►
Description
City Council, meeting 31, July 5, 2017 - Part 1 of 4 - Morning Session
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=11862
Part 2 of 4 - Afternoon Session (Part A): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws9ozii3Xmk#t=9m30s
Part 3 of 4 - Afternoon Session (Part B): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL1lxygKZgc#t=4m34s
Part 4 of 4 - Evening Session: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfb11qhF-k0#t=12m21s
Meeting Navigation:
0:16:22 - Meeting resume
3:01:21 - Public Session
B
A
A
C
You
good
morning,
speaker
good
morning,
colleagues,
the
City
of
Toronto
has
partnered
with
MS
week
beach
to
establish
an
internship
program
for
Aboriginal
youth
in
the
counselors
offices.
This
is
part
of
the
city's
Aboriginal
employment
strategy.
Miss
mcpeak,
orig,
original
employment
and
training
provides
greater
toronto
areas,
Aboriginal
community,
with
training
initiatives
and
employment
services.
They
found
the
candidates
and
it's
providing
the
funding
for
this
initiative
through
their
worker.
D
E
C
One's
mic
sounds
you're,
burned,
sorry,
the
front
side,
your
mics
on,
while
I'm
speaking,
which
is
surprising
through
their
work
in
counselors
offices.
The
Aboriginal
youth
will
gain
City
work,
experience,
job
relevant
skills,
a
professional
network
and
exposure
to
the
try
to
public
service
and
to
the
community
work
that
counts
as
are
involved
in
and
developing
important
skills
for
future
employment.
The
program
consists
of
four
six-month
internships
which
will
end
October.
2017
I
would
like
to
introduce
the
participants,
Jordan
salat,
salat,
Oh,
I'm,
not
sure.
If
Jordans
here,
Oh
Jordan.
C
Do
you
want
to
stand
working
in
off
the
office
of
counselors
Shelley
Carroll?
There
we
go.
We
want
Jordan,
Jo,
Jolene,
Casper
working
in
the
office
of
counsel
to
Mary
Fraga
docket,
an
Alexis
link,
'red
working
in
the
office
of
counselor.
My
Clayton
and
Craig
wah
boos
working
in
my
office
and
was
involved
in
was
a
victim
of
a
hit
and
run,
which
was
not
a
good
way
to
welcome
him
to
Toronto.
But
we
will
help
with
vision,
zero
help
that,
but
there
they
are,
can
we
give
them
a
round
of
applause.
A
A
A
City
Council
has
decided
to
consider
the
following
items
together
as
the
first
items
of
business
today:
au
9.12
on
Auditor,
General's,
observations
of
a
land
acquisition
of
Finch,
Avenue
West,
a
narrow
road
by
the
Toronto
parking
authority,
part
2
and
CA
17.2
on
the
appointment
of
public
members
to
the
Toronto
parking
authority
board,
City
Council
will
consider
member
motions
at
2
p.m.
I
will
now
take
the
release
of
hold.
Please
put
your
name
on
the
request
to
question
staff.
A
B
F
A
B
Thank
You
speaker
on
page
8
te
25.6,
25,
Leonard,
Avenue
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
I
have
a
motion
if
it
can
be
put
on
screen
screen,
which
I
believe
is
quick.
This
is
an
affordable
housing
project
of
22
units
and
the
motion
simply
reads
to
direct
staff
to
work
with
the
applicant
on
their
site
plan
over
the
summer
process
over
the
summer
months.
Excuse
me
on.
A
A
B
Page
5,
this
is
cd20
1.13
update
on
city
supported,
community
Lentz,
LED,
violence,
prevention
and
intervention.
If
council
would
indulge
me
in
ten
seconds,
I
could
release
this
quickly.
So,
just
ten
seconds
on
June
30th
last
year,
the
province
joined
the
mayor
for
a
big
fancy
announcement
to
invest
750
thousand
dollars
into
community
led
crime
prevention
initiatives.
It's
been
more
than
a
year
and
the
money
still
hasn't
arrived.
These
were
funds
to
help
prevent
violence.
Last
summer,
we're
now
into
this
summer
we're
still
waiting
as
part
of
this
motion.
B
G
H
Speaker,
page
5,
Economic,
Development,
Committee,
Eadie
22.4,
it's
a
spotlight
on
Toronto,
a
strategic
plan
for
the
film
television
and
digital
media
industry
and
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
this
is
a
fantastic
strategic
action
plan
and
thank
the
general
manager
of
economic
development.
The
fantastic
members
in
our
film
television
office,
entertainment
office
and
the
great
great
great
team
we
have
on
the
film
board
and
also
the
mayor
for
his
undying
attention
to
this
really
important
industry.
H
The
missions
that
have
been
taken
on
behalf
of
the
city
to
Los,
Angeles
and
also
Mumbai,
and
that
Toronto
is
still
poised
to
have
another
record-breaking
year
in
film,
and
we
have
a
number
of
really
important
initiatives
that
will
continue
us
on
that
trajectory.
So
I'd
like
to
move
into
this
and
ask
for
a
recorded
vote.
Thank.
A
H
C
C
You
very
much
and
madam
Speaker
on
page
11
mm
31.2
direction
to
City
Planning
to
form
a
working
group
for
the
development
proposal,
183
to
189,
Avenue,
Road
and
109
to
1
1
1
pairs
Avenue,
it's
the
first
item
on
top
of
the
page.
I
have
a
quick
amendment.
This
is
a
deferred
item
from
last
month.
I
just
have
to
amend
the
date
and
the
in
the
motion
and.
A
C
A
G
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Yes,
on
page
five,
Edie
22.8
profile
of
Toronto's,
evolving,
Ontario,
Works
caseload
profile,
as
figure
I
was
I,
had
intended
to
write
a
motion.
I
think
there
there's
more,
that
we
can
do
not
not
through
through
tests
but
through
the
business
community
on
the
issues
of
precarious
work
and
and
the
longer
standing
Boehner
bill
community
staying
on
Oh
W
longer,
but
I'll
serve
a
motion
of
the
later
date
to
that
committee.
Thank
you.
On
page.
A
G
A
Members
before
we
go
to
the
two
timed
items
this
morning,
I
would
like
to
draw
your
attention,
the
material
we
have
before
us
on
item
au
9.12.
At
the
Audit
Committee
meeting
the
chair
ruled
that
the
confidential
attachment
to
the
Auditor
General's
report
was
a
public
document.
The
city
clerk
subsequently
posted
the
public
attachment
on
the
city's
website.
We
also
have
a
supplementary
report
from
the
city
manager
with
a
confidential
attachment
distributed
yesterday.
A
D
Good
morning,
council,
this
is
a
part
two
of
a
two-part
report
and
arose
from
a
complaint
from
councillor
feely
on
council
Fillion
sits
on
the
TPA
board
and
he
was
looking
at
a
transaction
as
the
board
was
and-
and
he
was
trying
to
get
information
to
support
his
what
he
felt
to
be
his
due
diligence
and
making
sure
that
the
land
transaction
supported
the
purchase
price
and
the
purchase
price
was
over.
12
million.
D
There's
two
parts
to
the
transaction:
the
property
on
the
property
there's
a
sign,
so
the
land
has
a
value
and
the
sign
has
a
value.
It's
a
digital
sign
and
the
key
dates
here
is
the
complaint
came
in
on
September
1st
and
on
September,
2nd
I
undertook
this
complaint
myself.
I
went
in
and
did
an
immediate
investigation
on
the
15th.
The
board
was
due
to
do
its
final
review
for
approval
of
the
transaction
and
by
before
the
next
board
meeting
the
transaction
was
ready
to
proceed.
So
there
was
one
board
meeting
left
I
arrived
on.
D
The
second
and
I
had
to
report
it
on
the
15th
when
I
got
to
the
board
in
the
15th,
I
asked
him
to
delay
the
transaction
and
the
reason
was
I
had
extreme
difficulty
in
obtaining
the
documentation
necessary
documentation.
One
would
expect
to
be
in
the
file.
I
actually
had
to
take
extraordinary
measures
to
obtain
the
documents
that
I
actually
did
obtain.
D
So
the
two
parts,
the
firt
my
first
report,
identified
that
them
that
the
TPA
was
at
risk
of
overpaying
over
two
and
a
half
million
dollars
for
this
property,
and
the
second
part
was
related
to
the
issues
that
made
this
that
the
reason
this
came
to
be
but
before
I
go
any
further.
I
want
to
talk
about
the
scope
of
this
transaction.
City
Council
approved
the
transaction
back
in
March
of
2015
and
I.
Don't
take
issue
with
the
fact
that
City
Council
approved
the
transaction.
It
was
for
land
that
was
near
the
the
LRT.
D
There
was
the
e
V,
the
Emory
village
BIA
wanted
to
put
a
flagpole
on
the
land.
I
didn't
look
at
the
value
and
the
issue
of
the
flagpole.
For
many
years.
The
Emory
village
BIA
has
been
trying
to
get
council
support
them
and
there
was
Council
has
passed
some
resolutions
to
support
having
a
flagpole
built
on
that
land.
D
So
there's
been
a
lot
of
history
around
this
I'm
sure
it's
come
before
you
before,
but
when
council
approved
for
TPA
to
purchase
the
land
at
fair
market
value,
what
that
means,
as
TPA
is
only
authorized
to
purchase
that
land
at
fair
market
value.
So
when
I
came
in
I
found
that
it
didn't
so,
the
negotiated
price
was
twelve
point.
One
eight
million
the
land
was
valued
at
eight
around
eight
million
dollars.
There
was
an
evaluation,
a
draft
valuation
done
in
2015.
The
land
was
at
seven
point.
Five.
