2. Social Housing: Local Policies

Logement Social: Politiques Locales

Committee Recommendations as amended

That Council:

1. Receive for information purposes the SHS Inc. consultants’ report on Local Policies in Social Housing;

2. Approve the attached recommendations from the Executive Summary of the consultants’ report (Annex 1), as follows:

a. Municipal Standards – recommendations 1 to 12;

b. Local Rent Geared-to-Income (RGI) Eligibility Rules – recommendations 13 to 35; and

c. Coordinated Access – recommendations 36 to 56.

3. Authorize entering into negotiations with The Registry in regard to the appropriate authorities for the third party contracting of the management of the Centralized Waiting List, on behalf of the Service Manager; and

4. Approve, as part of the implementation plan, an evaluation, three years from now, of the local policies and processes approved by Council through this report.

5. That staff work with the Council on Aging and other agencies representing seniors to address the matter of accurately measuring the full need for affordable seniors’ housing.

6. That the Housing Branch work with providers to develop plain language materials, in languages required by tenants, to explain the new rules.

7. That the Local Priority Rules be evaluated with respect to the ability of providers to meet requirements for support services among households priorized as “Homeless” and “Severe medical urgent” and have regard for this issue in the application of the policy.

Recommandations modifiées du Comité

Que le Conseil municipal approuve :

8. De prendre connaissance du rapport des experts-conseils de la firme SHS Inc. concernant les politiques locales en matière de logement social;

9. D’approuver les recommandations ci‑jointes, tirées du sommaire du rapport des experts-conseils (Annexe 1) :

a. Normes municipales – recommandations 1 à 12;

b. Règles locales d’admissibilité au loyer proportionné au revenu – recommandations 13 à 35; et

c. Accès coordonné – recommandations 36 à 56.

10. D’autoriser le début de négociations avec le Registre de logements en vue de passer un contrat avec un tiers qui sera chargé de gérer la liste d’attente centralisée au nom du gestionnaire du service; et

11. D’approuver, dans le cadre du plan de mise en œuvre, une évaluation, dans trois ans, des politiques et procédures locales approuvées par le Conseil à la lumière de ce rapport.

12. Que le personnel collabore avec le Conseil sur le vieillissement et les autres organismes représentant les aînés en vue de déterminer avec exactitude les besoins en logements abordables destinés aux aînés.

13. Que la Direction du logement collabore avec les fournisseurs en vue de la rédaction de documents visant à décrire les nouvelles règles aux locataires dans leur langue et en des termes simples.

14. Que les règles relatives aux priorités locales soient évaluées en fonction de la capacité des fournisseurs de répondre aux besoins en services de soutien des ménages classés comme sans abri ou ayant des besoins médicaux graves et urgents, et que l’application de la politique tienne compte de cette question.

Documentation

1. General Manager, People Services Department report dated 24 October 2002 is immediately attached (ACS2002-PEO-HOU-0008)

2. Extract of Draft Minute, Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee meeting of 7 November 2002 follows the report and contains a record of the vote.

Report to/Rapport au:

Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee/

Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux

and Council/et au Conseil

24 October 2002/le 24 octobre 2002

Submitted by/Présenté par : Jocelyne St Jean

General Manager/Directrice générale

People Services/Services aux citoyens

Contact/Personne-ressource: Joyce Potter, Director, Housing/Directrice, Logement

580-2424, ext. 44162, joyce.potter@ottawa.ca

Ref. No./No de dossier: ACS2002-PEO-HOU-0008

SUBJECT : SOCIAL HOUSING : LOCAL POLICIES

OBJET : LOGEMENT SOCIAL : POLITIQUES LOCALES

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council:

15. Receive for information purposes the SHS Inc. consultants’ report on Local Policies in Social Housing;

16. Approve the attached recommendations from the Executive Summary of the consultants’ report (Annex 1), as follows:

a. Municipal Standards – recommendations 1 to 12;

b. Local Rent Geared-to-Income (RGI) Eligibility Rules – recommendations 13 to 35; and

c. Coordinated Access – recommendations 36 to 56.

17. Authorize entering into negotiations with The Registry in regard to the appropriate authorities for the third party contracting of the management of the Centralized Waiting List, on behalf of the Service Manager; and

18. Approve, as part of the implementation plan, an evaluation, three years from now, of the local policies and processes approved by Council through this report.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil:

19. De prendre connaissance du rapport des experts-conseils de la firme SHS Inc. concernant les politiques locales en matière de logement social;

20. D’approuver les recommandations ci‑jointes, tirées du sommaire du rapport des experts-conseils (Annexe 1) :

a. Normes municipales – recommandations 1 à 12;

b. Règles locales d’admissibilité au loyer proportionné au revenu – recommandations 13 à 35; et

c. Accès coordonné – recommandations 36 à 56.

21. D’autoriser le début de négociations avec le Registre de logements en vue de passer un contrat avec un tiers qui sera chargé de gérer la liste d’attente centralisée au nom du gestionnaire du service; et

22. D’approuver, dans le cadre du plan de mise en œuvre, une évaluation, dans trois ans, des politiques et procédures locales approuvées par le Conseil à la lumière de ce rapport.

BACKGROUND

The Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 (SHRA) was enacted on December 12, 2000. Its associated Regulations were subsequently brought into force starting later that month with respect to the newly created local housing corporations, while those Regulations related to the matters under consideration in this report came into effect in July and August 2001. The Regulations continue to be updated through amendments. These statutory and regulatory instruments establish the parameters for the transfer of social housing from provincial to municipal jurisdiction. As a result, the City was granted its new role as one of the 47 Service Managers in the province.

In May 2001, Council approved the City of Ottawa Joint Local Transfer Plan that outlines the Service Manager’s planned approach to meeting the legislated requirements related to social housing. This approach includes provision for the development of a client-centred service delivery model and for community stakeholder consultations in regard to the transfer of non-profit and cooperative housing projects. The proposed service delivery model provides for a continuing role for housing providers in the areas of income testing and rent calculations, and for the maintenance of The Registry as the agency administering coordinated access.

The transfer of Social Housing occurred in two stages: Stage One was effective January 1, 2001 and involved the transfer of public housing from the Province. To enable this, the Province created the Ottawa Housing Corporation as a local housing corporation, with the City of Ottawa as the sole shareholder. Stage Two involved the transfer of administration for non-profit and co-operative housing programs, effective April 1, 2002.

