STAFF REPORT

February 24, 2003

To: ABC Ad Hoc Committee

From: Shirley Hoy, Chief Administrative Officer

Subject: Governance Review of the Association of Community Centres (AOCCs)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to review the existing governance structure of the ten board-runcommunity centres that make up the Association of Community Centres (referred to collectivelyin this report as “AOCCs”) and to make recommendations to strengthen the relationship betweenAOCCs and the City. This report will:• describe the existing AOCC model;• distinguish between community centres and recreation centres;• describe the provision of services through AOCCs;• comment on a number of governance options considered;• recommend a new reporting relationship to the City;• outline the current legislative framework for AOCCs and changes as a result of the new

Municipal Act, 2001; and• recommend amendments to the Municipal Code to reflect the proposed changes to the AOCC

reporting relationship and to update information.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Council approved $4.707 million net in the 2002 City Budget for core administration funding tothe 10 AOCCs. The AOCCs also receive non-financial support from various City departmentsand grant programs. Only a portion of these costs is charged back to some of the centres. At thistime, an accurate estimate of the cost of providing corporate support could not be determinedduring this review because they are integrated with other costs in the City accounts. However,there will be further follow up to disentangle the costs associated with AOCCs.

This report recommends the continuation of core administration funding and corporate supportand further recommends that the AOCCs continue to be eligible for additional City funding forprogram activities through grant programs and other mechanisms. There are no new financialimplications arising from the adoption of this report. It is recommended that the costs ofproviding current levels of corporate support to AOCCs be determined and a review of theappropriate range and level of corporate support be undertaken including the financialimplications of any proposed changes. Any further expansion of the AOCC model could resultin additional costs to the City and therefore any expansion will need to be considered carefullywhen and if any such proposal is received.

2

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with thefinancial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. the existing governance structure for AOCC boards/committees of management (referred tofurther in these recommendations as AOCC boards) continue, subject to compliance with theMunicipal Act, 2001 as provided for in Recommendation 10. The impacted centres are:a. 519 Church St. Community Centreb. Applegrove Community Complexc. Cecil St. Community Centred. Central Eglinton Community Centree. Community Centre 55f. Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centreg. Harbourfront Community Centreh. Ralph Thornton Community Centrei. Scadding Court Community Centrej. Swansea Town Hall

2. as part of the City’s strategy for aligning program operating boards to the relevant Citydepartments, the AOCCs be functionally aligned with the Community and NeighbourhoodServices Department;

3. the specific role of Community and Neighbourhood Services Department as City ‘liaison’ bedeveloped jointly between the AOCC boards and staff from Community and NeighbourhoodServices, as part of the functional alignment exercise;

4. the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services consult with the AOCCboards on the functional alignment of AOCCs with Community and Neighbourhood ServicesDepartment, including the development of operating principles and guidelines, and reportback to the ABC Ad Hoc Committee to ensure that the form and content are consistent withthe framework under development for all City agencies;

5. the City continue to provide core administration funding to AOCCs where the board isexpected to operate within approved budgets, however as for other City agencies,administrative surpluses are returned to the City and administrative deficits are funded, uponCouncil approval;

6. funding for program activities continue to be the sole responsibility of the AOCCs, butAOCCs continue to be eligible to apply for City funding for program activities through grantprograms or other mechanisms such as family resource centre funding, summer day programfunding;

7. the City continue to provide the current level of corporate support to AOCCs (as outlined inAppendices 2 and 3 of this report). As part of the functional alignment exercise, theCommissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report in consultation with the

3

Commissioner of Corporate Services, Chief Financial Officer, Auditor General and theAOCCs on:

(a) the cost of providing the current level of corporate support to AOCCs; and(b) the appropriate range and level of corporate support to AOCCs and the resource

implications of any proposed changes;

8. AOCC boards begin the process of separating the financial records of the City board from thefinancial records of the independent not-for-profit corporation, where they exist, inaccordance with legislative requirements and the City Auditor’s recommendation and thatAccounting Services provide standardized accounting guidelines to assist this process toensure a consistent approach to the separation of the records, with Human Resources andLegal support provided as necessary;

9. given that the City has authority and responsibility over human resource issues relative toAOCC staff, since the City has been deemed the employer in accordance with the OntarioLabour Relations Act and the Pay Equity Act, the City reconcile existing AOCC humanresource policies with those applicable to City staff (as outlined in Appendices 2 and 3);

10. given that the legislative basis for AOCCs is changing, the AOCC boards be re-establishedunder subsection 195(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 as municipal service boards under theculture, parks, recreation and heritage sphere of jurisdiction before the end of the transitionperiod on January 1, 2006, and that the Commissioner of Community and NeighbourhoodServices, the City Solicitor, and the Chief Administrative Officer collaborate inimplementing this change;

11. the nomination process and board composition guidelines for each AOCC board, as outlinedin Articles II and III of Chapter 25 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, continueand be incorporated in the new City Municipal Code chapter for community centre municipalservices boards, with the exceptions noted in Recommendations 12 and 13 and the changesrequired to reflect the transition to municipal service boards be made;

12. as requested by the Ralph Thornton Board, the size of the board of Ralph ThorntonCommunity Centre remain at thirteen (13) but the composition be amended to remove therequirement that the Woodgreen Community Centre, the Jimmie Simpson Recreation Centre,the Toronto Public Library Board and the South Riverdale Community Health Centre eachnominate one person for appointment to the Ralph Thornton Board and the new chapter ofthe Municipal Code reflect this change;

13. the new Municipal Code chapter implement the following changes from the existingprovisions of Chapter 25 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code:

(a) revisions to the references to Commissioners to refer to the Commissioner ofCommunity and Neighbourhood Services or Commissioner of Corporate Services, asapplicable;

(b) revision of § 25-11E to require the removal of material that contravenes the City’s HateActivity and Human Rights and Harassment policies and employee participation inelection campaigns; and

4

(c) revision of § 25-32, Applegrove Community Complex, to update the description of thepremises and lease to reflect the current operations;

14. the City Solicitor submit the draft by-laws necessary to implement these recommendations tothe ABC Ad Hoc Committee and a copy of the working draft of the new municipal codechapter be provided to the AOCC boards for comment;

15. this report be forwarded to Policy and Finance Committee for consideration; and

16. the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to giveeffect thereto.

Background:

In October 2001, Council approved a motion by Councillors David Soknacki and David Millerrequesting that all policies and reporting structures with respect to ABCs be updated. This isnecessary to reflect any changes resulting from amalgamation, to accommodate changes inlegislation and other organizational structures, and to update the Municipal Code and any otherdocumentation. The CAO was asked to report back on a structure, consultation process andtimetable to guide the process.

At its meeting on February 13, 14 and 15, 2002, Council adopted a report from the ChiefAdministrative Officer recommending an ABC Governance Issues Work Program. An ABC AdHoc Committee of Councillors was established to guide the work program. Council determinedthat the ten board-run community centres that make up the Association of Community Centres(referred to in this report collectively as “AOCCs”) should be included in the review ofindividual structural issues by the ABC Ad Hoc Committee.

Review Process

CAO staff met with each AOCC Executive Director and board Chair at their facilities in March-April 2002. Between April and October, staff continued discussing issues of concern with theExecutive Directors. Staff have researched and analyzed the present governance structure ofAOCCs and their reporting relationship to the City. Consultation sessions on a series of proposedrecommendations were then held with the AOCC boards in October 2002.

Upon completion of the consultations, the AOCC boards submitted formal responses to theproposed recommendations and requested an opportunity to comment on the revisedrecommendations. In order to accommodate this request, it was agreed that the AOCCgovernance report be deferred to the February meeting of the ABC Ad Hoc Committee.

On November 18, 2002, Councillor Rae hosted a joint meeting of the AOCC Executive Directorsand City staff to further discuss the proposed recommendations. A timeframe was agreed uponfor review of the report. Some additional issues were raised following the meeting with theExecutive Directors. Together with staff, Councillor Rae facilitated the negotiation of theresolution of these issues.

5

The report was then circulated to the AOCC boards on January 13, 2003 for comment and a finalround of consultation was undertaken jointly with all boards on January 27th. As the reviewfocused on governance and not service delivery, it was agreed that wider public consultationswould not be necessary.

Community and Neighbourhood Services, Corporate Services, Finance and Audit Services wereconsulted throughout the governance review and were provided the opportunity to review andprovide input into this report.

Comments:

1.0 EXISTING MODEL

1.1 Community Centres Reviewed

The ten existing AOCCs were established between 1974 and 1992 and are:• 519 Church Street Community Centre (1975)• Applegrove Community Complex (1983)• Cecil St. Community Centre (1977)• Central Eglinton Community Centre (1976)• Community Centre 55 (1974)• Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre (1992)• Harbourfront Community Centre (1991)• Ralph Thornton Community Centre (1980)• Scadding Court Community Centre (1978)• Swansea Town Hall (1992)

Although the term “AOCC” implies there is an association of these centres, there is no formallyconstituted body (body corporate or otherwise). Rather, there is a loose association of centres,manifest primarily by monthly meetings of the Executive Directors. Individual AOCC boards(some called committees under the Community Recreation Centres Act) manage operations ofeach centre independently.

1.2 Hybrid Model

In July 1982, the Council of the former City of Toronto adopted the final recommendations ofthe Task Force on Neighbourhood Social and Recreational Services. The Task Force wasestablished to recommend a policy regarding the City’s commitment to social and recreationalservice provision. It recommended the continuation of a variety of delivery agents for social andrecreational services, including the parks and recreation department, AOCCs, and independentnot-for-profit organizations funded through grants from the City and others.

The AOCC board model is a hybrid between a City board and an independent not-for-profitcommunity-based organization. The core administration activities are treated like a City boardand the program component is treated like an independent not-for-profit community-basedorganization.

6

The 1982 Task Force report established funding guidelines including the funding of coreadministrative costs by the City, with each Centre following the same procedures as departmentsin determining the annual budget for core administrative funding (Appendix 1). It outlined theneed for staff to manage the day-to-day operations of the centre, assist the board, developprograms etc. It proposed that the City recover any surplus from core administration activities,and the centres retain surpluses generated by programs. It further proposed that the City coverdeficits for core administration costs, but the centres continue to cover any deficits arising fromprograms and finally, that AOCCs be eligible to apply for City grants to fund program activities.

The report defined core administrative costs as all salary and benefit costs and facility operationand maintenance costs except those directly associated with a specific program. Core fundingcovered:

• Salary and benefits of centre personnel involved in:(a) Administration(b) Program and Volunteer Coordination(c) Secretarial and Reception(d) Building Maintenance

• Materials and supplies related to centre administration and maintenance• Furniture and equipment of general use to the centre• Purchased services such as utility costs, printing, photocopying, auditing and minor

building repairs

It is recommended that the City continue to provide core administration funding to AOCCswhere the board is expected to operate within approved budgets, however as for other Cityagencies, upon Council approval, administrative surpluses are returned to the City andadministrative deficits are funded.

It is also recommended that funding for program activities continue to be the sole responsibilityof the AOCCs, but AOCCs continue to be eligible to apply for City funding for programactivities through grant programs or other mechanisms. These other mechanisms include thefamily resource centre funding, waged subsidy funding and summer day program fundingthrough Community and Neighbourhood Services.

As a supplement to the provisions of the individual Council by-laws under which each of thecommunity centres was established, the 1982 Task Force developed guidelines to address:• the general roles and responsibilities of the boards of management of community centres;• the expectations of Council with respect to the operation of a community centre and the ways

in which the boards of management are to be accountable to both Council and thecommunities they serve; and

• the policies, conditions, criteria and procedures within which Council will provide financialcontributions to the operation of the centres.

The Task Force outlined a set of constitutional requirements for the boards. To ensure residentshad an opportunity to fully participate in the operation and decision-making process of thecentre, each centre was to have a constitution that included:• specific provisions around the AOCC Association membership and right to vote;• geographic boundaries within the City limits designed to establish the neighbourhood or

community upon which program development efforts are primarily focused; and

7

• the geographic area within which eligibility to vote at the annual meeting would bedetermined.