D
D
I
had
a
forensic
investigator
to
work
with
me
and
we
came
to
the
conclusion
that
the
land
and
the
sign
were
worth
no
more
than
about
nine
point:
five
five.
So
the
deal
was
overpriced
by
two
point.
Six
three:
the
board
at
that
point
in
time
was
mork
I
found
to
be
more
concerned
with
trying
to
pursue
the
deal
rather
than
saying
how
wait
a
second
here,
we're
over
by
two
point:
six:
three
million
dollars.
D
So
that
was
a
concern
for
me
and
I,
took
it
away
and
I
thought
I'd
come
back
and
see
what
happened
in
the
deal.
So
there's
it's
really
worth
the
read
of
going
through
the
report
and
in
the
back
I
I
summarized
the
front
part
into
findings
in
the
back
is
a
chronology.
It's
not
everything.
I
have
a
hundred
and
thirty
five
pages
of
a
chronology.
This
is
just
some
of
the
highlights
of
the
chronology.
D
It's
it's
really
hurt
to
explain
certain
aspects
until
you
actually
read
it's
in
the
emails
it's
in
the
valuation,
but
I
want
to
summarize
five
areas
that
I
had
concerns.
Just
to
give
you
an
overview.
The
first
area
is
not
obtaining
a
business
valuator
to
value
the
sign
or
somebody
who
is
at
least
independent.
Now
the
sign
is
worth
one
third
of
the
property
they
valued
the
sign
at
four
to
four
and
a
half
million
dollars.
That's
pretty
significant.
D
You
know
when
you're
in
a
professional
organization
and
you're
dealing
with
public
money,
transparency
is
absolute,
so
you
have
to
have
that.
The
second
is
the
conflicts
and
potential
conflicts
of
interest
with
the
lobbyists.
Also
with
the
signed
consultant,
what
I
found
and
I
actually
tried
to
draw
it,
but
it
would
just
be
a
hairball.
It
was
a
hairball
of
relationships
that
went
from
the
inaugural
rosin
individually.
The
third
is
when
the
sign
the
bottom
line
for
the
vendor
appeared
to
be
12
million
dollars.
D
The
land
was
valued
at
8
million
dollars.
We
have
a
gap
of
four
million
dollars
with
that
gap,
the
sign
that
was
on
the
property
was
only
worth
about
a
million
and
a
half,
maybe
two
million.
We
had
a
two
million
dollar
gap,
so
what
happened
was
TPA
became
involved
with
trying
to
maximize
the
value
of
the
sign
and
the
actual
sign
and
the
property
didn't
really
cut
it,
so
they
put
in
a
potential
for
a
second
sign
and
use
that
valuation
to
come
to
four
million
dollars.
I'll
explain
that
going
forward.
D
The
fourth
is
the
difficulty
in
obtaining
information
and
consistent
in
having
inconsistent
explanations
during
the
investigation
process.
It
took
a
while,
even
at
the
very
end
when
we
were
clearing
the
report.
The
debrief
of
the
report
was
was
concerning
because
new
information
was
coming
tonight.
Late,
relevant
information
was
coming
to
light
information
that
should
have
been
in
the
first
meeting,
not
the
last
meeting
and
the
fifth
is
the
opportunities
to
improve
board
functioning,
so
I'm
going
to
go
through
these
very
quickly.
D
First,
is
we
talked
about
having
an
independent,
signed
valuators,
so
the
sign
valuator
was
actually
worked
for
TPA.
He
was
the
person
who
were
for
the
vendor
on
this
deal.
So
the
person
who
was
representing
the
the
vendor
was
a
CAPTA
holdings
of
the
land
and
the
sign
on
the
deal
was
owned
by
De
Luca
and
De.
Luca
had
hired
the
sign
consultant
in
2009
to
bring
the
deal
together
to
put
the
sign
on
the
land
he
represented.
D
The
science
design
consultant
represented
the
vendor
on
this
deal
when
he
went
before
Council
to
get
a
variance
for
the
sign,
so
he
was
involved
with
the
vendor.
He
worked
for
TPA
as
their
sign
consulting
doing
their
deals,
and
the
lobbyist
represented
the
sign
consultant
over
200
times
in
the
lobbyist,
registrar
in
in
the
registry
lobbying.
So
the
lobbyist
was
lobbying
for
the
sign
consultant
to
get
more
signed
deals
on
various
pieces
of
land,
so
that
was
a
concern.
D
So
when,
when
I
looked
at
the
deal,
what
I
found
was
there
wasn't
sufficient
sign
income?
You
take
the
net
present
value
of
the
income
for
the
sign
in
general.
That's
how
you
value
a
sign.
I
checked
with
my
real
estate.
Appraiser.
You
often
find
assets
on
land.
This
is
the
way
that
they
usually
value
it.
You
can
have
additional
information
added
to
that,
but
what
I
found
was
that
the
first
sign
they
said
the
sign
consultant
I
found
was
forthright
and
he
said
that
that
it
didn't
come
up.
It
didn't
decide
the
value.
D
The
income
from
the
sign
didn't
actually
support
the
four
million
dollars
the
gap.
So
what
they
talked
about
this,
the
VP
asked,
if
there's
a
way
that
they
can
maximize
the
revenue
on
the
land
and
the
way
they
thought
about
maximizing
the
revenue
was
to
think
about.
The
Ministry
of
Transportation
was
actually
having
a
consultation.
It
was
a
consultation
to
bring
digital
signs.
It
was
a
consultation
and
feedback
about
digital
signs
and
third
party
signs,
and
the
sign
consultant
thought
at
that
point
in
time
it
might
be
25%.
There's
a
meeting.
D
There
was
notes
from
the
meeting
25%
chance.
The
Ministry
of
Transportation
was
going
to
allow
a
sign
on
that
property.
Now
current
in
2009,
when
the
sign
consultant
tried
to
get
a
on
the
property
minister
transportation
said
no
any
sign
around
long.
Four
hundred
facing
four
hundred.
You
cannot
get
a
sign.
There
was
consultation,
they
were
taking
signs
down
twenty
thirteen.
D
You
know
I
could
see
that
in
in
my
research,
but
we
phoned
the
Ministry
of
Transportation
and
they
said
it
is
a
stretch
if
you
think
you're
going
to
have
a
digital
sign
along
along
for
one
hundred
I
spoke
to
the
sign
lobbyist.
Who
was
lobbying
for
the
signs
and
he
said
then
maybe
there's
a
possibility,
but
you
can't
rely
on
it.
D
So
what
TPA
did,
though,
was
say
there
was
a
25%
chance
based
on
what
they
said
came
from
the
sign
consultant
and
they
did
an
income
stream
and
they
valued
the
twenty
five
percent
chance
of
getting
the
sign.
A
second
proposed
sign
at
one
point,
eight
million
dollars
to
add
to
the
original
value
and
say
now:
it's
worth
four
million
and
that
value
was
going
to
be
paid
to
the
person
who
sat
on
the
land.
So
that
was
a
concern
for
us.
D
So
I
arrived
on,
the
I
was
informed
at
3:30
on
the
first
of
September,
so
immediately
by
noontime
on
the
on
the
2nd
of
September
I
met
with
TPA
and
asked
him
for
all
of
their
documents,
as
the
Auditor
General
I'm
entitled
to
all
the
documents
and
when
I
met
with
them
at
noon
time,
I
finished
around
12:30
at
1:30.
The
side
consultant
had
completed
his
final
version
of
the
dual
sign,
the
proposed
sign
and
the
old
sign
and
the
fake
sign.
D
In
the
end,
the
real
sign,
okay
and
and
within
24
hours
of
my
arrival,
they
changed
the
entire
approach
because
they
decided.
Maybe
we
can't
rely
on
a
sign.
That's
non-existent.
The
sign,
consultant
and
TPA
said
the
from
ministry
transportation
rumblings
were
that
it
went
down
that
that
wasn't
no
longer
feasible
but
think
about
it.
Since
January
of
2015,
when
the
offer
went
in
you
had
five
or
six
months
in
order
to
determine
the
value
of
a
sign,
that's
worth
one
third
of
the
property
and
it's
that
they
after
I
arrived
within
24
hours.
D
So
they
started
a
new
approach
and
on
September
forth
from
the
sign
consultant
in
his
new
approach,
he
wrote
and
said:
here's
my
note.
Here's
my
calculations,
it's
fairly
aggressive
and
that
the
Delta
between
the
appraised
value
and
the
purchase
price
is
about
three
and
a
half
million,
and
one
hundred
three
of
us
get
together.
So
he
can
discuss
it.
D
So
what
I
saw
happening
was
trying
to
fit
a
fit
that
gap
to
get
to
the
fair
market
value
because
it
was
to
get
to
the
purchase
price,
which
was
not
fair
market
value,
because
it
appeared
that
the
vendor
was
not
going
to
come
down.
What's
also
important
here
was
the
calculations
that
were
being
done
for
the
current
science
and
the
proposed
sign,
and
many
of
the
calculations
being
done
here
were
actually
being
done
by
the
VP
sent
over
to
the
sign
consultant.
D
Sign
consultant
put
his
letterhead
on
the
document,
sent
the
documents
back
so,
but
for
me
obtaining
emails
to
show
these
transactions,
you
would
not
know
with
you
received
the
sign
consultants
valuation
that
actually
it
was.
The
calculations
were
prepared
by
the
VP.
Admittedly,
the
actual
numbers
crunching
is
based
on
assumptions
that
were
brought
up
together,
but
even
the
involvement
at
that
point
of
the
VP
and
and
if
it
was
just
number
crunching.
Why
not
just
put
a
note?
D
These
calculations
are
prepared
by
the
VP,
but
that
didn't
happen
so
so
this
is
the
concern
we
had
once
not
two
signs.
