TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999

CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 4

1 "Glen Eagles" Site Adjacent to the Rouge Park South-East Corner of Sheppard Avenue and
Twyn Rivers Drive - (Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern)

2 Union Station Negotiations

3 Disposition of "Property Houses" Owned by the City of Toronto

4 Provincial Offences Act Transfer Project, (Establishment of Task Force to Examine
Implications Inherent to Bill 108)

5 Update on the Status of the Implementation of the Additional $9.00 in Court Costs

6 Insurance Claims Administration

7 1998-1999 Insurance Program Renewal

8 Results of Request for Proposals to Establish a Roster of External Negotiators Required for
Municipal Real Estate Projects (All Wards)

9 Request for Approval of Funding - Johnston Donald Associates Inc.,
Sheppard Subway Project

10 Roster of Real Estate Brokers to Market Industrial, Commercial, Institutional and Substantial Residential
Properties for the City of Toronto (All Wards)

11 3885 Yonge Street, The Jolly Miller (Ward 9 - North York Centre South)

12 2829, 2831 and 2833 Dufferin Street - Proposed Closure and Sale of a Lane and 0.3 Metre Reserve,
Registered Plan 2988 (Ward 8 - North York Spadina)

13 205 Yonge Street - Proposed Encroachment Agreement and Temporary Construction
Easement (Ward 24 - Downtown)

14 Highland Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer Proposed Encroachment on City of Toronto Easement

15 Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 134 Everden Road (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

16 Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 22 Gloucester Grove (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

17 Sale of Surplus Spadina Project Property at 36 Gloucester Grove (Ward 28 - York Eglinton)

18 Sale of Surplus City-Owned Property - 180 Duncan Mill Road City of Toronto's Interest 94.2 Percent in the former Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Plan No. 988 (MTCP No. 988),
Now City of Toronto (Ward 11 - Don Parkway)

19 Tuition Reimbursement for Management and Excluded Employees

20 Re-training for Employees in the New City

21 Remuneration and Expenses of Members of Council and of the Council Appointees to Local Boards and
Other Special Purpose Bodies for the period January 1 to December 31, 1998

22 Recipient - William P. Hubbard Race Relations Award - 1999

23 277 Victoria Street - Office Space Consolidation (Ward 24 - Downtown)

24 Parking (Metro) Underground - 15 (Designated) Locations for Councillors

25 Revised Room Rental Fees, Montgomery's Inn (Kingsway-Humber)

26 Property Damage Claim - Don Valley Parkway to Eastbound Lawrence Avenue East

27 Lien for Repairs - 6 McGee Street

28 Lien for Repairs - 184 Pickering Street

29 Lien for Repairs - 462 Rhodes Avenue

30 Quotations for Ten Truck Tractors

31 Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 4

OF THE CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on March 25, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Dick O'Brien, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999

1

"Glen Eagles" Site Adjacent to the Rouge Park

South-East Corner of Sheppard Avenue and

Twyn Rivers Drive - (Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the confidential report dated April 12, 1999, from the Chief Administrative Officer, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that appropriate City staff be authorized and directed to explore the potential of satisfactory arrangements for servicing storm water from 45 Green Belt Drive in the City of Toronto, a property belonging to an associated company of the vendor, and report to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee or, if necessary, to the next meeting of Council.'; and

(2) the confidential communication dated March 31, 1999, from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Budget Committee in regard to the source of funds for the purchase of the Glen Eagles site, be received.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee contained in the confidential communication (March 26, 1999) from the City Clerk, respecting the proposed acquisition of the "Glen Eagles" site, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following:

(i) communication (March 2, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting held on February 17, 1999, referred a communication (February 8, 1999) from Councillor Raymond Cho, respecting the potential acquisition of the Glen Eagles Site adjacent to the Rouge Park, and all related correspondence identified hereunder, to the Corporate Services Committee, with the request:

(1) that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to report thereto, outlining the benefits to the City of participating in a public acquisition plan for this site, the potential funding sources, both internally and externally, and any other appropriate information which may be required;

(2) that appropriate staff be directed to approach other levels of Government to inquire about partnership possibilities; and

(3) that the Commissioner of Corporate Services and/or the City Solicitor be directed to investigate the landowner's contention that he has only until April of 1999 to "back out" of his current agreements of sale with a variety of parties; and

(ii) confidential report (March 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, respecting the request from the Scarborough Community Council regarding the Glen Eagles site.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following communications respecting the proposed acquisition of the Glen Eagles site:

(i) (March 24, 1999) from Mr. Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge River Watershed;

(ii) confidential communication (March 24, 1999) from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford;

(iii) confidential communication (March 25, 1999) from Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre; and

(iv) (March 17, 1999) addressed to Mr. Glen De Baeremaeker, Save the Rouge Valley from the Finance Division.

