growth in the number of programs and the number of children served. As the figures below indicate, there has been a 42% increase in the number of programs operating over the 1998/99 year, with a 37% increase in the number of children served.

Structure, Roles and Responsibilities of each Partner in Child Nutrition:

A chart detailing the roles and responsibilities of all partners is attached in appendix b. A brief description of each partner involved during 1998/99 and 1999/2000 follows.

Toronto Child Nutrition Program Steering Committee

Who: senior management level representatives from all sector partners: Toronto Public Health, Toronto District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board, Toronto Foundation for Student Success, Toronto Catholic Education Foundation, Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition Role: financial management and accountability. Also offer: decision-making regarding financial allocations

Toronto Community Partners for Child Nutrition:

Who: Staff level representation from all sector partners: Toronto Public Health, Toronto District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board, Toronto Foundation for Student Success, Metropolitan Toronto Catholic Education Foundation, FoodShare as well as community representatives from local coalitions: Etobicoke Food for Kids, Food for Thought (Scarborough), York Partners for Child Nutrition, Coalition for Student Nutrition, Feeding Our Future (Toronto, East York and North York) and Catholic Child Nutrition Programs Toronto City Council 168 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Role: make recommendations to steering committee regarding funding allocations, best practices and policy needs; to co-ordinate the application process, training and support needs identified by programs and public education and awareness efforts; to develop and support communication efforts for program fundraising and to maintain program standards and participate in program evaluation

Also offer: annual Child Nutrition Conference. “NutriAction”, providing education, skill building and networking for program staff and volunteers, advocacy.

Toronto Public Health:

Who: Management, Nutritionists and Inspectors for nutrition and food safety, Nurses. Role: Education, support and advocacy ensure co-ordinated public health services to all programs Also offer: annual educational workshops, site visits/inspections, assistance with program start- up, program policies and procedures with respect to health issues, advise Toronto Community Partners on policy needs and issues, assistance with fund-raising and ongoing consultation as needed

Educational Foundations:

Who: Toronto Foundation for Student Success and Metropolitan Toronto Catholic Education Foundation Role: administer funding from the City, the province and the Canadian Living Foundation, ensure local program financial accountability, conduct major fundraising, media promotion, political advocacy, volunteer appreciation events Also offer: ongoing financial consultation and educational workshops to programs

School Boards:

Who: Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District School Boards – local administrative & caretaking staff, TCDSB Community Relations Consultant, Feeding Our Future Committee,; new in 1999/2000: TDSB Nutrition Liaison, Toronto Catholic District School Board School Food Program Committee

Role: support to all school-based programs, including: needs assessment, promotion of programs, linking programs to resources, provide insurance/liability coverage for programs on school property, administrative and care-taking services in the school.

Also offer: Local school staff provide administrative/secretarial and caretaking support. TCDSB Community Relations Consultant conducts needs assessments, supports program start-up and provides ongoing consultation. TDSB provided secretarial support to TCPCN.

Feeding Our Future Committee/Toronto Catholic District School Board School Food Program Committee Toronto City Council 169 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Who: members from various School Board departments, school principals, Public Health, parents, trustees, Toronto Foundation for Student Success, Toronto Education Opportunity Fund

Role: aid in the transition toward a unified program city-wide and act as advisory groups with the goal of generating policies.

Also offer: communication of activities to school boards, identification of supports needed and development of supports to address needs.

Canadian Living Foundation Community Partners Co-ordinators:

Who: community workers in three of the former municipalities representing the East, North and West regions

Role: support local programs, raise awareness, and participate on local & regional committees Also offer: central contact for selected regions within the City.

Coalition for Student Nutrition:

Who: community and agency representation renewed itself in 1999/2000

Role: capacity building, political advocacy at all levels for increased funding, building a movement that understands and supports universal child nutrition programs

Also offer: information sharing

Local Child Nutrition Programs:

Who: mixture of school staff, program staff/volunteers, parents/community members

Role: local committee hires co-ordinator, conducts local fundraising, recruits volunteers, completes funding applications; program co-ordinator is responsible for operation of daily program (budget, shopping, menu planning, recruits volunteers);

Also offer: management/support/decision-making to program(s) on site; liaison between individual programs and the partnership structure Toronto City Council 170 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Child Nutrition Programs Summary for 1998/99

Program Data Toronto District Toronto Catholic Total School Board & District School Board Community Sites Number of programs 199 19 218 Estimated Number of 35,609 4,327 39,936 children participating Number of meals served 4,112,962 755,630 4,868,592 Number of volunteers 744 303 1047 Number of volunteer 91,132 46,590 137,722 hours

Revenue/Resources Toronto District School Toronto Catholic Total Board and Community District School Board Sites Municipal funding* 1,154,715 155,785 1,310,500

Provincial funding 727,803 74,619 802,422 Parental Contributions 1,823,938 105,611 1,929,549 In kind donations 285,000 27,800 312,800 Educational Foundations 378,000 Data not available 378,000* (TFSS & MTCEF) Total Resources $4,269,830 $357,851* $4,733,271

* an under-estimate due to incomplete data.

Expenditures Toronto District School Toronto Catholic Total Board and Community District School Board Sites Food $ 2,648,840 $ 386,449 $ 3,035,289 Staff 1,150,143 85,243 1,235,566 Equipment 70,134 20,141* 90,275 Supplies 87,599 - 87,599 In kind food value 285,000 27,800 312,800 Total expenses 4,241,716 $ 519,633 4,761,529 Surplus in Local $ 28,114 Data not available $28,114 Programs**

*may include equipment and/or supplies ** surplus in local programs is the sum total of cash held in each of the 218 program bank accounts at the end of the school year. Toronto City Council 171 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Child Nutrition Programs Summary for 1999/2000

Program Data1 Toronto District Toronto Catholic Total School Board and District School Board Community Sites Number of programs 285 28 313 Number of children 49,101 5,486 54,587 participating Number of meals served 5,476,538 550,099 6,026,637 Number of volunteers 748 353 1101 Number of volunteer hours 91,496 25,897 117,393

Revenue/Resources Toronto District Toronto Catholic Total School Board and District School Board Community Sites Municipal funding* 1,128,483 182,017 $1,310,500 Provincial funding 864,195 40,534 904,729 Parental Contributions 2,532,469 40,000 2,572,469 In kind donations 535,600 20,019 555,619 Educational 338,310 70,000 408,310 foundations/local fundraising Total Resources 5,399,057 352,570 $5,751,627

Expenditures Toronto District School Toronto Catholic Total Board and Community District School Board Sites Food $ 3,311,050 $ 232,552 $3,543,602 Staff 1,345,274 62,160 1,407,434 Equipment 66,618 2,937* 69,555 Supplies 87,136 87,136 In kind food value 535,600 20,019 555,619 Total Expenses $ 5,345,678 $ 317,668 $5,663,346 Surplus in Local $ 53,378 $ 34,902 $88,280 Programs**

* May include both equipment and supplies – not separated **The Surplus in resources is the sum total of cash held in each of the 310 child nutrition program bank accounts at the end of the school year.

In-Kind Contributions to Programs:

In-kind contributions to programs consist mainly of donated food from corporate donors such as The Great Canadian Bagel, Kelloggs, Quaker and grocery stores local to each program. Toronto City Council 172 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Future Challenges:

Funding

Although the core municipal funds continue to strengthen these programs, the need for sustained funding for the rapid expansion and growth of programs is not being met. There continues to be a lack of adequate provincial funding through Canadian Living Foundation. Provincial funds that are available to start new programs are not meeting this growing need. A need has been identified for secondary school students but no current municipal funding sources are available to this group. Of the thirteen new programs of the 2000/2001 school year serving 2000 children, five programs are located in secondary schools. Advocating for adequate provincial funding for nutrition programs for children of all ages will be a challenge for coming years.

City of Toronto Amalgamation

Amalgamation presented benefits and challenges to child nutrition programs. While Toronto Public Health and Board of Education staff time and resources were increased to co-ordinate these programs city-wide, it became clear that more staff and resources were needed to ensure the implementation and monitoring of quality programs. Additional staff time is required in the future to ensure the efficiencies of a co-ordinated approach are achieved and that all programs meet minimum standards.

Need for Better City-wide Co-ordination

The growing number of programs and partners involved in child nutrition in Toronto has provided a challenge for effective city-wide co-ordination. Previous disparities in community-level support need to be equalised and consistent standards and processes need to be in place. Some of this has already started to happen but a program evaluation tool will help to monitor the program as a whole, identify needs and ensure program objectives are being met. Toronto Public Health will take the lead in designing an evaluation tool with the input of community partners and co-ordinate an annual evaluation of programs starting in the 2000/2001 year.

Maintaining and Sustaining Volunteer Support

Programs are very dependent upon volunteers to maintain program standards, especially in the absence of a paid program co-ordinator. Lack of funding contributes to this problem when funds are not sufficient to allow for a staff co-ordinator at the program site. Funds that can be used for staffing need to be secured in the future for all programs and a focus on volunteer retention and recognition needs to occur.

Canadian Living Foundation Community Partners Co-ordinators:

These co-ordinators working in the north, west and east regions of the city supported local programs, raised awareness in the community and represented the local community on city-wide committees. The fragmented representation of city neighbourhoods and insecure funding for Toronto City Council 173 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 these positions resulted in a lack of infrastructure support. Future community partner positions need to be secure and representative of all parts of the City. Donated Foods:

Donated foods are provided from businesses and from local food banks. While these donations are a welcome contribution and do help to sustain many programs, there is no choice in the foods programs receive and it often sacrifices nutritional quality. Developing a co-ordinated approach or group buying system for nutrient dense foods such as vegetables and fruit may help to alleviate this dependence on donations. Toronto Public Health will investigate strategies to achieve increased access to vegetables and fruit for programs in the 2000/2001 year

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (April 12, 2001) from the Secretary, Board of Health entitled, “Toronto Public Health Budget 2001”:

Recommendations:

The Board of Health recommends that:

(1) the Policy and Finance Committee reverse the Budget Advisory Committee’s most recent recommendations (of April 6, 2001) and restore funding to the Toronto Public Health Budget to the amount of $63,438,500.00 (net) as recommended by the Budget Advisory Committee on March 26, 2001;

(2) the City Auditor be requested to:

(a) investigate and account for the $13.2 million interdepartmental charges in the Toronto Public Health budget and report back to the Board of Health and the Budget Advisory Committee; and

(b) investigate and report back to the Board of Health and the Budget Advisory Committee on a competitive process whereby the IT program could be out-sourced; and

(3) $317,000.00 (net), $634,000.00 (gross) be reinstated for the food premises disclosure system.

The Board of Health reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee, having:

(A) reiterated its support for the non-mandatory dental programs available to low income and poor children and seniors and advised that it will seek ways to preserve this important service;

(B) requested the Medical Officer of Health to report to the Board for its next meeting on the extent to which the City’s budget cuts will prevent the Toronto Board of Health from meeting its obligations under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, such report to include comment as to whether the Board needs to seek the assistance of Ontario’s Chief Toronto City Council 174 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Medical Officer in requiring the City to provide funding in order to meet its legal obligations;

(C) requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Medical Officer of Health to bring forward previous reports with respect to tendering the dental services between the Ontario Dental Association and other delivery service models and to comment on why the Ontario Dental Association was not selected through this fair tendering process; and

(D) requested the Medical Officer of Health to report to the Board of Health on service improvement initiatives currently underway and additional options for reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of public health programs including, but not limited to, a value for money audit process.

Background:

At the meeting of the Board of Health on April 10, 2001, the Chair gave a verbal update report on the 2001 Public Health Budget and the Medical Officer of Health gave an overhead slide presentation with respect thereto.

Councillor Olivia Chow and Councillor Pam McConnell appeared before the Board in connection with this matter.

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following report (April 12, 2001) from the Chair, Toronto District School Board entitled, “Financial Accord between the City of Toronto and the Toronto District School Board”:

Purpose:

To outline the options for creating a financial accord between the City and the TDSB to mitigate the effects of provincial downloading on both organizations and to enhance co-operation and operational effectiveness between these two organizations.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The options outlined in this report represent between $16.4 million and $21.4 million in additional costs to the City on an annualized basis. The impact on the 2001 budget would be reduced to no more than $7.1 million because the programs are to be funded only for the last four months of the year. Further reduction of impact could be achieved through a number of offsets or expenditure deferrals.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City and the TDSB establish a stable funding protocol that would provide predictable and stable inter-organization funding for a three-year period; Toronto City Council 175 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(2) the City transfer school board tax revenues to the Toronto District School Board within 15 days of the tax payment due date at an estimated annual cost of $6-million to $8-million; (3) the City’s Parks and Recreation Department contribute to the community-use of schools to offset new permit fees implemented by the TDSB effective September 2000 at an estimated annual cost of $6-million to $9-million;

(4) the City’s Commissioner of Economic Development, Parks and Tourism and the TDSB’s Executive Officer, Business Services report by September 2001 on the potential for a consolidated permit issuing office between the two organisations;

(5) the City’s Parks and Recreation Department contribute to the operational costs of 41 of the TDSB’s 85 swimming pools at an estimated annual net cost of $4.2 million. See Appendix A for a list of the 41 pools and the operating costs;

(6) the City restore its level of grants to the TDSB nutrition programs at an annual estimated cost of $215,000 thousand;

(7) there be no charge to the TDSB for the collection of waste or recyclables from the 600 TDSB locations at an estimated annual cost to the TDSB of $2.5-million;

(8) the TDSB agree, in principle, to accommodate “before and after school” children’s programs in TDSB schools at no charge where these programs are funded in whole or in part by the City and where space is available between 8:00 am. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday;

(9) the issue of landscaping and snow removal at TDSB’s 560 schools be referred to a working group of TDSB and City officials with the objective of maintaining operational effectiveness, maximizing the utilization of specialized equipment and minimizing operational costs and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the TDSB’s Executive Officer, Facilities Services report on this matter by September, 2001;

(10) the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the TDSB’s Executive Officer, Facilities Services report to the Policy and Finance Committee and the Toronto District School Board’s Business and Facilities Committee on the status of negotiations over the TDSB’s administrative buildings at 1 Civic Centre Court, 5050 Yonge Street, the Scarborough Civic Centre and leasing at 2 Trethewey;

(11) the City’s Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer and the TDSB’s Executive Officer of Business Services report by September 2001 on the potential for increased co-operative purchasing between the two organizations;

(12) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the TDSB Executive Officer of Facilities Services report by September 2001 on the impact of waiving building fees, planning application fees, and development charges on school and residential construction projects implemented by the TDSB; Toronto City Council 176 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(13) the Chief Administrative Officer, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the TDSB’s Executive Officer of Facilities Services report by September 2001 to the Policy and Finance Committee and the TDSB Business and Facilities Committee on the strategic importance of the TDSB as a customer of Toronto Hydro and on ways of building alliances between Toronto Hydro, the City, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, the Better Buildings Partnership and the TDSB to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy costs to the TDSB; and

(14) the Commissioner of Corporate Services report to the Policy and Finance Committee by September 2001 on the potential for including the TDSB in the Better Transportation Partnership.

Background:

In 1998 the Government of Ontario imposed a new financial regime on school boards in Ontario, eliminating their ability to levy property taxes and mandating prescriptive funding formulas for school board expenditures. In Toronto this new funding formula will mean a reduction of $360 million between 1998 and 2003.

There are two significant problems with the funding formula as it relates to the City of Toronto:

(1) the formula only funds the regular school day program, so that many previously funded programs no longer qualify for provincial funding; and

(2) the funding formula is inadequate to meet the needs of high cost urban school boards in general and the TDSB in particular.

The total impact of the funding formula has been delayed because the province has provided one-time mitigation funds to allow the Board to adapt to its new level of funding. These funds are almost depleted and the Board is faced with an additional $127-million in expenditure reductions over the next two years.

During the past three years, TDSB staff have been meeting with staff from the City to address areas of mutual concern. These meetings have resulted in an agreement by the City to pay for space used for child care centres in TDSB schools, although this agreement has not been executed; the parks and recreation department has also agreed to the TDSB’s new schedule of permit fees.

There are several areas where staff have been meeting to discuss possible new funding relationships, including:

(a) operational funding of TDSB swimming pools, which are used extensively by the City for Parks and Recreation programming;

(b) elimination of waste disposal and collection of recyclables from the TDSB’s 560 schools; Toronto City Council 177 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(d) Energy efficiency retrofit programs for TDSB buildings.

In addition, there are several areas where there has been no recent dialogue, but where the City or the TDSB believe that funding relationships should be reviewed, including:

(a) elimination of snow removal on sidewalks adjacent to TDSB schools;

(b) elimination of composters at TDSB schools; and

Last year a mutual concerns committee comprised of TDSB Trustees and City Councillors held public meetings across the city to hear from the public on the following issue:

(a) Community use of schools for recreational purposes.

Discussion:

The City of Toronto, its predecessor municipalities, the Toronto District School Board and its legacy school boards have a long history of working together to improve the quality of life in the city. Provincial amalgamation of the cities and the school boards, the downloading of program responsibilities to the City and the imposition of funding cutbacks to the TDSB have all created an atmosphere where money is in short supply and basic community programs and services are being threatened.

The TDSB’s mandate and its first obligation is to provide instructional programming to approximately 300,000 students to meet the provincial core curriculum. Given the prescriptive nature of the provincial funding formula and the TDSB’s inability to raise funds from the property tax base, the TDSB has been forced to raise user fees on community/recreational users for its property and to look at which programs should be modified or provided at all.

Where important community programs are being threatened due to lack of funding from the province, we believe the City may have an interest in continuing these programs by funding them in whole or in part. We believe that there are also operational efficiencies between the City and the TDSB that could result in streamlined service delivery and reduced cost.

In order to ensure that we address these issues of shared concern and provide certainty as to how we will move forward, it is important that we achieve agreement on the major issues before us and establish a period of certainty during which this financial relationship will be stable. Such an agreement should be for a minimum of three years, which would allow the next Council and Board the opportunity to reconsider the issues and make such amendments, as they deem appropriate.

There are areas in which we have made progress by working together. These include: Toronto City Council 178 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Child care:

There are 290 child care centres operating in TDSB schools. An agreement has been reached which will provide that the City will pay the cost of the space occupied for the purposes of a child care. Staff is currently completing the inventory of space used and is near completion of the formal contract, which will be presented to Council and the School Board.

Permit fees for city use of school facilities:

The City makes extensive use of TDSB schools to provide its Parks and Recreation programs. In May 31, 2000, TDSB passed and implemented a policy for the use of school space after hours effective September 1, 2000. These charges reflect the fact that the provincial funding model does not include funding for after hours use of schools. The City has undertaken to pay these charges and has implemented similar charges for school board use of City property. The City has withheld payment of these charges pending completion of discussions between the City and the Board on garbage collection and pools.

There are, however, many other areas in which the discussions have not been completed or where there are ongoing elements that have not been addressed. These include:

Permit fees for community use of schools:

Permit fees for community use of schools were implemented effective September 1, 2000 in order to cover costs that are not covered by the provincial funding model for education.

This use represents a wide range of community-based activities including youth recreational and educational programs, adult athletics, cultural groups, neighbourhood associations, Scouts and Guides and religious groups. These groups represent 381,000 hours of use annually. The Board did create a subsidized rate for community groups for children and youth that will be reviewed when mitigation funds expire and if provincial funding for community use of schools has not been obtained in order to provide for full cost recovery. An extensive consultation was carried out in the fall of 2000 that confirmed that many community groups would be at risk of closing their operations because of the new charges. The estimated cost of these uses in TDSB schools is $6-9 million.

TDSB pools:

The Board owns and operates 85 swimming pools across the former cities of Toronto, North York, Scarborough and East York. The provincial funding model does not provide for either the $9.4 million that it costs to operate and maintain these pools nor the more than $2 million in program costs. The City has expressed an interest in 41 of these pools for its parks and recreation needs. The annual costs associated with the 41 pools that were of interest to the City was $4.9 million and there are $729,000 in revenues generated from these pools which leaves a net cost of $4.2 million. Without the financial support of the City it is likely that the Board will curtail or eliminate the operation of these pools. Toronto City Council 179 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Nutrition programs:

Beginning in 1998, the City began to provide funds for breakfast, snack and lunch programs in schools. The City’s contribution represents about 24% of the total costs of these programs, however, it has proposed to cut these funds by 2.5% for 2001. This will cause hardship for the 50,000 pupils that are involved in these programs, falling most heavily on programs where the need is greatest. In addition, the City budget has not provided the $172,000 in additional funds for the 2,000 additional children that were enrolled in these programs for the first time in the preceding year. The impact of these two decisions would create a deficiency of $215,000 for the year 2001, which represents about 240,000 breakfasts for children. The Board is active in securing other resources from the private sector, but this cannot replace the important contribution of the City of Toronto.

Tax transfer:

Prior to amalgamation, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto provided tax revenues to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board (MTSB) within ten days after they were collected. The result of this schedule was that revenue was received by MTSB before expenditures were incurred and MTSB generally had a positive cash flow. Following amalgamation, the City of Toronto began to make payments at the end of each quarter.

This has meant a negative cash flow for the Board, which leads to borrow costs. The reduction in the funds available to the Board has meant less investment income and more borrowing costs with a net impact in lost revenue of $6-8 million annually. Although the City incurs costs to collect taxes from property tax payers, the incremental costs of collecting the school board portion of the property tax is nominal and we would be willing to negotiate an appropriate nominal fee for this service.

Waste and recyclables collection at schools:

City staff have advised that they are developing a policy for solid waste management which will include consultation with the community including the school board. It is anticipated that such a new policy could have a serious impact on the school board. It is recommended that no such charge be applied to school boards because it would have an adverse impact on funds available for students and their schools.

Before and After School programs:

The former City of York had before and after school programs in its schools. The new funding model does not provide for such programs and the Board has had to cut its support for staffing and supplies for these programs. The Board is, however, able to continue to provide space for these programs at no charge during the normal operational hours that our schools are opened.

Snow removal:

There were various arrangements that existed within the municipalities prior to amalgamation. The Board has received mixed messages as to the direction in which the City is headed for the Toronto City Council 180 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 future. This area along with grass cutting represents a possibility of significant savings through co-operation in such matters as capital expenditures on equipment.

Playing fields:

The provincial funding model does not provide for summer use of school playing fields. In order for these facilities to remain available to the public the City will have to provide for summer and long term maintenance and permit administration costs. In addition, there is significant potential to increase operational effectiveness and to maximize the utilization of specialized equipment by having either the City or the Board provide landscaping services to avoid duplication.

TDSB construction:

TDSB receives approximately $39 million in capital grants from the province for renewal of its schools – a decrease from the pre-amalgamation capital budget of $70-million. This compares unfavourably with the minimal amount of $110 million that would be required to maintain the Board’s buildings in good order. The Board receives no money for new schools in areas where new pupil places are needed and is attempting to generate the revenue for new pupil places from the leasing of its surplus schools. In addition, the board is faced with a shortage of teachers and will be considering construction of housing for teachers using our excess school capacity as a means of attracting and keeping new teachers. All of these needs and plans are expensive but are required if our public elementary and secondary schools in Toronto are going to be able to meet the needs of our children. Building permits, planning application fees, and development charges on residential construction represent a significant cost in meeting these objectives. Relief from these costs would make a significant contribution to the future of our schools.

Sale of administrative buildings:

The City has expressed an interest in some of the administrative buildings that the Board has available for sale. Every effort should be made to expedite this matter.

Co-operative purchasing:

While both the City and the Board are large purchasers of many items, there may be significant savings that can be achieved in some areas. In addition, there may be some operational efficiencies that can be achieved by having either the City or the Board staff assume responsibilities for selected contracts.

Energy efficiency:

The Board is a major user of energy as evidenced by the $30 million that was spent on Hydro and the $34 million that will be spent on natural gas this year. These amounts will increase by $17 million this year, which represents increases in the cost of natural gas. The City is the supplier of electricity and the Board would like to enter into discussions to building alliances between Toronto Hydro, the City, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, the Better Buildings Partnership and the TDSB to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy costs to the TDSB. Toronto City Council 181 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Conclusion:

The downloading and cuts to education expenditures that accompanied amalgamation have placed incredible pressure on the City and the Board to provide the quality services that residents of the City have enjoyed for years and expect will continue. We must work together to convince the Province to undo the most harmful of its decisions. This, however, will take time and we have to address the current issues even though they were not of our making.

We have presented here some initiatives that we believe can lead to positive outcomes for the residents of our City. As elected representatives we owe it to our common constituents to make every effort to find ways to preserve and perhaps even enhance the services that we provide. It is in this spirit that this presentation is made and we look forward to working with you to address our common concerns.

Contact:

Brian Cain, Executive Officer, Business Services, (416) 395-8216, [email protected]

Brian Lenglet, Comptroller, Board Services, (416) 397-3195, [email protected]

Gary Parkinson, Executive Officer, Facility Services, (416) 397-2566, [email protected]

______

(A copy of Appendix A, entitled “Toronto District School Board Facility Services - Operations 2000/01 Pool Operating Costs (EST) City Interest was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 17, 2001, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Policy and Finance Committee also submits the following communication (April 12, 2001) from Ms. Ann Dembinski, President, Local 79, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE):

The Policy and Finance Committee is meeting to consider the 2001 Operating and Capital Budgets that have been by the Budget Advisory Committee.

Because our members work on the front-lines in delivering many of the City’s vital services, Local 79 has been following the budget process carefully and working with Local 416 and the community in the Stand up for Toronto campaign. In this submission, we would like to explain our serious objections to the budget that has been proposed.

Last week, the Mayor announced a combination of measures, including $50 million in new provincial money, that will provide some short term relief for the City’s financial problems. But this “solution” to the budget crisis is based on $153 million in cuts to the City’s programs and services. In every department and program area, it is no exaggeration to say that these cuts will have a devastating impact on the quality of life in Toronto. Toronto City Council 182 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

In Public Health, the Budget Committee has recommended a series of harmful cuts, including the cancellation of the City’s 80 year old, publicly funded dental program for low-income children and seniors. The new and rigorous restaurant rating system is also in jeopardy. In Parks and Recreation and the Culture Divisions, reduced weeks or hours of operation--and even the closure of valuable community assets--are being proposed. Toronto City Council 183 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The City will not be well-served by the scope and magnitude of these, and other, budget cuts, or by the short-term fix that is built upon them. A long-term solution to the Province’s downloading of costs and services to Toronto is urgently required. In social housing and public transportation, but also in children’s services, social services, public health and transportation, the provincial government must negotiate a fair and reasonable deal with the City of Toronto.

While trying to negotiate a new financial arrangement, the City must continue to address our own pressing needs. That is why Local 79 supports the City’s application for an 11th Home for the Aged. Despite Council’s support for the project, the Budget Committee proposed deferring the new Home. Councillors must understand that the Province’s deadlines do not allow any deferral. The City must stand behind its application for this Home now.

The Police Services Board’s proposed budget includes the contracting-out of cleaners and caretakers in the police stations in order to pay wages that are 50 percent lower than currently. This recommendation should be quashed.

The City’s employees are your most valuable resource. It is the front-line staff in programs and service delivery who make this a City that works.

While cleaners in the police stations were among the first targetted for contracting-out, so-called alternative service delivery and competitive bidding are being urged on programs and services across the City: information technology, vehicle maintenance, garage operations, cleaning services, solid waste, water services, the list goes on and on. Local 79 urges you to reject this destructive and short-sighted direction.

Toronto has been justifiably proud of its characterization as a “liveable City”. We call on the Policy and Finance Committee to preserve this reputation by working towards an equitable deal with the Province while maintaining the programs and services that make Toronto a vibrant and healthy City.

