Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO 16/00��, .�i '022' ���,� REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Thomns J, Quinn DATE: October 2, 2000 Chief Administrative Officcr REPORTNUM�ER: CA016•00 SUB]ECT: Review of the Greater Toranto Scrvices E3oard - SinffComments—DeloilteConsultingPhaselReport - File:ld 3114 RECOMMENDATION: I. That Councii rcceive Report to Council CAO IS•QQ conceming the report prepured by Deloilte Consulting's entided "Revie�v oJrhe GTSU — Phase 1 Reporr, Addresslr.g GTA- {Vfde Cha!lenges. " 2. That Council endorsc AtWchment No. I lo Report to Council CAO 16•00 ns the City of Pickcring's commcnts on Dcloittc Consulting's Phasc I Repart. i. That Rcport to Council CAO 16-00, including Attachmcnt No. I, bc fonvnrdcd to thc Grcalcr Toronto Scrviccs Dourd as input lo Phasc 2 of thc GTSD rcvicw. ORICiIN: On June 30'", 2000, ihe Grcater Toronto Scrvices Doard dirccted Ihnt lhc report entiQed "Xevieiv ojfhe GTSIJ — Plra.sc l Repnrl, Addrrssrng CTA-IVirle ClmHenges" be circulated to mcmber municipalities and other GTA stnkcholdcr organimtions wilh n request thnt comments be Convnrdcd to thc GTSD no latcr than Seplembcr 30, 2000. The GTSD lotcr extended the date for rcccipt of commenls to Oclober 13"', 2000. AUTHORiTY: The Munlclpal Acr, R.S.O. 1990 FINANCIAL IMPLICAT(ONS: Not applicnble EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Not epplicable DACKdROUND; When the arcater Toronto Scrvices Ilonrd (0'PSD) was cstablishcd in 1998, it ��ns rcquircd to canduct a rcvicw of its sizc, com�sition and mandatc heforc ihr cnd of Ik�eml+c� ?000. '` , t � , .. Report to Cowcil CA016-00 pate: October 2, 2000 0z3 Subjcet: Stef'f Comments Deloitte Consulting — Phasc t Report Pagc 2 Deloitte's has completed its Phese 1 Report entitled "Addressing Ihe GT.4-WJde Cha!lenges. " The dTSO is nquesting comments from member municipalities nnd other GTA stalceholders on the Phase 1 Report, as input to the next phase of the roview. In Phase 2, Deloittc will exemine optional modols for the GTSB, und make recommendations on a prefcrrcd future composition and mandate for the Board. Staffs commenls on the Phnse 1 RepoA ore atwched ns Attnchment No. I. Swfi's position is in favour of re•energiting and strcngthening the role nnd responsibility of the GTSB such that it becomes u strong GTA policy-settins ngency, wilh sufficient tools anJ resources nt its disposal to ensure that ugreed upon strutegies arr, cartied out by member municipalities. It is recommended that Council endorse the smff commenis and fonvnrd them to the GTSB as input to Phnse 2 of the review. Council will recall that it took n position in April 1998 supporting the estnblishment of a Greater Toronto Services Board, generally us set out in Ihc proposed legislution, subject to the Province ensuring through the legislation that Pickering havc at least ona member on the GTSB (Council Resolutiun N73/98). Given the significant challenges facing the Grcater Toronlo Area, n re- energiud and strengthened GTSB is a mturnl and nppropriate next step in the evolution of the Board. ATTACHMENT: I. City uf Pickering Stnff Comments nn Deloiltc Consulting's Phnsc 1 Report, "Addressing dre GTA•IVI�: Cdullenges. " 2, Deloittc Consulling's Phasc i Rcport "Addressing d�e GTA-{Vide Chal/enges. " Prepnred By: ApprovcJ / findarsed f3y: Th mas E. Mc muk T7 omas J, Quinn Division Hend, Corpomte ' Is & Policy Chief Administmtive Officer TM: Attachment Copy: Dircctor, Corpomtc Services & Trcasurer Director, Operntions & Emergency Serviccs Director, PI¢nning & Development Divisian Hend, Corparute Projects & Policy Recommended for lhe considcrntion oFPickering Ciry Council ' � ,, , .7 � Th mos l, Qui Chi Administm ' Off r ' 1 .. � � ATTACHMENT# � TO REPOATN���•� 029 � P�� o� a , REVIEW OF THE GREATER TORONTO �ERVICES BOARD DELOITTE CONSULTING - PHASE 1 REPORT ADDRESSING THE GTA-WIDE CHALLENGES CITY OF PICKERING - STAFF COMMENTS OCTOBER 2000 'r _ , � � A1T iJ�T01�Pa1Ti�'$4• Il�-oo � a o� �, � REVIEW OF THE GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD DELOITTE CONSULTING — PHASE 1 RHPORT ADDRESSING THE GTA-WIDE CHALLENGES CITY OF PICKERING — STAFF COMMENTS OCTOBER 2000 BACKGROUND The Greafer Toronto Services Board Act, 1998, stipu�ates that the GTSB shall conduct, before December 31, 2000, a review of lhe following: 1. The Baard size and wmpositlon. 2. The number ot votes each mem6er of Ihe Board has. 3. The powera which have been or shouid, in ihe opinion of the Board, be assigned to it. 4. Whelher Ihe Ad should be artrended so lhat Ihe Board's powers no longer exlend to a munlcipality, and so Ihat the members of Ihe Board no longer include a represenlativa of Ihe munlcipality. In March, Deloitte Consulling was hired to undertake a two•phase study. Phase 1 would look at the Board's current activities and priorities, establish criteda for measuring lhe Board's effectiveness, and identify policy issues. Phase 2 would analyze the Board's efiectiveness and provide recommendations, using the results and comments obtzined at ihe complet(on of Phase 1. In June, Deloitte Consulting completed a draft Phase 1 Report entilled 'Addressing fhe GTA•Wide Challenges." A number of sources of information were used to detertnine the challenges facing the GTA, including a review of relevant reports and documentation, face-to•face (nterviews with chief administrative ofiicers ncross the GTA, and input lhrough the GTSB CAn committee. At its meeling of June 30, the GTSB directed that Deluitte's Phase 1 Report be forwarded to member munfcipalilies and other GTA slakeholders. Comments are requested by mid- October. Deloitte's Final Report is expected lo be completed by the end of this year or eariy in 2001. It is scheduted for presentat(on to the GTSB in ihe first part of 2001 (February at lhe earfiest). SUMMARY OF THE PHASE 1 REPORT Deloitte's Phase 1 Report identifies a number of "policy challenges" of GTA-wide s(gnificance. Ignoring liiese challenges, or responding to lhem in an inappropriate manner, significanlly weakens the competitiveness of the regional economy and reduces the quality of life in the G7A. The challenges are presented under the headings of grauvth management, transportation, environmental infraslructure, economic development and tourism and social imperatives. The following summarize� some of Deloitte's key findings. �elottls GTSB Phase 1 Reporl City ot Pkkering Staff Comments 1 025 .': O2� ATTACHMENTQ � �;AE�PORTI6S� \lo-c� 9 ;{ Growth Ma�jqagement • There will be another 2.5 milBon people living in the GTA uver the next 30 years. Almost ane-third of Canada's enpre popwation grawth will occur here over that period, These millions will be travelling on the already congested GTA roadways. • Respansibility for long-term planning, financing and development of mos! major infrasttucture has been handed down by the Province to the municipalities. This causes a fragmented approach to growlh management and promotes urban sprawl. Competition amonc�st municipalities exacerbates these patterns, and lack of coordinaUon squanders limited funds for infrastruclure investment. • The challenge is to step back and recognize that despite thefr diversiry, each municipality's ullimate strength lies in the strength and vfability of the GTA as a whole. Without a coordinated grovdh strategy to guide local planning and intrastructure investment, isolated, incremental decisions will eventually erode the GTA's high quality of life and economic competitiveness. • The proximity of the countryside to the urban core poses on-going threats to agricultural lands, agc�regate resources, environmentally sensitive areas, historic rura� communiUes and open space connections. 