TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 7

1Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks

2Diversion Options forYouth Involved in the Squeegee Trade

3Mayor's Youth Employment Initiative

4Sale of Scattered Units Owned by Ontario Housing Corporation in the City of Toronto

5Change in Funding Responsibility forSupportive Social Housing

6Development of Housing for the Homeless - 30 St. Lawrence Street

7Toward a Municipal Strategy to Encourage the Creation of Affordable Housing and a Framework for Proposals to Develop Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects

8 Homelessness and Request forDeclaration of Disaster

9 Impact of Health Card Requirements on the Homeless

10 Amendments to Housing By-laws -Harmonization of Procedural and Other Matters

11 Ontario Works Pilot Projects

12 National Child Benefit Supplement

13 Elimination of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid

14Capital Funding Support for Child Care Centres Facing Eviction from Schools

15 Child Care Status Research Project

16 Future Provision of Laundry Services

17Future Direction of Riverdale Hospital

18 Homes for the Aged - Uncollectible Accounts

19 Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 7

OF THE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on July 16, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

1

Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause to provide that:

(1)dogs off-leash areas include the possible provision of specific hours being set aside for use as leash-free zones;

(2)stoop-and-scoop legislation be enforced; and

(3)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on an effective enforcement policy in regards to dogs off-leash and stoop-and-scoop legislation.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the joint report dated June 30, 1998, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Medical Officer of Health, subject to:

(a)amending Recommendation No. (4) by adding thereto the following:

"and further that all current off-leash areas in City Parks be confirmed until such time as the staff have conducted their review and reported on any amendments to Community Councils, and Council, accordingly;",

so that such Recommendation now reads as follows:

"(4)staff be directed to review all existing arrangements where off-leash areas currently exist and report back with suggested amendments in accordance with Recommendation No. (1); and further that all current off-leash areas in City Parks be confirmed until such time as the staff have conducted their review and reported on any amendments to Community Councils, and Council, accordingly;",

(b)amending Recommendation No. (5) by adding thereto the following:

"and on exploratory comments and/or arrangements for vacant industrial lands;",

so that such Recommendation now reads as follows:

"(5)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report on the feasibility of using vacant City lands for the development of "dog parks," and on exploratory comments and/or arrangements for vacant industrial lands;";

(c)amending Step 3 in Appendix 1 under "Community input" by adding thereto the following:

"and that this meeting will provide input on whether an off-leash area is desirable at the proposed location and, if so, what rules and restrictions should apply.";

(d)amending Appendix 1 to provide that, prior to recommendation and park designation of new off-leash areas, staff obtain the approval of both Ward Councillors;

(e)amending Item (1)(c) in Appendix 2 to read as follows:

"(1)(c)Environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Parks and Recreation Division, such as ravine areas and naturalized planting areas."; and

(f)amending Appendix 2 to provide that staff of the Parks and Recreation Division review the ratio of park space to residents;

(2)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be directed to provide improved signage for all off-leash areas in City parks;

(3)that a pamphlet regarding the responsibilities of dog ownership be widely circulated throughout the City;

(4)that the North York "Poop Patrol Program" be expanded to include all the amalgamated City parks; and

(5)that the Community Councils, when holding public hearings on possible amendments to the Animal Control By-law in October, 1998, be requested to hear deputations on the uniform policy for leashed and unleashed dogs in City parks; and that the outcome of such hearings on this issue be forwarded to the Board of Health and Economic Development Committee.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to:

(i)report directly to Council on July 29, 1998, on:

(a)the feasibility of increasing the number of dogs under the control of one person in the designated off-leash areas;

(b)the possibility of implementing dog off-leash and on-leash periods in City parks; and

(ii)report to the Economic Development Committee on:

(a)the potential off-leash areas which conform to the new off-leash guidelines in Toronto;

(b)the cost to properly fence off-leash areas; and

(c)an effective enforcement by-law with respect to illegal unleashed dogs in City parks and violations of stoop and scoop regulations.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following joint report (June 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Medical Officer of Health:

Purpose:

To submit for consideration various recommendations relating to dogs in parks in order to reduce conflict between park users and to harmonize different practices existing in the former municipalities.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable at this time.

Recommendations:

That the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee adopt the following recommendations and refer them to City Council for approval:

(1)the process and guidelines for designating off-leash areas in City of Toronto parks, as outlined in Appendices 1 and 2, be adopted;

(2)the number of dogs allowed under the control of one person in a City of Toronto park be limited to three which is the maximum allowed to be owned by one household, and the City Solicitor be asked to draft appropriate legislation to give effect thereto;

(3)Animal Services be requested to report back on any additional resources required to increase their capacity to work with the community to encourage voluntary compliance with park by-laws. Further that Animal Services be authorized to approach potential corporate partners to solicit funding for educational programming;

(4)staff be directed to review all existing arrangements where off-leash areas currently exist and report back with suggested amendments in accordance with Recommendation No. (1);

(5)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report on the feasibility of using vacant City lands for the development of "dog parks";

(6)this report be sent to the Board of Health for comment to City Council; and

(7)the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on March 26 and 27, 1998, had before it a communication (February 2, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that York Community Council on January 21, 1998, recommended to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee that the Medical Officer of Health be requested to report on the development of a City-wide uniform policy regarding leashed and unleashed dogs in City parks. Since this is a significant policy and operational issue for the Parks and Recreation Division of the Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, staff are bringing forward a joint report for consideration. Further, the Board of Health at their July 6, 1998, meeting is considering a report on Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation as a deputation item that is expected to proceed to the next City Council meeting.

Comments:

The Uniform Parks By-law that was consistent across all the former municipalities stipulates that no person having control of any dog shall allow it to run at large, except in a designated area. In the former City of Toronto, 21 parks have designated off-leash areas and are considered to be temporary "pilot project" locations subject to reporting back on impact. Several of these parks have restricted hours for off-leash dogs.

The former City of Etobicoke started a "pilot project" two years ago designating one park with dogs off-leash between certain hours from May to October and 24-hour dogs off-leash, between November and April in an area that is partially fenced.

The former City of North York has recently built a fenced dogs off-leash area in one large park.

The former Borough of East York, City of Scarborough, City of York and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto have no dogs off-leash areas.

Permitting dogs to roam unleashed in City parks is a controversial issue given the challenge of satisfying the interests of all park patrons. While most dog owners obey all by-laws and keep their dogs under control, problems are on the rise in part because of the increase in the number of dogs, their natural behaviours and a minority of irresponsible dog owners. The Parks and Recreation Division and the Animal Services have been monitoring the dogs off-leash locations and report the following observations:

-City residents who own dogs benefit from their companionship, security, social and recreational activity.

-Dogs off-leash areas promote dog owners socializing in parks thereby creating a presence, enhancing the perception of public safety and deterring inappropriate or criminal activity in the area.

-Most dog owners comply and many participate in informal enforcement and public education activities with park users.

-Off-leash activity frequently expands beyond the designated areas and park boundaries into on-leash park areas, neighbourhood streets and private properties.

-"Stoop and Scoop" violations are on the increase in parks.

-The public is reporting health and safety concerns particularly for children and senior citizens including: confrontation between incompatible dogs resulting in dog bites; confrontations with pet owners who refuse to comply with leashing and stoop and scoop requirements; and dogs in playground areas. The recent media reports of dog bites and attacks on children have raised particular concerns.

-There have been a growing number of professional dog walkers arriving with many dogs at a time causing concern to park visitors and damage to parkland. Adherence to stoop and scoop by-laws is particularly problematic with multiple dog walking.

-Park damage is occurring throughout the year including holes being dug by dogs creating trip hazards to park patrons and sportsfield users. As well, the fragile nature of forest ecology of the ravines is being threatened by dogs who are a major contributor to erosion and damage to sensitive plant material.

-Designated park areas for dogs off-leash creates a situation of concentrated usage, resulting in park damage.

-There have been a number of staff complaints of dogs bothering or attacking them during their performance of park maintenance activities.

-Enforcement of the existing by-laws with current resources is seriously inadequate.

Conclusions:

There is an ever increasing demand for the provision of dogs off-leash areas in parks. Without a rational multi-faceted approach to the issue, complaints from other park users and park damage can be expected to continue. Other cities have experimented with fenced dogs off-leash areas in large tracts of parkland as well as on unused city land with some success. Enforcement alone without community participation and education is nearly impossible. The process and guidelines for approving new dogs off-leash areas is described in Appendix 1 and features:

(1)community consultation;

(2)annual reviews;

(3)dog owners assuming "dog watch" responsibilities; and

(4)a list of areas that would be rejected because of their unsuitability through safety, operational or environmental reasons.

Contact Names:

Jill CherryJames Bandow

Parks and Recreation DivisionAnimal Services

392-0360392-6767

--------

Appendix 1

Process for Leash-free Areas in City of Toronto Parks

Step

(1)Initial proposal request:Area residents who are interested in an off-leash area for their neighbourhood should contact the Parks and Recreation Division and Ward Councillor.

(2)Research of the proposal:Parks and Recreation will review each site against established guidelines (Appendix 2) in consultation with the Public Health Division - Animal Services. If the proposal does not meet the guidelines, the proponents will be advised of the deficiencies.

(3)Community input:Parks and Recreation will participate with Public Health - Animal Services and the Ward Councillor in a public meeting with members of the community such as Advisory Councils, sports groups, area schools, etc. to establish protocol, determine area and identify the dog watch community group.

(4)Report:Parks and Recreation will submit a report to Community Council with recommendations -deputations at Community Council may be required depending on neighbourhood circumstances.

(5)City Council approval.

(6)Evaluation as per procedures for review.

Provisions for review, implementation and enforcement are set out below:

-Implementation:Parks and Recreation will arrange for and install signage which would clearly indicate on and off-leash areas, hours of off-leash times and stoop and scoop regulations and fines.

-Annual Review:Parks and Recreation Division and Public Health Division - Animal Services, in consultation with the Ward Councillor and the community dog watch group, will undertake a review annually to determine if further action is required to improve or remove the dogs off-leash area resulting in a report to Community Council with: (i) recommendation to continue, or (ii) revisions to off-leash areas.

-EnforcementPublic Health Division - Animal Services and Toronto Police when contacted by the community dog watch group as required.

--------

Appendix 2

Off-Leash Guidelines

(1)All parks and vacant City of Toronto land should be considered for dogs off-leash areas. The following, in most cases, will be excepted:

(a)Parks that have passive and active uses, such as playgrounds, wading pools, permitted sportsfield activities; paths used for cycling, rollerblading and pedestrian links (boardwalks).

(b)Active play areas of parks such as toboggan areas, permitted locations and athletic running tracks.

(c)Environmentally sensitive areas such as ravine areas and naturalized planting areas.

(d)Parks adjacent to schoolyards.

(e)Natural and artificial rinks.

(f)Internal pedestrian park pathways that are used on a regular basis (neighbourhood connections).

(g)Sportsfields.

(h)Ornamental gardens.

(i)Parkettes under 0.5 ha in size.

(2)That fenced in dogs off-leash areas be considered for selected parks on a regional basis in parks larger than 10 ha, subject to the process and guidelines outlined in Recommendation No. (1).

(3)Before considering an application for a dogs off-leash area, dog owners using the park must form a group with a minimum of 15 members who agree to:

(a)Provide "Dog-Watch" eyes and ears on the park to identify and help educate irresponsible pet owners.

(b)Organize park clean-ups at a minimum of four times per year.

(c)Repair areas damaged from dogs/digging.

(d)Consult with Public Health - Animal Services for by-law enforcement when required.

(4)In consultation with the community and Ward Councillor, off-leash times be designated (except in fenced areas) to minimize potential conflict with other park users.

--------

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

-(May 7, 1998) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park, forwarding a copy of Clause 31 of Report No. 12 of the Neighbourhoods Committee, entitled "Dogs Off-Leash in Designated Areas - City of Toronto", which was adopted, as amended, by the former City of Toronto Council on September 22 and 23, 1997;

-(May 22, 1998) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park, submitting a communication (May 15, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. D. Teixeira forwarding a petition of approximately 132 names requesting a designated "leash-free" area in Rennie Park near the ravine;

-(June 16, 1998) from Mrs. Joyce E. Ball requesting a leash free area at Bloordale Park, and attaching a petition of approximately 22 signatures in this regard;

-(July 14, 1998) from Ms. Paola Franceschetti in opposition to off-leash areas;

-(July 14, 1998) from Mr. Paul Hecht providing suggestions for leash-free areas in Sorauren Park;

-(July 16, 1998) from Mr. R. Burt expressing concern with respect to off-leash areas and suggesting that such areas be fenced-in areas only;

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Naseen Malik, Public Affairs Officer, Toronto Humane Society, advising that the Society was not consultted with respect to proposed changes governing leashed and unleashed dogs; and recommending that:

(1)the Toronto Humane Society be permitted to participate in ongoing discussions before there is any action taken to implement changes to the leashing policy;

(2)the Toronto Human Society be permitted to engage in public consultations with the Board of Health and the Department of Health, concerning the harmonization of animal control bylaws; and

(3)the process to determine a uniform policy for leashed and unleashed dogs be folded into the consultations undertaken with the Board of Health and the Department of Public Health, concerning the harmonization of animal control by-laws;

and from the following in opposition to limiting the number of dogs under one dog walker and in support of off-leash areas for dogs in City parks;

-(July 10, 1998) from Ms. Gabby Naylor;

-(July 13, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Gulliford;

-(July 13, 1998) from Ms. Julie Cohn;

-(July 13, 1998) from Ms. Marilyn Linton;

-(July 14, 1998) from Mr. Victor Tovey;

-(July 14, 1998) from Ms. Marce Riddell; and suggesting a limit of six dogs per dog walker;

-(July 14, 1998) from Ms. Stephanie S. Miller;

-(July 14, 1998) from Mr. Christopher Killey;

-(July 15, 1998) from Wendy and Jeff Herman;

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. Mark J. Decker;

-(July 14, 1998) from Ms. Judy Righton, Pet Partners Inc.; and suggesting four to five dogs per person is a safe and reasonable limit for a bonefide professional dog walker;

-(July 14, 1998) from Dr. Shana Friedman-Midroni and Dr. Ran Midroni;

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. Andrew L. Basek;

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Charlene Butler; and suggesting that a solution might be to license professional dog walkers;

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Vivianne Cowley;

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Sarie Jenkins;

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Jean Cockburn and Mr. Michael Cretzman;

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Caren McCracken;

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. Richard Boraks;

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Linda Kilpatrick;

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. W. Barrie Thomson;

-(July 15, 1998) from the Litowitz family;

-(July 16, 1998) from Mr. David Stickney and family;

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. William L. Stanford, and providing suggestions on how to better enforce the current by-laws;

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. Eric Pressman, owner and operator of Leader of the Pack;

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Woodmansey;

-(July 16, 1998) from M. Rogers; and

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Celia Johnstone.

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

-Ms. Diane Eibner, on behalf of Ms. Martha Shea, Professional Dog Walkers Association; and submitted Ms. Shea's brief in regard thereto;

-Ms. Diane Eibner, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. Eric Pressman;

-Ms. Andrea Mann;

-Ms. Joyce Ball;

-Ms. Cynthia Prestula, and showed a video in regard to dogs running off-leash in a local park;

-Mr. Robert Ball;

-Mr. Patrick Williams, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Ms. Jane Brooks;

-Ms. Nina Balodis;

-Ms. Wanda Juraskek;

-Ms. Terry Wade;

-Mr. Ross Waddell;

-Ms. Karen Ito;

-Ms. Grace Petrucci; and

-Mr. Jack Slibar, Chief Operating Officer, Toronto Humane Society.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (undated) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information to Council as requested by the Community and Neighborhood Services Committee on July 16, 1998.

Financial Implications:

There are no direct financial implications of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Community and Neigbourhood Services Committee requested me to report directly to the July29, 1998 Council Meeting on two issues related to Leashed and Unleashed Dogs within City Parks. These were:

(a)"The feasibility of increasing the number of dogs under the control of one person in designated off-leash areas:"; and

(b)"The possibility of implementing dog off-leash and on-leash periods in City Parks".

Discussion:

Our recommendation to Committee included that the number of dogs within the control of any one person within a City Park be set at three. This is the maximum number of dogs allowed to be owned by one household and is in keeping with the intent of the harmonized care and control by-law currently under review by the Animal Services Staff of the Public Health Department.

Parks and Recreation Staff believe that it is not appropriate for anyone, including professional dog walkers, to have control of more than three dogs within a leash-free zone in a City park.

Notwithstanding the fact that Council may determine that professional dog walkers may be able to safely control more than three dogs on leash outside of a park area, it is clearly inappropriate for anyone to have control of more than three dogs in a leash-free zone. This is simply due to the diminished control within the leash free zone, the added number of dogs, and the potential for conflicts between dogs. The maximum number of dogs within a unleashed area should be set at three.

The second issue relates to the potential for different hours to be scheduled for use of sections of parks to be used as leash-free zones. The current situation within some existing leash-free zones, and the proposed process to establish new leash-free areas includes provision to have specific hours set aside for use as a leash-free zone. This allows for scheduling of off-peak times and complementary use of specific park areas for both leash-free areas and other uses at specific times of the day. We believe that scheduling appropriate times for these activities will minimize conflicts with other park users and improve the acceptance of leash-free zones in some communities.

Conclusion:

This report should be considered as additional information on this complex issue. Staff will be reporting further to the Economic Development Committee this fall with additional information requested by the Community and Neigbourhood Services Committee.

Contact:

John A. Macintyre, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Metro Hall, 397-4451.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(July15, 1998) from Mr. Eric Pressman, Operator and Owner of Leader of the Pack, forwarding a copy of his deputation to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee regarding the issue of leashed and unleased dogs in City parks;

(ii)(July 14, 1998) addressed to Councillor Gordon Chong, Chair, Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, from Ms. Jane Greer, on behalf of 90 dog-owners/dog-walkers, known as the Dovercourt Park Dog People, requesting off-leash hours in Dovercourt Park for exercising dogs; and

(iii)(undated) petition from supporters of the request to City Council for off-leash hours for dogs in Dovercourt Park.)

2

Diversion Options for

Youth Involved in the Squeegee Trade

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, considered this Clause together with Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, headed "Proposed By-laws to Regulate Panhandling and Squeegee Activities".

City Council referred these Clauses, together with the following motions, to Mayor Lastman, Councillor Olivia Chow (City's Youth Advocate) and Councillor Dennis Fotinos (Chair, Emergency and Protective Services Committee):

Moved by Councillor Chow:

"That the Clause be struck out and referred to Mayor Lastman, Councillor Chow (City's Youth Advocate) and Councillor Fotinos (Chair, Emergency and Protective Services), for a report to the October meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, on a detailed plan to address the issue of squeegee activities in the City, such plan to address the following:

(1)a response from the Federal and/or Provincial governments with respect to any legislative measures to be introduced by the Federal and/or Provincial governments; and

(2)a description of the specific strategies in the diversion programs to address those individuals who are truly in need."

Moved by Councillor Davis:

"That the foregoing motion by Councillor Chow be amended to provide that the report be submitted to a joint meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Emergency and Protective Services Committee."

Moved by Councillor Chong:

"That the foregoing motion by Councillor Chow be amended to provide that, in the interim, the Toronto Police Services Board be requested to use whatever laws are currently in existence to ensure that unsafe, obnoxious behaviour of windshield washers is curtailed or minimized."

Moved by Councillor Cho:

"That the foregoing motion by Councillor Chow be amended to provide that the report be submitted to a joint meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and subsequently to City Council in November, 1998."

Moved by Councillor Bossons:

"That the foregoing motion by Councillor Chow be amended to provide that the Chief of Police be requested to submit a report to the joint meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, providing factual information on the number of arrests that have been made for major offences such as drug-related offences or persons wanted on warrants."

Moved by Councillor Adams:

"That the foregoing motion by Councillor Chow be amended to provide that should City Council defer action about squeegee persons, that the City make available 'No Thanks to Squeegee' signs to members of the public in the appropriate size to fit in automobile windshields."

Moved by Councillor Lindsay Luby:

"That the foregoing motion by Councillor Chow be amended to provide that the Province of Ontario be requested to introduce changes to the Highway Traffic Act, as soon as possible, to provide the City with the means to control the squeegee situation."

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

"That the foregoing motion by Councillor Chong be referred to the joint meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Emergency and Protective Services Committee.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends to Council:

(a)the adoption of the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No.(6) by deleting the words "a year" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "six months", so that such Recommendation reads as follows:

"(6)these initiatives be evaluated by staff from Community and Neighbourhood Services and Urban Planning and Development Services after six months and the results be reported to Council;";

(b)that the strategies and monies recommended in the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be incorporated into existing youth employment programs; and

(c)that the Toronto Police Service be requested to work closely with the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department in the implementation of the diversion options; and

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having directed that:

(i)the City Solicitor, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, be requested to report directly to Council on July 29, 1998, on an effective legal and/or practical remedy to deal with those squeegee individuals who are obnoxious and making a nuisance of themselves;

(ii)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Emergency and Protective Services, be requested to report to the appropriate Committee on:

(a)a possible partnership with the Partnership Advocating for Youth Employment in operating a vending business for the sole purpose of employing street youth; and

(b)the concept of reserving some of the vending sites in the downtown area to allow persons involved in the squeegee industry an opportunity to enter into a legitimate business venture to gain income;

(iii)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on possible partnerships with the Canadian Armed Forces Recruitment Offices and with the Toronto Catholic District School Board;

(iv)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief of Police be requested to submit an interim progress report on the success and outcomes of the diversion strategies by October, 1998; and

(v)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to expedite the recommendations embodied in her report dated July 9, 1998.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following report (July9,1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To propose viable strategies for diverting youth from the squeegee trade.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding of $500,000.00 will be required to enhance the Partnership Advocating for Youth Employment to provide pre-employment training and the development of employment alternatives for street involved youth, and to finance new business ventures and to develop effective transition strategies for street-involved youth.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council endorse diversion strategies as a necessary accompaniment to any enforcement strategies that might be adopted by the City;

(2)Council provide $150,000.00 to support the Partnership Advocating for Youth Employment (PAYE) in providing transitional, pre-employment training and in developing an alternative employment and business development program as described in this report;

(3)Council allocate $350,000.00 to support the development of new business ventures and effective transition strategies for street-involved youth as identified in this report, and that emerge as a result of ongoing work by the Children and Youth Action Committee;

(4)the source of funding for these initiatives be identified by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer;

(5)staff continue to work with the Children and Youth Action Committee and community-based agencies to further develop the alternative employment strategies identified in this report;

(6)these initiatives be evaluated by staff from Community and Neighbourhood Services and Urban Planning and Development Services after a year and the results be reported to Council;

(7)this report be forwarded to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for information; and

(8)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Public concern over the negative impact of panhandling, squeegee practices and other street related activities has been raised by both Councillors and the Police. In response, Council requested that the Legal Department report on the feasibility of a by-law restricting such activities. This report is expected to be brought forward to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on July13,1998.

Many of the people who would be affected by such a by-law are street involved youth. The Community and Neighbourhood Services Department and Urban Planning and Development Department have experience in working with youth at risk.

Staff from both Departments have been involved over the past months in the Mayor's Youth Employment Summit and in the work of the Youth Subcommittee of the Children's Action Committee. During that period, the Police also held a workshop specifically on the squeegee issue, an activity primarily engaged in by youth. In addition, the former City of Toronto instituted a pilot program last year which was aimed at diverting street involved youth from these activities and connecting them to the supports required to begin the search for other forms of employment.

This report will build on the information available from these various consultations and on the results of the pilot program in recommending strategies to provide alternatives to the squeegee trade for street involved youth.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A Profile of the Youth And the Issues They Face:

Over the past months, the Mayor's Youth Employment Summit, the Youth Subcommittee of the Children and Youth Action Committee (chaired by Councillor Chow), and the Police sponsored Squeegee Summit have provided opportunities to gain insight into the nature of the problem and potential solutions. In addition, pilot programs carried out in the former City of Toronto have demonstrated some of the prerequisites to successfully redirecting street involved youth.

The police estimate that there are over two hundred squeegee practitioners in Toronto. Meetings with the youth themselves and agencies who work with them reveal that they are by no means a homogeneous group. There are a smaller number who are full-time practitioners. A second group works part time as income is needed, while others are seasonal. Some are truly homeless while others are housed to some degree. Most have a range of personal problems such as drug involvement, difficulty in obtaining identification, health issues and other barriers to leaving the streets.

In a survey of 69 squeegee youth conducted by Youthlink Inner City in early July, 27 identified themselves as not having a place to live, 6 stated that they resided in a squat, and 2 identified themselves as shelter users. Thirty-eight have been charged or ticketed, and 32 stated that they have tried unsuccessfully to get off the streets.

Susan Pigott, Executive Director of St. Christopher Neighborhood House and Mayor Lastman's Youth Employment Summit Co-chair, identified the complex, long-standing problems that many young people have to deal with, including poverty, lack of education, homelessness, or family troubles. These problems cannot be solved simply by putting the young person in a job. In fact, rushing young people into jobs they are not yet prepared to handle does more harm than good.

The provision of appropriate housing is critical to stabilizing youth. Some youth require short term services which are provided by youth shelters, while others need projects like the Satellite, a winter program targeted to youth who do not traditionally use the shelter system. Some squeegee youth are able to find housing with the assistance of projects such as One Stop Housing, a housing information and referral project which is offered in various youth agencies. Many youth have difficulty both obtaining and maintaining housing, and need an opportunity to develop social, life, and housing skills through living in an environment which includes considerable staff support.

Street involved youth require a range of transitional supports that stabilize their lives, provide alternative ways of earning an income, and ensure that appropriate housing is available. These "street level" supports are currently delivered through outreach, drop-in, and residential programs that link youth to health care, AIDS prevention, substance abuse prevention, identification and health card replacement, counselling, housing, and employment programs and services. The Mayor's Summit participants emphasized, among other things, that these services must be linked as part of a continuum of service.

Connecting these youth to service agencies, existing employment resources or any new initiatives resulting from the Mayor's Summit or work done by the Children and Youth Action Committee is a fundamental building block in that continuum. The next section identifies potential strategies for dealing with the complex issues of street involved youth, and proposes an option for consideration by Council to address these issues.

(1)Potential Strategies:

(a)Enforcement Strategies:

Panhandling by-laws address issues solely from a regulatory and enforcement perspective, attempting to reduce the negative impacts of solicitation and squeegeeing by placing limits and restrictions on location and behaviour. Emergency and Protective Services at it July 14, 1998, meeting is considering recommendations from the legal department regarding the impacts and effectiveness of enforcement options.

Research identifies the need for addressing the root causes for panhandling and squeegeeing, and the need for initiatives designed to redirect those who depend on those activities for a livelihood into opportunities to stabilize their life and health if required, and explore alternative employment possibilities.

Appendix A describes approaches in Winnipeg and Vancouver that link enforcement strategies with efforts to deal with some of the root causes and motivations for panhandling, squeegeeing and related behaviours. The recent Squeegee Workshop sponsored by the Police further confirms the value of a comprehensive approach.

(b) Pre-employment Strategies:

The former City of Toronto piloted a program directed at street involved and squeegee youth involving a partnership among Kensington Youth Theatre and Employment Skills, Metro Youth Outreach, Youthlink Inner City and St. Christopher House - Job Corps. The Partnership Advocating for Youth Employment (PAYE) program was an alternative income project for youth aged 16-24 who have had chronic street involvement and were not be eligible for other training programs. PAYE provided 23 youth with alternatives to squeegeeing, panhandling, welfare, and/or prostitution by providing life skills, work experience, and an income. Of those, 15 have gone on to further education, training or employment after the program. (See Appendix B for a more detailed description of the program.)

The initiative began as a pilot project and received $50,000.00 for a three-month period from the former City of Toronto Urban Development Services Department. PAYE has since run two more projects. The total funding for the 1997 was $124,786.00.

(c)Alternative Employment Strategies:

Not all youth completing a program such as PAYE are able to find work immediately. In addition, those youth who cannot be accommodated in the program or are for some reason unable to participate at this time need alternative work possibilities. The meetings with squeegee youth and agencies working with them sponsored by Councillor Chow have been helpful in offering insight into the ideas, creativity, and contributions that youth can offer when given the opportunities. A range of alternative employment and new business ideas were identified, and warrant exploration. Some examples are:

(i)car wash services operated at gas stations or on municipal properties such as parking lots;

(ii)odd job co-ops;

(iii)self employment opportunities or collective work/sales space including any requisite start-up fund;

(iv)community economic enterprises;

(v)youth employed on commission to market energy conservation programs to homeowners;

(vi)poster removal, horticultural or parks related work;

(vii)"Toronto Shines" shoe polishing; and

(viii)self employment options building on the entrepreneurism shown by some of the youth.

Councillor Chow has been actively soliciting more ideas of this nature from concerned and committed individuals and agencies. A fuller list is included as Appendix C.