The following persons appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. James Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed;

- Ms. Patricia J. Brooks, President, Old Lansing - Rouge Valley Ratepayers Association; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

- Mr. Glen Debaeremaeker, Save the Rouge Valley;

- Mr. Ron Christie, Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance;

- Mr. David Crombie, Chair, Waterfront Regeneration Trust;

- Ms. Linda Carscadden;

- Ms. Grace Burton, on behalf of Ms. Carol Moore;

- Ms. Ramona Wall, Save the Rouge Valley; and

- Mr. William A. Dempsey.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Bas Balkissoon, Scarborough Malvern;

- Councillor Raymond Cho, Scarborough Malvern; and

- Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre.

--------

The attachments to the aforementioned communication (March 2, 1999) from the City Clerk, Scarborough Community Council, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the March 25, 1999, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee; and copies thereof are also on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential report (April 12, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:

Purpose:

To report with respect to updating on the subject matter.

Recommendation:

That appropriate City staff be authorized and directed to explore the potential of satisfactory arrangements for servicing storm water from 45 Green Belt Drive in the City of Toronto, a property belonging to an associated company of the vendor and report to the next meeting of Corporate Services Committee or if necessary to the next meeting of Council.

Background:

The Corporate Services Committee on March 25,1999 at its in camera meeting recommended to Council that:

(1) subject to approval of the proposed purchase by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Rouge Alliance, the City of Toronto contribute an amount of up to a maximum of $2 million to facilitate the purchase of the "Glen Eagles" Site for the Rouge Park by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

(2) the contribution by the City of Toronto be conditional on the balance of the funding being obtained from the other levels of government and any other appropriate sources by no later than May 28, 1999;

(3) the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to continue to coordinate discussions with the other levels of government respecting the funding of the acquisition of this site and report thereon to the April 19, 1999, meeting of the Corporate Services Committee;

(4) the City of Toronto direct the appropriate staff to work with other interested parties to bring the Glen Eagles site into public ownership before the May deadline and to encourage other funding partners, especially the provincial and federal governments, to contribute to the acquisition of the Glen Eagles Site;

(5) the City of Toronto request that the provincial and federal governments assist in the protection of the Rouge Park by exchanging any lands they may have declared surplus within the Scarborough-Malvern area for environmentally important - but privately owned - lands in the Rouge Park area; and

(6) funding for purchase of the lands be provided from the sale of City-owned lands on Generation Blvd., and Grand River Blvd., and Account No. XR540-X54000.

TRCA staff are close to finalizing an agreement of purchase and sale. At Meeting #3/99, April 9,1999, the Executive Committee of the TRCA recommended the acquisition of the property municipally known as 10000 Sheppard Avenue East (Glen Eagles) to the full Authority scheduled for April 30, 1999, subject to completion of satisfactory terms and availability of funding from various levels of government and other appropriate sources.

The City's Budget Committee is reporting directly to City Council at the April 13, 1999, meeting respecting Recommendation No. 6. on funding for the purchase of the site.

Comments:

The agreement of purchase and sale is being finalized and it is anticipated to include the following components:

(1) an amount payable in cash;

(2) income tax receipts are to be made available to Twyn Rivers Home Inc. in accordance with the rules set out by Revenue Canada;

(3) the agreement is conditional on all necessary funding being available by May 28, 1999; and

(4) that prior to closing of the transaction, satisfactory arrangements are made for servicing storm water from 45 Green Belt Drive, in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of North York) a property belonging to an associated company of the vendor.

The offer at hand is supported by appraised values based on independent valuations. The City's Real Estate staff has been kept informed and consider that the purchase price comprising of cash and income tax receipt as aforesaid is reasonable.

Information - 45 Green Belt Drive

A draft plan for 45 Green Belt Dive (55T-97007) under Don Greenbelt Developments Inc. the aforesaid associated company, has been circulated for comments. The draft plan of subdivision and the adjacent property 39 Green Belt Drive is subject to a hearing at the OMB which is nearing completion. Conditions of the draft plan will include the need to satisfy storm water management requirements. Several options for storm water management had been proposed and were being considered. Attached is a sketch showing conceptually the location of the proposed servicing. The valley slope is owned by Don Greenbelt Developments Inc. and the open space block will be conveyed to the City or TRCA through the development process. The remaining valley lands are owned by the City and the TRCA. It is proposed to construct the storm water facility on TRCA lands and use City land for conveying the storm water to the pond. Generally the route shown on the sketch for conveying the storm water follows the existing storm water route.