With the Stage Two transfer, the City of Ottawa, as Service Manager, assumed responsibility for the administration of the balance of social housing programs in our service area. There are therefore three types of housing affected by the Social Housing legislation:

· Public Housing, involving 8,600 units owned and operated by the Ottawa Housing Corporation* (formerly the Ottawa-Carleton Housing Authority);

· Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing, exclusive of federal co-ops, comprising 11,400 units owned and operated by City Living*, former municipal non-profit housing corporations, private non-profits and co-operatives; and

· Rent Supplements for 2,400 units in private or non-profit rental facilities.

* (Now the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation.)

The SHRA and its regulations are quite prescriptive, even though there are some areas within which the Service Manager can make decisions. For those matters that are non-discretionary, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing currently is conducting its own consultations with Service Managers and sector organizations on possible regulatory changes to address identified problems. As members of the Ontario Regions Social Housing Group, City staff was involved in the development of the changes recently proposed to the Ministry by Regional and Single Tier CAO’s. City staff also participated in the Eastern Ontario Service Managers’ workshop on regulatory changes hosted by the Ministry in early October. The City’s individual submission, as Service Manager, was submitted to the Ministry in mid October. This provincial process is expected to result in amendments to the regulations sometime early in 2003.

On the other hand, there are a number of areas that provide for Service Manager flexibility in the development of local policies and practices to address access and local standards issues. In order to arrive at formal decisions for these areas of discretion, the Housing Branch developed a framework for addressing the matters to be considered. Subsequently, the City retained consultants to undertake a comprehensive review in the following three areas:

· Local priorities for access to housing and local occupancy standards;

· New local Rent Geared-to-Income eligibility rules and tenant selection, the related financial testing and rent calculation functions, and the subsequent provision for internal reviews and appeal processes; and

· Coordinated access system and centralized waiting list management legislative requirements and the juxtaposition of the existing Registry capability, given their proposed continuing role in the service delivery model.

A highly consultative work plan was developed and undertaken over a period of four months from April to July 2002. There were many public sessions in a host of venues that were attended by a broad cross section of interested and affected constituents. Following this lengthy process, data research and discussions continued with stakeholder representatives until early October. The consultants’ final report was tabled on October 9^th. It has been reviewed, and is supported, by City staff.

This report therefore deals with the results of the stakeholder consultations undertaken over the course of this past summer, recommends the implementation of the various approaches endorsed in the consultants’ report, and proposes measures to address the unfinished business related to the transfer of social housing consistent with previous Council decisions and local interests and priorities.

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS

Overview

As discussed above, the consultants’ assignment was to address those areas where local Service Manager discretion exists. Accordingly, the local policy issues that were examined during the consultations consisted of three general areas covering twenty-three separate subjects. The fifty-six recommendations in the consultants’ report are organized therefore around the three general areas, as follows:

· Municipal standards – recommendations 1 to 12, deal with local occupancy standards, (number of persons per bedroom), and local access priority rules, (prioritized individuals/groups);

· RGI eligibility – recommendations 13 to 35, pertain to who does financial testing and rent calculation and how it is done, who is eligible for RGI and the rules that apply, and the internal review process for appeals of decisions; and

· Coordinated access – recommendations 36 to 56, relate to the service delivery model for coordinated access, associated accountability structures, resourcing the new access system, and enhancing applicant accessibility to the coordinated access system.

The vast majority of these recommendations are supported by, and are the object of consensus amongst, stakeholders and advocates on the subject at hand. Several are not. These more contentious issues are discussed below. Nevertheless, all of the recommendations are proposed to Council for approval. Annex 1 to this report contains the detailed recommendations.

Consultations – Consensus and Contentious Issues

The consultations were a multifaceted process that involved:

· developing three source documents in English and in French to guide discussion,

· holding two information sessions with stakeholders,

· written submissions from participants to these meetings,

· conducting twelve focus group sessions with a broad cross section of interested parties, and

· interviewing key informants from fourteen community organizations.

The participants included non-profit housing providers, housing co-operatives, housing advocates, tenants, co-op members, applicants for social housing, and community organization representatives.

Early in the consultation process, following receipt of written commentary from stakeholders and interested community groups, it became apparent that there was a large measure of consensus amongst all interested parties in regards to the preferred approach to most of the twenty-three subjects. This general consensus is identified below by subject area.

Municipal Standards: Consensus:

· Local Occupancy Standards Yes

· Local Priority Rules No

Local RGI Eligibility Rules:

· Maximum Gross Household Income (Income Limits) Yes

· Maximum Aggregate Assets Value of Household (Asset Limit) Yes

· Exclusion of Specified Payments re Income Limit Local Eligibility Rule Yes

· Divestment of Residential Property Yes

· Maximum Absence From A Unit Yes

· RGI Ineligibility Period Yes

· Rent Increases of Less than $10 Yes

· Fraud Control Yes

· Rent Reimbursement Yes

· Reporting Changes in Information Yes

· Determining RGI Eligibility Yes

· Income Verification and Rent Calculation Yes

· Internal Review of Decisions Regarding RGI Eligibility No

Coordinated Access Review:

· Governance Structure and Accountability Framework Yes

· Funding of The Registry/Fee Structure Yes

· Mandate of The Registry Yes

· Legislative Requirements Yes

· Location of The Registry Yes

· Information Technology Yes

· Elements of the Service Agreement Yes

· Modified Units Without Supports Yes

Accordingly, while all twenty-three subjects were reviewed during the course of the consultations, the latter stages of the consultation process concentrated on an attempt to reach consensus in the more contentious areas of local priority groups and internal reviews/appeal processes. In the end it was not possible to reach consensus on these last two items. The consultants’ recommendation is that the proposed local policies discussed below be put in place for a three year period following which an evaluation is proposed to be undertaken which will enable an assessment to be made, in the light of data and information that is not otherwise available today. The Housing Branch concurs with the consultants’ recommendations.

1) Municipal Standards - Local Priority Groups

Pursuant to the SHRA, there is a mandatory provincial special priority group, (victims of abuse), which takes precedence over all other applicants for access to social housing. The SHRA also allows for the implementation of local priority rules by Service Managers. At the local level, there is a continuing division of opinion amongst stakeholders as to whether or not additional local priority groups should be recognized. With the exception of in situ market rent tenants who require RGI assistance, most of the Housing Providers are of the view that there should be no local priority groups and that all applicants should be dealt with on the basis of the date of their application for RGI assistance. Community groups, advocacy agencies and support service providers in the majority are of the opposite view. While the precise designation of which group should be prioritized varies across these different organizations, they are in agreement that at least the homeless and those with urgent medical needs be given a priority group status by way of a local priority rule under the SHRA.