(d)Other Existing Resources and Opportunities:

Several organizations have participated in Councillor Chow's Squeegee Committee discussions and have expressed interest in collaborating in providing a range of transition programs and services for squeegee practitioners.

The Addiction Research Foundation has expressed interest in providing substance abuse and personal counselling services as part of City sponsored diversion initiatives, while there is a strong commitment within the Toronto District School Board to working collaboratively with community-based agencies, the business community, and the City to address the needs and priorities of street involved youth, provide increased access to existing education and training services, and to develop alternative work-place based training and education opportunities.

The City, through the Homeless Initiatives Fund ($50,000.00 allocation), is in the midst of selecting an agency to operate the Youth Street Survivors Project, which will assist youth who live on the streets to get and keep housing through the provision of intensive individual supports. Staff are currently choosing a lead agency to work with the City in developing and implementing the shelter/housing project at 11 Ordnance, a municipally owned site located in the Trinity Niagara Ward. This project will focus on homeless young men and women ages 18-24, who have demonstrated interest in developing housing skills, and could be accessed by Squeegee practitioners who meet that criteria.

The construction that will take place at 11 Ordnance will provide an excellent opportunity for street youth to gain employment and construction trade skills, and PAYE agencies are extremely interested in working with the building contractors to facilitate job training placements for street youth.

Youthlink Inner City is currently piloting a youth centre at Richmond and Spadina, opening July13,1998. This youth centre could well serve as a central access point for street-involved youth in the west by ensuring access to a range of outreach, counselling, health, social recreation, employment training, job creation, information and referral programs and services.

Proposed Strategies:

Pre-employment and Outreach:

As the profile of youth involved in squeegeeing indicates, they are not a homogeneous group. The strategies identified below are intended to address the needs of the most marginalized street-involved youth who have the fewest prospects for becoming stable and finding employment.

The agency members of the PAYE project have demonstrated an ability to collaborate effectively, have developed positive relationships with the street-involved youth in Toronto's west end, and are keenly interested in working collaboratively with street involved youth, partner agencies and City staff to develop effective, integrated pre-employment strategies that provide a " doorway " to other options for street involved youth. Youth Link Inner City has opened a site in the Bathurst-Queen area, allowing for outreach in two of the locations most often frequented by street involved youth.

By enhancing the PAYE partnership, the City of Toronto can contribute significantly to the development of integrated initiatives that enable youth to make transitions from street involvement to stability and employment. The fact that the organizational infrastructure exists along with experienced staff allows for minimal overhead and a quick start-up.

The Department is recommending that the Partnership be provided with $150,000.00 to continue this transition work. The $150,000.00 would support the agencies in providing participants with:

(a)employment preparation training including life skills, identification replacement, conflict resolution training, first aid certification, resume writing and interview skills, and housing search, as well as access to a Counsellor on an as need basis; and

(b)on-the-job training with the private and public sectors.

The key components of the programs include wage subsidies, purchased skills development training and stipends for training participants. A counsellor would support youth on an as-need basis to address personal issues. A Placement Supervisor would be responsible for matching participants to employers and troubleshooting problems that arise on the job.

Alternative Employment and Business Development Program

The development work entailed in delivering an alternative employment and business development program falls into two areas. The first, related to finding work, involves actively seeking out "odd job " possibilities, marketing the services of the youth, providing occasional site supervision, fielding complaints and problem solving, scheduling and support for the youth, collection of accounts and payment of workers. The second, developing business ideas and assisting youth interested in self employment, entails market research, feasibility studies, business plan development, finding self employment training opportunities if a youth qualifies, and supporting youth in managing business ventures.

As well, resources should be directed to enhancing direct supports to the most at-risk youth and linking them to a range of transitional supports that stabilize their lives, provide alternative ways of earning an income, and ensure that appropriate housing is available. The Youthlink Inner City serves as a model to be considered for integrating a range of support strategies.

It is recommended that $350,000.00 be available to support business development activities and transition support strategies developed through the work of the Children and Youth Action Committee.

It is expected that initiatives developed through the work of the Children and Youth Action Committee will serve 60-65 street-involved youth. The minimum level of staff support required to carry out these initiatives will also be determined by the Committee.

Proposals for the use of this funding should be directed to the Department for consideration in the context of other employment initiatives undertaken by the City. As well, staff will approach other funders to solicit interest in supporting this work.

It is also proposed that an evaluation of these initiatives be undertaken by City staff in one year, with a report back to Council.

Conclusions:

The presence of panhandlers and squeegee activities has grown in Toronto, resulting in increasing frustration on the part of some citizens. This has resulted in a call for regulation and enforcement as a response to complaints. Research shows that regulatory efforts are needed but also that they are most effective when accompanied by supportive measures for those who face extreme barriers to leaving the street.

These measures must be part of a continuum that connects youth with services to stabilize their lives; provides alternative ways of earning an income; and ensures that appropriate housing is available. Toronto is fortunate to have a number of innovative, dedicated non-profit agencies willing to assist youth, in partnership with the City.

The initiatives recommended in this report will reduce the incidence of squeegeeing on Toronto streets. However, it must be noted that not all squeegee practitioners will choose to access the alternatives supports, and those who do may be replaced by other youth on the streets. Initiatives to address this are being further explored and developed with the agencies and youth under the auspices of the Children and Youth Action Committee.

It is recommended that Council approve $150,000.00 to continue and enhance a pre-employment training initiative piloted by the former City of Toronto in co-operation with four agencies referred to as the Partnership Advocating for Youth Employment. This approach builds upon and enhances existing programs with proven successes, and allows for a quick start-up without the costs associated with creating a new delivery agency.

It is further recommended that $350,000.00 also be provided for business development initiatives and transition strategies. Staff will continue to work with the Children and Youth Action Committee in refining and implementing ideas as they arise.

This report has been prepared jointly by staff from Community and Neighbourhood Services and Urban Planning and Development Services.

Contact Name:

Shirley Hoy - 392-8302

--------

Appendix A

Examples of By-laws Linked to Diversion Strategies.

Vancouver City Council adopted Panhandling By-law No. 7885 on April 30, 1998. The by-law was adopted along with the City Manager's recommendations:

"That Council continue to work in collaboration with other government agencies, such as Crown Council, to address both the behaviour (specifically aggressive panhandling), as well as the root causes behind the behaviour, such as the need for food, shelter, and other basic personal needs, as well as the problems of drug and alcohol addictions.

That Council continue working with the Business Improvement Associations, as well as other interested community members, on initiatives to address panhandling, such as Outreach programs and Public Education Campaigns.

That Council continue to support the work of the Mayor's Coalition in Crime Prevention and Drug Treatment, encouraging collaborative partnerships to develop and support programming to address panhandling and its root causes."

The City of Winnipeg adopted a panhandling By-law on April 24, 1998. On May 1, 1998, Winnipeg City Council made the following motion:

"Request the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg to lead and inter-agency working group to examine the so-called "squeegee issue" and make recommendations leading to a reasonable civic strategy which addresses regulation/prohibition, public safety, employment and shared public space."

The Social Planning Council of Winnipeg convened a Squeegee Task Force that has submitted a report to City Council, which is currently under review. City staff is commenting on the report and preparing recommendations for Council which will come forward on July 15, 1998.

Appendix B

Synopsis of the PAYE Program

The Partnership Advocating for Youth Employment initiative began as a pilot project and received funds for a three-month period with funding from the former City of Toronto PAYE has since run two more projects. The project was staffed by a Placement Supervisor responsible for work placements and a Counsellor who supported participants in addressing issues and challenges such as housing, substance abuse, job maintenance, and a variety of personal concerns.

The program consisted of two components:

(a)four weeks employment preparation training including life skills, identification replacement, conflict resolution training, first aid certification, resume writing and interview skills, and housing search. Each participant was working on an as-needs basis with the Counselor to address personal issues; and

(b)six weeks on-the-job training with the private and public sectors. The matching of participants to employers was initiated and monitored by the Placement Supervisor, who was available to troubleshoot problems that arose on-the-job between the participant and his or her workplace.

Upon completion of PAYE the participants were ready to move on to the next stage of training or employment.

The PAYE program's intended outcomes were the stabilization of basic needs and the development of a strong network of community supports that would help youth to maintain a street-free lifestyle. The supports that were anchored in the first component of the program were most essential in enabling participants to succeed.

PAYE served 23 youth during the course of the three projects, and 15 youth completed the program:

(a)12 went on to further training, education or employment after the program. Three of those 12 have gone on to find employment on their own or through their placement, while 8 have gone on to the next level of training and on-the-job experience with Metro Youth Job Corp; and

(b)3 youth from the session held in May have applied for further training and working with Metro Youth Outreach in the interim.

Of the 15 youth that completed the program, 1 participant was assisted in fulfilling a professional goal of pursing his National Certification in Personal Fitness Training. 1 has acquired permanent part-time employment with the Women's Legal and Education Fund, and 1 was accepted into the GED (Grade Equivalency Diploma) program where he will obtain a grade 12 equivalency and two others are pending the results of applications that they submitted to Serve Canada, a private, urban youth service initiative program.

Although PAYE 'lost" eight youth along the way, four of those youth have resurfaced and are working with one or more of the partner agencies to pursue their options.

PAYE has provided 23 youth with opportunities to weave their lives back into the community fabric. The program included 'built-in' community supports through the partnership that staffed and coordinated PAYE. It presented a realistic option for street-involved youth to explore alternatives and make assisted choices in moving away from street lifestyles. PAYE has filled an important niche in the training continuum available to youth with significant employment barriers in the City of Toronto.

Appendix C

Employment Alternatives

The meetings with agencies and squeegee youth sponsored by Councillor Chow have been helpful in developing an understanding the reasons for the squeegee phenomenon and in identifying a range of employment alternative solutions.

Contributors to the Squeegee subcommittee discussions include squeegee youth, Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto District School Board, Toronto Police, Youth Challenge International, Youthlink Inner City. The Committee is supported by staff from Planning and Economic Development, Healthy Cities, Housing, and Community and Neighbourhood Services.

These possible initiatives are being further explored and developed with the agencies and youth under the auspices of Councillor Chow's Squeegee subcommittee:

(1)Soliciting the use of gas stations or vacant lots with water supply to move the activity off the streets. These might in fact offer full service washes. Four downtown gas stations are being approached and municipal parking lots are being examined.

(2)Odd job co-ops as an alternative. The Rideau Street Enterprise Centre in Ottawa is a model that could be explored. Public service types of work such as horticultural or parks related work might be part of this model as well as removal of posters and window cleaning on retail strips. The Parks Department is interested in further exploring co-operative ideas. Youth participants may explore landscaping opportunities or create more community gardens.

(3)Self employment opportunities or collective work/sales space (e.g., crafts, environmental products.) Participants will gain knowledge of environmental issues while maintaining sales of "In Door" and "Out Door" Water conservation Kits, Blue and Grey Boxes and Composers. Sales can occur through door to door sales, community events and designated and licenced street corners.

(4)"Toronto Shines" shoe shine business that would employ street youth to shine shoes and provide computer training.

(5)Community business approaches through a youth self investment fund to assist youth participants who have demonstrated a strategic vision and have a plan for their own evolvement and future. A $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 stipend will aid participants to secure appropriate resources to carry out their individual or group career option. There will be strict guidelines and evaluation of the participant's plan before the stipend is granted.

The Squeegee subcommittee's goal is to serve 60-65 youth in the coming months.

--------

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

-Ms. Karen Positano, Youth Link Inner City;

-Pierre, squeegee youth; and

-Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 17, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Homeless & Socially Isolated Persons:

At the July 17, 1998 meeting of the Advisory Committee for Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, the panhandling by-law originally proposed by Councillor Ila Bossons was discussed. Although the by-law was voted down at the July 14, 1998 meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, the Advisory Committee is aware that Council will be voting on this item at its July 29, 1998 meeting. In response to several concerns raised by the membership of the Advisory Committee, it is recommended that:

(1)Council oppose any regulation of panhandling and/or squeegee activities;

(2)the Mayor reconsider the position he has taken on this issue and agree to oppose any measures which restrict the rights and freedoms of homeless and socially isolated persons in our community; and

(3)the Mayor be invited to attend a future meeting of the advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons to discuss this issue further.

On behalf of the Advisory Committee, I would ask that Council consider these recommendations in their deliberations on this item.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 23, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report as requested by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee directly to City Council for its meeting of July 29, 1998 on an effective legal and/or practical legal remedy to deal with those squeegee individuals who are obnoxious and making a nuisance of themselves.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of July 16, 1998, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, as part of its consideration of the report (July 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, requested that I, in conjunction with the Commissioner, report directly to City Council for its meeting of July 29, 1998 on an effective legal and/or practical legal remedy to deal with those squeegee individuals who are obnoxious and making a nuisance of themselves.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As requested, this report has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, who supports the conclusions set out below.

As outlined in my previous report (July 13, 1998) to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee), it is my view that the present enforcement tools available to Police (i.e., the issuance of tickets) when enforcing municipal by-laws are not adequate for the purposes of dealing effectively with the squeegee problem as these persons:

(a)are not required to identify themselves and may not carry identification;

(b) may not show up for Court;

(c) likely have no fixed address; and

(d) likely have no resources with which to pay fines.

I note in this regard that the Commissioner's report considered by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee indicates that out of 69 squeegee persons interviewed, 38 had been charged or ticketed. Despite this, they apparently continued their squeegee activities.

Conclusions:

I have therefore recommended that no by-law be passed at this time and that the City Solicitor and the Chief of Police report back concerning the status of any Provincial or Federal initiatives in this area and a proposal for required legislative changes to enhance the municipality's enforcement powers. It would now appear that the Province is looking at recommendations to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Provincial Offences Act to address these issues.

In response to the Committee's present concerns about obnoxious behaviour by these individuals, Police may, where the circumstances warrant it, lay charges under the Criminal Code which, of course, allows for enforcement by way of arrest. In fact, charges such as extortion, mischief and causing a disturbance have been recently laid under the Code against "squeegee kids" where it was, in the opinion of Police, appropriate to do so.

Contact Name:

Edward Earle, Legal Services, 397-4058.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a joint communication (July27, 1998) from Ms. Nancy Dube, President, and Mr. Andrew Tang, Central Region Representative, Ontario Association of Youth Employment Centres, endorsing the proposal from the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee that would provide for funding to continue and introduce a range of programs to assist youth who are engaged in the squeegee trade to make transitions to employment.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(July 27, 1998) from Ms. Penny Simmons, Proprietor, Penny Loafers Shoe Shine Company, submitting comments in opposition to the proposal to allocate funds towards the establishment of squeegee persons in shoe shine businesses in public areas of Toronto; and suggesting an alternative for the proposed related program funding of $500,000.00;

(ii)(July 24, 1998) from Mr. Kent Staines, The Board of Church Isabella Co-op, requesting Council to support the proposed regulation of panhandling and squeegee activity and to increase funding for programs to divert youth from this hazardous activity;

(iii)(July23, 1998) from Mr. John Clarke, Provincial Organizer, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, requesting that City Council discuss the panhandling issue at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 29, 1998; and

(iv)(July 16, 1998) addressed to Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, from Ms. Lisa McGee, General Manager, The Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, regarding the squeegee issue and attaching a copy of her deputation to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on the topic of panhandling.)

3

Mayor's Youth Employment Initiative

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To seek approval of allocations to the four agencies described below to deliver the Mayor's Youth Employment Initiative.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

$200,000.00 is contained in the Corporate Grants Account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the $200,000.00 for the Mayor's Youth Initiative be allocated in the following manner:$78,000.00 to North York YMCA, $76,000.00 to Alternative Youth Centre for Employment,

$16,000.00 to College de grands Lacs, and $30,000.00 to Goodwill Industries, as per the conditions and requirements outlined in this report;

(2)staff provide an evaluation report at the conclusion of the Initiative; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 29-30, 1998, Council approved the Mayor's Youth Employment Summit Report, recommending the allocation of $200,000.00 to implement the Mayor's Youth Employment Initiative.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Mayor's Youth Employment Initiative will be delivered by North York YMCA, Alternative Youth Centre for Employment, College de grands Lacs and Goodwill Industries. These agencies will be required to provide pre-employment counselling and support, job placements and post placement support to participating youth.

The Initiative is funded through a partnership among the City, Federal and Provincial levels of government. In addition to the City contribution of $200,000.00, Human Resources Development Canada and the Ministry of Education and Training are each contributing $400,000.00 for a total public sector contribution of $1,000,000.00. The majority of funds will be used as wage subsidies, and the Provincial level of government will cover administration costs that are incurred over and above their $400,000.00 contribution. The City's combined Federal/City contribution of $600,000.00 will be administered by the Social Services Division.

The Corporate sector will support the Initiative by providing partial wage subsidies and employment opportunities to at-risk youth.

The Initiative will provide 250-500 at-risk youth with meaningful full-time employment opportunities which will allow them to gain new employment related skills, and connect them to the current labour market. It is expected that participating companies will continue to employ these youth beyond their subsidized placements.

Program data will be gathered regarding intake, completion of placements, and numbers of jobs continuing after placements end. The data will be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of wage subsidy approaches to address youth unemployment and informing the design of future initiatives.

Conclusions:

On April 29-30, Council reviewed the Mayor's Youth Employment Summit Report of April 28, 1998, and approved allocation of $200,000.00 to implement the Mayor's Youth Employment Initiative.

It is recommended that the $200,000.00 for the Mayor's Youth Employment Initiative be allocated in the following manner: $78,000.00 to North York YMCA, $76,000.00 to Alternative Youth Centre for Employment, $16,000.00 to College de grands Lacs, and $30,000.00 to Goodwill Industries, as per the conditions and requirements outlined in this report; and that staff provide a report at the conclusion of the Initiative.

Contact Name:

Patrick Chartrand, Tel: 392-8653

4

Sale of Scattered Units Owned by Ontario

Housing Corporation in the City of Toronto

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that City Council indicate to the Provincial Government its willingness to discuss and possibly support a proposal to construct replacement units equal to or larger than those being sold.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends to Council:

(a)the adoption of the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services;

(b)that the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be forwarded to the Federal Government and Federal Minister responsible for housing; and further that the Minister be advised of the proposed sale of the Provincial housing stock prior to ownership of such housing stock being transferred to the City of Toronto; and

(c)that the Provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be advised that the City of Toronto will be nominating its two representatives to the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority; and further that the matter of these nominations be referred to the Striking Committee for consideration.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having:

(i)directed that The Public Housing Fightback Campaign, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 767, the Ontario Public Services Employees Union, Local 592, and any other interested party, be given the opportunity to present their concerns on the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority at the next meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on September 10, 1998; and that this matter be considered as the first item of business on the agenda for such meeting;

(ii)referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority the communications and brief from The Public Housing Fightback Campaign, the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 767 and the Regent Park Community Health Centre for review and comment thereon to the September 10, 1998, meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee; and

(iii)directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on the feasibility of selling MTHA housing stock once the ownership and management responsibility has been fully downloaded to the City of Toronto.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following report (June30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council oppose the sale of the scattered houses owned by the Ontario Housing Corporation in the City of Toronto;

(2)Council's position be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and to the Chairs of the Boards of the Ontario Housing Corporation and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority; and

(3)the appropriate City officials take the necessary steps to give effect thereto.

Purpose of the Report:

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee at its meeting of June 18, 1998, asked the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to submit a report outlining the Department's position on the sale of Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) scattered units. This report has been prepared in response to that request.

Background:

In June of 1996, the Ontario Housing Corporation (OHC) launched a program to sell some of the scattered units which it owns. This was done as a cost saving measure and was part of the 1996Business Plan of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A small number of units were sold through 1996 until a moratorium was placed on the program at the end of 1996, pending direction from the Provincial Government on plans for public housing.

In the fall of 1997, OHC began to consider the issue again and, at its meeting of January 23, 1998, the Board decided to proceed with its original plan to sell scattered units. Local Housing Authorities across the Province, of which MTHA is one, were directed to submit information to the OHC Board regarding any scattered unit that becomes vacant so that the Board can decide whether to sell it or not. The units must fall within the following parameters:

-single-detached, semi-detached or rowhouse unit;

-located on an individually severed lot;

-fewer than five bedrooms; and

-not modified to accommodate tenants with disabilities;

MTHA has identified 438 units which fall within these criteria, out of a total of approximately 500scattered units which it manages. These units include 351 three-bedroom houses and 87four-bedroom houses scattered throughout the City.

It is important to note that all of these houses have subsidy dollars attached to them and are offered to low income families who pay a rent geared to income. This distinguishes these houses from the "property houses"owned by the City, where there are no subsidies attached and tenants pay a market rent.

The Need for Subsidized Units:

As noted, the scattered units to be considered for sale are three and four-bedroom houses. According to waiting list data maintained by Toronto Social Housing Connections (formerly known as the Housing Registry), as of March 31, 1998, there were 9,040 households on waiting lists for three-bedroom units and 2,068 households on waiting lists for four-bedroom units. The majority of these households are waiting for units operated by MTHA. In all of 1997, MTHA only turned over (i.e., rented to new applicants) 553 three-bedroom units and 66 four-bedroom units.

Any sale of units in this category will serve to make a long wait even longer for low income families seeking geared to income housing.

Proceeds of Sales:

OHC will not receive any additional funds from the proceeds of unit sales. Any money generated is returned to the Province's Consolidated Revenue Fund. In a September report to the Board, OHC indicated that it is not known if the sale of some units will affect the level of continuing subsidy from the Federal Government. In addition, there is no plan to transfer any subsidies from units that have been sold to other units in the social housing system. This approach is not consistent with the Provincial Government's stated commitment to maintain service levels through the reform of social housing prior to municipal devolution.

Conclusions:

The need and demand for affordable housing far exceeds the available supply. There is no longer any support from the senior levels of government to build new social housing and cities will increasingly be left to find housing solutions on their own. In the City of Toronto, the problem is a particularly serious one as vacancy rates for rental housing are low and there is almost no construction of private rental accommodation. Any attempt to sell units which are already publicly owned and which have subsidies attached to them seems counterproductive at this time. It is therefore recommended that the City of Toronto formally oppose the sale of the scattered OHC units within the City. The Chair of the OHC Board of Directors and the CEO of MTHA have been notified of the City's interest in this issue and have been invited to attend the July 16 meeting of the Committee.

--------

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

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. William McMillin Carson, Ontario Housing Corporation, outlining a recommendation from the OHC's Policy and Program Committee to be considered by the OHC Board on July 16 and 17, 1998, with respect to the issue of scattered units for consideration for sale by the Board; and further outlining instructions to staff should such recommendation be adopted;

-(July 15, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, in adopting, as amended, Clause No. 5 of Report No. 6 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, headed "Capital Funding of Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority Projects", directed that the matter of representation on the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority be referred to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for consideration;

-(July 16, 1998) from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 767, regarding MTHA's proposal to expand their private management partnerships;

-(June 1998) from The Public Housing Fightback Campaign, headed "The Future Management of Public Housing - The Case Against Further Privatization of Public Housing in MTHA)"; and

-(June 29, 1998) from Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina, submitting a Notice of Motion with respect to representation on boards of local housing authorities; noting that, in the case of MTHA, the Minister of Housing appointed two representatives without consultation with the municipality; and recommending that Council advise the Minister that Toronto will be nominating its two representatives; and that this matter be referred to the Striking Committee.

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

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

-Mr. Cliff Martin and Mr. Vance Latchford on behalf of The Public Housing Fightback Campaign;

-Mr. Henderson Phillips;

-Ms. Nicole Seguin, Community Health Worker, Regent Park Community Health Centre, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Ms. Suzanne Kelly, President, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 592; and

-Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina.

5

Change in Funding Responsibility for

Supportive Social Housing

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

(1)To provide information about the reduction in City costs for social housing due to the Province's recent decision to retain funding responsibility for supportive housing portfolios.

(2)To recommend policy positions on supportive housing costs which have not been retained by the Province.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Retroactive to January 1, 1998, the cost of social housing portfolios which are 100 percent dedicated to supportive housing as defined by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing are no longer the responsibility of municipalities.

For 1998, $266,278,406.00 was set aside in the City's budget for social housing costs. The Province has estimated social housing cost savings to the City for 1998 are $11,784,329.00, after being adjusted by GTA pooling. This means that the base budget for social housing costs has been reduced for this year and all future years.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council strongly endorse the Province's decision to retain funding responsibility for 100percent dedicated supportive housing portfolios. This recognizes that providing housing for people who need support to live independently is a Provincial concern and should be funded by the Province;

(2)Council forward to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing a request that:

(a)the Province not pass on the housing cost of any unit which falls under the definition of supportive, even if it is located within a mixed project or mixed portfolio; and

(b)the Province expand its definition of supportive housing to include social housing provided for tenants who require support to live independently in their unit, and that the additional housing costs incurred in housing special needs tenants be paid for by the Province; and

(3)The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer report back on reallocation of $11.7 million which was set aside in the 1998 City Operating Budget for Social Housing Costs, and is no longer required due to the Province's decision to retain funding for 100 percent supportive housing portfolios. Potential uses for this fund would include providing support for affordable housing demonstration projects.

Background:

The Social Housing Funding Act, 1997, provides legislative authority for the Province to pass on its share of the cost of social housing to municipalities. Starting January 1, 1998, the City of Toronto became responsible for paying an equalized share of the total social housing cost of the Greater Toronto Area. The total cost estimate for the GTA is $509,697,881.00, and the City's share is $266,278,406.00 (about 52 percent), which has been included in the 1998 operating budget.

On June 12, 1998, the Province announced that it would no longer require municipalities to assume the costs for dedicated supportive housing and domiciliary hostels. For Toronto, this means that the previous cost estimate for social housing has been reduced, retroactive to January 1, 1998. The City does not have any domiciliary hostels.

The Province estimated social housing cost savings to the City of Toronto in 1998 at $11,784,329.00, after being adjusted by GTA pooling. The actual amount of savings, before equalization, would have been about $19,695,185.00 (based on analysis of May 1998 data from Province), which reflects the higher amount of supportive housing provided in the City as compared to the rest of the GTA.

Comments:

Retroactive to January 1, 1998, the Province will pay 100 percent of the costs of dedicated supportive housing (i.e., the housing subsidy costs in addition to the support programming costs) for certain projects. These costs will be paid to the housing providers by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, or the Ministry of Health, depending upon the type of supportive program in place. In addition, responsibility for administering the 100 percent dedicated supportive portfolios will not be transferred to the municipality when social housing administration is transferred.

Information provided by the Province indicates that the social housing costs for 31 portfolios in the City will be uploaded, representing about 150 projects (about 2,000 units).

"Supportive" social housing is defined by the Province as a situation whereby the tenant receives supports through a program funded either by the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Health, and these supports make it possible for the tenant to live independently within a unit provided under the social housing program.

Some examples of supportive housing include housing for tenants with developmental disabilities, people with mental health problems, people with physical disabilities, people with HIV/AIDS, people with acquired brain injuries, troubled youth, frail elderly individuals, people with addiction problems, and victims of family violence.

Domiciliary hostels are permanent residences for people with special needs. The domiciliary operators enter into agreements with a municipality, and receive a per diem to provide residents with permanent accommodation and some supports to daily living. Residents are people with special needs, including individuals with developmental disabilities, people with mental health problems, frail elderly individuals, and people with addiction problems. Unlike emergency hostels, domiciliary hostels are permanent homes for their residents. The City of Toronto does not have domiciliary hostels.

Types of Supportive Housing to be Uploaded:

(1)Supportive Housing Definition:

The definition of what constitutes a "supportive" unit for uploading is very restricted. It only includes units in 100 percent dedicated portfolios, where the unit is linked to funding under program initiatives of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services in six existing program areas:

Ministry of Health:

-Long Term Care;

-Substance Abuse; and

-Community Mental Health.

Ministry of Community and Social Services:

-Development Services (developmental disabilities);

-Youth Housing; and

-Stage 1 Shelters (Women's shelters).

Funding for social housing where the tenants require support programs which do not fall within those program areas will remain with the City. For example, social housing costs for Stage II shelters for victims of family violence will continue to be passed on to the City. Other social housing costs where funding was given to a housing provider to carry out support programs (called "enhanced management") will also continue to be funded by the City (approximately $600.00 per unit per year was permitted in 1997). Even where the cost of support programming is not linked directly to a unit (for example, the support is provided directly to the tenant by a community agency) there can be substantive housing costs. For example, in 1997 the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association estimated that the cost of housing tenants with special needs (in particular, the homeless and hard-to-house) was $1,436.00 for each unit per year in addition to the base manageable cost per unit ($2,000.00). We know that MTHA, for example, has thousands of units which house special need tenants and, therefore, have higher housing costs; however, only a fraction of those units receive funding under one of the programs mentioned above, and none of the housing costs are being retained by the Province.