This report does not make recommendations regarding these guidelines or the constitutionalrequirements of the Centres.

The Task Force also established “Procedures for the Future Development of City FundedRecreation and Community Centres”, a four-part process to identify needs and develop detailedproposals for Council’s consideration in the development of any new city-run community centreor a new AOCC-style community centre (Appendix 5).

1.3 Funding

In 2001, total City and non-City funding for the 10 AOCCs was $8.575 million. The chart belowshows the percentage breakdown of funding by source for all AOCCs combined. See Appendix 2for specific dollar values and a breakdown by centre. The chart illustrates that approximately50% of AOCC support comes directly from the City’s core administration funding. Whencombined with the total City grants program funding and City subsidies in the Family Resourcesprogram, the level of City support for all AOCC activities is just over 60% of the total.

Funding for major capital projects, maintenance and repair, where the City is involved as perTable 1 in Appendix 3, are not included in the above. These amounts are contained in Citydepartmental budgets in Facilities and Real Estate. The specific amounts for AOCCs could notbe determined during this review as the accounting records do not associate costs with specificbuildings. Administrative support services provided by City departments such as humanresources services are also not included since AOCCs are not charged back for these services.

CityProgramGrants(7%)

City CoreAdministration

Funding(50%)

Non-CityFunding(29%)

UserFees &Rentals(10%)

(Total 2001 Funding: 8,575.2 million)

2001 AOCC Funding by Source

FamilyResourcesProgram

(4%)

8

Some AOCCs provide space for City services at no charge. An estimate of these foregonerevenues was not available during this review and therefore is not reflected in the AOCCrevenues.

It is recommended that the City continue to provide the current level of corporate support toAOCCs (as outlined in Appendix 3 of this report) in the short term. However, the cost ofproviding the current level of corporate support to the AOCCs and a determination of theadequate range and level of corporate support to the centres, and the resource implications of anyproposed changes, should be reported back as part of the functional alignment exercise.

2.0 DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY AND RECREATION CENTRES

Community centres run by AOCCs and City-run recreation centres are often viewed as being thesame, but there are major distinctions. Like recreation centres, AOCCs play a valuable role in theprovision of services to City residents. However, they usually combine both community andrecreation services and offer these services in a style based on local initiatives and volunteerism.AOCCs manage City assets that typically consist of a building and land and receive assistancefrom facilities management. They are managed by program operating boards appointed byCouncil. City-run recreation centres provide City-mandated recreation services and are directlymanaged by City staff with advisory committees that provide input, but are not empowered tomake decisions.

To fully understand the distinction, it is important to look at what is meant by community andrecreation services. The 1982 Community Task Force on Neighbourhood, Social andCommunity Services attempted to distinguish the role of the former City of Toronto in theprovision of social, recreational and community services. This distinction is still relevant today.

The Task Force defined recreation to include “all those activities in which an individual choosesto participate in his/her leisure time and is not confined solely to sports and physical recreationprograms but includes artistic, creative, social, intellectual, educational and neighbourhoodbetterment activities”.

The Task Force recognized that community services consisted of a broad range of programs tohelp individuals and families. The support ranged from access to basic resources and institutionsin society, bringing people together for mutual support, providing opportunities for voluntaryparticipation, and promoting the social foundations of neighbourhoods which are essential to theCity’s quality of life. Prior to amalgamation, the jurisdictional responsibility for communityservices rested primarily with Metro Toronto and the Province of Ontario. For this reason noneof the former local municipalities had a department responsible for Community Services.

Based upon these definitions, the Task Force felt it was the City’s duty to support and promotethe development of a universally accessible system of recreation and community services. It didthis by defining the City’s role in both. It outlined a primary role for the City in recreationservices because it was a direct provider of these services, and given the jurisdictional split forcommunity services, it recommended that the City play a secondary role in the delivery of theseservices by delivering services through volunteerism and community-based boards.

9

As a result of amalgamation, the City has a primary role in the delivery of both recreational andcommunity services. Community services are provided within the context of the City’s SocialDevelopment Strategy. Community and Neighbourhood Services achieves the implementation ofthe Strategy through their own department as well as through other agencies, boards,commissions and departments, as well as through direct funding and provision of space toexternal agencies. The various types of partnerships entered into by the Community andNeighbourhood Services Department ensure that, where possible, services to the community arebeing provided by the community (those agencies which are closest to the community theyserve).

3.0 PROVISION OF SERVICES THROUGH AOCCS

AOCCs are multi-purpose facilities providing a broad range of community, recreational andsocial service programs to residents. Swansea Town Hall Community Centre is different than theother centres in that it does not currently provide direct programming but offers the SwanseaTown Hall to community groups and not-for-profit organizations which in turn offer a widerange of programming choices to the community. Swansea’s core budget also supports threelong-term ‘tenants’ occupying 43% of the space at the Town Hall (Toronto Public Library,Toronto Public Health and Swansea Seniors Association) who do not pay rent or other money tothe Town Hall in support of their operations (e.g., hydro, cleaning, heat, etc.).

AOCCs provide community development initiatives which build capacity in the community byproviding tools for people to help themselves. Services are far reaching and target all sectors ofthe community. AOCCs also provide a vehicle for the City to connect to the communityespecially to youth, recent immigrants, seniors, people living with disabilities, people with lowincomes and the homeless. Some examples of the programming offered by the Centres include:settlement services to newcomers to Canada, drop-in centres for people with disabilities, crosscultural health services, pre-school programs, before and after-school programs, graffiti removalprograms, community festivals, anti-violence programs, anti-poverty and homeless programs,meal-trans programs, food programs for children, social recreational programs for youth such aslife skills, leadership training and pre-employment workshops, Lesbian, Gay, Bi Youth Line,escort shopping for seniors, at-home alone workshops, toy lending libraries, yoga and danceclasses, badminton, soccer and karate, Sparks and Brownies, mural design projects, andcomputer and internet courses.

The AOCC model serves the City and the community well because the community receives abroad range of needed services at relatively little cost to the City. The cost-effectiveness of thismodel is due to the AOCCs high level of success at leveraging both City and Non-Cityinvestments, by engaging the volunteer sector and securing program funding through City andnon-City grant programs. In addition to the total funding received from the City in 2001, theAOCCs were able to raise an additional 39% in funding through other means. In 2002, thecentres served over 211,000 individuals and utilized over 5,300 volunteers in the delivery ofprograms.

Staff of some of the centres see the potential for the City to make better use of the AOCCs forcommunity outreach, consultation and program delivery, and by making the AOCCs adistribution point for information on City services. This is an opportunity that should be furtherexplored.

10

4.0 AOCCs AND THE MAYOR’S ABC REDUCTION TASK FORCE

Currently the AOCC model does not exist outside the former City of Toronto boundaries.Throughout other parts of the City, community centres or agencies are independent of the Cityand while many receive program funding from various sources including the City, they do notalso receive core administration support from the City. There is no clear distinction between theprograms delivered by AOCCs and those delivered by many non-City centres / agencies. Thisraises the question of whether the City should continue to treat similar centres / agenciesdifferently based on history and geography.

In 2001, the Mayor’s ABC Reduction Task Force addressed these issues. It was the opinion ofthe Task Force that community centres across the City should be treated in a similar manner andthat the independent community-based model was the most prevalent and appropriate model.This model would retain the benefits of community-driven services while continuing to fundactivities through City grants. The Task Force report recommended that:

a) a determination be made as to which centres be transitioned to independent not-for-profitcorporations;

b) the City maintain grants and in-kind support for AOCCs for two years. Once alternative costand revenue strategies were developed, grant requests would be assessed with other similarnot-for-profit centres; and

c) the CAO and Corporate Services negotiate leases with the not-for-profit corporationsensuring the City would continue to be responsible for major capital maintenance, thecorporations would pay minimal rent for City-owned properties and the corporations wouldprovide internal maintenance.

The ABC Reduction Task Force was struck to develop options as to how the City couldnormalize its relationship with many of its ABCs to reduce costs. Since no consultation hadbeen conducted during this exercise, it was intended that the recommendations be referred tostaff for further analysis and consultation.

The Policy and Finance Committee reviewed the report at its meeting on April 5, 2001. Theyreferred the report to the CAO to develop a workplan to address the recommendations. The ABCAd Hoc Committee was later established to oversee that workplan. The Policy and FinanceCommittee recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer “include the Commissioner ofCommunity and Neighbourhood Services in any discussions or consultation strategy respectingthe AOCC’s” and “consider extending the AOCC model beyond the existing 10 centres.”

Both the external model (e.g. independent not-for-profit corporations), which the City maysupport through program grants, and the AOCC model work well. The external model maintainsdelivery and control in the hands of the community where there is little obligation to the Cityother than meeting the grants eligibility criteria. The agencies within this model are responsive tocommunity needs but have little ongoing stability without core administrative funding to rely on.

The AOCC model provides a high rate of return to the City and the community, particularlyconsidering the City’s limited investment. The AOCCs must manage what can be a difficult dualaccountability relationship to the City and to the community. The centres provide services to thecommunity, by the community, but can only do so with the ongoing funding assistance of the

11

City. There is an acknowledgement that with the status of City board comes an obligation toadhere to City processes and policies as directed, including prescribed reporting on performanceand human resource policies and practices. The status of City board requires compliance withlegislation pertaining to municipalities as well as openness and transparency from both theagencies and the City. The accountability to the community means that they must maintain whatis important to the residents, otherwise the centres become less responsive to the community’sneeds. It is a fine balance.

There may be existing organizations and community groups that wish to become AOCCs or theCity may wish to establish a new AOCC. However, the new alignment between the existingAOCCs and the City should be given an opportunity to evolve before the establishment of anynew AOCC is considered. If and when a request is received by the City, a process would berequired to determine if the City’s minimum criteria to become an AOCC are met. This is anappropriate role for the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services who coulduse the “Procedure for Future Development of City Funded Recreation and Community Centres”developed by the 1982 Task Force on Neighbourhood Social and Recreational Services(Appendix 5) as a starting point.

5.0 GOVERNANCE OPTIONS

5.1 Status Quo

The governance review has revealed a model of service delivery with very strong communitysupport. This support is evidenced by the high turnout of deputants in recent years when AOCCissues are discussed at committee, the number of individuals receiving services annually and thelarge number of volunteers engaged. The AOCCs popularity is in large measure due to the highlevel of responsiveness of the centres to meet diverse and evolving community needs. Inaddition, the ability of the AOCCs to leverage the City’s investment and attract significantvolunteer participation, grants and donations speaks to the credibility and relevance of theAOCCs and their boards, as viewed by the community. From the City’s perspective, this non-City investment means that the centres have significantly increased the resources available todeliver community programs without further tapping the City’s tax base.

The board of management structure has served the centres and the community well. Boardmembers are very dedicated individuals who volunteer their time to ensure a higher quality oflife in their communities. The board meetings are required to be open and accessible to thepublic, which ensures that citizens are kept abreast of upcoming issues, proposed activities andpolicy changes being considered by the board.

Since amalgamation, the relationship between agencies and the City has not always been clearand some corporate memory has been lost through staff changes. Many agencies could benefitfrom a defined window through which the agency primarily deals with the City. This would notpreclude communications with departments that provide services to the agency, but ratherprovide a liaison point through which the City communicates its requirements and the agencyprovides information to the City.

Presently the AOCCs utilize various means to get assistance from City departments but there isno over-arching coordinating department that can assist them in working through what has

12

become for many an overwhelming administrative structure. In speaking to the AOCC boardsand staff as well as City staff, there is general agreement that the linkage between the AOCCsand the City could be strengthened at the administrative level. This improved linkage wouldwork to everyone’s advantage. The centres would receive better support services and be moreinformed of City strategies and policies, and the City would be better informed about theoperation of the centres and in tune with specific AOCC issues as they arise.

