TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 8

1Response to the Discussion Paper on Social Housing Reform

2The Future Management of The MetropolitanToronto Housing Authority

3The Public Housing Inquiry

4Amendments to Housing By-laws

511 Ordnance Street Youth Shelter Project

6Health and Safety Allocations for Hostels

7Homes for the Aged - Uncollectible Account

8Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on September 10, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

1

Response to the Discussion Paper on

Social Housing Reform

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends that:

(A)the Province of Ontario be advised that the September 24, 1998, deadline date for submissions in response to the Discussion Paper on Social Housing Reform, and the September 28, 1998, date for deputations at the Social Housing Committee are not acceptable; and that the Social Housing Committee be requested to extend the deadline date for submissions to allow for public consultation and City Council's input;

(B)the report dated September 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be adopted, subject to:

(i)amending Recommendation No. (1) (a) by adding the words "in principle" after the word "endorsing", so that such recommendation reads as follows:

"(i)(a)endorsing, in principle, the recommendations proposed in the Social Housing Committee discussion paper, as summarized in Appendix A of this report;";

(ii)amending Recommendation No. (2)(e) by adding at the beginning of the recommendation the words "should an agreement between the Provincial and the Federal Governments not be realized", so that such recommendation reads as follows:

"(2)(e)should an agreement between the Provincial and the Federal Governments not be realized, to advise the Minister that accountability for social housing must be through elected councils, and that Council does not support the establishment of third parties or special purpose bodies by the Province to administer social housing;";

(iii)amending Recommendation No. (2)(f) to read as follows:

"(2)(f)to request the Minister and the Province to acknowledge that the provision of social housing is a shared responsibility of all three levels of government and to commit to bring a partnership agreement forward, by the year 2000, which will ensure financing of new affordable housing;";

(iv)adding to Recommendation No. (2) the following new recommendations (h) and(i):

"(2)(h)the Province of Ontario be requested to wind down the Ontario Housing Corporation and local housing authorities in their present form, and provide municipalities with the authority to determine the appropriate delivery mechanism for public housing; and

(2)(i)to advise that City Council supports the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto Inc. proposal to administer the unilateral Federal co-op monies on behalf of the Federal Government;";

(v)amending Recommendation No. (3)(b) to read as follows:

"(3)(b)to request that the Federal Government resume negotiations with the Province to ensure that transferring administration of cost-shared social housing programs to the municipal level can proceed with the exception of the unilaterally federally-funded co-op sector; and further that all Federal funds (based on 1995-1996 budget levels) must be flowed through to the municipalities to support housing;";

(vi)amending Recommendation No. (3)(c) to read as follows:

"(3)(c)to request the Minister and the Federal Government to acknowledge that the provision of social housing is a shared responsibility of all three levels of government and to commit to bring a partnership agreement forward, by the year 2000, which will ensure financing of new affordable housing;";

(C)City Council endorse the motion adopted by the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs on June 19, 1998, with respect to the orderly transfer of social housing responsibilities; and that the Province of Ontario be advised accordingly;

(D)City Council request the Large Urban Mayors Caucus of Ontario (LUMCO) and the Federal Liberal Caucus not to agree with the Provincial Government unless LUMCO is satisfied with the situation after negotiations have occurred;

(E)City Council confirm its principle of consulting with tenants regarding social housing issues and work towards the goal of tenants' self-management when and where it is feasible; and

(F)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to develop a business case to alter the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority management structure and initiate a joint analysis of ownership options;

and further advises having directed the Chair of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee to submit to the provincial Social Housing Committee the foregoing recommendations and the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, due to the September 24, 1998, deadline date referred to, and to advise the Social Housing Committee that a deputation will not be made to such Committee prior to City Council considering the matter on October 1 and 2, 1998.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To propose a Council response to recommendations made by the Province's Social Housing Committee about how social housing programs may be reformed.

Financial Implications:

No financial implications identified.

In 1998, it is estimated that the City will pay approximately $255 million (in 1998 budget) for its share of social housing programs. Estimates for future years are not yet available.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council:

(1)respond to the Province's Social Housing Committee request for feedback on its proposed reforms to social housing programs by:

(a)endorsing the recommendations proposed in the Social Housing Committee discussion paper, as summarized in Appendix A of this report;

(b)endorsing the recommendations proposed by housing staff of the Greater Toronto Area, as summarized in Appendix B of this report; and

(c)endorsing the position taken by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as summarized in Appendix C of this report, with the exception of the request for periodic reviews of provider costs and financial adjustments;

(2)write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about the following:

(a)to commend the Social Housing Committee and its Working Groups for the excellent and difficult work they have done to develop and propose reforms which are practical and which balance the divergent, and often competing, interests of social housing stakeholders;

(b)to express Council's continued interest in having municipalities, and the City of Toronto in particular, involved in further design and implementation of program reform, and in other matters related to social housing which directly impact on the City;

(c)to inform the Minister that the City will require establishment of capital reserve funding at an adequate level to meet the needs of public housing, and that this newly established reserve be funded by the Province at no cost to the City;

(d)to clearly state Council's position that the decisions related to management, administration and ownership of public housing should occur at the municipal level, and that ownership should be transferred to the City at no cost;

(e)to advise the Minister that accountability for social housing must be through elected councils, and that Council does not support the establishment of third parties or special purpose bodies by the Province to administer social housing;

(f)to encourage the Minister and the Province, in response to concerns expressed to the Social Housing Committee and by Council about the shortage of affordable housing, to acknowledge that provision of social housing is a shared responsibility of all three levels of government; and

(g)to urge the Province to work with the Federal Government and municipalities to improve the supply of affordable housing;

(3)write to the Federal Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing about the following:

(a)to advise the Minister of Council's support for program reform as proposed;

(b)to request that the Federal Government resume negotiations with the Province to ensure that transferring administration of cost-shared social housing programs to the municipal level can proceed;

(c)to encourage the Minister and the Federal Government, in response to concerns expressed to the Social Housing Committee and by Council about the shortage of affordable housing, to acknowledge that provision of social housing is a shared responsibility of all three levels of government; and

(d)to urge the Federal Government to work with the Province and municipalities to improve the supply of affordable housing;

(4)given the September 24, 1998, deadline for responding to the Social Housing Committee, authorize the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee to submit a response prior to Council approval, and subject to any recommendations Council may make at its meeting on October 1 and 2, 1998; and

(5)recognizing that GTA municipalities have shared issues around social housing, encourage and support GTA councils and staff in their continued efforts to work collaboratively on shared issues.

Council Reference/Background:

(1)Background:

In 1997, the Province announced it would download financial and administrative responsibility for social housing to the municipal level. Beginning January 1, 1998, responsibility for paying the provincial share of social housing costs was passed on to municipalities.

The next step in devolving social housing is to transfer program administration to municipalities. Since it has been long recognized that the amalgam of existing programs is administratively complex, the Province committed to reforming the social housing system before transferring administration.

The reform process began last fall when the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing set up a Social Housing Advisory Council. The Advisory Council included municipal representatives as well as representatives of other stakeholder groups, and concluded that the current social housing system was complex, and that the relationship between funder and providers was unclear. Reforms were proposed which would make the system simpler, more accountable, and more cost-effective.

The Advisory Council report set out a direction rather than a detailed plan. Therefore, earlier this year, the Minister appointed the Social Housing Committee (SHC) and established three working groups (Roles and Responsibilities, Subsidy Model, Public Housing), made up of municipal, provincial and housing provider representatives, to develop more detailed plans.

The SHC was asked to consider recommendations made by the three working groups, and to develop a comprehensive report to the Minister. As part of that process, on August 24, 1998, SHC released a discussion paper outlining 48 recommendations. Municipalities have been invited to respond, in writing, by September 24, 1998, and may make deputations to SHC on September28,1998. A summary of the SHC recommendations is attached as Appendix A, and the SHC Discussion Paper itself is attached as Appendix D.

This report outlines key reform proposals and a number of recommendations Council may wish to adopt as its written response to the SHC. The recommendations in this report are based on:

-prior positions Council has taken in response to devolution of social housing;

-recommendations and analysis prepared jointly by housing staff throughout the GTA municipalities (Appendix B summarizes those recommendations, and the detailed report is attached as Appendix E); and

-the position taken by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) as set out in its August 26, 1998, communication to members (Appendix C summarizes those recommendations, and the complete communication is attached as Appendix F).

(2.0)Social Housing in the City of Toronto:

In the City of Toronto, there are just over 95,000 units of social housing, representing about 70percent of the total GTA social housing stock, and almost 30 percent of the total provincial stock. "Social Housing" refers to non-profit housing (co-operative housing, municipal non-profits and private non-profits) and public housing.