The essence of this issue deals with the question of how to equitably apportion limited resources amongst needy parties when the sum of the whole is insufficient to meet the totality of needs. Accordingly, in their report, the consultants developed a set of principles for access to RGI housing. The principles are that local priority rules must:

· be clear and easily understood by all applicants;

· be equally applicable to all applicants;

· give access to rent-geared-to-income housing for all eligible applicants;

· address the need to relieve economic hardship or disadvantage;

· consider length of time a household has been on the waiting list;

· have regard to the Ontario Human Rights Code; and

· be consistent with provincial priority rules and other requirements of the Social Housing Reform Act.

The consultants’ report recommends the establishment of local priority group status for the homeless, severe medical urgent situations and in situ market rent households requiring rent geared-to-income assistance. As well, they recommend grand-parenting together into one group two existing Ministry priority groups – newcomers and youth aged 16 and 17. As of May 29^th, there were 390 newcomers and 53 youth with active applications with The Registry.

These two groups are not recommended to become local priorities under the new local rules, but those already on the list will be permitted to retain their current priority status. Under the current Ministry modified chronological resident selection system existing priority groups are referred to housing on a 1 in 10 basis. It is proposed that this 1 in 10 basis be retained for the grand-parented group, with the current Ministry policy that newcomers lose their priority status one year after being assigned the status and youth lose their priority status upon attaining 18 years of age.

An examination of the available data from The Registry, Housing Branch and the University of Ottawa evaluation in regards to the homeless program, reveals that there has been a fair degree of success in placing homeless and medically urgent applicants into social housing. In addition, for a sizeable percentage of the homeless placed into permanent housing, social housing is where they become housed.

On the basis of The Registry placement data it is apparent that the homeless accessed more than 1 in 10 housing vacancies as required by the current Ministry policy. While it is not completely clear in all instances why this has occurred, some of the reasons cited for this higher than expected number of placements relates to the nature of the building or project and to the fact that larger providers also employ the services of The Registry to house applicants in their federal projects which fall outside the purview of the Ministry policies. Given the Housing Branch goal that we not house fewer homeless than in past years, and the relative success of the current ratio policy, the consultants have recommended that 1 in 10 vacancies continue to be provided to the homeless. Similarly, those applicants with urgent medical status have been placed in social housing on an approximate 1 in 10 basis, and can be expected to continue to require access at a comparable rate. It therefore also is recommended that this group be granted a 1 in 10 priority status.

Housing Branch concurs with these recommendations in that they strike a reasonable balance amongst the neediest competing groups for access to social housing. Based on experience the mandatory provincial special priority group (victims of abuse) can be expected to account for some 30%, or 3 out of 10, of the vacancies in a given year. That leaves 7 out of 10 for the remaining applicants. With the homeless, urgent and grand-parented groups at 1 out of 10 each, or 3 out of 10 combined, there will be 4 out of 10 vacancies available to those applicants on the chronological waiting list with no priority status.

The final priority group to be considered consists of in situ market rent households requiring rent geared-to-income assistance. While it is not possible to estimate the likely demand to be generated by this group, all stakeholders believe it to be quite small. It is however very important to housing providers that this group be prioritized. The arguments in favour include the injustice of forcing people from their home in time of need and the provider’s ability to retain valued community members, some of whom are longtime residents. Past Ministry policy permits these households to be granted an RGI subsidy based on their original date of application for housing through The Registry.

As raised in the consultants’ report, City legal counsel has confirmed that in situ market rent households may be designated as a local priority group. The effective date of their application, pursuant to the Regulations, however must be the date they apply for RGI assistance, and may not be either the initial application date nor the date they occupied the unit, as requested by Housing Providers. As part of our Service Manager recommendations to the Ministry with respect to changes to the Regulations, we have requested an amendment whereby either the household’s original application date or their unit occupancy date be used for the purpose of ranking them on the centralized waiting list. Accordingly, Housing Branch concurs that this group be granted local priority status and that it be ranked before other local priority groups. If the Ministry agrees with our recommended regulatory amendment, then this course of action will not be necessary in that individual households will be placed on the centralized waiting list based on whichever of the two date options the Ministry selects.

Ranking of Priority Groups on the Centralized Waiting List (CWL)

Pursuant to Ministry Regulation, the mandatory provincial special priority group (victims of abuse) has first access to a vacant unit and over housed households, (those households with more bedrooms than permitted given the number of members in the household), must be relocated into a smaller unit before the vacated unit can be occupied by a household from the centralized waiting list. As explained above, barring a Ministry Regulation change, in situ market rent households requiring a RGI subsidy must come third in order to be able to grant them a subsidy. Neither of these latter two groups will need to access a vacant unit from the centralized waiting list in that they both already are residents in social housing. Given the nature of the group, households with an Urgent Priority are fourth. Homeless Priority is fifth. Grandparented are sixth. Those with no local priority group status are seventh.

The recommended ranking of priority groups with their ratio of access to vacant units is as follows:

Provincial Special Priority (victims of abuse) 3 out of 10 (estimated)
Over housed -
In situ market rent tenants -
Urgent Priority 1 out of 10
Homeless Priority 1 out of 10
Grand-parented (newcomers and youth) 1 out of 10
Chronological waiting list 4 out of 10

For housing providers filling vacant units from their waiting list at The Registry, they will select from the CWL by going first to the Provincial Special Priority group for their project. If there is no one on their list from that group, they then will go to the Urgent Priority group for their project, unless they previously have selected and housed a household from it, in which case they will proceed to the next group in rank from which they have yet to select a household. They will continue this process until they have selected 1 out of each of the local priority groups # ‘s 4 to 6 for each set of 10 vacancies in their project. This process repeats itself for each set of 10 vacancies.

Current Ministry policy, which remains in effect until local priority rules are set in place, is different from this approach in two ways. The selection of households from the Urgent Priority group is optional, while the selections from the Homeless and Grand-parented groups combined were expected to continue so that a housing provider housed a minimum of 10% of the units in the project with households from all of these latter priority groups. We therefore feel that the proposed new local priority group system is more equitable and responds to our local needs.