This report recommends that the Province extend its definition of supportive housing to include the additional housing costs incurred in housing special needs tenants, and that the Province pay those additional costs. Staff are doing research to determine the number of units which fall outside of the provincial uploading definition and a cost estimate.

(2)100 Percent Dedicated Portfolios Only:

Social housing is managed by non-profit groups on a portfolio basis. This means that one or more projects (buildings) are grouped together under an operating agreement with the Province. Subsidy payments are given to the group each month; the group decides how to allocate the funding among the various projects in its portfolio.

The Province will upload some, but not all, of the costs of supportive housing. The specific projects to be uploaded must be part of a portfolio that is 100 percent dedicated to support; in other words, every unit and project in the portfolio would need to be receiving funding under one of the provincial programs noted earlier in order for the costs to be uploaded. The reason given for this restriction is because the operating agreements between the Province and the non-profit housing providers are not being changed and, therefore, the administration of 100 percent supportive projects cannot be separated out from mixed portfolios. Therefore, for groups with portfolios that include a mix of supportive and non-supportive buildings or units, the entire cost of social housing will remain with the municipality.

For example, the Metro YWCA has one building that is a women's shelter, and two other projects which are not considered "supportive" under the uploading definition. The City will continue to pay the Province's share of costs for the women's shelter, even though if it had not been in a mixed portfolio, the Province would have paid the shelter costs.

Further data and analysis is required to determine how many units and projects would fall under the uploading definition of supportive but, because they are within a mixed portfolio, will continue to be funded by the City.

This report recommends that Council ask the Province to pay the social housing costs of all supportive housing units and projects, regardless of the characteristics of the portfolio. It is recognized that operating agreements, administration standards and cost allocation must be taken into consideration.

Operating Agreements

If the Province were to agree to pay for supportive housing costs (i.e., not pass on the cost to municipalities) this would simply change a funding source and, therefore, should not require an amendment to operating agreements.

Administration Standards:

Administrative standards for 100 percent dedicated portfolios will likely change if administration, as well as funding responsibility, is transferred to the Ministries of Health or Community and Social Services. This may allow those ministries, if they so choose, to streamline support funding and administration. Changing the way that portfolios are administered would likely require changes to operating agreements.

For mixed portfolios, which the City continues to pay for, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has advised they will be announcing a process to develop standards for supportive housing units within the next few weeks. No further information about this process is currently available.

Calculation of Costs:

The subsidy amount is totalled for all projects in a portfolio and given to the housing provider in a monthly lump sum. The housing provider determines how to allocate funding among the various projects within the portfolio. Therefore, the exact cost estimates for any one project within a portfolio are unknown.

In order to determine what amount of funding the Province should continue to pay for mixed portfolios, an allocation method will be required. Although there are numerous ways in which costs can be allocated, we suggest allocation based on the proportional share of units in the portfolio. This method could be applied to dedicated projects and integrated projects (less than 100 percent of units in the project are supportive). For example, the Y.W.C.A. has three projects with a total of 118 units and estimated 1998 municipal costs of just over $1 million. The women's shelter is 100 percent supportive and has 25 units (21 percent of all units in the portfolio). Using the method suggested for allocating costs, this would mean that the Province would reduce costs passed on to the City by $210,000.00 in 1998 (21 percent x $1,000,000.00).

Reallocation of Supportive Housing Funding in City Budget:

As a result of the Province's decision to upload costs for supportive housing, the City budget for social housing can now be reduced. This report recommends that staff report back on how this funding may be reallocated, including having a portion of the savings used to support affordable housing demonstration projects.

Municipal Strategy for Affordable Housing:

On July 6, 1998, staff will be reporting to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes on a Municipal Strategy for Creating Affordable Housing. The purpose of the report is to highlight how the City can lever its resources to create an environment which supports affordable housing development. One area to be researched is establishing a housing trust fund, with a dedicated revenue stream, to be used for affordable housing.

The former City of Toronto had a Capital Leverage Fund that provided one-time grants and no-interest loans to support the development of community facilities serving the homeless. The Fund contained $1.4 million in total that was allocated through an open proposal call process, with the specific objective of leveraging community action and resources. No ongoing operating funding is provided through the fund. Two projects under development with support from the Capital Leverage Fund are 30 St. Lawrence (permanent housing for 40 homeless men and women) and 11 Ordnance Street (transitional shelter/housing project for up to 50 street youth). This experience shows that strategic, one-time funding can be used to create effective community partnerships.

An additional report is being made to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes recommending that the City support three affordable housing demonstration projects. It is anticipated that some level of financial assistance from the City will be needed in order for these projects to be developed. The former City of Toronto's Capital Leverage Fund is currently fully committed. This report recommends that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer report back on how the $11.7 million funding may be reallocated, including having a portion of the savings used to support affordable housing demonstration projects.

Conclusion:

The budget for 1998 social housing costs was set at $266,278,406.00 and can now be reduced by $11,784,329.00 as a result of the Province uploading the cost of 100 percent supportive housing portfolios, retroactive to January 1, 1998.

As the $11.7 million was originally set aside for social housing, we request that staff report back on how the funding may be reallocated, including having a portion of the savings used to support affordable housing projects.

In addition, the Province will not pay the cost of projects which are part of a mixed portfolio, even when the units are 100 percent dedicated to supportive housing. Had these 100 percent dedicated projects been developed under their own operating agreement, the Province would now be paying their costs rather than the City. Therefore, this report recommends that the City ask the Province to not pass on the cost of any project which is 100 percent dedicated, regardless of the characteristics of its portfolio.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-6135/Fax: 392-3037

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 28, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Board of Health expressed its support for the following Recommendation (3) embodied in the report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services as contained in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Community and Neighbourhoods Services Committee:

"(3)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief Financial Officer report back on reallocation of $11.7 million which was set aside in the 1998 City Operating Budget for Social Housing Costs, and is no longer required due to the Province's decision to retain funding for 100 percent supportive housing portfolios. Potential uses for this fund would include providing support for affordable housing demonstration projects."

Background:

The Board of Health at its meeting on July 27, 1998 had before it a report (July 10, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health respecting "No Fixed Address: Young Parents on the Street", recommending that the Board of Health:

(1)support the working committee on Young Parents, No Fixed Address to ensure ongoing coordination amongst youth serving agencies, and the continued development of flexible, alternative approaches that address the urgent needs of this population;

(2)urge City Council to ensure an increased supply of safe, affordable transitional and permanent housing stock and to eliminate barriers to access housing in both the public and private sector for this population;

(3)urge the Provincial and Federal Minsters of Housing to develop an increased supply of safe, affordable, transitional and permanent housing stock and to eliminate barriers to access housing in both the public and private sector for this population;

(4)direct Toronto Public Health to continue as a partner in the group, participating in programs that will include: (a) food access and supplementation; (b) development of a youth advisory board; (c) further development of parent relief programs; (d) development of responses to mental and emotional health problems; and (e) continued data collection and monitoring;

(5)continue to support existing programs and services essential to street youth such as provision of classes outside schools in the community and advocate to the Minister of Education, the Toronto District School Board and the Catholic School Board to ensure these programs;

(6)advocate to the Minister of Community and Social Services for adequate provincial funding for child welfare and protection in order to ensure that caseloads are manageable and realistic for the protection of children and the prevention of abuse and neglect;

(7)advocate to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Community and Social Services for the development of pro-active, early intervention strategies to prevent the rise in numbers of street youth and children;

(8)forward this report to the Assistant Deputy Minister - Integrated Children's Services, the Toronto District School Board, the Catholic School Board, the Children's Action Committee, and the Toronto Child Advocate;

(9)refer this report to Community and Neighbourhood Services for information and to City Council for adoption; and

(10)forward this report to the Premier of Ontario to urge him to ensure that the growing needs of young parents on the street be addressed through coordinated action of the part of the relevant Ministries.

In addition to the foregoing recommendations, the Board's action with respect to the foregoing report from the Medical Officer of Health is contained in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of The Board of Health which is being considered by Council on July 29, 1998.)

6

Development of Housing for the Homeless -

30 St. Lawrence Street

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 25, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To provide an update on progress to date in realizing this proposed permanent housing for formerly homeless men and women, and to obtain authority for an advance from a grant authorized by the Council of the former City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommended advance would come from previously authorized funds.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be authorized to advance $40,000.00 of the grant monies from the Capital Leverage Fund to permit completion of working drawings, to allow tendering to proceed, and to pay the application fee for a Building Permit.

Background:

The 30 St. Lawrence Street site has been owned for many years by the City of Toronto. Since 1982, Dixon Hall, a multi-service community agency which provides a range of cultural, educational and social services, has managed an emergency shelter for homeless men in a building on the street frontage, under contract to the City, and with staff funding through Metro Toronto Community Services. The building was not designed for this use and was inadequate in many ways. The intent has been to phase the shelter out, and provide alternative, long term housing. The existing shelter on the site was closed and vacated by July 1, 1998. Dixon Hall worked closely with other hostel and housing providers to ensure that the men who use the shelter found alternative accommodation.

This project is the first long-term housing project for homeless people to be developed in the City since the cancellation of the non-profit housing programme by the Provincial Government in 1995. It is being developed by Dixon Neighbourhood Homes (30 St. Lawrence Street) Inc. (DNHI), a subsidiary organization of Dixon Hall, with $400,000.00 in grant support from the Housing Division's Capital Leverage Fund (CLF) and City-owned land conveyed to DNHI for a nominal sum. DNHI will construct and manage ten four-bedroom townhouse units on the rear portion of the 30 St. Lawrence site. The project will house 40 previously homeless men and women. The units would be affordable based on the shelter component of the existing social assistance programs. As the DNHI proposal uses less than the full site area, the City would be able to offer the bulk of the street frontage for sale.

The Council of the former City of Toronto adopted Clause No. 34 of Executive Committee Report No. 21 at its September 22 and 23, 1997, meeting, agreeing to convey the rear portion of the site to Dixon Neighbourhood Homes (30St.Lawrence Street) Inc., at nominal cost, subject to a number of conditions being fulfilled within nine months, i.e., by June 23, 1998. This report outlines the status of the development proposal at this time, and requests certain modifications to the previously approved terms of the conveyance.

Comments:

The City has prepared a conditional agreement with Dixon Neighbourhood Homes (30 St. Lawrence Street) Inc. (DNHI) which can be signed at any time. It conveys, at nominal cost, the rear portion of the 30 St. Lawrence site providing that DNHI, by June 23, 1998, has:

(i)made application for and obtained any required Committee of Adjustment consents.

The Committee's favourable decision on the DNHI application became binding on June4,1998.

(ii)amended the existing Social Housing, Collateral, and Development Agreements.

These Agreements have been amended to establish requirements appropriate to the current development proposal, and have been signed on behalf of DNHI. They are being held in escrow by the City Solicitor for registration on closing.

(iii)obtained mortgage insurance, and commitments for construction and long-term financing.

DNHI has a May 7, 1998, letter from CMHC indicating that it is prepared to consider an application for an insurable loan. They require, however, that the site be remediated before giving a final mortgage insurance commitment.

DNHI has obtained conditional approval from the Metro Credit Union for first mortgage financing and has also received a commitment from the Canadian Alternative Investment Co-operative (CAIC) to provide second mortgage funds. However, to obtain the maximum amount at the most advantageous rate from CAIC, a guarantor is required. DNHI has approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide the necessary guarantee. A decision is expected shortly.

(iv)entered into a formal agreement with a development partner/project manager for the construction of the proposed development.

DNHI has a letter of understanding with Mark Guslits and Association to provide construction management services.

City staff have been working with Dixon Neighbourhood Homes to ensure that the conditions established by the former City of Toronto Council, noted above, have been met to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the former City of Toronto's Deputy Commissioner of Housing.

Once requirements (i) to (iv) above were completed, staff were to undertake the demolition of the existing buildings and site remediation at an estimated cost not to exceed $340,000.00. As remediation is a precondition of CMHC providing mortgage insurance, and as the favourable price obtained several years ago expires on August 1, 1998, demolition and remediation are scheduled to commence on July 20, 1998. Funds for the demolition/remediation are coming from $190,000.00 in insurance settlement monies received following an on-site fire several years ago, held for the account of this project, and $150,000.00 to be advanced by the City from the Land Banking Fund, coming from monies received from the sale of sites declared surplus after the Province's cancellation of the social housing programs.

Once the 30 St. Lawrence project is under construction, the City can offer the front portion of the site for sale on the open market. Based on a recent appraisal of the entire site, the recovery of from this sale could be as high as $400,000.00. The recovery from the sale of the front portion of the site should, therefore, be adequate to recoup the City's direct out-of-pocket expense for demolition/remediation, with some additional income to the City. In the event that a closing does not occur with DNHI, for reasons as yet unforeseen, and despite the best efforts of all parties to achieve this badly needed housing, the City will be in a position to sell the clean, vacant site in its entirety. The sale of a clean site should also result in the City recouping its investment in demolition and remediation as a purchaser will not discount an offer by their estimated cost of clean-up.

The Council of the former City of Toronto granted $400,000.00 from the Capital Leverage Fund to DNHI to assist with the capital costs of the development. This amount was subsequently confirmed through the budget process of the new City. It was intended that these funds only be advanced after closing, and according to the progress of construction. Closing will not occur, transferring title to the site to DNHI, until they have a satisfactory construction price and a Building Permit. As both pricing and a permit are dependent on complete contract documents, these must be completed. The group has no funds of its own. Therefore, an advance of $40,000.00 from the previously approved grant should be provided now to allow the development to advance to the pricing and permit approval stage. The money used to fund the permit application will in fact flow back to the City.

Conclusion:

Funding reductions by senior levels of government combined with social and economic changes over the past decade have created a larger and more vulnerable group of low-income people. The most visible aspect of this change is the more than 5,000 people in Toronto who are homeless and who sleep in hostels, stairwells, sidewalks and over subway air vents.

DNHI has presented a proposal for an innovative development to house 40 formerly homeless men and women. This is an important opportunity for the City to participate in the creation of an innovative project to provide permanent housing for the homeless. The proposal will also assist the City in meeting its objective, as stated in the former City of Toronto's Official Plan, to use public land for affordable housing.

Contact name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-6135/Fax: 392-3037

7

Toward a Municipal Strategy to Encourage

the Creation of Affordable Housing and

a Framework for Proposals to Develop

Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes embodied in the following communication (July 7, 1998) from the CityClerk:

The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes on July 6, 1998, had before it a report dated June 29, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, headed "Toward a Municipal Strategy to Encourage the Creation of Affordable Housing," and a further report dated June 29, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, headed "Framework for Proposals to Develop Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects".

The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes recommended that:

(1)the following recommendations, as contained in the report dated June 29, 1998, headed "Toward a Municipal Strategy to Encourage the Creation of Affordable Housing", be adopted:

(i)Council agree in principle to play the role of facilitator and partner in the creation of affordable housing and adopt the following goal to guide the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes in its work over the coming months:

"The goal of the Affordable Housing Development Strategy is to create an environment in which private sector and community partners will be able to develop affordable housing for people with a range of housing needs that are not currently being met in the market;"

(ii)Council agree in principle that a capital revolving fund for affordable housing should be established to provide financial support to projects that demonstrate the City's role in facilitating the creation of affordable housing, and request the Chief Financial Officer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report back on options for establishing such a fund and potential funding sources;

(iii)Council agree in principle to the provision of surplus City-owned land and buildings for affordable housing development, as a first priority, and request the Commissioners of Corporate Services, Urban Development Services, and Community and Neighbourhood Services to report back jointly on options for a "housing first" policy; and

(iv)Council urge the Federal and Provincial Governments to make a commitment to an affordable housing development strategy for the City of Toronto by making surplus publicly-owned sites available for housing as a first priority and by helping affordable housing projects to access capital financing and support service funding;

(2)the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes advises the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee that it adopted the report, headed "Framework for Proposals to Develop Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects", and that staff are proceeding with the actions outlined in the said report; and

(3)a communication be forwarded to The Urban Environment and Development Committee requesting that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes be allowed direct input in the new Official Plan for The City of Toronto process.

(Report dated June 29, 1998, addressed to the

Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes,

from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services,

headed "Toward a Municipal Strategy to Encourage

the Creation of Affordable Housing")

Purpose:

This report is intended to assist the Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes in developing a City strategy to create an environment in which the private sector and the community will be willing and able to develop affordable housing.

Financial Implications:

This report has no immediate financial implications. Staff are asked to report back on elements of the strategy that have financial implications in 1998, including the provision of City land or buildings to private and community partners to develop housing, and the designation of a capital revolving fund to facilitate demonstration projects.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council agree in principle to play the role of facilitator and partner in the creation of affordable housing and adopt the following goal to guide the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes in its work over the coming months:

"The goal of the Affordable Housing Development Strategy is to create an environment in which private sector and community partners will be willing and able to develop affordable housing for people with a range of housing needs that are not currently being met in the market.";

(2)Council agree in principle that a capital revolving fund for affordable housing should be established to provide financial support to projects that demonstrate the City's role in facilitating the creation of affordable housing, and request the Chief Financial Officer, the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report back on options for establishing such a fund and potential funding sources;

(3)Council agree in principle to the provision of surplus City-owned land and buildings for affordable housing development, as a first priority, and request the Commissioners of Corporate Services, Urban Planning and Development Services, and Community and Neighbourhood Services to report back jointly on options for a "housing first" policy; and

(4)Council urge the Federal and Provincial Governments to make a commitment to an affordable housing development strategy for the City of Toronto by making surplus publicly-owned sites available for housing as a first priority and by helping affordable housing projects to access capital financing and support service funding.

Background:

From the inception of the new City of Toronto, homelessness and affordable housing issues have been of prime concern to the municipality. For example, the Mayor, in his inaugural speech, stressed the need to address such concerns. With regard to affordable housing he noted that "Together we must work to make sure this is a city in which people can afford to live", and he spoke specifically of the need to get new affordable rental housing built in the City.

At its meeting of May 11, 1998, staff made a presentation to your Committee on a new role for the municipality in affordable housing development. The presentation reviewed the extent of housing needs identified by the Patterns and Prospects report (1996) and the work done by the Metro Housing Stakeholder Panel (1997) on tools that the municipality could use in the absence of social housing housing supply programs. It was proposed that the Committee take action at its next meeting to:

(a)adopt a framework for a municipal strategy on affordable housing development; and

(b)proceed to with affordable housing demonstration projects through a request for proposals process.

Recently the City has received many creative suggestions for housing models that could provide affordable housing and that would help to demonstrate the City's new role as facilitator and partner. Some proposals to date include Bob Barnett's Shared Affordable Accommodation model, MikeLabbe's "Options for Homes" model, and John van Nostrand's "Grow-as-you-Go" model. There has also been initial discussion at the Ad Hoc Committee on Shared Accommodation on how to apply a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) model to Toronto. It is most encouraging that people and organizations are contributing their ideas, time and resources in order to create affordable housing options in the City of Toronto. Rather than consider each idea in isolation, we suggest the City move quickly to establish a process to select demonstration projects that will help test the mechanisms in the overall strategy. The City will need to decide where to allocate its limited resources (e.g., surplus sites, financing support, concessions in the development approval process, etc.) based on fair and objective criteria such as who is to be served by such housing and which mechanisms are being tested. We are recommending a process for selecting demonstration projects in a separate report to the Council Strategy Committee.

Comments:

Overview:

This report is the first part of the process towards making decisions about a municipal role for affordable housing development. It provides background on the need for a municipal role and outlines, at a high level, some options for a municipal role.

We see the City's new role in affordable housing development as being built upon the notions of facilitation and partnership. This model recognizes that the City cannot readily undertake much development on its own, and cannot take over the role that the Provincial and Federal Governments previously played in the development of social housing. The City can facilitate development by creating an policy environment where the private sector and non-profit groups will be willing and able to build housing. As a partner with other development stakeholders on specific sites, such as community agencies, the development industry, financial institutions and senior levels of government, the City can influence, even advance, the development of affordable housing.

We propose that, over the next several months, the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes consider the role the City may have in supporting the development of affordable housing. To facilitate that discussion, to outline options, and to make recommendations, a series of topics will be brought forward to the Strategy Committee in functional areas that are outlined in this report. The City can impact upon affordable housing development in many different ways - e.g., providing land or buildings, working directly with developers or indirectly through planning and regulatory policies - but decisions need to be made about the best way to lever action in the community, using the specific mechanisms and resources available to the City.

At the same time, it is proposed that the City undertake a number of affordable housing demonstration projects, in order to show how the City can influence development using some of these mechanisms. A separate report on Demonstration Projects will provide more detail.

It is proposed that Council be asked to make a commitment in principle to this new role in facilitating the creation of affordable housing, and to two key elements of a strategy. The two key elements, that will be critical to the success of demonstration projects over the next 18 months, include a "housing first" policy for the disposal of surplus City-owned land and buildings, and the establishment of a capital revolving fund to facilitate the financing of demonstration projects.

Responding To Affordable Housing Needs:

The need for affordable housing is growing across all household types, and we expect that it will become even more urgent over time. Appendix A provides a summary of recent data on housing needs in the City of Toronto. Although all households with low incomes have difficulty accessing affordable housing, the problem is worse for particular groups - notably one-parent families, seniors and youth. More and more the City's demographic profile is becoming hollowed out as families leave the City to find housing they can afford.

Migration data show that the City of Toronto tends to receive a disproportionate share of the population with housing affordability problems, relative to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and the rest of the country. This results from the high level of immigrants coming to the GTA, combined with significant migration of home-buying families from the City to the suburbs of the GTA. This means that the City has, and will continue to have, fewer families, more renters, and more households with lower incomes. It also suggests that Toronto's affordable housing issues need to be addressed from a GTA perspective and the senior levels of government should play a role in local housing solutions.

Without a doubt, it is critical that the City play a strong role in preserving the existing supply of affordable housing. The potential for loss of affordable units in the existing stock is larger than the feasible scale of any new development. In addition, in terms of actual numbers of units, it is usually more effective to preserve housing stock than it is to build new units. But preservation alone is not enough. The current demand for affordable housing units exceeds supply and pressure on the existing stock of affordable housing (in terms of conversions, demolitions, and rent increases) will continue to erode supply. Unless a range of affordable housing options are provided for these populations, the result will be a City that is less diverse and less vibrant, socially and economically.

Although conventional economic theory is that demand will create supply, rising demand has not fuelled a supply of affordable rental or ownership housing, primarily because the cost of production consistently exceeds the rents/mortgages the market can support. For example, based on pro formas of a typical new rental apartment project in Toronto, the estimated gap between the economic rent required to make the project viable and the achievable market rent is over $3,000.00 per unit annually. Without help, the private rental market cannot build more apartment buildings, let alone supply units at affordable (or below market) rent levels.

New supply is created through construction, conversion and intensification. The City can support new supply through policies and actions aimed at reducing the cost of development including providing access to land and financing, permitting conversion from non-residential to residential uses and making other such regulatory changes which permit residential land use, and by establishing policies which support different housing models including accessory apartments and single room occupancy units.

Providing housing for groups with unmet needs, and for youth, women with children and seniors, in particular, may also mean encouraging different forms of housing design, tenure and different ways of occupying the unit so that low-income households, and households with specific support needs, can obtain housing.

A recent report undertaken by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (New Ways to Create Affordable Housing, 1998), outlined twelve different housing models which have either been created, or are in the process of being created, without traditional non-profit supply programs. These range from models focused on how the occupant pays for shelter (for example, life leases and home-ownership), and how they occupy the unit (for example, co-housing). Zoning presented a barrier to development in about 19 percent of the cases.

Toward A New Municipal Role:

Municipalities in Toronto have played an active role in facilitating and building new low income housing. Both the former Metro and City of Toronto Official Plans set targets for affordable housing development as a tool for ensuring a mixed community and a livable city. Through their housing companies, former Metro and the City used Federal and Provincial programs to construct over 28,000 social housing units. The other former municipalities helped to facilitate social housing development through their planning approval processes. As a result, from 1976 to 1995, about 2,100 new non-profit units were built each year within the boundaries of the new City.

The municipal role has changed over time with shifting senior government policies and community needs. In the early 1900s local government became involved due to concerns over the effect of poor housing conditions on the health of residents. In the 1940s, the City played a lead role in developing the first public housing project, assembling property for Regent Park North. As Federal financing became available in the 1950s and 1960s, newly-formed Metro formed its own housing company and supported the rapid growth of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, covering 7.5 percent of the costs. In the 1970s, the City of Toronto set up Cityhome and a land banking program to take advantage of Federal non-profit funding. Local governments also advocated the growth of private non-profits and co-ops, and were instrumental in the expansion of Provincial funding for supportive housing.

With the cancellation of non-profit housing supply programs in 1995, senior government funding is no longer available to support large-scale affordable housing development in Toronto. However, waiting lists for social housing continue to grow, and data from the 1996 census show that the need for such housing has increased significantly. The municipality must find new ways to respond to this need in light of its changing responsibilities and the resources that are available.

Facilitation and Partnership:

In response to the needs identified in the Patterns and Prospects (1996), the Metro Housing Stakeholder Panel (1997) proposed a strong role for the municipality in encouraging the development of private rental and affordable housing for low income households. The Stakeholder Panel suggested that, in the absence of traditional housing supply programs, the City could influence supply using a variety of mechanisms, including reduced taxes for new rental construction, provision of municipal land for housing, and assistance with financing for housing projects.

While the City cannot easily create new affordable housing alone, it can create an environment that encourages the production of housing, and can apply its own resources to partnerships that will directly result in affordable housing being created. To be successful, the City will need to influence the factors that affect the cost of production of housing.

There are a number of players who need to be involved to create affordable housing. Key players include the municipality, senior levels of government, private developers/builders, community-based agencies, and financial institutions. Each of the players has an important role to play:

Senior levels of government - despite the recent devolution of housing responsibilities to municipalities, the Federal and Provincial governments have the legislative power and financial strength required to create affordable housing on a larger scale. The Federal Government has expressed an interest in facilitating housing partnerships, and in making mortgage insurance available to affordable housing projects.

Private developers/builders/managers - if it is economic to do so, the private sector will build rental housing. The private sector has land and equity to bring to the creation of housing, and could provide or facilitate the creation of affordable housing as part of larger redevelopment schemes.

Community-based agencies - community agencies are the most familiar with needs of client groups, and can make linkages to services and community/volunteer resources.

Financial institutions - there are a range of large and small sources of private capital financing that could be engaged in the provision of affordable housing.

The Municipality - the City's role, as suggested by the Metro Stakeholder Panel, is to encourage housing development by reducing barriers and helping to meet housing needs that are not being met in the market, with appropriate allocation of municipal resources for that purpose.

Developing a Strategy for the City of Toronto:

The municipality can play a role in influencing affordable housing creation both at a policy level, and at a project specific (action) level through a variety of mechanisms. For example, at a policy level, equalizing residential and multi-residential tax rates could impact on rents for all forms of rental housing. At an action level, providing density incentives or land at a preferred price to a particular developer, could impact on rent levels for a specific project.

Policy-based Mechanisms:

-intent is to create an environment that encourages affordable housing;

-implementation tends to be longer term (18 months or more); and

-primarily dependant upon regulatory tools such as Official Plans and Zoning By-laws.

Action-based Mechanisms (are both transitional and ongoing):

-tools currently available or that can be implemented within a short term (less than 18 months);

-work within the current regulatory environment;

-requires a greater level of direct input by municipality than policy-based mechanics; and

-can be tested through demonstration projects.

The role of the municipality can be defined by the mechanisms available to it, in terms of both policy and action, within seven functional areas:

(1)Leadership, Organization, and Advocacy;

(2)Land and Buildings;

(3)Financing and Funding;

(4)Planning and Policy;

(5)Regulations - Standards and Approvals;

(6)Community Supports; and

(7)Taxation, Charges and Fees.

Potential mechanisms under each of these functional areas are set out in the table in Appendix B. As noted previously, a separate report will describe the rationale for demonstration projects designed to test the City's ability to encourage affordable housing development through some of these mechanisms.

In order to allow time for the Committee to understand each mechanism, and to seek input from internal and external stakeholders, we propose that the Committee consider these tools over a series of future meetings. Prior to each meeting, staff will consult with the various departments who have an interest and provide background material and options for consideration by the Committee. Where appropriate, external stakeholders will be invited to present their points of view to the Committee as well. We propose that the Committee consider the following two categories of mechanisms at its next meeting: Land and Buildings, Financing and Funding.

Commitment Of City Council:

We propose that Council commit in principle to a number of aspects of this strategy before the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes proceeds to develop specific proposals over the coming months.

Goal for Affordable Housing Development Strategy:

Reflective of an approach that would be based on facilitation and partnership, Council should be asked to commit in principle to the following goal:

"The goal of the Affordable Housing Development Strategy is to create an environment in which private sector and community partners will be willing and able to develop affordable housing for people with a range of housing needs that are not currently being met in the market."

