City Council — May 2013

Rob Ford has not declared a key item for today's #TOcouncil meeting but has held several items related to traffic signals and OMB hearings.

Never does Rob Ford take staff advice more seriously than when it comes to traffic signals, crosswalks or speed humps.

Motion to add transit tax item to council agenda passes 27-13. Here's the vote: http://t.co/9FQo0PK78B

No votes: Crisanti, Di Giorgio, Fords, Grimes, Holyday, Kelly, Lindsay Luby, Mammoliti, Nunziata, Palacio, Perruzza, Shiner.

Surprised by Perruzza and Lindsay Luby, I guess. Oh, populism. You're the worst kind of ideology there is.

Absences are interesting: Augimeri, Cho, Del Grande, Minnan-Wong, Moeser. Conceivably all five could have gone 'no.'

JP's emoticons are the tea leaves of #topoli.

What. Why?

"Saying something and doing nothing is still 'doing nothing'." https://karenstintz.com/ (PDF)

"Buying votes!" says Rob Ford about Adam Vaughan, again and again. Nice.

This island airport debate has an odd vibe. Politicians looking at changing the rules so one specific company can make more money.

Gravy Plane!

This Porter item is a good example of why using the city's gross operating budget as a metric is ridiculous, by the way...

...in that, if it passes, the 2013 gross budget will increase by $275K (at least!) to cover the cost of study. Even though city won't pay it

Councillor Michael Thompson moves to add word "materially" to a motion. Friendly amendment to throw in a few extra "furthermores."

Porter has played this smart so far. Got a jump on the grassroots by pushing the issue hard and fast, launching own coordinated campaign.

Doug Ford says it'd be okay if Porter report is sole-sourced to consultant because they're a private company.

This is, I think, the same Doug Ford who has said there is no sole sourcing in the private sector.

A calm Ford says this is just a report and there will be more time to debate all this in July. I'd guess he has the votes on this.

Pam McConnell motion to deny Porter request for study fails 14-30. http://t.co/MbMNZzRmXl

There's 'yes' votes there from councillors who have opposed expansion, so I guess they figured we might as well make Porter pay for a report

As councillors vote, Nunziata notes she never flies because she is afraid of flying.

Council votes 27-17 to ensure there are no conflicts of interests when looking at consultants for report. But votes 20-24 on sole sourcing.

Holyday's motion to allow sole sourcing just on this Porter thing passes 24-20. Me am in Bizarro World. http://t.co/WugS7m294L

Oh, I thought you meant SOUL source contracts. Like they'd be jazzy and such. My bad.

Respect for Sax players.

@GraphicMatt so you support the Groovy Train?

On the plus side for the @NoJetsTO crowd, all of Adam Vaughan's motions just passed.

Council approves the final request for the Porter report, as amended, 29-15. Here's the votes: http://t.co/RzeC0IcMvX

Video! Mammoliti suggests Adam Vaughan won reelection due to S.37 money. Mayor Ford yells "buying votes!" repeatedly. http://youtu.be/VyZBjD2eOUg

When this motion passes, I am going to buy so many decommissioned Toronto street signs. https://secure.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.PW23.13

#TOCouncil has started on the transit funding item. City Manager going over his presentation and recommendations. Real fireworks after lunch

Pennachetti uses Waterfront East LRT as an example of a local project that needs funding. Council made it a priority last year, but no money

(At a community meeting last night, Glen Murray indicated that waterfront LRT project has moved up in priority since he became Minister.)

This debate desperately needs the chair to rule any motions related to specific transit plans out of order. Motion only deals with funding.

City Manager: "If you have a motion to switch LRT to subway... you approved the master agreement." Says council needs 2/3!

I repeat: City Manager says councillors would need a 2/3rds majority to change the transit plans in the Metrolinx master agreement.

So this last, best gasp for a Scarborough subway is dead.

That said, council has already prioritized a subway that would reach Don Mills & Eglinton. It'd be great for Scarborough residents.

Legit concern is that revenue from new taxes/tolls will eventually shift from capital to operating. Operating should come via general rev.

Minnan-Wong is away, reportedly visiting the Pope of Rome, but he's written a letter re: transit taxes https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/cc/comm/communicationfile-36992.pdf (PDF)

Josh Matlow asks Andy Byford and Jen Keesmaat whether they think the DRL is the next big priority for TO. Both say yes.

Pennachetti says today's debate is important so province gets message that city doesn't support using fares/prop taxes as funding revenues.

Mike Del Grande asks Byford about SRT shutdown during LRT conversion. Byford says 43 shuttle buses are needed - will cause congestion.

Mammoliti rises on a point of order to ask why this debate is in order when it's a provincial thing. Every play is a Hail Mary these days.

Pennachetti is, like, yeah, it's in order. You guys asked me to write a report. Here's the report.