1Nhile municipalities have a variety of policies to protect elements of the countryside, there is no coordinaled mechanistn for identifying and protecting r permanent rural arEa. 7ransportatton • The GTA transportation system is in trouble and is fast eroding the region's reputation as an enviable place to live, work and invest in. Simply building more expressways (even if funds were available) is not a solution. A future emphasis on publfc transit is required, and that in turn depends on questions o( density and locatfon ot development. • A policy framework is required that addresses inler-municipal and inter-regional transportatfon requiremenls. The Province devolved this responsibility to lhe GTSB, which presently has limited abflity to effect change or facilitate implementation. Environmenta I Infrastructure • A high quality of life and economic competitiveness cannot be sustained fn a deteriorating environment. The GTA' s green infrastructure (including wellands, woodlands, valleys, rivers, lakes, ground�vater and the Oak Ridges Mora(ne) is as important to maintafn as the transportation infrastructure. The mechanisms to coordinate protection of greenlands across mun(cipal boundaries, including the Oak Ridges Moraine, are insufficient. • Water sources, treatment and supply systems are alsa shared by the majority of municipalities. Coordinated planning of these systems is not undertaken on a GTA- wide basis. Deloitte GTSB Phase 1 Repod City of Pickedng Slaft Commenls 2 :. • , ' Nn�t�rr�y � a oAT#a���-� ° 027 Econom(c Development and Touriam • The global econamy is now characterized by intense competilion among city-regions tor new investment. The GTA has meny of the key ingredients necessary to compete as a city-region, but we must ask ourselves if it is presently organized for success (n ' the fuiure. • A city-region proocc���ied with internal competition or fragmented along geographical Ifnes cannot compete; and today, the GTA does nnt have a unified visiori for economic growth or tourism. In addition, the efforis of ths Greater Toronto MaikPtiny Alliance to promote ihe GTA as a place to do business would be enhanced if respansibilities for the collection, analysis and benchmarking of GTA-level economic information were defined. Social ImperaNves • All GTA communities have a stake in the quality of life and prosperity of a strong city- region. Economic conditions and socfal service needs have no respect for municipal boundaries. As cities mature, socfal service needs increase, includfng the need for aHardable housing. • The Province has increased the scape of social services that are provided and funded locally, without providing commensurate funding. While the need to distribute social cosls more equitably has been widely acknowledged, lhere are concerns that propert}r taxes do not pravide an appropriate source of funding for these services, and that pooling should occur on a provincial or nalional basis. • The impending devolution of social housing will create additional pressures. To equitably pian and fund sociai housing withfn the GTA a mechanism for inter-municipal coordination fs required. There fs a�so a need lo coordinate health and emergency services, and a need for lhe coordinated dispatch of ambulance services, Municipal Capacity to Meet GTA Chalienges • The Ontario Government has stepped back from its historfcal role in inter-municipal coordination, including responsibililies for land use compatibility, transportation policles, social cohesion and equity, urban infrastructure ((ncludfng water and sewage) and transit. The municipal system must fill the void, but may not be able to do so without new GTA-wide policies. • Delegation of respons(bility wilhout the requisite resources has exacerbated financial pressures on municipalities. Ffnding new revenue sources is vital if the GTA is to relnforce ils economic future. Wilhout sources of revenue beyond property taxes, development charges and some user fees, GTA municipalitfes are unlikely to be able to invest in lhe infrastructure improvements needed to sustain a competitive advantage over other urban cenlres in North America. Deloitte GTSB Phase 1 Reporl City ot Pickering SIaH Comments 3 , ATTACHMENT�LTO AEPOAT!!S� \lo-oo . � 0.�so� $ 028 • Govemance in the GTA is currently characterized by a hfgh degree ot fnatabflity. Accountability tor taxation Is becoming confused and some taxat(on without representation is already built into the syatem. As well, the GTA does not have a united voice with sen(or govemments, and there is no federal urban polfcy, and no federal recognition of the unique needs and role of the GTA. Role of the GTSB / Criteria for Evaluadng Optlons • The GTSB was established to coordinate municipai decisions with respect to a number of the identified policy challenges. It currently is not a direct provider of services, except tor GO Transit, and has no authority to set policy for any of its member municipalities. The GTSB works through cooperation and consensus building. • If ihe GTA is to remain liveable and ptosperous, capacity to manage the GTA-wide challenges is required. The ability of the GTSB in its current form to address these chalienges needs to be examined, and optional GTSB mandates and/or struclures need to be explored. The evaluation of options must be based on obJectfve criteria that speak to ihe structures and the authorities or tools needed to address the challenges in an effective manner. STAFF COMMENTS There are two basic questions that need to be addressed at th(s time; (f) Are the challenges set out in ihe Deioitte report the key challenges facing the GTA? and ' (fi) What role should the GTSB play in addressing ihese challenges7 THE CHALLENGES The Deloitte Phese 1 reporl fdentifies growlh management, transportation, envfronmental infrastructure, economfc development and taurism, and sociai imperatives as the key GTA•wide challenges. They are correct in identifying these as important GTA challenges that require our collective and immediate attention fn order to maintain the quality of life and economic competitiveness of the Greater Toronto Area. However, under lhe transportatian challenges, in addition to roads and transft, fhe role and importance of other elements of the GTA lransportalion system should be considered, inc�uding GTA harbours and airports. There are also some additional GTA challenges that are not expl(cilly (dentified in lhe Deloitte report. These include the obvious challenge of waste management, including waste disposal, as well as the less obvious challenges related to telecommunications and energy. In terms of telecommunications, the challenge is to ensure development and maintenance of an integrated telecommunications infrastructure in order to help address Deloftte GTSB Phase 1 Report City of Pickedng StaB Camments 4 , � ATTACHMENT1i � TO REPORT#SJap�lo•bo � ��o�a isauea of