Non-profit housing is owned and managed by non-profit housing corporations, co-operative housing corporations and municipal non-profit corporations under operating agreements and cost-sharing arrangements with the Province. The City of Toronto owns and manages 28,000 units through its two municipal non-profit housing corporations; Cityhome and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) (these companies will be merged January 1, 1999). Another 37,000 units are owned and managed by community non-profit groups (23,000) and co-operative housing corporations (14,000).

Each non-profit housing portfolio has specific program requirements, which vary depending upon the housing program under which the units were built, and how the units are funded. The majority of housing projects were developed under cost-sharing arrangements between the Provincial and Federal Governments (61 percent), however, there are projects which were funded unilaterally by the Province (15 percent) and some older programs funded entirely by the Federal Government (24percent). The SHC recommendations do not address those housing programs funded and administered entirely by the Federal Government.

Approximately 70 to 80 percent pay rents limited to 30 percent of their household incomes (RGI), and about 20 to 30 percent of the units are rented to tenants who do not receive rent subsidies (market tenants). The ratio of RGI units to market units is established in most cases by targeting plans set out in the operating agreement between the Province and the housing providers.

Public Housing projects are owned and administered by the Ontario Housing Corporation (OHC), and managed by local housing authorities (LHAs). In Toronto, the LHA is the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) which has about 30,000 units. The Federal Government cost-shares with the municipality (about 50:50). Just about every public housing unit is provided to tenants at a rent geared to income (30 percent).

(2.1)Cost of Social Housing:

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 City's share of the total estimated 1998 cost for social housing in the GTA was budgeted at $266,278,406.00. This cost is net of Federal funding provided through cost-sharing arrangements for specific social housing program types.

In June, the Province announced that it would no longer require municipalities to assume the costs for dedicated supportive housing. For Toronto, this meant that the previous cost estimate for social housing was reduced, retroactive to January 1, 1998, by $11,784,329.00.

(3.0)Summary of Reform Recommendations:

What follows is a summary of key reform issues, and comments on specific implications for the City.

(3.1)The Funding Model:

Municipalities, housing providers, social housing residents and the Province have all identified the need for a social housing program that is simpler to administer, more cost-effective, more business-like and more accountable. Under the current system, cost controls come more from provincial oversight (through annual budget reviews and approvals, and other interventions) and to some extent, this has permitted the Province to exercise a substantial amount of control over provider operations. However, in addition to high administration costs, the downside of this type of intensive monitoring is that there is no incentive for housing providers to operate efficiently, and providers can turn to the Province for additional funds when there are shortfalls. Providers have found it difficult to operate in an environment where funding levels are unpredictable.

The new funding model proposes trade-offs for both the providers and municipalities. Providers would gain more autonomy, funding predictability, and streamlined accountability. In return, they would be required to repay to the municipality some of the debt which they did not have to repay under the old program, and to operate within established cost and revenue benchmarks. Municipal administration costs will be reduced through harmonized programs and more targeted and streamlined methods of administration and overview.

Funding levels for each provider would be initially established based on cost and revenue benchmarks, and these benchmarks would be reviewed after three years to determine whether or not adjustments to the mandated operating loan repayments are needed. Housing providers which cannot operate their business within those benchmarks would be subject to a greater degree of municipal oversight.

AMO's position (see Appendices C and F) is that it would prefer a much higher degree of municipal involvement and control than what is proposed (for example, periodic budget setting and review). City staff are of the opinion that the model as proposed is practical and balanced. Subject to detailed program design, there appear to be sufficient checks and balances recommended throughout the life of provider agreements to manage the funding relationship. GTA housing staff support this position (with the exception of Halton Region which recommends reviews and financial adjustment every three years).

Periodic or even annual budget adjustments will not result in material savings for the municipality. Only about 20 percent of provider costs are manageable (i.e., that they can influence the cost level in any way), and the rest are fixed. Reviews and adjustments may actually increase social housing costs by contributing to higher municipal administrative costs, opening the door to requests for additional funding by the providers, and undermining provisions geared towards having the provider operate in an efficient and business-like manner (like early loan repayment incentives and best practice reviews) Social housing is not like other municipal services, which are required to justify funding every year. Social housing differs because its costs can be secured against an asset, will be partially repaid, and the service level and costs can be established (and are predictable) over a very long term. There is little doubt, especially in Toronto, that the need for social housing will continue for a very long time.

Instead of a high degree of monitoring for all providers, emphasis should be placed on developing systems and protocols to identify providers which may have difficulties, and to take action to help those providers resolve difficulties and stabilize.

Municipalities should also focus on the larger social housing cost items: mortgage/debenture financing and utilities. SHC recommends consolidated management of mortgages (to attain below-market financing rates, and lock in rates over entire amortization period to achieve certainty). It also recommends energy audits of projects to determine if money can be saved through system conversions (with the Province paying for the audits). By providing incentives for efficient operations, providers may be able to repay City subsidies sooner. Finally, there may be cost savings if the City combines social housing intake functions with similar functions for other social programs it delivers. City efforts would be better spent maximizing savings in these areas.

Details about the methodology and the process for implementing the benchmarks have not yet been established. Protocols around early detection of potential problems, municipal responses and default management also need to be developed. SHC recommends that municipalities be included in the design and implementation work, and work directly with housing providers to review data and calculations.

For more detailed information about the funding model proposed, see Appendix E, section 3.1.

(3.2)The Relationship Between the Municipality and the Housing Provider:

The relationship between the municipality and housing providers would be established by two agreements. One agreement would address the operating loan the provider must pay back to the municipality; the other would address funding for rent-geared-to-income units. Both agreements would have standard clauses about reporting requirements, breaches and remedies, and set out requirements established by the Province (provincial standards).

In general, the housing provider will confirm it is operating within the requirements of the agreement through reports to the municipality (depending upon the subject, reports are quarterly, annual, and periodic). If the provider is not in compliance, the municipality can intervene; the degree of intervention is directly proportional to the seriousness of the breach. In worst case situations, the Province would also be involved because it continues to retain contingent liability for the mortgages/debentures. Details about how projects in difficulty will be managed need to be determined.

Annual reports would include filing audited financial statements, annual information returns (status measured against non-financial measures) and management representation reports (items not normally addressed in an audit report). This reporting does not limit the ability of the municipal auditor from exercising their authority - providers may be reviewed by the municipal auditor as part of their duties to audit municipal expenditures, which include social housing programs. In addition, in certain breach situations the municipality can conduct an audit of the provider's operations.

For the City, the agreements will ensure that the accountability relationship is clear. Details about the contents of reporting documents, reporting methods, and adequacy of information, still need to be addressed in more detail. In particular, it is imperative that tools and information streams are developed which would permit the City to respond quickly if a provider has financial or other problems. Since the key relationship is between the provider and the City, the City should also have final say about how groups experiencing difficulties will be managed and when mortgage default will be declared.

For more information about operating agreements and reporting requirements, see Appendix E, section 3.1.

(3.3)The Relationship Between the Municipality and the Province:

The model proposed that the Province will continue to have an ongoing role in setting and monitoring standards in key areas, transferring the Federal share of funding to the municipality, reporting to the Federal Government as required, and participating in centralized management of mortgage renewals and default management.

Provincial standards are recommended in nine key areas, generally related to access to rent-geared-to-income units (see Appendix D, section III). Standards include setting a minimum number of RGI units within each CMSM (roughly equivalent to the current number of units) and having Provincial consistency around issues such as eligibility, benefit level, RGI calculations and minimum rent.

The mandatory provincial standards are a base. The municipality, generally in consultation with housing providers, can choose to have additional requirements for all housing providers in its area, and/or set requirements which are specific to one or more providers.

The City should support the recommendations made around provincial standards, and flexibility for municipalities to establish their own additional standards in response to local conditions. Few provincial standards are proposed, and the idea of maintaining some areas of Province-wide consistency (particularly around access to RGI units) has merit. Many of the standards link to Federal requirements, to ensure the continued flow of Federal funding. The provincial standards proposed are generally the same as current standards (at least initially). In addition, there is flexibility for the municipality to change some aspects of provincial standards to suit local requirements. What is not yet clear is how much reporting the municipality will be required to conduct to satisfy provincial requirements, and how flexible those requirements will be. Further detail about how future changes to province-wide standards (if required) would be made.

For some time, the Province has been discussing various transitional plans for administrative transfer, although no specific reports have been released or action taken. Provincial staff have indicated that they are working on transitional plans ("Plan B" and "Regional Executive Committees") in the event that an agreement with the Federal Government is not possible or would not occur for some time. These ideas involved using existing LHAs or MMAH regional offices, as the bodies which would take over administration of all social housing for a transitional period. Municipal representatives would sit on the boards of these special purpose bodies to provide municipal input. This would be the means by which "say for pay" would be achieved.

The use of special purpose bodies in this manner has not been acceptable to most municipalities. Council has also adopted the position, which is restated in the recommendations to this report, that the establishment of a provincially controlled special purpose body to administer social housing programs is not acceptable to the City.

Further information about Province-wide standards are provided in Appendix E, section 3.2.