2) RGI Eligibility Rules - Internal Review Process

The legislation provides for RGI applicants and resident households to appeal a decision in regard to RGI assistance or access to social housing. The Service Manager must decide how these appeals are handled. The types of decisions that may be appealed by an RGI applicant or household include:

1. Household ineligible for RGI assistance;

2. Household ineligible for special needs housing;

3. Type of accommodation in which the household has been placed on the waiting list;

4. Category into which the household has been assigned on a waiting list;

5. Amount of geared-to-income rent payable by household;

6. Deferral of geared-to-income rent payable by household.

There was no consensus amongst the parties on the preferred approach to this process. Most stakeholders however did not favour the City performing the appeal function. Housing providers generally supported their assuming this function in that they felt that they were best placed to do so given their knowledge of the tenants and issues. Community and advocacy groups opted for the establishment of an external body with representation drawn from the various interest groups. It is of note that The Registry and all housing providers have a decision review/appeal process already in place that is employed as required. It however is recognized that changes to existing systems likely will be needed to meet the new regulatory requirements.

In order to guide decisions on an appropriate internal review/appeal process, the consultants’ developed the following principles:

· fair and consistent decisions across the service area;

· transparent and open process;

· easily understood by all parties;

· practical and easily accessible to the individual;

· timely;

· addresses need for expertise in the areas being reviewed (i.e. RGI eligibility rules; special needs housing eligibility rules; waiting list management; priority status and priority rules; rent calculation, deferral of rent payments);

· considers language and literacy needs of all parties;

· considers capacity of different housing providers, depending on their size --- review process may need to differ for large organizations vs. small ones with limited resources; and

· appropriate process for different types of reviews (especially applicant/waiting list-related reviews and tenant-related reviews).

The mandatory constrained timelines for rendering a decision, the existing resident body of knowledge within the agencies, as well as the need to respond to the varying approaches of the wide range of providers, were all factors to be considered. Accordingly, the consultants recommend that the Service Manager adopt an interim process whereby The Registry would hear appeals on / review decisions made by The Registry, and housing providers likewise individually would hear appeals on / review decisions that they make. In all instances, those involved in making the original decision may not be involved in the appeal process.

The service area consistency considerations are provided for by having The Registry and all housing providers forward their appeal / internal review policy to the Service Manager for approval. These policies and procedures must adhere to a statement of principles delineated in the consultants’ report. Copies of the appeal/review decisions must be provided to the Service Manager and the appellant within 30 days of the decision. The Service Manager will distribute to all appellant bodies summaries of the decisions made by others, as well as guidelines for making decisions. The Registry and housing provider internal review/appeal processes also will be part of the regular operational reviews undertaken by the Housing Branch as part of the accountability and reporting regime for social housing. This interim process also is proposed to be evaluated after three years. Housing Branch agrees with these recommendations.

During the course of the discussions on this matter, two issues were raised which were carried forward in the consultants’ report and referred to City legal counsel. These issues dealt with the purview of the appellant body and whether or not it was restricted to a review of the facts of the case only as opposed to conducting an investigation, and with whether or not an appellant had recourse to all of the rights of natural justice, including the right to an adjournment of proceedings due to lack of representation by counsel.

Legal Counsel has confirmed that the purview of the internal review process is limited to a review of the facts as prescribed in the Act and the Regulations. Legal Counsel also has confirmed that an appellant has restricted rights in this process. For example, there is no right to adjournment due to lack of counsel but an appellant has all legal rights in regard to pursuing the matter in a Court by way of judicial review.

3) Coordinated Access Review

There is broad consensus amongst The Registry, stakeholders and advocates on the issues under consideration related to the centralized waiting list and coordinated access to social housing in the service area, as well as the associated recommendations. It is proposed that the City enter into negotiations with The Registry to define the contracted relationship between them whereby the centralized system and processes required of the Service Manager will come into effect.

Implementation Strategy

The strategy for implementing local standards is a proposed staged process over a three year period following Council approval. It is organized around two main areas of work – local standards and RGI, and the access system for social housing, as detailed in the attached table on the next page.

The nature, and related timeframe, of the work for both areas consists of:

8. Implementing decisions – first 6 months;

9. Communicating changes – first 6 months;

10. Monitoring implementation of decisions – months 6 to 36; and

11. Evaluation – after 3 years.

The scope of the work that Housing Branch staff will undertake includes the following:

Implementing decisions:

Development of policy and procedures parameters.

Definition of accountability and reporting requirements.

Assessment and modification of existing systems.

Communicating changes:

Development of communications mechanisms and information packages.

Provision of training to various stakeholders.

Provision of briefings to various audiences.

Monitoring implementation of decisions:

Conducting operational reviews and compliance monitoring.

Review of reporting tools.

Refining risk management protocols.

Evaluation:

On-going annual review of portfolio performance.

Review and evaluation of policies and procedures after 3^rd year of operation.

Other considerations that may impact the implementation strategy are the provincial benchmarks of housing provider revenues and expenses, the Ministry regulation changes expected early in 2003, the contemplated future review of supportive housing and special needs applicants, and matters potentially arising from the rollout of local policy decisions.

Effective Date for Decisions

There are three specific effective dates for the various matters under consideration. These are December 1, 2002, February 1 and April 1, 2003. The effective date proposed by subject area is as follows:

1) Municipal Standards: Effective Date:

· Local Occupancy Standards Dec. 1^st

· Local Priority Rules Dec. 1^st & Feb. 1^st*

* Local Priority Rules will become effective on December 1^st, 2002, in that the current Ministry policy priority groups will sunset on November 30^th and all applicants as of December 1^st will be classified on the basis of the new Local Priority Rules.

The Registry however will continue to employ the old system of providers accessing their waiting lists to fill vacancies until February 1^st, 2003, at which time it is expected that the new centralized waiting list, including the embellished IT system, will be functional.

As of February 1^st, the current Ministry policy priority groups will migrate to the new local priority groups as follows:

1) Homeless to the new Homeless Priority group;

2) Medical Urgent to the new Urgent Priority group; and

3) Newcomer and Youth will be combined together to constitute the new Grand-parented priority group.

The Registry will create new icons on the electronic database to deal with the new local priority groups.

