Toronto City Councillor
Ward 25 Don Valley West

 The Council Highlights are provided as a service to Ward 25 constituents.  The following is a summary of the City Council meeting of April 1 and 6, 2009.

1.  April 1 Operating Budget   (EX 30.1)

Council adopted an Operating Budget of $8.7 billion - the details of which are available at  http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-19558.pdf 

The 2009 Operating Budget follows the approved 2009 Water/Solid Waste Budget (with its higher water rates and user fees for garbage) and 2009 Capital Budget (with its increased debt). 

This year's operating budget featured a 4% residential property tax increase and several user fee increases, in addition to the increases noted above.  As well, this will be the first full year of the Land Transfer Tax and Personal Vehicle Tax. 

In addition to all of those new revenue sources, the budget featured two one-time revenue sources - a provincial payment of $236 million to fund debt service charges for transit and the transfer of $92 million from capital funds for closed projects.  Failure to replace those two sources of income next year would directly result in a 10% tax increase in 2010. 

In the last five years, spending has increased over 30%.  As well the City's debt has increased from about $2 billion to $3 billion.  In my view, the people of Toronto are not receiving commensurate value in services for this enormous ramp up in spending.  Consequently, I participated with a group of other Councillors to present an "alternative budget" - a modest attempt to introduce a more responsible fiscal policy to the City.  We proposed savings which would have reduced the tax increase by 2%.  While our proposal was rejected outright by Mayor Miller, Council declined to adopt the alternative budget by only seven votes.  The amazingly close vote was 26 to 19. 

2. April 6 Below-Grade Garages (NY24.34 and NY 24.35)

Council reaffirmed its previous decision to not permit below-grade garages in North York.  Since the previous implementation by-law had unintentionally caught some applicants part way through the approval process, Council determined that in order to be fair to those and others in similar circumstances that it would delay the effective date of implementation until December, 2009.  Planning Staff have also indicated that, because of the excessive costs incurred by the City with respect to flooding and storm water management, they intend to recommend a similar provision in the proposed new city-wide zoning by-law.

3. April 6 Filmport Investment (CC34.1)

On the very strong recommendation of Mayor Miller, Council decided to extend its financial commitment to Filmport, a privately owned film production studio in the Portlands - by taking a partial equity interest in the venture and by providing a further loan.  I am very concerned about the very unbusiness-like approach to this and other business propositions.  In particular, Council approved the Filmport commitment without the usual due diligence performed in the private sector - no audited financial statements, no financial forecasts, no independent business valuation, no details on future bookings, no written estimation of a break-even rate.  And since the original rationale for the City's involvement was economic development, it surprisingly did not include details on the past and future levels of employment generated by Filmport.  Since the City is advancing many millions of dollars of your tax money (to compete both internationally and with other private studio operators in Toronto), the least we could do is to take a normal prudent business approach.  I voted against this recommendation.  In my view, such ventures (not only Filmport, but also the previous Corus deal and the various Union Station deals) can cause the City to lose focus on our basic services - providing infrastructure, clearing snow, maintaining parks, managing solid waste, etc.

Committee and Non-Council Items

1. Election Finance Reform

(a) By-law to Prohibit Campaign Surplus Carryover

The Executive Committee referred to the Clerk the Motion (by Councillor Michael Walker, seconded by myself and Councillor Chin Lee) on terminating the ability of candidates in Toronto elections to carry-over surplus campaign donations to the next election.  In the past, some elected candidates have amassed large surpluses which provide a great head-start in the next election and which surely act as a deterrent to potential challengers.  The Clerk is to report next month on this topic, including the potential use of surplus campaign donations to fund subsequent legal expenses of candidates, to write down the cost of election financing and to be used in potential new election financing methods.

(b)  The Executive Committee deferred indefinitely (i.e. killed) a proposal by Councillors Walker, Lee and myself to have the City request the province to ban the practice of corporations and unions donating their employees during their regular working hours to election campaigns of candidates.

2.  City Non-Union 2009 Compensation - Pay Freeze (EX 31.19) and Councillor Salary Freeze (EX31.28)

Despite the economic difficulties faced by so many Toronto residents, the Executive Committee dealt with these two matters in diametrically opposite ways.  It is recommending that Council freeze the 2009 salary grids at the 2008 levels for non-union staff (no matter what the outcome of union negotiations later this summer) as well as foregoing merit payments.  The Executive Committee however ignored pleas of equal treatment for Councillors' salaries by several Councillors who argued that it would provide leadership by example as the City prepares for serious union negotiations.  It refused to let the matter go to full Council for a vote.  Instead it brazenly, and unanimously, did just the opposite by directing the Clerk to begin collecting data to justify the pay increase for Councillors in 2011.  (For the record, about half of all Councillors, including myself, have taken the voluntary pay freeze in 2009.)

3.  Zoning By-law (PG24.1)

The Planning & Growth Management Committee approved a staff-recommended consultation process for a new draft Zoning By-law and a statutory meeting to adopt the Zoning By-law in November 2009.  Contrary to previous public assurances provided by staff, the proposed by-law would significantly alter zoning permissions in residential neighbourhoods throughout the City, in most cases permitting appreciably bigger buildings.  Among other things, allowable coverage and building height would be increased and side-yard setbacks would be decreased so as to permit - without variances - very large, 3-storey houses, set close together, throughout most of the City.  It would further effectively encourage still larger houses through minor variances.  As well, the proposed new definition of height, measured to the top of the roof, will likely encourage flat-roofed homes entirely out of character with the majority of the City.  Lastly, the Committee approved an unsatisfactory public consultation process of two "open houses" at each Community Centre in the summer, and a website to collect comments.  But it permits no opportunity for direct input to Members of Council that could lead to meaningful changes in the proposed by-law following a detailed review of its provisions based on full and accurate disclosure.