Fodder for the space cannon.

.@cllrainslie's dinner-break motion has been referred to executive. Didn't get two-thirds.

"Why is it that I never get a hug? demands Nunziata. "HUG HUG HUG!" chants the gallery. Gord Perks give her a hug.

"That's the first hug I've had in years," says Nunziata. This is quite the meeting.

One metre passing rule for cyclists gets referred to Exec on a 22-21 vote. http://t.co/OdJ9fYaV37

This member motion regarding a film shoot at City Hall -- is it for Amazing Race Canada? https://secure.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.MM33.26

Council votes to allow what is likely Amazing Race Canada to do a shoot at City Hall, 43 in favour.

We are slowly, slowly, slowly making our way back to the transit funding item. Currently we are hearing about pension plans.

Apparently there is a movement afoot to look at moving the Mimico GO station? https://secure.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.PG24.8

We're finally back on the transit funding item. Di Giorgio is asking questions about property taxes. He uses the word "quantum." Buckle up.

Doug Ford is up to ask questions of the City Manager. He wants to know how a ten cent gas tax would impact the cost of goods and services.

Pennachetti explains that any cost increase needs to be weighed against negative economic impacts of congestion.

Doug Ford, reading his questions off a sheet, asks Pennachetti if the province has looked at "efficiencies" to find transit money.

Doug Ford concludes by saying that this is all a "blank cheque we're going to hand over to the province."

Mammoliti starts his question by saying he's opposed to what he calls the "$1000-per-person tax." He talks some more. Question comes finally

Mammoliti again wonders why council is debating transit funding. He keeps saying revenue equals $1000-per-person-per-year, which is wrong.

Sum of it is average household will pay ~$500 in extra taxes/fees per year to counter congestion that costs $2,800 per year per household.

(I think that's the sum of it, anyway. Math is all over the place at this meeting.)

Mr. City Manager, do you think that I could support transit taxes and also win reelection? Because I am worried.

Yeah, could be.

Byford says "downtown relief line" is a "bit of a misnomer" because it makes people think it's a "play thing for people who live downtown."

Davis grills Pennachetti on why corporate taxes didn't merit a recommendation on his report. City Manager doesn't have a good explanation.

The looming issue as councillors continue to ask staff questions: will there be a movement to recess tonight's meeting for the Leafs game?

Councillor De Baeremaeker is giving an absurd speech, hitting all the populist talking points re: Scarborough subway.

I would point out all the inconsistencies and falsehoods but I only have 140 characters and I'd need, like, a hundred times that.

Councillors haven't figured out how to effectively counter anti-LRT rhetoric so sure why not spend a billion dollars.

"Nobody in Scarborough walks to the SRT stations!" says De Baeremaeker. Suggests reports written by people not from Scarborough are invalid.

If Scarborough with a population of 600K somehow deserves a subway, then Mississauga with a population of 700K deserves, what, a maglev?

De Baeremaeker now says he won't support any new revenues for transit expansion if council rejects this Scarborough subway. Okay.

Berardinetti asks De Baeremaeker how many more riders the subway will bring versus LRT. He says it'll get 6 million people out of their cars

Matlow asks De Baeremaeker if he's serious about voting against revenue tools if council denies subway extension. "Yes," says De Baeremaeker

Matlow: "You would just sink any possibility of improving transit for millions of people throughout the region?" De Baeremaeker: "Yes."

Doug Ford now tries to get De Baeremaeker on side with a Sheppard subway plan. Because why not.

Doug Ford says Glenn De Baeremaker's "math is wrong." Which it is. But Doug Ford's math is a different kind of wrong.

Doug Ford imagines a world where commuters travel in circles throughout Scarborough. That world is better served by one continuous subway.

Giorgio Mammoliti suggests 80% of bus riders in Jane-Finch don't pay their fares. So how can we build a Finch subway, he wonders.

Mammoliti is concerned that tractor trailers won't be able to do three-point-turns on Finch with an LRT there. So let's build a subway.

Councillor Palacio has practiced his opening line. "The province is asking us to sign a blank cheque, and that cheque may become NSF."

Take a drink every time there's a transit debate and someone says we can't do anything until there's a national transit strategy.

Councillor Augimeri has a motion for council to encourage the province to roll back corporate interest tax cuts and use revenue for transit.

Good refresher.

Densities needed to support operating a subway or LRT (sorry no SRT #s) #tocouncil http://t.co/4oNf2LlK7M

Augimeri says she'll reject new revenue tools, favours instead a return to "good old days" where province paid 50% operating; 75% capital.

Now Councillor Moeser asks that, should council approve revenues, City Manager identify LRT extension to the zoo as a priority.

Councillor Moeser seems to be against re-opening the master agreement. That, I think, makes the path to 2/3rds very challenging.