The primary reasons AOCCs have for reporting to Council is to seek Council approval for therecommended board appointments and for capital and operating budget approval. Currently thecommunity’s nominations for appointment to the board are forwarded to the Community Councilfor recommendation to Council. Budget requests appear as a line item in the ABC budget andany requests for capital funding or repairs are undertaken between the AOCCs, Facilities & RealEstate and Budget Services. These requests appear as part of the Facilities & Real Estate capitalbudget submission.

5.2 Other Governance Options Reviewed

Four Governance options were considered during the review. These options included:1. AOCCs incorporated into a City Department2. Superboard to replace AOCC operating Boards3. AOCC transition to independent non-profit corporations4. AOCC operating boards continue with closer link to City

The advantages of each option were examined (the details of which can be found in Appendix 4)and the analysis determined that Option No. 4 AOCC Operating Boards Continue with CloserLink to the City was the most appropriate model to pursue. The question of maintaining thestatus quo was determined not to be an option given Council’s previous direction to link allprogram operating boards to City programs.

In the recommended option, the AOCC operating boards will continue with existing City fundingarrangements. A closer link will be developed with the City to ensure that AOCC priorities andprocedures are closely aligned with those of the City using the City’s Social DevelopmentStrategy as a framework for this relationship with the Department of Community andNeighbourhood Services.

The advantages of this approach are:• AOCCs’ retain the capacity to leverage City funding for the benefit of the community by

attracting grants and donations. In 2001, as a group, the AOCCs raised $2.5 million fromother levels of government, the United Way and private donations excluding;

• the City retains operating board governance of the AOCCs which is highly responsive tocommunity needs and which delivers social and health services, often to people at risk;

• the involvement of local volunteers continues;• there would be no impact on service levels and cost;• City Human Resource policies and practices would be consistently applied to staff working

at AOCCs in accordance with their status as City employees;• Community and Neighbourhood Services will be a knowledgeable resource to Committees

and Council as well as other City staff as changes occur and issues arise;

13

• by creating a closer policy link with the City with respect to priorities and procedures, thisoption ensures that the AOCCs’ activities are consistent with the City’s objectives; and

• this option has the highest level of community support of these four options.

The current model is a very good example of programming for the community by thecommunity. Although Options 1 (incorporate AOCCs into a City Department) and 2 (replaceexisting Boards with Superboard) would be easier for the City to administer, they would notprovide the close relationship to the community needed to effectively deliver these services.

The current model is a hybrid; programming is provided by the community and facility supportand staffing is provided by the City. Option 1 would move full responsibility to the City andOption 3 (AOCCs transition to independent non-profit corporations) would move fullresponsibility to the community. Neither is preferable to the existing model which balancesthese two.

The AOCC boards developed a set of five principles upon which they understand the relationshipbetween the City of Toronto and the AOCCs to be based. These principles are:

• AOCCs help the City to fulfil its Social Development Strategy;• AOCC boards are accountable both to City Council and to the community the centre

serves;• The communities, through their membership in the centres and their election of board

nominees, control programming at the centres;• AOCC staff members are accountable and responsible to their boards; and• AOCCs raise funds from and have relationships with other levels of government, City

grants programs, and private funding sources. Within the requirements of these funders,the boards of AOCCs control their own finances.

In developing this report, CAO and Community and Neighbourhood Servicdes staff agreed thatthese principles are fundamental to the success of the AOCC model.

6.0 NEW LINKAGES WITH THE CITY

In April 1999, Council approved a report from the Chief Administrative Officer whichestablished a classification system for special purpose bodies and a framework for boardappointment processes. In this report, AOCCs were classified as program operating boards ofthe City. Program operating boards were defined as an alternative service delivery model wheretheir program forms part of a broader City departmental program, but where the AOCC programis managed by a Council-appointed Board to oversee a part of the departmental program.

The objective of a governance review is to re-think the best model for delivering a service. Oneof the purposes of the AOCC review is to define the relationship of these specific programoperating boards to City programs, strategies, policies and budgets and to ensure that the newrelationship between AOCCs and the City is defined appropriately so that the link to the Citydepartment makes sense. This review follows several requests from Council to define therelationship of all program operating boards to City programs and to have the reportingstructures and policies of agencies, boards and commissions updated as a result of amalgamation.This type of alignment has been completed for TEDCO, Yonge-Dundas Square, and the BIAs.

14

All have been aligned with the Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department(EDCT).

The key objectives in establishing a stronger link between AOCCs and the City are a clearerdefinition of relative roles, improved accountability, and more effective and regularcommunication with the City. The link also provides an administrative connection for the Cityregarding the City budget process and financial, program and policy issues.

The AOCC program spans several department mandates by delivering social and recreationalservices to the community and therefore, the centres do not precisely fit within any onedepartmental mandate. In considering the appropriateness of the linkages between AOCCs andthe City, three possible linkages were identified: EDCT (Parks and Recreation), CorporateServices (Facilities and Real Estate), and Community and Neighbourhood Services (SocialDevelopment and Administration). After reviewing the mandates and programs deliveredthrough the Centres, it was determined that AOCCs have the most commonality with theCommunity and Neighbourhood Services Department.

In December 2001, Council adopted a Social Development Strategy for the City. The Strategysets out 11 strategic directions under the headings: strengthen communities, invest in acomprehensive social infrastructure and expand civic leadership and partnership. This relatesdirectly to the AOCCs as the activities they provide are linked to many of the City’s 11 strategicdirections.

The Social Development Strategy developed for the City and lead by the Community andNeighbourhood Services Department outlines a policy whereby the City:

• renews its commitment to a mixed system of human services in which both the City andcommunity-based agencies share responsibility for delivering programs and services;

• provides stable funding to support the functioning of a flexible and responsive communityinfrastructure;

• helps build strategic partnerships, alliances, networks and institutions to provide effectiveservices and advocacy;

• uses creative and flexible outreach and communication techniques to reach all parts of thecommunity;

• ensures community access to publicly-owned facilities for meeting, recreational, cultural andeducational purposes; and

• encourages political responsiveness and accountability at the neighbourhood level.

The AOCCs currently help the City achieve all of the strategic directions listed above. TheAOCCs` core administrative funding forms part of the City’s strategy to provide stable fundingto support the functioning of a flexible and responsive community infrastructure. Buildingstrategic partnerships and using creative and flexible outreach and communication techniques toreach all parts of the community are core strengths of the AOCC programs and activities.Finally, the AOCCs are providing community access to City buildings and encouraging politicalresponsiveness and accountability at the neighbourhood level.

Community and Neighbourhood Services is responsible for the Social Development Strategy andcoordinates its implementation and achievements through other agencies, boards, commissions

15

and departments. AOCCs fit well within this policy and the model is a good example of one ofthe ways this strategy can be implemented. In fact, in their 2003 budget submission, the AOCCboards acknowledged the link to the City’s Social Development Strategy in their missionstatement. The Statement reads: “Implement City’s Social Development Strategy by fostering asense of community, promoting civic engagement and enhancing the quality of life through thedevelopment, provision and support of activities, services and programs responsive to people’sneeds”.

Because of this program alignment, AOCCs should be functionally and organizationally linkedto the Social Development program. The benefits are:• AOCCs can be assured that their programs continue to form part of the City’s overall

strategic directions outlined in the Social Development Strategy;• City Council and its Committees can clearly see how the Strategy is being delivered when all

components are viewed together;• The Department can observe its strategy in action and act as an additional advocate of the

programs; and• The Department will be a knowledgeable resource to Committee and Council as well as to

other City staff when questions arise or directions are given.

This linkage will be achieved through the Commissioner or his designate in the following ways:• The Commissioner or his designate will act as a liaison between AOCCs and the City with

respect to the City’s administrative processes, interpreting and communicating requirementsto the AOCCs and providing support to the AOCCs when needed. AOCCs may still directlycontact other City departments and Councillors in the normal course of business;

• Although the details will be developed between the AOCC boards and staff of Communityand Neighbourhood Services, the link with the department will work much like therelationship the Toronto Public Library currently has with Community and NeighbourhoodServices:� Council has delegated authority over program and staff supervision (excluding

compensation) to the AOCC boards of management, therefore Community andNeighbourhood Services is not responsible/accountable for these functions, the AOCCboards are responsible for managing staff. Authority to approve changes to positionevaluations or changes to salary ranges will remain with the City’s Human ResourcesDivision;

� The boards of management may, from time to time, consult with Community andNeighbourhood Services on issues related to program and staff supervision. Conversely,Community and Neighbourhood Services may, from time to time, comment to the boardsof management on such issues;

� City departments such as Corporate Services and Finance will continue to provide thecurrent levels of service directly to AOCCs. Community and Neighbourhood Serviceswill facilitate the administrative relationship between the City and AOCCs including:

� Facilities and real estate issues� Audit issues and requirements� Compensation and benefits� Other administrative matters, as required; and

� AOCCs will develop and submit annual budget requests to the Finance Department.Each board will present its budget to the Community Services Committee and to Budget

16

Advisory Committee. Community and Neighbourhood Services will assist the boards ofmanagement on issues related to budget submissions.

This relationship in no way limits the autonomy or responsibility of the board, nor does it replaceor delegate any Council authority, but rather it facilitates and simplifies the City/boardrelationship by providing a consistent and informed window to the City. The relationship willmaintain the status of the board and will in no way impede the board’s ability to depute on itemsas has been past practice. The boards may continue to use an appointed Council member as aCouncil liaison.

Finally, through the ABC Ad Hoc Committee, the City is developing a framework for operatingprinciples and guidelines by which every agency, board and commission will understand itsrelationship to the City. It will outline the City’s expectations of the agencies as well as theobligations and responsibilities of the City. It will in effect combine a number of documentsrelevant to a particular board for ease of reference and clarity. For example, the document willarticulate the rationale for establishing the agency and will focus on the City`s objectives for theboard and operating principles. It will document information regarding board composition, thefilling of vacancies, term of appointments, remuneration, conflict of interest, confidentiality,code of conduct, approvals required of the City, matters delegated to the board, requirementswithin the budget process and business planning process, and the submission of annual reportsand financial statements.

Community and Neighbourhood Services together with the AOCC boards will develop specificoperating principles that will be consistent with the larger framework for ABC operatingprinciples. As this document forms part of the governance structure, the statement of operatingprinciples should be brought back to the ABC Ad Hoc Committee for review prior to approvalby Council.

7.0 NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS

In the case of several of the AOCCs there is a parallel private, not-for-profit corporation with acharitable number that allows the corporation to fundraise as a charity. The funds raised are usedto support the programs offered by the AOCCs. These corporations are not part of the Cityboard but are often managed by the same citizens who serve on the Council-appointedcommittee/board of management. One of the benefits of these corporations is that they provideaccess to sources of funding available only to charitable organizations and the corporations canissue charitable tax receipts to donors. The City also issues charitable tax receipts for charitabledonations given to the AOCC boards but, for many donors, making donations to an agency viathe City of Toronto is not preferable as there is the perception of giving money directly to themunicipality.

The existence of a parallel charitable corporation that provides funding to a City board hasresulted in some problems. There is a Canada Customs and Revenue requirement to clearlydelineate between the charitable corporation’s records and the City board’s records because theCity has no direct control over, or obligation to, the corporation. The City Auditor raised theseconcerns in December 2000. The Auditor’s letters to the AOCC boards stated that CanadaCustoms and Revenue required the separation of the financial records for the City board and thecharitable corporation. The issue of clarifying the relationship between the not-for-profit

17

corporation and the AOCC board is paramount to understanding the agency’s responsibility tothe City.

City Council on February 1, 2 and 3, 2000, adopted a report from the Audit Committee that,among other things:• directed the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to initiate a plan to provide the appropriate

support for the accounting needs of all community centres, including the preparation ofspecific timetables, year-end working papers and reconciliation requirements;

• directed that Finance staff prepare standardized written policies and procedures for allcommunity centres, and where possible and appropriate, these policies and procedures shouldbe consistent with those of the City; and

• directed the AOCCs to immediately separate the accounting records of the centres from therecords of registered charitable corporations or any corporation separately registered as a not-for-profit organization to secure external funding.