(3.4)Public Housing:

SHC recommends harmonization of public housing with other social housing programs, and that municipalities have the option of managing or even owning public housing projects in their area.

Public housing and non-profit housing currently have very different financial and operating environments. SHC recommends that both types of housing operate under similar program rules, and that municipalities be responsible for administering public housing, as they would with other social housing programs (i.e., through operating agreements with the housing provider). For example, currently for capital expenditures, non-profits maintain annually funded capital reserves whereas public housing capital work is funded through annual operating budgets. Under reform, both programs would have capital reserves established.

SHC recommends that municipalities have the option of owning all public housing in their area. Initially, OHC would retain ownership. During this time, the municipality would undertake an analysis of alternatives done jointly with the Province, and would enter into negotiations to work out the details of the transfer. The Discussion Paper does not provide details about what this negotiation would entail, how long it might take, and whether or not there would be a cost to the municipality.

If the municipality decides not to own the public housing, it may still alter the LHA management structure. The municipality would be required to develop a business case and enter into discussions with the Province.

Public housing management, administration and ownership have been a growing area of concern for the City. Tenants and tenant organizations have been making deputations and expressing their concerns about operational decisions made by the MTHA Board. The frustration is that while the City of Toronto pays for MTHA's housing, it has no direct means of influencing operating decisions or integrating activities with other social housing in the City.

From the City's perspective, the proposed recommendations are all quite positive. Council has previously adopted the position that the Province should transfer ownership of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority stock to the City. It should be noted that this could not legally occur without Federal agreement. This report recommends further that transferring ownership of public housing stock should be done at no cost to the City.

Further information about public housing recommendations are provided in Appendix E, section 3.2.

(3.5)Summary:

The proposed reforms are based on input from all stakeholders - including municipalities - and given the complexity of the issues, and competing interests, there is a remarkable level of consensus and balance evident in all 48 recommendations. The recommendations, if approved by the Minister, will establish the foundation for a social housing system which allows sound, long-term financial planning and predictable subsidies. Social housing providers would have sufficient ongoing funding to manage their projects in a business-like way and to serve residents effectively, and the City will have means by which to insure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and standards are being maintained. The needs of tenant/members have also been considered, and where standards may change, transitional provisions are recommended.

The model would allow the City to establish its own standards, processes and expectations for the provision of social housing.

The City can choose to negotiate with the Province to have public housing ownership transferred to the City.

These proposals, even if approved by the Minister, are simply a framework. Much more work around the details of the program design and implementation is needed. This report recommends that the continued significant municipal representation be maintained throughout the design and implementation process.

(4.0)Related Issues:

(4.1)Supply of Affordable Housing:

Recently there has been a lot of discussion at Committees and Council around the need for affordable housing in the City of Toronto; in particular, the need for all level of governments to work together in order to improve the supply of affordable housing (for examples, see "Toward a Municipal Strategy to Encourage Affordable Housing", July 1998 and "Interim Report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force", July 1998).

Although not within their mandate, SHC commented that the lack of affordable, adequate housing supply was a major concern for current social housing residents during consultation sessions. The discussion paper notes that adequate, affordable housing is of benefit to municipalities in realizing healthy communities and is in the best interest of all levels of government.

It is recommended that Council ask both the Federal and Provincial Governments to acknowledge that supply of social housing is the responsibility of all three levels of government, and urge both the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and CMHC to take action.

(4.2)No Federal Agreement:

About three-quarters of provincially-administered social housing in Ontario is cost-shared with the Federal Government. The Province needs the Federal Government's approval to change the programs, and to transfer administrative responsibility to municipalities. Although the Federal Government has signed agreements with six other provinces/territories for the transfer of its administrative responsibilities, they are not currently engaged in negotiations with the Province of Ontario.

Initially the City had asked the Federal Government not to change its agreements with the Province, with a view to preventing the Province from downloading its costs on municipalities. In view of the fact that social housing costs have now been downloaded, the current position of the City is that the Federal and Provincial Governments should work together to transfer social housing administration to municipalities as soon as possible.

In April, the Federal Minister responsible for CMHC, the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, wrote to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to indicate that he is awaiting the report of the Social Housing Committee on program reform before resuming negotiations with the Province on devolution. Presumably, if the reforms are supported by the municipalities and the non-profit sector, and acceptable to the Federal Government, the Federal Government would help to implement the reforms and would proceed with devolution negotiations with the Province. For this reason, it is recommended that Council inform the Federal Minister of its support for the reforms as proposed, and encourage the Provincial and Federal Governments to resume negotiations.

With respect to social housing units unilaterally funded and administered by CMHC, Council has taken the position that it has no interest in administering unilateral Federal non-profit and co-operative units (April 1998).

(4.3)Toward a GTA Position:

The Ministry proposes to transfer administration to 47 "Consolidated Municipal Service Managers" (CMSMs), which are municipal bodies responsible for the administration of social housing and other municipally delivered social services (such as Ontario Works and Child Care). One overall advantage of the CMSM approach is to permit integrated intake and program delivery functions. A CMSM may be made up of one single upper tier municipality which is responsible for its own costs, or it may be made up of several municipal entities, all sharing costs.

In the GTA, there would be five CMSMs; the City and the four 905 regions. The GTA is the only place in Ontario where costs are shared between CMSMs. The result is that budget decisions made in one part of the GTA will impact on the other parts. While the CMSM model may make sense for the City in terms of service management, it is not clear what impact sharing costs across the five GTA CMSMs may have, if any, on administration or GTA-wide participation in decision-making. In addition, administrative decisions made in one part of the GTA may have spin-off effects in other parts.

Recognizing the need for the five CMSMs to work together, and perhaps the need to ensure that issues specific to the GTA receive the attention they merit at the provincial level, housing staff from all GTA municipalities worked together to analyze the SHC Discussion Paper and to outline recommendations for the GTA as a whole. The attached report and summary (Appendices B andE) set out 18 staff supported recommendations. The overall message is that the GTA supports the reforms as proposed, and subject to continued municipal involvement in detailed design work and implementation.

For the most part, the proposed GTA position and the proposed City of Toronto position, are in line with AMO's position (Appendices C and F). There is, however, one important difference - AMO would prefer that the financial accountability model be revised to give municipalities the authority to periodically review provider costs with the potential of making financial adjustments as required; City staff and GTA staff support the model as proposed (with the exception of Halton Region, which is proposing reviews every three years).

As outlined in section 3.1 of this report, the financial accountability model would operate based on a system of benchmarks. However, the strength of the reform model proposed is that all 48recommendations balance and support each other. Although the municipality would not be able (in most cases) to adjust the operating loan without the consent of the provider, there are a number of other checks and balances it may use, which appear to be more efficient and effective than periodic or three year adjustments, such as:

-CMSM can use "best practice" reviews every three years to assist groups in lowering costs (thereby being able to repay operating loan faster);

-operating loan repayment can be adjusted if there are material changes to property taxes;

-CMSM can request assurances that non-rental revenues are being maximized;

-CMSM can institute early loan repayment incentives;

-if the operating loan is paid off, future surpluses must be used for social housing;

-if the provider wants additional funding, the CMSM may make the additional funding conditional upon increased oversight (e.g., annual financial reviews);

-energy audits (paid for by the Province) may identify other cost-savings;

-for groups which cannot repay the operating loan, in certain circumstances, would be subject to a greater degree of oversight; and

-municipalities can intervene if a provider is in breach of the agreement.

The proposed model is the result of significant input by, and trade-offs between municipal, provincial and provider representatives. Changing the degree of municipal oversight will alter the balance established within the model and, in all likelihood, would make it unworkable, more expensive, and possibly undermine the support it has received so far.

We anticipate that other parts of the Province may support AMO's position of wanting more municipal oversight. As discussed earlier, it is the opinion of GTA staff that a greater degree of oversight would not create any material advantage for municipalities, and would likely jeopardize the entire reform model as proposed. This report, therefore, recommends that the City endorse a GTA position, as outlined by recommendations proposed by GTA staff in their report. These 18recommendations are consistent with the recommendations suggested in this City report.

Next Steps:

The deadlines established by SHC to respond to their discussion paper are very short. Council does not meet until after the submission and deputation deadlines (September 24, 1998, for written responses and September 28, 1998, for deputations). Therefore, it is recommended that the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee respond to SHC, subject to Council recommendations from their meeting on October 1 and 2, 1998. In addition, it is recommended that the City make a deputation to SHC based on whatever position is endorsed by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee at its meeting on September 10, 1998.

SHC proposes that municipalities have an ongoing role in program design and implementation. This City report supports that proposal, and recommends that Council express its appreciation for the level of municipal representation which has occurred to date, and advise the Minister, Municipal Affairs and Housing, of Council's continued interest in having municipal representation.

