October 9, 1998

STRIKING COMMITTEE:

City Council, at its meeting held on October 1 and2, 1998, in adopting, as amended, Clause No.2 contained in Report No.8 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, headed "The Future of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority", directed that the following motions be referred to the Striking Committee, with a request that the Committee submit its recommendations thereon to the next meeting of City Council scheduled to be held on October28, 1998:

"Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is further recommended that Councillors McConnell and Moscoe be nominated for appointment to the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.'

Moved by Councillor Jakobek:

'It is further recommended that Councillor Jakobek be considered for appointment to the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.' "

for City Clerk

J. A. Abrams/csb

Encl.

Clause sent to:Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Province of Ontario

Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services

Chair, Ontario Housing Corporation

Striking Committee

All Interested Parties

CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 8 of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998.

2

The Future Management of The Metropolitan

Toronto Housing Authority

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following motions be referred to the Striking Committee, with a request that the Committee submit its recommendations thereon to the next meeting of City Council scheduled to be held on October28, 1998:

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is further recommended that Councillors McConnell and Moscoe be nominated for appointment to the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.'

Moved by Councillor Jakobek:

'It is further recommended that Councillor Jakobek be considered for appointment to the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.' ")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends that:

(1)the Province of Ontario be requested to:

(a)transfer to the City of Toronto, as soon as possible, the entire Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) housing stock, along with sufficient monies to bring all the housing up to building, fire and relevant code standards within two years;

(b)amend the necessary regulations regarding appointments to the MTHA Board of Directors to enable the City of Toronto to appoint a majority of Board members from City Council;

(2)the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority Board be requested:

(a)to suspend any decisions on privatization of its housing stock until the Provincial Government makes a final decision on the level of government that would take ownership of these properties;

(b)to establish clear performance standards, such as the speed with which repairs would be completed, and provide reports to the City of Toronto's Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on the adherence of these standards;

(c)to consider receiving deputations from the public at its public meetings;

(d)to consider the inclusion of a non-economic eviction policy in the operating directives under which private management works; and

(e)to forward to City Council its most recent survey indicating residents' satisfaction;

(3)the City of Toronto immediately conduct its own review of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority housing stock and operations; and that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee be requested to compile this information for report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, as soon as possible; and

(4)the following report dated August 26, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be received for information:

Purpose:

On July 16, 1998, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee heard a number of deputations and received communications from the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) tenants, union representatives and other interested parties regarding issues affecting MTHA. The Committee requested that staff review and comment on the communications from The Public Housing Fightback Campaign, the Regent Park Community Health Centre and the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 767. This report has been prepared in response to that request.

Financial Implications:

No financial implications identified.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is one of the largest public housing providers in North America, managing 29,000 rent-geared-to-income units for the Ontario Housing Corporation. Currently MTHA uses property management companies to manage approximately 20 percent of this portfolio - about 5,500 units - and directly manages the remaining units. The units managed by property management companies were contracted out when they were built and have remained in private management since that time. The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) manages one project, Glenyan Manor, for MTHA as well, and has done so since the building was constructed.

In October 1997, the MTHA Board discussed and endorsed a preliminary proposal to expand the number of properties managed by private companies. This proposal was one of a series of MTHA initiatives intended to reduce operating costs. Although the matter was discussed in camera by the MTHA Board, it nevertheless received attention in the media. At that time, Metropolitan Council opposed the initiative, noting that the municipality would begin to pay for the operation of MTHA effective January 1, 1998, and asking the Provincial Government to "suspend planning for signing contracts for the property management of MTHA units and to make no decision on the matter until after consultation with the new City of Toronto Council in 1998". Metropolitan Council's position was based on a desire for "say for pay" and not the merits of the MTHA decision.

In the intervening period, as per the direction of the MTHA Board, staff further developed the proposal for private property management expansion. They met with representatives of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) and Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) locals which represent MTHA staff to give notice of the intention to expand private property management services. They held meetings with residents, residents groups, advocacy groups and other stakeholders to share information about the initiative and get comments from the stakeholders. Mail-in responses were also invited. In addition, a limited number of tenants also had the opportunity to directly address members of the MTHA Board.

At its June 1998 meeting, the MTHA Board made the decision to contract out the property management for 4,500 units. This is in addition to the 5,500 units which have been under private management since they were built. MTHA's impact analysis identified an estimated annual savings of between $2.2 and $3 million and the elimination of more than 100 jobs.

The staff report to the MTHA Board identified and attempted to respond to a number of the resident concerns expressed in the consultations. It emphasized the organization's commitment to the same level of service in directly managed and privately managed buildings and noted that private property managers would have to comply with MTHA policies and standards. The staff report also pointed to resident satisfaction surveys which MTHA conducts periodically and which, they noted, did not reflect a different level of satisfaction between tenants in privately managed buildings and those in directly managed buildings. It should be noted, however, that a MTHA document summarizing comments from consultation sessions held in early May indicated that "all the residents and groups that participated in the deputations opposed private property management."