Finance staff have indicated that the preparation of standardized written policies and procedureswill be completed in 2003. To date, not all of the AOCCs have undertaken the process ofseparating their financial records from those of the non-profit corporation, but many are about toundertake this exercise. The question of the technical capacity for some of the centers` staff toundertake what is considered to be an arduous exercise was highlighted during discussions. Thistask is made even more difficult by the fact that program funding comes from both the City andthe corporation and often funding for one program will come from various sources, including theCity. In addition, the status of some program staff must be clarified as a result of this exercise.

It is recommended that AOCCs begin the process of separating the financial records of the Cityboard from the financial records of the independent not-for-profit corporation, where they exist.This should be undertaken in accordance with legislative requirements and the City Auditor’srecommendations. It is further recommended that the City’s Accounting Services providestandardized accounting guidelines to assist with this process and ensure a consistent approach tothe separation of the records with assistance from Human Resources and Legal Services asrequired. Finally, the board of directors of these not-for-profit corporations may wish to considerwinding down these corporations thereby avoiding some of the labour relations and humanresource issues.

8.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

The current legislative framework for the AOCC’s comprises:

• the two pieces of provincial legislation under which AOCCs were established:(1) the Municipal Act or (2) the Community Recreation Centres Act (or a predecessor of thatAct),

• the transition provisions in the Municipal Act, 2001, that continue the AOCC Boards untilthey are re-established as municipal service boards under that Act or otherwise terminated,

• the operational provisions of the by-laws establishing the AOCCs consolidated in Chapter 25of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

18

8.1 Centres Established under the Community Recreation Centres Act

Applegrove Community Complex, Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre and ScaddingCourt Community Centre were established under the Community Recreation Centres Act (orpredecessor of that Act).

The Act permitted municipalities to establish, maintain, and operate facilities intended for“community recreation activity”. While a municipality was entitled to operate the facilitydirectly, the Act gives municipalities the power to establish committees for their managementand control.

The Act required a committee of no fewer than three, and where a committee numbers more thanfive persons, two of the members must be Councillors. (Under Section 1 of the City of TorontoAct, 1991 (No. 4) S.O. 1992 c. Pr24, committees of management with five or more persons werepermitted to have only one member of Council instead of two.) Subsection 5(3) of the Actrequires Council to appoint the members of the committee annually.

The Act required citizen appointees to be persons qualified to be elected to Council. However,the former City of Toronto, under section 2 of the City of Toronto Act, 1983 (No. 2) S.O. 1983, c.Pr30, was permitted to appoint any person who is a resident of the City of Toronto and hasattained the age of 18 years, despite the fact that the person is not qualified to be elected as amember of Council as required by the Community Recreation Centres Act. This speciallegislation continues to apply to the AOCC boards.

The Act conferred certain powers on the committee of management, including the right to makerules it considers necessary to the management and control of the facility and the right to “fixcharges” for the use of the facilities as it considers advisable. It also provided the power to letthe right to sell refreshments for a period of up to ten years at a time.

The Act established that all assets realized and liabilities incurred shall be vested in themunicipality. It required the committee of management to submit annual estimates to Councilfor approval, and prohibited expenditures that have not been approved in the annual estimates.The City is not liable for any expenditure that has not been approved as part of the estimates.

8.2 Centres Established under the Municipal Act

The remaining seven AOCCs were established under the previous Municipal Act. The Actprovided for Council to appoint a board of management composed of persons qualified to beelected to Council to act on Council’s behalf for a wide range of public facilities includingcommunity recreation centres.

Members of the board of management held office at the pleasure of Council, and unless removedsooner, held office until the expiration of the term of the Council that appointed them (in contrastto the requirement to appoint members annually under the Community Recreation Centres Act).Boards of management established under this section were given the power to let, for a periodnot to exceed ten years, the right to sell refreshments under terms set by the board.

19

The new Municipal Act, 2001 came into effect on January 1, 2003 and excludes the legislativebasis for maintaining AOCCs established under the previous Municipal Act. The Province hasalso eliminated the Community Recreation Centres Act option as the new Municipal Act, 2001removes the need for it through the provision of the municipal service board option. Under theMunicipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 177), most of the provisions of theCommunity Recreation Centres Act have been deleted and only provisions for the establishmentof boards in unorganized territories remain. There is a transition period during which alternativestructures can be established.

Given this development, all AOCC committees/boards of management must be re-established asmunicipal service boards before January 1, 2006. There is no specific provision for communitycentres or community services in the new Act and City staff have been informed by the Ministryof Municipal Affairs that no amendment will be forthcoming.

It is therefore recommended that the AOCC boards be re-established under subsection 195(2) ofthe Municipal Act, 2001 as municipal service boards under the culture, parks, recreation andheritage sphere of jurisdiction before the end of the transition period on January 1, 2006. It isfurther recommended that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, theCity Solicitor, and the Chief Administrative Officer to work together to implement this change.

8.3 Chapter 25, former Toronto Municipal Code

Chapter 25 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which still applies until repealed byCouncil, provides that there shall be a board to “manage and control” each of the premisesdefined as centres. The Code defines “manage and control” to mean “…maintain, operate ormanage on Council’s behalf…” (reflecting the requirements of the old Municipal Act andCommunity Recreation Centres Act) and defines “premises” to mean any land, building orstructure that comprise all or part of a centre.

The duties and responsibilities of the boards and committees of management are furtherdescribed in Chapter 25 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. Article II of the chapterestablishes rules for the administration of all board-run, City community centres and Article IIIestablishes specific standards for each centre.

Article II covers topics including the election of officers, meeting requirements, general financialrequirements, insurance and the authorization of working cash advances. Under these sections,the committee is required to:

• hold at least six meetings per year, all of which shall be open to the public;• file copies of minutes and records of all meetings with the “Commissioner of Property”;• pay to the City all administrative revenue surplus to the management of the facility;• accept responsibility for all charges, costs and expenses resulting from the management of

the facilities;• obtain the consent of the City before it makes or incurs a liability for a capital expenditure;• maintain and pay for liability and property damage insurance satisfactory to the

“Commissioner of Finance”;• adopt banking and accounting practices satisfactory to the “Commissioner of Finance”; and

20

• provide the City Auditor with access to its records at all times, and have an annual auditconducted by the City Auditor for submission to Council; and

• permit the City, its employees, contractors, agents and representatives, with the authorizationof the Commissioner of Property, to enter the premises at any time for any reason.

Article II also confers certain duties upon the committees, including:

• the duty to comply with all statutes, regulations, by-laws or rules of every municipal orgovernmental authority;

• the duty to manage the facility efficiently, in keeping with good business practice andwithout cost to the City;

• the duty to prevent any unlawful or nuisance activity; and• the duty to provide custodial and janitorial care, and to keep the premises in clean and

orderly condition and in a good state of repair, all to the satisfaction of the Commissioner ofProperty.

Article III establishes specific standards for each Centre. The most significant standard is thenumber of committee members and the composition of the committee, which is set out inAppendix 6 for each AOCC. The AOCC boards are between 7 and 16 members in size with theward councillor a voting member of each board.

8.4 Proposed Municipal Code Provisions

As noted above, it has been recommended that the AOCC boards be re-established as municipalservice boards. The implementation process includes the adoption of a new chapter of the City’sMunicipal Code, the repeal of the original by-laws establishing the AOCCs and their boards, andthe adoption of provisions dealing with the non-applicability of the related sections in Article IIIof Chapter 25 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

It is recommended that the nomination process and committee standards as outlined in Articles IIand III of Chapter 25 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code continue during thetransition period and be continued in the new chapter. The new chapter will be modeled onChapter 25, but the content will be revised as necessary to reflect the new statutory provisionsand the delineation of delegated powers in a manner that will permit the AOCCs to continue theirpresent functions but with clarity around reporting relationships.

The following specific amendments should also be incorporated in the new chapter:

• Section 25-7D which allows the Commissioner to attend all board meetings. TheCommissioner specified should be the Commissioner of Community and NeighbourhoodServices;

• Section 25-7F requires that true copies of all board meeting minutes and records be sent tothe Commissioner specified. The Commissioner specified should be the Commissioner ofCommunity and Neighbourhood Services;

• Section 25-11D sets out the powers and duties of the boards with respect to maintenance ofpremises, alterations or improvements and assigns responsibilities to the Commissioner ofProperty. This section should be updated to replace the Commissioner of Property with theCommissioner of Corporate Services;

21

• Section 25-11E empowers the specified Commissioner to require the boards to removeadvertising material which is objectionable to the Commissioner from the premises. TheCommissioner specified should be the Commissioner of Corporate Services. The subsectionshould be rephrased to indicate removal of material that contravenes the City’s Hate Activityand Human Rights and Harassment policies and employee participation in electioncampaigns; and

• Section 25-12B permits the City and its employees, agents, contractors and representatives toenter the premises with the authorization of the Commissioner. The Commissioner should bethe Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Commissioner of Community andNeighbourhood Services.

Ralph Thornton Community Centre has requested the removal of the requirement in § 25-31C(2)(b) that the Woodgreen Community Centre, the Jimmie Simpson Recreation Centre, theToronto Public Library Board and the South Riverdale Community Health Centre each nominateone person for appointment to the Ralph Thornton Board. The Ralph Thornton Board advisesthat this requirement was originally included in the Municipal Code to reflect the involvement ofthese agencies with the establishment of the Ralph Thornton Centre. Given the time constraintsfacing everyone today, it is unrealistic to expect representatives from these various boards toattend meetings for Ralph Thornton as well. It is also recognized that the Centre has matured,therefore nominations from these agencies are no longer required.

Applegrove Community Complex has requested that the description of the premises and lease in§ 25-32 be updated by deleting “Classroom No. 2” and substituting “Classrooms B1 and B2” andby adding “a room in the former Corpus Christi Catholic School”; by deleting the reference tothe expired lease; by deleting the reference to Woodfield Road Public School, as it now formspart of the Duke of Connaught Public School; and by replacing “Board of Education” with the“Toronto District School Board”.

The new Chapter in the Municipal Code should be structured in recognition of the operatingprinciples document to be developed.

Conclusions:

As a program operating board, the AOCC model is serving the City and its communities well.Since amalgamation there is a requirement to bring all program operating boards closer to theCity by linking them to a particular cluster of services and a relevant City department. TheAOCC program is both recreational and community development in nature, however, theemphasis on community development initiatives and the tie to the City’s Social DevelopmentStrategy makes the connection to Community and Neighbourhood Services clearly appropriate.

The key objectives in establishing a stronger link between AOCCs and the City are a clearerdefinition of relative roles, improved accountability, and more effective and regularcommunication with the City. The link also provides an administrative mechanism for the Cityfor budgeting, financial, program and policy issues. This relationship in no way limits theautonomy or responsibility of the boards, nor does it replace or delegate any Council authority,but rather it facilitates and clarifies the relationship between the City and the AOCCs byproviding a consistent and informed link to the City.

22

The City’s core funding provides a stable environment by which the AOCCs can operate and theCity’s provision of corporate support enables the centres to access services which wouldotherwise have to be provided within their own budgets. With this support, however, comes anobligation and responsibility to the City that other external agencies are not required to adhere to,including prescribed reporting on performance and human resource policies and practices. Italso requires openness and transparency as well as compliance with legislation pertaining tomunicipalities.

The City can be assured that these obligations are met through the linkage to Community andNeighbourhood Services. This link provides the added assurance that the AOCCs’ directions areclosely aligned with the City’s directions. As the AOCCs stated in their 2003 budgetsubmission, “ we are a critical part of the City’s community development infrastructure and wehelp to make Toronto a good place to live”.

It is recommended that City Council continue to endorse the AOCC governance model throughcontinued provision of core administration funding and continued eligibility to apply for Cityfunding for program activities. It is further recommended that City Council recognize the need toimprove the linkage between the City and the AOCCs by approving the functional alignmentwith Community and Neighbourhood Services.