Councillor Berardinetti shows a map from the January staff report. She says this motion also exists as a private member's bill.

Berardinetti, a card-carrying Liberal, has made some odd allusions about changes to the Eg LRT through the premier's riding.

Nunziata is up now. She says this whole debate is really about raising property taxes.

"It really doesn't matter if it's $500 or $1000 [per household], Councillor Bylaw," says Nunziata.

"If you really care about transit, then what we should be asking Metrolinx and the province to electrify the Georgetown [GO] line."

Now Nunziata says all her residents are getting for $1000 a year in property taxes is a maintenance facility for light rail vehicles.

"Metrolinx wants revenue tools. What they want is taxes. Mississauga, Markham -- has said no to it. Let the province make the decision."

Nunziata thinks she has cracked the case wide open with this revelation that "revenue tools" is just a euphemism for taxes.

"Do I trust TTC? Noooo. Look at what they did to the St. Clair right-of-way. And now they have to put millions of dollars back into it!"

"Are we crazy? We're crazy! And we're taking advice from TTC? We're crazy. You know what, big mistake." The Speaker takes her seat.

Now Milczyn moves that council advise Metrolinx of a whole whack of priorities. These are on behalf of Councillor Minnan-Wong.

Oh wait, or is this giant list Milczyn's? I guess it is. These are nuts.

Priorities: DRL EA; B-D extension to STC; Sheppard subway west to Downsview; Sheppard East subway; Grade-separated Finch; subway to Sherway.

"I'm not making a farce of this!" says Councillor Anthony Perruzza. And he's right. This farce has been a team effort.

Multitasking. So it's come to this. http://t.co/S2ByAas4D7

Milczyn is now taking the tact that maybe there's enough density to justify a Sheppard subway extension. It never ends.

Nunziata announces the hockey score and says this meeting will continue tomorrow. There is always more and it is always worse.

"We're making a mockery of what we should be doing here in talking about a very important subject," says Councillor Crawford.

Councillor Crawford says he thinks we need a dedicated revenue source for transit, but just doesn't have faith in the provincial Liberals.

"Did somebody SCORE?!" interrupts Nunziata. "It sounds like someone is in pain."

"Actually build something" is always at least step five on these multi-step approaches to transit. And we never get beyond step two.

Davis moves amendment that says council doesn't support dev charges, fuel taxes or parking levies. But does support corp inc tax, sales tax.

Janet Davis says she will not support re-opening what she calls "Transit City." And she should call it that. Because it is that.

"I know a number of councillors here REALLY REALLY like Chicago," says @JoshMatlow, referring of course to Councillor Chin Lee.

And then for the next 50 years.

Leafs scored. Janet Davis does jazz hands. The tiny picture-in-picture screen on my TV is going nuts.

We start day three of #TOcouncil with a Pasternak plea for the Pasternak Relief Line.

Weird that councillors with pet subway projects didn't bother asking Andy Byford yesterday if he thought they were a priority.

"There are many that use the argument of density to take a transit idea and notch it down," says Councillor Pasternak. Yeah, no kidding.

Pasternak essentially says that the trains on Sheppard West would be full and density is overrated as a transit planning metric.

Pasternak advocates for "complete loops" on the subway system. But not awesome cool loops like they have at Canada's Wonderland.

Now Giorgio Mammoliti is now making his motion to change the Finch LRT to a Finch subway. He moves every possible tax to "do not support."

Mammoliti says the provincial government is on a getaway horse with a gun and is planning a tax heist.

"I don't believe we should be heading down this path," says Mammoliti. Now he's back to the idea that Jane-Finch riders don't pay fares.

Mammoliti says bus drivers have told him that riders in Jane-Finch corridor don't pay fares. Which he says mean ridership counts are wrong.

"Poor parts of this city deserve a subway! says Mammoliti. Says he doesn't care if subway comes soon - just doesn't want LRT.

Mammoliti concludes by stressing that Metrolinx should upload the TTC and take the operating costs off Toronto's books. No mention of casino

Scarborough Councillor Chin Lee is up now. If we don't have any ideas on how to pay for transit, he says, "we should shut up and go home."

"I am putting my neck on the line to lead. Because I will be able to justify myself when I go door to door," says Councillor Lee.

Councillor Lee rocks it, knocks this individual-line narrow planning thing, wonders about GO integration with TTC in 416.

(GO integration wouldn't eliminate need for the DRL in the east, but it could in the west, for sure.)

Agh. Now Lee says he'll support Councillor De Baeremaeker's motion. And Councillor Pasternak's motion. A very short engagement.

Councillor Lindsay Luby says this is about "taxation without representation" and floats the idea of a tea party movement?

Councillor Bailão points out that councillors look ridiculous when they say they support transit projects but offer no ways to pay for them.

"I can't accept that our region is losing $6 billion -- soon to be $15 billion -- ... because of congestion!" says a fired-up Bailão.