It
was
changed
to
now,
one
sign.
They
used
a
multiples
approach
and
it's
an
approach
that
is
used,
but
I
didn't
have
faith
in
it.
The
market
didn't
bear
it
out.
The
forensic
auditor
didn't
have
a
faith
in
it
needed
the
business
valuator.
D
So
the
second
point
is
around
the
potential
conflicts
of
interest,
so
the
lobbyist
on
this
deal
has
been
working
on
this
deal
since
2008
all
the
invoices
reference,
the
flagpole
it's
well
over
a
million
dollars.
That's
been
spent
in
lobbying
fees
alone.
For
this
monument
there's
another
monument,
that's
another
half
a
million
dollars
has
been
spent.
Monument
is
not
existing
either,
so
these
fees
are
paid
by
the
Evy
BIA.
So
there
appears
to
be
from
the
get-go
the
obvious
involved,
with
the
negotiations.
Now.
D
What
was
of
concern
for
me
here
is
that,
from
the
very
beginning,
I
was
trying
to
obtain
information
about
how
they'd
come
up
with
a
purchase
price.
You
don't
pull
12
million
dollars
out
of
thin
air.
You
find
out,
you
do
calculations,
and
only
in
the
last
debriefs
and
I'll
go
through
what
happened,
but
in
last
debrief
meeting
I
found
out
that
the
lobbyist,
that
the
VP
actually
was
not
doing
the
calculations
to
come
up
with
a
twelve
million
dollar
price.
The
lobbyist
was
in
the
room
from
her
words.
D
He
was
in
the
room
and
she
received
a
call
from
the
lobbyist
on
what
the
price
would
be
for
the
land,
and
that
was
a
price
they
use.
So
part
of
the
reason
I
couldn't
obtain
information
was
she
said
she
wasn't
there
to
do
the
negotiation.
What
had
happened?
Well,
I'll
go
back.
I'll,
go
back
to
that.
A
little
later
on,
but
so
that
was
concerned,
so
the
lobbyist
was
involved.
D
It
didn't
the
flagpole
didn't
come
to
fruition,
but
it
was,
financing
was,
was
being
developed
in
that
I
have
invoices
referencing
for
in-camera
information,
I
have
invoices
referencing
the
lobbyists
as
monitoring
TPA
board
meetings
on
this
matter
on
this
matter,
I
was
debriefing,
September
15th
on
this
matter,
and
the
October
invoice
showed
two
times
that
the
lobbyist
was
monitoring.
The
TPA
meeting
and
I
had
discussed
that
with
a
lot
decided
concern
about
that.
D
So
there's
a
couple
of
other
information
that
has
led
me
to
believe
that
a
lot
of
the
information
or
some
of
the
information
key
information
about
a
deal
the
lobbyist
was
aware
of,
and
it
was
information
he
had
copies
of
the
agreements
of
purchase
and
sale.
So
in
the
very
beginning,
from
January
February
May
all
the
way
through.
D
As
the
deal
would
change,
the
lobbyist
had
copies
of
the
agreements
of
purchase
and
sale,
and
this
becomes
relevant
if
the
lobbyist
is
also
his
objectives,
is
to
err
to
get
a
site
and
get
financing
to
build
the
flagpole
and
bring
the
flagpole
to
the
to
get
a
bill
to
an
RFP
stage
to
get
it
built.
So
if
you're
aware
of
the
price
and
the
value
and
the
financing,
and
if
a
development
deal
is
in
or
out,
then
that
information
may
be,
it
just
might
give
more
information
to
one
person
who
can
benefit
from
it.
D
So
I
found
it
a
concern
that
he
had
was
copied
on
the
agreements
of
purchase
and
sale
also
that
he
had
access
to
potential
in
camera
information
he
was
providing
TPA
with
media
advice.
At
least
that
was
what
the
billing
was
for.
He
had
a
communication
plan
that
referenced,
who
from
the
board,
would
be
speaking
and
I,
found
the
connections
to
be
more
like
a
hairball,
and
then
on
top
of
that,
the
sign
consultant
who
we
hired
to
value
the
deal
was
represented
by
the
lobbyist
over
200
times.
The
lobbyist
stood
to
benefit.
D
If
this
deal
happened
because
from
the
perspective
that
the
land
is
purchased
tick,
that's
one
of
the
contract
items
the
years
financing
trying
to
get
under
way
for
the
flagpole
tick,
that's
the
other
one.
So
he
would
benefit
so
he
had
an
interest
in
this
deal
going
through
and
the
sign
consultant
was
his
client
and
worked.
He
worked
extensively
on
behalf
of
the
sign
consultant,
so
the
question
is:
do
I
think
at
this
point
in
time
that
the
sign
consultant
did
something
from
the
lobbyist
to
influence
this
deal.
D
I
could
not
see
that
I
found
it
was
being
pushed
mainly
from
TPA,
but
but
it
I
think
in
hindsight
fix
a
lot.
The
sign
consultants
said
in
hindsight:
I
can
see
how
things
the
optics
don't
look
good
and-
and
you
know,
I-
think
that
that's
something
was
important,
so
that
was
the
lobbyists.
My
concerns
there
for
the
potential
for
complex.
D
The
analysis
done
to
substantiate
why
we're
going
forward,
but
was
involved
with
asking
the
sign
consultant
to
maximize
the
value
on
that
sign,
even
if
you
have
to
go
to,
of
course,
to
science
to
preparing
the
calculations
to
send
to
the
sign
consultant
because
he's
a
consultant
he's
not
evaluator,
it's
not
his
role,
it's
not
what
he
does.
Generally,
he
he's
more
like
a
broker.
If
you
let
me
look
at
your
land,
let
me
look
and
see
if
what
we
can
get
here.
Let's
try
it
there's
a
potential,
there's
a
possibility,
there's
no
guarantee!
D
That's
not
what
we
value
our
deals
on,
so
she
was
involved
with
him
for
the
potential
section
sign
the
final
version
of
the
report.
She
asked
him
to
put
it
on
letterhead.
She
they
helped
with
change
in
the
methodology
and
I.
Think
of
a
lot
of
concern
was
she
asked
a
signed
consultant
in
his
second
report.
After
the
first
one
after
I
arrived,
the
first
one
went
by
the
wayside.
In
the
second
report,
she
asked
the
sign
consultant
to
backdate
his
report
to
September
1st
and
include
a
line.
D
I
have
completed
my
analysis
at
September
1st.
Now
it's
not
uncommon,
where
you
have
a
deal
where
you
say
it's
effective
on
a
certain
date.
That's
not
what
this
says.
This
says:
I
completed
my
analysis
as
at
September
1st.
The
analysis
for
the
methodology
that
was
used
was
not
started
until
September
3rd
after
I
arrived
not
before
I
arrived.
So
that
was
a
concern,
so
this
just
shows
that
the
consultant
had
not
commenced
the
work
until
the
September
3rd.
D
Another
example
was
originally
she
informed
the
real
estate
appraiser
he's
a
reputable
person
and
he
informed
him
that
she
wanted
to
have
the
signed
consultants
valuation
attached
to
the
back
of
his
report,
and
he
said
sure,
and
and
but
when
this,
when
the
evaluation
came
in,
he
said
I
do
not
wish
to
state
their
conclusions
in
the
appraisal
document.
Even
adding
them
would
give
the
illusion
that
the
land
was
worth
12
million
and
he
had
a
concern
about
putting
his
name
on
the
12
million.
D
So
he
kept
he
added
the
letterhead
of
the
sign
consultant,
but
the
VP
when
that
answer
came
back
and
after
going
back
and
forth
and
saying
I,
don't
even
want
to
add
them
together,
because
I
have
don't
want
to
give
the
illusion
that
it's
okay,
the
VP,
wrote
to
the
president
of
TPA
and
said
I.
Don't
want
to
go
final.
Yet
I'm
gonna
reach
out
to
my
another
VP
at
the
real-estate,
firm,
her
former
colleague,
and
see.
D
D
Normally
in
these
kinds
of
deals,
at
least
from
the
real
estate
consultant
that
we
had,
he
said
we
do
it
on
an
income
based
approach,
because
it's
so
variable
and
I
can
see
why
he
didn't
want
to
add
it,
and
he
was
concerned
with
this
multiples
approach
from
not
even
evaluator,
he's
more
of
a
sales
consultant,
so
difficulty
obtaining
information.
So
when,
on
my
first
interview,
I
was
told,
there's
no
documentation
that
it
was
done
on
the
back
of
an
envelope.
D
I
did
receive,
I
have
to
say,
received
a
file
of
some
historic
documents
that
came
from
the
Evy
BIA,
but
I
didn't
receive
anything
related
to
this
transaction,
even
draft
agreements
of
purchase
and
sale
valuations.
There
was
a
lot
of
valuations
done
with
the
sign
consultant.
There's
a
lot
of
emails
back
and
forth.
I
didn't
receive
anything,
and
she
just
said
she
doesn't
based
on
two
million
dollars.
D
An
acre
and
I
found
in
the
documents
later
sent
to
me
a
project
note
that
reference
to
appraisals,
so
I
thought
I
mean
there
must
be
appraisal
since
I'm,
not
getting
them
and
I
figured.
They
said
the
medium
of
the
two
appraisals
was
twelve
million
dollars,
so
I
thought
well,
the
vendor
wanted
17
million,
so
he
must
have
one
appraisal.
The
second
appraisal
has
to
be
around
seven
and
a
half
to
eight
million
has
to
be
in
that
range
in
order
to
come
to
12
million
as
the
average
price.