Contacts:

Nancy Autton Joan TaylorManager, Governance & Corporate Performance Senior Corporate Management and PolicyStrategic and Corporate Policy Division ConsultantChief Administrator’s Office Strategic and Corporate Policy DivisionPhone: (416) 397-0306 Chief Administrator’s OfficeFax: (416) 696-3645 Phone: (416) 392-4995Email: nautton@toronto.ca Fax: (416) 696-3645

Email: jtaylor2@toronto.ca

Chris BrillingerDirector, Community ResourcesSocial Development & Administration DivisionCommunity & Neighbourhood ServicesPhone: (416) 392-8608Fax: (416) 392-8492Email: cbrillin@toronto.ca

Shirley HoyChief Administrative Officer

23

Attachments:

Appendix 1 Community Centre Policy Guidelines: As Approved by the 1982 Task Forceon Neighbourhood Social and Recreational Services

Appendix 2 Funding of City AOCCsAppendix 2A AOCC Core Administration & Program Total City & Non-City FundingAppendix 2B&C AOCC Core Administration Operating BudgetsAppendix 2D AOCC Program FundingAppendix 3 Corporate Support to AOCCsTable 1 Summary of Current Responsibilities between AOCCs and Facilities & Real

Estate DivisionAppendix 4 Options Considered in Review of the Association of Community CentresAppendix 5 Procedure for Future Development of City Funded Recreation and

Community Centres: As Approved by the 1982 Task Force onNeighbourhood Social and Recreational Services:

Appendix 6 AOCC Board Membership

1

Appendix 1

Community Centre Policy Guidelines:As approved by the 1982 Task Force on Neighbourhood Social and Recreational Services

I. Purposes and Scope of Guidelines

The aim of these guidelines is to define the respective roles, responsibilities and operatingpolicies that will govern the relationship between the City and the community centres operatedby Council-appointed boards of management. These guidelines apply to those facilitiesestablished by Council by-law under the provisions of the Municipal Act (Ontario) and as listedin Appendix 1.

The three specific purposes of these guidelines are to define:

1. The general roles and responsibilities of the boards and management of communitycentres.

2. The expectations of Council with respect to the operation of a community centre and theways in which the boards of management are to be accountable to both Council andcommunities they serve.

3. The policies, conditions, criteria and procedures within which Council will providefinancial contributions to the operation of community centres.

These guidelines are a supplement to the provisions of the individual Council by-laws underwhich each of the community centres is established and operates.

II. Roles and Responsibilities of Community Centres

It is the policy of Council that community centres are intended to be multi-purpose facilitiesproviding a broad range of community recreational and social service programs. They areintended to provide opportunities for neighbourhood residents to fully participate in the operationof the centre and the delivery of services and programs.

These centres are established by Council and are to be operated on its behalf by local boards ofmanagement. The boards are responsible for policy-making management and on-goingoperation and maintenance of centres and their respective programs and services. The boards areaccountable to both Council and the communities they serve. The nature of this dualaccountability is as follows:

To Council - The board is responsible for the:

1. Management, operation and maintenance of the centre according to the provisions of theby-law under which the centre was established.

2. Governance of the operation of the centre according to generally recognized democraticprinciples and the provision of clear opportunities for neighbourhood residents to fullyparticipate in the decision-making processes.

3. Annual reporting of the objectives of the centre and the major activities undertaken.

2

4. Annual reporting of the financial affairs of the centre according to generally acceptedaccounting principles and the specific policies and procedures established by Council.

To Community Served - The board is responsible to the residents of the neighbourhood in whichthe centre is located for the:

1. Establishment of provisions for the full and equal participation of neighbourhoodresidents in the governing structure of the centre and its programs and services.

2. Provision of information on the services, programs, policies, and financial affairs of thecentre.

3. Identification of local needs and service priorities.4. Provision of resources to assist in the development of activities and programs relevant to

local needs.5. Development of volunteer and funding resources to support activities, programs and

services.

III. Policy Guidelines

A. Constitutional Requirements

To ensure that neighbourhood residents have clearly recognized opportunities to fully participatein the operation and decision-making processes of a centre and to encourage the development ofservices and programs reflective of the needs of the area in which a centre is located, everycommunity centre shall have a written constitution. The constitution of the centre must be kepton file in the centre and a copy provided to Council or residents of Toronto upon request. It isfurther the policy of Council that the constitution of a community centre must contain thefollowing provisions:

1. Stated objectives of the centre consistent with the stated purposes of a community centreas set out in this document.

2. A specified set of geographic boundaries within the City limits that will serve to:a) Establish the neighbourhood/community within which needs identification and

program development efforts will be primarily focussed.b) Establish the geographic area within which eligibility to vote at the Annual

Meeting of the centre will be determined.

3. The right to vote at the Annual Meeting of the centre shall be intended to all persons overthe age of 18 resident within the neighbourhood as set out by the centre and who pay anynominal membership fee as may be required. In the absence of a specific policy onmembership, all residents of the area over the age of 18 will be deemed voting membersof the centre and eligible to vote at the Annual Meeting.

4. The holding of an Annual Meeting of the voting membership at which the Board willpresent the program and financial affairs of the centre.

5. Notice of the time and date of the Annual Meeting shall be given at least 30 days inadvance and in such a manner as to ensure that eligible voters have reasonableopportunity to receive such notice. Written copies of the Annual Report of the Board

3

shall be available at the address of the centre at the date notice is given of the AnnualMeeting.

6. At least sixty (60) per cent of persons constituting the boards of management must beelected by the voting membership at an Annual Meeting and no less than one-third (1/3)of such elected positions shall become vacant at any given Annual Meeting of thecentre’s voting membership.

7. Eligibility to stand for election to the board of management shall include all personseligible to vote at the Annual Meeting except where deemed ineligible by a Councilpolicy, by-law or other legislative enactment.

8. Except for the appointment of the aldermanic representatives of the ward in which thecentre is located all other appointed positions must be expressly provided for in theconstitution of the centre.

9. Elections of board members at the Annual Meeting must be conducted by secret ballot.

10. Where the constitution provides for nominations to close prior to the date of the AnnualMeeting, the closing date cannot be more than I0 days prior to the date of' the meetingand this provision must be explicitly noted in the notice of the Annual Meeting.

11. Provision for amendment to the constitution requiring a vote between a simple majorityup to no more than three-quarters of the voting members present at an Annual Meeting ofcentre and for which intent to propose a constitutional amendment was included in thenotice of the meeting.

12. Provision for the number of successive terms that a person can be a member of the Board(no particular limitation is required although the policy must be explicitly contained inthe centre's constitution).

Supportive Policies of Council

Council shall support these governance provisions in the following ways:

1. Annual appointment of the names of persons chosen by the eligible members of centre toconstitute the board of management in conformity with the constitutional provisions ofthe centre, generally recognized democratic procedures, and compliance with Councilpolicy and existing by-laws (as amended) and other related legislative enactments.

2. Encouragement of centres to establish two or three year terms for members of the Boardwith one-half or one-third of the terms ending each year.

3. Giving positive consideration to requests to amend establishing by-laws to alter the sizeof the Board.

B. Reporting of Objectives and Activities

1. Each community centre shall annually prepare a report identifying the majoractivities and programs of the centre and the principal objectives these aredesigned to achieve. This report should contain:

4

a) the objectives, activities and the degree of achievement in the previousfiscal year,

b) the projected objectives and. major activities proposed for the comingfiscal year.

2. Each community centre shall maintain the following information:

a) the number of active volunteers and number of volunteer hourscontributed for the preceding fiscal year,

b) the number of groups that regularly use the centre's facilities and the typeof programs they provide,

c) a listing and brief description of self-sustaining activities services orprograms of the centre.

3. It is suggested that the information in Nos. 1 and 2 above would be usefulcomponents of the Board's Annual Report to its membership. It would thereforebe available to users and Council.

Funding Guidelines

The guidelines that follow are intended to provide a common basis upon which budgetarydiscussions between centres and City can proceed. It is the function of the annual budgetapproval process to establish specific levels of funding. Centres will be expected to operatewithin the budgets as approved by Council and to use the program change phase of the City'sbudget development process to gain approval for changes that would have an impact on the levelof City financial support.

The general guidelines that apply to the City's funding of community centres are as follows:

1. That "core administrative" costs of community centres will be eligible for direct Cityfunding and centres will follow the same procedures as followed by a City department inthe annual determination of such amounts.

2. "Core administrative'' costs shall mean all salary and benefit cost and facility operationand maintenance costs except those directly associated with specific programs and shallinclude:- Salary and benefits of centre personnel involved in:

- Administration- Program and volunteer co-ordination- Secretarial and reception- Maintenance

- Materials and supplies related to centre administration and maintenance, e.g.,advertising, postage, etc.

- Furniture and equipment of general use to the centre.- Purchased services such as utility costs, printing and duplication, auditing and

minor building repairs.

3. That the City recognizes the need for a centre to have sufficient core administrative staffto:

5

a) Effectively manage the day-to-day operation of the centre and assist the board ofmanagement with its responsibilities.

b) Fully utilize the physical capacity of the centre through the development of self-sustaining programs/services and promotion of the use of the centre by localresidents.

c) Efficiently provide reception coverage to the public during the centre's hours ofoperation.

c) Ensure the proper maintenance of facility.

4. Increases in the number of staff required to carry out the core administrative componentsof a centre's operation are considered to be a function of the following:

a) Physical capacity and condition of the centreb) Hours of operationc) Level of program activityd) Diversity of programse) Absolute size of a centre's total operating budget and the diversity of its sources

of revenue.

These factors will be the primary criteria against which the validity of requests for additionalstaff will be measured.

5. In addition to the documentation provided by the centre, requests for core administrativestaff will be considered in light of:

a) Facility MaintenanceA review with respect to the staffing levels required to maintain the facility at astandard equivalent to similar facilities owned and operated by tile City.

b) Bookkeeping and Financial ManagementA review with respect to the staffing levels or alternative arrangements required toensure the adequacy of financial records, the maintenance of proper financialcontrols and the adequate and timely provision of financial information to theBoard and the City.

c) Volunteer Co-ordination

i) Until the documented number of active volunteers exceeds 50 or thenumber of volunteer hours contributed exceeds 5,000, it will be assumedthat volunteer co-ordination is a component of the program co-ordinator'sresponsibilities.

ii) Need for a half-time volunteer co-ordinator will be demonstrated when thefollowing circumstances exist:

a) Documented number of active volunteers exceeds 50 and theannual number of volunteer hours contributed exceeds 5,000.

6

b) Documentation has been supplied with respect to the amount oftime spent by existing staff in performance of the volunteer co-ordination function.

iii) Need for a full-time volunteer co-ordinator will be demonstrated when thefollowing circumstances exist:

a) Documented number of active volunteers exceeds I00 and theannual number of volunteer hours contributed exceeds 15,000.

b) Documentation has been supplied with respect to the amount oftime spent by existing staff in performance of the volunteer co-ordination function.

iv) Where requests for paid personnel are made, the centre should:

a) be registered and have a signed memorandum of understandingwith the Volunteer Centre of Metropolitan Toronto;

b) have a job description in general conformity with that contained inAppendix 2;

c) Seek consultative assistance from the Volunteer Centre withrespect to the design of a volunteer co-ordination program that willensure effective use of volunteers.

6. Revenue generated by the centre shall be retained by the centre and available for use inthe provision of programs. Annual surpluses of such funds shall be retained by the centreand any deficit shall be the responsibility of the centre.

7. Year-end surpluses related to the core administrative funds of the centre shall berecoverable by the City.

8. Community centres shall be deemed eligible to apply for City grants available to otherlocal non-profit organizations.

9. Community centres shall restrict their budget requests for core administrative funds to thebudgetary mechanisms designed for this purpose and will not be eligible for such fundingfrom other City sources such as the Grant Review Board.

10. Community centres established after January 1, 1983 shall be eligible for program seedmoney for a three-year period following the official opening of the centre. The maximumamount for which a centre is eligible in the first year of operation is $5,000 and thisamount will automatically be reduced by 1/3 each year thereafter. This provision ofprogram seed money recognizes that revenues for self-sustaining programs cannot beimmediately generated by a new centre. The reduction formula, however, indicates theexpectation that centres will increase these revenues over the first three years.