"That's not how we build a city. That's not how we build a region." Good speech from @Ward18AnaBailao.

Doug Holyday wonders why, when the province needs money, their only idea is to raise taxes.

"Would you rather have improved transportation or all day kindergarten?" is a question Holyday thinks the province should have asked.

Now Holyday is on about a casino -- worried it'll go to Markham or wherever. "If we had that money, we could put it toward [transit]."

Councillor Stintz's turn. "It's our obligation and opportunity" to participate in this process re: transit funding, she says.

Stintz talks about why councillors should not support a parking tax. Says it'll hit strip malls and big malls really hard.

Stintz says parking levy was tried in Vancouver and then repealed. Will have to read up on that.

Stintz rules out income taxes, supports fuel taxes. "If we're going to build transit, we're going to need resources," she says.

Stintz repeats her "Saying something and doing nothing is still doing nothing" line from her Board of Trade remarks. It's a good line.

Stintz says she'll support De Baeremaeker's motion re: Scarborough subway, because it'll remove the transfer at Kennedy, avoid the shutdown.

Councillor Cho has a motion that council request Metrolinx to issue an international RFP on all future subway construction. Um, all right.

Crisanti: "The Big Move doesn't address the needs of the people in my community." But it does tax people and ignore the suburbs.

I would love it if more people would understand that transit doesn't need to run through your community to benefit your community.

Crisanti says we need transit that isn't just a "22 km streetcar down the middle of Finch Avenue." You've heard this song before.

To get 2/3rds on the Scarborough subway, I'm seeing Mary-Margaret McMahon, Anthony Perruzza, John Filion and Maria Augimeri as key votes.

.@cllrainslie, our new best friend, is up now. "I think we need to just move forward," he says. Simple logic.

Wong-Tam urges councillors to resist the mayor's "web of distortions." Says Ford has offered a "fictitious narrative" re: transit funding.

Wong-Tam: "The mayor fake vomits when asked about Metrolinx transit funding." She says that's "rude and immature."

Councillor Shelley Carroll up now. Said she had a motion, but is now asking the City Clerk to tear that motion up.

Carroll showing a slide of Denver. They are building 130 km of LRT for $4.7 B.

(That's Denver as in Denver, Colorado. Not Denver the Last Dinosaur, who was my friend and a whole lot more.)

Carroll says it's important to create a network of transit routes, not just a couple of subway lines.

"How the hell else are we going to pay for transit?" asks Councillor McMahon. "We can't afford to wait!"

"Get in the real world, folks! Seriously, get in the real world! Grow a spine!" Another good speech, from @mary_margaret32.

Councillor John Parker refers to a parking levy as a "job killer."

Parker urges councillors not to re-open the master agreement. That's a good vote to have on side.

Parker chastises those who say they'll only support taxes if they pay for transit in their ward. Says that's not an "adult conversation."

Councillor Kelly has a motion that'd ask the feds to lower the federal income tax rate for GTA residents to offset new transit taxes.

.@gordperks stands just off screen as Councillor Kelly defends his motions, frustrating animated gif makers across the city.

With Parker against re-opening agreement, path to 2/3rds now likely relies on votes from Bailão, Perruzza, Filion, Augimeri, Mihevc. Hm.

Councillor Thompson moves a motion opposing parking levies. Politicians are terrified of this one.

Councillor Perks is up. Moves motion supporting personal income tax and payroll tax as revenue tools. Also asks province to fund 50% op cost

"It's transit that makes business successful!" stresses Perks.

Perks says it's unfair for someone making minimum wage to get hit with some tax burden as a guy making a million dollars.

"Relying on progressive taxation is fair and efficient, and makes our economy successful," says Perks.

Perruzza moves a motion that council tell Metrolinx that it doesn't support high occupancy toll lanes. Fiery speech incoming in 3-2-1...

Here's my video of Anthony Perruzza speaking with dramatic background music. Should make a sequel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLGF4e2aMv4

Budget Chief Frank Di Giorgio has a motion. "Uh oh!" says councillors. "I'm sorry, I missed it - what happened?" asks a confused Nunziata.

Budget Chief ends up with wrong motion displayed on screen. Councillor Jerry Gergich sits down.

This vote is going to be crazy complicated. Councillors asking that instead they just vote on each tax/toll/fee one by one. Might be faster.

A chance Ford could be absent for the vote on this item - he's got his environment day at 4 p.m. http://bit.ly/ZKHPvS

So the master agreement doesn't change and Scarborough councillors get to say they fought real hard for subways. Happily ever after.

Back from lunch, Adam Vaughan is up now. He's looking to refer a bunch of motions, including De Baeremaeker's and Milczyn's, to Planning.

Hah! Now Adam Vaughan has moved a motion that'd put a tax on vinyl labels to fund subways.