This option for servicing 45 Green Belt Drive is being considered because it provides for a comprehensive storm water strategy for both 45 Green Belt Drive and the adjacent site at 39 Green Belt Drive, has minimal impact to the valley corridor and provides opportunities for retrofitting existing sewer sheds. In this respect, the Vendor is prepared to pay $100,000 to the Authority, toward controlling the quantity and quality of the existing storm drainage from approximately 77 hectares of development over and above the standard servicing requirements. In the event the sale of 10000 Sheppard Avenue East is not completed, the vendor would still prefer to service 45 Green Belt Drive as outlined above.

The proposed servicing work for 45 Green Belt Drive would provide the optimal storm water control for 39 and 45 Green Belt Drive, as well as opportunity to control the quantity and quality of storm runoff from existing development to the benefit of the community and the health of the Don River.

Conclusion:

It is felt the purchase of 10000 Sheppard Avenue is important and that the City of Toronto, Rouge Park and the community will benefit from the acquisition, through the permanent protection of the site and through the increased opportunities for public use and enjoyment.

The Rouge Park Alliance has undertaken to raise the funds for the purchase of the subject property. Funding for this acquisition may include the following sources: the Natural Areas Protection Program Provincial initiative, the Federal Government, and the City of Toronto. The TRCA will issue the charitable tax receipt. TRCA staff are confident that the necessary funding will be secured by the May 28, 1999, deadline.

Contact Name:

Don Prince, Telephone - 661-6600 extension 221, Fax 661-6898)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential communications from the City Clerk, such communications to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act:

(i) (March 26, 1999) setting out the action taken by the Corporate Services Committee on March 25, 1999, with respect to the proposed acquisition of the "Glen Eagles" site; and

(ii) (March 31, 1999) setting out the action taken by the Budget Committee on March 29, 1999, with respect to the "Glen Eagles" site.)

2

Union Station Negotiations

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1) to provide that, subject to proper involvement by the Toronto Coach Terminal Inc. and the appropriate financial arrangements, Council reiterate the position that the inter-regional bus terminal should be located at Union Station; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the Mayor be requested to approach the appropriate provincial officials (Ministers of Transportation and Municipal Affairs and Housing) to provide additional funding to GO Transit and the Greater Toronto Services Board dedicated to infrastructure improvements pertaining to the acquisition of Union Station and the associated rail corridor, over and above the funding already committed as part of the Municipal Capital Operating Restructuring Fund (MCORF) transitional funding;

(b) officials of the Toronto Coach Terminal Inc. be invited to participate in any discussions and/or negotiations regarding the development of a bus terminal in the vicinity of Union Station;

(c) the recommendations of the Board of Directors of Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., embodied in the confidential communication dated March 19, 1999, from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, be amended as follows, such communication to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act:

(i) Recommendation No. (3) be amended by adding thereto the words 'unless Council otherwise specifically directs', and that such recommendation, as amended, be adopted;

(ii) Recommendation No. (4) be referred to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that the Commissioner address this recommendation in the report previously requested in this regard; and

(iii) Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (5) be received; and

(d) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to:

(i) report on the various options for ownership and management of the potential bus terminal site; and

(ii) include, in any final report on the new bus terminal, a valuation and possible uses of the existing bus terminal site.")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee contained in the confidential communication (March 26, 1999) from the City Clerk, respecting the Union Station Negotiations, which was forwarded to all Members of Council under confidential cover.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit further reports to the Corporate Services Committee respecting the Union Station Negotiations; and having also referred a motion by Councillor David Miller, High Park, in regard thereto, to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee, such requests to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services gave a presentation to the Corporate Services Committee respecting the foregoing matter.

--------

The following Members of Council appeared before the Corporate Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway - Humber;

Councillor Bill Saundercook, York Humber; and

Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto.