______

Reports referred to in Appendix “1” in the communication (April 11, 2001) from the City Clerk:

(Report dated March 26, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Funding of the Street Involved Youth Program - Formerly the Squeegee Working Youth Mobilization (SWYM) Program”)

Purpose:

To provide Budget Advisory Committee with an update on revised funding for the Squeegee Working Youth Mobilization (SWYM) Program, now known as the Street Involved Youth Toronto City Council 184 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Program (Policy and Finance Committee, at its meeting of February 15, 2001, recommended this change in the name of the Program). Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The continuation of the Street Involved Youth Program (SIYP) for the year 2001 was included in the department’s 2001 budget request at $550,127.00 gross, $170,000.00 net (down from $250,000.00 net in 2000). This request has now been revised as it will be transferred to and funded through the federal Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) under an agreement to commence April 1, 2001. The revised net budget request is $42,500.00 for 2001.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the original departmental 2001 budget request for funding of the Street Involved Youth Program (SIYP) be reduced from $550,127.00 gross, $170,000.00 net to $550,127.00 gross, $42,500.00 net; and

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

Background:

In October 2000, Council endorsed the Community Plan for Homelessness in Toronto - Implementing the Federal Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI). The Community Plan set out the City’s framework and priorities for the implementation of SCPI. It should also be noted that 2 projects, including SIYP, formerly funded by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) were designated for transfer to the SCPI funding as SCPI was identified as a more appropriate vehicle for supporting them.

At its meeting of March 20, 2001, the Budget Advisory Committee requested that the Department provide further information on the status of funding for SIYP for its budget wrap-up meeting.

Comments:

Commencing April 1, 2001, federal funding for the program will flow through the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI). As a result of the change in federal funding program, the City contribution required for 2001 is reduced from $170,000.00 to $42,500.00 on a total gross annual program budget of $550,127.00.

For the 2002/2003 Federal fiscal year, SIYP will be required to re-apply for funding with other agencies being funded under SCPI.

Conclusion: Toronto City Council 185 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The proposed 2001 departmental budget will be reducing its net contribution from $170,000.00 to $45,200.00 for the SIYP program due to the transfer to SCPI funding. Toronto City Council 186 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Contact Name:

Ms. Geraldine Babcock, Coordinator, Youth Programs, Social Development and Administration Division, Tel: 397-1750, Fax: 392-8492, E-mail: [email protected].

______

(Report dated March 12, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the City Auditor, entitled “Hostel Vacancy and Bed Rates”)

Purpose:

To comment on the hostel vacancy and bed rates as requested by the Policy and Finance Committee, at its meeting of February 12, 2001.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

(1) review the reservation policy of all shelters with a view to maintaining a balance between maximizing bed space usage and providing assurance that a bed space will be available to a client who is registered in a shelter;

(2) provide all shelters with a clear definition of an occupied bed for the purposes of reporting the daily occupancy data and establishing the number of bed spaces eligible for the per diem fee to be paid by the City;

(3) enhance the agency review officers’ site visits to the shelters to include random verification checks of the per diem billings and occupancy data submitted by the shelters;

(4) ensure that the bed space capacity used in calculating occupancy rates is calculated properly when new bed spaces are added into the emergency shelter system;

(5) in consultation with City Legal, review the need to update the service agreements with service providers that were previously made with the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; and

(6) ensure that timely and accurate hostel bed vacancy information is available and accessible to agencies or individuals in need of this information; opportunities may exist to co-ordinate the process with Street Helpline, a program of Community Information Toronto. Toronto City Council 187 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Background:

At its meeting of February 12, 2001, the Policy and Finance Committee considered a report from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendations from the Community Services Committee in response to the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee’s (TDRC) “State of the Disaster” report. TDRC is a group of social policy, health care and housing experts, activists and individuals from various sectors of the community who are focused on the issue of homelessness in the City of Toronto. One of the issues arising from the meeting related to discrepancies between the vacancy rates reported by City staff and those obtained by the TDRC during its own bed check calls of the various shelters.

In a report to the Community Services Committee of January 25, 2001, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services indicated that “current occupancy levels in the emergency shelter system range from approximately 80 percent to 95 percent depending on the time of year and the population group seeking service.” The TDRC conducted its own availability checks by calling each of several shelters two or four times between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. for a number of days between January 23, 2001 and February 1, 2001. Based on the survey results, the occupancy rates ranged from 91 percent to 99 percent for each client group of men, women and youth.

The Policy and Finance Committee requested the City Auditor to comment to the Budget Advisory Committee on the hostel vacancy rates and bed rates.

Comments:

The objective of this review was to assess the accuracy of the occupancy rates reported by City staff and to provide information on the related per diem fees.

Our review included the following:

(i) interviews with staff of Shelter, Housing and Support Division, Community and Neighbourhood Services Department;

(ii) interviews with staff of Street Helpline, a program of Community Information Toronto, a non-profit agency which provides space availability information of the various emergency shelters;

(iii) interview with staff of Out of the Cold Resource Centre, a non-profit agency which administers the Out of the Cold Program;

(iv) visits to one City-operated hostel and three non-profit community shelters; and

(v) review of reports and other documentation. Toronto City Council 188 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Hostel Vacancy/Occupancy Rates:

A hostel vacancy rate is calculated based on the number of vacant bed spaces in relation to the total available bed space capacity. Conversely, the occupancy rate is based on the number of occupied spaces in relation to the total capacity. A hostel vacancy or occupancy rate is used to measure the availability of bed spaces for people in need of emergency shelter. In 1999, Council approved a level of 90 percent occupancy rate for the emergency shelter system for adults and youth. The 90 percent target was deemed to be the desired occupancy level that would provide the flexibility and responsiveness needed in the emergency shelter system.

A recent staff report indicated that the weekly occupancy rates for adults and youth, for the period November 2000 to February 2001, ranged from as high as 95 percent in mid-December to as low as 85 percent in early February. These rates are calculated based on the daily occupancy data submitted by the shelters and the maximum bed space capacity as negotiated with each shelter. The occupancy data is submitted by all the shelters to Hostel Services on a weekly basis either by fax, e-mail or telephone. Reliance is placed on the shelter for the accuracy of the numbers provided. To ensure the accuracy of this information, there is a need to perform random checks of the reported occupancy data. These checks could be incorporated as part of the current site visits to the shelters by agency review officers.

During our review, we noted that some shelters’ occupancy data included a number of bed spaces that were not actually occupied. These bed spaces include those reserved for registered clients who failed to return to the shelter or were out for the night on a pass, as discussed below. As a result, the actual occupancy rate could be lower than reported. The Division’s practice requires that such beds be reported as vacant. There is a need to provide the shelters with a clear definition of an occupied bed for the purpose of reporting occupancy data.

On the other hand, we also noted that when new bed spaces were added into the system, the capacity figures used to calculate the occupancy rates were not adjusted properly to reflect the average capacity. Therefore, the actual occupancy rate could be higher than reported, for the period when new bed spaces were added into the system. Hostel Services staff need to ensure that the average shelter capacity is properly calculated when reporting the occupancy rates during periods when new bed spaces are added to the system.

Daily Bed Space Availability:

Each client registered at a shelter is assigned a bed space at the time of registration. Generally, the bed space is held for the registered client until the client is discharged, at which point the bed space is made available to other clients. A client is considered discharged upon notification to the shelter or when the shelter deems that the registered client will not be returning. However, the time when a client is deemed discharged varies from shelter to shelter.

Each shelter imposes a curfew, which could vary from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. However, even after curfew, a shelter may still hold a client’s bed until a final bed check is taken at a later time or until its official discharge time which could be as late as 4:00 a.m. In addition, certain shelters provide passes to clients allowing them to stay out for a night or two without losing their bed Toronto City Council 189 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 space. In such cases, the shelter may not release the bed space to other clients and the bed space would be listed as occupied. When a shelter is checked for space availability at any given time, the number of spaces reported would be those bed spaces that have not been assigned to a registered client as at that time. Therefore, the number of available spaces varies from time to time, with the actual numbers not generally known until after the final bed check which, as previously stated, could be as late as 4:00 a.m.

There are practical reasons why a shelter may hold a bed for a client even after curfew. For example, a shelter would likely hold a bed for a client who is known to return at a later time. However, there is a need to maintain a balance between maximizing bed space usage and providing the assurance that a bed space will be available to a client who is registered in a shelter. In order to address this issue, the number of registered clients who fail to return could be monitored and a portion of those bed spaces could be made available at an earlier time prior to the final bed check. This practice is currently followed by Seaton House, a City-operated hostel, which places a number of clients on a waiting list until approximately 12:30 a.m., when the final bed check has been taken. At this time, the registered clients who failed to return are deemed discharged and the bed spaces are assigned to those on the waiting list. Should all registered clients subsequently return to the shelter, it is theoretically possible that a bed space would not be available. However, shelter staff indicated that this has never happened.

Street Helpline, a program of Community Information Toronto, which is a non-profit agency partly funded by the City, provides bed space availability information to agencies or individuals seeking emergency shelter. Staff at Street Helpline call the various shelters daily to keep track of space availability. Street Helpline also maintains a web-based hostel/shelter bed registry, showing a detailed listing of emergency shelters, including the number of available spaces at each shelter as at a certain time. However, the listing is not up-to-date. Some shelters are not in the listing and the space availability information is not always current. In addition, certain bed space capacity figures are not accurate. While we understand that the shelters have been provided the capability to directly update their own space availability information, this is not being done. Given the constant change in space availability and the timeliness of the updates, the usefulness of such information on the web site is greatly diminished.

With respect to the occupancy data obtained by TDRC, the figures reported would have been based on registered occupancy, rather than actual occupancy, as the calls were made prior to the final bed checks. The occupancy data reported by City staff, however, is based on actual occupancy. We are also told that the vacancy figures reported by one City-operated hostel to TDRC during its calls would have pertained to the hostel area only and excluded five other specialized areas, which had total actual vacancy of 22 to 30 spaces during that period. In addition, the capacity figures used by TDRC were taken from Street Helpline data which vary slightly from City records. As a result, discrepancies arose between the occupancy data reported by TDRC and City staff. Toronto City Council 190 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Capacity:

As at February 2001, the total bed space capacity provided by the City under the Hostel Services program is as follows:

Emergency Transitional Total Extreme Out of the Boarding Total Shelter Residential Emergency Weather Cold (*) Homes Capacity Adult Men 1,126 348 1,474 50 28 107 1,659 Adult Women 473 36 509 10 2 82 603 Adult Co-ed 487 120 607 22 128 681 1,438 Male Youth 99 - 99 - - - 99 Female Youth 27 - 27 - - - 27 Co-ed Youth 303 56 359 8 11 - 378 2,515 560 3,075 90 169 870 4,204

Families (**) 1,974 60 2,034 - - - 2,034

Total 4,489 620 5,109 90 169 870 6,238

Source: Weekly Occupancy Details, Feb. 12-18, 2001, Hostel Services. * Bed spaces are calculated based on a nightly average. ** Capacity is based on the number of persons that can be accommodated using the highest average usage. Actual capacity may vary based on need.

For adults and youth, 3,075 bed spaces are available on full-time basis and additional 90 bed spaces when an extreme weather alert is called. Also, under the Out of the Cold Program, an average of 169 bed spaces nightly are available during the cold weather months. These bed spaces are provided by a number of faith community organizations, most of which are open one night a week.

The type of accommodation varies from shelter to shelter and can range from a single bed to a bunk bed, cot, or mat. The number of clients accommodated in a room can also range from one in a single room to 36 in a dormitory-type room. The basic service provided to a client who seeks emergency shelter consists of a bed space and meals. Other services may also be provided by a shelter including referrals to other community services, counselling and other programs designed to assist clients in their return to the community. Some shelters also provide specialized services for certain client groups such as those who are suffering from AIDS, mental health problems or substance addiction.

For families, the City provides approximately 2,034 person-capacity based on the highest average usage, but actual capacity varies based on need. Accommodation is provided at three City-operated shelters, six non-profit community shelters and twelve motels. The type of accommodation varies according to the size of the family and the type of shelter. For families accommodated in motels, the motels provide room accommodation only, while the City provides food allowance and other programs through the City-operated shelters. Toronto City Council 191 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Hostel Bed Rates:

In 2000, the City’s total actual costs, total bed night occupancy and average per diem rates were as follows:

City-operated Purchased Hostels** Hostels Motels* Total Single Adult & Youth Total costs $17,585,700 $29,693,600 - $47,279,300 Total bed night occupancy 222,200 771,000 - 993,200 Average per diem rate $79.14 $38.51 - $47.60

Families Total costs $9,669,500 $5,251,500 $6,519,600 $21,440,600 Total bed night occupancy 135,900 128,600 319,900 584,400 Average per diem rate $71.15 $40.84 $20.38 $36.69

TOTAL Total costs $27,255,200 $34,945,100 $6,519,600 $68,719,900 Total bed night occupancy 358,100 899,600 319,900 1,577,600 Average per diem rate $76.11 $38.85 $20.38 $43.56

* For comparative purposes, total costs for motels include motel room costs and food allowance for motel clients. ** For details, see Appendix 1.

As shown in the above table, the City’s average cost for each bed night occupancy is $43.56, based on 2000 total actual costs. The City, in turn, recovers from the Province 80 percent of a maximum per diem rate of $34.50 or $27.60, and 100 percent for Indian with Status clients. For 2001, the maximum per diem rate set by the Province has been increased to $38.00. The difference between the City’s average per diem rate and the maximum rate allowed by the Province, resulted in the City funding 37 percent of actual shelter costs in the City of Toronto. Had the City funded at the 20 percent level, its cost would have decreased by approximately $11 million.

The City provides funding to over 40 community non-profit emergency shelters for adults and youth, on a per diem basis, under a service agreement. The per diem rate varies from shelter to shelter and is negotiated with each service provider at the time the agreement is initiated. The per diem rate may also be subject to negotiation annually as circumstances change. Several factors are taken into consideration when establishing the per diem rate such as level of funding from other sources, capacity, level of service provided and operational costs. Toronto City Council 192 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The 2000 per diem rates for purchased hostels for adults and youth were as follows:

Number of Total Percent of Per Diem Rates Client Group shelters Capacity Total

$70.00 - $75.00 2 35 1.6 Women $54.00 1 33 1.5 Youth $50.50 17 791 36.6 Men, women, co-ed, youth $40.00 - $46.75 5 207 9.6 Men, co-ed, youth 25 1,066 49.3 $30.00 - $38.00 9 596 27.5 Men, women, co-ed $21.00 - $27.60 * 9 476 22.0 Men, co-ed, youth $15.00 - $16.00 3 26 1.2 Men, women 21 1,098 50.7

Total *46 2,164 100.0

* Includes four shelters at regular per diem rate of $50.50 and overflow capacity rate of $27.60

As shown in the above table, the per diem rates for purchased hostels accommodating adults and youth range from $15.00, which covers only the cost of maintenance and utilities of the shelter, to $75.00 for an 18-bed capacity shelter providing full service without funding from other sources.

Ten participating shelters, which provide 90 additional bed spaces in case of an extreme weather alert, are paid a flat fee of either $150.00 or $200.00 per night, as negotiated with the shelter, in addition to the regular per diem fee for actual occupancy. The flat fee is used to cover additional staff that would be required to support the added capacity. During the period December 2000 to February 2001, 11 days were declared with an extreme weather alert. The City paid a total of $28,000.00, including $21,000.00 in flat fees and regular per diem fees for 231 bed night occupancy, or an effective per diem rate of $121.21.

Under the Out of the Cold Program, the City provides funding to Out of the Cold Resource Centre, a non-profit agency which provides a pool of staff to participating faith community organizations. The Centre provides staff for counselling, caretaking and safety to 24 of 31 faith communities that provide overnight accommodation, mostly one night a week. The Centre also provides staffing and supplies to five of the 20 communities that provide a lunch program. In 2000, the program provided services to participating organizations, which provided approximately 71,700 bed nights, for a total cost of $1,946,000.00 or an average per diem rate of $27.14.

Under the Habitat Program, a joint program with the Ministry of Health, the City provides shelter to clients with mental health problems in over 90 boarding homes and rooming houses providing 870 bed spaces. The City provides funding to these homes based on per diem rates ranging from $10.99 to $23.50, 80 percent of which is recovered from the Province. Toronto City Council 193 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

For families, the City has service agreements with six non-profit community shelters and twelve motels. Funding to the community shelters for families is based on regular per diem rates of $34.50 to $50.50 and overflow capacity rate of $27.60. The room rates paid to motels vary according to the size of the family being accommodated. The motel room rates range from $37.35 for a family of two to $81.00 for a family of ten, plus $4.00 to $6.00 per room for phone and administration costs. Since the motels do not provide meals, the City provides daily food allowances of $7.64 to $32.20 for each family, depending on the size of the family.

Most of the agreements with the service providers were made with the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The agreements are for a term of one year, with a provision that, in the event that a renewal agreement is not in place after the expiry date and until such time as a renewal agreement is made, the terms of the current agreement will remain in place for as long as both parties continue to provide services or payments for services. The agreements have not yet been updated since amalgamation in 1998.

Each service agreement stipulates that “the service provided by the Hostel shall be ‘per diems’, each of which shall consist of one night of sleeping accommodation for one person and the meals required by that person.” Hostel Services staff have indicated that the per diem rate is payable only for each bed space occupied. However, in cases where a bed is reserved for a client who failed to return or was out on a pass, some shelters mark the client as admitted, while others do not. Actual payments are based on the admission and discharge dates as reported on the application form submitted by the shelter for each client, in which each day is marked when the client is considered admitted.

While Hostel Services staff perform mathematical checks on the per diem billings submitted by the shelters, reliance is placed on the shelters for the accuracy of the occupancy data provided. There is a need to reiterate to all shelters the definition of beds eligible for the per diem rates as stipulated in the agreement. In addition, the current site visits to the shelters by agency review officers could be enhanced to include random verification checks of the per diem billings.

Conclusions:

The City provides emergency shelter and assistance to homeless individuals and families on a short-term basis, until they are ready for alternative housing or treatment. The City directly operates five hostels and has service agreements with various community shelters and motels under the emergency shelter system.

In 1999, Council approved a level of 90 percent occupancy rate for the emergency shelter system for adults and youth. This rate was considered the desirable occupancy level that would provide the flexibility and responsiveness needed in the system. A recent staff report of weekly occupancy rates for the period November 2000 to February 2001 indicated that the occupancy rates ranged from 85 percent to 95 percent. These rates reflect the actual occupancy level based on the data provided by the various shelters.

When viewed in the context of accessibility to bed spaces, occupancy rates of 85 percent to 95 percent do not necessarily mean that the other 5 percent to 15 percent of the bed space capacity was available when needed. In fact, it is likely that fewer bed spaces are reported as Toronto City Council 194 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 available, when an inquiry is made before the final bed count is taken. At that time, only bed spaces not assigned to a registered client are reported as available. This is a result of the varied reservation policies followed by each shelter.

In summary, the discrepancies between the occupancy rates reported by City staff and the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee (TDRC) arose mainly from the timing of when the occupancy data was taken. The occupancy rates used by City staff were based on actual occupancy taken after the final bed checks. The rates reported by the TDRC, however, were based on registered occupancy as at the time of the calls, which were made prior to the final bed checks and, therefore, still subject to change.

With respect to the rates paid for bed spaces in the emergency shelter system, these rates vary considerably from shelter to shelter. The per diem rates established are generally negotiated with each shelter provider at the time when the service agreement is initiated. The per diem fees paid by the City ranged from $15.00 to $75.00 per bed night. These rates vary due to various factors including the level of funding from other sources, capacity, level of service provided and operational costs. The City recovers from the Province 80 percent of a maximum per diem rate of $34.50 or $27.60, and 100 percent for Indian with Status clients. For 2001, the maximum per diem rate set by the Province has been increased to $38.00.

During our review, we noted that for the purposes of reporting occupancy data and per diem billing, some shelters included some bed spaces that were not actually occupied. These spaces include those reserved for clients who failed to return or were out on a pass. In addition, when new beds were introduced into the system, the capacity used for calculating occupancy rate was not adjusted properly. As result, the occupancy rates could be higher or lower than reported.

There is a need for Hostel Services staff to implement controls to ensure that the information used to calculate occupancy rates and the per diem fees is accurate.

We have reviewed the contents of this report with the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, who concurs with our comments and recommendations.

Contact Name:

Mr. Jerry Shaubel, Director, Audit Services, Tel: (416) 392-8462, Fax: (416) 392-3754; E-Mail: [email protected] ______Toronto City Council 195 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Appendix 1 City-Operated Hostels 2000 Actual Costs, Bed Night Occupancy and Average Per Diem Rates

2000 Actual Occupancy Effective Per Shelter Operating Costs* (Bed Nights) Diem Rate Single Adults: Seaton House $14,114,300 185,300 $ 76.17 Women’s Residence 3,471,400 36,900 94.07 17,585,700 222,200 79.14 Families Robertson House 2,837,900 28,300 100.28 Family Residence 3,121,300 47,100 66.27 Birkdale Residence 3,710,300 60,500 61.33 9,669,500 135,900 71.15

Total $27,255,200 358,100 $76.11

* Total costs are net of user fees totalling approximately $892,000, 95 percent of which pertains to Seaton House.

______

(Report dated March 30, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled “Robertson House Pilot Project for At-Risk Pregnant Women”)

Purpose:

This report provided the Budget Advisory Committee with financial costs associated with the Robertson House Pregnant Women’s Program compared to the average costs of the other City-operated family shelters.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council request that the Ministry of Health fund the annual operating costs of $171,258.00 for the pregnant mothers’ program at Robertson House;

(2) the Province of Ontario be encouraged to expand the pregnant mothers’ program in all family shelters across Ontario; and Toronto City Council 196 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(3) this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Health.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee at its meeting on March 20, 2001, requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report on the costs and successes of the Robertson House Pilot Project for At-Risk Pregnant Women.

Comments:

The Shelter, Housing and Support Division provides shelter service to homeless families through three directly-operated shelters, purchase of service contracts with six community-based shelters, service agreements with ten commercial motels, and four all-facility contracts.

Unlike the single and adult youth system, the number of shelter beds for families is not fixed. A flexible capacity in the family shelter system accommodates variances in demand, often due to the periodic influx of refugee claimants. During the week of March 12 to March 18, 2001, there were a total of 1,854 people in the family shelter system. A total of 887 were accommodated in permanent family shelter beds and an additional 967 were accommodated in motel programs, 643 of these in motels along Kingston Road.

The Shelter, Housing and Support Division directly operates three family shelters that offer a wide range of programs and services to meet the diverse needs of homeless families including abused women, and refugee claimants. Birkdale Shelter has 160 permanent shelter beds and is currently accommodating an additional 397 people in motel programs. Birkdale purchases service from five motels, four located outside of Toronto to accommodate primarily refugee families. Family Residence has 150 permanent shelter beds and is currently accommodating approximately 618 people in seven motels. Robertson House has 90 permanent shelter beds at their main facility and an additional 100 permanent shelter beds at their satellite location. The City-operated family shelters all provide various programs and services including most of the following:

(a) case management services; (b) housing/community follow-up workers; (c) recreational activities; (d) on-site day-care; (e) children’s program; (f) healthiest babies program; (g) children’s mental health service; (h) job readiness; (i) financial counselling; (j) public health nurse once a week; (k) English as a second language; (l) immunization clinics at the out-of-town programs; and (m) settlement services at the out-of-town programs through purchase of service contracts with local settlement agencies. Toronto City Council 197 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The average per diem rate for the City-operated family shelters is $68.20, based on the actual operating costs in 2000. The average per diem rate for the motels is $20.89, which includes motel room costs and food allowance for motel clients. The average per diem rate for the motels does not include overhead or staffing costs.

A number of the programs and services outlined above are provided through partnership arrangements with local community agencies. The housing and community follow-up workers are funded through the Provincial Redirection of Emergency Funding Program, cost-shared 80/20 with the municipality. City staff generally provide residential services, counselling, children’s support services, food services and day-care programs. The out-of-town motel programs purchase service from local agencies to provide settlement support to refugee claimant families.

Robertson House Pregnant Mothers’ Program

Robertson House also delivers a specialized program for pregnant at-risk women who are homeless. The program was implemented in the fall of 1998 to respond to the need for both pre-natal and post-natal support to this vulnerable population. Previously, most pregnant women were sheltered at a single women’s shelter and transferred to a family shelter after the birth of the baby. Robertson House developed the pregnant mothers’ program to provide the necessary continuum of care to this group.

The goal of the program is to provide a safe environment for the mother to prepare for her baby’s birth and to ensure a safe postnatal experience for the child. The young mothers’ program does not have a specific age limit but women must agree to a team approach to service delivery. Women are admitted to the program in their sixth plus month of pregnancy.

The program has partnered with Oolagen Community Services, an adolescent counselling centre, to provide a wraparound service delivery model. Wraparound programs assist clients to assemble a team of professionals and lay people to develop and monitor a treatment plan. The wraparound model has proven effective with multi-problem families and provides an individualized support team to each woman, focusing on strengths and capacity building. In addition to the regular programming at the shelter, the pregnant mothers’ program provides a number of specialized services including:

(a) liaison with health care providers to complete medical forms to ensure comprehensive prenatal care;

(b) confirmation of medical appointments for the infant;

(c) part time nursing support to weigh new-borns weekly, provide nutritional counselling, provide pre-natal and post-natal education, demonstrate infant feeding and bathing techniques, promote positive parent-child attachment, consult with other health care providers and identify health risk factors;

(d) pre-natal discussion group; Toronto City Council 198 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(e) weekly parenting group; (f) infant stimulation;

(g) infant respite care; and

(h) children’s aid liaison worker to assess child protection issues.

To date, 60 women have utilized the program. Staff report approximately 60 percent of women are currently in permanent housing with their children.

The average per diem for the pregnant mothers’ program is $194.22. The per diem rate for this specialized program is significantly higher than the average per diem compared to the other city operated family shelters due to a number of factors. The per diem includes exclusive program costs of one additional counsellor and half time nurse, for an estimated cost of $56.50. In addition, the per diem includes the net loss of the provincial subsidy due to a family room being occupied by a single occupant. The total annual operating cost of this program is $171,258.00 above the operating costs of the regular shelter.

Conclusions:

The Shelter, Housing and Support Division provides shelter service to homeless families through directly operated family shelters, purchase of service contracts with community based shelters and service agreements with commercial motels. The Division is currently sheltering almost 1,900 individuals in the family shelter system. The family shelter system provides a range of programs and services to meet the diverse needs of homeless families. The average per diem for the City-operated family shelters is $68.20 and $20.89 per diem for motel room costs. The Robertson House Pregnant Mothers’ Program delivers specialized services to at-risk homeless pregnant women including pre-natal and post-natal support. The Pregnant Mothers’ Program has developed a range of comprehensive services including the provision of health, counselling, children’s services, residential supports, and after-care to meet the multiple needs of this population group. The operating expenses of this program are $171,258.00 above the average operating costs of the general shelter. The program has demonstrated the ability to support positive parenting skills and healthy infant development in order that both mother and child can successfully make the transition to independent living.

Contact Name:

Mr. Phil Brown, General Manager, Shelter, Housing and Support Division, Phone: 416- 392-7885, Fax: 416-392-0548, E-mail: [email protected].

______Toronto City Council 199 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(Report dated February 7, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the City Clerk, entitled “Works and Emergency Services Yard Consolidation”)

Recommendations:

The Works Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the joint report (January 24, 2001) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(2) that a process be developed for consultation with concerned front-line workers from the Toronto Civic Employees’ Union – CUPE Local 416.