2) Local RGI Eligibility Rules:

· Maximum Gross Household Income (Income Limits) Dec. 1^st

· Maximum Aggregate Assets Value of Household (Asset Limit) Dec. 1^st

· Exclusion - Specified Payments Income Limit Local Eligibility Rule Dec. 1^st

· Divestment of Residential Property Dec. 1^st

· Maximum Absence From A Unit Dec. 1^st

· RGI Ineligibility Period Dec. 1^st

· Rent Increases of Less than $10 Dec. 1^st

· Fraud Control Dec. 1^st

· Rent Reimbursement Dec. 1^st

· Reporting Change in Information Dec. 1^st

· Determining RGI Eligibility Dec. 1^st

· Income Verification and Rent Calculation Dec. 1^st

· Internal Review of Decisions Regarding RGI Eligibility Feb. 1^st

3) Coordinated Access Review:

· Governance Structure and Accountability Framework Feb. 1^st

· Funding of The Registry/Fee Structure Feb. 1^st

· Mandate of The Registry Feb. 1^st

· Legislative Requirements Feb. 1^st

· Location of The Registry Feb. 1^st

· Information Technology Feb. 1^st

· Elements of the Service Agreement Feb. 1^st

· Modified Units Without Supports Dec. 1^st

The entire RGI eligibility and centralized waiting list system must be up and running by April 1, 2003

Executive Summary

Background

The Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 (SHRA) sets out elements governing the transfer of social housing from the province to municipalities. Effective April 1, 2002, the City of Ottawa, as Service Manager, is responsible for meeting provincial requirements for the administration of social housing as prescribed in the SHRA and related regulations. There are a number of areas in the SHRA and regulations that provide for Service Manager flexibility in the development of local policies, standards and practices. These areas of local flexibility are the focus of this study.

Study Methodology

A comprehensive consultation process, as well as secondary sources of information, was used to guide the development of local policies in social housing. The consultation process involved:

· ongoing input from the Housing Stakeholder Advisory Group and City Project
Team;

· preparation of three consultation documents: Options Paper, Directions Paper, and Applicant and Tenant Guide;

· holding two information sessions with key stakeholders;

· conducting a total of six focus group sessions with housing advocates, non-profit housing providers and co-operative housing providers in both French and English;

· interviewing key informants including representatives from: Poverty Issues Advisory Committee, Ottawa Independent Living Centre, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, Disabled Persons Resource Centre, Social Planning Council, Debra Dynes Coalition of Community Houses, Entraide communautaire pour ainés, Ottawa Action on Poverty, Council on Aging, Health and Social Services Advisory Committee, Inner City Health Coalition, and Alliance to End Homelessness;

· involving residents and applicants through a total of six focus group sessions in both English and French, informal consultations between the Community Resource Centres (CRCs) and “walk-in clients” to their offices, and distribution of a questionnaire.

Recommendations

The report makes a total of 56 recommendations on local policies in social housing.

Municipal Standards

Local Occupancy Standards

1. That the Service Manager adopt the provincial occupancy standards established in subsections 26 to 31 of O. Reg. 298/00 with the provision that households may choose to be under housed, as long as the housing provider agrees that the unit size is suitable for the household given the physical characteristics of the unit in relation to the number, gender and ages of the members of the household and as long as the municipal occupancy standards are respected.

2. That the definition of the smallest unit size be used for the purposes of defining a household that is under housed.

3. That the definition of the largest unit size be used for the purposes of defining a household that is over housed.

4. That all housing providers be encouraged to harmonize their occupancy standards to adhere to the Service Manager’s standards.

5. That housing providers be permitted to grandparent their existing occupancy standards for in-situ residents to avoid a deluge of requests for internal transfers.

Local Priority Rules

6. That, for a three year pilot period, the Service Manager establish local priority rules (in addition to victims of abuse, as required by legislation) as follows:

· a minimum of 1 in 10 vacancies will be filled by households who are homeless;

· a minimum of 1 in 10 vacancies will be filled by households in a severe medical urgent situation;

· market rent households applying for RGI assistance with their current housing provider will receive a ranking date that is the date of occupancy, provided that the household has resided with the provider for a minimum of one year and provided that the City solicitor confirms that the Service Manager has discretion to decide if in-situ market rent residents may be given priority for RGI assistance. Market rent households applying for RGI assistance in another project will be considered a new application.

7. That applicants currently on the waiting list for RGI assistance with newcomer and youth priority status retain their priority status and all housing providers be required to fill vacancies from this group of applicants based on a 1 in 10 formula.

8. That the current policy whereby newcomers lose their priority status one year after being assigned the status and youth lose their priority status once they reach 18 years of age remain in effect.

9. That at the end of the three year period, the Service Manager re-evaluates the appropriateness of the local priority rules and formulas recommended in this report.

10. That the Service Manager encourage housing providers operating under unilateral federal housing programs to participate in the centralized waiting list system.

11. That the Service Manager review all referral agreements between housing providers and support agencies and determine whether or not a mandate issue exists, and if so, resolve it.

12. That, during the three year pilot period, the Service Manager undertake a detailed study of the housing needs in its service area, including developing a profile of households currently residing in all social housing communities within its service area; creating an inventory of all social housing supply within its service area (this would include identifying all RGI housing administered by another government agency (e.g. CMHC, MOH-LTC, MCFCS)); conducting a detailed analysis of the profile and needs of households on the waiting list; and monitoring who is housed for a three year period and the impact of the changes on in-situ market rent residents who lose income.

Local RGI Eligibility Rules

Maximum Gross Household Income (Income Limits)

13. That the Service Manager not establish a local eligibility rule on income limits at this time; however, the Service Manager should re-examine the financial impact of this decision once the Annual Information Returns are received from all housing providers.

Maximum Aggregate Assets Value of Household (Asset Limit)

14. That the Service Manager not set a local eligibility rule on asset limits.

Exclusion of Specified Payments for an Income Limit Local Eligibility Rule

15. That the Service Manager not make any additions to the list of excluded assets identified in the legislation.

Divestment of Residential Property

16. That the Service Manager not extend the provisions set out in the regulations requiring divestment of residential property within 180 days.

17. That the Service Manager set a policy which allows housing providers to extend the time for effecting the divestment period on a case-by-case basis, for such time periods as the housing provider considers appropriate, if the housing provider is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Maximum Absence From A Unit

18. That the Service Manager set a policy permitting all the members of an RGI households to be absent from their unit for a maximum of 60 days and still be eligible for RGI assistance.

19. That the Service Manager set a policy which allows housing providers to make exceptions to the local rule on maximum absence from a unit in exceptional circumstances that are well documented.

RGI Ineligibility Period

20. That the Service Manager not set a rule to extend the automatic two year period of ineligibility for future RGI assistance if a member of a household has been convicted in the Courts of fraud or found by the Rental Tribunal to have misrepresented income in relation to the receipt of RGI assistance.

Rent Increases of Less than $10

21. That the Service Manager set a policy whereby an increase in RGI rent payable of less than $10 will not be required, except at the annual review.