Recognizing that social housing reform is a shared issue for all GTA municipalities, and that the GTA differs from other parts of the Province in certain respects (i.e., costs are shared across CMSMs, housing needs, the current supply of social housing, the practical experience with program delivery, and the political and staff capacity to take on devolved responsibilities), it is important that the GTA work together on shared issues, such as social housing reform. This report recommends that Council endorse the staff analysis and recommendations developed by GTA staff (see AppendixA), and encourage continued collaborative efforts.

Attachments:Summaries:

Appendix A:Summary of SHC Recommendations

Appendix B:Summary of GTA Staff Recommendations

Appendix C:Summary of AMO Position

Reports:

Appendix D:Discussion Paper on Social Housing Reform, August 24, 1998

Appendix E:GTA Staff Analysis and Recommendations of SHC Discussion Paper, August 31, 1998

Appendix F:AMO Member Communication Alert, August 26, 1998

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-6135/Fax: 392-3037

Appendix A: Summary of Recommendations Proposed by Social Housing Committee

(Complete Discussion Paper is Provided as Appendix D).

Appendix B: Summary of GTA Staff Recommendations

(Complete GTA Staff Report is Provided as Appendix E)

Staff of GTA municipalities recommend that GTA Councils endorse recommendations as outlined by the August 24, 1998, Social Housing Committee Discussion Paper on Social Housing Reform. In particular, GTA staff support the following recommendations:

(1)Creation of separate rent supplement and operating loan agreements (#19-21).

(2)Initial cost setting exercise to be revisited after three years, to allow time to assess accuracy and impacts of original exercise and to determine more detailed and comprehensive benchmarks (#12).

(3)No further regular review of costs to occur beyond initial third year review, except for groups in breach of agreements or which had already been determined as unable to meet the normal loan repayment obligations¹ (#12, 13, 18, 24). (¹Staff have recommended to Halton Regional Council that reviews be undertaken every three years. This level of review may cause an administrative burden for other GTA municipalities as they have more providers and units.)

(4)Market rent component of the operating loan calculation to be set at true market rent for the type and location of housing being offered, allowing for phasing of any large increases, and requiring third party assistance if no agreement between municipality and provider is reached quickly (#10).

(5)The same market rent is to be set for all market and rent geared-to-income residents in a project (subject to legitimate difference in unit types) so long as a rent supplement agreement is in place, even if the operating loan has been fully repaid (#15).

(6)Information is to be available to municipalities from providers which will provide ongoing assurance that public funds are being used for intended purposes and allow CMSMs to detect problems and potential breeches of agreements at an early stage (#22, 23, 24, 25).

(7)Target plans for individual providers may be changed by mutual consent between the provider and municipality (#27).

(8)Municipalities may revise the "Modified Chronological System" for applications, following consultations with providers, subject to certain minimum standards:

(a)All Federal money received by a municipality must be spent to house applications at/below Federal "Housing Income Limits".

(b)Applicants must be given priority for access based only on their inability to afford suitable and adequate housing and how long they have been on a waiting list.

(c)At least 35 percent of units must be occupied by "high need" clients (those for whom market rents are greater than or equal to 50 percent of household income) (#31).

(9)Municipalities to be able to determine intake function for units rented at a level geared to household income (RGI), including waiting list management, with the flexibility to delegate to providers or others, subject to compensation or other recognition of additional costs which arise from any imposed changes (#35, 6).

(10)Municipalities to be responsible for income verification, with flexibility to delegate all or part of this function to providers or others, subject to compensation or other recognition of additional costs which arise from any imposed changes (#36, 6).

(11)Municipalities to be able to adopt standard treatment of income and assets across social assistance, child care and social housing (#38).

(12)Municipalities to be responsible for administering public housing programs (#39).

(13)Municipalities to be able to decide on management models for public housing (#39).

(14)Municipalities to have option of assuming ownership of public housing, and although transfer of ownership would only occur after negotiations with the Province, the initial position of municipalities is that such a transfer should occur at nominal cost to the municipalities (#39).

(15)Mortgage renewals to be administered centrally by a group with majority municipal representation, with a mandate to move as expeditiously as possible to stabilizing borrowing costs for the remaining life of mortgages (#46).

(16)Rules for investing capital reserves to be flexible enough to allow for pooling of investments (#47).

In addition, GTA staff recommend the following:

(17)That the Province cover shortfalls in existing replacement reserves, up to the amount set by a reasonable, and mutually acceptable engineering model, net of any previous expenditures from reserve accounts determined to be inappropriate.

(18)Details about the protocol for default management between the municipality, provider and Province need to be worked out, however, municipalities should have the final say in declaration of default.

(19)Municipalities should be permitted to direct providers to use pooled capital reserve funds or other professionally assisted investments when returns the provider is earning on their capital reserve fund are below the earnings of the pooled fund, or deemed sub-par as measured against some other appropriate measure.

--------

Appendix C: Summary of AMO Position on Social Housing Reform Proposal

(Complete Text is Provided as Appendix F)

This summary is based on "Member Communication Alert", August 26, 1998, prepared by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Where the position taken by AMO appears to differ from what is recommended by SHC, italics are used; however, recommendations in the SHC paper and the AMO communication are at a high level and, therefore, it is not always possible to determine which recommendations the AMO communication is responding to, and whether or not there is agreement. It is often a matter of interpretation. For exact wording of the AMO communication, see AppendixF.

(1)The Funding Model:

Municipalities must have authority to periodically review provider costs and make financial adjustments, if required. SHC recommends establishing the operating loan initially, and then reviewing the operating loan after three years to determine whether or not the mandated repayments on the operating loan need to be adjusted.

AMO proposes the use of efficiency targets as part of benchmarking to ensure best value for municipal funding. It is not clear whether this comment indicates support for the SHC recommendation about "best practice" reviews to help providers keep costs low, or is intended to refer to a change in the way that benchmarks would be managed.

AMO supports having providers repay the operating loan.

AMO recommends an adequacy study be conducted to determine the appropriate level of capital reserves, and that the Province "top-up" reserves if needed (SHC is silent).

(2)The Relationship Between the Municipality and the Housing Provider:

AMO supports recommendations made about the municipal-provider relationship such as municipalities being responsible for administration and providers for operations, within framework of operating agreements. AMO also supports recommendation that municipality to have authority over income testing.

AMO cautions that using a Province-wide "cookie-cutter" approach to administration (i.e., service contracting and reporting requirements) as it would not recognize local requirements, and would stifle opportunities to improve efficiencies. (This caution should be taken into account during detailed program design.)

(3)The Relationship Between the Municipality and the Province:

AMO suggests limiting the provincial role in determining service levels (Province-wide standards) to and initial transfer period, and to some high level program standards. Municipalities should be permitted to establish standards at levels responsive to local needs thereafter (SHC builds in municipal flexibility around some provincial standards, and recommends that municipalities have flexibility to establish CMSM specific standards).

AMO suggests the municipality have final say in decisions around debt forgiveness for providers. (SHC is silent where forgiveness is needed due to default, but does recommend municipal control over other areas where debt forgiveness may be appropriate - such as early loan repayment incentives.

With respect to mortgages, the Province retains contingent liability. AMO suggests the province should not pass on principle and interest costs to the municipality when a defaulted project is sold for less than outstanding value of mortgage (City of Toronto staff are not aware of any project that ever did end up in a default sale; the usual practice of the Province has been to amalgamate/transfer the project to another housing provider).

AMO suggest that the provincial role should be limited to setting broad standards, guaranteeing mortgages and flowing federal funding. In addition to these functions, SHC recommends a provincial role in centralized default management and mortgage financing, with details about provincial participation to be determined.

(4)Public Housing:

AMO suggests that OHC and LHAs be wound down, municipalities determine the service delivery mechanism, and that municipalities should have the option to own public housing. SHC recommendations around public housing appear to support all of AMO's suggestions.

