Peter Milczyn, Chair,
And Members of the Planning and Growth Management Committee
RE: PG7.1 Core Service Review
We are here today to discuss the 1% of the Planning and Growth Management budget that has been deemed discretionary by KPMG. The other 99% of these services are considered mandatory, essential and have been traditionally delivered by the City.
Some of the options for finding savings in the discretionary part of this budget are to:
Toronto Building
• Reduce or eliminate proactive inspection for illegal signs and investigation of complaints about signs
• Reduce provision of information to the public, such as zoning information, or charge for the service
City Planning
• Eliminate public art programs
• Eliminate or reduce service levels for public realm improvements program
• Reduce heritage grant and heritage tax rebate programs
As we have stated in our other deputations over the past two weeks, Local 79 would like to highlight the ill-conceived logic of the KPMG option to reduce or eliminate proactive inspections, in this case for illegal signs and investigation of complaints about signs. If the City were to reduce investigations and enforcement, the unwelcome result is likely to be a reduction in compliance. Local 79 would also like to remind you that as a result of the enforcement of regulations expertly provided by the Toronto building inspectors, there is revenue generated from application fees, variance application fees, and other fees associated with signs.
Making it harder for citizens of this City to get information about zoning and planning is not a good way to bring about transparent and accountable government. Reducing the provision of information to the public, such as zoning information, or charging for the service, is wrong. For more than 25 years in the former City of Toronto and post amalgamation, Torontonians have appreciated the fact that skilled, expert City staff are there to guide them through extremely complex, necessary processes. If that service were reduced, eliminated or charged for, the health and safety of Toronto’s residents could ultimately be put in jeopardy!
Local 79 wonders why arts, culture and heritage are always on or near the top of the list when the City wants to make budget cuts? And since when is it a budget crime to beautify this City? These options totally undermine everything that Tourism Toronto, Parks & Recreation and Heritage Toronto do to bring in millions of dollars from people visiting our fair City.
Here is what the City website has to say about public art: “Public art can be defined, most simply, as art that is in the public realm. It might be a landscape installation made to delight passers-by; it might be aural or visual, functional, as well as inspirational. Public art can be permanent or temporary; it can be woven seamlessly into the city’s fabric or stand out as a unique and arresting detail or event.”
To classify all of these as options for budget cutting, not only does a huge disservice to the citizens of Toronto, but could make Toronto a less attractive place for hundreds of thousands of visitors, who, by the way, also generate revenue for Toronto!
Local 79 urges you to wholeheartedly reject these options.
Yours truly,
Ann Dembinski
President
July 27, 2011
Peter Milczyn, Chair,
And Members of the Planning and Growth Management Committee
10th floor, West Tower, City Hall
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Dear Councillor Milczyn and Members of the Planning and Growth Management Committee,
RE: PG7.1 Core Service Review
We are here today to discuss the 1% of the Planning and Growth Management budget that has been deemed discretionary by KPMG. The other 99% of these services are considered mandatory, essential and have been traditionally delivered by the City.
Some of the options for finding savings in the discretionary part of this budget are to:
Toronto Building
• Reduce or eliminate proactive inspection for illegal signs and investigation of complaints about signs
• Reduce provision of information to the public, such as zoning information, or charge for the service
City Planning
• Eliminate public art programs
• Eliminate or reduce service levels for public realm improvements program
• Reduce heritage grant and heritage tax rebate programs
As we have stated in our other deputations over the past two weeks, Local 79 would like to highlight the ill-conceived logic of the KPMG option to reduce or eliminate proactive inspections, in this case for illegal signs and investigation of complaints about signs. If the City were to reduce investigations and enforcement, the unwelcome result is likely to be a reduction in compliance. Local 79 would also like to remind you that as a result of the enforcement of regulations expertly provided by the Toronto building inspectors, there is revenue generated from application fees, variance application fees, and other fees associated with signs.
Making it harder for citizens of this City to get information about zoning and planning is not a good way to bring about transparent and accountable government. Reducing the provision of information to the public, such as zoning information, or charging for the service, is wrong. For more than 25 years in the former City of Toronto and post amalgamation, Torontonians have appreciated the fact that skilled, expert City staff are there to guide them through extremely complex, necessary processes. If that service were reduced, eliminated or charged for, the health and safety of Toronto’s residents could ultimately be put in jeopardy!
Local 79 wonders why arts, culture and heritage are always on or near the top of the list when the City wants to make budget cuts? And since when is it a budget crime to beautify this City? These options totally undermine everything that Tourism Toronto, Parks & Recreation and Heritage Toronto do to bring in millions of dollars from people visiting our fair City.
Here is what the City website has to say about public art: “Public art can be defined, most simply, as art that is in the public realm. It might be a landscape installation made to delight passers-by; it might be aural or visual, functional, as well as inspirational. Public art can be permanent or temporary; it can be woven seamlessly into the city’s fabric or stand out as a unique and arresting detail or event.”
To classify all of these as options for budget cutting, not only does a huge disservice to the citizens of Toronto, but could make Toronto a less attractive place for hundreds of thousands of visitors, who, by the way, also generate revenue for Toronto!
Local 79 urges you to wholeheartedly reject these options.
Yours truly,
Ann Dembinski
President