eocial ec�uity and enhence the GTA's position and competitiveness within the 029 global marketplace. In terms ot energy, the chailenge not only (s to ensure a reliable, competitive and efficient aupply of anergy acrosa tho GTA, but also lo facilitate the development of altemative energy sources and encaurage energy conservation, THE ROLE OF THE GTSB IN ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES The GTSB was established in January 1998 to promote anG facilitata coord(nated decislan-making amongst its member mUnic(palities, and to dfrect and control GO Transit. As initially conceived, the Board (with the exception of GO Transit) can only operate thraugh cooperation and consensus. It was not given any direct aulhority to establfsh policy on the part of its member municipalit(es, nor was it provided any d(rect means of ensuring that its member municipalitfes act in a consfstent and effective manner towards the development and implemenlation of a common GTA vision. The Board has the authority to establish stralegies, and some progress has been made in thfs regard, particulariy wilh respect to a strategfc transportation plan and a countryside strategy. The Board has also been active in developing a GTA-wide information base, including reparting on the state of the GTA environment, as well as highlighting GTA fnnovations and best practices. In addition, the Board has adopted a dfspute resolution protocol and has put in place financial and operating procedures. It has also managed the transition of GO Transit from the Province to the GTSB. Given the time and resources availa6le to the GTSB, it Is a credit to lhe Board rr,embers and staff that this much work has been done since the Board's inception. Neve�theless, desp(le these modest successes, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the GTSB is at a oritical stage in fts evolution. Unless changes are made, the significant challenges Tacing tho Greater Toronto Area will ovetwhelm the ability of Board lo respond effectively. There are only two real choices. And they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. • Disband the GTSB and give the responsibility for coordinating GTA- wide planning and service delivery back to the Province. • Enhance the role and responsibility of the GTSB, giving it the policy and financial clout to ensure coordfnated GTA•wide planning and service delivery. Of ihe hvo options, re-engaging lhe Province in GTA-wide planning and service delivery is a non•starter. The provincial mandate extends well beyond the GTA making it diKcult for the Province to dedicate sufficient time and resources to the GTA on and on-going basfs. Moreover, the provincial level of government is not as close to the people and businesses of the GTA as the municfpal level of govemment. The Province may not be able to recognize, acknowledge and address ihe needs of the GTA as quickly and eHeclively as the local level. Accessibiliry and accountability are essential. Deloifle GTSB Fhase 1 Report City of pickedng Stafl Comments 5 m ATTACHMENT# � TOREPORT#�°��'� '• �' �j1o�8 � 30 So this leaves us with one Inevitable conclusion, If we wonl to eHect(vely eddress the signiflcant challenges facing the Greater Toronto Area now and In fhe future, the only viable option ia ihe creation of a atronger GTSB. This does not mean that the GTSB needs to immedialely evolve toward anolher level of govemment, although it does not preclude th(s irom happening fn the event the Province decides at some point in the future to proceed with govemance reform in the regional municipalities surrounding Toronto. It also does not mean that the GTSB needa to directly del(ver any services (even GO Transit). However, what (t does suggest fs the fullowing: • The GTSB should be more than a coordinatfng and d(spute resolution body. It should have the authority to set GTA policy, Moreover, ance the GTSB issues a GTA policy, all future decisions and actions of member municipalities as well as the Ontario Municipal Board snauld be required to "have regard to" the GTA polfcy (as fs the case wilh provincial palicy statements). • The GTSB should be responsible for a broad range o( GTA-wide areas of interest�. The member municipal govemments should continue to be responsible for area•specific Issues as well as the delivery of most servfces (with lhe exception of GO Transit). • The GTSB shauid be given special authority and power to tap into new revenue sources, such as vehicle fuel sales. As well, the Province should enact a new Municipai Act that ttuly empowers mun(clpal governments. • As a matter of principle, representation on the GTSB should conlinue to be on the basis of population, so long as each member mun(cipality cont(nues to have at leasl one vote. The method by which members are selected to lhe GTSB could evolve aver time, and lhe Chair could eilher be appointed, or selected through direct election. � This requires turther debale. However, consideradon should be given to asslgning lhe GTSB responsibllity tor GTA-wide growlh management and transportation planning, GTA-wide environmental manapement, GTA-wide economic development (in cooperation with Ihe Grealer Toronlo Markedng Alliance), inter- reglonal water and wastewater InGasWcture, (nler•regional solid waste disposal, GTA-wide research end data coordinalion, and selecled social services (such as social housing and welfare). Deloifta GTSB Phase 1 Report City of Pickedng Staff Commenls s ., r' ' ATIACHMENT�t,�TO REPORTIlS,�,o\lv-� ' ,CONCLUSION � a o�' 8 � 31' The GTSB is at a tuming point. The time has come to rethink the role, mandate and powers of th3 Board, in light of the sfgniflcant challenges and issues facing the Toronto c'�ty-region, Deloftte Consulling has begun lhe process of change through the release of its Phase 1 Report entitled 'Addressing the GTA-Wide Challenges". Camments trom member municipnlities and other GTA stakeholders are requested, and will be used as input lo the next phase of the revfew. In Phase 2, Deloitte will examine optional models for the GTSB, and make recommendations on a future mandate and slructure. Leaving the Board as it is today, or making only minor adjuslments, is not a reasonable opt(an. A much more significant change (s required. The choice is between two opposite extremes. One option is to dismantle the Board and re-engage the Pruvince of Ontario in GTA-wide planning, coordinaUon and service delivery. This direction is not recommended. The other aption is to re-energize and strengthen the role a�d responsibilily of lhe GTSB such that it becomes a strong policy-setlfng agency, with sutficient teelh and financial ciout to ensure effective municipal decfsion-making. This Is lhe recommended direction. JBfVICCS )irector, Corporale Services and �reasurer )irecto , f� ni and Development • , ,,j�,�rOd ., C i Admin'. rati ONic f �_ DelolHa GTSB Phase 1 Repod City of Pickedng StaH Comments 7 � > �� , ATTACHMENTIf�TOAEPORT��E��•Op �032'� � � , . �� o�. �4 . � � Deloitte � � . � Consult8ng The Great�er Taronto Services Board •� . � � Review of the GTSB � . . : . Phase 1 Report �.. � � Addressing GTA-Wide �. . . � � � ._ : Challenges . �' � • Draft for Discussion � � � ' ' Revised June 22,'2000 • t 4 r} . ...�,� . .... . .......... . .. . . .