Fraud Control

22. That the Service Manager not set up a separate fraud control unit and that links be established for better communication between Ontario Works/Ontario Disability Support Program and social housing providers.

23. That the Service Manager conduct random audits of RGI household files to check for fraud.

Rent Reimbursement

24. That the Service Manager not pursue rent reimbursement from an RGI household who has underpaid their rent due to a calculation error made by the housing provider.

Reporting Changes in Information

25. That the Service Manager extend the period for reporting changes in information from 10 business days to 31 calendar days for households in receipt of RGI assistance and 366 calendar days for applicants for RGI assistance.

26. That the Service Manager explore how it may establish exceptions to this rule in order to mitigate the severity of the consequence for failure to report within the specified time period. It appears that the legislation, as it exists, does not allow the Service Manager to establish extenuating circumstances for exceptions to the rule. There may be an opportunity to deal with exceptions through the internal review process.

27. That the Service Manager seek a legal opinion and/or clarification from the province on whether or not failing to report changes in information within the recommended 31 or 366 calendar day period and the subsequent result of withdrawal of RGI subsidy is a decision which may be appealed by an applicant or household in receipt of RGI assistance.

Determining RGI Eligibility

28. That the Service Manager delegate the responsibility of determining basic RGI eligibility to The Registry during the period that an applicant is on the waiting list;

29. That the Service Manager delegate the responsibility of determining RGI eligibility to housing providers at the point when a unit is offered to an applicant and on an ongoing basis once the applicant is housed;

30. That the Service Manager monitor The Registry’s and housing providers’ performance on determining RGI eligibility as part of the operational review process.

Income Verification and Rent Calculation

31. That the Service Manager delegate the responsibility for income verification and rent calculation to housing providers.

32. That the Service Manager monitor housing providers’ performance on income verification and rent calculation as part of the operational review process.

33. That the Service Manager establish formal links between housing providers and Ontario Works to provide for the sharing of Ontario Works information in regard to income and household composition information, as appropriate.

Internal Review of Decisions Regarding RGI Eligibility

34. That the Service Manager adopt an interim process for handling of internal reviews as follows:

· Internal reviews on decisions made by The Registry shall be assigned to The Registry;

· Internal reviews on decisions made by housing providers shall be assigned to housing providers;

· Decision-makers must provide the Service Manager with their policy on how they plan to handle internal reviews within 60 days of approval of this recommendation;

· Decision-makers must demonstrate to the Service Manager that its internal review policies and procedures adhere to the following principles:

- have regard for the legislative requirements specified in the Social Housing Reform Act sections 82 & 83 and O. Reg 298/01 sections 57 and 58 set out the legislative context for this local decision;

- protect confidentiality of the person requesting the review;

- allow households to bring a representative with them to the internal review;

- consider language and literacy needs of the household requesting the review;

- consider accessibility needs of the household requesting the review;

- have regard to decisions made by other providers in the service area;

- be a transparent and an open process;

- be easily understood by households requesting the review;

- consider the expertise required of the individual/body hearing the appeal;

- address capacity of provider to undertake the review;

- be appropriate for different types of review, for example a review on simple errors (objective) versus a review on extenuating circumstances (subjective);

- consider a pre-review of the issue before the formal review begins to avoid the onerous legislative requirements, while respecting the intent of the legislation;

· Where a decision-maker is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Service Manager that its internal review policies and procedures adhere to the stated principles, the Service Manager will make a decision about the internal review process applicable to that decision-maker following consultation with the decision-maker;

· Decision-makers must inform the Service Manager of all internal review decisions, including the rationale for decisions, within 30 days of the decision being made, in a form approved by the Service Manager, and attach a copy of the written notice provided by the decision-maker to the individual(s) who requested the internal review, as per section 58 (6) of O. Reg. 298;

· The Service Manager shall, on a periodic basis, provide decision-makers with a summary of decisions made by others, as well as guidelines for making decisions, as it deems appropriate;

35. That the Service Manager undertake a comprehensive review of the interim internal review system put in place, within three years, to ensure that the guiding principles identified in 3.13.7 are being met and continue to be valid and that the Service Manager involve the following key stakeholders in the comprehensive review process: housing providers, The Registry, community agencies advocating for applicants and residents, housing sector organizations, and applicants and residents.

Coordinated Access Review

Governance Structure and Accountability Framework

36. That the Service Manager enter into a service agreement with The Registry to maintain the centralized waiting list, and its associated subsidiary waiting lists on its behalf and that the agreement specify how services requested by the Service Manager beyond legislative requirements shall be handled.

37. That the Service Manager endorse the current funding arrangement whereby housing provider members pay user fees to The Registry for the administration of the application process and the management of their subsidiary waiting list(s) for rent geared-to-income housing.

38. That the Service Manager consider requesting that The Registry create an ex-officio position for a Service Manager representative on The Registry Board of Directors.

39. That the Service Manager request that The Registry prepare a proposal on how it could improve its services to applicants who require additional assistance filling out the application form, especially those with special needs such as the disabled, seniors and individuals whose first language is not English or French.

Funding of The Registry/Fee Structure

40. That, once the benchmarks are released by the Province, The Registry, housing providers and the Service Manager work together to determine an agreed upon user fee for the services to be provided. In the meantime, it is recommended that the existing fee structure be maintained and that consideration be given for additional funding to be paid directly by the Service Manager to The Registry to meet legislative requirements, keeping in mind that housing providers and others involved in the social housing system have also had to find the resources to meet legislative requirements.

Legislative Requirements

41. That, pursuant to legislation, the Service Manager must maintain the waiting list by individual project and that the Service Manager instruct The Registry to maintain the waiting list in this manner.

42. That the Service Manager ensure that The Registry demonstrate how it plans to address the legislative requirement to produce a monthly subsidiary list.

43. That the Service Manager ensure that The Registry assume the responsibility for formally notifying applicant households in writing who have refused three offers of housing of their ineligibility for RGI assistance.

44. That the Service Manager require that The Registry revise the standard letter notifying applicants about whether the household is on the waiting list to include in what category the household is placed and ensure that all applicants are sent the letter within seven (7) business days as required by legislation.

45. That the Service Manager advocate to the Province for an extension to the seven day requirement to notify applicants about whether or not they have been placed on the social housing waiting list.

46. That the Service Manager include the requirement to follow the rules specified in sections 37 and 38 of O. Reg 298/01 in the service agreement between the Service Manager and The Registry.