D
No,
nothing
coming,
don't
know
about
an
appraisal,
don't
know
what
you're
talking
about
and
then
what
happened
was
I
asked
for
any
information
and
appraisal
information
from
the
prior
firm.
Who
was
her
firm
because
I
figured
that
it
would
probably
be
from
the
firm
and
sure
enough.
There
was
a
draft
appraisal
that
was
done.
That
was
worth
seven
and
a
half
million
right
on
where
I
thought
it
should
and
the
lobbyists
had
noted
the
same
thing
the
lobbyist
said
there
were.
D
D
Ira
talked
with
the
lobbies
coming
up
the
price
I
requested
documents
several
times.
This
will
give
you
one
piece
of
an
email
confirm
that
you
have
provided
copies
of
the
entire
file
for
the
property.
Emails
notes,
other
documents,
electronic
records,
everything
you
have
related
to
the
property,
please
send
on
any
missing
documents.
This
was
after
asking
interviewing
and
following
up
with
an
email
interviewing
and
following
up
with
an
email
I'm
asking
for
everything,
we're
purchasing
the
documents
and
I
didn't
get
the
signed
valuation.
D
I
didn't
get
prior
draft
appraisals,
I
didn't
get
evaluation
letters,
this
was
and
so
and
I.
Also
there
was
documents
to
one
document
or
a
couple
delete
it
after
I
made
the
request,
and
the
document
that
was
deleted
was
a
document
where
the
calculations
were
prepared
for
the
sign
consultant
and
sent
on
to
the
sign
consultant.
So
it
was
concerning
so
opportunities
to
improve.
This
is
the
last
category,
so
the
board
it
was.
It
was
challenging
because,
when
you're
a
board
member,
it
is
critical
that
you
have
sufficient
information
to
make
a
decision.
D
We
are
a
business.
We
provide
services
to
the
public,
but
inside
we
are
professionally
run
organization.
We
should
be
akin
to
you
know,
a
board
that
you
would
sit
on.
You
know
a
corporate
board
of
some
sort,
and
and
so
it's
important
to
have
sufficient
and
timely
information,
and
if
you
are
uncomfortable
that
you
have
to
put
your
hand
up
having
the
same
amount
of
information
was
a
challenge.
Some
members
had
toured
the
property.
Some
members
didn't.
Some
members
had
knew
about
the
involvement
of
the
lobbyists.
D
Some
members
didn't
it
was
a
mishmash
of
information
and
the
information
wasn't
timely,
there's
a
lack
of
understanding
of
procedural
matters.
So,
on
top
of
the
substantive
issues,
there
was
argument
back
and
forth
about
what
was
needed,
how
to
get
the
information,
and
there
was
not
one
or
another
who
was
at
fault,
there's
a
lot
of
different
people
who
had
made
mistakes
and
I
thought
the
board
had
challenges,
and
therein
there
was
some
of
the
board
meetings
I
attended.
There
was
some
intense
discussion,
I
can
say,
and
one
of
the
things
was
concerning
for
me.
D
The
board
chair
had
said
the
when,
when
you
look
back
at
all
of
this
and
the
reason
the
counselor
came
to
me,
he
may
have
been
right
or
he
may
have
been
wrong.
He
had
I
mean
at
that
point
in
time.
He
said
I,
don't
know
if
there's
any
any
fire,
I
don't
even
know,
there's
smoke,
I
just
don't
feel
comfortable
and
I
just
want
somebody,
because
now
that
we're
proceeding
with
it,
somebody
has
just
to
make
sure
that
the
information
is
there
and
with
that
he
would
I
guess
what
I
found
was
like.
D
This
would
be
an
example
of
it.
Any
email,
there's
others.
You
know
saying
that
coming
to
the
AG
is
nothing
more
than
a
desperate
attempt
to
create
another
false
problem
with
this
process
and
to
stifle
the
progress
towards
finalizing
the
deal.
The
focus
was
on
the
deal
to
get
it
done,
in
my
view,
at
cost
that
you
know,
in
my
view,
could
have
cost
the
city
an
issue.
So
the
I
think
the
transact
by
coming
to
me
I
think
that
the
process
worked.
We
have
to
look
at
transparency.
D
D
C
Thank
You
speaker
I,
just
wanted
to
ask
so
who?
Who
were
the
parties?
Could
you
summarize
quickly
who
the
parties
were
that
the
lobbyist
was
acting
for?
Maybe
I
can
just
list
who
I
think
it
is
okay,
Murray,
village
BIA
the
sign
company?
Yes,
the
TPA.
They
were
giving
advice
to
or
seemed
to
be
acting
the.
D
D
D
D
C
F
G
C
C
Was
attempting
to
get
a
deal
at
all
costs,
it
seemed
they
were
attempting
to
put
together
or
create
a
revenue
stream
from
two
signs
that
were
not
feasible
in
order
to
come
up
with
the
amount
of
money
that
this
particular
vendor
was
seeking.
Would
you
agree
that
that's
generally,
what's
that
was
at
play
here?
I.
D
C
Other
thing
that's
in
common
is
that
the
counselor
who
sits
on
the
TPA
is
also
a
counselor
on
the
emory
village
board
and
who
has,
for
many
years,
wanted
to
achieve
this
feature
or
this
flag
at
this
location.
Do
you
think
that
there
was
a
bit
of
conflict
of
interest
there
in
terms
of
acting
both
as
a
representative
of
the
BIA
and
of
the
TPA
board,
I.
D
Believe
that
it's
within
the
purview
of
the
the
integrity,
commissioners
who
look
at
counselors
and
also
board
members,
but
what
I
will
say
is,
in
general
on
a
board
disclosure
of
information
that
you
have
disclosure
of
potential
for
conflict.
Disclosure
of
this
information
is
critical
to
the
successful
functioning
of
the
board,
so.
D
D
That
was
your
last
question.
Sure
there
was
three
of
them
speaker
there's
two
areas.
The
first
area
is
receiving
the
transaction
documents,
which
are
the
agreement
of
purchase
and
sale.
That's
the
first
thing,
and,
and
so
he
received
those
from
TPA
and
I
believe
he
was
helping
with
some
of
the
negotiation
there.
Mr.
D
mica,
my
belief
in
relation
to
the
in-camera
meeting
I'm
going
by
the
Billings
and
the
report
from
the
lobbyist
register,
he
billed
for
monitoring
TPA
meetings
from
time
to
time,
including
the
meeting
that
I
was
at
to
give
my
verbal
report
to
in
September.
The
other
thing
was
in
relation
to
reporting
out
to
the
TPA.
It
was
that
he
was
explaining
that
the
board
authorized
certain
things
to
happen.
That
information
is
within
my
report.
I
can
refer
you
to
the
pages.
Thank
you.
F
You,
madam
Speaker,
when
I
hear
about
transactions
real
estate
transactions
from
the
Toronto
parking
authority,
I
figure
they're
there
buying
land
for
parking
yet
now
I'm
hearing
all
these
stories
about
signs
and
and
flagpoles
what
was
the
the
core
reason
for
eyeing
this
property?
What
was
the
long-term
corporate
objective
for
even
taking
a
look
at
this?
Thank.
D
You
three
men,
three
men,
speaker
from
what
I've
been
able
to
determine
the
Evy
BIA,
has
had
the
objective
of
developing
a
gateway
to
to
the
emory
village.
It
wasn't
feasible
in
2010,
with
the
LRT
going
in
the
land
became
a
little
bit
more
attractive
and
it
became
part
of
the
public
realm
strategy
and
as
part
of
the
public
realm
strategy,
it
was
meant
to
at
least
from
the
from
the
councils.
Note
you
know
for
biking
and
first
it
was
meant
to
have
bike
paths
and
and
a
gateway.
D
D
F
F
D
F
D
F
F
D
Through
you,
madam
speaker,
yes,
you
you
could,
but
the
issue
is
that
it's
not
uncommon
when,
when
the
city
goes
to
purchase
land
that
there's
assets
on
the
land
and
that
asset
does
have
a
contributory
value,
so
I've
worked
with
legal
I've
checked
with
the
real
estate
consultant.
It's
not
uncommon
to
have
that
situation,
but
you
have
to
decide
what
you're
willing
to
pay
for
that
and
and
that's
why.
F
D
B
B
A
D
B
D
You,
madam
Speaker,
there
was,
and
the
reason
was
that
he
had
been
the
TPAs
sign
sign.
Guy
is
a
sign
person
sign
consultant
to
collect
revenues
on
for
TPA
science
at
EPA
hat,
and
so
he
was
asked
now.
I
was
informed
later
on
after
I
had
determined,
through
my
various
analysis
and
through
my
forensic
auditor
and
through
my
independent
consultant
that
they
were
always
going
to
get
an
independent
valuation,
but
that
explanation
did
not
hold
water
for
me
at
all.
So.
B
D
B
From
your
report,
it
looks
like
the
the
TPA
was
looking
for
ways
to
justify
the
additional
purchase
price
of
this
property.
That's
what
I
inferred,
but
when,
when
people
are
purchasing
property
well,
did
you
not
find
that
a
bit
odd?
Because
in
my
experience
when
you
purchase
something
you're,
always
looking
for
ways
in
the
negotiation
to
downplay
the
value,
as
opposed
to
justify
for
the
seller,.
D
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
it
appeared
that
the
vendors
bottom
line
was
12
million,
at
least
that's
what
TPA
had
informed
me
of
several
times
and
of
the
inform
the
board,
and
so
he
the
vendor,
wasn't
coming
down,
and
so
with
the
land
valued
at
what
it
was.
The
issue
was
that
it
didn't
quite
meet
it
and
I
actually
asked
the
sign
consultant.
We
were
going
to
pay
an
extra
four
million
dollars.