(5)AMO Position on Matters Not Covered by SHC Mandate:

AMO states a number of positions about matters not directly related to program reform and, therefore, outside of the SHC mandate. In general, the issues relate to the implementation of reform, and administrative transfer of social housing:

-Province should transfer service management responsibility as soon as possible;

-accountability for social housing through elected councils, not third parties or special purpose bodies;

-social housing should be transferred in a good state of repair;

-the state of repair for each project should be assessed prior to transfer, and this information provided to municipalities. Failing that, the Province should guarantee that capital costs will not exceed the amount accounted for in the Who Does What transfers and fund any costs above that amount; and

-the Province has indicated that cost-savings in all areas of municipal funding and management responsibility will be necessary in order to achieve revenue neutrality in the transfer of responsibilities to municipal governments; social housing is no exception.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services also submits the following resolution adopted by the Greater Toronto Area Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee on June 19, 1998 (forwarded by Councillor Jack Layton, Don River):

"WHEREAS the GTA municipalities are prepared to work with the Provincial Government on an orderly transfer of social housing responsibilities; and

WHEREAS information required by municipalities to allow them to evaluate and plan for said responsibilities has been repeatedly delayed in release and is still not available in appropriate detail; and

WHEREAS the housing reform process initiated by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing which all parties recognize should be allowed to try to reach conclusion for the benefit of both housing providers and funders, has been substantially delayed; but

WHEREAS the work of the Social Housing Committee is proceeding and should hear the position of the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee; and

WHEREAS the Province has made announcements with respect to supportive housing which require an immediate response;

THEREFORE be it resolved that the Premier of Ontario be requested to rescind and defer all bills to municipalities for social housing and agree to start billing on January 1, 1999, permitting consultation and negotiation to proceed in a meaningful way, and subject to the passage of legislation providing for the transfer of social housing program oversight responsibilities to municipalities;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee endorse a response to the letter of April 8, 1998, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to social housing, as per the letter to the Committee of May 4, 1998, from Keith Ward; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee authorize Keith Ward to make a presentation to the Social Housing Committee and to prepare a written submission for the signature of the Chair, confining said submissions to positions already adopted by the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee; including points raised in his letter to the Committee of June 5, 1998;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ministers of Health, Community and Social Services, and Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to consult with municipalities on the definition of supportive housing and the specific projects to be covered by that definition prior to a final determination of projects to be re-assigned; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee endorse a letter to the Minister Responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation advising that there should be no impediment to federal consent to the transfer of program oversight responsibilities from the provincial to the municipal level, commensurate with new municipal financial obligations; noting that the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada 'is not attempting to block the signing of a Social Housing Agreement in Ontario', but is instead legitimately concerned about a broad agreement encompassing co-ops with federal operating agreements; and further calling for a clear and immediate separation of agreement issues so that a transfer to municipalities of strictly provincially administered agreements can occur."

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee also submits the following joint communication (September 10, 1998) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, and Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity-Niagara:

We want to commend the staff on a very thorough report with respect to this issue. We are, however, deeply concerned about the very short timeline for public consultation established by the Province.

The fact that the Province has delayed reporting until the end of August and then required the consultation to be completed by the end of September should be considered unacceptable to the City of Toronto. A very large chunk of the social housing that will be downloaded from the Province will be downloaded in our municipality.

There are many recommendations in this report that our social housing providers may agree with. There are also others that may be problems. In particular, Recommendation No. (2)(e) needs discussion. At the Federal level there has been considerable debate about the possibility of a third party administrator for co-ops. This proposal enjoys considerable support from Federal and local politicians. There may be a role for this kind of administration in future and this should not be ruled out. As well, Recommendation No. (3)(b) seems to us to be premature. We should not be requesting the Federal Government to negotiate with the Province until we are convinced that the program reform will, in fact, be one that we can all support. As well, in the recommendations in the various Appendices to the report, there are items that social housing providers have indicated they would like to have changed. We need to listen to these concerns and be cautious about how strongly we endorse any particular set of recommendations. For these reasons we need a complete consultation with providers, residents and other stakeholders in the social housing sector.

We would, therefore, ask that the Committee accept this report for discussion and begin a process of thorough public consultation. It is clear to us that this process could take more time than is allotted by the October 1 and 2, 1998, Council meeting, and we would ask that reference to that meeting be deleted. We would further ask that, in any deputation made before the provincial Social Housing Committee, it be made clear that the City will be engaging in continuing dialogue with the social housing sector and reserves the right to alter and adapt its recommendations based on these discussions.

--------

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (September 9, 1998) from Mr. Tom Clement, Executive Director, Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto Inc., requesting that the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services on the "Response to the Discussion Paper on Social Housing Reform" be deferred in order to allow them the opportunity to respond to the recommendations contained in the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services.

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

-Ms. Joanne Campbell, General Manager, Shelter, Housing and Support Division, Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, and provided the Committee with an overhead slide presentation on Social Housing Reform; and

-Mr. Cliff Martin and Mr. Vance Latchford, The Public Housing Fightback Campaign.

(A copy of each of Appendices D, E and F, referred to in the foregoing report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on September10,1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

The Future Management of The Metropolitan

Toronto Housing Authority

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

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

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

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

Moved by Councillor Jakobek:

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

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends that:

(1)the Province of Ontario be requested to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose:

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

Financial Implications:

No financial implications identified.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

Position of The Public Housing Fightback Campaign (PHFC):

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

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

In order to address these concerns, PHFC recommends:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-more meaningful involvement for tenants;

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

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

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

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

-working in partnership with the City of Toronto; and

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

Position of CUPE Local 767:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell, General Manager

Shelter, Housing and Support Division

Tel: 392-7885

--------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Private management contracts

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

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

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

(b) Performance standards

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

(c) Receiving deputations

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

(d)Non-economic eviction policy

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

(e) Residents survey

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

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

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

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

3

The Public Housing Inquiry

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on October 28, 1998.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on July 16, 1998, had before it a report from Councillor Jack Layton and Ms. Alison Kemper, Co-Chairs, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, urging Council to endorse a series of recommendations contained in The Public Housing Inquiry Final Report and indicating that the Advisory Committee supports the directions of the Public Housing Inquiry. The report was referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and to the Advisory Committee. This report has been prepared in response to that request.

Financial Implications:

No financial implications have been identified.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council:

(1)receive the report of The Public Housing Inquiry;

(2)inform the members of The Public Housing Inquiry of the City's intention to consult with social housing tenants and providers in developing its capacity to administer the social housing programs; and

(3)request that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report back on plans for the consultations.

Council Reference/Background:

Background:

A Public Housing Inquiry was held in Toronto on Saturday, March 28, 1998. The mandate of the Panel of Inquiry was to receive deputations from tenants, tenant associations and other interested parties concerning the future of social housing in Ontario, and to produce a set of recommendations for reform of social housing which reflect the voices heard at the Inquiry. Over 30 oral and written deputations, from deputants from across the Province, were received by eight panel members. Information on the membership of the Inquiry Panel and a list of deputants is included an as appendix to this report.

The Inquiry was convened to give tenants of social housing a voice in social housing reform. This was considered crucial as tenants had not been included in the membership of the Social Housing Committee or any of its work groups.

Summary of Public Housing Inquiry Recommendations:

Three major themes emerged from the day of hearings:

-Ontario is in the midst of a housing crisis, with a lack of affordable housing;

-the senior levels of government must continue to pay for social housing and support the development of new housing; and

-social housing tenants, who pay a large portion of the costs of operating social housing through their rents, must be involved in making decisions which will affect their communities, particularly the social hosing reform process.

Based on the feedback received, the Panel made recommendations in the following areas:

-mandate of social housing;

-role of governments in social housing;

-keeping housing affordable, the rent-geared to income (RGI) subsidy system;

-tenants rights; and

-privatization of management in social housing.

Discussion:

The Inquiry report and recommendations propose that social housing be viewed as an important component of a continuum of social and community services, with a unique role that goes beyond that of the private sector. They also emphasize the importance of tenants' rights is social housing, as well as tenant involvement in decision making on issues that affect their homes and communities. Particular reference is made to tenant participation in the social housing reform process which is currently underway. In addition, recommendations are made with respect to keeping public housing in the public domain, ensuring its on-going affordability, making sure it is well maintained and preserving the current level of supply. Sale of scattered units owned by the Ontario Housing Corporation is opposed.

The Inquiry also opposes the devolution of financial responsibility for social housing to the property tax base and advocates for renewed federal and provincial investment in building affordable housing.

Many of the positions taken in the report and recommendations are ones which have been supported by the City, its housing companies or the former municipalities over the years. Tenants have served as members of the Boards of the municipal housing companies and a tenant-driven process is currently in place to define a tenant participation strategy for the amalgamated housing company. The City has supported initiatives to prevent homelessness and minimize evictions and has certainly taken strong views on the need for on-going federal and provincial support in housing.

In one area, the privatization of property management for social housing, the City has not yet come to any clear conclusions. The City has opposed the privatization of property management proposed by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) but, to date, this opposition has been on the basis of lack of consultation with the City, rather than on the merits of the decision. Nevertheless, the recommendations with respect to evaluating all the options, full tenant consultation and ensuring the quality and safety of the housing environment can be supported.

As the City begins to define its role as the administrator of social housing, the issues and recommendations contained in the report of The Public Housing Inquiry will provide useful background information. In addition, meaningful tenant participation will be an important component of the City's efforts to prepare itself to administer the social housing within its jurisdiction.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-7885/Fax: 392-0548

--------

Mr. Cliff Martin and Mr. Vance Latchford, on behalf of The Public Housing Fightback Campaign, appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter; and submitted a copy of the document, entitled "The Public Housing Inquiry, Province-Wide Consultation on the Future of Public Housing - Final Report & Recommendations" dated April 2, 1998.