(It'd be a tax on the Ford family business, essentially. Vaughan says he's channeling Howard Moscoe.)

Vaughan brings up the ghost of Mike Harris, says any provincial attempt to find 'efficiencies' could mean filling in holes dug for transit.

Vaughan points to a bunch of federal scandals where money was blown. His math says that'd be $50B for transit right there.

Vaughan has moved referral of all the subway wish-list motions. So we'll now debate just that for a while.

Ah, Vaughan's referral motion doesn't refer Mammoliti's Finch subway motion. Giorgio is not happy about this.

Re: Vaughan leaving Mammoliti's Finch motion off referral. Fixed now.

.@GraphicMatt he intended too. Cllr Carroll will fix.

Berardinetti points out that RFP for the Scarborough LRT will come out in June, so Vaughan's referral will push things too late. Oh no.

Pasternak asks Vaughan if he'd be okay with there being a giant gap in the Bloor line, making an absurd point re: Sheppeard West subway.

For Councillor David Shiner, the City Manager's estimated $500-per-household tax figure has also magically become $1,000-per-person.

"We should have built subways!" emphasizes Shiner. Says the Sheppard West subway extension is desperately needed.

Shiner feels that, should this council support transit taxes, the provincial government will respond by saying "suckers!"

Councillor Perruzza has a point of order. He's looked into Mammoliti's claim that 80% of jane-Finch riders don't pay fares.

Perruzza's got an email from Byford. "There is no evidence to support a figure of 80% fare evasion on Finch." More likely ~1.5%.

Confusing!

"P3s are a financing tool. They are not a funding tool," says @JoshColle. Burn the witch.

I still do not get Colle's motion. His comments seem positive toward new revenues, but he's deleted recommendations from Matlow's motion?

Perks want Colle's amendment ruled out-of-order. Nunziata says it's in order. Vote to uphold chair passes 35-9. Okay.

Matlow gets up and asks Colle what the deal is with this. "Do you believe that if we want to build transit we have to pay for it?" "Yes."

Colle seemingly only wants to put his name to taxes and fees that he doesn't support. It's hard to put a positive spin on that.

So the province will use process of elimination to figure out which revenue tools Toronto City Council tacitly supports. Pretty sneaky, sis.

I'm just going to swing my arms like this, and if my constituents get taxed it's their own fault.

Doug Ford is up now with a motion. He finds Vaughan's vinyl label motion "insulting." Says it insults Deco Label's employees.

Doug Ford asks Vaughan to withdraw the jokey motion. Vaughan does so, "just to make him feel happy."

Doug Ford has a map of Toronto's subway system. Says he doesn't like that there is a gap between the SRT and the Sheppard subway.

Doug Ford says fact that six out of ten busiest intersections are on Sheppard is proof that subway is needed.

"You know what true leadership is? When you're getting thousands of phone calls across the city, saying we can't afford the extra $1,000..."

(True leadership is receiving lots of phone calls.)

Doug Ford brings up the Fraser Institute tax study, which I dealt with pretty thoroughly, I think. Now he's on about the provincial Liberals

Doug Ford: "Well the Minister of Transportation -- which I like, Glen Murray! -- said this is a placeholder on the map."

Doug Ford says people don't have the money to give the government thousands of dollars for transit.

Doug Ford says the people of Toronto want one thing -- a provincial election. Now something about a "two-tier system."

Scarborough is above ground while the rest of the city is underground, says Doug Ford.

Doug Ford calls Councillor Parker the "architect of streetcars." Ford has just accepted a speaking extension even though they don't exist.

And Doug Ford provokes a five minute recess at #tocouncil. Let's play some tether ball.

I get the threat, but I can't imagine Rob Ford has much room to get more popular support in Scarborough than he got in 2010.

Mayor Rob Ford is up now. He'll calm things down.

Ford says people can't afford an extra $1,000 per year in taxes. Also governments are squandering taxpayer money.

Ford brings up the VRT. Says it was supposed to be dedicated to transit. But "people didn't want to pay the $60."

Ford: "The first thing I did, was getting rid of that. And it was very popular with the residents of this great city."

Ford has a property tax bill to use as a prop. Says people "cringe" when they get 'em.

Ford says "everybody is paying about $5,000" in property taxes. I am not paying anywhere close to that.

Ford is making a measured argument, but it basically boils down to a strong belief that people who support taxes can't win elections.

Ford: "We are taxed enough! We are taxed up to here! [Collar-bone level] We cannot afford it anymore."

Ford says new tax revenue would not go into a separate fund for transit. Would go into a "big slush fund!"

Mihevc has a question! Given that you like subways and hate taxes, are you prepared to say you'll prioritize no taxes over public transit?

Mihevc: "Are you ready to say now that you don't support subways because we can't afford to pay for them?" Ford says there was $1B.