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following:

(i) confidential communication (March 26, 1999) from the City Clerk, setting out the action taken by the Corporate Services Committee on March 25, 1999, with respect to Union Station Negotiations;

(ii) confidential report (March 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(iii) confidential communication (March 19, 1999) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission; and

(iv) confidential report (March 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

such reports and communications to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

3

Disposition of "Property Houses"

Owned by the City of Toronto

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends:

(1) that the properties comprising the City's Property House portfolio be declared surplus, conditional upon the Board of Directors of the Toronto Housing Company agreeing to accept a conveyance of the portfolio on the terms set by City Council;

(2) that prior to tenants being offered any duplex, triplex or fourplex building (or any portion thereof) within the Property House portfolio, the Toronto Housing Company obtain confirmation from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services that the proposed use of the property as ownership housing does not contravene any current or contemplated City policy respecting the conversion of rental housing;

(3) that consideration only be given to those Offers to Purchase from the tenants of the duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings made collectively by all of the tenants living in each such building, on the terms and conditions outlined in the report of the City Solicitor to the Corporate Services Committee dated November 20, 1998;

(4) the adoption of the report (March 11, 1999) from the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company, subject to:

(i) amending Recommendation No. (2) embodied therein by adding thereto the following words "for nominal consideration", so that such Recommendation now reads as follows:

"(2) on termination of the leases, ownership of all of the Property Houses be transferred immediately to the Toronto Housing Company by the City of Toronto for nominal consideration"; and

(ii) amending Appendix 2 embodied therein, entitled "List of Properties with Only 1-Bed or Smaller Units", by deleting 205 and 215 Crawford Street and substituting therefor 213 and 217 Crawford Street; and

(5) that the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company, be requested to report to Council, through the Corporate Services Committee, should the Housing Company decide to sell further properties in this portfolio.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company:

Purpose:

This report identifies options to maximize use of the City-owned Property House portfolio to house families with low incomes. The proposed approaches build on the 1992 business plan and seek to address issues raised by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, the Toronto Housing Company Board of Directors, the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at its meeting on November 27 to 29, 1998.

Financial Implications:

The 1998 current value assessment of the Property House portfolio is approximately $11 million.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the existing leases between the Toronto Housing Company (former Cityhome) and the Corporation of the City of Toronto be terminated;

(2) on termination of the leases, ownership of all of the Property Houses be transferred immediately to the Toronto Housing Company by the City of Toronto; and

(3) City Council endorse option 2, described in more detail in the report, consisting of the following actions by the Toronto Housing Company:

(a) a portion of the Property Houses portfolio containing 66 units of affordable family housing is retained by Toronto Housing Company;

(b) the properties with a higher market value and/or smaller unit sizes are sold; and

(c) a portion of the proceeds of the sale is used to pay down the mortgage on the Property House portfolio, another portion is used to complete planned renovations on the retained portion of the portfolio (including properties managed within the property houses portfolio but owned by the Toronto Housing Company), another portion is used to seed a capital and an RGI reserve for the retained portion of the portfolio; and

(d) the Toronto Housing Company report to the Community Services Committee on the use of any surplus proceeds from sales of properties or any operating surpluses not required for the uses listed above.

(4) the properties not sold shall be retained for affordable housing purposes, and managed on a cost pass-through basis while maximizing RGI assistance according to a business plan to be submitted to the Board of Directors of the Toronto Housing Company;

(5) all property to be sold shall be disposed of in conformance with the City's property disposal policy;

(6) subject to the terms set out in the City's property disposal policy, the first right to purchase be given to the current tenants of the properties to be sold; and

(7) the appropriate City officials be given the authority to implement these recommendations.

Background:

At its meeting of November 27 to 29,1998, City Council requested that the Chief Operating Officer of the Toronto Housing Company submit a report on the number and type of houses that would have to be retained in the Property House portfolio in order that as many units as possible could be rented to tenants with low incomes.

The Property House portfolio consists of 60 properties, comprising 106 units, which were acquired between 1930 and 1974 for Parks purposes. These properties have never been used for Parks purposes and, in 1975, an informal arrangement was entered into with Cityhome for the management of the portfolio. In 1992, City Council adopted a business plan which leased these properties to Cityhome.

The 1992 business plan had the following objectives:

(i) the plan was to be self-financing;

(ii) the properties were to be mortgaged to finance a capital rehabilitation program to bring the units up to standard;

(iii) the rent structure was to be rationalized and rents were to be increased to low-end-of-market levels;

(iv) rent increases were to be phased-in to reduce hardship for tenants and rent assistance provided to eligible households which would otherwise face economic eviction; and

(v) revenues generated were to be used to pay down the mortgage and to provide rent assistance to eligible households.

The 1992 business plan was only partially implemented. The phase in plan for the low end of market rent structure has another year to go before it is fully implemented and some of the properties are yet to be renovated as planned. Until full funding was available from the low end of market rent structure, RGI subsidies could only be provided for 12 households and the replacement reserve could not be funded to the full required amount.

