September 16, 1999

To:Planning and Transportation Committee

From:Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:Staffing Resources, Urban Planning and Development Services,

Municipal Licensing and Standards Division;

Common Area Apartment Re-Inspection Programme

Purpose:

In a Report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, considered by Council at its meeting on June 9, 10 and 11 , 1999, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services advised as follows:

Given the amount of work still outstanding to respond to the initial direction for the merger and staffing of these two activities, and given the high priority to implement successfully the taxi reform package by the end of the year, it is unrealistic to expect senior management to prudently manage the addition of more staff to this organization in this year. Moreover, until the merger is complete, it is difficult to advise on where the greater need for additional resources will be, or indeed, if they will be necessary. I recommend that staff be given the opportunity to implement the outstanding changes and then report to Council on the outcomes and impact on service.

The final structure for the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division has now been established. Although some work remains with respect to staffing of Supervisory positions, the potential for certain improved practices has been identified which may have a budget impact in the year 2000. The purpose of this report is to advise Committee of the improved practices and related impacts.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

If no cost sharing for the programme is available, the potential annual cost, staffing and resources (travel costs, information technology etc.) over the next five years is in the order of $1.35 million.

Recommendations:

(1) That the Committee recommend to Council that it endorse the concept of a pro-active inspection programme for common areas of all multi-unit rental residential accommodation.

(2) That the Committee recommend to Council that it request that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing co-fund the programme with the City.

(3) That the Committee recommend to Council that it request the Province to amend the Municipal Act or provide special legislation to permit the City of Toronto to license multi-unit rental residential accommodation.

Background:

The Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of Urban Planning and Development Services is responsible for the enforcement of by-laws, many of which address property maintenance issues. One of the primary areas of enforcement concerns the maintenance of commercially-operated multi-residential apartment buildings.

One of the consequences of amalgamation has been the need to re-align staff to accommodate new ways of doing business. Notwithstanding staff were re-deployed in a number of ways, no front line inspection positions have been deleted. For example, in the former City of Toronto inspection staff carried out inspections required by the Ontario Building Code for properties which were the subject of a building permit. The same staff carried out reactive inspections in response to general by-law complaints, including property standards (lack of maintenance) complaints. These functions have been re-defined thus enabling us to focus more clearly on how to best use the resources available to us. Within the present structure, there are discrete responsibilities for Building Code matters within the Building Division of UPDS as well as discrete responsibilities for property maintenance within the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of UPDS. This approach is consistent with the Department's three divisional structure being: Planning, Building and Municipal Licensing and Standards--which, in turn, is also consistent with how the business we are in is done; i.e.--you plan, you build it and you maintain it.

Staff reassignment was carried out on the basis of the proportion of Building Code files relative to the proportion of Municipal Standards files. Thus, while it may appear on the basis of staff numbers that there are fewer staff assigned to municipal standards in the South District than immediately prior to amalgamation, there are, in fact, an equivalent number of person hours available for municipal standards issues.

Discussion:

With respect to the maintenance of commercially-operated multi-residential apartment buildings, this function has been managed differently in each of the former municipalities. In North York, Scarborough and East York there was, and continues to be, a "Pro-active Common Area Inspection Programme" for such buildings. Essentially, an audit (of varying degrees of detail in each former municipality) is carried out for each building scheduled to be audited. Buildings that have a history of poor maintenance are given priority on the schedule of buildings to be audited.

We believe that there is value in introducing this system city-wide. Experience with the audit programme in the former municipalities has demonstrated that a programme such as this is a useful tool that can be used to ensure that a reasonable degree of maintenance is performed in commercially-operated apartment buildings to the benefit of all concerned. For tenants, it demonstrates that the City is committed to working with them to ensure their building is being maintained. It also removes the concern that tenants may be reluctant to complain fearing reprisal from the landlord. Landlords also benefit from a thorough inspection whereby deficiencies are identified within a defined period of time rather than randomly over a period of months or even years. This approach to inspections affords the landlord an opportunity to co-ordinate maintenance staff and organize repair work thus maximizing effectiveness and minimizing costs. For the City, there is no reliance on complaints from tenants to initiate action about common areas. A fully operational pro-active programme makes it certain that violations will be identified. The City also benefits from not having to utilize limited resources investigating multiple complaints concerned with the same deficiencies. Furthermore, the City is able to establish a benchmark by which the condition of the building can be measured.