If
it's
wrong,
would
you
cut
a
check
for
four
million
dollars?
D
She
said
he
would
not
be
cutting
a
check
for
four
million
dollars,
because
it's
a
possibility.
He
he
was
have
to
be
honest.
He
was
asked
to
maximize
the
sign
he
was.
It
was
his
he
was
doing
as
he
was
asked
by
his
client.
He
wasn't
paid
to
do
this.
That's
another
thing.
There
was
no
engagement
letter.
There
was
no
professionalism
around
it.
He
was
asked.
What
is
the
maximum
value?
You
could
possibly
get.
That's
not
how
you
value
a
property.
You
get
an
independent
valuation
based
on
evidence.
Okay,.
B
B
B
E
F
You,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
the
Auditor
General,
just
first,
some
clarity
on
your
presentation.
There
was
two
dates:
September
the
15th
2016
was
a
board
meeting
and
then
October.
The
18
2016
was
where
the
property
was
set
to
go.
Firm
was
September
the
15th,
the
last
board
meeting
where
a
decision
had
to
be
made,
or
was
there
going
to
be
another
opportunity
to
make
a
decision
to
go
firm
through.
D
F
D
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
that
would
be
the
vendors
appraisal.
I
had
heard
that
the
properties
were
not
true,
comparables
that
they
were,
and
so
that's
where
the
issue
relied
and
so
the
firm
that
prepared,
CPAs
first
draft
appraisal
came
in
at
7.5
and
that's
where
mine
came
in
and
that's
where
the
second
appraisal
came
in
from
a
different
firm
for
TPA.
So.
F
D
F
B
D
So
if
you
referred
through
you
speaker,
if
you
refer
to
a
paragraph,
a
1,
1
1
on
page
72
of
the
chronology,
that
was
an
area
where
it
was.
There
was
trouble
explaining
2
times,
monitoring
the
board
meeting
on
that
one
invoice,
and
so
he
couldn't
I
said
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
and
then
he
said,
I
want
to
be
clear.
I
have
not
read
any
reports
that
are
confidential,
I
know
ma'am
elite.
He
was
very
upset.
The
reports
were
actual
verbal
reports.
There
was
no
report
to
read
so
he
finally
came
down
to.
D
E
B
G
A
G
With
respect
to
the
history
of
this
particular
project,
that's
been
mentioned
this
initiated
about
20
years
ago.
Did
it
not
at
the
corner
of
Weston,
Road
and
and
Finch,
the
initial
site
for
the
square
was
to
be
where
the
gas
station
is,
and
that
came
with
the
with
the
Official
Plan
amendments
that
City
made
at
that
time.
G
G
G
All
all
that
time
it
was
a
it
was
a
BIA
initiative.
Was
it
not
that
they
would,
they
would
take
some
capital
money
and
invest
it
in
the
square.
That's
been
an
ongoing
project
for
quite
some
time.
That's
correct,
and
at
this
point
it
would
be
about
16
or
17
years
ago
when,
when
that,
when
that
site
was
then
determined
by
staff,
that
in
fact
you
can't
really
have
it
for
the
square
anymore,
we
might
need
it.
Yeah.
G
The
BIA
was
was
forced
to
find
another
location
at
that
particular
time
because
the
city
backed
out
at
that
point,
there
was
a
if
I
recall.
There
was
a
committee
of
adjustment
hearing
that
dealt
with
with
an
application
for
a
hotel,
I
believe
on
the
site
in
question
today,
which
is
the
arrow
road
and
Finch
site.
There
was
a
committee
of
adjustment,
application
that
included
a
sign
and
and
a
square
built
out
by
the
particular
developer
and
owner
I'm.
F
G
Williams
just-just-just
for
for,
for
the
sake
of
clarity,
staff
have
met
with
with
each
mayor
and
strategized
around
each
of
these
proposals
in
the
past
that
they
not.
In
other
words
it
was.
It
was
a
council
resolution
every
time
to
to
take
to
take
the
square
on
and
to
make
it
a
joint
venture
with
the
BIA
I
can.
G
G
G
That
met
that
the
BIA
code
and
that
met
the
goals
of
the
BIA
itself
and
the
goals
of
the
city,
so
we
we
did
explore
options
at
that
time.
Yes,
so
not
only
to
explore
options
but
yeah
the
city.
Actually,
after
the
council
resolution
prior
to
2010
with
mayor
Miller
there
at
the
time
negotiated
tried
to
negotiate
with
the
vendor
and
and
and
I
guess.
Real
estate
was
doing
those
negotiations
on
behalf
of
the
city.
Were
they
not?
They
were
involved,
yes
and
what
was
the
value
of
the
land?
At
that
time?
G
Do
you
recall
city
had
an
opportunity
to
buy
it?
Do
you
recall
what
the
value
was?
If
it
goes,
5
million
I
was
gonna,
say
4
to
5,
but
so
that
would
be
in
the
ballpark.
We
never
established
an
exact
value
of
Hort
and
then
the
LRT
was
born
and
the
dialogue
along
Finch
Avenue
was
born,
and
with
that
dialogue
came
more
negotiations
and
another
report
that
came
to
council
that
said,
buy
the
land.
G
To
the
LRT,
such
as
the
bicycle
paths
and
and
and
the
Metro
links
was
at
the
time
getting
at,
they
might
contribute
to
the
Legacy
Project,
which
is
the
square
and
the
flight
now
leading.
Is
it
accurate
that
that
that
that
that
report
very
quickly
summed
up
what
was
going
on
on
that
site
and
even
a
staging
site,
perhaps
for
the
for
the
LRT
project?
Thank
You
economic
development
was
not
involved
in
that
project,
but
that's
my
understand.
A
G
Ma'am
leading
madam
chair
I
finished
the
question.
I
think
this
particular
question
is
vital
to
this
this
particular
item,
given
that
it
was
council
that
asked
the
TPA
to
buy
the
land
through
a
city
staff
report
that
dealt
with
the
capital,
investments
that
the
Metro
links
and
and
councillor
memories.
A
E
E
G
D
Important,
thank
you
through
you,
madam
Speaker.
The
boards
are
now
hiring
people
who
have
a
designation.
We
are
a
professional
organization.
I
know
many
of
the
councillors
or
some
of
the
councillors
have
taken
this
and
when
you
go
through
it,
you
realize
what
happened
in
this
case,
in
my
view,
possibly
could
have
been
somewhat.
D
We
may
have
had
a
different
outcome
if
the
skill
set
that
is
brought
through
a
professional
designation
came
to
bear
so
as
the
city
moves
forward
and
is
modernizing,
and
it's
becoming
more
of
a
business
organization
internally,
I
think
having
the
best
professionals
with
that
knowledge
is
important.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
Speaker,
to
the
Auditor
General
and
thank
you
for
an
excellent
report.
I
wanted
to
understand
the
additional
issue
around
the
management
of
the
TPA.
You've
mentioned
the
vice-president,
specifically
in
her
role
in
her
capacity
who
else
from
the
TPA
were
involved.
The
TPA
has
obviously
a
CEO
a
president's
on
what
was
that
individual's
role
in
this
particular
process?
Did
he
have
a
role
and
what
role
was
did
he
play
in
this?
The
outcome
I.
D
Would
through
you
madam
Speaker
I,
would
say
we
would
be
both
individuals.
I
would
say
that
the
VP
was
a
little
more
involved
with
assigned
consultant
directly,
but
both
are
copied
on
all
the
emails
and
the
president
was
more
reaching
out
to
the
lobbyists
and
and
involved
with
negotiations
and
meeting
with
the
lobbyists
to
try
to
further
and
acquire
the
land.
So.
D
Thank
you
three.
Madam
Speaker,
there
was
obviously
a
keen
focus
on
simply
acquiring
the
land.
I
couldn't
see
that
there
were
other
benefits
beyond
that.
It
was
simply
to
acquire
the
land
and
they
were
well
underway
with
their
trying
to
get
some
due
diligence
done
to
get
the
flagpole
built,
and
the
focus
was
for
Canada
150
to
try
to
get
the
flagpole
underway
as
as
a
feature.
But
there
was
a
definitely
a
keen
focus
to
get
the
property
and.
C
D
C
And
so
can
you
help
me
to
understand
a
little
bit
about
the
ownership,
so
the
ownership
of
the
land,
if
it
was
acquired,
would
have
been
to
teep
the
TPA?
Is
that
correct
and
then
the
flagpole
would
that
have
been
leased
to
the
Emery,
the
the
land
portion
for
the
flagpole
would
that
have
been
leased
to
the
emery
emery
village
or
how
would
that
particular
transactional
sort
of
relationship
work.
D
A
H
H
Metrolink
so
that
of
the
Finch
Sheppard
Eglinton
the
three
projects,
and
that
the
I
also
want
to
clarify
around
the
flagpole,
because
I've
heard
two
different
things:
one
that
the
flagpole
was
always
expected,
that
the
emery
village
BIA
would
pay
for
the
flagpole
it's
their
project.
Is
that
right
or
wrong?
Mr.
Billings
I.
H
D
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
what
I
know
is
that
the
TPA
was
thought
to
be
paying
for
it.
The
lobbyist
reported
out
that
the
TPA
would
pay
for
it
and
that
the
Emory
village
BIA
would
repay
it
through
private
financing
or
private
fundraising,
section,
37
and
42
funds
from
developments
within
the
evv,
BIA
and
government
and
services
in-kind.
That's
what
was
reported
by
the
lobbyist
at
their
June
2016
meeting,
but.
H
For
that,
so
just
in
terms
of
that's
over
now,
but
the
land
value
at
12
million
and
then
the
flagpole
at
five
were
now
at
17
I.