"Province spent billions of dollars just squandering taxpayer money!" Says that plus the original $1B could have built Sheppard.

Ford says he had a proposal to build subways with the Chong report, but council voted against it.

Moeser asks the mayor if he supports the Glenn De Baeremaeker motion re: the Scarborough Subway. Mayor says yes.

It doesn't!

Moeser asks how Ford can support a conversion of the Scarborough LRT to subways when there's funding missing. Mayor points to casino.

Matlow questioning Ford. He asks about Ford's claim that city has a "spending problem, not a revenue problem." Ford still stands by that.

Matlow asks how Ford can believe city has a spending problem when he also wants more money from casino and prov/fed government.

Matlow asks how the mayor can use money that was already spent (or wasted) to build transit. Mayor reveals his time machine.

"Mr. Chong proposed some of the revenue tools that we've been considering!" points out Matlow. Ford says Matlow should have supported it.

"This is not about transit. This is about TAXES," says Rob Ford. And we go on like this.

Stintz asks Ford about the Chong report. Mayor says he supported it. Stintz asks him which parts he supported. Ford says the subways part.

Stintz asks about Ford's Globe Op Ed supporting parking tax. Ford said he argued that parking levies would be okay after efficiencies found.

"We're two different systems!" Ford says of himself and Stintz.

Perruzza asks Ford about the Finch subway motion. Perruzza says he'll support it, because okay. Ford says Sheppard subway is first priority.

Ford has a story about the St. Clair right-of-way. "There was a shooting at the bank!" and the police got stuck. A cautionary tale.

"I want first and foremost Sheppard," says Ford. Won't say what his second subway priority is.

(Apparently the bank shooting was on a part of St. Clair that doesn't have the streetcar ROW. Oh well. Still a good story.)

"There is so much waste at all three levels of government," declares Ford, again. And again and again.

Ford says the phrase "revenue tools" is "the biggest misnomer or disguise he's ever seen."

Ford says he saved the taxpayers $70 million when he removed the VRT, which is wrong in at least two ways.

Okay. Super complicated voting time.

Nunziata rules that motions relating to how transit revenues will be used are in order.

Nunziata rules that the re-worded motions from De Baeremaeker, et al, do not require a 2/3rds majority.

(Because they basically don't do anything.)

Matlow motion 1a up first. Reaffirms council commitment to Master Agreement, etc. Fails 17-27 for some reason? Okay. Moving on.

Confusion on the floor as Pam McConnell wants this item split into multiple votes. "Go! Let's go!" demands Ford.

Colle's amendment to Matlow's motion to only say which taxes council DOES NOT support, instead of which they DO support, passes 26-18.

Councilliors Filion and Fragedakis rising on points of personal privilege. Perruzza wants to re-open the vote on the Colle amendment.

Perruzza's motion re-open the vote fails 27-17. And we are moving on, finally.

Now a motion to add development charges, fuel taxes, parking levy to list of taxes council does not support.

(Council, it would seem, will now only state to the province which taxes they DO NOT support, not which ones they DO support.)

Council is now voting on Motion 7a, part B. Vaughan wants to know if you vote "yes" for "no" or "yes" for "yes." I am serious.

We've decided that a no is a yes and a yes is a no. Onward.

Vote split. First one: should we add development charges to the list of taxes council doesn't recommend? Fails 19-25.

So council has almost endorsed a revenue tool for transit kind of!

Next. Should fuel tax be added to the list of things council does not support? Carries 23-21. So no gas tax.

Next. Should parking levy be on the list of things council does not support? Yes. It carries 29-15.

So we got a council that does not reject development charges as a thing to build transit. Smell the progress.

As I read things now, revenues council has not rejected so far: development charges, sales tax, high occupancy toll lanes, tolls, VRT.

Matlow's item as amended is split. First part saying council supports regional transportation expansion passes 42-2. Grimes, Augimeri.

Second part of Matlow motion as amended: council indicates general support for dedicated revenues implemented by province. Passes 25-19. Yay

Next part is general support to build Big Move transportation projects. Fails 21-23. I don't know why!

Next part. All projects be based on a "costs benefit analysis", linked to land-use planning, etc. Passes 29-15.

Next part. That any new taxes/fees must be dedicated to GTHA transportation expansion. Carries 33-11. Fords against it, sure.

Next! That any taxes/fees be implemented at same rates across the GTHA. Passes 36-8. Mayor is just voting 'no' to everything.

Next! That any new taxes/fees should keep in mind affordability for low-income people. Passes 39-5. Again, Fords opposed.

Okay. Now we're on to individual taxes. Should council tell Metrolinx that yes, they don't support congestion charges? Confusion reigns.

Okay. Vote on whether congestion levies (zones) should be on the list of taxes council does not support comes in. It passes 37-7.