Throughout 1998 reports on the disposition of the Property House portfolio were prepared for the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, the Corporate Services Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and City Council. In November 1998 Council requested the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Housing Company to present this report to the Corporate Services Committee.

Indicators of Housing Need in the City of Toronto:

Meeting the need for affordable housing has been identified as an important objective by City Council. A number of key indicators have suggested the level of housing need in the City of Toronto, including:

(1) a vacancy rate (1998) of 0.9 percent in buildings with three or more units;

(2) average rent increases of between 5.9 percent and 7.4 percent depending on unit type from 1997 and 1998;

(3) a waiting list of 50,000 households seeking subsidized accommodation, which has grown from 41,000 since 1997 (Toronto Social Housing Connections);

(4) approximately 50 percent of the households on the Housing Connections waiting list are families but the supply of appropriately sized apartment units consists only of the annual turnover of 3+ bedroom units (about 850 units/year - this is the total annual turnover of 3+ Br units in all of the social housing stock in the city including MTHA); and

(5) increasing levels of homelessness, including a rising incidence of homelessness among families with children.

In presenting its Fall 1998 rental market survey results, CMHC identified two factors which have contributed to increasing rent levels in the Toronto area. These are:

(i) Toronto's prolonged tight rental market has enabled most landlords to increase rents in occupied units up to the legal maximum of 3 percent in 1998. In some instances, unused past increases have been applied; and

(ii) changes to the Tenant Protection Act allow landlords to charge market rent once units become vacant.

At its meeting held on June 22, 1998, the Board of Directors of the Toronto Housing Company received a report which provided a profile of the amalgamated housing company's portfolio. Included in the report was a discussion of mismatches between the supply of housing units through turnover in its exiting portfolio and the demand for housing identified through waiting list information.

The report concluded that, based on its existing housing stock, the Toronto Housing Company is primarily geared to meet the housing needs of seniors, singles and couples. The portfolio has only a limited number of larger family size units (approximately 1,750 - 3 and 4 Br Units) and the Toronto Housing Company plays only a very small role in the supply of family units. It has been recommended that the new Toronto Housing Company seek opportunities to adjust its stock to respond to broader community need.

The Property House portfolio provides an opportunity for the Toronto Housing Company to ensure that the housing stock under its management addresses the needs of larger family households. To achieve this objective the company needs flexibility to adjust the portfolio composition so that housing is maximized for low income families.

Using the Property House Portfolio to Respond to Housing Need:

With 60 houses located across the central area, the Property Houses make up a diverse portfolio. Units vary greatly according to size, price, location and other amenities. Taking into account the high level of demand for affordable housing, the following multiple criteria were developed to identify those properties which could best be used to respond to current housing needs as well as meet the operating needs of the amalgamated housing company. They are:

(1) larger properties with average family size units (2+ bedrooms);

(2) properties presently being managed in partnership with a community agency;

(3) properties which would have lower operating costs including:

(i) properties which have lower property values and lower taxes; and

(ii) properties which are in close proximity to the Toronto Housing Company's portfolio of units for greater potential operating efficiencies.

Properties which do not meet these criteria are deemed to have a lower value to the Toronto Housing Company in responding to current housing need.

Operating Plan for the Property Houses:

To respond to Council's question of how many and what type of houses would have to be retained to rent to as many low income households as possible, three options were developed.

Options for Maximizing Assistance to Low Income Households with the Property Houses:

A simplified cash flow model of each option is shown in Table 1. These options reflect the housing need patterns discussed earlier in this report. To develop these options, a number of assumptions were made. Operating costs are estimated using 1998 actuals and vacancy loss was estimated at two percent of full market revenue (industry benchmark). Revenue was estimated using the low end of market rent structure for market units as of January 1, 1999 and RGI revenue was estimated using average RGI revenue from similar unit sizes in the former Cityhome portfolio. Interest is calculated at six percent on funds held for the purposes of a capital repair reserve or RGI fund. In the absence of documented property appraisals, the current value assessment ( CVA) was used to estimate the value of each property. Each option is described in more detail as follows:

Option 1:

What is proposed by this option?

(i) All properties are retained.

(ii) The $2,500,000.00 mortgage is renewed.

(iii) Renovation of the seven properties which require capital work to reduce operating costs and improve marketability. All properties would be renovated within 18 months of transfer of ownership.