�. ,. . �+ - - -. -__._. � � . � � � . . o�.nroro�..i,,, • ATTACHMENT#.�TO AEPOATtSS4 �lc-oo � � . . . . � P9 a oC �4 - 033 � Inhoductlon � The Grcatar Toronto Arca today is undeniably a single ecoaomib; social end environmentel regioa No Individual arca of the region can flourish ilthe rntire region docs not prosper, and all areav of the rogion face inevitable declina if the rntirc rcgion canaot succeed in the new global ecoaomy. 1Vhere challenges ere shared, building the necessery policy comectiaas is usential if the whole Greater Toronto Araa is ro thrive. This discussion paper attempts to identify those policy areas where a aTA-wide perspective and common approach is neceuary to address economic, social and environmentel issues that cannot be edequately confronted without aiutual judgement end concerted a,tioa It outlines the GTSB's mandate end progtess on OTA-wide challenges. Fvrther, it proposes guiding principles and criteria for avaluatingoptions for addressing GTA-wide challenges. The economic well-being uf t6e provina and of Canada itself depend in significant measure on how the dTA is equipped to addre,s future chnllooges. However, the intertelationship of GTA communities dou not stop with economics. 'fhe environmentnl attributes of t6e region are shaied • its rivers, watersheds, air sheds end green lands _ know no municipel boundnries. The air we brcat�e, the water we drink and ihe neture we . enjoy is dependrnt on the region working together os a whole. The essential responsibilities ofmunicipal govamment, such as lnnd use and lransportation planning, provision of physicnl infreswcture, communiry and hwlth services, end the protection und conservntion of nntural resources, cnnnot lx exercised in iwlation in the GTA. Decisions about the depth und breadth of services being made by one municipaliry impact the rcsidents and business;s in surrounding municipalides nnd the qunlity of services they recei��e, The consequences of ignoring those cross-boundary . relotionships can be san daily in the traffic congestion, urban sprnwl and degraded natural environment thnt have nlreudy begun to diminish thc competitivenas of ihe regionul economy and the dairability of the qualiry of life in the GTA. This discussion pnper is t�e first step in the process of revicwing ihe Greuter Toronto Services Boord. The input of inember municipalities and GTA stakeholders is critical. What is your vision of the future farm of the OTAT Do the policy chelirnges set out in this paper retlect the kry chnllenges facing the GTA7 Are there ndditionnl policy . • chellenges that require a GTA-wide approach7 Are the guiding principles end thc criteria for evnluating options sufficient to gunrantee thnt;he GTA will ultimntely develop • eppropriale swchues anJ processes to mect GTA-wide challeagu? What do you think . is required to.ensure a liveable and prosperous GTA in the future? • OTSB R�vNw C �OIISY� � . . . ' �' � ' ' OTMYYde CMMnpo : ' � ATTACHMENT�.�(OREPURT�S�4�lo-oc� ' �o�.n � or�.� . � 3 aC �y 034 • . GTA Policy Challengas • Thece are a number of challenges whox causes or et%cts have (}TA-wide nsulu.'Ihey include matters where the consequences of decisiom apil! across municipai buundaries, ; affecting conditions in acveral communitia.'Ihey alzo includ� tnatten thet affect the competidveness of:ho rogion av a whole, such as intluencing the ability of We GTA w attract and rctein invsstrnent and jobs. They include issues defined by GTA-wi�e � systema, such es transi� Finelly, t6oy include quutions of equiry w that the provision of uivicp is not depcndent on the wealih of individual wmmuaides. All of these chellenges are ultimetely linked to somc concep6on of qualiry of life - to goals Cor a liveable and prosperous rcgion. Thesc aze policy challenges of a scale or scope to wacront a common fceus end a unificd dTA voice. They are chelirnges wherc no practical solutions are possible without considering the GTA as an inlegrated whole. For the most part thr.se challenges ure not new, but they nad to be addrcssed because t�e consequenca of innction arc ucalntinq. As verious public roports hnvo nokd: • valuable fazm land nnd envi;onmrnWly sensitice areas are being lost to urban Levelopment; • public trunsit is losiag market sluve; • traflic congestion La slowing the movcment of people and goods; • air quality is diminis6ing; • the GTA's compeutive advantagc is a�nning; and � • atfotdable apartments and homes are out of reach for nn incres�sing number of • GTA rcsiden►s. Munlcipal Capacity fo Meet GTA Challenges Thc Ontario Govemmcnt is stepping buck Gom its lustoricnl role in inter-municipul eoordination, including its msponsibilitia for land use compatibility, tmnspoAation policies, social cohesion nnd equity, urban infraswcture including wnler and uwer systems and transit. Even inter-ciry transit is no longer provinciel. The muniaipal system must fill the void and it mny not be able to do �so without new GTA-wide policies, . Delegation of responsibility wi�hout ihe requisite rcwurces Mas exacerbeted financial . pressures on municipalities, which have vecy limited financing options olher thnn property taxes. Finding new revenuc sourca to maintain aqd enhena infresVuchue is vital if the dTA is to rcinforce its economic future. A variety of eltematives have been proposed, such av vehicle regisuation fees, gas taxes, access to the income tax, und "we cost development charges." 'lbese and other solutions mcrit investigaGon, if ihe GTA is to develop viable municipal financing optioas. Without sourca of rcvenue br:yond property taxa, development � cherges and some user fees, GTA municipalities en unlikely to be able to invest in the � infraswcture improvemcnts needed to sustain a compe6tive edvontage over other urban antces in North America There have bern wamings that if the invcstment is nat made to arsa Hwr�. ' , . z••, orkwas cn.en,o.� °c«�n1� � � • ; • � � p„R�� ATTACHMENT #s�_TO REP�iT�S,�\laeA " ' � �,ti oz �y o3s improve iufra'structure en,i Iha wmpetidve ciimete, busineu end industry wil� eimply move elsewherc. For exempie, one study estimatcs a apending shortfell of approximetely S800 milliou a year needed to • impmve prcsent iranspo;tadon services end to expand to meet future demand. Feilure to address this funding challenge is anticipeted to lead to both economic aufTering end a , diministiing of the rcgion's quality of life tivough deterioration of tho rnvironmene and socielsupporb. . � Govemance in the (}TA is cwrently chazacterized by a hig6 degree of instabi6ty, The • reelignment of services end responsibilides between the province and municipaliGes, end ' mtinicipal restructuring aro works in progress. In a number of service azeas, social services for acemple, mtwicipalities are dealing with changing policy end service regimes t6et ere increasingly controlled by the province, Accounmbility for taxadon is becoming , confused end some taxation without representetion is nlready built into the system. Municipalides ere concemed ebout their future fotm, roles and responsibilities. A number ofmunicipalities have undertaken or mny undertake studies of their govemance options. Other countries appear fo have rccognized the importance of city-regions to their own Prospe�iq' and have contributed to their modemizetion and revitnl'undon: The GTA does . . aot