Up next. Should payroll tax be on the list of taxes council does not support? Yes. Passes 31-12.

Up next. Land transfer tax - should it be on the list of taxes council does not support? Yes. Passes 42-1. Parker only one digging it.

Land value capture. Should *that* be on the list of taxes council does not support? Voting says... Yes. 33-10.

Now personal income tax. Should it be on the list of things council does not support to pay for transit? Yes. Passes 32-11.

Now property tax. Should it be on the list of taxes council does not support to pay for transit? Yes. 41-2. Perks, Budget Chief dissent.

Now transit fare increase. Should it be on the list of no-go taxes? Yes. 43-1. Perks only dissenter.

Now utility bill levy. Nunziata is laughing at the notion. Should it be on the list of things council does not support? Yes. 43-1. Carroll.

Now we're on to fuel tax. Should it be on the list of taxes council does not support? Yes. 25-19 vote.

And FINALLY: parking levy. Do councillors agree that council shouldn't support parking levies? Yes. 31-13.

So development charges, sales tax, vehicle registration tax, road tolls still on the table, but not specifically endorsed.

Now council votes on whether to support 25% of any new revenues going direct to municipalities for local transit projects. Passes 41-2.

Now up. Should council reject a regional property tax to fund transit expansion? Yes. Passes 43-1. Augimeri opposes.

Should council request the feds to commit to transportation expansion in Ontario and contribute to Big Move? Yes. Passes 44-0. Peace.

Should council request Metrolinx work with Infrastructure Ontario and PPP Canada to find capital grants and such? Sure, says council. 41-3.

Should council endorse notion that Metrolinx pay for capital maintenance on its projects? Yes. 43-1. Davis opposed.

Part 12. Should council get a report on changes to Metrolinx governance and the principles for 25% local share? Yes. 44-0. We love reports!

Should we send this concise and easily understood list of recs to Ministries of Finance, Transpo, Housing, etc? Yes. 43-1. Fletcher opposes.

Mihevc motion re: support for dedicated revenues for operating costs for new and existing GTA transit passes 29-15.

Motion re: making sure there are tax credits for low-income associated with transit taxes passes 39-5. Fords, Holyday, Grimes, Shiner.

Vaughan motion to refer subway wish-list motions is split up. First up will be De Baeremaeker's Scarborough Subway item.

Should council refer the notion of a Bloor-Danforth subway extension through Scarborough to the City Planner? No. Fails 11-33.

Now: should council refer Councillor Moeser's idea of extending the Sheppard East LRT to the zoo to the Chief Planner? Yes. Passes 34-10.

Next: should Councillor Milczyn's long list of subway projects be referred to the Planner's office? Yes. Passes 24-20.

And now: the Pasternak Relief Line. Should his Sheppard West subway extension idea be referred to the Planner? No. Loses on 22-22 tie.

(This means council will vote later on the Scarborough subway and the Sheppard West extension.)

Should Mammoliti's evidence-based push for a Finch subway line be referred to the planner's office? Yes. Passes 42-2. Poor @jen_keesmaat.

Finally: should Councillor Kelly's transit wish-list be referred to the planner's office? Yes. 24-20. And that's that.

Now the vote on the Scarborough subway itself. Should council support an extension of the Bloor-Danforth subway? Yes. 35-9.

Hooray for symbolism!

Augimeri motion re: rolling back corporate income tax cuts to fund transit fails 16-28.

Worth repeating that De Baeremaeker's revised motion on the Scarborough subway was very limited. It's just a general statement of support.

An accurate headline would be something like "Council supports Scarborough subway but does not want Metrolinx to change current LRT plan."

Back to confusion: should vehicle registration tax and road tolls be on the list of taxes council does not support?

Okay. So this vote is: do councillors think a car tax should be removed from the list of taxes council does not support? Fails 12-32.

(So the VRT will be on the list of taxes council does not support.)

Now: highway tolls. Should they be taken off the list of revenue tools council does not support? Fails 14-32. Road tolls go on the list.

Did you guys have the same backwards-talking dream with the flaming cards?

Correction: that was 14-30 on the highway tolls. Apologies!

Only two revenue tools remain explicitly NOT on the list of taxes council does not support: sales tax and high occupancy toll lanes.

Sales tax is up. Should it be on the list of taxes council does not support? Fails 18-26!

Council does not explicitly oppose a sales tax for funding transit! I may get to ride new transit before I am 80 years old!

Now HOT lanes. Council adds them to their do-not-like list, 33-11.

So council has not rejected development charges and a regional sales tax as a means of funding transit.

Now council is voting on a super amended Peter Milczyn motion. Lots of stuff crossed out as redundant.

Concern about @towhey hanging out at Ford's desk during votes. He's probably conducting evil.

Now a vote to confirm that highway tolls belong on the list of rejected revenue tools. Passes 33-11.