Source: Appendix “E”, Report No. 14 to Neighbourhoods Committee, City of TorontoCouncil Meeting of July 8 and 9, 1982. Final Report – Community Task Force onNeighbourhoods Social and Recreational Services.

1

Appendix 2

Funding of City AOCCs

1A. Sources of Financing and Support for AOCCs

AOCCs receive financial assistance from both City and non-City sources. The City of Torontoprovides funding for the core administrative component of the community centres` budgets,including administration positions. It also provides corporate support to the AOCCs as well asstaff assistance in a number of areas including the capital maintenance requirements (for all butApplegrove and Central Eglinton, which are leased buildings). In addition, each centre is fullyresponsible for a “program budget” which is funded by means of various sources including theprovincial and federal governments, the City, charities, foundations, as well as fund-raisingactivities.

The AOCCs’ budgets are not currently part of a department portfolio. Prior to 2002, AOCCswere submitting ten individual budgets each year for Council’s approval. In 2002, City Financestaff consolidated the ten budget requests into one budget submission. Core funding requests gothrough the operating budget approval process as a consolidated request. Grant requests followthe same grant application process for all eligible agencies. Each centre applies individually.

B. Core Administration Funding

The City funds core administration activities for AOCCs through the annual operating budgetprocess as part of the ABC budget review process. The AOCCs’ consolidated, actual expenditurefor 2001 was $4.334 million for core administration. The approved budget for 2002 was $4.707million (refer to Appendices 2B and 2C). Several of the AOCC staff and board chairs identifiedCity core funding as being vital to their operations because core funding is unavailable fromother levels of government or private donors. This funding is therefore essential to the continuedoperation and success of the AOCCs. Salaries and benefits account for 86 % ($3.7 million) of thecore administrative expenditures followed by services and rents at 12% ($0.5 million) (2001actuals).

In accordance with procedures outlined in the 1982 Task Force Report, AOCCs continue toreturn unspent or surplus core administration funding to the City at year-end. Many fundersrequire the return of grant surpluses, however, funding received from fees or fundraising, can beretained by the individual centres. The City is responsible for payment of all core administrationdeficits incurred at the end of the year. In 2000, AOCCs returned a total of $109,119 to the City.This is net of an operating deficit of $24, 932 in two of the AOCCs. Figures for 2001 are not yetavailable.

It is recommended that the City continue to provide core administration funding to AOCCs,where, upon Council approval, administrative surpluses are returned to the City andadministrative deficits are funded.

2

C. Program Funding

City Community Services Grants Program and Project Funding

In addition to the core administrative funding, eight of the 10 AOCCs (Swansea Town Hall andApplegrove Community Complex being the exceptions) applied for and received City grantallocations under the Community Services Grant Program (CSGP) in 2001. CGSP grants supportongoing programs in community agencies that improve social outcomes for vulnerable,marginalized and high-risk communities. AOCCs also apply for funding through other Cityprogram and project grants programs such as AIDS prevention, drug abuse prevention andgraffiti transformation. In addition, in 2001 eight AOCCs received subsidies from Children’sServices under the Family Resource program to provide services such as child drop-in programs,toy lending libraries, care giver education, and summer day camps.

Total City grant funding and City subsidies under the Family Resource program for AOCCs in2001 was $0.87 million (Appendix 2A).

Staff of Community and Neighbourhood Services assess the governance of the eight AOCCswhich apply for grants each year. Organizations are assessed to determine if they are governedby a board of directors that:• is reflective of the community served;• is accountable to the organization’s membership;• undertakes leadership in organizational planning and priority setting; and• is responsible for the management of the organization’s resources.

In addition to governance criteria, the AOCCs are assessed on operations and service delivery,membership and community participation, management of financial resources and whether or notthey use a community development approach in addressing organizational, program andcommunity issues.

The combined core administration funding, program grant funding and City subsidies under theFamily Resources program from the City to AOCCs in 2001 totalled $5.209 million. The cost ofproviding corporate support is not reflected in this figure (Appendix 2A). In addition, spaceprovided by AOCCs at no cost for other City services such as library and health services are notreflected in the financial data.

It is recommended that AOCCs continue to be eligible to apply for City funding for programactivities through grant programs or other mechanisms.

D. Corporate Support (See Appendix 3 for further details)

As with other agencies, the City provides budgeting, legal and facilities maintenance support tothe AOCCs. Unlike other agencies, AOCC staff are City of Toronto staff and as such are entitledto direct HR support. There appears to be uncertainty and inconsistency in the application of theCity policies and procedures as they apply to the centres. To help address this issue, BudgetServices is currently developing standardized financial policies and procedures relating to lieutime, vacation carry over etc. They will be available in 2003. The City is responsible for allcompensation issues and pay equity issues related to AOCC staff and it is recommended that thisauthority be maintained by the City. The City must approve any new or changed policies or

3

practices that affect employee compensation. In addition Council has directed that other Citypolicies be applicable to AOCCs, including Conflict of Interest, Human Rights and Harassment,and Employee Participation in Election Campaigns, which accurately reflects the status ofAOCC staff, who are City employees and require policies consistent with that status.

Seven of the ten AOCCs are located in City-owned buildings which require on-goingmaintenance, repair and occasional capital investments. Building expansions and thedevelopment of new facilities such as Harbourfront Community Centre are also funded by theCity as capital investments. These services along with cleaning and snow clearing are providedthrough the Facilities and Real Estate Division of Corporate Services, which contracts out someof these activities. Major City capital and maintenance costs are not included in the $5.209million City funding figure.

The exceptions to AOCCs being located in City-owned space are: Ralph Thornton which is in aleased, federal post office building, Applegrove which is in a school, and Central Eglinton whichis in leased space. Harbourfront (which is in City-owned property) and Applegrove have cost-sharing agreements with the Toronto District School Board for maintenance and utility costs.

Currently, the responsibility for building maintenance, snow removal, custodial services, capitalmaintenance (greater than $50,000), capital enhancements and improvements are split betweenthe board and Facilities & Real Estate Division. Table 1 of Appendix 3 provides a summary ofcurrent responsibilities. Generally, however, with the exception of Eastview, Harbourfront andScadding Court, responsibility for building maintenance (less than $50,000) resides with theindividual board. The City assumes responsibility for the three boards as determined by theMunicipal Code.

In the past, Audit Services prepared the audited financial statements for AOCCs on a fee-for-service basis. This service ceased in January as a result of the new Municipal Act, 2001, whichrequires the financial statement / attest audit function for agencies, boards, commissions anddepartments to be carried out by an external auditor. Staff are currently working with the AOCCsto determine the appropriate outsourcing of the service.

More detail on the relationship between the various City departments and AOCCs is outlined inAppendix 3.

It is difficult to determine the total cost to the City of providing corporate support to the AOCCs.There is no allocated amount that is attributed to the AOCC program for Legal, HR, Facilitiesetc. The requests for assistance from the AOCCs are fairly infrequent, so it is difficult to estimatewhat a future cost might be. It is, however, important to understand the costs of providingcorporate support to the centres and whether the current level and range of support is adequate. Itis recommended that the City continue to provide the current level of corporate support toAOCCs (as outlined in Appendix 3 of this report) and, as part of the functional alignmentexercise, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report, in consultationwith the Commissioner of Corporate Services, Chief Financial Officer, Auditor General and theAOCCs, on:

(a) the cost of providing the current level of corporate support to the AOCCs; and(b) what is considered an appropriate range and level of corporate support to the AOCCs and

the resource implications of any proposed changes.

4

2. Non-City Program Funding

One of the strengths of the AOCCs is their ability to attract donations of significant volunteertime, and cash and product donations from the community and businesses as well as grants fromthe provincial and federal governments and the United Way. The Centres have been highlysuccessful in increasing the total resources applied to program delivery for the benefit of thecommunity. The Centres accomplish this by leveraging the City’s annual investment in fundingand provision of City-owned space. In 2001, as a group, the AOCCs received a total of $2.499million in non-City funding (as shown in Appendix 2A). Together with $0.883 million in userfees and rentals, total AOCCs’ non-City revenue in 2001 was $3.382 million. Combined withCity program grants, the total program revenues for 2001 was $4.098 million (Appendix 2D).

Association of Community Centres

AOCC ( Consolidated ) CORE ADMINISTRATION OPERATING BUDGETS

1999 2000 2001 2002Actual Actual Actual Council

Approved($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s)

519 Church Street 668.2 706.8 768.8 791.0Applegrove 226.0 241.3 259.1 273.9Cecil Street 396.8 437.5 445.9 464.4Central Eglinton 282.3 315.3 342.6 370.2Community Centre 55 360.9 360.3 369.0 429.7Eastview Neighbourhood 263.8 283.2 307.3 342.5Harboufront 595.6 656.3 772.2 777.8Ralph Thornton 394.5 389.0 398.6 541.1Scadding Court 431.7 503.6 526.8 553.4Swansea Town Hall 124.5 124.3 144.1 163.0

Total Net Expenditures 3,744.3 4,017.6 4,334.4 4,707.0

Sources:1. 1999, 2002 and 2001 - AOCCs audited financial statements.2. 2002 - Budget Submission for 2003.

Appendix 2C

AOCC ( Consolidated ) CORE ADMINISTRATION OPERATING BUDGETS

1999 2000 2001 2002Actual Actual Actual Approved

Budget($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s)

Salaries and Benefits 3,241.1 3,400.2 3,709.4 3,945.8Materials and Supplies 195.4 240.1 270.2 278.2Equipment 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.8Services & Rents 432.0 536.3 517.2 625.7Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6

TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURES 3,881.0 4,176.6 4,496.8 4,862.1

Grants from Others 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9User Fees 118.6 129.8 156.1 136.6Other 18.1 29.2 6.3 16.6

TOTAL REVENUE 136.7 159.0 162.4 155.1

TOTAL NET EXPENDITURES 3,744.3 4,017.6 4,334.4 4,707.0

Sources:1. 1999, 2000 and 2001 - AOCCs audited financial statements.2. 2002 - Budget Submission for 2003.

Appendix 2B

1

Appendix 3

Corporate Support to AOCCs

Human Resources

In 1985, during the certification process to have CUPE 2998 represent Cecil St., Scadding Court,Central Eglinton and the 519 Church St. Centres, the Ontario Labour Relations Boarddetermined that for collective bargaining purposes, the City of Toronto was the employer forthese employees. By order of the Labour Relations Board after amalgamation, all AOCC non-excluded staff are members of a bargaining unit represented by this local. City Human Resourcesstaff negotiate a collective agreement between the City and CUPE Local 2998 which covers allnon-excluded AOCC employees.

In 1995, the former City of Toronto’s Executive Committee authorized City officials to fulfil itsobligations as employer for AOCCs for pay equity purposes and to negotiate pay equity withLocal 2998 for unionized employees at the centres. As part of the job evaluation process for payequity, the former City of Toronto Council sought agreement with the board of management ofeach AOCC in respect to the process and gender-neutral comparison system to be used forachieving pay equity for non-unionized employees at the Centres. They recommended that theCity negotiate pay equity with Local 2998 for unionized employees.

At the time the boards of management took the view that it was the City’s responsibility to fulfillits pay equity obligation and therefore the City should proceed on its own to develop and post apay equity plan for non-unionized positions at the community centres. The boards ofmanagement did not participate in the approval process of the pay equity plan. Council agreedthat in order to maintain pay equity as required by the Act, any re-evaluations to City fundedadministrative positions and future evaluations for the centre-funded program positions beapproved by Human Resources. Responsibility for other employee-related issues, including staffsupervision, would fall under the authority of the Boards.