have a united voice with senior govemments. T6ere is no fedetal urban policy arid the ' federel govemment continues to address issues such as economic end socinl.policy, immigtation and infrasWctwe'spending wit6out weighing the unique needs of.tt�c GTA • or the unique role the GTA plays in the nntional and provincinl economies.' Finally, the GTA needs to be able to project its voica onto the globnl smge where intema6onal corpomtions and investors can hear a single and consistent messagc tliat draws them here. . Growfh Menagement . Another 2.5 million pcople ere projected to be moving into the GTA over the next 30 years. By 2031 the GTA will be home to 7.5 million people and will account for approximately one fifih of Canada's population. Almost one-third of Cannda's ent've . populetion growth in t6nt period will occur here. As tiilngs stnnd now, most growth will. . • oaw or. the fringes of t�e urban areu nnd expand the boundaries of the urbnn • community. These millions wili be ndded to those attempting to drive on the already . congested roads. There are few. opportunities to build new roads in the existing urban ' .. .. aren end few vacant corridors. People living in employment•rich communities will find . � thoosands mon vehicles competing for the already congested roed space. T6is is not an • academic long-term problem - this is today's reality. � The province hns handed rcsponsibility for long-term planning, finnncing and ,development of most major infcastructure to the municipalities. Growth management means detennining infrasWcture nceds (e.g., ttansit, roads, sewers and watei suPP�Y) � conjunctiori with GTA-wide land use plans, devising strategies to provide thecn apd • finding the funds.to pay for t6em. The means to develop and implement (3TA-wide and �, orse awi.w . .. a. ar�.wa. cn.w�qa C�nsultinp � , . � ' , � . '. + . � :���� . ATTACHMENTI�.9L• TOREPORTNSdi52\l�c� �:�6 ' �5 0� �y local plans and priorities in concert with one another in a sensibie, umely end co- ordinated fa9hion need to be fouad. A fragmented approach to growth menagemeat perpetuates urben sprawl end competidon ' emongst municipalities exacerba4es these pattems. Lack of co-ordinetion squandere limitcd funds for infraswcture iuvestment. It haa been compared to bullding a hause by , meking all dedsions on a room-by-ioom basis - each with its own elccUical, water and . heating systems end with cocridora linking the rooms plenned ad hoc. Regianal systems tMat unde�pin the dTA need to be planned as tiuly regional systems. . • ' There have been numerous criticisms of the lack of coordination between infraswcture priorities, urben structure plans and environmental consideiations. Incremental development decisions, often the result of an appeal process, ere wdermining municipal plens: Tiansit decisions or the leck thereof ere failing to support plans foi deyelopment centres and corridars ecross the GTA. There are underused `brownfidd' sites within existing urban areas of the OTA where infrostructuce exists and has capacity. There is ' little understanding of the waters6ed-wide implicndons of urbaniTation end its iuter- jurisdicdoaal impacts. In nddidon, thc municipal taxation swchae encouroges competition for growth in spite of the high non•fmmcial costs of thnt growth in some locations. ' . . • The challenge is to step back end recognize Uwt despite their diversity, each municipelity's ultimate strengih lies in the strength and viability of the dTA, as n whole. Without a coordinnted growth strategy to guide local plau�ing and infmswcture investmcnt within a broader GTA perspective, isolated, incrcmenml decisions will eventually erode the GTA's high qualiry of life and economic competiuveness. . T6e proximity of the GTA wuntryside to the expanding iuban core poses on-going . threnls to agriculturul lunds, eggregnte res�urces, environmentally sensitive arcas, the rurnl charncter of historic communities and open space connecilons. If pest ucnds continue, one consequence of this growth may be the loss of nnother 165,000 ncres of •• familund. While municipnlitics havc n variery of policies dirccted to protecting elemrnts of the iural ereas, there is no coordinated mechanism for idendfying nnd protecting a pertnnnont rura] nrea in the dTA. Thero nre no incentives for farmers to keep land ia ngriculturel production end Iand speculntion oftea drives lend prias so high thut ngriculture is no longer an economically viable opdon to pursua Land use contlicts oflen �. jeoperdizc the vinbiliry of agriculture or nggregate opemtions. The mwns to adequately protect the GTA countryside need to be found. �. . . Transportation The GTA tcansportadon system is in trouble end is fast eroding tHe rogion's reputation es an enviable place to live, work and invest in. More than 70 per cent of the exptessways are already wngested during rush hours, slowing the movement of not just people but . goods and services of nll Idnds. '. . . , • • ' . f3T6B RwMw • • • /• . ' � . . OTMMd� CMMnp�s orouti9ny � • ` . . � u . • p��„q�„�„ ' AiTACHMENT��TDAEPORTi�\ln-� . 0:�7 ��°� ``� • U.S. experieoce demonmata ilut simply building mon expnssways — even If funds wero aveileble — is aot e solution. A tuturc empheais on public transit is required, and that in tum depends on questions of density end Iocatlon of developmrnt that determine w6ether Uensit is xonomically viable. Today, transit is not oniy nddressed IocaUy, but oflen indepeadenUy of the lend use plans that determine whether transit cen ever compete with privete antomobiles. A Po�i�Y ��work is requind that addresses inta-municipal and iater-rcgional transportadon requitements. The province devolved this responsibility to the GTSB, which preuntly das very 1'united ability to effect change or facilitate implemrnmdon. T6eie is also a lack of co-ordinadon among fedeial, provincial and regional trensportation objecdves, incoasistencies in ihe identification of travel demend end lack of co-operndon in the provision of funding to enhence the role of public traiuiG Road end transit conshuction is rtot co-ordinated und too little ettention is paid to meking easier conneedons behveen various modes of trensponation, iricluding airports, ports and inter- modal rail fncilities. It has been estimated that industry is losing some S2 billion annuslly due to �c wngesUon in the GTA. Since 80 per cent of goods deliveries in the GTA are by tcuck, productiviry is suBering, suggesting that the effects, ln time, will be felt by ell Canadians, As several studies heve concluded: There needs to be a seamless co-ordinnted transportation network tluoughout the GTA that supports ofiicial plans nnd moximizes� the uac of existing infraswcture and prcvious invatments. . . , Envlronmental lnlrashucture � A high quality of life and economic competitivcness cennot be sustained in a dekriornting rnvironmen� The GTA's green infraztructure - including weUends, woodlands, valley�, rivers and streams, Inkes, ground water resources, t6e Niegura Escerpment and Ook Ridges Moraine - is as importnnt to mainwin as the trnnsportation in&aswctura Its importance incrcases as the population of the GTA grows. As development prcssurcs increase and land prices escnlate, significunt momentum builds to use these Innds for ather purposes and the costs of acquiring these areas for protection becomes prohibitive. . . . What heppens at the headwaters will af}'ect wnter qualiry downsueam, Water quality is susceptible to agricultural prncdces, scpdc tanks, wmmunal servicu and the impncts of urbani7atioa There are gaps in our undersianding of the impact of developmrnt on groundwater resouras und cross-boundary environmental systems: ' , dTA•wide opea space connadons are slowly being lost and there ere inhercot contlicts betw�en deroends'for aggrcgece ext�acdon and the environmentally sensidve ercas in which they aze ]ocated. . . 