And a vote to confirm that HOT lanes belong on the we-hate-this list. Passes 34-9.

Motion to add Mayor or designate to Metrolinx board passes 31-11.

(That doesn't mean he'll be added, necessarily. That's up to the province, and it'd have region-wide implications.)

Pasternak's North York Relief Line motion passes 24-19. This council never met an unfunded subway plan they didn't like.

Cho's motion that council request Metrolinx to consider international RFPs for transit projects passes 35-8.

(Chances of Pasternak's North York Relief Line actually making it into next phase of Big Move? About 19%.)

Norm Kelly's weird motion that council asks the feds to lower income tax rates to offset new transit taxes in the GTA carries 25-19. Okay.

Filion motion that council not proceed with Yonge North subway extension until after capacity increases passes 39-5.

Weird Frank Di Giorgio motion that everyone is laughing at is declared redundant. "Nobody understands it!" says Nunziata.

Vaughan motion that council endorse a province-wide sales tax to pay for transportation capital/operating costs fails 16-28. Oh well.

And that is that! We hate taxes! But maybe not a sales tax and increased development charges. Hint hint, province.

Council also did not explicitly reject corporate income taxes. They're not on Metrolinx short list, but neither were personal income taxes.

I am not sure today's results are a clear win for anybody. Though I think it kinda went how Stintz and co. wanted it to go?

Based on vote results, I think Stintz was hoping to keep dev charges, sales tax, fuel tax & highway tolls off the rejected taxes list.

Fuel tax ended up on the no-no list after a 23-21 vote. So they came real close on that one.

No one is paying attention to #tocouncil right now, right? Because David Shiner just suggested there are death panels at Ontario hospitals?

Councillors who voted against every transit tax today: Rob Ford, Augimeri, De Baeremaeker, Crisanti, Del Grande, Doug Ford, Grimes (1/2)

Councillors who voted against every transit tax today: (cont'd) Holyday, Lindsay Luby, Mammoliti, Moeser, Nunziata, Palacio, Perruzza (2/2)

Let's remember that list when councillors attempt to show up at ribbon cuttings.

Rob Ford wants a wading pool in front of City Hall. Shelley Carroll says they should add monkey bars in front of Parliament HIll. Day four.

Matlow says Ford's wading pool motion is another example of councillors trying to re-open plans that were finalized.

Matlow: "It's called planning. It's called PLANNING. This is silliness. Don't fall into it." A little frustrated.

The Fords are now arguing in favour of a public project with this wading pool push. It's a weird and strange time.

Hah, now Perks draws a Marie Antoinette reference. People have crappy transit and can't get anywhere, but let them have wading pools!

There's at least a dozen places downtown I could think to put an awesome wading pool that wouldn't require tearing up NPS again.

Mammoliti is reading a list of talking points regarding the capital budget. He asks Josh Matlow to read a section for him. Matlow does.

If Ford wasn't so set on trying to kill this bike station, this meeting would be done by now.

Mike Del Grande is surprisingly grumpy about something. He has no time for today's council theatrics.

Adam Vaughan now rakes Ford over the coals for requesting a study that will cost money while simultaneously raging about costly OMB hearings

Vaughan says he wouldn't be surprised if some councillors supported a Porter plan to land helicopters at NPS.

Ford loses his bid to get a report on converting the NPS reflecting pool to a wading pool on a 16-16 tie vote.

Here are the results of the vote on the mayor's reflecting pool motion. Stintz supported it. Parker didn't. http://t.co/QgPHoxMrRo

Staff confirm that the actually showers as part of the NPS Bike Station cost about $20,000. $150K for the showers + change rooms.

Ford also seems to be pushing the notion that the $600K already spent on Bike Station stuff was money that would have been spent anyway.

But I'm not sure that's entirely true, based on staff answers to his questions.

So this bike station's operating costs would be covered with user fees. Parking revenues lost are hypothetical. Showers cost just $20K.

Not sure what the objection is, aside from a pavlovian desire from some councillors to vote against everything related to bikes.

Now MIke Del Grande asks if it makes sense for cyclists to be licensed in Toronto. Here he goes again.

(City has looked at bike licensing at least three times in history. Rejected as super expensive, unworkable and a disincentive to cycling.)

Now James Pasternak is asking why North York Civic Centre isn't getting a bike station like this. Maybe he should ask for one.

Maybe cyclists who complete a CAN-BIKE course could be made eligible for discounted fees at bike stations like the one planned for NPS.

Di Giorgio tries to make the point that underground bike parking is not market driven and there is not enough demand.

Bike parking is often scant at City Hall, plus anecdotally there seems to be a high rate of theft.

Di Giorgio says that if more people started cycling the auto manufacturing industry would suffer.

You heard the budget chief, folks. Do not ride your bike. That machine kills jobs.