A number of elements that may form part of this strategy will have financial implications for the City, directly in the form of financial or funding support, or indirectly in terms of foregone revenues (e.g.,from land sales at below market value, waiving of fees or deferral of taxes). Some of the planning tools, such as density incentives (under Section 37 of the Planning Act), have the potential to generate revenues for affordable housing based on the development potential of land.

In the short term, two elements will be critical to the success of the strategy and to the success of demonstration projects that the City might wish to pursue with private and community partners. It is important that Council make a commitment in principle to these elements, and that staff provide further information on the financial implications.

Housing First Policy for Surplus City Land and Buildings:

The contribution sought most often by community groups who have approached the City with creative ideas is that of the provision of sites for development. Depending on the housing model to be tested, and the ability of future residents to pay for accommodation, City land could be provided at full market value at a discounted value, or at no cost. The framework for demonstration projects, being proposed in a separate report, is intended to provide a basis for deciding where City resources, including land or buildings, should be made available in the short term.

The former City of Toronto, following the cancellation of provincial non-profit development funding, sold a number of sites that have been planned as non-profit projects. However a limited number of sites were also retained for future affordable housing development using a partnership approach. In the Demonstration Projects report, we are recommending that some of these sites be considered for affordable home-ownership development, and that an open request for proposals be issued to seek private and community development partners. These sites could be developed in similar fashion to the former City's Royce/Dupont equity project for families, which was facilitated by Cityhome with a private partner.

It is important that a City strategy for creating affordable housing not be focused only on the former City of Toronto, and that it address housing needs across all of the new City of Toronto. For example, as noted in Appendix A, there are a very large number of families waiting for social housing across the City of Toronto who have little hope of being served in the near future. In order to identify sites that could be made available for demonstration projects in all parts of the City, we propose that Council make a commitment in principle to a "housing first" policy for surplus City land and buildings. Staff should report back on options for such a policy, based on previous policies employed historically by the former Metropolitan Toronto and the former City of Toronto, and currently being employed by other municipalities such as Vancouver.

Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing:

A second element that will be critical to the success of the strategy, and to demonstration projects in particular, will be assistance with financing. In a recent survey of 186 organizations across Canada who are trying to develop affordable housing without government housing supply programs, the key obstacle that was identified was difficulty in obtaining financing (New Ways to Create Affordable Housing, 1998). Financing refers to access to capital (for development and construction) at a reasonable cost as well as start-up funding for projects.

We propose that Council take steps to increase access to financing for affordable housing, in particular for demonstration projects that the City may wish to support. The objective would be to improve the access of innovative projects to private financing (e.g., through second mortgages or equity contributions) where there is an affordable housing component, and the project cannot meet the approval criteria of private lenders. For community groups with limited resources, the City could also provide seed money to test the feasibility of proposals for demonstrations. It should be noted that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation also provides Proposal Development Funding for "non-assisted" housing on a project-by-project basis of up to $75,000.00, and we have had preliminary discussions with CMHC with regard to accessing this funding for demonstration projects.

As a first step, we recommend that Council agree in principle to the establishment of a capital revolving fund for affordable housing. A number of precedents exist for such a fund in the former City of Toronto, and in other municipalities across Canada. A "Capital Leverage Fund" established by the former City is supporting the expansion of housing for formerly homeless people, through a youth shelter/housing demonstration project at 11 Ordnance Street and a townhouse development for homeless men and women at 30 St. Lawrence. Staff should be requested to report on potential sources of funding that would not require new contributions from the City's operating budget.

Conclusions:

This report provides an overall framework for an affordable housing development strategy for the City of Toronto. The goal of such a strategy would be to create an environment in the City in which the private sector and community groups are willing and able to create affordable housing. In the absence of traditional government housing supply programs, the City's role must be that of facilitator and partner, making the most effective use of planning and policy tools and other resources available to it.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-6135/Fax: 392-3037

--------

Appendix A

Need For Affordable Housing

In The City Of Toronto

The number of households in Toronto which are having problems affording shelter is growing. The problem is even worse for families (especially women with children), youth and seniors who, in addition to not being able to afford most shelter costs, cannot find appropriate and supportive accommodation, are not effectively served by existing emergency shelter options, and often face barriers in accessing units.

Although obtaining and maintaining affordable housing is difficult for just about every individual with a low income, certain groups of individuals have more difficulties than others. Housing Patterns and Prospects (1996) concluded that housing policy and policy actions should target the specific groups whose housing demand is growing the most - (1) non-family, (2) one-parent family household and lower-income, and (3) seniors. Non-family household are mostly single-person households, but also include unrelated persons or relatives sharing a home. In 1991, 35 percent of households in Metro were non-family households. About three-quarters of non-family households were renters in 1991, and 90 percent lived in apartments. In the City, single parent households are primarily mother-led, most are renters (63 percent in 1991) and there is an increasing tendency to rent houses (single/semi/rows). For families where the parent was under 45 years of age, 80 percent were renters; where the parent was 45 or older, 58 percent owned their home.

One of the best sources to capture demand for subsidized housing in the City is the central registry in Housing Connections. Recent figures (March 98) show 42,624 households on the waiting list and the type of unit requested. Generally, the population served by units with two or more bedrooms is families; and close to 60 percent of the households on the waiting list (24,501) requested these units; at the same time, the turn-over rate (excluding internal transfers) in 1997 for units with two or more bedrooms was just 8 percent.

More recently, and given the waiting list statistics, not surprisingly, there have been a growing number of reports that the number of women with children living without shelter has increased substantially. For example, draft information provided to the Homelessness Task Force in June 1998 found that about 19 percent of hostel users annually are children (5,300 of 25,000) . In addition, this review of data provided by the Hostel Services Divisions found that the fastest growing populations using hostels are persons under 18 and families with children, and that there has been a dramatic drop in the ability of hostel users to find subsidized accommodation.

Demand for low-income housing has a long history of outstripping supply in Toronto, even during the years when social housing projects, funded by the Provincial and Federal governments, were being constructed. During the 1980s, a remarkable 1,500 to 2,500 units of social housing were constructed each year. Yet even at that high level of production, social housing units only absorbed about half the added low-income demand.

Very little affordable rental construction has occurred in the City since the Federal and Provincial governments terminated social housing programs. As a result of continued and rising demand, there is significant pressure on the existing housing stock to meet increasing needs for affordable housing: Indeed, conversions and basement apartments, both legal and illegal, have now become the leading sources of supply.

Despite strong economic growth in Toronto, the housing situation during the early to mid-1990s for households with low-income is worsening. Recent data from the 1996 Census data shows that 44percent of renters in Toronto spent 30 percent or more of their household income on shelter, compared to 35 percent in 1991. Certain types of households were more likely to spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing; in particular people who lived alone, family households consisting of couples with children, and lone-parent family households.

At the same time, that supply has tapered off, existing rental housing stock is threatened by conversions, demolitions, deterioration and rising rents. With a vacancy rate of .8 percent, and CMHC forecasting a drop to .7 percent this fall, ongoing rent increases can be expected, while low-end incomes continue to decline. Recent CMHC 1996 census data reported that the average tenant income in Toronto declined by 23 percent between 1991 and 1996, one reason why the number of households paying more than 30 percent of their annual income on rent has increased by 32 percent during that same period.

If past trends are taken as an indication of the future, affordability problems are going to get even worse. There has been steady growth of rental demand, mainly in Toronto, as a result of growth in the GTA (Housing Patterns and Prospects, 1996). About 50,000 to 60,000 people (15,000 to 18,000 households based on 1986-91 ratios) moved into the City each year between 1989 and 1993. Of these, 80 percent are tenants with an average household income about 50 percent to 70 percent below the overall average rate for the City. Meanwhile, about 75,000 to 85,000 people (25,000 to 30,000 households) per year move out of the City into the "905" suburbs. These households primarily have middle to upper incomes, and 80 percent become homeowners at their destination.

The GTA attracts some 80-100,000 immigrants annually (40 percent of national immigration). In the period 1986-91, 70 percent of immigrants to the GTA settled in former Metro. New immigrants tend to be younger than the rest of the population, and those coming to the City are more likely to be renters. The City receives almost half of migrants coming from other Canadian cities or regions to the GTA. However, those coming to the City of Toronto tend to be young, non-family renters. The combined effects of immigration and suburban migration are therefore: fewer families, more renting, and more with lower incomes in the City of Toronto.

Summary:

In summary, there is a continuing net shift to lower-income tenant households, which is also reinforced by the patterns of other migration streams and the result is growing income polarization. Demographic polarization is also occurring as the number of seniors, singles and youth increase in terms of sheer numbers, and as a result of the net loss of families to the GTA.

The demand for rental housing will continue to grow, and supply will continue to remain low. Deregulation of rents alone will not generate more rental housing construction, since there is a continuing economic viability gap between what it costs to construct and operate rental housing units (economic rent), and what tenants can afford to pay in rents. Without new rental construction, added demand will be met by the creation of basement apartments and overcrowding existing units.

In addition to not having enough rental housing units, many tenants have incomes which are too low to afford prevailing rents. The quality of life for many residents is dependent on preserving and expanding the supply of decent low-rent housing. Neighbourhood decline, overcrowding, and increased use of hostels are some of the potential consequences of inaction in this area.

(Report dated June 29, 1998, addressed to the

Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes,

from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services,

headed "Framework for Proposals to Develop

Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects")

Purpose:

To proceed with housing projects that demonstrate new models of housing and respond to the needs of a range of target groups in Toronto, in partnership with community sponsors and the private sector. To test mechanisms that are described in a separate report to the Committee on creating an affordable housing development strategy for the City.

Financial Implications:

The demonstration projects have the following financial requirements:

The funding needs of the Youth Street Survivors Housing Support Project were addressed in a separate report considered by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on June 18, 1998. They include a $500,000.00 commitment from the City's Capital Leverage Fund to cover capital costs, and $50,000.00 from the Homeless Initiatives Fund for development and implementation.

For the Transitional Housing, Affordable Rental, and Affordable Ownership Projects, the City may be requested to make suitable site(s) available at market value or a discounted value. The cost, and any additional financial assistance, will need to be determined on the basis of the proposal calls outlined in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)staff proceed with a two phase process to expand on the ideas received to date for Transitional Housing Demonstration Projects, as follows:

(a)a first phase, or "Concept Proposal Call", to generate as many preliminary project proposals as possible from the community and identify housing models, target populations, potential sites, costs and resources required from the City; and

(b)a second, "Proposal Development", phase which would request a number of groups to prepare full proposals in sufficient detail (including a detailed financial plan and architectural concept drawings) to allow the City to decide where its limited resources would be most effectively applied, and to lay the ground-work for a longer term analysis of the project, if developed, to determine which mechanisms employed by the City had the greatest impact on affordability;

(2)staff proceed with a request for proposals process to select partner(s) to work with the City on Affordable Rental Demonstration Projects, in order to demonstrate what resources and assistance are needed from the city to provide new rental housing to households whose needs are not currently being met in the market;

(3)staff proceed with a request for proposals process to select partner(s) to work with the City on Affordable Ownership Demonstration Projects, in order to demonstrate how home ownership opportunities can be provided to households whose needs are not currently being met in the market;

(4)staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, identify City-owned sites that would be suitable for these demonstration projects, to be included in the proposal call process;

(5)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services work with the Chair of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes and the Mayor to establish a reference group to help select Demonstration Projects, including representatives of the private development community, the financial sector, support service providers, the non-profit sector, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Province of Ontario and City Councillor(s);

(6)staff report back to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes on the progress of the Demonstration Projects on a regular basis; and

(7)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to implement these recommendations.

Council Reference/Background:

At its meeting of May 11, 1998, staff made a presentation to your Committee on a new role for the municipality in affordable housing development. The presentation reviewed the extent of housing needs identified by the Patterns and Prospects report (1996) and the work done by the Metro Housing Stakeholder Panel (1997) on tools that the municipality could use in the absence of social housing supply programs. It was proposed that the Committee take action at its next meeting to:

(a)adopt a framework for a municipal strategy on affordable housing development; and proceed with affordable housing demonstration projects through a request for proposals process.

This Demonstration Projects report has been prepared to respond to the request that we proceed with affordable housing demonstration projects through a request for proposals process. The municipal strategy framework is the subject of a separate report to your Committee. At the same time, homelessness issues are being examined by the City (Task Force on Homelessness) and work is underway to harmonize planning standards (including work to develop an official plan for new City). It is proposed that these demonstration projects also be used to test certain mechanisms the City may use to influence affordable housing development.

City has been Receiving Proposals for Affordable Housing Developments:

Over the past several months the City has received a number of creative suggestions for housing models that have the potential to provide affordable housing for low income households. Some of the concepts to date include Bob Barnett's "Shared Affordable Accommodation" model, MikeLabbé's "Options for Homes" model, and John van Nostrand's "Grow-as-you-Go" model. There has also been initial discussion at the Ad Hoc Committee on Shared Accommodation on how to apply a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) model to Toronto. Clearly there are people and organizations willing to contribute their ideas, time and resources in order to create affordable housing options in the City of Toronto. Such contributions should be encouraged.

However, all of these concepts will require Council to make decisions with regard to the use of City resources to achieve the creation of new affordable housing. For example:

(a)Shared Affordable Accommodation Proposal (report to Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, March 27, 1998) proposes to create three pilot projects totalling 300 beds in 50 suites and requests the City to provide a loan guarantee for part of the capital cost (maximum $2.5 million). In addition, the City may consider providing a site (ideally with an appropriate building) so that construction costs may be further reduced; tax units at the residential rate rather than the multi-residential rate; possibly fund some first year costs and longer term support service costs and, provide an operating subsidy if shelter allowances drop (below $325.00 per month), operating costs increase faster than half of the increase in the shelter allowance, or interest rates increase after the initial term of the mortgage.

(b)Options for Homes (from May 11, 1998 presentation to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes) proposes to create affordable ownership units by use of an innovative financing technique. The City is asked to give access to surplus land at appraised values. In addition, the City may consider providing deferral of building permits fee, reduced parking by-law requirements, deferral of Arts contribution, Park levy, Sewer Impost levy and other levies until prepayment of the first resale, guarantee for interim financing, City loan to Home-Ownership Alternative equity fund, and deferral of land value until first resale to help reach deep core income groups.

(c)Grow-as-you-Go: The concept would require the City to permit significant zoning variances (Grow-as-you-Go: From Homelessness to Housing, May 1998). In addition, the City may consider providing land at a reduced price or deferring payment.

While there is urgency to take action on these ideas, it must be recognized that we do not yet have a clear picture about what exact resources the City may want to provide (including the cost of those resources), and we do not yet have a process for receiving proposals which is as open and fair as possible and ensures that we make efficient use of City assets.

In order to make the best use of community interest, to generate a full range of ideas, and to illustrate and test some of the ways in which the City leverage resources and can influence affordable housing development, we are proposing that the City proceed with a process to accept proposals and select projects which demonstrate a range of housing models, meet a range of housing needs, and which make effective and efficient use of any resources the City may choose to provide. These projects would be launched in the short term.

While the City would have an initial role in facilitating the projects, they would be developed by non-profit and private partners in the community. It is not intended that the City provide ongoing operating subsidies to such developments.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Overview:

This report proposes a framework for demonstration projects to test new affordable housing models, and address a range of housing needs (such as household types, income ranges, tenure types, housing forms, need for community supports). The framework includes the following key areas:

(a)housing that provides a transition from living in emergency shelter to stable, longer term housing, and which includes appropriate community supports (Transitional Housing Demonstration Projects);

(b)affordable rental housing for target groups which do not require community supports (Affordable Rental Demonstration Projects); and

(c)ownership housing that is sufficiently low-cost that it can be purchased by households (in particular, families) with moderate to low incomes (Affordable Ownership Demonstration Projects).

The report proposes a proposal call process for expanding on the ideas received to date for innovative projects, and to provide a basis for effective, efficient and equitable decisions on the provision of City land, buildings and other resources for affordable housing development projects.

Goals For Demonstration Projects:

Three overall goals for the demonstration framework are proposed:

(1)Select proposals and develop projects which provide affordable housing, demonstrate a range of housing models, meet the needs of a variety of groups who are currently under-served, and make efficient and effective use of any resources the City may provide.

(2)Use the demonstration projects to examine how the City can best influence affordable housing development. This includes providing City resources, but also includes other types of support the City may provide. Projects selected must be feasible, and results measurable (e.g., pricing and rents) and replicable.

(3)Establish an open, competitive and transparent process for accepting and evaluating proposals from the private and non-profit sectors for developing affordable housing that require the use of City resources.

A number of guidelines are suggested for how these goals may be achieved. There are guidelines about, the types of projects (goal 1), the resources the City may provide (goal 2), and the process (goal 3). A complete listing of these guidelines is provided in Appendix A.

Demonstration Models:

We propose three demonstration concepts based primarily on examining a range of tenure types, affordability benchmarks and housing needs (including supports) for a range of individuals and households who are currently under-served by existing housing options.

Transitional Models:

The term "transitional" is used to describe a temporary stage between hostel type accommodation and more stable, longer-term housing; however, this housing may also be permanent housing for some people. Generally the occupants of this housing will require some degree of support from community agencies to live independently. A number of project ideas recently received by the City might fall into this category, and there are many other possible models which can be applied.

The City is currently providing support for two such projects that should be monitored by the Committee as examples of Transitional Housing Demonstration Projects. One is being developed on the City-owned site at 30 St. Lawrence Street. This project, sponsored by Dixon Community Homes, will provide shared accommodation for 40 formerly homeless men and women in a townhouse development.

A second transitional project is a street youth demonstration project for which, at the request of the Budget Committee, a specific proposal was made in a report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on June 18, 1998. The proposal is to create housing/shelter for 50 street-youth in a City owned warehouse at 11 Ordnance Street.

This project will test how a partnership model between the City and community agencies can contribute to affordable housing development. We also want to learn more about how support programming can be used to facilitate developing the skills needed to access housing, and move along the continuum from emergency accommodation to stable, permanent accommodation. Street Youth, in particular, need to develop these skills because they do not have a history of stable housing, cannot provide references, nor have they had the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to fulfil their obligations under a landlord and tenant relationship.

Affordable Rental:

As detailed in research done for the Housing Stakeholder Panel (1997), the cost of producing rental housing accommodation (economic rent) outstrips by a significant margin the rent which the market is willing to bare for those units. The impact is that there has been very little new rental construction in the City, with the exception of social housing programs (the social housing program ended in 1995). Therefore, this demonstration project will examine ways in which economic rent can be reduced.

This project is targeted at the housing needs of individuals and families who simply require housing at prices below market.

Affordable Ownership Models:

The Housing Stakeholder Panel recommended that new "affordable home ownership" production be a municipal housing priority, given the great number of low and middle-income families leaving the City in search of affordable and suitable housing. The advantage of ownership over rental, for households which can live independently, is that there is no ongoing commitment required by the City or other agency in terms of administration and operating funding.

The intent of the affordable housing demonstration project is that it would show how units can be built which are affordable to low-income households, and can be self-supporting on just those low incomes. The full cost of developing the project would be recovered from the purchasers over time. To ensure that any benefits given by the City do not translate into capital windfalls for the household on sale, measures would need to be taken to ensure that sale profits (perhaps in excess of a certain amount) would be reused for providing affordable housing.

Households targeted do not need support from the community to live independently. Their issue, quite simply, is that there is little or no low cost housing available in the City which suits their needs. Two potential target markets are first-time buyers and seniors with moderate-to-low incomes, who have limited options in the private market in the City of Toronto.

There is some experience with this type of model. Cityhome, for example, has developed the Royce-Dupont project that made it possible for households with incomes as low as $30,000.00 to buy a townhouse-style home.

Guidelines For Proposal Call Process:

It is proposed that the City select lead partners for each demonstration project (proponent that develops the housing) through an open proposal call process. Detailed evaluation guidelines will be prepared based on the goals and guidelines outlined in this report, and with the assistance of a Reference Group. The Reference Group would also provide assistance with evaluating proposals, and some ongoing support and advice during the development and evaluation stages of each successful project. Members would include representatives of the private development community, the financial sector, support service providers, the non-profit sector, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the Province of Ontario, the Chair of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes and other interested City Councillors. CMHC has advised that a representative of their Centre for Public-Private Partnerships in Housing would be willing to participate.

Before specific proposals for development are brought forward for consideration by Council, the Councillors of the Ward where the projects would be built will be consulted.

Two Stage Process for Transitional Housing:

It is proposed that a two-stage process be used to garner proposals for the Transitional Housing project; (1) a Concept Proposal Call, and (2) a Proposal Development process.

The purpose of the Concept Proposal Call is to generate as many ideas from potential partners, and combinations of partners as possible, without requiring them from the onset to incur all the costs usually associated with preparing a detailed Proposal (such as preparing financial models and architect concept drawings). Approximately three concept proposals would be selected to proceed to a full Proposal Development phase.

For all demonstration projects, there would need to be a formal partnership agreement, prepared by the City Solicitor, outlining specifically the resources and assistance that the City will provide, in return for specific undertakings such as ensuring the housing will be affordable.

It is intended that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes will receive regular progress reports throughout this process.

Appendix A describes the guidelines that we would employ in this process under the following headings:

-Goal 1: Types of Projects

Definition of Affordable Housing

Targeting Populations not served by Market

-Goal 2: Resources the City may Provide

Reducing Development and Construction Costs

Making Units Affordable

-Goal 3: The Proposal Process

Selection Process

Reference Group

Partnership Agreement

Conclusion:

The City has received a number of proposals about affordable housing development using City resources. This report suggests a framework for obtaining proposals, and outlines guidelines which may be applied in evaluating proposals, to ensure a wide range of options can be considered (from transitional housing with community supports, to affordable rental housing without supports, to home ownership) for a variety of target groups (families, seniors, youth, etc.) and to ensure that City resources are provided efficiently, effectively, and through an open and competitive process. The demonstration projects would also test a variety of mechanisms available to the City in order to determine which are most effective in levering development of affordable housing using a partnership model.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-6135/Fax: 392-3037

--------

Appendix A: Proposed Guidelines for Demonstration Projects

1.0Types Of Projects:

Goal 1: Select proposals and develop projects which provide affordable housing, demonstrate a range of housing models, meet the needs of a variety of groups who are currently under-served, and make efficient and effective use of any resources the City may provide.

Three types of demonstration models will be considered under the Housing Demonstrations Project: Transitional Model, Affordable Rental, and Affordable Ownership.

Definition of Affordable Housing:

Affordable housing, for the purpose of the demonstration projects, needs to be defined so that proposals can be assessed in terms of the range of price points offered. The definition should address the initial price/rent, how long the price/rent remains in effect, and the minimum number of units within the complex which will be "affordable".

Affordability of a housing unit is usually measured in terms of the share of household income needed to pay for shelter and utilities. As a general rule of thumb, when shelter costs exceed 25 percent or 30 percent of a household's income, that household is said to be having affordability problems. At a household income of $20,000.00, a rent of $500.00 per month including utilities, would be considered affordable. At $41,000, an affordable rent is $1,025.00 per month. In 1997, average rents in the City ranged from $680 per month for a one bedroom unit to $1,000.00 per month for a three bedroomunit¹. (¹CMHC Rent Survey Report, June 1998)

The City will be establishing a definition of affordable housing and/or affordability benchmarks as part of the Official Plan process. In the meantime, for each of the demonstration projects, affordability benchmarks will be established based on income and household types, and depending upon the project selected and degree of City resources required. For example, a benchmark rent for the transitional housing project may be equal to the shelter component of general welfare benefits for the household the unit is intended for, i.e., $325.00 per month for singles; for the affordable rental project, the benchmark may be a rent less than prevailing averages; and for the ownership housing at a price which can be purchased by households with incomes at or below $30,000.00 per year with a down-payment on the mortgage of 5 percent.

It is further suggested that the rent levels be maintained at the "affordable" level for a minimum period of time (for example, 10 years) and that for the ownership project, some mechanism to ensure that capital returns which may result from a future sale are reused for providing affordable housing.

Finally, the number of units in the project which are "affordable" will depend upon the type of project. It may be necessary to offer some units in the residential complex at market rates to permit cross-subsidization of the "affordable" units, or to permit projects which include non-residential uses for the purpose of cross-subsidization of the "affordable units".

Details about the exact rent/purchase price benchmark, minimum length of time which the affordable rent must remain in effect, how return on investment for the affordable ownership project would be reused for affordable housing development, and the minimum number of affordable units which must be provided for each project will be detailed and communicated through the proposal call process. These should be assessed relative to the amount of resources which would be required from the City to support the project (i.e., the more resources provided by the City, the more affordable the units should be in terms of price, timing and share of project).

Proposed Guideline for Definition of Affordability:

1.1Proposals will be assessed in terms of the number of affordable housing units to be provided. Affordability will be considered in terms of the rent level and length of time it stays in effect, sale price, and the relative mix of affordable and market units. The degree of resources the City may offer will be considered relative to the number of affordable units proposed for the project.

Targeting Populations not served by Market:

Although obtaining and maintaining affordable housing is difficult for just about every household which has a low income, certain groups have more difficulties than others. Housing Patterns and Prospects (1996)², (² Housing Patterns and Prospects in Metro, Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, June 1996) a detailed report on the state of housing in Metropolitan Toronto, and the final report of the Housing Stakeholder Panel (1997), concluded that housing policy and policy actions should target the specific groups whose housing demand is growing the most. These groups include non-family households (singles), one-parent family households, and seniors. There is also a growing trend whereby moderate income families with children, whether single parent or two parent, are leaving the City to get affordable housing in the "905 belt", resulting in a City which is more and more populated by low-income families, youth and seniors.

The need for affordable housing, however, should not only be described by the household types experiencing the most difficulty. Depending upon the characteristics of the household, community supports may be needed.

Proposed Guidelines for Targeting:

1.2Proposals will be assessed in terms of the degree to which the project proposed can meet the needs of the community it intends to serve, what those needs are and volume of need, and how they have been determined.

1.3Where the community to be served requires support to live independently, proposals will be assessed in terms of how those supports will be accessed, funded and provided.

2.0Guidelines - Potential City Resources:

Goal 2: Use the demonstration projects to examine how the City can best influence affordable housing development. This includes providing City resources, but also includes other types of support the City may provide. Projects selected must be feasible, and results measurable and replicable.

Each of the proposals to date for affordable housing projects has asked that the City provide resources, and we can expect that any future proposals will make similar requests. Therefore, it is necessary to outline what resources the City may be willing to provide, and under what terms.

In general, it is proposed that the City contribute resources and support to selected proposals under terms of a partnership agreement. The exact mix of resources and support which may be provided for each demonstration project may vary, but will be assessed in terms of costs (to the City and as savings to the proponent, and how much of the savings will be directly transferred to the occupants) as part of the proposal call process, and finalized as part of negotiating the partnership agreement. It is expected that the size of the City's contribution will be relative to the degree of affordable housing to be provided.

The full list of mechanisms (resources and supports) which the City may use will be examined as part of the strategy to develop a municipal role in creating affordable housing. For the purposes of the demonstration projects, we are suggesting only some of the possible mechanisms be used - notably those which we may be able to use in the short-term, which have a good chance at being implemented, and which can have the largest impact on reducing development costs. Key resources which may be provided include land, capital grants and, possibly, assistance obtaining financing.

Reducing Development and Construction Costs:

Why does it cost so much to create housing? As set out in research undertaken for the Housing Stakeholder Panel³ (³Greg Lampert with Steve Pomeroy, and Heiyar and Associates, Prospects for Rental Housing Production in Metro, 1997), a primary cost driver is the price of land. The City can directly reduce the cost of housing by making land available for affordable housing development.

The City has a number of surplus sites (some with buildings which may be converted to residential use). Land can be provided by a long term land-lease, at or below-market, as has been done for a number of non-profit housing programs. Alternately, the land could be sold at market value, but at preferred terms (including delayed closing so the land cost does not need to be carried during the development period). Land may also be sold for less than market value.⁴ (⁴For example, Montreal has a policy where surplus land used for affordable housing may be provided at 25 percent less than the market rate on a site specific basis. Innovative Rooming Houses, 1995, Foyer des Cent Abris Non-Profit Organization, Montreal, Quebec.)

The length of time it takes to develop a property and the associated fees and charges, also contribute to capital costs. The time it takes to develop is costly because the developer is incurring costs (servicing, architect fees, construction costs) during a period of time when there is no revenue. Interim financing is often required to pay these costs, and the interest charges on interim financing, if available, tend to be high. Interim financing costs are eventually passed into operating costs when the interim financing is converted into a longer term mortgage.

The City can assist in reducing the time it takes to negotiate development approvals by implementing some type of "fast-track" process. This may include a method for obtaining shorter turn-around times from the various departments involved in approving developments.