Background:

The Works Committee at its meeting on February 7, 2001, had before it a joint report (January 24, 2001) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services recommending that:

(1) Works and Emergency Services in conjunction with Corporate Services, Facilities and Real Estate Division, lead the interdepartmental project team to proceed with Phase 1 of the Yard Consolidation Pilot Project;

(2) contracted staff be hired to assist with the above and specially to carry out the following activities:

- assessments of existing properties and facilities; - valuation of surplus yards; and - production of a cost-benefit analysis;

(3) development of a conceptual plan and project budget consultants be engaged to carry out the following activities:

- environmental testing of yard properties; - site planning; and - Environmental Assessment activities; and

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

The Committee also had before it a communication (February 5, 2001) from Mr. Brian Cochrane, President, Toronto Civic Employees’ Union - CUPE Local 416, respecting the impact of yard closures on Local 416 members; and requesting that the Works and Emergency Services Department involve representatives of Local 416 in the yards consolidation study. Toronto City Council 200 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(Joint report dated January 24, 2001, addressed to the Works Committee from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services)

Purpose:

To conduct a pilot project to determine the cost/benefits of consolidation of Works and Emergency Services yard operations. The pilot project will include the investigation of operational efficiencies, environmental impacts, and the capital value of properties identified as surplus as a result of consolidation.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Cost of the first three phases of study is estimated to be approximately $405,000.00. This amount will be requested in the 2001 Capital Budget Submission for Works and Emergency Services. The funding requirements for each stage of the project will be dependent on the decision at the completion of each phase to proceed with the project. The Phase 1 funding requirement is $65,000.00.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(2) contracted staff be hired to assist with the above and specially to carry out the following activities:

- assessments of existing properties and facilities; - valuation of surplus yards; and - production of a cost-benefit analysis;

(3) development of a conceptual plan and project budget consultants be engaged to carry out the following activities:

- environmental testing of yard properties; - site planning; and - Environmental Assessment activities; and Toronto City Council 201 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

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

Background:

Since the amalgamation of the new City of Toronto, Works and Emergency Services has engaged in a yards rationalization effort that has resulted in ten of the 47 yard locations being declared surplus by Works and Emergency Services. Four of these yards are within the study area, but are not included in the study because their disposition will precede the study timeline. This constitutes a 26 percent reduction in yard facilities. The rationalization of these facilities has been accomplished without any major renovations to existing yard facilities. While there are further opportunities for yard rationalization, in order to accomplish further yard reductions, major renovations or development to existing facilities will be required.

Comments:

To investigate the further potential to rationalize yard locations through yard consolidation, an interdepartmental team co-led by Facilities and Real Estate and Works and Emergency Services was set up. Project team members include representatives from the following Divisions:

Corporate Services: Fleet Management, Facilities and Real Estate;

Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Economic Culture and Tourism: Development

Finance: Purchasing and Materials Management

Works and Emergency Services: Ambulance, Solid Waste Management, Support Services, Technical Services, Transportation, Water and Wastewater

Urban Development Services: City Planning

The project team considered a comprehensive study of the Corporation’s full yard inventory, but opted for a pilot project to determine the potential benefits of yard consolidation and to test the City’s ability to implement a major yards consolidation project. The project team has identified Works and Emergency Services yards within the area bounded by Jane Street in the west, Lawrence Avenue West in the north, Wellington Street in the south and Yonge Street in the east (Appendix A) as the initial focus for yard consolidation. This area contains 11 of the remaining 37 Works and Emergency Services yards in the City and four yard locations already declared surplus by Works and Emergency Services (Appendix B). The four yards locations that have already been declared surplus will not be included in the pilot study, but have been identified in the report as they have yet to be designated for other uses or for sale. The yards in the study area provide a good pilot to assist the Corporation identifying the quantitative and qualitative benefits available that may be available through yard consolidation. The benefits of consolidation may include reduction of facility operating, support service and operational service delivery costs, Toronto City Council 202 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 revenue from the sale of surplus property, avoidance of capital cost expenditures and increased property tax base for redeveloped properties, employment opportunities and neighbourhood improvement potential. Most of the facilities are small and house a single function. The area was selected as it has the highest concentration of yard facilities within a defined geographic area. A number of yards within the project area have the potential to accommodate an expanded yard operation by redeveloping the existing site. In addition, some of the sites that may become surplus as the result of a consolidation have high market values based on location and zoning designation (Appendix C).

In order to determine the feasibility and desirability of a major yard consolidation initiative in this part of the City, a four-phase process is proposed:

Phase 1 Preliminary cost/benefit analysis; Phase 2 Detailed cost benefit analysis; Phase 3 Community Consultation/Site Planning; and Phase 4 Design and Construction.

Phase 1:

Phase 1 of the project would involve the development of a preliminary cost/benefit analysis of the project. Phase 1 activities would include a general assessment of the land and facility conditions and a real estate appraisal of each site. The operational requirements for a consolidated site and development costs would also be developed. Phase 1 would result in a report to the Works Committee that forecasts the potential costs and benefits of a major yard consolidation. In order to complete Phase 1, the hiring of a contracted project manager will be required. The project manager, with the support from City staff, will perform the general assessment of land and facility conditions, real estate appraisals, estimation of property tax revenues from redeveloped sites, consolidated yard requirements and cost benefit analysis. The project manager will be initially hired on a six-month contract. It is estimated that $65,000.00 will be required to complete this phase. Regardless of whether the project proceeds past Phase 1, the assessment of facility conditions will benefit the Corporation as many of the existing facilities are in need of significant capital improvement. The cost of Phase 1 will be requested in the 2001 Capital Budget Submission for Works and Emergency Services. Toronto City Council 203 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Phase 2:

Phase 2 of the project would involve a more detailed cost/benefit analysis. Given the previous land uses of many of these sites, more detailed Condition Assessments will be required in order to determine the true market values of these sites. These assessments may include borehole drilling, groundwater and methane testing and contaminant migration modelling. A consultant will be engaged to conduct these assessments, which is expected to cost $125,000.00. A more detailed examination of the operational efficiencies that may be gained through consolidation will also be performed in Phase 2. While staff will perform most of the work to identify operational efficiencies, the contracted project manager will assist and coordinate this process and the assembly of the final cost benefit analysis. To complete this phase, the project manager’s contract will need to be extended an additional six months requiring $50,000.00 in funding for a total cost of $175,000.00 for Phase 2. Although funding of this phase will be dependent on a decision to proceed with the Phase 1 Report, funds for Phase 2 will also be requested in Works and Emergency Services’ 2001 Capital Budget Submission. Toronto City Council 204 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Phase 3:

Phase 3 of the project would involve community consultation, environmental assessment and site planning activities. Municipal projects of this type are required to undergo an Environmental Assessment under provincial statute. While the study will focus on existing City of Toronto properties, at this stage of the project it is impossible to ascertain whether the project will be classified as a Schedule “A”, “B” or “C” project (Appendix D). If the recommendation is to consolidate the yards on existing City of Toronto yard properties and no land acquisition is required, the project would be considered as a Schedule “A” project. If the recommendation were to consolidate the yards on a new site, the project would be considered to be a Schedule “B” or “C” project depending on cost. The main difference in the requirements between Schedule “B” and “C” projects is that Schedule “C” projects require a higher level of public consultation, more detailed environmental inventories and evaluation of alternative designs. Given the City’s interest in public consultation and identifying the impacts of projects of this type on local communities, it is recommended that regardless of the Class Environmental Assessment designation, a comprehensive consultation process with the impacted residential and business communities be undertaken. The project will also include a Transportation Impact Study, which will allow the City to determine any potential transportation impacts to residents and businesses within the vicinity of redeveloped or new yard locations.

It is proposed that the public consultation process include a range of activities such as regular information updates to the local community and a number of public events. Local Councillors and Community Councils will also be kept informed and involved in the activities. While Works and Emergency Services staff will facilitate the public meetings, consultants will be required to carry out the Environmental Assessment and Transportation Studies and assist in the public consultation process. It is estimated that the project will require $75,000.00 for these purposes.

The other major environmental activity, a detailed evaluation of the site conditions of the relevant facilities, will be completed as part of Phase 2 of the project. Phase 3 will also involve the development of a conceptual plan for the designated consolidation site. The plan will provide the detail required to determine an appropriate capital budget for the consolidated facility and including building and facility requirements and a site and implementation plan. Consultants will be engaged to assist in the development of the conceptual plan and it is estimated this work will cost $90,000.00. All funds required for Phase 3 will be requested in Works and Emergency Services’ 2001 Capital Budget Submission.

Phase 4:

If the project receives approval to proceed, Phase 4 of the project will involve design and construction activities for the consolidated facility. It is anticipated that the request for funding for the facility design will be included in the Department’s 2003 Capital Budget Submission and funding for construction to be included in the 2004 Capital Budget Submission.

A report containing recommendations on proceeding to the next phase will be submitted to the Works Committee and Administration Committee at the completion of each phase of the project. A summary of the financial requirements and timing of the each phase is contained in Appendix E. Toronto City Council 205 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Impacts on Other Programs:

Consolidation of Works and Emergency Services locations would also enable the Corporation to consolidate Fleet, Material Management and Support Services located within these yards. It is important to ensure that the pilot project is co-ordinated with a number of other corporate initiatives related to these activities including, the Corporate Fleet Study, Stores and Material Management Review and the implementation of the Common Services model. While the pilot project will be based on the existing provision of services directly delivered by City staff, co-ordination also is required with any Alternative Service Delivery Strategy adopted by the City.

Conclusions:

The small existing yards in the study area do not lend themselves to economies of scale and present limited opportunity for service improvement or increased operational efficiency. Some of these yards may be located on marketable land, and there is potential for the City to capitalize on the land values of these sites while increasing operational efficiency through consolidation. A combination of expertise from an outside consultant and internal City staff will confirm this premise. The disposal of surplus property will also be the subject of a further report.

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer have been consulted and concur with the contents and recommendations of this report.

Contact Names:

Mr. Neil Rothenberg, Amalgamation Team Leader, Works and Emergency Services, Tel: (416) 392-8203, Fax: (416) 392-4828; E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Teresa Fuoco, Acting Manager, Facilities Services, Facilities and Real Estate, Corporate Services, Tel: (416) 397-4461, Fax: (416) 392-4828; E-mail: [email protected].

______

(Copies of Attachments to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 17, 2001, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk). ______Toronto City Council 206 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Appendix D

Overview of the Environmental Assessment Process Applicable to Municipal Undertakings:

Municipal undertakings with respect to road, water, and wastewater projects, including for example, the establishment of municipal works yards, are dealt with through the Class Environmental Assessment process. This process is a provincially approved planning and decision making procedure, designed to ensure that environmental effects are considered and mitigated. The Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) also ensures that members of the public are properly informed of the undertaking and are given opportunities for input.

The Class EA process reflects five key principles of successful planning under the EA Act. It should be noted that for municipal undertakings prescribed under the EA Act, it is a legal requirement that this process is adhered to, and not doing so would contravene the EA Act. The five key principles are as follows:

(1) consultation with affected parties early on, such that the planning process is a co-operative venture;

(2) consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives;

(3) identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of the environment;

(4) systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages to determine their net environmental effects; and

(5) provision of clear and complete documentation of the planning process followed to allow “traceability” of decision-making with respect to the project.

The Class EA applies to municipal infrastructure projects. Since these projects vary in terms of environmental impact they are defined by schedules. The following is a brief description of the three schedules.

Schedule A: Projects that are limited in scale and have minimal adverse environmental effects (i.e., maintenance and operational activities). These projects are approved and may proceed to implementation without following the Class EA planning process.

Schedule B: Projects that have potential for some adverse environmental effects (i.e., improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities). The proponent is required to undertake a screening process involving mandatory contact with directly affected public relevant government agencies, to ensure that they are aware of the project and that their concerns are addressed.

Schedule C: Projects that have potential for significant environmental effects (i.e., construction of new facilities). These projects must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures specified in the Class EA document. Schedule C Toronto City Council 207 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

projects require that an Environmental Study Report be prepared and submitted for review by the public.

It should be noted that for projects that fall under the “Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects”, the associated cost is a factor in the schedule selection. The Class EA document identifies particular cost ranges for specific types of projects.

The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) recognizes that projects included under the Class EA will have predictable environmental effects, which can be mitigated. Since the degree of the environmental impact is not always directly related to the project size or cost, it is necessary to allow for special treatment of projects that significantly impact the environment. The MOE has established a provision to elevate the status of such a project from the Class EA process to make it subject to an Individual EA, known as a “bump-up”. It should be noted that any schedule (i.e., Schedule A, B or C) can be bumped-up. Therefore, it is better for the municipality to resolve issues early on in the process as opposed to having the Minister decide on issues through a lengthier and less certain bump-up review.

In order to assist the municipality in meeting the five key planning principles and in determining the appropriate schedule, the Class EAs follow a five-phase planning and design process as listed below:

Phase 1: Identification of the problem or deficiency;

Phase 2: Identification of alternative solutions to the problem and establish the preferred solutions;

Phase 3: Examine alternative methods of implementing the preferred solution;

Phase 4: Documentation of the rationale, planning, design and consultation process in an Environmental Study Report; and

Phase 5: Construction, operation, and monitoring (where applicable).

Note that the identification of a preferred solution based solely on financial and operational considerations and subsequently following the above steps is unlikely to satisfy the requirements of the EA Act. It is necessary that the municipality use the Class EA process to identify the preferred method of achieving the objectives of the undertaking.

______

(A copy of the communication referred to in the communication dated February 7, 2001, from the City Clerk was forwarded to all Members of Council with the Agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______Toronto City Council 208 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(Report dated March 29, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled “Parks and Recreation Division - Information Requests on 2001 Operating Budget” (All Wards))

Purpose:

To provide information requested at the Budget Advisory Committee meeting of March 26, 2001, on the potential for Staff Reductions and a further analysis of impact on front line service levels.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The financial implications of this report be considered within the context of the overall 2001 Operating Budget deliberations.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Budget Advisory Committee recommend to Council the extension of the project for paid parking to four additional waterfront parks and two commuter locations at a 2001 net of $0.250 million.

Background:

At the March 26, 2001, meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee, staff were asked to report on a number of requests for information and further analysis on the 2001 Operating Budget of the Parks and Recreation Division. This report responds to these requests.

Comments:

The strategy used by the Division in determining the budget reduction options that have been proposed is aligned with the corporate strategy. This strategy has resulted in the list of service and standard adjustment options proposed to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on February 16, 2001. Each proposed adjustment has an impact on service to the public, an impact on the assets of the City of Toronto, or an impact on the user fees that the public pay for our services and programs.

Although each one of the reduction options have specific impacts, generally the Department feels that the increased revenue opportunities should be the first considered by the Budget Advisory Committee followed by other options which have staffing and front line service impact. It would not be prudent to compromise front-line services which are highly valued by the public while reasonable revenue opportunities are left untapped.

(a) Revenue Initiatives: Toronto City Council 209 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Budget Advisory Committee deleted the revenue initiative related to parking charges at all Regional and Garden Parks. Staff have met with the Parking Authority and developed an alternate strategy. This proposal would be to implement paid parking on weekends/holidays/special events at four additional waterfront park locations (Bluffer’s Park, Coronation Park, Western Beaches Park and Humber Bay Park). Further, the Department recommends the implementation of paid parking at two commuter location (Monday to Friday) at Kings Mill Park and Don Valley Golf Course (off season). Staff believe that this is a reasonable and practical way to improve revenue levels and is a widely accepted concept at Regional and Waterfront attractions. This is a net revenue enhancement of $.250 million in 2001 and a further $.150 million in 2002 for the Division, with further revenue for the Toronto Parking Authority. It is suggested that this item be reconsidered and included as an approved revenue initiative.

(b) The Budget Advisory Committee directed that staff review the following service level adjustments and revenue initiatives:

(i) Advertising on Toronto Island Ferries and Litter Bins: The proposed adjustment provides for the reintroduction of corporate sponsorship and advertising on the exterior of three passenger ferries to the Toronto Islands. A pilot project in 1999 provided net revenue of $.060 million for one boat and the advertising industry has been very interested in pursuing this opportunity again. The pilot project was not renewed at the conclusion of the 1999 season since Council had directed that no major advertising program continue after some concerns expressed on the heritage aspects of the ferry system. This proposal would provide three ferries with advertising, and the flagship Trillium would not be considered since it is a heritage asset. The financial impact of this item is $0.240 million in 2001.

The introduction of litter bin advertising is an extension of the current systems in place under a blanket agreement with OMG media. In addition to the revenue projected, this will also provide additional recycling opportunities within the parks system. The financial impact of this item is $0.016 million in 2001 with a further $0.008 million in 2002.

Given the current fiscal environment, staff believe that these are prudent alternatives.

(ii) Reductions in operating season for Outdoor Pools in the former City of Toronto: The proposed adjustment is to harmonize the outdoor pool operating season at 10 weeks which will provide for an opening in the last week of June and closing on the Sunday of the Labour Day weekend. The reduction will primarily impact the former City of Toronto facilities which have traditionally opened in the first week of June. Two major regional outdoor facilities at Sunnyside Gus Ryder Pool and Donald Sommerville Pool would still open in early June and public swimming will be available at 80 indoor pool locations across the City. This is a reduction of 5.1 FTEs and $ 0.105 million. Toronto City Council 210 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iii) Reduction in operating season for Outdoor Artificial Ice Rinks (AIR’s): The proposed adjustment to Outdoor AIRs is to reduce the operating season by two weeks to harmonize at a 10 week season from mid December to the end of February. This will be a reduction uniform across the City of Toronto. Outdoor skating would still be available at Nathan Phillips Square, Mel Lastman Square and Albert Campbell Square for the full season. Indoor public skating will provide an alternative and will be available at 60 indoor locations throughout the City. This is a reduction of 3.4 FTEs and $ 0.096 million.

(iv) Reduced Ferry Service: The proposed adjustment affects the provision of vehicle ferry services to the Toronto Islands. It will reduce the schedule for transporting vehicles during the 18 week summer season only. It will not result in any reduction in passenger capacity or scheduling for the Toronto Island Community or for the major regional park usage at Centre Island. This is a reduction of 2.6 FTEs and $ 0.150 million.

(v) Support to Horticultural Activities: The proposed adjustment is to eliminate participation in major Horticultural events such as Canada Blooms, to reduce support to community based horticulture and naturalization/environmental groups, to reduce displays at our indoor conservatory locations at Allan Gardens and Centennial Park, and to reduce in-house plant production at our greenhouse locations resulting in a reduced level of planting of horticultural displays in most local parks. The level of Horticultural Plantings at our “feature” locations, garden parks and most regional parks will be maintained. There will be a general reduction in horticulture displays and overall beautification of the City. This is a reduction of 3.5 FTEs and $ $0.244 million.

Staff were asked to report on the potential for additional reductions in staffing without affecting the above front line services.

Since 1997, permanent staffing has been reduced by 241 FTEs or 13.3 percent. It is not possible to further reduce staffing levels without seriously affecting front line service. This is why the specific budget reduction options were placed in front of the Committee for consideration.

(d) Children and Youth Expansion Initiatives:

As part of the year 2000 Parks and Recreation Division operating budget, Toronto City Council approved funding for the Children’s Action Plan (Phase 1) in the amount of $225,000.00 for implementation in the fall of 2000. The recommended budget for 2001 includes $260,000.00 for the period January 1 to April 30, 2001. A further $400,000.00 would be required to continue this program from May 1 to December 31, 2001.

In addition, Council approved funding for the Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Violence in the amount of $428,000.00 for implementation in the summer of 2000. The Toronto City Council 211 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

recommended budget for 2001 includes $250,000.00 for the period of January 1 to April 30, 2001. A further $550,000.00 would be required to continue this program from May 1 to December 31, 2001.

The impacts of eliminating annualized funding for the Phase 1 of Children’s Action Plan and the annualized funding for the Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Violence are as follows:

Children’s Action Plan (Phase 1):

In September 2000, the Parks and Recreation Division initiated 133 new children’s programs in many high needs communities across the City. If the funding for this program ends, 125,000 recreation program opportunities affecting 15,000 children will be eliminated. If partial funding of $200,000.00 as recommended by the Budget Advisory Committee is provided, choices will have to be made as to which programs will continue with the net result of the elimination of 7,500 children’s program registrations and 62,500 in children’s program attendance.

Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Violence:

Beginning in July 2000, Parks and Recreation undertook the hiring of 14 Youth Outreach Workers to service five high needs communities, four TTC stations and seven malls. In one year, the Youth Outreach Worker Program has resulted in 130,000 youth referrals to 250 youth serving agencies including local police, schools, cultural and faith organizations, businesses, YMCA’s and youth employment services with the goal of preventing youth crime and violence by offering positive alternatives to Toronto’s youth. At the same time, Parks and Recreation opened 11 new Late Night Youth Drop-In Programs and one Police Youth Basketball Program in high needs communities. These 12 new programs employed approximately 44 youth leaders and reached 190,000 youth in attendance at new recreation programs over the course of one year. The Late Night Drop-In Programs provide a safe, supervised setting for healthy youth development and a positive alternative for youth in high needs communities later in the evenings. The Police Youth Basketball Program fostered positive relationships between youth and police and created positive role models.

The impacts of funding reductions for one year include loss of 130,000 youth outreach referrals, 250 youth agency linkages, and 190,000 in youth attendance in positive recreation alternatives for Toronto’s youth. In addition, funding reductions will also lead to loss of employment for 58 individual staff, many of whom are youth themselves.

On February 16, 2001, the Economic Development and Parks Committee made a recommendation to Budget Advisory Committee that $600,000.00 be approved for Phase 2 of the Children’s Action Plan in 2001. The annualized cost of the Phase 2 initiative is $1.89 million. The Children’s Action Plan (Phase 2) provides for 262 additional children’s programs (29,000 new registrations and 200,000 attendance opportunities for children 0 to 12 years of age). This was not supported by Budget Advisory Committee at their meeting on March 26, 2001. Toronto City Council 212 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 Toronto City Council 213 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Board of Education Rentals:

The Budget Advisory Committee has recommended that the Policy and Finance Committee and City Council renegotiate the $5.2 million increase in rent for the use of Toronto District School Board (TDSB) facilities for Parks and Recreation Programs

At its meeting of October 2000, Council approved a rental rate of $0.0038 per square foot for space used for City of Toronto Parks and Recreation programs in TDSB Schools starting September 1, 2000. The year 2000 Operating Budget provided funds for the year 2000 commitment of $1.0 million, with an additional $5.2 million annualization required in 2001.

Space is currently being utilized at over 300 school locations within the City of Toronto and currently serve 370,000 participants. This space is being utilized now for program space and costs are being incurred based on the Council approval of the rate to be charged by TDSB. In addition, the Department is in the final process of program planning and preparing brochure and marketing materials for the fall 2001 season. If TDSB facilities are not available, program adjustments must be made quickly.

Further, the Committee should be aware that the loss of the TDSB facilities would have a significant impact on the ability of the Parks and Recreation Division to deliver services to the public. In particular, the former Cities of Etobicoke and York delivered the majority of their recreational programming though community school facilities owned by the TDSB, while the former Cities of North York and Scarborough relied heavily on pools at 34 locations that are associated with schools and owned by the TDSB. Only six indoor pools are owned by the City in these districts.

Conclusion:

The fiscal position that the City of Toronto is in has necessitated a further review of all of the activities of the Parks and Recreation Division. These reductions that were presented to the Economic Development and Parks Committee all provide real service reductions or revenue/user fee impacts. Difficult choices had to be made to develop these options, but it is a prudent and well researched approach, and in the case of the revenue opportunities, are necessary to offset the potential of extensive facility closures or program reductions. In particular the implementation of parking charges at selected locations is appropriate and necessary to offset other budget pressures. Further reductions in staffing levels are not possible without serious service impact and are not recommended.

Contact Name:

Ms. Claire Tucker-Reid, General Manager, Parks and Recreation Division, Tel:416 392-8182, Fax: 416 392-8565, [email protected].

______Toronto City Council 214 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(Report dated March 28, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the City Clerk, entitled “Sign Permit Fees”)

Recommendation:

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that all Sign Permit Fees in the City of Toronto be raised by 5 percent for the year 2001, and requested the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to report directly to the Budget Advisory Committee’s wrap up meeting on March 30, 2001 as to the additional funds that would be so raised.

Background:

At its meeting on March 26, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to a report (March 20, 2001) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina, recommending that:

(1) all Sign Permit Fees in the City of Toronto be raised by 5 percent for the year 2001; and

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services report directly to the Budget Advisory Committee wrap up Meeting on March 30, 2001 as to the additional funds that would be so raised.

(A copy of the communication dated March 20, 2001 from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina, regarding sign permit fees was forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 5, 2001, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______

(Report dated March 30, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, entitled “Sign Permit Fees”)

Purpose:

This report identifies the additional revenue that would result if a 5 percent increase in sign permit application fees were implemented City-wide.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A 5 percent sign permit application fee would result in an annualized increase of $17,083.15 (year 2000 data). Given the timing to effect the required by-law changes, it is estimated that in year 2001, the fee increase would generate $9,000.00. Toronto City Council 215 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Budget Advisory Committee endorse the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Committee that all sign permit fees be increased by 5 percent.

Background:

At the Planning and Transportation Committee meeting of March 26, 2001, the Committee recommended a five percent fee increase for these sign fees. Sign permit application fees are currently set out in the seven sets of sign by-laws which cover application fees and requirements for the installation of signs on private and public lands. It has been a number of years since the fees have been adjusted in these by-laws.

Comments:

For the year 2000, the total number of sign permits issued was 1,179 and the application fees collected as set out in the respective by-laws for these permits were $341,663.06. A five percent increase in application fees based on the amount collected in year 2000 would total $358,746.21. The net additional amount of fees collected would be $17,083.15. Based on the number of sign permit applications received for the first part of year 2001, it is projected that the number of permits issued and fees collected for sign applications will be close to the numbers experienced in year 2000.

It is improbable that the increase could be affected by by-law changes before mid-year, 2001. Consequently, the increased revenue within year 2001 would be in the order of $9,000.00.

Conclusion:

The recommended fee increase would generate additional revenue in year 2001 in the order of $9,000.00.

Contact Name:

Mr. Harold Bratten, Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, Urban Development Services, 12th Floor, East Tower, City Hall, Telephone: (416) 392-8768; Fax: (416) 392-8805.

______

(Report dated March 29, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, entitled “Expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program”)

Purpose: Toronto City Council 216 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

This report addresses the Policy and Finance Committee's request of January 18, 2001, with respect to identifying a potential source of funding to expand the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program. Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications directly related to the recommendations in this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that consideration of the expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program across the new City of Toronto, such expansion requiring an increase of $0.5 million in contribution from Corporate Contingency, payable in five annual instalments of $100,000.00 be deferred for consideration to the 2002 Budget Process, due to the current financial pressures facing the City.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has been consulted and concurs with this recommendation.

Background:

City Council, at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special meetings held on October 6, 10, 11 and 12, 2000, referred a motion by Councillor Jakobek, seconded by Councillor McConnell, respecting the “Expansion of the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program”, to the Policy and Finance Committee.

The Policy and Finance Committee, on January 18, 2001, referred the aforementioned communication to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for a report thereon, during the 2001 budget process, such report to identify a source of funding.

Comments:

The Young Ambassadors of Toronto program was initiated in 1988 as a joint project of the City of Toronto and the Toronto Board of Education, with a capital grant from each partner of $100,000.00, which is administered by the Learnxs Foundation. The interest earned from the principle is used to fund the annual Program. The Program supports classroom based overseas exchanges for Toronto students and is an opportunity for low-income students to participate in off-shore exchanges. A Selection Committee, including representation from the City, the School Board, the Principals’ Association and Learnxs, consider all applications received and choose the successful submissions.