As per the pay equity requirement, the City is responsible for providing benefits to AOCC staff.Currently these benefits are provided through the City benefit carrier, except for one centre,which is Eastview. All AOCC’s agree that the City should be the benefit carrier as it hasresponsibility for monitoring the provision of benefits for pay equity purposes. Eastview iscurrently requesting City support to make the necessary transition. To ensure consistency andequity in benefit provision, the City should provide clear information on benefits relevant tomanagement and union staff to AOCC Boards, and clear and timely updates when benefitpackages change. This issue should be addressed between the City and the AOCC Boards as thefunctional alignment is established.

In discussions with the AOCC staff and boards, the issue of relevance of policies and procedureswas raised and a need was identified for clarity around the applicable City policies andprocedures. Budget Services is currently producing guidelines on financial policies andprocedures for AOCCs. This will address issues such as the application of vacation carryover,lieu time etc., and align them with both the City practices and the collective agreement withLocal 2998. As indicated in Appendix 2, the City is responsible for all compensation issues andpay equity issues related to AOCC staff and it is recommended that this authority be maintained

2

by the City. The City must approve any new or changed policies or practices that affectemployee compensation. In addition Council has directed that other City policies be applicable toAOCCs including Conflict of Interest, Human Rights and Harassment, and EmployeeParticipation in Election Campaigns. Clarification is required as to whether all AOCC humanresource policies should reflect City policies given that AOCC staff are City staff and should betreated consistently as a result of that status.

Legal Services

Legal support provided to AOCCs is different from the legal support provided to more complexboards where the City legal representative attends the board meetings and provides ongoingassistance. Legal advice to an AOCC is generally provided on an as needed basis only.

The legal advice sought by AOCCs has been wide ranging and has included requests on the legalissues of association membership requirements, labour and employment issues, guidelinesaround the release of information, explaining the status of a board and the legal work required toremove a liquor restriction in an agreement and City by-law. Legal assistance could be requiredor requested in response to financial reports on the boards, and assistance could also be requestedon labour matters for the union members, or matters related to the renewal of leases where thecentre is on leased property.

Facilities Management

Seven of the ten AOCCs are located in City-owned buildings which require on-goingmaintenance, repair and occasional capital investments. Building expansions and thedevelopment of new facilities such as Harbourfront Community Centre are also funded by theCity as capital investments. These services, along with cleaning and snow clearing, are providedthrough the Facilities and Real Estate Division of Corporate Services, which contracts out someof these activities. Major City capital and maintenance costs are not included in the $5.209million City funding figure.

The three exceptions to AOCCs being located in City-owned space are: Ralph Thornton which isin a leased, federal post office building, Central Eglinton which is in leased space, andApplegrove which has a cost sharing agreement with the TDSB for maintenance and utilitycosts. Harbourfront Community Centre is in City-owned property. The Toronto District SchoolBoard leases space in that facility from the City, with which it has a cost sharing agreement .

Currently the responsibility for building maintenance, snow removal, custodial services, capitalmaintenance (greater than $50,000), capital enhancements and improvements is split between theboard and Facilities & Real Estate Division. Table 1 provides a summary of currentresponsibilities. Generally however, with the exception of Eastview, Harbourfront and ScaddingCourt, responsibility for building maintenance (less than $50,000) resides with the individualboard. The City assumes responsibility for the three boards as determined by the MunicipalCode.

According to the City’s capital budget policies, a capital expenditure is defined as an expenditureitem that is at least $50,000 and results in an enduring benefit of at least 10 years. In the attachedTable 1, where Facilities & Real Estate Division has been identified responsible for capitalmaintenance, Facilities’ staff conduct building condition assessments on a periodic basis. All

3

deficiencies detected are considered when preparing the divisional plan for capital expenditures.The actual inclusion of such capital repair items in the divisional budget is subject to thecorporate priority setting and budget review process. All capital maintenance expenditures whichcannot be accommodated in the budget of the Facilities & Real Estate Division and all buildingimprovements regardless of cost, are the responsibility of the board concerned and should bereflected in the board’s budget submission to the City.

In discussions with AOCC boards and staff, there is general acknowledgement of the limitedresources given the magnitude of the building management portfolio of Facilities and RealEstate. There is a general sense of satisfaction with the level of service provided by FacilitiesOperations, though there have been a few instances whereby requests for routine maintenanceand repair by the centres have not been acted upon in an expedient manner. This, combined withthe desire by the centres not to contravene any trade agreements, means that at times requests areleft unattended. However, in situations where the request is small and there is anacknowledgement that the City’s response time may be lengthy, AOCCs would like theopportunity to recruit volunteers to get the work done, much like they do in running theirprograms.

Budget Services

City Budget Services staff provide the same level of service to AOCCs as to any agency of theCity. They function as a liaison and provide advice with regard to the operating budget process.Budget staff undertake a thorough review and analysis of the revenues and expenditures throughextensive discussion and/or negotiations with AOCCs. They can then recommend to the CFO,CAO and Council a budget that meets corporate guidelines and targets and is consistent withCouncil direction and operational needs. Staff also monitor, evaluate and assist with appropriaterecommendations with regard to in-year expenditure and revenue performance as compared toapproved in-year budgets, and prepare reports, briefing notes and presentations with regard tostrategic, financial and operational issues.

In addition, because the 10 community centres' budgets are considered to be one program (not10) for budget purposes, additional budget staff responsibilities include consolidation of the 10budgets, and providing guidance to AOCCs in their presentation as a consolidated request.Budget Staff prepare a consolidated budget variance report on a quarterly basis. They report tothe Policy & Finance Committee annually on each Centre's operating results (upon receiving theaudited financial statements). Through Budget Services, arrangements are made with AccountingServices Division for invoicing or paying a Centre depending on their operating results(surplus/deficits) and for monthly transfers to each Centre. Budget staff also discuss relevantfinancial matters with Audit staff and are in the process of preparing standardized financialpolicies and procedures (to be finalized in 2003) for AOCC boards and staff. It is anticipated thatthese guidelines will help improve consistency in the AOCCs financial reporting and procedures.There appears to be a high level of satisfaction with the level of support received from BudgetServices.

Audit Services

Prior to 2003, the Centres’ audited financial statements were prepared each year by the City’sAuditor and presented to Audit Committee. This work was provided on a fee-for-service basis.Annual audit fees ranged from $1,500 to $6,000 per board, with most AOCCs paying about

4

$4,000 for their audits. The cost varied according to the size of the centre, their revenue andexpenditures, and the complexity of the programs offered. With the Municipal Act, 2001 cominginto effect January 2003, the City Auditor no longer provides the financial statement / attest auditfunction for City agencies, boards, commissions and departments. There is a requirement that thefunction be carried out by an external auditor. Audit Services, in consultation with the AOCCboards, is currently examining options regarding outsourcing of this service.

Source: Facilities and Real Estate Division

# Organization Name, Address, & By-Law

Build

ing

Ope

ratio

nsBu

ildin

g M

ntce

. <$5

0K

HV

AC

Snow

R

emov

al

Secu

rity

Util

ities

Cus

todi

al

Serv

ices

Cap

ital M

ntce

. >$

50K

Cap

ital

Enh

ance

men

ts/

Impr

ovem

ents

Insu

ranc

e

Faci

lity

Ow

ners

hip

Recreational & Community Centres1 519 Community Street C.C.

519 Church Street By-Law #: 263-75

B B B B B B B FF

Shared with Board

B City

2 Applegrove Community Complex 56 Woodfield Road By-Law #: 121-83

B B B B B B B B B B Leased(TDSB)

3 Cecil Community Centre 58 Cecil Street By-Law #: 766-77

B B B B B B B F B B City

4 Central Eglinton C.C. 160 Eglinton Ave. East By-Law #: 531-88

B B F B B B B TDSB B B Leased

5 Community Centre 55 97 Main Street By-Law #: 323-74

B B B B B B B F B B City

6 Eastview Neighbourhood C.C. 86 Blake Street By-Law #: 355-76

B F F F B F F F B City City

7 Harbourfront Community Centre 627 Queens Quay West By-Law #: 405-91

B F F F F F B F B B City

8 Ralph Thornton Community Centre 765 Queen Street East By-Law #: 711-80

B B B B B B B F B B Leased

9 Scadding Court Community Centre 707 Dundas Street West By-Law #: 842-78

B F F F B F F F B City City

10 Swansea Town Hall 95 Lavina Avenue By-Law #: 496-92

B B B B B B B FF

Shared with Board

B City

abcd

efgh

Building Maintenance includes all repairs to building that cost less than $50K and do not qualify as capital maintenance.Capital Maintenance means building repairs that cost $50K or more AND have a lasting benefit of at least 10 years.

Sharing of the expenditures by the City for capital enhancements or improvements is considered on a case by case basis depending on the nature of need and the availability of resources subject to competing demands.

Capital Improvements means changes to the facility that alter or improve the quality of the space, e.g., renovations, etc.

Facilities & Real Estate Division may provide additional services as a contractor to the boards on request on a full cost recovery basis.

For Harbourfront Community Centre (#7), location is co-shared with TDSB.

Summary of Current Responsibilities between AOCCs & Facilities & Real Estate DivisionTable 1City of Toronto

Table based on information available at this time (February 2003) in accordance with current practices.

NotesLegend: B= Respective Board, F=Facilites & Real Estate

1

Appendix 4

Options Considered in Review of the Association of Community Centres

Four Governance options were reviewed including:1. AOCCs Incorporated into a City Department2. Superboard Replaces AOCC Operating Boards3. AOCC Transition to Independent Not-Profit Corporations4. AOCC Operating Boards Continue with Closer Link to City

Option No. 1: AOCCs Incorporated into a City Department

In this option the administration of the AOCCs would be assumed by the City, within thedepartment of Community and Neighbourhood Services. Council would assume a policy-settingrole for AOCCs the same as it has for other services and facilities delivered and managed by theCity. City funding would continue with appropriate adjustments to reflect the direct deliverymodel.

Comments• Provides a high level of management and policy control of the AOCCs by the City which has

both benefits and downsides. The philosophy of services for the community by thecommunity would be lost.

• The fund-raising capacity of AOCCs may be diminished. AOCCs raised $2.5 million in2001, excluding user fees, for the delivery of programs. (User fees and rentals of $0.9 millionare excluded as it is assumed that fees would be charged under any governance option).

• Standardization of services across the City often results when services are delivered throughCity departments. It is likely that the range of services offered would be reduced as AOCCshave a diverse program offering to match the needs of individual communities and oftenservice people at risk.

• The City would be dismantling a successful and popular form of alternative service delivery.• The involvement of local volunteers in governance and service delivery would be diminished

or lost.• It is likely that the cost of delivering services would increase.• The communities served by the AOCCs strongly oppose this option.

Option No. 2: Superboard Replaces AOCC Operating Boards

In this option, one “superboard” would replace the ten AOCC centre operating boards. Cityfunding and other elements of the AOCC model would remain in place.

Comments• A superboard may be able to achieve economies of scale in some areas.• Fund-raising and volunteerism may be impacted. On the one hand, a superboard may have

the capacity for grander initiatives. On the other hand, donors and volunteers would not havethe same level of identification with, and support for, a superboard as they do with the localAOCCs.

2

• As with Option 1, there may be a tendency toward standardization of services, which wouldreduce the benefit of tailored services to individual community needs.

• The communities served by the AOCCs would oppose this option as they would perceive asuperboard as somewhat remote, detached from local communities and therefore, unlikely tobe as responsive to community needs as the existing AOCCs.

Option No. 3: AOCC Transition to Independent Non-Profit Corporations

This option was recommended by the Mayor’s ABC Reduction Task Force.

Comments• A more level playing field would be created among communities since all centres across the

city would be independent from the City, but eligible to apply for financial or in-kindsupport.

• This option maximizes the benefits of services to communities by communities andeliminates constraints imposed as a function of being a City board.

• Although funding through grants and below-market leases could continue at existing levelsunder this option, AOCC stability resulting from being a City board and receiving corefunding would be at risk. There are very few private or government funding sources for coreadministration costs which include staff salaries.

• There may be a higher motivation to seek external funding even within a highly competitiveenvironment and other governments and large organizations may be more receptive tomaking donations or supplying services and “in-kind” supports when not associated with theCity.