Sometimes it is difficult to get interim financing for affordable housing projects, and this may be particularly true for rental projects. The City may want to provide assistance targeted to providing Affordable Rental - Transitional Housing to access interim financing, if required, at market rates. This would not be provided until construction starts and would be paid off when construction is complete.

Access to longer term capital financing can also be problematic, particularly by non-profit groups, because the method typically used by banks to determine the mortgage level permitted is too stringent for affordable housing projects. CMHC does provide mortgage insurance for high-risk mortgages, and the City's most effective role may be to help the developer access long term financing by providing a guarantee.

The City can reduce capital costs by direct grants, or by paying for certain soft costs. Paying some capital costs can make sense for projects where housing is provided at less cost than accommodating someone in an emergency shelter. For example, the project at 30 St. Lawrence will receive about $400,000.00 in funding. The Housing/Shelter Pilot Project for Street Youth will receive $500,000.00 from the Capital Leverage Fund.

Some level of capital grants will be needed to make the Transitional Housing demonstration projects viable. The City may want to provide capital grants in addition to land, fee rebates and paying carrying costs, where the project is targeted at moving people out of the hostel system and, eventually, into more stable housing⁵. (⁵It is generally accepted that once a person has passed the crisis stage, the cost of keeping someone in emergency hostel accommodation becomes more expensive than non-emergency shelter. The reason for this is that the hostel provides a number of support services (such as meals and housekeeping) which the household could provide on their own if they were in "regular" housing, i.e., had access to a kitchen.) The exact value of potential savings is not well understood, and is the subject of a research report currently underway by the City's Homelessness Task Force.) Based on costing pro formas, grants in the range of $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 per unit should be sufficient; additional costs would need to be contributed by other partners. A portion of the grant may be conditional upon funding raised by the other partners (from non-government sources). For example, after an initial contribution of $15,000.00, the City may provide $1.00 of grant funding for every $5.00 raised by the lead partner (developer), up to an additional $5,000.00.

Proposed Guidelines about Resources to Reduce Development Costs:

2.1Proposals will be assessed in terms of the anticipated cost per unit for the intended occupant (i.e., ensuring that savings are transferred to end user), and the amount of City resources which would be required to attain that cost level. The demonstration projects will be considered successful if they can show how affordable housing can be developed with few City resources (i.e., the relationship between affordability and utilization of City resources).

2.2Proposals will be assessed in terms of whether or not they could be replicated by others wanting to provide affordable housing in the future, either on their own or in partnership with the City.

2.3The City may consider providing resources to support the demonstration projects, and the resources provided will vary by project and by project type:

(a)specific surplus sites could be identified - either by City staff or by organizations responding to a request for proposals - and then made available to the successful proponent for affordable housing development demonstration projects at market value and at preferred terms;

(b)development fees and charges which are normally required by the City could be waived, reduced or deferred;

(c)implementing a "fast-track" process for obtaining development approvals;

(d)after construction begins on the Transitional Housing demonstration, providing interim financing, which would be paid back at project completion, if the group developing the project requires this assistance;

(e)assisting the developer of the Transitional Housing demonstration, if required, in obtaining CMHC capital funding by providing a guarantee; and

(f)providing capital grants for the Transitional Housing demonstration to reduce development costs (soft costs and construction costs) which will, in turn, reduce the cost per unit. It is suggested that the grants be provided to projects which target people currently living in hostels. If provided, grants would be given to the proponent developing the demonstration project under terms set out in an agreement. It is suggested that those terms include a base grant of $15,000.00 per unit, and up to an additional $5,000.00 per unit tied to the level of funds raised from non-government sources (matching funds).

2.4For the Affordable Ownership demonstration, a portion of profit made from sale by the original purchaser must be reinvested in affordable housing production (for example, by use of a second mortgage registered on title which would become payable, with some interest, on sale and under certain conditions). Proposals will be assessed in terms of how that mechanism will be implemented.

It is not the intention to use the demonstration projects as a replacement for traditional supply programs which have been, and should be, provided by the Provincial and Federal levels of government. Typical supply programs in the past have included provision of operating subsidies to non-profit groups to pay the difference between the rent and the actual cost of housing. It is not being proposed here that the City provide housing operating subsidies for these demonstration projects.

Proposed Guideline about Operating Subsidies:

2.5The City will not provide housing operating subsidies for these demonstration projects. Proponents may make allowances for cross-subsidizing units by, for example, providing some units at market rents/prices where those market units have not received any City funded capital grant.

3.0Guidelines - Process For Selection:

Goal 3: Establish an open, competitive and transparent process for accepting and evaluating proposals from the private and non-profit sectors for developing affordable housing that require the use of City resources.

We propose to proceed with a proposal call process to demonstrate the partnership role that the City can play in influencing affordable housing development in these three demonstration areas. The process proposed is that the City determine what resources it is willing to contribute, and then offers these resources through a competitive process to organizations who want to develop affordable housing. The City's role in the partnership would be to contribute resources and support, and later, to undertake a monitoring and reporting role. The role of the lead partner would be to undertake all development activities. Other partners may be involved to provide, for example, access to community supports and funding.

Potential partners include community support agencies, other levels of government, the development sector (private sector), philanthropic organizations and the target households themselves. Each demonstration project is based on a different blend of partners, depending primarily upon the nature of the target groups to be housed.

Proposal Call Process:

It is proposed that the City will select a lead partner (proponent that develops the housing) through a competitive request for proposals process (RFP). Detailed evaluation guidelines will be prepared with the assistance of a Reference Group (see below) and based on the goals and guidelines outlined in this report. As the reference group will also have a role in evaluating proposals and determining successful proposals, members of the group will not be permitted to submit a proposal.

We propose that the Concept Proposal Call, Proposal Development Process (see below) and the Requests for Proposals be prepared with the assistance of a Reference Group. This group would also provide assistance with evaluating proposals, and some ongoing support and advice during the development and evaluation stages of each successful project. Members would include representatives of the private development community, the financial sector, support service providers, the non-profit sector, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the Province of Ontario, and the Chair of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes. CMHC has advised that a representative of their Centre for Public-Private partnerships in Housing would be willing to participate.

Before the successful proposals are brought forward for final approval by Council, the Councillors of the ward where the projects would be built will be consulted.

Two Stage Process for Transitional Housing:

We anticipate that projects proposed for the Transitional Housing demonstration will need a greater level of assistance and resources from the City and, therefore, would be required to meet a more stringent affordability standard. In addition, the field is fairly wide-open for the types of proposals we may receive, and the organizations which may submit proposals (for example, development firms and non-profit organizations may want to participate jointly, or on their own). It is proposed that a two-stage process be used to garner proposals for these projects; (1) a Concept Proposal Call for proposals based on concept plans, and (2) a Proposal Development process requesting detailed responses, which may include a detailed financial assessment.

The purpose of the Concept Proposal Call is to generate as many ideas from potential partners, and combinations of partners as possible, without requiring them from the onset to incur all the costs usually associated with preparing a detailed Proposal (such as preparing financial models and architect concept drawings).

The proposals received from the Concept Proposal Call will be evaluated in terms of innovation, feasibility, partnership arrangements, target group to be served, level of City resources which may be required, overall likelihood of success, general financial outline, and other such measures.

Approximately three proposals will be selected during the Concept Proposal Call process to proceed to a Proposal Development process. At this point, some financial assistance could be provided to successful proponents to cover the out-of-pocket costs that are usually incurred when developing a detailed proposal. This would ensure the City has the detail it needs to make an informed decision, and lays the groundwork for a thorough analysis of any project which is ultimately developed. A potential funding source is CMHC Proposal Development Fund. CMHC is planning to issue a request for proposals, and the successful proponent(s) may receive a $75,000.00 forgivable loan. Therefore, we are proposing to include requirements in the demonstration project RFPs which would mirror those of the CMHC RFP, so that proponents may be eligible for the pre-development funding.

Partnership Agreement:

For all demonstration projects, there would need to be a formal partnership agreement, prepared by the City Solicitor, outlining specifically the resources and assistance that the City will provide, in return for specific undertakings such as ensuring the housing will be affordable.

It is intended that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes will receive regular progress reports throughout this process.

Proposed Guidelines for the Proposal Selection Process:

3.1Proposals for each demonstration project are to be generated through an open and competitive process:

(a)persons and organizations who have recently submitted proposals to the City for affordable housing demonstration projects, will be asked to provide any additional information which may be required for evaluation;

(b)the Transitional Housing demonstration project will have a two stage process. Proposals selected at stage one (Concept Proposals) will be asked to prepare a more detailed proposal at stage two (RFP);

(c)each proposal call will provide detailed information about what resources the City is willing to provide to the successful proponent;

(d)each proposal call will have detailed criteria for evaluation for each project based on the goals outlined in this report; and

(e)each proposal call will include requirements from the CMHC RFP for proposal development funding so that proponents can also apply for that funding.

Proposal for a Reference Group:

3.2A Reference Group be established to guide the demonstration projects including representatives of the private development community, the financial sector, support service providers, the non-profit sector, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Province of Ontario, the Chair of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes and other interested Councillors.

3.3The selection process and documentation will be developed by staff of Community and Neighbourhood Services, with guidance from the Reference Group.

Proposal for the Partnership Agreement:

3.4Staff of Community and Neighbourhood Services, with guidance from the Reference Group, and after consultation with the Councillors of the ward where the development would occur, will select the successful lead partners and undertake the negotiation process. The final decision about which proposals will go forward, and what terms and conditions the City will agree to, will be made by Council.

(A copy of the Apendix B: Summary Description of all Demonstrations Proposed, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Community Services and Housing Committee for its meeting on July 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Homelessness and Request for

Declaration of Disaster

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes embodied in the following communication (July 7, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes on July 6, 1998, had before it a report dated June 29, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, providing an overview of Provincial and Federal emergency legislation and the City of Toronto emergency by-law along with a discussion of why homelessness cannot be addressed under their criteria.

The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes concurred with the report dated June29, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, such report containing the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Council urge the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada to establish policies, programs and funding practices which support and augment the City of Toronto's range of strategies for addressing the homeless crisis;

(2)Council approach the Ontario Realty Corporation regarding use of provincially owned properties by the municipality for the development of hostels;

(3)Council appeal to the Province to return to the practice of funding non-residents at the previous rate of 100 percent for the first year of residency in Ontario thereby reducing the costs to the municipality for both hostel accommodation and social assistance benefits;

(4)Council encourage the Province to assist all municipalities in developing resources, such as hostels, which allow people the option of remaining in their home community and effectively reduce costs to Toronto for both hostel accommodation and social assistance benefits;

(5)Council approach the Federal Treasury Board, Canada Lands Corporation, the Ministry of National Defence and any other relevant ministries regarding the use of Federally owned properties by the municipality for the development of hostels;

(6)Council authorize City officials to work with the Toronto Real Estate Board in locating appropriate hostel sites in the private rental market;

(7)Council continue to work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to bring in senior levels of government to develop a national housing policy; and

(8)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(Report dated June 29, 1998, addressed to the

Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes,

from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services.)

Purpose:

To report on Provincial and Federal emergency planning legislation, precedents of Provincial and Federal relief for emergency shelter and housing and the capacity of the new City of Toronto, emergency plan by-law to respond to needs of people who are homeless in Toronto, as requested at the May 11, 1998, meeting of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes.

Financial Implications:

There are no immediate financial implications for the City. Costs to the municipality of potential partnerships with the Provincial or Federal governments for hostel development would need to be determined on a project by project basis by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council urge the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada to establish policies, programs and funding practices which support and augment the City of Toronto's range of strategies for addressing the homeless crisis;

(2)Council approach the Ontario Realty Corporation regarding use of provincially owned properties by the municipality for the development of hostels;

(3)Council appeal to the Province to return to the practice of funding non-residents at the previous rate of 100 percent for their first year of residency in Ontario thereby reducing the costs to the municipality for both hostel accommodation and social assistance benefits;

(4)Council encourage the Province to assist all municipalities in developing resources, such as hostels, which allow people the option of remaining in their home community and effectively reduce costs to Toronto for both hostel accommodation and social assistance benefits;

(5)Council approach the Federal Treasury Board, Canada Lands Corporation, the Ministry of National Defence and any other relevant ministries regarding the use of Federally ownedproperties by the municipality for the development of hostels;

(6)Council authorize City officials to work with the Toronto Real Estate Board in locating appropriate hostel sites in the private rental market;

(7)Council continue to work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to bring in senior levels of government to develop a national housing policy; and

(8)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

At the May 11, 1998, meeting of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, the Committee heard from Cathy Crowe, a nurse from the Queen West Community Health Centre, regarding the homelessness crisis in Toronto. Ms. Crowe advised the City of Toronto to consider Toronto's crisis of homelessness a disaster for the purposes of receiving emergency Federal relief. This recommendation is predicated on several factors characterizing homelessness in Toronto which include the serious overcrowding of daytime and overnight shelters, a 38 percent tuberculosis infection rate among the homeless, clusters of freezing deaths by people living on the street, a rise in overall morbidity including malnutrition, the spread of infectious diseases and a rise in homeless deaths.

Despite efforts by the City to address this issue, Ms. Crowe maintains that the municipal response is insufficient, and further, that the City does not have the capacity to effectively or exclusively deal with either the emergency shelter needs of the homeless or longer term needs such as access to affordable housing. Given these limitations, Ms. Crowe urges City Council to seek immediate relief from senior levels of government for the provision of emergency shelter and the creation of low-cost housing.

Discussion:

Emergency Planning Legislation:

The responsibility for declaring and responding to an "emergency" rests with the jurisdiction wherein the emergency occurs. As such, municipalities are responsible for situations arising at the local level. The municipality must alert the Province once an emergency has been declared. The municipality is then able to draw upon Provincial support but not until municipal resources for dealing with the emergency have been depleted. The Province in turn can appeal to the Federal government for aid once its resources have been exhausted (see Appendix I for summary of emergency legislation).

Declarations of emergencies are made in situations which "constitute a danger of major proportions to life or property." A recent example of a municipally declared emergency was in response to the devastating ice storms in eastern Ontario this past winter. Homelessness, while arguably a critical issue for Toronto, does not meet the criteria for an emergency as it does not affect a significant majority of the population. Furthermore, governmental responses to emergency situations are meant to be temporary in nature and are designed to provide short-term emergency responses. Homelessness is an ongoing, systemic issue which cannot be resolved with a few days or weeks of intervention but rather requires long term, sustainable solutions.

The Homeless Crisis in Toronto:

Estimating the number of people who are homeless is difficult to do with any degree of accuracy. However, we do know that the numbers are rising (see Appendix II for additional statistical information.) Several conditions have evolved which have likely contributed to this increase such as unemployment levels, cuts to social assistance rates, a tight private rental vacancy rate of .8 percent and long social housing waiting lists. In addition, the possibilities of another economic recession, new restrictions in Ontario Works regulations for dependent adults which may increase the number of people living on their own and the introduction of new legislation such as the Tenant Protection Act which may inflate already high eviction rates through its elimination of rent controls, have the potential for creating more homelessness.

This reality clearly demonstrates the need for a comprehensive municipal response to homelessness which includes an effective and responsive emergency service system as well as long-term strategies targeted toward affordable housing development (see Appendix III for a brief overview of the current municipal response.) Toronto has dedicated considerable human and financial resources to this issue, and remains committed to finding viable solutions to homelessness. However, the municipality has a limited capacity to implement this type of broad strategy on its own given that it only has the property tax base to draw upon for revenue. It is therefore in the City's best interest to continue to call upon senior levels of government for assistance.

Municipal Hostel Supply:

While there is a consensus that building more hostels is not a solution to homelessness, the high demand for emergency shelter requires additional sites be developed, at least in the short-term. A major challenge for the City in developing new hostels is the lack of available city-owned buildings appropriate for hostel use. In 1997, the Hostel Services Division canvassed the seven former municipalities with some success however there are few sites appropriate for longer term hostel use. The Real Estate and Facilities Management are in the process of consolidating a property list of the former area municipalities. This process may yield some new property sites. Hostel Services Division will stay involved to assess buildings as they become available.

Locating motel rooms for homeless families has also become problematic. Searches now extend east to Trenton and west to St. Catharines. Last winter contingency plans were established to operate an 800-person mass family shelter site within Toronto, if necessary. However, this type of strategy is only effective on a limited basis as it would be very difficult to maintain an acceptable standard of service to families who may need assistance for several weeks or months.

Provincial Role with Emergency Shelter and Income Maintenance:

The Provincial role in the provision of emergency shelter at the municipal level is one of a funder. Hostels are cost-shared on an 80:20 basis by the Province and Municipality. Prior to January 1, 1998, Toronto received 100 percent funding from the Province for non-residents (i.e., less than one year residency in Ontario, whether arriving from out of Province or out of Canada.) However, these costs are now also cost-shared on an 80:20 basis. This funding change for non-residents is especially significant for Toronto as a recent hostel survey on community of origin reveals that as many as 19percent of hostel users come from outside of Ontario. The estimated costs to Toronto's hostel system for non-residents are estimated at $1.7 million for 1998.

The City also feels the financial impact of non-residents as a provider of social assistance benefits. The average number of non-resident cases per month in 1998 is 4,200. Toronto's 20 percent share for 1998 is roughly estimated at $7,000,000.00 (this is gross expenditure only and does not include possible revenues, i.e., earned income from a client).

The municipality has consistently opposed this new cost-share arrangement with the Province. Given the recent hostel's data, it is appropriate for the City to once again reiterate its opposition regarding the payment of non-residents with respect to both hostel accommodation and social assistance benefits.

The hostel survey also revealed that as many as 40 percent of hostel users come from Ontario but from outside of Toronto. As a result, the City should encourage the Province to assist all municipalities in establishing the necessary resources, such as hostels, which would allow them to provide emergency shelter for homeless individuals and families. Beyond the fiscal argument, this approach allows people the option of remaining in their home community.

Provincially-owned buildings have been used in the past by non-profit and community groups. Youth Without Shelter, for example, used a provincially owned building to establish their hostel in the community of Etobicoke. It is advisable for the City to approach the Ontario Realty Corporation, who manages properties for the Province, to determine if there are any buildings, appropriate for hostel conversion, for lease or sale.

Federal Role in the Provision of Emergency Shelter:

It is not a common practice for Federally owned buildings to be used for emergency shelters except as required under the Emergencies Act. It is rare for the Federal government to become involved directly with a municipality as municipalities fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Examples which prove the exception to this rule include the following:

(a)Use of the Moss Park Armoury:

"Operation Cold Snap" enabled 180 people to use Moss Park Armoury as "warming centre" for 14 consecutive nights in early 1996 during a period of extreme cold. This military operation was triggered by an informal request by a former City of Toronto Councillor to the Department of National Defence of Canada. The deaths of several single homeless men earlier in the winter prompted an increased effort by the City to reduce the risk of harm to people staying outside all night in freezing temperatures. Costs for the operation were absorbed by National Defence. Future use of the Moss Park Armoury would be charged to the municipality, based on minimal staffing and program support from National Defence. These costs will be waived if all municipal resources have been exhausted, and an appeal to the province for help has been unsuccessful. A formal Memorandum of Understanding is not in effect as this limits the ability of National Defence to waive costs and requires them to set costs at a maximum.

Currently, National Defence assistance is accessible only during extreme cold weather conditions declared by the Medical Officer of Health. Assistance is available 48 hours after written request from the municipality is received, with the restriction that at any time assistance could be diverted to a higher priority task.

(b)Temporary Shelter for Abused Women:

Following a fire which destroyed a shelter for abused women, operators approached the Federal government to request the use of a nearby Federally-owned building. Permission was granted on a temporary basis until a permanent site could be located.

Municipal Use of Provincial/Federal Buildings:

There seems to be some potential for using provincially-owned buildings although decisions would likely be made on a case by case basis. Inquiries would need to be directed to the Ontario Realty Corporation as the management body for all provincially-owned buildings. Toronto has bought and sold properties through the Ontario Realty Corporation in the past and this continues to be an option, along with the option to lease, however, market rates would likely be applied.

The use of federally-owned buildings is also possible on an individual basis. Surplus properties often revert to the Canada Lands Corporation who work with private developers and communities to develop these sites. Negotiations would be done through the Treasury Board who sets the guidelines for how buildings are to be used.

Municipal Housing Development:

Strategies must be in place which will not only help people resolve their homelessness but prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. Affordable housing development is one significant step in this direction. A report from the Commissioner of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, entitled "Toward a Municipal Strategy to Encourage the Creation of Affordable Housing," will be brought forward for consideration at the July 6, 1998, meeting of the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes. This report outlines a municipal housing development strategy thereby addressing the housing issues raised by Ms. Crowe.

Federation of Canadian Municipalities:

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities in their report, "Municipal Government Perspectives on Housing," adopted the position that "housing is a fundamental right for Canadian households as well as a key economic activity within our municipalities". One of the primary principles of the document states that "a strong presence in housing by Federal and Provincial governments is crucial in ensuring the equality of access of all Canadians to adequate affordable housing."

Toronto City Council endorsed this report at their June 3, 1998, meeting. It is therefore recommended that Council continue to work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to bring in senior levels of government to develop a national housing policy.

Conclusions:

While formally declaring homelessness an emergency in Toronto is not possible within the criteria set out under the municipal by-law, the City can support the spirit of this recommendation by acknowledging that homelessness in Toronto has reached crisis proportions. Furthermore, that the municipality has a limited capacity to adequately address the problem of homelessness given that it only has the property tax base to draw upon for revenues. It is therefore in the City's best interest to call upon senior levels of government to dedicate whatever resources they may have available. There appears to be some potential for partnering with the Provincial and Federal governments with respect to using government-owned buildings for emergency. However, the City also needs to urge Provincial and Federal governments to become invested in strategies which fundamentally address the systemic causes of homelessness.

Contact Name:

Susan Shepherd:

Tel: 392-5398

--------

Appendix I

Emergency Legislation

(a)Toronto's Emergency By-law:

The Province of Ontario's, Emergency Plans Act, provides the basis by which Toronto can formulate and authorize its emergency plan. Under the by-law an emergency is defined as "a situation caused by the forces of nature, an accident, an intentional act or otherwise that constitutes a danger of major proportions to life or property." The by-law provides the framework within which extraordinary measures can be taken to protect the health, safety and welfare of those affected, in those situations where the Provincial Emergency Plan is unlikely to be implemented or until it is implemented.

It is the Mayor, as the Head of Council, who must declare the emergency. The Chief of Police and the Chief Administrative Officer act as the overall leads in co-ordinating and implementing the municipal emergency plan in conjunction with the relevant governmental and private agencies.

(b)Provincial Emergency Act:

The Emergency Plans Act provides the legislation for planning and implementing the Provincial Emergency Plan. The Plan outlines the responsibilities of each ministry during an emergency along with resources at their disposal. A Provincial Operations Centre is the information liaison when an emergency threatens or is declared, interacting with provincial ministries, community groups and the Federal government.

The Premier has the authority to declare and emergency at the provincial and even municipal level. Provincial involvement with municipal emergencies is guided by municipal capacity. The Province provides support once municipal resources for dealing with the emergency become stretched. Likewise, the Province is expected to exhaust their available resources before turning to the Federal government for help.

(c)Federal Emergency Act:

The Emergency Preparedness Act establishes preparedness as a function of the government while the Emergencies Act is contingency legislation invoked in the event of a national emergency. Emergency preparedness is based on several principles the primary of which calls for the "lowest level competent to respond." As such, Canadians are charged with their own personal emergency preparedness. As a crisis expands beyond individual capacity the responsibility devolves, as appropriate to the situation, to municipal governments, the provincial jurisdictions, and finally, only under the direst circumstances, to the Federal government.

Under the Emergencies Act, a national emergency is defined as "an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it" or is considered to be a threat to national security.

--------

Appendix II

The Homeless Crisis in Toronto

Estimating the number of people who are homeless is difficult although we do know the number is rising. In 1997, about 28,000 people used the emergency shelter system in Toronto. People actually living on the street are growing in number according to street patrol and outreach workers. The number of "hidden homeless" i.e., people doubled up in housing or living in unstable or substandard housing and therefore at risk of becoming homeless, are even more difficult to estimate. At least 100,000 households with incomes below $20,000.00 pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent.

Toronto has experienced an increased demand for emergency shelter (usage has more than doubled in the last four years) along with accompanying shortages in supply. The system operates at full capacity most nights throughout the year with many hostels reporting overcrowding. While single adult men continue to comprise the majority of hostel users, trends show that mother-led families and youth are the fastest growing users of Toronto's hostel system.

In October 1997, Toronto's shelter system was unable to accommodate the expected demand for the upcoming winter. In response, several overnight and day shelters were opened, operating at full capacity most nights. These sites were designed as a temporary measure only. The closure of most of these sites and the Out of the Cold winter shelter programs at the end of May 1998, has left the hostel system once again dealing with a bed shortage. Hostel Services Division has made a concerted effort to accommodate for the loss of these beds by enhancing the bed capacity of some shelters and attempting to secure additional motel space.

Toronto's homeless crisis is also characterized by an increased demand for community-based emergency services such as drop-in centres and meal programs along with a proliferation and institutionalization of volunteer based, ad hoc responses such as the Out of the Cold winter shelter program and food banks.

--------

Appendix III

The Municipal Response to Homelessness

The municipality, through its Community and Neighbourhood Services Department and Urban Planning and Development Services Department play a wide range of policy, planning, research, service delivery and funding roles. Support is provided to and for emergency shelter, day shelter, street health, public health, mental health, outreach, social assistance, community economic development, employment initiatives and transitional, supportive and long term housing initiatives. The majority of programs and services are targeted toward people who are already homeless, however, concerted effort is being made to channel resources into prevention. The City relies heavily on partnerships with community-based agencies to ensure appropriate and responsive programs and services are in place.

An Extreme Cold Weather strategy involves collaboration between service providers, the police and the City to ensure enhanced and co-ordinated levels of service in very cold weather. Extreme Cold Weather Alerts are called by the Medical Officer of Health when temperatures are -15E C or less. Alerts trigger service enhancements; more street patrol vans and bike patrols go out, the Street Helpline expands its service to 24 hours; public transit tokens are given out at drop-ins and additional beds are added to existing hostels.

The Homelessness Action Task Force, chaired by Dr Anne Golden, has a one year mandate to develop solutions to the growing crisis of homelessness. They will provide general policy directions as well as specific strategies to meet the needs of the wide range of homeless people. Final recommendations will be submitted to Council by the end of 1998.

The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes functions as a vehicle for developing, evaluating, co-ordinating and recommending to Council strategies, policies and programs to deal with the housing crisis in Toronto.

Toronto's Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons and Alternative Housing and Services Committee allow the community to have input, at the political level, by identifying and responding to homelessness issues.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 17, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Co-Chair, Advisory Committee on Homeless & Socially Isolated Persons:

At the July 17, 1998 meeting of the Advisory Committee for Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, a presentation by staff of the Hostel Services Division generated a number of serious concerns regarding the capacity of Toronto's hostel system to meet the demand for emergency shelter both now and for the upcoming winter.

Based on the information outlined in this report as to the immediate and expected shortfall of hostel beds, it is recommended that:

(1)the City make full and immediate arrangements to replace all hostel beds which have been closed or are expected to close, including, but not limited to, 11 Ordnance Street, Dixon Hall, Council Fire, and Seaton House;

(2)the total number of hostel beds allocated for single men is increased by at least 200 to 300beds; and

(3)a consolidated tracking system is developed within the shelter system to record the number of people turned away from shelters due to a lack of space.

Background:

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Department recently closed a number of winter shelters including, the Salvation Army Lighthouse (50 beds) and Council Fire (80 beds). Sixty general use hostel beds have also been lost at 11 Ordnance Street due to the temporary relocation of Women's Residence during renovations to their shelter. The Satellite (45 beds), a shelter which has proven to be very effective in working with street youth who do not traditionally use the youth hostel system, will close at the end of July unless a new site can be found. Dixon Hall has lost 65beds through the conversion into a permanent housing development. While the Advisory Committee is supportive of this affordable housing initiative, the loss of hostel beds as a result of the conversion needs to be addressed.

The Committee understands that the winter shelter sites were established as a temporary measure to ensure adequate bed spaces for the winter months. However, the demand for these hostel beds still exists and is continuing to grow. Projections by Hostel Services staff indicate that the winter 1998/1999 service capacity, especially for single men, is in serious jeopardy. Seaton House, for example, is due to begin its phased-in renovations in January 1999. This will reduce the number of available beds by another 150. The Out of the Cold system is expected to provide 300 beds this winter, which is a significant expectation of a volunteer run service which is struggling with issues of fatigue and limited resources.

The Advisory Committee acknowledges efforts by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department to address the demand for emergency shelter in Toronto and recognizes that a primary challenge for the Department is locating appropriate physical facilities for conversion to hostel space. As a result, the Committee encourages the City to take whatever action necessary to locate appropriate sites for immediate hostel development.)