(A copy of the appendix 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 September 10, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Amendments to Housing By-laws

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

(August 4, 1998)

The Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited on July 27, 1998, had before it a report (July 22, 1998) from the City Solicitor, advising that amendments are required to By-laws Nos. A-1, A-4, A-8 and A-9 of the Metro Housing Company in order to recognize the new position of Chief Operating Officer, correct the title of the Executive Vice-President's position with the City, and to modify the financial authority of the Chief Operating Officer; and recommending that:

(1)the draft amending by-law [The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited By-law No.20] 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 the 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 July 22, 1998,

addressed to the Board of Directors,

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited

from the City Solicitor)

Purpose:

To authorize amendment of By-laws Nos. A-1, A-4, A-8 and A-9 to recognize the new position of Chief Operating Officer, correct the title of the Executive Vice-President's position with the City and modify the financial authority of the Chief Operating Officer.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the draft amending by-law [The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited By-Law No. 20] 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 the Housing Company staff be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to Recommendation No. (2).

Background:

At its meeting of May 8, 1998, the Board of Directors adopted the report, entitled "Housing in the City of Toronto," prepared by senior management of the Housing Company and Cityhome, in which it was recommended, inter alia, that a Shelter and Support Division be established within the City's Community and Neighbourhood Services Department and that separate leadership for the Housing Company and that Division be endorsed.

The City has since created such a division (the Shelter, Housing and Support Division) and appointed Joanne Campbell as its General Manager as of July 15, 1998.

In view of the separate leadership mentioned above, and the adoption by the City of the title "General Manager" for the head of the new Division, it is desirable that some other title be adopted by the Housing Company for its senior official and its by-laws be amended accordingly, including addition of provision for the Commissioner to designate an acting senior official where the office is vacant. Housing Company staff and the Commissioner have settled on the expression "Chief Operating Officer".

At its meeting of June 22, 1998, the Board of Directors authorized an increase in the Chief Operating Officer's delegated spending authority other than with respect to consulting services, from $100,000.00 to $250,000.00, and therefore By-law No. A-4 granting such authority should be amended accordingly.

Subsection 1(1) of that by-law was amended by By-law No. A-15 to refer to the City's "Executive Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services", but in making the appointment of the Commissioner (and other Commissioners), at its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, City Council dropped the word "Executive", and therefore the subsection should be amended accordingly.

Rainer Soegtrop, the Housing Company's acting senior official appointed by the Commissioner pending designation of a permanent Chief Operating Officer, has advised that while the authority in clause 2(5)(d) of By-law No. A-4 to write-off uncollectible rents in an amount up to $30,000.00 annually continues to be workable, the annual limit of $1,000.00 per household in the same clause is unrealistically low and should be increased to $5,000.00.

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 will be submitted to the Cityhome Board.

Discussion:

Sections 1, 3 and 4 and subsections 2(2), (3) and (6) of the draft by-law will substitute the expression "Chief Operating Officer" for "General Manager" in By-laws Nos. A-1 (General Organization), A-4 (Senior Officers and their Financial Authorities), A-8 (Meetings) and A-9 (Dispositions of Real Estate). Subsection 2(3) also provides for the Commissioner to appoint a person to carry out the Chief Operating Officer's responsibilities during vacancies, and subsection 2(6) also removes the text ", Housing Division" from the title over which the Chief Operating Officer is to sign in reports.

Subsection 2(1) of the draft will remove the word "Executive" from the reference to the Commissioner's title in By-law No. A-4, and subsections 2(4) and (5) will implement the modifications indicated above respecting the Chief Operating Officer's financial authorities in the same By-law.

Subsections 5(1) to (4) of the draft provide for appropriate in-force dates.

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 City Council in due course.

--------

THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING COMPANY LIMITED

By-law No. A-20

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

1.Subclause 9(2)(a)(i) of By-law No. No. A-1 is amended by striking out the expression "General Manager" therein and substituting therefor "Chief Operating Officer".

2.(1)Subsection 1(1) of By-law No. A-4 as amended by By-law No. A-15 is further amended by striking out the word "Executive" in the second line.

(2)Subsection 1(3) of By-law No. A-4 is amended, and subsections 2(2) to (5) thereof as heretofore amended are further amended, by striking out the expression "General Manager" wherever same appears therein and substituting therefor in each case "Chief Operating Officer".

(3)Subsection 2(1) of By-law No. A-4 as amended by By-law No. A-15 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"2.(1)There shall be a Chief Operating Officer of the Company who shall be appointed by the Board of Directors, but if such office becomes vacant, the responsibilities thereof shall, pending the Board's appointment of a successor, be carried out by such person as may be designated for the purpose in writing by the Commissioner described in subsection 1(1)."

(4)Clauses 2(5)(a) and (b) of By-law No. A-4 as amended by By-law No. A-6 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(a)to commit the Company contractually, in each instance in an amount not in excess of

(i)$250,000.00, other than for consulting services;

(ii)$100,000.00 for consulting services;

(b)in cases of emergency, and with the approval of the President or Vice-President, to commit the Company contractually in an amount in excess of the applicable amount stipulated in clause (a);".

(5)Clause 2(5)(d) of By-law No. A-4 is amended by striking out the amount "$1,000.00" in the first line and substituting therefor "$5,000.00".

(6)Section 3 of By-law No. A-4 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"3.When submitting written reports to the Company's Board of Directors the Chief Operating Officer shall sign at the end thereof over the title 'Chief Operating Officer'."

3.By-law No. A-8 as heretofore amended is further amended by striking out the expression "General Manager" wherever same appears in subsection 5(6) and 8(1) and clause 12(7)(a) thereof and substituting therefor in each case "Chief Operating Officer".

4.Subsection 4(2) of By-law No. A-9 is amended by striking out the expression "General Manager" therein and substituting therefor "Chief Operating Officer."

5.(1)Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), this by-law shall come into force on the date of its enactment.

(2)Subsection 2(1) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4^th day of February, 1998.

(3)Subsection 2(4) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 22^nd day of June, 1998.

(4)Sections 1, 3 and 4 and subsections 2(2), (3) and (6) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 15^th day of July, 1998.

ENACTED this 27^th day of July, 1998.

WITNESS the Corporate Seal of the Company.

PresidentSecretary

--------

(August 4, 1998)

The Board of Directors of The City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Cityhome) on July27, 1998, had before it a report (July 23, 1998) from the City Solicitor advising that amendments are required to Cityhome By-law No. 9, as amended, in order to recognize the new position of Chief Operating Officer and to modify the financial authority of the Chief Operating Officer; and recommending that:

(1)the draft amending by-law [Cityhome By-law No. 20] 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 the aforementioned report, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) to now read as follows:

"(1)the draft amending by-law [Cityhome By-law No. 20] attached to this report, with the exception of Sections 3 and 6 thereof, be enacted as a by-law of Cityhome;".

(Report dated July 23, 1998,

addressed to the Board of Directors,

City of Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corporation

from the City Solicitor)

Purpose:

To authorize the amendment of By-law No. 9, as amended, to recognize the new positions of Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice-President and modify the financial authority of the Chief Operating Officer.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the draft amending by-law [Cityhome By-law No. 20] 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).

Background:

The background of this report and of the attached draft Cityhome By-law No. 20 is identical in substance, except for one matter, to the "Background" section of my report to the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company Limited (MTHCL) dated July 22, 1998, and entitled "Amendments to By-laws". The one matter of difference is that the attached draft By-law No. 20 creates the new position of Executive Vice-President whereas this office already exists with respect to MTHCL.

Discussion:

Section 2 of the draft by-law substitutes the expression "Chief Operating Officer" for "General Manager" in By-law No. 9, as amended. Section 3 creates the position of Executive Vice-President who, as is the case with MTHCL, shall be the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services. This section also gives the Executive Vice-President the same duties and powers as under the parallel provisions of the MTHCL by-laws.

Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 repeal the description of the duties and powers of the General Manager (now the Chief Operating Officer) and replace it with the description of the Chief Operating Officer's duties and powers set out in the draft MTHCL By-law No. A-20 attached to my July22, 1998, report referred to above.

Sections 9 and 10 enact revisions to the limits of the Chief Operating Officer's delegated spending and debt write-off powers identical to those in draft MTHCL By-law No. A-20.

Section 11 provides for in-force dates parallel to the said draft By-law No. A-20.

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 shareholders' meeting which, in the case of Cityhome, is a meeting of the City 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 City Council in due course.

--------

BY-LAW NO. 20

CITY OF TORONTO NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION

A by-law to further 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 2.03, 2.04.2, 4.07(8)(a) and 5.05.2 are amended by striking out the expression "general manager" wherever the same appears therein and substituting therefor in each case "chief operating officer".
3. Section 5.04 is re-enacted as sections 5.04.1, 5.04.2 and 5.04.3 as follows:

"5.04.1EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT

There shall be an executive vice-president of the corporation who shall be appointed by the board of directors and who shall be the person who is for the time being the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services for the City of Toronto.