47. That the Service Manager review the updated application form to confirm it meets legislative requirements and other Service Manager information requirements, for example existing housing situation and housing need.

48. That the Service Manager and The Registry work together to develop a public information binder that includes all the information identified in section 60 of O. Reg 298/01.

49. That the Service Manager require The Registry to maintain a ranking on the centralized waiting list for overhoused households as required in the legislation.

50. That the Service Manager carefully examine The Registry’s estimated cost to implement the legislative requirements once the benchmarks are released.

Location of The Registry

51. That the location of The Registry not be changed at this time.

Information Technology

52. That the Service Manager request The Registry to prepare a cost-benefit report which compares its existing Lotus Notes system with other systems (e.g. Yardi Systems, Inc. centralized waiting list system), including an analysis of the respective systems’ capabilities to meet legislative requirements.

Elements of the Service Agreement

53. That the Service Manager include the following elements in the service agreement between the Service Manager and The Registry:

· a requirement to comply with the Social Housing Reform Act and applicable regulations;

· a requirement that The Registry follow the rules specified in sections 37 and 38 of O. Reg 298/01 regarding waiting list management;

· a mechanism to adjust fees as required;

· an adjustment in fees to take into account the increased costs for meeting legislative requirements;

· a requirement to provide services in English and French;

· an identification of ownership rights of the various elements of the centralized waiting list system, including the information technology system and applicant files.

Modified Units Without Supports

54. That the Service Manager request housing providers to delegate the responsibility for maintaining the waiting list for modified units without support to the Service Manager.

55. That the Service Manager delegate the responsibility for maintaining the waiting list for modified units without supports to The Registry, with the understanding that the Service Manager will incorporate into the service agreement with The Registry the requirement to use the centralized waiting list for modified units without supports to fill vacancies in these units.

56. That the Service Manager, The Registry and housing providers work together to ensure that modified units are occupied by those households requiring them.

Health, recreation and Social Services Committee

Report 34

Extract of Draft Minutes 34

7 November 2002

2. SOCIAL HOUSING: LOCAL POLICIES

LOGEMENT SOCIAL : POLITIQUES LOCALES

ACS2002-PEO-HOU-0008

Mr. Ken Foulds, Manager, outlined the report for the Committee by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is kept on file with the Committee Coordinator.

Councillor A. Cullen wanted to know about the criteria for “severe medical urgent” situations. Mr Foulds said the report identifies formalizing the definitions as an issue and he confirmed they would be consistent with those previously used. Urgent situations will be assessed as those where people need accommodation in order to avert a life-threatening situation. Responding to a subsequent question from the Councillor, Mr. Foulds indicated that there would also be a specific definition of the term “life-threatening”.

Councillor Cullen then asked about Recommendation 6. 3, Market Rent in situ. He expressed his concern with social housing residents who pay market value being placed ahead of others when housing becomes available. Ken Foulds responded by saying this was to prevent long term residents from losing their housing because of the waiting list process. He added that, while a small number of people could be affected, they could face hardship if this was not in place: city staffs have also requested that the Province amend its regulations to include this provision.

Councillor Cullen, speaking to Recommendation 25 (Reported Changes in Information), asked whether those receiving pensions from other countries would be required to report on a daily basis. Staff explained that a more realistic reporting period was put in place and the Province was asked to allow more flexibility for non-compliance in extenuating circumstances.

Councillor E. Arnold asserted the importance of having a clear, multi-lingual communications plan in partnership with the various delivery agencies. She then inquired whether the recommendations being put forward were more or less prescriptive than those of the former provincial housing authority. Staff responded that in most instances the recommendations were not more onerous than they were in the past.

Councillor Arnold then inquired about Local Priority Rules, expressing her concern with the ability to permanently house homeless families and those in urgent medical need. She asked whether it was possible to measure whether people were being provided with appropriate service. Mr. Foulds responded by saying that, while definitions vary slightly, they existed in the former housing system; one of the eligibility requirements was to be able to live independently, notwithstanding some form of additional support.

The Housing Director, Joyce Potter, noted that more than half of those identified in the report as being in need of housing were families, with housing being their sole need.

Pam Cripps (Council on Aging)

Ms. Cripps identified herself as both a representative of the aforementioned organization and a housing provider. She noted firstly that the Council on Aging supports the recommendations but wants to raise issues pertaining to seniors. These include recognition of the number of seniors waiting for housing and the lack of a priority list for this clientele. The Council will revisit this issue in three years, once they have identified the number of seniors waiting for housing.

Ms.Cripps also spoke about the number of times an individual could refuse a unit, suggesting the number be raised to account for extenuating circumstances. She urged the Committee to support market renters being given preference for social housing if they are eligible for it. Speaking from the perspective of housing provider, Ms. Cripps stated that giving assistance to market renters was essential because eviction is an extremely unpleasant situation. She also made reference to the Reported Changes in Information and, commenting on a previous question from Councillor Arnold, she posited there were now more and increasingly more complicated regulations.

Councillor Cullen asked the speaker to comment on who should be given preference for housing, a single mother with not enough money to feed her children, or a recently unemployed high tech sector worker. Ms. Cripps responded by saying the simple solution was to build more housing. She said she did not want to make a judgement but providing space to one individual would create homelessness for another household: this situation makes the question unanswerable.

Sherri Tingley, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, began by commending the Housing Branch for an excellent consultative process in preparing the report. She said she was disappointed that new Canadians and youth would lose their priority status one year after being assigned priority and after they reach 18 years, respectively, because of the discrimination they face in finding private housing. She spoke about in situ tenants, recommending there be a specific need level in order to access Rent Geared to Income (RGI): since most evictions are for economic reasons, rent subsidies be made available to those who meet the requirements. She also expressed a desire for greater clarity surrounding the homeless/urgent need priority. Her next suggestion was to have grandfathered spaces (for new Canadians and youth) allotted to the homeless priority. With respect to the appeal process, Ms. Tingley advocated individuals going back to the housing provider for clarification and resolution and asked that housing stakeholders be added to the list for the summary of decisions.

Linda Lalonde, Co-Chair, Poverty Issues Advisory Committee, said the report was sensitive to those living in these situations. A specific concern related to the amount of time given to applicants to report changes in income and Ms. Lalonde felt this needed to be very clearly communicated. She concurred with an earlier suggestion from Councillor Arnold about the regulations being clearly communicated in multiple languages.