9

Impact of Health Card Requirements on the Homeless

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 2, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton and Ms. Alison Kemper, Co-Chairs, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons:

Purpose:

To increase access to health care by people who are homeless which is currently restricted by stringent health card requirements imposed by the Ministry of Health on March 1, 1998.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council request an urgent meeting with the Minister of Health, in conjunction with representatives of the Health Care for the Homeless Group, to discuss strategies for ensuring effective health care access for people who are homeless in light of the imposition of strict health card requirements by the Ministry of Health.

Background/History:

In January 1998, the Health Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons brought together a diverse group of health care providers to discuss strategies for dealing with impending changes to Ontario's health care system which were expected to have a negative impact on people who are homeless. This Health Care for the Homeless Group included community health agencies, institutional health providers, municipal public health officials, and provincial professional organizations representing nurses, physicians and hospitals.

In February 1998, the group wrote to the Minister of Health outlining several concerns with the strict health card verification requirements and the elimination of "good faith payments" to physicians providing health care to people without health cards scheduled for implementation on March 1, 1998 (attached is a copy of the letter). The group requested an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss these concerns and also to discuss viable strategies which they had developed to address these issues. At the same time, Toronto's Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services sent a similar letter to the Deputy Minister.

By early June 1998, neither the Health Care for the Homeless Group nor the Commissioner had received a response from the Minister regarding their request for a meeting. The Health Care for the Homeless Group finally heard from Minister Witmer upon informing her of a scheduled press conference on the issue. The Minister's response was to refer the group to the Health official responsible for co-ordinating a recently announced project to enhance health care services for the homeless through three Community Health Centres (CHCs) in Toronto. While this initiative is considered to be a positive step, the dollars ($6,000,000.00 across the Province) are insufficient to cover identification replacement costs let alone meet the primary health care needs of homeless people. This initiative is also limited as the funding is attached to Community Health Centres and not all homeless people use this type of health service.

The Health Care for the Homeless Group went ahead with the press conference on May 20, 1998, (attached is a copy of the press release). Minister Witmer still denies their request to meet.

Discussion and/or Justification:

Since March 1, 1998, the Ministry of Health has communicated the message that people must have a health card in hand in order to receive medical attention. Health care facilities across the Province display posters which announce "All patients must show health card when checking in with receptionist" and "The most effective way to prevent fraud: carry your card."

People who are homeless, who have mental illness, or who are otherwise living in poverty are particularly vulnerable to health card loss or theft which now seriously jeopardizes their ability to access health care. These groups of people are also more likely to suffer ill health than the general population. Street health care workers provide accounts of people who are afraid or who think they cannot receive medical care unless they have their card in hand. Some people have been refused health care because they did not have a health card even though they were able to provide it verbally. These examples illustrate the serious communication issues between the Ministry of Health, health care providers and the general public. When pressed, the Ministry contends that a health card number is all that is required, but clearly this information is not being communicated in an effective way.

There is also the ongoing issue of people who do not possess a health card at all. Street Health, a small community nursing agency, is one of the few agencies which help people to obtain the necessary original identification to get a health card. This is a costly service both in terms of dollars and staff time. The demand for this type of assistance has continued to increase. They regularly receive calls from hospitals in the Toronto area, and as far as Hamilton and Oshawa, asking them how to obtain health cards for patients. This illustrates the serious communication problems regarding health cards from the Ministry of Health to health care providers.

Given the serious health care access issues for homeless people resulting from changes imposed by Ministry of Health, and the continued refusals of the Minister of Health to meet with the Health Care for the Homeless Group, the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons urges Council to use their influence to convene such a meeting with Minister Witmer on this critical issue.

Conclusions:

The Ministry of Health wants people to show their health cards to receive health care and yet make it increasingly difficult to obtain a card. In addition, the Ministry has not clearly communicated the health card requirements to health care providers or to the community which is creating serious barriers for people in getting medical attention. Homeless people are particularly vulnerable to health card loss or theft thus threatening their ability to access health care under the new requirements. The Health Care for the Homeless Group represents a diverse group of key health care providers with viable proposals for addressing health card access issues. Support from Toronto City Council to convene a meeting between the Health Care for the Homeless Group and the Minister of Health represents a significant step toward increasing access to health care for homeless people in Toronto.

(A copy of the communication and press release referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on July 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the CityClerk.)

10

Amendments to Housing By-laws -

Harmonization of Procedural and Other Matters

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Boards of Directors of The City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation and The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited embodied in the following communications from the Corporate Secretaries:

(June 24, 1998)

The Board of Directors of The City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation on June 22, 1998, had before it a report (June 9, 1998) from the City Solicitor advising that By-law No.9 governs, among other things, the calling, place and proceedings of Board meetings and the structure of the Board Committees; that to avoid any inconsistencies in procedural matters in preparing for and conducting the simultaneous meetings of the Boards of Directors of MTHCL and Cityhome, it is desirable that their respective by-law provisions relating to procedure for meetings of each Board and its Committees be harmonized; submitting a draft amending by-law which addresses these issues, headed "By-law No. 19"; and recommending that:

(1)the draft amending by-law attached to this report be enacted as a by-law of Cityhome;

(2)the amending by-law enacted pursuant to Recommendation No. (1) be forwarded to the Clerk of the City of Toronto for confirmation by City Council; and

(3)the appropriate members of Cityhome staff be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to Recommendation No. (2).

The Board of Directors adopted, without amendment, the aforementioned report.

(Report dated June 9, 1998, addressed to the

Board of Directors of The City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing

Corporation, from the City Solicitor)

Purpose:

To authorize the amendment of By-law No. 9:

(a)to harmonize Cityhome's procedures respecting Directors' meetings with those of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited ("MTHCL"); and

(b)to reconstitute Cityhome's Audit Committee as the Finance/Audit Committee with powers and procedures corresponding to those of MTHCL's Finance/Audit Committee,

and to make several housekeeping changes.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the draft amending by-law attached to this report be enacted as a by-law of Cityhome;

(2)the amending by-law enacted pursuant to Recommendation No. (1) be forwarded to the Clerk of the City of Toronto for confirmation by City Council;

(3)the appropriate members of Cityhome staff be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to Recommendation No. (2).

Background:

By-law No. 9 (as amended by By-laws Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18) governs, among other things, the calling, place and proceedings of Board meetings and the structure of Board committees.

To avoid any inconsistencies in procedural matters in preparing for and conducting the simultaneous meetings of the Boards of Directors of MTHCL and of Cityhome, it is desirable that their respective by-law provisions relating to procedure for meetings of each Board and its committees be harmonized.

In addition, it is desirable to harmonize the powers and procedures of Cityhome's Audit Committee with those of MTHCL's Finance Committee (to be called the Finance/Audit Committee if draft MTHCL By-law No. A-19 is adopted).

A draft amending by-law addressing the foregoing issues is attached to this report, and a separate report with its own draft amending by-law is being submitted to the MTHCL Board.

Discussion:

The following outline deals only with the substantive elements of the draft by-law and does not discuss technical amendments necessary for the by-law's internal consistency. Therefore, reference to the technical sections of the proposed by-law will not appear in this portion of the report.

Section 2 of the draft by-law will delete the requirement for the resignation of directors who miss three consecutive Board meetings, the adjournment of meetings if there is no quorum within ten (10) minutes, and the initial chairing by the General Manager of the first directors' meeting in each term.

Sections 4 and 17 bring Cityhome's notice provisions into line with those of MTHCL.

Section 6 incorporates MTHCL's procedures under which a director who chairs a Board meeting may vote but may not have a second or casting vote in case of a tie.

Section 7 substitutes the City's Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for the City of Toronto Executive Committee as the Committee to which the Board reports.

Section 8 corresponds to a provision in MTHCL's by-law which authorizes the Board to set the Auditor's remuneration.

Sections 9 and 10 change all references to the "Audit Committee" in By-law No. 9 to the "Finance/Audit Committee".

Section 15 repeals the provisions relating to the Audit Committee and enacts provisions to correspond with those of MTHCL if the latter are amended as set out in proposed MTHCL By-law No. A-19.

Section 16 incorporates provisions of one of MTHCL's by-laws which delegate to the General Manager authority to incur financial obligations of up to $100,000.00 and to write off uncollectible rents to a limit of $30,000.00 per year. I am informed that the General Managers of both Cityhome and MTHCL may be submitting a report recommending that the $100,000.00 limit be raised to $250,000.00. Section 16 of the attached draft by-law will have to be amended accordingly if such a recommendation is adopted.

Although every by-law passed by the Board of Directors becomes effective in accordance with its terms as soon as it is passed, its effectiveness ceases unless the by-law is confirmed at the next shareholder's meeting, which in the case of Cityhome is a meeting of its shareholder's Council at which shareholder functions with respect to Cityhome are carried out. Recommendation No. (2) therefore calls for transmittal of the enacted by-law to the City Clerk for confirmation by the new Council in due course.

--------

BY-LAW NO. 19

CITY OF TORONTO NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION

A by-law further to amend By-law No. 9, as amended.

1. By-law No. 9, as amended, of the corporation is hereby further amended in accordance with the provisions of this by-law.
2. Sections 3.05.2, 3.14, 3.17.2, 3.19(c) and 3.19(f) are repealed.
3. Section 3.05.1 is amended by striking out therein "Subject to section 3.05.2".
4. Section 3.13 is amended by striking out the second sentence therein and by substituting the following therefor:

"A notice of a meeting of directors shall specify the purpose of the business to be transacted at the meeting."

1. Section 3.15 is amended by striking out therein "except a meeting adjourned pursuant to section 3.14 of this by-law".
2. Section 3.18 is repealed by striking out the second and third sentence thereof and by adding the following at the end of the first sentence:

"and any director acting as chairperson shall be entitled to one vote".

1. Section 3.20 is amended:
1. by striking out the heading "CITY OF TORONTO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE" and by substituting therefor "CITY OF TORONTO COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE"; and
2. by striking out "Executive Committee of The Corporation of the City of Toronto" in the first sentence thereof and by substituting therefor "Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee of the City of Toronto".

8.The following new section 3.21 is hereby enacted:

"3.21REMUNERATION OF AUDITOR

The directors shall have the power, by resolution, to fix the remuneration of the corporation's auditor appointed by the shareholder."

9.Section 4.01 is amended by striking out the heading thereof and by substituting therefor the text "FINANCE/AUDIT COMMITTEE".

10.Section 4 is further amended by striking out the words "Audit Committee" whenever the same appear therein and by substituting therefor the words "Finance/Audit Committee".

11.Section 4.03 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"4.03ADVISORY FUNCTION.

Subject to section 4.07, the function of all committees of directors shall be advisory only."

12.Section 4.04 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"4.04TERMS OF REFERENCE.

The terms of reference of each committee, except the Finance/Audit Committee, shall be established by a resolution of the Board from time to time."

13.Section 4.05 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"4.05SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES.

Subject to section 4.07, each committee shall be composed of such number of directors as the board shall determine from time to time."

14.Section 4.06 is amended by striking out "board" where it appears therein for the second time and by substituting therefor "committee".

15.Section 4.07 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"4.07FINANCE/AUDIT COMMITTEE.

(1)There shall be a standing committee of the board of directors known as the "Finance/Audit Committee", composed of five (5) directors appointed by the board, one of whom shall be either the President or Vice-President, and a majority of whom shall

(a)be

(i)neither officers nor employees of the corporation;

(ii)independent of the City of Toronto;

(b)constitute a quorum.

(2)The board of directors shall appoint the membership of the Finance/Audit Committee anew subsequent to the election of Directors at the beginning of each term on the basis that previous membership shall not disentitle a director to reappointment, and each member of the immediately preceding Finance/Audit Committee whose term as a director has not ceased shall continue until a successor is appointed.

(3)The members of the Finance/Audit Committee shall elect from their number a chair.

(4)The role of the Finance/Audit Committee shall be:

(a)to assist the board of directors in fulfilling its responsibility of overseeing the financial operations of the corporation as carried out by senior management, and it shall owe the following duties to the board of directors:

(i)to review and make recommendations with respect to financial and other related information, annual financial statements (including, without restriction, performance of the duties of an audit committee as set forth in the Act), periodic variance reports, annual budgets, points raised by the auditor and any other financial information requested by the board of directors;

(ii)to review and report on, as required, the effectiveness of the external audit function;

(iii)to review and report on, as required, the internal control policies and practices of the corporation;

(iv)to review and report on, as required, compliance with legal, regulatory and ethical requirements;

(v)to review with the corporation's management and the auditor appointed by the shareholder, the City of Toronto, any points raised by such auditor, and report on any important financial or management issues;

(vi)to be acquainted fully with various financial aspects of the corporation and to review and report on, as required, any changes in accounting principles and practices;

(vii)to review the proposed scope of work related to the annual audit and approve audit fees; and

(viii)to submit such reports from time to time as are appropriate; and

(b)to authorize on behalf of the board of directors the award of any contract in excess of $100,000.00 and not in excess of $1,000,000.00 to the lowest bidder if

(i)there is a deadline therefor which will expire prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board; or

(ii)the committee determines that such award will avoid a delay which would have undesirable operational and/or financial consequences for the corporation.

(5)The corporation's auditor shall be entitled

(a)to receive notice of every meeting of the Finance/Audit Committee at which it will be functioning as an audit committee under the Act and to be heard thereat with respect thereto; and

(b)to call a meeting of the Finance/Audit Committee for the purposes of the functioning described in section 4.07(4)(a).

(6)The Finance/Audit Committee shall report each authorization made pursuant to section4.07(4)(b) to the board of directors at its next regularly scheduled meeting, but non-compliance with this subsection shall not affect the validity of any such authorization.

(7)The Finance/Audit Committee shall meet at least once in each calendar quarter at the call of its chair on at least 24 hours' advance written notice and minutes shall be kept of all its meetings.

(8)The following persons shall be in attendance at meetings of the Finance/Audit Committee whenever possible:

(a)the General Manager;

(b)the corporation's auditor whenever such Committee is functioning as described in section 4.07(4)(a);

(c)the Treasurer; and

(d)such other members of the senior and financial management staff members as may be required."

16.Section 5.05 is amended by renumbering it as 5.05.1 and by adding the following thereto:

"5.05.2The General Manager shall have authority:

(a)to commit the corporation contractually, in each instance, in an amount not in excess of $100,000.00;

(b)in cases of emergency and with the approval of the President or Vice-President, to commit the corporation contractually in an amount in excess of $100,000.00;

(c)to delegate the General Manager's purchasing and related contracting powers when deeming same advisable to the person for the time being responsible for the purchasing and related functions for or on behalf of the City of Toronto;

(d)to write off uncollectible rents not in excess of $1,000.00 annually for any household in default, up to a total maximum of $30,000.00 in any one fiscal year, provided that such total writing-off is reported to the Board of Directors within the 3 months next following the end of such fiscal year."

17.Section 8.03 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"8.03OMISSIONS AND ERRORS.

Neither

(a)the non-receipt of any notice deemed to have been received pursuant to section 8.01; nor

(b)any non-substantive error in any notice given pursuant to section 8.01

shall invalidate any action taken at any meeting held pursuant to that notice or otherwise founded thereon."

ENACTED the day of June, 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

PresidentSecretary

--------

(June 24, 1998)

The Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited on June 22, 1998, had before it a report (June 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor, advising that By-law No. A-8 governs the calling, place and proceedings of Board meetings; that to avoid any inconsistencies in procedural matters in preparing for and conducting the simultaneous meetings of the Boards of Directors of the Housing Company and of Cityhome, it is desirable that their respective by-law provisions relating to procedure for meeting of each Board and its Committees be harmonized; submitting a draft amending by-law which addresses these issues, headed "By-law No. A-19"; and recommending that:

(1)the draft amending by-law attached to this report be enacted as a by-law of the Housing Company;

(2)the amending by-law enacted pursuant to Recommendation No. (1) be forwarded to the Clerk of the City of Toronto for confirmation by City Council; and

(3)the appropriate members of Housing Company staff be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to Recommendation No. (2).

The Board of Directors adopted, without amendment, the aforementioned report.

(Report dated June 8, 1998, addressed to the Board of

Directors of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited,

from the City Solicitor)

Purpose:

To authorize amendment of By-law No. A-8 to harmonize the Housing Company's procedures respecting Directors' meetings with:

(a)the corresponding procedures of Cityhome; and

(b)the requirements of the Business Corporations Act respecting audit committees,

and to make several "housekeeping" changes.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)the draft amending by-law attached to this report be enacted as a by-law of the Housing Company;

(2)the amending by-law enacted pursuant to Recommendation No. (1) be forwarded to the Clerk of the City of Toronto for confirmation by City Council;

(3)the appropriate members of Housing Company staff be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to Recommendation No. (2).

Background:

By-law No. A-8 ("A-8") was enacted in 1995 in compliance with the provision inserted into the Municipal Act that year requiring municipal councils and local boards to adopt a procedure by-law governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings (part of its content had previously appeared in By-law No. A-1).

To avoid any inconsistencies in procedural matters in preparing for and conducting the simultaneous meetings of the boards of directors of the Housing Company and of Cityhome, it is desirable that their respective by-law provisions relating to procedure for meetings of each board and its committees be harmonized.

In addition, since the existing Finance Committee constitutes an "audit committee" within the meaning of the Business Corporations Act whenever it carries out its review of the annual financial statements and auditor's report, it is desirable that the relevant wording of A-8 be expanded to include or refer to the provisions of the Act respecting such committees.

The reference in A-8 to "Assistant General Manager" should be deleted, since that office no longer exists.

A draft amending by-law addressing the foregoing issues is attached to this report, and a separate report with its own draft amending by-law is being submitted to the Cityhome Board.

Discussion:

Section 1 of the draft by-law will remove the reference to "Assistant General Manager" from Clause1(h) of A-8, and section 2 will replace the existing subsection 5(2) of A-8, which requires all Board meetings to be at Metro Hall unless the Board otherwise determines, with a new version stipulating such place in the Province of Ontario as the Board may require, to reflect the corresponding provisions of the relevant Cityhome by-law.

Section 3 of the draft will insert into A-8 a new section 5.1 concerning notices, to match the content of Cityhome's notice provisions, and section 4 will insert new subsections 6(4) and (5) covering the steps to be followed after an in camera session and the applicability of section 6 to Board-created committees which include non-directors.

Section 5 of the draft will rename the Finance Committee as the "Finance/Audit Committee", restore its membership to five (as authorized by your Board at its meeting of May 25, 1998), re-enact sub-clause12(4)(a)(i) to make reference to a Business Corporations Act audit committee and the auditor's rights and duties, and repeal subclause 12(4)(b)(ii) giving the Committee power to renew/replace mortgage loans on terms dictated by the subsidizers (such renewals/replacement can be handled instead through the Cityhome method of a standing authority of the Board).

Although every by-law passed by the Board of Directors becomes effective in accordance with its terms as soon as it is passed, its effectiveness will cease unless the by-law is confirmed at the next shareholder's meeting, which in the case of the Housing Company is a meeting of its shareholder's Council at which shareholder functions with respect to the Housing Company are carried out. Recommendation No. (2) therefore calls for transmittal of the enacted by-law to the City Clerk for confirmation by the new Council in due course.

--------

D R A F T

THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING COMPANY LIMITED

By-law No. A-19

BE IT ENACTED as a By-law of the Company as follows:

1.Clause 1(h) of By-law No. No. A-8 is amended by striking out the text "Assistant General Manager" in the first line.

2.Subsection 5(2) of By-law No. A-8 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"5.(2)Each meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held at such place in the Province of Ontario as the Board may by standing or specific direction require."

3.By-law No. A-8 as heretofore amended is further amended by adding thereto the following new section:

"NOTICES

5.1(1)For the purposes of this section, 'recorded address' means, with respect to any person, the most recent address shown for such person in the records of the Company, including the copy of the most recent notice filed pursuant to the Corporations Information Act.

(2)The Secretary of the Company may change or cause to be changed in the records of the Company the address of the shareholder, any Director, any officer, the auditor or the member of any committee in accordance with any information believed by the Secretary to be reliable.

(3)The giving (including the sending, delivering or serving) of any notice (including any communication or other document) pursuant to the Business Corporations Act of Ontario (including the regulations thereunder), the articles or by-laws of the Company or otherwise to the Companys shareholder, its auditor, any of its officers, any Director or any member of any of its committees shall be sufficient if same is

(a)delivered personally to the intended recipient, or to the intended recipients recorded address, in either of which cases it shall be deemed to have been received on such delivery; or

(b)mailed post prepaid, in which case it shall be deemed to have been received, in the absence of any interruption of postal service in the City of Toronto affecting the delivery or handling thereof, on the fifth day next following such mailing.

(4)In computing the time for any notice referred to in subsection(3), the day of giving the notice and the day of the Meeting or other event shall in each case be excluded.

(5)Neither

(a)the non-receipt of any notice deemed to have been received pursuant to clause (3)(b); nor

(5)(b)any non-substantive error in any notice given pursuant to subsection (3)

shall invalidate any action taken at any meeting held pursuant to that notice or otherwise founded thereon.

(6)Any person entitled to a notice as described in subsection (3) may at any time in writing waive same or abridge the time for the delivery thereof, and any such waiver, whether given before or after the conduct of the business to which such notice relates, shall cure any default in the giving or timeliness of such notice, as the case may be."

4.Section 6 of By-law No. A-8 is amended by adding thereto the following new subsections:

6.(4)Following the conclusion of any in camera session of any meeting

(a)resumption of the public session thereof shall take place in accordance with the announcement made in that regard after such conclusion by the person presiding thereat, or in the absence of such an announcement, ten (10) minutes after such conclusion;

(b)on resumption in accordance with clause (a), the recording secretary shall announce to the meeting any recommendations resulting from its in camera session or, if applicable, that a vote took place in accordance with subsection 9(5).

(5)This section 6 shall apply, with necessary modifications, to any meeting of any committee which has been created by the Board of Directors but which is not a Committee.

5.(1)The heading of section 12 of By-law No. A-8 in both the Table of Contents and the body thereof is repealed and the text "FINANCE/AUDIT COMMITTEE" substituted therefor.

(2)Section 12 of By-law No. A-8 as heretofore amended is further amended by striking out the words "Finance Committee" wherever same appears therein and substituting therefor the text "Finance/Audit Committee".

(3)Subsection 12(1) of By-law No. A-8 as heretofore amended is further amended by striking out the text "Three (3)" in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the text "Five (5)".

(4)Subclause 12(4)(a)(i) of By-law No. A-8 as heretofore amended is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

(i)to review and make recommendations with respect to financial and other related information, annual financial statements (including, without restriction, performance of the duties of an audit committee as set forth in the Business Corporations Act), periodic variance reports, annual budgets, points raised by the auditor and any other financial information requested by the Board of Directors;".

(5)Subclause 12(4)(b)(ii) of By-law No. A-8 is repealed.

(6)Section 12 of By-law No. A-8 as heretofore amended is further amended by adding thereto the following new subsections:

"12.(4.1)The Company's auditor shall be entitled to receive notice of every meeting of the Finance/Audit Committee at which it will be functioning as an audit committee under the Business Corporations Act, and to be heard thereat with respect thereto.

(4.2)The Company's auditor shall be entitled to call a meeting of the Finance/Audit Committee for the purposes of the functioning described in subsection (4.1)."

(7)Clause 12(7)(b) of By-law No. A-8 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(b)the Company's auditor, whenever such Committee is functioning as described in subsection (4.1);".

ENACTED this ^th day of June, 1998.

WITNESS the Corporate Seal of the Company.

PresidentSecretary

11

Ontario Works Pilot Projects

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding the following words to the Recommendation embodied therein:

"and the three named pilot projects be continued in principle, in 1999, subject to satisfactory evaluation and availability of Provincial funding.",

so that such Recommendation now reads as follows:

"The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services; and the three named pilot projects be continued in principle, in 1999, subject to satisfactory evaluation and availability of Provincial funding.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

This report discusses recent changes to the Ontario Works (O.W.) funding model. Based on these changes, the Social Services Division, in partnership with contracted community agencies, is preparing to test new approaches to delivering training and employment placement services to Toronto's O.W. clients. A brief description of one pilot is provided, including a discussion of benefits for clients, the agency and the City.

Financial Implications:

No changes are required to existing budget allocations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Social Services Division develop and fund pilot projects for 1998 with a range of community based agencies and organizations which provide a blended approach to delivering services under the Employment Support and Employment Placement streams of Ontario Works;

(2)the Department, in concert with the area office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, evaluate the outcomes of these pilot projects in order to determine the benefits of the approach, and the required funding levels for the development of the 1999 budget; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

In July of 1997, the Ministry of Community and Social Services approved the Social Service Division's Ontario Works Business Plan, including service targets within each of the three program streams (Employment Support (E.S.), Community Participation (C.P.) and Employment Participation (E.P.)) for 1997-1999. However, based on a significant decline in the caseload and knowledge gained in the administration of Ontario Works over the past several months, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department entered into discussion with the Ministry to renegotiate its service targets for 1998.

During these discussions, the Department indicated to the Ministry that experience to date has shown that there is a significant need among Toronto's clients for training, due both to the increased skills required to compete in the labour market and the change in the composition of the caseload. The progressive reduction in the caseload over the past year, from over 94,000 cases in May 1997 to 83,000 cases in May 1998, has seen the most "job ready" clients exit the system for employment.

Those clients remaining, a greater proportion of whom have lower educational and skill levels, and weaker attachment to the labour market, demonstrate a substantially increased need for a range of training courses and interventions. Similarly, the inclusion of single parents in the O.W. programs, many of whom have been out of the labour force for some time, has created a further demand for training and skill development courses. In both cases, an initial period of training will be required to prepare clients to enter into employment as quickly as possible.

At the same time, these same changes in the caseload have reduced the number of clients who could reasonably be expected to participate in the Employment Placement stream. Divisional surveys indicates that a minority of clients are candidates for Employment Placement.

The implementation of the Employment Placement stream has also taken longer than anticipated, and contracted organizations are experiencing several issues impacting their success in the program. The principal issue noted by agencies providing placements is that, for the reasons enumerated above, referrals to date have proven to be more difficult to place directly in employment than they originally anticipated. In addition, the financial compensation model prescribed by the Province is not structured in a way that allows non-profit agencies to recoup their initial investments in a timely enough fashion. As a result, a number of organizations who had agreed to participate in the E.P.stream withdrew, including those with the greatest referral capacity.

Consequently, Toronto currently has limited referral capability in the E.P. program stream. The concern the Department has expressed to the Province is that the budget allocated to Employment Placement is significantly high in relation to need, while the funds available for training have been significantly underestimated against demonstrated need. Therefore, while sufficient funds have been budgeted within the E.P. program stream, they have effectively been inaccessible. The basic reason is that, under the Provincially prescribed O.W. funding formula, there has not been sufficient flexibility within the stream to reallocate funds to support activities, such as training, that are clearly required to assist clients currently on the caseload move into employment placements.

The lack of funding flexibility within the program stream, as well as other program restrictions imposed by the O.W. Guidelines, have also restricted community agencies' ability to propose truly blended approaches to assisting O.W. clients, which provided an integrated mix of education and training, and job placements, and which have the potential to move clients directly from training programs into jobs.

In its discussions with the Ministry, the Department has therefore stressed that Ontario Works must allow for greater flexibility regarding the types of activities, and approaches, that are eligible under the O.W. funding model, both to enable agencies to develop programs that deliver blended programs which will more effectively meet client needs, and to improve the Division's capacity to manage the overall program and meet Provincially approved targets.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services has recently indicated it will allow greater flexibility under the O.W. Program Guidelines and funding formulas, the aim being to permit local delivery agents to explore integrated service delivery proposals from community agencies.

In light of recent Provincial statements, the Department's goal in 1998 is to gain experience by developing and testing a limited number of pilots, in concert with contracted community agencies, that will provide clients with a blend of training and workplace based learning experiences or job placements. The desired outcomes are models which will be mutually successful: clients will obtain and sustain employment, reducing their length of stay on social assistance; agencies will receive adequate funding to delivery programs; and the Department will realize program cost savings as clients move into jobs.

This report briefly describes the basic features of the pilot projects that are being proposed by a number of community based organizations.

Discussion:

Pilot Project Model:

A number of community based organizations, including the Learning Enrichment Foundation (L.E.F.), Goodwill Industries and the Toronto Board of Education (York Division), have been engaged in discussions with M.C.S.S. and the Department concerning development of pilot projects under Ontario Works which test blended models for service delivery. The Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of M.C.S.S., Jack Klees, subsequently referred agency staff to the Department for further discussions related to the development of concrete proposals for pilots.

Over the past month, Departmental staff have been engaged in active discussions with each agency. The aim is to develop pilot projects which combine training supports available under the Employment Supports stream and experiential learning or work placements provided through the Employment Placement program stream. Under the flexibility offered in the pilot projects, each agency will be able to provide individual clients with a continuum of service options. There will be easy access educational and skills upgrading and job training supports which lead to appropriate job placements upon completion of the training component.