Position of The Public Housing Fightback Campaign (PHFC):

PHFC submitted its June 1998 report, entitled "The Future Management of Public Housing", to the Committee for consideration. The report provides a case against any further privatization of property management in MTHA. It questions the effectiveness of private property management at MTHA to date, citing that no rigorous evaluation has been done, and the validity of the business case for the expansion. It also challenges the validity of the consultation process which took place between January and June, maintaining that no consultations occurred in buildings currently managed by private property managers. The data gathered from resident satisfaction surveys was also questioned, on the basis of a criticism from the Provincial Auditor, namely that "the response rate for many individual community offices is insufficient to assess results for specific buildings or property managers."

The report expresses the concern that private management will have a negative impact on the quality of life and security of tenure for tenants, and result in a loss of accountability to tenants and the public. The report also suggests that MTHA does not have the mandate to proceed with the expansion of private management now that municipalities are paying the bills, along with the Federal Government and tenants through their rents.

In order to address these concerns, PHFC recommends:

-that reforms in public housing be made based on a rigorous analysis of a full range of options;

-public sector management, co-op and non-profit models;

-"say for pay" for tenants through meaningful consultation; and

-consideration of the "social case" as well as the "business case" in making any decisions regarding further privatization.

Position of the Regent Park Community Health Centre (RPCHC):

In its communication to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, the RPCHC included a deputation made to the Board of Directors of MTHA on May 5, 1998, and requested that the City of Toronto consider the recommendations contained in it.

In the deputation RPCHC commends MTHA for its desire to improve service delivery to tenants and encourages efforts to explore alternative management models to achieve such a goal. Nevertheless, the organization indicates that it does not believe that "a movement to private property management from direct management serves tenants or community needs." The following more specific recommendations are contained in the deputation:

-more meaningful involvement for tenants;

-the establishment of a Task Force, made up of tenants, MTHA staff and other relevant stakeholders, to improve direct management;

-referendums in communities where management change is proposed to ensure that tenants understand and are supportive of any change;

-comprehensive monitoring of any private management firms which may be selected, to ensure tenant satisfaction;

-criteria for the selection of private managers to include not-for profit organizations only, those experienced in working with diverse communities, those experienced in mediating disputes without proceeding directly to an evictions process;

-working in partnership with the City of Toronto; and

-working with the Ontario Housing Corporation (OHC) to investigate creative means of managing an aging stock.

Position of CUPE Local 767:

The brief provided by CUPE Local 767 asks the Committee to "support action to postpone the MTHA decision to expand their Private Management Partnerships, until more complete and specific information regarding the actual service comparisons can be made available...". More specifically, Local 767 requests that Councillor Chong, a City of Toronto Councillor on the MTHA Board, make a motion to reconsider the decision on private property management at MTHA's next Board meeting.

As described in their communication, this request is based on the belief that the cost difference between private and direct management results from a reduced service to residents in privately managed buildings because:

-private managers can neglect buildings and rely on capital budget to make major improvements as housing stock deteriorates;

-a double standard exists with respect to work order tracking systems - private managers have not been required to use the MTHA system; and

-directly managed sites benefit from a centralized mobile maintenance service which, though ensuring a high quality response to tenants, is costly.

Also, the CUPE brief cautions that the private management approach will place a strong barrier between tenants and decision makers at MTHA and that MTHA may choose to contract out the management for the buildings which are in the best condition, allowing those who bid to do so with the knowledge that day to day maintenance needs will be greatly reduced.

The CUPE brief advocates for the eventual integration of MTHA with the City's housing companies when devolution is finally complete. For this reason, it is recommended that major decisions to reshape the organization are best left until provincial intentions are clear.

Comments:

Despite the provincial download of financial responsibility for social housing to municipalities, cities have not yet been granted any administrative responsibility for the programs they are financing. This lack of "say for pay" puts the municipality in an unfortunate position - seen by the public as accountable for social housing, yet with no authority to ensure that municipal issues are addressed and municipal positions respected. This will continue as long as one level of government is paying while another level of government is managing. The "say for pay" position has been maintained by Council in all discussions and reports related to social housing devolution.

In a separate report to the Committee, staff has provided details of a recently released Discussion Paper on Social Housing Reform. This discussion paper, prepared by the Social Housing Committee (SHC), proposes a number of reforms to the current system, reforms which the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing promised to make prior to transferring responsibility for social housing administration to municipalities. Only when the reform process is complete and administrative responsibility transferred, will the City's role with respect to MTHA be clear.

As noted at the Committee meeting of July 16, 1998, municipalities across the Province have been asked to nominate representatives to sit on the Boards of their local housing authorities, specifically to ensure that municipal views are considered by these local housing authorities in the period preceding the transfer of administrative responsibility. The appointment of municipal representatives to the MTHA Board, in contrast, was made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, without consultation with the City. This has essentially left the City of Toronto representative accountable to the Minister who appointed him, rather than to the City. The Committee, at its last meeting, recommended that Council advise the Minister that Toronto will be nominating its own two representatives to sit on the MTHA Board, and that the matter be referred to the Striking Committee for consideration.