Through the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program, students are able to act as Ambassadors of the City and Toronto schools; deepen their understanding of diversity and world citizenship, learn about the culture, heritage, social and economic systems of other countries and develop their abilities to plan and work in teams while preparing for the exchanges. Since its establishment 13 years ago, the Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program has supported 41 overseas exchanges in 19 countries, involving 803 students. Toronto City Council 217 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Only students of secondary public schools of the former City of Toronto are currently eligible to participate in the Program. This is about one fifth of the new City of Toronto’s public school population. In order to expand the Program across the new City of Toronto, an increase of $1.0 million to the capital base of the program from the program partners and sponsors is required. The request is for the City of Toronto to make a $0.5 million contribution, payable in five annual instalments of $100,000.00, as its share of the $1.0 million. The Separate School Board has been invited to participate in this Program, and should that Board wish to accept the invitation, further additional funding would be required to expand the program to cover both Boards.

The Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer have been consulted in the development of this report.

Conclusion:

The Young Ambassadors of Toronto Program supports classroom based overseas exchanges for Toronto students. Participants of the Program gain knowledge and experience from the overseas exchanges. It is recommended that consideration of this matter be deferred to the 2002 Budget Process, due to the current financial pressures facing the City.

Contact Name:

Ms. Paula M. Dill, Commissioner, Urban Development Services, Tel: 397-4154.

______

(Report dated February 7, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the City Auditor, entitled “Outstanding Budget Issues between the Parks and Recreation Division and the Facilities and Real Estate Division”)

Purpose:

To respond to the request of Council for the City Auditor to report on certain outstanding budget issues between the Parks and Recreation Division, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and the Facilities and Real Estate Division, Corporate Services Department.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

While the adoption of the recommendations in this report will not result in any net financial impact to the Corporation, they will result in a net budget pressure in the Parks and Recreation Division of $757.2 thousand.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that: Toronto City Council 218 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(1) subject to adjustments, if any, to the 2001 maintenance budget of the Parks and Recreation Division, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer effect a net budget transfer of $916.3 thousand from Facilities and Real Estate Division of the Corporate Services Department to the Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department as detailed in Appendix 1; (2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to resolve future departmental budget disputes and make appropriate recommendations to Council; and

(3) this report be forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee, Administration Committee, Community Services Committee, and Economic Development and Parks Committee.

Background:

At its meeting of July 4, 5 and 6, 2000, City Council amended Clause No. 19 of Report No. 9 of The Policy and Finance Committee, headed “December 31, 1999, Operating Budget Variance Report” by adding the following:

“The City Auditor be requested to submit a report to the Policy and Finance Committee:

(i) on the nature, background and circumstances of the issues between Parks and Recreation and the Facilities and Real Estate Divisions that have resulted in the transfer of expenditures of $1,984.2 thousand subsequent to the reporting of the final actual expenditures as part of the year 2000 budget process;

(ii) containing recommendations on how this issue may be resolved, in consultation with the programs involved; and

(iii) on the potential for a similar transfer of expenditures in year 2000 and the resulting impact on the respective budgets.”

This report responds to the request made by Council.

Comments:

Following amalgamation, there were various efforts made to arrive at a consistent treatment of how expenditures were recorded in the new City. These efforts included a process referred to as disentanglement. The purpose of disentanglement was to give departments direct control over expenditures for which they were responsible. Resolving these issues generally required transfers of budgeted and actual expenditures from one department to another.

The transfer of the responsibilities related to Arena Operators, primarily the salaries of the staff, was one disentanglement issue. Subsequent to amalgamation, the actual expenditures for Arena Operators were charged to the Parks and Recreation Division prior to agreement being reached on the transfer of the related budget amount, which remained in the Facilities and Real Estate Division. Thus, Parks and Recreation had an expenditure for which it had no budget. The Toronto City Council 219 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 amounts in question were in the range of $2,000.0 thousand relating to the Arena Operator expenses, while the budgeted amount for this expenditure was $2,200.0 thousand.

However, Parks and Recreation and Facilities and Real Estate, could not reach an agreement on the transfer of the budget amounts for the Arena Operators. The inability to reach an agreement between both parties gave rise to the Council request for this report from the City Auditor.

In order to resolve this matter, an amount of $2,177.1 thousand should be transferred from the budget of the Facilities and Real Estate Division to the Parks and Recreation Division. The two Divisions involved are in agreement that this is required to correct the disentanglement issue.

While the issue relating to the transfer of the Arena Operator’s budget is fairly straight forward, there was one further disentanglement issue between the two Divisions which also needed to be resolved. It was the view of the Facilities and Real Estate Division that this matter had to be resolved prior to effecting any budget transfer relating to the Arena Operators. It was an inability of the two Divisions to reach an agreement on the correction of this separate prior error that had become an impasse in resolving the Arena Operators’ disentanglement. The following is a simplified summary of the events and issues.

In preparing its 1998 budget, the Facilities and Real Estate Division transferred the budget for the maintenance of certain Parks’ facilities to the Parks and Recreation Division. Facilities and Real Estate staff estimated that the amount to be transferred should be $3,786.6 thousand and the budget transfer was made. A subsequent review revealed that the actual expenditures for the related maintenance activities were in the range of $2,000.0 thousand annually. Thus, by effecting the transfer of $3,786.6 thousand, a budget pressure of some $1,786.6 thousand had been created for the Facilities and Real Estate Division. On the other side of the transfer, the Parks and Recreation Division had benefited from having an amount in excess of actual expenditures transferred to them.

In relation to the Arena Operators, Parks and Recreation was incurring actual expenses of approximately $2,000.0 thousand per year with no corresponding budget. As can be seen, the Arena Operators’ expenditures roughly offset the excess transfer of the maintenance budget as described above. That is, both Divisions had compensated for a problem created by one budget transfer by using an excess budget amount from a different unrelated transfer. The Facilities and Real Estate Division has been insistent that the two issues needed to be resolved simultaneously to ensure Facilities and Real Estate was not disadvantaged by any unilateral resolution of the Arena Operators’ transfer.

Both of the above issues are complicated by budget reductions and pressures that have occurred over the years 1998 and 1999. The Parks and Recreation Division has had significant budgetary pressures and the excess maintenance budget transferred from the Facilities and Real Estate Division provided some relief from these pressures. However, during the 2000 budget process, the Parks and Recreation Division reduced the excess maintenance budget item by $1,673.5 thousand, thus making it difficult for them to absorb a correction of the original transfer error. As the Parks and Recreation Division was apparently unaware that the original budget transfer was incorrect at the time the 2000 budget was developed, the reduction was taken as one of the strategies to achieve the target without service level implications. Toronto City Council 220 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The actual amounts required to correct these two situations are shown in Appendix 1. The net effect is that the Parks and Recreation Division will have a net budget pressure of $757.2 thousand ($1,673.5 thousand less $916.3 thousand). Discussions with the Budget Services Division of the Finance Department indicate that the adjustments recommended in this report cannot be made to the year 2000 and must, therefore, be processed as 2001 adjustments.

Conclusions:

Outstanding issues between the Parks and Recreation Division and the Facilities and Real Estate Division will be resolved through the processing of the budget adjustments recommended in this report. The issue arose through a miscalculation in a transfer from Facilities and Real Estate Division to the Parks and Recreation Division in 1998. The Divisions were committed not to reduce the related budget item during the 1999 budget process. No similar commitments were made during the 2000 budget process and Parks and Recreation Division reduced this budget item to meet budget reduction requirements.

It appears that current budget pressures were a disincentive to the Divisions resolving the issues outlined in this report without the intervention of a third party. The Budget Services Division, Finance Department, is in an ideal position to resolve such budget issues and, in the future, must be prepared to make recommendations when departments have disagreements related to budget disentanglement issues.

The content of this report has been reviewed with the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Corporate Services, as well as the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, all of whom concur with the recommendations made.

Contact Name:

Mr. Jerry Shaubel, Director, Audit Services, Tel: (416) 392-8462, Fax: (416) 392-3754, E-Mail: [email protected].

______

Appendix 1 Parks and Recreation and Facilities and Real Estate Transfers

Summary of Budget Amendments $000’s Arena Operators Maintenance Total Total

Original balance 1/1/98 $2,419.0 $3,786.6 Less: Amalgamation savings (10 percent) (241.9) (378.7) Toronto City Council 221 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Revised balance 1/1/99 2,177.1 3,407.9

Less 1 percent reduction (34.1)

Net amount $2,177.1 $3,373.9

Budget Transfers $000’s Parks and Facilities and Total Recreation Real Estate Expenditures:

1998 Adjustment Reversals ($3,373.9) $3,373.9 $0.0 Arena Operators $2,177.1 ($2,177.1) $0.0 Maintenance, expenditures estimate* $2,113.1 $0.0 $2,113.1

Expenditures Adjustment $916.3 $1,196.8 $2,113.1

Revenues $0.0 ($2,113.1) ($2,113.1)

Net Budget Impact $916.3 ($916.3) $0.0

*Amount should be based on 2001 budget. Facilities and Real Estate will process interdepartmental charges for actuals.

______

(Report dated February 16, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the City Clerk, entitled “Audit Services - 2001 Operating Plan and Budget”)

Committee Action:

The Audit Committee reports having approved the 2001 Operating Plan and Budget for Audit Services attached to the report (February 1, 2001) from the City Auditor and forwards same to the Budget Advisory Committee.

Background:

The Audit Committee, on February 16, 2001, had before it a report (February 1, 2001) from the City Auditor respecting Audit Services – 2001 Operating Plan and Budget recommending that the attached 2001 Operating Plan and Budget for Audit Services be approved and forwarded to the Budget Advisory Committee.

The Audit Committee’s action is noted above. Toronto City Council 222 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

______Toronto City Council 223 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(Report dated February 1, 2001, addressed to the Audit Committee from the City Auditor)

Purpose:

To provide the Audit Committee with detailed information relating to the preliminary 2001 operating budget for Audit Services.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 2001 budget request for Audit Services is $2,550,200.00, which is $83,600.00 (3.4 percent) greater than its approved 2000 budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the attached 2001 Operating Plan and Budget for Audit Services be approved and forwarded to the Budget Advisory Committee.

Background:

The budget document has been reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer. Other than a reduction in employee benefits of $22,900.00, reducing benefits to the 2000 level, the recommended budget has been approved as submitted.

Comments:

The 2001 budget request for Audit Services is $2,550,200.00, which is $83,600.00 (3.4 percent) greater than its approved 2000 budget. The increased funding requirement is attributable to a wage settlement and to performance merit increases, where applicable.

The following chart shows a comparison of the Audit Department’s budgets prior and subsequent to amalgamation:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget

Gross $4,377,800.00 $3,318,200.00 $1,990,300.00 $2,620,600.00 $2,786,800.00 Expenditure Revenue 1,198,900.00 782,000.00 154,200.00 154,000.00 236,600.00

$3,178,900.00 $2,536,200.00 $1,836,100.00 $2,466,600.00 $2,550,200.00

Prior to 2001, the Department’s budget included annual fees of $345,000.00 relating to the external financial audits conducted by the firm of Ernst and Young. In consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, it was determined that these fees related more closely to the operations of the Finance Department rather than an internal audit function. Consequently, in 2001 this budget was transferred to the Finance Department. In order to ensure that the budgets Toronto City Council 224 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 for 1998, 1999 and 2000 are comparable to 2001, the budgets for each of these years have been amended to reflect the $345,000.00 reduction.

The major component of the 2001 budget is salaries and benefits, which represent almost 90 percent of the gross budget.

The revenues represent fees charged for audit services to the community centres, arenas and business improvement areas. Also included in the 2001 revenues amount are fees, which will be charged to the Shelter, Housing and Support Division of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, for assistance in establishing effective systems of financial control for the ongoing monitoring and administration of housing programs transferred to the City. This matter has been agreed with the Shelter, Housing and Support Division and is reflected in their budget.

In addition, it is anticipated that there will be an ongoing need for Audit Services’ involvement in financial and/or operational reviews of individual service providers. In order to accommodate this work, an equivalent amount has been added to salary expenses for staff costs to conduct this work.

The 2001 budget is approximately $628,700.00 (20 percent) less than the pre-amalgamation budget of 1997.

Conclusion:

Detailed information relating to the budget is available in the Department’s budget submission attached to this report (Appendix 1).

Contact Name:

Mr. Rafiq Dosani, Senior Audit Manager, Audit Services, Tel: (416) 392-8438, Fax: (416) 392-3754, E-Mail: [email protected].

(A copy of Appendix 1 referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the Agenda of the Policy and Finance and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______

(Report dated February 19, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the General Manager and CEO, Toronto Zoo, entitled “2001 Operating Budget”)

Purpose:

This report is in response to the request by the Budget Advisory Committee for further information on the 2001 Operating Budget and on the Zoo advertising contract. Toronto City Council 225 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Budget Advisory Committee accept the reductions No. 1 to No. 7 of $338.3 thousand from the 2001 Operating Budget as outlined herein; (2) the Budget Advisory Committee receive for information the impact of further reductions No. 8 to No. 31 to the 2001 Operating Budget; and (3) the Budget Advisory Committee receive the report on the advertising contract (see attached).

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report are to reduce the 2001 Operating Budget as submitted by $338.3 thousand.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee (the Committee), at its meeting of February 9, 2001, made the following recommendations:

(1) the General Manager and CEO of the Toronto Zoo provide a summary that identifies the implications of:

(a) a five percent increase over the 2000 budget contribution to the City; (b) a zero percent increase over the 2000 budget contribution form the City; and (c) a five percent decrease from the 2000 budget contribution from the City.

(2) the General Manager and CEO of the Toronto Zoo provide an update respecting the Zoo Advertising Contract and the financial impact of the Zoo’s new marketing program.

Comments/Discussion:

The Committee has requested information on the impact of budget reductions of five percent above, zero percent and five percent below the approved 2000 Operating Budget. The operating impacts of the proposed reductions are detailed on Schedule I. The financial impacts of these scenarios are summarized as follows: Toronto City Council 226 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

2001 Operating Budget ($000’s)

Expenditures Revenues and Net Increase Recoveries Expenditures Percent

2000 Operating Budget 22,492.8 14,908.8 7,584.0

2001 Operating Budget as submitted by Zoo Board 27,871.4 19,874.4 7,997.0 5.4

Reductions No. 1 and No. 2 to five percent above 2000 (34.5) - (34.5)

Sub-Total 27,836.9 19,874.4 7,962.5 5.0

Reductions No. 3 to No. 13 to zero percent above 2000 (53.5) 325.0 (378.5)

Sub-Total 27,783.4 20,119.4 7,584.0 0.0

Reductions No. 14 to No. 31 to five percent below 2000 (379.0) (379.0)

Sub-Total 27,404.4 20,199.4 7,205.0 (5.0)

Notwithstanding these three scenarios, the Toronto Zoo recommends budget reductions in the amount of $338.3 thousand to the Committee. This results in Net Cost to the City in the amount of $7,658.7 thousand or one percent above the approved 2000 Operating Budget. These recommended reductions have arisen due to reductions in expenditure estimates to date. As well, a special Polar Bear Cub Promotion is planned this Spring that is expected to draw an additional 25,000 visitors.

Is it noted that short term actions to defer maintenance and equipment purchases in order to reduce expenditures cannot be continued due to an overriding need to provide ongoing maintenance to our buildings, exhibits, equipment and to provide support for our live collection.

The additional expenditure reductions requested by the Budget Advisory Committee are not recommended due to budget pressures and the implications of further expenditure cutbacks on the operations of the Zoo. The Budget Advisory Committee will recall that during the 2000 Budget debate the sum of $1,525.0 thousand was cut from the Zoo’s Operating Budget submission. Many of the increases this year are catch-up on previously deferred maintenance Toronto City Council 227 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 projects, inflationary increases in food, utilities and other supplies, restoring advertising levels, and to provide for the effect of wage settlements approved last year. As well, the Budget Advisory Committee is reminded that the Zoo did not benefit in a consolidation of expenses from the amalgamation of the former Cities, although it did reduce its funding level by 20 percent between 1993 and 2000 to accommodate the financial constraints of the Municipality.

This report has been forwarded to the Board of Management for consideration at its meeting on February 27, 2001.

Conclusion:

The acceptance of the recommended reductions will enable the Toronto Zoo to achieve most of its goals for the year 2001. However, further expenditure reductions are not recommended as the Zoo may not be able to achieve many of its key objectives and provide a level of service expected by the visiting public. As well, the proposed reductions will need to be reconsidered for inclusion in the 2002 Operating Budget. Toronto City Council 228 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Toronto Zoo 2001 OPERATING BUDGET REDUCTIONS - IN REVERSE PRIORITY ORDER (000's) (first item on the list is the first item reduced)

Account Name Description of Reduction Service Impact Amount $ Percent Over 2000

Recommended Reductions to 2001 Operating Budget as Submitted

(1) Contracted Services Computer conversion Staff replacement for new 30.0 costs transferred financial computer system implementation to be provided from Capital budget.

(2) Pandas Plan Reduce fees Reflects actual consortium 4.5 membership fee for 2001.

Reductions to five percent increase over 2000 Budget 34.5 5.0

Further Recommended Reductions

(3) WSIB Fees Rate reduction effective No operating impact, reduction 63.0 2001 of cost of Workplace Safety Insurance fees.

(4) Contracted Services Lobby renovations reduced None. Completed in 2000 15.0 budget.

(5) Equipment Slide scanner eliminated None. Purchased from 2000 0.8 budget.

(6) Revenue and Introduction of Polar Bear Increases in admissions and 325.0 Contracted Services Cub Promotion other visitor service revenues (125.0) (net) in the Spring offset by a 200.0 special marketing and promotion plan driving 25,000 additional visitors to the newly arrived polar bear cubs.

(7) Contracted Services Defer implementation of Centralization of public 25.0 call centre telephone program booking is deferred. Reduces the ability to improve and provide an effective service to clients for bookings of programs and events. Planning will proceed for 2002 start up.

Reductions to one percent increase over 2000 Budget 338.3 1.0 Toronto City Council 229 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Account Description of Reduction Service Impact Amount $ Percent Name Over 2000

Not Recommended Reductions to zero percent increase over the approved 2000 Operating Budget

(8) Management Reduce consulting fees Reduce this account by 35 3.5 Studies percent. If special studies are required, this account may be overspent. Reduces ability to provide sound analysis to the Board of complicated issues.

(9) Legal Fees Reduce fees Fewer arbitration cases are 6.0 provided with professional legal assistance.

(10) Materials and Reduce reference books Less availability of resource 0.8 Supplies materials to Security and Safety staff on Health and Safety legislation affecting staff and contractor work practices and working conditions. Current library materials become outdated with new regulations.

(11) Contracted Fencing reduced Contracted fence repairs will be 4.0 Services reduced by approximately half. Significant repairs or replacements will have to be done by Zoo staff which will negatively impact on workload and delay other maintenance work.

(12) Equipment Delete computer projector Reduces the efficiency of 10.0 presentations. Single projector to be used by all Zoo Units for both internal and public presentations

(13) Project Materials African bird holdings Planned bird species will not be 50.4 deferred added as insufficient holdings and potential for species to escape. Less bird viewing opportunities in pavilion.

Reductions to 0.0% increase over 2000 Budget 413.0 0.0

Not Recommended Reductions to five percent below approved 2000 Operating Budget Toronto City Council 230 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(14) Contracted Staff washroom/office Continuation of an inconvenience 85.0 Services deferred for Americas staff to use public washroom at the restaurant. Supervisor office will continue to be separated from staff. Continuation of inadequate facilities in on-going supervision of staff.

(15) Contracted Gaur shade deferred No additional shade will be 5.0 Services provided for gaur in outside exhibit. Possible UV damage to animals may result over time. Reduced visibility to public as animals enter holding to cool down.

(16) Contracted Wisent shade deferred No additional shade will be 6.0 Services provided for wisent. No added plantings for use as a deterrence for geese in exhibit. Prime public viewing reduced as wisent stay away from public areas.

Account Description of Reduction Service Impact Amount $ Percent Name Over 2000

(17) Contracted Elephant shade deferred Possible UV damage to the animals may 60.6 Services result over time. Lack of shade prompts concerns from public over animal welfare. Reduced visibility to public as animals stay out of sun at back of paddocks.

(18) Contracted Reduce membership May result in lower Membership 10.0 Services telemarketing program revenues generated as telemarketing effort will be curtailed. Eliminates ability to obtain new visitors who may not otherwise be visiting the Zoo.

(19) Contracted Reduce sponsorship May impact revenues as less support 15.0 Services support (1st level) available in sponsorship communications. Reduces Zoo’s ability to compete in competitive marketplace.

(20) Contracted Defer propane conversions Work to convert the Zoomobile drive 14.7 Services units from gasoline to propane driven engines will not be undertaken. Propane driven engines are more environmentally friendly and potentially more cost effective to run depending on fuel rates. Conservation efforts delayed. Toronto City Council 231 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(21) Project Exhibit props deferred Deferral of improvements in small 5.0 Materials reptile exhibits using realistic animal feeder and resting logs and creation of small pools. Improvements in public viewing are limited. An opportunity to present a better visually pleasing exhibits reduced. Exhibit deterioration continues as new synthetic materials not replacing older wooden structures that are subject to rotting over time.

(22) Project Zoo habitat improvements No improvements to on-site habitats 2.0 Materials deferred created to showcase local wildlife in very realistic settings at an affordable cost. On-site conservation efforts reduced.

(23) Contracted Infrastructure repairs Partial reduction will negatively impact 20.0 Services deferred on the appearance of the Zoo, operational efficiency and safety. Unable to ensure timely repair to buildings and services. Deferral in repairs generally results in higher costs in future years. Unexpected delays or emergencies may result in work if not completed on schedule.

(24) Contracted Site repairs reduced Partial reduction will negatively impact 20.0 Services on the appearance of the Zoo, operational efficiency and safety. This could result in an increase in visitor accidents. Unsightly appearance. Certain pathways closed or bypassed. Damaged areas could increase in size. Deferral in repairs generally results in higher costs in future years.

Account Description of Reduction Service Impact Amount $ Percent Name Over 2000

(25) Wages- Exhibit Design staff reduced Less capability to pre-plan and 15.0 Non-Perm design/cost projects in 2001 for next budget cycle. Project cost estimates may be understated. Impacts of projects not fully researched.

(26) Materials Reduce purchase of graphics Ongoing upgrade and sign replacement 2.0 and supplies items to be deferred. Deteriorating Supplies signage may remain in public view. Less opportunity to improve and update interpretive and education signage in exhibits. Public interest is not stimulated as graphics information is tired. Toronto City Council 232 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(27) Project Primate enrichment devices No improvements for animal well-being 11.0 Materials deferred and occupation. Animals keep to routine and have limited variety. Less enjoyment to visitors as animals have less activities with which to occupy themselves.

(28) Equipme Various public facility items Partitions, counter tops and mirrors for 12.0 nt deferred various public washrooms will be deferred. Carpet shampoo extruder and radio will also be deferred. Will result in deteriorating public washrooms and inefficient operations without appropriate equipment to maintain facilities.

(29) Contracted Reduce sponsorship Will further impact revenues as less 51.0 Services support (2nd level) support available in sponsorship communications. Reduces Zoo’s ability to compete in competitive marketplace.

(30) Contracted Giraffe shade deferred Continue with shade from a single tree; 43.0 Services no new structures will be built. Reduced visibility to public as animals stay out of sun. Lack of shade prompts concerns from public over animal welfare

(31) Project ICU completion deferred No improvements to specialized 1.7 Materials equipment storage. Poor sanitation level in critical animal health area. Continued reduction in space available for care of critical animal care. Limited treatment options for multiple animals in poor health.

Reductions to five percent below 2000 379.0 Budget

Total Reductions 792.0 (5.0)

______Toronto City Council 233 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(Report dated March 19, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Funding of Cost Overruns in 2001 for Toronto Police Service Benefits”)

Purpose:

This report provides the Budget Advisory Committee with a review of alternatives available to address funding of cost overruns on benefits costs for the Toronto Police Service in 2001 should the benefits costs not meet 2000 approved levels in 2001.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no budget impacts on the Recommended 2001 Operating Budget for the Toronto Police Service as a result of adopting this report. Should the Toronto Police Service experience budget variances related to higher than budgeted benefits costs, the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board will be required to report through the Policy and Finance Committee on these shortfalls. Measures to address overexpenditures will be dealt with as part of the City’s overall budget variance at that time. Funding is available in the Non-Program account, Funding of Employee Liabilities, or alternatively the Employee Benefits Reserve Fund.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Budget Advisory Committee:

(1) request the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board to report to the Policy and Finance Committee as part of its monthly operating budget variance reports on the progress of cost containment strategies currently being undertaken with respect to Employee Benefits at the Toronto Police Service; and

(2) if actual expenditures in 2001 begin to exceed approved levels that the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board request the Policy and Finance Committee to direct the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report on providing funding through an in-year base budget adjustment.

Background:

At its meeting of March 22, 2001, the Toronto Police Services Board approved the 2001 Operating Budget for the Toronto Police Service at $573,835,400.00 net. As part of this approval the Toronto Police Services Board adopted the following recommendation:

“given the implementation of various cost containment strategies being undertaken by the Toronto Police Services to reduce the overall costs of benefits, it is recommended that the budget for Employee Benefits remain unchanged from year 2000 levels and, should the Toronto Police Service require it, the Toronto Police Services Board request the City of Toronto’s Chief Toronto City Council 234 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Financial Officer and Treasurer, through the Policy and Finance Committee, to provide any required additional funding from the Employee Liabilities account”. At its meeting of March 23, 2001, the Budget Advisory Committee adopted the recommendations of the Board and requested that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back prior to the wrap-up meetings for the Budget Advisory Committee regarding potential funding for any cost overruns on employee benefits.

This report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer addresses the funding issue.

Discussion:

At its meeting of January 27, 2001, the Toronto Police Services Board deliberated the preliminary 2001 Operating Budget request for the Toronto Police Service. In its original submission, the Toronto Police Service identified $7.9 million in budget pressures associated with significant increases in benefits costs such as medical and dental expenditures as well as other employee costs. In an effort to mitigate these mounting pressures the Toronto Police Service has currently established a cost containment strategy and contracted external expertise to help address the significant cost increases being experienced. Optimistic that these strategies could reduce expenditures, the Toronto Police Service returned to the Toronto Police Services Board on March 22, 2001, with the recommendation that benefits costs be held at approved 2000 budget levels thereby eliminating the $7.9 million pressure from the request. This recommendation was adopted by the Board with the recommendation that where the Toronto Police Service is not able to hold benefits expenses at year 2000 levels, that assistance be sought from the City for any expenditure shortfalls. It is recommended that the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board, to report to the Policy and Finance Committee as part of its monthly operating budget variance reports on the progress of cost containment strategies currently being undertaken with respect to Employee Benefits at the Toronto Police Service.

At present, the actuarial valuation of unfunded employee liabilities for the Toronto Police Service is estimated to be $255 million against which no contributions have been made to date. Consistent with other City departments and selected agencies, boards and commissions the Toronto Police Service is budgeting to contribute against this unfunded liability in 2001. The contribution is currently at $28.8 million and is included in the $80 million non-program contributions identified City-wide. The Toronto Police Services Board had hoped that should the Toronto Police Service not be able to flatline benefits costs at 2000 approved levels the shortfall could be offset against their contribution to the unfunded liabilities. The Toronto Police Service recommendation, therefore, identified the City’s Employee Liabilities Reserve Fund as a means for providing additional funding in 2001 if necessary.

Currently, as part of the Operating Budget Variance Reporting process, all programs report variances through the Policy and Finance Committee. It is recommended that when actual expenditures in 2001 are known to exceed approved levels that the Chair, Toronto Police Services Board, request of the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer through a report to the Policy and Finance Committee to provide an in-year base budget adjustment to cover the over expenditure. If and when this request is made, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will consider options for addressing shortfalls and where no other alternatives are presented, reduce the contributions being made by the Toronto Police Service towards their unfunded liability of Toronto City Council 235 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

$255 million by the amount of the shortfall as an in-year adjustment or through funding provided from the Non-Program funding in the Employee Liabilities account.