Was
there
any
other
project
of
any
kind
along
the
public
realm
projects
along
any
of
the
corridors?
That
would
be
this
size
and
with
that
type
of
investment,
twelve
to
seventeen
million
dollars?
Madam.
B
H
H
D
Yes
through
you,
madam
Speaker,
we
had
billing
from
the
lobbyists
to
the
Evy
BIA
to
prep
TPA
for
media
questions
and
I
asked
the
lobbyist.
Why
are
you
billing
Evy
BIA
for
prepping
TPA
and
he
said
I
had
the
president
and
the
VP
asking
me:
how
would
you
position
this
before
the
board
so
I?
Let
them
know
how
I
would
position
it
and
I
built
for
it
now.
I
I
think
that
okay.
D
Through
you,
a
madam
Speaker,
no,
this
would
have
been
the
historical
billing
that
occurred.
The
April
1st,
2016
invoice
and
I
didn't
come
on
the
scene
until
September
I
see
so
this
was
the
ongoing
he
was
billing
for
the
in
some
of
the
interactions
with
the
vendor,
with
TPA
with
prepping
TPA.
For
me
is.
D
F
H
F
You
speaker
through
to
the
auditor
committee
recommendation
number
five
suggests
that
council
appoint
this.
The
city
clerk
as
the
secretary
for
the
TPA
board
I
wondered
so
this
report
dealt
with
a
transaction
is
generally
based
on
things
happening
at
the
staff
level.
But
could
you,
auditor
relate
sorry,
elaborate,
a
little
bit
more
on
how
the
activity
around
the
board
relates
to
this
process
and
perhaps
what
concerns
you
saw
with
how
the
board
is
functioning?
That
would
lead
to
a
recommendation
that
the
city
clerk
now
become
involved
with
the
function
of
this
board.
D
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker,
a
note
actually
to
the
City
Clerk's
office.
They
do
support
many
boards
with
my
auto
committee.
They
have
provided
exceptional
advice
and
I
would
say,
try
to
keep
the
committee's
on
the
side
of
the
Angels
as
the
public
expects
a
transparency
and
also
to
make
sure
things
are
functioning
well.
The
city
clerk
is
well
steeped
and
well
versed
in
procedural
matters
and
in
making
sure
that
the
public's
best
interests
are
at
heart
around
transparency
around
the
meetings.
D
What
I
noticed
in
the
meeting
was
in
the
meetings
that
I
attended,
although
I
didn't,
do
a
full
review
of
the
board
in
the
music
meetings
that
I
attended.
There
was
ongoing
disagreements
around
procedural
matters.
For
example,
a
simple
thing
like
reviewing
the
purr
appraisals
that
came
in
a
separate
meeting
was
scheduled
outside
the
regular
meeting.
D
It
wasn't
on
an
agenda
item,
and
so
what
happened
was
I
advised
the
president
that
that
would
have
been
a
meeting
that
would
not
be
allowed
under
the
rules
and
the
legislation,
and
that
would
have
been
something
that
the
City
Clerk's
office
would
have
been
helpful
with
so
I
think
for
the
committee
to
focus
on
the
substantive
matters.
They
need
to
have
a
strong
support
around
procedural
matters.
D
F
The
report
goes
on
to
talk
about
the
board
and
it
talks
about
a
situation
where
a
member
dissented
and
I
guess
that's
counselor
feely
on.
If
I've
read
this
correctly,
could
you
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
what
happened
when
councilor
Phelan
dissented
with
the
the
idea
of
purchasing
this
land
that
the
price
that
was
looked
at
at
that
point
in
time,
I
think
the
12
million
dollars.
F
The
board
did
the
board
bylaws
support
councilor
aphelion
dissenting
from
this
was
councilman
Philly
on
met
with
resistance
by
the
board
or
members
of
the
board.
I
think
the
report
speaks
a
little
bit
about
it
essentially
I'll
go
further
to
say
that
perhaps
he
was
acting
in
a
capacity
of
whistle,
blower
or
or
maybe
did
did
the
councillor
as
a
board
member
have
a
fiduciary
duty
to
challenge
things
when
he
wasn't
happy
with
what
he
saw
or
had
concerns
or
questions
or
was
missing
information.
So.
D
It's
some
I
believe
he,
the
challenge
through
you
amount
of
speaker.
The
challenge
is
you?
Have
your
have
competing
issues
here?
You
have
a
when
you're
on
a
board.
Your
first
loyalty
is
to
that
board
and
also
you
are
acting
as
a
counselor
in
another
capacity,
so
it
became
challenging
and
I
have
recommended,
having
training
really
to
support
the
council
and
and
the
boards
in
relation
to
those.
D
When
you
have
a
conflict
in
relation
to
that
when
he
dissented
that
because
of
procedural
matters
because
he
was
trying
to
get
information,
it
seemed
like
the
the
board
was
in
one
in
one
space
and
he
was
in
another
space
and
I
felt
that
this
deal
would
have
gone
through.
Had
he
not
come
to
me,
he
was
protecting
the
public's
interest,
which
I
think
is
a
greater
interest
and,
and
he
did
the
right
thing,
your.
F
Report
talks
about
arguably
councilor
Phelan
could
have
come
to
you
after
the
transaction
was
approved
on
September
15th
at
the
price
of
twelve
million
dollars.
In
theory,
should
the
board
have
met
and
done
that?
What
would
have
happened?
What
would
be
the
position
of
TPA
or
the
city?
Would
we
then
own
a
property?
Would
it
have
been
too
late?
Thank.
D
You,
madam
chair,
it
is
not
common
that
were
called
in
in
the
middle
of
a
transaction,
and
we
have
to
be
very
careful
when
we
do
that
he,
what
would
have
happened
would
be.
We
would
be
looking
at
a
deal
that
would
have
been
processed.
In
my
view,
we
would
have
paid
beyond
2.5
million
more
but
I
think
the
questions
that
have
been
risen
in
this
file
are
beyond
the
price.
There's
some
questions
around
independence
and
that
kind
of
thing.
So,
instead
of
looking
backward,
we
were
trying
to
just
assess
the
situation.
D
F
D
You,
madam
Speaker,
the
complaint,
a
complaint
came
to
me
through
counsel,
aphelion
and
then
I
conducted
an
investigation,
I
had
two-part
report.
The
first
report
came
to
council
through
the
audit
committee,
October
28th
of
2016,
and
this
is
the
second
report
that
came
to
the
board
and
then
to
audit
committee.
Just
earlier
last
week.
That's
how
it
came
to
be
Thank.
C
E
D
F
D
F
D
A
A
E
F
You
speaker,
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
I
had
haven't
been
asked
and
answered,
but
I
want
to
preface
my
questions
for
thanking
the
auditor-general
for
all
the
yeah,
the
work
that
was
done
on
this
file,
but
the
remaining
questions
that
I
have
are
these.
Now
there
are
two
issues
in
two
categories
of
exploration:
one
is
the
value
of
the
of
the
evaluation
of
the
property,
and
the
other
is
that
furball
of
relationships
that
you
described.
F
F
That's
a
laymen
response,
I
apologize,
but
if
I
think
that
will
be
explored
in
camera,
but
to
look
at
the
the
issue
of
fair
market
value
spent
some
time
in
real
estate.
That
was
long
enough
ago
that
it
resides
in
the
in
a
cloudy
area
of
my
memory.
But
I
remember
that
vet
there
were
a
number
of
ways
of
determining
value.
Now
fair
market
value
is
one
of
them.
Appraised
value
is
another,
and
it
would
appear
that
that
you're
merging
those
two
that
the
appraised
value
would
be
below
what
was
paid
for
that
land.
D
D
Not
quite
let
me
let
me
explain
through
you,
madam
speaker,
we
have
two
values
here
we
have
the
negotiated
price
and
then
they
were
asked
to
get
for
a
market
value.
So
three
Real
Estate
Appraisers,
independently
valued
a
fair
market
value
under
the
appraisal,
standards
for
the
land
to
be
between
seven
point:
five
and
eight
million
dollars
over
one
year.
D
So
there
is
a
it
can
fluctuate,
but
over
one
year
the
value
of
the
land
itself
was
worth
between
seven
point:
five
and
eight
million
dollars
based
on
three
real
estate
appraisals
conducted
and
the
the
scope
was
to
determine
the
fair
market
value
and
the
fair
market
value
was
that
the
negotiated
price
was
what
the
vendor
wanted
and
then
whether
TPA
was
willing
to
pay
for
that
negotiated
price.
But.
F
I've
been
involved
in
in
transactions
or
and
and
or
have
seen,
transactions
where
the
vendor
has
simply
said.
This
is
what
I
want,
take
it
or
leave
it,
and
if
you
exclude
all
the
goofiness
that
you've
outlined
today
with
respect
to
the
explanations
that
you
were
given
by
staff,
if
it
had
simply
come
down
to
this,
is
the
price
I
want,
take
it
or
leave
it?
D
Im3
mass
speaker
I,
it
was
not
the
it
was
the
direction
City
Council
to
get
at
fair
market
value.
The
professionals
said
that
was
not
fair
market
value
and
they
had
two
options
that
could
expropriate
or
they
could
have
come
back
and
said
to
Council.
We
have
support
from
Real
Estate
Appraisers
independent
to
be
this
amount.
Would
you
be
willing
to
pay
more
and
then
at
that
point
in
time,
if
somebody
paid
that
would
be
so.
F
D
D
D
F
D
Through
you,
madam
Speaker
I,
have,
as
you
saw
from
my
last
slide,
I,
have
concerned
that
the
questions
that
were
being
raised
were
deemed
to
be
obstructionist
in
the
process.