The issue of contracting out services is one which the City's own housing companies will need to consider. To date, budget constraints have been addressed without contracting out core property management services. However, in view of the considerable attention which has been focused on this issue, and anticipated additional fiscal constraint, it will be crucial to examine closely this issue and develop sound data upon which to make decisions regarding any alternate service delivery models. The municipal housing companies have begun an analysis of the relative costs and benefits of in-house and contracted-out property management services, to ensure that the necessary data is available.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell, General Manager

Shelter, Housing and Support Division

Tel: 392-7885

--------

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter communications from the following:

-(September 9, 1998) from Ms. C. Fenn, Chair, Greenbrae Residents Group;

-(September 9, 1998) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79; and

-(September 9, 1998) from Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Co-Director, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto.

The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Angela Robertson, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Ms. Grace Buller, Canadian Pensioners Concerned; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. Howard Tessler, Federation of Metro Tenants Association; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. Barry Rieder, Jane/Finch Community Ministry; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Ms. Pauline Miller, Furgrove Tenants Association; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. Cliff Martin, Mr. Vance Latchford and Ms. Ann Fitzpatrick, The Public Housing Fightback Campaign; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. Wally Devoe, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 767;

-Ms. Nicole Seguin, Regent Park Community Health Centre;

-Ms. Veronica Hering; and submitted a brief in regard thereto; and

-Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, and asked questions of the deputations.

(Councillor Elizabeth Brown, at the meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on September 10, 1998, declared her interest in that portion of the Committee's discussions related to any contracts for building and maintenance of elevators, in that her husband is Vice-President of Engineering of Montgomery Kone Elevator Co. Limited.)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (September 30, 1998) from the Chair, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority:

This is to request that you place this letter before Council during its deliberation on the above matter.

The Housing Authority believes that the recommendations of the Committee as outlined below have for the most part been addressed. MTHA has implemented most of the recommendations dealing with "process issues" such as receiving deputations and establishing performance standards. The principal substantive issue is our direction to increase our existing private property management portfolio, which is clarified below.

(a) Private management contracts

MTHA has 29,400 public housing units with 5,675 (19 percent) currently under contract to private management. This has been a management practice for 29 years. MTHA proposes to increase this part of the portfolio by 4,429 unit, to bring the total to 34 percent under private property management.

MTHA's operating costs including taxes and utilities have been increasing. We have not reduced our service levels, and in fact have substantially increased capital expenditures from $30.0million per year to $38.0 million per year, over the past 5 years, to maintain the public housing stock.

Private management has to be undertaken to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and maintain service levels. Our experience over the past years confirms that there is not reduction in service levels with contracted property management. Costs have historically been lower by over $1,000.00 per unit.

(b) Performance standards

MTHA has performance standards in a variety of areas including maintenance. These standards are continually being improved and expanded. The standards are monitored in a number of ways including the use of the organization's internal auditing branch. Copies of these standards will be made available to the City.

(c) Receiving deputations

The MTHA Board heard public deputations on this issue at meetings in May 1998. In the same manner that City Council has public meetings. MTHA also has public board meetings. However as is the case with all public bodies, legal personnel, contractual items, among others, are held in-camera. MTHA board meetings are held on a monthly basis and in 1998 meetings are held the third Wednesday of every month. Agendas and background reports are available from the Board Secretary. Copies of open session minutes are available upon request.

(d)Non-economic eviction policy

All evictions, whether in buildings directly managed by MTHA or by a private property management company, are handled by legal staff assigned to MTHA by the Ministry of the Attorney General. Policies and practices for eviction are uniformly applied across the housing portfolio. Over the past 4 years, there has been an average of 2,700 applications for evictions filed per year, with a yearly average of 165 resulting in actual evictions. This rate is not a large number by any standard -- 0.6 percent of the 29,400 MTHA housing units. The number of evictions in contracted property management is lower than those in the rest of the portfolio.

(e) Residents survey

MTHA survey information is public information. Excerpts from the surveys are transmitted to all residents by way of our resident newsletter "Tenant News". Copies of the report are sent to resident councils and groups, and are available to the others upon request. A copy of the survey report will be sent to you.

The MTHA board has representation from City Council and from the Regional Municipality of York. I am hopeful that this representation will increase in the ensuing months. I want to assure members of Council that we carefully weight the opinions of the City and the GTA municipalities, which are now paying the provincial share of the public housing bill, to act in the best social and financial interests of their taxpayers.

MTHA has met with a variety of City officials over the past few months -- the City Treasurer, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the General Manager of CityHome and Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited. MTHA and the City housing staff continue to share best practices and explore and implement initiatives for cooperative service delivery. Recent examples of cooperation include Housing Connections (the coordinated housing access system), the Housing Manager System (HMS -- computer systems), and security services. We hope to build on these relationships and work together to provide responsive public housing for resident of Toronto.)

(CouncillorBrown, at the meeting of City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, declared her interest in that portion of the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to any contracts for building and maintenance of elevators, in that her husband is Vice-President of Engineering of Montgomery Kone Elevator Co. Limited.)