6TS0 R�vlew � COIIHIIpIIg . ' , . ' 6' . . . . � ' OTAaNW� CMNipn 038 �'�`�ONeYiNo" A1TncHMENTk.c2_.TO REPORTNS�1l�-00 c�,�o� �y Praavn6on of t6e Oek Ridges Moreine ts en examp�e of an environmental�y eens�a�� Issue thal hav broad CiTA implications, In receat yean, concertu heve erisen over the potential reducUon or los� of this featun end its function�, ettributes and Iinkegu primerily ttuough urben developmeat and rcrource er.hacdon. In fact, urben expenvion In the Oek Ridgw Morsine is creating a rca] possibiGty that our ability to roaintain dean • weter in tneny of the aTA's river syslems wip be permenenUy lost. . T6e mechazilsms to coordinate protection of grecnlends across municipal boundaries, including the Oak Ridges Moraine, are insuflicient. The de6ni6oas of grcenlands, tho Polieies that apply to them end the implementadon of those policies vary aignificantly emong'the ngional municipelities and the local municipalities in t6e dTA. This issue huns on the question of how to identify a consistent GTA•vride greenlends system to iutegratc considecation of conservetion, watershed and inter-watershed menagement in key urbaa form and infreswcture decisions throughout the (3TA. Water sources, treatment and supply sy'stems within the (3TA aze also shared by the mejoriry of municipnlities. Coordimted plenning of these systems is not undertnken on a GTA-wide basis. Again, the question is how to coordinate the plawing, financing end development of piped services GTA-wide to ensure optimal use of existing investrnents in support of officinl plans, end efficient system connections across administ�ativa , ' . bowdaries. Economlc Development and Tourism ' • Thc global economy is now characterized by intense competition among city-regions for new investmen� Ciry-rogions huve risen to the forefront as a result of fnlling trnde � barriers eround the world. •With their concentrations of economic clusters, skilled labour,: educational institutioas, research end development capabilities, uvailnbility of cepitui, business infraspvcture end quality of life, city-regions hnve become the central pleyers competing for lcehnology end information-bascd invesunents, The aTA hes many of the key ingredients necessary to compete as n ciry•region, but we must nsk' ourselves if it is prcsently organized for success in the future. The most successfiil city-rcgions hnve ebandoned such ineffectual pracdces es intemal eompeGtion • and have organiud ihemselves to providc comperative infom�ation on the regional economy, to build globel infrastruchue such es airports and telecommunications, end to create a business climate reflected in parmorships for. growth. A ciry-ngion pre-occupied with intemal competidon oi fragmonted along geogrephical 1'wes cennot compote; and today, the aTA does not have a uni8ed vision for economic gravth or touiism. For exnmple, tliere is no integrated, coordinated effort to market the (3TA as a total lourism packegc. In eddition, the ett'orts of the Clrcalcr Toronto Marketing Allience to promote the dTA es • a place to do business would be enhanced if responsibilities for the collecGon, aiielysis and benchinariting of GTA•level economic information were defined. This should • � orse w,n.w . . . , COIIfUId � - �. ' • '4' � . � - ' OTA�WIMGuOmph a �, ���� �trrrF�rqENTf1.s�TOREPOAT�S,�4V.�oo O39 Q�b o�► �y include allocation of responsibilides to develop en overell picturc of Ihe economJc health of the OTA, its competidve strengths end weakness�s, ib opportunitia end (ts tergn merkeU. Soclal lmperatives • No community jn the (}TA is sunply an onlooker, ell have a stake In t6e quality of life end prosperiry of a strong ciry_region. Economic conditions and the social service needc .�heY give rise'to have no respect for municipal boundnrios,,�s ciUes mature social service � needs increasc. This q$ wmpounded by a serious lack oFefl'ordable housing, The province has increased the scope of social services that are provided and funded lucally, without providing commensura�e funding. ��e �e need to distribute sociel costs more equitably has been widely ncknowledged, ihere are concems thet property . taxes do not provide an appropriute source of funding for these services and tl�aet pooling should occur on a provincial or nntional basis. In eddidon, fmnncial responsibility hns not been metched with accountabiliry for coUection nnd edministration of the funds a�d ProBram standards. Tha impending devolution of social housing will create udditional financinl pressures for • municipnl govemmenG Social hausiag is closely linked with issues relnted Io 'homelessness apd affordable housing, To equitably plon nnd fund sociai housing within � the GTA, a mechanism for inter-municipal caordination is required. There is a need to coordinate health and emergency services among hospilal jucisdictions crossing municipal boundaries, In uddition, therc is e need for the coordinnled dispatch of • ambulance services to ensure th� higf�est possible rcsponse times, The Greater Toronto Services Board The dTSB was established to co-ordinate municipal decision•meking.with tespect to a number of the policy challenges discussed above. Determining whether its mission end mendate requirc retooling or if another option is better suited to addressing dTA � �hal�en8es �s �o be the result of Phase 2 of thc GTSB review. • GTSB Mlssion and Mandate The mission and mendate of the Greater Toronto Services Boerd ere rnsluined in provinciellegisletion. (I.egislative excerpts setting out dTSB'respansibilides ere pnrt af the attached'lem�s of reference:)'I'ha mission; or objects of the.(}TSB ere to proinote end fncilitete co-ordinated decision•making amoog the municipalities in the Gnater Toronto crse wv�v • COIIfY� ... . � ' . . . . ''' . � , ' . � O7A�Wp�CMpnpy �9 . , : �, ' ' ATTACHMENT�k�TO AEPORTI�S.94�b� �reb.or�,n.�n 0�40 � • . R�`io� \y Area, to exacise general direction md wntrol over d0 Transit, and w ellocate the cost9 of GO Transit tn accordance with ihe drcater ToronW Srnices Board Act,1998. In cartying out its objects, the Boerd must have rcgard to the divau culhual, environmrnte! and ecoaomic chazacter of communides in ihe GTA. ' The (iTSB is not a dinct provider of services except for GO Transit, and has no euthority to set policy for any of its memlxr municipalities. 