Conclusion:

The adoption of the recommendations in this report will result in the establishment of a Budget Advisory Committee recommended 2001 Operating Budget for the Toronto Police Service that does not provide for any expenditure increases for employee benefits in 2001. If and when the Toronto Police Service identifies expenditure increases for benefits that are greater than the 2001 approved levels, the Toronto Police Services Board is to present a report on these pressures to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer through the Policy and Finance Committee. If this request is made, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer will explore all options for offsetting the shortfall but will likely adopt the strategy of reducing the contributions of the Toronto Police Service to the Employee Benefits Reserve Fund by the amount required as an in-year base budget adjustment.

Contact Names:

Mr. Al Horsman, Senior Budget Analyst, Budget Services, (416) 397-4532; Mr. Carmine Bruno, Manager, Budget Services, (416) 397-4218.

______

(Report dated March 15, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Operating Budget - Non Program Expenditures and Revenues Supplementary Report”)

Purpose:

To provide further analysis of the 2001 operating budgets for the various Non Program Expenditures and Revenues and to recommend amendments to certain budget lines as a result of 2000 year end actuals.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

In aggregate, 2001 Non Program net expenditures accounts have increased by $25.16 million on a net basis to reflect increased tax revenue - $8.66 million in true growth and $17.0 million in vacancy rebates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Non Program budgets, as amended, contained in this report be adopted; Toronto City Council 236 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(2) once the final tax levy bylaw for 2001 is adopted, Finance staff calculate the actual PIL levy for City-owned properties and report back on any decreases in PIL payments be recovered as an offset (reduction) in expenditures from departments/agencies.

Discussion:

Appendix A outlines the amended 2001 budgets and most up-to-date 2000 actuals.

A. Capital and Corporate Financing

(1) Capital from Current - 2001 Recommended Budget - $142.963 million.

Capital from current represents the downpayment in the City’s capital program and ultimately reduces the City’s cost of the capital program. No increases are proposed for 2001 in light of other significant budget pressures. A discussion for the need to increase the funding is contained in the report, entitled “Recommended 2001 – 2005 Tax Supported Capital Plan – Debt and Debt Service Impact”.

(2) Debt Charges – 2001 Recommended Budget – $268.648 million.

These items are more fully described in the report, entitled “Recommended 2001 – 2005 Tax Supported Capital Plan – Debt and Debt Service Impact” to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Debt charges are projected to increase by $54 million over the 2000 estimate as a result of higher borrowing from the capital program and annualization of debt issued in 2000 to support past capital expenditures.

(3) Housing Company Recovery – 2001 Recommended Budget - $3.5 million.

This amount represents the repayment of interest and principal due from the Toronto Housing Company (THC) for loans that were provided by the former Metropolitan Toronto for the renovation of various properties. They consist of various interest rates and terms with a relatively consistent amount payable on an annual basis. There is no change in the 2001 budget from the level budgeted in 2000.

(4) Computer Leases – 2001 Recommended Budget - $18.551 million.

The increase in the 2001 budget relates to software licences for the existing and new applications that were not included in the 2000 budget, but which became necessary as Y2K compliant hardware was implemented throughout the City.

Under the City’s Y2K project, $43.0 million of hardware and system software was acquired with leasing costs totalling $13.5 million being budgeted in 2000.

In order to support the expanded infrastructure, software licences for products such as office automation tools, online report viewing, testing, databases and desktop management were required as part of the Y2K platform. The costs for these software products totalled Toronto City Council 237 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

$24.35 million with total leasing costs of $5.0 million required, bringing the 2001 request to $18.5 million.

A report is being prepared on the closure of the City’s Y2K project that identifies these costs. A cost allocation algorithm will be developed in 2001 so that these costs can be allocated to the programs.

(5) Fleet Reserve Contribution – 2001 Recommended Budget - $7 million.

Since amalgamation, the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Reserve has been underfunded. As reported to Council in July 1999, an appropriate level of replacement would be $40 million, and that, if the contributions to the reserve did not increase by at least $7 million annually for three years, the reserve would be depleted in 2001. For the 2000 Operating Budget a Non-Program account was funded at the $7 million level for this purpose.

(a) Vehicle Replacement – Tax Supported.

The table below provides a history of the contributions to the Vehicle and Equipment replacement reserve by tax supported programs. In 2000, a separate reserve was created for Water/Wastewater Services where replacements would be fully funded each year from Water/Wastewater operations.

Contributions to the Vehicle Replacement Reserve ($000’s)

2001 Standing 1998 1999 2000 2000 Department/Program Committee Actual Actual Budget Actual Recommended

Community and Neighbourhood 155 99 99 99 99 Services: Corporate Services: Facilities 186 254 253 275 275 Fleet 111 249 243 249 249 Finance 7 21 21 21 21 Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Parks and Recreation 827 1,773 1,773 1,773 2,536 Urban Development 122 47 47 47 47 Works and Emergency Services: Solid Waste 5,577 2,918 2,918 2,918 4,300 Transportation 1,644 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 Tech Services 88 22 172 172 172 Fire 1,081 1,391 1,391 1,391 3,344 Ambulance 2,098 2,352 2,573 2,573 2,712 ABC’s Library 13 150 150 10 220 Police 2,800 3,100 3,100 3,600 4,700 Exhibition Place 268 268 268 268 268 Zoo 159 159 158 159 159 Non-Program 7,000 7,000 7,000 Toronto City Council 238 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Total 15,136 14,255 21,618 22,004 27,554

The Fleet Services 2001 request for vehicle and equipment replacement is $48.4 million with $39.7 million proposed for tax supported and $8.7 million for water/wastewater. Given the size of the opening balance, base contributions from departments, agencies, boards and commissions (DABCs) and the state of this reserve, there is a need to preserve the base contribution of $7 million in the Non-program Account in order to provide the $35 million of vehicle replacements being considered in the capital budget as the staff recommendation.

The 2001 acquisitions as recommended are as follows:

Recommended 2001 Acquisition of Vehicles 2001 Standing 2001 Committee Service Request Recommended ($000’s) ($000’s)

Community and Neighbourhood Services 153 103 Department Corporate Services Fleet 832 1,005 Finance Department 109 100 Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department. Parks and Recreation 8,705 6,068 Urban Development 185 123 Department Works and Emergency Services Solid Waste 4,465 5,791 Transportation 6,018 7,840 Technical Services 388 349 Fire 8,295 6,033 Ambulance 3,584 2,607 ABC’s Police 5,360 3,898 Library 230 167 Exhibition Place 640 465 Zoo 206 150 Insurance Contingency 300 300 Other 190 190 39,660 35,189 Toronto City Council 239 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The following table provides a projection of the tax supported requirements for the next four years after consideration of the Economic Development and Parks Committee recommendation to reduce the Parks and Recreation contribution by approximately $1.5 million. To fund an average annual replacement program of $35 million requires a $5 million budget pressure in operating programs in 2002, followed by a budget pressure of $6 million is required in 2003 to support a $40 million capital program with a further budget pressure of $3.5 million in 2004 to provide an appropriate sustainable funding level.

Replacement Vehicle Reserve Fund – Continuity Projection

($000’s)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Opening Balance 12,172.5 4,536.8 2,036.8 536.8 2,536.8

Contributions DABC 20,553.3 25,500.0 31,500.0 35,000.0 35,000.0 Contributions Non-Program 7,000.0 7,000.0 7,000.0 7,000.0 7,000.0 Capital Purchases (35,189.0) (35,000.0) (40,000.0) (40,000.0) (40,000.0) Other Transactions 0 0 0 0 0

Closing Balance 4,536.8 2,036.8 536.8 2,536.8 4,536.8

(b) Vehicle Replacement – Water/Wastewater

In 2000, it was decided that its replacements would be fully funded each year from Water/Wastewater operations. Thus the vehicle replacement is fully funded in the Operating Budget. The recommended budget for the Water Program vehicle replacement for 2001 is $5.503 million and for the Wastewater Program is $3.216 million for a total of $8.719 million.

B. Non-Program Expenditures

(6) Tax Deficiencies and Write Offs – 2001 Recommended Budget - $100.0 million

Year Budget Actual Variance (in $ 000’s) 1998 127,340.0 145,520.1 (18,180.1) 1999 159,729.2 153,729.2 6,000.0 2000 109,586.9 113,718.0 (3,243.9) 2001 100,000.0 N/A N/A

Tax deficiencies occur whenever there is an adjustment required to a tax levy. Tax deficiencies include assessment and tax appeals, adjustments to capping and/or phase-in amounts, tax write- offs, and tax rebates. Toronto City Council 240 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Chart 1 below provides a summary of tax deficiencies incurred over the past three years.

Chart 1: Summary of Actual Tax Deficiencies by Type

1998 1999 2000 ($ millions) Tax Reductions: Appeals – processed 60.5 68.2 103.8 Appeals – Pending 85.0 44.3 42.8 Sub-Total – Appeals 145.5 112.5 146.6 Write Offs - 2.1 6.3 Rebated and Other 0.00 3.5 5.9 Adjustments Phase-In Adjustments - 35.6 (45.0) Total 145.5 153.7 113.8 Note: the 1998 phase in adjustments of $3.9 million was recorded in the tax revenue account and not included as part of the tax deficiencies. 2000 deficiencies here include the Ethno-Cultural property tax rebates.

1998

In 1998, the $18 million unfavourable variance between budget ($127 million) and actual ($145 million) was due to an increase in the number of assessment appeals triggered by the introduction of CVA.

1999

In 1999, the tax deficiency budget was adjusted to reflect an increased level of appeal activity. The actual expenditures for 1999 closely mirrored what was forecasted and budgeted. Appendix B attached provides a breakdown of the tax deficiency account ($153.7 million) in 1999. Appeal reductions represent the largest share of deficiencies at $112.5 million ($68.2 million processed in 1999 plus $44.3 million estimated for appeals outstanding at the ARB at year end). Phase-in adjustments also impacted tax deficiencies in 1999. Although the phase-in and capping policies legislated by the Province in 1998 were meant to be revenue neutral, in reality this was not achieved since the claw-back rates were based on assessment values at a fixed point in time (when setting the final tax rates and budget in April). Processing tax appeals or other changes in assessment changed the capping/claw-back relationship resulting in revenue shortfalls.

2000

Appendix C provides a breakdown of the tax deficiency account ($103.8 million) in 2000. Appeal reductions represent the largest share of the deficiencies at $136.6 million ($103.8 million processed in 2000 plus $32.8 million for appeals outstanding at the ARB at year- end). Having recognized the impact of phase-in adjustments in 1999, the 2000 claw-back rates were maintained at 1999 levels in order to recover phase-in losses experienced in prior years. Over the past three years (1998 to 2000), the revenue gains with respect to phase in adjustments on taxable properties was approximately $13.2 million: 1998 ($3.9 million); 1999 (-$35.6 million); and 2000 ($44.9 million) a net. This was offset by a shortfall in revenues with respect to phase in adjustments on payments in lieu properties of approximately $28.3 million: 1998 Toronto City Council 241 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

($4.3 million); 1999 ($10.8 million); and 2000 ($13.2 million). The overall revenue shortfall with respect to phase in adjustments for both taxable and payments in lieu properties was $15.1 million: 1998 (0.4 million); 1999 ($46.4 million); 2000 (-$31.7 million).

2001

For 2001, a budget of $100 million for tax deficiencies is recommended.

Now that CVA is entering its fourth year, property owners are becoming more familiar with the new assessment and taxation system. Given that CVA is based on market value, property owners can easily understand whether their property has been fairly assessed. On a go forward basis, the updating of assessed values on a more frequent basis should reduce the number of assessment appeals. By 2004, OPAC will be updating assessments on an annual basis and by 2006 assessments will be averaged over a three year period.

At the end of 2000, there was still a significant number of assessment appeals (just under 52,000) waiting to be heard at the ARB. Chart 2 below identifies the number of appeals outstanding at the ARB as at January 8, 2001. It is important to remember that the following numbers do not represent the total number of properties under appeal. A property under appeal may have three outstanding appeals - one for each year (1998, 1999 and 2000). In addition all of the appeals outstanding may not be successful in terms of having their assessment reduced. Based on past experience, we can expect to loss approximately seven percent of the total assessment under appeal. The “Total Assessment Under Appeal” column represents the total assessed value of the properties under appeal - $26.6 billion in assessment dollars.

Chart 2: Outstanding Appeals at ARB as at Jan 8, 2001

Percent of Total Assessment Total Under Appeal Assessment 1998 1999 2000 Total (Millions) Base Residential 10,121 8,584 8,123 26,828 $4,277.5 3.57 Multi-Res. 265 396 530 1,191 $2,596.7 20.96 Commercial 6,200 4,819 4,901 15,920 $18,102.3 63.21 Industrial 2,547 2,551 2,822 7,920 $1,618.4 45.61 Farmlands 5 6 8 19 $0.8 12.52 Total 19,138 16,356 16,384 51,878 $26,595.7 16.15

Based on a seven percent estimated assessment loss, we can anticipate a loss in revenue from pending appeals for 2000 and prior years, in the range of $161 million. This anticipated revenue loss is accommodated in the City’s allowance for doubtful accounts. The 2001 budget represents the value of 2001 appeals that are expected to be filed through reconsiderations or ARB appeals. Toronto City Council 242 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Chart 3: Estimated Loss in Revenue from Prior Year Appeals (1998 to 2000) Pending to be Heard at the ARB

$ (000’s) Residential 7,557.7 Multi-Residential 16,576.2 Commercial 122,243.0 Industrial 15,060.0 Farmlands 0.3 Total 161,437.2

(7) Property Tax Rebates – Ethno Cultural Organizations – 2001 Recommended Budget - $1.0 million Budgeted

Year Budget ($000’s) Actual ($000’s) Variance 1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 2000 1,000.0 2,112.8 (1,112.8) 2001 1,000.0

As provided in the subsection 442.1(4) of the Municipal Act, a municipality can have a tax rebate program that provides tax rebates to organizations that are similar to eligible charities or a class of such organizations defined by the municipality. Pursuant to this act, Council at its meeting of October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted recommendations for a tax rebate program for a class of such organizations that is comprised of certain ethno-cultural centres. ‘Ethno-Cultural Centre’ means a centre for the promotion of culture within the multi-cultural context of Canadian society and for the facilitation of communication and understanding of culture, education, arts and trade, the activities of which are accessible to the community as a whole or an appreciable portion thereof at minimal or no cost, and which are not contrary to public policy. Provided that an eligible organization meets the qualification for ‘ethno-cultural centres’, an annual tax rebate in the amount of 100 percent of the taxes payable (taxes for municipal and school purposes) is provided. An eligible organization must be a registered charity within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada). It must own, occupy and use the property centre for the purposes of an Ethno-Cultural Centre. It must make an application for such rebate and also must not be in tax arrears for previous years. The organization must agree to annually notify the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of any change in circumstances which would alter its status as an eligible organization or its status of its property as eligible property.

Council recommended that funding in the amount of $1.0 million be allocated from the Tax Deficiencies budget for 2000 for the purpose of rebating the eligible properties. Rebates for the qualifying ethno-cultural organizations, retroactive to 1998, were processed in early 2000. Appendix D identifies the organizations currently being rebated under this program. These amounts are included in Appendix C – 2000 Actual Tax Deficiencies.

For 2001 and beyond, this account will only incur expenditures related to rebates for the current tax year. Toronto City Council 243 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(8) Downloading – Assessment (Ontario Property Assessment Corporation) - $25.7 million Budgeted

Beginning in 1998, as part of the LSR realignment, municipalities assumed the cost of assessment services delivered through the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC).

The allocation of OPAC costs, those that the Corporation considers necessary to pay for its operations during a taxation year, is based on the following two data inputs, each given equal weight:

(a) the proportion that the total assessment on all property in the municipality bears to the total assessment of all property in Ontario. (Raw assessment, all inclusive, i.e., PIL’s, etc.)

(b) the proportion that the total number of properties set out in assessment rolls returned in the municipality bears to the total number of properties set out in all assessment rolls returned to all municipalities in Ontario plus the total number of properties in the provincial land tax register of the provincial land tax roll. (Provincial land tax register includes properties in ‘unorganized’ territories of the Province, primarily in Northern Ontario. Province pays this share).

Analysis – City Portion of OPAC Costs 1998 1999 2000 2001 Allocation Budget Actuals Budget Actuals Budget Actuals Budg et

Assessment – as a percentage of 25.51% 25.14% 24.87% Province Properties – as a percentage of 14.82% 14.49% 14.46% Province Subtotal 40.33% 39.63% 39.33%

50% Weighting each component 20.16% 19.81% 19.66% (May not be exact due to rounding) $128.7 $130.0 $130.0 OPAC Costs (millions) City Portion (millions) $24.747 $25.946 $25.759 $25.759 $25.560 $25.561 25.70 0

The City is under discussion with OPAC with regard to future costs trends that will be impacted with the updated assessed values for 1999. The 2001 budget has been maintained at 2000 levels. However, there is a risk that implementation of the new assessed values into the current funding allocation formula will lead to a significantly higher cost to the City of OPAC costs.

(9) Temporary Borrowing – 2001 Recommended Budget - $1.5 million

This amount represents the cost of temporary borrowing by the City. During the year, the management of the City’s cash flow requires borrowing of funds on a temporary basis until tax receipts and other revenues are received. This borrowing capability provides the City with the Toronto City Council 244 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 flexibility to manage its cash flow and be able to address a variety of funding requirements. Although this amount was not required in 2000, it is expected to be required to allow the City to manage its cash flow and working capital requirements on an efficient basis. In 2001, Council authorized the issuance of up to $1 billion in promissory notes to fund any short-term funding requirements. The amount of $1.5 million will support a short-term borrowing facility of between $50 to $100 million for several days until City funds become available.

(10) Funding Employee Related Liabilities – 2001 Recommended Budget - $57.8 million

This account is comprised of two components – (i) Employee Benefits and (ii) Provision for Fire 1999 and 2000 Wage Settlement.

(i) Employee Benefits

Cost are incurred by the City on behalf of employees – both active and retired. Appendix E details out these costs and how they are paid for in the operating budget.

In 2000, government legislated benefits such as CPP, EI, Health Tax and WSIB for City (non ABC) operations totalled $87.1 million; while City provided benefits for LTD, Major Medical, Dental, Life Insurance, Sick Leave for active and retired employees totalled $90.8 million. Costs for the pension plans (currently in contribution holiday) were maintained in program areas, and in accordance with Council’s direction, in 1999 and 2000, were contributed to offset capital financing pressures and in 2001 return to be contributed to the Employee Benefit Reserve Fund. Further discussion of this is contained later in this report.

Financing of these current costs of employee benefits is found in program budgets and in the non-program area. Programs budget at an average of 21 percent (with some higher or lower depending on their mix of employees and actual experience) with budgeted funding of $220.2 million. The Non-Program accounts pay for the expected costs of pre-amalgamation WSIB (1998 and onwards costs of $8.6 million are charged to programs directly); sick leave and retiree benefits. Financing of $49.1 million is provided in the Non Program budget as contributions to reserve funds as follows:

Contribution to Employee Benefits Reserve Fund $20.0 (Retiree Benefits) Contribution to Sick Leave Reserve Fund 10.0 Contribution to Workers Compensation Reserve Fund 19.1 Total $49.1

It is important to note that the operating budget is only covering off the current costs of employee benefits. Many of the City’s benefit plans (life insurance, major medical) are provided to age 65 and beyond for retirees. As the City’s workforce transitions from active to retired, the costs of providing retiree benefits will increase based on todays demographic trends. The City has therefore incurred liabilities in this regard for the future. Toronto City Council 245 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The consulting firm of William M. Mercer Ltd. did a valuation and funding analysis of the City’s benefit plans as at December 31, 1998 for City Departments (not including Police) which will be updated in 2001. The unfunded liabilities determined at that time were:

($000’s) Unfunded Liabilities as at December 1998

Employee Benefits $432.3 Sick Leave 60.7 Worker’s Compensation (WSIB) 158.8 Total $651.8

A further report on this matter, with a funding strategy will be forthcoming, for implementation in 2002. A preliminary analysis indicates that additional operating budget contributions would have to be at least $50 million to stabilize and maintain this level of unfunded liability. This does not include a provision for the TTC and Police Services which had an estimated unfunded liability as at December 31, 1995 of $224 million.

The history of this account is provided below with a comparison to the Mercer determined unfunded liabilities. The Employee Benefit Reserve Fund is decreasing as a result of unplanned withdrawals for various retroactive settlements – Library Pay Equity ($25.6 million).

($000’s)

Reserve Fund Balances As at City only As at As at Dec. 31, 2000 Actuarial Liability Dec. 31, 1998 Dec. 31, 1999 Actual as at Dec. 31, 1998 Actual Actual (estimate)

Employee Benefits Reserve Fund 587.2 151.5 135.5 107.4 Sick Leave Reserve Fund 150.0 89.7 89.1 94.4 Workers Compensation Reserve Fund 176.4 17.5 17.8 12.0 Total 913.6 258.7 242.4 213.8

(i) Provision for Fire 1999 and 2000 Wage Settlement Budget - $8.66 million

All programs of the City have had budget transfers to offset the 1999 and 2000 cost of living increases with the exception of Fire. These funds are identified to be transferred to Fire to be added to their base budget. This then provides $15.4 million towards the cost of the fire arbitration. Costs above this base budget amount would be considered as wage harmonization costs which are not provided in this budget. Toronto City Council 246 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(11) Corporate Contingency – 2001 Recommended Budget - $3.0 million

Year Budget Actual Variance (in $ 000’s) 1998 29,945.0 6,355.7 (23,589.3) 1999 14,255.0 4,598.5 (9,656.5) 2000 (including strike 7,662.1 6,646.7 (1,015.4) contingency - $2.4M) 2001 – Recommended Budget 3,000.0 n/a n/a

This account has been established with a view to provide funding for critical expenses unknown at the time that the budget is set.

(12) Other Corporate Expenditures – 2001 Recommended Budget - $8.1 million

This expenditure includes $3.5 million of interest on tax refunds; $0.8 million for studies to be undertaken on corporate initiatives, such as Council’s Strategic Plan, new Municipal Act and Charter City initiatives, and a Power Purchase Agreement; $0.6 million for an annual contribution to the Election Reserve Fund relating to estimated refunds of $1.8 million for election campaign contributions for the next municipal election in 2003; $0.5 million for task forces; $0.3 million for corporate store inventory adjustments; $0.3 million for lifeguard services; with the balance provided for various corporate expenditures including corporate memberships to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities of $120,000, Quarter Century Club awards and civic recognition events.

The increase of $1.9 million in 2001 in comparison with 2000 budget is mainly due to the $0.6 million contribution to the Election Reserve Fund for 2003 election campaign contribution refunds and to bring the budget more in line with the actual expenditures of previous years.

(13) Insurance Claims and Premiums – 2001 Recommended Budget - $3.7 million

The 2001 Operating Budget includes $3.7 million as a non-program expenditure for Insurance Premiums/Claims. This amount is intended to be distributed to programs in 2001.

This expenditure originated following consolidation of the amalgamating municipalities’ insurance budgets in 1998. Contributions to Reserve – Insurance from all consolidated insurance budgets is:

2001 Budget $000’s

Corporate 3,700.0 Departmental 10,300.0 Total 14,000.0 Toronto City Council 247 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The estimated annual corporate insurance expenses since amalgamation is $18.5 million.

Insurance Reserve Fund $000’s

Contributions to Insurance Reserve Fund 14,000.0 Estimated Annual Insurance Expenditures 18,500.0 Annual Shortfall (funded by Insurance Reserve Fund) (4,500.0)

Current Insurance Reserve Fund balances are temporarily sufficient to fund the annual shortfall between contributions and expenses, however continuing the trend will jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the Fund.

Insurance Reserve Fund 2001 2002 2003 OPENING BALANCE 19,825.4 15,075.4 24,734.6 Expense Feature Insurance Premiums (1) 4,503.7 4,695.5 4,883.3 Claims Adjusting Fees 1,000.0 800.0 800.0 Self-Insured Claims 15,000.0 15,000.0 15,000.0 Loss Prevention 40.0 40.0 40.0 Insurance Broker Fees (3) 150.0 200.0 250.0 Total Expense 20,693.7 20,735.5 20,973.3

Contributions Claim Recovery From Insurance 2,000.0 (2) 15,000.0 0.0 Contributions DABC 10,243.97 15,394.7 15,394.7 Contributions Non-Program 3,700.0 0.0 0.0 Total Contribution 15,943.7 30,394.7 15,394.7 CLOSING BALANCE 15,075.4 24,734.6 19,156.0

(1) Estimated insurance premium increases of four percent in each of the years 2002 and 2003 due to general insurance market increase trends. (2) Estimated asset balance due to the City following resolution of former membership in insurance reciprocal. (3) Formalized Broker contract will re-align fee structure commensurate with services levels.

In preparation for the introduction of a new insurance cost allocation algorithm in 2001, it will be recommended that the 2001 non-program expenditure of $3.7 million be proportionately re-distributed to departmental Operating Budgets. On the basis of a new algorithm, insurance charges in an amount sufficient to meet expected annual expenses will be generated. The re-distribution of the former non-program expenditure of $3.7 million and the new algorithm will change departmental insurance charges. The resultant variance will be explained based on the new algorithm model and programs will be consulted on the required changes to their interdepartmental charges.

(14) Parking Enforcement and Operation – 2001 Recommended Budget – $36.087 million Expenditures

The Parking Tag Enforcement and Operations program contributes towards the enhancement of the quality of life in the City of Toronto. Through its various responsibilities, it contributes to the safe and orderly flow of vehicular traffic by enforcing the City’s parking by-laws and responds to parking concerns of the community including the disabled. The Parking Tag Operations is composed of two service areas with distinct functional responsibilities: Parking Tag Enforcement – Toronto Police Services, and Parking Tag Operations – City Finance. Toronto City Council 248 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The Parking Enforcement Unit of the Toronto Police Service is responsible for the enforcement of the City of Toronto’s parking by-laws whereas the Parking Tag Operations component of the City Finance, Revenue Division, is responsible for processing the parking tags and financial reporting. The details of the two distinct functions are managed within Toronto Police Service and City Finance. All expenditures incurred by Parking Tag Enforcement and Operations are fully recovered from the Non Program account resulting in a net revenue.

The increase to the expenditures is mainly a result of the request by Toronto Police – Parking Enforcement Unit for additional officers. Please refer to separate analyst report on Parking Tags.

(15) Miscellaneous Recoveries – 2001 Recommended Budget - $408.5 thousand

The budgeted amount includes $158.5 thousand in grants anticipated from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the federal government to cover costs for Environmental Plan Initiatives. The remaining $250 thousand is expected to be received from the Toronto Hydro to offset the consulting costs related to the Power Purchase Agreement.

C. Non Program Revenues

(16) Payments in Lieu of Taxes – 2001 Recommended Budget - $159.022 million

Year Budget Actual Variance (in $ 000’s) 1998 152,040.0 200,998.4 48,958.4 1999 190,425.6 188,682.7 (1,472.8) 2000 179,987.4 137,150.2 (42,837.2) 2001 159,022.0 N/A N/A

Under the provisions of the Assessment Act, all property in Ontario is liable for assessment with certain exemptions from taxation. Section 3 of the Act outlines the various types of properties that are exempt from taxation. Various statutes, however, provide for payments-in-lieu of taxes (PILs) to be made by the federal and provincial governments and some municipal agencies. Most PILs are calculated in a similar manner as property taxes by multiplying the property’s assessment by the appropriate tax rate. However, there are two exceptions – “heads and beds” and acreage PILs.