While it is important to note that a pro-active programme cannot be applied to individual suites, there is some indication that the number of en-suite complaints decreases, as landlords come to believe that the City can and does act. It should also be noted that existence of the programme would not mean that inspections are only pro-active. We would continue to respond to complaints about common areas as well as individual units.

There are, of course, staffing and, therefore, cost implications. It should also be recognized that as problem buildings are identified in the audit process, remedial action is begun. The same "audit programme" inspection staff will have to do multiple follow-up inspections to ensure deficiencies have been rectified and, where landlords fail to comply, initiate legal action and give evidence in court. Accordingly, given the scope of the programme, we recommend that a Manager and eight full-time inspectors be employed to manage the programme; four of the eight full-time staff could be placed, at no additional cost to the City, from within the existing complement of strength. For the first five years of the programme, an additional 12 inspectors would also be required on a contract basis. This should allow us to audit approximately 3,500 buildings in the first five years after which analyses of our findings would determine the resources needed to sustain a balanced programme.

Programme Funding:

As a longer-term goal, the concept of licensing rental residential accommodation is worthy of serious consideration. Since it is not currently permitted by provincial legislation, it would require that the City request and receive changes to provincial regulations. Appendix A outlines how such a programme might operate. On the basis of an average licence fee in the order of 60 cents per suite per month, and with an estimated 450,000 rental residential units within multi-unit buildings in the City, the licence fees raised would be in the order of $3.25 million per year. This could allow property standards regulations as a condition of licence maintenance to be managed on a full-cost recovery basis, with the current cost being eliminated from general tax revenue. As a percentage of the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom unit (estimated at $700.00), 60 cents, even passed through to a tenant, would be equivalent to less than 0.1 percent.

While the potential for legislative change to allow for licensing is being investigated, there would be value in approaching the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for funding to carry out the initial audit. The basis for the request would be that the information obtained through an audit of all multi-family rental residential accommodation in the largest Canadian city would provide a valuable database for future planning for those agencies.

Conclusion:

Property Standards programmes for multi-unit residential properties have been managed differently in each of the former municipalities. The most detailed service delivery model is that used in the North District (former City of North York). In order to provide equitable and, we believe, cost effective service delivery across the City, a pro-active programme of inspections for the common areas of all multi-family residential accommodation should be developed, based on that used in the former City of North York. The potential for change to provincial legislation to allow for the licensing of multi-unit residential rental accommodation should be investigated. This could provide for full cost recovery associated with Municipal Licensing and Standards enforcement of issues relating to multi-unit residential rental accommodation. While the potential for legislative change is being pursued, the potential for cost sharing for the initial audit between the City of Toronto, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing should also be explored.

Contact Name:

Frank Weinstock

12th Floor, East Tower, City Hall

fweinst@toronto.ca

392-0404 (tel.); 392-8805 (fax)

Reviewed by:

__________________________________________________________

Harold BrattenJames Ridge

Acting Executive DirectorActing Commissioner

Municipal Licensing and StandardsUrban Planning and Development Services

Appendix A

Much as with any other licensing, the process initially would be an "up front" check that the proposed activity meets the general applicable law, and will be carried out "in accordance with the law (and) with honesty and integrity". Further, there would, as with other businesses, be ongoing checks that the business continues to be carried out "in accordance with...., etc." The most critical element of applicable law in this case would be the Property Standards By-law.

There could be several classes of licence. For example, where a company demonstrates, through provision of a five-year maintenance management plan, and a check of past enforcement history, a certain level of competence and experience, they could be issued a "Class A" licence, with a fee for an initial application and an annual fee of 40 cents per suite per month. Such licences could have, say, a five-year life and be subject to inspection of all common areas once per two and one-half years. "Class B" would perhaps have no plan but a clear history regarding enforcement activity, be of shorter term, say, three years, be subject to annual inspections and have a slightly higher per suite per month fee; say 60 cents/suite/month; "Class C" buildings may or may not have a plan, but have a poor enforcement history, would be licensed for one year at a time, be subject to inspections once per six months and have the highest per suite per month fee, at about 70 cents/suite/month.

At any time, subject to provision of a plan, and with a two-year history clear of any enforcement activity, a company could apply to be upgraded by one class. "Clear" of enforcement history would have to be structured in a way to accept that even a good operator could miss occasional items. Conversely, we would retain the right to downgrade a building or company to a lower licensing class.