'Ihrough w-operution and consensus building, the boazd works to foster GTA-wide policies that ensure infrasuucture will be used wisely, that the environment will be protecud, that nual and agricultural areas will be preserved, and ihat'transit and road networks will work now and in the futwe The GTSB has thc authoriry to develop GTA-wide strategies for the provision and optimal use of in6astructure. This mey include, for example, transport¢tion infrestructure and e�.vironmental infiaswcture, such as water and sewer trunk sbrvices . which extend across municip�l boundaries. The Vansportation mendate of the (}TSB includes the development and adoption of a co- • otdineted transportation strategy to guide decision•mnking and investments in dTA-wide , transportation infrastructure. The GTSB also hns the authority to fncilitate the . operationnl integrntion of the OTA•wide and locul transit systems and the resolution of • conflicts respecting trmsit issucs behvan Ci0 Transit, municipalities and local hansit operntors. ' As part of its oversight of GO Trunsit, the GTSB seu broad policy directions, initiates studies end approvu ihe genernl location, routes, frequcncies and fares of GO Transit sarvices and alated fees for pazking. Thc GTSB npproves (30 TransiPs opernting end capitnl budgets, its multi-year capital plan and the establishmont of reserve funds. The • � GTSB apportions the opernting end capiW costs of GO Transit and levies the City of Toroato and the regionnl municipalities of Durhscn, Helton, Hamilton-Wentworlh, Pal nnd.York. Altemadvely with respcct to GO Transit's cupitnl rcquirements, the GTSB . ' may boaow moaey and issuo debentures for the debt. Tlie GTSB also has the authority • to enter into agreements with municipalides for the provision of transit services, both • wiUiln and beyond thc dTA nnd Hemilton-Wentworth. 7'he Greater Toronto Services Board ulso haz the authority to co-ordinate economic development and tourism within the OTA and to co-ordinate decision-making among � municipalities on the shered GTA-wide edministration end wsts of social assistance ead ' social housing programs. . , The CiTSB provides GTA muaicipalities wiUi capacity,to addross dTA matters by acting � es a lieison among C}TA municipalities, end with the federel and provinciel govemments • and other municipalities. It has a mandate to facilitate the resolution of inter-municipal � • GTSBRMaw � . . .. . ;B, . .. � OTA�WkeChalMnpa� . COIIfY�llg � � � ' , .. . .. . � . �� � ' , � p,N,�„�„� •ATTACHMENT#�TOHEPORTK�4�b-oc� OQJ � � � ��� �� �y issues in the (}TA a��d w enter into egreemenb wit}i municipalides beyond the t3TA In rolation ro eny matter for which the (3TSB is responsible. , The Boaid has resolved that its inidel efforts be concentrated on developing e co- ordinated transportadoa end trensit atretegy for the (3reater Toronto Area end Hamiltoa- ' VVentworth. GTSB Pragress on GTA-Wde Challenges • . Since the establishment of the (iTSB iu Januery 1999, the boerd hes put in place Financiel poUcies end operating procedures, a committee-based decision-meking sWcture, processes for (3TSB staffto consult with'staff of inember municipa(ities end to bring pmfessional recommendetions to the board, end a web site providing infoimation on ihe . dTSB und its . . . acdvities for public information. GTSB progress in addressing the GTA-wide chnllenges � reflects the board's responsibilities for GO Transit, its initial emphasis on Vansportation plenning and the GTSB's mandate for co-ordination. ' The board hav made progress with rupect to its assumption of iesponsibiliry for GO Transit and iu trnnsportetion mendate. In addidon to maneging the trnnsfer of • rcspansibility for GO Tiansit fram t�e Province in August,1999, the (3TSB adtipted�GO Transit operating budgets for 1999 end 2000 end an updated ellocation formulu fbr 2000, and esteblished capital nnd opernting reservc funds fot (30 Transit ptirposes. A number of QO Trnnsit scrvice improvements hava been implemented and the purchnse of Union Stadon by the City of Toronto, involving the securing of n lease to meet GO Transit's long'term needs, has iieen approved. 'fhe boerd has ndopted a 10-year cnpital progrant for GO Trunsit and will consider Finunce & Administradon Comminee recommendatious for lhe growth and expansion capitnl cost nllocation at its June 30�' meeting. ' T6e Transportetion Commiria has mcommended GTSB ndoption of a stralegic transportntlon plan for t6e dTA and Hemilton-Wentworth, and a comprehonsive set of implemenUng actions, bs�sed on rccommendations developed with municipal staff and through a process of public consulmtion. Work is undcnvuy to implement a number of elemen!s of the stralegy, including dTA transit corridor priorities and phasing,,enalysis of (3TA-wide needs for goods and services movements and development of co•ordinated GTA-wide infosmation for transit users. As part of the GTSB's hansportation pinnning shategy, a transportation accord "A Transportation Investrnent Partnership for the . Greuter Toroato Area end i[emilton•WentWOrth" hae been adopted in caoperation with a number of GTA business and community orgeniza�ons. Specitic proposals for a this partnership are to be,brought fonvard in the falL . . Wilh respect to managing the impGcations of growth in the C3TA, the GTSB has adopted ' terms of reference for a GTA countryside stiategy end on 7une 30�' wiq be considering iecommendntions from the Countryside�& Environment Working Group on strategic '� • , 6TS8 WWew� � ' � .p. , � , ,COIIfUlpflg � . ' � • .. • � � 6iA�Wks CMIN�pa ': i• �• � ATTACHMENT�.�TOREPORT�S�\laoo •a.R�«aKwlon � (� \\ oc� �� . 042 �`� } d'ucedom for this initiadve. T6a(3TSB elso took a etrong posidon caUiag on ihe provina to edopt a Provincial Poltcy Stetement to protect t6e Oak Ridges Moraine. .. The impo�tance of the dTA's rnvironmcntal infrastructure is roflected not only in the work being undcrtnkrn on the countryside s4ategy end the state of the ()TA program, but also in the GTSB nview of environmentai monitoring in t6e GTA; curnntly in ptogress. In addition, the dTA's �eenlend systems end water end sewer infrastructure ere included as part of the digitel mapping project , • ' In further addressing muaicipal capaciry to deal �;,�ith aTA challenges, the GTSB has edopted a protocol for fecilitating the tesolution of wter-municipal conflicts. The GTSB� Innovatioas program has been inidated to hig},light and share GTA muriicipel practices and parinerships to eddress cross•bouadary and GTA-wide matters tluough a publication, web site access and a showcase even� • A framework for ongoing reporting on the economic, social end environmental state of the GTA has also been develope�. An assessment of the state of the region in 1999 focussed on economic indicators, and work is underway on a 2000 npoR complementing .. . the economic work with morc in-depth socinl and environmental indicators. A.GTA- wide digitel mapping database is also being developed. In addition, npresentations have been made to provincinl end fede�al governments on a range of GTA issues (e,g., transportaGon funding, Oek Ridges Mornine) and partnerships : have been established with a number of municipnlities end stakeholder orgenizadons � (c.g., Federation of Cnnadian Municipalides, Grenter Voncouver Regionel District, Moving the Economy, Conadian Urben Transit Association.) . These projects will provide coatext and a base of infomiation for all GTSB work, '. iacluding work rclated to strategies for transportntion, infraswcture, growth and countryside, as wcll as co-ordination related to economic development end tourism, and to social assistence and social housing. Criter(a for Evaluation of Options ' • It is apperent that if the rcgion is to rcmain liveable and prosperous, capncity to measge thesa C}TA-wide chaUengu is requi�td. OpQons foi eddressing them will be,identified end nnalyzed in the futurc work of the GTSB review, including an evaluadon of the CiTSB in its current form and with changes to its mendete and/or swcture. Tha •, evaluadon of the op6ons, however, must be bnsed on objecdve criteria that are consistent with tradidons of democratic decisioa-making and are relevant to CiTA-wide chalienges. The criteria should speak to the structures and the authorities or tools needed to address ihese challenges. ' . . orseaevi.w... ' ,to- • �..CONUItl11Q. . . � . � ' ' 6TA�WIds CAdlerqa � " �� . . . ATTACHIMENi#.