5.04.2DUTIES

The executive vice-president shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation and shall be responsible for the overall management of the corporation, including,

(a)co-ordination of the activities of the corporation with the social programs provided the City of Toronto to assure the availability of the appropriate services to tenants of the corporation;

(b)monitoring of policies and procedures of the corporation to assure their conformity with the policies and procedures as approved by the Council of the City of Toronto and submission of appropriate reports thereon;

(c)ensuring that all necessary corporation reports are submitted to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, Executive Committee and/or the Council of the City of Toronto for approval or consideration.

5.04.3The executive vice-president shall have the same powers and authorities as those conferred on the chief operating officer of the corporation under section 5.05."

4.Section 5.05.1 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"5.05.1CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

There shall be a chief operating officer of the corporation who shall be appointed by the board of directors, but if such office becomes vacant, the responsibilities thereof shall, pending the board's appointment of a successor, be carried out by such person as may be designated for the purpose in writing by the Commissioner described in section 5.04.1."

5.Section 5.05.2 is renumbered section 5.05.5.

6.The following new section 5.05.2 is hereby enacted:

"5.05.2DUTIES

The chief operating officer shall be responsible for:

(a)the general day-to-day management of the affairs and operations of the corporation;

(b)the supervision of the staff of the corporation;

(c)such other duties as the board of directors may by resolution assign."

7.The following new section 5.05.3 is hereby enacted:

"5.05.3REPORTING

The chief operating officer shall report to the board of directors on and for all matters connected with the carrying out of the chief operating officer's duties. When submitting reports to the board of directors, the chief operating officer shall sign at the end thereof under the title "Chief Operating Officer"."

8.The following new section 5.05.4 is hereby enacted:

"5.05.4STAFFING AND OTHER SERVICES

The chief operating officer shall have the power to determine on the corporation's behalf, in consultation with the City of Toronto the extent of the services to be provided by the City of Toronto to the corporation including all municipal staff to be assigned duties related to the corporation's activities, the nature and extent of such duties and the accommodation to be provided for such purposes."

9.Renumbered sections 5.05.5(a) and 5.05.5(b) are repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

"(a)to commit the corporation contractually, in each instance in an amount not in excess of

(i)$250,000.00, other than for consulting services;

(ii)$100,000.00 for consulting services;

(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 the applicable amount stipulated in section 5.05.5(a)."

10.Renumbered section 5.05.5(d) is amended by striking out "$1,000.00" and by substituting therefor "$5,000.00".

11.(1)Except as provided in sections 11(2) and 11(3), this by-law shall come into force on the date of its enactment.

(2)Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 15th day of July, 1998.

(3)Section 9 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 22nd day of July,

1998.

ENACTED the 27th day of July, 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

President Secretary

5

11 Ordnance Street Youth Shelter Project

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

This report provides an update on the development of the project at 11 Ordnance Street. Further to the report of June 9, 1998, which assigned 11 Ordnance Street for a youth shelter project, we have selected a lead agency. This report requests authority for the Commissioners of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Corporate Services to enter into agreements with this agency and process capital funding as renovation work progresses.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Capital Leverage Fund contains $500,000.00, allocated to support the capital costs of this project. These funds reside in a reserve account created for this purpose.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council confirm the selection of Eva's Place as the lead agency to develop and operate the extended youth shelter project at 11 Ordnance Street, and authorize staff to enter into agreements, in form and content satisfactory to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, with regard to:

(a)the lease of the building and operation of the program by Eva's Place; and

(b)disbursement of capital grants to Eva's Place as renovation work progresses, up to a total maximum of $500,000.00 (funds have been allocated for this purpose in the Capital Leverage Fund); and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 9, 1998, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee adopted a report which provided an update of the development of 11 Ordnance Street as an extended shelter project for street youth. This report was originally requested during consideration of the Capital and Operating Budget of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department on March 30 and 31 and April 2 and 3, 1998. The June 9, 1998 report assigned the existing City-owned site at 11Ordnance Street to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department for a youth shelter demonstration project and also recommended that if and when the property is required for the Front Street Extension, the building will be vacated.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The project at 11 Ordnance Street is proceeding as outlined in the previous report and continues to be an extended shelter project to assist fifty homeless youth at the 11 Ordnance Street site to develop the skills necessary to get and keep housing and employment. It will assist youth to utilize existing resources and to integrate into the local community during the program. Youth will also receive follow-up assistance with the integration into their community of choice after they leave 11OrdnanceStreet.

A selection committee chose Eva's Place, a community agency with a history of working with the municipality, to be the lead agency to work with the City to develop and implement this project. The selection process included requests for letters of intent which were sent to 22 agencies with one month to reply. Four agencies submitted letters and the committee selected Eva's Place based on the criteria outlined in the June 9, 1998, report.

Eva's Place is a registered charity which currently operates the North York Emergency Home for Youth and until recently operated the Satellite Shelter in the Sheppard Subway. Eva's Place has demonstrated a strong commitment to helping homeless youth to break the cycle of homelessness and has a history of positive working relationships with municipalities, homeless youth, agencies and service clubs. Since hearing about the 11 Ordnance Street project, Eva's Place has been consulting with homeless youth about program and design issues.

Staff and the Executive Director of Eva's Place were favourably received by the local neighbourhood association. Staff are keeping the local Councillors up-to-date.

The Resource Working Group will meet early this fall to begin to work with Eva's Place and the City to further develop the model and to address issues such as consultation with key stakeholders and program evaluation. Participants will include community agencies with expertise in operating youth hostels, housing projects, employment programs for street youth and health care services for street youth and will ensure that this project is strongly connected to the appropriate sectors.

The $500,000.00 from the Capital Leverage Fund is adequate to ensure that the mechanical/structural systems are sound enough so that replacement and reserves are not needed in the near future. In addition, it will provide help to prepare the building for extended hostel accommodation. Work is proceeding on the necessary design drawings. Now that program objectives are clear, it is estimated that we will require additional capital funds in 1999. We are also actively pursuing external resources.

In order to proceed, a lease and operational agreement that meets both the needs of the City and the project will be prepared by the Corporate Services Department through the Facilities and Real Estate Division and the Legal Division. Corporate Services staff will be overseeing the project and will recommend payments to Eva's Place as work progresses. Every attempt is being made to employ homeless youth in the construction.

All legal documents will note that if and when the property is required for the Front Street Extension, the building will be vacated.

Conclusions:

This project is generating considerable excitement and interest in several sectors as the needs of homeless youth continue to be highlighted. We believe that the 11 Ordnance Street project is an excellent opportunity for creative responses to a critical need - housing for homeless youth. Eva's Place is now working on developing the program and the design. A lease and operating agreement with Eva's Place are now needed to implement this project.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell,

General Manager, Shelter, Housing and Support Division

Tel: 392-7885

6

Health and Safety Allocations for Hostels

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To gain Committee and then Council approval to allocate funds to several shelters for their requested Health and Safety needs.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funds for these hostel needs are Provincial dollars that have been forwarded to City of Toronto Hostel Services for distribution to hostels that most need it to address their health and safety needs. Hence, there are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Toronto Hostel Services be authorized to administer 100 percent Provincial funds to hostels for minor capital needs;

(2)the allocation totalling $114,961.69 shown in this report be approved;

(3)80 percent of these amounts be advanced to the hostels as soon as required, with the remaining 20 percent released after the work is completed and appropriate expenditure documents have been submitted; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1992, the Department entered into a legal agreement with the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) regarding discretionary minor capital allocations for community-based hostels. Under this agreement, year-end money was made available to help hostels with items related to improved health and safety. Since 1992, the Province has made available to Hostel Services a total of $860,206.00. We have spent $678,720.97 on badly needed health and safety repairs. Presently, the Health and Safety fund has a remaining balance of $181,485.03.

The Ministry has assisted hostels with minor capital needs for many years. However, they have asked Hostel Services to assist with these allocations because we are in closer contact with these services and are more knowledgeable about their specific health and safety needs.

Again, these allocations have a zero net cost to the City.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Department is prepared at this time to proceed with six allocations totalling $114,961.69. This would leave $66,523.34 for other needs identified during the year. The six allocations we want to proceed with at this time are as follows:

Conclusions:

Hostel Services have met with each group and are satisfied that the above requests reflect their needs. We are pleased to be in a position to assist them in such times of restraint, at no cost to the City and ask that these requests be approved.

Contact Name:

John Jagt,, Director, Hostel Services

Tel: 392-5658/Fax: 392-8758

E-mail: john_jagt@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

7

Homes for the Aged - Uncollectible Account

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

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 $7,725.82 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 F.M. while he was a resident at Kipling Acres Home for the Aged; and

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

Background:

On November 13, 1992, F.M. was admitted as an emergency admission to Kipling Acres Home for the Aged, where he resided until his discharge on September 3, 1993.

F.M. signed the admission agreement contract on his own behalf, agreeing to redirect his pension income to Kipling Acres to pay for his accommodation costs.