The expected outcome of the pilot projects is that a substantial percentage of clients who participate will be successfully placed in jobs. Appropriate performance standards will be established by the Department, in conjunction with the participating agencies, and incorporated in service contracts. Agency costs for the pilots will be funded on the basis of O.W. program savings derived from reductions in the length of time clients remain on the caseload as a result of obtaining employment.

Toronto District School Board (T.D.S.B.) Proposal:

The T.D.S.B. proposal represents a special case. The York District of the now consolidated T.D.S.B. has been running an Adult Co-op Employment Placement program for nine years, combining a classroom based educational component and an experiential learning component in a workplace setting. The Division has regularly referred clients to the program. Staff who have had contact with the program agree that clients who have used it have benefited.

Until the beginning of 1998, no student fee was charged to the Department as the program was funded through the education system. Approximately 50 percent of the participants are G.W.A. clients. However, due to the restructuring of education funding in the Province, funds will no longer be available to support a range of adult education programs, including the Adult Co-op Employment Placement program. The Ministry of Education and Training (M.E.T.) has indicated it will provide funds for a specific number of unemployed workers who are not in receipt of social assistance.

In general, the Department is reluctant to fund programs as a result of the side loading of costs from the educational system onto the municipality. In this case, however, continuation of the Adult Co-op Employment Placement program, which provides an effective service to O.W. clients, can only be guaranteed by funding it as a pilot project. Again, continued funding for this pilot will depend on program performance and the successful placement of participants in employment.

Conclusion:

The Division is pursuing the development of a small number of pilots with community based service providers to test blended service delivery models. The Division is confident that the proposed pilots will effectively meet the needs of O.W. clients, and improve their ability to rapidly find employment. Pilots will be funded through O.W. program savings. Finally, in conjunction with the M.C.S.S. area office, the Department will evaluate pilot outcomes related to client success in achieving employment. Future funding for any initiatives will be based on meeting the negotiated performance standards, and on an overall review of the pilot, the terms and conditions of which will be established in the service agreement contract.

Contact Name:

Heather MacVicar, General Manager, Tel: 392-8953

12

National Child Benefit Supplement

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the City of Toronto:

(1)urge the Provincial Government not to claw back the National Child Benefit Supplement from those persons receiving social assistance; and

(2)request the Federal Government to intervene in this matter and to consider an appropriate form of financial penalty to the Province of Ontario if it continues the practice of clawing back the National Child Benefit Supplement which is going to poor families of the City of Toronto by the reduction of social assistance payments to those families.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the recently announced Federal National Child Benefit Supplement (N.C.B.S.), which will be introduced July 1, 1998. The new Benefit is described, and the implications for social assistance clients discussed. Implementation issues are identified. Reinvestment of potential social assistance program savings related to the introduction of the N.C.B.S. are also discussed.

Financial Implications:

Social assistance program savings for the City of Toronto in 1998, based on the five-month period August 1 to December 31, resulting from the introduction of the National Child Benefit Supplement are estimated at approximately $15 million gross/$3 million net. On an annualized basis, program savings are estimated at $36 million gross/$7.2 million net.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)upon finalization of the Provincial framework governing how municipal program savings achieved as a result of the introduction of the N.C.B.S. are to be used, the Department will develop a plan for reinvestment of City of Toronto savings and report back to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in the fall of 1998; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

Effective July 1, 1998, the Federal government will create the new Canada Child Tax Benefit (C.C.T.B.), which combines existing programs assisting low income families, and introduces the new National Child Benefit Supplement (N.C.B.S.). The stated objectives of the new program are to:

(1)help prevent and reduce child poverty; and

(2)promote attachment to the workforce - resulting in fewer families having to rely on social assistance - by ensuring that families will always be better off as a result of finding work.

Appendix I displays the amounts provided to eligible families under the new program structure.

This change is the culmination of a number of changes in the past decade to Federal government programs assisting families with children. In 1987, the Federal government originally introduced the Child Tax Benefit (C.T.B.) with the aim of providing a more targeted approach to supporting low income families with children. In 1993, the Federal government introduced a Working Income Supplement (W.I.S.) targeted to working low-income families. Both the W.I.S. and C.T.B. were considered as non-chargeable incomes for the purpose of calculating social assistance entitlement.

Effective July 1, 1998, the National Child Benefit Supplement (N.C.B.S.) is being introduced. It is targeted at low income families, including those who currently receive the W.I.S. The N.C.B.S. effectively displaces some of the child-related portion of social assistance benefits. The Supplement will be deducted from social assistance payments, whereas the W.I.S. was not.

All families with children in receipt of social assistance will continue to receive income provided under the C.T.B., which will not be deducted from their entitlement.

This report provides an overview of the N.C.B.S., the impact for existing social assistance recipients, implementation issues, and reinvestment opportunities.

Discussion:

Eligibility for the National Child Benefit Supplement is based on income declared in the previous tax year, and the number of children in a family. The yearly maximum allowance under this program is $605.00 for the first child, $405.00 for the second, and $330.00 for each additional child. It is clear that the intent of the program is to support the incomes of the working poor.

As noted, the program's design requires N.C.B.S. dollars to be deducted dollar for dollar from the family's social assistance entitlement. Regulatory changes have been made under the Ontario Works Act to consider the N.C.B.S. as 100 percent chargeable income. As a result, families on social assistance will not see any improvement in their overall income. Appendix II illustrates how the new program will affect a sole support parent with one child in a range of different situations.

Implications for Families on Social Assistance:

As discussed in the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department's May 11 report to Committee, one critical effect of the treatment of income under the new Supplement is that families on social assistance with a net entitlement less than or equal to the N.C.B.S. will no longer be eligible for social assistance (see Appendix III). As a result of other changes to program benefits made as part of the new Ontario Works Act regulations, which have been described in a number of recent reports to Committee, these families also will no longer be eligible for program benefits such as a drug card. Based on the current caseload, it is anticipated that approximately 400 cases could be affected.

The intention in designing the N.C.B.S. was not to make families worse off. However, this will be the case if families are no longer eligible for social assistance because they are in receipt of the new N.C.B.S. The Department previously noted, in its report to Committee dated May 11, 1998, that the Provincial government should ensure that provisions are made in order that no families currently on social assistance will become ineligible. In a recent press conference introducing the new program, Social Services Minister Janet Ecker stated that "her ministry is prepared to help families who are 'negatively impacted'." The Department will seek further information regarding the Ministry's efforts in this regard.

Implementation Issues:

Of the City's 83,157 total caseload in May 1998, approximately 37,000 cases, involving families with children, will be impacted by the N.C.B.S. There are a number of important implementation issues related to the introduction of the new Supplement.

An automatic linkage will be put in place between the Federal and Provincial data base that will identify social assistance clients who receive an N.C.B.S. deduction. As a result of this data exchange, in August 1998, the Province will automatically deduct through the Social Services Division computer system (M.A.I.N.), the N.C.B.S. for 26,000 of the 37,000 cases on the City's caseload that will receive N.C.B.S. income.

However, due to the inherent design features of this system, caseworkers will be required to manually input the N.C.B.S. deduction for an estimated 11,000 cases per month, where other income sources are also deducted. In addition, caseworkers will be required to enter the N.C.B.S. deduction for new cases, and any of the 26,000 existing cases where there has been a change in reported income, for example, where a client's earnings have fluctuated.

As well, the N.C.B.S. benefit is based on the family's income and number of dependents as reported in their previous year's tax return. However, social assistance information is based on current financial and family circumstances. Therefore, it is inevitable that there will be discrepancies between these sources of information. For example, in their tax return, a family may have reported two dependents. However, in the intervening period, one child may have turned 18, and is no longer eligible for the N.C.B.S. In such situations, caseworkers will be required to ensure that information is consistent and up-to-date.

For these reasons, implementation of the N.C.B.S. will significantly increase the administrative workload facing front line staff. Training is also being provided to staff throughout the Division. Ultimately, this change, in conjunction with the implementation of the administratively intensive new social assistance regulations and directives, will make it difficult for staff to spend the time needed to actively assist clients seek and obtain work. This represents an ongoing problem, given that the focus of O.W. is to move clients into employment as rapidly as possible.

Reinvestment of Provincial and Municipal Savings:

The Federal and Provincial governments have worked together to create the National Child Benefit Supplement. In effect, because N.C.B.S. income will be deducted from families on social assistance, the Federal government will free up resources that the Provinces/Territories currently spend on welfare benefits for children. All Provinces and Territories, in turn, have agreed to reallocate these savings to help fund their own programs for low-income families with children - both working families and those receiving social assistance.

The Provincial and Federal governments expect and require that all net savings be reinvested in a manner consistent with N.C.B.S. program objectives. All provinces and territories have agreed to reallocate savings to fund programs for low income families with children. The Ontario government has extended to municipalities the expectation that their savings be invested in a similar manner. Therefore, municipal discretion to reinvest savings will be contingent on the Provincial framework governing the types of programs that can be funded. This information has not yet been made available to the Department. Within this framework, the Department will explore the range of program options that are eligible and report back with recommendations for reinvestment.

An accountability process is being developed which will include the participation of municipalities to ensure that, without exception, Provincial and Municipal savings are directed to programs that benefit children.

Municipal Savings:

Social assistance program costs are cost shared 80 percent by the Province and 20 percent by the Municipality. In Ontario, it is estimated that the Provincial share of program savings will be up to $150 million annually, which will subsequently be available for reinvestment purposes.

Given the information currently available to the Division, it is estimated that Toronto's maximum total program savings for the period August 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998, will be $15 million gross/$3 million net in the Ontario Works program. On an annualized basis, program savings are estimated to be $36 million gross/$7.2 million net. Additional savings to the City may be realized in 1998 under the Family Benefits program, given that benefits for a substantial number of sole support parents continue to be delivered by the Province. However, at this time, it is not possible to accurately calculate the final savings from this source.

These estimates have been predicated on families with children receiving the maximum N.C.B.S. amount which is then deducted from their entitlement. However, approximately 10-15 percent of both the City's and the Family Benefit caseload will not have a deduction from their social assistance entitlement for one year. This is due to the Provincial decision to grandparent families on the caseload who are working, and who were previously in receipt of W.I.S. Therefore, actual program savings will be somewhat less than the above estimates.

Conclusion:

Overall, the new National Child Benefit Supplement represents a positive effort to assist working poor families in Canada. The co-operation demonstrated by the Federal and Provincial governments in pursuing this policy initiative is commendable. However, with respect to the impacts on O.W. clients, the Department remains concerned that there will be a number of families who will no longer qualify for assistance, and will lose important benefits such as a drug card, due to the introduction of the N.C.B.S.

The Department is also concerned that the implementation of the N.C.B.S. will generate increased administrative workload for front line staff. The Department has previously noted in its assessment of the recent changes to the social assistance legislation and regulations that the depth and scope will make it difficult for staff to move clients into employment as rapidly as possible.

The Province is currently developing a framework that establishes the parameters governing how municipal social assistance program savings are to be utilized. Working within these parameters, the Department will develop a plan for reinvestment of City of Toronto savings and report back to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in the fall of 1998.

Contact Name:

Heather MacVicar, General Manager

Tel: 392-8952

--------

Appendix I

Canada Child Tax Benefit

Appendix II

Case Examples

Appendix III

N.C.B.S.: Loss of Eligibility

Case Example:

July, 1998August, 1998

Sole support parent with one child,Sole support parent with one child,

with earningswith earnings

Gross social assistance$957.00Gross social assistance$957.00

Deductible earnings$920.00Deductible earnings$920.00

N.C.B.S. chargeable income$ 50.00

Net assistance$ 37.00Net assistance $ 23.00

Family remains eligible for social assistanceFamily is no longer eligible for assistance because with the N.C.B.S. chargeable income the net assistance is a negative amount.

13

Elimination of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the City of Toronto:

(a)vigorously pursue the restoration of supplementary aid and special assistance projects by the Province; and that this be accomplished through the opposition party and the Ontario Disability Act process recently initiated by Minister Bassett and, further, that City Council demand that it has a role in this process; and

(b)request the Province of Ontario to refund to the City the amounts paid prior to the Province putting its own program into place;

(2)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to continue to provide special assistance and a supplementary aid program, including items such as hearing aids, prosthetics, wheelchairs and repairs, respiratory equipment and ambulatory aids, until the end of 1998;

(3)the sum of $159,999.00 be found within the Social Services under-expenditures; and

(4)the sum of $46,000.00, from the under-expenditures, be provided for the remainder of the year to support the drug programs.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

This report discusses issues related to the elimination of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid under the new Provincial Ontario Works regulations. Responses of other regional municipalities to the Provincial changes are briefly discussed, as are the intentions of the Provincial government with respect to ameliorating the negative impacts on low income residents who will no longer be eligible for certain benefits.

Financial Implications:

The Department estimates that the cost to Toronto of replacing medical benefits previously available to non-social assistance recipients under Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid would be approximately $480,000.00 at 100 percent municipal cost sharing for 1998. Continuation of costsharing (80 percent Provincial/20 percent Municipal) would result in a budget impact of $480,000.00gross/$96,000.00 net.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council request the Province to reinstate the former level of services to low income families, including coverage of the cost of prescription drugs and medical items, provided through Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid;

(2)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services implement Provincial changes to Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid resulting from the introduction of the new Ontario Works regulations;

(3)City Council continue to advocate to the Province that the Assistive Devices Program be modified to cover the full costs of medical items formerly covered through Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

In its report, entitled "Analysis of Impacts of Ontario Works Regulations", the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department discussed changes in the regulations which eliminated benefits that had historically been available under the General Welfare Assistance (G.W.A.) Act to certain low income residents of the City who were not eligible for social assistance. These benefits included:

(a)drug cards which provided 100 percent of the cost of approved prescription drugs and drug products for low income earners with high drug costs; and

(b)a range of health care items (hearing aids, prosthetics, wheelchairs and repairs, respiratory equipment and ambulatory aids) provided through Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid under the former G.W.A. Act to low income earners and recipients of other government programs (Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security/ Guaranteed Income Supplement).

At its May 21, 1998, meeting, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee requested that the Commissioner report directly to City Council for its meeting on June 3, 1998, on how the City would be able to:

(a)continue the drug deductible for working parents; and

(b)continue to cover the 25 percent or extra cost for items that are applicable under Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid.

The Department's May 28, 1998, report, entitled "Continuation of Benefits to Clients Impacted by Ontario Works Regulations", estimated the costs to the City of not eliminating benefits, as well as related program administration issues.

Subsequently, at its June 3, 1998, meeting, City Council, recommended that "the City of Toronto continue to cover drug cards for working parents until such time as the Ministry of Health implements a drug plan for low income families as it has announced". Council also recommended that "the implementation of eliminating Supplementary and Special Assistance be delayed and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to submit a report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting to be held on July 16,1998, on:

(a)responses from other regional municipalities; and

(b)clarification of the intentions of the Provincial government."

In response to Council's request, this report discusses these issues.

Discussion:

Dilemma Regarding Municipal Continuation of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid:

The Chair of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Commissioner met with the Ministry of Community and Social Services political staff and officials in May 1998 to discuss issues related to the introduction of the new Ontario Works Act regulations, including the elimination of benefits provided to low income families under Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid. The Province noted that the purpose of these specific changes were to restrict the focus of O.W. to eligible social assistance recipients.

Provincial officials indicated that the intention was to serve low income families outside of the Ontario Works program, through existing programs such as the Assistive Devices Program and the Trillium Drug Plan, and through new initiatives such as the National Child Benefit Supplement. Announcements were expected within one month describing the types of services and benefits that would be provided to low income families affected by the new O.W. regulations. The Department continued to provide benefits to these families pending the Provincial announcements.

However, based on the steps taken to date, Provincial efforts are not adequate to meet the needs of low income families that will no longer receive benefits under Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid. As discussed below, the deductible remains under the Trillium Drug Plan. Neither have changes been announced for the Assistive Devices Program, which covers only a portion of the costs of medical items.

At the same time, if the City of Toronto continues to fund current benefits at 100 percent, a number of key concerns are raised:

(a)A primary purpose of the Provincial reforms has been to disentangle and streamline the new welfare program by serving disabled people and low income families outside of O.W. Continued funding of benefits to low income families will clearly re-entangle the O.W. program within the City.

(b)100 percent funding of benefits provided under an income redistribution program, such as social assistance, are inappropriate on the property tax base. The former Metro government consistently opposed supporting income redistribution programs on the local tax base.

(c)100 percent funding by the City is also inappropriate given that the municipal portion of social assistance costs are now shared on a pooled basis across the Greater Toronto Area (G.T.A.).

For these reasons, the Department recommends that the City no longer provide benefits to non-social assistance recipients. Further discussions should, however, be pursued with Provincial officials to ensure there are minimal impacts on vulnerable low income families that have been affected by the regulatory changes.

Drug Deductible for Working Parents:

As noted in previous reports, low income persons with high drug costs could receive a drug card under the former G.W.A. program which covered the cost of prescription drugs and related items. This benefit has been eliminated, although existing cases will continue to receive the benefit until the end of 1998. The Provincial government has indicated that the Trillium Drug Plan is the appropriate vehicle to cover the drug costs of low income persons. However, the Trillium Plan has relatively high deductibles (e.g., for example, a single person with an annual income of less than $6,500.00 ($541.00per month) must cover the first $350.00 in drug costs).

In 1997, approximately 300 cases per month received drug cards in Toronto to cover the cost of prescription drugs. Based on the mix of individuals and families eligible for drug cards, and their incomes, the Social Services Division estimates that, if the City was to cover the cost of the Trillium Drug Plan deductible, the budget impact would be approximately $110,000.00 per annum. No Provincial cost-sharing would be available, so the City would need to fund 100 percent of this amount.

The Department position continues to be that the deductible should be waived for persons or families with high drugs costs who would have been eligible for the extended health benefit. At this time, Ministry of Health officials have indicated that it is unlikely that there will be any changes to the Trillium Drug Plan this year. It is therefore necessary that Council continue to advocate to the Province to ensure that low income families and individuals who would have been eligible for a drug card under the former G.W.A. program are not worse off than before the elimination of this benefit.

Continued Coverage of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid Items:

Under the former G.W.A. Act, low income earners, through Special Assistance, and recipients of other government programs (Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement),through Supplementary Aid, could access specific benefits although they were ineligible for G.W.A. Both programs were cost shared by the Province and municipalities at the following ratios: Special Assistance 50/50; Supplementary Aid 80/20. Under the new O.W.A. regulations, Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid are no longer available to these groups.

Benefits provided under Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid included a range of health care items such as hearing aids, prosthetics, wheelchairs and repairs, respiratory equipment and ambulatory aids. The bulk of funding for these items is covered under the Ministry of Health's Assistive Devices Program (A.D.P.). Eligible individuals can be reimbursed for 75 percent of the costs of specific items, above $100.00 per item per month. The A.D.P. program also establishes maximum amounts for expenditures on eligible items which do not necessarily reflect the true cost of these items to individuals who must purchase them. Through Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid, Social Services subsidized the remaining 25 percent, and covered items under $100.00, for eligible cases.

There are also medical items not covered by A.D.P., but provided for under Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid. Over the past several years, the Division also covered the costs of items delisted under the Assistive Devices Program.

In its May 28, 1998, report to Council, the Department estimated that the gross cost to the City of replacing Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid would be approximately $480,000.00 per annum. Continuation of cost sharing (80 Provincial/20 percent municipal) would result in a budget impact of $480,000.00 gross/$96,000.00 net. It was also noted that there would also be program administration implications related to the delivery of benefits to people who will no longer be eligible for social assistance.

In response to Council's request, the Division contacted other staff from regional municipalities regarding implementation of changes to Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid. Six of the eleven regional municipalities contacted are continuing to provide benefits to low income families. In most cases, this is being done on an interim basis, pending an assessment of the financial impacts, and an assessment of future actions taken by the Province. Only one of the four municipalities within the outer G.T.A. is considering continuing benefits.

Given the elimination of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid under the new Ontario Works regulations, the Department recommends that the City no longer provide benefits to non-social assistance recipients. In light of the Provincial changes, the City currently has no mandate to provide such benefits through the Ontario Works program. Continuation of benefits would also in effect represent a further down loading of Provincial costs onto the municipality.

In initial discussions with Ministry of Community and Social Services (M.C.S.S.) staff, they indicated that the current Assistive Devices Program is the appropriate vehicle for assisting low income individuals with medical needs. However, no changes are contemplated by the Province to replace the benefits to low income persons that were previously provided through Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid. At this time, further discussions are required with Provincial officials to advocate that the Program be modified to cover the full costs of medical items formerly covered through Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid.

Finally, it must also be noted that, under the Anatomy Act, the municipality is responsible for burial costs of the indigent poor. These costs have traditionally been shared on a 80 percent Provincial/20percentmunicipal basis under Special Assistance. In 1997, gross Divisional expenditures for funerals was approximately $2.7 million. Under the new regulations, the Province will no longer cost share burials for non-social assistance recipients. The municipality will of course fulfil its statutory obligations, and continue to provide burials for low income persons.

The Department's position is that any individual who is in indigent circumstances, and who is therefore eligible for coverage of funeral costs, should automatically be considered to be in need, and should, by definition, be considered social assistance recipients. Funeral expenses would then be shared on an 80 percent Provincial/20 percent Municipal basis. Ministry staff are currently reviewing these issues, and discussions are continuing.

Conclusion:

In previous reports to City Council, the Department has noted the possible hardship low income earners and people on fixed incomes may face resulting from the Provincial elimination of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid. In certain cases, people who are not now social assistance recipients may be forced to give up their employment so they can apply to Ontario Works to retain benefits they previously received. These changes appear to be counterproductive to the overall goal of the Ontario Works program, which is to ensure people become and remain independent of social assistance.

Given the elimination of Special Assistance and Supplementary Aid under the new Ontario Works regulations, municipal delivery agents currently have no mandate to provide benefits to non-social assistance recipients through the Ontario Works program. Continuation of benefits would also in effect represent a further downloading of Provincial costs onto municipalities. For these reasons, the Department recommends that the City no longer provide benefits to non-social assistance recipients. However, further discussions should be pursued with Provincial officials to seek appropriate authority and cost sharing under Ontario Works to reduce impacts on vulnerable City residents that have been affected by the regulatory changes.

Contact Name:

Heather MacVicar, General Manager

Tel: 392-8952

14

Capital Funding Support for Child Care Centres

Facing Eviction from Schools

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek approval to augment the Child Care Capital Reserve and to provide financial support for the renovation costs occasioned by the eviction of three child care centres from school facilities.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The former Metropolitan Toronto Council established a $1.3 million Child Care Capital Reserve in 1997 to assist child care centres facing closure as a result of capital renovations to schools in which they were located. This report proposes augmenting this Child Care Capital Reserve and extending its use to support child care programs and services being evicted from schools and facing renovation costs in the sites to which they are relocated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)any user revenue from subsidized child care not required to maintain the approved service levels and the approved level of municipal cost-sharing contribution be added to the Child Care Capital Reserve to assist child care programs with renovation costs associated with relocation following eviction from school premises;

(2)the criteria and guidelines governing the use of the existing Child Care Capital Reserve be extended to include this purpose;

(3)the renovation costs associated with the relocation of Pelmo Park Child Care Centre, Silverthorne Day Care and Playhouse Child Care Centre be considered for funding from the Child Care Capital Reserve; and

(4)the Department, with the assistance of the Mayor's Office and the Children's Advocate request the Federal and Provincial governments to recognize the importance of having a child care capital funding program and provide matching capital funding support.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On February 26, 1997, Metropolitan Toronto Council established a Child Care Capital Reserve to assist child care centres facing closure as a result of capital renovations to schools in which they were located. The municipal funding of this Child Care Capital Reserve was made possible by a change in Regulation 262 of the Day Nurseries Act which allowed the Municipality to retain all user fees generated in the provision of subsidized child care. The former Cities of Toronto and North York committed to cost share the capital requests from centres within their jurisdictions in the amounts of $400,000.00 and $300,000.00, respectively. $1 million in matching Federal funding was also committed to this initiative. Nine child care centres were preserved as a result of this capital funding initiative. This report proposes a continuation of last year's strategy and suggests that any surplus in user revenue not required to meet approved service levels or maintain the approved level of municipal cost-sharing contribution be added to the Child Care Capital Reserve. This year's surplus in actual user revenue over the initial forecast is expected to be approximately $1 million. (Note: Because of the first come first served admission policy, user revenue for subsidized child care is volatile and dependent on the ever changing client mix.)

As a result of the new Provincial educational funding formula and changing enrolment patterns in schools, a number of child care programs are facing changes in their security of tenure and in their assessed occupancy costs. Six child care centres have received eviction notices; three are facing substantial capital costs associated with renovations to bring their proposed alternate premises into compliance with the Day Nurseries Act requirements. A strategy for assisting child care programs affected by the new educational funding formula is being developed and will likely form part of the broader renegotiation of the Master Agreement governing the relationship of the City to the Boards of Education which Council directed be completed by August 31, 1998. However, in light of the immediate relocation crisis being faced by at least three child care centres, a more immediate strategy is required to avoid losing up to 125 licensed child care spaces. For this reason, this report is being brought forward in advance of a proposed new Master Agreement with the Boards of Education.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Because of changing enrolment patterns in individual schools and other pressures related to the new Provincial education funding formula six child care programs are facing eviction from their current space. Some of these programs which previously enjoyed exclusive use space have negotiated shared space in schools. But three of the six programs must relocate and face considerable capital costs associated with the renovations required to bring their proposed alternate premises into compliance with the Provincial Day Nurseries Act requirements.

Pelmo Park Child Care Centre must leave its current school location by August 31, 1998, and has found alternate space in a facility owned by Humber Memorial Hospital. Negotiations are currently underway between the Hospital and the Ministry of Community and Social Services to identify the renovations needed to meet the licensing requirements and the costs associated. While the hospital has agreed to share in the cost of the renovations, preliminary estimates suggest that the centre's portion of the costs are likely to be $25,000.00.

Silverthorne Day Care, operated by the Learning Enrichment Foundation is seeking space in the former City of York Civic Centre. This matter is the subject of a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services. Renovation costs of $125,350.00 have been identified.

Playhouse Child Care Centre is being evicted from part of its school space effective December31, 1998, and will lose the balance of its space in the school by June 1999. Because this program currently serves infants, toddlers and preschool children, the costs associated with renovations are higher and are estimated to be up to $500,000.00.

None of these child care programs have funds to pay the renovation costs faced. Without capital funding support for the renovation costs being faced by these child care programs they will be forced to close. This will have a serious impact on the stock of licensed space available to support subsidized families and could also hinder the City's ability to maintain the full level of subsidized service required under the service contract with the province. This in turn could adversely impact provincial cost-sharing.

Conclusions:

The Department recommends that any user revenue not required to maintain the approved levels of subsidized child care or to maintain the approved level of City cost-sharing be added to the Child Care Capital Reserve. The Department also recommends extending the criteria governing the use of this Reserve to cover the renovation costs associated with child care programs forced to relocate as a result of eviction from school settings. The Department suggests that the assistance of the Office of the Mayor and the Child Care Advocate be sought to seek matching capital funding support from other levels of government having interest in services to children.

Contact Name:

Brenda Patterson,

Director, Contract and Quality Compliance, Children's Services Division

Tel: 392-3319

--------

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

-Ms. Kim Cross, Pelmo Park Child Care Centre; and

-Ms. Vicki Anderson, Playhouse Child Care Centre.

15

Child Care Status Research Project

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Children's Action Committee embodied in the following communication (June 22, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Children's Action Committee recommended to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee that Council endorse the Child Care Status Research Project and authorize a contribution of $5,000.00 to the overall budget for the project; such funds to be paid out from the Children's Action Committee Budget, Account Code CD200-G39951.

Background:

At its meeting held on June 12, 1998, the Children's Action Committee had before it a communication (undated) from Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Co-Director, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto regarding the Child Care Status Research Project.

Peter Clutterbuck gave an overview of the project.

The Children's Action Committee advises the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee that it has requested that the Working Group include representation from the Commercial Sector, the Non-Profit Sector, Special Needs, and Licensed Home Child Care.

The Committee's recommendation is set out above.

(Memorandum (undated) addressed to Councillor Olivia Chow,

Children and Youth Advocate, Children's Action Committee, from Mr. Peter Clutterbuck,

Co-Director, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto)

Attached is a research proposal developed by Martha Friendly, Caroline DiGiovanni, Cheryl McDonald, Petr Varmuza, Nancy Matthews and myself for consideration by the Children's Action Committee. We believe that this project is an important and timely one from a number of perspectives. The current restructuring and persistent budget pressures make 1998 a critically important year in establishing a baseline against which to measure the accessibility and quality of child care in the City. It is an opportunity to begin developing a means of tracking and measuring change in the system and assessing the impacts of policy and budget decisions. Although the research will not be available for this year's report card, in future years this will be an important piece of work to feed into the report card.