�TO REPORTMS.�Un-oo - , � � . �,�� ��a �� �y o4 3 • Gulding Princlples Heving idrntiHed ihe key policy challenges facing Ihe (}TA, we have concluded that iho�e are Buiding principles thet relate ro thafuhue fortn oCthe GTA, to the managemrnt of ihe GTA end to how tha GTA represenls itself In the natjona! and intemauonal world. To focus discussion on the swchues end tools required to address (}TA policy issues, ihe . •, following guiding princtples are suggested: • Urban, suburben end rural needs will be balnnced to echieve sustainability end to otibr a variety of living circumyiences accompanied by a gaod qualiry of life; • There will be capacity to idendfy end address the shared interests and challenga of the city-region nnd their relationship with local interesis; ' , •• Efficiency and inclusiveness in decision-making will be bnianced to achieve public transparency and accountability; • • There will be a strong voice to advocate on behalf of the entire GTA; • There will ba capaciry to moni(or the economic, social end environmental . pedotmance of the aTA. . Functions . � • This papei has set put six key policy areos involving significant (3TA,wide challenges which need to be pddresscd if the (3TA is to remain liveable end prosperous. Options nee¢ to be evaluated in terms of their wpncity to nddress GTA-wide policy chal.lenges: . 1. identify and resalve (3TA-wide chnllenges � 2. project a strong GTA•wide voice with the federal and provincial govemments, and on t6e global stnge; • 3. plan end implement an effective ond efficient (}TA-wide trenspottation nehvotk; 4. co-ordinate GTA-wide greenlands nnd inter-municipal water and sewer intrasWctwe; 5. munage GTA•wide growth; • 6• co-ordinata u unified GTA strategy for GTA-wide economic development and tourism; , 1• ensure uccountable und equitable pler�ning and funding of shared GTA municipal responsibilities tor social assislance nnd social housing. • SiNC�UI� ' � Options for addrcssing GTA-wide challenges will necessnrily involve existing, aew or rcdesigned structures, be they municipalities; the GTSB or some other'stri�ctural arrnngements. Such aptions should be evaluated with rcspect to the'u capacity to identify end address GTA-wide challenges end to achieye appropriate end workable solutioris: 1, � clearty identify the GTA•wide or inter-municipal aspccts of policy issues; Z.' articulnte a comman visioa for GTA-wide policy and build a strong consensus eround this vision; . . ; . . .. OTSB Revbw . . ' .11 - Ctwiuhtng . . Q OU4Y�/k� Chapupp . � '� ' ,, .� � ATTAQqI�ENT�.�2.T0 REPORT#IS�4�.d� U44 �'°""'°`°�" Q � �\3o�\y � 3. integrate ecoaomic, qavironmentel end social considerations into dxision- meking; • 4. mobilize rcsoumes and co-ordivate implemeatetian by e range of municipal and other stakeholders, including.ttvough partrierships; 5. • mspect and eccommodate diversity across the (}TA's urben, suburban and rural. communides; • 6. eosure faimess in shazing of costs and benefits across the GTA; '. 7. be effxtive end innovative In the use of municipal and ot6a GTA resources, cleerly assign roles end accountabilities to ensure implomentation of decisions; 8. �nsure fair, inclusive and timely decisions; �• ' 9. be flexible to edept to chenges in t�e extemel eavironment Authorities � Whetever the options put forward to address GTA-wide challeages, 4heie must be ihe capaciry to make end implement strategic decisions. GTA options, including the GTSB , with its existing mission, mandate and composition, or with changes to its legislation, ' shnuld be eveluated in terms of the effectiveness of the implementation tools they � provide: 1. provide financial capncity to invest in GTA-wide soludons; 2. .. ensure implcmentation of consensus•based solutions to GTA issues; 3. • effectively resolve contlicts among GTA municipalities an cross-boundery issues with (}TA implications; ' ' ' 4. speuk on behalf of the collective interests of GTA communitics; 5. , monitar trends to anticipale emerging GTA-wide issues; • 6. • evalunte progress in achieving GTA policy objecUves over time. Consultation . Comments and insights of GTSB member municipnlities und other GTA stakeholder organiTations are vital to ensure that all policy challenges of GTA•wide importance are idantified and that the guiding principles end evaluation eriterin ere oppropriate. • What is yonr vision of thc future fomi of the dTA7 • Do the policy challenges set out in this paper reflect ihe key chellenges fncing the • aTA7 Are there additional policy challenges thet requ've a GTA-wide approach? ' • Are thc guiding principles and the criteria for cvalwiting opGons su�cient to ' guarantee t6at the CiTA will ultimutcly develop approprinte struchues arid . ' • authorides 4o meet dTA-wide challenges and overcome exis6ng barriers7 � • Whet oplions for nddressing C3TA•wide issues should be roviewed? Whnt role ' � . should ihe GTSB have in addressing GTA-wide issues? Are the exisUng mission, �• ' mandate and compositioa of the GTSB approprinte to tl�aat role? Whet chenges to . �the G1'SB should be wnsidered? . � ' . orseKevbw • . •ts- . , . orkwbsa;.�enpa � C�oii� . • •' . . ' . ' ' �9 . . . , . , � �' � ATTM�IENTN�ZTO REPORTNS� �-oo . � . ���..� . c��yo� �y o4,, • •• ��t �o you think is rcquind w ensure a liveable end prosperous dTA in the • • ' ' Conclua(on • • A cityngian is perhaps one of the most wmplex organisms on the planeG It wnsisis of • mllGons of people intemcting continuously with douns of systams w6ich themselves . iqtaac� The complexity of the ihtecplay emong nahual systems, economle systems, � sociel systans, transportation systems, education systems, health systems and other ' systems is'the reality of the (iTA. ', � ' Ciovemments in the (iTA must recogniu that we live in an inter-dependent wban region. No individual municipality can maaage its affeirs es if it were located in a heane6cally sealed bubble, immune from the concems of its neighbours. A strong comtnilment to work together and aclmowledge regional inter-ctependency is needed. • Only joint action can preserve and improve the GTA's shared quality of life. All • municipal ]eaders should be prepared to enswer Uus fundamentel question. Is it more � attractive and wmpelling to maintain the illusion of independcnt acdon or lo work to mske the city-region more liveable7 • , With a commitment to workjointly on thc GTA's key public policy challenges and to • � , mnnege the issues together, the next steps will be both possibic and effcctive. . . OTSB Revbw � - . . . . , �.13 • . . . . . OTA•NAd� CA�Mrps� �, . ' , c�oro°utlt=ng ' . . ' . . ' ' .