However, pension cheques were not received at the Home and arrears began to accumulate. The Home's administration staff met with F.M. to discuss unpaid costs and, at that time, F.M. authorized letters to redirect his pension income to the Home. When cheques did not arrive, investigation revealed that F.M. had subsequently redirected his income to an outside address. Income Security Programs advised that several changes of address were processed upon the request of F.M. F.M. refused to reveal the mailing address and stated that, "OHIP should pay for my cost of care."

Only three cheques were received from F.M. for his accommodation costs during the length of his stay. The account was referred to the Legal Department for collection as all efforts to collect by the Home were exhausted. F.M. discharged himself from the Home on September 3, 1993, with arrears owing of $7,725.82.

F.M. responded to the letter from the Legal Department advising them that he had no money to pay our account. He further indicated that his only source of income was his Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan cheques. F.M.'s assertions as to his financial status would seem to be born out by the fact that he was admitted to Kipling Acres from Seaton House, a men's hostel. The Legal Department did not proceed to court believing that, even if successful, they would have a paper judgement only, which would be unenforceable. In this regard, Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan income cannot be garnisheed. Furthermore, they advise that they found nothing to indicate that F.M. had any other sources of income. The Legal Department recommended that we write-off the outstanding arrears.

Conclusion:

The account is uncollectible and authorization to write-off the outstanding balance is requested. The City Solicitor and the City 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

8

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)New Decision by the Ontario Housing Corporation Regarding the Sale of Its Scattered Houses.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services advising, for information, that the Board of Directors of the Ontario Housing Corporation on July16 and 17, 1998, adopted a recommendation from its Policy and Program Committee to expand the criteria governing the sale of vacant scattered units to include consideration of the length of the waiting list for the unit size in question; indicating that, in view of the length of waiting lists for subsidized units in the City of Toronto and the significantly lower annual turnover of units, MTHA staff has been advised to stop placing scattered houses "on hold" when they become vacant and to offer them to families on the waiting list; and noting that houses that become vacant may be sold if the cost to renovate or repair them to a suitable state for rental is considered excessive, and will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

(b)Result of Proposal Call for Eviction Prevention Programs for the City of Toronto.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(August 31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing an update on the results of the proposal call for eviction prevention programs for the City of Toronto, including information with respect to organization selection and the type of activities they will undertake; noting that, of the nine proposals received, parts of three proposals were accepted from the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation; the West Toronto Community Legal Clinic and the Federation of Metro Tenants Associations; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(c)Hostel Ombudsperson Pilot Project.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report:

(August 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services responding to the request of the Committee on July 16, 1998, to report on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons respecting a one-year Hostel Ombudsperson pilot project, and recommending that:

(1)in their 1999 budget, the Shelter, Housing and Support Division include a request of $100,000.00 for a purchase of service contract to implement a one-year Hostel Ombudsperson pilot project;

(2)regular 80/20 percent cost-sharing be sought from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and, subject to Provincial funding approval, staff be directed to implement a request for proposal process through which community agencies can submit proposals to operate the Hostel Ombudsperson office;

(3)the pilot project be evaluated according to its satisfaction of project objectives of providing a neutral resource for the protection of hostel user rights and in facilitating fair and equitable access to the hostel system, with a report back by the Commissioner after one year; and

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

(d)Canadian Children's Environmental Health Network.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(August 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services responding to the request of the Committee to report on the recommendations of the Children and Youth Action Committee regarding a proposal to establish a Canadian Children's Environmental Health Network; and recommending that the report be received.

(e)Transfer Plan for Child Care Services and Adjustments to Child Care Support for Ontario Works.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, and Council:

(1)the adoption of the attached report dated September 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to:

(a)amending Recommendation No. (4) to read as follows:

"(4)the Department consult with the community concerning the most appropriate strategies for implementing the requirements of Ontario Works Child Care and report further on the outcome of this consultation recommending specific changes in response to the enhanced level of provincial funding and in response to unmet child care service demand; and further that no changes take place until completion of the community consultation and resulting report;";

and

(b)amending Recommendation No. (6) to read as follows:

"(6)the Children's Advocate, with the asistance of the Office of the Mayor and the support of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, continue to advocate to the Province the City's need for child care subsidy expansion to meet the significant service demands of Ontario Works and other eligible clients;

(2)that the Province of Ontario again be requested to pay its share of the subsidies of 2,000 children, as proposed by the City of Toronto; and

(3)that the City of Toronto reconfirm its support for a high quality child care system, the policies of first come, first served, equity and informed parental choice:

(i)(September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing an outline of the transfer plan for child care jointly negotiated between the City and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, as well as the additional provincial subsidy available to support the child care needs of Ontario Works participants, and describing the associated adjustments the City is expected to make in its child care strategy for Ontario Works clients; and recommending that:

(1)the $590,156.00 required as the 1998 municipal cost-sharing contribution to the additional $3,147,500.00 provincial subsidy offered to enhance the funding support for child care within the Ontario Works program be found from the surplus user revenue identified within the Children's Services appropriation in the June 30, 1998, Corporate Variance Report and approval be given to adjust the 1998 and 1999 Children's Services budgets accordingly;

(2)the City negotiate with the Province the fiscal use of the additional provincial funds to meet the costs associated with the current level of Ontario Works child care in 1998 and develop a strategy for implementation in 1999 that would increase the number of Ontario Works clients' children who could be supported with the annualized enhanced provincial funding;

(3) the City accept the $338,000.00 in one time provincial transitional funding to support the technological activities identified in the child care transfer plan;

(4) the Department consult with the community concerning the most appropriate strategies for implementing the requirements of Ontario Works Child Care and report further on the outcome of this consultation recommending specific changes in response to the enhanced level of provincial funding and in response to unmet child care service demand;

(5) the jointly negotiated plan for the transfer of child care services be approved and the Department continue negotiations with the Province for adequate administrative support for the increased program responsibilities and an expeditious transfer date;

(6) the Office of the Mayor, with the assistance of the Children's Advocate and the support of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, continue to advocate to the Province the City's need for child care subsidy expansion to meet the significant service demands of Ontario Works and other eligible clients; and

(7) the Department report back to Council on the results of the ongoing negotiations with the Province; and

(ii)(September 9, 1998) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, urging the Committee to commit any additional provincial funding to making high quality, licensed child care accessible to more children and their parents.

--------

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

-Ms. Cheryl MacDonald, Toronto Coalition for Better Child Care; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Mr. Spyros Volonakis, Child Care Advisory Committee; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

-Ms. Samantha Patton, Director, Parkdale Beach Child Care; and submitted a brief in regard thereto; and

-Ms. Fatima Alvis, Child Care Director, St. Stephen's Community House.

(f)Update on the Provincial Transfer of Responsibilities to the Social Services and Children's Services Division.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting to be held on October8,1998, and having directed that this matter be considered as the first item of business on the agenda for such meeting:

(August 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing, for information, an update on:

(1)the transfer of responsibility for managing single parent and temporary care cases currently managed by the Province to Toronto's Ontario Works program; and

(2)the transfer of system management responsibility for the wage subsidy program, special needs resourcing, approved corporations serving special needs children, and family resource centres from the Province to the Children's Services Division.

(g)Transportation for Unemployed Low Income Persons in Toronto.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following report; and further having directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to submit a progress report on the pilot project to the meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee to be held on November 5, 1998:

(August 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing a status report on the sub-committee convened to address the issue of free transportation for unemployed and low income people in Toronto; advising that the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department has instituted a one-year transportation assistance pilot project for homeless and socially isolated persons as a result of the "On the Move" research, and that a evaluation of the project will be completed upon its conclusion on December 31, 1998.

(Councillor Ashton, at the meeting of City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, declared his interest in Item (e) headed "Transfer Plan for ChildCare Services and Adjustments to Child Care Support for Ontario Works"; and Item (f) headed "Update on the Provincial Transfer of Responsibilities to the Social Services and Children's Services Division," embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that his daughter is registered in a non-profit child care centre.)

(Councillor Fotinos, at the meeting of City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, declared his interest in Item (e) headed "Transfer Plan for ChildCare Services and Adjustments to Child Care Support for Ontario Works"; and Item (f) headed "Update on the Provincial Transfer of Responsibilities to the Social Services and Children's Services Division," embodied in the foregoing Clause in that his mother provides private home child care.)

(Councillor Pantalone, at the meeting of City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, declared his interest in Item (e) headed "Transfer Plan for ChildCare Services and Adjustments to Child Care Support for Ontario Works"; and Item (f) headed "Update on the Provincial Transfer of Responsibilities to the Social Services and Children's Services Division," embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that one of his children is registered in a child care centre which has a purchase of service agreement with the City of Toronto.)

Respectfully submitted,

CHRIS KORWIN-KUCZYNSKI,

Chair

Toronto, September 10, 1998

(Report No. 8 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.)