Ms. Lalonde then spoke about market renters who need RGI. She asked that in cases where a family size changes in addition to income, the family not be penalized by having to reapply should they have to relocate because the housing provider cannot accommodate them. She also asked that the definition be broadened to include those medically unable to remain in their homes.

The Committee then heard from Ishbel Solvasson-Wiebe, Executive Director, The Housing Registry of Ottawa. She detailed the responsibilities of the Registry and highlighted its current goal of fulfilling the requirements imposed by Bill 128, including the addition of eight providers. Ms. Solvasson-Wiebe indicated there are currently 13,000 applicants on the waiting list, and this number changes very little each year. She described the methods used to ensure all applicants are carefully considered and she highlighted the various issues applicants face, such as long waiting times. She concluded her presentation by providing statistical information on who received social housing in 2001.

The Committee heard next from Brian Gifford from the Co-op Housing Association of Eastern Ontario. He began by saying that approximately 1500 households would be affected by the policies under consideration today. He spoke in support of the report and commended the Housing Branch and the consultants for their inclusive work. He said he was pleased that no arbitrary income or asset limits were being established and by the autonomy given to Cooperative Housing Boards. Mr. Gifford expressed concern about priority being given to specific groups, and the substantial administrative imposed by the Province.

Debbie Barton on behalf of the Social Housing Network, an organization representing 25 social housing providers with 20,000 units, began by echoing statements made by previous speakers about the work of the Housing Branch. Ms. Barton said housing providers had serious concerns about the Local Priority Rules (Recommendation 6) and the hope is that the cooperatives will continue to provide housing for these in partnership with other groups. The Social Housing Network would prefer that no additional priority groups be added, other than those mandated by the Province. Ms. Barton posited it would not be fair to the remaining applicants to allocate 6 out of 10 available units to only 13% of the waiting list. She asked that this requirement be changed to 1 out of 10 for the homeless and medically urgent, noting this has been done in other municipalities.

Ms. Barton concluded her presentation by stating that medically urgent cases depended increasingly on providers for modifications and increasingly affected by cuts to home care: having to absorb more of these clients would make the situation unmanageable.

Councillor Arnold asked for feedback on the suggestion homeless and medically urgent categories be collapsed in to one. Mr. Foulds responded by saying that the number of homeless and medically urgent cases who received housing represented 15% and 12% respectively and collapsing the categories would cut opportunities in half.

Councillor Arnold then asked about the impact on the providers, stating that they should have greater flexibility to ensure individuals are housed properly. Ms. Potter reiterated that those in serious need of supportive housing have separate waiting lists and those unable to live independently would receive service through alternate service providers.

She pointed out that, in the past, the city assigned its own workers to help homeless individuals in social housing, noting that to the extent that funding is available, that level of service would continue to be provided. Ms. Potter indicated there is generally a low level of turnover in small provider units.

In reply to a further question from Councillor Arnold, Ms. Barton said there are a variety of individuals on the waiting list. She spoke about her agency’s strong relationship with numerous community support agencies, but added that, in cases where people were unable to access service, theirs was an unsuccessful tenancy.

Ms. Trudy Sutton, representing Housing Help, stated that decisions about an individuals’ housing should not be based on what supports they have, and work must be done to ensure those supports are in place.

Chair Munter read a number of Motions from Councillor Arnold, and asked for a staff comment on each motion. Ms. Potter said staff will work with the Council on Aging on the needs of seniors, adding that the Housing Branch intends to perform a full needs analysis for a number of different groups, in the next year.

Moved by E. Arnold

That staff work with the Council on Aging and other agencies working with Seniors to address the matter of accurately measuring for affordable Seniors’Housing.

CARRIED

Moved by E. Arnold.

That the Housing Branch work with providers to develop plain language materials in languages required by tenants to explain these new rules.

CARRIED

Speaking to a Motion to delete the priority to Market Rent payers, Ms. Potter asserted this was not recommended, noting this had received a great deal of support during the consultation period, particularly from seniors’ organizations. With respect to Ms. Arnold’s final motion, Ms. Potter pointed to Recommendation 4, which asserts that all local policies and processes are to be evaluated after a 3-year period.

She suggested that the evaluation be carried out as planned: staff will work with the housing providers to ensure support services are available.

Moved by E. Arnold.

That the local priority rules be evaluated with respect to the ability of providers to meet requirements for support services among households prioritized as homeless and severe medical urgent (and have regard for that in the application of policy).

CARRIED

Councillor Cullen put forward a Motion calling for the deletion of the reference to in situ market rent households in Recommendation 6. He expressed his concern about the appeal process was to be handled. He noted that he had faith in the goodwill of the providers in dealing with RGI eligibility, but was concerned that a body with a vested interest in a decision would be responsible for evaluating it. He reiterated his support for a third party review but indicated he would wait for the staff review rather than moving an amendment at this time. He suggested they not be given preference and asked for the Committee’s support of his Motion.

Chair Munter put forward the view it was it was illogical to say that an individual in situ does not deserve the same priority as someone who is homeless thereby making that person homeless. He asked that the Cullen Motion not be approved, because it sends out the message that market rent tenants will be evicted. Chair Munter added that tenants face enough financial stress already and telling them they will be evicted if they are unable to pay the rent shows a lack of compassion.

Moved by A. Cullen

That bullet 3 in Recommendation 6 giving priority to in situ market rents households applying for Rent Geared to Income assistance be deleted.

LOST

A. Cullen in favour

The Committee then considered the report recommendations:

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council:

57. Receive for information purposes the SHS Inc. consultants’ report on Local Policies in Social Housing;

58. Approve the attached recommendations from the Executive Summary of the consultants’ report (Annex 1), as follows:

a. Municipal Standards – recommendations 1 to 12;

b. Local Rent Geared-to-Income (RGI) Eligibility Rules – recommendations 13 to 35; and

c. Coordinated Access – recommendations 36 to 56.

59. Authorize entering into negotiations with The Registry in regard to the appropriate authorities for the third party contracting of the management of the Centralized Waiting List, on behalf of the Service Manager; and

60. Approve, as part of the implementation plan, an evaluation, three years from now, of the local policies and processes approved by Council through this report.

CARRIED

A. Cullen dissented on Recommendation 6, bullet 3.

SUBJECT : SOCIAL HOUSING : LOCAL POLICIES

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS

CONSULTATION

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

ATTACHMENT

Annex 1

Executive Summary

Background

Study Methodology

Recommendations

Pam Cripps (Council on Aging)

CARRIED

CARRIED

CARRIED