• However, the opposite could be equally true, that governments and large organizations aremore receptive to making donations or supplying services and in-kind supports when the Cityis seen as a funding partner and sponsor, keeping administration / fundraising costs down.City funding support also helps to legitimize AOCCs as being reputable and trustworthyorganizations due to regular audit and financial reviews and the unique dual accountability toCouncil and to a community board.

• It may be less expensive and more expedient to complete routine maintenance of thefacilities.

Option No. 4: AOCC Operating Boards Continue with Closer Link to City

In this option, the AOCC operating boards would continue with existing City fundingarrangements. A closer link would be developed with the City to ensure that AOCC prioritiesand procedures are closely aligned with those of the City using the City’s Social DevelopmentStrategy as a framework for this relationship.

Comments• This option would retain the AOCCs’ capacity to leverage City funding for the benefit of the

community by attracting grants and donations. In 2001, as a group, the AOCCs raised $2.5million from other levels of government, the United Way and private donations.

• The City retains operating board governance of the AOCCs which is highly responsive tocommunity needs and which delivers social and health services, often to people at risk.

• The involvement of local volunteers would continue.

3

• There would be no impact on service levels and costs.• City Human Resource policies and practices would be consistently applied to staff working

at AOCCs since they are City employees.• Community and Neighbourhood Services will be a knowledgeable resource to Committees

and Council as well as other City staff as changes occur and issues arise.• By creating a closer policy link with the City with respect to priorities and procedures, this

option ensures that the AOCCs’ activities are consistent with the City’s objectives.• This option has the highest level of community support of these four options, although most

would prefer a “no change” scenario.

1

Appendix 5

Procedure for Future Development of City Funded Recreation and Community Centres:As approved by the1982 Task Force on Neighbourhood Social and Recreational Services

A. Introduction

Over the past few years, the City has supported the development of both City-operated recreationcentres and City-funded community centres. These two types of facilities can be distinguishedby the degree of emphasis placed on the provision of community service versus recreationprograms and their management structures. The City currently lacks a policy and writtenproduces as to how a service development process that arrives at a choice between these twotypes of centres should proceed. Consequently, the process itself and the final selection decisionhas displayed some of the following:

- Insufficient representation of relevant parties.- Lack of clear expectations with respect to local planning structures and group composition.- Inadequate needs and resources studies.- Lack of written criteria to be used in determining proposals eligible for Council

consideration.- Exploration of an inadequate variety of alternatives for potentially meeting local needs.- Lack of clear opportunities for normal response by City departments and community

agencies to identified needs and proposed service/centre developments alternatives.- Lack of opportunities for Council to give approval in principle at critical stages of the

process.- Lack of criteria to be used in selecting program, service emphasis of final proposal and

appropriate management structure.

B. Purpose of Guidelines

These guidelines have been developed to ensure that emerging community groups will be awarefrom the outset of the criteria that Council will use in deciding on the merits of City support forspecific proposals arising from neighbourhood needs, identification and service developmentefforts.

These guidelines place emphasis upon the documentation of local needs and the thoroughconsideration of various alternatives to meeting identified needs, the promotion of the use ofexisting agencies, facilities and resources rather than the development of new facilities and clearopportunities for Council decision at critical planning stages. The guidelines assume that avariety of organizational forms could be developed at the neighbourhood level to achieve therequirements of these guidelines.

Generally speaking, local service planning efforts can be seen as proceeding through threestages:

2

- Formation of a group of people and organizations around perceived problems or issues.- Identification and assessment of local needs and available resources.- Development of a detailed proposal for addressing the identified issues and problems.

These guidelines are organized around these three stages.

Stage 1 – Initiation

The initiation of some neighbourhood process that ultimately leads to a new facility or theexpansion or modification of an existing community or recreation agency can take many forms.It can result from groups of neighbourhood residents coming together to deal with a specificperceived need or issue or it could be generated by another process, e.g., NeighbourhoodImprovement Program. A group of agencies providing service might also initiate such a processto facilitate a more comprehensive system in the neighourhoods they serve.

These guidelines do not prescribe a particular form that the initiation of neighbourhood needsidentification and service development initiatives should take. They do, however, identify thecriteria that Council will use in considering the merits of requests for City support for specificproposals that may emerge from such local initiatives.

It is recognized that these guidelines tend to be oriented to existing communities. Where there isno existing community e.g., St. Lawrence, the planning process would need to include specialprovisions such as the involvement of agencies providing services in surrounding areas.

Phase II – Identification of Needs and Resources

Guidelines

1. No proposal for a City supported recreation or community centre will be considered priorto the completion of a study of local needs and resources.

2. Greater consideration will be given to studies involving the participation of the following:- Local residents- Community and recreation agencies currently providing service in the local area.- Representation of the Department of Planning and Development.- Representation of the Department of Parks and Recreation.

3. The local needs and resources study should take into consideration existing statements ofcity-wide needs and priorities.

4. A report on needs and resources shall be submitted to Council for its consideration andcomment.

5. Following the completion of the needs and resources study, a report on Service Optionsmust be prepared for Council consideration. This Options Report must provide evidencethat at least the following 4 options were adequately considered.

1. Needs not sufficient for further action.2. Existing organizations can co-ordinate activities to meet the identified needs without

further City action other than monitoring of progress.

3

3. Needs can be met by existing organizations but additional City resources are required.This option must be accompanied by an approximated ball park cost of City resourcesrequired for the first 3 years.

4. City initiative is required to develop a new facility. Again this option must beaccompanied by an approximated ballpark cost to the City for the first 3 years.

If either 3 or 4, is being recommended, the following steps must be undertaken.

a) Requests for written responses on the Needs, Resources and Options Report shallbe made to appropriate civic departments and community agencies and theseresponses shall be included in the report submitted to Council. A request for suchresponse within one month shall be deemed adequate.

b) The report with written responses attached shall be submitted to Council for itsreview and request for approval in principle.

Phase III – Development of Detailed Proposal (if 3, or 4.)

Guidelines:

If Option 3, is approved in principle by Council, a detailed proposal must be developed and itmust contain the following:

1. Report on community consultation process followed.2. The types of service needed and the priorities for service development.3. The existing organizations to be involved and the roles that each should play.4. Documentation that the identified organizations are willing to perform these roles

proposed and the necessary conditions for such participation given Council approval ofthe proposal.

5. The nature and extent of non-City resources that will be utilized and the likelihood thatthese will be forthcoming.

6. A review of various management/organizational structures that could be utilized and arecommended model.

7. Estimated costs to the City of the proposal and proposed methods of accountability.

Proposal submitted to Council for decision.

If Option 4, is approved in principle by Council, a detailed proposal must be developed and itmust contain the following:

1. Report on community consultation process followed.2. The types of services needed and their priorities.3. The reasons why a new agency and/or facility is required.4. A review of various management/organizational models considered, a recommended

model, the criteria used in making the recommendation and a description of how themodel would fit into existing funding structures of the City.

5. The ways in which the proposed organization would co-ordinate its programs withexisting organizations.

4

6. The nature and extent of non-City resources that will be utilized and the likelihood thatthese will be forthcoming.

7. Proposed methods of accountability to Council and users.8. Estimated costs to the City of the proposal (both capital and operating*).

Proposal submitted to Council for decision.

*Where Option 4 is approved, the determination of the initial staffing levels, whether the facilityis to be a directly-operated recreation centre or a City-funded community centre, will follow theprinciple that sufficient staff are required to efficiently and effectively realize the physical andprogram potential of the facility.

Source: Appendix “F”, Report No. 14 to Neighbourhoods Committee, City of Toronto CouncilMeeting of July 8 and 9, 1982. Final Report – Community Task Force onNeighbourhoods Social and Recreational Services.

Appendix 6AOCC BOARD MEMBERSHIP

Legal name of centre No. ofMembers Composition

Community Centre 55 7 • Member of Council for Ward 32(Councillor S. Bussins)

• Six persons who are appointed byCouncil

519 Church Street Community Centre 12 • Member of Council for Ward 27(Councillor K. Rae)

• Eleven persons who are appointed byCouncil

Eastview Neighbourhood CommunityCentre

12 • One member of Council (for Ward 30– not specified in Code) (Councillor J.Layton)

• Eleven persons who are appointed byCouncil

Cecil Street Community Centre 12 • Member of Council for Ward 20(Councillor O. Chow)

• Eleven persons who are appointed byCouncil

Scadding Court Community Centre 15 • Member of Council for Ward 20(Councillor O. Chow)

• Fourteen persons who are appointedby Council

Ralph Thornton Community Centre 13 • Member of Council for Ward 30(Councillor J. Layton)

• Twelve persons appointed by CouncilApplegrove Community Complex 11 • Member of Council for Ward 32

(Councillor S. Bussins)• Ten persons appointed by Council

Central Eglinton Community Centre 8 • Member of Council for Ward 22(Councillor M. Walker)

• Seven persons who are appointed byCouncil

Harbourfront Community Centre 9 • Member of Council for Ward 20(Councillor O. Chow)

• Eight persons who are appointed byCouncil

Swansea Town Hall 16 • Member of Council for Ward 13(Councillor D. Miller)

• Fifteen persons appointed by CouncilSource: Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 25, Article III

STAFF REPORT

November 4, 2002

To: Audit Committee

From: Auditor General

Subject: Audit Management Letters Relating to Individual Boards of Management forCommunity Centres

Purpose:

To provide the Audit Committee with individual audit management letters for each of the Boardsof Management for Community Centres.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

While there are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report, theimplementation of the recommendations included in the management letters will improveinternal administrative controls.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the individual management letters issued for each of the Boards of Management forCommunity Centres be received for information; and

(2) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be directed to ensure thatthe issues identified in the individual management letters are addressed and report back tothe Audit Committee by February 28, 2003.

Background:

Boards of Management were established throughout the City, particularly in the former City ofToronto, in order to operate a number of community centres. These Boards of Managementwere established as community recreation centres pursuant to Chapter 25 of the City of TorontoMunicipal Code. Each Board of Management operates and manages the community centres onbehalf of the City of Toronto.

- 2 -

It has been the general policy of the City Auditor’s office to issue management letters onengagements where an audit report is issued. The purpose of a management letter is to provideand document to management, internal control weaknesses and suggestions for improvingcontrols. There may be cases where there are no material internal control deficiencies and, insuch circumstances, management letters are not issued. This process is in accordance with theprofessional standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Comments:

Appended to this report are management letters for the year ended December 31, 2001, for thefollowing Community Centres:

Scadding Court Community CentreSwansea Court Community CentreThe 519 Church Street Community Centre

Also appended to this report are the management responses received from the followingCommunity Centres:

Scadding Court Community CentreThe 519 Church Street Community Centre

Conclusions:

During the course of our audits, we reviewed the disposition of the recommendations included inour previous years management letters. A number of recommendations have been implementedor are in the process of implementation. For those recommendations which have not beenimplemented, we have repeated our observations and recommendations in a modified form toreflect current systems and procedures.

As part of the process relating to the audits of the 2002 financial statements of the CommunityCentres, a follow-up review on those issues identified in the 2001 management letters will beconducted. Issues which continue to be outstanding will be reported to the Audit Committee.

In addition, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be required to reportback to Audit Committee on the action taken to address issues identified in the individualmanagement letters pertaining to their respective areas. It is suggested that the timetable for thisbe February 28, 2003.

- 3 -

Contact:

Rafiq Dosani, Senior Audit Manager: Tel: (416) 392-8438, Fax: (416) 392-3754E-mail: rdosani@city.toronto.on.ca

Jeffrey GriffithsAuditor General

cg

List of Attachments:

Audit Management Letters for the Year Ended December 31, 2001 – Community Centres

- Scadding Court Community Centre,including the management response dated November 5, 2002

- Swansea Court Community Centre

- 519 Church Street Community Centre,including the management response dated November 12, 2002

C:\DATA\audit\2002\Reports\Economic Development\Comm Centres\Audit Ctee-Community Centres ML-Nov 4 2002.doc