Heads and beds apply to public hospitals, universities and colleges, and correctional facilities and are calculated based on a fixed rate per hospital bed, student or resident. Under the Assessment Act, municipalities are also allowed to make levies (known as “heads and beds”) on universities, colleges, correctional facilities and public hospitals. Section 157 of the Municipal Act allows municipalities to annually levy up to a maximum of $75.00 for each provincially- rated hospital bed (public hospitals); $75.00 for each full-time student (universities and colleges); and $75.00 for each resident place (correctional institutions). The capacity figures for these institutions that are used by the municipality for this levy, are determined by the Province. Each year, normally in late spring/early summer, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing provides to the City updated capacity data. The grants are paid to municipalities by the provincial government. The fixed rate specified in the Municipal Act was changed from $50.00 to $75.00 in 1987. In a report, entitled “Utilization of Assessment time Rate as an Alternative to Toronto City Council 249 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 the Method Prescribed in Section 157 of the Municipal Act (Heads and Beds) for Calculation of Payments in Lieu of Taxes”, (November 13, 1998), the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer reported that if a standard assessment times residential tax rate were used to calculate payments for head and bed institutions, the City’s PILs revenue would increase by $17.6 million. In December 1998, Council adopted requesting the Province to approve legislation to increase the head and bed rate from $75.00 to $208.50, in order to harmonize the tax treatment to that of other Provincial properties.

Appendix F attached provides a summary of PILs revenue by level of government.

Acreage PILs relate to Ontario Hydro transmission corridors and are calculated based on a fixed rate per acre as set by regulation. Effective January 1, 2001, all acreage based PIL levies have been converted to taxation.

Payments-in-lieu of taxes on properties owned by the Federal Government and its Crown corporations are calculated using the full commercial tax rate (i.e., City and education), except for consulate properties, where properties-in-lieu are calculated using the full residential tax rate. For federal properties assessed and taxed in the commercial and industrial class, the school board portion of property taxes is retained by the municipality.

For properties owned and occupied by the Provincial government, the payment-in-lieu is calculated using the tax rate for municipal purposes only at the appropriate rate based on the type of property (as per the Municipal Tax Assessment Act, section 4(2) which states “Every crown agency, in respect of provincial property owned or occupied by it, may pay in each year to the municipality in which the property is situate an amount equal to the tax for municipal purposes that would be payable if the property were taxable”). The rationale for this is the Province funds education through other means, and therefore should not also fund education through PILs.

While the majority of municipal owned properties are exempt from taxation, properties owned by some municipal agencies are liable for PILs such as Toronto Hydro, the Parking Authority of Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission and Solid Waste and Water/Wastewater facilities. The City retains the school portion of taxes for all commercial and industrial properties owned by the municipality and its agencies.

1998

With the significant change in assessment and tax legislation in 1998, including the introduction of CVA and capping, it was difficult to predict the impact on payment-in-lieu of taxes. The 1998 budget was set at 1997 budget levels. The $49.0 million difference between 1998 budget ($152.0 million) and actual ($201 million) is attributable to the conversion to updated assessment values (i.e., CVA).

1999

In 1999, the budget was adjusted to reflect the impact of CVA, and the actual for 1999 was within $1.4 million of the budget. The drop in actual PIL revenues between 1998 ($200 million) and 1999 ($188.7 million) is largely due to phase-in adjustments and rate reductions applicable Toronto City Council 250 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 to the Ontario Hydro acreage-based levy. Prior to 1998, all rights-of-way and utility transmission corridors were assessed based on the full assessed value of abutting lands. Bill 149 exempted rights-of-way and utility transmission corridors, but made them liable for taxation or PILs calculated at a fixed rate per acre as set by the Province in regulation. In 1998 the acreage rate for Ontario Hydro transmission corridors was $5,361.90. For the period January 1 to March 31, 1999, the rate was lowered to $4,887 per acre. Effective April 1, 1999, the acreage rate for Ontario Hydro was further reduced to $2,042 per acre. The substantial changes in the acreage rate between 1998 and 1999 resulted in a loss (not a transfer) in PIL revenue of $7.9 million in 1999.

2000

In 2000, the $42.7 million unfavourable variance between budget ($180 million) and actual ($137.3 million) is due to the retroactive conversion of Ontario Hydro properties from PILs to taxable. In 1999, the Province enacted legislation that changed Ontario Hydro properties from PILs to taxable effective April 1, 1999. Since this legislation was passed after the return of the 1999 assessment roll, the actual conversion of properties, retroactive to April 1, 1999, was processed through an appeal and supplementary levy process in the tax year 2000, with the City continuing to keep the school portion of taxes for Ontario Hydro properties after the conversion of these properties to taxable.

In 2000, $41.2 million of PIL revenues for Ontario Hydro properties were converted to taxable. Of the $41.2 million, $12.8 million was converted on the main levy as a year-end change on the 2000 returned assessment roll for 2000 taxation. The remaining $28.4 million was converted through appeals processed in 2000 (of this $13.7 million related to the 1999 tax year and the balance ($14.7 million) pertained to 2000).

2001

The 2001 budget for PILs is recommended to be increased to $159 million from the preliminary estimate of $155 million due to recent confirmation regarding the withdrawal of appeals for MTHA properties.

Payments-in-lieu of taxes are paid on some properties owned by municipal agencies including Toronto Hydro, the Parking Authority of Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission and Works and Emergency Services facilities for solid waste, water and wastewater, water and sewage treatment. The preliminary estimates for 2001, indicates that the PIL levy for various City- owned properties may be decreasing with corresponding decreases in operation costs. Once the final levy by-law is struck, Finance staff should report back on those program areas that will have reduced costs and make corresponding adjustments to their costs.

The proposed $159 million budget for 2001 represents a decrease of $20.9 million over the 2000 budget. This change is due to the following:

(a) $14.5 million is due to the conversion of Ontario Hydro properties ($6.5 million of assessment-based properties plus $8.0 million in acreage based levies); effective 2001, Toronto City Council 251 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

most of the Ontario Hydro properties have been converted to Taxable (with the City continuing to keep the school portion of taxes);

(b) $5.4 million is due to the reduction in education tax rates for commercial and industrial properties; since the City retains the school portion of taxes for PIL properties in the commercial and industrial property class, the reduction in the education tax rate for commercial and industrial properties impacts PIL revenue;

With respect to Ontario Hydro, all but a small portion of these properties are returned as Taxable on the 2001 returned assessment roll. Based on the updated CVA values and preliminary tax rates and assumptions (including the anticipated reduction in the education rate for commercial and industrial properties), we anticipate billing Ontario Hydro, excluding any possible capping/phase-in adjustment, a total of $28.8 million (taxation and PILs combined) in 2001.

Chart 1 below compares total revenues (taxable plus PILs) for Ontario Hydro in 1998 to 2001 estimates. Between 1998 and 2001 there is an estimated loss in overall revenues (PILs plus Taxable) of $10.1 million. Of this, $9.6 million is attributable to the decrease in the acreage rate (see Chart 2 below) that was lost in 1999 budget. The balance is due to the reduction in the education rate for commercial and industrial properties and the impact of the updated assessment for 2001 taxation.

Chart 1: Total Revenues for Ontario Hydro – 1998 versus 2001

1998 Billings 2001 Estimated Billings Loss in Overall Revenue (*1) ($) ($) ($) PILs: Assessment Based 26,046,416 1,200,865 (24,845,551) Acreage Based 15,598,303 (15,598,303) Phase-In Adjustment (2,683,719) 2,683,719 Sub-Total 38,961,000 1,200,865 (37,760,135) Taxable: Assessment Based 21,578,008 21,578,008 Acreage Based 6,039,060 6,039,060 Sub-Total 27,617,068 27,617,068 Total PILS and Taxable Assessment Base 26,046,416 22,778,873 (3,267,543) Acreage Base 15,598,303 6,039,060 (9,559,243) Phase-In Adjustment (2,683,719) 2,683,719

Total 38,961,000 28,817,933 (10,143,067)

*1: 2001 estimates, are based on the updated assessments for 2001 taxation and the preliminary tax rates and assumptions used in developing the “Preliminary Summary of Estimated 2001 CVA Tax Impacts” (December 2000). The 2001 estimates do not include the effect of any tax mitigating measures.

*2: Phase-In applies to the assessment-base levy, not to acreage-based. Toronto City Council 252 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Chart 2: Acreage Based Billing Comparison 2001 Estimates versus 1998

Tax Total Acreage- Increase (decrease) Year No. of Acres Acreage Rate Based Billing compared to previous year

1998 2,909.1 $ 5,361.90 $15,598,303.29 N/A 1999 Jan 1 to Mar 2,805.35 $ 4,887.73 $ 3,380,990.14 Apr 1 to Dec 2,805.35 $ 2,042.68 $ 4,317,449.02 31 $ 7,698,439.16 ($ 7,899,864.13) Total 1999

2000 2,968.25 $ 2,042.68 $ 6,063,184.91 ($ 1,635,254.25)

2001 2,956.44 $ 2,042.68 $ 6,039,061.86 ($ 24,123.05)

(15) Supplementary Taxes – 2001 Recommended Budget - $10.0 million

Year Budget Actual Variance (in $ 000’s) 1998 40,230.0 14,290.3 (25,939.7) 1999 5,000.0 23,918.9 18,918.9 2000 5,000.0 37,622.2 32,622.2 2001 10,000.0 N/A N/A

Appendix G provides a breakdown of supplementary revenues by business, realty and property type since 1998.

For assessments that have not been captured on the annual returned assessment roll, the Assessment Act allows OPAC to capture these assessment changes and return them to municipalities on a supplementary or omit roll. The municipality is obligated to bill these assessments. A supplementary roll includes changes in assessment in the current year only. An omit is for changes in property assessments for the current year plus up to a maximum of two prior years. For example, in 2001 the City will receive and bill omit assessments for the period 1999 to 2001, and supplementary assessments for 2001.

Prior to 1997, a significant portion of a municipality’s supplementary and omitted tax revenues were related to business taxes (i.e., the Business Occupancy Tax - BOT). The BOT was eliminated in 1998 with the introduction of Current Value Assessment (CVA). Based on supplementary/omit assessment information received from the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC), the City billed BOT during 1998 and 1999 for businesses in operation in 1996 and 1997. Given that supplementary/omit assessments only go back a maximum of two years, effective January 1, 2000, we no longer bill BOT.

In 1998, the significant variance between budget and actual is due to the elimination of the BOT as well as the fact that the City was unable to bill all of its supplementary and omit assessment due to various issues relating to CVA implementation. The significant change in assessment and taxation legislation implemented in 1998, including the introduction of CVA, presented many Toronto City Council 253 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 challenges in terms of preparing our systems to reflect the new legislated requirements. Of the $14.3 million billed in supplementary/omitted taxes in 1998, $10.4 million was for omitted 1996 and 1997 BOT.

In 1999, the budget for supplementary tax revenues was decreased to $5 million in light of the fact that this would be the last year that OPAC could assess omit BOT levies related to 1997. The $23.9 million of supplementary and omit revenues billed in 1999 includes $7.9 million of revenue associated with supplementary/omitted assessments received late in 1998 and processed in 1999. Therefore, the true 1999 supplementary tax revenues were only $16 million with only $12 million relating to the current year (1999). In 1999, the City only received and billed omitted BOT taxes for 1997 of $118,661.

In 2000, the budget was maintained at $5 million. Actual supplementary tax revenues for 2000 were $37.6 million with $16.7 million of this supplementary and omitted tax revenue is related to the conversion of Ontario Hydro from payment-in-lieu of taxes (PILs) to taxable ($6.2 million for 2000; $10.5 million for 1999 and prior years), $20 million for new growth and $17.6 million related to omitted assessments for 1999 and prior years. Therefore, the gain in supplementary/omitted property tax revenue is offset by a loss in PIL revenues of $16.5 million related to processing of appeals taking these Hydro accounts out of PILs for 1999 ($10.0 million) and 2000 ($6.5 million). The remaining $20.9 million in net supplementary taxes consists of $13.8 million relating to 2000 and $7.1 million relating to 1999 and 2000.

For 2001, it is recommended that the budget for supplementary revenues be increased to $10 million. Residential supplementary tax revenues in-year were $4.5 million in 1999 and $6.7 million in 2000 (an average of $5 million) while commercial and industrial has been sustained at approximately $5 million in both 1999 and 2000. OPAC anticipates approximately 40 new condominium sites will be picked up on the supplementary/omit rolls this year. Many of these sites have a partial assessment already in place on the year-end returned roll for 2001, but where there is completion of the project, the balance of the assessment will be reflected on a supplementary/omit roll.

The City and OPAC are working together in sharing of information that is beneficial to both. Building permit information is valuable information to OPAC as they are then able to monitor the new properties, small and large developments, to ensure a timely pick-up of the assessment on a supplementary/omit roll.

OPAC has indicated that for 2001 they will actively begin working towards reducing and eliminating the two-year prior omit roll. Therefore, while the actual supplementary tax revenue for the City has been the current year and two years previous, as OPAC improves its backlog, the City will see only the current year of supplementary levies not the historical pattern of current year plus two years previous. It would be unwise to increase the budget for this item beyond what has now been recommended. Toronto City Council 254 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(18) Tax Penalties – 2001 Recommended Budget - $30.0 million

Year Budget Actual Variance (in $ 000’s) 1998 40,125.0 38,931.9 (1,193.1) 1999 40,125.0 44,736.5 4,611.5 2000 40,125.0 17,598.7 (22,526.3) 2001 30,000.0 N/A N/A

When taxes remain unpaid, penalty/interest is charged to the account on the first day of default and on the first day of each subsequent month at a rate of 1.25 percent per month or 15 percent per year.

In 1998 and 1999 the actual penalty/interest earned on overdue accounts approximately within budget.

In 2000 the decrease in penalty/interest revenues is attributable to two factors:

(a) the processing of multi-year appeals related to prior years, which resulted in the adjustment of outstanding penalty attributable to the assessment reduction; and

(b) an increased focus given to accounts in arrears and the adoption of more aggressive collection measures on outstanding non-residential tax accounts.

For 2001 the recommended budget has been lowered to $30 million to reflect a more aggressive approach in the collection of outstanding taxes.

(19) Other Tax Revenue – New Budget Line - $20.7 Million

The 2000 Tax Levy budget was exceeded by $17 million. Staff have reviewed this and determined that there are two sustainable revenues that should be specifically identified and now budgeted. This revenue is being used to offset a majority of the surplus reduction described later in this report.

(i) Additional Taxation Revenues Associated with Ontario Hydro

In 1999, the Province enacted legislation that changed Ontario Hydro properties from payment- in-lieu of taxes (PIL) to taxable. Since this legislation was enacted after the return of the 1999 assessment roll, the actual conversion of the Hydro properties did not begin until the return of the 2000 assessment roll. At the time, the City’s 2000 Operating budget estimates were prepared, it was our understanding that as “taxable” properties, the City would have to share the education portion of taxes with the school boards. Later that year, the Province announced that the City would continue to retain the school portion of taxes for Ontario Hydro after the conversion of these properties to taxable. For Ontario Hydro properties converted on the 2000 assessment roll, the school portion of the tax levy represents $7.8 million in revenue for the City. For the balance of Ontario Hydro properties converted on the 2001 assessment roll, the retention of the school taxes represents revenues of $4.0 million. This additional revenue of $11.8 million should now be recognized as “Other Taxation Revenues” in the 2001 non-program accounts. Toronto City Council 255 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(ii) Acreage-Based Levies The Municipal Act requires municipalities to levy an annual tax for municipal purposes on railways, roadways or rights-of-ways and on transmission or distribution corridors owned by certain power utilities. For 2001, we estimate the acreage-based budget to be $8.9 million as follows:

2001 Taxation Number of Rate Levy – ($000’s) Acres Generation and Service Corporation 2,956.44 2,042.68 6,039.0 Canadian National Railway 987.10 1,519.45 1,499.8 Canadian Pacific Railway 649.28 1,478.24 959.8 Toronto Terminal Railway 52.29 7,720.92 403.7 8,902.4

It is recommended that $8.9 million for acreage-based taxation levies be budgeted as “Other Taxation Revenues” in 2001.

(20) Investment Earnings – 2001 Recommended Budget - $68.0 million

Total investment earnings attributable to the operating budget are budgeted unchanged in 2001 at the 2000 level of $68 million. Interest rates are somewhat volatile given instability in the economy and in capital markets, however, based on the 2000 experience, it is expected that the total earnings will remain steady in 2001. The average investment balance is approximately $1.35 billion, but changes daily depending upon revenues earned on property taxes and from other sources, and on expenditure patterns. Finance staff continually monitor cash flow trends and forecasts with a view to matching as closely as possible cash requirements and funds available as investments mature.

This budget is also built on an assumption of average yields on the assumed average investment as follows:

2001 Investment Income Sensitivity to Changes in Rates

Average Yield Investment Variance from on Portfolio Income Budget Percent $ Million $ Million 4.25 57.38 (10.63) 4.50 60.75 (7.25) 4.75 64.13 (3.88) Budget 5.00 68.00 0 5.25 70.88 2.88 5.50 74.25 6.25 5.75 77.63 9.63 6.00 81.00 13.00 Toronto City Council 256 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Investment Portfolio Income For the year 2000 ($ 000’s)

Average Return Budget Actual Variance 1998 4.0 Percent 46.0 34.0 (12.0) 1999 5.4 Percent 61.0 65.2 4.0 2000 5.6 Percent 68.0 65.3 (2.7) 2001 5.0 Percent 68.0

Two individual portfolios that are managed interactively are the Money Market and the Bond Fund. The Money Market portfolio is primarily focused on ensuring that adequate liquidity is maintained to meet the immediate cash flow requirements of the City’s daily operations. The Bond Fund is positioned towards funding the City’s future reserve and reserve fund requirements and therefore takes a longer view of the market.

Together, these two portfolios provide the necessary diversification required in managing the City’s total cash flow needs and the exposure to interest rate change. Current revenues can be held in short term investments until such time when the movement to longer dated securities proves more suitable. Likewise, longer dated securities can be sold to meet short-term expenditures if the opportunity to realize capital gains is present.

Investment earnings for 2000 are being projected at $65.3 million as compared to a budget of $68.0 million. The 2001 budget is recommended to remain at $68 million. It is dependant upon financial market conditions as well as the City’s cash flow. The level of interest rates as well as the size of the City’s money market portfolio as well as the active management of these funds largely determines the investment earnings forecast. The performance of the City’s investment portfolios is reported to Council on a quarterly basis and the rate of return and the size of these portfolios affects the outlook for investment earnings.

(21) Prior Year Surplus – 2001 Amount re: 2000 operations - $10.5 million

This item captures the actual net underexpenditure for the prior year, which must form a revenue source in each current year’s budget. A surplus arises in the Operating Budget when there is an excess of revenues over expenditures (a deficit would arise if the reverse were true). Year-end surpluses generally arise from two areas – higher than budgeted revenues including one-time only revenues, and lower than budgeted expenditures. Toronto City Council 257 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

$ Millions

2000 1997 1998 1999 2001 Projected Surplus Actual Actual Budget Actual Prior Year’s Surplus 94.8 52.8 43.6 10.5 10.5

Prior Year Surplus Analysis 1996 to 2001 (all numbers in $ millions)

Category 1996 Surplus in 1997 Surplus in 1998 Surplus in 1999 Surplus in Projected to 1997 Budget to 1998 Budget to 1999 Budget to 2000 Budget 2000 Surplus in to 2001 Budget City Departments 28.0 27.3 52.0 3.1 20.9 Special Purpose Included Included 2.1 -13.3 -3.5 Bodies above above Non Program 53.3 26.5 -10.5 49.8 -6.9

Surplus 81.3 53.8 43.6 41.3 10.5

Budget Surplus 45.7 45.0 40.0 10.5

Operating Budget $27.5M $10.2M $4.0M $29.5M Pressure Year it in 1998 in 1999 in 2000 in 2001 applies to

The City surplus for 2000 has dropped from $43.6 million in 1999 for use in the 2000 budget to $10.5 million for use in the 2001 budget. City operations have contributed $20.9 million, with Community and Neighbourhood Services – Social Services alone providing $17.7 million after a contribution to the Social Services Stabilization Reserve Fund of $20.0 million. This contribution was made on the basis that (1) the Social Services surplus of $37.7 million pre- contribution is not in any way seen to be sustainable in 2001 since caseload budget has dropped to 65,000 for benefits and with a soft economy looming, the trend will, at best be stable but could increase caseload. As such, the 2000 surplus of $17.7 million for Social Services is more realistic for 2001 (but not likely to re-occur).

The reduction in surplus to $10.5 million earned into 2001 adds a pressure of $29.5 million since in 2000, $40 million was brought forward.

The Municipal Act requires municipalities to bring the prior year’s surplus forward into the next year as a revenue source for the Operating Budget. Once the surplus becomes zero, or at the level in the 2001 budget, amounts accruing in 2001 (if any) beyond the 2001 level should be transferred to the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund as outlined in the October 2000 Council adopted policy on surplus management. Toronto City Council 258 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(22) Other Corporate Revenues – 2001 Recommended Budget - $955 thousand

The amount includes miscellaneous revenues such as donations, fines and sales that are not attributable to the program budgets. The decrease of $3.7 million from 2000 budget is mainly due to the allocation of revenues to the respective programs in 2001.

(23) Toronto Parking Authority Revenues – 2001 Recommended Budget - $25.6 million

In June, 1998, City Council adopted an income sharing arrangement with the Toronto Parking Authority for a one-year period with the provision that this arrangement be reviewed in one year’s time. This arrangement was reviewed during the 2000 Operating Budget process and options considered at that time were deferred for consideration with the 2001 budget process.

The current income sharing agreement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking Authority provides for the contribution of 100 percent of on-street parking net revenues and 50 percent of off-street net revenues, excluding sundry revenues. The net revenues accruing to the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) are accumulated and provide the source of funding for capital projects to maintain and/or expand TPA’s assets and, ultimately, its revenue base.

A revised agreement based on a new revenue sharing formula needs to be considered at this time. A separate report is provided that outlines the current and proposed revenue sharing arrangement between the Toronto Parking Authority and the City.

($ Millions)

Budget Actual Variance 1998 3.8 6.0 2.2 1999 15.5 14.0 (1.5) 2000 21.1 25.5 4.4 2001 25.6

(24) Corporate Recoveries from Water – 2001 Recommended Budget - $18.973 million

The budget amount represents a recovery of costs for services provided by various program areas to Water and Wastewater operations. The non-program recoveries are presented below as well as the recoveries by program areas. ($ Millions) Water and Wastewater 1999 Budget 2000 Budget 2001 Budget Corporate 17.10 18.97 18.97 (NonProgram) Finance 16.11 15.72 15.07 WES 32.07 39.51 41.55* Corp Serv 2.36 4.76 5.53* Total 67.64 78.96 81.12 * under review Toronto City Council 259 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The corporate basis of interdepartmental charges is currently being reviewed. Finance and other City staff are participating in a municipal CAO’s Benchmarking Initiative Committee which is studying this issue with a view to recommending a standardized method for allocating internal costs.

(26) Provincial Offences Act – 2001 Recommended Budget - $8.5 million

The Province is transferring responsibility for provincial offences courts to municipalities as part of its Local Services Realignment (LSR) initiative. Under the transfer, the City will provide the administration and in-court support for these courts and will prosecute all but the most serious offences.

The City will receive all fine revenue and court costs other than fine revenues dedicated to a special purpose and revenues from the victim fine surcharge. From these revenues, the City is required to reimburse the Province for certain costs and to pay the expenses of the transferred service.

The Chief Administrative Officer is in negotiations with the Attorney General for the most favourable terms and conditions, upon transfer of this responsibility. The final transfer agreement will be brought before Council for approval. The Province processed an interim payment for 1998 in the amount of $8.5 million. No further payments will be made to the City until final transfer of the POA function.

In 1999, staff from the province estimated the City’s net revenue from POA courts to be $13.9 million, based on gross fine revenue of $26.1 million and expenses of $12.1 million. Based on that information, the City budget included $13.0 million as revenue in 1999 and 2000.

However, the Ministry has advised that it underestimated the expenses in the areas of staffing and facilities – by as much as $2.9 million and $3.1 million respectively, offset by potential savings of $1 million from savings using the City’s ‘Parking Tag Management System’ to process the additional charges related to POA.

As a result of these uncertainties, the budget for 2001 has been reduced to $8.5 million.

(27) Parking Tag Revenue – 2001 Recommended Budget - $62.068 million

Issuance Issuance Budget Actual Variance Year (Budget) (Actual) $000’s $000’s $000’s 1998 2,560,000 2,633,616 52,100.0 51,100.0 (1,000.0) 1999 2,556,000 2,546,102 56,050.0 53,900.5 (2,149.5) 2000 2,760,000 2,760,301 61,604.1 58,008.8 (4,059.9) 2001 2,815,400 n/a 62,068.7 n/a n/a

* Actual revenue is actual revenue received in the calendar year, all other revenue is categorized as “receivables” in future years.

In the year 2000, the estimated issuance was 2,760,000 parking tags, and a total of 2,760,301 parking tags were issued. Toronto City Council 260 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Approximately 78 percent of all Parking Infraction Notices issued in each year are collected upon, but due to the various fine amounts, an average fine of $24.00 is used to calculate annual revenue projections. Furthermore, budgeted amounts include anticipated payments from the Ministries of Transportation and Attorney General.

In 1998, the number of parking tags issued was higher than anticipated due mainly to a traffic clearing police initiative. Total revenue in 1998 was $51.1 million.

In 1999 the actual number of parking tags issued was less than the number budgeted due to a severe winter storm in January 1999, that resulted in 100,000 fewer tags issued that month alone. Total revenue in 1999 was $53.9 million.

In the year 2000, 2,760,301 tags were issued. This figure is 301 tags more than was originally projected, resulting in total revenue of $58,008.8. The significant variance between 1999 and 2000 was due to the increase in tag issuance, of more than 215,000 tags resulting in an additional $5.0M in revenue. Furthermore, the anticipated Drove Away and Fine Enhancement Projects were expected to increase revenues by another $3.5M. The Drove Away and Fine Enhancement Projects were not commenced in the year 2000, but are expected to be implemented in mid-2001.

For 2001 the number of parking tags forecast to be issued is 2,815,400. This increase from the year 2000 is due to the elimination of “look-a-like” tickets and “courtesy envelopes” previously used by private security firms and the anticipated hiring of more Parking Enforcement Officers. Further revenue can be achieved following the implementation of the Drove Away and Fine Enhancement Projects. Total revenue including court costs and payments from the Province is forecast at $62,199,400.00.

It is anticipated that further increases in revenue may be achieved as the result of the anticipated use of Collection Agencies (commencing in July 2001) for default fine offenders and the implementation of higher parking set-fine amounts and administrative charges.

(28) Recovery of two percent OMERS Contribution – 2001 Recommended Budget - $24 million

In 1998, when OMERS first announced a two percent contribution holiday, the funds were applied as an offset to corporate expenditures in the operating budget as part of the strategy to get to a zero percent tax rate increase. Program benefit budgets were not reduced and as such this budgeted acts as an offset for the permanent reduction to corporate expenditures and is shown as a negative expenditure.

Starting in 1999, the remainder of the premium contributions were waived and the additional savings were directed to the capital program to reduce borrowing in 1999 and 2000.