The purpose of the project is to develop baseline data on the status of child care in Toronto and set up the mechanisms to track and measure change in the accessibility and quality of child care in Toronto in the future. The first study will be released by the end of 1998.

There are number of forms that child care takes in the City including the formal, licensed child care programs like child care centres, unlicensed formal programs, such as boys and girls clubs, and unlicensed, unregulated relationships between parents and relatives or unrelated individuals, such as nannies. It is proposed that this first study focus on the formal licensed child care programs and a reasonable sampling of the unlicensed formal programs. To the extent possible, the range and number of unregulated, informal relationships will also be explored.

Much of the data for this first study will be obtained through the existing Children's Services Division data base and information obtained during staff assessments of child care programs. As well, samplings of unlicensed, informal programs and a review of existing data on the informal, unlicensed system would be done.

This project will be a partnership of a number of organizations concerned about child care in the City. However, it is proposed that the lead sponsorship for the project will be through the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, with the report being produced jointly between the CSPC-T and the Children's Action Committee.

The City's Children's Services Division is prepared to make its information systems available and collect some additional information through field staff assessments. However, a dedicated research staff is necessary to complete the research design, co-ordinate research activities, and assimilate and analyse the data.

A budget of $30,975.00 has been established to support this project. Funding is being sought from a number of sources, including foundations and the Federal government. The CSPC-T is prepared to contribute $5,000.00 of research staff time to the Project. It is requested that the Children's Action Committee provide $5,000.00 to support this initiative.

Concurrent with this project, it is also recommended that the Children's Action Committee support a review of the policy, funding and status of child care in other provinces, such as Quebec, and in other countries such as England and France. The purpose of this would be to have information available to provide a comparative analysis of the state of the Toronto child care system with other jurisdictions. The research group is currently working on the details of this project, including budget and timelines.

--------

Research Project on the Status of Child Care in Toronto

Rationale:

Child care in Ontario is undergoing major restructuring as the Province devolves responsibility for managing the system to municipalities in Ontario. The demands of Ontario Works on parents receiving social assistance will place additional pressure on the child care system. The recently announced school funding formula also threatens the stability of many school-based child care programs, which are facing higher rents or relocation to higher cost premises.

Throughout the last decade, however, Metropolitan Toronto established itself as a leader in the development of quality child care programs. Municipal budget pressures have stressed the child care system in the 1990s, leading to cost cutting and higher user fees. Still, major program losses have been avoided. It is now clear that the scale of change presented by current restructuring and other provincial action will make 1998 a critically important year in terms of maintaining the accessibility and quality of child care in the new City of Toronto.

The status of child care in Toronto must be documented this year in order to provide baseline information against which to compare the impact of policy and resource changes in the coming years. This research project would establish this baseline data and set up the mechanisms by which to track and measure change in the accessibility and quality of child care in Toronto in the future.

Research Objectives:

The Status of Child Care in Toronto Research Project proposes:

(1)to document the accessibility and quality of child care programs in the City of Toronto in 1998;

(2)to produce and release a baseline report on the status of child care in Toronto by year end (1998); and

(3)to set up a child care data base and data collection system that will allow annual monitoring of the impact of policy and funding changes on the accessibility and quality of child care in Toronto.

Scope of the Research:

We recognize that child care in the 1990s takes a variety of forms:

-Licensed, regulated and formal child care programs (centres or provider-based), day programs and nursery schools that encompass operations run directly by the municipality, by non-profit community boards, and by commercial services providers.

-Unlicensed but formal programs operated by community-based agencies such as family resource centres and boys and girls clubs, school boards, libraries, and municipal recreation departments.

-Unlicensed and unregulated informal child care arrangements between parents and relatives or unrelated individuals (in-home or in the provider's residence).

For the purposes of this first research study, we proposed that a focus on full coverage of the licensed and regulated formal child care programs and a reasonable sampling of the unlicensed, formal programs. The 1998 baseline report will specify as necessary any limitations on interpretation of the baseline data arising from sampling methods. Ultimately, the study should be expanded to include unlicensed, unregulated child care arrangements. However, the degree of outreach and the sophistication of data collection methods for comprehensive coverage are beyond our means at this time.

Status Indicators:

Preliminary consideration of the areas to be covered in the child care database and suggested status indicators include:

-Program Characteristics: auspices; location; physical condition; hours, days; amount of exclusive space; use of shared space.

-Staffing: number of staff (FTE, PT, casual), student placements; volunteers (parents, others); resource teachers; non-teaching/program staff (administrative, housekeeping, other); employment program staff; staff turnover; staff pre-service training; staff preptime; staff meetings; staff experience level (e.g., combined years of service); personnel policies; professional development/ongoing training.

-Accessibility: number of spaces by age group; number of subsidized children (full, part-time); number of full fee children; average vacancy rate.

-User Characteristics: one, two-parent families; family income; parents' status in terms of employed/unemployed/in training/in school; first language; parents' occupation(s); special needs children; child turnover.

-Program Finances: financial contributions; in-kind contributions; actual costs; amount of full fee; debt.

-Quality: nutrition; equipment and materials; program activity.

Data Sources and Research Methods:

There is an existing data base upon which to build a more comprehensive picture of the status of child care in Toronto. As manager of the subsidized child care system, the City's Children's Services Division has statistics on its own programs and on programs with purchase of service agreements for subsidy for 1998 and years prior. The City will assume responsibility for the child care system in 1998 and, therefore, will have access to more comprehensive data on the broader formal licensed system in the future.

City staff do assessments of each child care program with purchase of service agreements at least three times a year, which also creates an opportunity to collect data on additional quality measures for this research project.

Sampling of other licensed child care programs and of unlicensed formal programs, such as family resource centres and programs in libraries and recreation centres, could also be done. Sampling could be used for self-administered surveys, interviews, and program observation.

Given the time frame for production of a baseline report by year end, we propose that a research design be developed that collects data from the following three sources:

(1)Quantitative data that the Children's Services Division has on relevant indicators in its existing information systems.

(2)Supplementary data on relevant indicators collected by City staff assessments on programs in the field.

(3)Self-administered survey information mailed to as complete a list as can be assembled of unlicensed, formal programs operating in the community.

(4)Sample of licensed and unlicensed programs for interviews with program administrators.

The City's Children's Services Division is prepared to make its information systems available for this research and to collect some additional information through its existing staff field assessments. The Division could also provide support for the design of a child care data base for annual tracking purposes on the selected quality indicators. Dedicated research staff will be necessary, however, to complete design of the research project, to co-ordinate research activities, including the survey and interview components, and to assimilate and analyse the data accumulated.

Research Products:

By the end of 1998 the Status of Child Care in Toronto Research Project will produce:

-A baseline report on the status of child care in Toronto in 1998 with some indication of change for some indicators prior to 1998 for which there is comparative data.

-A child care data base for Toronto that can be further developed in future years and can be used to measure changes in the accessibility and quality of child care in Toronto in the coming years.

-Research methods and tools (e.g., survey and interview instruments and protocols) for use and adaptation in future years.

Project Sponsorship and Guidance:

This research project will be a partnership of a number of organizations concerned about the quality of child care in Toronto. The lead organization, however, in terms of project sponsorship and contracting with research staff will be the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto (CSPC). The CSPC will produce and release the report in conjunction with the City of Toronto's Children's Action Committee. The support of all organizations contributing time or funding support to the project will be acknowledged in the baseline report.

A Research Project Reference Group will be created to guide the project and to provide support to the research staff. The Reference Group will be made up of representatives from:

-Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;

-City of Toronto Children's Services Division;

-Children's Action Committee of the City of Toronto;

-Better Child Care Coalition of Metro Toronto;

-University of Toronto Child Care Resources Centre;

-Catholic Children's Aid Society;

-Family Resource Centres of Metro Toronto;

-City of Toronto Department of Recreation; and

-Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board.

Representatives from most of the above organizations have participated in the development of this research project to this point. Others will be invited to join the reference group.

Timeline for Project Activity:

May-June:

-Explore and secure funding support.

-Complete construction of Project Reference Group.

-Set up project management.

-Recruit research coordinator.

July-August:

-Complete research design.

-Develop research tools and protocols.

-Orient/train data collection and field research staff.

September:

-Data collection.

October:

-Data analysis.

-Reports and review with Reference Group.

-Draft baseline report.

November-December:

-Production and public release of Report on the Status of Child Care in Toronto.

-Final data base set up for future tracking on child care status.

-Compilation of research protocol and instruments with recommendations for refinements.

-Reports to funders.

Budget and Additional Funding Required:

In addition to the Children's Services Division's commitment of data base and field staff and the contributions of time and expertise of the organizations participating in the Project Reference Group, the following resources are required to conduct this research project:

Research Coordinator (June - December, 1998)

.6 FTE @ $55,000.00 p.a. plus 15 percent$ 18,975.00

Research Assistants (e.g., field interviewers, interview

transcription, survey data inputting) 8,000.00

Report Production and Distribution 3,000.00

Administrative Expenses (e.g., Photocopying, fax,

transit for field workers) 1,000.00

Total Project Funding Required$ 30,975.00

(Revised May 19, 1998)

16

Future Provision of Laundry Services

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To gain authority to immediately secure the services of an alternate, interim launderer, effective October 1, 1998, as a result of K-Bro Linen Systems Inc. issuing the City of Toronto notice of termination (July 3, 1998), in order to ensure uninterrupted linen and personal laundry services for the Homes for the Aged and other City of Toronto operations served by the Central Laundry, including Hostels, Children's Services, and Ambulance Services.

To obtain authority to develop and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) with respect to the longer term future direction of the Central Laundry, which allows proponents to respond to options related to both the ownership of the Central Laundry and the provision of laundering service.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no immediate cost to the City of Toronto by taking this direction. However, failure to act immediately may leave insufficient time to secure the services of an alternative launderer to be in place for the October 1, 1998, termination date. If interim arrangements are not made on a timely basis, there will be an untenable negative impact on the Homes for the Aged and other City of Toronto operations served by the Central Laundry, as laundry processing needs will not be met.

In the longer term, the issuing of a Request for Proposals allows City of Toronto Council the opportunity to review various options for the ownership and operation of the Central Laundry, and to select the option which results in the best outcome for the City of Toronto, its various operations, and the clients/residents who rely on the laundering services.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City of Toronto Council authorize staff to immediately arrange for the services of an alternative full service laundry operator (within the resources available), who has the qualifications, expertise, and capacity to process the volume of laundry generated by the City of Toronto operations presently serviced at 795 Middlefield Road by K-Bro Linen Systems Inc.;

(2)staff be authorized to enter into an agreement with the selected laundry operator, as outlined in Recommendation No. (1), effective October 1, 1998, for a fixed period of time and on terms and conditions acceptable to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services;

(3)City of Toronto Council direct staff to develop and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) with respect to the future ownership of the Central Laundry and the future provision of laundry services to the Homes for the Aged and other City of Toronto operations presently served by the Central Laundry;

(4)staff report back to City of Toronto Council with respect to the results of the RFP process, outlining the possible options, and providing advice regarding the most desirable option which provides benefit to the City of Toronto, its operations, and its clients/residents; and

(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On May 25, 1984, Metropolitan Council approved a laundry agreement (ten-year term with two five-year renewal options) between Stork Diaper Services Alberta Ltd. (now K-Bro Linen Systems Inc.) and Metro to provide laundry services to the Homes for the Aged. Pursuant to this joint venture agreement, a Central Laundry was designed and built on property located at 795 Middlefield Road. The Central Laundry has been operated by K-Bro Linen Systems Inc. (K-Bro) since that time under a royalty arrangement and a lease agreement. The current five-year extension with K-Bro expires December 31, 1999. However, the agreement provides for earlier termination by either party, under a set of prescribed, predetermined criteria.

The royalty arrangement set out in the agreement gives K-Bro the right to process laundry for clients other than the Homes for the Aged in the Metro (City) Central Laundry, on the condition that K-Bro make payments to a Metro (City) Central Laundry reserve fund, for each pound processed. Over the years, K-Bro has secured a number of non-city clients and recently has been processing laundry for up to seven non-city clients at the City's Central Laundry. The Central Laundry reserve fund is primarily used for maintenance, repairs and plant upgrades. This ensures that no municipal dollars are used in the maintenance of the Central Laundry.

Further to the original authority granted by Metropolitan Council regarding the ownership and operation of the Central Laundry, staff and K-Bro representatives have from time-to-time discussed their working relationship and considered whether there was a more desirable way to operate laundry services. In 1996, Metropolitan Council authorized staff to contract with KPMG Management Consulting (KPMG) to conduct a feasibility study with respect to the operation of the Central Laundry. At approximately the same time as the KPMG study, three issues occurred which have had impact on the working relationship between the City of Toronto and K-Bro. First, K-Bro was sold to the Berkshire Group of Boston (BG). Second, K-Bro purchased another major laundry facility in the City of Toronto and started to build the volume of laundry processed at this directly-owned plant. Last, K-Bro began to express increased concern regarding their profit margins at the City's Central Laundry, and made a number of requests to staff to revise the current financial arrangements, in order to increase their financial return.

The Central Laundry currently processes 10 million pounds of laundry per year for the Homes for the Aged. In addition, the Central Laundry processes laundry for Hostels (0.5 million pounds), Children's Services (200,000 pounds), and Ambulance Services (250,000 pounds). Each of these City-owned operations has a purchase order agreement with K-Bro for the processing of their volume.

Comments and/or Discussion:

Over the past year, Homes for the Aged Division staff have been attempting to resolve a number of operating and financial issues with K-Bro, within the terms of the current agreement. Unfortunately, these discussions have not been successful, and on July 3, 1998, K-Bro issued the City of Toronto with notice of termination. Their ninety (90) day notice will become effective on October 1, 1998. In further correspondence on July 14, 1998, K-Bro reaffirmed their notice of termination, but indicated that they would be willing to delay termination until the end of 1998, if the City of Toronto agreed to revise/improve the current terms and conditions.

Given the essential nature, scope, and complexity of laundry service needs for the Homes for the Aged and other City operations, it is essential to maintain uninterrupted daily laundry service. To this end, staff are recommending that Council provide authority to take immediate action to secure the services of an alternative qualified service provider, prior to the October 1, 1998, termination date. However, both a short-term and long-term strategy are needed. The short-term strategy will be to retain the services of an alternative full-service launderer, to replicate the scope of service provided by K-Bro. Once the selected operator is identified by staff, staff are prepared to work with the City Solicitor to quickly execute an agreement for the period of time up to December 31, 1998, with a provision to extend the agreement on an every-three-months basis, until such time as a permanent solution is made with respect to the Central Laundry through the RFP process.

In the long term, staff believe that it is wise to test the marketplace and determine the laundry model (both ownership and service provision) that provides the best benefit to the City of Toronto.

Conclusions:

Since K-Bro served notice of termination on July 3, 1998, this ninety (90) day notice of termination will come into effect on October 1, 1998. Given the urgency of the situation, staff believe that the best course of action at this time is to identify and secure the services of an alternative qualified launderer prior to the actual termination date.

The ten municipal Homes for the Aged produce a substantial volume of laundry for processing, and they are therefore a major client for any service provider. However, the Homes' laundering needs are quite complex. Therefore, in order to avoid a crisis, it is necessary to make contingency plans as soon as is possible, in order to ensure uninterrupted service.

In addition to making provision for the short-term continuance of laundering services, staff believe that a long-term strategy is also needed and recommend that a RFP be issued to the marketplace. This will allow staff to assess which laundry model will provide the best benefit to the City of Toronto with respect to both ownership and service provision. Staff are asking City of Toronto Council to provide authority to initiate work on both of these initiatives on a concurrent basis.

Contact Name:

Sandra Pitters,

General Manager, Homes for the Aged Division

Tel: 392-8907/Fax: 392-4180

Carl Hunter,

Director, Support Services, Homes for the Aged Division

Tel: 392-8912/Fax: 392-4180

--------

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a confidential report (July 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting the future provision of laundry services, a copy of which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the Council agenda for its meeting on July 29, 1998.

17

Future Direction of Riverdale Hospital

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

WHEREAS the Riverdale Hospital (Riverdale) lands are owned by the City of Toronto and Riverdale occupies the premises under a long-term lease with the City for the purposes of operating a public hospital and related uses; and

WHEREAS the Riverdale Hospital has been ordered by the Health Services Restructuring Commission to cease operating as a public hospital by March 31, 2000; and

WHEREAS the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended that Riverdale continue as a long-term care facility; and

WHEREAS Riverdale is therefore proposing to develop a not-for-profit long-term care facility on the current site with the support of the community, patient groups, service agencies and other stakeholders;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Toronto agree, in principle, to amending the lease with the Board of Governors of the Hospital to include a long-term care facility as a permitted use subject to the terms and conditions of such lease being reviewed further by the City of Toronto.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to clarify the status of Riverdale Hospital, its relationship to the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Local 79, and the City of Toronto, and provide details regarding the plans of the Board of Directors of the Hospital with respect to future directions.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City of Toronto take no action with respect to the future direction of Riverdale Hospital, except if requested to do so by the Board of Directors of the Hospital.

Background:

At its meeting on June 18, 1998, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee had a report before it from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing an overview of the announcement of the Ministry of Health with respect to long-term care reinvestment and the implications for the City of Toronto. The Committee also had before it a communication from Mr. Dennis Casey, Acting President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, requesting that the City of Toronto respond to the Ministry of Health's Request for Proposal process to renovate the Riverdale Hospital for use as a long-term care facility.

The Committee referred the communication from Mr. Dennis Casey to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report responding to the viability of the CUPE Local79 request.

Further to the correspondence submitted to the City of Toronto, CUPE Local 79 also wrote to Ms.Marilyn Churley, MPP (June 26, 1998) detailing their desire to have the Hospital kept in public hands, explaining their proposal for the Hospital to become part of the City of Toronto's Homes for the Aged Division, and indicating their interest in having the City apply to the Ministry of Health's RFP process to establish a long-term care facility on the site.

Although CUPE Local 79 is the bargaining agent for both the City of Toronto and the Riverdale Hospital, each employer organization has a separate collective agreement and engages in separate bargaining processes.

The Riverdale Hospital was built by the former City of Toronto in 1893. The City directly operated the Hospital until the creation of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1953. In 1963, Metropolitan Council established the Riverdale Hospital as a separate legal entity, and provided the Hospital with a 100-year lease for use of its current buildings and lands.

The Health Services Restructuring Commission (HSRC) directed the Riverdale Hospital to cease its operation as a public hospital by March 31, 2000, and advised the hospital to consider conversion to a long-term care facility. The hospital is intending to pursue that direction, and have communicated same in writing to the City of Toronto (May 19, 1998).

Comments:

The City of Toronto Homes for the Aged Division currently owns and operates ten Homes for the Aged, and has been engaged in a successful multi-year plan to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Homes' operation based on the revised funding formula implemented by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health's recent announcement with respect to reinvestment in long-term care improves the Division's financial position in terms of the operating budget. However, there is an initial indication that one or more of the City's Homes may require significant capital improvements within the next five to ten years. As more details become available, staff will be reporting back to Committee with respect to the implications of these suggested upgrades. Improvement of the Homes for the Aged currently owned and operated by the City of Toronto is viewed by staff as the highest priority for the Division, rather than the acquisition of an additional long-term care facility.

Staff of the Homes for the Aged Division and Riverdale Hospital informally liaise, from time-to-time, on professional issues related to long-term care, and there is a historic collaborative working relationship between the two organizations. This collaboration has been successful because both organizations respect the governance structure and role of their individual entities, and respect each other's right to develop strategic directions independent of one another.

The Board of Directors of the Riverdale Hospital approved a motion at its May 26, 1998, meeting directing its staff to respond to the current Ministry of Health Request for Proposals process for long-term care beds. Deadline for submissions to the Ministry of Health is July 31, 1998, and the Riverdale Hospital intends to meet this target date. Staff of the Riverdale Hospital are currently working on preparing their submission.

Although CUPE Local 79 indicates an interest in having the City of Toronto take a lead role in responding to the RFP process on behalf of the Riverdale Hospital, such an undertaking is not recommended at this time. First, any action in this direction would appear to be contrary to the advice given to the Riverdale Hospital by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Second, this direction would not be congruent with the strategic priorities and directions of either the Homes for the Aged Division and the Riverdale Hospital itself. Last, this direction would not respect the long-standing relationship between the municipality and the Riverdale Hospital as evidenced through the 100-year lease.

It is expected that staff of the two organizations will continue to work co-operatively as professional colleagues during a time of transition and change for the Riverdale Hospital. In that spirit, staff of the Homes for the Aged Division are willing and able to respond to assistance requested by the Riverdale Hospital, if and when such a direction is approved by their Board of Directors.

Contact Name:

Sandra Pitters,

General Manager, Homes for the Aged Division

Tel: 392-8907; Fax: 392-4180; E-mail: sandra_pitters@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

--------

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (July 14, 1998) from Mr. Denis Casey, Acting President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, in support of the recommendation embodied in the report date July 3, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services.

18

Homes for the Aged - Uncollectible Accounts

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

(June 9, 1998)

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to write-off an uncollectible account.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost associated with this bad debt will be accommodated within the Division's operating budget. Based on current funding arrangements, the cost of uncollectible accounts is shared equally with the Province. A total of $5,367.56 in accommodation arrears is outstanding. There will be no further accumulation of arrears; resident is deceased.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be given to the Homes for the Aged Division to write-off the arrears accumulated on behalf of M.I.H. while she was a resident at Cummer Lodge; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On September 13, 1988, M.I.H. was admitted to Cummer Lodge Home for the Aged, where she resided until her death on September 2, 1995.

At the time of admission, her son, N.H., executed an admission agreement as guarantor for the resident. Monthly payments were received consistently from September 1988 until February 1995, at which time the account went into arrears. No subsequent payments were received from the guarantor. In May 1995, the account was referred to the Legal Department for collection purposes, as all efforts by the Division to satisfy the account had failed. A demand letter was sent to the guarantor on June 20, 1995; no response was received. Additional letters sent from the Legal Department were returned by Canada Post. The Legal Department made every effort available to locate the guarantor, including a request for a driver's licence search with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which came back as "unknown".

Because N.H. could not be located, the Legal Department was unable to serve a Statement of Claim on N.H. and recommended that the account be written off.

Conclusion:

The account is uncollectible and authorization to write-off the outstanding balance is requested. The City Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer concur with the recommendation to write-off this outstanding debt.

Contact Name:

Sandra Pitters,

General Manager, Homes for the Aged Division

Tel: 392-8907; Fax: 392-4180; E-mail: sandra_pitters@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

--------

(June 9, 1998)

Purpose:

To obtain authorization to write-off an uncollectible account.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost associated with this bad debt will be accommodated within the Division's operating budget. Based on current funding arrangements, the cost of uncollectible accounts is shared equally with the Province. A total of $7,544.75 in accommodation arrears is outstanding. There will be no further accumulation of arrears; resident is deceased.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be given to the Homes for the Aged Division to write-off the arrears accumulated on behalf of E.D. while she was a resident at Cummer Lodge; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On August 21, 1991, E.D. was admitted to Cummer Lodge Home for the Aged, where she resided until her death on July 21, 1997.

At the time of admission, her son, B.D., executed an admission agreement on behalf of the resident. Shortly after admission, B.D. failed to remit payment, and in December 1992, the account was referred to the Legal Department, as the Home's efforts to collect the outstanding arrears were exhausted. At the time, $8,496.91 was owing. The Legal Department issued a Notice of Claim to B.D., and full payment was received in January 1993. In February 1994, the accounts of E.D. had arrears owing in the amount of $10,261.30, and once again, the Legal Department was requested to contact B.D. to collect the balance due. The majority of these arrears were created by a dishonoured cheque received in September 1993 for $7,610.49. The process of collection was delayed as B.D. had relocated to St. John's, Newfoundland, making it increasingly difficult to contact him. With the arrears accumulating at the rate of $1,182.27 per month, by the time B.D. returned to Toronto in July 1994, the accounts of E.D. showed a balance owing in the amount of $14,990.38. E.D.'s pension cheques were then redirected to the Home, ensuring payment of current arrears. Another claim was issued against B.D., and in October 1994, a payment of $7,000.00 was received. In March 1997, B.D. filed for bankruptcy. On July21, 1997, E.D. passed away. E.D. died intestate with no known assets or income due to the estate. An Estate Court search in Toronto confirmed that there were no monies available in the estate. On April 20, 1998, the Legal Division recommended that we proceed to write-off the balance owing.

Conclusion:

The account is uncollectible and authorization to write-off the outstanding balance is requested. The City Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer concur with the recommendation to write-off this outstanding debt.

Contact Name:

Sandra Pitters,

General Manager, Homes for the Aged Division

Tel: 392-8907/Fax: 392-4180

19

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Election of Chair of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having:

(1)elected Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski as its Chair for the balance of the term of office expiring on May 31, 1999; and

(2)expressed its sincere appreciation to Councillor Gordon Chong for his contribution and hard work while chairing the Committee.

Councillor Gordon Chong resigned his position as Chair of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, effective immediately, in that he had been appointed by the Provincial Government to serve on the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation, and wished to dedicate more time to these issues.

(b)Hostel Ombudsperson.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having referred the following report to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee:

(July 2, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton and Ms. Alison Kemper, Co-Chairs, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, proposing a one-year hostel ombudsperson pilot project, to be operated independently of the hostel system, which would assist hostel users in resolving complaints with Toronto's hostel system; and recommending that:

(1)Council approve funds in an amount no greater than $100,000.00 for a one-year hostel ombudsperson pilot project operated independently of the hostel system;

(2)the pilot project be funded through a purchase of service agreement with a community-based agency selected through a proposal process; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(c)The Public Housing Inquiry.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having referred the following report to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons:

(July 2, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton and Ms. Alison Kemper, Co-Chairs, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, advising that on June 12, 1998, the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons heard from representatives of a Public Housing Inquiry concerned with the future of social housing in Ontario; indicating that recommendations were developed in ten key areas, including the mandate of social housing, the role of governments in social housing, keeping housing affordable, the RGI subsidy system, tenants rights and the privatization of management in social housing; and recommending that Council endorse the recommendations contained in The Public Housing Inquiry Final Report thereby making a commitment at the municipal level toward the achievement of real social and public housing reform.

--------

Mr. Cliff Martin, Mr. Vance Latchford and Ms. Nicole Seguin of The Public Housing Fightback Campaign appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d)"Grow-As-You-Go" Housing Proposal.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for consideration, as part of the emerging process referred to in the report, headed "Framework to Develop Affordable Housing Demonstration Projects," and report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee through the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes:

(July 2, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River - Ward 25, forwarding a copy of a report, entitled "Grow As You Go: From Homelessness to Housing, A Planned Approach to Progressive Housing Development In Toronto May 1998", by vanNostrand DiCastri, Architects with Quantum Mortgage Advisors; and recommending that:

(1)this report be referred to staff for review and research; and

(2)staff report to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes within two months and that the following issues be specifically addressed in their report:

(a)the potential of the proposed development model to provide affordable housing for low-income people and the income ranges that could be served by this housing;

(b)the constraints presented by Building Code, zoning and other regulatory mechanisms on the development of this type of housing; and

(c)the optimum size and location of development site for this type of housing, and potential City-owned sites that could be used for a pilot project.

--------

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

-Mr. John van Nostrand of van Nostrand DiCastri Architects, and presented slides with respect to his proposed housing model; and

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.

(e)Towards A Canadian Children's Environmental Health Network.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee:

(June 22, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Children's Action Committee on June12, 1998, had before it a communication on the City of Toronto Environmental Protection Office and an overview of work on Children's Environmental Health Issues, submitted by Dr.JackLee, Regional Director of the Downtown Health Area, Public Health Division; and that the Children's Action Committee recommended that:

(1)Council endorse the following principles contained in the report "Towards a Canadian Children's Environmental Health Network" and that the Children's Action Committee be requested to take an active role at both the national and provincial levels when such a network is established:

"-That the mission of the Network should be to protect the environment, and to protect the fetus/child from environmental hazards.

-That the Network should focus on advocacy, education, public awareness and some research-related activities.

-That the Network should be housed in the non-governmental (NGO) sector, but that it should be based on a partnership with national, regional and local agencies/groups in diverse sectors.

-That the Network should develop a website and use computer-based technology to connect its partners and to disseminate information to a broad audience.";

(2)Council endorse the Canadian Institute of Child Health in taking a leadership role in housing the merging Children's Environmental Health Network; and

(3)Council urge all levels of government to move with all possible speed to set up this network.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRIS KORWIN-KUCZYNSKI,

Chair

Toronto, July 16, 1998

(Report No. 7 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998.)