I
don't
have
this
you'll,
have
it
on
the
last
slide,
but
from
from
the
chair,
I
did
have
a
concern
with
that,
and
I
did
raise
that
in
my
report.
Some.
F
F
F
Hasani,
either
mascara
at
the
moment
or
their
deputy
city
manager
and
the
and
the
question
is
in
terms
of
there
was
a
report
that
was
public
in
nature
and
making
those
recommendations
and
I
would
like
to
mr.
Quezada.
So
the
question
is
a
follow-up
to
consumer
Maria's
question
in
terms
of
all
the
recommendations
made
by
Metrolinx
and
the
TPA
in
terms
of
creating
additional
and
enhancements
to
the
public
plan
and
who
wrote
the
report
do
have
that
information.
F
E
F
B
Madam
Speaker,
the
report
recommended
that
we
advise
Metrolinx
of
certain
mandatory
public
realm
initiatives
and
some
discretionary
public
realm
initiatives
that
they
could
be
crafting
in
their
RFP
to
secure
bid
bid
responses
in
the
bidders
in
terms
of
things
that
they
could
do
achieve.
Both
mandatory
and
discretionary
items
was.
B
A
speaker
in
the
preparation
of
the
report,
the
BIA
transportation
division
and
others
were
involved
and
asked
for
a
list
of
both
mandatory
and
discretionary
items
that
could
be
included
in
the
RFP
for
Metrolinx.
And
yes,
the
memory
village
BIA
did
submit
a
number
of
things,
including
gateways
a
bypass,
and
this
proprietary
is.
B
B
D
Told
that
there
was
there
was
just
there
was
a
small
file
from
the
Evy
BIA,
but
in
relation
to
what
TPA
had
done,
there
was
no
information.
I
asked
for
the
calculations
and
I
was
informed
by
the
VP
that
it
was
on
the
back
of
an
envelope.
I
asked
for
the
envelope
and
they
said,
didn't
have
the
envelope
anymore.
D
B
D
D
That
would
have
been
the
email
where
the
calculations
were
performed
for
the
second
potential
sign
by
the
VP
and
provided
over
the
attached.
Spreadsheet
was
provided
over
to
the
sign
consultant
and
the
reason
for
that
value
of
the
importance
of
it
is
that
you
can
go
in
to
see
who's
preparing
these
documents
from
the
electronic
version,
and
so
even
though
so
we
didn't,
we
never
did
receive
that.
So.
D
B
D
I
would
say
in
is
looking
at
the
totality
of
the
situation,
so
the
answer
is
yes,
but
when
I
first
started,
it's
not
usually
doesn't
happen
to
this
degree,
but
people
can
be
nervous
when
an
auditor
shows
up
and
and
so
I
try
to
give
people
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
all
the
way
through
the
process
if
they
were
nervous.
So
then,
when
we
went
back
the
second
time
once
the
board
directed
it,
the
email
that
was
deleted
was
not
a
part
of
that
discussion.
D
So
all
the
way
through
and
when
I
got
to
the
very
end
where
I
I
was
then
in
foreign,
at
the
very
end
that
the
BP
wasn't
in
the
room,
it
was
a
lobbyist
who
gave
who
called
it
was
a
lobbyist.
Who
was
in
the
room
that
should
have
been
in
the
first
meeting
and
we
had
asked
extensively
so
over
the
totality.
It
does
raise
a
concern
for
me.
Yes,
you.
B
D
B
D
B
D
F
D
D
The
I'll
just
go
through
the
chronology.
The
first
appraisal
draft
appraisal
was
done
by
TPA
in
September,
September
2015
and
it
was
or
the
end
of
August
2015,
and
it
was
seven
point.
Seven
five,
the
price
of
twelve
million
was
negotiated,
plus
a
development
agreement
in
the
negotiation,
the
development
of
the
flagpole,
that
was
in
January
in
May,
the
development
agreement
came
out
of
the
deal
and
they
added
another
hundred
thousand
and
in
August
another
around
another.
D
D
Yeah
yeah
the
information
provided
to
me
by
the
vp.
She
said
that
she
had
seen
evaluation
by
consultant
for
seventeen
million
that
the
landlord
had.
But
the
issue
was
that
the
comparables
were
not
apples
to
apples,
apparently,
and
so
the
her
valuation
was
seven
point.
Seven,
five,
five
million
and
and
ours
was
close
to
that-
so
have.
D
F
D
D
G
D
D
F
D
You
figure
that
would
have
been
something
that
probably
could
have
been
more.
It
made
more
clear
to
the
board,
but
it's
not
uncommon
when
you
purchase
property
that
there
are,
can
they
call
them
contributory
assets
on
the
property
that
have
a
value?
So
that's
a
question
for
TPA.
So
but
it's
not
a
company.
D
A
F
F
D
F
What
does
that
mean?
Because,
if
you
just
I'm
a
little
confused
to
by
the
ownership,
because
cap
qey
holdings
owns
the
land,
DeLuca
owns
the
sign?
If,
if
they
were
to
purchase,
if
were
they
purchasing
the
lease,
they
were
to
purchase
the
lease?
Yes
for
ten
years,
what
would
prohibited?
What?
What
is
there
to
prohibit
that
lease
or
that
sign
going
beyond
ten
years
through.
D
Human
speaker,
your
question
is
correct:
the
evaluator
we
factored
in
those
opportunities,
we
actually
called
a
market
player
and-
and
he
confirmed
even
if
you
went
out
for
a
30-year
lease.
The
deal
is
only
worth
four-
the
sign
about
two
million
max,
but
you
have
to
discount
that
you
to
get
potential
for
a
permit.
D
F
D
E
E
D
F
F
D
So
he
so
TV
he
was
a
TPA
was
his
client.
The
e
V
BIA
at
one
point
was
his
client.
The
lobbyist
also
worked
for
work
for
the
sign
consultants,
and
so
we
normally
you
look
at
the
income
stream,
but
he
was
being
asked
to
maximize
any
potential
value
on
that
property
and
his
view
was.
There
was
a
possibility
at
one
point,
to
get
more
money
for
a,
but.
F
D
Based
on
his
calculations,
he
was
providing
the
valuation
that
was
included
on
the
let
the
real
estate
appraisal,
the
land
appraisal.
His
valuation
was
attached
to
the
back.
A
cover
letter
was
put
on
the
top
to
say:
8
million,
plus
4
million
equals
12
million,
and
the
cover
letter
was
done
by
the
VP,
so
his
valuation
was
critical
to
1/3
of
the
value
of
the
property.
It
was
that
was
it
it's
only
when
I
come
in
and
demonstrated
that
there's
no
more
than
2
million
year
of
1.55
to
to
that
that
they
said.
F
D
B
A
G
F
F
E
F
E
F
D
Through
you,
madam
Speaker,
a
the
sign
was
back
in
2009,
the
Evy
BIA
needed
an
income
stream
in
order
to
build
the
flagpole.
So
there
were
the
lobbyist
apparently
brought
together.
The
sign
consultant,
the
the
the
vendor
to
put
a
sign
on
the
property
and
his
the
sign,
and
it
was
the
sign.
Revenue
was
going
to
transfer
to
the
evv
IA
back
in
the
early
days
when
they're
trying
to
lease
the
land
they're
trying
to
buy
the
land.
That
was
going
to
be
the
revenue
with
which
they
were
going
to
build
a
flagpole.
D
It
was
on
the
on
the
vendors
land,
but
the
Evy
BIA
was
evident
that
the
Evy
BIA
wanted
to
buy
that
land
or
lease
that
land,
and
that
was
going
to
be
the
revenue
to
help
to
build
the
flagpole.
So
the
sign
was
really
between
the
sign
consultant,
the
vendor
and
the
lobbyist.
That's
how
it
came
to
be
early
early
on
from
the
information
that
I
could
see
get
approved
in
June
2009.
D
F
B
Madam
Speaker,
the
as
we
do
on
any
report
we
check
with
the
relevant
divisions
and
agencies,
in
this
case
the
TPA.
We
were
aware
that
they
were
looking
at
this
property.
We
knew
there
was
complimentary
things
that
they
would
be
doing.
Ultimately
if
they
were
to
acquire
this
property
in
terms
of
public
realm
and
other
improvements
that
would
be
related
to
the
streetscaping
and
bike
and
pedestrian
and
public
realm
initiatives.
So,
yes,
and
would.
F
A
F
D
D
True
through
you,
madam
Speaker,
just
so
that
you
know
when
you
authorized
it,
there
had
been
a
draft
agreement
of
purchase
and
sale
in
place
for
three
months
with
the
with
the
twelve
million
dollar
price
and
the
development
agreement
and
draft
by
March.
So
it
was
already
in
place
the
the
actual
negotiation.
The
decision
on
the
price
was
already
in
place,
but
I.
But
if
you're
asking
was
it
on
the
open
market,
the
time
and
and.
D
To
you
math
speaker,
the
agreement
was
negotiated
in
January
at
12
million
dollars
that
was
already
set
so
to
say
to
go
at
a
fair
market
value.
I
would
presume
that
EPA
would
be
getting
at
a
fair
market
value
anyway.
That's
what
they
would
have
been
trying
to
do
anyway,
or
they
would
have
a
business
case
to
have
supported
the
12
million
dollar
acquisition.
So
it
may
not
have
been
possible
for
them
to
get
it
at
fair
market
value,
but
the
reality
was
they
were
already
down
the
road
with
a
negotiated
purchase
and
sale
agreement.
B
You
speaker
to
change
the
tone
in
the
room
slightly
here:
I
have
a
30
second
announcement,
I'd
like
to
introduce
two
people
in
the
room
and
I'd:
ask
them
to
rise.
It's
Peter,
Chao
and
Wayne
Huntington.