The 2001 budget plan is as follows. The City’s estimated OMERS contribution holiday (including police) totals approximately $80 million to be applied to the employee benefit reserve to reduce unfunded liabilities in the account, starting in 2001. Toronto City Council 261 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Between 2003 and 2005, the employer and employee contributions to the OMERS pension plan are scheduled to be phased back in as follows:

2003-2 percent of earnings up to the YMPE and 3.5 percent of earnings in excess of the YMPE* 2004-4 percent of earnings up to the YMPE and 5.5 percent of earnings in excess of the YMPE 2005-6 percent of earnings up to the YMPE and 7.5 percent of earnings in excess of the YMPE (return to original rates)

*The YMPE is the Year’s Maximum Pensionable Earnings and represents the maximum amount of earnings on which OMERS members contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. For the year 2000, this amount was $37,600.00. For 2001, this amount has increased to $37,800.00.

Future Savings from OMERS

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Contribution to Employee Benefit Reserve Fund 80.0 80.0 40.0 0 0 (estimated Budget Pressure to full OMERS ----$40M rates (estimated)

The financial impact of the contribution phase-ins on the City will therefore create an operating budget pressure roughly of $40 million in 2005 ($24M of 1998 reduction grossed up based on increased salaries) if the current use of the four percent OMERS contribution continues to stay in the 2001 and future operating budgets. If any reduction is made in the 2001 and future budgets to deal with the 2001 budget pressures, this will only add to the budget pressure in 2003 and/or 2004 depending on the reduction made. No adjustment to the current strategy is recommended.

(29) Corporate Recovery Charge – Health – 2001 Recommended Budget - $13.2 million and Corporate Recovery Charge – Ambulance - $5.9 million

The total recovery charge from the Province of $19.2 million budgeted for 2001 reflects the levels budgeted for 1999 and 2000 respectively.

A new partnership arrangement was announced on March 23, 1999 by the Province to deliver public health services. The announcement indicated that effective January 1, 1999, the province would share 50 percent of costs for mandatory Public Health and Ambulance Services approved by the Ministry of Health in addition to programs that are funded 100 percent. Further, the Province announced that it would provide $76.3 million of new subsidy for the City’s Public Health and Ambulance programs in 1999. The Province did not provide any detail of this new funding level. However, it was made clear during the period of announcement that the Province was committed to this funding level of $76.3 million to the City.

This announcement by the Province came at a time when the City was in the final stages of approving its 1999 Operating Budget and at which time both Public Health and Ambulance mandatory and non-mandatory programs were finalized for Council’s consideration. However, in order to get the full advantage of this announcement by the Province, corporate charges totalling $19.2 million were made to the Public Health and Ambulance programs for items such Toronto City Council 262 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 as facility costs, information technology, finance, etc. and recorded in the City’s Non-Programs budget to ensure the receipt, by the City, of full $76.3 million announced in Provincial subsidy. The City anticipates the same level of funding from the Province in 2001.

A Provincial Audit and Settlement Process that was to be completed in 2000 is still pending, and discussions are ongoing with the provincial government to finalize the eligible level of corporate charges to these programs. A new template, defining qualification requirements, for use by all provincial municipalities with regard to Ambulance services is reliably expected from the Province by late April 2001.

(30) Assessment Growth – Tax Levy - $25.6 million

Every year the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) provides the City with an updated assessment roll. The new roll is updated to reflect changes that occurred in the previous year such as new construction, Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) or Assessment Review Board (ARB) processed decisions, and property class changes (including subclasses). The roll is the base for which the City levies taxes for the year. Municipalities receive an assessment roll in late December each year that is used for billing taxes in the next calendar year. As such, assessment “growth” or “loss” say in 2001, reflects economic activity of 2000.

Assessment Change – 2001

The returned assessment roll for 2001 taxation incorporates the following two changes as compared to the 2000 assessment roll:

(1) The assessed value of properties have been updated to reflect a June 30, 1999 valuation date.

For 1998 to 2000 assessed values were based on a June 30, 1996 valuation date. For 2001 and 2002 taxation, assessed values will be based on a June 30, 1999 valuation date. For the purpose of determining “assessment growth” for 2001 taxation, excluding the impact of re-assessment (i.e., moving from a 1996 to a 1999 valuation), OPAC has provided the City with the comparable 1996 assessed value for all properties.

(2) Beginning in 2001, all vacant units in commercial and industrial buildings will be returned (and taxed) as fully occupied on the returned assessment roll.

The Continued Protection for Property Taxpayers Act, which received Royal Assent on December 4, 2000, changed the treatment of vacant units for commercial and industrial properties. For 1998, 1999 and 2000 any units that were vacant during the months of July, August and September of the previous year, were returned on the assessment roll in the “vacant units” sub-class.

Beginning in 2001, all properties will be returned on the roll as “fully occupied” and relief for vacancy will be provided through a rebate application process. Property owners will be eligible to receive a tax rebate for the time that their properties are vacant during the year. The owner will have to file applications with the municipality for a rebate. The application must be filed by Toronto City Council 263 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 the last day of February of the year following the taxation year in respect of which the application is made. An interim application can be made for the first six months of the taxation year. The rebate for commercial properties will be equal to 30 percent of the taxes applicable. For industrial properties, the rebate will be equal to 35 percent of applicable taxes. Details regarding the criteria for what will qualify as a “vacant” unit have yet to be released/regulated by the Province.

Appendix H provides a summary of the assessment roll as returned for 2001 taxation and compares the 2001 assessment to the 2000 assessment. The assessed values for 2001 taxation have been updated by OPAC to reflect the CVA as at June 30, 1999 (for taxation years 1998 to 2000, assessed values were based on a June 1996 valuation date). For analytical purposes, OPAC has also provided the 2001 assessments based on a June 1996 valuation date, which discount the effect of the reassessment. In order to determine true “growth” for 2001, we have compared the 2001 assessment (based on a June 1996 valuation date) to the 2000 assessment.

Overall the City’s assessment base, based on 1996 CVA, has increased by $782.8 million. Of this 77.8 percent or $609.4 million is attributable to the residential property class and 19.3 percent or $150.9 million is attributable to the commercial and industrial property classes.

Appendix I translates the change in assessment into tax dollars. The change in treatment of vacant commercial and industrial properties, legislated by Bill 140, accounts for 66 percent (or $17 million) of the $25.6 million change in tax revenues. Under Bill 140 all commercial and industrial properties are assessed and taxed as fully occupied. Property owners must apply to the municipality for a rebate for the portion of their property that is vacant. This is not true growth - the assessment for what was classified as “vacant units” on the 2000 assessment roll has shifted to “Occupied” on the 2001 roll. Given the higher tax rate for “occupied” properties, this shift has created an artificial increase in tax revenues of $17 million. Since Bill 140 mandates municipalities to provide rebates to property owners for their vacancies, this $17 million is required to fund the new vacancy rebate program. It is recommended that the $17 million associated the new treatment of vacant properties be allocated to a “Tax Deficiency – Vacancy Rebate” account to fund the cost of vacancy rebates mandated under Bill 140 for vacant properties in the commercial and industrial class.

The following is a breakdown of the overall increase in tax revenue of $25.6 million (Chart 1) and the “true” growth of $8.7 million (Chart 2):

Chart 1: Breakdown of Overall Change of $25.6 million $ Percent Change in Treatment of Vacant Commercial and Industrial Units: Commercial 14,099,146 55.0 Industrial 2,875,358 11.2 Sub-Total: Vacancy Rebates 16,974,504 66.2 Commercial Property Class (net of vacancy change) 10,675,282 41.6 Industrial Property Class (net of vacancy change) (7,696,495) -30.0 Residential Property Class 4,873,764 19.0 Multi-Residential 807,037 3.2 Miscellaneous 518 0.0 Toronto City Council 264 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Total 25,634,610 100.0 Chart 2: Breakdown of “True” Increase in Taxation Revenue of $8.7 million $ Percent Commercial Property Class (net of vacancy change) 10,675,282 123.3 Industrial Property Class (net of vacancy change) (7,696,495) -88.9 Residential Property Class 4,873,764 56.3 Multi-Residential 807,037 9.32 Misc 518 0.01 Total 8,660,106 100.0

It should be noted that of the $10.7 million in “growth” for the commercial property class, $3.0 million is attributable to the conversion of Ontario Hydro properties from payment-in-lieu properties to “taxable/rateable” properties.

Assessment Change – 1998 to 2000

The returned assessment rolls for 1998, 1999, and 2000 for taxation properties show that the City of Toronto experienced a net growth in CVA of $1.3 billion and $1.2 billion in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Appendix J provides a summary, by property class, of CVA for each of the three years. Seventy-five percent of total growth over the three years occurred in the residential property class. Although there has been some real residential growth (especially condominiums) this CVA growth is offset by a decrease in the frozen assessment listing (FAL) due to assessment appeals.

Appendix K provides a summary of the taxes that would have been generated from the above assessment values when applying the current tax rates, if there had been no phase-in or capping policies in place. Although the phase-in and capping policies legislated by the Province in 1998 were meant to be revenue neutral, in reality this was not achieved since the claw-back rates were based on assessment values at a fixed point in time (when setting the final tax rates and budget in April). Processing appeals or other changes in assessment, changed the capping/claw-back relationship resulting in revenue shortfalls.

Conclusions:

Non-Program accounts include those items of a corporate nature that generally are not attributable to each City program. In total, the 2001 preliminary budget for these items is $434 million on a gross basis, and $206.1 million on a net basis. The increase over the 2000 budget is $59.6 million on a gross basis, or by $50.7 million on a net basis after revenues. This increase is almost entirely the result of higher debt charges to support the City’s capital works program, which have increased by $55 million over the 2000 budget.

Specific items referred to in this report will be forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee for approval, following review by the Budget Advisory Committee. Toronto City Council 265 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Contact Names:

Mr. Len Brittain, Director, Treasury and Financial Services, Phone No. 416-392-5380, Fax No. 397-4555; E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Giuliana Carbone, Director, Revenue Services, Phone No. 416-392-8065

Mr. Bob Mavin, Director, Budget Services, Phone No. 416-392-8095

(Copies of Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 5, 2001, Agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee of and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______

(Report dated March 15, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Annual Sinking Fund Levies, Surplus and Activity during 2000”)

Purpose:

To request Council’s approval for payment of the annual sinking fund levies for 2001 and the sinking fund surplus in order to fulfil the legislative requirements of the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) and to inform Council of the activities of the Fund during the year 2000.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for the 2001 sinking fund levies is provided in the City’s 2001 operating budget under Capital and Corporate Financing, “Debt Charges”.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the 2001 sinking fund levies, as detailed in this report, be approved;

(2) subject to the approval of the Sinking Fund Committee, a tax-supported sinking fund surplus of $4,381,947.00 and $945,654.00 for water and wastewater rate supported be declared and paid to the City in 2001 and used to offset capital financing requirements; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Toronto City Council 266 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Background:

Section 176 of the Municipal Act RSO 1990 states:

“The treasurer of a municipality in which any sum is required by law to be raised for a sinking fund shall prepare and lay before the council every year, previous to the striking of the annual rate, a statement showing what amount will be required for that purpose.”

At its meeting held on April 3, 4 and 5, 2000, the Budget Advisory Committee requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to include in the sinking fund annual report to the Policy and Finance Committee, a description of the sinking fund, including activities of the fund, a five to ten year projection on fund returns, and the forecast of surplus monies to be applied to the Capital Financing Reserve Fund.

Comments/Discussion:

When a municipality issues debentures, provincial legislation requires that the principal repayment must be amortized over the term-to-maturity of the debenture or an annual amount be contributed to a sinking fund. Sinking funds are required and established to ensure that adequate financing is available at a debenture’s maturity. Currently, the City has four separate sinking fund portfolios in support of sixteen individual debenture issues. Each portfolio represents a specific actuarial rate of return that is used in calculating the required annual contribution. The Sinking Fund Committee, consisting of four members appointed by Council and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, is responsible for the management of all sinking fund investment portfolios.

As a trustee of these portfolios, the Sinking Fund Committee exercises its fiduciary responsibility by achieving the specified actuarial rates of return while ensuring compliance with legislative and policy limits. This is accomplished through the prudent investment management of the annual sinking fund contributions, the re-investment of interest income and achieving capital gains.

Sinking Fund Levies for 2001:

In accordance with the requirements of section 176 of the Municipal Act, I submit and certify the following statement:

Amounts required by by-law (as amended by the Ontario Municipal Board orders to reduce levies) to be raised in 2001 by Council for deposit in the City of Toronto Sinking Fund, are provided for as follows:

City of Toronto $104,851,511.80 Toronto District School Board $ 14,985,222.94 Toronto City Council 267 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

While Council is required to levy the sinking fund deposit on behalf of the Toronto District School Board, it is not included in the City’s operating budget. However, the sinking fund deposit for the City of Toronto’s requirements forms part of the City’s 2001 operating budget and is included in Capital and Corporate Financing, “Debt Charges”.

Sinking Fund Surplus:

Section 104 (2) of the City of Toronto Act 1997 (No. 2) states:

“When there is a surplus in a sinking fund account, the sinking fund committee may, subject to Council’s approval,

(a) use the surplus to increase the amount at the credit of another sinking fund account; or

(b) authorize the withdrawal of the surplus from the bank account or accounts, to be used for on or more of the purposes described in subsection (3). 1997, c26,s.105(2).

These purposes include the retirement of unmatured City debentures, reduction of future sinking fund levies, reduction in the amount of debentures to be issued to finance capital expenditures or transfer to the general funds of the City. If the sinking fund earns in excess of its actuarial earnings assumption, a surplus is generated that is available to be paid to the City when the debenture matures and these excess funds are not required to retire the debt. Due to financial market uncertainty, the surplus generated in 1999 was retained by the fund as recommended by the Sinking Fund Committee and approved by Council

With excess funds being available in 2000 as well as the following projections indicating that surpluses will be available to 2005, it is being recommended that the tax-supported sinking fund surplus of $4,381,947.00 and $945,654.00 for water and wastewater representing the 2000 and 2001 surplus be paid to the City in 2001 and used to offset capital financing requirements. This recommendation is being presented as subject to the approval of the Sinking Fund Committee who will consider this request at their meeting to be held on March 26, 2001. Toronto City Council 268 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Sinking Fund Surplus Projections

Payable in Maturities Projected year in previous year Surplus Tax-supported Water and Sewer Education $$ $ $$

2000 197,500,000 3,723,000 actual 3,377,000 346,000 0

2001 100,000,000 1,605,000 " 1,005,000 600,000 0

2002 200,000,000 4,000,000 projected 3,271,000 729,000 0

2003 125,000,000 2,300,000 " 1,400,000 900,000 0

2004 225,000,000 4,600,000 " 2,800,000 1,600,000 0

2005 165,000,000 6,000,000 " 2,992,000 608,000 2,400,000

Sinking Fund Activity During 2000:

During the year, the assets of the Fund increased from $657.1 million as of December 31, 1999 to $736.4 at the end of 2000, due to increased contributions based upon debt issuance of $250 million during 1999 and an increase in investment income generated from a larger asset base.

The Fund is managed with the objective of achieving or exceeding its actuarial earnings assumptions within legislative and policy guidelines. In 2000, the City’s sinking fund portfolios generated investment income of $50.6 million as compared to $48.4 million in 1999. Investment performance will be discussed in greater detail in the annual 2000 City of Toronto Investment Report that will be submitted to Policy and Finance Committee in April 2001.

When a sinking fund debenture is originally issued, an estimated actuarial earnings rate is established in the debenture by-law. This rate represents the expected earnings over the life of the fund. When the rate is set, it reflects the prevailing and projected interest rate environment. In order to reduce the risk of the fund not achieving this actuarial requirement, a conservative earnings rate is utilized to calculate the amount that the City will have to contribute to the fund annually. Legislation limits this interest rate assumption to 8 percent or less. This actuarial rate of earnings combined with the annual sinking fund deposit provides the required funds for the retirement of the debt. Since 1954, the Fund has never incurred a deficit that, according to the legislation, would have to be financed by the municipality.

The following chart summarizes, by actuarial earnings assumption, the amount of debt issued, the investments being held to provide funds for the retirement of the debt and the actual amount of debt that has been acquired by the sinking fund and retired as of December 31, 2000. Toronto City Council 269 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Summary of Sinking Fund Portfolio as of December 31, 2000

Amount of Debt Investment Portfolio Amount of Debt Retired Issued Holdings at Cost as of December 31, 2000 $(000) $(000) $(000)

4 percent Actuarial Earnings Assumption

250,000 29,596 6,383

5 percent Actuarial Earnings Assumption

405,000 35,298 10,638

6 percent Actuarial Earnings Assumption

815,000 371,765 133,241

Summary of Sinking Fund Portfolio as of December 31, 2000

Amount of Debt Investment Portfolio Amount of Debt Retired Issued Holdings at Cost as of December 31, 2000 $(000) $(000) $(000)

8 percent Actuarial Earnings Assumption

325,000 255,287 72,548

The 8 percent fund is fully financed as the final maturity will occur on May 14, 2002. The other portfolios are at various stages of funding since they consist of longer-dated maturities and will receive annual contributions and investment income that will be reinvested until 2018. As the City issues additional sinking fund debt, this investment horizon will expand to cover the new maturity dates.

Conclusion:

This report fulfils the requirement of the Municipal Act for the Treasurer to present to Council the amount of the 2001 sinking fund levies which are included in the City’s 2001 Operating Budget under Capital and Corporate Financing, “Debt Charges” and the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2), requesting approval of the 2001 sinking fund surplus payment to the City.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Mr. Len Brittain, Director, Treasury and Financial Services, Tel: 392-5380, Fax: 397-4555, E-mail: [email protected]; Mrs. Martin Willschick, Manager, Treasury Services, Tel: 392-8072, Fax: 397-4555, E-mail: [email protected]. Toronto City Council 270 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

______

(Report dated April 4, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “2001 Budgets - Reserves and Reserve Funds”)

Purpose:

This report presents summarized 2000 activity in reserves and reserve funds and projects 2001 activity and balances as of December 31, 2001.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Contributions to and use of the City’s various reserves and reserve funds are connected to the City’s operating and capital budget. Based on reports submitted to date, the City does not have surplus funds in its reserve and reserve funds and in fact, is deficient in many critical funds.

Adequacy of the various reserve and reserve funds have been reported to Council as they have been completed – i.e., Vehicle Reserve Fund, Social Services Stabilization, Insurance Reserve Fund. Reviews are pending on the various employee liabilities but preliminary analyses indicate significant deficiencies in these reserve funds. The adequacy of various employee liability reserve funds will be reported to Council later this year. Toronto City Council 271 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the summary of 2000 transactions and projections for 2001 be received for information;

(2) reserve and reserve funds be used only for the purposes already established by Council or already incorporated in the 2001 Operating Budget; further draws are not recommended since one-time funds should not be used to deal with ongoing expenditure pressures or ongoing revenue losses;

(3) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer continue to report out on the adequacy of reserve funds as expeditiously as possible; and

(4) reserves and reserve funds be closed where amounts have been depleted and further funding is not anticipated as detailed in Appendix E.

Discussion:

A summary of 2000 transactions and projections for 2001 is provided for each reserve and reserve fund. Appendix A provides details for reserves, Appendix B provides details for obligatory reserve funds and Appendix C provides details for Council directed reserve funds. Descriptions of each reserve and reserve fund are provided in Appendix D.

Significant decreases in reserve and reserve fund balances in 2000 and projected for 2001 are occurring in the water capital financing reserve and transit capital reserve funds as these funds are applied against approved capital projects. The reserve and reserve fund balances at the end of 1999, 2000 and projected for the end of 2001 are summarized in the tables below by account purpose and by type of account.

Reserve and Reserve Fund Balances ($millions) Actual Projected Type of Account Dec. 31, 1999 Dec. 31, 2000 Dec. 31, 2001

Reserves Tax Supported 114.2 100.4 92.8 Rate Supported 143.3 138.6 39.1

Total Reserves 257.5 239.0 131.9

Obligatory reserve funds Tax Supported 285.5 184.9 189.9 Rate Supported 173.8 45.0 25.8

Total Obligatory 459.3 229.9 215.7

Council directed reserve funds Toronto City Council 272 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Reserve and Reserve Fund Balances ($millions) Actual Projected Type of Account Dec. 31, 1999 Dec. 31, 2000 Dec. 31, 2001

Tax Supported 467.3 433.1 531.6 Rate Supported 25.8 21.0 19.8

Total Council Directed 493.1 454.1 551.4

Grand Total 1,209.9 923.0 899.0

(Report dated April 4, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Analysis of Contingency Expenditures - 1998 to 2000”)

Purpose:

This report responds to a request from the Budget Advisory Committee for details on contingency expenditures during the period 1998 to 2000.

Financial Implications and Impact Statements:

This report has no direct funding implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council adopt the definition of emergency items for contingency draw purposes as contained in this report;

(2) the 2001 budget for contingency items remain at $3,000,000.00 with funds designated for use only on those items meeting the criteria for emergency items as described in this report; and

(3) Council authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to amend the Financial Control By-law for the use of contingency funds as provided for in this report.

Background:

The Budget Advisory Committee considered the 2001 budget report for non-program items on March 19, 2001 and requested details on contingency expenditures for each of the years in the 1998 to 2000 period. Toronto City Council 273 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Discussion:

Details on contingency expenditures are reported on an annual basis as a part of the final operating variance report submitted to the Policy and Finance Committee for information. Contingency expenditures incurred during 2000 are itemized in Appendix A and will be included in the final operating variance report to be submitted to the Policy and Finance Committee in May 2001. Appendices B and C provide details of contingency expenditures incurred during 1999 and 1998 respectively and were included in the final operating variance reports submitted to the Policy and Finance Committee or the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for each of those years.

The Financial Control By-law adopted by Council on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000 provides that:

(1) expenditures from contingency only be made for one-time non-recurring costs that were not identified at the time the operating budget was approved;

(2) contingency funds not be used for over-expenditures by Departments; and

(3) approval must be obtained from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for any use of contingency funds for any purpose and shall be reported to Council by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer requesting approval for such use.

Each of the contingency draws reflected in the attached appendices had been previously approved by Council. Some of the draws can be considered “emergency” while other draws are more discretionary in nature. Budget Advisory Committee requested that a definition of “emergency” be derived and considered for determining use of contingency funds. Draws which meet the following additional criteria from that contained in the Financial Control By-law should be considered as “emergency” draws from contingency:

“Unforeseen expenditures resulting from economic, climatic, in-year legislative changes from senior governments and legal settlements.”

Examples of emergency expenditures in 2000 and prior years include the cost of election re- counts and by-elections, the retention of legal consultants for emerging issues such as Livent and costs for landlord and tenant tax notifications under new legislation.

The analysis of contingency draws during the 1998 to 2000 period suggests that several items should have been included in program budgets for consideration during the annual operating budget review. This is particularly evident in 1998 during the first year of amalgamation when Year 2000 project office costs were not incorporated into program budgets. In many instances it would be appropriate to defer program requests until the next operating budget cycle. Toronto City Council 274 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Contingency draws in the 1998 to 2000 period according to the criteria outlined above are as follows:

Council Year Emergency Program Discretionary Total $000 $000 $000 $000 1998 593.7 5,662.0 100.0 6,355.7 1999 1,704.1 1,539.1 1,355.3 4,598.5 2000 **7,086.7 746.3 811.6 8,644.6 ** Includes strike-related expenses of $4,435.9 thousand

Based on these criteria, emergency draws from contingency other than strike-related expenses amounted to $593.7, $1,704.1 and $2,650.8 in 1998, 1999 and 2000 respectively. In considering an appropriate amount in Contingency for “emergency” items, the current recommended amount of $3 million appears to be adequate.

Conclusion:

A definition of “emergency” has been provided to guide on the expenditure of contingency.

Contact Name:

Mr. Ken Colley, Manager, Financial Reporting, Phone: (416) 397-4445, Fax: (416) 397-0834, E- mail: [email protected].

(Copies of Appendices A, B and C referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 17, 2001, Agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______

(Report dated March 19, 2001, addressed to the Budget Advisory Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled “Toronto Parking Authority, Revenue Sharing and Capital Account Structure”)

Purpose:

This report provides the Budget Advisory Committee with a recommended amendment to the Revenue Sharing Agreement between the Toronto Parking Authority and the City of Toronto and a recommended change in account structure for the capital accounts of the Toronto Parking Authority. Toronto City Council 275 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Depending on the option chosen, approval of this report could increase the City’s revenues from the Toronto Parking Authority by $.575 million for Option 2, $2.637 million for Option 3 and $3.488 million for Option 5 over the current budget level of $30.363 million.

Conversely, if Options 1 or 4 are adopted, the City’s share of Toronto Parking Authority revenues will be reduced by an amount of $1.488 million or $.273 million, respectively, from the current budget level of $30.363 million.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) a new revenue sharing agreement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking Authority be approved to provide 75 percent of net income to the City of Toronto and 25 percent of net income to the Toronto Parking Authority, effective January 1, 2001, for a three year period ending December 31, 2003;

(2) net operating income includes direct parking revenues and expenses, administrative expenses and sundry revenue or expense;

(3) payments be made on a monthly basis for the City’s portion, based on the annual budget for the year with an annual minimum of $18 million;

(4) a final payment/settlement occur once the audited actual amount for the year is confirmed;

(5) the capital authorization for the previously approved projects identified in the comments section of this report be rescinded and that projections for these projects be included in the Toronto Parking Authority’s 2002-2005 Capital Program and commencing in 2002, the Authority include a single request for the development of new facilities where specific sites to be acquired cannot be identified;

(6) any surpluses in the retained earnings accounts of the Toronto Parking Authority, in excess of projected five-year cash flow requirements, be remitted to the City of Toronto, in a manner and timing as described in the comments section of this report; and

(7) rhe City Solicitor, other appropriate City officials and the Toronto Parking Authority, be authorized to enter into a new revenue sharing agreement consistent with the terms set out above and in the body of this report.

Background:

At its meeting of February 9, 2001, the Budget Advisory Committee, during its preliminary review of the Toronto Parking Authority capital and operating budgets for 2001, requested the President of the Toronto Parking Authority to report to the Budget Advisory Committee, in Toronto City Council 276 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, on establishing fewer capital accounts which will allow for the reasonable development of the Toronto Parking Authority activities yet allow the City to use unallocated reserves. It also requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the revenue sharing proposal of the Toronto Parking Authority and provide recommendations for same.

This report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer addresses the above two issues.

Comments:

Prior to amalgamation, the former parking authorities (Toronto and North York) and the respective Works and Transportation departments of the former municipalities followed various policies concerning the disposition of net income from off-street and on-street parking related operations. Responsibility for off-street and on-street parking (metered) was transferred to the Toronto Parking Authority following amalgamation. In June 1998, City Council adopted a uniform income sharing arrangement with the Toronto Parking Authority for a one-year period with the provision that this arrangement be reviewed in one year’s time. This arrangement was reviewed during the 2000 operating budget process and options considered at that time were deferred for consideration with the 2001 budget process.

The Toronto Parking Authority also utilizes proceeds from the sale of density rights for parking facility properties owned by the City as well as benefiting assessment levies to finance its capital program. This report does not contemplate any change at this time to the current policy respecting the use of proceeds from density rights.

The Toronto Parking Authority has in past years based on the calculation that adds to its current surplus, five years of projected profits, remitted to the City any funds not required to fund its capital program.

Discussion:

Revenue Sharing:

Before considering the merits of various income sharing options, it is important to note two key factors:

(a) the Toronto Parking Authority operates in a competitive environment, consequently, it is imperative that it retain financial self-sufficiency in order to take advantage of and/or be able to meet opportunities/expenses in a timely manner; and Toronto City Council 277 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(b) at the same time, the Toronto Parking Authority is a wholly-owned agency of the City, whereby all surplus net revenue not directly required for parking-related purposes should be available to fund other financial requirements at the discretion of City Council.