How is housing for low income tenants maximized?

(i) Initially the maximum number of RGI units is limited by cash flow to 35. This would be an increase of 23 larger families receiving RGI assistance from the current 12 households receiving RGI. (RGI assistance would be provided as required to current tenants. On turn over units rented to low income households).

(ii) As market revenue increases, more units can be subsidized. Once the existing mortgage is paid, an additional 30 units could be subsidized. Alternatively, revenues not required for RGI assistance in the Property Houses portfolio can be used to extend assistance within other components of the Toronto Housing Company portfolio.

Other comments:

(i) This option represents a lost opportunity by not selling high value properties and reinvesting in more modest cost housing or investing the proceeds to generate an income stream to support affordable housing initiatives.

(ii) This option while maximizing the number of units and the number of RGI subsidies also retains the less needed small units and units with high operating costs.

(iii) This option produces 35 units of housing appropriately sized for families (3+ bedrooms).

Option 2:

What is proposed by this option?

(i) Sell 12 high value properties with 22 units (See Appendix 1 for list).

(ii) Sell 3 properties with 20 1-bed or smaller units (See Appendix 2 for list).

(iii) Principal remaining on $2,500,000.00 mortgage is discharged.

(iv) Renovation of the seven properties which require capital work to reduce operating costs and improve marketability. All properties would be renovated within 18 months of transfer of ownership.

(v) Proceeds of sales are invested to provide revenue stream for on-going RGI subsidies.

(vi) Any additional revenues from sales can be used for capital repairs and to increase housing affordability in the company portfolio.

How is housing for low income tenants maximized?

(i) A total of 66 units of affordable housing would be provided.

(ii) Because 8 units are occupied by community agencies, a maximum of 58 units are left to provide RGI assistance to Toronto Housing Company tenants.

(iii) Initially the number of RGI units is limited by cash flow to 50; however, 8 more units could be added as the RGI reserve is built.

Other comments:

(i) The total of 58 units of RGI housing would be achieved over time, at turn-over of units some market tenants will be replaced with tenants needing RGI.

(ii) This option produces 33 units of housing appropriately sized for families (3+ bedrooms)

Option 3:

What is proposed by this option?

(i) Sell 12 high value properties.

(ii) Sell 3 properties with only 1-bed or smaller units.

(iii) Appendix 3 lists properties in which some of the tenants have indicated an interest in purchasing their building or in the formation of a co-op which would own their building. Under Option 3 it is proposed to sell up to 12 properties with 19 units in which the tenants have indicated interest in purchasing.

(iv) Retain at least 28 properties plus the properties occupied by agencies.

(v) Renovation of the seven properties which require capital work to reduce operating costs and improve marketability. All properties would be renovated within 18 months of transfer of ownership.

(vi) Principal remaining on $2,500,000.00 mortgage is discharged.

(vii) Proceeds of sales invested to provide revenue stream for RGI subsidies and future affordable family housing initiatives.

(viii) Any additional revenues from sales can be used for capital repairs and to increase housing affordability in the company portfolio (rent bank, emergency assistance, low level subsidies to in-situ tenants within market component of portfolio, limited internal rent-supplement program).

How is housing for low income tenants maximized?

(i) Maximum number of RGI units is limited by number of units remaining. This may be as low as 38 if all tenants exercise their option to purchase. It is expected the number of units could be 42 units based on current tenant preferences.

(ii) Only a fixed number of households (38 or more depending on total number of units in the portfolio) will receive RGI subsidies; however, some of the proceeds can be used for capital repairs and to increase housing affordability in the company portfolio.

Other comments:

(i) This option generates a surplus from the sales revenue. A detailed plan will be required to identify how these funds would be used.

(ii) this option produces 25 units of housing appropriately sized for families (3+ bedrooms)

Limitations of the Analysis of Options:

CVA was used to estimate sale value. Real estate appraisals will be done on each property to be sold in conformance with the City's disposal policy - this will be a more accurate gauge of the value of the properties to be sold.

The proceeds of the sale may be reduced by approximately 10 per cent of the total selling price to offset the costs of preparing the properties for sale. Costs which may be incurred are appraisal fees, real estate fees, surveys, severance applications and fees and some capital work to facilitate sales (e.g., where one furnace serves both halves of a semi-detached property).

RGI revenue may be more or less than estimated depending on the incomes of tenants selected from Housing Connections waiting list; tenant incomes vary over time, and therefore the RGI costs will vary accordingly. A reserve is required to ensure funds are available where incomes are less than expected.