If
you
both
want
to
stand
up,
many
of
you
will
know
cafe
on
the
square
as
the
place
where,
of
course,
we
get
our
coffee
and
food
and
Wayne
is
the
general
manager
there.
In
this
case,
this
is
about
more
than
food
and
beverage.
B
It's
about
building
community,
because
Peter
Chao
standing
there
behind
us
is
one
of
the
top
students
in
George
Brown
colleges,
Augmented
education
class,
and
he
is
an
assistant
cook.
Learning
culinary
skills
right
here
in
cafe
on
the
square.
This
is
a
George
Brown
College
program
to
support
people
with
mental
health
and
addiction
histories
and
to
help
address
barriers
to
employment.
So
Peter
is
here
helping
prepare
our
food
and
beverage
and
Wayne,
who
we
all
think
every
day
as
he
keeps
us,
caffeinated
is
helping
to
build
our
city
into
a
better
place.
C
Speaker
and
I
do
appreciate
that
slight
change
of
topic,
but
putting
our
auditor
general
back
on
the
hot
seat
with
respect
to
the
property
of
interest.
If
it
was
not
publicly
listed
on
the
MLS
system
or
some
type
of
public
listing
program,
it
does
not
mean
that
it
was
not
held
under
type
some
type
of
exclusive
contract,
with
a
particular
brokerage
or
or
even
a
licensing
agent.
Is
that
not
correct
that
that
you
can
actually
have
a
combination
of
the
two
or
or
one.
D
I,
don't
have
any
more
information
other
than
they
were
working
on
a
draft
agreement
of
purchase
and
sale
that
ended
up
being
signed
in
August,
but
that's
all
that
I
had
in
January.
They
were,
they
had
the
price
that
was
determined
and
they
were
working
through
that
so
I
can't
add
more.
But
maybe
my
the
sea
staff
can
add
more
information
in.
E
Terms
of
coming
to
an
agreement
on
market
value,
I
all
I
would
say
is
if
that,
if
the
property
was
not
listed,
we
obviously
would
have
more
difficulty
coming
to
negotiated
agreement,
but
the
city
would
always
have
the
opportunity
to
expropriate
if
it
wished,
and
so
we
do
this
numerous
times
a
year
when
dealing
with
property
owners
that
do
not
have
their
property
listed
for
sale.
That's.
C
E
What
would
happen
is
an
appraisal
would
look
at
highest
and
best
use,
and
so
what
would
the
marketplace
do
with
respect
to
a
willing
buyer
willing
seller,
the
appraiser
would
look
at
the
potential
for
the
property
if
there's
planning
opportunity
to
increase
density,
to
change
the
use
that
kind
of
thing,
and
then
he
would
give
his
opinion
here.
He
or
she
would
give
their
opinion
of
what
they
think
the
highest
and
best
use
is
and
then
calculate
what
the
actual
value
is
for
that
use
in.
C
E
C
E
C
C
E
Would
have
been
an
option,
but
I
would
believe
that
parking
authority
would
first
come
to
real
estate
services
to
have
that
discussion,
and
then
we
may
get
involved
with
the
vendor,
because
Real
Estate
Services
takes
care
of
all
the
expropriations
across
the
city
and
so
that
expertise
is
very
specialized.
So
we
would
have
come
into
play
at
that
point.
Is.
E
C
Thank
You
Madison,
your
questions
are
of
a
real-estate
nature
as
well
and
following
an
encounter
won't
ever
really
caught
following
on
councilor
DG.
A
nose
line
of
questioning
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
unduly
focused
on
on
what
what
is
really
normal
process
and
we
get
on
to
the
things
that
don't
look
like
normal
process
in
normal
process,
an
agency
border
Commission,
if
they're
required
to
come
to
us
for
authorization,
it's
not
unusual
that
they
would
have
already
begun
the
preparation
of
a
transaction
that
they
would
have
already
done.
C
C
C
You
so
the
normal
process
here
would
be
no
matter
what
if
they
came
and-
and
we
saw
an
in-camera
report
that
said,
we're
looking
at
this
price.
Our
direction
that
says
purchase
that
at
fair
market
value
would
still
require
the
board
to
take
a
second
look
or
or
staff
members
whomever
to
make
sure
that
now
they
are
going
ahead
with
the
transaction
now
that
they
have
the
authorization,
the
last
step
would
be
that
they
go
back
and
make
sure
that
they
are
indeed
looking
at
an
offer.
C
E
If
they're,
if
they're
putting
something
in
front
of
council,
it
would
normally
be
market
value,
and
if
it's
not,
then
there
would
be
an
explanation
as
to
why
it
wouldn't
be
market
value,
and
that
conversation
that
occurs
and
counsel
gives
us
direction
as
to
what
direct
what
what
they
want
us
to
do
in
the
matter.
Right.
C
So
all
they
would
have
had
to
do
was
disclose
why
it
was
a
bit
beyond
so
if
it
goes
back
and
councils,
given
a
direction
a
board
member
saying,
can
we
please
be
assured?
This
is
a
fair
market
value
and
and
if
they
have
reason
to
believe
it's,
not
it's
not
an
appropriate
to
ask
the
question:
why
is
it
not
I
think.
F
Want
to
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
sense
of
how
one
would
arrive
at
fair
market
value
for
this
property,
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
visualize
it
I
and
it's
I
guess
it's!
The
site
belong
Finch
between
on
the
south
side
of
inch
between
arrow
road
and
the
highway
on
rent,
correct
the
400
on
ran.
Yes,
it's
it's
sort
of
between
the
the
road
and
be
the
church.
I
always
thought
it
was
part
of
the
church
property.
But
it's
it's
it's
under
a
different
ownership.
F
E
D
F
Corrected
so
so
you're
saying
institutional,
so
it's
a
vacant
parcel
of
land.
So
how
would
I
guess
the
question
that
I'm
driving
towards
is,
how
does
one
establish
what
fair
market
value
for
those
lands
would
be
and
and
how
would
one
establish
what
their
highest
and
best
use
may
or
may
not
be
like?
What
would
you
use?
What
would
be
the
you
know,
sort
of
the
measuring
stick
for
that
so.
E
Every
property
is
different,
but
what
the
appraiser
would
do.
He
would
look
at
what
what's
happening
in
the
area.
What
are
the
possibilities
for
the
site
overall
and
if
he
or
she
does
see
that
there's
opportunity?
That's
not
reflective
in
the
zoning
or
the
Official
Plan.
They
then
look
at
what
are
the
possibilities
of
getting
that
zoning
changed.
I
guess.
F
What
I'm
driving
at
is
somebody
was
sort
of
sort
of
seen
this
property
a
number
of
times
is:
is
it
to
arrive
at
a
well
what
we
would
call
fair
market
value
for
those
particular
lands?
One
would
have
to
look
at
that
and
say
well,
I
mean
you
got
a
church
next
door,
what
if
it
was
a
church?
What
would
somebody
pay
for
these
lands
to
build
another
Church,
I,
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is.
F
Is
the
you.your
we're
using
some
very,
very
specific
numbers
here
today,
but
but
the
reality
is
that
that
range
could
be
very,
very
large
on
a
parcel
of
land
like
that
know,
depending
on
on
what
the
what
the
people
looking
at
it
be
of
your
particular
appraisers
sort
of
saw
as
a
functional
use
for
that
site
in
terms
of
its
location
and
how
to
access
it
and
all
those
things
right.
Well,.
E
It
depends
on
the
terms
of
reference
that
the
the
appraisers
been
guided
to
use.
Normally
at
the
city,
we
would
say,
appraise
the
property
at
highest
and
best
use,
so
that
leaves
it
open
for
the
appraisal
appraiser
to
use
his
professional
judgment
to
come
up
with
a
value
for
the
property
and
and
within
that
appraisal.
He
then
has
supporting
documentation
that
shows
comparable
properties
around
the
city
and
he
will
adjust
up
or
down
depending
on
how
those
comparables
relate
to
this
property
ie.
E
F
E
E
Are
other
methods
and
and
I
believe
that
the
the
appraiser
looks
through
to
see
which
meth
method
would
be
appropriate?
What
I'm
used
to
is
a
lot
of
times
if
it's
an
income
generating
property,
the
the
appraiser
will
use
both
the
income
approach
and
he'll
use
the
direct
comparable
approach
to
it,
but
on.
F
E
F
F
To
consider
audit
committee
item
9.1
actions
arising
from
the
Auditor
General's
report
regarding
land
acquisition
of
Finch,
Avenue
West
and
arrow
Road
by
Toronto
parking
authority,
part
2,
the
reason
for
the
confidential
information
and
security,
the
property
belonging
to
the
city
or
one
of
its
agencies,
personal
matters
about
identifiable
persons
and
and/or
advice
or
communications
that
are
subject
to
the
solicitor
client
privilege.
They.
A
A
Right
so
we
have
not
completed
the
closed
session.
Consideration
of
au
9.12
audited,
subsidy,
it's
a
narrow
road
by
the
Toronto
Park.
In
the
thirty
part,
two
I
will
ask
for
a
motion
to
meet
in
a
further
closed
session
later
in
the
meeting.
If
it's
necessary,
the
Auditor
General
just
wants
to
make
one
correction
30
seconds.
D
Two
monuments
that
the
lobbyist
was
involved
with
first
one
was
this:
one
relate
to
this
project
was
the
flagpole,
and
that
was
the
buildings
on
that
have
been
a
bit
of
million
dollars.
The
second
one
I
missed
quoted
the
price
it
was
not.
Five
hundred
is
actually
eighty-nine
thousand
for
a
second
monument
due
to
another
project.
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
on
the
record.
I
just
quoted
the
wrong
total
okay.