The convergence of the above two factors requires the following considerations:

(i) a new income sharing arrangement should provide for an adequate level of retained earnings and future years profits projected over five years to continue to self-finance the Toronto Parking Authority’s capital improvement plans; (ii) sufficient level of working capital for operating expenditures; (iii) allow the Toronto Parking Authority to take advantage of business opportunities as they arise; (iv) provide the City with a stable revenue flow for City purposes; (v) manage expenditures at a reasonable level; and (vi) provide an incentive to ‘grow’ the business.

Appendix 1 contains five alternative revenue sharing scenarios that are compared to the existing arrangement (base case). The five scenarios are comprised as follows:

Option 1 City receives 70 percent of net income from off-street and on-street parking and sundry revenue; Toronto Parking Authority retains 30 percent.

Option 2 City receives 75 percent of net income from off-street and on-street parking and sundry revenue; Toronto Parking Authority retains 25 percent.

Option 3 City receives 80 percent of net income from off-street and on-street parking and sundry revenue; Toronto Parking Authority retains 20 percent.

Option 4 City receives 40 percent of total gross income; Toronto Parking Authority retains net income after expenses.

Option 5 City receives 45 percent of total gross income; Toronto Parking Authority retains net income after expenses. Toronto City Council 278 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The table below summarizes the revenue amounts to be received by the City under the various options:

Table 1 Summary of Impact on 2001 Operating Budget Alternative Revenue Sharing Options (Refer to Appendix 1) Incr / (decr) Incr (Decr) over over Option / Description City Share 2001 Budget 2001 Budget Existing Case ($000's) ($000's) % Existing 50% Net Off-Street, 100% Net 30,363.0 - - On-street and 0% Sundry Revenue 1 70% Net Off-Street, On-street 28,875.0 ( 1,488.0) ( 4.9) and Sundry Revenue 2 75% Net Off-Street, On-street 30,937.5 574.5 1.9 and Sundry Revenue 3 80% Net Off-Street, On-street 33,000.0 2,632.0 8.7 and Sundry Revenue 4 40% Gross Off-Street, On-street 30,090.0 ( 273.0) ( 0.9) and Sundry Revenue 5 45% Net Off-Street, On-street 33,851.3 3,488.3 11.5 and Sundry Revenue

Option 1 was recently approved by the Toronto Parking Authority Board at its meeting on February 7, 2001 while the remaining four options were considered by Finance. As noted in the above table, Options 1 and 4 would result in a reduction in the City’s share of revenue from the existing revenue sharing arrangement of $1.5 million and $273.0 thousand, respectively. Options 2, 3 and 5 result in increases of $574.5 thousand, $2.6 million and $3.5 million, respectively, over the existing case.

Option 1 as proposed by the Toronto Parking Authority provides for the retention of net income to fund the Toronto Parking Authority’s capital program and operating expenditures. The Toronto Parking Authority would return funds not required for the capital program to the City annually after a review of the capital plan. This scenario allows the Toronto Parking Authority to share in a portion of the net income from on-street parking operations, which it does not do under the current arrangement. This may provide added incentive for the Toronto Parking Authority to increase revenue generated from on-street operations, particularly since the Toronto Parking Authority’s revenue was used to fund on-street parking equipment upgrades since amalgamation. However, as noted above, this scenario results in a decrease in the amount of revenue shared with the City and unnecessarily ties up funds that the City could use for other purposes until the following year pending a review of the Toronto Parking Authority’s capital plan.

Option 2 differs only from Option 1 in that the amount of net revenue to be provided to the City from both off-street and on-street operations, as well as sundry revenue is increased to 75 percent instead of 70 percent. This option reflects a $574,500.00 or 1.9 percent increase over the Toronto City Council 279 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 existing arrangement. While the increase in the City’s share of revenues from this option is greater than the existing case, it still provides for adequate funding of the Toronto Parking Authority’s capital and operating expenditures.

Option 3 increases the City’s share of new revenues and sundry revenue to 80 percent and reflects an increase of $2.6 million over the existing case. This option provides for adequate funding of the Authority’s capital expenditures and attempts to balance funding necessary to develop new facilities and the constraints faced in acquiring suitable sites and approvals. This option provides increased flexibility to the City in allocating its share of net revenue for other City purposes while at the same time ensuring that the Authority maintains self-sufficiency. This option also recognizes that revenue from on-street parking is projected to increase further over the next few years as more metered parking is replaced with pay and display machines which yield higher income levels. In addition, since more paid parking spaces are planned to be added during 2001 and future years, the City’s share of revenues should be increased as direct expenditures for the increase in parking spaces are not anticipated to increase at the same level as revenues.

Option 4 utilizes gross revenue as the basis for providing the City’s share of revenue at a rate of 40 percent. This option results in a net decrease of $273,000.00 from the existing revenue sharing arrangement. Although the reduction in the City’s share of revenue is marginal in 2001 as compared to the existing arrangement, this option allows the Toronto Parking Authority the flexibility to manage costs more effectively in order to maximize its share of retained net income. From the City’s perspective, this option offers a stable income level that is not impacted by expenditure changes.

Option 5 increases the City’s share of gross revenue based on a rate of 45 percent and results in an increase of $3.9 million over the existing arrangement. While the financial impact to the City of this option is beneficial, however, it is important to note that if uncontrollable expenditure increases occur, the Toronto Parking Authority’s share of revenues could be significantly impacted under this option.

Based on the assessment of the five options and the existing arrangement, it is the opinion of Finance staff that adoption of either Option 2, 3 or Option 4 would result in a balance of the interests of both the City and the Toronto Parking Authority. It is, therefore, recommended that:

(1) the revenue sharing agreement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking Authority be amended to provide 75 percent of net income to the City of Toronto and 25 percent of net income to the Toronto Parking Authority, beginning in 2001 for a three year period ending December 31, 2003;

(2) net operating income includes direct parking revenues and expenses, administrative expenses and sundry revenue or expense;

(3) payments be made on a monthly basis for the City’s portion, based on the annual budget for the year with an annual minimum of $18 million; and Toronto City Council 280 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(4) a final payment/settlement occur once the audited actual amount for the year is confirmed. The President of the Toronto Parking Authority, had recommended a split of 70/30 for net revenues in his report dated February 8, 2001. The Recommended 2001 Operating Budget for the City’s Corporate Non-Program Accounts includes a revenue estimate of $30.363 million from the Toronto Parking Authority, based on the current revenue sharing agreement. If the 70/30 (City/TPA) split for net revenues as recommended in the Authority’s February 8 report were adopted; the City’s revenue would be reduced by $1.488 million to $28.875 million and results in a tax rate increase of 0.15 percent. Based on a City/TPA split of 75/25, the City’s portion would be $30.937 million or $.575 million greater than the current amount in the recommended operating budget under the current revenue agreement.

It is recommended that the 75/25 split be adopted as the new net revenue percentage beginning in the year 2001.

Capital Account Structure:

Under the current capital account structure, the Toronto Parking Authority identifies specific areas for development of new parking facilities and requests funding authorization for those projects in its annual capital budget requests. As acquisition of land, particularly in the downtown area, is often a lengthy process and/or negotiation may prove a particular site no longer suitable, previous authorizations may no longer be appropriate. Consequently, capital authorizations could be held where spending will not be required until some future year, if and when a suitable site becomes available on the market.

The Toronto Parking Authority’s capital program contains a number of previously approved capital projects for which sites that had been identified and/or were being negotiated for are no longer available. The following projects fall into the foregoing situation:

Authorization Project Description Amount ($000s)

Carpark – Queen / Spadina $ 2,500.00 Yorkville Property Acquisition $ 6,000.00 Queen St. West – Duncan to Spadina $ 2,500.00 Total $11,000.00

Although the above projects were to be funded from TPA revenues, the Toronto Parking Authority does not have adequate funding available at this time to proceed with its entire approved capital program. At the end of 2000, retained earnings and reserves (Off Street Parking Fund and Village Arcade Reserve) totalled $25.6 million as compared to 2001 projected capital expenditures of $37.9 million. Combining available funding with the projected the 2001 operating surplus of $10.3 million would leave a funding shortfall of $2.0 million if projected expenditures occurred as projected in 2001 before cancellation of the $11.0 million in authorizations for the previously approved projects noted above. The Authority expects that the purchase of sites and development of facilities for the above-noted projects would be funded from its share of future operating profits and/or the allocation of funds for other projects that may Toronto City Council 281 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 be delayed due to the lack of a site(s). Historically, the Toronto Parking Authority manages expenditures within its approved capital program to coincide with available funding.

Given the inability to proceed with site acquisitions for the above-noted projects in recent years, and since it is unlikely that sites will be available in 2001, it is recommended that the authorizations for these projects be rescinded at this time. The Authority can include a new request for same as part of its 2002-2005 future year projects.

Further, for the 2002 Capital Budget process, it is recommended that unless there are specific sites to be acquired, the Toronto Parking Authority consider including a single request for the development of new facilities. This approach will enable the Authority to take advantage of a site becoming available for a parking deficient area without having a specific authorization for a particular area. It is anticipated that combined with the cancellation of authorizations for the above-noted previously approved projects, this approach will allow the Toronto Parking Authority’s available financing for capital projects to be brought more in line with the level of expenditure authorizations outstanding.

It is, therefore, recommended that:

(5) the capital authorization for the previously approved projects noted-above be rescinded; projections for these projects be included in the Toronto Parking Authority’s 2002-2005 Capital Program and that commencing with the 2002 capital process, the Toronto Parking Authority include a single request for the development of new facilities where specific sites cannot be identified.

Surplus Retained Earnings:

As mentioned above, the retained earnings (surplus) of the Toronto Parking Authority is comprised of accumulation of the TPA’s share of annual operating budget surpluses and is used to finance capital projects specific to the Toronto Parking Authority. Where the net revenue retained by the Toronto Parking Authority combined with other revenue including proceeds from the sale of air rights and reserve balances exceed the funding required to finance its five-year capital program, then excess funds should be remitted to the City of Toronto for other uses.

Appendix 2 shows the TPA’s approved capital cash flow for 1998–2000 (each year includes carry forward amounts for previously approved projects). The table in Appendix 2 shows a significant under-expenditure level as compared to budgeted expenditures for the period 1998- 2000. This is mostly attributed to the TPA’s inability to secure suitable sites for a number of previously approved projects as noted earlier in this report.

Appendix 3a shows the TPA’s capital expenditures and financing sources for the 2001-2005 Capital Program request. The 2001 and 2002 request includes the projected cash flow expenditure for the $11.0 million in previously approved projects which are not likely to be spent in those years.

Appendices 3b and 3c show the impact on the TPA’s retained earnings (surplus) as a result of its requested 2001-2005 capital program, as well as the potential impact based on cancellation of the Toronto City Council 282 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

$11.0 million for previously approved projects and deferring of these expenditures over the five year period to reflect a more realistic expenditure flow. It should be noted that the table in Appendix 3b shows a negative cash position of $5.9 million for retained earnings in 2003, however, these projections still include the projected expenditure for the previously approved projects noted above totalling $11.0 million. Since it is unlikely that all of these projects will be fully expended within the next two years, and based on the actual experience of the TPA’s overall program, it is reasonable to assume that the projected shortfall in retained earnings shown in 2003 is also not likely to occur. After adjusting for the deferral of the $11.0 million in previously approved projects over five years, the balance of retained earnings is positive throughout the 2001-2005 period.

It is also worth noting that in both Appendices 3b and 3c the projections for current year surpluses reflect modest revenue changes only. It is anticipated that given the continued implementation of pay and display units for on-street parking, the overall revenue levels will be higher over the next several years. Accordingly, the TPA’s share of revenue may also be higher than what is currently projected.

Finally, in order to assess the projected retained earning balances and the requirements for successive years; the capital and operating requests of the Toronto Parking Authority must be reviewed in tandem for this and future years. Commencing in 2002, following consultation with the President, Toronto Parking Authority, the report for consideration by the Budget Advisory Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer should include in its recommendations, the amount of excess funds to be provided to the City of Toronto on an annual basis. It is, therefore, recommended that:

(6) any surpluses in the retained earnings accounts of the Toronto Parking Authority, in excess of projected five-year cash flow requirements, be remitted to the City of Toronto corporate accounts.

Conclusion:

The adoption of the recommendations in this report will result in an amended revenue sharing agreement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking Authority that will allow the Toronto Parking Authority to remain financially self-sufficient, while ensuring that excess parking revenues are available for other funding needs of the City of Toronto.

Contact Name:

Mr. Carmine Bruno, Manager, Budget Services, (416) 397-4218.

______

(Copies of the Appendices referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 17, 2001, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______Toronto City Council 283 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2 Toronto City Council 284 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The Policy and Finance Committee also had before it the following report and communications which were forwarded to all Members of Council with the April 17, 2001, agenda of the Policy and Finance Committee and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (April 17, 2001) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled “Corporate Environmental Initiatives for 2001 (All Wards)”;

- (Undated) from Mr. Stig Harvor;

- (October 24, 2000) from Mr. Ib Amonsen; forwarding comments respecting the City of Toronto’s budget on behalf of the Multiple Dwelling Standards Association which is an apartment owners organization which has been representing owners of small apartment buildings in Ontario with a total of about 62,000 apartment units;

- Communications to the Mayor, and his response in regard thereto, from the following individuals respecting support for the Toronto Police Service helicopter; suggestions on how the City of Toronto can reach an efficient operating budget; and suggestions on bi-weekly garbage pick-up and re-establishing truck routes due to the new City of Toronto boundaries:

- Dr. Grant Angus Farrow;

- Mr. Claude A. de Souza;

- Mr. Peter Schlecht;

- Mr. Don York;

- Mr. C.B. Winn;

- Mr. W. Howieson;

- Mr. Arran Shommans;

- Mr. Ronald Marion;

- Ms. Heather Jamieson; and

- Mr. P. Ryan.

- (April 11, 2001) from Gerda Kaegi, President, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, Inc., Ontario Division, in support of the application for a new 178-bed long term care facility for the Scarborough area;

- (April 17, 2001) from Mr. Vincent Rodo, General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that in order to balance their budget, TTC fares will increase and consultations will take place to discuss possible 2002 service cuts; Toronto City Council 285 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

- (April 17, 2001) from Dr. Hazel Stewart, Toronto Public Health, providing a briefing note with respect to an analysis of dental program costs;

- (April 12, 2001) from Ms. Helen Riley, requesting that funding be restored for various social programs now that the tax increase has been reduced from 18 per cent to 5 per cent;

- (April 17, 2001) from Mr. Thomas Steers, regarding City of Toronto Fire Services;

- (April 17, 2001) from H. J. Watson, regarding the impact of user fees from a seniors perspective and cuts to dental services which is currently provided to 32,500 seniors and children;

- (April 17, 2001) from Mr. Joe Gill, Chair, The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common, urging Council not to close the Pier Museum until a thorough report has been presented outlining the pros and cons of the Pier Museum remaining in its present location and if this location is not appropriate, provide a specific proposal to move the museum to another location which will be more appropriate;

- (April 17, 2001) from Mr. Brian Cochrane, President, Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416, providing a budget proposal to streamline staff selection; prevent program cuts; and the reduction of hours of service in Toronto Public Library Branches;

- (April 17, 2001) from Ms. Anne Golden, President, United Way of Greater Toronto, regarding the Consolidated Grants Program and proposed cuts of the Community Services Grants Program;

- (April 16, 2001) from Mr. Walter Bucker, providing suggestions for reducing the burden on property owners in the City of Toronto;

- (April 17, 2001) from Ms. Melanie Hare, urging Committee and Council to consider including the Wabash Recreation Centre within the 2001 City Budget; and

- (April 5, 2001) from Mayor Mel Lastman, addressed to Dr. Grant Angus Farrow.

The following persons appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Paul York, on behalf of the Greater Toronto Tenants Association;

- Ms. Pam Jolliffe, Executive Director, Fred Victor Centre, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- The Reverend Terence Finlay, Archbishop of Toronto, Anglican Diocese of Toronto; Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, Temple Emanu-El; and The Reverend Dr. Karen Hamilton, President, Toronto Conference, The United Church of Canada, who also spoke on behalf Toronto City Council 286 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

of Ms. Ann Fitzpatrick, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, and filed a submission in regard thereto; - Mr. Barry Rieder, Jane Finch Community Ministry, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. John Bessai;

- Mr. Lee Zaslofsky, Advocacy and Media Relations Coordinator, Aids Committee of Toronto;

- Ms. Helen Kennedy, spokesperson, Save our City Campaign, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Josephine Grey, Low Income Families Together;

- Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;

- Mr. Tim Rourke, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Terry Reardon, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers and Residents Associations, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Sandy Nimmo, on behalf of Ms. Pat McEndry, City Wide Tenant Council, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Anna Willats, YWCA of Greater Toronto, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Irene Atkinson, Chair, Toronto District School Board; together with Trustees Bruce Davis and Shelley Laskin;

- Mr. Ken Sosa;

- Mr. Kevin Gregory, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto ;

- Ms. Phyllis Dutchak;

- Mr. Mike Foderick, Toronto Youth Cabinet;

- Mr. Adrian Johnston, Chair, Toronto Youth Cabinet;

- Ms. Lily Leung, Toronto Youth Cabinet;

- Mr. Kehinde Bah, Toronto Youth Cabinet;

- Mr. Ryan Teschner, Toronto Youth Cabinet; Toronto City Council 287 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

- Mr. Brian Cochrane, President, CUPE Local 416, who also gave a video presentation and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Ann Dembinski, President, CUPE Local 79; - Ms. Gina Gignae, National Representative, CUPE Local 416;

- Mr. Tooker Gomberg;

- Mr. Colin Hughes, Toronto Campaign 2000;

- Mr. John Sewell, Committee for Fair City Taxes, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Bronwyn Fitz-James, Wabash Community Recreation Centre Working Group, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Alije Ozturk, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Linda Karageorgos, Coalition for Student Nutrition, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Irene Waldman, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Stig Harvor, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. David Rew;

- Ms. Edith Lam, Chinese Inter Agency Network, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Gerard Van Deelen, Chair, Issues and Actions Committee, Toronto York Region Labour Council;

- Mr. Colin Madison;

- Ms. Grace Valentini;

- Mr. Breton Madison-MacIntyre;

- Mr. Ben Eisen, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Alan Burke, President, East Beach Community Association;

- Mr. Terry Russell;

- Mr. John Wilson, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Sunshine Smith; Toronto City Council 288 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

- Mr. Oudit Raghubir;

- Ms. Jane Mercer, Executive Coordinator, Toronto Coalition for Better Child Care;

- Mr. Paul Federico, Community Relations Director, Toronto Military Heritage Association, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Fiona Nelson, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. John Cartwright, Business Manager, Construction Trades Council, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Barbara McCarron;

- Mr. Ib Amonsen;

- Mr. V. Jeevaratham;

- Mr. Robert Koil, Ethno Cultural Seniors Group;

- Mr. Geoffrey Geduld, Chair, Toronto Historical Museums Board, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Ann Rowan, President, Toronto Historical Association;

- Mr. Terry Russell on behalf of Ms. Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Robert Mifflin on behalf of Ms. Janette McPherson, Chair, Board of Management, Pier Museum, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. George James, who also addressed the Committee on behalf of Ms. Nancy Abbey and Ms. Annette Helou, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Mr. Tom Steers;

- Mr. Joe Gill, Chair, The Friends of Fort York, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Ameeta Bangur, and filed a submission in regard thereto;

- Ms. Danielle Urquhart, employee, Pier Museum;

- Mrs. Sophie Zeber; and

- Mr. Steven Burdick, Chair, CUPE Library Workers Committee (Ontario). Toronto City Council 289 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

The following Members of Council also appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Raymond Cho, Scarborough-Rouge River;

- Councillor Olivia Chow, Trinity Spadina;

- Councillor Frank Di Giorgio, York South-Weston;

- Councillor Suzan Hall, Etobicoke North;

- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Parkdale-High Park;

- Councillor Jack Layton, Broadview-Greenwood;

- Councillor David Miller, Parkdale-High Park;

- Councillor Howard Moscoe, Eglinton-Lawrence;

- Councillor Frances Nunziata, York South-Weston;

Councillor Sherene Shaw, Scarborough-Agincourt; and

- Councillor David Soknacki, Scarborough East.

(Councillor David Shiner declared his interest in those portions of the Budget respecting Information Technology in that a Member of his family has worked in this field in the past and may do so in the future.)

______

(A copy of the Capital Budget Document, entitled “2001 Operating Budget”, was forwarded to all Members of Council by the Finance Department and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 2001, and April 30, May 1 and 2, 2001, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (April 19, 2001) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential, in its entirety, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, given that it is subject to solicitor/client privilege.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (March 26, 2001) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential, in its entirety, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, given that it is subject to solicitor/client privilege.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 30, 2001) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer: Toronto City Council 290 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Purpose:

To amend the Payment-in-Lieu revenue in the Non-Program budget to reflect a technical clarification recently received from OPAC. Toronto City Council 291 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no net financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Payment-in-Lieu revenue in the Non-Program budget be reduced from $159,022.0 thousand to $155,576.0 thousand and that the Tax Levy Revenue be increased from $2,734,204.7 thousand to $2,737,650.7 million, for a net impact of zero.

Comment:

The final assessment roll for 2001 contains certain new tax class qualifiers described as “Shared PIL”. These relate to 283 assessment portions in the commercial/industrial classes. OPAC has recently clarified that this assessment should be treated as “taxable” for the purposes of calculation of tax rates, rather than as payments-in-lieu.

The payment-in-lieu revenue in the non-program budget must be reduced by $3,446.0 thousand from $159,022.0 thousand to $155,576.0 thousand, with a corresponding increase in taxable revenue in the commercial/industrial classes, for a net impact of zero. The final municipal levy by-law will reflect the foregoing.

Contact Names:

Giuliana Carbone, Director, Revenue Services, 392-8065

Carmela Romano, Manager, Revenue Services, 395-6730)

(A copy of the draft By-law attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications and reports with respect to the 2001 Operating Budget:

(i) (February 18, 2001) from Mr. and Mrs. Alex Ginou; (ii) (February 15, 2001) from Mr. Karl H. Hens; (iii) (February 19, 2001) from Ms. Susan Butler and Ms. Ulla Knowles, Community Representatives, Coalition for Student Nutrition; (iv) (April 7, 2001) from Mr. Jim Yates; (v) (April 18, 2001) from Ms. Susan Aaron; (vi) (April 20, 2001) from J. D. Dunn, Chairman, Citizens Advisory Group, Northern Elms Library; (vii) (April 20, 2001) from Mr. Brian Cochrane, Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, Local 416 CUPE, submitting recommendations regarding the 2001 City of Toronto Budget; (viii) revised 2001 Consolidated Grants Budget Scenarios submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae; Toronto City Council 292 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(ix) a revised copy of Appendix A, City of Toronto 2001 Operating Budget, Program Summary of Adjustments, Gross Expenditure Estimates on a Program Basis, submitted by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; (x) Appendix B, Summary of Changes – 2001 Request to 2001 Budget Advisory Committee Recommended, submitted by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; (xi) revised copy of the City of Toronto 2001 Operating Budget, Recommendations Adopted by Policy and Finance Committee at its Meeting on April 17, 2001, submitted by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; (xii) revised copy of Appendix C, Council Directed Reserve Funds 2001 Budget Projection, submitted by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; (xiii) (April 17, 2001) from Ms. Josephine Bryant, City Librarian, Toronto Public Library; (xiv) Toronto Police Service Budget Request Worksheet, submitted by Councillor Bas Balkissoon; (xv) (undated) from Ms. Jennifer Long, Executive Member, Scarborough Youth Resource Centre submitting documents and petitions regarding the city budget cuts; (xvi) Appendix II, Proposed Environmental Plan Initiatives Funding for 2001, submitted by Councillor David Soknacki; (xvii) 2001 Children’s Expansion Proposal Locations and Wards by District, submitted by Councillor Olivia Chow; (xviii) (undated) Teen Zone Proposal, Youth Gateway on the Internet, Toronto Public Library, submitted by Councillor Olivia Chow; (xix) (April 13, 2001 from Mr. Jack J. Slaughter, Chair, Board of Management, Swansea Town Hall Community Centre expressing support for the continued operation of the Public Health Dental Clinic at the Swansea Town Hall; (xx) (April 24, 2001) from Councillor Joe Michevc, Chair of the Toronto Board of Health, addressed to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Government of Canada, the Minister of Health, Province of Ontario, requesting a meeting to discuss the City’s concerns regarding TB prevention and control program, circulated at the request of Councillor Joe Mihevc; and (xxi) (April 2, 2001) from Mr. Pat Moyle, Executive Director, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, enclosing “A Report on Provincial-Municipal Relations”, a survey of Ontario’s municipalities, submitted by Councillor Howard Moscoe.) (xxii) (April 17, 2001) from Councillor Joe Mihevc, addressed to Councillor David Shiner, regarding budget adjustments to the 2001 Operating Budget for Public Health.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated) from the City Clerk, forwarding revised pages for the foregoing Clause which correct typographical errors in the Corporate Report, as identified by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. This Clause has been revised accordingly.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following petitions:

(i) Petition signed by 121 persons in opposition to any proposed cuts to the Central Eglinton Community Centre, filed by Councillor Walker; (ii) Petition signed by 328 Toronto area sailors in opposition to the closure of the Pier Marine Museum, filed by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski; Toronto City Council 293 Policy and Finance Committee April 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, and May 1 and 2, 2001 Report No. 5, Clause No. 2

(iii) Petition signed by 122 persons in opposition to the proposal to charge for parking at Ashbridge’s Bay, filed by Councillor Bussin; (iv) Petition signed by 228 persons requesting that the 2001 budget be completed in the best interests of the whole community, filed by Councillor Pantalone on behalf of Councillor Chow; (v) Petition signed by 420 persons in opposition to the proposed outdoor advertising in public parks, filed by Councillor McConnell; and (vi) a communication from Mr. Frances Deverell, Minister, Don Heights Unitarian Congregation (April 22, 2001) enclosing a donation in the amount of $45.57 on behalf of the Congregation’s Social Committee, to assist the City with its budget, submitted by Councillor Ashton.)

(Councillor Ashton, at the regular meeting of Council held on April 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2001, and the Special Meeting of Council held on April 30, 2001, and May 1 and 2, 2001, declared an interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the Operating Budget of the Urban Development Services Department, in that his wife is an employee of such Department.)

(Councillor Balkissoon, at the regular meeting of Council held on April 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2001, and the Special Meeting of Council held on April 30, 2001, and May 1 and 2, 2001, declared an interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the Operating Budget of the Toronto Public Library Board, in that his wife is an employee of the Library Board.)

(Councillor Lindsay Luby, at the regular meeting of Council held on April 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2001, and the Special Meeting of Council held on April 30, 2001, and May 1 and 2, 2001, declared an interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the Operating Budget of the Corporate Services Department, Information and Technology, in that her daughter is a summer student in the IT Division.)

(Councillor Ootes, at the regular meeting of Council held on April 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2001, and the Special Meeting of Council held on April 30, 2001, and May 1 and 2, 2001, declared an interest in the foregoing Clause, as it pertains to the motion by Councillor Moscoe relating to Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC), in that he is a member of the Board of Directors of OPAC.)

(Councillor Shiner, at the regular meeting of Council held on April 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2001, and the Special Meeting of Council held on April 30, 2001, and May 1 and 2, 2001, declared an interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the Operating Budget of the Corporate Services Department, Information and Technology, in that his son is an employee in the IT Division.)

(Councillor Soknacki, at the regular meeting of Council held on April 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2001, and the Special Meeting of Council held on April 30, 2001, and May 1 and 2, 2001, declared an interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the Operating Budget of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in that his family owns property in the vicinity of a conservation area.)